Is Russia Really our Enemy?

6 Comments

1. Your article is elegantly written but dangerously naive.

   The romanticization of Russia as “Holy Rus’” might sound noble, but when you wrap a modern authoritarian state in medieval vestments, you’re not promoting spiritual insight, you’re enabling propaganda. The Russian Federation is not a sacred heir to Byzantium; it is a nuclear-armed autocracy that weaponizes religion to justify war, crush dissent, and consolidate power. That’s not Orthodoxy, it’s imperial mythmaking.

   Let’s be clear:

   Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was not an act of religious duty. It was a geopolitical land grab wrapped in quasi-messianic rhetoric.

   Putin’s regime has co-opted Orthodoxy as a state tool, not a moral compass. When the Church becomes the mouthpiece of a kleptocracy, it ceases to be a spiritual refuge and becomes a political bludgeon.

   You frame criticism of Russia as a media-driven misunderstanding of its spiritual values. But the West isn’t hostile because of Orthodoxy, it’s hostile because of tanks, assassinations, cyberwarfare, and propaganda campaigns. Moral disgust isn’t Russophobia, it’s a reaction to real atrocities.

   And no, we don’t need to pretend that Russia’s baptism in 988 AD gives it special moral status today. The Roman Empire was also baptized. That didn’t stop it from crucifying dissidents and collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.

   Finally, invoking Scripture to excuse or obfuscate tyranny is the oldest trick in the book, literally. We’ve seen every empire from Constantinople to the Confederacy pull that same stunt. God doesn’t need another Caesar.

   If you’re genuinely interested in spiritual identity, then the real question isn’t “Is Russia our enemy?”, it’s “What happens when faith becomes the handmaid of power?” And in Russia’s case, the answer is already burning across the Ukrainian countryside.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply

2. While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.

   The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.

   Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.

   The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.

   Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).

   Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.

   During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.

   Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.

   Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.

   Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.

   Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.

   Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.

   Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.

   This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.

   Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.

   Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.

   Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”

   Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.

   Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.

   The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.

   Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.

   Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.

   Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.

   The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.

   The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.

   The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.

   The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).

   While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.

   The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

   The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.

   The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”

   The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. Thank you for this insightful post, Samson. I appreciate the historical background you’ve brought to the conversation, particularly regarding the spiritual legacy of Holy Rus’ and the enduring influence of Orthodoxy in Russian identity.

   That said, I do think we need to be careful not to equivocate. There is Russia the country (as a geopolitical actor), Russia the culture, and Russia the people—and these are not the same. Russia as a state, especially under its current leadership, has positioned itself in clear opposition to many of the interests and values of the United States and its allies. In that sense, it is fair to say that Russia the nation-state is acting as an enemy. But that doesn’t mean the Russian people, or even Russian culture, are our enemies. Many of them, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ, long for peace and truth just as we do.

   From an eternal perspective, all nations—including both Russia and the United States—are destined to fall. Only Christ’s Kingdom will endure. That Kingdom includes believers from every tribe, tongue, and nation—yes, even from Russia. So while the country may be an adversary in temporal terms, faithful Christians within it are our family in Christ.

   Still, I’m deeply concerned by the way Patriarch Kirill and the Russian Orthodox Church have aligned themselves with the nationalist aims of the state. When religion becomes too cozy with political power, history shows the result is often corruption and compromise. That’s rarely been to the Church’s benefit. But, as your post beautifully hints, God has always preserved His remnant—through Mongol invasions, tsarist ambition, and Soviet repression. He will continue to do so.

   May His Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Well said! I agree for the most part. The point is for perspective. People often start to hate the nation’s people because of the leadership.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      Reply

4. Human society not flat, nor a טיפש פשט mythology.

   The zionist experiment of democracy faces some criticism by Jews such as myself who favor restoration of a Torah constitutional Republic which mandates a lateral Sanhedrin common law courts to regulate all laws passed by Jerusalem and the state legislatures of the 12 Tribes. Imposing Judicial Legislative Review upon Sanhedrin common law courtrooms with the Mandated Constitutional power to conduct trials which judge Capital Crimes offenses, and impose 4 different types of death penalties, dependent upon the nature of the Capital crimes committed. And equally vital and important דיוק inference to judging Capital Crimes Cases: To judge the leadership responsible for Federal and State governments; based through evidence of laws bureaucratically imposed by government authority officials — viewed through the lenses of prophetic משנה תורה-Legislative Review.

   The prioritization of lateral common law Sanhedrin courtrooms over institutional machinery of governance, which directly includes government leadership positions within these institutions of government, this essential clause defines, separates, and make unique Jewish political science. Faith: the Torah defines as justice justice pursue; a direct reference to lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms having the mandate of ‘Legislative Review’ over all governments – Jerusalem or any tribal/state legislature.

   Democracy or democratic institutions not part of the Jewish cultural traditions. Democratic mob rule, a Greek idea and not a Jewish cultural concept. Leaders “anointed” under the pre-condition that they will faithfully pursue justice as the rule of law. As in all Human endeavors, the humanity of Man, the ideal and the practical realities – a wide gap separates the two. When a leader sufficiently abuses his leadership mandate a prophet, representative of the Sanhedrin Court, impeaches that leader and replaces him with another. The stories in the Book of Judges and Samuel and Kings, which pits, for example: Shaul against David, serve as precedent models which separate Ordered societies from chaotic societies collapsing into a state of anarchy.

   Imposition of some grand Cathedral, Soloman Temple – like institutions comparable the newest Federal Reserve building in the US, the graphic porn of pork graft in government that has no shame – within any given civilization. Institutions compare to people that bow down and worship idols. Buildings of wood and stone do not promise efficient good governance. Public expenditure of taxes to build such grand structures of Egoism, they serve witness to a stratification of aristocratic feudal Lord/peasant economic anarchy; which imposes wealth and justifies ‘might make right’ judicial injustice, oppression, theft, and even taboo incest or murder.

   Contrast the IDF with its direct linkage with power projection through Foreign Policy. Ideally Foreign Policy plays second fiddle to domestic Home Rule. But often the nature of the Humanity of Man, Foreign Policies prioritized over Domestic Policies. This Yatzir Ha’Rah, once more its power seduction dominates the dynamic “ideal vs actual”; this gap separates the vision of governance from the cruel reality – that all men sit and crap on toilets, and it stinks. The Human potential NEVER achieves the Human ideal messiah.

   NT mythology no different than Homer’s Iliad, and Odyssey. Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days. Aeschylus’s The Orestia. Sophocles Oedipus Rus. Euripides Medea etc etc these Greek myth stories, they compare to how Xtians worship their silly sophomoric bible translations which depict a messiah savior that rises from the judicial oppression grave and saves all Humanity — despite the Caesar Son of Gods – the personification of Hercules/JeZeus in flesh, blood & History.

   The fly in this ever so sweet ointment, myths do not actually make and determine history. As history does not shape and determine modern life today in any society in all the annuls of Humans living on this Earth. Worshipping history as God the exact same idolatry as worshipping Shlomo’s or Herod’s Temples made of wood and stone. Institutionalized buildings, no matter the cost of their construction does not and never has produced the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Genocide, a profane taboo word, commonly raped pillaged and burned among people who abhor the Israeli response to the Oct 7th 2023 massacre. Genocide in this context, amounts to Holocaust denial. A word meant to prevent another Shoah has been weaponized to accuse Jews of committing the very crime inflicted upon them.

      Genocide — a word forged in the ashes of the Shoah — has become a profane taboo, violated, cheapened, and weaponized by those who abhor Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th 2023 massacre. In this context, the accusation is not merely false; it amounts to Holocaust denial. A term meant to prevent another genocide is now hurled against the Jewish state in a grotesque inversion of history: the victims accused of the crime that nearly annihilated them.

      This version of the Xtian Church infamous blood libel. Manufactured and disseminated by the UN, EU bureaucrats, Moscow, Beijing, and the media conglomerates that sell “genocide headlines” the way pornography sells clicks. Genocide sells. Justice does not. And so, the word violently and brutally raped and pillaged for political theatre rather than applied with legal integrity. Genocide occurs when those in power worship power itself, not justice. But no one dares question the motives of the institutions promoting this Blood Libel slander. Why? Because the same leaders, together with their institutions, have grown dependent on the “Jewish problem” narrative to justify their own existence.

      Never once has anyone questioned the agenda of an organization that promotes this “Blood Libel Slander” made against Israel. Israel did not sign the Rome Agreement which established the International Court of the Hague. In point of fact, NEVER AGAIN, as PM Begin expressly communicated to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, means that Israelis post the European “Final Solution” will ever again permit, specifically European Goyim States, to dictate their “SOLUTION” to “THE JEWISH PROPLEM”. Israel rejects the idea that: (1) Jews exist again a ward of Europe. (2) Jewish sovereignty pre-conditional to UN approval. (3) Jewish self-defense is subject to foreign veto. Thus, the ICC’s attempted jurisdiction is a political fiction—an extension of the pre-1948 mindset that Jews do not have independent standing among nations. The ICC’s claim of jurisdiction over Israel: a fiction built on an older fiction. This accusation of “genocide” guilt imposed by Press decree upon Israel, simply the old paternalism in a new legal wrapper of classic South African Apartheid racism.

      The accusation of “genocide” against Israel after Oct. 7, a form of modernized Holocaust denial — a mutation of the classic European blood libel — and the UN’s usage of the term reveals a long-standing imperial contempt for Jewish sovereignty. The UN never had moral universality. It functioned from birth as a colonial power-balancing instrument, and its treatment of Israel, merely the most concentrated exposure of its original design flaws. Where medieval Xtendom accused Jews of murdering Xtian children, the modern UN-Leftist coalition accuses Jews of murdering Palestinian children.

      The replacement theology converts the UN as the new Ersatz-Xtianity. The idea of a secularized form of Xtianity that rejects the theological trappings of the Gospel narrative, but retains dogmatic moral and ethical frameworks associated with Papal Rome. This concept often manifests in political contexts, where political ideologies adopt seemingly Xtian ethical principles, like for an example: a just war, without engaging theological ‘Good News’ yet promoting the new religion of democracy.

      The UN originally set up to prevent another Shoah. Clearly the UN has failed its mandate and MUST disband. What does the UN have to do with the Xtian “Genocide” in Nigeria? Or Pol Pot, or Idi[ot] Amin? The UN promotes platitudes rather than pursues justice. The UN today totally not recognizable to the UN of 1948. Pursuit of power and political coalitions of State international alliances has completely uprooted the founding Charter. The UN systematically ignores or minimizes actual genocide, mass slaughter, and mass enslavement when politically inconvenient. The UN protects authoritarian regimes with bloc voting. The Human Rights Council institutionalizes political scapegoating. UN Bloc voting by authoritarian states has turned this pie in the sky replacement of Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations into a political marketplace where justice get bought and sold on the illegal white women, and child-slave trade-markets.

      Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President; championed the idea of a global peace organization. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights; pivotal in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister; advocated for collective security and cooperation. Joseph Stalin – Soviet Dictator primarily responsible for the Allied victory over the Nazis; boycotted the UN Chapter VII dictate to North Korea. Charles de Gaulle – not included at the Yalta Conference, French Resistance leader; crucial in representing defeated France’s interests post-WWII wherein France sat as a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council. De Gaulle as a statesman, succeeded in asserting France’s interests in the aftermath of World War II. Harry S. Truman, U.S. President after FDR; supported the formation and principles of the UN which negated the Constitutional Right of Congress to Declare War.

      The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, was a pivotal meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and the establishment of international cooperation through the United Nations. Their responses varied significantly, reflecting their distinct national interests and ideologies. Stalin showed a positive attitude towards Roosevelt’s proposal for a new international organization aimed at maintaining peace. He recognized the need for a framework to manage post-war tensions and prevent conflicts. These men who built the UN, represent colonial empires, racial hierarchies, colonial interests, and military blocs.

      Stalin insisted that the new organization must include mechanisms that recognized the Soviet Union’s status as a major power. He wanted assurances that Soviet interests and security concerns, particularly in Eastern Europe, would be addressed. While agreeing to the formation of the United Nations, Stalin was adamant about establishing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, emphasizing a security buffer to protect the Soviet Union from future aggression. Clearly the Democratic Party leadership attempt to increase the NATO alliance to include these same Eastern European countries into the NATO alliance, specifically the Ukraine, no UN Resolution has ever condemned.

      Churchill was more cautious regarding Stalin’s intentions. He was supportive of the idea of a United Nations but harbored concerns about Soviet expansionism and the balance of power in Europe. Churchill advocated for a United Nations that emphasized democratic principles and human rights. He urged for a system that would prevent the imposition of totalitarian regimes, especially in nations liberated from Nazi occupation. Yet the UN promotes Arab dictatorships, specifically Palestinian Arab dictatorships, precisely following the Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis. Churchill wrote the first White Paper, this man focused his interests over British domination upon any new balance of power political arrangement.

      Stalin’s enthusiasm for the concept of the United Nations demonstrated a strategic acknowledgment of the necessity for international governance. This was essential for managing tensions after the war. His insistence on recognizing the Soviet Union’s status as a major power was non-negotiable. The establishment of a security buffer in Eastern Europe was paramount for him, as it aligned with the Soviet doctrine of protecting its borders from perceived threats. Stalin’s strategy foreshadowed the post-war division of Europe. His desire for influence in Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for future Cold War dynamics, where conflicting ideologies and interests between the USSR and Western nations would lead to tension.

      Mali announced the expulsion of French troops, effectively ending an French economic or military domination. In similar fashion the governments of Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Senegal, & Côte d’Ivoire. The UN never once condemned French neocolonialism. The rise of alternative global partnerships, particularly with nations like China and Russia, has provided Sahelian countries with options to diversify their diplomatic and economic relationships. The UN never condemned Western neocolonial economic structured dominance which favored French interests over African development. Independent Sahelian countries, no thanks to the UN, have started to forge new alliances that prioritize their interests rather than continuing to rely on traditional colonial ties. African sovereignty and control over national resources the UN never recognized.

      Jan Christian Smuts, a prominent South African statesman and military leader, had a contentious and complex relationship with Mahatma Gandhi. While they both played influential roles in early 20th-century India and South Africa, their interactions were often marked by significant ideological differences and personal animosity. Smuts held a more conservative viewpoint, often prioritizing colonial interests and the maintenance of order within the British Empire.

      One major point of contention was the implementation of discriminatory pass laws targeting Indians in South Africa. Gandhi actively opposed these laws through protests, while Smuts supported the laws as a means of maintaining control. During discussions about Indian representation in South African politics, Smuts was seen as obstructive, further fueling Gandhi’s disdain for him.

      Reports suggest that Smuts had a personal dislike for Gandhi, viewing him as a radical undermining British authority in South Africa. This animosity was reflected in their public exchanges and political opposition. Despite their differences, Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa remains a significant historical contribution, overshadowing Smuts’ position at that time. Today, Smuts is often critiqued for his stances, which contributed to systemic discrimination, while Gandhi is celebrated for his non-violent approach to achieving social justice. The relationship between Jan Christian Smuts and Mahatma Gandhi exemplifies the broader tensions of colonial politics, with personal ideologies and ambitions clashing in a critical period of history. Their interactions serve as a lens through which the complexities of resistance against colonial rule can be understood.

      Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister played a significant role in the establishment of the United Nations (UN). Nehru was a strong proponent of internationalism and believed in the necessity of a global organization to foster peace and cooperation among nations. His vision was largely influenced by the horrors of World War II and the need to prevent future conflicts. Nehru actively participated in key discussions that shaped the UN’s formation. He was part of the Indian delegation at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where the UN Charter was drafted.

      His contributions emphasized the importance of decolonization and civil rights. Nehru advocated for the inclusion of human rights in the UN framework. As a leader from a newly independent nation, he championed the cause of oppressed peoples, aiming for a UN that would not only prevent wars but also promote social justice. Nehru’s commitment to the UN and its principles laid a foundation for India’s active participation in UN affairs, which has continued to influence its foreign policy. His advocacy for peace, cooperation, and justice remains a part of India’s global identity today.

      In 1975 the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned the Augusto Pinochet regime for its widespread human rights violations, including torture and political repression. The resolution called attention to reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearance of political opponents, and the overall lack of civil liberties in Chile under Pinochet’s dictatorship. The Augusto Pinochet regime immediately eclipsed the socialist influence of Hernán Santa Cruz.

      Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department and a key figure in the founding meetings of the United Nations. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former communist and journalist, accused Hiss of being a communist spy and of passing classified documents to the Soviet Union. In 1950, Hiss was tried for perjury and was convicted, serving several years in prison. While Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, serving as a crucial part of the U.S. delegation at the founding conference in 1945, his legacy became overshadowed by the espionage allegations. Historians often debate the extent of his guilt, with some arguing that he was falsely accused.

      The Weaponization of “Genocide”, the UN has perverted into a political cudgel, detached from its historical meaning. Its use against Israel, framed as a form of Holocaust denial and “blood libel.” Israel’s Sovereignty Post-Holocaust — “Never Again” means Israel will not allow external powers—especially European states—to dictate Jewish survival, our international borders or our Capital City. Israel’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute, presented as a rejection of foreign-imposed “solutions” which presume Israel remains a Protectorate Territory of the UN or post WWII European Courts of international law.

      The UN was created to prevent another Shoah, but instead it promotes platitudes and power politics. Examples: ignoring atrocities in Nigeria, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and French neocolonialism in Africa. A UN which continually remains worse than simply silent about its founding premise: preventing unilateral security expansions that could trigger world conflict. A UN which “claims” to defend human rights, built partly by men who defend racially stratified empires.

      Selective Condemnations, the UN condemned Pinochet’s Chile but ignored French neocolonialism in Africa. UN resolutions often reflect political convenience rather than consistent justice. The Smuts vs. Gandhi conflict illistrates how the UN’s silence on neocolonial structures in Africa echoes the impact of Colonial legacies.

      Alger Hiss’s role in founding the UN is overshadowed by espionage accusations, symbolizing the organization’s compromised legacy, matched only by the grossly perverted number of UN condemnations made against Israel. The UN has always had compromised foundations, and those cracks have widened into fissures today.

      The UN never morally coherent. It stands exposed as a truce between competing empires wrapped in universal language. The same Human Rights Commission built by men like Smuts and Santa Cruz now functions as a propaganda bureau for authoritarian regimes. And the same UN founded with Alger Hiss — now shadowed by espionage accusations — continues to operate with layers of clandestine influence.

      The weaponization of “genocide”, an old psychological warfare guilt trip, on par with “He died for you”. It continues the old European narative: The Jew as the world’s chief problem. Where once Jews were accused of poisoning wells, today we are accused of poisoning Gaza. Where once Jews were accused of blood crimes, today we are accused of genocide. A system built on the ashes of the Holocaust now recycles Holocaust denial under the guise of human rights.

      Why Smuts? Why Gandhi? Why Pinochet? Why the Sahel? Why Nehru? These leaders and countries both tyrants and saints influenced the establishment of the UN, its the failed ‘dream vision’ which ignores the eternal conflict conducted between Power vs. Justice. All the prophets of the T’NaCH pitted justice against avoda zara – the Human worship of power as God.

      Israel never signed the Rome Statute. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction unless Israel consents which fundamentally profanes the post Shoah sworn oath “NEVER AGAIN”. The ICC’s maneuver relies on the fiction that “Palestine” is a state with standing. British Palestine, established by the League of Nations based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917 ceased to exist when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence and named the new country Israel in 1948.

      Only in 1964 did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name of Palestine as central to his PLO Charter. That charter did not view Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza as occupied territory. It limited the phrase “Occupied Territory” only to ’48 Israel. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc all political blood libel frauds. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism – rejects the Balfour Declaration which fathered the Palestine Mandate of 1921.

      LikeLike

      Reply