June 22.

It is the Day of Remembrance and Sorrow in Russia today. It was on that day in 1941 that unified forces of Europe, led by Nazi Germany invaded Soviet Union. There is no necessity to remind what price USSR paid for ridding the world off Nazism. The debate still rages on on why Eastern Front became such a military and humanitarian horror in which two sides fought each-other with ferocity never recorded in history and why Nazis and their allies committed atrocities on an industrial scale. Russians and other Slavs were to be largely eliminated and those left alive were to be kept illiterate and serve as slaves to Third Reich. 

Remarkably Patric Armstrong posted today a very interesting piece on Europe and Russia. It is certainly worth reading and contemplating. 

I have been considering writing this essay for some years but have put off doing so because I know that for many readers “Europe” means “best” and to say Russia is not European is to say that it’s not good enough. But at last President Putin has given me the opening: “Россия – это не просто страна, это действительно отдельная цивилизация“. “Russia, it’s not simply a country it is certainly a separate civilisation”. And who would dare disagree with him?

I believe I already mentioned it before that it was EU Commissioner Barroso who coined the phrase (later rephrased by John McCain) that Russia is a civilization masquerading as a nation. Title of Patrick's article is telling--Russia is not European. I agree to a certain extent, but I think that the most important issue today is not that Russia is not European, but the fact that majority of Russians do not WANT to be European. I spoke on numerous occasions about what I never thought I would witness in my life time:

Thus, while sharing some important culturaltraits, including in relation to some critical behavioral matrices—and Russians in outlook are very Western—a fundamental, philosophical difference between Russia and West remains and will remain so, because Western project in general reached its natural limits with liberalism, which is in the foundation of modern West, being absolutely inapplicable to Russian historic, geographic and cultural realities. Russians, certainly, absorbed and adapted from the West what they liked, yes, including modernization which had much in common with the West, not least through Marxism—a strictly Western invention. And it seemed, ata time that historic Russia was simply West’s prodigal son (or daughter)—this was a wrong impression. The wind from the West blows and Russia goes as a separate civilization which increasingly is self-aware of own significance 

Overwhelming majority of Russians' condescending view of the West and now bewilderment with a cultural (and economic) suicide of the United States is a sign of not only West's obvious accelerating decline, if not to say implosion, but of Russians largely arriving to consensus in their self-perception and for Russians it is much superior in its outlook than that of the combined West. As Patrick posits:

Not inferior, not “Asiatic”, not uncivilised, not uncultured; different. A “civilisation state”. As is China.

One, looking today at the American and European cities turning into the Mogadishos can see clearly that modern West, that is to say combined Europe, cannot interest Russia at large other than market. The experiment with liberalism in Russia is over and it is combined West which will need to face and, maybe, I do not hold my breath, exorcise its demons. There are very many of those. 

In related news, my friend sent me this today, as he called it "America's premier university turning into Titanic". Here is new "diversity" officer for Harvard.

In her leadership roles at UW-Madison, Charleston has been responsible for assessing and evaluating progress toward the goals of a campus-wide strategic diversity plan. She also oversaw its Office of Affirmative Action Programming and Planning, Office of Employee Disability Resources, and several undergraduate scholarship programs aimed at recruiting and retaining students who are historically underrepresented there.

I am sure her "degree" in 'history" will help her to finish off Harvard as a reputable school. Read the whole thing--it is surreal and it is... so new normal.  

You see, Russians have had enough with the West and today's date is a good day for recollection of what West's real views on Russia and Russians are. That is why Russians develop state-of-the-art weapons and develop real economy as if there is no tomorrow. Or as they say--better safe than sorry. 

UPDATE: meanwhile in the nation of AmSoc and Air Strip-2 implosion continues:

NEW YORK (AP) — The American Museum of Natural History will remove a prominent statue of Theodore Roosevelt from its entrance after years of objections that it symbolizes colonial expansion and racial discrimination, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Sunday. The bronze statue that has stood at the museum's Central Park West entrance since 1940 depicts Roosevelt on horseback with a Native American man and an African man standing next to the horse. “The American Museum of Natural History has asked to remove the Theodore Roosevelt statue because it explicitly depicts Black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior," de Blasio said in a written statement. "The City supports the Museum’s request. It is the right decision and the right time to remove this problematic statue.”

I do not particularly care about Teddy Roosevelt, but sure--how about Washington Monument and Statue of Liberty? 

An Interesting Coincidence.

I do not know who reads me, if anyone at all, out of The American Conservative contributors, but the coincidence is remarkable. Two days ago (in fact, it is my long standing position) I posited: 

And then, of course, there is this little teeny-weeny issue of American "conservatism" which allegedly exists somewhere out there but is somehow obscured and is not allowed to manifest itself by this Conservatism Incorporated (aka Conservatism Inc.). Can we stop this charade, what goes under the title of American Conservatism Inc. IS THE American conservatism. It is a USA, USA, USA Ra-rah, NASCAR, NFL, flag waiving "conservatism" which is as conservative as I am Chinese. There is nothing conservative in American "conservatism" because it is radically Neo-liberal economically and ignorant culturally. As GOP demonstrated in the last couple of weeks it is not a conservative party. It hasn't been in ages. Real conservatism to be a viable ideology requires a nation and here is the problem, the United States never really coalesced into one and if any trend on true nationhood existed at some point of time, it was destroyed completely in the XXI century. Now the destruction is being formalized 

And yesterday TAC publishes this piece: 

American Nationalists. Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party provides a blueprint for conservatives today.

The problem with the authors' argument about the Federalist Party is that despite this observation: 

It was at the constitutional convention, as well, that the term “Federalist” came into use to refer to the nationalist party and its program. Up until this point, Americans had used the terms federal and confederal interchangeably to describe the cooperation of the thirteen independent states under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. However, as the constitutional convention opened in 1787, nationalists discovered that the word “national” was troubling in the eyes of some of the participants, precisely because it implied a single, unified nation rather than a coalition of independent states. The nationalists at the convention decided to concede on the semantics, while preserving the substantive achievement of a national government.

No condition exists today in the US for nationalist principles professed by Federalists--the world changed and so did the US, profoundly at that. One cannot even put in proper context this statement: 

But the Federalists were not supporters of a Jeffersonian policy of building a “wall of separation between church and state.” On the contrary, they hoped to cultivate a tolerant Protestant nationalism, which they believed would strengthen the constitutional republic they had created. 

I cannot even conceive how this statement applies to today's realities, both in terms of extreme forms of the so called "Protestantism", much, not all, of it being in the foundation of a disproportionate influence Israel exerts on American foreign and domestic policy, with a substantial number of Catholics adding to a complexity of the American society still. Modern American Protestantism is a militant proselytizing movement which to a large degree is responsible for growing "elites" who are complicit in the catastrophe which American foreign policy and military interventions has become in the XXI century. For a country which destroyed several countries, killed and maimed millions of people in the last 20 years term "tolerant" is inapplicable. Good intentions are only worth something when they translate into practical actions which support those intentions. 

American intentions in the last 80 years are those of ruthless proselytizing power drunk on the myth of own exceptionalism in which wisdoms of its founding have been long forgotten and do not work anymore in largely corrupted institutes of power. We can observe how corrupt they are in real time. Obviously there is NO American nation without its white Christian European core population, but this is not how American "elites" view the issue--they define it only in terms of political power, political creed and economic robbery model which are not only not helping but incredibly detrimental to emergence of the American nation, which, as US nemesis Russia, will have a core ethnicity which will embrace those ethnic minorities around it to become indeed an American nation. 

At this stage is this not even on the horizon, no matter how political process of founding was framed in 18th century. Remarkably, the chaos and open danger of Black Lives Matter and their handlers from Democratic Party and circles close to it may serve as a long awaited impetus for white majority to claim its status and rights as a stepping stone to formation of a real American nation. To do so America needs a national and real conservative party which will unify both white and minorities' voices which want to preserve the country and want to live in the modern state. GOP is NOT the party for this precisely because it is not a conservative party but a second fiddle to Democrats who are hell bent not only on destroying the US but due to their incompetence and insanity may even unleash a global war. Meanwhile, I think Atlanta Police, same as Seattle PD should simply stop reporting to work and allow "progressive" districts to get a load of their idealism by means of violence, robberies, rapes, drugs--you know Democrats' dear values and agenda.  

A Thought Of Note.

Some interesting piece from The American Conservative, albeit I have to disagree with opening phrase--OAC has very little to do with real politics let alone knows about what "socialism" other than the welfare state, which has nothing to do with socialism, is. But it is good and healthy that TAC brought up this issue. It couldn't be better framed than with Tucker's, and Pat's, brilliant quotes:

“Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster,” Carlson said. “Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn’t worth having.” Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. “To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people,” Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. “I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man—and not the other way around.”

Good, very good, that such a message comes from, however debatable, important source of remaining American sanity. It is symptomatic that they used this:

There is more of a willingness to contest the idea that what’s good for General Motors is good for conservatives—or America.

Finally, the heart of the issue. If America remains a corporate state--she dies, possibly with catastrophic consequences for everyone. If she, in the end, finds own definition as a nation--she has a chance. For that to happen new elites must emerge. Is there a time for those to grow and enter politics? I don't know, but Trump, who betrayed his main pool of supporters--mostly white (there are few Black and Latino voters too) working and middle class people, without who there is no United States of America, is not representative anymore (he never was, Stephen Miller, however is) of those people. I would start with American universities and colleges--which are primarily hot seats of both radical "leftism" or religious exceptionalism, depending on particular school--and this could be done. There is no other, namely relatively peaceful way, than evolution, but it has to be stated that American so called "conservatism" as it was framed by late Buckely and headless war hawks is not about neo-liberal economics, war-mongering and jingoism--it is, in the end, about nation and what's good for it. And it is to the credit of TAC that they close off with this:

The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. 

In related news, Trump is slowly learning (is he?) that global economy and geopolitics require a better set of skills than that of NYC real estate hustler.  

WASHINGTON/BEIJING (Reuters) - U.S. negotiators have tempered demands that China curb industrial subsidies as a condition for a trade deal after strong resistance from Beijing, according to two sources briefed on discussions, marking a retreat on a core U.S. objective for the trade talks.   

Trump is really running US into the ground, but then again, having teenage (most likely Mossad asset) husband of his rather not too smart daughter as main advisers, or the cabal of aggressive neocon morons in national (in)security apparatus, is not conducive to required American transition to a normal country. Well...

 

Can US Still Save Itself-III?

As you may know, I treat The National Interest magazine with degree of irony and sarcasm. Their headlines on military matters most of the time are hilarious and hark back to the days of good ole' traveling fairs with chapiteau circuses promising all kinds of "showdowns", "world-class", "champions of the world", "deadliest", what have you, entertainment just to attract the public. But once in a while even TNI puts out a worthy material written by real professionals--such as Lt. Colonel Davies--and then it makes total sense to discuss them. Such material is a fairly short article by Barry Given with telling title:

American Power in an Age of Disorder

It is a thoughtful piece and the phrase which drives the point is:

The liberal ethos that has been the foundation of American primacy is proving to be a weak barricade against national, ethnic or religious identity, even deep within the Western alliance. Democracy provides no answer when tribal animosities take hold and groups are pitted against groups.

Not for once did I point out that nation is a tribe, in which blood, ethnicity, race play a defining role together with culture. These are things which American "elites" refuse to acknowledge. Any mentioning of the fact that, contrary to politically correct narratives, United States' achievements in industry, science, culture, business were primarily due to the activity of the white European, ethnically and culturally (predominantly with Christian background), component may give current US "elites" an aneurysm. But facts are undeniable, from Russians Igor Sikorsky and Vladimir Zworykin, to Germans Werner Von Brown and William Boeing, to purely US-bred and USDA approved Anglo genius Samuel Clemens--these are mostly people of European background, including less prominent but still immensely important millions upon millions of English, Italian, Irish, Slavic Europeans who made the American nation. Remove these people, their culture and there is no United States left. I deliberately omit here the issue of minorities, including that of a black one--they do have their place in American history and culture but how many of them today identify themselves as Americans? 

While European people constituted an overwhelming majority in the US, the idea of a nation built primarily upon political and ideological creed, where liberty and pursuit of happiness trumps blood and cultures, with their differences, such an idea could exist.  It can not today and this is where we have a problem, a huge one. By failing to properly identify itself as predominantly nation of Europeans with European culture as a pivot, US also failed to formulate properly a real national interest--today it is nothing more than a patchwork of various, often competing and contradictory, interests of different ethnic, religious or social groups. AIPAC is a shining example of such a complete mess. How can anyone formulate own interest when one can not identify oneself coherently? But this is the only way human world, which existed tens of thousands years before United States came into existence, identified itself--by race, by blood, by culture, by religion. The whole notion that the country which came together in what could only be described as the most favorable geographic and geopolitical conditions will dictate to the world how it is supposed to view itself is, frankly, preposterous. But even that is not the worst part--the worst one is identifying WHAT American nation. Is it a nation of Black Lives Matter, thug culture, ethnic and religious mafias running a disastrous foreign policy, steadily turning into multicultural cloaca of liberal dogma or is it a nation of those who created it and these are Europeans? I don't know the answer yet. I hope it is the latter, because the former means only one thing--chaos and eventual dissolution (some will only be too happy to see it) of what used to be an American nation under the weight of colossal and unsolvable problems both domestically and internationally. 

Is there a way out of this conundrum? Again, I don't know but here is what I know for sure--until United States identifies itself as the North America-specific, geography wise, iteration of European culture and places this identity at the core of its culture, the descent, guided by totally corrupt "elites" who have no loyalty to Americans, will continue. It will continue domestically--into the third world state, it will continue internationally with US serving as the agent of chaos which is incapable anymore to let go of the idea that it is an "exceptional nation", while it resembles nation less and less, and loses what's left of its moral, economic and military power. Internationally, US has no other option but to work with world's great powers and doing what this blog was calling from the inception--finding a compromise and accommodation. This only is possible under the condition of US formulating its national interests as a nation and I really hope that this ultimately needed process will not be described by Given's closing phrase to his poignant article: The problem is that it doesn’t seem to be possible. If it will, indeed, turn out to be true, we better start thinking how can we salvage the best what will be left, if any. I lived (rather, survived) through collapse of one empire, I hope to avoid experiencing the second one.