Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Financial Times: Russia’s oil and gas industry booming BECAUSE of sanctions

Financial Times shows sanctions have triggered a technological boom and a successful restructuring within Russia’s oil and gas industry

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

5,106 Views

The sectoral sanctions the Western powers imposed on Russia in July 2014 because of the conflict in the Donbass continue to have paradoxical results.

The financial sanctions, which effectively prevented Russian companies from borrowing in Western financial markets, instead of causing the Russian economy to implode, have caused it to deleverage at an unprecedented rate, hugely strengthening Russia’s financial sector and the balance sheets of Russia’s companies, setting the scene for a coming investment boom.

The counter-sanctions Russia imposed prohibiting the importation of Western foodstuffs into Russia have led to a huge boom in Russia’s agriculture sector, as even the Financial Times was recently forced to admit, making Russia almost completely self-sufficient in food, and making it a major food exporter.

However perhaps the most paradoxical result of all has been in Russia’s oil and gas industry.

Western sanctions were supposed to cripple this industry – wrongly assumed in the West to be existentially important for Russia’s very existence – by depriving it of the technology it needed to develop the huge untapped oil and gas reserves Russia is known to have in the Arctic, and making development of its huge shale reserves, which are known to dwarf those of the US, impossible.

In the event the Financial Times has now admitted in a lengthy article that within less than three years of the sanctions being imposed the Russian oil and gas industry is in the throes of a technological boom, as Russian companies forge ahead with Arctic drilling, successfully replicating the very same Western technologies which were supposed to be beyond them

………..a drill began its 5,000m journey downwards, in search of oil deposits that the country is banking on to provide more than a quarter of its future output. Perched on the edge of a peninsula deep in the Arctic Circle, Tsentralno- Olginskaya-1 will be Russia’s northernmost oil well. Closer to the North Pole than to any city, it is a feat of engineering that uses equipment shipped 3,600km through icy waters navigable only for two months of the year.

The well is one of the most technologically challenging ever attempted in Russia. With the deposits located beneath the icy, frequently frozen waters of the Laptev Sea, cutting-edge horizontal drilling techniques will be used to reach up to 15,000m from the main site.

But it was also a moment of triumph for Mr Putin, who was beamed in via video conference from St Petersburg as Mr Sechin braved the frigid elements and who celebrated the start of drilling as an act of homegrown ingenuity.

Three years ago, when the US and EU imposed sanctions on the country that restricted companies such as Rosneft from foreign capital and technology, complex wells were exactly the kind of ambitious projects that were supposed to be rendered impossible. Western governments hoped that pressure on Russia’s main energy companies would help change Mr Putin’s political calculations. But as projects like Tsentralno-Olginskaya-1 attest, Russia’s oil and gas majors have found ways to carry on regardless.

“Horizontal drilling is a complex and high-tech operation. This is just the first well. There is much more work ahead,” Mr Putin told Mr Sechin in the heavily scripted conversation.

It seems according to the same article that the Russians are forging ahead with shale technology as well

……..2,000km south-west of Tsentralno-Olginskaya-1 in western Siberia, Gazprom Neft, Russia’s third-largest oil producer, is showing few ill effects. Late last year, it became the first Russian company to demonstrate shale oil fracking expertise with a 1km-long horizontal well 2.3km below ground at a site in the vast Bazhenov field, estimated to be the world’s largest shale oil deposit.

Gazprom Neft was able to use homegrown technology that it was forced to develop after the sanctions prompted its international partners to walk away from the project.

“We are like a snowball,” says Sergey Vakulenko, head of strategy and innovation at the company, a unit of gas giant Gazprom. “The harder you squeeze, the harder we get.” ……

“Sure, in terms of shale technology, we are a little behind the Americans. But in time, and definitely before we absolutely need to, we will get to where we need to be, sanctions or no sanctions,” says Mr Vakulenko.

“We could do it now, but we don’t need to,” he adds, referring to even more complex fracking techniques that will be required to fully exploit the Bazhenov field’s 75bn barrels of estimated reserves. “Why go after the high-hanging fruit when there is lower stuff available right now?”

The point about Russia not needing to go after the high-hanging fruit when there is an abundance of lower-hanging fruit for it to exploit is not bragging or propaganda.  It was made to me a few months ago in person by a Russian scientist who is an expert in hydraulic fracking.

Perhaps even more striking than this news of technological advances is the Financial Times’s admission that the effect of the sanctions has been to make the Russian oil and gas industry financially stronger and more efficient

“In terms of today’s projects, we are not at all affected [by the sanctions],” [Yakulenko] says in an interview at the company’s St Petersburg offices, where engineers use vast computer screens to remotely control drills at more than 600 wells across the country. “At their current configuration, they aren’t and won’t be painful, irrelevant of how long they are in place.”

Between 2013 and 2016, Russian crude oil production rose almost 6 per cent, more than twice as much as the rise in combined output from the Opec group of countries. Revenues at the country’s three largest producers have risen 11 per cent in that period.

The curtailment of foreign cash forced many to restructure their balance sheets with the help of domestic lenders, cut loss-making or costly new projects, and increase their efficiency.

Acquisitions and international expansion projects have followed. “The accepted narrative is that there is only upside risk from sanctions [being lifted] as the majority of the companies affected have shown few ill effects,” says the head of a western bank in Moscow. “In fact, lots of them have been forced to be smarter and have increased their competitiveness.”

Articles such as this one in the Financial Times are still comparatively rare.  The orthodoxy amongst Western governments and in the Western media is that Russia is suffering badly from the sanctions.  That is one reason why there is still so much resistance to any move whether by the Trump administration or by anyone else to lift them.

The truth is that though the sanctions caused the Russian economy genuine difficulties in late 2014, when Russian companies had to repay debts they struggled to finance because of the sanctions and the oil price fall, once Russia got through those initial difficulties the effect of the sanctions on the Russian economy has been entirely beneficial, and is becoming more so.

The West seriously underestimated Russia in 2014.  It failed to realise to what an extent the country had advanced beyond the disastrous times of the 1990s.

Whereas the sort of sanctions the West imposed on Russia in 2014 would have crushed the Russian economy if they had been imposed in say 2000, today Russia is fully capable of developing its economy by drawing on its own financial resources and its own technology, both of which it has in abundance.

What the West did in 2014, by imposing the sanctions at a time when there was an oil price fall, was force the Russians to do this more efficiently and more quickly than they would have done if they had been left alone.

Westerners always seem to cling on to their idea of Russia as a poor, technologically backward, ill-governed, irredeemably corrupt, ‘third world’ country (“Upper Volta with missiles”).  This is what leads them to make foolish decisions, such as the decision to impose sectoral sanctions, which they took in July 2014.

On the subject of Russia being ill-governed, the Financial Times quotes Apurva Sanghi, lead economist for Russia at the World Bank in Moscow, as having this to say

There is a pretty uniform consensus that the oil price shock dwarfed the sanctions.  If you look at what the authorities have done over the past few years for macro stability, it has been pretty outstanding and the results are there to be seen.

On the macro-economic facts, it is impossible to disagree with this assessment, and on the oil and gas industry facts as described in the Financial Times article, it is impossible to say anything different.

On 27th May 2016, when I discussed the West’s failed attempt to stop Russia floating a eurobond, I made this point in relation to how the West’s actions had actually strengthened Russia’s financial system

Truly Western governments when it comes to Russia seem intent on proving Nietzsche’s dictum true: that which does not break us makes us stronger.  Certainly that has been true of Russia’s eurobond sale.  By trying and failing to sabotage it the West has only managed to make Russia stronger.

The same it turns out is true of Russia’s oil and gas industry.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
42 Comments

42
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
35 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
12 Comment authors
AbyKyler PhoenixAMHantsGary SellarsAlex Popoff Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
DS Analysis
Guest
DS Analysis

Most people understand the basic theory of “free” trade and how it theoretically is better for everyone. That would be true if trade was actually free like it is in the micro economy. The reality is, international trade is anything but free. The whole system is based on the US dollar monopoly and Federal reserve cartel that the US controls at gunpoint. Increased production by a country leads to a higher value currency which leads to cheaper food and energy which leaves more discretionary income to save or spend on other things. That is how free trade is supposed to… Read more »

Simon
Guest
Simon

Excellent article. But that FT – as ever, so condescending, even in praise. Didn’t the Russian barbarians do well. All by themselves. Who would have thought it. It must be stolen technology (nudge nudge wink wink). But hold on – Rosneft’s output is bigger than Exxon. Gazprom alone is like BP+Shell+Total combined. It seems those Russians do know something about extracting oil and gas from below the ground after all. Still – it’s Russia, so their companies must be worth less. Much less. Just don’t look at Big Oil’s balance sheet debt or worry about their ridiculous share prices pumped… Read more »

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

This list is the Industry Joke !

Why is it a Joke ? Just look at the reserves to asset value ratios as can be seen – Rosneft in truth sits on more crude oil reserves than any oil company on the planet & Gazprom is massively bigger.

What’s more interesting is that Russia has always under declared their assets & by how much is anyone’s guess but its minimum 30% but could be over 100% ?

Simon
Guest
Simon

Agreed. Those numbers are actually production, but your point about reserves is also absolutely correct. The Russian companies are massively undervalued.

Stavros Hadjiyiannis
Guest
Stavros Hadjiyiannis

Several factors contribute so that Russian corporations are so grotesquely undervalued: a) The state has controlling stakes, this makes some undervaluation legitimate. b) RUS energy corporations don’t have the downstream business that Western and Chinese corporations do. c) Active economic sabotage from “Western partners”

Simon
Guest
Simon

You are right of course.
But I’d still rather own 10% of Surgutneftagas than 1 % of Conoco, and take my chances (and Surgut is the darkest horse of the lot!) 😉

Stavros Hadjiyiannis
Guest
Stavros Hadjiyiannis

Those are excellent stats. Good work.

Stavros Hadjiyiannis
Guest
Stavros Hadjiyiannis

This is of course not the first time that the “West” has grossly underestimated Russia. On the article itself, these are my observations/comments: a) In my opinion, the oil and gas industry is indeed of existential importance to Russia, on this NATO was correct. What they failed to fully integrate into their calculations is that Russia is in fact the world’s most efficient and low-cost producer of hydrocarbons. If Russia’s oil & gas reserves were not easily and cheaply exploitable, then the oil price crash would have bankrupted Russia very quickly, there would have been no need for NATO to… Read more »

Kimppis
Guest
Kimppis

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the oil and gas sector is existentially important for Russia. After all, it’s something like 15-20% of the overall GDP. That said, it’s certainly the single most important sector. Also, Russia’s GDP per capita isn’t actually low. It’s reasonably high, something like $25 000. I’m obviously talking about purchasing power parity here. And that is for almost 150 million people, so the PPP GDP is comparable to Germany. That explains it all, really. So the per capita GDP is considerably higher than the world average. If you look at the list of countries that have… Read more »

DS Analysis
Guest
DS Analysis

Yeah as you said, oil/gas is 15% of the economy now. It was 40% in the 90’s.

And the west uses dollar bloc GDP figures that don’t account for production that is consumed within Russia. This is where all of this “California has a bigger econ”nonsese comes from.

Alex Popoff
Guest
Alex Popoff

Russian standards of accounting GDP varie from the western. For example till recent times military inner payments between army and military factories weren’t acoountable into GDP.

Large gvmnt sector in economy is badly accountable regarding GDP issue, because whole GDP concept was invented for other type of economy.

So Russia could be estimated as Poland with high technologies, 3,5 times population higher and endless resourses.

Le Ruscino
Guest
Le Ruscino

Agree wholeheartedly with your well informed comment. There is a sad point to note & its that the US would cut off its arm to bleed on Russia’s shirt & this is exactly what they have done. US oil reserves are high cost for lifting as are Canada’s (Shale & Tar) & as you say Russian lifting costs are low mainly due to traditional nature of underground caverns being tapped aided by good tech. The BIG double whammy here is that Global oil consumption never stopped marching toward 100mio bbls per day & with low prices investment in new projects… Read more »

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Didn’t Obama and Saudi miscalculate oil/gas GDP and the Russian economy, when they decided to play with the oil market? Believing it made 50% of Russian GDP, rather than 16%? Together with forgetting that Russia could produce a barrel of oil for $12 dollars, production costs being in ruble and selling in $USD. So how much does it cost the US to produce a barrel of oil? How many of their oil companies ended up facing bankruptcy?

DS Analysis
Guest
DS Analysis

There was shale oil plays that were not profitable at $100 a barrel. The whole shale industry in the US has not yet even faced a US recession. Just like US banks, there is tons of zombie shale producers out there that will be taken out back and shot in the next recession.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Nice one as Russia gets stronger at the expense of those who decided to have a teenage or perhaps toddler temper trantrum, based on envy and greed. Also, with Exxon begging the US to let them ignore the sanctions and help Russia offload the oil in The Black Sea, would Russia actually need there help?

Has anybody seen the latest Ukraine hissy fit?

Ukraine demands confiscation of Gazprom property… http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/ukraine-demands-confiscation-of-gazprom.html

Gary Sellars
Guest
Gary Sellars

“Has anybody seen the latest Ukraine hissy fit?”

Does anyone really care what the 404 nation says, wants, thinks or does?

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Sadly the idiots that run our nations and those so supportive of the failed state.

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix
AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Hahahaha -Newsweek. Really and who controls Newsweek? Personally I look at what the debt clock has to say. Russia Foreign Exchange Reserves US Foreign Exchange Reserves Russia Gold Reserves Russia National Debt: $155,410,825,045 Interest per Year $9,541,556,000 Interest per Second $303 Debt per Citizen $1,062 Debt as % of GDP 15.59% GDP $997,000,000,000 Population 146,300,000 United States National Debt: $19,853,203,835,571 Interest per Year $442,585,040,366 Interest per Second $14,034 Debt per Citizen $61,209 Debt as % of GDP 106.31% GDP $18,675,300,000,000 Population 324,352,551 Russia, a creditor nation, in control of their vast wealth of natural resources. The middle class sector on… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

The information shared can be verified online on myriad sites. Your info comes from?

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

A myriad of sites? Can you site them in an academic paper? National Debt Clock … http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/ US Foreign Exchange Reserves http://www.tradingeconomics.com Federal Reserve (America) Russia Foreign Exchange Reserves http://www.tradingeconomics.com Russia Central Bank Russian Central Bank Gold Reserves… Your article, just happend to cite Moscow Times. Did you know that the paper has no loyalty to Russia? However, doesn’t Genie Energy Murdoch still have shares in Moscow Times, despite who he sells it to? There was no facts in that article that could be substantiated. Except for GDP. However, they ignore GDP Debt. Russia, as shown by the debt clock… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

That is not an argument nor does it speak to their current economy. Are you a dropout? You are quoting Russian government sources.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Are you a dropout? Russian Government Sources? When has the National Debt Clock been Russian? Russian Gold Reserves Since when has Trading Economics been part of the Russian Government? ‘… ABOUT US Trading Economics provides its users with accurate information for 196 countries including historical data for more than 300.000 economic indicators, exchange rates, stock market indexes, government bond yields and commodity prices. Our data is based on official sources, not third party data providers, and our facts are regularly checked for inconsistencies. TradingEconomics.com has received more than 270 million page views from more than 200 countries. ..’ http://www.tradingeconomics.com/about-te.aspx http://goldsilverworlds.com… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

So, BS right wing blogs huh? Any credible sources? You look like a fool, cretin.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

You argue with legality. You argue with fact. Failing that you spit you dummy out, throw your toys out of the pram and use personal abuse. That is so media disinformation agent style. What is the script they are given? Besides the 5Ds? Deny, discourse, disagree, derail, discredit. ‘…5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth.… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

No, you share irrelevant, cherry picked facts. No one denies the facts about the Russian economy. It is easily verifiable. You discredited yourself with obvious BS, cretin.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Pot, kettle, black, cutie.

‘…You discredited yourself with obvious BS, cretin…’

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

I shared verifiable facts. You shared fantasy.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Rothschilds darling. Can you cite cnbc in an academic paper, based on assumption? The same article as the Moscow Times. World Bank – Rothshcild and who has minimal debt and is not in need of a Rothschild loan? Didn’t the World Bank fail to notice the crash of 2008? The Diplomat – 2016 Time.com – 2015 Well, all I can say is BRICS. Now what is happening there, besides the AIIB Bank and the BRICS Bank? The $6 trillion, currency reserves, between the 5 nations. The New Silk Road Project. Not forgetting their dominance in the manufacturing and service industries.… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

Everyone is lying except you and some blogs huh? You must be proud. Is that why you hide. Or is there another reason. Let’s find out…https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Everybody is lying except me? Hahahaha. Darling, one makes up their own opinion, whatever side of the argument. I am more than happy to own my opinion, but, have no desire to take the responsibility of others. I actually care nought about who believes what. However, owing to simple facts, I do not believe Russia is on her knees.

Now why on earth would I wish to contact the FBI?

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

Iam contacting them. I get a weirdfeeling about youraccount. You definitely are not American and you are spewing pro-Russia propaganda that flies in the face of facts. Good luck.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Contact them and I have never said I am American.

I am English. Like the people of America, one gets sick and tired of living in the land of the free, with fascist rules. You explain it perfectly. Report me to the FBI because I had the audacity to poste the findings of the National Debt Clock and Russian and American Foreign Exchange Reserves, with a chart showing how much Russian Gold they have in their vaults.

Excuse me whilst I laugh and have a good day.

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

No, you aren’t. You posted cherry picked facts that inno way disproved what anyone can easily research and see, the Russian economy is bad. It is forwarded.

AMHants
Guest
AMHants

Yeeah, whatever cutie pie. They have had a file on me since the 70s, am I bovvered? Not at all. If I walk out the door and end up in dead in a briefcase, three bullet holes in the head or worse, but, arranged as a suicide, it is covered. Who cares, I can walk across the road, but, it does not mean I will get to the other side. Death does not bother me, what does bother me, is keeping my mouth shut and being frightened to open it. What a waste of a life. We all come with… Read more »

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

You seem mentally ill. It is forwarded. You can stop replying now, if you have the ability to control yourself.

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix

Oh, and what would you know of any academic paper, wantwit?

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

Ah, that wonderful Law of Unintended Consequences. All we need now is a couple more plus a Black Swan event against America and that will be the end of the Empire of Cowards and it’s blood money $.

Kyler Phoenix
Guest
Kyler Phoenix
Bente Petersen
Guest
Bente Petersen

very good reporting thank you… The Duran delivers !!!!!

Aby
Guest

Well, sanctions are not the solution of any conflicts and this have to be understand to the nation. The global trade is open momentum & this shouldn’t be blocked.

Latest

‘Meme-killing’ EU regulation could end YouTube as we know it, CEO warns

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law.

The Duran

Published

on

Via RT


YouTube’s CEO has urged creators on the popular video site to organize against a proposed EU internet regulation, reinforcing fears that the infamous Article 13 could lead to content-killing, meme-maiming restrictions on the web.

The proposed amendments to the EU Copyright Directive would require the automatic removal of any user-created content suspected of violating intellectual property law – with platforms being liable for any alleged copyright infringement. If enacted, the legislation would threaten “both your livelihood and your ability to share your voice with the world,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki warned the site’s content creators in a blog post on Monday.

The regulation would endanger “hundreds of thousands of job,” Wojcicki said, predicting that it would likely force platforms such as YouTube to allow only content from a hand-picked group of companies.

“It would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content,” Wojcicki wrote.

While acknowledging that it was important to properly compensate all rights holders, the YouTube chief lamented that the “unintended consequences of Article 13 will put this ecosystem at risk.”

She encouraged YouTubers to use the #SaveYourInternet hashtag to tell the world how the proposed legislation would impact them personally.

“RIP YOUTUBE..IT WAS FUN,” read one rather fatalistic reply to the post. Another comment worried that Article 13 would do “immense damage … particularly to smaller creators.”

The proposal has stirred considerable controversy in Europe and abroad, with critics claiming that the legislation would essentially ban any kind of creative content, ranging from memes to parody videos, that would normally fall under fair use.

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, has opposed Article 13 for months. The measure was advanced in June by the European Parliament. A final vote on the proposed regulation is expected to take place sometime next year.

World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales have also spoken out against Article 13.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

WSJ Op-Ed Cracks The Code: Why Liberal Intellectuals Hate Trump

WSJ: The Real Reason They Hate Trump

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


As pundits continue to scratch their heads over the disruptive phenomenon known as Donald Trump, Yale computer science professor and chief scientist at Dittach, David Gelernter, has penned a refreshingly straightforward and blunt Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal explaining why Trump has been so successful at winning hearts and minds, and why the left – especially those snarky ivory-tower intellectuals, hate him.

Gelernter argues that Trump – despite being a filthy rich “parody of the average American,” is is a regular guy who has successfully resonated with America’s underpinnings.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American,” writes Gelernter. “We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.”

He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton. –WSJ

Gelernter then suggests: “This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?“.

***

The Real Reason They Hate Trump via the Wall Street Journal.

He’s the average American in exaggerated form—blunt, simple, willing to fight, mistrustful of intellectuals.

Every big U.S. election is interesting, but the coming midterms are fascinating for a reason most commentators forget to mention: The Democrats have no issues. The economy is booming and America’s international position is strong. In foreign affairs, the U.S. has remembered in the nick of time what Machiavelli advised princes five centuries ago: Don’t seek to be loved, seek to be feared.

The contrast with the Obama years must be painful for any honest leftist. For future generations, the Kavanaugh fight will stand as a marker of the Democratic Party’s intellectual bankruptcy, the flashing red light on the dashboard that says “Empty.” The left is beaten.

This has happened before, in the 1980s and ’90s and early 2000s, but then the financial crisis arrived to save liberalism from certain destruction. Today leftists pray that Robert Mueller will put on his Superman outfit and save them again.

For now, though, the left’s only issue is “We hate Trump.” This is an instructive hatred, because what the left hates about Donald Trump is precisely what it hates about America. The implications are important, and painful.

Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life. In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

But my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

The difference between citizens who hate Mr. Trump and those who can live with him—whether they love or merely tolerate him—comes down to their views of the typical American: the farmer, factory hand, auto mechanic, machinist, teamster, shop owner, clerk, software engineer, infantryman, truck driver, housewife. The leftist intellectuals I know say they dislike such people insofar as they tend to be conservative Republicans.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

Mr. Trump reminds us who the average American really is. Not the average male American, or the average white American. We know for sure that, come 2020, intellectuals will be dumbfounded at the number of women and blacks who will vote for Mr. Trump. He might be realigning the political map: plain average Americans of every type vs. fancy ones.

Many left-wing intellectuals are counting on technology to do away with the jobs that sustain all those old-fashioned truck-driver-type people, but they are laughably wide of the mark. It is impossible to transport food and clothing, or hug your wife or girl or child, or sit silently with your best friend, over the internet. Perhaps that’s obvious, but to be an intellectual means nothing is obvious. Mr. Trump is no genius, but if you have mastered the obvious and add common sense, you are nine-tenths of the way home. (Scholarship is fine, but the typical modern intellectual cheapens his learning with politics, and is proud to vary his teaching with broken-down left-wing junk.)

This all leads to an important question—one that will be dismissed indignantly today, but not by historians in the long run: Is it possible to hate Donald Trump but not the average American?

True, Mr. Trump is the unconstrained average citizen. Obviously you can hate some of his major characteristics—the infantile lack of self-control in his Twitter babble, his hitting back like a spiteful child bully—without hating the average American, who has no such tendencies. (Mr. Trump is improving in these two categories.) You might dislike the whole package. I wouldn’t choose him as a friend, nor would he choose me. But what I see on the left is often plain, unconditional hatred of which the hater—God forgive him—is proud. It’s discouraging, even disgusting. And it does mean, I believe, that the Trump-hater truly does hate the average American—male or female, black or white. Often he hates America, too.

Granted, Mr. Trump is a parody of the average American, not the thing itself. To turn away is fair. But to hate him from your heart is revealing. Many Americans were ashamed when Ronald Reagan was elected. A movie actor? But the new direction he chose for America was a big success on balance, and Reagan turned into a great president. Evidently this country was intended to be run by amateurs after all—by plain citizens, not only lawyers and bureaucrats.

Those who voted for Mr. Trump, and will vote for his candidates this November, worry about the nation, not its image. The president deserves our respect because Americans deserve it—not such fancy-pants extras as network commentators, socialist high-school teachers and eminent professors, but the basic human stuff that has made America great, and is making us greater all the time.

Mr. Gelernter is computer science professor at Yale and chief scientist at Dittach LLC. His most recent book is “Tides of Mind.”

Appeared in the October 22, 2018, print edition.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

The Trump Miracle and the Logical End of US Democracy: What Happened?

Published

on

I don’t wish to dine with a Clinton Snowflake.

And a Clinton Snowflake would rather see me off to San Quentin, the Deplorable that I am.

Something happened under Obama-Clinton rule that has never happened before, not even in the heat of passions culminating in the Civil War. The country polarized, splitting into two groupings. Forever.

Obama’s, Grand Canyon divide was cemented, subsequently, by Clinton’s “Deplorables” gaff interpreted as disdain and disrespect for the working, one-half of the country. Millions of Americans will never accept her and her Snowflakes and vice versa. “Never say never,” it’s said, often enough. But, this time, “never,” is an unequivocal: “Never!”

Quite simply, the Obama-Clinton regime politicized that which should never be politicized, namely, core beliefs and values, starting with God.

Debate is one thing, but the regime followed up with direct and indirect actions, which some writers call rainbow fascism. “You won’t bake a wedding cake for two gays out of some fossilized belief in scripture? We’ll shut you down.”

The regime’s aggression against the Church, the family, and the infant in the womb is dynamite inserted into the foundation on which the country stands.

Along with compassion and sensitivity to opposing views, compromise used to help mend political wounds. It allowed the nation to move on after an election. However, when religious tenets are challenged by a political Party with executive order power, the door on possible compromise slams shut. Obama-Clinton politicized the sacred and the Holy, a big no-no considering that politics divide. It wasn’t done out of ignorance, disrespect, or plain arrogance. It was a conscience, systematic attack by the Godless against God-fearing Christians.

God either exists or He doesn’t – no compromise, here. That is, “He might exist,” placates neither the believer nor the atheist. The Bible is either the Word of God as delivered through His prophets or it isn’t. No compromise possible.

Abortion-on-demand is another issue without compromise considering the commandment: Thou shalt not kill (murder). There is also common sense compassion, which makes us human and says that abortion is wrong. You’re either for murder of the defenseless or against it.

A partial birth abortion, despite the insinuation of compromise in the term, is actually a viler variant of infanticide because it’s performed in the last trimester, at 5-7 months. The well-developed, living infant is pulled out of the womb, legs first. The medical executioner then plunges a probe with a catheter into the living brain in order to suction out a bloody slurry and collapse the skull. Is it murder of the defenseless or a “woman’s right” as Snowflakes call it?

Clinton claims: “Fetuses feel no pain and have no rights.” Curiously, Himmler leaned on a nearly identical contention to justify ghoulish, medical experiments on pregnant women in Konzentrationslager. Is there a difference? Indeed, there is. Clinton is a woman, making her serial murders more of a monstrosity.

The Holy Bible is either the Word of God or it isn’t. It’s not a book to be adapted to one’s whims or sexual lusts. Scripture strictly condemns male homosexuality in at least three passages and, implicitly, in some one-half dozen others. Nonetheless, Obama-Clinton attached the promotion of LBGTq-ism to the Democratic plank, overriding scripture. Clinton informed one audience that Christians would have to change their beliefs on some issues.

Hold on! “I’m getting my musket,” as more than one American has said.

I used to enjoy dialogue. But a sour aftertaste remains from the last time that I waded, innocently enough, into an after-dinner, back-and-forth. The topic was the upcoming primaries.

Dodging a flurry of leftism hooks from a New York Cityite at a Hamptons hideaway, I smiled through early-round attacks recalling how Mohammed Ali used to taunt opponents and cockroaches until they lost their cool. It worked. My opponent promptly tangled himself up in the ropes of his emotions.

It became apparent, in the ensuing minutes, that the Achilles heel of the Left was the absence of a viable candidate. That is, one who could be liked – a leader with charisma with a realistic chance winning.

Hillary was the only figure looming big on the horizon. After flying about on her crooked broom, peddling influence and laundering bloody cash from terrorism-sponsoring sheiks, wads of cash stuffed her Pampers. The Wicked Witch of the West, as victims of her foreign policy still address her, apparently, had it all. Except likeability. Or, something new to offer millions of working Americans beyond the scandals, a world in flames, and the same old corrupt things, starting with her foundation, which kept the cash but forgot Hattian children.

Deep-down inside, my opponent knew that getting excited about Hillary would be a daunting task. It’s precisely Hillary’s inability to generate enthusiasm that eventually metamorphosed into, “What Happened?” It wasn’t Russia; it wasn’t the dog that ate her homework.

As Secretary of State, Clinton’s role in creating and sponsoring head-choppers, baby burners, and heart-eating fanatics in ISIS’s jumpsuits was already well-established for anyone who was interested in looking beyond the hyaluronic acid smile and the praise of her attendant, media handlers.

Propagandists led by CNN and MSNBC did their best to sequester her “Arab Spring” fiascos. Her ties and support of the Muslim Brotherhood, apparently, inspired by live-in aide and right-hand woman, Huma Abedin were off limits for the press. Lesbian lover or not, the real issue is the between-the sheets confidences of one woman, holding one of the highest positions in the US Government and another with connections to jihadist circles inspired by Sayyid Qutb, the godfather of al Qaeda. What would have been made of it by the press if Trump had a mistress whose grandfather was Osama bin Laden?

Clinton’s connivance, her intrigue, and her use of the sword to overthrow foreign governments constituted the essence of her foreign policy. Now, the rich, sweet thing is crying over supposed, Russian interference that she claims cost her the election! No proof of Russian involvement has been found, despite massive efforts and the wasteful expenditure of millions of dollars. Even so, in her warped sense of reality, it’s inconceivable that American voters chose a vulgar, thrice-married, casino operator who trash talks instead of her. Curiously, it was Christians, in particular – Catholics, Protestants and the Orthodox – fearing a de facto Obama third term, who voted in droves for Trump.

Jonathon Van Maren writes: “…Christians are having conversations around the dinner table about what do if the government forces curricula on them that they cannot accept, because their own government is increasingly indicating that Christian parents are too homophobic and too hateful to teach their own children.”

Fear is setting in at both ends of the political spectrum. Meltdown, weep-in snowflakes fear Trump yet he and Christians are not forcing the LGBTq groupings etc., to make lifestyle changes. In contrast, Obama-Clinton’s Rainbow Fascism demands core value changes, or else! It’s already ruining the lives of those who cannot compromise religious tenets. What’s next? Obviously, children must be taken away from homophobic and irresponsible parents. It’s already happening in Norway and Sweden.

Curiously, WaPo’s entire editorial board endorsed her. Isn’t endorsement of Clinton’s terrorism by proxy tantamount to being a terrorist? Can WaPo be trusted, again? Another liberally slanted paper, the NY Times largely swept Clinton’s sordid past under the carpet, with about 90 percent of its articles casting her in a positive light. In contrast, it was open season on Republicans and, soon enough, on Trump.

“Considering her international war crimes record, if you vote for her, as I’m sure you’ll end up doing, you’re going to be an accomplice. Of terrorism,” I sighed. “So unfriend me now, please.”

Swinging, aimlessly – now, a bug in my web – my opponent’s accusations turned Archie-Bunker-personal – “You’re a SOB, M#*/!er. All you do is criticize but you haven’t done squat! Do something in the community instead of blaming everything on Obama and Clinton.

“Some time ago, I saw little, practical sense in it,” I replied. “That is, in wasting time to change the system.”

If it was ever possible to improve matters on a local level, those days are gone. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle did not consider the rule of money to be compatible with democracy. After three, consecutive, two-term geniuses steering the US Titanic – Clinton, Bush, Obama – the scraping sounds of hitting the iceberg are all-too-audible. The mass media orchestra plays on yet the waterline has reached the nation’s gunwales.

“Sorry, trends are apparent enough. Liberty, freedom of expression – all on the wane. Government as well as media controls are tightening! Prisons are full. Stalin has been outdone. His maximum Gulag stay was 15 years regardless of the charge. What’s ours? A life sentence for being in a romantic relationship with a drug smuggler? Common sense is being pushed aside by nonsense. Sorry, I find little sense building sandcastles at ebbtide.”

My opponent had had enough. Spilling whisky to get away from me, he spewed more venom and parted the room. Forever.

CLICK HERE to Support The Duran >>

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending