The international hypocrite

Vox Day cites that notoriously “neo-Confederate” propaganda mill known as the New York Times on the explosive issue of secession in Crimea. The editorial writers at the Times are having a little difficulty making sense of Obama’s opposition to a popular referendum on Crimea seceding from Ukraine:

Consider the different American views of recent bids for independence.

Chechnya? No.

East Timor? Yes.

Abkhazia? No.

South Sudan? Yes.

Palestine? It’s complicated.

It is an acutely delicate subject in the West, where Britain wants to keep Scotland and Spain wants to keep Catalonia.

To which Vox Day adds:

And the USA murdered hundreds of thousands in order to forcibly “keep the Union together” and deny the sovereign Southern States their right to self-determination. This has not escaped the attention of the world’s second-rate powers, some of whom have indicated support for the Russian position.

What the ruling elite can’t grasp is that the peoples of the world do not share their globalist vision. Crimea has a majority Russian population that does not want to be part of Ukraine. This is just one more problem caused by the anti-human policies of the old Soviet Union. And it wasn’t just the Reds who violated natural borders; the West is largely to blame for the unnatural and unsustainable political lines drawn in Africa during colonial times. As the folks in Sudan recently made clear, those borders are being redefined by history and culture.

The lessons of this worldwide trend apply here, too. As our rulers in DC import a more docile population from the Third World, the actual result is not a flowering of diversity but a loss of identification and loyalty to the old American nation. Already, secession is gaining steam in America, and ethnic and racial divisions are openly recognized as the reason. No people anywhere in the world wants to be governed by others – self-determination is just another term for secession. So as DC continues to reconstruct the old America, look for REAL secession movements to arise here at home.

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

43 thoughts on “The international hypocrite

  1. roho

    Someone asked me if I was afraid that this Crimea unrest would reignite the cold war?………………I hope so!….The best years of my life was the 50′s, 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s……..We had Banking Laws, Monopoly Laws, and Truth In Advertising Laws. Crony Capitalism was under control and the Government some what worked for the people instead of Wall Street. As Ross Perot said, “Be prepared to hear this giant sucking sound as jobs leave America!” Imagine if it were RUSSIA messing around with Puerto Rico? (Oh yea. Cuba asked us to leave sixty something years ago.)

    On the subject of secession, diversity, and multiculturalism, how do the fine offspring of John Brown and the Freedom Riders of the 1960′s justify these demographics?

    STATE…………………………………………..WHITES………………………………BLACKS.
    Connecticut………………………………….77.6%………………………………….10.1%
    Delaware……………………………………..69………………………………………..21.4
    Rhode Island………………………………..81.4……………………………………..5.7
    New Hampshire…………………………..94…………………………………………1.1
    Maine………………………………………….95.2………………………………………1.2
    Mass……………………………………………80.4………………………………………6.6

    Alabama………………………………………68.5………………………………………26.2
    Mississippi…………………………………..59.1………………………………………37
    Georgia……………………………………….59.7……………………………………….30.5

    Where is the New England Utopia?…….How do these Demographics exist 150 years later if slaves embraced their emancipators? All wars are Banker Wars between the 1% and the 99% simply furnish the bullet catchers. And Victoria Nuland has her Jewish Banker “Yats” in position to now loot the Ukraine.

  2. Weaver

    Obama backs National Socialists in the Ukraine and al Qaeda in Syria.

    Apparently al Qaeda is now dominant or at least much stronger among the Syrian rebels. The rebels kill anyone who isn’t familiar with Sunni customs.

    And the Ukraine revolution was supported by a small group of National Socialists. The CIA was also behind it. None of what I say is denied by the mainstream media.

  3. Sempronius

    The secession question in Crimea is actually a series of questions superimposed on one another.

    Crimea isn’t simply seceding. It’s also acceding to Russia.

    Further, the basis of their desire for accession to Russia is ethnicism/racism/nationalism.

    With the exception of “Brown revolutionaries” and the EU all other parties participating in or pontificating about this crisis are rank hypocrites. Like that turd Fleming.

  4. Weaver

    How is he a hypocrite?! His article reads more like he’s teaching the reader a lesson.

    You’re saying that Germany was gathering its people prior to WWII? There’s a big difference. Russia is stronger.

  5. Weaver

    There’s more to politics than WWII history. If he’s unfair about WWII… So what? What about the rest?

  6. Sempronius

    Weaver,

    I wasn’t thinking of WWII. But now that you mentioned it, it is of greater relevance to current affairs than the Civil War.

    Redster,

    Why can’t I critique the National Review for real Americans and it’s Heartland Buckley jr?

    I may take you up on that offer, but I prefer to comment as the occasion arises.

    If you don’t want me commenting here just say so and I’ll stop.

  7. RedPhillips

    Semp, I don’t care if you comment. Heck, we need all the commenters we can get. But with regard to Chronicles, the occasion seems to arise all the time, and I don’t think anyone but you gets exactly where you are coming from. For example, a reference to “Mordor Mag,” I dare say, doesn’t mean anything to anyone but you and maybe a few other people who are familiar with your situation.

  8. Kudzu Bob

    I don’t think anyone but you gets exactly where you are coming from.

    Occam’s Razor suggest that Sempronius’ failure to explain in a forthright manner why he nurses a such dislike for Chronicles is that no very good reason for it exists.

    Instead, Sempronius’ attacks on Chronicles probably have nothing to do with that magazine’s content, and everything to do with some drubbing he received in an otherwise long-forgotten comment thread at the hands of its editor, who does not suffer fools gladly.

  9. Sempronius

    Red,

    My comments are not difficult to decipher. For example, why can’t I point out that it is dishonest for Traitorous Tommy to edit a rag that ostentatiously distanced itself, literally and figuratively, from New York and the northeast for political and cultural reasons to have a Jewish lawyer from New York as his premier blogger? If I chose to make my points in an irreverent and mocking manner what’s wrong with that? What’s so hard to understand?

    Do I have to write a treatise detailing all 56,739 transgressions TT and his rag acolytes, sycophants and associates make almost daily culminating in a masterful summary of TT’s errors and their corrections?

    Ever hear of the Socratic Method? Why don’t you summarize T-boy for me instead and I’ll do my best to clarify my objections to him.

    Better yet, why doesn’t that pile of sewage explain where he’s coming from himself? He’s the one who ran Chronicles into the ground, not me. If anybody needs to explain himself it’s TT.

    Bob,

    Razors are dangerous in the wrong hands. Further, they are simple tools which can only handle simple tasks-like shaving the hirsute jowls of America’s Aristotle. Not all tasks are simple. Tommy couldn’t drub me with an army at his back. The only fools are those like you who have been taken in by this two-bit charlatan.

  10. Weaver

    The Jewish blogger there is excellent.

    The content of Chronicles today is far better than what I’ve read from the previous management. They used to sell a book with previous content, and it had a lot about property rights, leisure, freedoms, and how polities change as they fill with people (less libertarian after polity develops). I believe I’m recalling that correctly, and Dr. Fleming is on a higher level.

    I can’t recall with certainty, because it’s been over 10 years since I read the book.

  11. Matt Weber

    What’s so hard to understand?

    That whatever your issue with Chronicles and Fleming, it goes beyond some disagreement on principle or management. It’s obviously something personal. Or maybe you just really hate Jews, I don’t know. In any case, it’s been so built up by this point that nothing could match the hype, so obfuscation and evasion might be the best policy.

  12. Sempronius

    My rupture with Chronicles/Fleming antedates Girin’s appearance on the scene by a lot. It can be easily verified.

    You must really love Jews.

  13. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    I’ll take a stab at Semp–and as I don’t know how old he is, I have a couple ideas he might comment on…

    He generally agrees with the notion “the US of A is an Extremely negative influence on the world”, and while in its moments of isolationism, it was charming, it generally has been bad for the World.

    Chronicles of the fading Cold War Era, made an honorable attempt to offer a legitimate American Conservative alternative to NYC-DC nexus, e.g. National Review. Semp doesn’t have a stated position on Dr. Fleming’s editorial decision to run a Bill Kauffman article in praise of Gore Vidal in the latter part of the ’80s, a not so subtle attack on National Review in the late ’80s. Dr. Fleming’s most famous comments on the Cold War, which led to the collaboration with Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell, suggested the CIA was lying all those years, but he did not single out members of Team B–and there might be a reason for that, in the person of Andrei Navrozov (a Russo-skeptic conspiracy theorist on several fronts) whose father was associated with Team B.

    Semp says that Dr. Fleming ran Chronicles into the ground–which is not fair. The magazine never made much money, but it did have a much higher subscription rate–back in the early 90s, pre-Internet. Their position on Serbia has alleged to have caused many cancellations, as did the Dr. Fleming article, White Like Me –and the “please, WNs, stop coming to our conferences”.

    Semp, again depending on how late he goes, is probably frustrated that the one Man who might have kept it together post Rothbard, was Dr. Fleming–who went out of his way in print and on the Internet to push Lew Rockwell and Jared Taylor away, leaving the field decimated and Hoppe organizing a conference in, of all places, Turkey–who includes the disregarded folks (e.g. Taylor, Rich Spencer), character issues aside, Dr. Fleming, in Semps view, played the role of Buckley, casting groups out.

    Semp has particular dislike for the association between Ligue Nord and Chronicles, feeling the political coverage is facile, though guessing he has some ethnic component to side with Southern Italy.

    Semp clearly sees the world through European politics, which places fascism on the Right, and has little time for Americans, non-Italians, and Catholics who position fascism more to the Left than he would like.

    Semp would expect Chronicles to maintain a Russo-skeptic position on Crimea, and be supportive of partition of Ukraine, with a “fascist” EU/NATO resistant West, and a Russo maintained East, including Crimea. He rejects the Raimondo analysis, but he doesn’t mind Raimondo–who is an open book on positions– in the way he is bothered by Mr. Girin furthering the theme as a chief blogger.

    Semp offers a valuable critique on the actual “isolationist” credentials of the Heartland Conservatism, Chronicles is associated with, if he does it in an esoteric manner many find a substitute for having an actual position, beyond reactionary.

  14. Weaver

    I’m glad Dr. Fleming pushed the Libertarians away. I remember some of his articles on that. I didn’t like his pushing the nationalists away though.

    I remember articles on, for example, use of the words amalgamation vs. miscegenation, would it matter if the US were 85 IQ?, is any individual purely descended form a single race today?, nationalism can be ideological, nationalism can lead to dual morality, and similar topics.

    Regardless, of whether Dr. Fleming acted perfectly or made errors, it’s interesting to read him.

  15. Sempronius

    Bowen,

    You have written quite a bit. Not sure if it is worth it. For me Fleming is more a figure of fun plus a grotesque than anything. Though I think he deserves to be criticized and ridiculed as an example to others. Were it not for my being banned at CM, I would do all of my critical commentary there. I come here more in a spirit of fun (with an underlying seriousness) than otherwise.

    I will comment in detail on your post in the coming days. Too lazy to do so at the moment.

    Enough of these ugly losers! Let us have beautiful winners!

  16. RedPhillips

    “why can’t I point out that it is dishonest for Traitorous Tommy to edit a rag that ostentatiously distanced itself, literally and figuratively, from New York and the northeast for political and cultural reasons to have a Jewish lawyer from New York as his premier blogger?”

    Semp, let’s say, just for the sake of the argument, that a majority of people from NYC are generally wrong on a lot of issues we care about. And let’s say, jftsota, that a majority of Jews are wrong on a lot of issues we care about. That doesn’t mean that every Jew from NYC is wrong on every issue we care about. That’s just silly. Heck, for that matter, let’s add, jftsota, that a majority of lawyers are wrong on many issues we care about. That still doesn’t mean that every Jewish lawyer from NYC is wrong on every issue. If a Jewish lawyer from NYC wanted to write an article for CHT on why we should have stuck with the Articles of Confederation or why the South had a right to secede and Lincoln was a villian for invading us or why we should abolish foreign aid and withdraw from the UN and NATO, then I would let him. Why wouldn’t I?

    As for “premier blogger,” while I don’t have inside intel, my hunch is that that is largely self selecting based on output, rather than designated. I do wish that the site was more active and included some high output bloggers.

  17. RedPhillips

    Here is my guess as to where Semp is coming from. I have been told by someone remotely familiar with the situation (no not Girin), that Semp is an Italian nationalist. I suspect he has Fascist sympathies, and I say that descriptively, not as a slur. I suspect he views Mussolini sympathetically. Therefore, I do think the relationship between Chronicles and Lega Nord is a big issue for him. I suspect he wishes Chronicles had followed a path closer to Sam Francis style soft white nationalism and realpolitik, rather than the decentralist and politically disengaged path it followed under Thomas Flemming.

    Close?

  18. Matt Weber

    That could all be true. It just doesn’t explain the level of vitriol. “X magazine doesn’t say the things I think ought to be said” would barely register as a blip in a normal person’s blood pressure, and might be worth an occasional comment on a blog post dedicated to X magazine, but Sempronius is obsessed with Chronicles and can’t stop talking about them, inserting them in every topic no matter the relevance. Somewhere, somehow, he formed some attachment and feels spurned/betrayed by some ensuing development. I guess you can compare it somewhat to how people talk about TAC.

  19. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    Weaver;

    Don’t misunderstand me. Dr. Fleming writing articles criticizing the ‘libertarians’ is fine and not the problem, and it was the libertarians who literally walked out of the John Randolph gathering. It was the bridge burning that didn’t serve a general purpose as far as I can tell, in light of how things would play out (my whole: “there were no paleocons at convention” meme.)

    Joe Sobran eventually, in a desperate situation, made it back to the pages of Chronicles–and if nothing else, he deserved support–support he received from Lew Rockwell who paid him for columns. Strip away ideological labels of convenience, and look at it a bit differently–these are our elders, and soon we will be the elders.

    I’ll mention that Chronicles ran more then one column defending Japanese Interment (otherwise known as a land grab scheme as infamous as NSDAP land grabs) in an effort to be, I guess, revisionist-edgy, so one can imagine that someone of Semp demeanor–or mine–might be a little ‘skeptical.’

    I’m in full agreement that Semp could display his intellect with actual critique, perhaps a satirical voice, for some of the odder positions of the present Chronicles roster.

  20. Weaver

    “these are our elders”

    I liked Sobran. I want to say he died an anarchist (which is ridiculous), but he had a lot of good things to say. I like Justin Raimondo as well. Charley Reese was another good border-libertarian.

    I’m personally a hard-core statist, though I’m not a “fascist” since I tend to oppose “special action”, which seems to make one very unfascist. I’ll support special action only in service of protecting something else – the action needs to be pious. I view Nietzsche as a near opposite of me.

  21. Hawthorne

    Hardcore statism is not really an Americanist position, though, so the editorial trick is present something that supports/fits general model of the American Man, the people as they are. Telling the people to say a-okay to Jap internment, while not revising other more pressing issues whilst praising anti-Buchanan folks like John Lukacs–who views populism as a scourge– was always a little odd, only now with age, I understand things a bit better about our projection on to the foundational institution and magazine, rather than what the foundation actually was about. I think Dr. Fleming gave it a jolly good try, but then wanted no more.

  22. Weaver

    I dunno what “American positions” are anymore. Having to sell a line to a target audience seems akin to lying. Americans don’t know their history, and most are recent immigrants anyway. So, what’s “American” is merely what myth-makers have told them it is.

    Robert E. Lee: “Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character.”

  23. Weaver

    I’m for decentralisation, but even Americans haven’t been anarchists.

    My state of SC was largely run by a small group of families. I’m not saying my state was ideal, but what I am saying is that what’s often called “unAmerican” isn’t necessarily unAmerican in an historical sense. In the South, too, we studied the Romans and Greeks.

    And the colonies were here before the Revolution. We have examples that predate. It’s not like the American race sprang from a cave in 1776, given a set of customs and laws by God. In Europe people read history. Americans should be allowed to read history that predates the stupid Revolution as well.

    I’m confident an authoritative foundation could be researched and established for an illiberal American tradition. It couldn’t be any more absurd than what we’re taught today even if ultimately having to trace back deep into Europe for parts. I’m aware I sound like a sophist here, but I am pious.

  24. Weaver

    Paleos are in a strange position where we in theory defend elites but in practice we side against a corrupt elite.

    I am wary of populism, to be sure. What’s desired is a good elite not no elite.

    Even Jefferson wrote of an ideal of rule by a natural aristocracy (as opposed to divine right of kings). And it doesn’t get more Declarationesque than Jefferson, the author (who was also a slave-owner).

  25. Weaver

    Regarding Internment directly:

    We have examples with how slave revolts and Amerindians were handled. The difference is these examples involve non-citizens, since citizens originally could only be white. The Japanese, however, were citizens.

    Force was used in the past where threats existed.

    Now, I do oppose using force today. I don’t see a need for it today. But there is precedent.

  26. Sempronius

    I’ll try to get to this sometime this weekend. Can’t do it right now.

    I don’t care about Fleming’s wrong opinions regarding Italy. His opinions on Italy don’t matter. I’ll give him some credit and say at least he has a few.

    Later.

  27. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    Weaver;

    “I dunno what “American positions””

    I did not say American positions–I said Americanist–it’s a distinct group of ideas that very closely resembles a combination of the “conservative movement” and the Left iteration, the Patriot Movement.

    Just as an example, the Constitution–which was an extra-legal coup detat by Southern powers–explicitly did not contain a secession clause, and yet I am to live in a world where my ideological kin folk go on about Southern Nationalism.

    What we can agree upon is that there is a distinct, from Europe, American Culture, which can be described–and in its most positive light, relative to our project, it was dubbed recently in the bigger picture Americanist–a label to move away from, in its time, Anti-Communism (funded by the Moonies), the neocons (funded by you know who), and the Chamber of Commerce sorts.

  28. RedPhillips

    It’s easy to hindsight and high horse criticize the WWII Japanese internment, but there is a case to be made that some Japanese people residing in the US actually did represent a real security threat. I believe this is the point McGrath (I believe) was making. Rather than just being indignant in hindsight, I think it is more helpful to acknowledge that there was a real security threat, but criticize the shotgun approach of interning so many vs. targeting known threats. But if you think about it, internment was a startling case of government illiberality. You would never see such illiberality now. These days they just police state everybody the same in the name of equality.

  29. C Bowen/Hawthorne

    McGrath was defending the henchmen who just followed orders.

    That is fine and all–valuable even, to give a human side as another German camp guard in his 90s is sent back to face “justice”, save when the magazine starts running Brown scares, and not bothering with revisionist history that places the evil Earl Warren at the center of the land grab scheme in California Japanese policy.

    There was no security threat in California–any more then in Iraq, but then you run into these problems with a generation who collected a government check and pension in the Cold War sitzkreig–so I get the drill.

  30. RedPhillips

    I’ll have to look into the land grab issue. I’m not familiar with it. My point is more that it shouldn’t shock paleocons that an ethnic group may retain some loyalty to the mother country rather than their arguably abstract new nation. Maybe the best tactic is to just repeatedly make the case that we shouldn’t have been involved in WWII anyway and we obviously goaded the Japanese to attack us so we could back door into the war in Europe.

  31. Weaver

    “and yet I am to live in a world where my ideological kin folk go on about Southern Nationalism.”

    Lol.

    “There was no security threat in California”

    I remember the article. I probably just skimmed it. I didn’t even realise there’d been a land grab as you describe. I nevertheless had assumed the Japanese were a plausible threat. I *like* the Japanese, but even they should understand wariness in WWII.

  32. RedPhillips

    “Just as an example, the Constitution–which was an extra-legal coup detat by Southern powers–explicitly did not contain a secession clause, and yet I am to live in a world where my ideological kin folk go on about Southern Nationalism.”

    I agree that the Constitutional Convention likely did exceed it’s prerogative, but I have never really understood the utility of that case in an environment where we don’t even follow the Constitution that we’ve got. If the argument is that the government created by the CC is too statist, but arguments that x or y program is unconstitutional because it is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution shock and appall most people, shouldn’t we first make the case that we should follow the Constitution we have before we make the case that the whole project was illegit?

    As for the Constitution being a coup by Southern powers, the politics of the Constitution are quiet complicated. (I don’t mean the polity it created. I mean the politics of getting it enacted.) Generally speaking, the Constitution was supported most strongly by those who had a lot to lose and thus valued stability, meaning Southern plantation owners AND the Northern merchant class. Most of the opposition, again speaking in broad generalizations, came from the middle states from NC to NY, because they were neither one nor the other and thus had less vested interest in stabilizing the status quo. While the document does not contain a secessionist clause ( a mistake IMO), that secession was an option was broadly understood.

    And FTR, I have never described myself as a Southern “Nationalist,” and I think the choice of some to use that term is unfortunate. I am a Southern conservative who believes the South had a right to secede and that Lincoln was wrong to invade us to prevent it. I think states still have such a right today and I believe the South would be better governed apart from the Union. While I think history demonstrates that we should have stuck with the Articles, I think it was the South that was attempting to preserve/conserve the polity created by the Constitution in the WBTS. I thinks the CSA Constitution was generally an improvement on the US Constitution. Ironically, the most vocal of the modern generation of Southern Nationalists turn history on its head and argue that the Union was a worse deal for the Deep South, despite the historical reality that the Deep South supported the enactment of the Constitution more so than did the Upper South.

  33. Hawthorne

    Red;

    The land grab also included Italians and Germans, and I am remiss to focus only on Japanese internment (PC gripping my mind, from time to time) but that rather proves the point–what McGrath did not cover was the security “threat” posed by Germans and Italians (with fertile land). (McGrath’s was the second article on the subject–the first one was in late 2001/early 2002–I’d have to go through my back issues.)

    And of course nobody talks about the land grab–especially down South, where your forefathers land grabbed from Loyalists and urged for a debt financed invasion of Canada to chase harass their former neighbors a little bit more.

    Just to start research Red, I’ll give an Ann Coulter column (no less) where she mentions it:
    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp

    It came out the end of Sept 2001–there might be a point here, that Semp would appreciate–in light of Chronicles coverage of the issue from a revisionist perspective.

  34. Sempronius

    Red &Bowen,

    Chronicles is one of the last in a long line of conservative initiatives that has betrayed it’s initial promise and has wound up a dud.

    I’m sick and tired of these conservative jerks wasting my time.

    I think they should be rejected and castigated as an example to future pranksters (should there be any) as a deterrent.

    No one position taken by Chronicles/Tommy suffices to merit it’s/his quarantine. But cumulatively the intent and the destination is unmistakable.

    I’m particularly disgusted by that latter day Citizen Genet, Tricky-boy. Fleming seems to have a womanish attachment to the Republika Srpska.

    I don’t like the avoidance of the Jewish Question. Nor the dhimmitude whenever the subject can’t be entirely avoided- even by Tommy.*

    Teutonophobia on the Right is just plain stupid. And wrong.

    Retrograde Christianity is even more stupid and more wrong.

    Tommy doesnt know what the @#*&% he’s talking about regarding feminism and women. More stupidity.

    Tommy’s manner is insufferable.

    Tommy harms the cause by alienating potentially valuable adherents like Mr. Bogle and F. Roger Devlin.

    Tommy tries to ostentatiously display such a wide culture and vast erudition that his views end up being incoherent rather than subtle and refined

    Catholics are seated at the back of the bus in Rockford/Selma.

    Anyone to the right of Catholics isn’t allowed on the bus.

    This is all off the top of my head. I could go on forever. The man and his rag are a disgrace and he needs to be stopped.

    No more ugly losers! Let us have beautiful winners!

    *““Then mysteriously the paleocon movement switched horses in mid-stream and started beating the drum against “Islamofascism” in a way that rendered it indistinguishable from Commentary or the Weekly Standard. I remember attending a Chronicles conference and listening to a talk by Srdja Trifkovic on the threat which Islam posed to the West. In the question and answer period following the talk I said, “I can understand your feelings toward Islam. If I were a Serb, I would feel the same way. But America has never been threatened by Islam, and the only reason we are threatened now is because of our support of Israel. Afterward Trifkovic admitted what I said was true, but he then added, “You can’t say that sort of thing in public.”

    http://www.culturewars.com/2009/Encounters.html

  35. Weaver

    What about TOQ?

    “Teutonophobia on the Right is just plain stupid. And wrong.”

    Yes, especially considering Germans are among the largest minorities in the US. Depending on how the groups are tallied they can be said to be the largest.

    The goal should be to win them over, correct them where their WWII values are false. Hitler was a member of (or at least otherwise used) the Thule Society, yet he persecuted them later. There were culture wars there. And Germany’s history doesn’t begin and end with WWII.

    Hermann/Arminius is one of the greatest symbols anyone who opposes empire may have.

  36. Weaver

    I think HB2 has it correct: no friendly fire. We have commonalities with Chronicles, and we can take what’s positive from them, use it as we deem fit.

    If Chronicles is wrong on a particular position, then take the correct position perhaps without highlighting the difference. Lead by example.

  37. Sempronius

    Excellent retort to the isolationist hypocrites by commenter Eric from Portland:

    You should surely also recall that the first use of the term Nazi was used by Putyin for the protesters at Maidan in Kiev. It has since been liberally used by Russian government spokesmen to describe Ukrainian supporters of the new government in Kiev. And I’m sure you’ve seen the campaign posters in Crimea implicitly depicting the choice as between Russia and Nazism, using a map of Ukraine liberally sprinkled with swastikas. Elsewhere, I see that many pro-Russian commentators are calling Ukrainian patriots “fascists,” which was the formula used in Soviet times as well. I can agree with you that the terms Hitler and Nazi are revoltingly misused – by both sides.

    https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/ukraine-bosnified-putin-hitlerized/

    Nary a response from the Orthodox/Jewish Brotherhood at Mordor Mag.

  38. Sempronius

    Why doesn’t Mordor Mag have a “real American” as it’s foreign affairs editor anyway?

    And why a South Slav Ortho* and not some Cattolico instead?

    * With a chip on his shoulder (seated in an inferiority complex?).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>