Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism. Putin is plugging into some of the modern world’s most powerful currents. Not only in his defiance of what much of the world sees as America’s arrogant drive for global hegemony. Not only in his tribal defense of lost Russians left behind when the USSR disintegrated. He is also tapping into the worldwide revulsion of and resistance to the sewage of a hedonistic secular and social revolution coming out of the West.
In the culture war for the future of mankind, Putin is planting Russia’s flag firmly on the side of traditional Christianity.
But if Putin is not a Russian imperialist out to re-establish Russian rule over non-Russian peoples, who and what is he?
In the estimation of this writer, Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethnonationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad … as people whose security is his legitimate concern.
Imagine that. A leader who actually looks out for the best interests of his people rather than trying to make the world safe for globalist banksters and other assorted fat cats.
“The Yankee is compelled to toil to make the world go around.” Admiral Raphael Semmes, CSN
Pat Buchanan has a must-read piece that is perfect in every way except for its inappropriate title, “Why Neo-Isolationism Is Soaring.” My nit-pick is that “isolationism” is what interventionists use to slam those who question their endless wars. It’s the equivalent of the use of “racist” to put down anyone who objects to socialism — which is exactly what that term means. And as I’ve argued before, the interventionist abroad validates and reinforces the interventionist at home. Both have an other-worldly ideal that mere humanity never quite lives up to, requiring the noble idealists to spill a little more blood. All in the name of doing good, you see.
Pat points out that the interventionists have directly harmed this country. The facts he presents cannot be argued:
We invaded Panama, intervened in Haiti and Mogadishu, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, bombed Serbia for 78 days to force it to surrender its cradle province of Kosovo.
Came then the blowback of 9/11, following which we had the Afghan war to overthrow the Taliban and create a new democracy in the Hindu Kush, the invasion and occupation of Iraq to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction he did not have, and the air war on Libya.
Others may celebrate the fruits of these wars but consider the costs:
A decade of bleeding with 8,000 U.S. dead, 40,000 wounded, $2 trillion sunk, Iraq and Libya disintegrating in tribal, civil and sectarian war, Afghanistan on the precipice, and al-Qaida no longer confined to Tora Bora but active in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.
While America was caught up in these wars, China swept past Britain, France, Germany and Japan to emerge as the second largest economy on earth. Using her $250-$300 billion annual trade surpluses with the United States, she has been locking up resources across Africa, Latin America, Australia and Asia.
Now Beijing has declared its own Monroe Doctrine to encompass the East and South China seas and all islands therein and to challenge the United States for hegemony over the Western Pacific.
The Afghan and Iraq wars, we should note, were supported by big-government interventionists of both the left and right. What’s scary is that the same coalition is still at it today, demanding war on Iran, and blasting those who courageously uncover illegal surveillance by the federal government. Despite their differences, the left and right interventionists are united in their support of a powerful centralized government and the demonization of dissent.
The bottom line is that they’re both cheering while the federal government chips away at what’s left of our liberty. That makes them part of the problem, not the solution. Let’s not forget that.
There has long been some admiration of Putin in paleo circles. Here, Buchanan asks “Is Putin One of Us?”
Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative? In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us? While such a question may be blasphemous in Western circles, consider the content of the Russian president’s state of the nation address. With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.” “They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.” Translation: While privacy and freedom of thought, religion and speech are cherished rights, to equate traditional marriage and same-sex marriage is to equate good with evil. No moral confusion here, this is moral clarity, agree or disagree.
I love that Buchanan mentions paleoconservatives by name, as the word seems to be used less frequently these days.
I think it is important that we acknowledge that Putin is likely far from pure lest we sound naive. You don’t serve in the KGB or rise to power in Russia by happenstance. But I do think Putin really does recognize that modern Western style progressivism and globalism threatens a traditional nation state like Russia, and his resistance to it is genuine. Putin appears to get “the big picture” much better than do a lot of mainstream conservatives who still harbor grudges from the Cold War.
This is a delinquent “Happy Birthday!” to Pat Buchanan who turned 75 on 2 Nov. Here is our friend Tom Piatak marking the occasion at VDARE. Think how much better off we would be today had the GOP and then the rest of the country listened to Pat in ’92, ’96, or ’00. They had three chances. They blew it. If I was Pat, I think I would put “I told you so!” on my tombstone.
Leave it to Pat Buchanan to talk about trends the ruling elite wants us to pretend not to notice. But at some point, even they will have to wake up and smell the reality:
The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.
Scotland is moving toward a referendum on independence from England, three centuries after the Acts of Union. Catalonia pushes to be free of Madrid. Milanese and Venetians see themselves as a European people apart from Sicilians, Neapolitans and Romans.
Dutch-speaking Flanders wants to cut loose of French-speaking Wallonia in Belgium. Francophone Quebec, with immigrants from Asia and the Third World tilting the balance in favor of union, appears to have lost its historic moment to secede from Canada.
What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language — but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.
The billionaire globalist elites and hate-filled leftists want to dissolve society and transform mankind into a mass of detached, alienated individuals mindful of nothing but short-term economic interests. Alone and lost, people can then be regimented for maximum exploitation, both economically and politically. In other words, lurking behind all the flowery rhetoric about equality is the lust for money and power.
But stubborn human nature resists their plans. We’re social beings, and must have the connections to the cultures we came from. Look for more secessionist movements as a powerful counter to the doomed schemes of our self-proclaimed superiors.
And know hope.
Pat Buchanan says the Syria gas attack “reeks of a false flag operation.”
“…First, this thing reeks of a false flag operation,” said Buchanan. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence of which might be that he would be at war with the United States. So this reeks of a false flag operation.”
When I first saw the stories about a chemical weapons attack in Syria, my very first thought was “false flag.” It just didn’t make any sense to me. Why would Assad do that so openly and risk retaliation? How would it benefit him or his cause? He is reportedly winning the war. But I’m skeptical and not inclined to believe the official story when it comes to dragging us into another war in the Middle East. What has surprised me is how many people are throwing around the “false flag” allegation. Normally mainstreamish types avoid that charge directly so as not to get themselves labled as conspiracy theorists, but with regard to Syria I am seeing people saying it with impunity. Has there been a sea change when it comes to peoples’ willingness to believe the official story.
Ugh! If you thought The American Conservative hit rock bottom when they published an article by Jon Huntsman arguing that gay “marriage” is a conservative cause, you would be wrong. Now they have published an article by David Lampo, a board member of the Log Cabin Republicans, arguing for gay “civil rights.”
Huntsman’s premise, gay “marriage” as a conservative cause, was absurd on its face, but at least Huntsman’s logic was tortured and circuitous essentially conceding the difficulty of his case. By comparison, Lampro’s screed is just straight forward gay rights advocacy. He even calls his opponents “homophobic.” What kind of a PC tool job do you have to be to use the word “homophobia” as if it is a serious term?
Whatever anyone thinks of gay civil rights, this article has no place at a supposedly conservative magazine, especially one that was founded by Pat Buchanan as a continuing voice of his campaign. It reads more like something some undergrad in a gay studies course would write to impress his professor. He even drops an “Institutional homophobia?” I kid you not. What’s next? A TAC article on white privileged?
Human Events is for sale and may close.
I used to receive Human Events for a period in the past before the widespread advent of the internet. It was known to be somewhat paleo friendly, as it’s Editor for some duration after ’96 was Terence Jeffrey, who had been Pat Buchanan’s campaign manager in ’96. If I’m not mistaken, HE supported Buchanan’s primary challenge in ’92.
But as far as I know in recent years Human Events, which is now owned by Eagle Publishing, has been indistinguishable from other pro-war yahoo rags. (I haven’t followed them in recent years. If anyone knows whether they still retain any paleo vestiges, let me know. Also, does anyone know if Jeffrey still leans paleo?)
Human Events has a venerable history as the Rockwell posts show. This is a case where we really need some paleo moneybags to buy it up and retake it from the neocons. And no that does not mean turning it into moderation central.
Here’s one to warm the hearts of our old school paleo readers. (Is there such a thing as a new school paleo?) Pat Buchanan takes on free trade. Brings back memories, doesn’t it?
Since CHT worked hard to stop the Korea “Free Trade” Agreement, here is what Pat has to say about that.
What about South Korea, the country with whom we signed a free-trade deal in 2012?
U.S. exports to Korea fell last year, and due to a surge in imports our trade deficit in goods with South Korea soared 25 percent to $16.6 billion.
Seoul’s trade minister who cut that deal and cleaned our clock should get a medal and the kind of bonus Americans reserve for people like hedge fund managers and the folks who ran Fannie and Freddie.
This is news to me. Bay Buchanan apparently decided after Romney’s loss to leave TV punditry and pursue a career in real estate. I kid you not. The ridiculously prolific Warner Todd Huston has the story.
Here is the source Washinton Examiner story.
But Bay Buchanan, a top Mitt Romney lieutenant who’s been involved in politics ever since serving as treasurer of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign, saw last November’s loss as a signal to get out of presidential politics.
“It was so tough. It was brutal,” she said of the loss to President Obama. “I think it’s the toughest because we really expected to win it,” added Buchanan, a former Treasurer of the United States who also ran her brother Pat’s three campaigns for president.
Bay’s strong support for Romney has always been baffling and can only be explained by “the Mormon thing.” (Bay is a convert to Mormonism.) But his sister’s involvement with the Romney campaign is widely speculated to be the reason Pat seemed to hold his fire where Romney was concerned.
Well it’s not really versus, but versus makes for a more intriguing title.
Anyway, Scott McConnell responds here to a comment Tom Piatak made in a previous thread. Read McConnell’s post, but to sum it up briefly he suggests that the problem for the middle class is less the underclass from below (the Obamaphone lady) and more the elite class from above which has disconnected itself from America. He makes a good point, but it isn’t either or. It’s both, a point Paul Gottfried makes in the comments section.
My (somewhat intemperate in hindsight) comment is below. It addresses the issue and expresses my frustration with the TAC style of critique.
Both Scott and Tom are correct. The elites have formed a coalition with the underclass and minorities against the middle. The elites buy and pander for the allegiance of minorities. They maintain discipline among the white urban upper class through an “I’m not one of those flyover country Philistines” class identification. This is the dynamic that Codevilla pointed out in his article/book The Ruling Class. What is so frustrating is that TAC contributes to this “I’m not one of those Philistines” dynamic, either knowingly or not (you tell me), with the nature of its criticism. For every one “Movement conservatives are such dodo heads” post there should be at least 10 “Get down off your high horse you bunch of pathetic PC preening self-loathers” posts directed at the SWPL liberals who make that coalition possible. Not that conservatives should be beyond criticism. It just that the criticism of them needs to be identifiably “red” and not contribute to the zeitgeist already arrayed against us.
Here is Pat Buchanan on US demography and why it dooms the GOP if current trends aren’t halted/reversed. Republicans who support amnesty and increased legal immigration either have a death wish or can’t do simple math.
Someone make sure Unz reads this, although I’m sure he’ll scrawl out some apologia telling us why up is down, black is white, and demography doesn’t dome the GOP.
Recently Bill Kristol was crowing about how he purged the “Arabists” from the Republican Party.
I first became aware of this story from Mondoweiss. Sorry but I don’t recall how I was directed there. I must have been though because I don’t generally surf to Mondoweiss.
I am still reeling from seeing Bill Kristol hold forth at a debate at Bnai Jeshurun synagogue on the Upper West Side last Tuesday [a short portion of which is above]. He came off as what he is, a Republican Party warlord; and he was treated like royalty. The rabbi said he was proud to host Kristol, and Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street said he wanted to take Kristol with him to the West Bank, and moderator Jane Eisner of the Forward was very respectful, though she got in a jab at Kristol’s “smear” tactics at the Emergency Committee for Israel.
When Kristol gave the self-congratulatory riff from which I’ve gotten my headline—about how all the elements hostile to Israel inside the Republican Party were purged over the last 30 years – no one dared to question the power of the Israel lobby.
An incidental run in with Kristol occasioned this Buchanan editorial on the smarmy Kristol’s claims.
“The big story in the Republican Party over the last 30 years, and I’m very happy about this,” said Kristol, is the “eclipsing” of the George H.W. Bush-James Baker-Brent Scowcroft realists, “an Arabist old-fashioned Republican Party … very concerned about relations with Arab states that were not friendly with Israel… .”
That Bush crowd is yesterday, said Kristol. And not only had the “Arabists” like President Bush been shoved aside by the neocons, the “Pat Buchanan/Ron Paul type” of Republican has been purged.
“At B’nai Jeshurun,” writes Weiss, “Kristol admitted to playing a role in expelling members of the Republican Party he does not agree with.” These are Republicans you had to “repudiate,” said Kristol, people “of whom I disapprove so much that I won’t appear with them.”
“I’ve encouraged that they be expelled or not welcomed into the Republican Party. I’d be happy if Ron Paul left. I was very happy when Pat Buchanan was allowed — really encouraged … by George Bush … to go off and run as a third-party candidate.”
Kristol’s point: Refuse to toe the neo-con line on Israel, and you have no future in the Republican Party.
Here are a couple of other mentions of this story that I got from a yahoo search.
When some people say … HA…HA…HAAA… SAVROLACHEWWWW………!!!! Oh, excuse me … that paleos spend too much times nursing old grudges, I’ll tell them to read this story and tell me it doesn’t make their blood boil. If Kristol still gets to crow about 15 give or take year old purges, then I claim the right to still grouse about them.
The feisty intellectual pugilist in me tells me that the way to respond to such pompous crowing is with defiance. He may have purged the Republican party (this claim is largely true), but he didn’t purge real conservatism, and he sure as heck didn’t purge me. For our paleo critics, what do you suggest?
Of course the sweatest revenge would be to take the Party back, but that is not within my power. Shouting from the rooftops is.
First of all, kudos to American Spectator for allowing a Buchanan sympathetic person to review the book.
The comment section is entertaining as you might expect. Go there and stand up for our man. As Pat would say, “Ride to the sound of the guns.”