Posted under Foreign affairs & Interventionism & Survival of the West & Western Civilization
Trifkovic has a new article up at Chronicles on Putin. I think he does a good job of expressing what some of us are thinking regarding Putin.
In a broader geopolitical sense Putin’s return to Russia’s helm is beneficial to the American interest because he has a more acute understanding than Medvedev that North America, Europe and Russia essentially share the same civilizational genes and belong to the same cultural sphere. As Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, noted almost three years ago, “If the northern civilization wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
This statement reflects a profound understanding of the biological, cultural and spiritual commonalities shared by one billion Europeans and their overseas descendants in the northern hemisphere — an understanding evidently taken for granted in Putin’s entourage yet odious to the Western elite class. Medvedev, by contrast, has displayed occasional symptoms of the propensity of Russian reformers ever since Peter to look at “the West” with some awe, or else with a naïve hope that Moscow’s constant assurances of “cooperation” and “integration” may erode the visceral antipathy of the Western elite class toward Russia. That disdain is based on the accurate recognition that Russia is the last bastion of faith and identity which those people have done their best to destroy in their own countries.
In Washington the ruling neo-liberal humanitarian interventionists will deny that any common Euro-Russo-American civilization exists, let alone that it is worth preserving or jointly defending, and they will use Putin as proof positive that this is so. Russia is still steeped in its barbarian blood-and-soil pre-modernity while the propositional credo of the U.S. transcends the shackles of ethnicity, race, culture, and faith. If Putin still insists on a Russian physical or cultural space that does not belong to everyone—while Siberia remains under-populated—he is a bigot, and under him it is even less likely that Moscow will finally see a Gay Pride Parade.
Brock Townsend on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:16 am #
Excellent and posted.
Aaron on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:19 am #
I’ve read only the part you quoted here, but this is typical of Trifkovic’s theme of Everybody Together Against the Muslims. He’s always exaggerated the common interests and ignored or downplayed the differences between America, on one hand, and Europe (Serbia), Israel, and now Russia on the other hand, all against the Muslim menace.
There really is a question that has to be asked on the American paleo right: Are we pro-Western or pro-American? There really is a conflict between the two. Most paleos seem to imagine that no such conflict exists, while Trifkovic actively works to blur the lines of that conflict and other conflicts between communities in the non-Muslim world. I happen to come down on the pro-American rather than the pro-Western side, but that’s more a confession of faith than an objective position.
Trifkovic’s terminology is especially sloppy here. What the hell is the “Western elite class”? His straw men will supposedly “deny that any common Euro-Russo-American civilization exists.” Well, count me in: I deny it too, as did Samuel Huntington, quite famously, when he defined two different civilizations, Western and Eastern Orthodox. It’s a very real distinction that goes back to the Roman Empire. Catholic paleos of all people should understand that. What Trifkovic doesn’t want you to realize is that support for the “Euro-Russo-American civilization” is very often against American national interests.
Woden on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:35 am #
“There really is a question that has to be asked on the American paleo right: Are we pro-Western or pro-American? There really is a conflict between the two.”
You cannot be pro-American without being pro-Western.
America is unique of course, but it is fundamentally a European nation, founded by Europeans with European beliefs and faiths. There is no denying that.
Cut off America from its European roots, and it will die.
Naturally there are significant differences between various Western peoples, but they all share some common heritage (e.g. Ancient Greek, Roman, Christian), as well as interrelated languages, cultures, ethnicity, etc.
Just as important as their shared past however, is that all Western nations currently face the same future. They all (whether Australia, Germany, Italy, US, etc.), without exception, face falling fertility, mass immigration, multiculturalism, cultural and religious decline, etc.
Thus America’s fight is very much the rest of the West’s fight as well.
Sempronius on 27 Sep 2011 at 2:01 pm #
“…support for the “Euro-Russo-American civilization” is very often against American national interests.”
Quite right. However, it is very much in European-Americans’ interests. Consider Siberia our West Bank. Shalom!
Matt Weber on 27 Sep 2011 at 2:30 pm #
Smaller identities have been subsumed into larger ones for the purpose of facing an external threat, real or imagined, before. France wasn’t always France, to take one example. England became England when it fought off the Danes. So you can take the position that ‘the West’, which means the white Christian countries if it means anything at all, should put aside their differences and unite against the common Islamic threat.
RedPhillips on 27 Sep 2011 at 4:53 pm #
“support for the ‘Euro-Russo-American’ civilization is very often against American national interests.”
Aaron, that is a lot of the issue I think. If one views America as a nation like others with concrete national interests, then good relations with Russia are in our best interests. If one views America as something more than just a nation – as a Superpower or global hegemon – then you view the resurgence of Russia as a threat to that status.
Much of what makes a non-interventionist a non-interventionist is the desire for America to simply act like other countries. Much of what makes an interventionist an interventionist is a belief that America should/must/ought act like more than just another country.
Aaron on 27 Sep 2011 at 6:41 pm #
I don’t think my message got through. I’ll try again. American and Western “interests” (for lack of a better word) do not coincide, even assuming that you can gauge the interests of something as vague as the West. At the level of states, certainly American and Russian interests do not coincide, nor do American and French interests, nor American and Israeli interests, nor American and Serbian interests. Trifkovic uses rhetoric that makes it seem as if they all do, largely, coincide.
Of course good relations with Russia are in America’s national interests. So are good relations with France, etc. That doesn’t mean that we should join with them in the kind of global crusade against Islam in the West that Trifkovic would like.
Even between allies there are always conflicts of interests. I can’t believe I have to type a sentence that obvious. It doesn’t matter whether you define American interests as “white American interests” (the way some people do) or as “American interests” (the way I do). The conflicts are there in either case, especially when it comes to Trifkovic’s favorite issue: Muslim minorities in the various Western countries. An American policy towards Muslims that would be good for Russia/Europe/Israel may be bad for America. I don’t know why it’s so hard for paleoconservatives to see the obvious conflicts of interest, in two of those three cases anyway.
I believe that I’m thinking paleo here. I’m arguing against Trifkovic’s internationalist America that identifies with the interests of other Western states; I’m arguing in favor of America, period. (And yes, obviously America is a Western country.) Agree or disagree with me, it’s frustrating that even the more intelligent commenters here (you know who you are) are missing this. Can anyone see anything beyond the orthodox paleo talking points?
All I’m saying is, be skeptical of anybody trying to sell you some snake oil called “Euro-Russo-American civilization.” Look very carefully at the ingredients.
Aaron on 27 Sep 2011 at 7:01 pm #
It occurred to me that some might still not understand what I mean when I talk about American interests. I mean basically the same that Pat Buchanan and Peter Brimelow mean. Trifkovic’s dream foreign policy is opposed to American interests.
Matt Weber on 27 Sep 2011 at 7:32 pm #
America has specific national interests, but it also has an interest as part of the West. The whole idea of Christendom implies that Christian nations are part of something bigger than themselves, and that bigger entity is deserving of defense. No Christian country should fall to Islam while another one can reasonably prevent it. Now Islam may not be the threat to the West that Trifkovic believes it to be–I’m skeptical myself–but if it were then he is fully justified in calling for the White Christian countries to put aside their differences in the interest of repelling it. Of course, since all the members of such an alliance have different lower interests, they will haggle over this or that detail, but the meta-purpose remains.
Aaron on 27 Sep 2011 at 8:07 pm #
Matt, I respect that way of looking at it. That’s what I meant when I said that the (obviously over-simplified) choice of pro-Western or pro-American comes down to a confession of faith. You clearly understood me, and I think I understand you. You put it even more starkly than I would have: the US must do whatever it reasonably takes, presumably even military intervention in a civil war, to prevent a Christian country (Lichtenstein? Malta? Lebanon?) from falling to Islam, even though such intervention would clearly be against US national interests. (That’s national interests in the narrow sense of the word – security, prosperity, etc.)
I’d like to see more honest rhetoric like that, although I’m sure Trifkovic sincerely believes his own rhetoric. You are acknowledging the internationalist, interventionist character of Trifkovic’s doctrine. I’d like to see others who share your position say, “Yes, doing such-and-such will be bad for America, but America must do it anyway because as a Christian country we not only have a duty to our own nation, but an international duty to Christendom as well.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen Trifkovic admit such a tragic conflict of duty. I appreciate that kind of honesty.
Sempronius on 27 Sep 2011 at 9:58 pm #
“American and Western “interests” (for lack of a better word) do not coincide…”
Yes they do. Nations have international interests. That’s precisely why they’re called inter-NATIONAL. When the commonalities between nations outweigh their particularities they unite to secure them.
The rational for America behind stopping Islam in Europe is that an expansive Islamisist movement that conquers more territory, wealth and manpower can turn these assets towards conquering the remainder of the West (curiously, our enemies have no problem seeing us essentially as one)*. The cost to the nation of defending fellow Europeans saves us the greater trouble of having to defend ourselves directly from a magnified threat.
The balance of power is as old as dirt, and in a global age it’s ascertained globally.
* That’s why they occasionally refer to us monolithically as “Crusaders”. During the Crusades they sometimes referred to us collectively as “Franji” or “Franks”.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Sep 2011 at 12:01 am #
Contrary to what Dr. Trifkovic seems to think, the differences between Putin and Medvedev are mere nuance. With Medvedev as President and Putin as Prime Minister, Russia decisively defeated the US backed Georgian attack but without the over-extension characteristic of US war making. Would things have been done any differently had Putin been president?
I agree with Aaron on both the oddity and novelty of considering Russia part of “the West”. This is strictly a post Cold War, even post 9/11 development. It’s especially bizarre when some of those who consider Russia part of the West claim that the entire Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande is not part of the West – this notwithstanding that the area was colonized by West Europeans, speaks West European languages, and mostly follows the main Western religion, Catholic Christianity.
It’s in the interest of the US to have good relations with all nations,
especially including Russia. This is not because Russia is Western but because of its vast geographic extent and its nuclear arsenal. And as a member of the Catholic Church, I pray and hope for the eventual union of Eastern and Western Christianity under the Pope which can be accomplished while still respecting the broad cultural differences between the Eastern and Western churches as well as the smaller differences among national churches.
T on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:23 am #
“It’s especially bizarre when some of those who consider Russia part of the West claim that the entire Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande is not part of the West – this notwithstanding that the area was colonized by West Europeans, speaks West European languages, and mostly follows the main Western religion, Catholic Christianity.”
In terms of genetics, ethnic Russians cluster more with Europeans than do the vast majority of Mexicans. (More than 90% of Mexicans are Amerindian / Mestizo.) Roman Catholicism according to Philip Jenkins is becoming a non-Western religion.
T on 28 Sep 2011 at 2:50 am #
re Cavalli-Sforza’s genetic distance charts, ethnic Russians are probably around 25 times more closely related to Western Europeans than is your average mestizo Mexican.
Kirt Higdon on 28 Sep 2011 at 3:45 am #
So what you are saying, T, is that “the West” has nothing to do with geography, culture, language, customs, religion or indeed anything but genetics.
Aaron on 28 Sep 2011 at 4:38 am #
Has anything done more to make people stupid in recent years than learning about genetics?
Sempronius on 28 Sep 2011 at 1:05 pm #
Mt. Higdon, I think what T is saying is that genetics are crucial and indispensable. Language and religion etc., by themselves (i.e. without genetics) are insufficient.
_________________________________________
Trying to keep the goyim ignorant Aaron?
Kirt Higdon on 28 Sep 2011 at 3:33 pm #
Sempronius, T is saying that genetics are crucial and indispensable for what? For countries or people being friendly or hostile or simply able to cooperate? History, especially since we’ve been talking about the history of US/Russian relationships, doesn’t seem to indicate any primacy of genetics. My own personal life, a good part of which is involved with cooperating with whites, Hispanics, and people of other genetic background to bring people of various genetic backgrounds into the Catholic Church would not seem to indicate a primacy of genetics. As far as T’s quoting Jenkins that the Catholic Church is becoming non-Western, it started out non-Western, was non-Western for the majority of its existence, and was never intended to be exclusively Western, however you define that term. It’s intended for everyone which is why it’s called “catholic”.
Matt Weber on 28 Sep 2011 at 5:05 pm #
I don’t know if I’d say that the membership of Russia in the West is an absurdity. It’s true that in the past the East’s membership in Christendom was tenuous, leading during the Crusades to the sack of Constantinople. However, growing up and learning about Russia, I always had the sense that they were like me in some important respects, religion obviously being one and race another. It wasn’t like the Chinese or the Persians, where they were just totally foreign. Not much to go on, granted.
Genetics isn’t the whole picture like many rightists seem to think, rather genetic similarity is simply the natural result of continued inbreeding within a population. People naturally feel more affinity for their relatives than they do complete strangers, but beyond the familial level the influence of biology weakens considerably and the cultural factors start to take over. I have more in common with an educated English speaking Bangladeshi who has lived here his whole life than I do a Romanian peasant. That said, the contradiction of the modern multiculturalism/diversity paradigm is that interracial marriages are championed right along with diversity–but the natural tendency of intermarrying populations is to settle along some genetic mean somewhere. I’ve no idea if any leftist anywhere has ever addressed this.
Julian on 28 Sep 2011 at 5:12 pm #
In the oft-quoted words of Sam Francis:
“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”
Sempronius on 29 Sep 2011 at 12:23 am #
“Sempronius, T is saying that genetics are crucial and indispensable for what?”
For genetic continuity and survival. As well as the unique achievements and contributions that European man has produced and created; as a possessor of his own unique and distinct genetic patrimony.
“For countries or people being friendly or hostile or simply able to cooperate?”
Partially yes. Genetics are important in determining who is friendly or hostile, as well as the level of cooperation that different parties can sustain or bear.
“History, especially since we’ve been talking about the history of US/Russian relationships, doesn’t seem to indicate any primacy of genetics.”
I beg to differ. And keep in mind that history is ever mutating, within certain limits of course.
“My own personal life, a good part of which is involved with cooperating with whites, Hispanics, and people of other genetic background to bring people of various genetic backgrounds into the Catholic Church would not seem to indicate a primacy of genetics.”
Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe, remember? Also, you might want to remind La Raza about the whole unimportance of genetics thingy.
“As far as T’s quoting Jenkins that the Catholic Church is becoming non-Western, it started out non-Western, was non-Western for the majority of its existence, and was never intended to be exclusively Western, however you define that term. It’s intended for everyone which is why it’s called “catholic”.”
As a non-Christian (raised in a Catholic environment) I partially agree. That’s why I’m not a Christian. However, you are mistaken on a number of points. It (the Church) started out as pro-Gentile. Ole Jesus set out to break the exclusivity of the Jewish tradition (and got himself nailed to a cross for it, nota bene)*. In historical terms Gentile essentially meant Greco-Roman (i.e. European, i.e. White). There weren’t too many Hispanics around ole Joshua in those days (no welfare benefits back then I suppose). Europe in fact shaped Christianity. It WAS mostly European for the majority of it’s existence. Was Aquinas Filipino? Did a Nigerian paint the Sistine Chapel? Where is the Vatican located? You have misunderstood the significance of the word “catholic” (universal). Universal can either mean common or ubiquitous, or it can mean the apex of a pyramid that encompasses the universe. The latter would be a more intelligent and civilized interpretation of what it means to be “Catholic”.
Nice talking to you Mr. Higdon. I look forward to sparring with you again in the future. I appreciate your contributions to the forum.
* Hi Aaron, Ron!
Sempronius on 29 Sep 2011 at 12:27 am #
Julian,
Great quote. Nicely sums up what I have clumsily tried to convey in my posts.
Kirt Higdon on 29 Sep 2011 at 4:37 am #
Sempronius, for your information gentile meant and means non-Jewish. It does not mean white, still less European white. I’m not sure who you want me to remind of the unimportance of the genetic thing. If you mean mestizos in general, they don’t need to be reminded. They already know how unimportant it is; that’s why they’re called mestizos. If you’re referring to some Hispanic supremicist organization, I’d have to find a member of it to remind him or her. I’ve been around Hispanics all of my adult life without encountering even one member of this semi-legendary group which looms so large in the fevered imagination of paranoid whites.
The Catholic Church was predominantly Asian and North African for the first thousand years of its existence. With the Eastern Schism, it became predominantly European for the next 500 – 600 years. Then the Protestant Revolt took many Europeans away from the Church while the Church grew in the American, Asiatic and African colonies of Spain and Portugal. From the conversion of the southern two thirds of the Western Hemisphere until recent times, 50% or more of Catholics were either Spanish or Portuguese speaking, the overwhelming majority of these not European, although evangelized by Europeans. That percentage has declined in the last century mainly due to the rapid growth of the Church in francophone Africa, China and Southeast Asia. It is not and never has been a teaching of the Catholic Church that Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.
It also strikes me, Sempronius, that you’re trying to have it one way
Kirt Higdon on 29 Sep 2011 at 4:40 am #
(cont.) with your argument and the other way with your personal life since you contend that you’re not a Christian due to Christian universalism, yet argue that Christianity or specifically the Catholic Church is not really universal but European.
Julian on 29 Sep 2011 at 4:23 pm #
“I’ve been around Hispanics all of my adult life without encountering even one member of this semi-legendary group which looms so large in the fevered imagination of paranoid whites.”
Fevered imagination of paranoid whites? You could work for the SPLC with language like that.
La Raza is a group that presidents speak before and that has been given millions of dollars of US taxpayer money. But I suppose it makes sense that a mestizo apologist would try to minimize its significance.
Aaron on 30 Sep 2011 at 8:28 am #
Talking points are talking points, but that quote by Sam Francis seems to be recited over and over as if it were holy Scripture. Francis made a factual claim that may be true or false, without trying to support it (because it was part of a speech to a friendly audience). The claim is probably impossible ever to verify or falsify empirically. Hence, it remains a confession of faith, part of the Creed of a certain part of the right, an incantation which is posted regularly in comment sections.
Note to stupid people (hi, Sempronius!): I’m not saying Francis was wrong, only that he made a far from obvious factual claim that can probably never be proven or disproven. But because it came from the mouth of St. Francis, its Truth is beyond doubt.
Aaron on 30 Sep 2011 at 8:38 am #
No, Sempronius, I’m not “trying to keep the goyim ignorant.” You have no one to blame for your ignorance but yourself.
Aaron on 30 Sep 2011 at 8:41 am #
The Russians are not like the West in terms of religion. The Russians are Eastern Orthodox and the West is Catholic and Protestant (protestant against Catholicism, of course). The importance of that difference to the two civilizations can hardly be overstated.
Bruce on 30 Sep 2011 at 9:38 am #
When I hear the phrase “the West” I generally think of what Aaron is referring to: EO vs Catholic/Protestant. As a nordicist (of the non-nutty kind- Tolkein was a non-nutty nordicist) my heart lies with “the North” not “the West.”
Bruce on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:25 am #
“I’m not sure who you want me to remind of the unimportance of the genetic thing. If you mean mestizos in general, they don’t need to be reminded. They already know how unimportant it is; that’s why they’re called mestizos. If you’re referring to some Hispanic supremicist organization, I’d have to find a member of it to remind him or her.”
Kirt, Sailer claims that the official ideology of the Mexican government is “La Raza Cosmica.”
Bruce on 30 Sep 2011 at 10:26 am #
In other words, race seems to matter to that country not just to its supremacist organizations.
Kirt Higdon on 30 Sep 2011 at 12:39 pm #
I first heard the term “cosmic race” with reference to Brazil in a Latin American history class I took many decades ago. It was explained as meaning “our origins are from all races”. If we exclude visitors from UFOs (admittedly these have a large number of believers in Brazil) then cosmic race is just a rather grandiose term for the human race. It’s not exclusive, but perhaps its inclusiveness is what you object to. As to whether or not it is the official ideology of the Mexican government, I’d have to have some official Mexican government pronouncement or document on that, not just a reference to Steve Sailer. And if all the Mexicans mean is what the Brazilians mean, I don’t see it as being any kind of supremacist statement at all.
Kirt Higdon on 30 Sep 2011 at 12:43 pm #
BTW, Trikovic has referred to his proposed US, EU, Russia coalition as “the real northern alliance”. At least geographically this makes more sense than conscripting Russia into the West.
Matt Weber on 30 Sep 2011 at 6:31 pm #
“The importance of that difference to the two civilizations can hardly be overstated.”
Sure it can be overstated, by saying that RC and EO are different religions. They’re both Christian, and the difference between RC and EO is no bigger than the difference between RC and Southern Baptist. Different sorts of Christians have always fought with each other, but that doesn’t mean that they can never form an alliance or that the alliance would be inherently and totally artificial. I’ll grant that history doesn’t give me much to hope for.
I think I was wrong about the West though. The most common formulation is RC and descendants, with Germany being the easternmost point and Poland having one foot in each sphere. When I think of West and East I think Europe and China et al. I guess the cold war didn’t have much effect on me.
Sempronius on 01 Oct 2011 at 12:12 am #
“Sempronius, for your information gentile meant and means non-Jewish. It does not mean white, still less European white.”
I’m well aware of that; you missed my point entirely. I thought you were a little smarter. Oh well.
“The Catholic Church was predominantly Asian and North African for the first thousand years of its existence.”
You’re forgetting that the southern and eastern coasts of the Mediterranean basin were much “whiter” than they are today. Mostly thanks to Christian sectarianism, I might add. This area was under unbroken European hegemony beginning with Alexander (4th century B.C.) straight through the 7th century A.D (North Africa, the Levant) and circa the 11th century A.D. (Asia Minor). Furthermore during those periods it was punctuated by all sorts of heresies.
“From the conversion of the southern two thirds of the Western Hemisphere until recent times, 50% or more of Catholics were either Spanish or Portuguese speaking, the overwhelming majority of these not European, although evangelized by Europeans.”
You exaggerate. Indios were not more numerous than European Catholics. And you miss the point once again. A head count does not represent the true center of gravity of a culture. Quality trumps quantity. Europe led and leads the Catholic world. Also, even by your own flawed historiography Europe is the oldest continuous Catholic/Christian area on the globe.
“It is not and never has been a teaching of the Catholic Church that Europe is the faith and the faith is Europe.”
Never said it was a Church teaching. But it is a truth nonetheless.
I’m off. More this weekend.
Aaron on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:41 am #
The statement that “the difference between RC and EO is no bigger than the difference between RC and Southern Baptist” might be true from a theological standpoint, I couldn’t say, but we’re talking about civilizations, not theology. Whatever the importance of the filioque and all that, these two civilizations developed separately in different directions, not just religiously but in practically everything else as well. Read, for instance, Harold Berman’s classic Law and Revolution to get an idea of the development of a specifically Western (Roman Catholic) civilization from the 11th century.
Matt Weber on 01 Oct 2011 at 6:11 am #
I’m with you now, Aaron, and I agree with your last post. I don’t see why it invalidates what Trifkovic is saying though, assuming you are taking that position. He is acknowledging that East and West are different, while maintaining that they either stand together against Islam or fall one by one. But he also acknowledges that they can stand together because they do share some qualities, both civilizational and cultural (christianity, the various Westernizing measures that have been taken in Russia by various rulers), that they don’t share with Islamic countries. They’re distant relatives, but they are relatives
As a parallel, take Israel. Israel doesn’t even share a religion with the West, but they obviously identify more with the West than any part of the Muslim world, so an alliance there is possible and actually does exist with the US. The merits of the alliance aside, the two countries do consider themselves to have a common cause. So this is what I see Trifkovic as saying: the West shares a common cause with the East and ought to reach out to it in order to protect the interests of both parties. This is very idealized, but it’s what I take to be the fundamental premise at work here.
BTW, I totally agree on the Francis quote. I like Sam Francis as much as any heretic, but he wasn’t writing scripture.
Bruce on 01 Oct 2011 at 8:50 am #
I didn’t say that it was a supremacist statement, just that race matters to that country and not just to supremacist organizations.
Kirt Higdon on 01 Oct 2011 at 1:30 pm #
Sempronius, if a head count doesn’t matter and quality trumps quantity, what are you worried about? The Pope is European.
Bruce, if using a term like “cosmic race” simply means human race and is not supremacist, what are you worried about?
Aaron on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:42 pm #
Matt, the fact that Russia is not part of Western civilization doesn’t invalidate Trifkovic’s doctrine, just his rhetoric (“Euro-Russo-American civilization” or whatever). His doctrine is bad, not because of that, but because (as I said in my first comment) he overstates the common interests and understates the conflicts of interest. He does that both between civilizations – Russia/America – and within civilizations – America/Western Europe. He also does that for America/Israel, however you want to classify that one.
For example, France has a large, hostile Muslim minority. America has a relatively small, friendly Muslim minority. How would France and America unite against the “Muslim threat”? A good Muslim policy for France would be a bad Muslim policy for America, and vice versa. Even American words of support for the French burqa law would be against US interests. Similarly for Russia and its Muslim problem. Similarly for Israel and its Muslim problem. The united front that Trifkovic wants would probably be very good for Israel, very bad for America, and moderately good for Russia and Western Europe.
You know what Trifkovic’s doctrine reminds me of? An article by James Pinkerton at The American Conservative, The Once and Future Christendom, where he proposed a “Council of the West.” I thought it was the kind of thing David Brooks would come up with if he decided to become a paleo, but anyway, count me out.
Sempronius on 03 Oct 2011 at 7:27 pm #
“It also strikes me, Sempronius, that you’re trying to have it one way
with your argument and the other way with your personal life since you contend that you’re not a Christian due to Christian universalism, yet argue that Christianity or specifically the Catholic Church is not really universal but European.”
Good point, Kirt. Complex issue. Too complex to do justice here. According to some of us the Church has encouraged (or contained) two antithetical trends. A de facto European supremacy and a badly misunderstood and misused universalism (see my comment above), more honored in the breach than the observance. This false universalism, like a serpent in a garden, has writhed it’s way slowly to a position of dominance within the Church and indeed the whole Christian Oikoumene. For this lapse, the old Euro-centric Church is largely responsible. It is trapped in a cul-de-sac of it’s own making.
This is a very sloppy response, but it will have to do.
The super alpha Vladimir Putin | Conservative Heritage Times on 19 Oct 2011 at 6:52 am #
[...] our recent discussions on Putin, Roissy writes: It’s not often we get a photo with two super alphas — [...]
Jewish Russian Oligarch to run against Putin next year | Conservative Heritage Times on 12 Dec 2011 at 5:13 pm #
[...] CHT posts on Russia and Putin: “The super alpha Vladimir Putin,” “Srdja Trifkovic on Putin and Russia,” and “Three Cheers: Putin to return to power.” | | | | | [...]
Another Look at Putin | Conservative Heritage Times on 30 Dec 2011 at 10:34 pm #
[...] CHT has had some positive pieces on Putin (here, here, here and here), below is a more critical appraisal of [...]