Let’s Get One Thing Straight

I just got a testy email from someone whose opinion I respect. He voiced a strong objection to my light-hearted “Putin for Prez” posts.

So let’s get one thing straight: I know exactly what Mr. Putin is, and Hillary Clinton is no less brutal, ruthless, amoral, cynical, and exploitative than he is. She lacks the means to do everything he does, but I’d bet my back teeth she wants to acquire those means, and will do all she can to put herself in that position.

Given the current state of the Republican Party, Hillary may very well be our next president. That’s a sobering thought — that the president may be someone who is no better than the former head of the KGB.

Putin is preferable to Hillary in one important respect, however: his brutality and thuggishness are used to advance the interests of his country, and not those of the New World Order. In that sense I’d take him over Hillary any day.

And that is the point of the Putin meme: to undermine Hillary. It’s useful for that purpose. It’s not like any of us would ever want Putin to actually run our country.

It’s unfortunate that I have to explain something so obvious.

The national political leadership of the United States is all but devoid of people who can even perceive the cataclysm that lies ahead of us, much less devise any way to avoid it. The Democrats are now in thrall to trans-national Socialism. The Republicans, with very few exceptions, have hitched their wagon to the same star, preferring to play permanent second fiddle as the “Democrat Lite” party rather than offer any meaningful ideological alternative.

Unless something alters the current political trajectory of our country, the Republicans will cede the next presidential election to the Democrats, just as they did in 2008 and 2012. Then we will have to get used to saying “President Clinton” all over again for another eight years.

And she will make Vladimir Putin look like a “moderate” — not to mention a capitalist — in comparison.

15 thoughts on “Let’s Get One Thing Straight

  1. Actually, I would love to have Vladimir V. Putin to be my president. Russian immigration law is pretty tough, but if he were to offer me political asylum in Russia I’d be outta here as fast as I could pack a suitcase.

    He’s gotten a lot of undeserved bad press. He is literally the ONLY world leader who is actively protecting Christians.

    Nobody else is!

    He’s no thug. Considering what he’s up against, he is exercising truly superhuman forbearance.

    • Are you sure? Though our immigration law is not that tough, the best way is to come by invitation, of course. But most westerners cannot handle our conservative values, that’s a fact. Another fact is that 99% of western lore about Russia is mythology. In many ways we are just another Nordic bastard nation, but we’re not ruled by a monarch. We still have the Thing of sorts instead, and are much hated for that:) You can come if you really want. Some do.

      • What do you mean by “bastard nation”? If it refers to your “mixed slavo-finno-ugric heritage”, then it’s absolutely common thing and doesn’t make you less worthy of preservation. It should be pointed out, because such arguments are often used by multiculturalists to support their agenda that even if excessive immigation results in bastardization of local culture, it does not constitute any valid counterargument since this culture superseded some other ones in the past therefore such cultural shift should be seen as a part of natural process (sic!).

        À propos, Russians do not appear to be essentially more conservative than Westerners. Having read a lot of Russian fora, I have found your society neatly permeated with pseudooccidental failed values and sense of nihilism, although some Russians still openly express will to reestablish their rule over former communist bloc.

        • I feel a reply is in order.
          – About conservatism first.
          After decades of social experiments, most people in Russia want to keep things the way they are. Change is not welcome. This is conservatism.
          We don’t let minorities lord over the majority. You can’t please just everyone, so we don’t even try. Conservatism again.
          Our society is not infected with male-bashing rabid feminism. Conservatism.
          Nobody cares what you do in bed, but advertising sex is bad manners. A recent federal act outlaws public propaganda of sex, including gay pride parades and gay preaching to minors – the one that the western MSM calls the ‘anti-gay law’. Conservatism to most of us, agony and persecution to some.
          Marriage is heterosexual; if you want to officially marry your dog or a fence, you’ll end up in an institution. This too is conservatism.
          This is why Putin is so popular, incidentally. He’s conservative.
          – About ‘bastard nation’ now. I meant it as a joke, of course: each nation is a ‘bastard’ nation.
          But surprise! we Russians are not ‘slavo-finno-ugric’, we are “slavo-nordic”. There are over 100 ethnic groups in this country, and intermarriage is not uncommon, but most Russians are Nordic type. Our story is similar to that of Scotland or Normandy, just substitute Slavs for Celts. Google: russian haplotype nordic. Better still, have a look at our faces, try youtube: east slavs nordic type, something like that. I know, it’s embarrassing: having RUSSIANS for relatives! Sorry, cousin, it’s so crass of me.

          • Well, your legal system may be indeed socially conservative and society as a whole may still cherish traditional values, but trends in the opposite direction can be observed (especially and unsurprisingly among younger generation).

            As for heritige. If I replaced Celts with Slavs, you wouldn’t speak slavic language and that is definitely not the case. Scandinavian influences had to be rather minor, after all Russia wasn’t affected by Gothic migrations and there were just a couple of Varangian troops in the biggest grods along Dnieper. Neither does genetics confirm your claim, abstracting from whether one can properly determine dominant “racial type” of a population based on most frequent haplogroups. Majority of Russians I have known were baltid, some nordid or pontid. Although my grandfather looked kind of oriental, almost like Gennadiy Aygi. By the way, really handsome bastard and it is inheritable … 😉 Anyway, why are some people so obsessed with nordic look or origin?

            And yes, we are “related”, becuase I am a Slav myself. Только помни, это тайна!

          • Right, there are kids who experiment with some crazy ideas, but it’s all in the head. Life is not a web forum, and Russia is less tolerant to fools; to survive in this society they’ll need to conform, just as they do. Trends we observe recently beyond all doubt go AGAINST the European libertarian system, because it has failed so dramatically.
            And hey, here’s an illustration of our conservatism: “If Berlusconi were gay he would never be on trial – Putin”

  2. The money quote: “Putin is preferable to Hillary in one important respect, however: his brutality and thuggishness are used to advance the interests of his country, and not those of the New World Order.”

    Personally, I am having a hard time with the fact that so many people continue to insist there are two political parties in the USA.

    • In part because a more extended version of Reagan’s 1964 stump speech called “A Time for Choosing” that included lines you may recall, “Let me suggest there is no left and right. There’s only an up or down…”

      Reagan updated it and delivered the revision circa 1983, but it seems to have been lost. And that, IMHO, is a terrible disservice to the country.

      As best as I can recall, Mr. Reagan likened the accepted Marxist political spectrum of left and right to the ups and downs of a scaffold.

      The Left would gain control, and they’d pile up programs on their side of the platform. The foundation beneath the platform would begin to sink from the weight of their efforts. This resulted in the platform being tilted noticeably. It made the voters feel uncomfortable. So the voters would turn to the Right to straighten things out.

      Well the right might try to prop up the left side a bit, and refill the foundation, but in doing so, they’d dig a hole under their side of the platform next. Those who gain power always have interests who want something back — usually in the form of legislation that favors them or taxes their competitors — for their support. Thus the weight of these efforts and favors repaid cause the platform to tip to the right this time. That sinking feeling leaves the voters uncomfortable again.

      So the voters would then put the Left back into power. And the Left would begin to fill in the hole under the right, but pile up more programs on their side and drive their side of the platform even deeper into the foundation of America’s liberties.

      And so it would go on, back and forth, Left and Right, Left then Right. Pretty soon the citizens of this great nation would find themselves in a pit of despair; a pit dug by the machinations of those who built up the oppressive weight of government. Government has been built up incrementally, one law after another, ruling upon ruling, practice becoming entrenched policy. And it was all done under the guise of representing a left or a right side, but both headed in one direction — into the pit of tyranny. All those vested interests would insist it stay that way. Worse, as they’d get more demanding they’d cloak it with fairness. They were owed all that they’d “earned” for their efforts to gain “their people” power in the past.

      At some point the vast majority of Americans will insist on climbing out of the hole dug for them by this political machine — that single minded and ruthless incremental see-saw of power-seeking achieved by eating away at the foundation of our liberties. Taxes and regulations and busybodyness that is in no way justified in a nation dedicated to individual freedom.

      Americans were passed a birthright containing the fresh air of freedom. It is what our Founders had envisioned, and it is what our fathers fought to keep. And it’s pretty much still been available to most Americans for around 200 years. If we do not stop the digging soon, somewhere along the way, Americans will demand to be let out of this pit. May God bless them then as He has in the past.

      It seems to me that the TEA party movement is the living example of what he was suggesting. It is too bad that its members think so lowly of their efforts that they keep insisting on trying to reform the GOP instead of dumping it before it buries them.

      • The ups and downs of the scaffold is IMHO the motions of ultra-liberalism that displace and plunge the people into the pit of tyranny.

        Opposing that ultra-liberalism isolates the commentator from political association and gives the impression of being in perpetual opposition – possessing a mindless negativity.

        • Yes, the original “Progressives” understood that. They gave it a name. Objecting to their incrementalism they labeled Reactionary.

          Funny too. Given that they are now in power, it is they who are the reactionaries — witness the words they and their media have for all people who want out of the pit.

        • Jolie Rouge: “Opposing that ultra-liberalism isolates the commentator from political association.” Marginalization.

          “gives the impression of … possessing a mindless negativity.” giving the impression that marginalization is deserved.

          Given the effectiveness of the construct you have illuminated, it seems it was designed by some brilliant strategists. Do you know of a name that can be linked to it?

          Whoever it was, it seems they reversed the subject and object in Clausewitz’ famous observation and came up with “Politics is War by other means.”

          This construct eliminates from the “war” those who really are the Progs’ enemy. Brilliant.

          Pascal: “It is too bad that its members think so lowly of their efforts that they keep insisting on trying to reform the GOP instead of dumping it before it buries them.”

          From Jolie’s view, it’s time for these good men to inject themselves back into this “war” or find themselves POWs in a war they didn’t understand was being waged.

  3. “It’s unfortunate that I have to explain something so obvious.”

    In a “democracy” all difficult things are frowned upon as racist, bigot, intolerant, … etc. and you are left with the obvious and axioms where you have to explain them to our “smart” voters again and again, they convince you that they are not prepared to understand anything unless it is about sex, drugs and dirty dancing.

  4. Nearly all of our ruling politicians in the Western nations are self serving, personal wealth obsessives. They have no regard for their societies, nations or even humanity in general. They serve only themselves, and the representative democracy they represent has almost nothing to do with democracy. This is the root cause of all of our current problems. The governance of a people should be decided upon by the people, not a representative. We live in an age where we can have direct democracy (real democracy). We can make our own decisions, and live with the consequences, without needing a person (of clearly superior intellect and wisdom) to represent our views en masse (which they almost never do).
    If we lived in a direct democracy (lets just call it a democracy) the British people for example would not have allowed immigration to change the face of our society, we would not be involved in middle east wars, we would not have allowed crime to become the blight that it is, our nation would not be rife with drugs and criminality, there would be fair renumeration for work (no competition with immigrants for peanut wages – favouring our ruling elite and their business interests, we could live with the consequences of a declining population and provide our own solutions.

Comments are closed.