In my opinion Joe Biden is the most fascist of all U.S. Presidents. A democracy allows much leeway for Presidential behavior concerning foreign policy. An elected President may opt to support or orchestrate conflicts that copiously kill foreigners. The lives of foreigners may have less value to U.S. citizens after taking on the job of President.
Some American Presidents- Jimmy Carter for example were the opposite of fascist. Democrat Presidents following Bill Clinton’s lead in stealing Ukraine from Russia during the interregnum of leadership between Soviet and Russian eras developed a fascist quality land grab approach of land plainly belonging to Russia. Since Joe Biden is the smoothest deflector of responsibility and accountability for U.S. foreign policy that has ever held the office of President little criticism of his policy in Ukraine has been heard. If he is re-elected he may be able to end global warming by getting a day care for democrats bill passed, yet that won’t terminate his mission to fund the Ukraine war.
Some would argue that racial fascism occurred during the settlement of the west when aboriginal Americans were forced off their land and onto reservations though their population was fewer than eight million in the entire are of the present U.S. states. I would say that politics abhors a vacuum of leadership over land and that competition between Spain, England, France and the United States to control American spaces was the equivalent of competition of auto-towing company trucks to reach the scene of a highway accident. If the U.S. government didn’t take the west England, France or Spain would have.
The preponderantly adversarial American aboriginal did not share the characteristics or social structures of those of Europeans or U.S. citizens and were thus necessarily antagonists. In the era of colonization associations like the Masons, religious affiliations and citizenship mattered. Human societies settled differences with war before the rise of Nintendo, Twitter, telephones and jet aircraft.
Joe Biden’s is a story like that of Hannah Arandt’s ‘The Banality of Evil’ where bureaucrat can lead prosecution of policy resulting in mass death; he is basically alone among U.S. Presidents in driving a war to occur against a modern civilized people acting in self-defense to retrieve their ancestral land against a team of Democrat Party lawyers seeking to devour. I believe Joe Biden is too daft to even understand what he has done as a leader.
I think it not a coincidence that Joe Biden claims to be the most union supporting President in U.S. history and acts as a fascist. Adolph Hitler was leader of the German Socialist Workers Party and implicitly pro-union, anti-gun gun ownership and of course fascist. Continuing war on Russia via Ukrainian proxies is fascist. In fact the officers of Ukraine’s army may include the great grandchildren of fascists in Ukraine that fought with the Nazis against Russia during World War Two. The bloody and entirely unnecessary conflict that could be settled any time the Biden administration choose to recognize Russia’s historical ownership of Ukraine and select regions of eastern Ukraine claimed by Russia. To fail to immediately stop the war and build peace on god terms for all parties is virtual insanity so far as U.S. interests are concerned.
The Biden administration is driving a wedge between the west and east economically and encouraging the Eastern block to develop its own center of effort between Russia, China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, India etc. Developing nations looks increasingly to the United States as an hypocritical Neo-fascist power interested mostly in expanded the power of Wall Street and the rich over the entire Earth. The United States is dividing the world at a time with economic unity is required in order to slow the increasingly dangerous pace of global warming and habitat loss stimulating mass species extinction. Rather than uniting the world and evolving directed political evolution to ecological economics the President has brought to life like a Woolly Mammoth from a carcass excavated from Siberian ice a cold then hot war with what he sees as a recrudescent Soviet political power attempting to attack Europe. That outlook is insane. Russia in the Putin era was not any kind of potential attacker of any nations of the west that formerly were not part of Russia before 1917. President Biden would believe that all of the eastern European nations held by Russia after world war two that had been occupied by the Nazis Russia defeated were apples in the eye of President Putin and that is simply not true. Russia returned the East European nations to freedom and independence after a half-century of custodial care until history moved on and they were no longer a fascist threat. The political circumstances since Bill Clinton was President show that was an incorrect judgment and that with the advantage of post-war economic development globally the United States and European nations are a threat to a stable world order and seek through the use of power and apologetics of the broadcast media not to live peacefully with the world without complete hegemony if not legal possession of the planet.
Adolph Hitler didn’t invent fascism; the Italian leader Mussolini did. Hitler simply applied it quite well before the war and lost everything during it with the U.S. and allies fighting from the west and Russia from the east. Joe Biden has forgotten that history and has made the U.S.A. and enabling accomplice in an insane war at great cost in lives, wealth and opportunity. Taking land forcibly, aggressively unless it is a repo of stolen land, is an obsolete political paradigm for increasing wealth. In actual fact it mattered little who owned Eastern Ukraine if there were good relations and low, low taxes if any on business done their. Joe Biden and other recent Democrats have insisted on complete ownership of all of what historically was Russian before the arrival of communism. Combing the worst effects on Russia of Communism and Fascism President Biden is easily the most fascist of all U.S. Presidents on foreign policy.
Apocalyptic themes are quite old in Hollywood. One 1960s movie told the story of survivors of a nuclear war living in Australia spending their last 60 days of life before the radiation and nuclear winter that had already taken the rest of the world population reached them. During the cold war era for decades Americans and Europeans strove to end the danger of nuclear annihilation. Joe Biden has resurrected the threat and I am not grateful for that.
There are reasons for human behavior and political decisions. Some religious end times theology teach that an apocalypse is pre-destined. Some followers of those doctrines believe it good that an apocalypse occur for they will be taken to heaven then. Christians tend to have tow or three interpretations of what the Bible has to say about end times. One may believe that it occurred already in the first century AD. with the destruction of Jerusalem by the world power of the day, others give it a different meaning and believe the apocalypse is in the future. An industry of writing books about the approach of the end times apocalypse have flourished. Muslims share that end times apocalypse point of view with pre-tribulationist Christians. Needless to say competent political management does not support conditions that would hasten the apocalypse even if one believed it would inevitably occur. It is challenging to say what Joe Biden’s end times viewpoint is as a Catholic. The pope recently made a flanking maneuver of China by visiting Mongolia. That was a provocative journey perhaps made with wrong beliefs that the west and himself are emulating the papacy of liberation of John Paul II. In that regard such assumptions would be wrong; misunderstanding the nature of the ending of the cold war as well as the role of John Paul II in ending the Cold War. John Paul II was charismatic and liked, and experienced increased prestige with survival of an assassin’s bullet, like President Reagan. The pair worked together charismatically and effectively, drawn with the Spirit, to end the Cold War helping President Gorbachev with his policy of glasnost and perestroika to merge monolithic communism into Svaboda (freedom capitalism). None of those elements are present today.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most liberating doctrine that mankind has ever received. Brought with military force to subject peoples I believe it less effective in winning hearts and minds. For hundreds of years some people have associated Christian evangelism with military power and state religion. While that has actually occurred in some places Christianity did very well at winning hearts and minds when it was a minority religion and even during persecutions and trials. Corrupt worldly political power begets more corruption rather than liberation although it can be a stimulus to revolution.
I wonder, theologically speaking, if some men believe that if they are responsible for killing a great number of people, or of they can enable others to kill a great number of people as in the Ukraine-Russia war, if they believe they may have a greater place in hell for eternity in the role of chief sadistic devils. Does Joe Biden believe the Pope absolves him of his responsibility for throwing so much fuel onto the Ukraine war?
Maybe the U.S.A. elects to the highest office only those that have sold their soul to the devil (after Ronald Reagan). Perhaps some like Joe Biden have a fizzled brain and cloudy awareness of the concept of God and eternal life and don’t want to publicly say so. Maybe they pretend Christianity and really believe in oblivion after death and don’t want to say that either believing their murderous acts will be as meaningless as cherry blossoms falling from a tree on a cliff into the ocean.
Rather than the west using pressure and intimidation with military power to bring Russia and China into compliance with the social agenda of the Democrat party and the economic power of the world’s one-percenters (in wealth) a cooperative, stable economic and political relationship developed with new ideas and directed capitalism was the preferred alternative and it still issue.
President Clinton’s policy, probably based on ignorance and pressure from England, aborted the conception of a stable Russia with secure borders and long range build up of strong economic ties with the United States and Europe. Democrats have methodically isolated Russia to actual the Clinton-Yeltsin paradigm of Russia as a rump state to be intimidated and co-opted while developing the back door to flank China and pressure it into subject-hood to the west, the Pope and the King of England and other European elites. That sort of approach worked in the 17th century yet today it is a century obsolete.
Russia will become the express land route between West and Eastern Eurasia eventually either with original friendly U.S. ties or adverse ones. The friendly way has far better economic and military stability prospects for the United States. President Zelinsky recently appointed a Crimean Muslim-possible a Tatar from Crimea, to lead his military. Relying on territorial Muslims that want to retake land that the descendants of Genghis Khan took before Russia rolled them back and out of the Crimea more than a quarter of a thousand years ago shows the extreme depths of the lunacy of President Biden in his choice to prop up the Ukrainian government in its proxy war for President Biden and European elites and paranoids against Russia. Maybe Joe Biden expects Mongolians to capture of all Russia since Genghis Khan did make it to within thirty miles of Novgorod during his invasion and occupation of Russia long ago. One can’t be sure of anything about the President’s policy expect that he remembers to keep sending billions and billions to Ukraine because as the Sect. Of State said (a paraphrase); “The implications are great if we don’t”. One may imply anything it might be remembered and it is often meaningless. Reality and the complete complex of compresence is of more importance.
Before ending this essay I will take the opportunity to comment on another theological point that concerns the Pope, his minion President Biden and the European Ukraine conflict with Russia. I stipulate that I am not anti-Catholic. I believe in the separation of church and state though. There are even Protestants that share the Catholic ideal of theocracy however. The theological point of relevance I am addressing is that of the Biblical hermenutic differences (hermeneutics means interpretation of scripture) on the millennium. In brief there are three positions concerning the milenium (pre,post an amillennialism). Catholics are amillennialists with the viewpoint that the Universal Church led by the Pope on Earth is the developing kingdom of God and the millennium is a non-sequitur. The Pope’s assignment as the holder of the keys of St. Peter is to evangelize the world and make it the kingdom of God. Eventually Christ will return and directly rule the kingdom the Pope as shepherded on Earth. It will be remembered though that after receiving the keys Peter three times denied being a follower of Christ, as Christ told him he would. Peter and Popes make mistakes. One of them is in my opinion becoming too secular in evangelizing the world.
The Pope seemed to coordinate his visit to Mongolia to speak to a nation of mostly Buddhists in coordination with the Zelenski promotion of a descendant of the Mongol world ruler Genghis and the Crimean Horde to lead the Army of Ukraine. It presents a curious vision of two would be world rulers 750 years apart planting a flag in Mongolia; one to ride west in conquest and the other drawing catholic faithful east through the obstacle of Russia to Mongolia and overlook China. The affair reeks of politics and promotion of religious conflict in support of a war with Russia to take former Russian land from that Orthodox Christian nation. You may recall that Christians of the east and west; of Byzantium and Rome had a schism lasting far longer than that of the period of dueling Popes of Avignon and Rome.
I believe that every religion has a right to exercise freely their faith and to evangelize should they wish. When religious leaders stimulate religious or racial conflicts in support of secular wars for power and land; even if they believe in an amillenialist theology that it may be there right and duty to do so in a way similar to the Muslim division of the world in to two camps of the Dar al harb and the Dar al Islam, that they have gone too far. It may be the right of God to orchestrate wars if he wishes with divine power yet it is not the right of mankind to do so should they believe they have divine sanction, dispensation or whatever excuse for war they may conceive.
