Category Archives: Neoconservatism

Blood Brothers, The Ukraine And ‘The Enduring Schism’

English, Europe, Foreign Policy, History, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Russia

Blood brother is a perfectly good, if colorful, phrase to denote fealty between like-minded men. Yet in the land of the terminally stupid, linguistic flourish can become a liability; the use of a phrase “proof” of a Nazi mindset, whatever that means.

Hush. Don’t tell our deracinated neoconservative and neoliberal leaders, stateside, but “blood brother,” a perfectly proper appellation deployed by Ted Nugent to describe his affinity for “Texas Republican gubernatorial hopeful Greg Abbott,” works as well to explain many a conflict in Europe (and the US).

What I take away from Nebojsa Malic’s fascinating historic insight into the complex dynamics that undergird “present-day trouble in Ukraine” is that it stands in stark contrast to the simplistic paradigm with which Anglo-American neoconservatives rape the same reality.

Malic, who is now at the The Reiss Institute for Serbian Studies, Writes:

… can be traced back not to the Mongol invasion that destroyed the first Russian state, but to the 1595 Union of Brest – when, under tremendous pressure of the Catholic Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, some of the Orthodox clergy decided to submit to Rome. These “Uniates” have been the driving force behind the creation of a separate, anti-Russian, “Ukrainian” identity at almost every point in history since. They allied with Poland during the civil war that brought the Bolsheviks to power and reorganized the tsarist Russia into the Soviet Union; likewise, they allied with Hitler in 1941, and were sheltered by the British after 1945 as “good Catholics and fervent anti-Communists” (see here). Since Ukraine became an independent state in 1991 (following Boris Yeltsin’s dissolution of the USSR), they’ve sought to dominate its politics, which culminated recently with the “Maidan” coup. …

… While other factors – such as Islam, or geopolitics – have certainly played a role, the millennium-long history of Catholic hostility towards the Orthodox is the key to understanding the conflicts in Europe’s East. Not surprisingly, it is also the explanation least mentioned and examined. It doesn’t take a genius to see why.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: The Empire’s ‘Mad Meddlers’ And Even Madder Heroes

Democracy, Foreign Aid, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism

Our friend, historian Nebojsa Malic, updates us as to the status of the “the supposedly ‘independent’ and ‘popular’ leaders of the Maydan rebellion,” in the Ukraine:

Not two weeks after Imperial diplomats were caught in flagranti trying to order them around, the supposedly “independent” and “popular” leaders of the Maydan rebellion have responded to a general amnesty by the government with – armed rebellion. A number of government buildings were stormed by “peaceful protesters”, including an armory in Lvov (Lwow, Lviv, Lemberg) near the Polish border.

So, according to the Empire, armed neo-Nazis, soccer hooligans, a variety of militant separatists, looters, arsonists and cop-killers are “peaceful protesters”, whose demands for the government’s unconditional surrender and a rewriting of the Constitution are a desire for more “democracy.” Meanwhile, the president who has tried every form of appeasement towards the protesters, including a general amnesty, is a “despot… abolishing democracy.”

This is absurd. There is not a shred of logic in any of it, aside from the “who-whom” relativistic logic, according to which the designated villain can do no right, while the designated victim can do no wrong.

Malevolent Spite

The simmering resentment of the Imperial press against Russia over the past decade or so has flat-out exploded in 2014. As Chronicles’ Eugene Girin dared notice, the US media (though the Brits and the Canadians haven’t been far behind) have begun to write about Russia with hate:

“As if on cue from the White House, the American media started an anti-Russian campaign the sheer malevolence of which was only rivaled by the orgy of Serbophobia in the 1990s.”

In a follow-up article, he noted that, “unlike the old Soviet Union, which was treated respectfully, if not reverently by the mainstream networks, Russia is portrayed as an object of scorn and ridicule: a failed, menacing, disagreeably exotic country.”

Menacing to whom? Georgia, which attacked first? Ukraine, which Russia bailed out and subsidizes with cheap gas? Latvia, where SS veterans march proudly every year? The globalist banksters, who lost the ability to loot Russia they had under Yeltsin? …


UPDATE: “Ukraine, Crimea, and Washington’s Pointless Geo-Political Contest With Russia” by John Glaser:

… telling Russia to behave itself has about zero chance of helping the situation. “Russian leaders believe, rightly or wrongly, that the West drove events in Ukraine to the brink of collapse to secure geopolitical advantage over Moscow,” Trenin and Weiss say. “Thus, Western appeals for Russian restraint in the event of a crisis over Crimea are unlikely to resonate.”

But the eagerness in Washington to steer events in Ukraine and beat out Russia in some pointless geopolitical game has not yielded. In this Daily Beast report, Republican leaders Buck McKeon and James Inhofe berate Obama for being too soft on Russia; they both express a deep longing for the Cold War era when it was easier to justify any reckless military action abroad on the grounds of opposing Soviet designs.

David Rhodes, a Reuters columnist, quoted former Romney adviser Nile Gardiner as reiterating Romney’s 2012 line that Russia is America’s greatest geo-political foe and arguing that “an ‘ideological war’ was underway and Putin is winning.”

Gardiner then worries that Washington’s inability to force Russia to lay prostrate at the feet of American power is encouraging other countries to defy their American master: “Putin is viewed by American adversaries and competitors as someone who has stood up to American influence and gotten away with outflanking the United States. Adversaries take note of this and they sense weakness and that’s dangerous. Dissidents also take note. …”


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Presstitute-Cultivated Ignorance On Ukraine

Democracy, EU, Foreign Policy, History, John McCain, Neoconservatism, Russia

“Presstitute-Cultivated Ignorance On Ukraine” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

When it comes to President Vladimir Putin, who enjoys an approval rate of 65 percent among Russians, the motto of the menagerie of morons that is the American media is ignorance über alles.

The energetic and reflexive demonization of a Russian leader—unparalleled during communism—against the backdrop of the Sochi Olympic Games and the conflagration in the Ukraine, is the handiwork of a conga-line of cretins, stateside, whose bombast comports with the boorishness of their pronouncements.

The “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” one wag’s delicious description of broadcaster Bill O’Reilly, is not delimited by ideology. Instead, “wanton Putin bashing,” as scholar of Russian history Stephen Cohen attests, is the order of the day at the New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, The New Republic; CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, on and on.

As to “traditional journalistic standards”: In the service of their anti-Putin monomania, the US Pussy Riot press and its approved phalanx of “experts” routinely omit “facts and context,” conflate “reporting with analysis,” and court conformity and unanimity at the cost of veracity and impartiality.

(Revered in the US, Pussy Riot is a punk rock Russian band of feminists, whose forté is breast-baring, defiling places of worship, punching the air while shrieking, “F-ck you Putin,” and participating in public-orgy protests and other criminal acts.)

The “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” fortunately, is not a feature of the nuanced and informed analysis available on the John Batchelor Show, where the scholarly host and his guest, Professor Cohen, delve deeply into the region’s geopolitical dynamics.

Cohen, who tackled O’Reilly’s out-and-proud ignorance with aplomb, was slightly more flummoxed by that of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. …

Read on. The complete column is “Presstitute-Cultivated Ignorance On Ukraine.”


At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Are America’s Democracy Alinskyites In Russia’s Backyard?

Economy, John McCain, Military, Neoconservatism, Russia

In absolute numbers, Russia’s military spending is dwarfed by that of the United States. This spending, moreover, is a smidgen of what it was during its “tortured past.” As a percentage of GDP, however, Wikipedia shows the latter parameter to be 4.4 percent in both countries. Thus in need of checking is Forbes’ Mark Adomanis’ assertion that Russia’s military spending as a percentage of GDP is more modest than ours.

Ironclad, however, is the fact that America’s Democracy Alinskyites—blessed and backed by baby Bush and his non-identical, evil ideological twin, Barack Obama—are behind many of the “color-coded,” plant-based revolutions across the world.

Witness Sam LaHood, son of Ray LaHood, in his attempts to shape the Lotus Revolution in Egypt.

And to get his jollies, John McCain has to be talking US intervention around the world. Ukraine has been his target of late—and, seemingly, a State-Department floozy is already talking dirty on that front.

So, the Russians probably have reason to fear the US. Hence the military expenditure.

Adomanis departs from the menagerie of media morons when it comes to prognosticating about Russia, reporting that, “Life expectancy is going up, wages are going up, the birth rate is going up, and the death rate, the suicide rate, the murder rate, and the poverty rate are all going down”:

1) “While Russia is hardly an economic hegemon, its overall economic performance over the past decade has actually been pretty decent, especially when you compare its performance to the horrible post-crisis performances of many formerly communist countries in Eastern Europe.”

2) “Russia’s population was declining rapidly during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but this decline has leveled off and the population has stabilized.”

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: A Reader Loathes Levin, Prefers Libertarians Who Create Oscillation

Constitution, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Republicans

ML is annoyed with me because of the column titled “Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation.” He writes:

Based on my contacts, Mark Levin doesn’t have a big following in Ohio. I’m surrounded by conservatives, but nobody mentions Levin. Ever. And I grew up here. The only time I ever hear his name is when Sean Hannity mentions it and I turn the dial. To the people I deal with in Ohio, Levin is parochial New York.

I don’t pretend to understand the media environment on the East coast, but, from my experience, your information resonates with people in southwest Ohio. I don’t care about anybody’s opinion. I care about information. You supply great information.

That’s why I suggest you never promote Levin. He’s an establishment tool. Any time you write about him, you elevate him. I prefer you counter his oppression with libertarian arguments, than promote him by name.

BTW, I’m a big, recent fan. I’ve read for years and for a year or so, but you bring a point of view that sometimes contrasts with both. Nice job!

“Secession, Not Convention, Offers Salvation” takes on Levin for his odd idea that we look to the states, which are hardly bastions of freedom, to initiate a constitutional amendment or demand a constitutional convention, when this has never occurred before, and when there is no mechanism to compel Congress to hold such a convention.


UPDATE: FACEBOOK thread: Levin is not as simple as all that. Item: he rails against establishment Republicans, hates Bush and Rove, and is seldom asked to go on TV with the teletwits. Levin is not as simple as say, Medved or Prager who are pure establishment.

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Left And Right Bamboozling You On Benghazi

Democrats, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, History, Middle East, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Terrorism

“Left And Right Bamboozling You On Benghazi” is the current column, now on WND. A excerpt:

“Us against al Qaeda”: This has been—still is—the narrowly conceived narrative among neoconservatives. As the politically provincial neoconservative foreign-policy paradigm has it, those were the forces that played out in the Benghazi affair, in which the American mission was left undefended, resulting in the slaughter of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans (who, given the pecking order in the Empire, generally go unnamed). …

… Uncovered by The Times’ investigation, however, was a very different reality in Benghazi—”murkier than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi,” contends Kirkpatrick, “was not infiltrated by al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs.”

In particular are neoconservatives fulminating over the findings that “turned up no evidence that al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” and that “the attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Col. Gadhafi.”

How can that be? Easily: The history of Libya is festooned with similar ransacking and burning of consulates by angry local mobs. Alas, in the ignorance it cultivates about the past, America is Cicero’s perpetual child. By the definition of the great Roman statesman, “Not to know what happened before one was born is to be always a child.” …

… The facts in the Benghazi affair have likewise been unwoven and retied into two contradictory narratives to suit the respective sides.

Think of lab rats racing through a maze, as you watch the sub-intelligent, dual-panel “dialogue” conducted on the teli. Hosts Stephanie Cutter (left-wing, social-democratic rat) and S. E. Cupp (right-wing, social-democratic rat): Each rat runs with a designated, neatly bifurcated (Republican or Democratic) political orthodoxy. Each is a “maze-bright” rat, and not the possessor and giver of any truth. …

Read the complete column. “Left And Right Bamboozling You On Benghazi” is on WND.


At the WND Comments Section. Scroll down and “Say it.”

On my Facebook page.

By clicking to “Like,” “Tweet” and “Share” this week’s “Return To Reason” column.

If you’d like to feature this column, WND’s longest-standing, exclusive paleolibertarian column, in or on your publication (paper or pixels), contact

like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint