In another column I confessed my admiration for the Russian leader Putin. This is based partly on reading his speeches. These show him to have a broad vision, to be a spokesman for Western Civilisation, and to have an understanding of the enemies of that civilisation who dominate America and Europe during our time. He speaks as a statesman, in reference to reality and longtime consequences, in sharp contrast to the vague blather about “democracy” practiced by Joseph Biden.
Putin earned his spurs in a hard school, rising to popularity and power in the chaos of the disintegrating Soviet Empire, and gaining the recognition of his people as a true patriot and leader.
Compare Biden, a museum quality specimen of a hack politician, representing a rotten borough for years. Follow his career and you will never see any evidence of an idea or a principle, nor any consistency. He has always taken the position that seemed most popular at the moment. Just as he is doing now, in defiance of his previous reputation for being somewhat moderate.
And all the time he kept his snout in the public trough, getting rich for himself and his kin. (At least Trump earned some of his riches in the private sector.) And all along acting with a churlish groping of women.
In fact, nobody would ever have thought of Biden as Presidential material if Obama had not chosen him as Vice President. One is tempted to suspect that Obama picked the weakest white man he could find.
Putin is an anti-communist. He knows what Communism is. Biden, on the other hand, supports Critical Race Theory, a Communist doctrine, and the leftist street mobs that suppress law and order and rightwing dissent, a Communist tactic.
Putin has fostered the return of Christianity where there was once a militantly atheist regime. Biden, claiming Christian membership, celebrates abortion and perversion in defiance of the doctrine of his own faith.
Putin has made mistakes, but he has shown that he genuinely loves his country and people and strives to do what is best for them. His border war is designed to protect his own people. His conflict with the criminal, fascist state of the Ukraine is not an assault on democracy. Meanwhile, Biden is engaged in replacing his own people with hordes of illegal immigrants, supported by his government, who outnumber the people of several States.
Putin has in fact acted moderately, always ready for negotiations and refraining from dangerous escalation of the present conflict despite Western provocations. While Biden has declared total hostility to Russia. Not to mention that his handlers tell him to rattle the saber at the great powers of China and Iran, which shows a reckless ignorance and arrogance. The only excuse being that it is necessary to defend “democracy,” whatever he thinks it is. And at the same time weakening our armed forces by the destruction of ideologically imagined Diversity.
Take your pick.
12/2/2022 05:31:48 am
Obama picked Biden for his Vice President as the weakest White man he knew. Now, did he pick him as President? Isn't this Obama's "third term" - with brain-dead Biden his ventriloquist dummy? Sure looks like it to me.
12/3/2022 06:22:02 am
Well said, I agree completely.
12/2/2022 06:21:58 am
Well said, Dr Wilson. And I would propose as a general principle that one should not underestimate the Russians. Just as Napoleon Bonaparte.
12/6/2022 06:13:43 pm
The chihuahuas Biden and Zelensky have definitely barked up the wrong tree. And American taxpayers get to foot the bill for this nonsense.
12/8/2022 06:27:38 am
With all due respect, I submit that the issue is not Biden but the handlers who pushed him to the front in South Carolina way back. Interesting that they would prefer him over Bernie Sanders then - certainly Biden was more malleable. He also seems to fit the new paradigm that Fetterman's victory indicates - mental handicaps are no impediment to high office. This is a perfect front for the real decision makers behind the curtain. But of course, I am merely guessing . . .
Leave a Reply.
Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews