Posted On: Tuesday - March 1st 2022 6:01PM MST
In Topics: General Stupidity The Russians History World Political Stupidity
From another commenter, I used this line in previous post to explain why I am a Friend of Vlad right now, when it comes to the goings on in the Ukraine. That can be a good principle to use in wartime, and it's cultural wartime right here and now. However, it does have its drawbacks, as we can see from just 2 examples, which happen to involve some Mr. Putin's and my same crowd - Russians and Americans.*
Those 3 up top are, of course, British PM Winston Churchill, US President Franklin Roosevelt, and USSR Premier Joseph Stalin at the famous Yalta Conference in February of 1945, held to decide how Europe would be run after the war was over**. Of all places, this meeting*** was held right where the trouble is now. Yalta is just northeast of the southern tip of the Crimean peninsula, on the shores of the Black Sea.
I'm sure the conference was not all friendly-like between "Uncle Joe" and the other two men, but Stalin and the USSR were allied with America and the West due to the goal of first and foremost defeating the Nazis. "The enemy (Russia) of my enemy (Germany) is my friend."
That the United States that formed this friendship with this miserable government of the USSR, which had been Communist for 2 1/2 decades already, is something that was based on the idea that the US MUST be in this war to defeat the Nazis. Much of that is due to the Socialist FDR.
Was it that FDR sympathized with Communism, or was it (more likey) that he absolutely wanted us in that war and the Nazis defeated. There's a very good argument that America and Western Europe to boot, should have stayed out and let the Germans and Soviets fight it out.
That argument aside, America sent much war materiel over a few years to the Soviets well before the troops were in battle in Africa and then Europe to split the effort in defeating the Nazis. After the few years of the war, by 1945, it was already obvious that this friendly relationship wasn't going to last. Within a year the American, British, and French administered regions of Germany were West Germany, and the Soviet sector was East Germany. Berlin was similarly divided.**** One year after the end of our "friendship" with the enemy of our enemy, the Cold War was officially on, if one can base it on Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech of March '46. 3 years later, both sides had nuclear weapons which were aimed at each other's lands in various ways and in greatly increasing numbers over the next 4 decades.
The same nations, but in a different configuration, were involved in a similar "enemy of my enemy" less than 4 decades after that first friendship deal.
One of the hotspots of the Cold War was Afghanistan. As with America in Vietnam, it started with politics and revolutions and then "advisors", but the Red Army invaded the country in earnest in the Fall of 1979. America had a problem with that, of course, and supported the opposing forces.
Afghanistan being a Moslem country, it was one of the many varied groups of wild jihadis, the Mujahideen, that the US decided to make friends with as the enemy of our (Arch-) enemy, the USSR. Maybe nobody translated it, or maybe nobody cared, but "Mujahideen" means "strugglers for justice" or "doers of Jihad". Hey, I don't like the sound of that! The latter meaning is worrisome, but then, so long as they don't come here ... and we don't have a reason to come there... except for those "advisors" showing these Mujahideen fellows how to use Stinger surface-to-air missiles to take down the Soviet helicopters that were a mainstay***** of their operations, they shouldn't be any problem for us ...
As a quick aside, there is a pretty good movie named Charlie Wilson's War that covers some of this story. Charlie Wilson was the Texas Congressman very involved in setting this all up and he was involved in lots of such subterfuge over the years. This Tom Hanks movie, made in '07, was based on a book by George Crile, Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of our Times. I haven't read the book, so I don't know how close the movie keeps to the book, hence how accurate, and who knows about the book either?
OK, so we all know how badly their Afghanistan venture ended for the Soviets (along with all this other general history that almost all readers are surely familiar with). Some say this war in Afghanistan was part of the reason for the downfall of the USSR, but I doubt it was more than a small part of the big picture.
Well, a decade after this war started, there was no USSR. Just over a decade after that, this old "friend" of America was, if not the culprit, blamed for the destruction and death in NY City.
This "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing just doesn't always work out for the best after a few years have gone by. Was it worth it each of these 2 times? In the 1st example, it should never have been the case in the first place, our friending the Commies of Soviet Russia. If they'd fought the Germans without the huge help of America, or the Nazi's had beaten them, we'd have saved ourselves from that expensive Cold War and the MIC expansion that went with it.******. In the 2nd example, we know from hindsight that our friendship with the that crazy Mujahideen crowd didn't help us much in the grand scheme of things. For both of these examples we ended up with a bigger enemy than the initial enemy for which we'd befriended them.
What about the idea from the previous post, that we patriots befriend Vladimir Putin and Russia? They are the enemy of our enemies, the Feral Gov't, Deep State, and Globalist/Communist elites. In this case, it's not like we're in a position to do anything but root for them though. We patriots don't control anything of the apparatus of the Feral Gov't that is involved in the conflict. We're going to have to win this cultural war (for now) here on our own. That is, unless the country ends up breaking apart, a plausible scenario, and then will the anti-Globo-homo Russkies be on the side of us patriots? We'd be lucky if they don't loot the place, but it's be much more likely that it'd be the Chinese doing that. ******* The Golden Rule of much of the world is "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
PS: What the hell, man?! This was supposed to be a quick post.
* Yes, that IS an Al Stewart album. If you knew that, you are a fellow history-rock fan.
** There were also deals made about places and events in the Far East. Regarding Europe, the winning of the war by the allies was a sure thing, with the Americans/British/etc having gotten to the western border of Germany, and the Russians 40 miles east of Berlin.
*** The "Big Three" leaders had met together before in Tehran, Iran in November of '43, and did again in Potsdam, Germany in late July of '45, well after the German surrender.
**** The story of the Berlin Airlift of '48 - '49 is something else, if you like aviation.
***** There are so many parallels to the Vietnam War, that the Soviets ought to have been pretty wary of taking on the whole project. (Well, they didn't have American-supported and home-grown protesters taking over university campuses and stuff, OTOH.)
****** Would we have had the Cold War with the Nazis? That's alt-history or alt-right speculation. I don't know, but the question is pretty interesting.
******* YES! You're in luck. Peak Stupidity has a 6 part series on Will America be looted by China - Part 1: Intro -- Part 2: Housing -- Part 3: Big Biz -- Part 4: The Fruited Plain -- Part 5: The Wilderness --Part 6: Conclusion - The Golden Rule.
Comments:
Moderator
Thursday - March 3rd 2022 3:34AM MST
PS: Indeed, Mr. Blanc, I don't see why Russia couldn't have been an American ally for the last 3 decades. Is this all foreign policy stupidity or purposeful?
zippy metternich
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 6:21PM MST
PS UK drew up the Middle East boundaries as well.
Borders are a construct of the white male capitalist patriarchy!
Why, it's almost as if they wanted maximum conflict.
Is peak stupidity the ultimate idiot proof?
Borders are a construct of the white male capitalist patriarchy!
Why, it's almost as if they wanted maximum conflict.
Is peak stupidity the ultimate idiot proof?
MBlanc46
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 6:20PM MST
PS No permanent alliances, but permanent interests. As the Chinese are pretty clearly the most serious threat to the West in the short- and mid-term future, a good case can be made bringing the Russkis into an anti-Chinese coalition. The US has done just the opposite.
Moderator
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 8:21AM MST
PS: Yeah, I noticed that Steve Sailer article this morning, Mr. Hail. I don't remember that previous one in which the commenters disagreed so much. If it was in '19, there's a good chance I read it and don't remember. If you find the link first, please paste it in.
BTW, you are pretty steadfast in keeping to your policy of staying off the comments. That's admirable to me, just in the sense of discipline.
I don't know if this would be a good time for you to write in. Yeah, the PanicFest is a thing of the past for Mr. Sailer. OTOH, to me, this Ukraine thing is the next PanicFest. Perhaps you would disagree with that, though.
BTW, you are pretty steadfast in keeping to your policy of staying off the comments. That's admirable to me, just in the sense of discipline.
I don't know if this would be a good time for you to write in. Yeah, the PanicFest is a thing of the past for Mr. Sailer. OTOH, to me, this Ukraine thing is the next PanicFest. Perhaps you would disagree with that, though.
Moderator
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 8:17AM MST
PS: Mr. Anon, I hadn't known some of that background and probably should have kept the post short, as I'd intended. I'm sure your letter to Jimmy went up through the channels... (actually, it wouldn't be as far fetched in 1979 as today - better human being as President, smaller Fed-Gov by quite a bit along with a smaller country).
Other than to clue in someone who might remember from that, I was about to not even mention the star of the movie simply because it never matters to me. Hey, if the guy's realistic, I don't care who he is. I suppose I should make an exception for funny guys like Adam Sandler, Will Ferrel, or Drew Carrey, as they are all funny in their own ways.
For years, I kept thinking of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Russian guy. We weren't a "nation of immigrants" so much then, so the name made me wonder whose side he was on.
Other than to clue in someone who might remember from that, I was about to not even mention the star of the movie simply because it never matters to me. Hey, if the guy's realistic, I don't care who he is. I suppose I should make an exception for funny guys like Adam Sandler, Will Ferrel, or Drew Carrey, as they are all funny in their own ways.
For years, I kept thinking of Zbigniew Brzezinski as a Russian guy. We weren't a "nation of immigrants" so much then, so the name made me wonder whose side he was on.
Hail
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 6:01AM MST
PS
Apropos of my point (previous comment), I see Steve Sailer has a new article up against breaking up the USA.
He'd written a full article on this in 2019. Sailer was against any breakup of the US in 2019, and remains so now in 2022, citing the Ukraine war and other dust-ups since the 1990s in the ex-Soviet area an Yugoslavia.
Sailer's opposition to any US breakup scenario is one of the (few) cases when his own commentariat was against him, by a noticeable margin, in the entire decade of the 2010s.
Apropos of my point (previous comment), I see Steve Sailer has a new article up against breaking up the USA.
He'd written a full article on this in 2019. Sailer was against any breakup of the US in 2019, and remains so now in 2022, citing the Ukraine war and other dust-ups since the 1990s in the ex-Soviet area an Yugoslavia.
Sailer's opposition to any US breakup scenario is one of the (few) cases when his own commentariat was against him, by a noticeable margin, in the entire decade of the 2010s.
Hail
Wednesday - March 2nd 2022 5:25AM MST
PS
"We're going to have to win this cultural war (for now) here on our own. That is, unless the country ends up breaking apart, a plausible scenario, and then will the anti-Globo-homo Russkies be on the side of us patriots? We'd be lucky if they don't loot the place, but it's be much more likely that it'd be the Chinese doing that."
You also mentioned John Derbyshire's "Could Ukraine Be Partitioned?" in the previous post.
This question is what relation there ought to be in principle, in an idealist's approach to statecraft and international relations, between "borders" (jurisdictions of a state entity) and ethno-cultural-religious-political lines.
In cases of mismatch between borders and ethno-cultural-religious lines, there seem to be two basic approaches:
(1.) a tendency towards autonomy and "self-determination" as a primary positive-good, implying separation or readjustment of borders can be positives. This is something like the "ethno-state" model. Or, there is its opposite,
(2.) a tendency towards a "multicultural empire" model. In this 'multiculti' model, some form of diversity-ism is the driving positive-good, and states with diversity are inherently morally superior (at least from a European-Christian base-population perspective, and often also for others).
(Needless to say, the USA as we have known it in our time is AGGRESSIVELY in favor of (2.), "at home and abroad"; I would argue that historically the USA was basically oriented more towards (1.), but because of historical forces and circumstance it inevitably drifted somewhat towards (2.) in the 19th century and early 20th century, but only really fully broke with (1.) in recent memory, a process that played out in the late 20th century.)
Depending on what the exact settlement ends up being of the Ukraine war of 2022, the principle seems on the line in this specific case. (Ironically, Russia itself runs a multicultural society with many minority nations in it.)
As for Ukraine in the past decade, both sides had a claim to being the champions of (1.), the ethno-self-determination model.
There is much to admire in the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 2000s-2010s period, and if they HAD truly taken over the state in 2014 (their street activists did topple the government, after losing 100 of their number shot dead in Maidan Square), things might look different...of course the US/NATO/EU would never have allowed such forces to take over a European state. Instead, what became of Ukraine was a deeply corrupt state more-or-less on the (2.) model; see the David Rothschild statement this week praising Ukraine as "multicultural democracy" under wise Jewish leadership. Look how many scenes of refugees are sprinkled with Africans or Arabs. Why are there there? Look at the NGOs so active and influential before the war, the Gay Pride parades that were held. Many more examples could be offered...
"We're going to have to win this cultural war (for now) here on our own. That is, unless the country ends up breaking apart, a plausible scenario, and then will the anti-Globo-homo Russkies be on the side of us patriots? We'd be lucky if they don't loot the place, but it's be much more likely that it'd be the Chinese doing that."
You also mentioned John Derbyshire's "Could Ukraine Be Partitioned?" in the previous post.
This question is what relation there ought to be in principle, in an idealist's approach to statecraft and international relations, between "borders" (jurisdictions of a state entity) and ethno-cultural-religious-political lines.
In cases of mismatch between borders and ethno-cultural-religious lines, there seem to be two basic approaches:
(1.) a tendency towards autonomy and "self-determination" as a primary positive-good, implying separation or readjustment of borders can be positives. This is something like the "ethno-state" model. Or, there is its opposite,
(2.) a tendency towards a "multicultural empire" model. In this 'multiculti' model, some form of diversity-ism is the driving positive-good, and states with diversity are inherently morally superior (at least from a European-Christian base-population perspective, and often also for others).
(Needless to say, the USA as we have known it in our time is AGGRESSIVELY in favor of (2.), "at home and abroad"; I would argue that historically the USA was basically oriented more towards (1.), but because of historical forces and circumstance it inevitably drifted somewhat towards (2.) in the 19th century and early 20th century, but only really fully broke with (1.) in recent memory, a process that played out in the late 20th century.)
Depending on what the exact settlement ends up being of the Ukraine war of 2022, the principle seems on the line in this specific case. (Ironically, Russia itself runs a multicultural society with many minority nations in it.)
As for Ukraine in the past decade, both sides had a claim to being the champions of (1.), the ethno-self-determination model.
There is much to admire in the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 2000s-2010s period, and if they HAD truly taken over the state in 2014 (their street activists did topple the government, after losing 100 of their number shot dead in Maidan Square), things might look different...of course the US/NATO/EU would never have allowed such forces to take over a European state. Instead, what became of Ukraine was a deeply corrupt state more-or-less on the (2.) model; see the David Rothschild statement this week praising Ukraine as "multicultural democracy" under wise Jewish leadership. Look how many scenes of refugees are sprinkled with Africans or Arabs. Why are there there? Look at the NGOs so active and influential before the war, the Gay Pride parades that were held. Many more examples could be offered...
Mr. Anon
Tuesday - March 1st 2022 9:55PM MST
PS
US Support of the Mujahideen began before the Soviet Invasion, and was one of the things that precipitated it, as Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted in 1998:
"Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout]."
https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
Brzezinski was very much in favor of a Soviet invasion. He (a very anti-Russian Pole) wanted to give the Soviets their very own Vietnam - a wound to make them bleed-out. It worked, at least in part. Though it sucked for the hundreds of thousands of Afghanis who were killed by the Sovs and the thousands of Soviet soldiers who were fed into the meat-grinder.
Wilson was a pretty doctrinaire liberal and a reliable congressional ally of Israel. He mostly sounds like just another congressional grifter who dug being a great man by virtue of spending our money.
I can't stand Tom Hanks. I don't know why. He just gives off a creepy vibe.
US Support of the Mujahideen began before the Soviet Invasion, and was one of the things that precipitated it, as Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted in 1998:
"Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout]."
https://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
Brzezinski was very much in favor of a Soviet invasion. He (a very anti-Russian Pole) wanted to give the Soviets their very own Vietnam - a wound to make them bleed-out. It worked, at least in part. Though it sucked for the hundreds of thousands of Afghanis who were killed by the Sovs and the thousands of Soviet soldiers who were fed into the meat-grinder.
Wilson was a pretty doctrinaire liberal and a reliable congressional ally of Israel. He mostly sounds like just another congressional grifter who dug being a great man by virtue of spending our money.
I can't stand Tom Hanks. I don't know why. He just gives off a creepy vibe.
Moderator
Tuesday - March 1st 2022 7:45PM MST
PS: I walked for 20 miles around Berlin to get to Templehof about 20 years ago. I don't think it was gone yet, but I didn't get there, is all I can say. Easier to find from the air, I'm sure.
I've landed at Meigs in 3 different airplanes. Mayor Daley was a pure scumbag for tearing it up in the middle of the night. I just sent a link to a different BB article into the comments on Mr. Hail's site - seen your headline before with the graphic, and now I've got to go read it.
I've landed at Meigs in 3 different airplanes. Mayor Daley was a pure scumbag for tearing it up in the middle of the night. I just sent a link to a different BB article into the comments on Mr. Hail's site - seen your headline before with the graphic, and now I've got to go read it.
The Alarmist
Tuesday - March 1st 2022 7:39PM MST
PS
I’d posit that FDR was a big admirer, perhaps even a puppet of Uncle Joe. His administration was certainly rife with dyed in the wool commies. Joe McCarthy was right all along, but the commies embedded in our media and arts made sure to slander him for being so successful in finding many of themout.
Speaking of the airlift, I made a point to fly into Tempelhof a few weeks before it closed. It seemed small by modern standards, but it was a grand old airport, and I hated to see it taken out of service. Meigs was another classic airport I hated to see go. Progressives really suck when it comes to aviation.
Finally, today’s moment :
https://babylonbee.com/news/sudden-spike-in-women-advocating-for-traditional-gender-roles-now-that-ww3-starting
I’d posit that FDR was a big admirer, perhaps even a puppet of Uncle Joe. His administration was certainly rife with dyed in the wool commies. Joe McCarthy was right all along, but the commies embedded in our media and arts made sure to slander him for being so successful in finding many of themout.
Speaking of the airlift, I made a point to fly into Tempelhof a few weeks before it closed. It seemed small by modern standards, but it was a grand old airport, and I hated to see it taken out of service. Meigs was another classic airport I hated to see go. Progressives really suck when it comes to aviation.
Finally, today’s moment :
https://babylonbee.com/news/sudden-spike-in-women-advocating-for-traditional-gender-roles-now-that-ww3-starting