America and the West went insane over the past 30 years. Whether it was a matter of too much luxury or something deeper—we had no enemy abroad and turned on ourselves.
A Neo-Cold War environment is where we are headed (though, of course, with some important differences). Many hysterically loathe such an outcome: fearing the potential dangers—WWIII or even nuclear annihilation—and the imperial burden such an arrangement entails.
I, for one, have fond memories of my Cold War childhood. Unquestionably, life was more civilized and decent; the intellectual world and media were more sober and serious.
Is civilizations really possible without a strong degree of “mortality salience,” without a feeling of barbarians at the gate, of the imminent potential of invasion, death, and destruction? I don’t think so.
After 9/11, a new “Big Bad” came on the scene in the form of Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the Arabs weren’t up to the task of global enmity. And the dynamic was always “Jihad vs. McWorld” or “The End of History” vs. “The Prehistoric,” “decadence” vs. “primitiveness.”
Russians—to their immense credit—seem up to the challenge! I dearly hope they will be strong enough to rise to the status of global enemy.
In such a confrontation, the West, whether it wants to or not, will be forced to confront the question of its identity. In other words, this will be a test, revealing the West as a hallow shell or as a fighting force capable of integration and dominion. Let the good times roll!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The conflict in Ukraine is depressing and sickening—and could have been avoided. But I ultimately think it is a positive and necessary development for European civilization and consciousness.
We are returning to the 20th century, to a divided world (probably a trifurcated, instead of a bifurcated one). The 30-year period of true globalism—"The End of History," Unipolar Moment"—is over. It was America's time, when it projected itself across the globe, and it is over.
The difference between the new 20th century and the old is that the three sides (U.S./EU/NATO; Russia; and China) have been evacuated of ideology.
There’s a funny rhyming or symmetry to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine and America’s 2003 Iraq debacle.
Both Moscow and Washington justified war as “liberation,” “protecting minorities,” and even “de-Nazification.” The Donbas region, supporting anti-Saddam liberals, the Azov battalion, and sending Iraqi girls to college can all be mixed and matched.
Both invasions also started out with spectacular “shock and awe” campaigns. In 2003, many analysts warned of Iraq’s military’s prowess, not to mention WMDs. Last night, I was amazed at the speed of the Ukrainian military’s collapse, barely putting up a fight.
Putin has already sent forces of some kind into the break-away regions. A full invasion of the country, including Kyiv, is more that possible. I’d say it’s probable, and I’ve been saying this for a while. The reasoning behind my assessment is the basic structure of the conflict.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere—the long-term Russian empire, which stretches back further than the USSR—means quite a bit to Moscow, and, apparently, Putin in particular. It means more to Moscow than the option of Ukraine entering NATO does to Washington.
Biden might change his tune (as Macron seemed to suggest…), but he told the world in clear language that Washington will not send ground troops into Ukraine. It follows—or I hope it follows—that catastrophic retaliation, like aerial bombing or nukes, is off the table.
Returning Ukraine to the Russian sphere is far more important to Moscow than bringing Ukraine into NATO is to Washington—which is why Biden explicitly said he won’t send in troops. Putin, however, *is* willing to invade.
The pro-Russia (“anti-imperialist”) Left has offered some of the dumbest analysis of this conflict. In some ways, it would be worse if they’re *not* getting paid to spread falsehoods. It’s worse if they actually believe this nonsense.
Perhaps the oddest thing about the Whoopi Goldberg controversy is the actress’s choice of stage names—“Goldberg.” To make matters even odder, Whoopi—born Caryn Johnson—truly believes that she has Jewish heritage.
According to Whoopi: “My mother did not name me Whoopi, but Goldberg is my name, it's part of my family, part of my heritage. Just like being black."
The article mentions a less charitable theory: Whoopi chose the name as a way of getting a leg up in Hollywood and Broadway, as many Jews are successful king-makers in the entertainment industry. For what it’s worth, her star turn came in Steven Spielberg’s *The Color Purple.*
A typically stupid statement by Scott Adams. PF would never be able prove they’re *not* feds to his satisfaction; any evidence to the contrary would be spun by this loon as part an even deeper conspiracy.
That said, reactions like this, which are widespread, seem to reveal something important about where Alt-Right activism and “optics” have ended up in 2022.
PF is attending a mainstream pro-life rally while wearing masks—surrounded by people showing their faces. They carry shields, even though Antifa isn’t attacking anyone. They’re uninvited guests, or a protection squad that the organizers don’t need or want.