Hatred v. The Conservative Mind

Yesterday afternoon I was listening to Alexander Mercouris talking about the complete disaster that the Neocon war on Russia has brought to the West. He ended up saying that the whole things was so nuts that it can only be explained by sheer hatred. I’ve also said similar things, and Mercouris’ statement reminded me of another video that I listened to yesterday morning, in which Doug Macgregor explains the Neocon disaster in very similar terms. The actual topic under discussion between Danny Davis and Macgregor was this:

How Will We Deal w/Russia after Ukraine War?

Macgregor maintains that operating on pure emotion—he describes it as a desire to “punish” Russia, to “destroy Russia,” because “Russians are bad.” Sounds like hate to me. Explains the targeting of Russian civilians, because Russians are bad—don’t kid yourselves, that’s US policy, not just Ukrainian. Sounds like the Zionist claims that there are no innocents civilians among populations who oppose Zionist goals. Explains the Israeli direct targeting of civilians. Huh. Go figure!

But ask yourselves: Are these the people you want dealing with a victorious Russia?

16:54

We've never had a strategy. No strategy at all. What we've been dealing with is emotion: 'Oh, Russians are bad, they must be punished!' No one cared to look at the real issues at stake, no one read any of the Russian proposals, no one took the Russians seriously for ten, fifteen, years when they continuously pointed to the unacceptable nature of Ukraine as a platform for attack against Russia. [Russia] will not tolerate NATO on their borders--they made that very clear. We ignored all that. So there was no strategy there. Nobody had sat down and said, 'What do we want to do? Well, we want to destroy Russia.' Well, is that even a reasonable objective? [Russia] is an enormous country, it has almost limitless natural resources, it has a huge population.

Secondly, how do you isolate Russia? If you go back to 1990 and 1991 and the runup to the first Gulf War, when you still had a few people with common sense in charge, we had done an enormous amount of work to isolate Iraq, to ensure that when we went after Iraq there were no allies, there was nowhere to turn, that Iraq was essentially boxed in. That was an impossibility with Russia. It sits next to almost the largest economy in the world and then, beyond that, you have India--another more than a billion Indians who are willing to trade and work with Russia, and beyond that there are many others. So the notion that you could isolate [Russia] was ridiculous.

So you can't isolate it, you can't destroy it, unless you want to risk a nuclear Holocaust--and I don't see any evidence that anybody wants to do that. So what is the end state, and how do you propose to achieve it? ‘Well, the end state is we win and Russia loses, and Russia is weakened and can never attack anybody again.’ Good luck with that! Just based on the first two observations that's an impossibility. There was never a strategy, yeah, and you heard the statement, 'We probably underestimated the Russians,' from the man on CNN. I mean, all of his stuff has been awful. All of these people on the mainstream have been dead wrong about everything. They never studied the enemy, they never studied who they were fighting and why.

Not that I like to use the word 'enemy,' because I've never seen any evidence that Russia was an enemy of the United States. I think we've done a brilliant job of transforming them into an enemy for decades, but the point is: They didn't study [Russia], they didn't understand what they were dealing with, and they always forgot the salient point--how do you defeat a major power on [its own] doorstep? I mean, we're six or seven thousand miles away, and we plan to wage war? 'Oh, well, we'll use our allies.' Our allies are spineless vassals of the greater American Empire. They have almost no capacity to contribute. They no longer have much to send so the whole idea was there was never a strategy. It was a wish list born in someone's brain--if you want to call it that--in Washington, that bore no resemblance to reality: 'Oh, we've got to win, we've got to win!' It's never going to happen.

Precisely. A wish list born from sheer, raw emotion—the rawest emotion of all: Blind hatred. Hatred that blinded the Neocons to reality, led to action without real strategy. This has always been the Neocons’ guiding emotion. They’ve gotten away with this approach in the past only because of overwhelming US military power projection abilities—sheer destructiveness. I don’t think we want these people doing foreign policy in the future, but how do Americans take back their country?

For an interesting contrast to Neocon hatred, take a look at this transcript of President Putin’s exchanges with wounded Russian soldiers at a military hospital—PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT VLADIMIR PUTIN SAYS. Unlike the hate mongering of the Neocons against Russians and all things Russian, Putin projects calmness and resolve, but also a willingness to recognize that not all in the West are enemies of Russia:

Alexander Dublyanin: Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief,

During the special military operation we are liberating Russian territory. How do you feel about Western countries helping our enemy?

Vladimir Putin: The point is not that they are helping our enemy. They are our enemy. They are solving their own problems with their hands. That is what it is all about. This has been the case for centuries, unfortunately, and continues to be the case today.

Ukraine itself is not our enemy whereas those who want to destroy Russian statehood and to achieve, as they say, a strategic defeat of Russia on the battlefield, are mainly in the West, but still, there are different people there. There are people who sympathise with us and who are with us at heart. But there are the elites who think the existence of Russia (at least in its current state and size) is unacceptable. They want to disintegrate it. As a matter of fact, you are young people, some have read about this, perhaps: they do not hide it. They speak and write about this publicly, and have been doing it for decades, if we are talking about contemporary history. For decades, they have simply been writing frankly about it: divide Russia into five parts, one is too much. I can talk about this till morning, but it is obvious.

Therefore, they have been nurturing the Kiev regime for quite a long time, precisely to create this conflict. Unfortunately for us, they have achieved this: they started this conflict and are trying to achieve their objective, namely the task of fighting Russia, with the help of Ukrainians.

Putin, as so often, expresses the basis of a conservatie society: Fellowship in a common love for a common cultural and historical heritage. Russia is not a “concept country”, as the Neocons would transform America.

And the most important thing we have is, of course, what I have spoken about repeatedly: the unity of our people and society, because there is an understanding of how important the job you are doing on the battlefield is in the armed struggle for our country and our future. That is what’s most important. The point is not that we do not like that they are supplying Ukraine, that’s not the core of the problem. The problem is not with Ukraine, but with those who are trying to destroy Russia using Ukraine. That is the problem. But they will fail: it is simply out of the question, absolutely out of the question.

I think that the realisation is starting to dawn on them, and the rhetoric is changing: those who were talking just yesterday about the need to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia are now looking for the right words on how to quickly end the conflict. We also want to end the conflict, as quickly as possible, but only on our terms. We have no desire to fight endlessly, but we are not going to cede our positions either. You fought there, you were wounded there; are we going to surrender everything now? The cameras are on, otherwise I would make a certain gesture here now; you all know what kind of gesture it is. So, it is not going to happen.

So, what else? Yes, please.

Denis Shamalyuk: Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief,

I am Sergeant Shamalyuk. I have a question. From the very beginning of the special operation, our enemies have been constantly and regularly shelling the territories near the border, killing civilians and children, destroying villages and cities. I have the following question for you. Do you think it is possible and necessary to take tougher measures against the adversary so that the thought does not even cross their minds to commit these atrocities?

Now, note in Putin’s response that he immediately seeks to defuse any desire for simple revenge strikes. What a contrast to the blood lust of the Neocons and Zionists who are directly targeting all Palestinians! Putin directly notes that the US and Ukrainians used “area weapons”, non-selective, non-precision weapons that were sure to kill civilians in the targeted areas. The US is supplying Israel with huge numbers of immensely powerful “area weapons” (2,000 lb. bombs) for use against civilians, to kill them and drive any survivors toward Egypt. It’s sheer terrorism, and Putin rejects that approach. Putin recognizes the humanity of ordinary Ukrainians, unlike the Neocons who do not recognize the humanity of Palestinians.

Vladimir Putin: What has happened in Belgorod is of course a terrorist attack. Why? Because of what they have done under the cover of two missiles – I think it was Olkha: they fired from multiple-launch rocket systems (MLRS). You, as military people, know what MLRS is. This weapon is not selective, it hits areas. This weapon struck right in the centre of the city, where people were walking before the New Year. It was a targeted strike on the civilian population. Of course, this is a terrorist attack; there is no other way to describe it.

Should we respond in kind? Of course, we can hit squares in Kiev or any other city. But Denis, there are children walking there, mothers with strollers. I understand, because I am quite angry, too, but I want to ask you: do we need to do this, target the squares?

Denis Shamalyuk: No, I am not saying that it should [be] against the civilian population, but specifically against military infrastructure…

Vladimir Putin: That is what we are doing.

Denis Shamalyuk: So that they will not be able to come round and respond.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but that is exactly what we are doing. We strike with high-precision weapons at locations where they make decisions, where military personnel and mercenaries gather, at other similar centres, and at military facilities, above all. These blows can really be felt. We will continue to do this. You probably noticed that the very next day after these attacks were carried out. I think they are continuing today, and tomorrow, too.

Do you know why they are doing it? They want to intimidate us and to create some uncertainty within our country. For our part, we will increase the strikes that I have mentioned. Of course, not a single crime like that, and this is certainly a crime against the civilian population, will go unpunished, this is for sure, there can be no doubt.

Now, my final point. Many readers will recognize in the title to this post a reference to Russell Kirk’s most famous book, The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot. The other day there was a review of a new edition of another work by Kirk: The Politics of Prudence. That book addresses the question: What does it mean to be a conservative. Kirk’s answer is: It means to not be an ideologue. My brief explanation of ideology is that it is a belief in a man made order, that a system of concepts can be put together by man that will provide a total understanding of human reality. Liberalism is, in essence, an ideology based on the concept of man as an autonomous individual; Socialism, in its various forms, is an ideology based on man as a collective—not too different from Hobbes’ concept of Leviathin. The two are separate sides of the same coin. You can see in the title (From Burke to Eliot) That Kirk, like Eric Voegelin, saw the ideological approach as characteristic of the modern age.

Conservatism, by contrast, rests on a belief in a divinely created order that man can know only imperfectly—thus, the need to deal with reality prudence, but also with love. Here’s an extended excerpt. Apply it to the above. Who are the ideologues, who are the conservatives? But apply it, too, to American politics:

Russell Kirk Warned That Without Virtue, ‘Democracy’ Is A Dead End Here And Abroad

If Kirk were alive today, he would agree with those who are now critical of the neocons for having abandoned their conservatism in favor of an imperialistic and globalist ideology.

Kirk understood conservatism to be “a disposition of character rather than a collection of reified, abstract political doctrines. It is the rejection of ideology rather than the exercise of it.” …

This understanding may help one realize why conservatism fails as an ideology — because it is not an ideology. As Kirk humorously notes early on in one of the early chapters of this book, conservatives who attempt to ideologize conservatism make the first and most egregious error in understanding conservatism.

If, though, conservatives are united in “a disposition of character” and “rejection of ideology,” what is that “disposition” and what does the “rejection of ideology” entail?

Let us turn first to the character and disposition of the conservative as Kirk defines them. First and foremost, “the conservative finds himself in realm of mystery and wonder, where duty, discipline, and sacrifice are required.”

Second, the conservative accepts that the cosmos is governed by a transcendent moral order. This transcendent moral order serves as the basis of the mystery and wonder of existence, which makes possible the life of love. This disposition of love that guides conservatives is opposed to the modernist view of existence, “an arid and loveless realm” that “is a stage for the ego, with its appetites and self-assertive passions.” 

Against Ideology and Centralized Power

Next, the rejection of ideology is principally opposed to the double threat of “an earthly paradise” and “centralized power,” which motivate totalitarian impulses.

Three of the chapters, originally lectures given by Kirk, illustrate these ideas. First, “The Errors of Ideology” explores the ideologue’s outlook and disastrous policies. The ideologue, Kirk explains, “thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature.” This outlook and ideological construction of politics is what the conservative rejects.

Note this well. It is all too typical of modern American politics that so-called “conservatives” espouse programmatic ideologies for transforming America, rather than character based solutions. Yeah, I get it. Our society is so debased that it’s difficult to even get this conservative approach across to the many who reflexively oppose ideology, but have become distrustful of truth and love themselves.

Second, Kirk’s brief but illuminating reflection on “The Politics of T.S. Eliot” helps the reader understand more fully the conservative disposition. The life and writings of Eliot reveal the conservative’s distrust of “centralized power” in any form, be it under “capitalism” or “socialism” or any other ism. The destruction of ethics and theology by practical utilitarianism has caused the despotism of merciless and heartless politics.

We are told, repeatedly, to keep God and morality out of politics. Yet, as Eliot insisted, society is bound together by common religion and a common ethical outlook. Without the recovery of the ethics of kindness and compassion, rooted in the Christian God, Western society runs to its own destruction under “the cult of the colossal.”

I think Putin gets all this. And perhaps that explains the rabid hatred of Putin on the part of the Neocons. Does Trump get this? In his own way, perhaps. More so than most politicians. Do yourselves a favor and read the entire article.