Time Gets Serious Again
Good for Time.
Its Person of the Year was Vladimir Putin, who has presided over the economic rebirth of his nation and reasserted Russia's role as a great power.
A first runner-up was Gen. David Petraeus, leader of the "surge" in Iraq that staved off what appeared a U.S. defeat and debacle, and helped revive the Bush presidency. Indeed, the antiwar Congress was arguably the greatest disappointment and biggest loser of 2007.
After its absurd choice last year of "You" as Person of the Year, Time seems to have returned to a tradition begun in 1927, when the first Man of the Year was Charles Lindbergh, the young American who was first to fly the Atlantic alone.
In those years, when Time was required reading for serious men and women, the magazine chronicled, with its annual Man of the Year selection, the seriousness of the times.
In 1932 the choice was FDR, who had just swept to power in the Great Depression. Two years later, as the New Deal was underway, FDR gained seats in both houses and was again Man of the Year.
In 1935, the Man of the Year was Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, whose nation had just been invaded by Benito Mussolini, who sought to erect a New Roman Empire in Africa.
Italy's invasion brought League of Nations sanctions that enraged Mussolini, shattered the British-French-Italian Stresa Front against Nazi Germany, and pushed Il Duce into the arms of Hitler.
In 1936 the Person of the Year was the twice-divorced Mrs. Wallace Warfield Simpson, the future Duchess of Windsor whose affair with and marriage to King Edward VIII forced his abdication. George VI, father of Elizabeth, took the throne.
That was the year Hitler moved his army back into the demilitarized Rhineland, and hosted the Olympic Games.
In 1937, the Man of the Year was China's Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, whose nation was the victim of Japanese aggression in a war that would last eight years and be remembered forever for the Rape of Nanking on Dec. 13, 1937, just before the Time issue came out.
In 1938, Time declined to give the honor to Neville Chamberlain, who had won the plaudits of the world for Munich, but saw clearly the Man of the Year was Hitler. On March 9, Hitler had sent his army into Austria to effect an Anschluss. On Sept. 30 he had bullied Britain and France into informing the Czechs they must give up the Sudetenland to ensure the peace of Europe. Hitler had added 10 million Germans to the Reich without firing a shot.
The 1939 Man of the Year was Stalin. His achievements? The Hitler-Stalin Pact and playing the jackal to Hitler in the rape of Poland, which communists everywhere applauded as they condemned Britain and France for declaring war.
In 1940, Churchill was Man of the Year for the victory in the Battle of Britain—after the debacle in Norway, for which Churchill had been responsible, the fall of France and the evacuation of Dunkirk.
Hitler might well have been chosen a second time that year, for from April through June, he occupied Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Holland, Belgium and France, an accomplishment the Kaiser could not achieve in four years of war from 1914-1918. Stalin matched Hitler, crushing Finland and seizing Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and a lost slice of Rumania. All had been ceded to him in his devil's pact with Hitler.
In 1941, the Man of the Year was, again, FDR. Understandably Time may have been reluctant to name Admiral Yamamoto or Gen. Tojo or Emperor Hirohito, though Japan was on a triumphant rampage in Asia and across the south Pacific after Pearl Harbor.
Stalin, now our heroic ally, was the choice in 1942; Gen. George Marshall in 1943; Gen. Eisenhower in the year of Normandy, 1944; Harry Truman in 1945. That year Harry became president on FDR's death in April, presided over the May surrender of Nazi Germany, met Stalin at Potsdam in July, and dropped atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war in the Pacific in August.
For decades Time maintained the tradition, but, in recent years, appears to have lost its gravitas in a search for sales, an unwillingness to antagonize, and a casting about to catch the trend of the moment.
Will history really record that Peter Uebberoth, who ran the Los Angeles Olympic Games, where Russia was a no-show, was Man of the Year 1984; or Endangered Earth was Person of the Year in 1988; or Dr. David Ho in 1996; or Andy Grove in 1997; or Jeff Bezos in 1999? In 2001, Time went with Rudy, a safe choice, rather than Osama bin Laden or George Bush, who had rallied the nation and taken down the Taliban.
In 2002 it was "The Whistleblowers"; in 2005, Bill and Melinda Gates and Bono; and last year, "You." Time could not bring itself to name Iran's Ahmadinejad as Man of the Year. Too much heat.
As America is headed into serious times, perhaps Time, too, is getting serious again.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
FIAT IUSTITIA NE PEREAT MUNDUS
REISS - 1914
A man Reiss was a Swiss. Swiss national it is - and a Serb by his heart and soul’s take. To say most of the Swiss are Reiss alike would be ... a bit much. Yet, in life and in deeds he tests all at fault.
Reiss came to Serbia in the thick of war: he replied the king’s call. He sees the Polyglot Army’ feat - evil as it was: made the due report to the world, and to the king.
Small country burns. Her folk is on the rope. Fabled force, supreme culture, ... this and that, they fix the bloody toll. A loner in the field observes a great malaise, and a sharp rupture.
At a foot of the hill a meadow sits; tiny spring of water, a pristine church; the duke’s dormitory under the galactic tree, in stark tranquillity. A sole man’s grave sets a mark. Swiss, German, and the Serb: Reiss, rest in peace at that place since nineteen-twenty-nine.
PDJGBP - 2006
Putin presides of a fastly dying white Christian society, one of the lowest birthrates in the West.
When America's Jewish dominated elite won WWII, (European peoples around the world were the losers), they began promoting their "experiment," the multicultural experiment which is simply the genocide of European man and the end of their civilization: promote easy abortion laws, promote radical feminism to keep the birthrate below replacement level, promote a culture that looks for any ruse to flood the West with non-Europeans, and punish those Europeans who object with the labels of neo-Nazi or racist.
Genocide via the multicultural cult.
I could only smile broadly on hearing that Time had named Mr. Putin as Person of the Year; that a patriot and nationalist should be so honored was a pleasure to me. How sad that that no one on the current United States political scene, no one electable anyway, could stand next to Mr. Putin. Next November Americans like ignorant beasts of the tax burden will march off to the polls and waste their vote on a candidate from a field whose members are becoming as distinguishable as genetically engineered corn. Whoever is elected, we continue along the Clinton-Bush course of globalist economic oblivion and cultural suicide. We will continue the loss of our national identity through unchecked, nay even subsidized invasion of our land by cultural inferiors who, coming from a system that makes New Orleans seem honest and efficient, will import their losing ways to US. Already, the US dollar is becoming a joke. Imagine my shock and disgust when, last week, I was looking to purchase some software directly from the MICROSOFT USA website and saw that all products are now quoted IN EUROS!! This is the result of capitalism without patriotism or nationalism to temper greed and avarice.
Mr. Putin MUST be a great thorn in Bush’s side as he stands steadfast against the globalist tide. We see why the Serbs had to pay for daring to defend their land s and culture and faith. It is, I suspect, a reason why the US seemingly would rather support Islamic peoples than Christian states, particularly Orthodox states which are both patriotic and nationalist. Islamics are largely culturally incapable of coherent statehood and, therefore, not as great a threat to Bush’s and the rest of the neo-con’s globalist agenda. The Orthodox, on the other hand, are a constant affront to Globalist absorption.
What irony that after the defeat of Communism it may be Mr. Putin leading a resurgent Russia that stands as a last bastion of European Christian civilization while America loses her soul and identity to globalism. It surely would not be the first time that an Orthodox or Eastern European Catholic state stood in the way of Europe’s demise. From Romania and Serbia in the Middle Ages to Poland in 1920 they have fought the invaders who would destroy their culture, their faith, and national identity. Continue the tradition Mr. Putin. God save Russia!
Heaven willing, next year's "Person of the Year" will be Ron Paul ...
An excellent post, Mr. Kamka.
It should be obvious to all by now that the principal aim of U.S. foreign policy is to impose globalism on the whole world. Nations that don't get with the globalization agenda join our Enemy-of-the-Month club. (Every country with which we've become hostile since the end of the Cold War have been countries that were not signatories of GATT or its successor, the WTO.)
Ironically, Russia has joined the WTO under Putin, but that was under strenuous opposition from the U.S. (The U.S. had no problem with Communist China joining the WTO, even though they are far more hostile to the U.S. than Russia and have a far more repressive regime than Putin's).
"After its absurd choice last year of “You” as Person of the Year, Time seems to have returned to a tradition begun in 1927, when the first Man of the Year was Charles Lindbergh, the young American who was first to fly the Atlantic alone." -Pat Buchanan
I resent that. By "You" I had thought they meant me! ... Perhaps they had caught wind of the generous fact that I'm selling my sperm to sperm banks for women who want to have geniuses without having to meet me (which may be prudent.) ... That way I'll get paid for jerking-off; win-win. ... With the built-in disclaimer of 'of course your own stupidity could foul it up - But don't blame me, we never even met.' This could be the way things are headed - Marriage of the Future? ... Pat, you mean they didn't mean Me last year? Are you kidding?! Or if they did - are you saying it's absurd? Ouch. Me, me Pat, me - that's also my motto in business. Me? Who else? I kid. It's Time to go Christian again... we've gotten off the better path or Way. Yes, go to Christ instead of just 'me' to stand slightly above the lesser and conflicting verities of the world, kids. It's better than just me. Although it has a nice ring to it: 'Me, me, - me.' ... Me.
_________
Ron Paul for Times man of the year 2008, a prediction God willing.
Pappy, I was just about to go into battle w/ you - gladly in behalf of the authentically heroic -
i still will - but now i'm 'thinkin' you're too sweet - ? (you'd better follow me - best for both?) I don't know. Don't scare me.
next you'll be singing - cum'by'Ya - don't get fooled this is america today - it's flakey enough.
we need a pappy counter-balance. you still 'the heavy'? ! or should I be?
cum'by'Ya my lord - no, let's keep it you.
(humor)
Dave Kamka, well said!
I would add that the bombing of Yugoslavia cemented the direction of history by driving Russia into strategic alignment with China. The West has since 1999 lost the battle for oil and mineral resources. The EU will expand up to the Islamic world where multiculturalism will blow up in its face. A titanic shift of world power to Asia is well underway. The only positive spin I can put on this is that if you are interested in history this is one hell of a time to be alive.
On one forum which I from time to time visit, one of the poster whined that Putin was taking Russia on an illiberal course. My retort was that is liberalism was the rule of a drunk, the plundering by an oligarchy, the disintegration of social structures, rebellion in the provinces, bad and evil advice by the Western "experts" and military as well as economic encroachment on all fronts by the West in general and the United States in particular, if that is and was indeed liberalism, then no wonder the Russian people are following Putin away from it!
numbers "6" & "8"
oh, no, here is that homo troll aagain...
George Bush, who had rallied the nation and taken down the Taliban.
Put them out of the government buildings in Kabul perhaps, but they're not gone yet.
Putin is a logical choice if you think about it. Russia has been very fortunate in its last three leaders. Gorbachev didn’t intend to bring down communism, but when he saw that it was unravelling, he didn’t try to stop it. A fight between the ordinary people, who wanted an end to communism, and the corrupt communist elite trying to hang on to their wealth and privileges could have been a very bloody and long drawn-out affair. But with the communists gone, who other than an old-style apparatchik like Yeltsin had the know-how to run the country? Of course the corruption continued, but nobody in Russia knew any other way to run the government and when a communist rump tried to come back, Yeltsin rallied the people to stop them.
Putin is step three. Only the KGB had any experience of the world outside the Soviet Union so an ex-KGB officer was a logical choice. The blind aping of the US under Yeltsin had failed quite simply because Russians are Europeans, not Americans, and European civilisation is radically different. Putin has moved Russia away from the “American way” and back to its natural place as the largest country in Europe. The steady decline of the US since GWB’s election has merely given impetus to that process. Thus, what the US media has presented as “rolling back democracy” is in fact Putin re-aligning Russia on West European norms: appointment, rather than election, of provincial governors, list PR elections rather than the US-imposed system that gave Hamas victory in Palestine, unabashed use of state-owned media to promote the people in power etc. If he becomes prime minister after he steps down as president, it will just be another step in that direction, since parliamentary government by a PM is the European norm.
Why has Putin been smeared? The subjugation of Europe is essential to the Israel Lobby’s policy (at best, cannon fodder, at worst, a staging post for US forces near to Israel) but the end of the cold war has liberated Europe from that subjugation. And since Europe doesn’t buy the propaganda about teeming masses of “Muslims” whose sole purpose in life is to prevent Europeans wishing each other a merry Christmas, what better solution than to fabricate a new cold war? If A wants B to fight C and has failed to manipulate B, then why not try to manipulate C?
Time's choice is not really illogical in world terms.
Well said, Mr Peters! I second Mr Miller's compliment to Mr kamka. I never thought I'd ever say something like this, but my how history causes everything to shift: God save Russia!
The surrender of the Sudetenland to Hitler was only considered a sell out by the old Western Allies - the Brits, the Wilsonians, and the Masons running France. No one east of the Rhine considered it unjust. The fact that it took a Hitler with all his negatives goes to hint at how unjust the post WW1 settlements were.
The big hindrance the Muslims seem to present to the globalists / unitarian-multiculturalilsts is that they have thus far refused to culturally adopt capitalism -- that is, specifically, they refuse to make numerical calculation the first and most important justification of their actions/decisions. As soon as they do, it will be good by Allah and hell on earth for the entire planet.
To DJGB Popa,
I hope you can read this before it is taken down. Editors didn't like that I criticised thew Pope and Stepinac, so I am persona non grata.
It should be noted that Rudolph Archibald Reiss died in obscurity, having been shunned by Belgrade society for criticising war profiteers. Specifically, he criticised Serbia's post-Great War Prime Minister Nikola Pasic who amassed a staggering fortune, as well as his son's extensive scandals. To that Pasic replied: "I offered him money three times [to keep his mouth shut, but he didn't].
Serbia is the same now. Society worships and is run by war profiteers, including those who sold weapons to the enemy, who control much of the economy and polity. The Serb historical obsession with status, power and wealth is again their downfall, but this time the fall will be permanent. This is the penultimate chapter.
A society that brings cognitive dissonance and treason to a high art perishes by its own hand.
Russell Gordon
Belgrade
Lee
Curious that you see Muslims as a hindrance to globalists. I have read much indicating that even Muslims see globalism as compatible with the Prophet's shoemaker faith (i.e., cobbled together to fit his needs). When you think about it, Islam, like globalism, is based on adherence to ideology not blood, culture, faith and a common shared history. Sound familiar? Much like the crowd in America that says that the root of America is an IDEAL, therefore every immigrant wanting the American dream (i.e., money and lots of it) has a right to be here and declare himself an American? Claim loyalty to the Prophet, and there you are, a Muslim, no matter from which nation you may be.
I suspect that the Globalist rather uses Muslims as useful idiots to gain the destruction of nations and cultures, thinking that, in the end, they will pose no threat as they are embarrassingly inept at organized action as a nation. They do serve well as cultural locusts however.
The question is will the idiots turn on the masters? I’m betting they will. Even idiots, in sufficient quantities are a hazard. Practicing Muslims (not the heretics that pass themselves off as "moderates") remind me why we keep guns away from children and mental defectives.
Dave,
I agree that Muslims would like to induct all into the submission brotherhood but that is far different from the invisible hand of greed brotherhood. I would submit that the intractability of problems from North and Saharan Africa through Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan etc to Indonesia, a belt which seems to hold the lion's share of the remaining oil and gas reserves, is giving the globalists fits. Can you imagine Texans behaving like Arabs.
I would think that Andy Grove had more of an effect on the world in his cover year than did Charles Lindbergh, Emperor Selaisse or Mrs Simpson in theirs. Not as showy, perhaps.
Mr Buchanan puts too much stock in politicians. There are more important people in the world.
Putin has an 80% approval rate by his citizens. It is the envy of all U.S. politicians and a warning as well. A nation with a revered leader can accomplish far more than a nation divided.
Vlad Putin is the obvious pick as Man of the Year. He has consolidated political power in Russia. He has addressed Russia's many problems- low birth rates, alcoholism, social degeneracy, an economy run by a small clique since the Yeltsin days- and tried to reform the Russian nation. America should hope he succeeds.
Putin actually cares about putting his nation, Russia, first. You can’t say the same for Bush or any of our phony politicians. Putin’s prescription for his country is not what is appropriate for this nation, but that is because Russians are not Americans and Russians are not capable of a representative republic form of government. It is not in their make-up. However, he is doing exactly what is required in his nation. On the other hand, Bush is actively pushing for the destruction of this nation. Maybe if Emperor Bush cared more about preserving and securing this nation and less about global trade, global "democracy" and global conquest, he would have an 80% approval rating too. Some people are not made for freedom.
Michael Kenny writes:
"And since Europe doesn’t buy the propaganda about teeming masses of 'Muslims' whose sole purpose in life is to prevent Europeans wishing each other a merry Christmas, what better solution than to fabricate a new cold war?"
That Europeans don't buy the "propaganda" means nothing, Mr. Kenny, if the propaganda is basically spot on. European birth rates are what they are. Europe's Muslims are showing no particular willingness to assimilate. And one of the Europeans who is apparently buying the "propaganda" is the Pope, one of the keenest intellects on the Continent. Or didn't Benedict get the memo?
Good to see Putin finally getting credit he deserves. Criticising Putin like media censorship is a joke when the so called independent media is owned by Jewish oligarchs who hate Putin and want to control Russia.
They did the same thing with the Czar, western press constantly hounded him while Jewish bolshevik leaders were bounced around european capitals trying to forment trouble in Russia. When the bolsheviks grabbed power and start killing millions of Russians hardly a word of criticm in the press.
Today mafia boss Boris Berezovsky is touted as being a democratic alternative which is like saying Mayer Lansky would have been a good US president.
Just wondering who owns Serbian press? Does George Soros own any? Do Serbs get real news about Kosovo and unbiased coverage of the former Milosevic trail.
@Dave Kamka
Excellent! I couldn't have believed reading it!
@James
Serbian press/media is owned by the same owners as the American and European one. Soros & co, and we've been exposed to years of media brainwashing.
@Russell Gordon
You are right on spot about most of what you said, including the deficiencies of Serbian "elite" and the consequences of having such an "elite" about what Archibald Reiss warned us almost a century ago.
But you obviously haven't meet the people who don't fit the described yappi. Logically, they are not "the elite", but do exist.
Some Serbs do recognize the importance of Pres. PUtin's rule and his historical significance.
@robert m. peters
I hope you did read my answer to you in the neighbooring thread.
Folks:
Let's be careful about categorizations suggesting a whole people out for no good. There's no need to give the powerful retrogressives an unnecessary talking point that takes attention away from the more real issues out there.
Most Jews aren't neocons and some neocons are non-Jews.
There're a good number of progressive (in the true sense of the definition of progressive) Jews thinking along the lines of some of the core views articulated at Chronicles and Antiwar.com. You don't hear much about them for the same reason(s) that Antiwar.com and Chronicles columnists aren't typically featured in mass media. Get it?
BTW, post-Soviet Rusia has had two known prime ministers of Jewish background. In the 200 plus year history of the US, there're know known Jewish presidents or vice presidents. In the last several years, immigration from Israel to Russia is greater than vice versa.
That's no known.
@Michael Averko
Neoconservatism is a Jewish political movement it was created by Leo Strauss and its senior Neocons are Jewish infact former Trotskyit communists read Prof Kevin MacDonalds work.
Post soviet Russia may of had only two known Jewsh PM's but the media ownership and state assests are owned by Jews which they got through blackmail, murder, etc.
I read an article about 3 years ago about Jewish immagration back to Russia and quoting from the article a doctor who immigrated back to Russia he said "They viewed me more as a Russian than a Jew" complaining that he couldn't advance his career in Israely society.
James:
What you said doesn't negate my prior points:
- Most Jews aren't neocons
- Not all neocons are Jews
Having read Commentary Magazine for decades, I'm well aware of neocon's founding fathers (Podhoretz Sr. and Kristol Sr., among others) and that unlike other political categories (liberal and conservative), all neocons are firm supporters of Israel.
Truth be told, many of the Jews who left the USSR under Jackson-Vanik, weren't so Jewish in background. Jackson-Vanik's makeup made it easiest to leave the USSR if one could successfully claim a Jeiwsh background and persecution because of it. Regarding these points, there was some creativity. I know a pro-Israeli Jewish INS attorney experienced in dealing with this issue. Among others, he agrees with what I'm saying. Jackson-Vanik overlooked that many non-Jews in the USSR had valid reasons for wanting to leave and that when compared to other groups in the USSR, Jews didn't have it so bad vis-a-vis living standards in that country. This doesn't negate or condone bigoted displays of anti-Jewish sentiment which at the time existed (and still exists) worldwide besides the USSR.
Cutting thru the BS, the bottom line is that many leave for the pursuit of better economic standards. This is a core reason why many left the USSR and why many are now returning to Russia.
Remember the scene in Scarface where the Al Pacino character gives his reason to the INS agent for leaving Cuba?
HAPPY NEW YEAR
In the next to last paragprah, I should've said a good number are now returning to Russia, as well as some first time folks who are there for the economic opportunities.