Friday, February 21, 2014

Presstitute-Cultivated Ignorance On Ukraine

By ilana mercer

When it comes to President Vladimir Putin, who enjoys an approval rate of 65 percent among Russians, the motto of the menagerie of morons that is the American media is ignorance über alles.

The energetic and reflexive demonization of a Russian leader—unparalleled during communism—against the backdrop of the Sochi Olympic Games and the conflagration in the Ukraine, is the handiwork of a conga-line of cretins, stateside, whose bombast comports with the boorishness of their pronouncements.

The “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” one wag’s delicious description of broadcaster Bill O’Reilly, is not delimited by ideology. Instead, “wanton Putin bashing,” as scholar of Russian history Stephen Cohen attests, is the order of the day at the New York Times, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, The New Republic; CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, on and on.

As to “traditional journalistic standards”: In the service of their anti-Putin monomania, the US Pussy Riot press and its approved phalanx of “experts” routinely omit “facts and context,” conflate “reporting with analysis,” and court conformity and unanimity at the cost of veracity and impartiality.

(Revered in the US, Pussy Riot is a punk rock Russian band of feminists, whose forté is breast-baring, defiling places of worship, punching the air while shrieking, “F-ck you Putin,” and participating in public-orgy protests and other criminal acts.)

The “Shangri-La of Socratic disinterest,” fortunately, is not a feature of the nuanced and informed analysis available on the John Batchelor Show, where the scholarly host and his guest, Professor Cohen, delve deeply into the region’s geopolitical dynamics.

Cohen, who tackled O’Reilly’s out-and-proud ignorance with aplomb, was slightly more flummoxed by that of MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. She blamed Putin for Ukraine having “spun into politician chaos.” To wit, Europe had offered the Ukraine $800 million in aid. The Kremlin “outbid the West” to the tune of billions, but held back on the last installment because it wanted to see to which government Russian funds would ultimately be going. Although Putin has since released the remaining funds to the Ukraine, Mitchell surmised that Putin had orchestrated recent events so as to compel Kiev to sell-out to the Kremlin.

Nonsense on stilts. If anything, Putin's impetus would be to avert trouble in the Ukraine during the Sochi Olympics. Add Putin to the list of people who do not control what unfolds in Kiev, belabors Cohen.

Contrary to America’s Democracy Alinskyites—media, academia, members of the Stupid and Evil Parties, State Department floozy Victoria Nuland (taped plotting to “midwife a new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government”), John McMussolini—The Ukraine People, not unlike the “American People,” are not one people. The country is riven—divided into Western and Eastern regions, respectively. The West has been seduced by EU membership; the East is culturally and historically enmeshed in Russia.

What we’re witnessing is a tale of two Ukraines.

As it stands, explains Cohen, Kiev has lost control over Western Ukraine. Moderate voices are being silenced. Armed provocateurs are inciting matters and undermining moderate leadership. Revolution is being fomented.

Ukraine is not a dictatorship, it is an anarchy.

As to the demands issued by Vice President Joe Biden that the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych withdraw forces from the Maidan, the site of the protests: “preposterous,” avers Cohen. The “occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent assaults on law enforcement officers … all documented and even televised”: these would not be tolerated in any Western democracy.

Equally outrageous is the Obama Administration’s improvised and impromptu demands that the same democratically elected president step down before elections are held next year. The rational solution to the chaos in Ukraine is to allow the parties to “chill out,” and resolve to wait until the February elections, next year, whereupon a referendum question can be tagged to the ballot to help decide whether Ukraine should sign up with Europe or Russia. (Cohen advocates an either/or “democratic” decision; I say secession.)

Should cool heads fail to prevail in the negotiation of a political solution, the division of Ukraine is impending, with part of the country cleaving to Europe; the other to Russia.

The "the struggle for Ukraine" is a chapter in a series of US orchestrated provocations, which began with the expansion of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) eastward to abut Russia’s borders—an expansion pursued by Clinton, Bush and Obama alike. It gathered momentum with the US-backed attempts to incorporate Georgia and the Ukraine into the North Atlantic alliance.

The next stage in goading the Russian Bear consisted in American-funded NGO political-action groups—many of them backed by George Soros—flooding Russia proper. ("Purple" in Iraq, Blue in Kuwait, Cotton in Uzbekistan, Grape in Moldova, "Orange" in the Ukraine, "Rose" in Georgia, "Tulip" in Kyrgizstan, "Cedar" in Lebanon, Jasmine in Tunisia, Green in Iran, still un-christened in Russia and Syria: Dig around and you'll find American activists à la Alinsky behind these "color-coded," plant-based revolutions, blessed and backed by Foggy Bottom.)

“A US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense installations near Russia” completed the provocation. “Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin’s December financial offer to save Ukraine’s collapsing economy—is deceitful,” inveighs Cohen.

Also upon us is a second Cold War between the US and Russia, which will see a close, bilateral collaboration between Berlin and Moscow—Putin and Angela Merkel enjoy a cozy and copacetic relationship and will likely work together to dominate Eurasia.

Having flouted America's national interests and squandered Russian good will—the ignoramuses of the Beltway will have no place in this grand geopolitical realignment.

ILANA Mercer is a classical liberal writer, based in the United States. She pens WND's longest-standing paleolibertarian column.  ILANA is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. She is the author of "Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa."  ILANA's website is . She blogs at

Copyright 2014 Ilana Mercer


  1. ... all the while the establishment state run media in Amerika demonizes peaceful tea-party activists and libertarians.

  2. Illayna should do video blogs of all her articles. Great writer, but man, that accent is the cherry on top.I could listen to that all day.

  3. I like the article overall, but there is too much government-concept worship.


    "Revered in the US, Pussy Riot is a punk rock Russian band of feminists, whose forté is breast-baring, defiling places of worship, punching the air while shrieking, “F-ck you Putin,” and participating in public-orgy protests and other criminal acts."

    Most of these would not be CLOSE to being "criminal acts" in a libertarian society. And they should not be considered such (by libertarians) in a statist one, with the exception of defiling places of worship.

    "The “occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in Western Ukraine"

    Oh so what...

    "Having flouted America's national interests and squandered Russian good will—the ignoramuses of the Beltway will have no place in this grand geopolitical realignment."

    There are no such things as "America's national interests" within libertarian thought. It is a nationalist and collectivist concept.

    1. Nonsense. The article deals in reality, not in pie-in-the-sky libertarian theory. The sin of abstraction is just that: a grave sin. The article, moreover, is for adults, not for the childish libertarian who wishes to remain suspended forever in never-never land. The Pussy Riot retarded sisterhood defiled private property. They copulated in a public setting, paid for by taxpayers. Only a bad writer does a discursive detour into the various contingencies that would apply if we lived in a private-property anarcho-capitalistic society. We don't! Grow up. Has nobody taught you kids how to stay on topic, or write without flights of fancy? I guess I'm old enough to remember being taught such discipline and learning it from my betters. Does one effect a realistic analysis, which entails the concept of the national interest (peace with Russia, non-interventionism, in this case), or does one twist into ideological pretzels in order to come down on the side of politically proper libertarianism? This column deals in reality. So should you. Deal with real life!

    2. Speaking about "nonsense".

      "The article deals in reality, not in pie-in-the-sky libertarian theory."

      It doesn't matter what is "reality" when you make MORAL judgments. The things you claim are criminal, because the state has DEEMED them criminal. It doesn't mean that they should be and therefor it is utter nonsense to proclaim that something is wrong because it is "criminal". Who cares what the state deems criminal. When you make a moral judgment about it, you do so either from a libertarian or a statist perspective. You did from a statist perspective.

      "The sin of abstraction is just that: a grave sin."

      Ayn Randian nonsense.

      "They copulated in a public setting, paid for by taxpayers."

      Pussy Riot and their supporters ALSO pay taxes, but the conservative mind always assumes that those they agree with have more of a say in what should be allowed in a "public setting" than those they disagree with. Who says that a conservative morality has more legitimacy than another when BOTH sides are forced to pay taxes? That is an argument from a conservative viewpoint, NOT a libertarian one. And conservatism is statist.

      The rest of what you've wrtten is mere ad hominem. It's perfectly fine, i guess, to accept the way things are, but assuming that position you THEN proceed to make statist arguments from a specific *ideological* point of view, such as what is in "national interest", what kind of behavior should or should not be allowed in public regardless of the fact that taxpayers come from ALL sides of the political spectrum and not just yours.

      If i had to áccept "reality" in the way you see it, none of should ever bother issuing moral judgments about anything that happens, since these things happen in reality and we have to "deal with reality" and with "real life".

      "HEY, we're at war with Iraq. That's reality and we cannot avoid reality. So let's support the troops, say "F**k yeah, America" and hope they completely obliterate that country. That after all, would be the national interest now that we ARE there."

      After all, it is a "sin" to think about abstractions of what should be the only moral position to take about foreign policy and war.

      You are merely making excuses for hiding behind a conservatively statist point of view, which is what i discovered some time ago when i visited your blog.

      If you feel like commenting again, spare me the arrogant attitude about your "discipline" and us being "kids" and about what is "real life". I know very well what is real life. That is exactly why i am libertarian in the first place and don't seek excuses anymore to throw my support around what the state does in the name of "reality", the way i once used to.

      P.S. I admitted that Pussy Riot defiled private property and if you read correctly, i wrote that this would ALSO be criminal in a libertarian society.