The West, to those of us who once felt fortunate to live here, has clearly taken leave of its senses. As though it hadn’t enough truly urgent, overwhelming internal problems, it is upping the ante, daily and substantially increasing the risk of nuclear war. At root, it no longer believes in or acts upon what were not long ago believed to be universal principles applicable to any nation in the conduct of its foreign policy. To Wit: every nation decides for itself under which circumstances it may survive. It defines for itself what constitutes existential threats. Seems straightforward enough, no?
Within the living memory of many of us, in 1962, the United States (in full charge of “The West” as used here) risked nuclear war with the Soviet Union over placement of IRBM’s in Cuba, because it deemed them to be an existential threat. In retrospect, this matter has several important lessons - all of which will receive “memory hole” treatment by our so-called “media”.
Lesson one - though most successfully propagandized out of existence (“fake news” at the time ignored their presence), in its arrogance the US believed itself fully entitled to place IRBM’s in Turkey, Italy and England in 1960 - 1962. Lesson two - this US belief that placement of such missiles represented a rational response to the “missile gap”, which also turned out to be fake news - because said gap was averred to represent an existential threat to the US. Lesson three - if you are defined as an adversary of the US, by the US, only the US - again in its utter arrogance - gets to determine what constitutes your existential threats or red lines.
In other words, since we now understand the nature of our rulers far better than we did back then (when they still recognized some minimal limitations on their domestic powers), the deep state believes it can bully other nuclear-armed states in the same way it now dominates and bullies its own population; it thinks it can run roughshod over Russia as it does over us! Russia is not allowed to consider Ukraine historically (and correctly) a part of itself so as to make preventing its NATO membership worth a fight to the death. Our elites - obviously - believe NATO membership for Ukraine worth risking all of our lives!
As if the war we have been conducting against Russia via Ukraine up to this moment isn’t enough, daily now, the government in Washington (itself alien to most of us) is supplying itself with sufficient fake, illegal votes harvested and purchased with tax dollars from the southern non-border (you didn’t think that’s an accident, did you?) to remain eternally in power forever; simultaneously, it is supplying Ukraine with ever-longer range missiles for use agains Russia.
It is an open secret that NATO “instructor” crews are present and firing said weapons (Ukrainians are not capable of doing so, such is their sophistication/difficulty) ever farther into Russia. As well, it is known the US/NATO are providing real-time intelligence and targeting. In other words, we are committing direct acts of war against Russia. Were Russians undertaking similar acts against the US/NATO, there is no doubt they would be labelled "acts of war. But that would be in a world where universal principles are recognized.
That is no longer the world we are living in. We live in the one where we in the US have been reduced to cows (the state is undoubtedly glad we don’t fart, even as we are mulcted for the resources to defend Ukraine’s borders, while the alien state in Washington destroys our own). By aggression against Russia via Ukraine - and make no mistake, inviting Ukraine to join NATO is aggression plain and simple (thereby risking nuclear war with Russia - since Russia has the audacity to define its own existential threats and not be bullied by the apparatus which so effectively bullies us) we have now become beeves rather than milkers, in practice, by our own government. It has in effect made is into nuclear “cannon fodder”, into ashes-in-waiting in the zero-sum game it instigated with no national interest at stake beyond bald aggression. Nail:hammer::world:Washington. Q.E.D.
Oh, as if Ukraine isn’t enough of an existential threat to Russia to risk nuclear war - in the last few days, NATO is threatening to place nuclear weapons in Poland! BTW, do you recall NATO’s promise to “not move one inch eastward” when the Warsaw Pact dissolved in 1991? That also received memory hole treatment as more than a dozen former Pact members were invited and went right ahead and joined NATO. Russia didn’t object - likely as it had sufficient internal problems and couldn’t resist even if it wanted to. None of those countries, however, had the history and affinity of Ukraine, especially the eastern portions and Crimea. Putin has discussed this extensively in his cogent speeches.
It seems there are some people in this world, unlike our own pitifully-tractable population meekly submitting to its own destruction and replacement by its own rulers, who believe there are foundational principles applicable to all nations - like self-definition of matters key to their existence. They likely also consider the foisting upon them of “woke” conduct of their own domestic and foreign policies to be existential threats. They are prepared to effectively resist them - unlike us, who have already submitted in cow-ardly fashion.
First we were made into milkers - the fruits of our labors misappropriated into ever more federal power over us -, then transformed into beeves. Instead of being consumed as nourishment, however, our herd may simply be turned to ash in a nuclear exchange in service of a sociopathic ideology. We submitted to our own rulers who acted, they said with our consent. That, in the crumbling nation whose dominant sociopathy in which we are now immersed, was also fake. We pawns can only hope for some non-nuclear resolution. Such a possibility, however, seems to not interest those who rule over us.
None of this should be interpreted to be supportive of Russia’s present leadership. I do not believe this to be the result of one man’s foibles or leadership. I do not believe - as the MSM and the elites frame it - as Putin’s war or his “fault” or that he wants to re-establish empire. These are straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks with little meaning. It is clear to those willing to see objectively, that the large majority of Russians support the regime’s aims and they are not conquest. Much of the desired goal has been met, in the repatriation of culturally Russian, Russian speaking populations of eastern Ukraine and maintenance of warm water access via Crimea. A recognized, enforceable mandate for a neutral (western) Ukraine could end this war promptly. There is no important US interest in Ukraine in NATO. Period.
I would go farther in limited fashion (numerous books have been written on this topic). The US, Western Europe and Russia are natural geopolitical allies when it comes to religious fundamentalism’s history and trajectory. If there is to be anything resembling freedom in the world’s future, traditional (since its beginning) expansionist Islam must be effectively resisted. Regardless of its early contributions to mathematics and science, it is presently schooling the world in (mostly) non-violent conquest. This is obvious to anyone with open eyes when it come to Europe, which is clearly in the throes of a societal suicide. The mechanism is clear: a native population birth rate which is significantly below replacement plus uncontrolled, un-vetted “immigration” which has characteristics and constructive and even explicit intent of invasion.
Oh! YOU"RE such a RACIST! ISLAMOPHOBE! SHUT UP! End of discussion. Actually, were it possible to have a discussion rather than reflex ad hominem attacks, I would say the problem is not at all racial or ethnic. The problem is cultural. The history of Western Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture shows it eventually gave rise to improving self examination/self criticism, abolition of slavery, individual autonomy and material prosperity. Yes, two world wars were necessary to preserve that project. These Western societies have long been willing to accept large numbers of legal, vetted immigrants who wished to acculturate to the degree necesary to co-exist as peaceable neighbors. Such people were accepted, ever more fully over time. Not only were they not required to abandon their ethnic practices/traditions, but many became incorporated into the host’s culture and even celebrated. That, in passing is true “multi-culturalism”, not the coerced fake version which more resembles a societal cancer.
The simple fact, known to all who actually witness facts on the ground, is that the present mass migration/invasion in the West is not in the tradition of prior substantial, vetted, legal migrations. Who Are We by Samuel P. Huintington clearly outlines the differences. Now, rather than a melting pot with cross pollination of cultures, new immigrants - especially illegal ones - remain outside the host culture and increasingly do so intentionally. Regardless to their origins, they come not to flee political persecution (this is the second illegal act - the perjury - they swear to avoid immediate deportation because the “law” actually encourages them to do so, even as they obtain a “legal” claim of tax funded benefits [flights with no ID, cell phones with apps to avoid being caught by ICE, and ca$h]) or to integrate into their new residence. Rather, they intentionally remain in closed communities of non-English speaking majorities, which provide no incentive to even try to learn English, to fit in or even slightly acculturate. Actually, a main activity is to game the system which currently mulcts the taxpayers for billions of dollar, and to obtain fake Social Security numbers if they do wish to work - to remit money back home, i.e. to not contribute to our economy as lots of fake economic “studies” show how “great” they are for our fabulous economy.
YouTube even gives us further insight into how some of these enterprising folks (whom we should be glad to have a neighbors) behave. One guy has a viral video on how to steal a citizen’s home by squatting. In Europe, there are more than a few videos explaining how remaining in closed non-native-speaking communities and getting welfare benefits, is a valid form of jihad - aimed at eventually bankrupting the host society! All this open, in public, actually bragged about. In short, many of these “immigrants” come to the naive West, not to flee a corrupt oppressive society (as in “freedom from the river to the sea”), but to conquer the Western society, albeit with only the violence of random crimes - which are rarely even punished. Rather, the raped native woman is told she shouldn’t have gone “there”. I.e. to the “No Go” zone the populace is regularly told do not exist.
As I said, this ongoing conquest is hardly a secret. Those with the guts to go into "non-existent “no go” zones can easily find jihadist materials and even books of instructions of how to obtain maximum “benefits” from the openly-despised hosts. In short, in the West, formerly humane and generous immigration laws permitted decent conditions for immigrants who wished to become part of our culture. Now, the majority of these newcomers wish no such thing. They come as despising conquerers, aligned the the woke minions who reflexively hate the West which coddles them and the Jews whom whey’ve never even met.
So, actually, you can easily discern that the West’s actual interests align rather well with Russia’s when it comes to a future which might possibly exist with some traditional notions of freedom. Though Russia has a long way to go, it has moved in the right direction, having live most of the 20th century in an oppressive dictatorship. If you read Putin’s speeches, you will find always cogent (though reasonable people can surely disagree - unlike Biden’s utterances) and tolerant statements on the subject of “wokeness”. He expresses neutrality as to such. Something along the lines of "Live however you like - God Bless you - just don’t expect us to go there with you. Nonetheless, Russia, I believe, has as many domestic problems as we have. I believe its culture favors gradual social progress with fits and starts - as ours has been. Unlike us, it accepts its checkered past but does not reject its present organization from its founding as is presently fashionable here.
In my assessment of the threats to individual liberty’s continuance, The US, Western Europe and Russia represent the most fertile soil of cultural and structural “stuff” for that possibility as seen by long-term trajectories. If each of these societies can set aside their own seemingly insatiable lusts for power over their own people and each other, they are capable - together - of successfully resisting a new structural form of tyranny - one which combines religion and state. This presents an insoluble problem for western leftists. The latter have no problem attacking Christians and Jews, who have long acceded to separation of religion and state. Yet, when it comes to Islam, the left despises and attacks anyone who points out the obvious: it is an total world view which completely integrates religion and state. It is by definition totalitarian and the very things the left condemns in everyone else: it is statist, exclusionary, supremacist and intolerant of any other viewpoint or question. Methinks the left’s blindness as to Islam is a bad case of envy. That is exactly the kind of power for which they, themselves, lust.
In sum, this religion/statist - supremacist worldview is ascendant in fervor, self-confidence population and spread. If current trends continue unabated, in the coming century the former West will become an Islamic State writ large with nukes. Christianity still banned in Saudi Arabia, where there is not one single Bible or Jew. The only possible hope I see to to prevent this would be an effective alliance between the US, Western Europe and Russia. They might combine the confidence/fervor of Orthodox Christianity, actual multiculturalism of the huge Russian Federation with similarly huge material resources with the diffidence of Europe and self-mutilation of the US and yet become again an entity with the will to survive. Yes, it’s probably a pipe dream. But some pipe dreams do come to fruition or survive actually awakening.
EPILOGUE - I want to stress that however “politically incorrect” are any things I have said, I do not engage in identity politics. It is pernicious and is being cynically used to divide us. I believe the various groups with which you identify primarily are only a small component of who you are as a human being; each of us can be characterized in many ways and none of them can be a complete description of you. Accordingly, I do not take any one component as a complete description of who you ARE; you are many things. I regard every individual as an inherently valuable human being, regardless, who has equal potential - for good or ill. The superficial appearance of that individual has no bearing on how I may eventually come to accept or judge him/her. (Yes, I do make judgements - as does everyone who is honest in discussing this. At the very least, I decide how close or distant I wish to be with any person for reasons I don’t always know or make explicit). That’s what I understand when I say or see written “equal in the eyes of God”.
I do not judge your value as a human being; only God gets to do that. I have no interest in the conduct of those parts of your life which are or should be (under the norms of this society) done in private. Similarly, I am interested in your spiritual and/or religious beliefs to the extent you wish to share them with me or discuss them. I don’t care what your sex is, whom you love, what clothes you wear, or how you identify yourself. I will take you at face value and you receive from me the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, I may be unable to accept someone who transgresses my own boundaries when it comes to personal interactions. If you’re an immigrant, I would be glad to hear your story, get to know you as an individual and learn your perspective on life. Meeting people from different backgrounds is one of life’s pleasures.
If you hate me because your religion explicitly requires it, I have no problem with you practicing your religion as you wish and if that includes you avoiding me, that’s fine. If on the other hand, for scriptural or any other reason you want to harm me, you can expect me to avoid you and resist being harmed by whatever means you may make necessary. It follows that any true immigrant (= an individual who wishes acculturate or become “part of” this as a new society - i.e. to accept a few established principles common to all - merely such principles required to be a peaceable neighbor) from any culture is welcome by me, provided (s)he respects and wants to become part of this host culture and behave in a socially decent manner. I think it is fair to say people here are tolerant and accepting of others from any origin.
Immigrants are perfectly welcome to retain various practices and beliefs of his/her original culture to the extent they do not conflict with this host’s culture and laws. To arrive and voice displeasure with, or act to undermine the host culture or its policies, may be construed as ingratitude by your neighbors. You should understand that while it may be legal to do so, you can expect such activities to not sit well with your hosts. Some of them may dislike or shun you for it. What would happen to me, for instance, if I immigrated to where you just left and did the same thing? Maybe it it would clarifying to pose a hypothetical: suppose I immigrated to Saudi Arabia and put a “COEXIST” bumper sticker (with its various symbols) on my car? This epilogue is merely to answer any open-minded inquiries regarding my attitude toward individuals who leave one country for this one. I may view groups differently than individuals, particularly if a given individual has political agendas of a group whose politics I disagree with (often funded by other groups with other political agendas). Group affiliations - especially if vehement and insistent and intolerant - may or may not affect the degree to which I accept a given individual.
This entire epilogue is only relevant to those amenable to discussion of possible differences on many issues. Those unable to discuss the merits of issues and who can only accuse those who differ of moral inferiority will find it, or indeed any view different from their received wisdom, unhelpful. So be it.
Please excuse typos, misspelling, faulty editing. I plead old age and fatigue.
