General

Insult Diplomacy: Does Biden’s Vilification of Putin Help?

/1 Comment/in /by

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.” It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

Several weeks into the war in Ukraine, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked President Joe Biden if he agreed with those who call Russian President Vladimir Putin “a killer.”

“I do,” said Biden.

Since calling Putin a killer, Biden has progressed to calling him “a war criminal,” “a murderous dictator,” “a pure thug” and “a butcher.”

It is difficult to recall an American president using such a string of epithets about the leader of a nation with which we were not at war.

What is Biden’s rationale? What is his purpose here?

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, to their eternal embarrassment, called Joseph Stalin, a far greater monster than Putin, “good old Joe” and “Uncle Joe” when they sought his cooperation in World War II and the early postwar era.

Richard Nixon toasted the century’s greatest mass murderer Mao Zedong in the Great Hall of the People during his historic trip to China in 1972. His purpose: establish relations with America’s most hostile adversary — to help Nixon advance a “generation of peace.”

But when it comes to depicting Putin, who launched this invasion of Ukraine, Biden repeatedly reaches for the nastiest of insults.

But why?

“Putin deserves it,” say the champions of a Cold War II. We need more truth and candor in diplomacy. When Biden referenced Putin in the closing remarks of his address in Warsaw, Poland — “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” — they were elated.

Biden was calling for regime change in Russia, calling for the people of Russia to administer to the “killer” and “butcher” the fate he deserves and remove him from power by any means necessary.

Within minutes of hearing their president go off-script with his call for regime change in Russia, White House aides and Cabinet officers were scrambling to assure reporters that the president of the United States did not mean what the president of the United States had just said.

Biden was expressing his “moral outrage” at the carnage Putin has unleashed on Ukraine, they said — and not making a change in U.S. policy.

For days, the president and his advisers argued over whether Biden had meant it literally when he said, “This man cannot remain in power.”

Sunday in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Antony Blinken sought to shut down the argument:

“As you know, and as you’ve heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else, for that matter. In this case, as in any case, it’s up to the people of the country in question. It’s up to the Russian people.”

One problem with Blinken’s statement is that the U.S. has been deeply involved, both during the Cold War and afterward, in “color revolutions” to effect the overthrow of autocrats we did not like.

Indeed, when Biden characterizes America’s cause in the world as leading the global struggle between democracy and autocracy, what is the desired and predetermined fate of the autocrats we oppose, if not their forcible ouster?

In 2014, the U.S. helped finance the Maidan Revolution that ousted a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, in Kyiv. Sen. John McCain and the State Department’s Victoria Nuland had both been seen in the square cheering on the rebels.

A second problem is that Putin is many things other than the terms Biden used to describe him.

He commands the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and 10 times as many battlefield nuclear weapons as the U.S. military. He is the man we must look to if we hope to end the war in Ukraine. For Putin alone can order the Russian army to stand down or withdraw, presumably a goal of U.S. foreign policy.

If the president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world, Putin is up there alongside him, disposing of an arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could bring an end to Western civilization.

Without Putin’s cooperation, the bloodletting goes on in Ukraine.

How does it advance the goal of getting his agreement to end the war in Ukraine for the U.S. president to repeatedly call him vile names?

Already, we have paid a price.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley are finding their secure phones to their opposite numbers in the Russian government have gone silent.

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Valery Gerasimov have not been picking up the phone.

In Moscow, there is talk of severing diplomatic relations with the United States because of Biden’s name-calling.

None of the aspiring peace-makers seeking to broker a cease-fire or truce in the Ukraine war are acting like this or using language like that.

President Emmanuel Macron of France, President Recep Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel have not used the kind of public language on Putin as has Biden.

We see the cost of what Biden is doing; wherein lies the benefit?

Pro-Crime Party Nominates a Justice

/6 Comments/in /by
Presidents are entitled to nominate Supreme Court justices who represent their party and its values. Using that as our guide, President Joe Biden picked the Democrats’ perfect Supreme Court justice: Ketanji Brown Jackson.

If you’d given me a thousand bucks to come up with a question that would stump a Supreme Court nominee, I never would have thought of: What’s a woman?

Democratic values.

As Sens. Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham amply demonstrated at the nomination hearings last week, Judge Jackson really likes defendants in child pornography cases. She’s partial to all criminals, but the child porn cases make the point bracingly.

In seven out of seven child pornography cases that came before Judge Jackson, where the sentencing was up to the judge, she imposed sentences that were a fraction of those recommended under the sentencing guidelines. In all seven cases, her sentences were also far below those requested by the prosecutor.

Not 2 1/2 years, instead of three — more like three months instead of 10 years. In United States v. Hawkins, the defendant possessed and distributed multiple images of child abuse of kids, including photos of prepubescent boys engaging in oral and anal sex, a video of an 8-year-old boy masturbating, and one of an 11-year-old boy being anally penetrated by an adult man.

The federal sentencing guidelines recommended eight to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the defendant to three months.

Yes, yes, he was only 18, and he was remorseful. Good for him!

But Judge Jackson also dramatically departed downward in sentencing a couple of ripe perverts — one who attempted to travel across state lines to molest a 9-year-old girl (when his thousands of child porn images weren’t enough); and another who’d distributed more than a hundred pornographic photos and videos of his own daughter.

On average, Judge Jackson gave child porn defendants sentences more than five years below the minimum under the guidelines.

In other words, Judge Jackson is the beau ideal Democratic Supreme Court justice.

In her favor, KBJ is at least a Generational African American (GAA), i.e. Descendant of American Slaves (DOAS) — unlike Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Joy Ann Reid and approximately 90% of the “African Americans” in Harvard’s entering class this year, according to the Harvard Crimson.

Perhaps, there’s hope that, someday, the high court will acknowledge that affirmative action is intended to make up for the legacy of slavery and should be available exclusively to GAAs, as opposed to what it is now, which is affirmative action, set-asides, “plus” factors, and do-nothing diversity jobs for everyone except white Americans.

Apart from the Democrats finally promoting a legacy African American, rather than an immigrant trying to steal the experiences of Black Americans, nothing is unusual here. It’s the media’s response to the questioning Judge Jackson that’s been hilarious.

The media take the position that it’s rude to ask Judge Jackson questions — at least any questions about her record. Republicans are welcome to ask her all the questions they like about her family or her travails.

She is the most qualified human being ever, EVER to be nominated to the Supreme Court! The bravest, the strongest, the most heroic — HOW DARE YOU ASK OUR LITTLE LAMB QUESTIONS!

The media have also issued reams of “context,” “fact checks” and “debunkings” … all to prove that KBJ is a virtual Eliot Ness on crime! Don’t believe your eyes! Forget everything you know about the Democrats! It’s all lies and conspiracy theories!

We got the sneering:

No, Sen. Hawley, Ketanji Brown Jackson isn’t soft on child pornography. — NBC News

We got the hysterical warnings about right-wing conspiracy theorists:

Hawley’s attacks on Ketanji Brown Jackson fuel a surge in online conspiracy chatter. — NPR

And we got the sophistical “fact checks”:

Fact check: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson child porn sentences “pretty mainstream” — ABC News

The New York Times’ “fact check” noted she was concerned about child porn fiends who were simply motivated by “the technological or social aspects” of child porn.

Totally run on that, Democrats.

What is the point of all these “FACT CHECKS”? For the past two years, liberals have been screaming, “Defund the Police!” “All Cops Are Bastards,” “F—k the Police!” — not to mention actually defunding the police and springing criminals in Democratic-run cities around the country.

We got it: You like criminals and hate the police, Democrats. You’re not exactly flying below the radar.

Of note: Sen. Joe Manchin, your regular, old-time, American values Democrat, is just like the rest of his party when it comes to crime. Same with Arizona’s Sen. Mark Kelly and Montana’s Sen. Jon Tester. Kelly can boast about being an astronaut, and Tester can walk around with that buzz-cut and a piece of hay in his teeth — but give them a guy getting off on videos of 11-year-old boys being anally raped, and they say: Three months. Max.

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION

Odysee Interview with Tom Sunic

/3 Comments/in /by

Dr. Tomislav Sunić discusses the breakup of Yugoslavia, eastward expansion of NATO, and the decay of America under liberalism.

Interview with Tomislav Sunić (odysee.com)

Whoopi and the Professor

/15 Comments/in /by

Thoughtcrime can lead to thought experiments. All it takes is a willingness to go where the less foolhardy are loath to go. What is race? What is an atrocity? When is a racist atrocity neither racist nor an atrocity? The answers may not be as cut-and-dried as you may think.

In what seems like eons ago, what with the Biden Administration’s incitement of the late Ukrainian unpleasantness, Whoopi Goldberg denied racism had anything to do with the Holocaust. She uttered this blasphemy on the Jan. 31, 2022, showing of The View. Cavalierly dismissing so monumental an atrocity with the “man’s inhumanity to man” platitude fell woefully short of doing it justice. To make matters worse, she claimed both Jewish victims and Nazi victimizers were White.

Sorry, Whoopi. When it comes to the Holocaust, we’re talking unparalleled evil. Nothing in history can hold a candle to it. With racism the deadliest of the Eight Deadly Sins, the Holocaust can’t help but have oozed it.

Every schoolboy knows the Jews are a tribe. Every schoolboy knows the Germans are a tribe. The Nazis, a subset of the German tribe, subjected the Jewish tribe to mass murder via gas chambers. Every schoolboy knows that, too. Inasmuch as “tribe” is just another word for race, the Nazis were racist against the Jews. Sure, the Nazis treated fellow Germans and other Europeans shabbily, too. They just weren’t racist about it.

Decent human beings do not conflate complexion and race. One tribe can in fact perpetrate a racist atrocity against another tribe even if the two tribes share the same skin color. Conversely, one tribe cannot fall victim to a racist atrocity, no matter the skin color of the other tribe. Ben Philippe, a Black English instructor at Barnard College, has brought this peculiar phenomenon to the fore. In a segment of his book entitled Sure, I’ll be your Black Friend, he matter-of-factly describes a scene in which he gasses White people:

“When this race war hits its crescendo, I’ll gather you all into a beautifully decorated room under the pretense of unity. I’ll give a speech to civility and all the good times we share; I’ll smile as we raise glasses to your good, White health, while the detonator blinks under the table, knowing the exits are locked and the air vents filled with gas.”

Philippe discusses his fantasized comeuppance in an interview with Canadian radio host Talia Schlanger. The impossibly telegenic Dutch political analyst Eva Vlaardingerbroek provides audio link to the interview and commentary on the exchange.

In the link, you can hear Ms. Schlanger taken aback by the passage and asking him about it. He does not falter in his explanation:

“I guess I was wrestling with the question that, isn’t the result of that, all-out warfare, like, Game of Thrones-style warfare? And what does that look like? And I live in that sort of stray thought for a few pages. And it was disturbing to write, too. Because I’m not a violent person.” Giggling, he hastens to add, “I love all my White friends.”

That’s how we know he’s not a violent person. He has a sense of humor and only wants to gas White people who are strangers.

Ms. Schlanger informs Mr. Philippe her grandparents were Holocaust survivors. “I can’t tell you how it felt to read that sentiment. And I wanted to say to you that I’m sorry that your experience of the world made you feel that way.”

She’s sorry he feels that way? Would Ms. Schlanger feel sorry for a present-day Nazi who fantasized about gassing Jews? Did the historical Nazis have an “experience of the world” that made them “feel that way” about gassing Jews? The exchange leaves Ms. Vlaardingerbroek dumbfounded. She seems to think the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors would push back against a Black man who dreams of perpetrating such an act against White people. Maybe even push back hard.

As if Jews are Whites. Ms. Vlaardingerbroek, please report to your local Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) re-education camp. Take two weeks off. Reflect on the hurt you have caused.

Meanwhile, her insensitivity toward the Jewish people notwithstanding, it occurs to our Dutch correspondent that visceral hatred of Whites has entered the mainstream. “Where are we headed?” she asks. Nowhere good, Ms. Vlaardingerbroek. At least not until our people embrace the same racial consciousness and solidarity long nurtured and taken for granted by our presumed betters.

Let us not apologize for it. Self-preservation is the first instinct of the species.

Tony Pivetta is a longtime pension analyst forced into early semi-retirement by his erstwhile employer’s demand he submit to a highly experimental vaccine that prevents neither infection nor transmission. He spends his now ample spare time contemplating the chief mystery of the post-Christian West—namely, how do so many otherwise decent and reasoning human beings manage to invoke bodily autonomy when it comes to the thorny baby-killing issue even as they reject it in slam-dunk applications like drug use, seatbelt choice, and vaccine refusal? A disaffected baseball fan, Pivetta still pines for the cozy confines of late and unlamented Tiger Stadium. He can’t help but draw dark parallels between the rise of publicly financed stadiums and the demise of both the Grand Old Game and Western Civilization.   

Is Victory for Ukraine Worth Risking Nuclear War?

/14 Comments/in /by

The question remains: When did the relationship between Russia and Ukraine become a matter of such vital interest to the U.S. that we would risk war, possible nuclear war, with Russia over it? How did we get here?

During the 70 years that the Soviet Union existed, Ukraine was an integral part of the nation.

Yet this geographic and political reality posed no threat to the United States. A Russia and a Ukraine, both inside the USSR, was an accepted reality that was seen as no threat for the seven decades that they were united.

Yet, today, because of a month-old war between Russia and Ukraine, over who shall control Crimea, the Donbas and the Black and Azov Sea coasts of Ukraine, America seems closer to a nuclear war than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.

Why? Time to step back and reflect on what is at stake.

Exactly what threat does Russia’s invasion of Ukraine present to us that is so grave we would consider military action that could lead to World War III and Russia’s use of battlefield nuclear weapons against us?

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly hinted at the use of such weapons, should NATO intervene in the Ukraine war and Russia face defeat, or in the event of an “existential” threat to the Russian nation.

We hear from our moral elites that morality commands us to intervene to save the Ukrainian people from the ravages of a war that has already taken thousands of Ukrainian lives.

But what would be the justification for U.S. military intervention in Ukraine, absent a congressional authorization or declaration of war?

Consider. The year the Liberal Hour arrived in America with the New Deal, 1933, a newly inaugurated Franklin D. Roosevelt formally recognized Joseph Stalin’s murderous regime as the legitimate government of a Russia-led USSR.

FDR met personally with Soviet Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov even as the Holodomor, the forced starvation of Ukrainian peasants and small farmers, the kulaks and their families, was far advanced.

Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter in Moscow, won a Pulitzer for covering up that crime of the century with its estimated 4 million dead.

The question remains: When did the relationship between Russia and Ukraine become a matter of such vital interest to the U.S. that we would risk war, possible nuclear war, with Russia over it?

How did we get here?

We got here by exploiting our Cold War victory as an opportunity to move NATO, our Cold War alliance, into a dozen countries in Central and Eastern Europe, up to the borders of Russia. Then, we started to bring Ukraine into NATO, the constituent republic of the old Soviet Union with the longest and deepest history with Mother Russia.

Thus, while Putin started this war, the U.S. set the table for it.

We pushed our military alliance, NATO, set up in 1949 to contain and, if necessary, fight Russia, 1,000 miles to the east, right into Russia’s face.

In the 1930s, when Britain’s Lady Astor was asked if she knew where Hitler was born, she answered: “Versailles.”

At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which produced the Versailles Treaty, millions of Germanic peoples and the lands they had inhabited were severed from German rule and distributed to half a dozen nations across Europe.

When we get back on our feet, we will take back all that we have lost, said Gen. Hans von Seeckt of the German General Staff.

We hear warnings that if Russia uses chemical weapons in Ukraine, NATO will react militarily. But if no NATO ally is attacked, why would NATO respond to a Russian attack on Ukraine?

Though outlawed today, chemical weapons were used by all the major participants in World War I, including the Americans.

As for atomic weapons, only Americans have used them.

And while we did not introduce the bombing of cities — the British and Germans did that — we did perfect the carpet-bombing of cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden and Tokyo.

The Ukrainian war, now a month old, has demonstrated the utility of nuclear weapons. Putin’s credible threat to use them has caused the U.S. and NATO to flatly refuse Kyiv’s request to put a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

And as Russia’s threat to use nuclear weapons has deterred NATO from intervening on Ukraine’s side in this war, other nations will not miss the message: Possession of nukes can deter even the greatest nuclear powers.

The longer this war goes on, the greater the suffering and losses on all sides. Thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians are already dead, with 10 million uprooted from their homes, a third of that number having fled into neighboring states of Eastern Europe.

The longer the war goes on, the greater the likelihood Putin resorts to indiscriminate bombing and shelling to kill off the resistance, and the greater the possibility that the war expands into NATO Europe.

Meanwhile, in the secure American homeland, 5,000 miles from Kyiv, there is no shortage of foreign policy scholars beating the drums for a “victory” over Putin’s Russia and willing to fight to achieve that victory — right down to the last Ukrainian.

Red Ice Interviews Kevin MacDonald

/27 Comments/in /by

 

School of the West

/7 Comments/in /by

 

The great reset is upon us. The Russian and Ukrainian brother war has seen a complete onslaught of propaganda flooding the airwaves with all manner of lies and hoaxes. The COVID pandemic has been completely sidelined now that the ineffectiveness of the vaccines and masking has become apparent. The globalist elites are tightening their grip on nations and government bodies more than ever. The unrelenting stream of anti-White and anti-West hatred coming from all levels of power and academia, especially the push into the primary schools. Your children are being encouraged to lie to you, and hide that the indoctrination of the LGBTQ+ recruitment program is being poured into their minds like so much water in a jar. What were once public schools are now a complex network of grooming centers and identity destroying camps.

Of all the arms of the machine, it is the lack of education and surplus of revisionism that I would like to address. We finally have a tool that puts you, the parents, back in control. I am here today to tell you all about School of the West. School of the West is an online homeschool adjunct that all Western children can benefit from. Whether you are homeschooled or trapped in the public school system, this easily accessible and mostly free website is definitely right for you and your family. All of the pre-filmed video lessons are open to the public at no charge. Videos and content covering all the major subjects are available, with new content being added monthly as it is created by our pool of volunteer instructors. Instructors are working professionals with real world experience and advanced education in their given subjects, packaged in easy to digest and age-appropriate lessons that children will enjoy. There is also a service for personalized instruction with the school’s founder in a virtual classroom setting at a fair and affordable price.

The site is a nonpolitical, family-friendly resource with a focus on real education that instills a love and fondness for the shared biospirit of the West.

If you are one of many who wish to help and contribute, we are always looking for more instructors to add content and widen the array of subjects the youngsters can learn. Hands-on skills and advanced subjects are all needed.

Your children are the West, it is only in Western people that Western civilization is created and maintained. For too long the system has failed multiple generations of our people. Only through an education that corrects the lies and the wrongs that have been perpetrated against us—often by dragging us down so others can be artificially lifted up—will we see ourselves as a distinct and unique people, united in our shared history and heritage. Only through such an education will we be able to have our way of life restored and secured for generations to come.

Please visit our website and let us know what subjects you would like to see. Use the contact section to get involved and see how easy it is to stop lamenting the destruction of the world we have built, and start doing something about it. One family at a time, one generation at a time, we will build a community of strong and proud men and women of the West.