Friday, May 14, 2021

bionic mosquito: According to the Flesh

  Ephesians 6: 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

It is growing ever more evident that this is the battle confronting us today, or maybe it is only that I am growing more aware of it.  The last year, certainly, between the reaction to a virus and the reaction to the mobs and the (let's call these) irregularities in the election, has made this overwhelmingly clear.

It is also clear that these principalities and powers are not limited to some sort of invisible spirits, but inhabit real flesh-and-blood humans.  This, of course, we have seen often in history.  But it was always “those guys,” in the communist or fascist countries, in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, or the leaders of the so-called “Axis of Evil.”  Never the leaders of the so-called free world.

I have been thinking about the reaction to events of the last year by many Christian leaders.  A few have been quite courageous – a recent example is the very strong Canadian Pastor Artur Pawlowski; there are others.  Some churches have quietly remained open, with few, if any, restrictions placed on those who wish to worship.  These examples appear to be found primarily, if not solely, in churches unaffiliated or very loosely affiliated with a larger institution.

Most have followed, lock-step, with whatever the local, state, or federal authorities allow.  Remember, this included cancelling Holy Week last year.  Had these institutions stood on their faith and calling, the story of 2020 and 2021 would have been quite different.  Instead, they cowed under the call of these principalities and powers, the rulers of darkness of this world.


“But, according to Romans 13, we must obey those in authority.”  The damage done to both Christians and to freedom by accepting this monstrous understanding of the text is significant.  Understanding that “higher powers,” or “superior powers,” inherently means government is a road certain to lead to both physical and spiritual death.

1 John 4: 1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

I will not further develop my thoughts in this post.  I have done so several times before, most recently here.


Ephesians 5: 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them

There are numerous passages in the Bible about seeking wisdom and truth.  I think these two verses speak best within the context of this post.  Much of the world, Christians included, has been consumed by a spirit of fear – and a fear not based on wisdom and truth, but based on propaganda and brainwashing; empty words.


Romans 8: 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

The last year has demonstrated that the highest value most people hold, including the vast majority of Christian leaders, is to avoid death – once wisdom and truth are thrown out of the window, and the total ignorance of society in science and reasoning is taken as a given.  Avoiding death has also taken over as the highest value in many churches – certainly higher than coming together to worship on any random Sunday, but even so high as to keep the doors closed on Easter week.

Church leaders and many of their parishioners have set their minds on things of the flesh, especially inexcusable when considering the total ignorance and gullibility when it comes to the reason for their fear of death.


Colossians 3: 1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

By placing the avoidance of death as the highest value, many Christians have not been seeking the things above in the last year; perhaps this is just a continuation of not seeking things above for many years.  They have been focused on the things that are on earth.  Not having died to the world, they have not been raised up with Christ.

With no evidence in support of the claim of the high risk of death, and significant evidence in contradiction, many Christians have turned away from God and turned toward man and flesh.


We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings to be fruitful.

So writes C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man.  The chests have been so hollowed out that the fear of death overrules all other values.  But we all die, eventually.  Is it any wonder that, without any higher value, Western man is living through a meaning crisis?


Why am I so pointed about my criticism of Christian churches and their leaders, and not also on the leaders of other institutions: universities, media, government, etc.?

cosmic dwarf May 11, 2021 at 7:10 AM

Strickland's book really paints the picture of a wholly different Christianity, one where even the highest leaders are willing to risk seriously annoying the secular powers. "Heroic" indeed. These days only the small fish will do anything like that.

To be fair, that's hardly unique to the Church. What powerful institution in the West today isn't a sclerotic bureaucracy bent on justifying its own existence and scared to death of rocking the boat? The globalist NGOs and their backers, I suppose?

I replied in the comments, but here I will expand on this.  I agree completely with cosmic’s comments. The state has usurped and corrupted the authority of all meaningful intermediating institutions, all for the benefit of increasing the stranglehold of state power.  On this point, there is nothing unique regarding the subservience of most church leaders.

But the most disappointing institution in the debacle that we have been living in for more than a year is the church.  It is the church that has the unique calling to live according to the Spirit and not the flesh; it is the church that has the certain truth of life and peace; it is the church that has the knowledge that death has been conquered; it is the church best equipped to give men chests.

It is the only institution in the history of the West that ever played an effective role in keeping the king in check.  Most importantly, it is the only institution that answers “love” as the last answer to the last "why" in the string of questions of why we take action.  It is the only institution built on Christ, who offered the perfect example of this virtue put into action.  So, it should be held most accountable.

To explain why this is so would take several posts.  Here they are:

-          One Answer to An Important Social / Political / Economic Question of Our Time

-          Free Market Capitalism as the Highest Value (Part Two)

-          The Way Out and the Way To (Part Three)

-          Virtuous Governance

And this is why I lay the most blame on Christian leaders.  They were given the authority to speak truth to power; they were given the one means by which this could be done firmly and without exception; they were given the keys to the only truth that has ever prevailed against evil.

And they cast all of it aside, teaching, by word and deed, that avoiding death is the highest value man should hold. 


Revelation 3: 1 “To the angel of the church in Sardis write:

He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: ‘I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.

It is clear that the hour has come for the church in the West.  Fortunately, some will hold to a way out:

4 But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white, for they are worthy.

Second Stage Terror Wars – Edward Curtin

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – William Casey, CIA Director, Feb. 1981

It is well known that the endless U.S. war on terror was overtly launched following the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the linked anthrax attacks.   The invasion of Afghanistan and the Patriot Act were immediately justified by those insider murders, and subsequently the wars against Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.  So too the terrorizing of the American people with constant fear-mongering about imminent Islamic terrorist attacks from abroad that never came.

It is less well known that the executive director of the U.S. cover story – the fictional 9/11 Commission Report – was Philip Zelikow, who controlled and shaped the report from start to finish.

It is even less well known that Zelikow, a professor at the University of Virginia, was closely associated with Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, Dickey Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Brent Scowcroft, et al. and had served in various key intelligence positions in both the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush administrations. In 2011 President Obama named him to his President’s Intelligence Advisory Board as befits bi-partisan elite rule and coverup compensation across political parties.

Perhaps it’s unknown or just forgotten that The Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission repeatedly called for Zelikow’s removal, claiming that his appointment made a farce of the claim that the Commission was independent.

Zelikow said that for the Commission to consider alternative theories to the government’s claims about Osama bin Laden was akin to whacking moles.  This is the man, who at the request of his colleague Condoleezza Rice, became the primary author of (NSS 2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, that declared that the U.S. would no longer abide by international law but was adopting a policy of preemptive war, as declared by George W. Bush at West Point in June 2002.  This was used as justification for the attack on Iraq in 2003 and was a rejection of the charter of the United Nations.

So, based on Zelikow’s work creating a magic mountain of deception while disregarding so-called molehills, we have had twenty years of American terror wars around the world in which U.S. forces have murdered millions of innocent people.  Wars that will be continuing for years to come despite rhetoric to the contrary.  The rhetoric is simply propaganda to cover up the increasingly technological and space-based nature of these wars and the use of mercenaries and special forces.

Simultaneously, in a quasi-volte-face, the Biden administration has directed its resources inward toward domestic “terrorists”: that is, anyone who disagrees with its policies.  This is especially aimed at those who question the COVID-19 story.

Now Zelikow has been named to head a COVID Commission Planning Group based at the University of Virginia that is said to prepare the way for a National COVID Commission.  The group is funded by the Schmidt Futures, the Skoll Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and Stand Together, with more expected to join in.  Zelikow, a member of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Development Program Advisory Panel, will lead the group that will work in conjunction with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.  Stand together indeed: Charles KochBill GatesEric Schmidt, the Rockefellers, et al. funders of disinterested truth.

So once again the fox is in the hen house.

If you wistfully think the corona crisis will soon come to an end, I suggest you alter your perspective.  Zelikow’s involvement, among other things, suggests we are in the second phase of a long war of terror waged with two weapons – military and medical – whose propaganda messaging is carried out by the corporate mainstream media in the pursuit of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset. Part one has so far lasted twenty years; part two may last longer. You can be certain it won’t end soon and that the new terrorists are domestic dissidents.

Did anyone think the freedoms lost with The Patriot Act were coming back some day?  Does anyone think the freedoms lost with the corona virus propaganda are coming back?  Many people probably have no idea what freedoms they lost with the Patriot Act, and many don’t even care.

And today?  Lockdowns, mandatory mask wearing, travel restrictions, requirements to be guinea pigs for vaccines that are not vaccines, etc.?

Who remembers the Nuremberg Codes?

And they thought they were free, as Milton Mayer wrote about the Germans under Hitler.  Like frogs in a pot of cold water, we need to feel the temperature rising before it’s too late.  The dial is turned to high heat now.

But that was so long ago and far away, right?  Don’t exaggerate, you say.  Hitler and all that crap.

Are you thankful now that government spokespeople are blatantly saying that they will so kindly give us back some freedoms if we only do what they’re told and get “vaccinated” with an experimental biological agentwear our masks, etc.? Hoi polloi are supposed to be grateful to their masters, who will grant some summer fun until they slam the door shut again.

Pfizer raked in $3.5 billion from vaccine sales in the first quarter of 2021, the first three months of the vaccine rollouts, and the company projects $26 billion for the year.  That’s one vaccine manufacturer.  Chump change?  Only a chump would not realize that Pfizer is the company that paid $2.3 billion in Federal criminal fines in 2009 – the largest ever paid by a drug company – for being a repeat offender in the marketing of 13 different drugs.

Meanwhile, the commission justifying the government’s claims about COVID-19 and injections (aka “vaccines”) will be hard at work writing their fictive report that will justify ex post facto the terrible damage that has occurred and that will continue to occur for many years.  Censorship and threats against dissidents will increase.  The disinformation that dominates the corporate mainstream media will of course continue, but this will be supplemented by alternative media that are already buckling under the pressure to conform.

The fact that there has been massive censorship of dissenting voices by Google/ YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, etc., and equally massive disinformation by commission and omission across media platforms, should make everyone ask why.  Why repress dissent?  The answer should be obvious but is not.

The fact that so many refuse to see the significance of this censorship clearly shows the hypnotic effects of a massive mind control operation.

Name calling and censorship are sufficient.  Perfectly healthy people have now become a danger to others.  So mask up, get your experimental shot, and shut up!

Your body is no longer inviolable.  You must submit to medical procedures on your body whether you want them or not.  Do not object or question. If you do, you will be punished and will become a pariah.  The authorities will call you crazy, deviant, selfish. They will take away your rights to travel and engage in normal activities, such as attend college, etc.

Please do not recall The Nuremberg Code.  Especially number 7: “Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.” (my emphasis)

“Now is the time to just do what you are told,” as Anthony Fauci so benevolently declared.

I am not making a prediction.  The authorities have told us what’s coming. Pay attention.  Don’t be fooled.  It’s a game they have devised.  Keep people guessing.  On edge.  Relieved.  Tense.  Relaxed.  Shocked.  Confused.  That’s the game.  One day this, the next that.  You’re on, you’re off.  You’re in, you’re out.  We are allowing you this freedom, but be good children or we will have to retract it.  If you misbehave, you will get a time out.  Time to contemplate your sins.

If you once thought that COVID-19 would be a thing of the past by now, or ever, think again.  On May 3, 2021 The New York Times reported that the virus is here to stay.  This was again reported on May 10.  Hopes Fade for Global Herd Immunity.  You may recall that we were told such immunity would be achieved once enough people got the “vaccine” or enough people contracted the virus and developed antibodies.

On May 9, on ABC News, Dr. Fauci, when asked about indoor mask requirements being relaxed, said, “I think so, and I think you’re going to probably be seeing that as we go along, and as more people get vaccinated.”  Then he added: “We do need to start being more liberal, as we get more people vaccinated.”

But then, in what CNN reported as a Mother’s Day prediction, he pushed the date for “normality” out another year, saying, “I hope that [by] next Mother’s Day, we’re going to see a dramatic difference than what we’re seeing right now. I believe that we will be about as close to back to normal as we can.  We’ve got to make sure that we get the overwhelming proportion of the population vaccinated. When that happens, the virus doesn’t really have any place to go. You’re not going to see a surge. You’re not going to see the kinds of numbers we see now.”

He said this with a straight face even though the experimental “vaccines,” by their makers own admissions, do not prevent the vaccinated from getting the virus or passing it on.  They allege it only mitigates the severity of the virus if you contract it.

Notice the language and the vaccination meme repeated three times: “We get more people vaccinated.” (my emphasis) Not that more people choose to get vaccinated, but “we get” them vaccinated.  Thank you, Big Daddy. And now we have another year to go until “we will be about as close to back to normal as we can.”  Interesting phrase: as we can.  It other words: we will never return to normality but will have to settle for the new normal that will involve fewer freedoms.  Life will be reset, a great reset.  Great for the few and terrible for the many.

Once two vaccines were enough; then, no, maybe one is sufficient; no, you will need annual or semi-annual booster shots to counteract the new strains that they say are coming.  It’s a never-ending story with never-ending new strains in a massive never-ending medical experiment.  The virus is changing so quickly and herd immunity is now a mystical idea, we are told, that it will never be achieved.  We will have to be eternally vigilant.

But wait.  Don’t despair.  It looks like restrictions are easing up for the coming summer in the northern hemisphere. Lockdowns will be loosened.  If you felt like a prisoner for the past year plus, now you will be paroled for a while. But don’t dispose of those masks just yet.  Fauci says that wearing masks could become seasonal following the pandemic because people have become accustomed to wearing them and that’s why the flu has disappeared. The masks didn’t prevent COVID-19 but eliminated the flu.  Are you laughing yet?

Censorship and lockdowns and masks and mandatory injections are like padded cells in a madhouse and hospital world where free-association doesn’t lead to repressed truths because free association isn’t allowed, neither in word nor deed.  Speaking freely and associating with others are too democratic. Yes, we thought we were free.  False consciousness is pandemic.  Exploitation is seen as benevolence. Silence reigns.  And the veiled glances signify the ongoing terror that has spread like a virus.

We are now in a long war with two faces.  As with the one justified by the mass murders of September 11, 2001, this viral one isn’t going away.

The question is: Do we have to wait twenty years to grasp the obvious and fight for our freedoms?

We can be assured that Zelikow and his many associates at Covid Collaborative, including General Stanley McChrystal, Robert Gates, Arnie Duncan, Deval Patrick, Tom Ridge, et al. – a whole host of Republicans and Democrats backed by great wealth and institutional support, will not be “whacking moles” in their search for truth.  Their agenda is quite different.

But then again, you may recall where they stood on the mass murders of September 11, 2001 and the endless wars that have followed.

Vox Popoli: Fake election, fake president

The Arizona audit has uncovered more evidence of fraud, sufficient to prove the statistical evidence that has clearly demonstrated how the 2020 election was faked:

According to the Maricopa Arizona Audit account, they are finding “significant discrepancies between the number of ballots therein and the batch reports included in the boxes”.

We already know exactly how the election results were faked due to the algorithm that was reverse engineered. The same ratio of nonexistent votes were injected everywhere, which is why the number of ballots in Maricopa, or anywhere, will not match the number of recorded votes. 

And that's why there were 159,633,396 votes reported cast, compared to the 128,838,342 in 2016, 126,849,299 in 2012, and 129,446,839 in 2008. Occam's Razor indicates there were at least 30 million fake digital votes for which there are no ballots to be found.

Thursday, May 13, 2021

Science VS Christianity = IGNORANCE – (Prove ALL things!)

This is a word search in DLL for SCIENCE CHRISTIANITY - – a list of headnotes on multiple articles archived – much to read.

Here is part of just one - "Films About Scientists and Science that You and Your Children Should See • by Gary DeMar • (Christian history that most Christians don't know!)

While Egypt might be famous for the Pyramids, Rome noted for its roads, aqueducts, coliseums, and Greece celebrated for its philosophers and contributions to medicine, invention and the scientific method are almost exclusively a western enterprise that grew out of a Christian worldview. While not all the great scientists were Christians, they did operate within a worldview that was developed by Christians.

The idea that an experiment performed on one day would operate the same way under the same conditions the next day was foundational to the development of modern science. Christians believed in fixed creational laws because they believed that God had created the world in this way.

This is why science as an integrated worldview and methodology developed in the Christian West and nowhere else. " - copied from - 

Here is another - Why Christian Children Don’t Belong In Public Schools - By Aaron Ames

Public education neither teaches nor believes in the transcendentals of truth, goodness, and beauty, the very pillars of the education that built the western world and flow from Christianity itself.

……..- the sad fact is that most Christians don't know their history because their pulpits don't know it either. That is why DaLimbraw Library exists for those willing to learn and reclaim their history of conquering ignorance. Anyone can do it - so can you - just get started! 

Vox Popoli: Canceling biology

Richard Dawkins certainly never saw this coming. I warned him, and everyone, that post-Christianity is not compatible with science, indeed, that Christianity was not only necessary for scientody, but is arguably necessary for a functional scientistry as well. Now we're learning that even the history of science is being canceled:

A university has been slammed by academics for putting Charles Darwin on a list of 'racist' scientists as part of a guide to 'decolonise' its biology curriculum. 

Sheffield University has created a handbook for students and lecturers in its science department to help 'tackle racial injustice' by 'reflecting on the whiteness and Eurocentrism of our science'.

As part of the guide, the department created a list of 11 'problematic' scientific figures - including Darwin - whose views 'influenced the type of research they carried out and how they interpreted their data'. 

An explanation next to the 19th century naturalist's name says that Darwin 'believed that his theory of natural selection justified the view that the white race was superior to others'.

With the exception of James Watson, the list of problematic scientific figures reads like a who's who of atheist heroes. Atheists have falsely claimed that science and Christianity are incompatible for decades, but what they've learned in just three short years is that it is science and social justice which are totally incapable of coexisting.

Ronald Fisher

Known for: Pioneered the application of statistical procedures to the design of scientific experiments. He was a Professor in the Eugenics department at University College London.

Sheffield's view: He believed that races differed 'in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development'.

One of his works, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, 'endorses colonialism, white supremacy, and eugenics and discusses his belief in the higher and lower genetic value of people according to their race'.

Carl Linnaeus

Known for: Formalising the modern system of naming organisms

Sheffield's view: He applied his system of classification to position human races, with white Europeans at the top, and black, indigenous, and other people of colour groups gradually descending his hierarchy.

James Watson 

Known for: Proposing the double helix structure of the DNA molecule with Francis Crick

Sheffield's view: The 93-year-old has previously made outwardly racist public comments about the innate inequality of people from different races, particularly with regards to intelligence.

Thomas Henry Huxley 

Known for: Supporting Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and proposing connections between development of organisms and their evolutionary histories.

Sheffield's view: Huxley's belief that 'no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes, that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man' was used as justification for segregation. 

Francis Galton

Known for: Coining the term 'eugenics', he was the first to apply statistical methods to the study of human differences.

Sheffield's view: He was obsessed with a eugenic 'utopia' in which the genetic elite were encouraged to breed, segregated from the sterilised underclass. It has been said that his work 'invented racism'.

Karl Pearson

Known for: Pioneering work in mathematical statistics and creating a methodology to identify correlations.

Sheffield's view: He believed strongly in racial segregation and that races other than his own were inferior. 

Alfred Russell Wallace

Known for: Co-developing the theory of natural selection and evolution with Charles Darwin, something Darwin is most often credited for.

Sheffield's view: He carried out all of his field observations in a colonial environment. In a similar concept to the 'Wallace line' separating biological realms, he drew a boundary line between what he classified as different ethnic groups in the colonial Dutch East Indies.

Henry Walter Bates

Known for: Expeditions of the Amazon rainforests where his studies led him to propose the idea of mimicry in unrelated animal species. 

Sheffield's view: Like Darwin and other explorers, he travelled and collected specimens from colonial South America and was a proponent of colonialism in the Amazon.

Julian Huxley

Known for: Supporting the theory of natural selection, he also worked for the Zoological Society of London and was the first director of UNESCO. His brother was the writer Aldous Huxley.

Sheffield's view: He was a prominent figure in British Eugenics Society and believed that the lower classes were genetically inferior and should be prevented from reproducing and even sterilised.

JBS Haldane

Known for: Introducing the 'primordial soup theory', which became the foundation for the concept of the chemical origin of life.

Sheffield's view: He published a book in 1924 describing the use of in vitro fertilisation for eugenics purposes.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

Vox Popoli: More useless than the French

(What a freaking farce - these Boomer Pampered Princes don't even understand WTF the problem is - and we rely on their advice? At least DaFrench generals do - - while I haven't been much into Boomer bashing,  the evidence is warming me up to it.
A bunch of spoiled brats - while enriching themselves through DaFed's funny $$$$$ Wall Street casino, besides their generous Federal pensions added to their 'consultation' fees with military contractors - their kids and grandkids are sucking wind - competing with third world immigrants while seeing our manufacturing base moved overseas is quite a legacy - shall we say 'good riddance'? - CL)

After 60 years of completely failing to defend America's borders or protect the nation from invasion, a group of retired US military officers is... encouraging everyone to get involved in local and state politics.

More than 120 retired generals, admirals, and military officers signed a letter that warned that the United States is embroiled in an existential fight and called on “all citizens” to get involved in local and state politics.

“We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty,” stated the letter (pdf), which was signed by 124 former generals and admirals, released by “Flag Officers 4 America.”

The letter also posited that opposition to proposed bills and laws that would strengthen election initiatives has troublesome implications.

“Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls ‘racist’ in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections,” the letter added.

According to the Flag Officers 4 America website, it is a group of former military leaders who “pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,” who are “domestic” and “foreign.”

Of note, signatories of the letter include retired Army Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc—a Senate candidate in New Hampshire, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, and retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter—who was the deputy national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan.

“China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically, and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests,” their letter also said.

OK, Boomers. The extent to which this letter completely misses the point and the problems is downright amusing. Civnattery and vooting harder will accomplish precisely nothing.

What a joke. With an officer class like this, no wonder the USA hasn't been capable of defeating any foe bigger than Panama.

bionic mosquito: The First Iconoclasts…

 …of Christendom.  No, this will not be a story of the Reformation.

The Age of Paradise: Christendom from Pentecost to the First Millennium, by John Strickland

By the middle of the eighth century, the southern territories of Christendom had been all but consumed by the conquests of the Umayyad Caliphate….

It will also not be a story of iconoclasm by the Muslims. 

But first, a backstory.  By this point, the integrity of the Roman Empire had been greatly compromised.  Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were all overrun by Muslim armies.  Despite having second-class status, the Christians in these lands were granted some toleration as they constituted the majority in these lands and were necessary for effective administration.

They also had religious autonomy, however they could not convert Muslims, build new churches, even maintain existing churches.  The cross could not be displayed, and bells could not be rung.  Even with this, many of the Christian clergy supported this Arab colonization:

Bishops enjoyed a privileged status under the caliphate, being assigned the responsibility of overseeing their fellow dhimmis.

A large number of these bishops were Monophysites, persecuted under Byzantine rule; they saw the Arabs as a lesser evil.  Becoming both agents and victims of this long-term subjugation, resistance to the pressures of apostasy would dissolve.  The Syrian and Coptic churches survive to this day, but the numbers are rather insignificant.

The rest of Christendom would have suffered a similar fate if not for two men: Byzantine Emperor Leo III in the East, and Charles Martel in the West.  In 718, the Arab forces against Byzantium finally relented; in 732, Martel was victorious in the Battle of Tours.  European Christendom was saved, only to fall into another internally divisive period.

For Muslims and Jews, the making of images was precluded; however, icons were prevalent throughout Christendom.  This would change under Emperor Leo III, who formed the conviction that the widespread use of icons was causing the empire to lose its faith.  Leo decided in 726 to launch Christendom’s first iconoclastic movement, preceding the Reformation by about 800 years.

It began with the icon of Christ Pantocrator, standing at the top of the Chalke Gate.  As the workers assembled to remove it, a riot broke out; the foreman of the crew was lynched.  This did not dissuade Leo.  He continued, persecuting and deposing any bishops who opposed him – no separation of church and emperor here.

Leo died in 740.  His son and heir, Constantine V, only increased the policy; he convened a council of his bishops – not an ecumenical council, despite the claim.  Suffice it to say, the vast majority of bishops did not agree with the conclusion. 

The iconoclastic argument was refuted by John of Damascus.  How did John manage this?  He argued that as God commanded the Israelites to make graven images of cherubim, icons were acceptable.  But what of Jesus?  His humanity was as real as his divinity; the transcendent God had entered creation and assumed human form.  It was this human form that was captured; the Incarnation was at the center of the defense of icons.  In 787, at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, John’s arguments carried the day.

But this did not last long.  Constantine VI and his mother, Irene, offered the latest chapter in Byzantine court intrigue.  He an iconoclast, she an iconophile.  As he was young, the two would be co-emperors – but such an arrangement wouldn’t last long.

In 790, Constantine would move to remove Irene from power, acting with great cruelty, blinding his enemies at the court, including his own uncle.  His actions led to a return to iconoclasm, despite the ruling of the recent council. 

Seven years later, Irene returned to prominence at the court and had her son arrested.  She gave orders to have him blinded in the very room in which he was born.  He died soon after.  And for the first time, a woman was named Emperor of the Romans.

In the West, these events were looked at with difficulty.  The situation was exacerbated when Emperor Leo reassigned certain territories from the papacy in southern Italy to the Byzantine state.  And of course, Pope Gregory II condemned Leo’s attack on icons.

Leo sent agents to murder the pope, but Gregory enjoyed protection given the universal dismay over iconoclasm.  After Gregory’s death, Leo attempted the same with the new pope, but the ship of the agents foundered in the Adriatic.  Unsuccessful at killing the pope, Leo transferred further lands from Italy to Constantinople. 

Some mark these events as the final turning point in destroying relations between East and West.  The pope would turn to the Franks for military support; eventually Pepin would be anointed by the pope himself.

Which brings us to a great forgery known as The Donation of Constantine.  That it was a forgery was not known for seven hundred years; in the meantime, it served its purpose: Constantine, who relocated the capital to Constantinople, “donated” the entire western half of his empire to Sylvester, the bishop of Rome.  Further, the other patriarchates were to be subject to Rome’s authority.  In this came a clue, not realized for centuries: included in the list of sees now to be under Rome were sees not even in existence at the time of the “donation.”


We now come to Charlemagne, Pepin’s son.  The relationship between the Franks and the Papacy was showing great promise.  Charlemagne proved to be a great protector of the Church – at least the Western half; he expanded the empire (violently, certainly) in almost every direction. 

Pope Leo III was in trouble, accused of (likely false) charges of sexual immorality and financial misdeed.  Charlemagne organized a formal investigation, arriving in Rome in 800.  Charlemagne was at the height of his influence; Leo was still working his out.  Leo commissioned a mosaic:

At the center stood the apostles; on the left Christ was flanked by Pope Sylvester and Emperor Constantine, an immediate reminder of the emerging myth of the Donation of Constantine. …At its center was the Apostle Peter, flanked, in this case, by representations of Pope Leo III and King Charlemagne, the latter-day successors to Sylvester and Constantine.

Well, Leo’s verdict was secure: he would place his hand on the Gospel, swearing his innocence; all charges were dropped.  Those who accused him were sentenced to death.  And on Christmas Day, Charlemagne was declared Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo.  For Christians there had been one Church and one empire.  Roman meant Christian.  No longer:

In a single act, Pope Leo’s coronation of Charlemagne changed all of that.  Christendom still may have possessed only one Church, but now there were two Roman Empires to claim her.

Vox Popoli: Did Hitler save Europe?

As more evidence concerning the buildup to Operation Barbarossa surfaces, historians are increasingly being forced to confront the case for a very politically incorrect conclusion about World War II.

Suvorov’s thesis can be summed up as follows: on June 22, 1941, Stalin was about to launch a massive offensive on Germany and her allies, within days or weeks. Preparations had started in 1939, just after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and had accelerated at the end of 1940, with the first divisions deployed to the new expanded Soviet borders, opposite the German Reich and Romania, in February 1941. On May 5, Stalin announced to an audience of two thousand military academy graduates flanked by generals and party luminaries that the time had come to “switch from the defensive to the offensive.” Days later, he had a special directive sent to all command posts to “be prepared on a signal from General Headquarters to launch lightning strikes to rout the enemy, move military operations to his territory and seize key objectives.” New armies were being raised in all the districts, with mobilization now reaching 5.7 million, a gigantic army impossible to sustain for long in peacetime. Close to one million parachutists—troops useful only for invasion—had been trained. Hundreds of aerodromes were built near the Western border. From June 13, an incessant movement of night trains transported thousands of tanks, millions of soldiers, and hundreds of thousands of tons of ammunition and fuel to the border.

According to Suvorov, if Hitler had not attacked first, the gigantic military power that Stalin had accumulated on the border would have enabled him to reach Berlin without major difficulty and then, in the context of the war, to take control of the continent. Only Hitler’s decision to preempt Stalin’s offensive deprived him of these resources by piercing and disrupting his lines and destroying or seizing about 65% of all his weaponry, some of it still in trains.

Suvorov displays an impeccable knowledge of the Red Army, and an acute expertise in military strategy. Regarding Stalin’s intentions, generally very secret, he produces numerous quotes from the 13 volumes of his writings. He sifted through mountains of archives and the memoirs of hundreds of Russian servicemen. It is not exaggerated to say that the “Suvorov thesis” has revolutionized World War II history, opening a totally new perspective to which many historians, both Russian and German, have now added details: among Germans can be mentioned Joachim Hoffmann, Adolf von Thadden, Heinz Magenheimer, Werner Maser, Ernst Topitsch, Walter Post, and Wolfgang Strauss, who has reviewed Russian historians on the topic.

Suvorov’s thesis has also generated much hostility. His opponents fall into two categories. Some authors reject completely his analysis and simply deny that Stalin was planning an offensive. When considering the symmetrical concentrations of the German and Russian armies on their common border in June 1941, they interpret them differently: German concentration proves German bellicose intentions, but the same movement among the Russians is interpreted as proof of the incompetence of Soviet generals for defense....

Just like Suvorov, and with the same sources, McMeekin shows that, despite his tactical pretense at “socialism in one country,” Stalin was unconditionally devoted to Lenin’s goal of the sovietization of Europe. His analysis of the way Stalin baited Hitler into a war on the Western front with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is totally in line with Suvorov. McMeekin attributes the same significance as Suvorov to Stalin’s announcement, on May 5, 1941, that “we must shift from defense to offence” (to which he devotes his “prologue”). His interpretation of Stalin’s simultaneous self-appointment as president of the Council of People’s Commissars exactly echoes Suvorov’s: “From this moment forward, all responsibility for Soviet foreign policy, for peace or war, for victory or defeat, lay in Stalin’s hands alone. The time for subterfuge was over. War was imminent.”[10] McMeekin repeats most of Suvorov’s evidence that Stalin’s war preparations were offensive and potentially overwhelming. He insists, like Suvorov, on the undefended air bases built near the border:

The most dramatic material evidence of more offensive Soviet intent was the construction of forward air bases abutting the new frontier separating Stalin’s empire from Hitler’s. The “Main Soviet Administration of Aerodrome Construction,” run by the NKVD, ordered the construction of 251 new Red Air Force bases in 1941, of which fully 80 percent (199) were located in western districts abutting the German Reich.

In view of the evidence, McMeekin believes that “the ideal launch date for the Soviet offensive … fell in late July or August.”

McMeekin even reinforces Suvorov’s argument that Hitler’s mobilization on the Eastern Front was a reaction to Stalin’s war preparations, rather than the opposite, by showing that, as early as June 1940, the Germans were receiving Intelligence reports that

the Red Army, capitalizing on the Wehrmacht’s concentration in the West, was preparing to march from Lithuania into virtually undefended East Prussia and German-occupied Poland. … On June 19, a German spy reported from Estonia that the Soviets had informed the departing British ambassador in Tallinn that Stalin planned to deploy three million troops in the Baltic region “to threaten Germany’s eastern borders.”

McMeekin uses the same archives as Suvorov, but never gives him credit for first bringing them into the light. The only exception is in a single endnote, where he mentions that one of Stalin’s reasons for believing that Hitler would not attack in June was that he had “learned, via spies inside Germany, that OKW had not ordered the sheepskin coats experts believed to be necessary for winter campaigning in Russia, and that the fuel and lubricating oil used by the Wehrmacht’s armored divisions would freeze in subzero temperatures.” The note says: “Not all of Suvorov’s claims stand up, but this one gels well with Stalin’s sanguine attitude toward reports of the German arms buildup.” In another footnote, McMeekin disputes Suvorov’s claim that Stalin ordered in spring 1941 the dismantlement of the “Stalin Line” of defense that would hamper the advances of his troops: it was not dismantled but simply “neglected”, says McMeekin, before adding: “Here, as elsewhere, Suvorov hurts his case by over-egging the pudding.” Such criticism would be fair, if McMeekin had also acknowledged the overwhelming mass of facts that Suvorov got right.

Apparently McMeekin thought it tactically wise, not only to snub Suvorov even when he proves him right, but also to endorse his most virulent opponent David Glantz (who, he says, was “right to emphasize how poorly prepared for war the Red Army was in reality”) even when he proves him wrong, with abundant evidence that in June 1941, the issue of the war “would be determined by who would strike first, gaining control of enemy airspace and knocking out airfields and tank parks.”

It is not difficult to guess the motive for McMeekin’s ostentatious contempt of Suvorov. Suvorov has crossed the line by suggesting that Barbarossa saved Europe from complete sovietization. Although he expresses no sympathy for Hitler, Suvorov agrees with him that, if he had not attacked first, “Europe was lost.” Suvorov has committed an unforgivable sin. It is an untouchable cornerstone of both Western and Russian historiography that Hitler is the embodiment of absolute Evil, and that no good whatsoever could ever have come from him. And so academic historians of the Eastern Front are expected to display their good manners by shunning Suvorov, and by not asking: What if Hitler had not attacked first? They must not suggest that Hitler ever told the truth, or that his military commanders were wrongfully hanged.

Well, if the price for bringing Suvorov’s revisionism into mainstream scholarship is to deny one’s debt to Suvorov, so be it. World War II historians must be smart: one careless phrase or reference can cost you a career and a reputation, as happened to David Irving (not in McMeekin’s bibliography, incidentally). Some obvious conclusions are better left for others to draw. There is no question that McMeekin’s book is a great achievement and it must be hoped that it will become a new landmark in the historiography of World War II. 

I asked one historian and expert on Operation Barbarossa about Suvorev's thesis back in 2018, and while he, too, agreed that Stalin had plans to attack Western Europe, he doesn't believe that the attack was planned for 1941 and is highly skeptical of Suvorev's case for it. 

But it doesn't really matter whether the attack was planned for 1941 or 1942, the conclusion is the same, as uncomfortable as it may make those who have assumed that Nazi Germany was the worstest evilist most invadery instigator that there ever was. I haven't read McMeekin's book yet, but you can be certain that I will do so in the near future, and I will share my thoughts on it.

Perhaps the most significant fact may be this: the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact gave two-thirds of Poland to the Soviet Union and one-third of it to Germany, despite the fact that Germany was reclaiming a sizable amount of Germany territory that contained German people, while the Soviet action was pure foreign conquest.

Of course, just to stack irony on top of irony, given the horrific state of Western Europe, it's possible that Hitler didn't save Europe by preventing Stalin from overrunning the entire continent, he left it to a worse fate by leaving it under the control of the neo-liberal world order. As awful as communism is for a nation, it's not anywhere nearly as destructive as free imports and free invasion.