What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The more things change

Over three years ago I wrote about the Obama administration's shabby treatment of blind activist Chen Guangcheng, who escaped from house arrest and found his way to the U.S. embassy, only to be almost thrown back to the wolves.

This week a post at the Public Discourse goes back to that time and gives a few more details.

When released from prison, Chen returned to his heroic wife, Weijing, and their two children at their simple village home, but he was kept under the tightest house arrest. Approximately five hundred men surrounded their tiny dwelling with three concentric rings of guards, while checkpoints were set up on the roads to make escape impossible. The Chen family lived under spotlights. They were monitored by listening devices, all radio signals were jammed, and the family was observed constantly. It was intolerable.

So, on April 20, 2012, following a meticulous plan, and in broad daylight, Chen took advantage of the noise of a loudly barking dog to drop from his home’s eastern wall into his neighbor’s yard and begin an escape. As he made his perilous way, the blind fugitive could rely only on his acutely developed senses of smell and hearing. After several hours, Chen reached a neighboring village, where friends got him a taxi to rendezvous with others who would drive him to Beijing.

What of his family? After he was gone, they carried on as though he were present. His children talked to him loudly and greeted him enthusiastically, though he was no longer there. His extraordinary wife carried on with their daily routines, bringing water in the evening to wash her husband’s feet, as was her habit, and then pouring it away. After two days, suspicion mounted, but she deflected the guards’ attention by showing them Chen’s bed, in which a roll of blankets was wrapped up in his quilt. His shoes were exactly where he left them at the bedside. Eventually, the guards finally insisted on inspecting the bedroom and discovered the trick, reacting with anger and humiliation. But by this time, Chen was far away and safe.

Incredible.

After travelling more than five hundred miles, Chen finally arrived at the place where he believed freedom was truly honored: the American Embassy. Americans should hang their heads in shame when they consider the shabby treatment Chen received—ordered by President Obama with the approval of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—when he miraculously arrived there.

Upon initial contact, the embassy staff were welcoming and genuinely admiring. An embassy car was sent out to pick up the fugitives who were being pursued by Chinese police. Chen and the embassy car were surrounded, but the transfer was ultimately made successfully and Chen arrived safely. Shortly thereafter, Hillary Clinton called him, full of seeming goodwill.

Then, something happened. Left alone for five hours, Chen sensed that the attitude of the staff had become chilly. When Kurt Campbell, one of the ablest foreign policy specialists in the Democratic Party, arrived, he presented himself as Chen’s friend. He told Chen that he wanted to work out a deal—with the Chinese central government. Chen told Campbell that he wanted an investigation into the brutal treatment he received, apologies from the Chinese government for constantly flouting its own laws, and some sort of personal freedom for himself and his family. Campbell initially seemed optimistic. But after consulting unnamed high officials, the only offer he provided was for Chen to stay in Beijing and study law at one of an approved list of colleges, perhaps later going abroad. Chen, accustomed to speaking the flat truth, said “no.”

I note that what Chen asked for was that the administration allow him to stay in the embassy while it used American influence to negotiate better treatment in China for himself and his family. Initially, his goal was not to come to the U.S. In this respect, Chen reminds me of Baptist activist Georgi Vins, who left Russian-controlled Ukraine only when forcibly expelled and whose goal had been to stay there as long as possible and resist Communist persecution of himself and others.

[T]he United States folded timidly and pressured Chen to let himself be turned over to the Chinese authorities by eviction from the embassy to a Chinese-controlled hospital. The situation looked very bad—that is, until Chen outwitted the hapless administration and forced it to take a principled position.

True to form, Chen didn’t dissemble or compromise. Instead, he insisted that rules be followed and standards upheld, just as he had done for years when dealing with the Chinese. In response, Campbell and the other Americans became increasingly vexed both by Chen’s seeming ingratitude for their efforts and his unswerving insistence on a real, substantial solution. Chen watched in disbelief as the American diplomats groveled pathetically before the Chinese.

At this point, one of our government’s least-favorite advocates for freedom in China intervened. Bob Fu, a Chinese-American Christian pastor, connected the hospitalized Chen via audio with members of Congress, who were outraged at his treatment. Suddenly, Washington took serious note of Chen’s predicament, and the White House faced the possibility of extremely negative political repercussions if it did not handle the situation properly. Abruptly, under immense pressure from the American people, Obama and his colleagues were forced to recalculate.

The Americans in Beijing could see no way out, but the Chinese saved them. A mysterious official appeared, suggesting that, now that things were getting hot, Chen might go abroad with his family. Quickly and quietly, this official provided Chen with the necessary paperwork, and a flight to the United States was arranged.

Precisely why the Chinese decided to save our bacon and evict Chen and his family is a bit of a mystery to me, but I suspect it has something to do with humiliation. They believed that they had humiliated the U.S., and they had at least guaranteed that Chen would not return to trouble them.

In his absence, business has continued as usual, and just recently there has been a new crackdown on legal activists like him:

For the last decade, a brave group of several hundred Chinese lawyers has been filing human rights suits, demanding procedural correctness, objecting or filing suit yet again every time a rule is broken, and generally creating a difficult situation for a system that rests on a strange mutual hypocrisy in which both the rulers and the ruled understand that laws and regulations are to be ignored.

This came to an end on the weekend of July 11-12, 2015. Without warning, Chinese authorities detained over one hundred fifty of these human rights lawyers, including some whole firms, some of whose brave roles are described in Chen’s book. Authorities libeled these courageous lawyers as “a major criminal gang.” Most have now disappeared. They probably have not been incarcerated in official prisons, but instead in the Ministry of Public Security’s clandestine “black jails,” whose locations are secret, where no rules apply, where torture and killing are standard, and where no records are kept. There, people disappear for good.

News of this crackdown comes just as China announces that it will now force women to have abortions only in connection with a two-child policy rather than in enforcement of its former one-child policy. I'm sure all the Chinese women who happen to get pregnant with a third child will find this very comforting. And we should not forget that unmarried women and many others--those who are considered too young, for example--are not given birth licenses and are forced to abort even a first child.

The more things change in China, the more they stay the same. The emphasis upon hyper-control by the government, the corruption, the disdain for the rule of law, the refusal of legitimate freedoms, all go on as usual.

What can we, the United States, do? We can defund the UNFPA. We can use the bully pulpit. We can recover a sense that we have a right and a responsibility to speak out and to use our influence to act against the evil in Communist countries. And we can learn from the fiasco of Chen Guangcheng's escape and decide what to do better if something like this happens at our Chinese embassy again. I do not expect this from Obama or a Democrat administration. They are utterly morally bankrupt. But I do ask it of any future Republican administration.

Comments (69)

True to form, Chen didn’t dissemble or compromise

Which to Obama appointees must have seemed as baffling and threatening as a creature from the Alien trilogy.

The situation in China is a more advanced version of what is happening in the Middle East. We live in under a fiction that there is a moderate, liberal base in Syria waiting to usher in a "modern state" when there isn't. We do the same thing with China on law and order. The Chinese have no concept of the rule of law as Christendom conceives of it. They have spent the last 2,500 some years since the warring states unified living under one autocrat or another who does as he pleases until he loses the "Mandate of Heaven."

The only way out is for the Chinese to repent of their lawlessness.

I think Chen's and his colleagues' attempted strategy is interesting. As I read the situation, the Chinese government has various laws on the books that are meant to make it look like they have law and order in their country. No one in the country is actually fooled by this. It is like countries that have "freedom of religion" in their constitutions where everyone knows this is a joke. (I seem to recall this was the case with the old Soviet Union.) Chen and co. are attempting to pop the bubble by tying up the court systems with lawsuits meant to draw attention to the disconnect between what is on paper and what is done in practice.

Mike T., this article by Buchanan sheds a little light about what's going on in China: https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/should-we-fight-for-the-spratlys/

Buchanan: "In an increasingly nationalist China, Xi Jinping could not survive a climbdown of China's claims, or dismantlement of what Beijing has built in the South China Sea. President Xi no more appears to be a man to back down than does President Putin."

China has gone down the nationalist path and Chinese Communism is dead, Chiang Ka-Sek may have well won against Mao.

It's a drastic turn about and China is basically trying to do what Japan did from 1860 to 1945.

Unfortunately, it won't bode well for America. Unlike Japan, China has a lot of land and resources.

"Which to Obama appointees must have seemed as baffling and threatening as a creature from the Alien trilogy."

It's always interesting to see how liberals react when someone refuses to back or apologize and whose arm they can't twist. You see this with Xi Jinping, Putin, and Trump.

Lydia,
But surely a country is not obliged to accept inconvenient asylum-seekers as you yourself stressed in the discussion of ME Christians.
An asylum-seeker might have criminal tendencies, be a drain on public welfare monies or be politically inconvenient-what is the difference?

Mike T,
It is hardly fair to tar the entire Chinese history for the lawlessness of the Communist tyranny which is foreign to and hostile to the traditional Chinese culture. The communist regime is lawless by its very nature and is a foreign import in China.

China may not have been as lawful as Christendom, politically speaking, but it was not Africa or Afghanistan either.

Bedarz, he wasn't originally asking to come here at all. Did you not read my post? He wanted to ask the Americans to use their influence to seek better treatment for himself and his family in China. This was not an illicit request, and I do not accept that America has no interest in such matters. (All the more so considering that we ourselves contribute money to the very programs, the evil programs, of forced abortion, etc., that he was opposing!) The very fact of diplomatic relations, trade relations, etc., between our country and others gives us "pull," which can be used in a variety of ways. Indeed, our trade relations with China have been a political signal and symbol in precisely that sense, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise or to act as though we can have warm and cordial relations with the Chinese Communist government and trade with them freely while their brutal mistreatment of their people is none of our business.

Moreover, a gigantic wave of people is entirely different from one man and one family where that man has indeed been a political activist for things we allegedly support. His situation is precisely the sort of situation for which the category of asylum was created. Hence, when it became clear that China was not going to give him and his family a better situation while he continued to try to better the lives of others in China, it was an entirely legitimate thing for us to do to take them in.

There were also people in the U.S. quite willing to help and sponsor him so that he would not be a drain on public money. Again, that's part of the difference between accepting one family of a high-profile person and accepting thousands of people all at once.

This is all pretty obvious, but leave it to you to require someone to come out and say it.

Lydia,

OT, but probably of great interest to you on a future post topic...

There was a time when publishing something like that at a "right wing outlet" would have been almost literally writing one's own termination papers.

Yeah, weirdly interesting, but as you say, OT. You know, my gmail address is on my author page. You can join the crowd of people who send me links and say, "You might be interested in this and might want to post on it in the future." Seriously, everybody does it, and I don't get mad at them. But I prefer that means of communication rather than posting in a different thread.

" Indeed, our trade relations with China have been a political signal and symbol in precisely that sense, and it would be foolish to pretend otherwise or to act as though we can have warm and cordial relations with the Chinese Communist government and trade with them freely while their brutal mistreatment of their people is none of our business."

Actually, it's not as simple as that. This particular Chinese Christian is of importance to us because he is a co-religionist. The Chinese government treatment of it's people is really none of our business (in actuality the Chinese government harasses religious minorities and non-Chinese ethnics) unless the group or individual in question has some sort of real tie to us (in this case religious). Regardless, we should stop "trade with them freely" either way anymore than we should have free trade with any country. We need to bring back the tariff because our American workers can not compete with both Chinese slave labor and shoddy yet extremely cheap Chinese products. They have a tariff on American products while we have nothing on them.

Also, China's not Communist. It is on paper but not in actuality. Nationalism is the true ideology of China and it's due to this why China is cracking down upon Christianity, they feel that it is a Western religion that will lead to the Western powers once again wielding power over them (like in the Unequal Treaties and the Boxer War).

Regardless, we should stop "trade with them freely" either way anymore than we should have free trade with any country. We need to bring back the tariff because our American workers can not compete with both Chinese slave labor and shoddy yet extremely cheap Chinese products.

Well, until we do that, which we aren't going to do in the real world, I maintain, contra you, that the way that they treat their people *is* our business. If for no other reason than that we are sometimes profiting from the brutal treatment in question and sometimes subsidizing it, in both direct and indirect ways.

"Mike T,
It is hardly fair to tar the entire Chinese history for the lawlessness of the Communist tyranny which is foreign to and hostile to the traditional Chinese culture. The communist regime is lawless by its very nature and is a foreign import in China.

China may not have been as lawful as Christendom, politically speaking, but it was not Africa or Afghanistan either."

Illiaci is right regarding this. The ethnic Chinese have created a High Civilization at one point in their history (but then again so did Egypt, Persia and lots of places in the ME). At the same time, Communism is dead in China and traditional Chinese culture is being reasserted as a tenet of a nationalistic rebirth.

Unfortunately, traditional Chinese culture is hostile to Christianity except for a brief period in the past when large parts of the Far East (outside of the Slavic lands and the Levant) converted to Nestorian Christianity. It didn't take.

"Well, until we do that, which we aren't going to do in the real world,"

That depends on whether or not Trump wins and he carries out his economically nationalist and protectionist plans.

"I maintain, contra you, that the way that they treat their people *is* our business. If for no other reason than that we are sometimes profiting from the brutal treatment in question and sometimes subsidizing it, in both direct and indirect ways."

Well, here lies the rub: what can America do about it? This isn't Japan, Serbia, South Africa or Rhodesia. We can't put sanctions on them that would actually bother them and we're definitely not going to go on a bombing campaign against a state that has nuclear weapons. And actually fighting a ground war? Not going to happen. I'm sure many people who profit from war would love one against China (since it has the potential to go on for years and years) but it isn't a war that the American public would support.

So what are we gonna do about it? China won't back down because they don't want to nor because they need to. So what then?

Read the article I linked in the main post. It shows several good places to start when it talks about what we should have done when Chen was there in the embassy.

I don't know how old you are. You may be my age. But I can remember when the trade status that China has now was called "most favored nation" status and when it was considered a very big deal, politically, to withhold it from them. It was a big deal when it was bestowed upon them, and it would be a big deal to threaten to revoke it. Unlike you, I think they would care. If for no other reason than that Chinese culture is all about face saving.

Another thing we can do and should have done long ago is to revoke our funding for the UN population fund. In fact, this comes up with every Republican presidential administration, and it is one of the few good things that even the more disappointing Republican administrations have done, along with Congress. The UNFPA funds the Chinese forced abortion/population control policy.

What I think isolationists often don't realize is how much diplomacy and "putting pressure" is a matter of being "famous for being famous." You might call it the art of bluff. One doesn't always have to have some concrete threat. Moral expressions of disapproval, accompanied with various labels that have indirect effects upon our international relations, *do* have effects. Indeed, the whole point with the Chen Guangcheng story was that our Secretary of State wanted to express a more cozy relationship with China and didn't like the fact that Chen's awkward arrival was making it difficult to maintain the cordiality of the upcoming visit.

Some administrations have undeniably been more cordial to China than others. ("Only Nixon could go to China," and all that.) Cordiality is not always quantifiable (though I bet the many businesses making large sums of money out of our cordial relations with China find it pretty quantifiable), but it is a real thing in international relations, as is its lack, and everybody knows it.

What was being asked of the Obama admin. when Chen showed up was that they be less concerned about appearing "warm" towards the Chinese government and more concerned about appearing "warm" towards an inconvenient Chinese activist. They didn't want to do that.

Nobody had to threaten a land war in order to support Chen Guangcheng.

Ajax,

I just wanted to echo some of Lydia's points and to clarify a couple of things.

You say: "We need to bring back the tariff because our American workers can not compete with both Chinese slave labor and shoddy yet extremely cheap Chinese products. They have a tariff on American products while we have nothing on them."

You'll get no argument from me about Chinese slave labor -- where we can document its use we should loudly and formally complain about such practices to the WTO (more about that below.)

You are wrong about the tariffs -- as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China formally has to cooperate with all sorts of rules and regulations that govern international trade. The U.S. has tariffs on just about anything we import from everywhere -- the tariffs might be lower than you'd like to see, but they do exist (based on my research tariffs are anywhere between 1 - 15% of the cost of the important good.) Indeed, for free trade proponents, they think U.S. tariffs are too high:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/tariff-reform-needed-to-boost-the-us-economy

Notice this report discusses how China cut it's tariff on most imports from 56% to about 15% over a 19-year period.

China's membership in the WTO was negotiated over a period of something like 15 years. Clearly they value being a part of the international trade community -- anything we can do to put pressure on them and threaten their status in this community (e.g. like we did with Iran and their nuclear program) would have an impact. There are, of course, risks involved as the Chinese don't like to be bullied -- but they also have a lot of mouths to feed every day.

So like Lydia says, there are a number of creative and interesting things we can do to support Christians in China and push back against Chinese tyranny when appropriate.

"You are wrong about the tariffs -- as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO), China formally has to cooperate with all sorts of rules and regulations that govern international trade. The U.S. has tariffs on just about anything we import from everywhere -- the tariffs might be lower than you'd like to see, but they do exist (based on my research tariffs are anywhere between 1 - 15% of the cost of the important good.) Indeed, for free trade proponents, they think U.S. tariffs are too high:"

Well, the thing is, Britain bitterly held on to free trade while America and Germany didn't and there is a reason why we and Germany rose and surpassed Britain. Free trade is poison. It hurts us, it hurts our workers and it's as bad as illegal immigration. All of the old American (and non-American) nationalists were staunchly against free trade and America was far better off when we still stuck to protectionism.

Regardless of whether or not tariffs are wrong or right, the basic issue is that our workers are getting shown up by the Chinese and treacherous American businesses are setting up shop there because they'd rather hire sweatshop slaves than pay their own countrymen a living wage.

China's not as much of the problem as the openly treasonous elements within all segments of American society.

"China's membership in the WTO was negotiated over a period of something like 15 years. Clearly they value being a part of the international trade community -- anything we can do to put pressure on them and threaten their status in this community (e.g. like we did with Iran and their nuclear program) would have an impact. There are, of course, risks involved as the Chinese don't like to be bullied -- but they also have a lot of mouths to feed every day."

Well, this isn't Iran. The Chinese have nuclear capabilities, they have power both in bargaining and in military might so we can't bomb them into oblivion like we did to Germany, Japan, or Serbia and the amount of resources they have means that we can't sanction them like we did to South Africa and Rhodesia (if you can't tell, I am against all of those things mentioned). The Chinese epitomize Might Makes Right and my hunch is that they'll pull a Putin and give America the finger and whenever we try to do the whole "moral expressions of disapproval, accompanied with various labels that have indirect effects upon our international relations" will only make us look like a bunch of impotent busybody nags like we did with Russia regarding Georgia and now Ukraine. Plus, the moralizing thing makes us look like hypocrites.

Diplomacy really should only be used from a position of weakness and for right now, we're equals with China. Really, I could care less what China does since it's basically doing the same thing we've done throughout the years, basically what any expanding country has done throughout the eons. What I don't want is another situation where we look weak. The Chinese are too busy to listen to blowhard American diplomats criticizing them, they're building a country.

"So like Lydia says, there are a number of creative and interesting things we can do to support Christians in China and push back against Chinese tyranny when appropriate."

I'd say the best thing would be to get our situation in order, actually achieve a position of moral high ground and then send Christian missionaries to the leaders of China, try to convert them and watch it trickle down like Byzantium did to the Kievan Rus.

This whole situation puts me in a weird situation. We have "human rights lawyers" in the West who agitate for more and more migrants and the rights of queers (Arthur Kunstler comes to mind) and I would love if a strong nationalist government were to crack down on them and technically the Chinese government is doing what's in the best interest of it's nation. But at the same time, I see that the "minorities" in the case of China are my fellow co-religionists.

The best way to deal with this would be to make Christianity and Chinese nationalism intersect via the Byzantine Option.

Lydia,
I do not say it was not legitimate for the Govt to take him in. But, by your criterion for rejecting ME Christians, the Govt was justified him in not according asylum as a politically inconvenient person.

Asylum is justified on the need of the person requesting it. One can always find plenty of practical reasons to deny asylum. Social programs are always short of money, there are always our poor people, certainly some asylum-seekers will engage in criminal activities. But unless one adopts Saudi ethics, these reasons can not justify wholesale rejection of asylum to certain class of people.

Conrad Black yesterday at NRO:

It particularly does not behoove the United States, whose interventions have unintentionally delivered most of Iraq to Iranian suzerainty, to say it will accept only a tokenistic number of refugees from its own mistaken initiatives. Obviously, incomers must be carefully screened, but the United States cannot shirk its partial responsibility for this cascade of disasters.

"Conrad Black yesterday at NRO:"

Lol at Conrad Black. You mean the criminal and even worse the guy who wrote a book championing FDR and claiming he was pro-freedom? And even worse, NRO again?

"But unless one adopts Saudi ethics, these reasons can not justify wholesale rejection of asylum to certain class of people."

Every country has the absolute right to completely reject a certain class of people for whatever reason (and I mean anything. Even something stupid). These abstract, moralistic arguments are undermining your point. The funny thing is I support having ME Christians here, I just don't support your arguments.

This whole situation puts me in a weird situation. We have "human rights lawyers" in the West who agitate for more and more migrants and the rights of queers (Arthur Kunstler comes to mind) and I would love if a strong nationalist government were to crack down on them

I have a similar view of SJWs in general. We are approaching the point where a nationalist leader in the US is going to have to more or less stop the Long March Through the Institutions with the barrel of a gun instead of mere persuasion and constitutional mechanisms.

Our priorities are skews by these people and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that Chen was thrown under the bus. I mean FFS, the President found time recently to show concern for the "plight" of homosexuals in some African state of a few million people. The only thing that surprises me now is that he hasn't found time to give a lecture to Papua New Guinea over their witch burnings.

"the basic issue is that our workers are getting shown up by the Chinese and treacherous American businesses are setting up shop there because they'd rather hire sweatshop slaves than pay their own countrymen a living wage."

Let's not forget the fact that it's Western materialism and consumerism that's driving that. As long as our ever-expanding demand for more and cheaper stuff continues, both the Chinese and corporate America will oblige us by providing it. It's like a character said in the recent movie Sicario about the the drug wars: until 25% of the U.S. population decides to stop wanting stuff to shoot and inhale they're not going to end.

The Chi-Coms have demonstrated that they can be cut-throated both culturally and economically; we have tended to decry the former while winking at the latter. In my view that's schizophrenic -- we expect them to play nice regarding minorities while we shrug our shoulders at sweatshops and 80 hour work weeks? Really?


Ajax,

Read over some of BI's responses in this thread. The ones that are eye-opening are toward the last half of the comments. His views on war, territorial rights and other things of a similar nature are interesting to put it mildly. I don't take him that seriously on stuff like this because he has more or less said that Just War Theory and natural law don't govern the conduct of nations at war. So if they don't govern there, then obviously they don't govern the foreign affairs of countries that would receive refugees from things like war.

technically the Chinese government is doing what's in the best interest of it's nation.

Unmitigated hogwash, Ajax.

Bedarz,

I do not say it was not legitimate for the Govt to take him in. But, by your criterion for rejecting ME Christians, the Govt was justified him in not according asylum as a politically inconvenient person.

You have strange ideas about what constitutes a tu quoque, which I gather is what you are trying to do here. There are _vast_ (really, vast) dissimilarities between taking in thousands upon thousands of _anybody_ and taking the side of (or in the end, taking in), one family of one Chinese activist. To begin with, y'know, one case is thousands and thousands and the other is, what, five? C'mon. You really, really strain to try to make what you regard as parallels and play what you regard as gotcha games, and it's just sort of pathetic argumentatively. Secondly, yes, I do regard "is politically inconvenient" as a much weaker argument from things like "would strain our social services systems" and the like which I brought up on the other thread. You cannot just say that because both attempted arguments against the immigration of some person or persons are given *from the perspective of the host country*, they must both be either good arguments or bad arguments. That's absurd. Some arguments from the perspective of the host country have more merit than others, and "Hillary is about to make a visit to the brutal Chinese which we hope will be a warm visit, and you, who support the kind of rule of law our country supposedly stands for, are making that difficult by showing up at our embassy" has precisely _zero_ merit.

Ajax,

I have plenty of political disagreements with Conrad Black -- his views on FDR would constitute one such disagreement. But to dismiss him as a common criminal is scandalous. His prosecution was political through and through and convoluted to say the least (just take a peek at the Wikipedia page for the case.)

I'm not a free trade absolutist, but I think you are too quick to dismiss the real economic benefits to such trade; I won't get into a debate on the subject here with you as that would be way OT.

Finally, let me just say that your views of American power are strange -- you point to our recent experience with Russia but that is a perfect example of American fecklessness. There was no reason we had to back down from Russia aggression -- the Obama Administration simply decided to back away from the world stage and in doing so we appear weak. Had we wanted to, there are many things we could be doing to stand up to Russian aggression:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/evelyn-farkas-russia-pentagon-215517

"Unmitigated hogwash, Ajax"

How is it unmitigated hogwash? Just because you don't like what the Chinese are doing doesn't mean that they're not looking out for their best interests. All real countries do. It's in their best interests to suppress annoying religious minorities (we could learn from that ourselves). I could care less if the iron fist of Beijing were to slam down hard upon the Muslims or the Falun Gong. This Chen guy is different because he is one of us. That being said, the solution is to not turn China into an Oriental version of the Neutered States of America but to make Christianity apart of Chinese culture.

"I have a similar view of SJWs in general. We are approaching the point where a nationalist leader in the US is going to have to more or less stop the Long March Through the Institutions with the barrel of a gun instead of mere persuasion and constitutional mechanisms."

We are most definitely going to have to do something about cultural Bolsheviks and their newest incarnation the SJW. It's too bad that these Lefties are a bunch of limp-wristed, noodle-armed pansies. It's going to be too easy. Atleast with the Red Army there would be a decent challenge, real men to fight against.

It's going to be less like Weimar Street Fights 2.0 and more like something humdrum like taking out the trash. The Culturally Marxist Left will be in for a real shock when they finally realize that we are tired of them mouthing off at everything and are finally going to shut them up for good.

And of course, the masses will follow along because that's what they do. It didn't take them that long to accept sodomarriage when there was no precedent for that sort of thing. It won't take them too long to get on board with this either. Just seem flashy, smart and edgy (which is what the Left used claim they were before they decided to go down the "respectable route") and the lemmings will follow like they always do.

"Our priorities are skews by these people and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that Chen was thrown under the bus. I mean FFS, the President found time recently to show concern for the "plight" of homosexuals in some African state of a few million people. The only thing that surprises me now is that he hasn't found time to give a lecture to Papua New Guinea over their witch burnings."

If it's any consolation, President Fruit is going to be gone soon and it definitely looks like Trump is going to win. While Trump is running as an independent who hijacked the GOP, I'm pretty sure he reads paleocon and alt-right material. The guy was mentored by Ray Cohn (one of the original John Birchers, McCarthy's right hand man, and Good Jew) and if you look at videos of him before his presidential run, he seems calm and sober. The whole "brash NE personality" is just a persona.

"I have plenty of political disagreements with Conrad Black -- his views on FDR would constitute one such disagreement. But to dismiss him as a common criminal is scandalous. His prosecution was political through and through and convoluted to say the least (just take a peek at the Wikipedia page for the case.)"

I don't really care as much about him being a criminal as much as I do him writing for NRO and praising a real criminal and scoundrel, FDR.

"Finally, let me just say that your views of American power are strange -- you point to our recent experience with Russia but that is a perfect example of American fecklessness."

I only believe in doing

"There was no reason we had to back down from Russia aggression"

There was no reason we really needed to stand up to it in the first place. Ukraine's not our problem anymore than South Ossetia in Georgia is. And besides, why was Germany and the rest of Europe quiet about Russia's expansion?

The reason why I think it's idiotic to care about these things is because imagine how annoying it is if another country were to nag us like an old bat regarding us taking parts of Mexico, the Indian lands, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, and Hawaii. We wanted them, we took them. So what? Russia wants Ukraine, they take Ukraine. Don't get me wrong, if Russia were to take Alaska, then we would have a problem. But last time I checked, Ukraine is not one of our territories.

"-- the Obama Administration simply decided to back away from the world stage and in doing so we appear weak. Had we wanted to, there are many things we could be doing to stand up to Russian aggression:"

We should have friendly relations with Russia, the Cold War is over. Plus, even the Cold War was wrong because the enemy was not in Russia or China or Vietnam. The enemy was always within. Like it is right now.

Ajax, I don't tolerate incitement to violence, so I don't want to see any more comments such as yours of 11:42.

As for yours of 11:27, you show an all-too-typical cultural relativism. Right and wrong are not determined either by culture or by might makes right or by government. There is such a thing as evil, and it's actually evil for the Chinese govt. to round up and kill the non-violent Falun Gong, and if possible even more evil to sell their kidneys (which yes, the Chinese govt. also does).

"Just because you don't like..." is the lead-in of a relativist that recognizes no real right and wrong. I don't decide what is right and wrong just by deciding who is "related to me." If I were a member of a mafia family, it wouldn't suddenly become "right for me" to support killing the ten-year-old child of our competitor mafia family because that's what is "best for our family" and because he isn't "one of us."

This kind of approach to relations between nations, as to relations between people, is utterly morally bankrupt. Moral relativism has nothing to offer, and it doesn't acquire moral meaning just because you attach it to countries.

Your original comment was hogwash because it is not in _any_ country's best interests to have no rule of law, government corruption, government forced abortion, and such other things as Chen Guangcheng was protesting in China. What they _think_ is the kind of government they want doesn't make it right, because might doesn't make right, and neither do the feelings and inclinations of a Chinese elite. They can be wrong, and they are wrong. And what is wrong is never what is best.

I'm not adhering to moral relativism as much as I am to realism. The reality is that China is not Christian and the Chinese soul has not been touched by Christ. And we can't get them to adhere to Christian ethics without being Christian first.

"There is such a thing as evil, and it's actually evil for the Chinese govt. to round up and kill the non-violent Falun Gong, and if possible even more evil to sell their kidneys (which yes, the Chinese govt. also does)."

Yeah, the Chinese have weird Oriental practices many of which are evil but they're heathens and once again, if you want them to act Good, the only way you can really do it is by converting them. It's like expecting the Druids or Carthaginians to stop human sacrifice without either, killing them all (which is evil and sort of defeats the purpose) or converting them (which is good).

We really can't control the Chinese, they're much too powerful for that. They're going to do what they do and even if we wag our fingers at them, they'll just hide it and deny it.

What's needed is a complete internal change amongst the Chinese, a complete transformation of the Chinese soul.

"Right and wrong are not determined either by culture or by might makes right or by government. There is such a thing as evil"

I was talking about best interests in solely practical terms.

There was no reason we had to back down from Russia aggression -- the Obama Administration simply decided to back away from the world stage and in doing so we appear weak. Had we wanted to, there are many things we could be doing to stand up to Russian aggression:

We are the initial aggressors in Ukraine. They had a pro-Russian government that we helped to topple, and then we find it shocking that Russia retaliates. If Russia toppled the Canadian government and installed a pro-Russian parliament and prime minister, we'd probably have US troops marching on Ottawa.

Ajax and Mike T,

Believe it or not, I would love it if the U.S. and Russia developed stronger ties -- I think a conservative Christian Orthodox government in Russia could indeed serve U.S. interests very well. Unfortunately, I don't think that government should be headed up by Putin, who is a KGB thug of the first order and has only brought stability to his country at the price of crushing internal dissent, making a mockery of the rule of law, and acting aggressively to his neighbors for no good reason (I'm sorry, but protecting Russian/other minorities who were never in any real harm was only a pretext for Putin to flex his muscles.)

I will ignore Mike T's ignorant analogy w/r/t Canada and the Ukraine. Perhaps it was unwise for the U.S. to get involved at all in that country's internal affairs -- but if you think there wasn't actually real dissent and division to begin with in that country and unhappiness with the pro-Russian President before we even decided to support the opposition, I've got a bridge in downtown Chicago to sell you. In the end, it might make sense for the Ukraine to be divided and the east/Crimea come under permanent Russian rule. So be it. But the western portion of the country is very pro-European and does not want to be under Russia's thumb. Does it make sense for the U.S. to help those people and/or get involved in Europe's affairs? That is part of a much bigger discussion and I think both Lydia and I are open to a more 'realist' foreign policy that has the U.S. pulling back from some of our current entanglements around the world. On the other hand, that doesn't mean we won't stand up for our principles when appropriate or be afraid to make dictators and tyrants look bad -- like we should have been willing to in the first place with Chen and China.

Standing up for our principles, including the principle of freedom of religion and expression (so people can practice their faith freely and get down to the business of converting the heathen/Muslim bad guys around the world), should be a no-brainer for the U.S.

I was talking about best interests in solely practical terms.

But you're wrong there, too!

Even sensible non-Christians can see that totalitarianism of the Chinese variety doesn't make for a productive country, a flourishing citizenry, etc., etc. Heck, the one-child policy has had all kinds of dire unintended _practical_ consequences that any sensible person (not just Christians) could have foreseen, but the Chinese government kept it going for years and is now only shifting to a two-child policy, which will have many of the same bad practical consequences!

And many non-Christians have seen the human cost and the evil of Communism. Whittaker Chambers, for example, began to see that *before* becoming a Christian.

There is such a thing as the natural light. Non-Christians can understand *at least some* (I would say quite a few) sane principles of economics and just government. And just government is practically good government as well.

"Even sensible non-Christians can see that totalitarianism of the Chinese variety doesn't make for a productive country, a flourishing citizenry, etc., etc. Heck, the one-child policy has had all kinds of dire unintended _practical_ consequences that any sensible person (not just Christians) could have foreseen, but the Chinese government kept it going for years and is now only shifting to a two-child policy, which will have many of the same bad practical consequences!"

Have you ever read the Old Greeks write about the Oriental despot? That is a system that is common in the East. I don't know if it will change unless the Chinese themselves change. The Chinese have always had a sort of despotic government system.

"And many non-Christians have seen the human cost and the evil of Communism."

Yeah, except we're not dealing with communism anymore. Communism is dead and has been for a while. Talking about the evils of communism is as tedious as talking about the evils of Nazism/Fascism. They're both dead, it's time to move on and look at the enemies we have to deal with now.

"There is such a thing as the natural light."

You mean what we Catholics refer to as the Natural Law? I don't know how true that doctrine is considering that entire groups of people can be completely shut off to that Law. And I'm not talking about the Chinese.

"Non-Christians can understand *at least some* (I would say quite a few) sane principles of economics and just government. And just government is practically good government as well."

I don't know why you keep on bringing up their economic views when it's obvious that the Chinese are only Communist on paper. They're capitalists now.

Regardless, meddling in other countries affairs have led to nothing but trouble for us and even more trouble for them. It's best to stay out of it. Especially considering the fact that we do not have our stuff together.

" Unfortunately, I don't think that government should be headed up by Putin, who is a KGB thug of the first order and has only brought stability to his country"

Brought stability to his country, that's all that we need to hear. Russia was a mess, he fixed it. That's really all that matters.

"at the price of crushing internal dissent"

I don't think you know how Russia's political arena looks like. There are four main parties: Putin's big tent Conservative one (United Russia), the LDP which is a fascist ultra-nationalist party, A Just Russia which is another right-wing nationalist party, and the Communist Party (which ironically is far more conservative than the GOP or the NRO since they aligned with the other parties to stand against queer "rights"). Putin isn't even in any of the radical parties.

And forgive me for cheering on Putin for suppressing scum like P**sy Riot and other Cultural Bolshevik swine. I wish America would suppress them as well. We'd be much better off if we had.

"making a mockery of the rule of law"

Ultimately the only law is the nation itself. If breaking the law on paper leads to the best for the nation, it's justified.

"and acting aggressively to his neighbors for no good reason (I'm sorry, but protecting Russian/other minorities who were never in any real harm was only a pretext for Putin to flex his muscles.)"

Not our problem. As long as he doesn't touch Alaska, it's not our problem. I mean, do you live in Texas, the South West, or Hawaii? I live in Texas because the Union took large parts of Mexico and guess what? Good for us!

I guess I can't really blame Putin for what he's doing since I support similar things America has done in the past. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't.

Ajax,

You are incorrigible!

Putin brought stability...but at a terrible price. In Catholic thought (and ethics in general) there is the idea that we don't do evil so that good may come. Part of the reason this is true is because once you set down an evil path, it is hard to stop doing evil as your heart becomes hardened. It is also true, as Lydia points out, that from a practical standpoint, evil men often get short-term results but only to sacrifice real medium to long-range results for their country:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/putin-stra-e-russias-road-ruin_1055318.html?page=1

Here is just one little quote from that short article:

The consequences are more of the same from the Russia we have come to know and love. An aging population and a shrinking workforce combined with a low birth rate, record high levels of corruption, record low levels of foreign investment and no ability to attract or create an educated, skilled workforce. Long term this equals increased non-competitiveness with the rest of the world and a political and economic system that is destined to collapse under its own dead weight.

If the Russian government’s various institutions were actually attuned to or responsive to the needs of the population, proper investments would have been made in encouraging youth to become engineers and designers instead of bankers and corporate raiders skilled in little more than laundering money. If adequate funding went to health care, schools, and laying asphalt, people wouldn't be agitating to change the name of a road to “Putin Straße.”

A just and wise ruler doesn't go around killing his critics -- killing them in Russia and killing them in Europe:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414622/boris-nemtsov-joins-long-list-murdered-putin-critics-david-pryce-jones

What you say about the law and the nation is ridiculous -- as Lydia already said it amounts to moral relativism (Stalin: 'Hey, don't blame me, I was just doing what I needed to do to save Mother Russia -- if 10-20 million Ukrainian peasants and Russian kulaks have to starve/be killed in the process -- well, whatever is best for the nation.')

Please, Ajax -- start using your capacity to reason and stop letting your emotions (e.g. we all hate "Cultural Bolshevik swine" -- the question is what is the proper response to such people) get the better of you. Again, we don't do evil so that good may come. Get a grip of your moral compass and hold on.

Ultimately the only law is the nation itself. If breaking the law on paper leads to the best for the nation, it's justified.

Ajax isn't a cultural moral relativist. He just plays one on the Internet.

All,

Here is just a taste of what Ajax's hero Putin is capable of:

Thus far, “red lines” have been drawn sparingly, and only two have spelled doom to those who dared to cross them. One has circled Yukos and Khodorkovsky. The other ran through the four apartment-buildings bombings (two of them in Moscow) in September 1999—the tragedy that made Putin famous.

Killing 300 and wounding hundreds more, the blasts, which occurred within weeks of Putin’s appointment as prime minister and were instantly blamed by the Kremlin on Chechen separatists, boosted the popularity of a young and seemingly tough head of government, who famously promised to “rub [the Chechens] out in the outhouse.”

Anti-regime conspiracy theorists almost immediately tied the explosions to the effort by the FSB to solidify Putin’s image as Russia’s savior. This theory ought to have been dismissed as too monstrous to imagine but for the fact that FSB operatives were caught red-handed as they planted sacks of explosives in the basement of the apartment building on September 22 in the city of Ryazan, a hundred miles southeast of Moscow. The official explanation—that this had been a training exercise—was riddled with too many inconsistencies to be believable.

The truth about the explosions will not be known until those in charge testify at trials or at Truth Commission sessions in a post-Putin Russia. But the case for the principal’s involvement is made stronger by the lethality rate of those who persisted in investigating the blasts. The liberal Duma Deputy Sergei Yushenkov was gunned down on a Moscow street in April 2003. Two months later, Yuri Shchekochikhin, an investigative journalist and deputy editor of the opposition newspaper, Novaya Gazeta, fell ill complaining of a “burning sensation” all over his body. He died within days from what was diagnosed as an “allergic syndrome” caused by an “unknown toxin” after his skin peeled off and his hair fell out.

Two years later, it was Anna Politkovskaya’s turn. She was shot to death in the elevator of her apartment building. Perhaps Russia’s best-known crusading journalist, Politkovskaya had publicized all manner of the regime’s incompetence, corruption, and brutality, especially in the prosecution of the Chechen wars and in the hostage crisis at the theater. But her murder, like those of Yushenkov and Shchekochikhin, just as likely could have been caused by her association with a former FSB official by the name of Alexander Litvinenko, who had made it his life’s mission to get to the bottom of the apartment bombings.

A would-be whistleblower who alleged FSB’s corruption and incompetence, Litvinenko had escaped to London before he was put on trial. Using the FSB connections and expertise he acquired while working there, he pieced together evidence of the organization’s involvement in the explosions and published a book about it. (He had also determined that an FSB informer was among the theater hostage-takers, suggesting that the Russian special services had known about the planned operation beforehand. Litvinenko even figured out the name of the informer and passed the information to Yushenkov and Politkovskaya.)

Three weeks after Politkovskaya’s murder, Litvinenko became sick. Like Shchekochikhin, he felt a burning sensation in his throat, esophagus, and stomach. He could not drink and threw up incessantly. His hair began to fall out. Before he slipped into a coma, Litvinenko dictated a statement to be released after his death:


I think the time has come to say a few words to the man responsible for my current condition. You may be able to force me to stay quiet, but this silence comes at a price for you. You have now proved that you are exactly the ruthless barbarian your harshest critics made you out to be. You have demonstrated that you have no respect for human life, liberty, or other values of civilization. You have shown that you do not deserve to hold your post, and you do not deserve the trust of civilized people. You may be able to shut one man up, but the noise of protest all over the world will echo in your ears, Mr. Putin, to the end of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to my beloved Russia and her people.

A few hours after Litvinenko’s death, London police determined that he had been poisoned by Polonium 210: a highly radioactive isotope, lethal when ingested, and produced almost exclusively in Russia, where its manufacture is tightly controlled by the federal authorities. The extraction of even a tiny amount must be authorized at the highest level. The police followed the radioactive trail to hotels and restaurants, identified a businessman and a former FSB officer Alexander Lugovoy as the prime suspect in the poisoning, and requested his extradition. The reaction was vintage Putin: He had Lugovoy elected to the Duma on the Kremlin’s United Russia Party ticket, thus securing his immunity from prosecution.

Sorry, I meant to include my source:

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/how-putin-does-it/

It is from a magazine famous for supporting a certain group of people that I suspect Ajax was referring to when he said this:

"I don't know how true that doctrine is considering that entire groups of people can be completely shut off to that Law. And I'm not talking about the Chinese."

I'm going to take a wild guess and say he meant the Scots-Irish, but that's just me ;-)

"Putin brought stability...but at a terrible price"

Getting rid of CultMarxists seems like a reward not a consequence.

"Please, Ajax -- start using your capacity to reason and stop letting your emotions (e.g. we all hate "Cultural Bolshevik swine" -- the question is what is the proper response to such people) get the better of you. Again, we don't do evil so that good may come. Get a grip of your moral compass and hold on."

Yeah, so your solution is to lose to the Cultural Marxists while Putin's solution is to win, am I getting this right?

Results matter the most. It's hard to speak ill of someone who's doing something you've tried to do but failed miserably. I understand the need to bad mouth Putin considering the humiliating gay marriage loss you movement conservatives have, but the facts are obvious, he won't let Mother Russia down by letting mincing queers prance all over it's media.

"A just and wise ruler doesn't go around killing his critics -- killing them in Russia and killing them in Europe:"

I agree. But his only critics seem to be Cultural Bolsheviks so... eh.

"It is from a magazine famous for supporting a certain group of people that I suspect Ajax was referring to when he said this:

"I don't know how true that doctrine is considering that entire groups of people can be completely shut off to that Law. And I'm not talking about the Chinese.""

I find it very interesting that you immediately jumped to the Jews. I meant the Americans who support gays, trannies, and other assorted freaks who are against the Natural Law but I guess most Jews can be including in that group as well. That being said:

Here is good old Thomas Fleming on a certain group of Christian "conservatives" (as epitomized by Richard Neuhaus): "Over at First Things, they gave space to a Jewish journalist to denounce all Catholics who do not believe that the Jews have a divine right to occupy the Holy Land. I don't know if the late Dick Neuhaus knew any Catholic theology-in my years of knowing him, he never displayed the slightest knowledge or interest-but he did a somewhat better job of concealing who his masters really were."

Keep in mind that I did not bring up the Jews, Jeff. You did. But there is something awfully fishy about your and Lydia's support for them even though recent events have made it obvious as to how they really are. Believe it or not, I too used to be a philosemite. But I turned when I realized how things really were. There is something really, really odd about a group of supposedly "critical" conservatives still having a huge blindspot regarding this one sole issue.

Also, regarding Commentary, you really expect me to take that Neo-Con Warmongering Israel Uber Alles rag seriously, as an American Christian conservative who has no ties to Israel or Judaism? For some reason Neo-Cons are anti-Russia (probably because Putin reminds them of the Tsar) but I'm not playing that game. The game were we decide who's the New Hitler and then try to advocate for yet another useless pointless war.

Those days seem to be behind us.

I just want to reiterate one more time, I did NOT bring up the Jews in this thread. Jeffery S did.

So before anyone (i.e. Lydia) decides to slander me by saying I'm "obsessed with the Jews" keep in mind that Jeffery brought them up.

I also want to say how I find it amusing how you tried to "decode my cryptic anti-semitic statements" when there really was nothing anti-semitic underneath it at all. Homophobia and transphobia, yes, in spades. But Anti-semitism? None. Atleast not in that statement.

In fact, your Navajoesque Anti-Semitic Code Cracking is reminisce of this Jezebel writer's: http://www.donotlink.com/framed?804257

Long story short, it's about how Trump called Debbie Wasserman-Schultz "highly neurotic".

Here is just a taste of what Ajax's hero Putin is capable of:

And we're responsible for much of the post-Arab Spring violence in the Middle East. What's your point?

I will ignore Mike T's ignorant analogy w/r/t Canada and the Ukraine. Perhaps it was unwise for the U.S. to get involved at all in that country's internal affairs -- but if you think there wasn't actually real dissent and division to begin with in that country and unhappiness with the pro-Russian President before we even decided to support the opposition

Their unhappiness is irrelevant. We supported a coup against a pro-Russian leader who was not wildly unpopular (if he was, Putin would have found a suitable replacement) and did so right on Russia's doorstep. If you can't see how that's pretty damn close to the Russians meddling with Canada, then there's no helping you on foreign affairs.

"And we're responsible for much of the post-Arab Spring violence in the Middle East. What's your point?"

Yeah, that reminds me. When are we going to self-flagellate first for what we did to the Mexicans in the Mexican American War, the Indians in the American Indian War, the Spanish in the Spanish American War, the Hawaiians when we took Hawaii, the British and the Loyalists during the American Revolution, the Filipinos during the American Philippine War, the Southerners during the Civil War, and the Blacks during slavery?

These things happen, it's not pretty but it's reality. But I'm not going to dump on the men responsible for the above because they led to what the country was before it went down the gutter.

If you want to slander Putin for doing bad things to Cultural Bolshevik dissidents, first go after the Founders who would stifle dissent themselves by feathering and tarring loyalists (which isn't as funny as it first seems, it's actually a pretty brutal way to kill someone, basically the Colonial American version of necklacing) and British officials.

I'm not a hypocrite. I'm not going to slander Putin for doing what we've done and what we should have kept doing.

Lydia
A wise saying says_ one death is a tragedy but a million deaths merely a statistic.
Individually stories of ME christians may be no less heart rending then that of Chinese activists (after all they were not killing his family, at least)

It's also worth mentioning that we have had a recent President who is credibly accused of several acts of rape and murder and whose wife has extremely serious felony accusations against her (not to mention a foreign policy record that is likely literally treasonous) and is a serious contender for our presidency. So let's not get high and mighty about Putin's record of murdering people and how the Russians turn a blind eye toward that. Our track record sucks as bad.

"It's also worth mentioning that we have had a recent President who is credibly accused of several acts of rape and murder and whose wife has extremely serious felony accusations against her (not to mention a foreign policy record that is likely literally treasonous) and is a serious contender for our presidency. So let's not get high and mighty about Putin's record of murdering people and how the Russians turn a blind eye toward that. Our track record sucks as bad."

Interesting. Putin may be a murderer but last time I checked, he wasn't a rapist and he's definitely not a traitor. And is it murder to kill off treasonous elements? Was it murder when the US Government killed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (a"Scot-Irish" couple btw) for selling nuclear secrets to the USSR?

If the state has the right to commit executions (something I believe it does) than what's the issue here? Is WWWthW anti-death penalty?

Hunting down and killing a journalist like that is an act of murder. The issue I take with the "ZOMG HEZ A THUG!" reaction from most American critics of Putin is that they are nowhere near as anti-Clinton despite the fact that they have a list of equally serious allegations against them and now there are insinuations that Clinton was a little buddy buddy with Jeff Epstein on his infamous sex vacations that involved primarily underage girls (some as young as 12).

What's worse is that our media is running interference for them of their own free will. They can't even say they fear state reprisal as might be the case in Russia for going boldly after Putin.

"Hunting down and killing a journalist like that is an act of murder"

I didn't read that far in that neo-con rag word salad but that being said: "Putin is that they are nowhere near as anti-Clinton despite the fact that they have a list of equally serious allegations against them and now there are insinuations that Clinton was a little buddy buddy with Jeff Epstein on his infamous sex vacations that involved primarily underage girls (some as young as 12)."

I would rather hang out with a thug than a child-loving rapist and pervert.

"What's worse is that our media is running interference for them of their own free will. They can't even say they fear state reprisal as might be the case in Russia for going boldly after Putin."

That's because the American media is the fourth branch of the state now. And they're both teeming with Cultural Marxists.

That being said, it looks like that's going to change.

A few gay black men in Obama's life from Chicago also mysteriously started dying off right around the time he started to run for President, which is yet another reason why charges like that against Putin don't impress me. It's not like we're electing men with cleaner reputations very often.

"A few gay black men in Obama's life from Chicago also mysteriously started dying off right around the time he started to run for President, which is yet another reason why charges like that against Putin don't impress me. It's not like we're electing men with cleaner reputations very often."

To be completely fair, gay men die off all the time. It seems that the wages of their beautiful, beautiful love is death. And black men are genetically more susceptible to the HIV virus. Combine the homosexual hobbies with the vulnerable black genetics and I could see these particular individuals dropping like flies before Obama was even in politics.

So when you mean, mysteriously, what exactly do you mean? Like beyond sexual and feces related diseases?

That being said, I think the best way to gauge where Lydia and Jeffery S are coming from is to ask them what they think about Tsarist Russia and the Tsar in particular (the one who ended up dissolved alongside his family in acid by a pack of Bolshevik animals). That way we'll find out whether or not they're just kneejerk Russophobes or have actually objections to Putin that are based upon the opinions of Scots-Irish individuals who write for mags like Commentary and who have traditionally have always seen Russia as an "evil empire" except when it was communist of course.

That brings us back to Putin. A quick cursory search shows that Scots-Irish have very negative views about Putin (many because Putin is not a fan of the gay) while Putin himself is very all over the place regarding our Celtic friends, almost like Stalin. Now of course, if the Putin government is replaced by A Just Russia or the Liberal Democratic Party, then that would be a complete game over for the Scots-Irish and we would be hearing the incessant geara'n in all of the neo-con (read crypto-trotskyite) magazines.

Okay, I'm going to call Tweet on the Putin discussion. At a quick skim Mike T appears to be marginally more sensible in it than Ajax, but that's an easy bar to reach.

I never thought I'd be thankful for Bedarz, but at least he's _sort of_, _kind of_ on topic.

Bedarz, this has nothing to do with being heart-rending or with statistics. This has to do with whether something is a *good reason* to consider someone a candidate for asylum. You may not like it, but being a hugely persecuted activist for the rule of law in a Communist country and being one person with one family and showing up at our embassy originally not even _asking_ to come to our country _do_ produce a situation that makes a credible case for political asylum. Your case for bringing millions of persecuted Christians here, _however_ much I sympathize with the persecuted Christians, is less strong and has more objections to be made to it. That's just the way it is. It has nothing to do with my being heartless or with a million deaths being a statistic. The fact is that our society _will_ find it much harder to assimilate a million people than five people, so the former _does_ have a bigger prima facie case against to overcome. Sorry if you don't like that, but reality doesn't conform to well-intentioned wishes, as conservatives of all people ought to know.

However, I'm also a little weary of your attempt to carry every thread over onto the next thread even when they are pretty unrelated. Your last try of this kind even concerned a thread by a different contributor! What's next? If I post about abortion will you try to tell me how heartless I am for not being enthusiastically in favor of bringing two million ME Christians to the U.S. while being pro-life? Please, try to control this "threading" tendency. I have enough trouble (as you see) with other commentators who are _way_ off topic.

Ajax, since you're still around, I'm going to give you a couple of on-topic things to think about:

Both Jeff and I have responded to your "What can we do about it" and "There's nothing we can do" statements about China. Some you seem to have ignored. I haven't read every word you've typed on this thread, but I didn't see you address de-funding the UNFPA, for example.

To most of them your response seems to have been, "The Chinese wouldn't care." Well, we disagree with you about that. Both Jeff and I have talked about ways in which we could threaten China's position in the world of trade, which we think China _would_ care about, but apparently, even though you are _stronglY_ against free trade with China, the one thing you _don't_ like is the idea of using an anti-free-trade approach as a way of expressing moral disapproval. I've seen this before with paleos. They want to rant against free trade with China, but the minute someone says, "Great. Let's take away most favored nation status if they don't stop human rights abuses" or something to that effect, the paleo doesn't like _that_, because it involves making a _moral_ judgement against another nation a basis of international behavior. This is ridiculous. There is _nothing_ wrong, nothing whatsoever, with making moral opposition to a nation's treatment of its own people a part of our considerations in international trade policy. And there is no principle except the bald (and false) assertion that such things cannot be "any of our own business" that allows one to oppose such a use of those considerations. But where is, "It's none of our business if China is brutal to its citizens" written on tablets of stone? Sure, I can see saying, "We shouldn't invade China over its treatment of its citizens," but the reflexive, knee-jerk, "It's none of our business" and all the relativistic schlock, which you have trotted out again and again on this thread, are brought out when one even suggests using such considerations in relation to our _own_ actions concerning _trade_, which is a non-violent matter and indeed a matter of our trying not to _subsidize_ and _profit from_ China's brutality and slave labor. Yet even that is rejected for no good reason whatsoever, and the irony is that it is rejected by people who actually strongly dislike free trade with the brutal regime in question! But apparently they dislike bringing moral judgements into international relations even more than they dislike free trade with China.

I submit that that is a ludicrous and morally bankrupt position.

More: Getting back to the main post, there _was_ something we could do there. There _were_ better ways we could and should have handled Chen's appearance at the embassy. So stop repeating like a robot, "There's nothing we can do," when my main post is about something we could have done! And something the Chinese would have cared about!

Now, maybe your point is that China won't "care about" these measures to make a radical transformation.

That may be true. But that's not entirely the point. Indeed, the greater point is to keep our own hands clean. Yes, the U.S. is often not good at that, but I'm talking about what we should do going forward. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's absurd for you to oppose my recommendations for later Republican administrations vis a vis China by bringing up our treatment of the Indians or whatever past national sins you want to drag up. That's dumb. We aren't going to expiate our "national sins" against the Indians by taking an amoral stance toward the Chinese and towards human rights activists in China. Indeed, it takes a pretty twisted mental process to think so. Supporting a legal human rights activist like Chen was the right thing to do (yes, it would have been even if he weren't a Christian), and I say we should do so if another one shows up at our Chinese embassy five years from now in the midst of a Republican administration.

If you understand the notion of trying not to do harm militarily (which I'm sure you do, given your proclivities) then start trying to wrap your brain around the idea of trying not to do harm and trying to take a defensible moral position in the _other_ areas of our foreign policy. But to do that, you're going to have to divest yourself of the relativistic rhetoric you have picked up.

Okay, I'm going to call Tweet on the Putin discussion. At a quick skim Mike T appears to be marginally more sensible in it than Ajax, but that's an easy bar to reach.

My position is that we have our very own analog to Putin on the issues that upset Jeff right in our very own Bill and Hillary Clinton. We also have a sitting president who very likely has committed literal treason in conspiracy with Hillary Clinton in Benghazi. So anyone who acts like we're so far removed from where Russia finds itself needs to get their head examined because we are slide down the rabbit hole on a greased sled as a nation.

So when you mean, mysteriously, what exactly do you mean? Like beyond sexual and feces related diseases?

Like gay, black men with no notorious gang affiliations who are said to have been "quite close" to Obama were the victims of violent deaths IIRC.

"Both Jeff and I have talked about ways in which we could threaten China's position in the world of trade, which we think China _would_ care about, but apparently, even though you are _stronglY_ against free trade with China, the one thing you _don't_ like is the idea of using an anti-free-trade approach as a way of expressing moral disapproval. I've seen this before with paleos. They want to rant against free trade with China, but the minute someone says, "Great. Let's take away most favored nation status if they don't stop human rights abuses" or something to that effect, the paleo doesn't like _that_, because it involves making a _moral_ judgement against another nation a basis of international behavior. This is ridiculous."

It's not ridiculous if you think about it. China could be full of saints but I would still want to end free trade with them. Free trade has got to go regardless of what China does and what if China makes a convincing pretense that they are well-behaved and what not? Then we can't end free trade with them because we'll look like scumbags who don't keep their end of the deal.

So no, I will not use free trade as a bargaining chip. It must end regardless of what China does because this is about America not China.

I have nothing against making moral judgments against other nations and neither do the paleos.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's absurd for you to oppose my recommendations for later Republican administrations vis a vis China by bringing up our treatment of the Indians or whatever past national sins you want to drag up. That's dumb. We aren't going to expiate our "national sins" against the Indians by taking an amoral stance toward the Chinese and towards human rights activists in China."

It's not dumb. I'm not a liberal self-flagellater, I'm a realist. While I have a sort of Romanticized respect for natives (reading James Fenimoore Cooper and Karl mays will do that to you), I acknowledge you live by the sword, you die by the sword. The natives did horrible things to each other and when someone stronger came into the picture, they too got their own. These things happen. It's human nature whether we like it or not and the Russians and Chinese are just as human as us. They're going to do what we did, conquer and expand, screw over native groups, and the like.

"Supporting a legal human rights activist like Chen was the right thing to do (yes, it would have been even if he weren't a Christian)"

What makes the law? The state right? And we're not talking about God's Law or the Natural Law, just regular ones.

Regardless, it may be the "right thing" to support Chen even if he were non-Christian, but it's not worth the effort. There are lots of "human rights activists" in America and they give me a bad taste. I don't trust the type in general except for the Christian ones in anti-Christian countries.

I will repeat on thing over and over: we need to get our house in order and then try to convert China's leaders

If you mean, as you appear to mean, that it is somehow wrong, a bad idea, not something to be called for, to do _anything else but_ "get our house in order and then try to convert China's leaders," you are plain wrong. And not living in the real world, either, despite your talk of realism. Realism, for example, involves admitting that America _does_ have international influence and that that isn't going to disappear into some kind of alleged isolationist utopia tomorrow, ditching the "none of our business" rhetoric, and advocating that we use our moral, diplomatic, foreign aid, and trade influence for good rather than for evil.

And I agree that this is about America, and not at least _just_ about China. And that's why I think it's bad _for America_ for us to take an amoral, "none of our business" stance towards the evils of China *and to profit from them*. Notice, too, that being non-judgemental and cozy towards China's leaders as the Obama admin (and some Republican admins as well) have done is hardly the road to conversion! On any meaning of that word.

"If you mean, as you appear to mean, that it is somehow wrong, a bad idea, not
"Realism, for example, involves admitting that America _does_ have international influence and that that isn't going to disappear into some kind of alleged isolationist utopia tomorrow,"

Strawman. Never said isolationism would lead to utopia and I feel you are conflating isolationism with pacifism. I'm not against war in idea. I'm against wars that harm my country and my co-Westerners and my co-religionists.

We have international influence, but we have become drastically weakened and far, far more importantly, we have more enemies within our borders than in China, Russia or anywhere else in the world. Those are the facts. That is realistic. What your advocating is a sort of Wilsonian/Dubyaesque revolution to change China by merely changing it's government. Look at how that worked in Iraq. Our Christian brethren are getting raped and murdered because of what we did.

It's not realistic, really not our problem (until the question of co-religionists come up), and we have more important things to deal with right now. We need to spend less time and effort trying to fix and world and more on trying to fix America.

"ditching the "none of our business" rhetoric, and advocating that we use our moral, diplomatic, foreign aid, and trade influence for good rather than for evil"

Our leadership has no moral credibility, are diplomats are limp-wrists, foreign aid for other countries when our country men are suffering is what Dickens would call "telescopic philanthropy", and our trade influence is full treacherous businesses and businessmen who would sell their mothers let alone their country in a heartbeat.

Forget about China or Russia or Iraq or Syria. America needs a regime change.

What your advocating is a sort of Wilsonian/Dubyaesque revolution to change China by merely changing it's government. Look at how that worked in Iraq.

Wow, seeing as I already _expressly_ anticipated that and said that I do _not_ advocate launching a war against China because of their human rights abuses, _that_ is a strawman, and an ineexcusable one as well.

It's even worse, if possible, considering that I _acknowledged_ that it might be that nothing I advocate would be sufficient to bring about massive reform in China.

In short, you don't read what I actually write, or possibly you are just incapable of taking in the points I'm making (e.g., about why it's the right thing to do to tie our trade relations to China to their behavior *even if* this doesn't bring about major change in China).

That's pretty boring.

If nothing else, it raises a very real question as to why I should have a discussion with you, when I'm apparently wasting pixels doing so.

We got it, Ajax: America is a feckless, deranged and unlovely country undeserving of preservation. True patriots ought to connive at her overthrow and replacement by something else, something more in the tradition of autocracy.

"We got it, Ajax: America is a feckless, deranged and unlovely country undeserving of preservation."

You got it wrong. America was a great country but no longer is, but when the right time comes, the world shall quiver when she reclaims her rightful place in the world and makes the resolute decision to control her destiny.

I love America. I don't love how she has been corrupted into something she never was.

There is nothing to preserve in this "New America". What's needed is a national rebirth to make her great once again.

"True patriots ought to connive at her overthrow and replacement by something else, something more in the tradition of autocracy."

You realize that the true patriots who founded this country connived to form a violent rebellion right?

America is no longer free. It's time to make her free again, most especially free from treacherous, immoral, and unhealthy elements that have been eating away at her.

But the strawman thing was nice. All I've been saying is that America's internal enemies are a far greater problem than any external enemy out there. China's issues are a problem for another day.

Yeah, a lot of tough words and bluster from an anonymous internet commenter.

Lydia's right, this is a waste of time.

"Yeah, a lot of tough words and bluster from an anonymous internet commenter."

If only movement conservatives had it in them to just say tough words. What exactly has playing nice gotten you? When you can't even say harsh words to the Culturally Marxist Left, how do you expect to defeat them once and for all?

I'm also not sure why you want to play the tough guy with the Chinese instead of with the scum inside of our borders who are leading to divisions within our country and are destroying traditional American culture.

"Lydia's right, this is a waste of time."

Still more productive than nagging the Chinese when your country is full of internal enemies (how can you not get this?).

Playing videogames and scratching yourself is far more productive because in the words of Lydia: "It's even worse, if possible, considering that I _acknowledged_ that it might be that nothing I advocate would be sufficient to bring about massive reform in China.

In short, you don't read what I actually write, or possibly you are just incapable of taking in the points I'm making (e.g., about why it's the right thing to do to tie our trade relations to China to their behavior *even if* this doesn't bring about major change in China)."

Because atleast the former doesn't antagonize the Chinese for no real result.

Um, Ajax, you said:

What your advocating is a sort of Wilsonian/Dubyaesque revolution to change China by merely changing it's government. Look at how that worked in Iraq.

Now you are mad that I'm _not_ advocating regime change in China, that I _agree_ that what I advocate might _not_ bring about massive change in China, and that I'm advocating it chiefly for the preservation and improvement of our own national character. (And yes, that includes responding better to an asylum request by someone like Chen, even if that "someone" in the future happens not to be a Christian.)

So now you've shifted the goalposts and are all bugged that I'm advocating something in your view no more productive than playing videogames.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, I admit, that sentence about you wanting to bring about revolution in China and comparing it to Iraq was really an asinine misrepresentation on my part, though I still disagree with you," which would show you to have some modicum of intelligence and an ability to keep your eye on the conversational ball.

I don't know if you _can_ do better but won't or if you really can't do any better, but so far, your comments are inconsistent, all over the map, disconnected, and sometimes loony (e.g., not so subtly calling for armed revolution in the U.S., which by the way is completely against our comments policy).

Try to do better, or you won't be commenting here at all.

"Now you are mad that I'm _not_ advocating regime change in China, that I _agree_ that what I advocate might _not_ bring about massive change in China, and that I'm advocating it chiefly for the preservation and improvement of our own national character. (And yes, that includes responding better to an asylum request by someone like Chen, even if that "someone" in the future happens not to be a Christian.)"

I'm not angry, why would I be? I'm just pointing out the fact that you yourself admitted that you didn't think doing anything would have any significant change in China. So therefore, any declaration or statement against China would be in vain and therefore would cause unnecessary antagonism. You don't get any points for saying things, only for getting results (and good results too, not disasters like Iraq).

And preservation of our national character? You think our national character is anything like it was before? Plus, our national character regarding foreign policy didn't start out with interventionism, it started from Jeffersonian isolationism.

The national character we have now is culturally marxist and foreign policy-wise revolutionary democraticism, so when you talk about "preservation", that's what you are talking about preserving.

Regarding Chen, I don't care if he and his family come over here and stay for asylum. As for non-Christians, only if they are strong allies of our Christian brethren like the Alawite Assad family or the Secular Nationalist Husseins (Tariq Aziz, the second man of Iraq and first hand man of Saddam was a Chaldean Catholic for God's sake).

I've never contested whether Chen should be admitted here.

"I don't know if you _can_ do better but won't or if you really can't do any better, but so far, your comments are inconsistent, all over the map, disconnected, and sometimes loony (e.g., not so subtly calling for armed revolution in the U.S., which by the way is completely against our comments policy)."

I never called for armed revolution, I think you're assuming that. What I do call for is to take the government via legitimate political means, take advantage of the expansion of the executive thanks to Dubya and Obama, limit the power of the courts, and show no mercy to America's internal enemies and turn this country away from the cliff it's about to fall over.

That's not an armed revolution. Though I will admit, there is nothing wrong morally with an armed revolution, it worked for Franco and it worked for the Founders. I just think the idea of one happening now, is, as you say, loony.

What I do call for is to take the government via legitimate political means, take advantage of the expansion of the executive thanks to Dubya and Obama, limit the power of the courts, and show no mercy to America's internal enemies and turn this country away from the cliff it's about to fall over.

At some point, the right will realize that this is the only way short of divine intervention to stop the Long March. The left is increasingly giving us no room to coexist. Not only are they working feverishly to drive us out of our own natural spaces, but they are working equally tirelessly to create their own "safe spaces" where the full force of authority prevents them from having to consider what they don't want to consider.

As I have pointed out many times here, it's a sad statement that the first group in modern times to ferociously counter-attack hard enough to send the SJWs scampering back to their safe spaces was video gamers. There's a reason why most of the talk about "gamers" is passive aggressive now from the left: they know that video gamers across the spectrum will retaliate using every ugly tactic the left uses on them. Dox a gamer? The community will dox you. Go after our employers? We'll launch a campaign to directly attack not just the employment of the lefty, but the bottom line of their employer as a corporation (ex. the counter-attack on Gawker that cost them several AAA advertisers and 7 figures of income).

This is why Trump is so appealing to a lot of people. He's literally the only Republican running who the base knows might actually tell a university's president that if he and his faculty don't "gain some effing patriotism, you can see your federal funds go bye bye."

After we've taken advantage of the expansion of the executive to the extent needed to re-take the country, can we please dial its power back a few notches as we simultaneously limit the power of the lunatic courts?!

Jeff,

You should read this far more sober view from one of our Army's top thinkers on how we'd likely fare in dealing with Russia in a conventional conflict right now. This guy isn't just an intellectual, but won one of the most one-sided victories in US history since Andrew Jackson kicked the British Army's ass at New Orleans.

The Russians are not politically correct with their military. They may do things like allow women into the service, but they never lose sight of the fact that the only thing their military is supposed to do is project force how and where their leadership wants it projected.

"After we've taken advantage of the expansion of the executive to the extent needed to re-take the country, can we please dial its power back a few notches as we simultaneously limit the power of the lunatic courts?!"

Who knows? It all depends on circumstance. Obviously a new balance needs to be created since the old one failed and let unscrupulous litigious lawyers and other litigious elements run completely roughshod all over the formerly well-structured system we had. The Founders didn't think to lawyer-proof the system (and why would they? They had no reason to believe this would happen) but there needs to be a vast restructuring that lets the best of the best rise to the top and take the helm of the nation.

We might go down the way of Rome, no matter what we do, if Oswald Spengler was right (and I think he was).

"The left is increasingly giving us no room to coexist. Not only are they working feverishly to drive us out of our own natural spaces, but they are working equally tirelessly to create their own "safe spaces" where the full force of authority prevents them from having to consider what they don't want to consider."

What must be kept in mind that they've been trying this since atleast the 20's-30's and they succeeded in the 60's. They have about 50ish years of success ahead of us. So if we want to win, or even see hope of winning, we have to get creative and think outside the box.

"As I have pointed out many times here, it's a sad statement that the first group in modern times to ferociously counter-attack hard enough to send the SJWs scampering back to their safe spaces was video gamers. There's a reason why most of the talk about "gamers" is passive aggressive now from the left: they know that video gamers across the spectrum will retaliate using every ugly tactic the left uses on them. Dox a gamer? The community will dox you. Go after our employers? We'll launch a campaign to directly attack not just the employment of the lefty, but the bottom line of their employer as a corporation (ex. the counter-attack on Gawker that cost them several AAA advertisers and 7 figures of income)."

Sometimes you get wisdom from even the most unlikely sources. The Left is the establishment now. That's just a fact. That being said, it puts them on the defensive and they CultMarxies have lost their "edge" (really not edgy at all but snarky but w/e).

"This is why Trump is so appealing to a lot of people. He's literally the only Republican running who the base knows might actually tell a university's president that if he and his faculty don't "gain some effing patriotism, you can see your federal funds go bye bye.""

Exactly. They say he's a clown for calling Rosie a pig or saying this Carly Fiorina has a weird face or that Megyn Kelly was "shooting blood" (I am certain he meant through the eyes not down under) or for making fun of Jeb or Carson or other snooty liberals and/or panty-waist conservatives in a "mean" way, remember one thing: Thomas Jefferson, our 3rd President. referred to his opponent (and former friend and President whom he was VP under) Adams as an "hermaphrodite" on top of other things and this sort of blatantly false, almost child-like name calling (I've talked like this in my old high school locker room) went back and forth during the birth of our Republic. I find it hilarious when people try to ask for civility and seriousness in this farce of a country where a gross tranny is upheld as the most beautiful woman.

And the funny thing is that Trump isn't even blatantly lying about the stuff he's saying unlike how Jefferson and Adams most definitely did. Trump's offensiveness comes from the fact that his remarks come with a huge boulder of truth in them and the truth hurts. Reality is the enemy of the Cultural Bolshevik.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.