Putin: A Nationalist With Nuclear Weapons
Vladimir Putin is hated by the Western Leftist Establishment. A representative example is the final speech of Obama's appointee to the United Nations, the institutional incarnation of internationalism. Ironically, her name is Power. She never had any, and neither has the UN.
He is hated by these people for good reason. He is the most powerful nationalist on earth. He leads a country with nuclear weapons. He's a nationalist who cannot safely be pushed around by neoconservatives and Progressives.
From 1917 until 1991, the Soviet Union was internationalist. It was tyrannical. It was bureaucratic. It was in favor of world revolution. It was an empire. And because of this, the Western liberal media gave the Soviet Union, if not a free ride, then at least a discounted ride. The Soviet Union was Marxist, and Marxism for people on the Left was always considered a legitimate political philosophy.
Putin grew up in the Soviet system, and he was a functionary within the KGB. But, deep down, he was a man who saw the handwriting on the wall, and that wall was the traditional Russian wall of nationalism. It goes back to the founding of the Russian Orthodox Church in the tenth century. It has a name: Mother Russia. It has always sought military power.
Putin represents this older Russian nationalist tradition. He also commands the second most powerful military forces on earth. The Russians are still armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. They are the other superpower.
We have heard at a lot about America as the sole superpower, but this is not true. Any nation that has over 5,000 nuclear missiles is a superpower. That is Russia. When that nation has missiles that can deliver these weapons to their targets, it is a superpower. You don't push it around.
PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONALISM
The Russians have backed the legitimate government of Syria. That disrupted the attempt of the Obama Administration to create yet another failed state in the Middle East. This goes back to George W. Bush's Administration. It goes back to the list of nations that the neoconservatives who ran Bush's administration planned to invade and overturn. Former NATO Commander Wesley Clark has described this here.
Russian planes overturned the neoconservatives' plans for the legitimate government of Syria. The neoconservatives will not forgive him for this, and the mainstream media, which is not neoconservative but rather Progressive NWO-oriented, also will not forgive him.
Putin is a nationalist. Nationalism is hated by the Progressives. They have been pushing the New World Order ever since Woodrow Wilson decided that the United States of America was going to join the League of Nations. Progressives have never forgiven the United States Senate, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, for not ratifying the Versailles peace treaty in 1920. That treaty would have pulled us into the League of Nations. We stayed out.
The League of Nations would have been the same toothless bureaucracy that the United Nations has been since 1945. It would not have achieved anything significant, any more than the United Nations has achieved anything significant. But the idea of internationalism captivated the minds of the Progressives. Anyway, it captured the minds of the Democrat Progressives. Teddy Roosevelt, who was clearly a Progressive, was a nationalist. He titled his campaign book, The New Nationalism (1910), whereas Wilson titled his campaign book, The New Freedom (1912). But at least they both wrote their own books. There were no ghost writers involved.
GRASS ROOTS NATIONALISM
Great Britain's voters did not vote to leave the European Union because of anything that Putin did. The liberal media are still trying to prove that he did, somehow.
LePen is leading France's polls for the Presidency. This has nothing to do with Putin.
The liberal media desperately want to find an explanation why a nagging, shrill, dish-throwing, platitudinous old woman lost the Presidential election in 2016. That was not supposed to happen. That wasn't in the script. She was the most hated political candidate in recent American history, with the exception of Donald Trump. She was so utterly incompetent politically, and her campaign was headed by people so utterly incompetent, that she could not defeat the most hated political Presidential candidate in history. Her defeat indicates a deep-seated distrust of the Progressives' agenda. It means that the Progressives' much-praised democracy is moving back toward nationalistic populism. They cannot stomach this idea. It would mean that the Democratic masses don't want to move in the direction of greater internationalism.
The movement against internationalism is a grassroots movement. The traditional conservative movement was always nationalistic. The neoconservatives, who began to gain influence in the second half of the 1960s, were an implant from New York City and inside the Washington Beltway. Neoconservatives had a lot of money, they took over the think tanks. They were moderately opposed to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society domestic programs, but they were not hard-core defenders of free market ideology. They were pragmatic critics of Washington's bureaucracy.
Neoconservatives have always been united with Progressive internationalism. They want America to police the world, especially the Middle East. They want America to undermine nationalist regimes that are a threat to the State of Israel. That is the bottom line with respect to Putin's interventionism in Syria. Putin wants to stabilize a regional nationalist regime that is formally Islamic. Syria is associated with the Shia Muslims, and therefore is associated with Iran. Iran is associated with Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not interested in any kind of permanent peace with the State of Israel. So, Assad had to go. But Assad did not go. With the help of Russian arms and Russian troops, he appears to be winning the Civil War. America has backed his opponents, despite the fact that the opponents include ISIS.
Putin verbally and institutionally represents nationalism, and this is an intolerable affront to the Democratic Progressives. It is an intolerable affront to the New World Order. So, the media have created an image of Putin as a kind of dark genius of media control. He has invaded the turf of Leftism, which controlled the flow of information until the World Wide Web appeared in 1995. Somehow, it was Putin, not grassroots voters, who cut short the political hopes of David Cameron in Great Britain and Hillary Clinton in the United States. It just could not be that the voters have had enough of Progressive internationalism. The New World Order has lots more of the same in store for the voters of the world, and the NWO will not tolerate the thought that mass democracy, which it is officially in favor of, has begun to turn against the NWO's agenda. There has to be a conspiracy behind this. There has to be someone who has manipulated these susceptible voters. It has to be that someone has confused them, so that they no longer meekly acquiesce to the progressive's agenda, which the Progressives insist is what the voters would like, if they just understood the facts.
A majority of voters are turning against the New World Order. Joe Biden's speech this week at the World Economic Forum in Davos indicated that he fully understands that this shift is taking place, but he had no kind of plausible agenda to reverse it. He just bewailed the fact.
CONCLUSIONS
The internationalists' agenda has reached the limits of the national budgets, military competence, public acceptance, and bureaucratic mission creep of un-elected internationalist agencies. The internationalists are ideological first cousins of the socialists. They are burdened by the limitation that Margaret Thatcher said that the socialists cannot escape. She said that their agenda depends on other people's money. When that runs out, the socialist agenda would run out. She said this at exactly the time that the socialists in Great Britain ran out of money, and their agenda collapsed. Thatcher and Reagan were the visible representatives of the end of the road of socialism. But Deng Xiaoping was the man who buried the old agenda in full public view. It was Deng who freed up the agricultural sector of the Chinese economy in 1979, which launched the greatest economic boom in history. The Progressives have never forgiven him for this.
Then the Soviet Union committed suicide on Christmas Day, 1991. Soviet Communists stabbed Progressivism in the back again. The Communists publicly abandoned internationalism and disappeared. They admitted that the whole experiment was a flop. Yet the Left had said it was working. The Left did not see what conservative Richard Grenier saw: the USSR was "Bangladesh with missiles."
Putin is the institutional heir of the Communists who killed Soviet Communism. He is a nationalist. He is the incarnation of nationalism. That's why the mainstream media hate Putin. That's why he gains my grudging respect. Let us hope the Trump is wise enough not to try to push him around. Putin does not hold the hammer and sickle, but he holds the hammer. He can cut off the flow of natural gas into Western Europe at any time. The internationalists and NWO bureaucrats in Western Europe have nothing to counter this. This is why Joe Biden mentioned this threat in his speech at Davos this week. He knows that Putin holds the hammer. It enrages him, but there is nothing that he could do about it as Vice President, and there was nothing that Obama could do about it as President.
Trump won. Clinton lost. By the time the Democrats regain control over the government, in response to the next American recession, the power of internationalism will be dramatically reduced. The budgets of the welfare states of the world are drowning in red ink, and this has only just begun. Take away their money, meaning other people's money, and the welfare state goes belly-up. That is where we are headed. That is why the agenda of the end of the NWO has reached its limits.