Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

UK Minister: Amesbury Poisoning ‘not targeted’ or ‘linked to Skripals’

Does the UK expect people to believe a couple was accidentally poisoned with military-grade nerve agent?

Published

on

1,420 Views

The latest reports from the Amesbury alleged “Novichok poisoning” have taken a turn for the weirder. According to several reports, UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace has said that the Amesbury “poisonings” were neither targetted, nor linked to the Skripals. He said that instead, he believes it is a “contamination by Novichok”.

So far, the optics seemed like it could be an obvious Skripal 2.0 scenario, which was honestly ridiculous that they would bother to invent the same baseless and insane accusations against Russia twice. Yet instead, the latest reports seem to indicate a totally different spin is being taken. For example, the BBC has reported:

The victims of the nerve agent emergency in Wiltshire were not directly targeted, the security minister has said.

[UK Minister of State for Security] Ben Wallace disclosed that the “working assumption” is that the pair were exposed to Novichok either as a result of the attack on former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Hulia in Salisbury earlier this year, or “something else”.

It must be clear however, this does not mean the U.K. isn’t pointing the finger at Russia, as the report continues:

Mr Wallace told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think what we said at the time was that this was a brazen and reckless attack in the heart of a very peaceful part of the United Kingdom, and that is part of the anger I feel about the Russian state is that they chose to use clearly a very, very toxic, highly dangerous weapon.”

In another report, the BBC, writes that:

[UK] Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire. “It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison,” he told MPs.

The oddest aspect about the latest round of accusations, and what is potentially very dangerous, is how the U.K. is implying Russia allegedly accidentally poisoned their citizens with military grade nerve agent. Sputnik quotes UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace as saying:

“These people weren’t linked to the Skripals… It wasn’t an attack, it was, I think, a contamination by a Novichok,” Wallace said on Monday.

This is what is particularly bizarre, that the language the UK is using implies they are currently alleging an unintentional Novichok poisoning. We must remember, however, that these are still preliminary reports. There will be plenty of time for the UK to change their story, and of course, they are still blaming Russia, now it just seems they are saying Russia unintentionally poisoned their citizens.

This brings me to the heart of what makes these accusations so bizarre. If we apply basic common sense, how many people do you know, who were accidentally poisoned with military-grade nerve agent? Is nerve agent a common cause of death among common suburban folk? We remind our readers that neither the Skripals nor this Amesbury couple has yet died.

This contradicts basic logic, what we know about Novichok, as well as the narrative about the seemingly dangerous Russian bear, the way the West makes Russia out to be.

Novichok has been acknowledged by many reports, as being the world’s most deadly known nerve agent, with Gary Stephens, a pharmacology expert at the University of Reading, saying that Novichok “is a more dangerous and sophisticated agent than sarin or VX and is harder to identify”. A Financial Times report says that:

It has been reported that Novichok agents are five to eight times more lethal than VX, which was previously thought to be the world’s deadliest nerve agent.

New Scientist reports that:

Novichoks can be eight times as deadly as VX, the V-series agent that was used to kill North Korean exile Kim Jong-nam last year. Just 10 milligrams of VX on the skin can be lethal.

Still, despite the well-known lethality of Novichok, the UK is claiming Russia contaminated Sergei and Yulia Skripal with this incredibly lethal poisoning, which can kill in tiny droplets, and yet they survived?

They are claiming Russia, a nuclear superpower which builds the rockets American astronauts use to travel to space, and which put the first man in space, does not possess the capability to assassinate a target with a more lethal nerve agent, then one used by the weaker state of North Korea? North Korea is indescribably weaker than Russia in basically every way that matters, yet a known to be weaker nerve agent allegedly kills a man when Russia allegedly fails with an agent eight times more deadly?

Of course, Russia did not kill anyone, neither the Skripals, nor this couple, yet the accusations are now becoming even more absurd. Skripal was an ex-spy, and a traitor to Russia and the Russian people, and while Russia did not kill him, there is no evidence, Russia has always been known to defend her people and her interests. It is not illogical, to imagine that a spy who betrays any superpower, such as the US, Russia, China, etc. could theoretically face dangerous repercussions.

The idea of a spy being killed by a nerve agent is not a stretch, but Skripal was no threat to Russia, and he was not killed, even after the most deadly substance in the world was allegedly administered.

This couple, however, were not even spies. By all accounts, they are completely random people, unconnected to the Skripals, in the words of UK Minister of State for Security Ben Wallace. How they did they get contaminated by Novichok? Are we to believe military-grade nerve agent was just casually misplaced in a UK neighborhood? Military-grade nerve agent which kills instantly for all intents and purposes. Does the UK wish to imply Russia is not a great power, with the ability to attack its enemies, but one which is incapable of assassinations, and haplessly misplaces their nerve agents in little shires throughout Merry Olde England.

It seems like the UK wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I have written about this before, primarily the illogical and inconsistent way the Western Media slanders Russia and her President Vladimir Putin.

In the article, I said:

The split personality complex in the west has given rise to the two heads of the western establishment: The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals. Together they form the Diarchy (rule of two) present in western governments, though perhaps the Latin synonym Duumvirate better describes it.

This split personality influences how they view reality.

Take for example their portrayal of Russia. There are two primary ways in which Russia is misrepresented in the west:

  1. As a toothless bear, a weak, anemic regional power nostalgic for old glory, incapable of letting go. A nation overall not unlike a destitute widow after the death of a great and powerful man, as Gogol described the Cossack lands of what we call Ukraine in Taras Bulba.

This is simply not reality.

  1. The dangerous bear, an Empire terrible and strong, ready to subject the world beneath the boot of an Imperialist, Fascist, Totalitarian, Communist, Soviet, Russian Orthodox Czar. If the West does not “do something” [the most terrifying words any third world country can hear] there will not be a free power in the world that will not kneel to the Czar of Moscow.

That statement is contradictory, primarily with the first image, but also with itself. You can not be a Communist or a Fascist, nor an Orthodox Tsarist for that matter all at once.

While the above examples are mutable to a degree, those are the prevailing stereotypes about Russia. They each serve two primary purposes:

  1. The portrayal of Russia as a declining power reduces panic when undesirable, for example when the Deep State feels comfortable with their position in society, and wish to promote their leadership as strong and stabilizing. It also reinforces overall pride and morale in the west. This is the favored personality of the Neo-Liberals.
  2. The portrayal of Russia as a resurgent, terrifying eastern horde on the verge of world dominance provides for the Military Industrial Complex, allows for increased military spending, and justifies both sabre rattling and adventurism, satisfying the warmongers. The portrayal of the Neo-Cons.

That split view of Russia is what we are seeing here again.

  1. First, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, Russia is this great dangerous threat to the world, which poisoned the Skripals with her dangerous omnipotent power. This extends to other things they claim about Russia. For example, Russia is so powerful, she rigged the US Election, masterfully manipulating the simple minded Americans, proving Russia is so powerful, that she can determine the result of the US election. This is what they imply, when they talk about the Russian threat – the Great Russian Bear.
  2. Secondly, we are to believe, according to Western propagandists, that Russia is so weak, so incompetent, so incapable of executing her goals, that not only did she fail to assassinate the Skripals, but she misplaced some of her deadly dangerous nerve agent which is now hopelessly infecting innocent UK civilians. They claim Russia is so weak, and she is a declining power, and her leadership feels threatened, and so they lashed out at enemies, but because of weakness, she was not able to assassinate people with a more deadly nerve agent than the North Koreans used. The Mighty Czardom of Russia which stretches from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific Ocean failed where the puny hermit Kingdom succeeded?

Which one, you can’t have both

These are both ridiculous ideas. The first idea, that of Russia is this dangerous all-powerful superpower, is a reflection of the inferiority complex of the impotent West, the UK in particular.

After Brexit, the UK elite feels particularly insecure, and lacking allies, and so they wish to increase support or sympathy for themselves, by using the Russian Bear as a dangerous threat. This existed in racist Russophobic propaganda in the UK since the Crimean War in the mid 19th century. Since then, many UK publications portray Russia in a racist way.

Despite the SJW world the West lives in, in a tragic and disgusting way, racism against Russians is accepted by the West to this day. Russians are among the only groups Westerners are allowed to slander. This was touched on brilliantly by the Duran’s Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris.

Western racism and the stereotyping of Russians

Likewise, the idea that Russia somehow accidentally infected people with nerve agent (really, how do you do that) reflects the arrogance of the West. They want to portray Russia as this big dangerous country, yet their arrogance does not allow it to go so far.

Therefore, they produce an inconsistent narrative where Russia at one time, is the destroyer of worlds, and at another time, accidentally misplaces nerve agent because she is a toothless bear.

The Morning in a Pine Forest is a painting by Russian artists Ivan Shishkin and Konstantin Savitsky

The reality is, Russia is truly a mighty bear, but she only protects her young, and she will not stray too far from her Taiga.

If Russia is threatened, she will defend herself, but she never meant any harm to the world. It should be blatantly obvious Rusia had nothing to do with this, but facts don’t matter in the West. Russia can be blamed for anything by propagandists. What did Russia ever do to the West, aside from save them from Nazism, and putting the first human in space?

And the idea of military grade nerve agent accidentally poisoning a suburban couple is just ridiculous. Some reports have went as far as to say:

One of the victims is believed to be a registered heroin user and local media speculated that the poison came from a contaminated syringe.

It must be said, at this moment, that is not confirmed. Victim blaming in any case, is also not appropriate, however, neither is Russia blaming, which is all the West does. There is no proof of any Russia involvement, and it is dangerous to provoke and accuse a Nuclear Superpower constantly.

In all, it must be remembered, that Russia is neither a toothless bear, nor a scary bear. By long-standing tradition, the Bears of Russian folk legend live in their taiga. They are not dangerous beasts, nor do they attack the homes of other animals, but if you attack the Taiga, retribution is inevitable.

The baisc rule of thumb, don’t threaten the Russian people with a campaign of dominance and extermination, and likewise, Russia will not be forced to defend herself and her young.

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

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
AM HantsIsabella JonescolumGoogle IsEvilVeeNarian (Yerevan) Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
AM Hants
Guest
AM Hants

How long does it take for toxicology reports to come through? When did they fall ill? With all the Forces cleaning up Salsibury, how come they missed the syringe? Owing to the strength of the military grade nerve agent, how long would it remain in am syringe without harming the container? Go back to the Skripals, ‘novochok’ on the doorknob, of a house soon to be demolished. Father plus daughter touch door knob, go for a drive into town. Then for a drink in a pub, followed by lunch, then a walk in the park. How many people did they… Read more »

Isabella Jones
Guest
Isabella Jones

I’d like to repeat – I keep seeing all this “novichok” being repeated as though it were an incontrovertible fact. It isn’t. All we have that these people have been exposed to a narco-paralytic of the same family as the so – called “Novichok” is the word of an increasingly discredited Government. It could be anything or nothing. Russia has repeatedly asked for access to the investigation – to be refused. Why? Why purpose does that serve, except to keep the truth hidden?. The Hospital spokesman inthe Skripals case said that [a] nobody had been admitted having suffered the symptoms… Read more »

colum
Guest
colum

It makes a funny sense. While 2.0 is a relative non-story it does revive (kind of) the Skripal case. The latest victims are actors (accidents) there to play to the cynicism and throw things back onto the skripals by closing the circle that there was a rogue agent at play who messed up. It permits the forces to pick a target and set up an actual scapegoat that will play the whole Russia narrative. We all know it’s a fit up but what of the floaters and the disinterested?This’ll possibly nail things down and set a new platform to lie… Read more »

Google IsEvil
Guest
Google IsEvil

Upon seeing the picture you chose to headline this article with, my first thought was “Why is Theresa May” wearing a suit & tie”? Then I noticed the Amerikunt flag on her lapel. Then I realized it was a PHOTO-SHOPPED photograph. Then I realized you people lost all credibility and that I’ll NEVER read The Duran ever again.

I ALREADY get enough fake news as it is.

VeeNarian (Yerevan)
Guest
VeeNarian (Yerevan)

I feel I must again apologise for the disgraceful, deceitful and pathetic conduct of our LYING and incompetent so called British government. Their ancestors ran a world-wide empire while this lot could not organise a “piss-up at the brewery”.
Just ignore this bunch of LYING sh…. bags and bring a fumigation kit when your are near them.

fartytowels
Guest
fartytowels

IF there was a syringe… who the heck touches a dirty syringe lying in a park. To suggest they used it to shoot up with is beyond ridiculous. As he was a registered heroin addict he gets free sterile syringes on the NHS. D’oh! There goes another stupid theory…

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

a more lethal nerve agent, then one used by the weaker state of North Korea?

That makes lots of sense. How about using THAN??? Or is it too difficult?

Ger
Guest
Ger

The mysterious ‘syringe’ …. a prop in this bizarre saga? Perhaps next week with Putin’s fingerprints on it! Until recently I believed we Americans had a lock on morons. Thanks to the Brits, we have lost another important position on the world stage.

Jack
Guest
Jack

A lots of words but not necessarily convincing. Let me tell you about Scripal. He is a Russian. traitor who sold for a very little their former friends and coops who seems to got what he deserved but who did it is rather very vage and uncertain and most likely he fell victim from quite different side and from other reason as a scores for his new activities rather than his old job therefore not connected to Moscow as depicted by UK officials aiming to achieve their own end but the true story is yet to unfold and this most… Read more »

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

comment image

comment image comment image

Gonzogal
Guest
Gonzogal

Remember in Skripal 1 the UK delayed forever calling in the OPCW, and now AFTER they have been successful in adding to the OPCW the power to “assign blame”, the UK has called in the OPCW.

You cant make this s$it up!

Latest

May Forces Brexit Betrayal to its Crisis Point

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote. 

Published

on

Authored by Tom Luongo:


The only words that were left out of Theresa May’s announcement of achieving Cabinet approval over her Brexit deal were Mission Accomplished.

Theresa May was put in charge of the U.K. to betray Brexit from the beginning.  She always represented the interests of the European Union and those in British Parliament that backed remaining in the EU.

No one in British ‘high society’ wanted Brexit to pass.   No. One.

No one in Europe’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

No one in the U.S.’s power elite wanted Brexit to pass.  No. One.

When it did pass The Davos Crowd began the process of sabotaging it.  The fear mongering has done nothing but intensify.  And May has done nothing but waffle back and forth, walking the political tight rope to remain in power while trying to sell EU slavery to the both sides in British Parliament.

We’re 29 months later and the U.K. is no closer to being out of the EU than the day of the vote.  Why?

Because Theresa May’s 585 page ‘deal’ is the worst of all possible outcomes.  If it passes it will leave the EU with near full control over British trade and tax policy while the British people and government have no say or vote in the matter.

It’s punishment for the people getting uppity about their future and wanting something different than what had been planned for them.

Mr. Juncker and his replacement will never have to suffer another one of Nigel Farage’s vicious farragoes detailing their venality ever again.  YouTube will get a whole lot less interesting.

It’s almost like this whole charade was designed this way.

Because it was.

May has tried to run out the clock and scare everyone into accepting a deal that is worse than the situation pre-Brexit because somehow a terrible deal is better than no deal.  But, that’s the opposite of the truth.

And she knows it.  She’s always known it but she’s gone into these negotiations like the fragile wisp of a thing she truly is.

There’s a reason I call her “The Gypsum Lady.” She’s simply the opposite of Margaret Thatcher who always knew what the EU was about and fought to her last political breath to avoid the trap the U.K. is now caught in.

The U.K. has had all of the leverage in Brexit talks but May has gone out of her way to not use any of it while the feckless and evil vampires in Europe purposefully complicate issues which are the height of irrelevancy.

She has caved on every issue to the point of further eroding what’s left of British sovereignty.  This deal leaves the U.K. at the mercy of Latvia or Greece in negotiating any trade agreement with Canada.  Because for a deal between member states to be approved, all members have to approve of it.

So, yeah, great job Mrs. May.  Mission Accomplished.  They are popping champagne corks in Brussels now.

But, this is a Brexit people can be proud of.

Orwell would be proud of Theresa May for this one.

You people are leaving.  Let the EU worry about controlling their borders.  And if Ireland doesn’t like the diktats coming from Brussels than they can decide for themselves if staying in the EU is worth the trouble.

The entire Irish border issue is simply not May’s problem to solve.  Neither is the customs union or any of the other stuff.  These are the EU’s problems.   They are the ones who don’t want the Brits to leave.

Let them figure out how they are going to trade with the U.K.  It is so obvious that this entire Brexit ‘negotiation’ is about protecting the European project as a proxy for the right of German automakers to export their cars at advantageous exchange rates to the U.K. at everyone’s expense.

Same as it was in the days of The Iron Lady.

If all of this wasn’t so predictable it would be comical.

Because the only people more useless than Theresa May are the Tories who care only about keeping their current level of the perks of office.

The biggest takeaway from this Brexit fiasco is that even more people will check out of the political system. They will see it even more clearly for what it is, an irredeemable miasma of pelf and privilege that has zero interest in protecting the rights of its citizens or the value of their labor.

It doesn’t matter if it’s voter fraud in the U.S. or a drawn out betrayal of a binding referendum. There comes a point where those not at the political fringes look behind the veil and realize changing the nameplate above the door doesn’t change the policy.

And once they realize that confidence fails and systems collapse.

Brexit was the last gasp of a dying empire to assert its national relevancy.  Even if this deal is rejected by parliament the process has sown deep divisions which will lead to the next trap and the next and the next and the next.

By then Theresa May will be a distant memory, being properly rewarded by her masters for a job very well done.


Please support the production of independent and alternative political and financial commentary by joining my Patreon and subscribing to the Gold Goats ‘n Guns Investment Newsletter for just $12/month.

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

Latest

The DOJ Is Preparing To Indict Julian Assange

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge…


The US Justice Department is preparing to indict WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange which, after sensitive international negotiations, would likely trigger his extradition to the United States to stand trial, according to the Wall Street Journalciting people in Washington familiar with the matter.

Over the past year, U.S. prosecutors have discussed several types of charges they could potentially bring against Mr. Assange, the people said. Mr. Assange has lived in the Ecuadorean embassy in London since receiving political asylum from the South American country in 2012.

The people familiar with the case wouldn’t describe whether discussions were under way with the U.K. or Ecuador about Mr. Assange, but said they were encouraged by recent developments.

The exact charges Justice Department might pursue remain unclear, but they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information. –WSJ

In short, the DOJ doesn’t appear to have a clear charge against Assange yet. Then there’s the optics of dragging Assange out of Ecuador’s London Embassy and into the United States, then prosecuting him, and if successful – jailing him.

Prosecuting someone for publishing truthful information would set a terrible and dangerous precedent,” said Assange lawyer Barry Pollack – who says he hasn’t heard anything about a US prosecution.

“We have heard nothing from authorities suggesting that a criminal case against Mr. Assange is imminent,” he added.

Moreover, assuming that even if the DOJ could mount a case, they would be required to prove that Russia was the source of a trove of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released in the last few months of the 2016 election.

An indictment from special counsel Robert Mueller that portrayed WikiLeaks as a tool of Russian intelligence for releasing thousands of hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 presidential campaign has made it more difficult for Mr. Assange to mount a defense as a journalist. Public opinion of Mr. Assange in the U.S. has dropped since the campaign.

Prosecutors have considered publicly indicting Mr. Assange to try to trigger his removal from the embassy, the people said, because a detailed explanation of the evidence against Mr. Assange could give Ecuadorean authorities a reason to turn him over. –WSJ

It’s no secret that Assange and Hillary Clinton aren’t exactly exchanging Christmas cards, however would WikiLeaks’ release of damaging information that was hacked (or copied locally on a thumb drive by a well-meaning American), be illegal for Assange as a publisher?

Despite scant clues as to how the DOJ will prosecute Assange aside from rumors that it has to do with the Espionage Act, the US Government is cooking on something. John Demers – head of the DOJ’s national security division, said last week regarding an Assange case: “On that, I’ll just say, we’ll see.”

The U.S. hasn’t publicly commented on whether it has made, or plans to make, any extradition request. Any extradition request from the U.S. would likely go to British authorities, who have an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr. Assange related to a Swedish sexual assault case. Sweden has since dropped the probe, but the arrest warrant stands.

Any extradition and prosecution would involve multiple sensitive negotiations within the U.S. government and with other countries. –WSJ

Beginning in 2010, the Department of Justice beginning under the Obama administration has drawn a distinction between WikiLeaks and other news organizations – with former Attorney General Eric Holder insisting that Assange’s organization does not deserve the same first amendment protections during the Chelsea Manning case in which the former Army intelligence analyst was found guilty at a court-martial of leaking thousands of classified Afghan War Reports.

US officials have given mixed messages over Assange, with President Trump having said during the 2016 election “I love WikiLeaks,” only to have his former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo label WikiLeaks akin to a foreign “hostile intelligence service” and a US adversary. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said that Assange’s arrest is a “priority.”

Ecuador’s relationship with Assange, meanwhile, has deteriorated considerably with the election of President Lenin Moreno – who called the WikiLeaks founder a “stone in our shoe,” adding that Assange’s stay at the London embassy is unsustainable.

Ecuador has been looking to improve relations with the U.S., hosting Vice President Mike Pence in 2018 amid interest in increasing trade.

Ecuador’s Foreign Relations Ministry declined to comment. This month, Foreign Relations Minister José Valencia told a radio station the government hadn’t received an extradition request for Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange has clashed with his Ecuadorean hosts in over internet access, visitors, his cat and other issues. Last month, he sued Ecuador over the conditions of his confinement. At a hearing last month, at which a judge rejected Mr. Assange’s claims, Mr. Assange said he expected to be forced out of the embassy soon.  –WSJ

Assange and Ecuador seem to have worked things out for the time being; with his months-long communication blackout mostly lifted (with strict rules against Assange participating in political activities that would affect Ecuador’s international relations). Assange is now allowed Wi-Fi, but has to foot the bill for his own phone calls and other communication.

In October, a judge threw out a lawsuit Assange filed against Ecuador from implementing the stricter rules,.

“Ecuador hasn’t violated the rights of anyone,” Attorney General Íñigo Salvador said after the court ruling. “It has provided asylum to Mr. Assange, and he should comply with the rules to live harmoniously inside Ecuador’s public installations in London.”Assange’s attorneys say he will appeal the ruling – however it may be a moot point if he’s dragged into a US courtroom sooner than later.

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

Latest

Trump Understands The Important Difference Between Nationalism And Globalism

President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Raheem Kassam, op-ed via The Daily Caller:


President Macron’s protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with the words of France’s WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president: General Charles de Gaulle.

Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:

“He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland.”

This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the “appetite of vice.”

While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron’s words, for use against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism’s grandfather: imperialism, not nationalism.

This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a “nationalist.” Though the fault is with us, not him.

Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism … By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,’ we erase the very thing that a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,” President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.

Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr. Trump for “politicizing” such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.

With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being disingenuous.

Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.

Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs. Patriotism isn’t a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.

For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite of hot sauce,so meaningless was the comparison.

Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century. Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.

Imperialism — as opposed to nationalism — seeks to impose a nation’s way of life, its currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon others wherever they may be.

Truly, President Trump’s nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:

” … It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of [Europe’s] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be considered “ordinary vicissitudes”, but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the continent.

It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart. Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.

Today’s imperialism is known as globalism.

It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation’s natural resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and foreign capital control.

Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This will soon be leapfrogged by China’s designs.

And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But such things are scarcely long-lived.

While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity’s instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.

It is this fundamental distinction between the United States’ founding and that of the modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.

The people of France are “granted” their freedoms by the government, and the government creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.

As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont Review of Books in May, “As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed can make its consent count”.

France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.

Nationalism – or nationism, if you will – therefore represents a break from the war-hungry norm of human history. Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and bastardized.

A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but believes putting one’s own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.

Certainly nationalism’s could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world around it, “these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order,” then nationalism can be a great gift to the 21st century and beyond.

This is what President Trump understands.

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