UPDATED (11/13): Apparently It’s The Saudi-Israeli-American Axis Of Angels

Iran, Islam, Israel, Middle East, War

In Saudi Arabia, a new, more dangerous regime is consolidating regional power, plotting to destabilize Lebanon and blame Iran. Almost overnight has the kingdom shifted from rule by family/dynasty to a more authoritarian style of one-man rule.

Yemenis have dared defend themselves meekly against the Saudi-US coalition of obliteration. So Saudis are now threatening war with/on Iran. Meanwhile, Israel is urging its diplomats to push for international support for the Saudi assaults against Yemen’s Houthi. (Yes, I read the Hebrew.)

The Kushner-Trump Administration will likely appreciate Israel’s attempts at an international, diplomatic putsch. Trump has already endorsed the Saudi crackdown to ostensibly “neutralize Iran.” The president now stands with the Clintons and the Bushes along the Saudi-Israeli-American Axis Of Angels, as far as foreign policy goes.  But not everyone in the Old Right, America-First, anti-dumb-wars camp IS THAT PLEASED.

UPDATE (11/13):

UPDATED (11/7): America’s Embracing Cultural Marxism; Putin’s Reviving Russian Traditionalism

BAB's A List, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, John McCain, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Russia

By Dr. Boyd Cathey

The unrestrained Russophobia of a John McCain or a Bill Kristol or Max Boot is grounded in their essential belief in such concepts as international “human rights” and America’s role as the global “enforcer” of those rights, which impels them to condemn Russia’s “persecution” of homosexuals, its institution of mandatory Christian religious instruction in its public schools (which neoconservatives condemn as “religious intolerance”), and its refusal to accept the economic and political straightjacket of the EU or other “international organizations.”

Additionally, as many of the leading Neocon pundits and writers are of Russian Jewish descent and Russian nationalism and Orthodoxy imply for them various forms of historical anti-semitism and the pre-revolutionary era anti-Jewish pogroms, Putin’s Russia is seen as symbolizing a possible recrudescence of those evils (despite the strong support he has received from Russia’s native Jewish population).

So, thus, the conjunction and harmony of Max Boot’s and Romney’s view, with George Soros’s view that Russia is now globally, “enemy number one.” And thus, also, some of the reasons for that unseemly ideological “marriage”….

Back at the beginning of 2015 (December 29, 2014), I wrote a long, heavily documented article about Putin and Putin’s Russia, attempting to shed some light on his past and the various largely spurious accusations leveled against him. It was reprinted by over thirteen web sites, both in the United States and overseas, and translated into Italian, Russian and a couple of other languages. I won’t reproduce it today, although it may be accessed at: http://www.unz.com/article/examining-the-hatred-of-vladimir-putin-and-russia/ (I have revised and updated it since then and can send that newer version to anyone requesting it.) Rather, today I will offer some details of what the media, in its near entirety, does not report, or, if it does, it does with a pronounced and virulent anti-Putin bias.

Over the past few months Russia has been commemorating the 100th anniversary of the bloody Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the results of which included the violent and horrible deaths of approximately 100 million human  beings (according to the authoritative Black Book of Communism). Vladimir Putin has repeatedly traveled to various sites of infamous Communist murder and criminality from that era, and has dedicated memorials—“walls of grief”—and newly-erected and rebuilt Christian churches to memorialize and honor those victims. Russian cinema has, likewise, joined this effort of memory and correcting the Marxist view of history, with numerous (and popular) films that portray a frankly, very open anti-Communist viewpoint.

You would think that the Western media and our Western political leaders would welcome this—that after the life-and-death struggle with Communism for over seven decades our leaders would celebrate this turn of events.

But, no, rather Putin’s praxis is seen as nothing more than “calculating,” the “insincere use” of those anniversaries to consolidate his “dictatorial” or “neo-Stalinist” rule, and, more grievously, his refusal to fully accept all those wonderful fruits of Western-style globalism and, yes, his unreasonable rejection of the triumph of that other variant of Marxism, the dominant Cultural Marxism which pervades the West.

Is this not, then, Leon Trotsky’s revenge? Stalin’s legions were incapable of bringing down the Christian West, and Soviet Communism of the doddering Kremlin commissars ended up on that “ash heap of history.” But Trotsky, whom Stalin had murdered in his Mexican exile in 1940, now, with his millions of ideological descendants and godchildren, appears well on his way to actual and ultimate triumph.

Today, then, I ask your indulgence at the length: I pass on four items that offer a somewhat impressionistic view of what has happened in and to Russia since August 1991, when Vladimir Putin—that ex-KGB bureaucrat—was largely responsible for thwarting and defeating the KGB coup against the incipient anti-Communist Russian republic. (Yes, that is just one fact most of our Neocon pundits like to omit.) First, London-based Professor Paul Robinson’s examination of how the establishment Western media continues to ignore Putin’s open and vigorous rejection of Soviet Communism and his exhibited desire to memorialize its victims.

Second, I pass on a short article that appeared in The Washington Post back in 2008, shortly after the death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in which he praised Putin’s efforts to revive Russia’s traditional Christian and moral heritage, and, equally, Putin’s praise of Solzhenitsyn’s valiant opposition to Godless Communism.

Third, from that epitome of Establishment Deep State “high” journalism, I reproduce a 2013 article from The Atlantic monthly, worryingly suggesting that Putin was becoming the head of a “worldwide traditionalist conservative crusade” against the progressivist and modern West. It literally sent shivers down their secularist spines. Yet, the article is fascinating for offering a view in not only the minds of the cultural Marxist Left, but, with a certain irony, found also in much of basic Neocon thinking.

Fourth, from the large collection of Putin’s speeches that I have archived, I pass on excerpts of his “State of the State” address to the Russian people, December 16, 2013—this is representative of the rhetoric and imagery, and the historical references that he employs in most of his addresses, and also exemplifies the type of conservative legislation his political party, United Russia, has enacted in the Russian Duma. (The UR party hold 340 of the 450 seats.)

==========================================

~ DR. BOYD D. CATHEY is an Unz Review columnist, as well as a Barely a Blog contributor, whose work is easily located on this site under the “BAB’s A List” search category. Dr. Cathey earned an MA in history at the University of Virginia (as a Thomas Jefferson Fellow), and as a Richard M Weaver Fellow earned his doctorate in history and political philosophy at the University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. After additional studies in theology and philosophy in Switzerland, he taught in Argentina and Connecticut before returning to North Carolina. He was State Registrar of the North Carolina State Archives before retiring in 2011. He writes for The Unz Review, The Abbeville Institute, Confederate Veteran magazine, The Remnant, and other publications in the United States and Europe on a variety of topics, including politics, social and religious questions, film, and music.

Related:

“Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia” By Boyd Cathey.

Wall of Grief” BY PROFESSOR PAUL ROBINSON.

Toward end, Solzhenitsyn embraced Putin’s Russia,” Boston.com.

Vladimir Putin, Conservative Icon,” By Brian Whitmore.

TRANSCRIPT: [Putin] Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly.

UPDATE (11/7):

Mainstream Media Discovers Tulsi Gabbard, The Only Decent Democrat In Politics

Democrats, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Politics

Tulsi Gabbard: Young, Unique, Reagan Democrat” was written as far back as December 24, 2015.

But I had first discovered this impressive Democrat on 2015/05/28. “Tulsi Gabbard Is Not A Total Ass,” I wrote soberly about an interview the Hawaiian Congresswoman gave to CNN. I was still in disbelief that a decent Democrat existed.

In the book, “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed,” I went on to hope that a President Donald Trump give Democrat Tulsi Gabbard an appointment in his future administration. (He did the opposite, appointing a neoconservative, that global village idiot, Nikki Haley, who hated him.)

“Luring the only decent Democrat currently in public life to a Trump administration may prove strategic, in scooping up Bernie Sanders’ voters. Being a Democrat generally comes with the presumption of asininity, which is why Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is unusual. She’s an Iraq War veteran, who serves on the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees. She’s poised, articulate, beautiful—and she never whinges like Michelle Fields. Tulsi stands firm against gratuitous wars, opposes the deposing of Bashar al-Assad, and despises Debbie Wasserman Schultz, despicable DNC Chair and handmaiden to Hillary.”

Finally, years on, mainstream media has caught on to Tulsi’s star power. In the November 6, 2017 Issue, The New Yorker has a profile of this “charismatic, unorthodox Democrat,” whose “opposition to U.S. intervention abroad” is quite libertarian:

…less than two weeks after the election, Gabbard agreed to meet with Trump to make her case for a noninterventionist foreign policy. A few months later, she flew to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad, who is presiding over a brutal civil war; she and he seemed to agree that the United States should not intervene to stop it …

“What Does Tulsi Gabbard Believe?”

If Tulsi Gabbard topples the old Democrat guard, which she had fought during the 2016 election, Republicans are in trouble.

NEW COLUMN: A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, Even Libertarian

IMMIGRATION, Islam, Jihad, Terrorism

THE NEW COLUMN, currently on The Daily Caller, makes the case that, “a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian:

” … Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.

Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie Islam’s radicalness.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.

Vetting will do nothing to stop second-generation Muslim Americans. These are American citizens or legal residents, as Saipov is, who’re more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion.

So what if Moderate Muslims assure us Saipov was acting out-of-faith. That’s irrelevant to the irreversible outcomes.

It’s a distraction to claim, as The Moderates do, that the Jihadi is misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as Bigfoot or the unicorn. Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the real Islam or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly.

Consider:

Proposition 1: The faith of all Muslims is Islam.
Proposition 2: Islam teaches and sanctions some disturbing things like Jihad against the infidel.
Proposition 3: Some Muslims, practitioners of Islam, will be prone to act on teachings that are indisputably part of Islam.

While most Muslims are not terrorists, an unusually large number is willing to dabble in the lifestyle.

Policy is meant as a declaration of the common good. On average, a bunch of people that commits more faith-based murders than another group (say non-Muslim Chinese) is unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US. … ”

… READ THE REST. THE NEW COLUMN is “A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, And Even Libertarian.” It’s on The Daily Caller,

You can read the Mercer Column weekly on the Daily Caller, Unz Review, WND.com, occasionally on Townhall.com, and certainly on the other fine outlets listed here. It’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles. Please share.