Therefore, Russia is fighting in Syria on a number of levels: we are actively taking up the fight against global and hegemonic aspirations of the U.S.; we are protecting our own national and Eurasian security interests by fighting the enemy before it can come to us; we are preserving Europe ahead of its decline because such a development would be harmful to us as well."Why we fight in Syria." By Alexander Dugin, Manuel Ochsenreiter – Journalist, 11/12/15.
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Russia's goals in Syria.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This was a sudden insight for me. For some reason, I had always envisioned the (very dangerous) globalist International Socialist horror to be a nebulous oligarchy that met occasionally in Swiss chalets in the mountains of Europe. It never occurred to me that the rest of the world might consider them to be the United States. We who are fighting these people, down here in the weeds, aren't terribly visible to other countries except online – but the MSM cant that is exported to the world is unremittingly globalist, and arrogantly so.
Are there strategic implications to this insight that we can be pursuing? Or am I just really, really late to the realization?
There are plenty of socialists and communists in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand to work their magic. Diana West is very good on the betrayal of America and the failure of the Western "victors" to deal with communists in the way they did with Nazis. The communists got a pass and have never been called to account for their immense crimes. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the next ten years of action movies to come out of Hollywood will feature Nazis or neo-Nazis as the locus of evil. Stan Evans had the last word on McCarthy and he and West make clear that McCarthy was more right than he ever even imagined.
It's clear that America has been deliberately transformed by the Supreme Court which has obliged all manner of congressional and executive usurpations. The massive, destructive federal government was never part of the original constitutional scheme so facilely abandoned by the "living Constitution" traitors.
The power that has been handed to the bureaucrats, politicians, and crony capitalists is proving to be our death warrant for all of these are beyond the reach of voters eager to dish out retribution. These traitors are deeply committed to this joke of an oligarchic scheme under which we suffer and, more to your point, are besotted with the idea of globalism and hatred of the nation state. They are not Americans as you and I have thought of the term. Ryan's and the Republicans' capitulation on the budget bill show how we have become a one-party state that doesn't even lift a finger to ensure the health of that state.
I have been dismayed by the recklessness of what we have done in the Middle East since 9/11. It was necessary to do something after 9/11 but we started off by doing the bizarre in Afghanistan and Iraq with the "nation building" nonsense and it's gone downhill since. (The absurdity of attacking Iraq is clearer now but even then you had to scratch your head at the patent diversion that it was. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been our enemies but we did nothing to them.
Bush wasn't a malevolent soul though I fume at the damage he did to "conservatism" and the attendant enormous waste of opportunities. He's not the only one to fail to come up with a coherent, long-term foreign policy. We do have a long-term one now but it sure isn't coherent.
The lies and the arrogant meddling that are part and parcel of our present actions in Syria lead me characterize what we are doing as unclean. Vietnam was a righteous endeavor and should have had a different result had the politicians left it to the military instead of writing terrible rules of engagement. The current policy in Syria is just despicable and are something dreamed up in some think tank back in Washington. Given the huge distortions in our once representative government it's all the more clear that its something that doesn't represent the best of America.
cont'd . . . .
cont'd . . .
Brzezinski (?) appears to have advocated for a foreign policy of American hegemony for no other reason that we should be top dog period full stop. That there can be other competitors in the world seems to be anathema to proponents of this policy. It's clearly formulated, too, to advance the Wahhabi agenda. As I say, I don't discount native European swooning over Muslims (see Bat Yeor) but it's not hard to believe that the U.S. is responsible for supporting governments that are compliant with Saudi wishes. Manuel Ochsenreiter elsewhere in his blog has written of the extent to which Germany is still an occupied land, all the more so since the reason for American troops in German evaporated with the fall of the USSR.
I read something by Anthony Sutton this morning that argues that big capitalists were delighted to support the Soviets because it is easier for American monopolists to deal with central governments and because they believed that the Soviets would not be as efficient as more laissez faire states are and hence would not be troublesome competitors. Wilson, he points out, helped out Trotsky by giving him an American passport.
So, our America has been transformed into a socialist, globalist tumor with a very thin veneer of ineffectual representative government for decoration. What to do about that is a tough question because it's far from clear that Westerners are invested in their civilization and the most obvious facts about Islam simply do not penetrate as far as their voting arm. See my Meisterstück "Is Europe Dying?" of 12/21. Where can you get excellent analysis like that for free, I axe you?
The frame of reference now is STILL socialism is affordable and can meet the needs of people given the wise leadership that smart, educated people provide. There's the strategic imperative -- change that thinking before economic collapse and Muslim over-eagerness do it for us.
Post a Comment