Putin, Trump, Obama and Our Shared Interests with Russia

The current insanity over the Russian hacking of DNC emails, not yet proved in my opinion, is another tempest in a teapot.  It has merely provided Obama another opportunity to demonstrate his petulance and contempt for Trump.  It's ironic that the hacks, as revealed on Wikileaks, demonstrate just how corrupt the media and Democratic party are.  Their collusion is only surprising as to the vastness of its extent.

Worth considering is the extent to which our nation's interests align with Putin's.  This is not the same as admiring Putin, who is a dictator and likely murderer.  But he is also the leader of a singularly important nation, whose interests have changed since the cold war.  Full disclosure, I am a former officer in the U.S. Submarine force, but that doesn't influence my thinking here.

First and foremost, both Russia and the U.S. have an interest in isolating and defeating Islamic extremism.  Russia is ringed by Muslims 'stans on its southern border.  Their experience with the Chechens demonstrated the need to contain the spread of extremism.  The U.S. interest in this matter is actually less clear, but certainly, our security from terrorism has to top the list.  With this common interest, cooperation with Putin on defeating ISIS in Syria, keeping the Sunnis and Shiites divided to contain extremism makes sense.  For the record, I don't think that the Arab Muslim world can ever be democratic due to the high rates of consanguineous marriage; Steve Sailer laid this out over a dozen years ago.

The other conundrum with Russia is the confluence of continued warfare in the Middle East and the Russian violation of the Ukrainian border and seizure of Crimea.  One of the key sources of conflict in the Middle East are the asinine borders that do not respect natural geographic feature or traditional tribal regions.  The rise of ISIS stems from the fact that Sunni tribes in both eastern Syria and western Iraq feel greater kinship to each other than to Shiite governments in Damascus and Baghdad respectively.  A redrawing of the borders is necessary to end the incessant warfare and migration crises.  But the U.S. is wedded to a policy of strictly maintaining the sanctity of borders worldwide.  We believe that a failure to do so would allow mischief to break out along Chinese, Indian, or other regions.  This is where Russia comes in.  Their seizure of the Crimea was just, in my opinion, given that it was stolen from the Russian federation in the 1950s by Khruschev.  Were we to grant the legitimacy of some border changes with Russia, they might be amenable to a deal where we redraw Middle East borders, as a one-time exception to the sanctity of borders policy.

I believe that the future of Europe has been put in danger by Muslim migration.  Dealing with the root causes, other than Merkel's fecklessness, is in our long term best interest. Only Europe and the Anglosphere share our values, so helping to save them from themselves is in the U.S. national interest.

The final way in which our interests align also involves Europe.  For various political reasons, Putin has postured as the only defender of traditional Christian values.  I doubt that he is sincere, but his example in promoting these values stands as a contrast to the current European model of attempting to destroy Christianity within the borders of Western European nations.

So I applaud Trump for his tweet.    

Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2016

He knows he has time to deal with Putin.  Putin smartly decided not to retaliate against Obama's petulance, which was the alpha male move.  A relationship based on mutual respect and recognizing shared interests will serve the U.S. well when it comes to Russia.  Since Russia abandoned international Communism, our interests can often be aligned.

Why Islam Offends Us

Over the years, I've learned to trust Mrs. Daddy's instincts. But she has a bad feeling about something, she's usually right.  She was on the military base today, and saw a woman in full Muslim head garb, and asked me "why did that offend me?"

After some thought, it occurred to me that Islam is not merrily a religion, it is a political movement. And, it is a political movement whose tenets are antithetical to American concepts of liberty, democracy and free enterprise.  The history of Islam as a political movement is well documented on the Internet, so I will not repeat it here.  Fundamentally, the key tenet I was why is the subordination of the non-believer to the believers.  In turn, the believers are subject to the absolute rule of the Caliph who receives his authority from God.  At its heart, Islam is essentially monarchist. Didn't we fight a revolution that overthrew a monarchy over 200 years ago? 

Although some adherents of Islam in this country may feel that it is merely a religion, it is not the essence of the worldwide movement.  The reason that misses daddy feels offense is that the appearance of the Muslim women runs counter to our culture of freedom and democracy.  They are seizing up on the benefits of a society that they are religion is actively seeking to undermine.  More specifically, the military base represents over two centuries of defense of freedom against a multitude of freedom-hating ideologies, Islam being merely the latest example.

As the entire world becomes more educated, the desire for freedom arises everywhere except inside Islam.  The inevitable is describe by Mark Steyn:

In India, it's Muslims vs Hindus. In southern Thailand, Muslims vs Buddhists. The world is a messy, violent, complicated place, but as a rule of thumb, as I said all those years ago in America Alone, in most corners of the planet it boils down to: Muslims vs [Your Team Here].
Millions of complacent westerners genuinely regard Islam as merely another exotic patch in the diversity quilt, but I find it hard to believe that the leaders of liberal progressive political parties can be quite that deluded. 

We tolerate personal freedom, but we have the right to take offense at the sight of burqa-clad women in our midst.

Gavin McInnes Nails It

Being interviewed in the Hollywood Reporter, Gavin McInnes nails my political philosophy (and I don't care if you think he's trolling):

"I am a socially liberal libertarian who is not for open borders," he says. "That's my only problem with libertarians. I want almost no laws, I want the smallest government possible. I don't want anyone telling anyone what to do. But I also see the merit in tradition and I think that women and men are different."
When THR pointed out that this sounds more like a socially conservative position, McInnes laughed. "Yeah, I guess so."

For those who misread yesterday's post, this is my philosophy as well.  We should be free to use social pressure to re-institute a conservative social order that will make the country prosper and become far happier.  But unlike, the left I don't care to impose such a social order through the government. Such a culture is robust and successful that it doesn't need government to impose it, unlike leftism.

If you don't think a lack of social cohesion and purpose is a destroyer of culture, I ask you to ponder this piece by Leon Wolf at RedState bookends quoted here:

There’s a very simple reason why extremist Islam – a culture that is unable on its own merits to progress scientifically beyond the beginning of the 18th century or so – is able in the modern world to consistently embarrass countries possessed of vastly superior military might. That reason is this: extremist Islam believes that it has a claim to a superior message for the world. Christendom no longer does.
. . .
There is a reason that every week brings a new story about a kid raised in comfort here in the West running off to join ISIS, to the shocked dismay of his/her parents. ISIS, at least, presents a front that says that the world and life has objective meaning and that they, ISIS, have a claim to that meaning. Here in the West, by way of contrast, we allow our kids to just float adrift on a sea of meaningless moral relativity and nihilism. As C.S. Lewis noted, the human psyche tends toward rejection of a meaningless explanation for existence – and if the West cannot offer such meaning, people will get it somewhere else.

Leftism is doomed, it will eat the societies it conquers.  The real question is whether we Americans can restore the sense of our exceptionalism based on a Christian culture.

What You Should Be Reading

• Heather Gillers (@hgillers on twitter) according to KTCat. Her excellent reporting on Chicago's financial collapse has been ignored by the voters of that fine city.
• Erick Erickson at Redstate.com for inventing the phrase "you will be made to care" to describe the fascist approach to gay rights.
• William Jacobsen at LegalInsurrection for exposing the anti-semitic filth that is the BDS movement.

My Message to Radical Islam

Not backing down.