Thursday, March 31, 2022

The World's Evil Factory - Vox Popoli

An Australian senator points out that the global satanists have infiltrated all of the governments of “the free world”:

Australian Senator Alex Antic has warned that the World Economic Forum (WEF) is penetrating governments around the world in an effort to subvert Western values.

The South Australia Senator told the Senate this week that the globalist organisation headed by Klaus Schwab is introducing authoritarianism and Marxist ideology into governments the world over. Antic cited an admission by Schwab, in which the WEF founder claimed to have “penetrated” the Canadian government, among others.

Speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics in 2017, Schwab said: “I know that half of this cabinet, even more than half, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. It’s true in Argentina, it’s true in France. Now with the president who is a young global leader.”

Antic warned the Senate that the well-organised and well-funded WEF, which promotes globalist issues, including climate change, so-called systemic racism and sexism, and online digital identities, is really an anti-capitalist, anti-free market organisation that seeks to subvert Western values and political processes.

“Their message is designed to appear harmless, but in fact, the ideology that underpins it is revolutionary and destructive,” Antic said. “They train aspirational leaders in their ideology and they help them make connections in spheres including politics, business, and the arts.”

The Senator said WEF has consistently advocated for the harshest and most extreme COVID measures that “assault many of our basic liberties,” such as, lockdowns, mandatory vaccinations, vaccine passports, and mask mandates.

And more than anything, the World’s Evil Factory is an anti-Christian, anti-nationalist organization that seeks to heal the world by ruling it in the name of Lucifer. The Orthodox Christians of Russia and the nationalist, corruption-hating pagans of the Communist China are the two chief bulwarks against global satanry, as both nations have freed themselves of the chains that bind what was once known as Christendom.

It’s not about “authoritarianism” or “Marxism”. It’s about global satanism against a) Christianity and b) nationalism.

Those who shriek about “Chi-coms” are as deceived as those who still think “the communist Russkies” are the enemy. Both the 50’s and the 80’s have been inverted due to changes that took place in the 60’s; the USA is not the good guys and neither the Russians nor the Chinese are the bad guys anymore.

To understand who is what, one must look at where the Empire That Never Ended is currently based and who is presently ruling over the West.


I am a Russian Cheerleader, by Andrew Anglin - The Unz Review


I’ve yet to see anyone other than leftists, Jews, neocons, and satanic neo-Nazis actually “Standing with the Ukraine.”

I’ve seen some allegedly “nuanced” takes on the Ukraine intervention. People seem to want to make themselves feel smart by saying “I understand Putin’s motivations, but I’m not going to support either side.” This isn’t really nuanced, it’s just someone who is either milquetoast, or wants to feel like he’s smart because he doesn’t just “automatically take the opposing position.”

I don’t think this is smart at all. It’s the big-brained centrist meme, basically. It’s pretending to be smart by claiming to have some vague higher level of understanding, which is never explicated.

You can have nuanced takes about the current state of Russia and about Putin’s policies. That’s fair enough. I’ve been critical of Russian policy. But a war is a war, where two sides fight each other.

If it is the war in Africa, you can of course say “I don’t care about this at all.” But you can not care because it doesn’t affect your life in any way. The conflict in the Ukraine affects all of our lives, very directly, and will have ramifications that last for decades and centuries.

The basic reality is that you have as clearcut of a good guys vs. bad guys situation as you ever could imagine. The Ukraine, in 2014, was overthrown by the US State Department in a coup. They then started flooding the place with gay sex, feminism, and brown immigration. The Jews took complete control of the government, and funded satanic neo-Nazi gangs to slaughter ethnic Russians.

If that was all isolated, you could say “I don’t really care.” For example, I will on principle say I support the Palestinians against the Jews, but I honestly don’t care very much. The Palestinians aren’t going to eject the Jews, and at this point the battle is over whether a very small number of Palestinians retain a very small part of their former territory. There is nothing really at stake.

I am much more supportive of Syria, a country that is actually serving as a bulwark against Jewish dominance of the region. But you’ll notice that for the most part, the same people who talk constantly about Palestine will also call Assad a “dictator.” In fact, most of the pro-Palestinian groups in America are actually run by Jews, specifically because the issue is basically a meaningless distraction at this point. Unless you’re the kind of person who just likes to sit around feeling sad about things, there is no real greater implications of the Israel-Palestinian conflict anymore. Maybe there were larger implications in the 60s, when the Russians were actively supporting the Palestinians, and they had a lot more land than they do now.

You can say the Palestinians have the moral high-ground, and that they’re being abused, but unless you are the type of person who likes to just sit around feeling sad about things you have no control over, there is not much reason to think about Palestinians much at all.

The Ukraine is a horse of a different color, because this is not simply a situation of Jewish power being inflicted on a group of poor people in a country you’ve never been to. It is the manifestation of a global conflict between two competing world powers, and the outcome will turn the tide of world affairs. This is a defining moment in history, really the defining moment since the end of the USSR. It’s bigger than 911.

If the United States is unseated as the singular global superpower – which may have already happened – that is good for all people on earth. I know that some people still have a difficult time differentiating between the American people, the real America we all know and love, and the American Empire. These things are conflated by the media and government continually, as we are told about “our strategic global interests” which are actually the strategic global interests of a bizarre cult of world domination. But the American government and the empire it runs is a xenocracy (government by aliens) that is just as much at war with the American people as it is with Russia, and the more it stretches itself thin on the world stage, the less capacity it has to force vaccines, trannies, and gynocracy on us domestically.

Russia is not perfect, of course, but it’s getting a lot better. Every metric was trending towards “better” even before this conflict, and now that there is a conflict, things are getting rapidly better. The writer Rolo Slovskiy has written a series about Russia using the conflict to transform into a true autocracy. He argues that all possible governments can be classified as either “autocracy” or “oligarchy,” with democracy being the latter. Oligarchy is a vastly more corrupt form of government, where the people live worse lives and have less freedom than autocracy. This might seem like an oversimplification, but it’s kind of true if you just sit and think about all of the possible forms of government. There are of course shades of gray in all of that, and he argues that Russia had elements of oligarchy which Putin is in the process of abolishing in favor of absolute rule by him.

Xi Jinping did the same thing. China had a system where they were run by a politburo, many of the members of which were connected to organized crime, or big business. It’s easy to see why the West though China was headed towards “opening up,” as that is effectively the exact system we have in America. Even before establishing himself as Emperor, Xi had begun an anti-corruption campaign primarily aimed at redistributing wealth from these oligarchs to the working people in order to strengthen and expand the middle class. That process has been extremely successful, and he is now hands down the single most popular leader on earth, simply because the quality of life of everyone in the country has increased so rapidly and dramatically under his rule.

A government with an autocratic leader with 90+% approval is a lot more stable than an oligarchy with 40-60% approval. A country with social mobility based on merit is much more stable than a government where all of the wealth is in the hands of a tiny minority. An autocratic leader has a reason to gain the support of the people, and no real reason not to. Even if he is corrupt, he is still just one person.

Democracy was a stupid delusion and a mask for the most diabolical people we’ve seen yet.

We are told that “China is an evil autocracy,” but the traditional view of Americans has been that the middle class is the core of society. Now, compare these two graphs:

You can look up that data yourself. I think it’s obvious if you live in America. If you don’t know what has happened in China in terms of wealth redistribution over the last decade, you can go read about it. This isn’t a secret, but it isn’t talked about on television, because it would simply stop making sense why China is evil and American democracy is good.

Point being: Russia is on a path to establish itself, alongside China, as an autocracy. Putin has been banning opposition media, and for whatever reason, the rich Jews of Russia have been sanctioned, even while they have no influence on Putin.

Mikhail Fridman did an interview with Bloomberg earlier this month where he was literally whining that he has no influence on Putin and there is no reason to sanction him.

Putin had already exiled or imprisoned the Jewish oligarchs that were messing with his politics.

I don’t understand why Putin allowed the country to go along with the coronavirus hoax. It was never as insane as the West, and their vaccine was not some crazy gene therapy, but they did go along with this. Maybe it was a last ditch effort to make some kind of overture to the West and avoid this conflict. I’ve put forward other speculations – it’s possible that they saw an economic downturn coming and wanted to blame it on the virus. Much of it was also being enforced by local city and provincial governments, with Putin confirming that no one should be forced to take the vaccine or be discriminated against for not taking it (however, he allowed other people in government and business to do that anyway, or at least didn’t stop them from doing it). But really, I have no idea what was going on there. What I do know is that this is gone now, and I don’t think they are going to bring it back.

Most importantly regarding this difference between autocracy and oligarchy is that an absolute leader wants to maximize his direct support for himself as glorious leader, meaning that just as he supports the middle class, he will rally the central population around their preferred value system, which are always going to be conservative cultural norms. An oligarchy cannot possibly rally people around “a bunch of rich people destroying the middle class to consolidate wealth and power.” Therefore, an oligarchy will necessarily empower disruptive minority groups and attack the culture. Insofar as there is any difference between “Jewish domination” and “oligarchy,” even a theoretical non-Jewish dominated oligarchy would seek to empower minorities and disrupt society with weirdness.

I do not think a “right-wing oligarchy” could function, as a unified people with a well-defined religion and culture would simply organize against it. Just so, a left-wing autocracy would never exist, as unifying the population is always in the interests of a supreme leader.

Xi has now made it a point to reestablish traditional sex roles, going so far as to ban “effeminate male characters” from TV and to organize “masculinity building programs” in all schools. He’s also outright banned feminists from promoting their gibberish. As we know because the West is constantly whining about it, he’s neutralized the Islamic population. He is also moving away from the “Atheism with Chinese characteristics” and towards a new Confucianism. Xi’s books of life advice are Confucian philosophy.

Russia is also going hardcore on traditionalism, rallying people around the church, declaring that although they have minority populations, the core of the society is white Russian culture. The line that they’ve been using, which I love dearly, is “we are more European than Europe.” That is to say, Russia seeks to embody the traditional values that Western Europe has abandoned.

When it comes to the war between East and West, for me, it is simply this: “which side supports child trannies? Because I’m on the side that doesn’t support that.”

Simple as.

Astonishing Reason of the Realignment

Everything that is happening as a result of the Ukraine conflict just seems so well planned by the Russians. They are exploiting every weakness of the West for their own purposes. Every move the West has made has benefited Russia in the long-term and even in the short term, and has enabled Putin to solidify power further.

The sanctions implemented are basically sanctions on the West itself. Again, the West is also sanctioning Russian Jews, who are having their wealth confiscated, and attempting to move it to Israel. That prevents Putin from needing to address the wealth-hoarding by the remaining oligarchs.

All of these businesses shutting down in Russia removes the encroaching Americanization of Russian culture.

The sanctioning of the Russian population as well as the government is causing people to rally around Putin as the leader, given that they all now feel they are being attacked because of their race (because that is exactly what is happening).

Biggest of all, the financial sanctions are going to ultimately result in the dollar no longer being the world reserve currency, which will cause America’s economy to collapse, while Russia is sitting pretty, trading with China, India, and the rest of the non-Western world.

The other part of that is the the Americans have demonstrated to the world that they are unhinged maniacs, willing to violate every single rule that they themselves established, and to use their control over the world economic system to wage what is ostensibly a moral crusade against vague and ethereal ideological spooks.

The US claims to be fighting for “democracy,” but anyone can look at the Ukraine and see that it is run by a Jewish puppet, installed via an illegal Western-back coup, who was given tens of millions of dollars by a Jewish oligarch – the same Jewish oligarch who established these bizarre satanic neo-Nazi death cults that have been waging total war against Russians in the Ukraine for 8 years. Before the Russain invasion, the puppet leader of the Ukraine had shut down all opposition media, and opposition journalists were regularly being assassinated. Now, he’s literally banned all opposition parties from running for office. The Ukrainians are fighting a dirtier war than the Vietcong, consistently using human shields, killing and torturing their own people, and most recently, torturing POWs. I don’t know if this is “democracy” – I guess it is? – but it definitely isn’t freedom or anything anyone on earth would want to promote or aspire to, and you’d have to assume that anyone who would even voice support for lunacy is totally deranged. The idea that you would implode the global economy, destroying the lives of people all of the world – the Americans now admit that their war against Russia is going to cause a global food shortage – in defense of utterly blatant corruption and barbarism is beyond the pale.

Obviously, there is no conceivable excuse for throwing out all of the established norms of the backbone global order, let alone in the name of a moral crusade. But the fact that this moral crusade is being waged in the defense of the single most despicable and absurdly illegitimate government on earth (at least outside of central Africa) just makes it incomprehensible to any observer. Everyone is seeing this and saying “the United States is completely out of control.”

That’s why you have not just China, but India and the Gulf States – the third and forth biggest players on the global stage – slowly backing away from the US and moving towards this new Eastern Bloc. The US government has become a wild beast.

Conversely, Russia may become a light unto the Anglos.

Without any inside information, it appears that Russia knew all of the moves the US was going to make, and understood their implications. Meanwhile, the US did not know the moves they were going to make, let alone their implications.


I support Russia without reservation.

In his high-profile interview on the situation, former president Dmitri Medvedev said that it is only reasonable to allow people to criticize government policy, but that when it comes to war, criticizing the government’s attempts to defend the nation makes you a traitor. He made the comparison to Vladimir Lenin wishing that Russia would lose World War I, as it would make a revolution easier.

I am not Russian, but I think I should follow these same rules. I have had criticisms of Russian policy, although most of those criticisms are no longer valid, because Russian policy is moving so far to the right. But insofar as it is possible to criticize Russia policy unrelated to the conflict with the West, I believe it is fair enough to do so. However, I would not ever criticize them over the conflict with the West, or do anything other than offer my total support.

Speaking of the Palestinians, I said “there’s nothing you can do about it anyway,” and someone might argue that people on the internet aren’t going to have an effect on the Ukraine situation. I would argue this is not true. Right now, the West is attempting to rally itself around the Ukraine. I am going to do everything I can to throw a wrench in that by telling people the truth and helping to get the people who are able to see the truth to push back against this lunatic narrative.

Many European countries are now arresting people for simply voicing support for Russia. Obviously, this matters to them, or they wouldn’t be so blatantly violating their own stated rules in such an egregious way.

This is not just a foreign policy issue – it is a massive domestic crisis. The gas prices, food prices, food shortages, inflation, and all of the other things that the government and media are now telling us we must suffer through to help the Ukrainians are domestic issues. This is very different than sending the military off to kill goat herders in caves, something that didn’t really affect anyone’s life.

A lot of people who post on the internet want to seem intelligent and special by taking arduous pseudo-intellectual stances. I denounce this. If something is simply simple, then it is simply simple.

America and the Ukraine are the bad guys.

Russians are the good guys.

That’s it.

Fighting Time | The Z Blog

 One of the puzzles from the Great War is how the leaders on both sides allowed themselves to get drawn into the war. There are plenty of reasons why each country would want war, including the infamous one that caused a certain Austrian fellow to coin the term “the big lie.” The problem with all of the reasons is they made little sense in light of the obvious costs of war. As a result, the Great War is a great example of how events can tale on a life of their own.

The remarkable thing about that war is that once it settled into trench warfare no one realized the hopelessness of it. One can understand how the initial events would spiral into a global conflict. That is not a new phenomenon. Similarly, you can see how the initial moves in the war made a lot of sense to the leaders on both sides. This was the first industrial war, so they had a lot to learn. New weapons needed new tactics but few people realized that at the start of the war.

The great puzzle of the war is that the sides did not see the hopelessness of the situation once in settled into a stalemate. Both sides were losing tens of thousands of men with each attack, only to gain a few yards of ground. The Battle of the Marne and the subsequent race to the sea made sense. The losses were high, but both sides had hope for quick victory. Two years later the French and Germans lost over a million men at Verdun and the winner got nothing for their trouble.

A century on and we are getting some fresh insight into why the Western leaders in the Great War were incapable of seeing things clearly. The war in Ukraine is proving to be nothing like Western planners imagined. They assumed the Ukrainians would stall the Russians into a stalemate of urban warfare. The world would rally to the sanctions regime and it would quickly be a question of how long the Russians could suffer the economic consequences of the sanctions.

After just one month it is clear this is not happening. The Russians did not fight like the NATO planners imagined. Instead of rushing to Kiev, they pinned the Ukrainian army in the north, using classic maneuver tactics. Meanwhile their main army is systematically destroying the Ukrainian army in the south and east. It also appears the Russians were well prepared for the Ukrainian tactic of digging into urban areas. It is now just a matter of time before the Ukrainian army in the east is lost.

That is just one miscalculation by the West, but it should be concerning. The Russians are not doing anything novel in Ukraine. They are using classic tactics that have been used in Europe since Napoleon. Further, they are following a doctrine they evolved in the Second Chechen war. That was a doctrine Vladimir Putin created as the guy running that war for Russia. It seems that no one in the west bothered to study the man they claim is the new Hitler.

That is only one small part of the miscalculation. The decision to cutoff the Russian central bank appears to have been a massive blunder. The Russians, faced with the threat of their dollar and Euro assets being seized by Western banks have told the West they must pay for goods in rubles. Otherwise, they are forced to send product to the West but not be paid for it. Alternatively, they would have to make concessions in order to get their assets unfrozen by the West.

Why anyone in the West thought this was a good idea is a mystery. It turns out that the Biden administration did not consult with the Federal Reserve. Europe appears to have just followed along without questioning the policy. Now that Russia has countered their move, Europe is in a terrible position. They either support the ruble with massive purchases or they face an imminent shortage of natural gas. That means rationing of energy products could happen as soon as next month.

Of course, the words “shortage” and “rationing” will trigger the natural response, which is hording and price gouging. That will also mean a political response. The German political elite appear to be embracing their inner Marie Antoinette by telling the Germans to wear a sweater as they shiver in the dark. Presumably, they will tell the people to eat bugs when the food shortages hit this summer. Maybe German TV will start celebrating the Turnip Winter as a way to motivate the public.

In fairness, we have to no idea how the Russians and Chinese are viewing this thing as Western media refuses to cover that aspect. We should assume the lack of food riots and social unrest in Russia means they are not teetering on collapse. This was the prediction at the start of this war. The best and brightest in the American managerial elite predicted the Russians would have collapsed by now. They also assumed China would be wavering in their support at this stage.

The point is, we are seeing in real time how supposedly clever political leaders can stagger from one blunder to the next. Unlike the Great War, this war has one side that seems to have updated its thinking since the last century. The Russians are planning for tomorrow, while the West is planning for 1985. The Biden people actually thought his speech in Poland would be his Brandenburg Gate moment. That is the most terrifying event of this crisis so far.

There we see the best parallel to the Great War. The men moving pieces on the board were men of a prior age. They were trying to fight the old wars. Similarly, the political leaders were operating in a 19th century mindset. The trouble was they were armed with 20th century weaponry. Today, the West is led by 20th century men desperate to maintain 20th century arrangements. Their opponent is not Russian, China or the new world order, but the passage of time.

If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!

The Democrats' New 'Latino' Problem: The Ghost of James Monroe By Robert Oscar Lopez

On social media, some disturbing maps have circulated showing the globe in terms of which nations have sanctioned Russia over her invasion of Ukraine.  Bolivian writer Ollie Vargas posted this map, which makes clear that sanctions in Russia are seen as an absolute must in Europe, the English-speaking world, Japan, and South Korea.  Everywhere else, President Biden's requests for economic war against Russia have been rejected.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently claimed that we have "basically crushed" Russia's economy through sanctions, but is this true?  The sanctions can't work in crushing the Russian economy and forcing the ouster of Putin if only a small percentage of the globe is really sanctioning Moscow.  Despite how important the United States and her allies are, Russia still has a huge playing field in which to recover trade.

Domestically, the Democrats have prided themselves on being the party of inclusion.  They spent half a decade convincing all of us that Trump was racist; Republicans were despised white supremacists; and people of color everywhere would embrace the liberal diversity gestures of Walt Disney, the Clinton Global Initiative, Twitter, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and Harvard University.  It seems black, brown, yellow, and otherwise non-white people have told Biden's progressive party to take a hike.

Perhaps they see in Biden everything that the Democrats condemned Trump for; they just happen to think Trump does a better job at being Trump than Biden does.  Trump never tried to bully them into starving their citizens of Russian wheat, petrochemicals, fertilizer, barley, rye, gas, and oil.  Apparently this little detail matters a lot more than rumors that Trump once talked about s-hole countries.

It is hard to interpret events as anything other than a massive blow to American credibility abroad.  Around the world, people sympathize with innocent civilians harmed in Ukraine.  But there's a difference in how people moralize and assign blame.  Europeans, Anglophone nations, Japan, and South Korea take America's claims and promises seriously mostly because their experience with American credibility has been rather helpful.

On the other hand, now would be a good time for all those Critical Race theorists in New York and California to update their antiquated assumptions.  People outside the tidy U.S. sphere of influence don't see the Ukraine invasion as a simple bad/good dichotomy.  Many recognize that the 2014 coup d'état that put the current Ukrainian regime in power as a typical Western intelligence operation, something they can recognize from their own histories.  Therefore, they aren't swayed simply by the idea that Zelensky is naturally the good guy by virtue of being the one holding power before the war started.  A lot of them look at Zelensky and see a puppet, an agent of Western infiltration and subversion, not very different from the countless phonies that the CIA has installed in the four corners of the globe.

Most depressing is the fact that a lot of the world just doesn't believe us.  They don't have a lot of reason to believe us because the Biden administration got caught in quite a few recent lies.  Our reason for taking such keen interest in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine looks suspicious, given how many hotspots exist on the globe, which the United States all but ignores.

Americans think the rest of the world sees a nation leading the charge for freedom, democracy, prosperity, and human kindness.  The rest of the world sees some of that glowing idealism, mixed with a great deal of cynicism and hypocrisy.  It used to be Republicans who didn't want to concede that people abroad had some reason for distrusting the U.S.  Now the Democrats are incapable of considering whether their fascination with green energy, LGBT rights, feminism, race, and Big Tech persuades people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America or just creeps a lot of people out.

Who are the countries that said no?   

That Africa and the Middle East would shrug off Biden's calls is not that surprising, given that the United States has never treated issues in Africa as a high priority.

After the War on Terror, we did not expect Middle Eastern countries to jump on Biden's bandwagon, especially since Biden voted in favor of the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq.

The high-profile refusals of China and India are disconcerting, to say the least, given their enormous populations (together nearly eight times the population of the U.S.) and the prospects that their continued commerce with Russia could create an alternate world economy from which the United States will have effectively exiled herself.

But perhaps the most underreported, and indeed most dangerous defections from U.S. dominance have taken place in Latin America.  Mexico's president hails from the Party of the Democratic Revolution and has been celebrated for being the first truly indigenous leader of the tenth most populous country in the world (close to 130 million people).  You would think a man with such lefty credentials would be positively thrilled to work with a Democrat after four years of Trump...but you would be wrong.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced soon after the imposition of sanctions that Mexico would not partake in them: "We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all the governments in the world."

Let us just say it is less than comforting that we have a 1,900-mile open border with a country that just announced that it wants good relations with a Russian government the U.S. has sworn publicly to crush.

The other powerhouse south of the border is Brazil, where president Bolsonaro is not playing ball with Joe Biden, either.  Besides mocking Zelensky's status as a comedian, Bolsonaro said Brazil needs Russian partnership to support its agribusiness and feed its population of over 200 million people.  As Reuters reported, "[h]e added that he was against any sanctions that could bring negative repercussions for Brazil, citing Russian fertilizers which are crucial for the country's giant agribusiness sector."

Countries with smaller populations are not holding back, either.  President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador loves to needle the United States government on Twitter now that Biden is in office.  In response to calls for a united front against Russia, Bukele wrote: "The real war is not in Ukraine, it's in Canada, Australia, France, Brussels, England, Germany, Italy.  They just want you to look the other way."  Nowadays he seems emboldened to use Bitcoin as an alternate currency despite the United States Congress issuing statements strongly opposed to such a move.  In response to criticisms over currency, Bukele asked on Twitter whether El Salvador deserves "sovereignty" the same way Ukraine does.

In nearby Nicaragua, still led by the now older superstar of Reagan-era geopolitics, Daniel Ortega, that rejection of sanctions is the least of Biden's worries.  Ortega has openly sided with Russia and supports her latest moves, saying: "If Ukraine gets into NATO they will be saying to Russia let's go to war, and that explains why Russia is acting like this.  Russia is simply defending itself."  Recently, Russia's deputy prime minister, Yuri Borisov, visited Venezuela and Cuba, both nations that have ironically survived U.S. sanctions against them, though not without pain.

We could go from Guatemala to Argentina, with each nation having its own flavor and specific angle on the issue.  But the continent is not going to sanction Russia.

That is not good for the United States for a lot of reasons, but for one reason, especially: Joe Biden publicly and aggressively asked all the countries of the world to sanction Russia and make her a pariah state.  By saying no to such an important request, our neighbors have made Biden's America a pariah state instead.

The Monroe Doctrine Comes Back as a Zombie

If it were just Brazil and Mexico, we could blame the right-wing president in the former and/or the left-wing president in the latter.  But everyone seems to hate Biden's America and what it represents in Latin America.  The left will have to grapple with this for years to come.

Democrats and Republicans alike would love to shrug off Latin America's response and say, "Well, who needs them anyway?"  I am not so sure that's a viable position to take.  Our border with Mexico is gaping.  If Biden's recent slip-up ("Putin cannot remain in power") spoke unintentional truth and our secret goal is regime change in Russia, we are looking at a war that will last a long time, in which Russia will defend her home turf against a foreign aggressor.

In the defender role, Russia will probably count on support from China and India.  Our military and intelligence operations are going to be stretched thin.  If the war goes on, we will probably need a draft to staff our military efforts.  We will simply not be able to defend our homeland from Russian and Chinese assets that find their way into the many nations of Latin America.  Put simply, we cannot place ourselves at war with Russia, China, and India, while conducting a sprawling intelligence and covert operation in all of Latin America to keep all those countries out of alliance with Russia and China.  And unlike the Middle East, the Latin American countries live right next to us.

Despite the posturing of the two parties, both Republicans and Democrats have inherited the Monroe Doctrine as their default framework.  On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe gave an address regarding the Latin American republics that had recently gained independence from Spain.  The 1820s was a time of excitement and rapid change in the Americas, especially with the colorful figure of Simón Bolívar in the middle of it all.

Speaking to the spirit of the age, James Monroe balanced conflicting sentiments.  On the one hand, many Americans were delighted that Latin American revolutionaries like Bolívar emulated Washington, Jefferson, and Adams — and indeed patterned their movement after the spirit of '76.  On the other hand, the United States was already almost fifty years old and needed to contend with certain political realities.  The Americans had recently struck a deal with Spain and acquired Florida.  It was in the interests of the United States not to make an enemy of Madrid by allowing the independent republics to sign treaties with Spain's rival, England; the Spaniards, ruled by the same dynasty as the French in the eighteenth century, had sided with the Americans against the British in the Revolutionary War.

Ideology was not so dear that we would pay any price to assist other democracies if it meant endangering our own.  It was one thing to have a far-flung Spanish empire led by weak Bourbon kings to the south of us.  Quite another thing was to have a quarrelsome clan of republics afire with idealism and of questionable stability.  American leaders feared that the volatility of independent Latin America, combined with the meddlesome influence of England, France, Spain, and possibly Russia (then advancing her interests in the Pacific Rim), would make the continent a breeding ground for groups subversive of U.S. interests.

Monroe delivered an address on December 2, 1823, balancing these competing sentiments and baking a policy scheme known as the Monroe Doctrine, which determined American policy in Latin America from Monroe's presidency until the 1990s.  Monroe laid out three principles, which would prove pliable and subject to wildly different interpretations by later presidents who invoked it:

1. The Latin American republics, once freed, were not to be subject to recolonization by any foreign power.  [This essentially grew into the principle that the United States had the right to intervene if Latin American countries entered into treaties with other countries that did not serve our interests.]

2. Any foreign power attempting to exert influence over the Latin American republics would and should be viewed as a hostile action toward the United States and must be addressed as such.  [This grew into the Roosevelt Corollary, allowing the United States to interpret Latin American republics' own pursuit of alliances as de facto acts of war, and grounds for U.S. intervention.]

3. In exchange for the European powers' abstaining from Latin American affairs, the United States would abstain from European disputes.  [This was actually an idea that some Latin Americans liked, because it meant they would be recused from dangerous obligations to hostile combatants outside the hemisphere, but the clause was all but abandoned in the twentieth century as the United States pressured Latin Americans to pick sides in struggles such as the Cold War.]

Through the 1990s, with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Good Neighbor" policies during one limited period of time, U.S. presidents respected the Monroe Doctrine and cited it affirmatively.  In 1947, during the negotiations that led to the formation of the United Nations, the Truman administration cited the Monroe Doctrine as the justification for forming a separate multinational league, the Organization of American States, even naming it in one of the founding articles of the OAS.

Three articles I can recommend if you want an overview of this policy that goes deeper than Wikipedia are listed at the end of this article.  When I do a deep dive into the long history of the Monroe Doctrine, I find an enormous trove of scholarship about it from around the world because it went through several phases, all of which impacted other countries.

Russian scholars, like scholars everywhere, have studied the Monroe Doctrine because it stands out as such an important principle in the development of global politics.  Unfortunately, all the doctrine's clauses look and sound exactly like Russia's rationale for invading Ukraine.  If we try to talk around the parallels or dismiss such comparison as "whataboutism," we aren't going to win friends and influence people.  We just undermine our own credibility and look like hypocritical clowns.  Without the Monroe Doctrine, Los Angeles and Dallas would be part of Mexico.  That's not a small, irrelevant detail.

The list of American interventions into Latin American affairs is long and bloody.  Virtually every nation in Latin America has been subject to invasion or other kinds of domination by the United States.  Not everyone in Latin America harbors a grudge against the United States, but most people in Latin America will not be receptive to the moral argument that they should back the United States against Russia based on principles of international law.  It would be extremely offensive for President Biden even to try to make such an argument.

Aside from the moral argument, the United States has no other argument beyond threats and bullying that a crisis with Russia would leave America too weak to enforce.  No country in the region has any reason to believe that Biden could sanction them for not sanctioning Russia; Biden's hurried overtures to the despised government in Caracas prove that.

Latin America has no military interest in propping up Ukraine's corrupt government and has an enormous economic interest in keeping trade lanes open with Russia and China.

Like Frankenstein's monster coming back to kill the scientist who created him, the pestilent and tattered Monroe Doctrine walks among us again.  Monroe stands vindicated, in one sense: he was right that Latin America's allegiances with foreign powers undermine the United States' political position at home.  The difference between 1823 and 2022 is stark, however.  In 1823, the republics wanted to stay on good terms with the United States and build their countries up as best as they could.  In 2022, they look at America and see her led by someone they don't respect.

The problem for President Biden is that he inherits all the debts and guilt that come with two hundred years of Monroe's doctrine while he possesses none of the strength or political know-how to put it in motion.  That's a problem he may never solve.  The Biden Corollary might simply be to lose everything, everywhere, all the time.


Gilderhus, M. T. (2006). The Monroe Doctrine: Meanings and Implications. Presidential Studies Quarterly36(1), 5–16.

Kasturi, N. (1941). THE MONROE DOCTRINE. The Indian Journal of Political Science3(2), 176–181.

Sessions, Gene A. "THE MULTILATERALIZATION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE: THE RIO TREATY, 1947." World Affairs 136, no. 3 (1973): 259–74.