Christopher Caldwell’s “Why Are We in Ukraine? A steep bill comes due for decades of democracy promotion.”

Writing for the traditionally neocon-friendly Claremont Institute, Christopher Caldwell  (Summer, 2022) describes the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war—consequences that are indeed playing out now.

Caldwell starts out with Prof. John Mearsheimer’s view on the causes of the war:

[2014] was a hinge year. Ukrainian diplomats had been negotiating an “association agreement” with the European Union that would have created closer trade relations. Russia outbid the E.U. with its own deal, which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine. President Viktor Yanukovych signed it. Protests, backed by the United States, broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. By then the U.S. had spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics, according to a 2013 speech by State Department official Victoria Nuland. Russia now viewed this activity as having funded subversion and revolt. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovych’s government was corrupt. Unlike many of them it was legitimately elected. When shootings near the Maidan in Kiev left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovych fled the country, and the United States played a central role in setting up a successor government.

Meddling with vital Russian interests at Russia’s doorstep turned out to be more dangerous than orating about democracy. Rather than see the Russophone and pro-Russian region of Crimea transformed from a Russian naval stronghold into an American one, Russia invaded it. “Took over” might be a better verb, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. Whether the Russian takeover was a reaction to American crowding or an unprovoked invasion, one thing was clear: In Russia’s view, Ukraine’s potential delivery of Crimea to NATO was a more serious threat to its survival in 2014 than—to take an example—Islamic terrorism had been to America’s in 2001 or 2003. Understanding that Russia would respond accordingly to any attempt to wrest it back, Russia’s European and Black Sea neighbors tended thenceforth to treat Crimea as a de facto part of Russia. So, for the most part, did the United States. The Minsk accords, signed by Russia and Ukraine, were meant to guarantee a measure of linguistic and political autonomy in the culturally Russian Donbass. (Russia claims the violation of these accords as a casus belli.)

Contrast that with the neo-liberal position which is basically a moral crusade:

There is, of course, a different explanation, the moral/psychological explanation put forward by the Biden administration and its defenders. It differs from Mearsheimer’s account not so much in facts as in its apportionment of moral blame. In this account, the spur to war was not American encroachment but the erratic behavior of Russian president Vladimir Putin. …

Putin certainly had reasons to wish Ukraine kept in Russia’s sphere of influence. But in most Western accounts of what led to the invasion of Ukraine last February, these reasons are presented as psychopathological, not geostrategic. Putin comes off as Hitler. He wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Or the tsarist empire. …

Those who back a bigger role for the West in supporting Ukraine often put their position in the form of a question: once he gets control of Ukraine, why should Putin stop there? The question has a simple answer: because he knows something about history and he can count. He doesn’t have the guns. He doesn’t have the soldiers. Putin invaded Ukraine with 190,000 men. That is just slightly more than the 170,000 Soviet soldiers who died trying—and failing—to retake the city of Kharkov in 1942. There were four battles of Kharkov in World War II, and Kharkov was only one of the cities fought over.

What we’ve been saying all along. This is really about exporting globalism and leftist political orthodoxy to the rest of the world and it’s corollary of maintaining a unipolar world dominated by the United States. They even said so: “In March 24 [2022], a month after Russian tanks rolled across Ukraine’s borders, the Biden White House summoned America’s partners (as its allies are now called) to a civilizational crusade. The administration proclaimed its commitment to those affected by Russia’s recent invasion—“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.” Because of Western intervention since 2014, Ukraine has been completely transformed:

Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists. The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of political correctness. After 2014, according to Ishchenko, “a wide range of political positions supported by a large minority, sometimes even by the majority, of Ukrainians—sovereigntist, state-developmentalist, illiberal, left-wing—were blended together and labeled ‘pro-Russian narratives’ because they challenged the dominant pro-Western, neoliberal and nationalist discourses in Ukraine’s civil society.” Those who hold such views have often felt driven out of public life.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, today the symbol of resolute anti-Russian resistance, has himself undergone a transformation. An influential Ukrainian actor and TV producer, he won a landslide in 2019 on the promise he would render life tolerable for the Russia-friendly east. His popularity quickly eroded, according to Ishchenko, and shortly after the Biden inauguration, Zelensky began censoring Russophile channels, websites, and blogs.

Ukrainian democracy! This really comes down to the threat of World War III. Russia clearly sees the war as existential (see Putin’s February speech: “This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country”). And the West sees a loss as a mortal threat to their hegemony, their globalization project, and their exporting hardline political correctness to the rest of the world, as has already happened in Ukraine.

American immunity from danger may be illusory. The progress of technology has imperceptibly eroded a longstanding distinction between supporting a combatant and entering the fray as a combatant oneself. In June, the U.S. began providing Ukraine with M142 HIMARS computer-targeted rocket artillery systems, and these present the problem in an acute form: the role of technology in the lethality of a weapon has grown to the point where the role of the human warrior is, relatively speaking, rendered negligible. An encounter with a sword is an encounter with a swordsman. An encounter with an arrow is an encounter with an only slightly more distant bowman. But an encounter with an M31 rocket fired from a HIMARS launcher is an encounter with General Dynamics. And it is the human warrior who is the repository of all the longings-to-be-vindicated and the sacrifices-freely-undertaken that consecrate war as a cause. With advanced weaponry, the soldier operating it almost doesn’t need to be there. Which is to say that, in this proxy war between Russia and the United States, Ukraine doesn’t need to be there. In these HIMARS artillery strikes, in the assassinations by drone of Russian officers, in the sinking of naval ships with advanced missiles, it is the United States, not Ukraine, that has become the battlefield adversary of Russia.

The substitution of high-tech for competent soldiers is likely what the trans-friendly, diverse and inclusive, politically correct military military brass is counting on to retain fighting capability.

The U.S.’s extensive financial sanctions on Russia have had little, if any, cost to Russia (see Putin’s speech) while it has motivated Russia to abandon the U.S. dollar as a mechanism of international trade, which is also something that China doubtless views positively. Moreover, because of the sanctions, Russia is insulated from any repercussions of the current bank implosion occurring in the U.S.—a crisis that has happened in large part because of the rapid rise in interest rates (rendering older bonds with lower yield held by institutions like Silicon Valley Bank relatively worthless) because the Fed felt it necessary to use higher interest rates to combat inflation which was in turn caused at least in part by increases in energy prices caused by the Ukraine war and by sanctions on Russian energy in conjunction with the Biden administration’s opposition to the domestic drilling industry and its obsession with clean energy, and because Biden goosed the financial system with trillions of dollars in federal spending. As I write, it’s not possible to predict the effects of the banking crisis on markets.

Rather than beg its way back into the U.S.-led global financial order, the Russians are trying to build a new one with new partners [like China]. They have a chance of pulling it off. In a speech at a June [2022] economic forum in St. Petersburg, Putin complained that the roughly $10 trillion that any trading country must hold in dollar and Euro currency reserves is being devalued at 8% a year by U.S. inflation. “Moreover,” he said, “they can be confiscated or stolen any time if the United States dislikes something in the policy of the states involved” [which has already been done to $284 billion of Russian money in Western banks at the behest of the U.S.]. Putin called for a replacement for the SWIFT system. “The development of a convenient and independent payment infrastructure in national currencies is a solid and predictable basis for deepening international cooperation,” he said. Until recently such an appeal would have fallen on deaf ears. This time it did not.

The times are definitely changing, and the war against Russia has made countries like China aware that the U.S. can always do the same to them—like embark on another moral crusade against China’s oppression of the Uyghurs or the Indian caste system.

In part, the great story we see playing out is the fulfillment of a prediction that people have been making for a generation: power and influence are shifting away from the United States and Europe, and toward Asia. In the 1990s, when the United States was imposing its will on Iraq and Kosovo, the G7 made up 70% of the world economy. Today it makes up 43%. India and China are both giant export markets for Russian oil and gas. It is clear why Russia would want to sell to India and China. The more complicated question is why India (tacitly) and China (explicitly) would back Russia against what American progressives call the “rules-based international order.” …

Yes, the West “swiftly moved” against Russia, but six months in, these moves seemed surprisingly ineffective. The reason is that, no matter where you place the fulcrum and the lever, Russia, China, and India collectively are now too much for the United States to lift. Inducements can be offered to get one country to break solidarity with the other two. But cooperating would be foolish, on any terms. At the end of the day, a country that permits itself to be isolated by the United States this way is increasing the risk that it will itself be subjected to a media-and-boycott campaign of destruction like the one we are now witnessing with Russia. A few words about the condition of the Uyghurs, a few talking points on Hindu nationalism, and the U.S. can crank this whole machinery of economic destruction into operation against China or India. They know it, too. The Italian writer Marco D’Eramo reported that, after a March 18 phone call between Biden and Xi Jinping, one Chinese anchorman joked that Biden’s message had been: “Can you help me fight your friend so that I can concentrate on fighting you later?”

The attempt to isolate Russia from the American world system has had a striking unintended consequence—the possible founding of an alternative world system that would draw power away from the existing one. Twenty years ago, under George W. Bush, the United States removed the Iraqi deterrent from Iran’s neighborhood, transforming Iran overnight into a regional power. This year, under Joe Biden, the United States has made China a gift of Russia’s exportable food and mineral resources. We are displaying an outright genius for identifying our most dangerous military adversary and solving its most pressing strategic challenge. The attention of China is now engaged. Joe Biden argues that any wavering in the cause of obliterating Russia will be understood by China as a green light on Taiwan. He may have a point, but the U.S. management of the Ukraine situation over the past decade has constituted encouragement enough.

The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history (even under Bolshevism), Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs,  Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism to be “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West.

It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West. Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky  is paradigmatic. Ukraine’s transformation is clearly a top-down transformation like those that have occurred in all Western countries. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.

36 replies
  1. B. Rockford
    B. Rockford says:

    The Crimea and the Donbas are Russian.
    A Sino-Russian alliance is no asset to the west or the world, anymore than the old Sino-Soviet alliance (whatever Israel thinks or wants or does).
    Putin is a problem, and may be as reluctant to negotiate a partition with warm-water access as Zelensky.
    Once again western “democrats” have failed to take the educated long view and plan ahead – instead we have the knee-jerk irrelevance about Munich 85 years ago.
    One of these days one of Raeto’s non-existent H-bombs will go off. Meanwhile, we face cyber and bio threats.
    Anyone who can suggest a practical escape from this Gordian Knot will deserve a reward – any offers?

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        @ Nat Ford
        Not “the” but “a” problem in finding a solution to a conflict that is reducing the white population of both Russia and Ukraine. The globalist cabal of Iraq infamy is indeed a major problem. The world is not a simple place, however, and nor are Russians, Chinese, Muslims – or Jews. To “know” the enemy, or enemies, requires an accurate identification, and full understanding of how they really tick, and a superiority in shrewd counter-strategy. Just shouting at “The Kike” to “Take a hike” is (as the Anglican vicars phrase it) “not helpful”, let alone demanding a “real” holocaust.

        • JM
          JM says:

          @B. Rockford

          “Putin is a problem, and may be as reluctant to negotiate a partition with warm-water access as Zelensky.”

          He’d be a far bigger problem if “he” hadn’t taken the measures that he has.

          Russia had absolutely no choice in this if it was to continue to exist as an independent state.

          Russia’s only way of meeting this latter requirement is to win the war, whatever the cost. This victory is critical to patriots in the West in their fight against the Zionist led New World Order because Russia prevents – warts and all – an alternative model in which our people can continue to exist.

          So it has to be: Victory to Russia!

          The other truths, which apply to any state, of the ‘risks’ inherent in independent states, particularly if they are strong, of course also apply to Russia and China.

          This latter point is particularly relevant to Australians whose Globalist fake left government has just hitched its foreign policy to the Neo-Con inspired confrontation with China. This madness will increase, not decrease, the risk of losing of any independence Australia still has:

          IN FULL: Former Australian PM, Paul Keating joins Laura Tingle in conversation on ‘AUKUS’ at the NPC

          Enjoy this slice of a very strange, declining, land.

          • JM
            JM says:

            In the decades that shaped the thinking of most of us here, we “learned” that there were many choices that we were free to make.

            The truth is that for today and long into the future, “choice” is an increasingly rare commodity. For Russia it boiled down to only two: fight or surrender.

            Pacifism (in the guise of ‘negotiation’) in this context is a menace. It is starting to emerge from hitherto bellicose or smug Western circles who see the dangers for their world of a Russian military victory over the ‘Western’ puppet regime in Ukraine.

            BTW: in my previous post, not ‘prevents’ but ‘presents’.

    • Box Hill
      Box Hill says:

      The Crimea was taken by Russian colonization in 1783.
      The population was 36% Tatar and 33% Russian as late as 1897.
      After the communist genocide in 1959 the Tatar population was reduced to zilch and Russian became 71%.
      (Wikip. és Rand McNally Atlas of World History)

      • JM
        JM says:

        @Box Hill

        “The Crimea was taken by Russian colonization in 1783.”

        Well what a shame that was!

        Before then, it was a critical centre of Islamic slave trading from Ukraine. With deep connections to the Ottomans into the heart of the Russian Empire.

        This was a reconquest in a constant war – in the European space – between the Christian Empires and the Muslim over who would rule and set the tone in geographical Europe.

        Stalin’s population shifts were gross but not without some reason: in this case, suspected disloyalty on the eve of what was heralded as a war of survival. Ask yourself: why else would this Georgian have done this? All sides ruthlessly played the ethnic card in that war, Jews and Tartars included. That’s what war is.

        • Box Hill
          Box Hill says:

          The Crimea and its northern approaches under whose occupation:

          362 Ostrogoths
          406 Huns
          420 Huns + Eastern Roman Empire
          450 ditto
          476 Kutrigur Huns + Goths + Eastern Roman Empire
          528 ditto (Catholic controlled territory)
          562 Avar Khanate +Goths + Eastern Roman Empire
          600 ditto
          626 Khanate of Great Bulgaria +Goths + Eastern Roman Empire
          650 Khazar Khanate + Byzantine Empire
          737 Magyars +Goths
          771 ditto
          830 ditto
          888 Magyars +Goths + Patzinaks
          923 Patzinaks + Goths
          998 ditto
          1028 Patzinaks + Byzantine Empire
          1071 Cumans + Byzantine Empire
          1092 ditto
          1130 ditto
          1173 ditto
          1212 Cumans + Empire of Trebizond
          1230 Cumans
          1278 Khanate of the Golden Horde
          1360 ditto
          1401 Khanate of the Golden Horde + Genoa
          1430 Khanate of the Crimea + Genoa
          1478 Khanate of the Crimea
          Source: The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin McEvedy)

          Where are the Russians?

          • JM
            JM says:

            @Box Hill

            “….1028 Patzinaks + Byzantine Empire
            1071 Cumans + Byzantine Empire
            1092 ditto
            1130 ditto
            1173 ditto
            1212 Cumans + Empire of Trebizond
            1230 Cumans
            1278 Khanate of the Golden Horde
            1360 ditto
            1401 Khanate of the Golden Horde + Genoa
            1430 Khanate of the Crimea + Genoa
            1478 Khanate of the Crimea
            Source: The Penguin Atlas of Medieval History (Colin McEvedy)

            Where are the Russians?”

            You could say the same about the Russian conquest of Siberia, bit by bit, the Asiatic Hordes conquests in Western Russia and Europe; the Roman or Norman conquests of Britain, or of the eventual conquest of the English of North America, of the Spanish/Portuguese of Mexico, Central and South America, the British in Australia and New Zealand, bit by bit, or of the the Moguls in India…ad nauseam.

            Almost all that you’ve listed involved conquest, principally by Asiatic hordes from the East or their more settled products. The existence of Russia as a nascent and newly formed European nation against such conquest initially depended on consolidation under a central government within a definite geographical space and recognising that they had to, for the immediate historic period, ‘tolerate’ conquests, even when hostile, outside of that.

            Within the context of the reality of the universality of conquest, you have no rational argument.

        • JM
          JM says:

          JM: ‘Stalin’s population shifts were gross but not without some reason: in this case, suspected disloyalty on the eve of what was heralded as a war of survival. Ask yourself: why else would this Georgian have done this? All sides ruthlessly played the ethnic card in that war, Jews and Tartars included. That’s what war is.’

          The date given fot this is wrong. The deportations happened at the end of the war, 1944, not at the beginning, but it doesn’t alter the argument. In fact it suggests that there may well have been a substantiation of the suspicions about disloyalty in the furnace of the German invasion.

  2. K M Landis
    K M Landis says:

    It always amuses me that “the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism as anti-semitic“. They admit it openly that globalist Jews are disloyal to America. They agitate for war with Russia.

    Jewish disloyalty is not an “anti-semitic canard”, as the ADL calls it. Rather, it is a statement of fact, as the ADL is well aware. Communist Jews resort to censorship as their first response to any criticism.

  3. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    ‘Why are we in Ukraine?’

    Well, first I’d replace the ‘we’ with ‘they’. Much, if not most of the Biden regime is Ashkenazim (Khazar Jews), perverts, or both. Ukraine (Kazaria) is the ancient homeland of the Ashkenazim. Zelenskyy is a homosexual porn star and a Jew – a fitting leader for post-2014 Ukraine.

    The same things that the ruling powers in the West wish to protect in Ukraine are the very same things Russia seeks to destroy, to wit: biolabs, child trafficking, money laundering, increasing anti-Christian sentiment, and the eastward expansion of NATO.

    But you will not hear that from any western mainstream media source, for that media is owned and controlled by the ‘they’ described above.

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      @JM & Tom Folke
      Russia must make this case, if correct, in its overseas propaganda, instead of pretending to save Ukraine from “Nazis” like its circumcised drag-queen vohzd. It is rapidly losing its own white population as well as literally devastating Ukraine. The ex-KGB man’s relationship to oligarchs has been down and up over the years [cf. Greg Rosalsky, “Planet Money,” March 29, 2022 online]. Putin is currently supported by Russian Orthodox prelates, but has done nothing for Christianity – which won’t worry many TOO readers however. The alleged “Jew World Order” prospect has not been lifted from western peoples by the emergent Moscow-Beijing-Pyongyang alliance, nor the worst outcome of all – a nuclear holocaust of 600 million people across the European North. That said, I think London should put the defence of UK before the war in UKraine.

      • JM
        JM says:

        @B. Rockford

        But Russia has made ‘the case’, ALL ‘the cases’, over and over.

        Putin has been at the centre of the Orthodox revival, in the sense of fostering massive church construction and by personal example. He has also protected the Russian people against the degenerate stench from the US of A and the West in general. His relationship with the Jewish oligarchs has been well explained by Kmac. This is a problem, but he has, based on the precepts of the Byzantine Empire, removed those who want to leverage their positions of privilege into the political and social sphere. Not a bad start at all in an ongoing dialectic.

        You’re English? On the Ukraine Question, I’ve detected strong Churchillian-style chauvinism from that quarter. This pox is anathema to the defence of the European based nations.

        I urge you to search the archive and you will find that the points I’ve made are well substantiated.

        • B. Rockford
          B. Rockford says:

          @ JM
          Yes, I am completely English by ancestry, birthplace, mother-tongue and lifelong patriotism, not Welsh, Jewish, Ukrainian or Sanid . I am opposed to immigration from the world “of colour”, and have worked with Russians, Ukrainians and many others against the ideology originally espoused by Putin, who is strengthening the anti-decadence morale but also losing the lives of young Russians. I support European unity but not its present woke nomenklatura.
          I deplore the Zelensky mania in the “British” media and do not wish a fatal repetition of our “Charge of the Light Brigade”, what there is left of it.

  4. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    Well It seems the general Consensus among international experts Ucraine will lose the War. For the USA the (real) conditions on the field demand a return to the Reagans Foreign Policy of Realpolitik, which was the continuation of the Cold War doctrine of Soviet Containment which recognized the dangers of mutual Nuclear annihilation in a (hot) War with Russia. The Reagan American Regime won the Cold War, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union broke into pieces without bullets but with American hamburgers. The Soviet Union ruled by octogenerians, It could not feed itself, it never reached not even 30% of the USA GNP, the business of America was business. Then the Neocons took reigns of the USA Foreign Policy establishment that push for FREE trade, open borders, unmitigated/chaotic Illegal IMMIGRATION.. the LGBTQ+ agenda and I would argue the systematic erosion of Americas Politicial Civic Moral Institutions specially the Electoral system. Less tan 50% of Americans trust their govt, they would not called themselves Americans, rampant crime,racial strife, illiteracy, debase industrial sector, and the nuclear heterosexual families are becoming extinct. SO what should America do faced with this Ucranian Disaster? Make PEACE and cut your loses? How do/ can we keep NATO together? The biggest loser/patsy is Germany..will they remain in NATO/USA? Germanywill need ENERGY (cheap) more so after the War. The results on the ground are mush wose for America than beforethe War: Ucraine will in all lkelyhood be divided, Russia will expand geographically, Puttin is more popular now,, Russia+China+Iran have the Economic/political/military power to challenge the USA +(European/NATO)? hegemony. The NEOcon had run its course the USA economy is exhausted, fiscally bankrupt, socially polarazied, balkanized, open borders, fentanyl epidemic, and for the first time in History the military is facing a deficit in recruiting and demoralized troops. Hopefully the American democracy will bring about a profound PARADIGM in favor of America First/MAGA policies . A sismic teuthonic change in Washington DC/WH/Congress through FREE elections without DEM BLUE FRAUDS. That is to say without RACISM, intolerance towards racial/national/SEXUAL minorities BUT keeping PUBLIC/private spheres of morality under the RULE of LAW restoring/preserving and making equality of CITIZENSHIP the fundamental principle of OUR Constitutional Democracy.

  5. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    Warning: The following post contains a name which, if repeated, could cause university academics to poop their pants and lose their jobs. Reader discretion is advised
    Long ago my Maternal Great Grandfather married a faith Jewess who came to the UK with the unwanted faith Jews from Odessa in Russia. Unwanted by both the Real Jews and Christians. This meant that my family was no longer Jewish by blood and therefore no longer Jewish. (The memories always linger, and I never can be free, I look around and there’s rabbi following me)
    I was told that some good Jews were against the mass murder of Christians in Russia so the bad Jews tortured the children of the good Jews to death in front of their parents and then tortured the parents to death. My family was related to some of the victims.
    Fourteen faith Jew families owned the USSR. They hated the Russians so much that at a meeting, which Trotsky attended as an observer, (no Stalin), it was agreed to sell the Russian grain abroad and starve millions of Russians to death.
    A friend of Stalin’s family told me that he visited one of their palaces with Stalin’s daughter in two black Zil cars. It was two days drive from Moscow. The estate was called a military district to keep out the public. The walls were covered in paintings. The corridors full of statues. Security was provided by the KGB. Their favourite friends were the Americans.
    The favourite friends of the enemies of Christianity and the Europeans are still the Americans. The faith Jews are still trying to destroy Russia.
    The great historian David Irving has shown why the World is rotten.

  6. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    American children are taught from the primary school on about Anne Frank. How many of them know the name of Mary Phagan? How about just kids in Georgia? Close to zero, I guess.
    How many blacks of all ages know the name of Jim Conley, the Black janitor whom the Jewish defenders of Leo Frank tried to have hanged for the rape and murder of Mary Phagan committed by Leo Frank?
    How many Americans are fully aware of the activities of the ADL and those of the SPLC? The information is available on the internet but not easy to ferret out for most people who are just struggling to survive.
    With parents now waking up to the poisonous indoctrination of their children in schools maybe a samizdat guide (no publishing house would touch it) reviewing America’s Internal Enemies might help them.

    • Gerry
      Gerry says:

      “reviewing America’s Internal Enemies might help them.”

      love, love those words and for a “contrast” to the above take this in from Dr. Willard Cantelon’s work 1973:


      Headlines of this nature were being seen more and more frequently in many areas of the nation. In studying the various articles, I discovered that the announcement was received by many Americans with mingled consternation and confusion. One article read as follows:

      The national energy ..crisis,,, here yesterday and gone tomorrow, seems almost elusive, and the experts dis_
      agree even on its existence. Now it seems the people directly affected by the current fuel shortages give different opinions, as two stories by Associated press at left, and International press at right, reflect. Is there an Energy Crisis? Facts are facts, but it depends on who you ask and when.

      As I followed the reactions of our nation’s leaders, I turned my eyes and interest again to the Dallas Morning News, January 16. The top half of l l-A was devoted to an article headlined,

      And on the bottom half of the same page, ran a second headline: KOSYGIN TOURS OIL GAS AREA IN

      The two stories on the same page did not come as a total surprise to some of us who had followed the developments of these events for several months. On November 12, 1972, I was in Eugene, Oregon. I picked up the daily paper, the Register Guard, and read an article reprinted from the Washington Star, which said,

      Washington Star News reports U.S. may buy as much as forty billion dollars’ worth of natural gas from Russia
      during the next twenty-five years. U.S. companies backed by federal financing would buy 36.5 trillion cubic feet of liquefied natural gas.

      The head of one of the oil and gas producers’ groups said, Russian gas would cost six times more than the wholesale price of U.S. gas.

      In response to that announcement in November, Tom Medders, Jr., head of the Independent Petroleum Association
      of America, said,

      It is disturbing that our government is willing to encourage development of the Soviet Union’s gas at such a cost when it is pursuing regulatory policies that are discouraging the needful capital expenditures to develop our own natural gas resources at home.

      Serious-minded leaders, such as Senator Henry Jackson and Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson, and others,
      raised the question,

      Would it not be unwise to make our nation dependent on an energy source that was held in the hands of a
      foreign nation?

      In spite of the fact the alarms were being sounded, there was every indication that Americans would be subjected to
      gas rationing in the near future. Men as prominent as Mr. O’Leary, member of the Atomic Energy Commission,
      predicted rationing in the near future.

      Russian Wheat

      While America was discussing the purchasing of 36 trillion cubic feet of Russian gas, the Russians were occupied
      with the task of importing 20 million tons of wheat, which they had purchased from the United States, at a price
      of over $ I billion. Although the Russian press sought to keep this tremendous importation of wheat a secret from their own people, the free world was told it was because of a drought in the USSR.

      Some indicated the drought in Russia was the worst in a hundred years, and affected 27.5 million acres of land.
      Several years previously, I recalled reading an article by Sterling Slappey. His article carried the headline,


      Mr. Slappey quoted a report from the reputable German Institute of Industries. They declared the Soviets had greater need for wheat to distill into industrial alcohol than to turn into bread. They said that it took nine tons of wheat to make two tons of alcohol, which in turn would make one ton of synthetic rubber. They also declared the Russians needed 550,000 tons of industrial alcohol for the purposes mentioned. Some who read Slappey’s article and his quotations
      from the Institute of German Industries, said,

      We do not mind as taxpayers subsidizing cheap wheat for Russian bread, but we would resent subsidizing the
      wheat purchase to the USSR if it were to be used for military production.

      Was the fuel crisis in America genuine, or was it somehow linked to the possible purchase of Russian gas? If the
      suggested deal with Russia should develop as outlined, the 25-year contract for $40 billion worth of Russian gas would be the biggest transaction in the history of man.
      Close quote pgs 76-78

      Ah, the International Bankers – since the formation of the Federal Reserve that Christmas morning, get it Christmas? they must find it so easy, laughable actually at how they can play us all for fools! Communists helping the Communists! hows that for internal enemies?

      We in the Western Expression of the Christian Church needs and needs immediately to come to the help of the Eastern Orthodox. But I fear the Church in the West needs a hard slap the back of the head to wake us up to the war that we are in. But as I said many times on various blogs what we are facing is indeed something so diabolical that it repels the mind that it could even be possible!!!

      Beyond all of this though it is energy that supersedes everything at least for me. In fact, this morning reading about the plight of SA sends shivers up my spine. Warning indeed!!! see:

  7. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    01 I often objected to our ” spelling police ” on this site, who were unilingual, native English speakers.

    02 Though, as a Teuton, admittedly, I could not suppress a smile when I came across your SISMIC TEUTHONIC CHANGE.

    03 Is there such a thing as a DOUBLE FREUDIAN SLIP ?

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      My above was posted as a Reply to Birhan Dargey’s Comment; but ended up here like an unidentified foundling.

  8. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thanks Kevin.

    The last three paragraphs are what it’s all about.

    I tell as many as I can about the Jewish role in the Ukraine debacle. Hope others do to.

  9. Montmorency
    Montmorency says:

    “……. may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.”

    No it wont.
    Whatever is left will be both very small in territorial size and controlled by Russia in every aspect, from political to social to education.
    As to the West, in its corrupted current form, it wont survive the inevitable implosion of the fiat system.
    And then there’s the chance that NATO will officially cross the Polish-Ukrainian border. If that happens we’ll see Russian tanks again in Warsaw and maybe in Berlin.

    • JM
      JM says:


      “Whatever is left will be both very small in territorial size and controlled by Russia in every aspect, from political to social to education.”

      Well that will certainly advance their current cultural horizons, dominated as they are by wretched CIA-sponsored curs. Same race as the Russians, deep historical connections. They will not be subverted.

  10. His Grace
    His Grace says:

    For whom was this highly intellectual article written?

    If the author hoped for more than 10 people reading it he/she really ought to have made it more intellectually accessible.

  11. Peace Activist Extraordinaire
    Peace Activist Extraordinaire says:

    Would love to watch mainstream pundits and TV acceptable historians discuss this article, Famine in the Ukraine, (1933), and compare our American actions then with today while admitting that one month after the article we formally recognized the Soviet Union (and Baltic-White Sea Canal also completed around this time with Gulag slave labor.)

  12. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    Again, I don’t necessarily agree with the theological underpinnings but Emry’s “Billions for the Bankers Debts for the People” is the best piece I’ve found to help the minimally literate understand the “fiat system”. Its available several places online. For example, just one paragraph:

    “Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters
    who have wondered why politicians always
    spend more tax money than they take in should
    now see the reason. When they begin to study
    our “debt-money” system, they soon realize that
    these politicians are not the agents of the people
    but are the agents of the Bankers, for whom they
    plan ways to place the people further-in debt.”

    • James Clayton
      James Clayton says:
      Billions for the Bankers Debts for the People
      The Real Story of the Money-control Over America
      by Sheldon Emry
      12-pages, 11 black & white with an attractive three-color cover, formatted for printing as a booklet. The first paragraph:
      “If the American people ever allow private banks
      to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around
      the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless
      on the continent their fathers conquered.” -Thomas Jefferson

      From the intro

  13. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    @ James Clayton

    and yet wasn’t it Paul Warburg who said after experiencing and witnessing the roaring twenties and then the great depression:

    “The world lives in a fools paradise based upon fictitious wealth, rash promises and mad illusions. We must beware of booms based upon false prosperity which has its roots in inflated credit and prices.”

    There is nothing like the sin of man and our greed which fuels so much. Paul Warburg had nothing but contempt for the political class for allowing so much to go down and as i look about me here in the lower mainland of BC, Canada and see spec houses selling for absurd amounts of money, in one case 1.7 million dollars it leaves me aghast. Bubbles everywhere based on little more than greed and inflation growing. Sheldon Emery should have mentioned in one his illustrations how a loan for a house that went for 60,000 turned into a sale for 160,000? Yeah, do a little bit of renovations like putting in a granite countertop and voila you’ve not only paid off the greedy bankers but you’ve turned around and sold that 60,000 property for 160,000? lol And O who gave the buyer the 160,000? The banker who gave the first guy the 60,000? Wow, got to say is it any wonder the bankers are communists? And the affordability problems around here is just stupid with the homeless growing constantly? Just this morning a friend wanting to move closer to work is stunned that a one bedroom the rental alone is 1700.00 a month? I don’t understand how such can even be justified given the wages? Heck, I’d imagine even doctors and lawyers and university types are taken aback by such prices? Income doesn’t come from wages but from speculation and house reno’s?

    False Prosperity! Yeah, two words that are often on my mind these days!

    • James Clayton
      James Clayton says:

      “Sheldon Emery should have mentioned in one his illustrations how a loan for a house that went for 60,000 turned into a sale for 160,000?”
      I think what he explained he explained well, simply, and is a large enough cud to chew to give pause to the average herd animal.
      Consider how one of the stinks recently measured once again by Pew, the illiterati don’t grasp the agreement– betting the farm against being able to afford firewood, fodder, food, all manner of taxes, and fear losing their shelter. Nor do they understand that the prices– inflation of the above– knowingly & willfully are manipulated up and down cyclically to threaten foreclosure and encourage borrowing, respectively. It is all controlled by those few boycott thusly:
      Printing one’s home mortgage amortization table, getting a rubber stamp for the back of each Postal Money Order stating that endorsement acknowledges additional amounts paid must be applied to principal prepayment not only saves borrowers tremendously but helps to educate bank employees who handle them. And there’s no easier way to instantly understand and keep-track-of such principal prepayments than to cross each one off of the amortization print-out and highlight how much interest is saved with each such payment. It is easier with making those payments in the in increments of payments on the chart. For example, “Endorsement acknowledges applying this instrument to my ‘regular monthly payment” #____ and ‘principal prepayments’ numbers __________.” Then you have a signed receipt which banks archive and you are supposed to be able to retrieve. I always kept a hard copy from a scan. It this seems complicated, try living in your car.
      Get the print-out if you have a home loan and you’ll understand immediately. And then try making regular payment #6 and principal prepayments #7, 8, & 9 and notice the effect. Their algorithm is not meant to be comprehended by rubes, by marks. Federal Reserve actuaries’ calculations are meant to adjust interest rates, the prime, the money supply such that the borrower can barely afford the monthly single principal & interest payment to the lender. And few still have the nuts to teach others to teach it to others for fear of being having them bull dogged and having them cut off.

  14. conrad gaarder
    conrad gaarder says:

    Defense contractors want the money, Russia-hating Jews want to avenge their ancestors, NGO’s want contracts to “help,” and LGBT gays want the Pride flag fluttering over Red Square.

  15. Alex Ozersky
    Alex Ozersky says:

    Why not partition Ukraine between Ukrainians and Russians along the natural boundary of the river Dnieper?

  16. Ezra Greenback
    Ezra Greenback says:

    Ivo Mosley’s “Bank Robbery” (Triarchy Press 2020) is worth reading. Ironically, married to an Oppenheimer, he avoids any “ethnic” examination of the usury system, and remains a vocally vicious critic of his fascist grandfather, who actually proposed a goods-standard system of national credit and resource insulation to control global speculation, and raise purchasing power as science improved the means of production.

Comments are closed.