Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After a massive pro-Ukraine campaign, right-wing Americanophile journalists are more confused than a prostitute’s son on Father’s Day. On the one hand, they should prefer Trump to Biden because they are right-wing or anti-woke. On the other hand, they should be pro-Ukraine because the Ukraine vs. Russia war actually represents Democracy vs. Dictatorship. Now that Trump has been elected and dumped Zelensky, even the New York Post, responsible for the scoop on Hunter Biden’s laptop, has put a picture of Putin on its cover with the words “This is a dictator.”

The article that corresponded to the title was written by the genocide cheerleader Douglas Murray, a right-wing atheist gay who, like only right-wing atheist gays, flatters Zionist Jews. He has even said that the lives of Jews are worth more than those of Christians and Muslims – I hope they are worth more than those of pedantic atheists too. The article says the same old thing: it portrays Putin as Hitler, who is expanding Russian territory out of pure evil and, if no one stops him, will conquer all of Europe. Hitler, as we know, is the secular Satan of the 20th century. So first there is the imperative to stop him because he is the height of evil, and only then is a practical consideration suggested (preventing Putin from reaching his home). It is, therefore, a deeply moralistic discourse.

Now, atheism, which claims to be based on skepticism, must be quite economical in adopting moral imperatives. For example: if we believe that the great sacred texts of monotheism do not contain any transcendent morality, then we have no reason to adhere to dietary taboos. It makes no sense for an atheist to make a fuss because someone ate a nice steak on Good Friday. However, it is possible to defend a more generalist morality based on the intrinsic necessity of the social order. For example: if we believe that there is no problem in stealing from our neighbors, no one will want us around. This is the hypothetical example of the society of thieves in the Republic: in order to maintain a society, even thieves need to be ethical with their colleagues, even if they are far from being virtuous. It makes sense for an atheist to be outraged by theft. At least on a social level (rather than a personal level), it is not true that, if God does not exist, everything is permitted. The Chinese can attest to that.

With the Age of Discovery and, later, with cultural anthropology, it was possible to compare peoples in search of universal characteristics in cultures. Given this, two opposing perspectives can be adopted: either Providence gave man a kind of natural morality, derived from feelings and the use of reason, or a basic morality is the result of natural selection, so that some antisocial relatives of Homo sapiens sapiens may have fallen by the wayside.

Hitler’s extermination policy undermines this basic or natural morality, especially if we consider that people of Jewish blood (unlike gypsies, for example) were a highly assimilated part of German society. The idea of ​​making your doctor work like a starving slave until he dies and killing children who could study with your children is naturally horrifying, before being theologically reprehensible. It makes sense for an atheist to be shocked by Hitler and transform him into a secular Satan.

Very well: what did Putin do to be the Satan of the 21st century? Hitler was not the Satan of the 20th century because he annexed the Sudetenland, nor because he was a dictator (among many in the 20th century). Hitler was the Satan of the 20th century because of the Holocaust. As any well-informed person knows (a category that unfortunately excludes devotees of Saint Zelensky), the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine, since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014, was under the care of a State that had incorporated an anti-Russian neo-Nazi paramilitary battalion (the Azov Battalion) into the Army. Thus, even if we do not know of any sophisticated plan to eliminate the Russian minority, we can certainly consider that there is a humanitarian justification for the Russian invasion of this Ukrainian territory. Or do we have to consider that the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland, perpetrated after Hitler’s defeat, was a good thing? What if Austria were stronger than Germany and said to Hitler: “Enough with deporting Jews and gypsies. You can stop the euthanasia program, too. Otherwise, I will annex Germany!” For me, that would be fine. Because using my reason, I conclude that the State must serve the preservation of human life, and my hypothetical Austrian State would be a better State than that of Nazi Germany.

The idea that one should never start a war by invading a country is not at all self-evident. So much so that, in the 2000s, the excuse of chemical weapons was invented to justify the invasion of Iraq, even though the U.S. was miles away. And remember, chemical weapons do not have the same impact as biological weapons: if the fight against the coronavirus justified so many anomalies, what would the U.S. do if it believed that Mexico was developing biological weapons on its border? Would mere economic sanctions solve the problem? Why didn’t they solve the problem with Iraq? This shows that the problem is not that Putin invaded Ukraine, but rather the fact that a president who is not from the U.S. invaded a country with a claim that is not supported by the infamous “rules-based international order”. Let’s face it, being outraged by this is as specific as being outraged by a steak on Good Friday. The difference is that a Catholic knows that his outrage is based on a religion and is not naturally self-evident, since it involves a revelation.

And if Putin is a dictator, why should that be as outrageous as Auschwitz? The first great dictator in history was not Hitler, it was Julius Caesar. The Roman Empire was not Nazi Germany, and its moral legacy is celebrated by any reasonable person. If the Russian people have a dictator instead of a president elected according to criteria that satisfy Americanophiles, I do not see why the rest of humanity should be outraged. That is their problem. If we want to make comparisons with Nazism, it is more reasonable to be outraged by Canadian democracy, which continues to expand its euthanasia program. What kind of morality is this that rejects Nazism but accepts euthanasia, as long as it is endorsed by democratic institutions? So the moral standard is the formalism of a given system of government, not this basic morality common to humanity.

In view of all this, one can only conclude that Americanism is not a mere product of Protestantism in the United States. It is, and continues to be, a religion that even atheists adhere to without realizing it. Worse still: it is a state religion that people all over the world adhere to. The cult of the United States and democratic formalism is based on the Calvinists’ Manifest Destiny, and it is good that anyone who does not openly profess it should reconsider their beliefs.