The Coming Battle

 

In the midst of the election circus, whether we are participants or simply onlookers, it's easy to forget, at least for the moment, the much more profound and deep-rooted problems that plague our society, and that no candidate – no “winner” in the looming election – is thinking seriously about. And, in fact, no matter who “wins”, and who is sworn in in January (not necessarily the same person, note), these problems will remain, and will remain insoluble.

It's happened over and over again throughout history. A society commits itself to a given world view and the actions that view inspires, and by the time the sheer folly and stupidity are exposed it's too late – that society has to undergo radical change or complete annihilation – and history is replete with examples of each.

The point at which it's too late to prevent catastrophe is sometimes referred to as the “inflection point”. In our case – in the case of the American Empire – that point has been reached and passed. Precisely when it was, and why – when the scales were tipped – can be debated. The war in Vietnam is certainly a good candidate, because our defeat (yes, that's what it was -- let's not quibble) in that war was, or should have been, an opportunity to drastically alter our world view. We could have gone from missionary zeal – from “spreading democracy” – to a much more modest (dare I say humble) point of view, accepting that we are one among many, and it's really not our business to convert the world to “democracy”, or whatever it is that means, any longer. (One might say we were committed to spreading the myth of democracy, as opposed to the real thing, which we are becoming worse at with each passing day.) Add to this that the world doesn't really seem to appreciate our efforts any longer – assuming they ever did. Oh sure, they don't mind being bailed out of their own foolish wars by Uncle Stupid, and basically becoming welfare recipients for generations. (There is no pride in that, and no shame either. But when's the last time anyone in Europe spoke about pride, much less shame?) It's really a marvel when you consider how well off we still are, economically, given that we've been hemorrhaging wealth since World War II, and it invariably winds up in pockets of foreign leaders who are even more corrupt than our own.

But, as a wise man one said, if something cannot go on forever it will end. The American economy may not be on life support quite yet, but it's showing plenty of wear and tear. Plus, the elephant in the room is the national debt, much of which is held by foreign entities. This is something no one wants to talk about (have either Trump or Harris mentioned it lately?) because it's beyond intractable – it's hopeless. It will never be repaid -- not in ten years, or a hundred. And it is the direct result of folly – of our being overextended overseas and wildly optimistic on the domestic front.

But then – if the situation is genuinely hopeless – would anybody, especially any foreign entity, government or otherwise, want to “own” a large portion of our national debt? Simple answer: You own the national debt, you own the U.S. It's that simple. The amount of leverage involved.... well, consider what happens when a man is hopelessly in debt to another man or a bank. They basically get to run his life. They get to dictate terms, and if he doesn't like it they call in their notes and... well, we don't have debtor's prisons any longer, but we do have bankruptcy, which amounts to the same thing in many respects. What it means is that you're no longer trusted to manage your own affairs, so someone else has to do it for you. You're in receivership, in other words.

But for all that, the national debt, while intractable, is only one symptom of an even bigger problem, which is that the government has adopted – fairly recently in the scheme of things – a globalist view. The American economy, and the American people, don't really count according to this point of view. What counts is that we have become part of an empire larger than our own. The problem is that some of our elite may have thought that we could just move in like some mob boss and take over, and everyone else would have to dance to our tune. The models for this include the (failed) League of Nations, which, basically, boiled down to us and some other guys, i.e. we were supposed to be the leader of the pack. Then you had the United Nations, which is still around, although it can be debated how much good it does (or has ever done), and that was us and some other guys until enough of those other guys got together and started to vote against our interests. (Oops! That's not what we had in mind. Too late now... )

And then there's good old NATO, the ultimate “us and some other guys” organization, which has now embarked on a war with Russia with Ukraine as the battleground. And so far the “other guys” seem to be in favor of it all, since they are a whole lot closer to Russia (geographically) than we are. We have talked them into thinking that Russia is an existential threat to them because they (Russia) want to reclaim some pieces of the eastern Ukraine. Today Donbass, tomorrow Germany, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, etc. (They really believe this! Or at least they say they do.) And besides, they have been asked to contribute little or nothing to the effort; it's all on us (shades of Vietnam, anyone?).

And yet, at the same time our politicians seem to pay a lot more attention to the globalists in the European Union than to our own citizens. Their loyalties have gradually morphed, over time, from American Empire (which is at least an “America first” attitude) to Globalist Empire (which they fancy is, as always, us and some other guys, but they may be in for a surprise).

See, any empire is a good thing as long as we're in charge. And it doesn't matter how many sacrifices have to be made on our own domestic front – it's the glory and power that count. But what if it turns out that the new Globalist Empire is run from Brussels, say? (What has Belgium ever done for us, anyway? Don't ask... ) Then we are no more than a subsidiary – and possibly a wholly-owned subsidiary (remember the national debt?).

But wait a minute. I call it a globalist empire, but how global is it, really? It consists of the EU, the U.S., and the other English-speaking countries (Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and probably a handful of Pacific islands). It's kind of like referring to the final baseball games of the year as the “world series” when all the teams are from the same country. We also have what is called (patronizingly, by us) the Third World, which starts at the Rio Grande and extends south to Tierra del Fuego, plus Africa and Asia. But there's a new kid in town, namely BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China – Russia having been the leader of the forgotten Second World during the Cold War).

Population-wise, BRIC is overwhelmingly bigger than the Globalist Empire (formerly the First World), and is catching up fast economically. To which we must add – another topic most of our politicians would rather avoid – the significant gains China has made in terms of taking over major sectors of our own economy, including technology, the social media, and large portions of agricultural land, not to mention their influence in our higher education sector. Add to this the “fentanyl war” which reminds me of nothing so much as the Opium War of times gone by. They are using a powerful drug as a weapon against our society on all levels, and we seem to be absolutely helpless to stop it, because secure borders (land, sea, and air) are, you know, racist, selfish, uncaring, etc. etc. So yes, China is taking over, by hook and crook, and nothing is stopping them (not that it has anything to do with the number of our politicians they have purchased on the open market, of course).

But now wait a second. China is coming on strong from across the Pacific, and the globalists are coming on strong from their stongholds in Europe. At what point do they wind up “toe to toe” – with a shootout (literal or otherwise) at high noon, to determine who's in charge, and who gets to carve out which pieces of the American economy (and, in turn, impact our culture in every way)?

And please note that there is no, repeat no, resistance to this from the vast majority of our elected officials, or the deep state, or most major economic sectors (not to mention the mainstream media, who are hard-core globalists). We have officials who have been bought off by China, others who are totally committed to the globalist agenda, and for all I know some who have dipped into both pots (not really a whole lot different from Third World leaders during the Cold War who took bribes from both us and the Soviets).

You know... when I look at this picture I start to wonder if the whole idea of treason has become totally outmoded. When our leaders are competing to see who can sell us out the most, and the fastest, and who can render us weaker and more vulnerable to potential enemies (other countries, but also non-state organizations) you just have to wonder – has “America” already slid into the category of myth (or worse, the ash heap of history)? Is what appear to be suicidal policies (open borders, defunding the police, pointless foreign wars, national debt, etc.) now the fashion, and if so what does our elite want? Well, they want power – first, last, and always – and all that goes with it. And they may put on some temporary muscle by joining forces with globalists, but China? Really? If history serves, when a hostile power takes over a given country they may enjoy the cooperation of collaborators for a while, but before long they realize that collaborators are, by nature, deceptive and unreliable, so they wind up getting eliminated in short order. In other words, if they betrayed their own country they're certainly capable of betraying occupiers.

And here's the paradox. Our elites want power, but they are also hell-bent on destroying what many would consider to be the essentials of American culture – not only in the present day but in terms of history, tradition, ideas, and so on – things we have always regarded as our strengths. So... cultural suicide and power? Seems like a contraction, until you reflect on what the effects of a vanishing culture are – namely disorientation, confusion, depression, fear, helplessness, and – the real key – desperate motivation to look to government for answers... for solutions... to bail us out... to relieve our intolerable fear. Our elite have tried the old “carrot” technique – basically bribe the citizenry into complacency (include games and circuses if you like, as well as drugs, alcohol, and sex without consequences) – but that hasn't sufficed, so now it's time for the “stick” – namely fear. They fire up what I call the Fear Machine -- and the mainstream media are the primary component of this. That will unite the country! Well, it will turn most of the citizens into abject, quivering balls of protoplasm, which means they will be easily ruled and exploited. And yes, our elites would rather rule a slave state than a nation of free, proud, and independent citizens; this is what it's come to. (In this, are they different, in any discernible way, from the ruling elites of communist “people's republics”? Not that I can tell.)

So this is the coming battle. China and the globalists have staked various claims, but so far they've been careful to avoid a confrontation. But how long can it last? Each side wants it all, basically. The United States, as troubled as it is on many levels, and as close as it's coming to being a failed state (it has already reached that point with its borders), is still the pearl of great price, in a sense – and a lot of this has to do with our hubris – with our insistence that “democracy”, American-style, is the answer to all the world's problems (with the ironic result that, over the years, we have variously supported pseudo-democracies, monarchies, and dictatorships in order to “spread democracy”). At best, the rest of the world has taken us for naive and idealistic, but also dangerous, fools, while at the same time throwing themselves on our charitable impulses (including fighting their wars for them). But it looks as if they are finally getting tired of that game, and that it's time to assert themselves as distinct cultures, and to toss off the yoke of Americanization. The American ideal may have been at least tolerable for a while – an acceptable contribution to the dialogue, and offering opportunities for exploitation – but they can see how shopworn we have become, so it's clear that those ideas have long outlived their “pull date”.

But if the above is true for the Third World, what about the globalists? Don't they still believe in democracy? Don't they have “democratic” governments, by and large? Well, I guess you could say they have pseudo-democratic governments, the way we do. But the decisions are made by an unelected elite. We have our deep state, and so do all the countries in Europe, and so does the E.U. (In fact, the E.U. is totally out in the open – it's not “deep” at all. It's overt rule by bureaucrats.)

And this, in fact, is why we are able to merge so seamlessly into the Global Empire. It's a military/industrial/intelligence entity, and so are we. It may not be long until even the illusion of democracy is no longer considered necessary – you know, silly things like elections, Congress (or parliaments), an independent judicial system, etc. These are the habits that we cling to in a sentimental manner, the way an impoverished formerly-wealthy family will try to “keep up appearances” until even that seems transparently futile.

And on the other side of the globe we have nations and cultures that consider democracy a foolish and half-mad idea. They are committed to raw power, as they have been for millennia, and China is a prime example. So if it ever comes to a showdown between unabashed believers in raw power and those who insist on maintaining illusions of democracy, guess who is more likely to win. (Another way of putting it is that American democracy is a house divided against itself, and I suspect European democracies are similar.)

But this is a conflict of historic proportions, and the battle is not yet joined. At this point, the opposing forces are being assembled and prepared for battle, while regional wars, i.e. proxy wars, are being waged by both sides. Right now we are fighting a war with Russia using Ukrainian troops. But China is helping Russia, and even North Korea is sending troops into the fray. Russia is fighting what they consider to be an existential war, and we are fighting not so much on our own behalf as on behalf of the Globalist Empire, which we fancy that we are in charge of – but if that's so why are we the only ones spending billions on the effort? Aren't we, basically, economic cannon fodder? Where are the European countries which, you would think, would have much more to fear from Russia than we do? Well hey, if you can get someone else to fight your wars for you, then life is good, right? So as always, they are cynically taking advantage of Uncle Stupid, because we are the ones with ideals. We are “defenders of democracy” and they are just normal countries that unapologetically pursue their own interests.

One factor which has not escaped the attention of people with a sense of history is that China is extraordinarily patient when it comes to foreign affairs. They don't insist on instant results. They would rather fight a war of attrition if possible, they prefer proxy wars to direct conflict (think Korea and Vietnam), and better still prefer to fight a war on the economic, vs. military, level. And this is precisely what they are doing at this point, with the exception of whatever aid they are providing Russia (no troops, you'll notice, unlike their attack dog North Korea).

It bears mentioning that there are a few “wild cards” out there, and they may exert a disproportionate influence in the matter. Iran is one, and they are clearly more aligned with BRIC than with anyone in the West. The other is Israel, which has the full support of the Globalist Empire (even though Israel, per se, cannot be described as strictly globalist – they are too concerned with their own survival to be distracted by anyone else's utopian schemes). So the Iran-Israel conflict is a precursor, or beta version, if you will, of the larger conflict that is looming on the horizon. Whether that conflict will accelerate the onset of the larger conflict is a good question. I suspect both sides (i.e. the globalists and BRIC) would prefer to keep it “local”, but things do have a way of getting out of control (recall that World War I started in Bosnia). But there are, it seems, “cool heads” on both sides – China with its legendary patience and the Globalist Empire with its bureaucracy. They're not about to do anything to jeopardize their ambitions for world domination (or even half-world domination). No one in their right mind wants to wind up ruling an ash heap. (I doubt if too many people in their wrong mind would want that either. Even the most abject anarchist wants to wind up in charge of something.)

What am I saying? That cool heads are preferable to hotheads? That, as Winston Churchill said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war? Yes, but with the stipulation that the opposing sides have some moral sense, or at least some vestigial human inpulses. I'm not sure that would be guaranteed in this case. Not only does power corrupt, but it changes human beings into something less than human.

And maybe, after all, these two entities will get together like Mob bosses divvying up cities like Chicago, and cut America up like a Thanksgiving turkey, or a beached whale, or a diagram on a butcher's wall. The process is underway, and has been for a good while, and there is every sign of it picking up speed. Whether it gets settled relatively peacefully, or reaches and then exceeds critical mass like a faulty nuclear reactor, remains to be seen. The ultimate basic question is this: Will either side be satisfied with only half the world, or will they get grandiose and insist on the whole banana? We have seen what happens when empires start getting global ambitions. It's the same dreary trajectory throughout history. In this battle of pachyderms the U.S. is likely to be more of a victim than a “mover and shaker”, and this is something we aren't at all used to, but we may not have a choice. For the first time in our history, we are caught between two opposing forces, but what makes it unique is that a good portion of our politicians are on the side of one or the other of those forces. The number who hold out for our independence is in the minority, which means that most of those in power have given up on the idea of the United States as a sovereign nation, and the greater pity is that the bulk of the citizenry seem to agree – without consciously realizing it in most cases. (Or, let's say that, at the least, they don't disagree, which clearly has an influence in elections.)

It's hard enough holding a nation together that one believes in. It's impossible if that belief has been fatally compromised and replaced with apathy, indifference, greed, and adherence to “strange gods”, e.g. globalism.

History will judge whether the world was better off with us in charge (of much of it, if not all), but that can't happen until we are definitively no longer in charge and are willing to take an honest look at our history, and that day has not yet arrived.

Make Social Media, Not War

There's a grain of truth to the notion that “the Russians” (including NGOs and private citizens as well as the Putin regime) “interfered” or “meddled” in the 2016 election. But there's a mountain of falsehood to the notion that their goal was to put Trump into office. Based on the evidence that Inspector Hound, AKA Robert Mueller, and his team have assembled (or chosen to ignore), it can just as easily be argued that their goal was to put Hillary Clinton into office. But if the real goal – as is becoming more clear with each passing day – was, as has been noted by many, to demoralize the American public and shatter their illusions as to the soundness and legitimacy of our electoral system, and of our political system in general, then one has to admit that they've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Mission accomplished! And while Russia stands securely as a political monolith with Putin at the top, American politics has been shattered into a million pieces, and Americans have been politicized, fragmented, and set against one another in a way not seen since the run-up to the Civil War. Even the 1960s pale by comparison. And this has been accomplished without a shot being fired.

The main instrument of all of this has been – irony alert! – the so-called social media, which didn't exist in Cold War times, but which have been effectively weaponized by countless parties, and none more effectively than those seeking to create havoc within the American enterprise. After all, didn't we invent the social media? I clearly remember when the Internet was no more than a gleam in the eye of DARPA (no, not Al Gore). It began with ARPANET, which was intended as a tool for the Defense Department, and was dreamed up by the smartest people on the planet at that time. (Well, OK, the smartest people in the U.S. Or the smartest people in the government, whatever.) Back in the 70s when I was working in DoD, DARPA was this mysterious place right across the street, and it was spoken of in hushed tones, like these are the people with huge brains who are way ahead of the technology curve and who are sure to make a difference. And what a difference! Whenever you hop on the Internet to play around with Facebook or Twitter, just remember that you are mere fleas on the backs of giants.

So here we are 40 years later, and it seems like our old enemies have moved in and used our tools against us. And there's no doubt as to what benefits this provides to the new post-Soviet Russia – and to China as well, for that matter. In the current version of The Great Game, the sides have come into sharp focus over the years since the end of the Cold War – or let's call it Cold War I. We have, first and foremost, Russia, which staggered through the drunken haze of the Yeltsin years when the new oligarchy was being created, and emerged – tanned, rested, and ready – to once again assume a dominant role on the world stage. Then we have China, which has done the impossible, namely come up with a hybrid system of political communism plus aggressive economic capitalism. It's almost as if they've taken the main platforms of the Democratic and Republican parties over the decades and merged them; how do you beat something like that?

Another major player in all of this is the EU, which, along with its predecessor organizations – let's give credit where credit is due – has kept the Western European nations from cutting each other's throats for many decades now. Now, one can quibble as to whether the EU is an organization of equals, the way the U.N. is supposed to be; some will say that it's simply the latest manifestation of the German Empire – call it the Fourth Reich. But if so, it can at least count peaceful coexistence among its accomplishments, unlike the previous Reichs. (This may simply be a sign that, at long last, economics has emerged triumphant as the main motivator and model for Europe, as opposed to the nationalism of old.)

Then we have what are called “non-state actors” – globalists on the one hand (not unrelated to the EU, but with a much larger vision and a more comprehensive strategy) and “terrorists” on the other. It turns out that Islam was not taught a lesson as a result of World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire; and sure enough, the radical Islamists have a renewed caliphate as their long-term objective.

Then we have Israel, which is the sine qua non of American foreign policy, having been unceremoniously dumped in our lap by Britain. And their continued existence is not unrelated to terrorism, since it constitutes a thorn in the sides of Muslims everywhere. And after all, don't all of our politicians regularly recite, like some kind of litany, that there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel? So why shouldn't anyone with a grudge against Israel also have a grudge against the U.S. (and against lesser “crusaders” or “Franks” like France and England)?

But wait – doesn't this add up to at least seven distinct entities? Isn't that kind of messy? After all, the Cold War had the merit of being, basically, two-sided, with China pretty much sitting it out, the globalists quietly drawing up their program in Brussels, the Islamists hitting the books in madrasas, and Israel making do (up until 1967) without the West Bank. And the Cold War was fought relatively quietly like the chess game that it was, with overt conflicts confined to proxy wars (Vietnam being an exception since it was "proxy" for them but first-hand for us).  It was by no means a calm, peaceful era; it just seems that way compared to what's happening now.

If you insist on sticking with the two-sided Cold War model, you can say that Team A is us, the EU, globalists in general, and Israel... and Team B is Russia and China, who have apparently sat down and divvied up the “turf” like gangsters in Old Chicago. But you still have the “terrorists”, who seem to be bugging everybody, but Team A more than Team B. (Maybe it's because Russia and China have time-tested ways of dealing with that sort of thing, whereas we and the EU are still groping around trying to figure out “why they hate us”.) Israel, of course, knows full well why the Islamists hate them, and are completely unapologetic in dealing with them in any way that seems appropriate – much to the occasional dismay of the U.S. (not so much the EU, which is famously non-judgmental about these things).

But there is one thing that everyone but us has in common – an overriding shared interest, if you will – namely to cut the U.S. down to size. (And actually, a large portion of our political class wants the same thing.) So Russia makes inroads in the Ukraine... and China buys up the lion's share of our national debt... and the EU continues to take advantage of our largess dating from the post-WWII era. And the terrorists manage to stir up trouble faster than we can dispatch troops or bombers to deal with them. (It is they who have, in effect, provided us with an excuse for waging perpetual war and keeping our economy on a war footing. And they don't seem to mind. In fact, they like it, because it vindicates their rationale for waging war against the West.)

The rest of the world is, in effect, treating us like some senile, doddering billionaire in a Hollywood movie – basically clueless and hemorrhaging wealth, but dangerous nonetheless. It's a war of attrition, if you will – and China, patient as always, is waiting for the day when it will be advantageous to call in their chits. Great bites have been taken out of the Soviet Empire of old – but they're being cagey, so far, when it comes to reclaiming them (the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine being the only exceptions – call them trial runs if you like).

So, bottom line, everyone is waiting for Uncle Stupid to break his hip and be moved into the dementia ward – but in the meantime they're doing everything they can to hasten the day, and that includes – ta-da! – using our very own social media to sow doubts among the citizenry.

It's been said that the reason the Soviet Union collapsed was that “the termites quit holding hands”. But we have our own termites in the form of political movements, some dating back more than a century. The American Experiment ran aground ages ago; some will argue that it ended with the Civil War. But there was a tremendous amount of energy that persisted, and that ultimately took the form of the American Empire. But that too has run aground, and some will give the war in Vietnam credit for that. And yet the energy persists – and the most remarkable thing is that the American economy can continue to support, and the American people continue to put up with, the continuing high level of folly and catastrophic loss of national wealth attributable to our foreign policy. Any other empire would have collapsed, been carved into pieces, and been put up on the auction block long since – and yet here we are. (Anyone who spends any time thinking about “sustainability” has to look upon this phenomenon with awe; it defies all the laws of economics and politics and yet there it is.)

So yes, to the extent that the Russians (and who knows who else) mounted an “attack” using the social media (and other media as well), it was designed to disrupt, and to cause consternation and dismay, but it was indifferent as to the results of the 2016 election, because that didn't matter. Trump may turn our home-grown “Resistance” types into gibbering psychotics... and he may step on a few toes in the EU... and he may huff and puff at Russia and China, but in the long run it's the same dreary story. Russia and China can put up with the huffing and puffing, and the EU can put up with a few bruised toes, but the terrorists are undeterred... and the globalists seem to get their own way no matter who's in charge. Can anyone seriously claim that Hillary would have done anything significantly different? Oh sure, if you're talking about domestic policy, but to the powers that be – those who play The Great Game -- America's domestic woes are noise level. What counts is not who does what to whom, or to what degree, but the level of fragmentation and – most importantly – the loss of national identity and political will (factors intimately tied to the immigration controversy). Identity politics, on the other hand, will be with us no matter who's in the White House, and it's only going to get worse. (Please recall Obama's, ahem, success at promoting racial healing.) Identity politics is a fragmenting, alienating, divisive phenomenon, which means that our enemies are all for it, and will encourage it as much as possible.

So we have, in a sense, a paradox – we are eating ourselves alive, which seems to be a domestic political matter... but it's being aided and abetted by powers and entities beyond our borders. And even at that, think of how many times over the years we've mounted our own “interference” campaigns against other countries, regimes, and leaders. There are karmic factors in play here. And why are we always the ones who talk about “regime change”? It's because we like the idea and because we're good at it (or, at least, used to be). Other nations and leaders who talk about “regime change” in the U.S., as they are doing non-stop these days, are missing the point. If there's a Deep State that is bent on sabotaging Trump, or anyone else who might occupy the White House, it's hidden in the bowels of the EU, the Kremlin, and the Forbidden City. Our own Deep State is simply, knowingly or not, doing their bidding.

The idea is to get the U.S. out of the way once and for all. Then the rest of the world can go back to doing what it does best, namely trying to kill each other.

Russian Gossip

Senator Harry Reid is not exactly enamored of the truth, but he let something slip the other day that is more significant than it might sound. If a Republican had said it, it would be called a “gaffe”, but since the Democrats/liberals invented the term and have declared themselves the sole authority on what is or is not a gaffe, we can't expect the label to be applied in this case.

So according to a Washington Post article (published on July 30), “...Reid has suggested that Trump's murky ties to foreign interests and general inability to not speak his mind should be reason enough for the people briefing him to make things up.” The briefings in question are those provided to presidential candidates by the intelligence community, and supposedly include “classified information about the government and our foreign policy efforts.”

Let's dissect this statement by Dingy Harry (Rush Limbaugh's apt nickname) for a moment. “Murky ties to foreign interests”? I guess that doesn't include the countless millions the Clintons have received from foreign governments in order to gain “access”, whatever that entails. “General inability to not speak his mind”, means, in language used by most humans, that Trump speaks his mind. Imagine! A politician actually coming out and saying, in public, what he really thinks. Pass the smelling salts. No wonder the Washington establishment is worried sick; in the unlikely event he becomes president, he might carry this unsavory habit with him into the White House. It could, for starters, be the death of diplomacy (a skill which Hillary Clinton demonstrated so well as secretary of state, ahem).

But the real gem in all this is the idea of the intel people making things up for consumption by the president, or by a presidential candidate. One would almost think that this is a new idea, and that it's never been done, or even tried, before. Never mind mere candidates; my theory is that, on the contrary, most presidents in our time, since they are figureheads and empty suits more than anything else, have been deceived on a regular basis by the intel people, and probably a lot of others as well (the military comes to mind, but also “lifers” in the State Department and elsewhere). Do you honestly think that anyone is going to share information vital to national security with the likes of George W. Bush? (And what would he have done with it if he'd had it?) I imagine similar things about Clinton (soon to be known as Clinton I) and Obama. Contrary to Bush's self image as “the decider”, I don't think presidents in our time “decide” squat, basically. They are front men... scapegoats, when necessary... and sock puppets for the Regime. Whatever they think they've “decided” has already been decided; the trick is to play along with the game and not let them in on it (although I suspect that some of them finally start to catch on, but by then it's too late). (And what are they going to do, go on live TV and announce to the nation, “I'm nothing but a stooge”? That's not the way their minds operate; delusional systems are way too powerful to put up with a dose of reality of that sort.)

I've long been convinced that the last president who had any real authority, and who exercised it, was Lyndon Johnson. He always seemed to be in charge, and always seemed to be willing to do pretty much anything to get his way... and he had an unmatched ability to intimidate -- in other words the ability to scare everyone else shitless, basically. He was America's last true tyrant. All of those who came afterward were organization men at best, heads of committees, and spokesmen for the Regime... and they were studiously kept away from real people... from the masses, the hoi polloi, the unwashed – just as Trump and Clinton are at present. They are kept in their respective bubbles until the election, at which point one of the bubbles will burst and the other will become even more impenetrable as the next administration gets under way.

So why not tell our illustrious candidates even a little bit of the truth – just a harmless secret or two? You know, to keep up appearances. Well, Dingy Harry's fear is that Trump might blab it to the Russians, and the Republicans' fear is that it might wind up in Hillary's e-mail, and thus in the hands of the Russians. So the Russians are behind both of these people's perceived vulnerabilities when it comes to keeping secrets! Who said the Cold War was over with? Maybe I'd better clear the scrap lumber out of my fallout shelter.

NATO Blinks

One of my favorite pastimes when it comes to the “news” is reading between the lines. Any story – especially when it comes to foreign affairs – has a top layer, i.e. the story they are hoping the gullible public will take away and not ask any embarrassing questions. But they can't totally suppress the full significance of the story; in other words, if they just killed it outright it would leak out anyway (thanks to the Internet, “talk radio”, etc.) and thus arouse suspicions. So they present a harmless and non-threatening bit of pap, hoping that will satisfy – and they're right, by and large. It's the old familiar news cycle – you announce a “crisis” but before people start to panic you proceed to announce that everything is under control, more or less – that our betters in Washington, or wherever, are discussing the matter, and are working hard, and that there's no need for alarm. “Concern”, yes – alarm no, and panic, certainly not... just enough uncertainty to cause us to run, once again, and hide behind the flowing, copious skirts of the government.

One thing we tend to forget is that “freedom of the press” also includes the freedom to edit and manipulate, and process actual events through a conceptual sieve so that only the stuff the Regime deems “fit to print” is openly revealed. It's a much more subtle process than outright censorship – and to give credit where credit is due, the “public” has become a bit more sophisticated over time, and not quite so willing as it was in the old days (say, the 1950s) to take what the media put out as the whole truth and nothing but. This is what makes the game fun – you read (or hear, or see) what they want you to read, but if you dig down a layer or two you're much more likely to figure out what is really going on. This is especially true if we're willing to question the assumptions that always lie behind any news story – which is to say, the unstated premises that we are expected to accept without question, and without even knowing that we're accepting them.

Of course, each of us has to choose his level of focus, and hard-core “conspiracy theorists” assume that there is no truth whatsoever in anything the media (or their political masters) have to say – that it's all propaganda, in other words. And they may be right! We may all be living within the Matrix, and may all be totally deceived at all times. The top few layers of any story may be entirely lies and fabrications, and the truth may be in the trembling hands of a few lonely fanatics. (I think this is actually the case, for example, when it comes to JFK, and 9-11, and pretty much anything that happened during the Clinton administration.) The problem for the media is that, beyond a certain point, the party line defies all credibility, so they feel they have to provide a watered-down version that might accidentally contain some nuggets of truth, as a kind of anchor to reality. Otherwise, it starts to sound like total fiction and is perceived as such by an uncomfortably large minority – as, once again, happened with 9-11, but also with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. When government actions have “scam” and “hoax” written all over them, it's hard for even the most sincere-looking and -sounding news anchor to make them seem well-intended. It's a delicate balance – way more delicate than the one the Soviet media had to maintain, where dissenting voices were pretty much blacked out. The illusion of a “free press” depends on a meticulous sampling process, where a few things that we know (or believe) to be the case are mixed in, in order to lend credibility to the whole.

And so it is with the latest news out of NATO. You remember NATO, right? Also known as “the U.S. and a bunch of other guys”. This otherwise-boring organization was supposedly the bulwark between the West (read: freedom, democracy, prosperity, etc.) and the Evil Empire (read: slavery, dictatorship, poverty, etc.) -- and when the Evil Empire collapsed of its own weight... well, NATO should have voluntarily disbanded, right? But of course that's not how things work, because international bureaucracies, just like domestic ones, acquire a life of their own, and like the most aggressive parasite or tumor exert every effort to expand without limit and insure their survival – and one of the most favored means of doing so is what is called “mission creep”. NATO quickly acquired a new mission, which was to absorb as many as possible of the Soviet subject states – the Warsaw Pact first, and then the former Soviet republics... right up to the gates of Moscow, if possible. Thus, we had the “color revolutions”, and there were so many that we started running out of colors. (I understand that the next one in line was going to be plaid.) The premise, of course, was that, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia was going to be left a rusted hulk, dead in the water and totally helpless. Never mind all this talk of “hegemony” and “spheres of influence” -- we won, dammit, and to the victor go the spoils, etc.

Well, this was to, as usual, underestimate the stamina and rootedness of the Russians, and of their post-Soviet administration, all of whom were trained under the Soviet system. Please remember that the Soviet Republic did not undergo a revolution – of any color. They simply saw the handwriting on the wall, decided to cut their losses, and voluntarily retreated back into homeland mode. They did not give up on the idea of spheres of influence, and they certainly didn't write off all of the ethnic Russians spread far and wide (as a matter of policy) throughout the former empire. The dream was to get them back one way or another, the same way that Hitler's dream was to unite all Germans, no matter how dispersed, into a mighty empire.

Thus, the background – in the broadest terms – for much that has happened since, in 20-plus years. Russia did not disappear, and it would have been foolish to expect it to. But they became, let's say, a bit more realistic than they might have been at the height of the Soviet era, when it came to questions of their military strength, economic power, political influence, etc. They became more subtle... more nuanced... less ham-handed. We, on the other hand, were determined to finish the job, and with nostrils flaring proceeded to bring the former Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet republics into our own sphere of influence – primarily through economic incentives. And the source of those incentives was, of course, the European Union, which had already turned Western Europe into a kind of gray, murky stew run by bureaucrats in Brussels – an empire in its own right, where old-fashioned notions of religion, ethnicity, tradition, and economic (including fiscal and monetary) independence were unwelcome. And most of Europe bowed its collective head and shuffled into the deracinating machine, which pleased the nerds in Brussels immensely. Even the various economic meltdowns of the less-disciplined countries (the “PIIGS”) were welcome, since that rendered them debtors and second-class citizens who had no choice but to submit to Germany.

And thus a new German – oops, I mean European – empire was born. Finally, Europeans were brought to heel and protected from their own follies. And we in the U.S. were all for it. But then a funny thing started to emerge – the reality that, even though we had at one time rescued Western Europe from Hitler and turned Eastern Europe over to Stalin, the Europeans were now running the show. The international financial cartel and the banks were either headquartered in Europe or taking orders from Europe – and that included our own hallowed Wall Street as well as our government. So rather than being the most ripped dude on Muscle Beach, we found ourselves more in the role of a slightly retarded servant, with the shots being called in Brussels, Zürich, and other power enclaves in the Old Country.

Are they smart, or are we stupid? I think it's a bit of both. For all of its follies of the past, Europe is, nonetheless, the seat of economic, political, and social wisdom (by current standards) – compared to which we are still acting like newbies – naive, impulsive, prey to delusion and folly. They know they can pull our chain any time they want to – and they do, with great relish but also with the subtlety and elegance which we lack. Think of it in historical terms. In the long run, the small and smart always wind up dominating the big and stupid; this is the way of the world. It's downright Darwinian in its significance and its implications. And in our time, when information (in the broadest sense) is more important than ever, the people who are masters at manipulating information will inevitably dominate – and the people who prefer to use their fists will inevitably become servants.

But as I already tried to imply, as smart as the E.U./NATO types are, they might have gotten a bit too excited when it comes to bringing all of Europe up to the Urals under their spell. And what they are running into with Russia is all of the old bogeymen – those atavistic, terrible habits that were supposed to have long since wound up on the ash heap of history – namely race, ethnicity, religion, language, and tradition. Call it by any number of parallels – rootless cosmopolitanism vs. loyalty to place... sterility vs. vigor... anemia vs. full-bloodedness... and so on. Russia is a blast from the past, and it's parked right on the eastern end of a Europe that was supposed to be run by faceless bureaucrats and be perfectly happy about it.

Now where do we (the U.S.) come in? As I said, the tables have been turned, in a very subtle way when no one was looking. We were in charge of NATO... we were the saviors of Western Europe... and the E.U. was supposed to follow our orders, um, “suggestions” when it came to any major issues of politics or economics or social policy. But all of a sudden it seems more like we're taking orders from them. And one consequence of all of this is the (to us) jaded, cynical, decadent European way of doing things has crept into outfits like NATO. To put it in a nutshell, Sarah Palin was ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia (in order to “keep America free” -- how that was supposed to work is anybody's guess)... and now NATO has announced that they are no longer interested in “expansion”, at least until further notice. Which means... what? No more color (or plaid) revolutions? Hands off Georgia. And they're hesitating about the Balkans as well. So it looks as if the “sphere of influence” idea is alive and well... and let's admit, the term has no meaning if there's only one sphere.

I'd like to think this wasn't just about Putin scowling at them from his office high atop the Kremlin. I'd like to think it was the realization that the E.U. has become unwieldy as it is, and that the pushback from some of its less cooperative members has confirmed that impression. And I'd also like to think that the E.U. has been less enthusiastic than we are when it comes to applying the spoils system to Eastern Europe. Does this mean they're more realistic than we are? Let's just say that provoking a major conflict is a lot easier when you're an ocean away from said major conflict. European wars have a funny way of happening in Europe – which is why we prefer them to, say, a war on our own soil. We're perfectly happy being provocateurs, cheerleaders, and arms merchants when citizens of other countries are getting killed or otherwise inconvenienced... and so we tend to get indignant when they start having second thoughts. Plus, as I've said, they are, in many ways, much more in charge now than we are. So they will, more and more often, leave us sputtering and fuming over here while they get on with the daily tasks of keeping themselves in one piece... or in many pieces, but with (relative) peace.

The Guttering Torch

What does Vladimir Putin have in common with Richard Nixon? (pause) Give up? Well, they caused exactly opposite reactions from American liberals, but over the same issue – or, the same general issue, historically speaking. Taking Nixon first, he earned everlasting hatred, rage, and condemnation from American liberals for his “outing” of Alger Hiss. All of the subsequent hostility – over Vietnam, Cambodia, Watergate, etc. was – albeit there were some intrinsic justifications – based on that singular event years earlier. He exposed Hiss for what he was – not only a traitor but a member of the Eastern elite Ivy League establishment... a person of privilege whose dream it was to enslave the masses and establish himself as their ruler (or one of their rulers). And if he couldn't do it here (at least not right away) he'd help the Soviets do it in Eastern Europe.

And nothing could have been more of a contrast than the smooth, elegant Hiss versus the awkward, overly-serious guy from the boonies of California with the ski nose and the five o'clock shadow that set in around noon. Culturally and in terms of pedigree, it was David vs. Goliath... and Goliath was brought down, but the damage had been done, and he became a martyr for the left right up to the present day.

Hiss did, in fact, exemplify the dream of communists of the elite or “theoretician” sort as it always has been; everything else they promote, advocate, and fight for is a means to that end – total, crushing control. And this, in turn, is based on their self-created aura of superiority and entitlement. They pretend to love “the masses” and “the people” but, in fact, they despise them and want nothing more than to thwart their ambitions, dreams, and individuality, and make them march in lock step into the brave new world. And not a small part of this is their utter alienation from normalcy and willful lack of understanding of what makes regular people tick. What they find, much to their chagrin, when -- on rare occasions -- they go slumming and wade among the unwashed masses they pretend to worship is that most people are not “idea people”. They are much more likely to be committed to the old ways and the old values – you know, things like family, religion, ethnic group, and, yes, race. They typically conform to the standards and customs of their group, but have little interest in becoming “international” or “global”. And it's this attitude that offends collectivists and totalitarians of all sorts, and it's this which they go to great lengths to stamp out – offering, in its place, contrived entertainments and bogus “diversity”, on a foundation of unrelenting propaganda churned out by the media.

Sound familiar? Well, liberals in our time are infected with the same ailment, although they may not be as obvious about it as the old-time Bolsheviks. Someone has commented that “communism is socialism with balls”, and it's absolutely true. There is not a single socialist or liberal or “progressive” program that, taken to its logical conclusion, would not be an essential part of a communist regime, past or present. The problem, over the years (and we're talking close to a century now), is that bright ideas that filter down from academia by way of political activists tend to cause a bit of pushback when they start to impinge on regular people; seek no further than the recent vote against unionization on the part of VW workers in Tennessee. Oh sure, the masses (working class, “labor”, etc.) may enjoy some of the benefits of socialism, but they eventually find out there's a price to be paid, and that's when the deal goes sour. We have in our time the disorienting (to liberals) phenomenon of regular people up in arms (figuratively – so far) about big government and all its pomps and works. These are the same people who would have been on the bandwagon during the New Deal (possibly out of sheer desperation more than being enamored of the ideas). But suddenly the working class is biting the hand that pretends to feed them – even to the extent of joining forces with the always-hated middle class, AKA bourgeoisie, in protesting against government meddling in their everyday lives. So activists (union organizers in particular) in our time are starting to feel mightily thwarted – and they're getting downright paranoid (like, it's all the Koch brothers' fault, or Fox News, etc.).

Liberals in our time cannot come out and be “pure” socialists, let alone pure communists. They have to pull their punches a bit (though not always, as witness Obama's frontal attack on Catholic institutions re: the provision of “family planning” services). But their ideals – their ultimate goals – remain as always. All one has to do is apply a bit of logic and historical perspective to any given case. The ObamaCare program, for example, clearly has as its ultimate goal the elimination of any form of private health insurance, and its takeover by the government. They won't admit this in so many words, but that's clearly what they have in mind. But this has to be accomplished in small steps – the frog in the hot water thing again – or they might encounter too much resistance. And once you eliminate private health insurance, it's only logical to eliminate private health care, and have that taken over (not merely regulated, as now) by the government as well. Nationalized, in other words – but they will avoid that term and deny that's what they have in mind. (In fact, note that there are no longer any such people as “liberals”; they are all “progressives” now. Word magic!)

Sometimes the line between regulation and nationalization is so thin and ambiguous that it might as well not be there as well – the mortgage industry and rail transportation come to mind. (And forget about the post office!) But again, these are all temporary stages; everywhere you look the squeeze is on. What it adds up to is that liberals are in a perpetually-compromised position – their ideas vs. the reality – and so it's no surprise that they seem to go around with a permanent attitude of frustration and hostility. If their ideal is total control, and their means to that end is class warfare, then it's small wonder they never seem to relax. They never have a nice day, because there's always another battle to be fought and another outrage against “fairness” to be dealt with.

Let's turn the clock back a bit and adopt a historical perspective, because this process has been going on for decades... lifetimes, in fact. But in the midst of all this struggle – this frustration – over the years, there was always at least one shining light, glimmering in the distance... one thing with which to identify and validate one's ideals... one thing to pin one's hopes on. And that thing was the Soviet Union, and the “New Soviet Man” that had been created out of the dust of the earth to engage in the perpetual struggle against ideas of race, religion, and class... and to aspire to a society that would have “fairness” as its highest value. “Fairness”, or “social justice”, is the everyman's version of “reason”, which was enshrined by the French Revolution and has been trickling down from academia and intellectuals in various forms ever since. “Science” -- especially “political science” (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one) -- has always been on the side of the greater good of man, right?

So how to create the New Soviet Man out of the fractious and skeptical working classes of America? First through propaganda, and then through some political and material gains – some short-term, some illusory, but enough to get everyone to sign onto the program in perpetuity. Witness the working-class people here in Pittsburgh who wouldn't vote Republican if their lives depended on it, because they're a “union family”, and besides, they promised their father on his deathbed – you know, the guy who fought in the Battle of Homestead. And never mind the fact that union bosses and politicans are getting fat off their hard-earned union dues, and when doubts do arise they are quickly squelched through social pressure and hypocritical appeals to loyalty. Problem is, the same people, and party, that was a “friend to labor” in the old days is now attacking their families, their values... even their church. This great schism seems to have begun, like everything else, in the 1960s – and we now have phenomena like that rarest of rare political animals, the “pro-life Democrat”. The thing is, the regular folks – the “cultural Democrats” -- simply don't have what it takes to fight in this new war, so they turn on the TV, pop another beer, and try to pretend everything's OK. And these are the people, by the way, who never wanted anything to do with the Soviet Union (especially if they came from one of its oppressed minorities, which many in this area did); that romance was left up to the union leadership.

So we had this phenomenon, starting, basically, with the Cold War, where people at the top of the cultural and intellectual totem pole were still starry-eyed in their regard for the Soviets. But the farther down said totem pole you went, the more skepticism and realism you encountered, until the guys at the bottom could hardly have cared less, except for the few oddball misfits like Woody Guthrie. But it's the cultural elite that frame the debate and write the history books, so when Tricky Dick (see, I'm finally getting back to him) came along, even though his exertions might have been applauded – possibly in secret – by the average American, the elite were appalled. In fact, now that I think about it, this might have been the very thing that set off the culture wars of the 1960s, or at least an imporant factor. The battle had been joined. Now, this culture war was fought on many fronts, but certainly far from the least was that of politics – not just the usual domestic debates but the much bigger, broader picture. What sort of country, or society, do we want to be? Apparently that question was still being asked nearly 200 years after the founding (as it still is today). We thought we had the answer during the Progressive Era, but that seemed to run out of steam after (perhaps because of) World War I. But then came the New Deal, and that was – at long last! -- the answer, or at least an answer. We found that we were on the same path as the Soviets – just a few decades behind due to cowardice, hesitation, and inertia – clinging to old-fashioned ideas. It's hard to imagine these days, but there was a time when socialism of some sort was accepted as not only the wave of the future, but really the only thing that made any sense. And we had two models to choose from – the Soviets and the Nazis. Apparently this was not a difficult choice to make, and it would be in bad taste to argue that the two systems had more similarities than differences. World War II, of course, only served to confirm the correctness of our choice, and all was well until this thing called the Cold War got started – and please remember that the American left was, by and large, on the other side all during the Cold War. They weren't all providing direct aid and comfort to the enemy, but they were certainly rooting from the sidelines, and not always sotto voce. Their efforts were muted a bit during the Korean conflict, because it wasn't crystal clear that the North Koreans enjoyed moral superiority... but there was no such hesitation when it came to China, as there had been none with regard to Russia. Now communism was the wave of the future, and we were just retarded – but a few guitar strums and folk songs would awaken the sleeping masses, surely.

Now, I know that the foregoing might seem like a rant, and terribly unfair, etc. Well, it is a rant – and didn't many of the communists and hard-core socialists have good intentions, even if they were somewhat naïve about human nature, etc.? I'm not saying this is impossible, but in my encounters with communists (“small c” at least) and serious socialists, I have yet to encounter any with unadulterated good intentions. Behind that humanistic mask there always lurks, on some level, a “class warfare face”... some resentment... some sense of personal hurt or affront. “Somebody did something to someone – usually me – and that's why I feel this way.” And frankly, the communists and socialists I knew in college – a veritable hatchery for political liberal activism – were, by and large, operating on a quite infantile level. They hadn't yet learned to make their viewpoints even mildly palatable, so were reduced to throwing tantrums much of the time. Hey, I can only speak from my own experience, OK?

Plus, I think what we're seeing now, in American politics, is not even some species of socialism in pure form, but a combination of cynicism and power-madness. It's enough to make one nostalgic for the likes of the recently-departed Pete Seeger. You see what a man (or woman) is truly made of, morally and politically, when they acquire some power... and when I look out across the political landscape all I see is a cynical ruling elite and the people who've sold out to them. And what this means to me is that pure socialism can neither stand the light of day nor avoid being co-opted... which means that's it's a weak, unsustainable system, and only kept alive by people's infinite capacity for delusion and wishful thinking.

(The best thing I can say about the left is that they have always had better music, posters, art, and movies. They are geniuses at packaging, in other words; what's in the package is another matter.)

OK, back to Nixon (as the fool returneth to his folly) – his great crime was that he outed Alger Hiss, and in the process exposed many of the less savory aspects of communism in general, and the American version in particular. And for this he earned the eternal reprobation of the American left, socialists, liberals, Democrats... just about everyone to the left of William Buckley, which means just about everyone. The love affair between the cultural elite and the Soviets continued, of course, but it was carried on in a somewhat more muted form, because now there was a “witch hunt” on, thanks to Nixon and Joe McCarthy... with “blacklists” and all the rest of it. (Of course, there are never witch hunts or blacklists in communist countries, oh no.) And the left, once they got rid of McCarthy, remained vigilant with regard to Nixon... ready to pounce, and when Watergate came along, pounce they did. Finally! At last, the guilty party has been hunted down and brought to justice, like some octogenarian concentration camp guard.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to the people's Utopia. The Soviet Union broke up, and great was the wailing and gnashing of teeth – and the accusations directed at people like Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II that they weren't being fair... that it all would have worked if only we'd given it a chance, and not given in to “hate” and paranoia, etc. -- as if the Cold War was all in our fevered imaginings.

So there was a regime change in the now-downsized former Soviet Union, and even though the American media had treated Gorbachev like a rock star, there was a certain ambivalence, like, he just sort of let it all slip away, didn't he? Gave up without a fight. That just didn't seem right somehow. It should at least have been more spectacular, like something out of Wagner, with a funeral pyre and stuff. How could our role models have just wimped out like that? Very disturbing. And yet... this aura of the hopes of yesteryear, of having fought the good fight... clung to Russia even through its struggles with privatization, corruption, and so on – right up to the present. They were all about “hope and change” once; could they be yet again? And they were keeping up the propaganda from their side as well, occasionally referring to their former subjects as “fascists” or (following our lead) “Islamofascists”. (This is a semantic gift from World War II that just keeps on giving.) And anyone who calls anyone else a “fascist” is automatically a friend of ours, right? No questions asked. Besides, who did the left have, um, left to call their own in the world? China had long since gone down the road of communism with a capitalist face... or vice versa. Vietnam had become a trading partner. North Korea – too crazy. And that left... Cuba? Really? Nowhere else? Just Cuba, with all those cool old 1950s American cars and great music? Well OK – better than nothing, I guess. (I would include Venezuela, but you know those places, it could go back to military uniforms, gold braid, a chest full of medals, and big hats at any time.)

So Russia was a disappointment, but not enough of one to end the romance. And then came Vlady, and Ukraine, and the Crimea, and... well, what's a good socialist president to do? I mean, there was a time when Stalin could do no wrong – including that awkward treaty he made with Hitler. If you're anti-American, which so many of our politicians in Washington seem to be, don't you have to be for something? Or at least appear to be? It's no wonder there's so much nostalgia for the Cold War – and it's not just on the conservative side, or among the military. At least back then it was clear-cut, and one could take sides. So faced with Putin's antics on his southern border, the left is caught flat-footed because they've never adjusted to the way things are now. In their own way, they're just as bound by nostalgia as those on the right. Do they let Russia do its thing with impunity because Russia used to be right in the old days? Or do they decide (for the first time ever) that American conservatives are right about something? But that might call into question everything else the left has ever done in the last 70-odd years. It really is quite awkward... and, let's admit, it's great fun to see them wriggle and squirm. How they manage to resolve it, who knows? My guess, though, is that it won't have anything to do with historical perspective or principles.

 

Showdown at the Not-OK Corral

 

I guess it was only a matter of time. We passed (or failed, depending on one's point of view) the first test, which was Georgia... then passed/failed the second test, which was Syria... then there was a period of truce for the Olympics... and now Putin is putting pressure on Ukraine, which threatens to wander off the post-Soviet reservation, and we're passing/failing that test as well. So, basically, he took the measure of Obama, his administration, and U.S. “resolve” in general, and decided that he had nothing to lose, and a lot to gain, by showing the flag in the Crimea and at least intimidating the new EU-friendly administration of Ukraine as well as its military. And his excuse is that there are Russians in Ukraine, and they're in danger of being treated like second-class citizens. Well yeah, that's what happens when people are caught on the wrong side of a new (or old) national border. It's happened time and time again in history, and this is no exception. And it's largely Stalin's fault, because he's the one who decided that the best way to handle all the various “nationalities” in the Soviet Union was to ship half of them to the Gulag and then settle a bunch of loyal Russians in each territory in order to run things and keep an eye on the rest. So when the Soviet Union broke up – basically into pieces defined by the various Soviet republics, and in some cases by earlier borders dating from World War I, all these places wound up with Russian minorities. Too bad, so sad. So suddenly the people who had been throwing their weight around in those territories since World War II (at least) were not so secure any longer. They were, in a way, in the same position as the Carpetbaggers who invaded the South after the Civil War -- “large and in charge” until the natives asserted themselves.

Now frankly, if I were an ethnic Russian I might almost prefer to be part of a minority in, say, Estonia than in the majority in Russia – I'm talking in terms of economics and personal freedom now. But ethnic loyalties usually triumph abstract concepts of “rights”, and even economics; no self-respecting Russian wants to be ruled by Estonians, or Kazakhs, or whoever. Things have to be pretty bad for someone to renounce their homeland once and for all, the way the Cuban exiles did. Even some of the countless “illegals” from Latin America go back to their home country eventually – provided they managed to save up enough money in the U.S. And who hasn't met a displaced Californian who longs to go back to the land of their birth? And so on. “Ideas”, and internationalism, are fine things if you're a person with no national or ethnic loyalties, but most people are not rootless cosmopolitans; they will always long to go home, even if “home” is a place they've never seen. (Witness the “right of return” which is a key concept for Jews vis-a-vis Israel, for instance.)

And one can say, but isn't the migration of peoples the rule rather than the exception, historically? At any given time, doesn't a large portion of the human race find themselves strangers in a strange land? And the answer is yes. Go back to the Israelites in Egypt. People go where they have to go in order to survive, and they tend to stay there unless things become intolerable. And every once in a while, a minority becomes a majority – as it clearly did in this country the minute the colonists outnumbered the Native Americans. So whose country is it anyway? It all depends on which slice of history you want to take. Recall the trouble Serbia had (and continues to have) giving up Kosovo – because although it was populated largely by Albanians it had great historical significance for the Serbs. Everyone wants self-determination, but what that is depends on one's point of view – the group with which one identifies. Washington, DC prided itself on being “Chocolate City” a few decades back, even though it has enclaves of rich white folks; New Orleans was supposed to become even more “chocolate” after Katrina, although I'm not sure how that's working out. Mexico is reclaiming, through sheer force of numbers, territory that it lost to the U.S. right up through the Gadsden Purchase. And the number of racial/religious/ethnic groups that have a claim of some sort on Israel/the West Bank/Jerusalem is too high to count.

So what we're seeing now in Ukraine is just another example of a process of give-and-take that has characterized just about any place you can name throughout history. And the funny thing is, we have always had this notion that, in a sense, history is over with when it comes to borders. The way things were at the close of World War II is pretty much the way they ought to be, and ought to stay – as if there were some cosmic map that dictated everything once all the blank spaces were colored in. Of course we did make an exception for Israel, but in general we find shifting borders terribly upsetting – unless it's in our favor, like the reunification of Germany or the breakup of the Soviet Union. But remember how hard we fought to keep Korea and Vietnam split in half? It just raises all kinds of issues with geography textbooks when things keep shifting around. South Sudan? What the heck is that? Most Americans would have a hard time finding Argentina on a world map. So quit bothering us with all these new places. (And don't get me started on Nunavut!)

So to get back to the Ukraine kerfuffle – I'm not going to belabor the argument zipping around the Internet re: the moral equivalence of Russia in Ukraine vs. the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. Actually, the Russians have a better argument. We invaded Iraq because some Saudis from Afghanistan attacked us (allegedly) on 9-11. OK, that made a lot of sense. And we invaded Afghanistan because they had provided aid and comfort to said Saudis – as if the planning for the attacks couldn't have been carried out in any Moslem country (or in any number of neighborhoods in Paris, etc.). Russia, on the other hand, has deep historic, ethnic, linguistic, etc. ties to Ukraine, not to mention they share a common border (without even 90 miles of water in between, like us and Cuba). Now, this is not to say that Ukraine isn't “diverse” in its own way, as shown here:

http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/03/ethno-linguistic-map-of-ukraine.html?spref=fb

We can see that some people wound up, after World War I and/or II, on the wrong side of the border. But again, that's the rule rather than the exception.

So am I saying that Russia ought to be huffing and puffing, and throwing its weight around Ukraine? Ideally, no. But ideally, any minority in any country ought to be allowed to live in peace without having to cry out to some other country (especially a big and powerful one) to save it. And common sense should apply as well. Who, in Iraq, asked us to invade Iraq? Ditto Afghanistan. So if we're talking aggression here... well, hopefully you get my point.

Then there's the question, what should we “do” about it – if anything? Sarah Palin was ready to start a war with Russia over Georgia. Obama – who couldn't be further from Palin on the political spectrum – was all ready to invade Syria until Putin looked him in the eye and said “unh-unh”. The paleocon/libertarian position is that it's none of our damn business. But our leaders are all a-tizzy, making all sorts of threats, most of which are pathetic, frankly. It would be more respectable to just stand up and say, we're over here and they're over there, and the twain are not going to meet. We're not cops, and the world is not our beat. Besides, we're bankrupt. Et cetera. But of course, no one's going to say that because it would violate our “core values”, and be an admission that the American Era is over with – or at least fading fast. I mean, imagine leaving world affairs to the tender mercies of Russia and China – scandalous! Humiliating! Demeaning! Et cetera. So it's better to spit and hiss and wring our hands – much more respectable, ahem. (Oh, and by the way, people are already starting to talk about a “domino effect”, like if we let Putin get away with this, who's next? Lithuania? One of the “stans”? Who knew there was this much Cold War nostaliga floating around? Heck, there's even a decent amount of Stalin nostalgia in Russia.)

It's been remarked that “Putin plays chess, and Obama plays basketball”. In other words, the typical Russian strategy is to make a move, see what happens, make another move, etc. In chess it's called a gambit – and the result may appear to be a setback, but it's part of a larger plan. What's required, above all, is patience, and being able to operate below the surface of things. The long run is what counts – and no one is more of expert in this than the Chinese, but the Russians aren't far behind. After all, didn't Uncle Joe wait patiently all through the 1920s, 1930s, and World War II before he made his move to establish the Iron Curtain and the Warsaw Pact? The Soviets could have moved into Europe at any time after the end of World War II, but they didn't; in fact they allowed some areas that had been part of the old empire, like the Baltic States, to declare independence. But once the opportunity arose – aided, in no small part, by Uncle Joe's friends in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, they made their move... and, again, there wasn't a whole lot we could do about it.

The basketball strategy, on the other hand is, basically, you charge ahead and if you get knocked on your ass you get up and charge ahead some more. Subtle it ain't (at least as far as I can tell). A perfect metaphor for American foreign policy in our time. (And in fact, we aren't even that good at passing the ball – not that anyone else is interested in it... )

I see our helplessness as just another earmark of a waning empire. But again, as with national borders, our dominance on the world stage was meant to last forever – unlike that of all the empires and pretenders up to now – because we have ideas, and principles, and are the shining city on a hill, etc. Yeah, well, if that's true why has so much of the world failed to sign on? I mean, OK, our economy is linked to nearly all other national economies in a way that would have been inconceivable up until recently; even the British Empire could never have claimed the interdependency that exists now. Our culture – such as it is – has spread far and wide. National leaders world-wide are wearing suits and ties now. People are eating Big Macs. And so on. In some senses we really have taken over the world. But in other ways we have no more influence than ever – less in some cases (militant Islam, e.g.). People in sub-Saharan Africa who wear Nikes and “Hard Rock Cafe” T-shirts still engage in the same primitve, brutal tribal warfare that they have for millennia. The only serious resistance to American cultural influence comes from fundamentalist Islamic countries – and they still use cell phones and laptops. So we have “conquered” the way the European powers once conquered much of Africa, Asia, and Latin America – everyone speaks English, they all use our gadgetry and dress in our clothes, but below that superficial level the age-old beliefs, habits, memes, etc. are alive and well. Once again, things that people can identify with – the age-old truisms – tend to, in the long run, trump ideas. If the pen is mightier than the sword, then home and hearth are more powerful than either one.

But in another sense, the “American Empire” isn't American at all – assuming it ever was. It has been absorbed into a larger empire – that which I call the Regime or Cabal – headquartered in Europe. We still do the heavy lifting – we're the cannon fodder – but we're taking orders from people way above Obama's pay grade; all he does it pass them on. Now, the EU is the most prominent overt manifestation of this Regime, and we have seen the loving care with which it beggars less-solvent economies (the so-called PIIGS) and then takes them over. And this is the entity that half of Ukraine wants to join? Even knowing that it will be next in line? On the other hand, the attraction of Russia has to be somewhat tarnished given that Stalin & Co. tried, within living memory, to exterminate Ukraine – or at least the Ukrainians – in one of the great genocides of the 20^th Century. The Ukrainians call it the Holodomor, which was, for them, the equivalent of the Holocaust. This alone would give anyone pause when it comes to cozying up to Russia.

So, as so often happens, the little guy (even though Ukraine is a fairly large country) finds itself caught between two larger entities, both of which may have evil intent. Poland experienced it in World War II, and now it's Ukraine's turn. One can only hope and pray.

Russia Takes Over

Um... anyone heard anything about Syria lately? You know, that place we were all ready to invade a few weeks back, with warships gathering in the Mediterranean, bombers in the air 24 hours a day, and troops on high alert? It seems like this war, that was so critical to our national interests, has been relegated to the dreaded “page 4, below the fold” section of the paper. And as usual with the crisis of the month (or week, these days) the question arises, could it really have been that important before and this unimportant now? Or, is it still important but no one wants to talk about it? Or, was it unimportant before, and all the excitement was no more than propaganda, fear-mongering, and a downright hoax? I mean... how much do other countries, peoples, tribes... empires, even... change in just a few weeks? And on the other hand, how much does the fickle, gullible, and hysteria-prone American public change in just a few weeks? The answer is obvious.

No, what has happened is a sea change in what we call “foreign relations”, which is the interface between the American Empire and the rest of the world. And do not underestimate the magnitude of this change, or its significance! As tectonic shifts go, it's certainly the equivalent of Pearl Harbor, our ignominious defeat in Vietnam, and 9-11. It's also the latest phase in our unending relationship with Russia – lining up quite nicely with the descent of the Iron Curtain after World War II, the Soviets' acquisition of “the bomb”, Sputnik, the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the breakup of the Soviet Union. If the 20^th Century was the American century in some respects (at least beginning with World War I), then it was also the Russian century. After we got together to defeat fascism and make the world safe for communism, they became the anti-us and we became the anti-them -- huffing and puffing like professional wrestlers, pretending to be bitter enemies but actually playing the same game the same way year after year. And so it continued right up until their breakup. The Cold War, so-called, was really a finely-tuned balancing act, and both sides played it cool most of the time, with only an occasional crisis to test the waters. (What we wouldn't give now for having an enemy that's an actual country with borders, and a visible military with uniforms and flags. We didn't know how good we had it!)

What happened next was, for them, a long period of rest from empire building and a chance to get used to an economic system that we had long taken for granted – you know, the kind where there's private ownership, competition, and people are allowed to make money, and so on. Old hat to us, but completely novel to them, with virtually no living memory of how things were pre-Bolshevism. And on the foreign front, they continued to try and exert influence over the newly-liberated, i.e. escaped, former Soviet republics, with varying degrees of success. And the influence they sought was mainly political, and also economic – not military, note, except in the general sense of having a security buffer zone in all directions. No, they left that kind of nonsense to us, fully realizing that the grossly over-extended American Empire would sooner or later start to deteriorate – which it, in fact, has. This is why they didn't put up much of a fuss about our military misadventures – because they knew that it would mean our gradual weakening... militarily, economically, and diplomatically – and that could only be good news for them and their interests. And sure enough, our old alliances decayed to the point where, on a fairly regular basis, a vote at the U.N. would come out with us and Israel voting one way, and the rest of the world voting the other way. And yet, it never occurred to us that there was anything wrong with that -- we, who had everything to do with establishing the U.N. in the first place. Funny how things change.

So they beheld our follies and kept a safe distance. Sure, they had their problems, internally, with Islamic activism and attacks – but nothing on the order of 9-11 (which, as we all know – ahem! -- was an attack from halfway around the world). They saw that, sooner or later, the U.S. and Israel would die in each other's arms, like a couple of characters from some opera – singing, with our last breath, about the awfulness and apathy of the rest of the world, which consists mainly of “haters”, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. Oh the tragedy! Oh the humanity!

And yet... Russia has its “interests”, just as we do. Isn't that fair? (Apparently not.) It has its sphere of influence... its “turf”, and it turns out (no surprise) that Syria is part of that turf. I mean... as far as Russia is concerned, we can go ahead and nuke Afghanistan; it would serve them right after what they did to our patriotic and heroic boys who wore the red star. And they don't seem to have any great interest in Iraq (Iran being, perhaps, a different matter – which may be why we haven't attacked it yet). But Syria? Um, yeah... too close to home. So it was time to put their foot down. Plus, they sensed a weakness – a number of weaknesses, in fact. This country was in the middle of a civil war of words... a culture war... “occupiers”, “tea partiers”, budget crises, debt crises, a questionable “recovery” from the Great Recession (AKA not-great depression), and a president whose foreign policy is incoherent even on the best days, and whose inner circle consists of a bunch of power-crazed mediocrities. Americans were not “war-weary” (as is often stated by the media) but the military (not to mention the economy) had paid the price for two endless wars. Plus, Israel had ruled the roost in the Middle East for far too long, with us as errand boys, gofers, and cannon fodder. It was a great time to draw a line in the sand, and they did. And in response, we, basically, collapsed. Oh yeah, it was all “we're not giving up, we expect 'progress' or else”, etc. We're still a contender... I'm ready for my close-up, Mr. DeMille... and other icons of delusion. But everyone knew that we'd been called out, and had blinked. And Russia, just to rub it in, didn't jump up and down, or shout, or scream – they just very calmly played the part of the older and wiser (and more rational) nation, gently but firmly telling us to stand down and butt out. The message was “we've got this, OK?” And apparently Israel got the message as well – at least well enough not to mount a full-scale attack all by their lonesome (as if!). And.... oh yeah, I almost forgot Britain and France, who headed for the tall grass the first time they made eye contact with Vladimir Putin. “Hey, no problem! No empires for us, thanks – been there, done that. Have a nice day.” At least we still have some small, residual sense of shame.

So... what happens now? Are we just on sick leave, and once we're feeling better we'll jump back into the ring? I don't think so, because Russia is not about to leave. They stepped up, identified themselves as peacemakers (take that, Nobel Prize nerds!), but in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition of speaking softly but carrying a bit stick. We've been displaced, and I don't care how much of the time John Kerry shows his prune face over there, we're now strap hangers and they're driving the train. Israel, of course, must be fit to be tied, but they know better than to show it. Just a temporary setback, you know, and, well, maybe we can get rid of Assad some other way, etc. But they have to be feeling a chill in the air, because it's the first serious setback for them (or us) over there since Israel came to be. And if it can happen with Syria, it can also happen with any number of other places – and thus their isolation (and ours) becomes more profound with each passing day. How long can we expect to be in charge if we're increasingly marginalized? The fact is, we're not in charge – and haven't been for quite a while. We're the big, stupid muscle guy who takes orders from everyone else. And I'm not saying that the Regime (cabal, whatever) has met its match in Russia, but it has certainly taken a shot off the bow, and the effects are clearly sobering. Russia has been gathering its strength all this time, and if it should ever waver, China is not far behind.

It's a new world, and I, for one, can't say that I'm sorry. We may have had some moral superiority at the time of World War II and immediately afterward, but it started to fray with Korea and pretty much vanished without a trace in Vietnam. Everything since has been about empire, pure and simple – not right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, but power... influence... turf. We've become just another country throwing its weight around. This is not the way things were supposed to be... and if less power means less abuse of power, so be it. It is better to be remembered for the good one has done in the past than feared for the evil one is doing in the present.