At the present moment we have a memorable occasion in which the US refuses to afford Russia the courtesy of considering the merits of its intervention in Syria. In fact, there are unending statements that deny the legitimacy of Russian action in spite of the invitation they were given by the UN recognized government of Syria.
What is the root of this problem?
IMO it is the belief resident and widespread in the Borg that history ended a while back and that after the end of the Cold War with the USSR there could be no doubt that the "day ob jubilo" had arrived and the ages long struggle of human tribes, countries and empires was done. What was expected in the Borg was that a New World Order would prevail in which mommy's rules for playground behavior would rule, somehow. From this Borgian premise proceeds the R2P harpy notion (eagerly supported by the neocons) that the Russians, IS, the jihadis, their Gulfie friends and the Zionists are all just errant children to be brought into line by scolding, small punishments and minimal efforts because, surely, they will understand that the old world has passed away and that this is the first century of the New Age of Man.
But, the Russians do not understand that and for good reason. They do not believe it because that is all horse shit. This is a cavalry metaphor inherited from my father. Humanity has changed not at all. It is still a "fight for love and glory, a case of do or die" except for those of you who believe that Russia fights for oil under the Golan Heights.
In fact the Russians are quite sane. It is we Western fools who are collectively mad. pl
They cannot even make a dent in the catastrophe that is called Mexico and they yet they claim to want or be able to "Right the World"?
Hardly.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 12 November 2015 at 07:27 PM
Well said, Colonel.
Once upon a time "Western " thought was characterised by rationalism, empiricism and a healthy dose of scepticism in a generally well educated population. Now the "sheeple " are herded up hill and down dale by what Paul Craig Roberts properly calls the presstitutes. Unlikely that such manipulation of public opinion will conduce to any positive outcome in my view.
Thanks again.
Posted by: Cortes | 12 November 2015 at 07:32 PM
On the money. As usual. As my friend likes to joke: Russia was the first to lose Cold War. US is the second.
History ends only for those who are in the insane asylum.
Posted by: Vladimir | 12 November 2015 at 08:16 PM
The Doctor of Common Sense agrees with you, Col. He calls Obama "dislusional" in his critique of the president's 60 minutes interview. This man deserves his own show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHkf0dT8k2E
Posted by: optimax | 12 November 2015 at 09:29 PM
The people always seem to be ahead of their governments. Pot, equal rights etc. This case is no different. The US govt in particular but not alone for sure looks to be suffering from a bad case of supertanker. They have seen the rocks (I hope), some one may have even suggested turning the wheel over hard. But we are a long, long ways from any thing happening. How long has it taken to realize it is no longer 1962 in Cuba? Smaller ships like Canada are able to correct course much faster but hopefully when some one throws a line some one in the US govt catches it. In the mean time it is going to mow down any thing in it's way.
Posted by: J Villain | 12 November 2015 at 10:05 PM
It is scary to think what would have happened by now if Putin was not "quite sane", as you so well put it. And, that he also carries a big stick (which he uses with much dexterity and skill).
If there is to be any hope of some "sane" outcome to the present crisis in Europe and the ME, it is because of him.
Posted by: FB Ali | 12 November 2015 at 11:00 PM
Came up with "Faustian dry drunk" in the late 70s. Was inspired by adventures in Cambridge Mass north of Central Square. Concluded that the [old] Combat Zone trafficked in more wholesome forms of depravity.
Posted by: rjj | 13 November 2015 at 07:00 AM
oops. did I accidentally post that bit about Cambridge MA as one of the incubators of the New World Orderlies? trying to explain why the above is not as off the wall as it may seem.
Posted by: rjj | 13 November 2015 at 08:36 AM
Mexico hell! We can't even deal with Haiti.
Posted by: BrotherJoe | 13 November 2015 at 08:57 AM
I don't think they are trying to improve the lot of Mexico any more than they have been trying to over the past 200 years. They treat the rest of world in the same way, regardless of the platitudes.
Posted by: tim s | 13 November 2015 at 10:02 AM
Babak,
We do a great job with Mexico. We are the refugee outlet for proud Mexican's like Carlos Slim and a few million of his fellow citizens. (per wiki "His net worth is nearly equivalent to about 6 percent of Mexico’s gross domestic product." I believe that paper he's the largest shareholder of is complaining about wealth inequality. Notice how they don't mention this fact.)
Posted by: Fred | 13 November 2015 at 12:23 PM
and add to the mix the leading gop candidate, ben carson, advocating shooting down russian planes who violate the 'no-fly zone' in syria, should the u.s. impose one.
“If they do come into that area — after you have given them adequate warning, after we’ve talked to Putin — you shoot them down. Absolutely,” Carson told radio host Simon Conway, who pointed out to Carson that the Russians would likely respond forcefully.
“Whatever happens next, we deal with it,” Carson added. “But we can’t continue backing down because in the long run, that will hurt us.”
http://www.mediaite.com/online/carson-if-russian-planes-violate-a-no-fly-zone-shoot-them-down/
Posted by: my.comment | 13 November 2015 at 12:46 PM
All
Christ is Risen.
God Bless the Russians for defending the West - full stop.
Posted by: alba etie | 13 November 2015 at 01:12 PM
Pat,
Your article is on target as usual but its title "The End of History and the American Mind"
reveals a greater danger. History and related courses are being stripped from public school curriculums here in New England. Soon no one will know or remember anything....
russ
Posted by: russ | 13 November 2015 at 01:17 PM
It seems to me that the Borgian premise that Col. Lang notes couldn't sustain without the majority of Americans believing it. The question is did the majority of Americans always buy into the fantasy or did the character of the majority change? If the latter when and why?
My Dad says our character changed starting with his generation (born in the 30s). He recalls his parents and grandparents being wary of increased governmental powers and "civilizing" missions overseas. They wanted to mind their own business and did not like Uncle Sam in their backyard uninvited.
Posted by: Jack | 13 November 2015 at 01:42 PM
Off topic, however:
"US Ambassador to Ukraine G. Pyatt stated in an interview with Den' newspaper that counter-battery radars provided by the US will arrive at the Yavoriv International training center this week."
Posted by: Castellio | 13 November 2015 at 02:49 PM
"The end of History" was famously pronounced by Francis Fukuyama.in 1989 - meaning secular liberal democracy had triumphed and was the crowning glory of the march of human development towards Churchills "warm sunlit uplands".
SIr Michael Howard observed in his book "The Invention of Peace" circa 2000, that Fukuyamas pronouncement was a little premature because "history has a way of getting up off the floor and delivering a few hard punches to the solar plexus",, which is exactly what we have seen since.
At the root of the current set of problems are liberal academics who haven't read their Neitzche and believe in the perfectibility of human kind, if only we will listen to them. They fail to understand the self referential nature of Neitzches observation - that they are also crooked timber.
The current crop of liberal academics aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them to kingdom come.
Posted by: walrus | 13 November 2015 at 03:10 PM
Agree! In 1970 20% of all undergrad B.A.s awarded in History but now about 7%!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 13 November 2015 at 05:24 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say Putin is winning the PR war, but inroads are being made.
Russia and Putin Are Winning the Public Relations War http://observer.com/2015/11/russia-and-putin-are-winning-the-public-relations-war/
Crazy Putin Pics http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45hiief/the-man-the-myth/
Posted by: Valissa | 13 November 2015 at 06:07 PM
Parents of the 30s generation would have had first hand experience of increased govt powers via Revenooers. They were everywhere.
Posted by: rjj | 13 November 2015 at 06:24 PM
Before that it was announced by Hegel, with the Prussian State being the highest state that Man could reach.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 13 November 2015 at 07:31 PM
Valissa,
Now might be a fine time to see if a couple of new phrase-memes could make some headway in the public mind. They are paraphrases of President Dubya's "You are with us or you are with the terrorists".
You are with Assad or you are with the terrorists.
You are with Putin or you are with the terrorists.
Posted by: different clue | 14 November 2015 at 03:27 PM
Valissa,
I read the Putin Public Relations war article. I noticed that the author ascribes Putin's success to better public relations. The author agrees with
the NeoCon NeoWil Axis of R2P about what policy and outcomes "should" be, and thinks a more masterful American master of PR would be winning the PR war.
I personally think that Putin is "winning" the PR "war" in these particular areas because he is in the right and the DC FedRegime figures are on the wrong . . . on the facts and the principles and the issues. I suppose the author of this article would dismiss my brain as "Putin occupied territory".
Posted by: different clue | 14 November 2015 at 09:24 PM