Throughout the founding of America there has always been one philosophy that truly defined American liberty. That philosophy is the right for a country to determine its own rules, to be represented by what their nation wants. And why wouldn’t they believe that considering America fought for independence precisely because they did not want to be represented by a foreign country who insisted their laws were better for them.
Indeed for the founding fathers the idea of trade and working together with other nations was a much better idea than forcing their ideology on others. Thomas Jefferson despised the idea of meddling with Europe in any way aside from commerce.
But all of that changed after the World Wars and the emergence of Woodrow Wilson, arguably the founding father of globalism. He advocated for an emerging centralized global focus point in both the economy and politics in order to achieve world peace and his ideas became more widespread through the neoconservative movement, the cold war era and post-9/11 frustrations. Suddenly it became patriotic to advocate for America to be the world’s policeman, to escalate conflict wherever it may be necessary.
However since then neoconservative foreign policy has been utterly discredited wherever it stuck its nose. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, wherever the US interfered the country didn’t get better for it. Libya in particular has been a horrifying case where it once was at worst a stable dictatorship and now has become a chaotic wasteland with a booming slave market.
But now some neocons are trying to re-brand themselves as this libertarian univeralist group fighting against an emerging nationalist world order and ever since Donald Trump has been elected they’ve been targeting their old enemy Russia and its president Vladimir Putin.
Not Saudi Arabia who’s the global sponsor of Sunni Jihadism, not Iran where gay people are hung from cranes, not North Korea who’s concentration camps make Auschwitz look like summer camp. No, Russia is the real enemy.
One of the foremost critics of Russia is the Russian-born freelance journalist Cathy Young who definitely holds a very pro-USA, pro-NATO perspective towards Russia. And in spite of her claim of me being a “Putin shill” I have never actually said anything praiseworthy or flattering about him, aside from the fact that his party is a lesser evil compared to a lot of extremist opposition groups like the Communist Party.
Yet from Cathy Young you’ll frequently hear accusations of someone being a Putin defender for merely taking a neutral non-interventionist stance against him. And she often uses her position among beltway libertarian groups to promote her pro-war tendencies like how she wrote an article called “Russia’s Global Anti-Libertarian Crusade” which is set to be the cover story of Reason Magazine’s August/September 2017 issue.
But before we go into the article it’s first better to understand Cathy Young’s views. She’s a self-proclaimed univeralist which is the idea that liberal values are universal values that should be spread abroad, she believes that if the USA doesn’t force these values on other countries worldwide then it’ll great a vacuum for rival countries to spread their influence. She has openly defended the vile war crimes that has turned Iraq into complete ruins and she considers herself anti-anti-Bush.
You can see pretty clearly that on foreign policy she takes a staunch pro-war position consistently and is very annoyed by the fact that most libertarians and more recently most people on the right are skeptical of interventionism, nation building and globalism. Hence why she insists on trying to portray this giant conspiracy of global Putinist new nationalism.
In her article she promotes Hillary Clinton’s Vast Right-wing Conspiracy idea. That Russia is secretly funding and influencing political parties in the west to counter the USA, NATO and the EU and that this threatens libertarianism.
She claims that there’s a secret cabal of political operatives, Kremlin ties and Russian banks that help out these proxy parties from right-wing populists to far-right ultranationalists and even far-left socialist groups. She even goes as far as quoting someone who claims Russia pays internet trolls to promote these parties.
Of course what do all of these parties have in common? Well according to Cathy it’s because Putin is positioning itself as a defender of traditionalism, and while some extreme right-wingers do praise Putin for that it doesn’t explain why far-left pro-Islam groups would ally themselves with Russia. No what they have in common is that they oppose western imperialism and globalism. They dislike the undemocratic institutions of the EU, NATO poking its nose in every single conflict, the destruction of national sovereignty.
But in Cathy’s mind merely criticizing these ideas are equal to promoting Putin. Hence why she can claim anti-war libertarians like Ron Paul or myself promote pro-Russian sentiments despite never having praised Russia or Putin.
Ironically she insists that anti-war libertarians believe in the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” but that is exactly the mindset that Cathy is holding when allying with neoconservative war criminals like Bill Kristol in her anti-Russian crusade.
Of course she provides no evidence whatsoever for this worldwide Putinist conspiracy like a journalist ought to be doing, she just insists it exists. Of course you can make any wild conspiracies about one group funding another group when you create a long enough web of people and associates. But the fact is that groups with common causes does not equal a conspiracy of people aiming for the same goal.
Take Garry Kasparov, the chess master who’s stances on Russia are very much in line with Cathy. In his efforts to fight against Putin he has joined a group called The Other Russia. This group is a coalition of many groups including vile far-left and far-right extremist organizations like the National Bolshevik Party and the Stalinist group Vanguard of Red Youth.
And unlike the European parties who may have loose ties with some Russian related figures at best Garry Kasparov is in an open alliance with these groups. So by Cathy’s logic if parties resisting NATO and the EU are a secret ploy by Putin does that mean that Garry’s opposition against Putin is a ploy to turn Russia into a Bolshevik dictatorship again? Can’t you see the shoddy logic behind claims like this?
Now is the resistance against western globalism something that Putin would find beneficial? Well yeah. After all NATO has been antagonizing Russia really hard for decades now by placing their forces near their borders and even strategically putting nuclear weapons in a country on the brink of devolving into Islamism. But even in the worst case scenario that Putin thinks that the resistance against western globalism could help him set up an authoritarian order that really would not be an argument for regime change or western globalism just like groups such as the National Bolsheviks would not be an argument for never criticizing Putin.
So what exactly are Cathy’s solutions in promoting western globalism over Putinist globalism?
– Economic sanctions on Russia. Which is ironically a very protectionist measure that goes in total conflict with libertarianism. Sanctions don’t do anything to a country but starve its civilians even more. As seen with the sanctions in Iraq that cost almost half a million children their lives.
– Western organizations funding and allying with organizations in Russia and Eastern Europe to spread their beliefs. Which is exactly the type of political intervention that Cathy criticizes Putin of doing
– Private organizations and media countering fake news and Russian influence instead of just the government. Which I would argue is something both sides could need
– Not overestimating Russia’s influence. I agree with this and it’s precisely why I’m just not concerned with all these insane conspiracies and resistance against Russia. Even if they wanted to create a global Putinist order the country is just in a weak position economically and militarily to do that.
Overall I think the efforts of countering Russia through globalist efforts are equal to using the forces of the FBI to stop someone from downloading an illegal movie copy. These counter measures will do far more to promote authoritarianism in the west than Russia would even dream of doing. Euroskeptic, anti-NATO and anti-globalist movements thrive regardless of how expansive Russia’s influence would be.
As for me, if I were Russian I would oppose Putin’s leadership. But I’m Dutch, my focus lies on resisting the expansion of the European Union and mass third world immigration. I want my country to leave other cultures alone and I want those cultures to leave mine alone. And strangely enough I’ve yet to meet any Russian man paying me for that.
Criticize the idea of anti-liberal authoritarianism spreading all you want. But you can do that without becoming the very thing you hate.