Last Friday, long-time radio talk show caller, Jimmy from Brooklyn, called Michael Savage's show to set the host straight on his recent pro-Putin propaganda kick.
Jimmy is talk radio's prolific self-taught expert on the movements of Russian Communist intent. But Savage, defending his view that Putin has the right to take Crimea and then Ukraine because a majority of Crimea suddenly want to be part of Russia and the Ukraine uprising is fueled by neo-cons in conjunction with Neo-Nazis, cut Jimmy off and treated him with unfair and undeserved disrespect.
Savage actually said that, since Jimmy does not have any credentialed education from a reputable University, he has no standing in the matter, and that Savage's new found "expert" from the Alex Jones website has gone to college, so he's smarter than Jimmy.
Talk radio fans, perplexed at how rude Savage was to Jimmy, are beginning to realize that Savage is no conservative, and very well could be actively propagandizing for Russia's Putin.
In a WND commentary early this week, Savage wrote his opinion on how the Ukraine and Crimea and Russia tensions played out, and who the good and bad guys are. He claimed a number of ridiculous assertions that, apparently, only a highly-educated person like himself could understand in that lofty, new-age kinda way.
As an aside, Savage habitually makes fun of people who do not possess college degrees, and though it is, for sure, snobbish to do so, it is also just plain stupid. A child who learns to read and comprehend has the world at his feet. You do not have to have a college degree to learn to disseminate information, what you need is an education of history which teaches lessons of its own, and then you will be able to discern truth from fiction. It seems kind of lazy of Savage to try to suggest that an education by heavily-communistic professors is more acceptable than say, what Abraham Lincoln did: educate himself.
At any rate, the assertions made by Savage are, basically:
- That neo-cons worked with Islamists to try to overthrow the duly-elected Ukrainian president because, without a world at war, neo-cons can't profit,
- That the majority of the Ukrainian people do not want to be accepted into the European Union and would much rather stick with Putin and the pro-Putin President Yanukovich, and
- That the action of the protesters and the West has forced Putin's hand.
This is the same argument that people used against any involvement in the Middle East after 9/11. It belongs in the "America sucks" column of incoherence - that, if America would stay out of military actions overseas, the Islamic fundamentalists wouldn't want to kill us; that the "military/industrial complex" is at fault for our lagging economic woes, not the entitlements or waste.
Though I admit I am losing track of just who a neo-con is, I believe it is basically a person who has been on the political left but moves into the conservative ranks of the strong national defense leg of the stool when the nation, or its interests are threatened militarily. But loud forces on both the left and the right reject all who are for a strong national defense status quo, some claiming that the constitution does not permit a standing army, and if America would simply mind its own within its borders, that we would be kept safe and would be able to spend less on the military.
These same people believe 9/11 was an inside job, and flirt with the notion that Jews are at the center of almost all conflict in the world.
But Savage is not suggesting that Jews are any sort of problem in the Russian events and, in fact, he praises Putin for being good to the Russian Jews, if only those Ukrainian people who don't want to be under the thumb of Putin would just lie down and take what's coming to them.
Under the guise of being more intelligent than everyone else, Savage shows his penchant for being a philosopher king, a Utopian ruler-mentality that is antithetical to conservatism. He also stresses culture as one of his defining philosophic planks, and has been commenting that because of the sheer language and ethnic nature of the people in Crimea and Ukraine, they belong to Russia. It is through these eyes that Savage misinterprets the recent events, along with a simple interest in being contrarian and controversial.
How do I know? Well, I could point to numerous links from both the West and Europe and Russia, but any proof would be sneered at as propaganda, so I will go to what Putin has said in an opinion piece in the New York Times.
"... I would rather disagree with a case he (Obama) made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is 'what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional.' It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
Obama, first of all, doesn't believe in American exceptionalism, otherwise he wouldn't be trying to fundamentally transform the nation. Neither Obama nor Putin are pro-America, but Putin actually said that we are all equal and nobody is special. He said that it is dangerous to foster a feeling of being special, for any reason. Then he uses God to make his point. But, the Judeo/Christian ethic is that we are chosen. We are special. Putin, of course, doesn't believe he is equal to the people of Ukraine, otherwise he wouldn't be seeking to rule over them.
In my view, Obama and Putin are equal, and anyone fighting because they do not wish to live under totalitarian rule is exceptional.
Putin's words are those of a dictator who seeks to rule over others. He is not, as Savage says, "not the villain in this" - he surely is a villain, among many, and his reaches into the American media are stronger now that Savage has legitimized pro-Putin propaganda disguised as conservative talk radio.
The true neo-cons are those who claim the name "conservative," but decry any military involvement around the world, and claim that, because of the existence of American military might, we cause war to happen. And they argue so virulently, it makes you wonder how they can possibly claim to be peaceful.