The president caused a stir the other way when he told Bill O’Reilly that there are lots of killers out there, and that America is “not so innocent.” This was in response to a question about how Trump could work with Putin, in that, as O’Reilly objected, “he’s a killer.” This is quite true. He is a killer, thug, and kleptocrat. Defenders of Putin have a moral compass that, instead of pointing true north, has a needle sticking out the side in order to point to Sheol.
That answer from Trump was taken by some as mightily offensive, as though he were flattening all differences between Russia and the United States, making the two morally equivalent. This is something liberals used to do all the time in the Cold War, where they would say things like “well, sure, the Soviets have the Gulag but we must never forget that the all-you-can-eat buffet at Ruby Tuesday is out of the reach of our working poor.” Stuff like that.
But the offense that was taken to Trump’s remark had a curious religiously indignant feel to it, as though the president had just heaved a dead polecat at the high altar. How dare he compare us in any way to the lousy Russians?
There are just a couple of points to make here, and it shouldn’t take long.
We are talking about killing, and downstream from Roe, we have the blood of 50 million American citizens on our hands. Not only so, but unlike the totalitarian Soviets, or the autocratic Russians, we did this in the broad light of day and with the connivance (or at least acquiescence) of all our state governments, at every level. In other words, the Russian people were kept in place by means of fear, while the American people were kept in place through promises of continued convenience and prosperity.
But if you maintain that this is not what we are talking about—meaning that you don’t want to compare killing with killing, or numbers with numbers, but rather the kind of skullduggery-killing that Putin does with the fact that we don’t do that kind of thing to political opponents—saying, in other words, that you don’t think that the genocide we perpetrate should count, then it is just special pleading. Say, by the way, did you know that approximately 52K black children are going to be legally offed during the course of this February, this Black History Month? Mark it on your calendar. When March arrives, they will all be dead.Some of what we are willing to overlook in good old Amurica could make a cat laugh.
But even limiting it to “political” deaths, let me bring up something a little bit awkward. However, in order to bring it up, let me pretend that it happened in Russia. Let us pretend that there was a judge who was an obstacle to Putin’s plans and designs, and that he died suddenly at a hunting lodge. Let us suppose further that the cause of death was then determined by a local coroner over the phone. No autopsy, nothing to see here, folks. Move along. Let me ask a fair question. What would we say if Putin did anything so lame? Or perhaps not lame . . . perhaps highhanded? Some of what we are willing to overlook in good old Amurica could make a cat laugh.
Consider the stakes involved in American political struggles. Consider how much power is available, and how much certain people with seared consciences want that power. If murder were somehow magically not involved in it, it would be the first time in history that anything like that had happened.
I don’t see a categorical difference between politicians having political opponents assassinated versus politicians toppling regimes that don’t bow to them. As bad as Putin is, his politically-driven murder is on a far smaller scale than the murder carried out by our own politicians in places like Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Seriously? I understand that your experience with Russo-American relations was not exactly positive, and Putin is no saint. But do you think his popularity in Russia is due solely to the gullibility or wickedness of his subjects?
Russians have always loved the Tsar. Except for the Bolshevics.
So…?
In addition to what you mentioned, I’d say Putin’s popularity among his people is due to fear, groupthink, and coercion.
If you were a Russian that wanted to be proud of his country and wanted a country to be proud of, would you vote for a leader that would just sit back while NATO and the EU pushed your country into a military and economic corner?
You can justify any of the worst leaders of history that way.
What’s one of these “worst leaders” that had similar popularity among his subjects as Mr Putin does?
Ironically, a lot of them were Russians. Just saying…
Well, there’s definitely Stalin. I don’t think one has to be particularly acute to discern how dissimilar they are.
Well except for not being Russian. Georgian.
Sure. You get a similar impression about the major Czars – Peter, for instance, or Ivan. Crazy wicked barbarians who saved their countries and seem beloved, as best as one can discern.
That’s how Trump was justified. He’s going to “Make America Great Again”.
I think we’re laboring under a false impression. That Putin needs their votes. You could insert your own Yakov Smirnov joke here. But its the reality. He donesn’t need your vote, but its in your best interest to give it to him. The Russia of now doesn’t encourage you to think, except what’s on channel #1. Its all regressed back to the SU times, and its now meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The Russians, culturally don’t have that feeling of choice that we do here. That culture tends to authoritarianism, and they like having a strong… Read more »
I read a fair amount of Russian bloggers and websites, and from what I can tell, the picture you are painting is not entirely accurate. For instance, in some ways, Russians have far more freedom of speech than we have in the West. That is because they are almost entirely unencumbered by that insidious project known as political correctness, which means that the average Russian does not fear to speak his or her mind on many of the cultural issues that you are supposed to keep quiet about in the West. Not only that, but they are generally far more… Read more »
This matches my understanding of Russia as well. Putin is the first man in a long time to rule Russia curly chiefly with the interests of Russians in mind — and to act as a protector of the Church.
ashv wrote:
Russian rulers have a long history of “protecting” the Russian Orthodox Church alright. They have protected their influence by appointing communist party members as archbishops. It’s so well protected that it’s a nearly perfectly controlled opposition.
I’m sorry. I think I’m picking up where you left off My wife is Russian, and her family is still there. She’s the only one here in the West. What you describe is at least 10 years out of date. The Russia of today is one where you don’t say what you think, at least not out in public, Its not safe. Russia is in such a bad shape, and the sanctions as well as the low low price of oil is eviscerating the country. Now the Russians are very patriotic about it, and when they can’t import things they… Read more »
Why? Do you think Russians are naturally susceptible to these things?
Culturally they are used to strong leaders, and they basically went from Tsar to the Reds. They are used to a strong leader and having everything sorted out for them. The time under Yeltsin, though free market and democratic in nature, was too much, too fast, and many people, especially the older ones, preferred to go back to where the government decided and set what everything set to be. My wife tells me details of her life growing up, and Moscow planned and set even the most minute details for its citizens. You think we have things set up, and… Read more »
I believe you. (Though I think your characterisation of the Yeltsin era is overly charitable towards the criminal behaviour on display then.)
The question is, are “strong leader” and “thug and kleptocrat” synonyms?
Yes, I’ll agree. I leaped over the Yeltsin era to get to talking about Putin. I liken the Yeltsin era to an Oligarchial phase. And there is little doubt its was very corrupt. I like the moniker, ‘Kleptocracy’ which I think describes it, and today, very well.
I think in this case the two phrases are synonyms.
Praise God Senator Sessions will soon be confirmed. Maybe there will be a lot less murder. Let the rats commence the fleeing.
Pastor Wilson, do you think Justice Scalia was assassinated by people with liberal political motives? You’ve never been afraid to lob a bomb if you thought it was true, so I’m surprised by how coy your conclusion is.
It seems to me that, if that were likely, it would have made much more sense to do it a couple of years ago when Obama could have placed a liberal on the court. Why on earth wait until you are dealing with a lame duck president?
Agreed. That last bit of this post leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. I am very much negative in beliefs and feelings about former president Obama, but I don’t think insinuating assassination is worthwhile or true.
And no, I wasn’t there. I can’t “prove” he didn’t secretly poison Justice Scalia. But conspiracy theories are foolish and unworthy when Obama’s perfidy is obvious and plain in his ghoulish glee in abortion, as Doug points out. We don’t need to be looking for something else.
Come on. Everyone has a bit of conspiracy theorist in him. It just differs in where it is directed.
I don’t see how your argument is sound – “everyone does it” is not a reason, it’s a fact. I can’t argue with the facts. I’m saying should, not is.
I have relatives that don’t believe we’ve sent men to the moon. This seems tame to me.
My thoughts. 80 year-old men are old and often die. Even so, it would seem prudent to hold an autopsy given the nature of politics.
☺
I know the seductive power of a conspiracy theory – but I think seduction should be resisted unless in marriage (to mix a metaphor). I agree that an autopsy would be wise (was there really none performed?), but he was old, and not in great health. I am sad (greatly) that he is gone, but I really don’t think there’s foul play involved, and to suggest so without solid proof is just asking to discredit yourself when there are so many valid points you’re actually making about abortion. Doug is one of the men I respect greatly – have since… Read more »
Fair enough. It is just that I don’t ignore someone because they have the odd idea that I find odd. One of the persons I respect most believes in global warming.
But not giving your enemies unnecessary grist may be prudent at times.
(Mind you, if Doug is willing to defend amicable relationships between slaves and masters in the 21st century it seems he probably doesn’t mind putting some interesting ideas out there.)
see my reply to DW above
As long as the Queen Mother and the Archbishop of Canterbury really didn’t conspire to have Princess Diana bumped off.
Wilson’s point was not to endorse a conspiracy, as such, but to make a commentary on the American people, and about what we are willing to overlook in the comfort of our own perceived goodness. Wilson asks, what if these same events had happened under Putin? Would we be so complacent or satisfied? We obviously are above suspicion in this country. No autopsy needed.
Scalia was either assassinated or the country is being run by nincompoops of the very highest order. Someone in Scalia’s position, dying under those circumstances, ought to have had 17 autopsies. At Johns Hopkins. With hundreds of med students as witnesses. That said, the nincompoop option should never be underestimated.
For the record, I know DW mentioned this possibility back in summer or early fall as it kind of shocked me at the time. Nothing shocks me now.
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6008
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1459
“This is quite true. He is a killer, thug, and kleptocrat. Defenders of Putin have a moral compass that, instead of pointing true north, has a needle sticking out the side in order to point to Sheol.” At the risk of being labelled a “defender of Putin” (which I am not), I would simply point out that if you are going to make an allegation such as “he is a killer”, you’d better be sure that this is so before you make the claim. Something to do with that quaint old concept of burden of proof and all that. Now… Read more »
What do you think actually happened in the Litvinenko case? (I agree that nothing has been proven, but would be entirely unsurprised if the popular narrative is largely true.)
Hi there, As I say, I really don’t know. The whole case is a tangled web of espionage and counter-espionage with some pretty rum characters involved. However, there are a number of reasons to treat the widely held narrative with some suspicion: 1. The method used. It is almost unfathomable that a state that wanted to kill a man in another country would use Polonium 210 to do it. If you wanted to do such a thing, you would presumably not want to draw attention to what you had done, and there are a number of methods of achieving such… Read more »
Sure. My interpretation was that use of Po-210 was to make sure the case was high profile and unmistakably connected to Russian government power, to strongly discourage any other FSB staff from defecting or seeking asylum with potential Russian enemies. If so, it seems to have done the job.
I understand the point, but I’m not sure that I buy it. Anyone who works for any intelligence agency, be it the FSB, CIA, MI6, Mossad etc, will automatically know that they have the potential to get defectors anywhere in the world if they really want to, but they know this without needing some great public demonstration to convince them.
Obama’s drone strikes killed lots of innocent bystanders.
“…approximately 52K black children are going to be legally offed during the course of this February, this Black History Month.”
To quote Cosmo Kramer: “I don’t like the sound of that!” Save for the fact that the accident of my birth occurred 4 years before “death Roe” passed in 1973, I too could have been one of Margaret Sanger’s unfortunate genocide victims. My people are being aborted and welfare-stated, gentrified and illegal-immigrated into a permanent underclass and an increasingly irrelevant minority, and no one seems to care…
Many of those that do care initially – and use the kind of language you do – ultimately seem to get co-opted by the Democratic Party, and from then on toe the party line. Jesse Jackson is one that originally called abortion black genocide, until he caught “presidential disease”.
Thanks for the honest response, Mark. I was just reading about Jesse’s sad sellout on the abortion issue last night. The fact is, he was the only of Dr. King’s close associates to abandon their universal hard-line stance against this hidden massacre.
Great post! Fifty million babies, and counting!
On top of that, “The U.S. is a regime of Bankers, Bombers, and Busybodies. All three are deadly enemies to the preservation or building of any civilised community in North America.” – Dr. Clyde N. Wilson
As exceptional and enlightened as we are, we are indeed obligated to lecture the rest of the world on how they should conduct their affairs!
Yep, I’m laughin’ right along with that ol’ cat!
“Not only so, but unlike the totalitarian Soviets, or the autocratic Russians, we did this in the broad light of day and with the connivance (or at least acquiescence) of all our state governments, at every level.”
The USSR/Russia’s got a pretty dismal abortion record, too.
Seriously. Does Wilson do any research for these posts?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia
Matt swings again, and misses again. Wilson made no statement about abortion in Russia, because he didn’t need to. His argument assumed that they were as bloodthirsty as we imagine them to be.
Matt, the point of Wilson’s post is at an altitude of 100 m, your head is at about 10 m.
And…? All that means is that the Russians have hidden state-sponsorred murders and the open murder of unborn children.
That’s my point. Wilson’s post seems to imply that Russia doesn’t use abortion much.
So? The post doesn’t address their use of abortion at all. See katecho’s reply above.
Heidi_storage wrote:
Except that Wilson’s post implied no such thing.
The passage I quoted implies that Russia’s deaths were hidden, but the U.S.’s (by abortion) were not. In fact, however, in addition to those hidden assassinations and purges, there were ALSO a great many open, unconcealed abortions in Russia. Thus, the contrast Wilson is trying to draw between Russia and the U.S. doesn’t really work.
By her silence on the point I made, Heidi_storage seems to be acknowledging that Wilson never implied that Russia doesn’t use abortion much. Wilson makes reference to both Soviet Russia, and autocratic Russia. It was during Stalin’s rule that Russia concealed its gulags, with millions of dead and starved, but it was also during this same time that Stalin outlawed abortion. This is a historical fact that Heidi_storage seems to be unaware of. Heidi_storage wrote: Thus, the contrast Wilson is trying to draw between Russia and the U.S. doesn’t really work. Heidi_storage doesn’t seem to understand. Wilson is not trying… Read more »
I hope those calling for humility and repentance in high places see Trump’s statement as an indication of a much less prideful attitude about the USA’s place and behaviour in the world.
Trump’s simple statement is the least prideful thing I’ve heard him say since he started his campaign. That’s not saying much, but it’s still worth encouraging from him. I hope it wasn’t just an off-the-cuff dodge to O’Reilly.
Having little factual information to go on, my default is to NOT believe anything I hear bellowed by the MSM or politicians. In fact, until proven otherwise I believe the opposite.
I’ve found in an age of propaganda and mass media, this is a safe position to take.