That’s why true conservatives oppose everything the left stands for, domestically and internationally. We oppose liberalism in the name of peace. We oppose it because the government can achieve income equality only by seizing wealth at the point of a gun from those who legitimately earned it. The government can force people who don’t wish to associate with each other to do so only at the point of a gun. It can make people say words they don’t believe are true only at the point of a gun. To organize society this way is to perpetuate a constant state of war. Look at our streets. They’re succeeding.
THE LIBERAL WARMONGERS
Just as they cannot achieve their warped version of equality within society peacefully, neither can they achieve worldwide equality peacefully. That’s why the left has taken this nation to war constantly for the past one hundred years. It is beyond their comprehension that some alien cultures may not be ready for their brand of pure democracy. Some may not want it. But they can’t just leave these societies alone to work things out on their own. Just like they couldn’t leave a devoutly Christian baker in peace and let a gay couple take their business elsewhere, they can’t leave foreign societies in peace when they don’t live up to the liberal ideal of absolute equality.
In this insane pursuit, liberals constantly violate that first law of nature. They constantly seek war, instead of peace. Before George H. W. Bush, it was liberals who started all the wars in the twentieth century. I’ll bet you didn’t realize that, either. Look it up. It’s true. Not only do liberals seek absolute equality between the sexes and absolute income equality, but they seek worldwide political equality, regardless of whether alien cultures want to be equal to Americans or not.
This is what was behind Hillary Clinton’s unhinged reign as secretary of state. She went around the Middle East with a flamethrower, apparently believing she could burn down dictatorships and the flower of democracy would sprout from the ashes. She’s been in bed with the savages in Saudi Arabia for so long she couldn’t see how crazy it was to expect anything but what we got after Ghaddafi was gone in Libya: jihadist anarchy.
She wanted to do the same thing in Syria, regardless of the consequences. Not only would toppling Assad have put ISIS in charge of Syria; it would have resulted in a war with Russia. Even Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford said that and he’s an Obama appointee.3 She didn’t care. The plight of 250,000 Syrians in Aleppo was more important than the lives of millions of Americans that would be lost in a war with Russia.
Of course, that war wouldn’t merely be an unintended consequence of “liberating” the Syrians. It also fits right into their justification for every other war. They believe it’s our job to liberate the Russians, too, from the oppressive Putin regime. According to the liberal warmongers, Putin is the new Hitler because he prosecuted sexual anarchists when they desecrated a Christian church. Russia is Nazi Germany because they’re no longer communists; they’re a market economy. This despite the Nazis being national socialists, not capitalists. They despise Putin because he’s trying to defend Russia’s borders, language, and culture from the same violent, uncivilized assault ours are under.
The hypocrisy of these people is astounding. Throughout the twentieth century, they looked the other way while communist dictators murdered hundreds of millions of people. When Stalin purged twenty million political opponents, there was no outcry from the left. That’s because Stalin was a benevolent communist fighting “income inequality.” It was the same for Mao Tse-tung. He may have killed eighty million, forty million of whom simply starved to death under his “Great Leap Forward.” Liberals still praise him as a great leader to this day.
Stalin, Mao, and Castro are all inspiring, benevolent leaders to the lunatic left, but Putin is an aggressive dictator who must be resisted, on the battlefield, if necessary. Why? I’ll give you the real reason. Putin is a conservative who has resurrected Russia’s culture from the dustbin of history. He’s restored its ancient, Judeo-Christian institutions and its market economy. He isn’t afraid to call the Islamofascists what they are. And he won’t sit idly by while the United States brings NATO to Russia’s borders and threatens to take away her ports and wreck her economy.
Putin committed the deadliest sin against the godless liberal religion when he reinstituted religious study in Russian public schools.4 Liberals think our First Amendment guarantees freedom from religion, but it doesn’t. It guarantees there will be no national religion, and guarantees the freedom to practice one’s own religion.
The Russians are actually more consistent with our First Amendment than we are. They don’t require students to study any particular religion. They can choose to study Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Buddhism. Those who don’t wish to study religion can take courses on the “foundations of religious culture” or “fundamentals of public ethics.”5
It’s the same policy John Adams wrote into the original Massachusetts state constitution. The state was allowed to require religious instruction in schools, but what the students actually studied was left up to the local districts. They were allowed to elect the instructors and decide on their own what was taught.
The point is children need a moral compass to direct their lives. Religion provided that to American schoolchildren for hundreds of years, until the progressives destroyed it. It was what guided them as adults to live in peace with each other. Progressives eliminated it from our schools and with it societal peace. Look at the violence and disorder all over society today. It comes from generations educated without any moral guidance.
Just as liberals have been at war with religion within our own society, they are at war with it internationally. They ignored the atrocities of the Soviet Union because it prohibited religion. They demonize the restored Russia because it recognizes that society cannot live without religion or some equivalent set of moral principles. As John Adams said of our own Constitution, “[I]t was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”6
Being pro-religion isn’t Putin’s only sin against the liberal religion. He’s also mocked the climate change hoax in the past, although he’s recently sold out to the envirofascists,7 and he opposes abortion.8 Worst of all, he isn’t a communist. He even lectured Obama about the evils of socialism at a Davos conference, although his wise advice went unheeded.9
These are the real reasons the left hates Putin. Yes, he’s a former KGB agent who may have “disappeared” a few political opponents. I don’t know if those accusations are true or not. As I said, he’s no angel. But he’s been a voice of reason on the world stage while Emperor Obama and his Hatchet Woman Hillary Clinton destroyed the international order and set barbaric jihadists loose all over the Middle East. And just like Trump, Putin refuses to bow to the globalist elites who want to run the world out of Washington, D.C.
We’ve avoided the feminist sorority’s war with Russia for the moment, but Trump is going to be under pressure to start it from them and their echo chamber media for his entire presidency. The liberal warmongers won’t rest until the entire world is an egalitarian, socialist wasteland.
THE NEOCONS
Don’t expect support from the sellout Republicans against the liberal warmongers. There are some who supported Trump, but the party and Congress are still infested with neoconservatives who are just as bloodthirsty as the liberals, albeit for different reasons. Where the liberals believe they can make the whole world equal through “humanitarian war,” the neocons have a much more traditional goal: They want to rule the entire world. Global hegemony not only fulfills their lust for power; it helps their crony capitalist friends on Wall Street and in corporate America.
The first thing you must understand about the neoconservatives is they’re not really conservatives. The movement was founded by liberals10 who left the party because it became too anti-war over Vietnam. These people don’t care about limited government or conservative values. They’re all for big welfare programs like Medicare
Part D as long as they are free to wage constant war all over the planet.
The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, was the greatest thing ever to happen to these faux conservatives because it gave them an excuse to push for wars they’d wanted for an entire decade.11 They had been writing letters to Bill Clinton demanding he invade Iraq for practically Clinton’s entire presidency. Luckily, Bill was too busy chasing interns around the Oval Office desk to get around to it. Besides, he had his own, liberal, “humanitarian war” to wage in Yugoslavia. Liberals call setting Islamofascists free to decimate relatively free countries humanitarian.
But the neoconservatives were all for Obama and Clinton wrecking the Middle East. They just didn’t think they were doing it right. If you don’t believe me, look up the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). That was the neocons’ think tank in the 1990s and it laid out their entire plan.12 You won’t find their original website, because they’ve taken it down, but there are researchers who’ve preserved their awful ideas in mirror sites.
PNAC talked about overthrowing Saddam Hussein long before 9/11 and how the United States had about twenty years after the fall of the Soviet Union to do whatever it wanted on the international stage, before any new superpower was likely to emerge to challenge them. They said the United States should greatly increase military spending and use the war machine to “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values.” That’s just neocon-speak for war and regime change.
It’s also a very succinct statement of their philosophy. Regimes hostile to their values refers to the liberal dream of remaking the whole world into a progressive social democracy. As I said, these are liberals at heart, although I don’t think the neoconservatives really care about liberating oppressed people. They do care about hegemony and corporatism, and “hostile to our interests” refers to regimes that don’t go along with their globalist economic plans. The neocons added the interests of their friends at multinational corporations to liberal humanitarian war insanity. That allows them to sell wars for profit as humanitarian at the same time. Do you remember George W. Bush flip-flopping all over the place about why we invaded Iraq?
First, it was weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. Then it was to bring democracy to the poor, oppressed Iraqis, who now wish they could have Saddam Hussein back to continue oppressing the ninth-century throwbacks who are chopping their heads off. Meanwhile, everyone suspected the war was all about oil. That’s neoconservatism in a nutshell. They talk about security; they talk about liberating oppressed people; but in the end, they’re in the back pockets of the multinationals who don’t care about the interests of average Americans.
Just like the liberals, the neoconservatives have been spoiling for a war with Russia, but for different reasons. One reason is that Russia has partially rebounded from the economic devastation that resulted from seventy-four years of communism. They not only have a growing economy based on fossil fuels; they have a new sense of national pride now that they’re not slaves to the Marxist commissars. For the neocons, any independent nation exhibiting economic strength is a potential threat to their global rule.
When Russia was a down-and-out wasteland after the Soviet Union fell, the neocons didn’t consider it a threat. But now it’s a rejuvenated country under a strong, conservative leader who isn’t falling-down drunk in the Kremlin like his predecessor. And though Russia still only has an economy the size of Italy’s, they do have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, something Putin hasn’t been afraid to point out.13
The neocons have been working for twenty years to keep Russia from reemerging as the world power it always was, even before the Communists took over. They talk about Putin being aggressive and seeking to expand Russia’s borders. You should treat that as an insult to your intelligence. If you want to see what’s expanded, take a look at maps of NATO in 1991 and today.14 NATO has moved right up to Russia’s borders, including virtually all the former Soviet satellites that provided a “buffer zone” to it during the Soviet era. Let’s not forget NATO’s primary reason to exist: to fight a war against Russia. Russia looks at expanding NATO this way as aggression against them, not the other way around.
Many Americans don’t know this, because their knowledge of history doesn’t extend back past Beyoncé’s first CD, but the West made promises15 to Russia back in 1990 when Gorbachev agreed to the reunification of Germany. Then-secretary of state James Baker said NATO would not move “one inch eastward.” The Russians kept their part of the bargain; U.S.-led NATO did not. Yet all we hear from the liberals is how Trump is the devil for threatening not to honor America’s commitments. How about honoring one that could still prevent a nuclear war?
The neocons didn’t care about honoring commitments to Russia when Russia was too weak to object. They’d been kicking them while they were down for twenty years, hoping to extend that unchallenged period they talked about in their think tank papers. Now that Russia has recovered some of her strength, the stakes are getting higher. Trump is not only being fair and honorable in proposing more equitable treatment of Russia; he’s being pragmatic. The United States cannot continue to treat this nuclear power like a doormat forever.
That brings us to one of the real reasons for the revolutions in Ukraine and Syria. Both the neocons and the liberals want you to believe the United States is merely supporting the oppressed people in those two countries. I’ll bet you haven’t noticed what both countries have in common: They’re each home to one of Russia’s very few warm-water ports. If you think that’s a coincidence, you’re kidding yourself.
Russia is a largely landlocked nation and much of its history has centered on its quest to secure ports that don’t freeze over during wintertime. They’ve had one at Tartus, Syria, for more than fifty years and another at Sevastopol, Ukraine, for even longer. The neocons would love to take them away from Russia and cripple her sea trade and defenses. Why do you think the United States and NATO have supported regime change in both countries?
Now you understand why Hillary Clinton was so adamant about deposing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Syria is Russia’s ally. Russia has a port there. It was Russia’s only presence in the Middle East until the neocons and liberals sided with the jihadists to try to overthrow Assad. That’s when Russia stepped in. They aren’t going to give up their port in Syria without a fight.
But it’s not just about a Russian port. The neocons always have some corporate interest in mind and this is no exception. They don’t hate Assad merely because he’s friendly with Putin. He’s also stood in the way of the multinational corporations’ plans for a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Europe.16 The pipeline would run from Qatar through Saudi Arabia and eventually to Europe through Turkey. Along the way, it would have to pass through Syria.
The big loser in this scenario would be Russia. Right now, Russia has a virtual monopoly in the European natural gas market, which the Europeans claim Russia takes advantage of or will in the future. They may be right. It’s a matter of opinion.
What’s not a matter of opinion is that it is up to Syria whether to decide to allow a pipeline to run through its country or not, just as the United States reserves the right to decide whether the Keystone pipeline runs through its own country. The neocons don’t care. Their misinterpretation of the United States being an “exceptional nation” is that the rules every other nation follows don’t apply to it. If Syria won’t go along with their corporatist plans for a pipeline, neocons are happy to start a war there to overthrow the government and put one in that will cooperate.
The neocons would love to destabilize Syria, allowing the jihadists to take over.
Of course, the warmongers and sellouts will deny all of this. “Putin is the aggressor, he’s the one invading Crimea!” they’ll say. I hope you will consider everything I’ve said, take five minutes to look at a map, and ask yourself who you believe. Is it just a coincidence the United States is deeply entangled in regime change conflicts in those two places
for humanitarian reasons? If that’s true, why are we still supporting Saudi Arabia, whose government chops off more heads every month than ISIS does all year?
THE WAR PROFITEERS
I know it may be difficult to keep track of all the varieties of parasite infesting the swamp in Washington, D.C. Most people in Obama’s America are too busy working twice as hard to take home half as much to their families, thanks to a wrecked economy that’s replaced breadwinner factory jobs with minimum wage “service sector” employment, for those who can find work at all. It’s my job to stay on top of these things for you, and give you one man’s informed opinion on who the enemies within are and what they’ll be up to next.
Longtime listeners of my show, The Savage Nation, and those who have read my previous books know I’ve always given three little words of advice to anyone trying to make sense of anything Washington is doing: Follow the money. Forget liberal, conservative, neoconservative, and the rest of the various -isms. Whenever the government is up to no good, you will usually find someone making money—a lot of money—from whatever the latest scheme turns out to be.
The war machine is no different. Do you remember when Trump got booed at a presidential debate last year in South Carolina? He had the temerity to say the Iraq War was a mistake and the United States should work with Russia to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The live audience booed and Trump told the millions watching on television the truth. “That’s Jeb’s special interests and lobbyists talking.”17 He was right. That’s just who they were.
Trump's War Page 12
