Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

When Whites Became an Endangered Species

When the Sun reappeared after the nuclear winter that followed the 21st century’s nuclear war, no life was left in what formerly was Europe, Great Britain, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Japanese no longer existed. The only white-skinned people were Russian and American/European expatriates living in South America, Africa, Thailand and other parts of Asia.

Wildlife organizations designated white people “an endangered species.” The few remnants outside Russia, now the world power with China, were rounded up and put in zoos. Programs were developed to breed them and reintroduce white people into their former territories once the radiation subsided. Russians were designated “non-white” as they lived for centuries under Asiatic rule. “Scratch a Russian, find a Tarter (Mongol)” sufficed for one of the ruling powers to escape the designation of White.

Because of the American neoconservatives’ responsibility for the nuclear war, gentile whites, when it should have been Zionist Jews, were blamed for the war for their pursuit of American hegemony. There were fierce debates whether preserving the white race was sensible or even permissible, considering their crimes documented by the New York Times’ 1619 Project, the curriculums of Harvard, Yale and the Ivy League universities, and the Western media’s insistence that all white persons are “racists.” Many objected that preserving the white race was the same as preserving Adolf Hitler.

Whites are the people who, according to their own school texts, written by white people and adopted by white school boards, were responsible for enslaving black people, for oppressing women, homosexuals, transgendered people, and people incapable of knowing their own gender. White people were guilty of using gender pronouns, which unfairly limited gender to male and female, a limitation on the species so old as to be biblical.

The relatively few whites who had been living as repatriated lords in lesser parts of the world now found themselves akin to animals subject to zoo keepers. Would they survive as an endangered species or be eliminated as a dangerous species? The richer ones who had gold coins in their personal possession lobbied for laws in the jurisdictions in which they lived that preserved them as an endangered species. In Africa the blacks bred the whites for slaves.

Russia and China, being the hegemonic powers, made the decision that white people would be declared an endangered species as it would be a century and more before their diminished numbers could result in a population of any size. Over this time whites would be educated into permanent self-doubt like the Americans did to the Germans in the 20th century.

Paul Craig Roberts

Is America Regressing to Tribalism?

The Republic of Sudan has 500 ethnic groups who speak over 400 languages. We do not have to be reminded how tribalism has played out over decades and even hundreds of years in terms of conflict and violence. The same disaster has befallen other African countries such as Ethiopia, not to mention other African regions and non-African continents.  Native America tribes often fought each other. Conflict and even wars to the death between tribal collectives are part of world history.

American was founded as an exception. It was based on the principle of individual rights:  everyone was equal before the law and the government could not initiate force against its own citizens. Many modern intellectuals claim to be baffled about what American exceptionalism is, but it is simply the principle of rights. It is not pure democracy as such—not just voting—but a republican form of government. The Constitution protects individuals from mob rule.

With some exceptions at certain periods, almost everyone was welcome.  America was a country of immigrants. Between 1820 and 1996 there were over 61 million immigrants from over 40 countries and territories. The ideal was for America to be a melting pot—a place where people with radically different backgrounds and traditions would have equal rights and could live peacefully together, intermarry if they chose to, and make their way economically through free trade. They were free to have their own traditions and neighborhoods within the limits of the law.

To a great extent the melting pot has been a success. There are 200 or more Christian denominations in the U.S. and all world religions are represented. People are free to be agnostics or atheists. There is freedom of philosophy, but no state religion. We are officially a secular country. Religious traditions are allowed, but they may not contradict the Constitution. Everyone has the same rights and is bound by the same laws (though, in some cases, unfortunately, there are religious exemptions from the law). All races are represented in the U.S. (Race is defined by DNA, but many people have DNA from more than one race).

This is not to say that the path has always been smooth. The first issue that had to be addressed in America was slavery. Slavery eixisted since the first written records of human civilization.  It was imposed on us by the British when we were a colony. The Declaration of Independence and the American revolution made slavery morally impossible. It was ended, heroically, by means of a bloody civil war. But we know that racism (sometimes accompanied by violence and by discrimination in the private and/or public sectors) did not just go away, though things have drastically improved over some 160 years. Blacks have been the worst but not the only victims of injustice. (The U. S. passed an anti-lynching law only recently). Jews have been discriminated against for thousands of years all over the world. Franklin Roosevelt, though he had Jews in his cabinet, turned away a ship loaded with Jews trying to escape the Nazis and they were later killed. There were Jewish quotas for admission to universities and professional schools in the US. Japanese citizens were put in internment camps during World War II. Anti-Asian quotas exist today in educational institutions. In recent years street violence has been directed at people of every race, some of which is due to a cultural decline with emotionality replacing reason in every aspect of society. (A minority of police today are biased against bothbali Backs and Hispanics. Police reform, including better selecsmtion, training and discipline is necessary). Immigration has been limited time and time again over the years and still is now.

A popular movement today demands “social justice,” which means that every collective must come out the same in results with respect to its percentage in the population. “Diversity” means getting the percentages “correct.”  But observe that this requires that people be treated unjustly. For example, Asians must be (and are) discriminated against in school and university admissions, because they are too competent. Some of their spaces must be given to those of different races just based on a numbers game. In contrast, blacks, on the average, are to be held to lower standards in education and employment compared to others in order to get their numbers up, thus depriving more qualified people of those spots. This is social injustice.

There is no basis for to assuming that all disparities between collectives in every job category or profession are due to racial discrimination. Many factors could play a role, among them cultural factors such as the value placed on education and family traditions, not to mention the use of role models and personal attributes including interests and passions. The diversity movement is a revolt against merityou are not to get what you deserve which means that it is a revolt against reality because everyone does not have the same skills, abilities, and energy. Members of a racial collective are not interchangeable units but individuals with the faculty of reason, which includes volition. There is no such thing as group rights.

It should be noted that there is another arbitrary element here. Which collectives are to be chosen for specials benefits or penalties? Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian are not the only possible collectives. And what of mixed races? What percentage of each racial DNA puts a person in a favored or disfavored group? Is the government to be the arbitrary of the correct racial mixtures? What about non-racial collectives such as the overweight, the weak and the uncoordinated in sports, the tone deaf in music, the dyslexic in reading, and so on. How would this work? Obviously, it would have to be based on which collective has the most political pull.

As I noted at the outset, all this pushes us in the direction of tribalism, even tribal warfare. If it comes, this will be the end of America. It will be a regression to the primitive.

Edwin Locke

Watching the Western World Dissolve Into Nazism

How is it that in the exceptional and indispensable USA, a former American president can be denied his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech by a private communications company?

How can a mere private company cancel the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

How is it possible that the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the lowest American can depend for a former US president on who owns Twitter? And Facebook? And Google? And the New York Times?

How can Americans, especially conservatives, think they live in a free country when a former president of the United States can have his Constitutional Rights cancelled or granted by a private company CEO?

Isn’t this a case of the “private sector” controlling the government?

How can any people be free when they are denied access to facts, open debate, and truth?

The head of Homeland Security, a Nazi-era institution now assuming a governing role in the USA, has established a US Ministry of Truth with the power to shut down all who challenge the official narrative. How is it possible that a presidential administration dares establish in the USA a Nazi-era Gestapo institution with the power to cancel truth? And still be supported by 45% of the population? How can a country with 45% of its population completely stupid beyond all belief survive?

What is the matter with “Biden Democrats”? Are they unable to comprehend that freedom, liberty, the rights for which the founders of the country fought for, are at stake?

How can anything be more valuable than truth?

Why are minority rights, racial rights, transgender rights, lesbian rights, homosexual rights, and whatever new rights will be discovered tomorrow, more important, more valuable than TRUTH?

Where are the American people? Where are their elected representatives in the House and Senate? Where are the media, the watchdogs of democracy? Where are the courts, the law schools, law associations, the protesters standing in defense of liberty, which is based in free speech, a constitutionally protected right? Why does no influential group defend the rights granted by the US Constitution? No university or bar association in America is protesting the replacement of truth with elite-serving fiction.

Why do Americans just sit there while an American Nazi, the head of “Homeland Security,” creates an Orwellian state in the USA? We just witnessed in the USA, allegedly a free country, the Biden appointed head of Homeland Security say that his Gestapo agency has the right to determine truth in the United States of America.

In America the respect for truth is so weak that the Nazi is still head of America’s “Homeland Security.” The American Nazi was not fired. He was not even reprimanded for elevating censorship above the United States Constitution.

It is a massive joke than any Western country is a “free country.” As the entirety of the Western World is now thoroughly Nazified, little wonder the Nazified Western governments support, at the peril of their own existence from incoming hypersonic ICBMs, the Nazi regime in Ukraine. Putin is a Russian liberal, and therefore weak, but Putin is not weak enough to allow Russia to succumb to Western Nazism. End times approach while dumbshit Americans worry about transgender rights and the boundaries of Nazi Ukraine. Americans have entirely forgotten their own rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and do nothing to protect them.

Freedom in the West has been thrown into the trash bin of History, not by conquerors but by the West itself.

Russian Intel Chief Reveals What US State Department Has in Common With Nazi Ministry of Propaganda.

Are WE the Generation that Lost America?

The biggest problem with today …

There’s no justice.

We endured COVID fascism for over two years — with no consequences for the guilty parties. Virtually all of the offending governors, mayors and Presidents are still in office. Ready to strike at the first sneeze, so long as it suits their political whims of the moment.

We endured obvious election fraud in 2020. No consequences. All those who benefited from the fraud are in office, licking their chops over their next “reelections.” Anyone who questions the results is silenced. We’ve even got a Disinformation Board in place, headed by a lunatic and backed by the power of the strongest government/military/police of what was once the strongest nation in human history.

And remember Canada? The Prime Minister-turned-dictator not only arrested and imprisoned the peaceful, heroic protesters against that government’s COVID fascism; it froze the bank accounts of the people who gave a mere $10 or $20 to support them. It’s THAT bad. Yet it’s all over now. It’s forgotten. Everyone who did these terrible things is still in office. You can believe they will be worse the next time. They have learned nothing, because there’s nothing to learn: except that formerly free people will now tolerate ANYTHING.

Celebrities, sports stars and corporate executives say stupid, insane, collectivist, irrational and racist things on Twitter. No consequences for them. I’m not suggesting there should be legal consequences for whatever they say. But THEY certainly suggest the same against those of us who dissent. Remember, Mark Zuckerberg pleaded for government regulation. Not because HE wants to be regulated. He believes what our dictators believe. He knows he’ll be safe under their rule; he just wants to make sure that rule is imposed on all of us. Zuckerberg is an undeserving billionaire-fascist. So are all the others — virtually every wealthy CEO of every big company is a Green Fascist/Medical Fascist/Communist. They don’t deserve to do well, or be happy. Yet there they remain — egging on our literal destruction.

Black Lives Matter organized an armed terrorism campaign against America’s great cities, with the open endorsement of the mayors and Governors charged with protecting those cities. Not only did all the killers and destroyers of property go free. Their leaders wine and dine on the finest food and booze in the most gigantic oceanfront mansions on the East and West coasts. They sneer and laugh at their own supporters who funded it all, and who will continue to fund it all.

There is no justice. That’s a demoralizing thing. It takes its toll on the human spirit. The demoralization will ultimately come back to bite the powers that be. At point, in some way, heads will roll. Look at human history: The French Revolution. The Russian Revolution. Many others. Most of these did not lead to better results. The fall of the Soviet empire — a glorious moment back in 1991 — eventually led to Putin.

Probably the only revolution ever to end well was the American Revolution. The benefits of THAT revolution were amazing, and lasted for 200-plus years. And unless everything massively changes and reverses — completely and totally — this will be the generation who lost it all.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Who’s Afraid of Elon Musk ?

Any doubt that many progressives have abandoned their commitment to free speech was erased by the hysterical reaction to Elon Musk’s effort to purchase Twitter and return the company to its roots as a free speech zone. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and “woke” neocon Max Boot fretted that Musk’s commitment to free speech threatens democracy. Those confused by how free speech threatens democracy should remember that for neoconservatives and many progressives democracy means allowing the people to choose between two largely identical supporters of the welfare-warfare state. In this version of “democracy,” those whose views are outside the welfare-warfare mainstream — such as libertarians — are marginalized.

More ominous than the griping of ex-government officials and pundits was the threat of prominent Democratic politicians to haul Musk before Congress. These politicians likely want an opportunity to smear Musk and other supporters of free speech as promoters of hate and Russian (and/or Chinese) disinformation.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin and other Senate Democrats, none of whom seem to have read the First Amendment, are also investigating whether it would be “appropriate” for Congress to force tech companies to “moderate” content on their platforms.

President Biden is not waiting for legislation to ramp up the attack on free speech. His administration has created the Disinformation Governance Board located in the Department of Homeland Security. The board’s purpose is to coordinate government and private sector efforts to combat “disinformation,” with a focus on Russia. The focus on Russia is not surprising since “Russian disinformation” has joined racism and sexism as a go-to justification to smear and silence those whose views (and factual information) contradict the political and media establishment’s “party line.”

Biden’s choice to head the Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, is a spreader of disinformation herself. In 2020, for example, Jankowicz parroted the lie that Russia created the damning materials found on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop. Jankowicz’s résumé also includes stints as an advisor to the Ukraine government and a manager of National Democratic Institute programs in Russia and Belarus. Jankowicz’s background suggests she will never call any lie peddled by the US war party “disinformation.”

The Disinformation Governance Board may not directly censor social media. However, by “encouraging” tech companies desperate to maintain good relations with the federal government to remove “unapproved” opinions from their platforms, it can achieve the same results. This is why anyone who values free speech, which should include everyone who cherishes liberty, should not fall for the claim that tech companies’ behavior is nothing to be concerned about since it does not involve government censorship.

Sadly, some misguided conservatives have joined progressives in promoting legislation imposing new regulations on big tech. Increased regulation will only empower Nina Jankowicz and her ilk to further pressure tech companies to restrict free speech. It will also hurt consumers by reducing the ability to find affordable goods and services online. The only way to protect free speech on the internet is to make online platforms truly private through a complete separation of tech and state.

The drive to censor is driven by the woke mob and authoritarian establishment’s fear that their policies could not maintain majority support if forced to compete in a free market of ideas. This shows that even enemies of liberty sense that the days of the welfare-warfare state are numbered.

Ron Paul, Weekly Column

This is War: Biden Advocates Physical Attacks on Supreme Court Justices

“It is disgraceful,” Senator Ted Cruz said. “And Joe Biden used to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Joe Biden knows it’s disgraceful. He’s literally threatening the lives of these justices by the mob they’re unleashing. It’s the same thing we saw with Black Lives Matter and Antifa riots, where the left embraced them. And now they’re embracing mob violence to get their partisan outcome.”

Thugs and terrorists in suits. These are not your daddy’s Democrats. These are full-blown, legalized mobsters, terrorists and totalitarians. Joe Biden has gone along for the ride. Do you seriously think this can possibly end well? Will an election stop these people?

It’s dangerous.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Ethics of Doing Business in Authoritarian Countries Like Putin’s Russia

As Russia continues its brutal invasion of Ukraine and its increasing atrocities toward civilians are revealed, most of the world is increasing moral condemnation and economic sanctions against the perpetrator. Hundreds of international corporations, such as Unilever, Coca-Cola, and McDonald’s have pulled out of Russia completely or suspended their operations there. These companies have forsaken billions of dollars of their Russian investment. Kudos to all of them.

Although many corporations curtail their operations or pull out of Russia based on what their government’s or the European Union’s economic sanctions require, the reasons to leave go beyond those. Even big tobacco companies like British American Tobacco have come to the conclusion that the moral condemnation of Russia is more important than the large Russian market and their investment there.

Yet, over 200 corporations still resist implementing their governments’ economic sanctions and continue to do business-as-usual in Russia. (A continually updated list of both resisters and those that have pulled out is being maintained by Yale School of Management).

The case in point is the Finnish tire maker Nokian Tyres which owns and operates a manufacturing plant (which accounts for 80% of its production) outside of St. Petersburg. CEO Jukka Moisio recently said that Nokian Tyres should continue its Russian operations because it produces only car tires there. If Nokian Tyres were to abandon its plant in Russia, he argued, it would be used for making tires for military vehicles for the war against Ukraine. In other words, according to Moisio, Nokian Tyres is doing more good than harm by continuing its Russian operations and shouldn’t abandon its significant assets there.

How should these companies’ actions be evaluated morally? What kind of guidance does morality offer to companies about doing business in authoritarian countries whose regimes don’t hesitate to initiate physical force against those who disagree with them, whether their own citizens or those of “enemy” countries?

Most of us understand the importance of morally condemning evil actions and of supporting the economic sanctions that add bite to the condemnations. I suspect that most, including the corporations themselves, perceive forgoing Russian energy (and paying more for the alternatives) and the financial losses from pulling out of Russia as a noble sacrifice necessary to help Ukraine.

Some likely consider Nokian Tyres’ cost-benefit rationalization as practical but not moral, because it seemingly serves the company’s self-interest (maintaining cash flow and avoiding the loss of significant assets).

But both evaluations are mistaken. Each suffers from the same fundamental error: misunderstanding of self-interest.

Nokian Tyres’ cost-benefit calculation does not serve the company’s self-interest. The pragmatic calculation constitutes abandoning moral principles – such as integrity and justice – and financially supporting a murderous regime hell-bent on taking over a peaceful neighbor, for short-term financial gain.

Pursuing self-interest is challenging—but necessary if the business is to survive and succeed (maximize profits by creating value for customers). Achieving long-term self-interest is hard; it requires a consistent application of valid moral principles, not abandoning them. Failing to morally condemn an evil regime – failing to apply integrity and justice – only emboldens such a regime and allows it to extinguish freedom completely. In such conditions, achieving self-interest is impossible.

Those who regard the refusal to buy Russian products and companies pulling out of Russia as noble self-sacrifice are also mistaken. Both actions are noble and moral, but they are not self-sacrifice, despite the short-term hardships and financial losses they may cause.

It is a mistake to do business in authoritarian countries in the first place due to the political risk it poses. An authoritarian government can nationalize foreign companies’ assets, as Iran did to the British and American oil companies in the 1950s (and as Putin is threatening to do now). Or such a government can make companies complicit in atrocities, as Nazi Germany did to German chemical and automobile manufacturers and banks. Or the government can merely funnel money from state-owned oil and natural gas companies to finance rogue, immoral wars, as Russia is doing.

Foreign companies that made this mistake in Russia have been evading reality; they cannot claim that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could not have been predicted. The signs have been there for a long time, even before the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014.

The least Nokian Tyres and other foreign corporations operating in Russia or trading with Russian state-owned companies can do now, is to condemn the Russian government and pull out. The same applies to dealing with the Chinese Communist government and with other dictatorial regimes.

That would be a big step toward a more peaceful and freer world in which businesses can maximize profits and the rest of us can prosper.

Jaana Woiceshyn teaches business ethics and competitive strategy at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Canada. How to Be Profitable and Moral” is her first solo-authored book. Visit her website at profitableandmoral.com.

End the Culture War; Separate School and State

A Florida bill restricting classroom instruction regarding sexuality in kindergarten through third grade has become the latest culture war skirmish.

Supporters of the bill say government schools have no business being involved in this type of instruction with young students. They make a good point. The use of government power to indoctrinate children in certain political and social beliefs — regardless of the wishes of parents — is a major problem.

While the instruction at issue in Florida is associated with efforts of leftists, the temptation to seek to achieve ideological objectives through education policy can be strong among conservatives as well.

The Ohio legislature is considering a bill similar to the Florida bill. Because the Ohio bill applies to private schools participating in Ohio’s taxpayer-funded school voucher program in addition to government schools, conservative legislators supporting the Ohio bill are vindicating the warning of conservatives and libertarians that allowing government to subsidize private school tuition would lead to government control of private schools.

Other conservatives are trying to force schools to adopt a “patriotic” curriculum. This is just as pernicious as leftists’ efforts to force schools to teach critical race theory. Students indoctrinated in critical race theory will graduate believing that white male capitalists are the source of all evil. Students indoctrinated in “patriotism” will graduate believing every bit of propaganda sponsored by the war party and will smear all dissenters from the “party line” as unpatriotic spreaders of disinformation from Russia or whatever country replaces Russia as global enemy number one.

In a free society, parents — not politicians, bureaucrats, or teachers unions — would control education. Parents would decide whether and when their children’s education will include topics like sexuality, race theory, and the evidence for and against Darwinism.

Parents’ demand that their children receive a quality education reflecting the parents’ values could be met by a free market if the government got out of the way. A free-market education system would provide parents with a variety of options, including religious and secular private schools, community-based schools, and homeschooling.

People searching for a quality homeschooling program that incorporates libertarian ideas without ever sacrificing education for indoctrination should look into my homeschooling curriculum.

The Ron Paul Curriculum provides students with a well-rounded education that includes rigorous programs in history, mathematics, and the physical and natural sciences. The curriculum also provides instruction in personal finance. Students can develop superior communication skills via intensive writing and public speaking courses. Another feature of my curriculum is that it provides students the opportunity to create and run their own businesses.

The government and history sections of the curriculum emphasize Austrian economics, libertarian political theory, and the history of liberty. However, unlike government schools, my curriculum never puts ideological indoctrination ahead of education. Interactive forums provide students with the opportunity to interact with their peers outside of a formal setting.

I encourage all parents looking to provide their children with an indoctrination-free education to go to RonPaulCurriculum.com for more information about my homeschoolirobertsng program.

Paul Craig Roberts

The War For Globalism In Ukraine

During the 1999 Kosovo air campaign, President Bill Clinton told Americans, “That’s what this Kosovo thing is all about.… It’s globalism versus tribalism.”

In 1999 very few Americans paid attention to Clinton’s remarks. Kosovo was yet another conflict on someone else’s soil with little or no relevance to daily life in America. Frankly, Clinton’s use of the word “tribalism” probably confused many Americans. To most Americans, nationalism means devotion to the country, the U.S. citizen’s readiness in crisis or conflict to place the needs of the country above the citizen’s own. American nationalists aren’t tribal. They want to protect and defend the United States, its historic institutions and the rights embodied in its laws, not start wars.

The term “globalism” has since evolved to mean much more than free trade and comity between nations. Today, the Western nation-state and the nationalism it inspires are condemned by globalists as the sources of prejudice, exclusivism, and war. In retrospect, Clinton’s use of the term “globalism” is in continuity with the Biden administration’s proxy war against Russia.

To Washington’s contemporary ruling political class, globalism involves more than purchasing products manufactured by cheap labor in non-Western countries. Washington-led globalism now promises the dissolution of traditional political and social forms of human organization—national governments, borders, identities, cultures—and replaces them with a world of consumers united only by their dependence on amorphous corporations, unaccountable non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and supra-national institutions.

Put another way, globalism is now synonymous with the progressive left’s view of the postwar liberal international security order that must expand to survive. Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine is the globalist scheme to transcend the continuity of history, culture, and geography embodied in the nation-state, to homogenize disparate peoples in the process of assimilating rapid social and technological change. In this sense, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent call for Washington and its strategic partners to establish global control of Russia’s nuclear weapons aligns nicely with the Biden administration’s progressive globalist vision.

And therein lies the problem. Nations and their peoples do not evolve in a vacuum, nor do they surrender their existence without a fight.

These points should alert Washington to the fact that its proxy war for globalism in Ukraine involves national identity, a dynamic force that stirs the deepest human emotions. Yet it is not just two kinds of nationalism, Ukrainian and Russian, rooted in language, culture, and history, that are in conflict. Washington’s brand of globalism, dressed in the guise of NATO expansion, directly challenges Russian national identity and culture. It is Russia’s unique geographic role in linking European and Asian civilization, as well as its Orthodox Christian culture—a belief system enshrined in Russia’s current state ideology, foreign, and security policy—that are imperiled.

In light of U.S.-led NATO military interventions in the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it is fundamentally dishonest to pretend that NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s western border is benign. But it is far more dangerous to ignore the truth that, in Moscow’s view, NATO expansion into Ukraine is inextricably linked with the extension of globalism to Russia.

Statements by the U.S. Secretaries of Defense and State that Washington wants to “weaken” Russia make it clear that Washington’s allegedly benevolent “rules-based order” is of no benefit to Russia. In fact, the statements simply confirm in Russian minds the belief that the U.S. is a co-belligerent in Ukraine’s war for NATO expansion.

Perhaps even more important is the suggestion that Poland, NATO’s proverbial wild child, would provide so-called “peacekeeping forces” to Ukraine. It’s no secret to Europeans that Poland dominated most of Ukraine for nearly 400 years, or that Moldova, though technically Romanian, spent 300 years as a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire. Washington’s apparent readiness to introduce revanchist Polish forces into Western Ukraine and, potentially, revanchist Romanian forces into Moldova suggests that Washington’s globalists will do anything to harm Russia even if it involves advancing the territorial ambitions of Russia’s historic enemies.

War still tests the legitimacy of those who govern inside the warring states, as well as the resilience of their societies. This observation applies to the Biden Administration as much as it does to the governments of Zelensky and Putin. As he presides over fiscal crisis, scarcity, and rising criminality in America, and displays his willful ignorance of Eastern Europe and its peoples, President Biden and his supporters on the Hill are stirring a regional pot that could quickly boil over with dangerous consequences for Washington and its NATO partners. As Sigmund Freud wrote of Biden’s “internationalist” predecessor Woodrow Wilson, Biden “has a marvelous ability to ignore facts and believe what he wants.” However, it’s much tougher now than it was in 1917 to pull the wool over Americans’ eyes.

Washington actively cultivated Ukraine’s war with Russia for many years, harnessing Ukrainian nationalism—the incendiary force globalists claim to loathe—in service to their cause. It worked. Now the same globalists are prolonging the war with arms, advice, and encouragement, even though Ukraine is being destroyed.

In the last 30 years, Washington’s overemphasis on military assistance and intervention in the pursuit of regime change has drawn the U.S. into conflicts and crises in the Balkans, the Near East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia. American nationalists are not responsible for the current war in Ukraine or the last three decades of Washington’s self-defeating wars. But American nationalists are needed now more than ever to stop the globalist war to destroy Russia before that war spreads like a cancer across Eastern Europe. 

Douglas MacGregor

The Times We Live In (from Voices of the Past)

“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days … Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

**************

“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

— Edmund Burke

In other words: Snowflakes will not embrace freedom.

**************

” … our particular problem in the present day … is an overwhelming tendency toward conformity … In such times ethics tend more and more to be identified with obedience. One is ‘good’ to the extent that one obeys the dictates of society … It is as though the more unquestioning obedience the better.”

— Rollo May, writing decades ago with perfect clarity about the reality of 2022 in America, and everywhere else

*************

“The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie.”

— Mark Twain