Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily homophobe Scott Lively is still a self-proclaimed Putin apologist, and the fact that the war Russia started in Ukraine is not going well for Russia isn't stopping him from continuing to be one. Lively began his May 15 column this way:
I haven't seen anyone else offer this opinion, but I believe the flood of illegal immigrants who have been coming over our southern border for the past decade – mostly military-age young men – may actually be intended to serve as cannon-fodder for the now-admitted American-run Ukraine war of attrition against Russia. Their status as non-citizens of the U.S. would allow them to become foreign mercenaries to Ukraine identified only by their country of origin, theoretically preserving the ability of our corrupt elites to plausibly deny that their actions constitute direct U.S. war with Russia (triggering all the serious complications of constitutional and international law that would entail).
These young men would be recruited/conscripted in the U.S., perhaps in conjunction with the threat of deportation/prosecution (in carrot-and-stick fashion), then trained and equipped in the U.S. or Europe alongside native Ukrainian soldiers, but paid by U.S. tax-money laundered through the Ukrainian government in the form of wages. Conversely, we might openly declare war and institute a draft to do pretty much the same thing. (Interestingly, even illegals are legally required to register with Selective Service.)
Is this a plausible theory? The corrupt elites whose minions rule us from their deep-state bunkers in the Defense and State departments of our government love fighting wars with proxy armies. They learned a hard lesson during the Vietnam War that Americans would no longer tolerate forever wars in which large numbers of their own children died for ideological pretexts masking mega-corporate, geopolitical strategies. So proxy wars became necessary to keep the military-industrial complex humming and Anglo-American global hegemony intact.
Lively doesn't seem to consider the possibility that nobody else has offered this particular opinion because it's stupid and has no basis in reality. He then went into pro-Putin mode again:
The Russian Federation, with its hopeful championship of pro-family normalcy and rightness of cause in defending its legitimate national interests in the face of relentless NATO aggression, will not be the salvation of the world but only play its role as global scapegoat in the looming great collapse and great reset. The current, unsustainable partnership of Orthodox Russia with Islamic nations and Communist China would inevitably devolve into conflict, even if it survived World War III intact, which it won't and neither will we. The Antichrist kingdom will be the temporary victor pending Christ's second coming, and all the world will suffer that evil rule together.
Lively seems to have missed the part about NATO being a defensive alliance, not one interested in "aggression."
Lively served up more Ukraine-related conspiracies in his May 22 column:
For years I have been in correspondence with an American ex-pat who shares my respect for Russia. I have appreciated this man for introducing me to information sources outside of the U.S./U.K. media bubble. By having learned about and regularly monitored these sources, I believe I am one of the better informed Americans on the Russian perspectives of the issues.
Unfortunately, this man has become increasingly hostile to Israel over this same period, and particularly scornful toward "Christian Zionists." I've given up trying to reason with him on the matter because he's become ideologically entrenched. Essentially, while I remain simply a truth-seeker anchored by a mature biblical worldview, he has become a "team player" for the Russian Federation, which has responded to NATO aggression/sanctions by building alliances with the Islamic nations and Communist China. Its new worldview is thus laced with coalition-affirming arguments from Islamic and Communist perspectives in the same way U.S. propaganda has traditionally included pro-Saudi themes for the same reason (even after 9/11).
Russia's "marriage-of-convenience" geopolitical partnerships are ultimately incompatible with the Russian Orthodox theology at the core of post-Soviet Russia and will eventually produce schisms, but in the meantime the nascent anti-Semitic inclinations of Orthodox believers (rooted in the doctrine of supersessionism – or "replacement theology" – which it shares with Roman Catholicism and some Protestant denominations), has been rekindled by close relations with the Muslims. That has manifested in a strong and growing anti-Zionist sentiment among both Russian nationalists and Orthodox Christians (even here at home). It is made much worse by blatant anti-Torah perspectives and policies of the Israeli government, symbolically represented recently by its outrageous equation of hostility toward the morally reprobate George Soros with anti-Semitism.
Hey, if people use anti-Semitic tropes to attack Soros, they are going to be credibly accused of anti-Semitism.
The rest of his column was a lot of convoluted explaining of how all this supposedly affects Israel, complete with a claim that ultra-orthodox Israelis "are the true 'Zionists'" and ranting about how "the (Soros-like) Synagogue of Satan that brings in the Antichrist Kingdom right before our eyes."
