The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersThe Saker Blogview

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter. This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs. So, today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?

But first, let’s debunk a few myths:

First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don’t like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!
Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.

Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Corporate Pizza chains for wars...
Corporate Pizza chains for wars...

Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the US has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?

In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the US for money.

Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the US) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.

As somebody who has lived in the US for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.

By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.

Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, American Military 
🔊 Listen RSS

We now know a little more about which version of the S-300 family the Russians have delivered to the Syrians: the Russians have converted a number of S-300PM and S-300P2 systems to the export version S-300PMU-2 “Favorit” which, by the way, is also the version Russia delivered to the Iranians and to the Chinese. This system uses the 48N6E2 missile and has an official range of 195km. I will skip the rest of the technical details and just say that this is a recent modification with excellent capabilities, so all the rumors about Russia delivering some antiquated version of the S-300 are now proven false (as usual). In fact, this is not the first time that the Russians have delivered an “Israeli-restraining” air defense system: in 1983 the USSR delivered a number of S-200VE “Vega-E” (SA-5b) air defense systems to Syria which significantly limited Israeli operations over and even around (AWACS) Syria.

Combined with the EW systems also delivered by Russia, these air defense systems clearly are having an impact on US and Israeli operations. And while the Americans are admitting that this is a problem for them, the Israelis, as usual, have both complained about this delivery and boasted that they did not care at all. adding that they would continue to bomb Syria whenever they feel the need. The Israelis have even declared that they would be willing to kill Russian crews if their aircraft are shot at. Except, of course, that so far the Israelis have stayed out of the Syrian skies (keep in mind that according to Israeli sources in 2017 the IDF attacked Syria over 200 times, roughly one attack every 2nd day!).

This time around, not only are the Israelis facing a much more competent air defense system, this system is also highly mobile and therefore much harder to locate, which will greatly complicate future attacks. Furthermore, since one S-300PMU2 battalion can track 300 targets (and engage 36 with 72 missiles simultaneously) at a very long range, the Syrians will now improve their early warning capabilities tremendously, which will make it much harder for the Israelis to successfully conduct surprise attacks against Syria.

Sooner or later, however, we can be pretty confident that both the Israelis and the US will have to try to strike Syria again, if only for PR purposes. In fact, this should not be too difficult for them, here is why:

First, and contrary to what is often claimed, there are not enough S-300/S-400′s in Syria to indeed “lock” all of the Syrian airspace. Yes, the Russians did create a de-facto no-fly zone over Syria, but not one which could withstand a large and determined attack. What the combined Russian and Syrian forces have done so far is to deny some specific segments of the airspace above and around Syria to the AngloZionist aggressors. This means that they can protect some specific, high-value targets. However, as soon as the US/Israelis get a feel for what has been deployed and where, and how this entire integrated air defense network works, they will be able to plan strikes which, while not terribly effective, will be presented by the propaganda machine as a major success for the AngloZionists.

Second, air defense operations are always a game of numbers. Even if you assume that each of the air defense missile has a probability of a kill of 1 (meaning that every air defense missile fired will destroy one incoming missile), you still cannot shoot down more missiles than what your own stores allow you to fire. The US/NATO/CENTCOM can, if needed, engage many more missiles in a saturation attack than the Russians have available for defense. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Third, the US/NATO/CENTCOM/IDF all have advanced EW capabilities which will allow them to try to disrupt the Russian fire and reconnaissance capabilities, especially if low RCS aircraft (such as the F-22, F-35, B-1B, etc.) are used in the attacks. Low-RCS aircraft (and missiles) don’t have to operate alone and, in reality, they are often engaged with the support of a determined EW effort.

Finally, the Empire also has long-range weapons which could be used to strike Syria (such as the AGM-158 JASSM low-RCS standoff air-launched cruise missile), especially during a combined electronic warfare and standoff antiradiation missile attack.

So, all the AngloZionists really need to do is to be very careful in their choice of paths of approach and choice of targets, use low-RCS aircraft and missiles under the cover of a robust EW engagement and then use a large enough number of missiles to give the appearance that the Empire has defeated the Russian and Syrian air defenses.

Judging by their past attacks against Syria, the US and the Israelis are far more concerned with the need to appear very powerful, effective and quasi-invulnerable than by actually achieving some meaningful military objective. Of course, this need to appear invulnerable also means that the AngloZionists really cannot afford to have one of their aircraft shot down, hence their current reluctance to test out the Syrian air defense capabilities.

Sooner or later, however, the Israelis will have to try to “defeat the S-300″ as they would put it.

The problem for the Israelis is that they don’t really have any good options. The problem is not so much a technological one as it is a political one.

Let’s assume that the Israelis conduct a successful strike against a meaningful target (if their attack is symbolic, the Russians and Syrians can just limit their reply to the usual protests and denunciations, but take no real action). What would Russia do? Well, the Russians (Shoigu specifically) have already indicated that, if needed, they would increase the number of S-300 batteries (and required support systems) delivered to Syria. Thus, the main effect of a successful attack on Syria will be to make subsequent attacks even harder to plan and execute. Would that really be a desirable outcome for the Israelis? I don’t think so.

If each successful Israeli strike makes each subsequent strike even harder while increasing the danger for Israeli aircraft, what would be the point of such attacks? Are there any truly high-value targets in Syria whose destruction by the IDF would justify triggering a further degradation of the situation in Syria? Conversely, if you were Syrian (or Iranian), would you not want the Israelis to strike Syria (or even S-300 batteries) hard enough to force the Russians to deliver even more air defense systems (not necessarily S-300s by the way!)?

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Israel, Russia, Syria 
🔊 Listen RSS

Andrei Belousov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, has recently made an important statement which I shall quote in full and then provide a translation.

Original Russian text: “Тут недавно на заседании Соединенные Штаты заявили, что Россия готовится к войне. Да, Россия готовится к войне, я это подтверждаю. Да, мы готовимся защищать нашу родину, нашу территориальную целостность, наши принципы, наших людей. Мы готовимся к такой войне. Но у нас есть серьезные отличия от Соединенных Штатов Америки. И в лингвистическом плане это отличие заключается всего в одном слове, что в русском языке, что в английском языке: Российская Федерация готовится к войне, а Соединенные Штаты Америки готовят войну”

Translation: “Recently at a meeting the United States stated that Russia is preparing for war. Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I can confirm it. Yes, we are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people. We are preparing for such a war. But there is a major difference between us and the United States. Linguistically, this difference is just in one word, in both Russian and English: Russia is preparing for war while the United States is preparing a war” (emphasis added).

We are so used to western diplomats and politicians saying more or less anything and everything (as the joke goes: when do you know that a politician is lying? When his lips move) that many of us stopped paying attention to what is being said. If tomorrow Trump or some “Congressperson” goes on national TV and declares “read my lips – up is down, dry is wet and yes means no” – most of us will just ignore it. The truth is that being exposed to that constant stream of empty, bombastic and always dishonest statements makes most of us immune to verbal warnings, even when they come from non-western political figures.

It is, therefore, crucial to fully realize that Russian official and diplomats carefully measure every word they say and that when they repeat over and over again that Russia is ready for war, they actually and truly mean it!

Of course, there have been those in the West who fully saw this danger and have been warning about it for years, I especially think of Prof. Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts here. And I have been warning about this for four years now, beginning with the article “Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is ready for war” posted on March 1st, 2014, followed by many more articles with the same warning since (see “The Russian response to a double declaration of war” on September 27th, 2014; “Did Russia just “gently” threaten the USA?” on November 12th, 2015; “Debunking popular clichés about modern warfare” on May 19th, 2016; “How Russia is preparing for WWIII” on May 26, 2016; “A Russian warning” on June 1st 2016; “Assessing the Russian Military as an Instrument of Power” on August 25th, 2016; “Progress report on the US-Russian war” on December 1st, 2017; “What price will mankind have to pay for the collapse of the Empire?” on April 13th, 2018; “Each “click” brings us one step closer to the “bang!” on April 20th, 2018). But for all our efforts, we have been “voices crying in the wilderness” which is hardly surprising since even Putin’s blunt warning during his March 1st speech to the Russian Federal Assembly was quickly dismissed as “posturing” and quickly forgotten. This is why two weeks following that historical speech I compared Russia to a peaceful rattlesnake (yes, they are peaceful creatures!) desperately trying to warn a drunk idiot to back-off but to no avail: the drunk idiot just boastfully declares “hold my beer and watch this” and tries to grab the snake. I concluded by saying that:

May, Trump, Macron and Merkel, of course, but also their sycophantic presstitutes and the herds of zombified followers all believe in their invulnerability and superiority. The terrifying truth is that these folks have NO IDEA whom they are dealing with nor do they understand the consequences of pushing Russia too hard. Oh, in theory they do (yeah, yeah, Napoleon, Hitler, we know!). But in their guts, they feel safe, superior and just can’t conceive that they can die, and their entire society can just disappear.

Sadly, since then things have only gotten worse. This is why a clearly disgusted and frustrated Putin recently declared that

“Any aggressor should know that retribution will be inevitable and he will be destroyed. And since we will be the victims of his aggression, we will be going to heaven as martyrs. They will simply croak and won’t even have time to repent,”

Needless to say, the western ziomedia interpreted this warning as a sign of “Russian aggression,” not as a desperate attempt to wake up a delusional and infinitely arrogant Empire.

By the way – something very similar has been happening between the US and China with an increasing number of Chinese officials publicly declaring that the Chinese armed forces need to prepare for war (here is just the latest such warning).

Sadly, the Chinese warnings are as ignored and as dismissed as the Russian ones. And that is truly frightening.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, China, Neocons, Russia 
🔊 Listen RSS

In previous articles about this topic I have tried to set the context and explain why most Orthodox Churches are still used as pawns in purely political machinations and how the most commentators who discuss these issues today are using words and concepts in a totally twisted, secular and non-Christian way (which is about as absurd as discussing medicine while using a vague, misunderstood and generally non-medical terminology). I have also written articles trying to explain how the concept of “Church” is completely misunderstood nowadays and how many Orthodox Churches today have lost their original patristic mindset. Finally, I have tried to show the ancient spiritual roots of modern russophobia and how the AngloZionist Empire might try to save the Ukronazi regime in Kiev by triggering a religious crisis in the Ukraine. It is my hope that these articles will provide a useful context to evaluate and discuss the current crisis between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Moscow Patriarchate.

My intention today is to look at the unfolding crisis from a more “modern” point of view and try to evaluate only what the political and social consequences of the latest developments might be in the short and mid term. I will begin by a short summary.

The current context: a summary

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has taken the official decision to:

  1. Declare that the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to unilaterally grant autocephaly (full independence) to any other Church with no consultations with any the other Orthodox Churches.
  2. Cancel the decision by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysios IV in 1686 transferring the Kiev Metropolia (religious jurisdiction overseen by a Metropolite) to the Moscow Patriarchate (a decision which no Patriarch of Constantinople contested for three centuries!)
  3. Lift the anathema pronounced against the “Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko by the Moscow Patriarchate (in spite of the fact that the only authority which can lift an anathema is the one which pronounced it in the first place)
  4. Recognize as legitimate the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Kiev Patriarchate” which it previously had declared as illegitimate and schismatic.
  5. Grant actual grand full autocephaly to a future (and yet to be defined) “united Ukrainian Orthodox Church”

Most people naturally focus on this last element, but this might be a mistake, because while illegally granting autocephaly to a mix of nationalist pseudo-Churches is most definitely a bad decision, to act like some kind of “Orthodox Pope” and claim rights which only belong to the entire Church is truly a historical mistake. Not only that, but this mistake now forces every Orthodox Christian to either accept this as a fait accompli and submit to the megalomania of the wannabe Ortho-Pope of the Phanar, or to reject such unilateral and totally illegal action or to enter into open opposition. And this is not the first time such a situation has happened in the history of the Church. I will use an historical parallel to make this point.

The historical context:

The Church of Rome and the rest of the Christian world were already on a collision course for several centuries before the famous date of 1054 when Rome broke away from the Christian world. Whereas for centuries Rome had been the most steadfast bastion of resistance against innovations and heresies, the influence of the Franks in the Church of Rome eventually resulted (after numerous zig-zags on this topic) in a truly disastrous decision to add a single world (filioque - “and the son” in Latin) to the Symbol of Faith (the Credo in Latin). What made that decision even worse was the fact that the Pope of Rome also declared that he had the right to impose that addition upon all the other Christian Churches, with no conciliar discussion or approval. It is often said that the issue of the filioque is “obscure” and largely irrelevant, but that is just a reflection of the theological illiteracy of those making such statements as, in reality, the addition of the filioque completely overthrows the most crucial and important Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of Christianity. But what *is* true is that the attempt to unilaterally impose this heresy on the rest of the Christian world was at least as offensive and, really, as sacrilegious as the filioque itself because it undermined the very nature of the Church. Indeed, the Symbol of Faith defines the Church as “catholic” (Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν”) meaning not only “universal” but also “whole” or “all-inclusive”. In ecclesiological terms this “universality” is manifested in two crucial ways:

First, all Churches are equal, there is no Pope, no “historical see” granting any primacy just as all the Apostles of Christ and all Orthodox bishops are also equals; the Head of the Church is Christ Himself, and the Church is His Theadric Body filled with the Holy Spirit. Oh I know, to say that the Holy Spirit fills the Church is considered absolutely ridiculous in our 21st century post-Christian world, but check out these words from the Book of Acts: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (Acts 15:28) which clearly show that the members of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem clearly believed and proclaimed that their decisions were guided by the Holy Spirit. Anyone still believing that will immediately see why the Church needs no “vicar of Christ” or any “earthly representative” to act in Christ’s name during His absence. In fact, Christ Himself clearly told us “lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matt 28:20). If a Church needs a “vicar” – then Christ and the Holy Spirit are clearly not present in that Church. QED.

Second, crucial decisions, decisions which affect the entire Church, are only taken by a Council of the entire Church, not unilaterally by any one man or any one Church. These are really the basics of what could be called “traditional Christian ecclesiology 101” and the blatant violation of this key ecclesiological dogma by the Papacy in 1054 was as much a cause for the historical schism between East and West (really, between Rome and the rest of Christian world) as was the innovation of the filioque itself.

 
The hunt for anti-Semites
🔊 Listen RSS

First, anti-Semites everywhere!

It has been over a year since I wrote an article entitled “A Crash Course on the True Causes of “Anti-Semitism.” I tried to illustrate how the kind of ideology and worldview of what ought to be called Rabbinical Phariseeism but is, alas, usually referred to as “Orthodox Judaism,” results in an inevitable hostile backlash from those whom this ideology and worldview even deny the status of “human being.” Today, I want to do something a little different: look at a political tactic which appears to give Jews a very desirable position but which in reality places them all at risk: the use of the accusation of “anti-Semitism” on practically anybody who dares to be critical of anybody and anything Jewish. The following recent headline on RT was what inspired me to discuss this issue:

Trump accused of anti-Semitism over claim Soros funds ‘elevator screamers.’

I won’t take up space here by quoting the article at length so please check it out on the original RT page. Here is just a short excerpt:

Critics of US President Donald Trump were quick to accuse him of anti-Semitism over a tweet claiming that women accosting senators over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh were paid by liberal billionaire George Soros. “The very rude elevator screamers are paid professionals only looking to make Senators look bad. Don’t fall for it!” Trump tweeted on Friday. “Also, look at all of the professionally made identical signs. Paid for by Soros and others. These are not signs made in the basement from love!” Outrage ensued, obviously. ThinkProgress, the media arm of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress think tank, immediately accused the president of anti-Semitism. A Slate editor chimed in, calling Trump’s words an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.” And a staff writer for The Atlantic called it a “conspiracy theory that a rich Jewish boogeyman is making women claim to have been raped and assaulted.

I have no idea why the RT reporter wrote that outrage ensued “obviously,” but let’s first note that none of those who accuse Trump of anti-Semitism makes any effort to explain why exactly Trump’s words are anti-Semitic.

I know, “anti-Semitism” is a misleading and basically meaningless notion. In this article “What is Antisemitism” Michael Neumann how this already ambiguous and misleading concept became fundamentally meaningless (he concluded his analysis by saying “the real scandal today is not antisemitism but the importance it is given”). I will be using this term only because it is so widely used by Jewish organizations to discredit pretty much all those who dare to express a critical thought.

Think Progress simply tweeted this: “Trump tweets out anti-Semitic conspiracy theory about George Soros.” Here we have a classical double-whammy: anti-Semitism, of course, but also a “conspiracy theory.” We will come back to this conceptual pair.

But first, the basics.

Is there any doubt at all that Soros sponsors all kind of protests in many different countries including the USA?

Let’s check the hyper-politically correct and doubleplusgoodthinking Wikipedia and see what we find there. In the 6th paragraph of the introduction to Soros’ entry, we see the following sentence:

“Soros is a well-known supporter of American progressive and American liberal political causes, to which he dispenses donations through his foundation, the Open Society Foundations.”

Really?! Not only does Wikipedia unambiguously state that Soros is sponsoring various US progressive and liberal causes, but he has also even created a special foundation to do that. Does this entry mean that Wikipedia is also part of an anti-Semitic campaign and is spreading conspiracy theories? Did Trump not say precisely the same thing as Wikipedia when he tweeted about “screamers are paid professionals” and “professionally made identical signs? Paid for by Soros and others”? It sure looks to me that Trump and Wikipedia are saying the exact same thing, yet one gets accused of being anti-Semitic while the other is left in peace. Why? Besides, what Trump said is really something which is common knowledge and which is not even denied by Soros himself. Even better, the “elevator screamers” themselves don’t even deny it either.

And yet, in spite of that, the Daily Beast says that “Trump goes full conspiracy nut” while the Deputy Washington Editor of The New York Times, Jonathan Weisman tweeted that “I’m sorry but the “Soros is paying them” trope from the president of the United States is … wow” and then proceeded to plug his book (((Semitism))) Being Jewish in American in the Age of Trump. That book was enthusiastically endorsed by The Washington Post: (“a passionate call to arms”), the Jewish Book Council: (“Could not be more important or timely”) and the inevitable Bernard-Henri Lévy: (“It would be wonderful if anti-Semitism was a European specialty and stopped at the border with the United States. Alas, this is not the case”).

Wait!

How do you go from “professional elevator screamers” to anti-Semitism?!

Trump says something which is both undeniable and actually undenied, and that somehow makes him a conspiracy nut and an anti-Semite and that, in turn, is supposed to suggest to us that Jews are in great peril in the USA (“call to arms” + “could not be more important”).

Does that make any sense to you at all?!

Trump is accused of being an anti-Semite because he had the nerve to actually openly state an undisputed fact. More specifically, Trump is guilty not just of stating an undisputed fact, but of stating an undisputed fact in reference to a Jew (hence the specific accusation of anti-Semitism and not of some other form of crimethink). But since Wikipedia and Soros himself pretty much say the same thing as Trump, albeit in a more educated way, what is the problem?

Setting aside the fact that Trump has proven to be the best shabbos-goy the Likud ever had (just his move of the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem was an act of truly abject servility to Israel), let’s deconstruct what is really going on here.

I submit that for all the official propaganda, everybody knows that free speech in the AngloZionist Empire is strictly limited: in the European colonies by means of fines and incarceration and in the USA by means of political hysterics. The methods are different (no First Amendment in Europe!) but the goal is the same: to smear, discredit and eventually silence the crimethinkers.

Let us look at two examples:

Next, anti-anti-Semites everywhere

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Media, Anti-Semitism, Jews 
🔊 Listen RSS

This week Russian officials declared that the delivery of S-300s for Syria was completed and that this first batch included 49 pieces of “military equipment”, including radars, control vehicles and four launchers. Russian officials added that, if needed, this figure could be increased to 8-12 launchers. Defense Minister Shoigu added that “the measures we will take will be devoted to ensure 100 percent safety and security of our men in Syria, and we will do this”. This leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

First, it is still unclear which version of the S-300 was delivered to Syria. Some sources say that this might be the S-300PMU2, others mention the S-300VM while, yet other sources speculate that this might be an S-300V4 or its export version the Antey-2500. I will spare you the technical details (those interested can look at the pretty detailed Wikipedia entry here), but it should be noted that until the specific version of the S-300 becomes known it will be very hard to assess the potential impact of this delivery. The original S-300s are by now maybe not obsolete, but most definitely not the bleeding edge of air defense technologies. (The first S-300s entered service with the Soviet military in the late seventies!). But the newest version of the S-300s are very close in capabilities to the S-400 system and thus rank among the most capable air defense systems ever built. For example, a lot has been made from the fact that the Israelis have had many years to study the S-300s delivered to Greece, but what is often overlooked is that the version delivered to Cyprus and which was later re-deployed to Greece was the (relatively outdated) S-300PMU-1. The probability that the Russians would deliver this version to the Syrians is close to zero. However, when I think of Israeli Defense Minister (and bona fide nutcase) Lieberman declaring that “one thing needs to be clear: If someone shoots at our planes, we will destroy them. It doesn’t matter if it’s an S-300 or an S-700” he probably was told by the Israeli military analysts that the S-300 is not that formidable a weapon and missed the fact that they were referring to the older version and not the kind of kit the Russians would be using nowadays.

What is sure is that just four launchers are not very many, but are enough to protect any one specific part of Syria. They will also increase the overall number of Russian/Syrian air defense missiles thus helping to achieve the officially stated goal of ensuring “the 100 percent safety” of the Russian forces in Syria. However, this is certainly not enough to create a complete no-fly zone over the entire country, at least not against a large scale attack.

Still, the Russians already have S-300s (and even S-400) in Syria and 4 more launchers do provide them with some additional firepower, but not any new capabilities. I think the most likely explanation is that the S-300s delivered to the Syrians will protect a few important strategic Syrian targets (Damascus?) while, at the same time, adding firepower to the (rather small) Russian task force in Syria. As for the statement that an additional 4-8 launchers could be delivered, that is both a sign that the Russians want to keep their options open while, at the same time, creating a deliberate ambiguity about how much firepower they actually possess at any one given moment in time.

Second, I will repeat what I said before: S-300s are not what the Syrians need most. In terms of anti-air missiles, what they need most are higher numbers of Pantsirs-S1/2 mobile medium to short range air defense systems. Not only are the Pantsirs ideal to protect against cruise missile strikes, they can also protect the S-300s, which will become a critical issue if the Israelis decide to try to destroy them (which they threatened to do in the past).

What S-300s primarily add to the Syrian capabilities is not so much the ability to intercept more missiles, but the ability to track and engage AWACS and other battle management and reconnaissance aircraft at very long ranges. In theory, an S-300V4 could make it impossible for the Israelis to put up an AWACS at any useful range. The AWACS would either have to remain too far to be of use, or take the huge risk of being shot down by a high speed and very maneuverable missile (S-300V4 missiles have a flight envelope of 400 km at Mach 7.5 or of 350 km at Mach 9!). If the Israelis conclude that the Syrians now have S-300V4′s, they will have to dramatically decrease their air operations in Syria and will switch to tactical (ground to ground) ballistic missiles and long range artillery systems. More S-300s also improve the overall radar coverage and will close some gaps created by the Syrian mountain ranges.

Third, it remains equally unclear, perhaps deliberately, which electronic warfare systems Russia has deployed (or will deploy) in Syria and in what numbers. Possible candidates include the Zhitel R-330Zh electronic intelligence and jamming system, the Borisoglebsk-2 RB-301B electronic warfare weapon system and the Krasukha-4 jamming system. As for the automated command and control system which might be deployed to Syria, my guess is that the Polyana D4M1 would be a prime candidate. Whatever the actual mix will be in the end, I would argue that this presents a more formidable capability than additional S-300 launchers. Sure, this is apples and oranges, but we have to keep in mind that these electronic warfare systems are extremely powerful force-multipliers which can dramatically increase both the Russian and the Syrian defensive capabilities by jamming GPS signals, datalinks, cellphone signals (used for targeting and intelligence), radars, by creating false targets and even by destroying electronics. Electronic warfare is one field in which the Israelis have always enjoyed a huge superiority over their Arab victims and the fact that this has now changed is an extremely distressing development for them, even if they will never admit it.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Russia, Syria 
🔊 Listen RSS

Warning: the following text was written specifically to help Christians make sense of the “hijacked vocabulary” used in the discussion of the current attempts by the Empire to take control of the Orthodox people of the Ukraine. For atheists/agnostics this discussion will offer just some irrelevant and boring mumbo-jumbo with no relevance to the lofty realms of enlightened modern positivism.

Introduction

The latest move by the Anglo-Zionist Empire in the Ukraine is truly an exceptionally ugly and dangerous one: it appears that the Patriarch of Constantinople will soon grant its full independence to the so-called “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate”. This move is openly directed against the current biggest ecclesiastical body in the Ukraine the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate” and it will almost certainly lead to bloodshed and massacres similar to what took place in Odessa on May 2nd 2014: the Ukronazis will use force (riot police or even Nazi death squads) to forcibly seize the churches, cathedrals, monasteries and other buildings and properties currently owned by the Moscow Patriarchate.

There are many articles written about this development, but almost all of them are written from a secular point of view, even when written by supposedly Christian or Orthodox authors. The paradoxical element here is that a lot of theological terms are used by authors who have only a very vague idea of what these terms really mean. I have no desire to enter into this conversation and use the pseudo-spiritual reference framework typically used by such commentators and what I propose to do today is much more modest: I want to explain the original, Christian, meaning of the terms which are (mis-)used on a daily basis.

The reader will then decide how to apply them, or not, to the current crisis.

I will begin by the very basics.

The basics

The term “Christian” can mean one of two things: first, it can designate any person or group calling itself Christian. When used in this sense, the word “Christian” includes not only the all main Christian denominations, but also Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church, the Mormons or even the 17% of British Christians who do not believe in the resurrection of Christ. Basically, in this context the term has no objective meaning whatsoever and this is how the term is mostly used nowadays.

There is also another use of the word “Christian”. This second definition is based on two very ancient statements. The first by Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (4th century) and the second one by Saint Vincent of Lérins (5th century). The first one says that the Christian faith is the faith “which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian“. The second one says that this faith only includes that “which has been believed everywhere, always and by all”. By these definitions, “Christianity” is an objective category not a “free for all”. The key words affirming this are “if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian”. These ancient definition preclude not only any form of dogmatic innovation, they also imply that words can be used either in a truly Christian sense or not. There is no middle-ground here. This belief, which was shared by all the Church Fathers and all the members of the ancient, original, Christian Church has tremendous implications, especially for what is called “ecclesiology”.

The term “ecclesiology” refers to the Christian theology concerning the Church. In other words, the teachings of Christianity about what is, or what is not, the Church (and what is, or is not, within the confines of the Church) is an objective corpus of beliefs, of key tenets, of dogmas.

What I will do next is to explain the meaning of a number of concepts when used in this second, original, context and contrast their original meaning with the basically secular and pseudo-Christian meaning which is so often attributed to them nowadays.

One more thing, for the sake of clarity: I will be writing the word church with a lower case “c” when dealing with a building (as in “the church of Saint Paul in the city’s downtown”) and with a capital “C” when dealing with an ecclesiastical jurisdiction/body (as in the “Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyivan Patriarchate”); in this latter case the use of the word “Church” with a capital “C” will in no way imply any recognition of legitimacy.

1. Canonical, canonicity and “recognized”

Most authors nowadays speak of a “canonical” Church as being a “recognized” Church. This is a circular definition, by the way: a Church is canonical because it is recognized and it is recognized because it is canonical. This begs the obvious question: recognized by whom?! The answer is also obvious: either recognized by the country’s civil/secular authorities or recognized by other “canonical” Churches.

From a truly Christian point of view, this is utterly absurd. Since when do civil/secular powers have the expertise or, for that matter, the authority to recognize or not recognize Church “A” as “canonical” and Church “B” as “non-canonical”?! And what does “canonical” mean anyway?

“Canonical” simply means “in conformity to the Church canons”. As for the word “canon” it is simply the Greek word for “ruler, measure”. Simply put, something is “canonical” when it is in conformity with the dogmas, rules, decrees, definitions and practices proclaimed and adopted by the Christian Church, primarily by means of decisions by the various recognized Church councils (I won’t go into the issue of what constitutes a recognized council since that will take too much time). You could say that something is canonical if it conforms to the the rules of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria and Saint Vincent of Lérins quoted above. This, again, is an objective category which cannot be twisted and turned into a free for all. So let’s look at one such canons and see what it says. The 31st Apostolic Canon decrees that:

If any bishop makes use of the rulers of this world, and by their means obtains to be a bishop of a church, let him be deprived and suspended, and all that communicate with him.

This ruling of the apostles themselves has later been recognized and confirmed during an Ecumenical Council. The 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council says:

“Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: “If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too.”

You see the problem now? How can anybody consider that civil/secular authorities are competent to “recognize” this or that Church as “canonical” when the canons of the Apostles and of a Ecumenical Council (the most authoritative Church Council) specifically state that if a bishop has obtains his “legitimacy” (office, rank, diocese or church properties) from civil/secular authorities he should be deposed, thus making him totally illegitimate? From a canonical point of view, the recognition of civil authorities is not only meaningless, it could, depending on the exact circumstances, constitute grounds for deposition!

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Today Defense Minster Shoigu announced measures which went far beyond what I had hoped for. Specifically, Shoigu has announced that Russia will

  1. Supply S-300 air defense systems (with a 250km range) to the Syrians in the next two weeks.
  2. Russia will deliver advanced automated air defense management systems which will *dramatically* increase the Syrian air defense capabilities and prevent future “friendly fire” incidents.
  3. Russia will use her electronic warfare capabilities to suppress satellite navigation, onboard radar systems and communications of warplanes attacking targets on Syrian territory in the regions over the waters of the Mediterranean Sea bordering with Syria.

This is a very flexible and elegant solution for the following reasons:

  1. It establishes a de facto air exclusion zone over Syria, but not a de jure one. Thus, the Russians will have the flexibility to decide on a nation by nation and aircraft by aircraft basis which aircraft should be suppressed/engaged and which ones to only track and monitor. This will give Russia a very powerful negotiating position with all the actors of this war.
  2. It goes without saying that while these new capabilities will be deployed in Syria in response to the Israeli actions, they will also dramatically boost the Syrian capabilities against any potential aggressors including the USA and US client states. The S-300s will make it possible for the Syrian to detect and even track the Israeli aircraft right after their take-off and while still in Israeli air space.
  3. While the Russians have not indicated which automated air defense management system they plan to deliver to Syria, it is likely that this is one which is typically used to control the engagement of S-300 and Buk air defense systems, the Poliana D-4. The delivery of this system will dramatically increase the air defense capabilities of the Russian task force in Syria making it much harder for Neocon à la Bolton to target Russian forces.

I have to admit that I am surprised by the magnitude and quality of this response. Clearly, the arrogance of the Israelis did not pay off and this time their usual chutzpah was met with a great deal of Russian anger (albeit carefully controlled anger). For Bibi Netanyahu, the Russian reaction is an absolute disaster because it undermines his entire policy towards Syria (and Lebanon and Iran). The Israeli strikes (over 200, of which they bothered to notify Russia in only about 10% of the cases) did not yield any tangible benefit for Israel, but has now fundamentally undermined Israel’s relationship with Russia. As I have said it many times, for all their self-serving propaganda about being so smart, the Israelis are actually pretty incompetent being blinded, as they are, by their quasi infinite arrogance.

However, please keep in mind that in warfare there is no such thing as a magical silver bullet. For one thing, the Israelis will still have the option of attacking targets in Syria (be it by using aircraft, or missiles, including sea based), but the difficulty of successfully executing such an attack will increase by an order of magnitude. The same also goes for the US/NATO/CENTOM/etc. One option would be to go for a saturation attack by using very large number of missiles since the Syrian and Russian capabilities are still limited by numbers: even in an ideal situation (excluding EW capabilities), that is even if the kill ratio of Russian missiles is 1:1, the Russians will only be able to shoot down as many enemy missiles as their supplies allow. The US+Israeli missiles supplies in the region are far bigger.

Second, both the US and Israelis have very sophisticated EW warfare capabilities and rest assured that they will use them if needed. Yes, the Russians are qualitatively ahead of other countries in this field, but one should never under-estimate the capabilities of the bad guys.

Third, the AngloZionists will now do one of three things: either pretend that they don’t care and basically accept the situation on the ground like they did in South Ossetia and Crimea, or try to negotiate some kind of deal with the Russians, or react with hysterical threats and provocation in the hope that the Russians will blink. While we can hope for option #1, we also have to realize that options #2 and #3 are far more likely. In other words, this is far from over.

Finally, this latest news conclusively debunks the notion that Putin is a doormat or sellout and that the Russians are either unable or unwilling to oppose the AngloZionists. All those who have accused Putin of being Israel’s shabboy goy are going to be busy removing eggs from their collective face. The fact that the Russians took their time to analyze what happened and prepare a response was not a symptom of their weakness, but of their responsible behavior in a most dangerous situation. Furthermore, the Russian response also shows that once national security issues are at stake, the Atlantic Integrationist 5th column still has to yield to the Eurasian Sovereignists. This, by itself, is a very good and reassuring development.

Full video of the announcement:

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Israel, Russia, Syria 
🔊 Listen RSS

Yesterday (Sept 19th), I tried to post a short commentary suggesting that before we jump to conclusions about anything, we ought to wait for the fact to come out. But to no avail. The chorus of “Putin is a doormat!!”, “bomb Israel!!” and similar inanities is carrying on, louder than ever. Reading that crazy nonsense, I wanted to toss in a slogan, something like “Jew-haters and Putin-haters – unite!”. But then I realized that it would be futile because they have already united…

My friend Andrei Martyanov has tried to bring some logic and sanity into this pandemonium which I posted here (in spite of not normally doing reposts). Well, at the risk of being called a “gatekeeper” or a “cryto-Zionist”, I have decided to also try once more to bring this discussion into the realm of sanity, facts and logic.

First, let me start by a very simple and primitive question:

Why in the world has nobody considered that the Israelis might have truly screwed-up?

Seriously, I mean it. Unless you belong to the type of folks who believe that the Israelis are exceptionally crafty, smart and quasi infallible (there are such folks amongst both Jew-lovers and, more surprisingly, Jew-haters), this is a legitimate question, no?

What do we know for sure as of right now (Sept 20th)? We know that the Israelis did not give enough warning time to the Russians, which is in direct violation of an agreement between Israel and Russia. Do we know that they did it deliberately? No, we don’t. We really don’t.

Anybody with any military experience will tell you that what is known in the USA as FUBAR, SNAFU

and “cluster****” is something all militaries do on a daily basis. Furthermore, the Israelis have had terrible screw-ups many, many times. Just a summary of all the screw-ups of the famous (and much over-rated) Mossad would take pages and include many outright embarrassing incidents (for a good laugh, just look at the inept Israeli attempt at assassinating Khaled Meshal!). So why is everybody assuming that the Israelis carefully planned the whole thing?

Next, let’s assume that this is simply the typical case of Israeli arrogance (not a myth!) and that they decided to inform the Russians as late as possible. Does that at all entail that the maneuver of the Israeli F-16s pilots to seek cover from the S-200 missile was something they had planned in advance? Does anybody bother to look at the actual (as opposed to Hollywood) record of the Israeli Air Force during past wars when they were actually challenged by a reasonably capable air defense? There is a detailed discussion (in Russian) about this here which can be summarized like this: as soon as the Israelis start losing aircraft their martial prowess rapidly vanishes. Now please recall this: the Israelis have had recent losses, some admitted, some denied, but there is no doubt that they are tense and very concerned. Bottom line: I would fully expect the Israeli pilots to freak out and seek cover as soon as they are told by their warning system that they are being painted by a radar in tracking mode (the S-200 has a semi-active radar homing guidance system). If that is the case, and I am not saying that this is the only possibility, then the fault is of the Israeli pilots, not of their commanders or the Israeli state as a hole. Yes, the command responsibility is the one of the state, but not the guilt for having engaged in such an evasive maneuver (besides, knowing the price placed by Israeli on goyim lives, this would be just so typical, would it not…)

At this point, I need to ask another question: what would the Israelis gain from shooting down the Il-20? They sure ain’t gonna frighten the Russians (Russian military don’t scare easy) and the Il-20 will be replaced. Scaring the Iranians or Hezbollah? Forget it – not happening. Maybe there was a real lucrative target that they destroyed? Yes, maybe, be so far we don’t know anything about this. So what would be the point?

Then the “sister question”: what would the Israelis risk by deliberately shooting down a Russian EW aircraft? Well, in theory, they would risk having their aircraft shot down and their airbases engaged with Russian missiles. That is highly unlikely, I will admit, and the Israelis probably understand the Russians very well (many of them being from Russia). But could they be sure that the local commanders would not order an immediate retaliation (as their current rules of engagement do authorize them to!)? Let me remind everybody that this Spring, the USA was not so sure at all, and following the words of the Russian ambassador that “not only missiles but their launchers would be destroyed” the USN and Air Force decided to shoot as little as possible and from as far as possible. As for the British sub, its captain decided to cancel the planned missile strike entirely (they were being shadowed by two Russian subs). Seems to me that the potential risks of that kind of operation would be pretty high, while the potential rewards rather unclear.

Those who insist that this was a deliberate Israeli act need to come up with a halfway credible explanation not only for how this was done, but also why this was done.

Now, like many others, I despise the Israeli racist, genocidal rogue state with all my heart. But that does not prevent me from being capable of imagining a scenario in which the Israelis simply screwed-up. Believe it or not, but my disgust for Zionist ideology does not at all entail a boundless belief in some Israeli infallibility.

Finally, let look at this: today (Sept 20th) an IDF delegation led by Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Amikam Norkin is in Moscow. Also participating in the trip are the Head of the Foreign Relations Division, Brig.-Gen. Erez Meisel and other officers from the Intelligence, Air Force and Operations Divisions. Does anybody believe that all these officers went to Moscow just to thumb their noses at the Russians? Or maybe they all traveled to Moscow to present some totally non-credible excuses which will only infuriate the Russians further?

My guess is that they have something exculpatory (at least in part) to show.

Putin-haters and Jew-haters (united, of course!) will immediately declare that the Israelis went to Moscow to pressure Putin into not giving in into the (very real) public outrage and calls for retaliatory measures. To this I will very simply reply: rest assured that there is a very powerful pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia which is already putting the maximal amount of pressure on the Kremlin and there is no need at all to send top IDF officials to do that (especially on Yom Kippur!).

This is probably due to my messy writing style, but very often when I say “A” some folks clearly hear “B” (or even “non-A”!), so with them in mind, I will be very very clear and spell it out: I am not saying that the Israelis did not deliberately shoot down the Il-20 and I am not saying that the Israelis are not responsible for the resulting loss of life and equipment.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Russia, Syria 
🔊 Listen RSS

It is pretty clear what took place yesterday night. Even if you don’t read Russian, the following chart released by the Russian Ministry of Defense says it all:

Basically, 4 Israeli aircraft were sent on a bombing mission against targets near the Russian facilities in Khmeimim and Tartus (which, by itself, is both stupid and irresponsible). The Israelis *deliberately* did not warn the Russians until less than a minute before the attack took place, thus the Russians did not have the time to tell the crew of the Il-20 electronic warfare aircraft, which was on approach for a landing, to take evasive action. When the Syrian S-200 fired their missiles to intercept the incoming missiles, the Israelis F-16 used the Il-20, which has a much bigger radar cross section, to hide themselves resulting in the loss of 15 lives and one aircraft.

Typical Israeli “cleverness”.

The Russian MoD placed the full blame on the Israelis and declared that this attack was “dastardly”, the Israeli actions as “hostile” and said that Russia “reserves the right” to respond with “adequate counter-actions”.

This is one of these rare opportunities when there is, I believe, a viable and logical option to respond: tell the Israelis that from now on any of their aircraft approaching anywhere near the Russian forces will be shot down.

Will the Russians do that?

I doubt it. Why? Because of the very powerful pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia.

I am pretty sure that the Russian military would love to take such an measure but, unfortunately, they are limited in their actions by the 5th columnists in the Russian government.

We shall see. If Russia does nothing, it will be interesting to see how those who deny the existence of a pro-Zionist 5th column in Russia will explain this.

PS: the only positive effect from this tragedy is that this will go a long way to trash the image of Israel in the Russian public opinion (which is constantly subjected to pro-Zionist propaganda in much of the Russian media).

UPDATE1: there we go: Putin is already “downgrading” the gravity of what happened. He has just declared thatthe Israeli jet didn’t down our aircraft” and spoke of “tragic circumstances“. True, he did add that the Russians will take measures that “everyone will notice” but I am personally dubious about these “steps”. I hope that I am wrong. We will find out soon.

UPDATE2: I am watching the Russian media and I have to report that Zionist propagandists (Russian liberals and Jewish commentators) look absolutely *terrible*: they are desperately trying to blame everybody (the Syrians, Hezbollah, and even the Russians) except for Israel. This will not sit well with the Russian public.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Israel, Russia, Syria 
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.