Observers from center right to left, and including recognized security experts as well as pundits or political intellectuals, are now claiming that the Russian government under Vladimir Putin made war upon the United State of America; that the government and people of the United States, under the presidency of Barack Obama, failed to offer a serious defense; and that we in America as well as friends and allies have suffered an historic defeat.
Here's what the electoral map would look like if only 3-year-olds voted today. pic.twitter.com/j8VPZQ8EGd
— Ryan George (@theryangeorge) November 8, 2016
Late on election night, after the matter and the immediate after-matter had passed, I turned, only a little drunkenly, to the latest episode of Aftermath on my DVR. The production is far from the level of premium TV product like, among newish shows, Quarry and Westworld, but the scenario and its development seem even more timely now than they did before 11/9…
Ironic how Trump apologists, especially certain types of “American Conservative” paleo-cons, self-styled republican constitutionalists, and diverse fellow travelers all the way extending to everyday “Deplorables” drunkenly hurling foul epithets at campaign reporters, have adopted a main strategic rationale of the despised Neocons and Globalists.
Bridget O’Neil directs us to this signature, from a letter written in 2007 to the LA Times by this year’s Republican Party nominee for the Presidency of the United States of America:
The more seriously we take Trump, the less seriously we find ourselves having to take Trump, and the less seriously we take Trump, the more seriously we have to take him.
Rubio’s neoconservatism referenced bygone and imagined new eras of dominance, but Rubio’s campaign and relative to Trump and Christie Rubio himself expressed, embodied, and seemed even to undergo, or perhaps to re-enact, its emasculation.
We cannot say that this firstly and even only emotionally authentic form of conservatism is not a conservatism at all.
This benefit of WP-RUBI is additional to the one of avoiding “the $8,000 mistake” of using unlicensed images, but for some sites will be much more important.
The sacred essence of the American state is not a common topic of discussion, but the state or nation or country itself, or we ourselves, on behalf of itself or on behalf of ourselves, deems or deem it the proper topic in relation to the final questions.
Comments on “Islam is the rock on which the liberal order broke?”
History may instead record that what broke this latest “liberal order” (a typical contradiction in terms), as before and likely again, as inevitably, was the latest liberal order itself. Yet historians may alternatively – or also – someday record that it was liberalism that finally broke Islam or the Islamic Order, and, perhaps, in so doing repaired one or both – though it may always be too early to say so.