Which was the craziest part of the argument ... things need to be done less economically efficiently to "help" Ukraine? — boethius

The ideal solution according to the Biden camp would have been for Germany and other European countries to buy oil and gas from America. At higher prices than Russia's, of course.

Britain's clown-in-chief Boris Johnson even said that the Germans should "make a sacrifice in the interests of peace". Shows how easy it is to sacrifice other people's economies and boost America's and Britain's .... :smile:

Oh our forum Putinist has already extensively covered the evils of George Soros — ssu

Yep, as reported in the New York Times, Putin's personal propaganda outlet, and written by Richard Poe, America's foremost Nazi leader .... :rofl:

https://www.richardpoe.com/2004/07/16/velvet-revolution-usa-2/

I disagree. I think what is far more embarrassing is the pro-NATO camp’s ignorance or denial of facts.

As far as I’m aware, NATO is a military organization. And it fights “righteous wars”. Hence, jihadi organization. It aims to “keep Americans in, Russians out, and Germans down”. Hence, racist organization.

This is from a Pilgrims Society meeting attended by Woodrow Wilson. Last statement is Wilson’s own:

God speed the good work of the Pilgrims and all endeavors to bring the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race closer together … Whatever happens, the spirit of the coming race will be an Anglo-Saxon spirit. It will be of the Anglo-Saxon stamp …. The Anglo-Saxon people have undertaken to reconstruct the affairs of the world, and it would be a shame upon them to withdraw their hand.

Cable Unites Pilgrims Here And In London – New York Times

See also

The Anglo-Saxon Myth in the United States - JSTOR

Atlanticism is a form of "Anglo-Saxon", i.e., Anglo-American imperialism aiming to bring Europe and the rest of the world under Anglo-American control. NATO is an instrument of Atlanticism, i.e. primarily US self-interest, as admitted by its founders:

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various Euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

In his speech to Congress, Eisenhower, the first Supreme Allied Commander Europe, made it very clear that the principal objective of the NATO project was US self-interest:

I have no end to serve, except the good of the United States, and that is the reason I have the courage to appear before this body to express my convictions …. I have one object in view – the good of the United States … We are approaching this problem from the welfare of the United States …. First of all, in Western Europe exists the greatest pool of skilled labor in the world. In Western Europe exists a great industrial capacity second in its capacity only to that of the United States … Now if we take that whole complex with its potential for military exploitation and transfer it from our side to another side, the military balance of power has, in my mind, shifted so drastically that our safety would be gravely imperiled … We would be cut off in short from areas from which we draw the materials that are absolutely essential to our existence, our way of life … Take such items as manganese, copper, uranium. Could we possibly think of existing without access to them? … The Western European complex is so important to our future, with them our future is so definitely tied that we cannot afford to do less than our best in making sure that it does not go down the drain … - New York Times, Feb. 2, 1951

https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/02/archives/text-of-eisenhowers-speech-to-senate-and-house-of-representatives.html

And, of course, everyone knows that American and British societies are racist and founded on racism and slavery:

Legal scholar Charles Lawrence, speaking about the American political elite said their "cultural belief system has influenced all of us; we are all racists". Philosopher Cornel West has stated that "racism is an integral element within the very fabric of American culture and society. It is embedded in the country's first collective definition, enunciated in its subsequent laws, and imbued in its dominant way of life."

Racism in North America – Wikipedia

Turkey is another racist member of NATO (with a neo-fascist government):

In Turkey, racism and ethnic discrimination are present in its society and throughout its history, including institutional racism against non-Muslim and non-Sunni minorities. This appears mainly in the form of negative attitudes and actions by Turks towards people who are not considered ethnically Turkic, notably Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews.

Racism in Turkey – Wikipedia

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

Crimean–Nogai slave raids in Eastern Europe - Wikipedia

10 Little-Known Facts From The Crimean Slave Trade

Anyway, the real conspiracy theory that I see on this thread is that Russia is supposed to be responsible for all the problems in the world .... :smile:

How do Americans justify their opinion of being the best considering Afghanistan? — boethius

Don't forget Vietnam. And Iraq. The US bombed the place into the stone age, left 100,000 Iraqis dead, and the whole region in the hands of Islamic State.

I mean, how dumb can a government be? And does America have a government, or is it run by Wall Street together with defense and energy corporations?

It would be a win for mankind. — Olivier5

You mean a mankind ruled by America. I think judging by the historical experience, Britain and America have been far more predatory and imperialistic than Russia could ever have been.

Russia has never had African or Indian slaves. Unlike the British Empire, the Russian Empire was not based on slavery and overseas colonies.

How do you think Russia is going to win this war? — Olivier5

Russia's land forces may be incompetent, but Russia still has the air power and it can pulverize Ukrainian cities from its own territory. So, Russia hasn't lost the war yet. We can only speculate what the final outcome will be. But if NATO had desisted from insisting on unlimited expansion, the conflict may have been avoided.

That's a gain for everybody including Russia. Putin now knows his army is weak and incompetent. — Olivier5

Putin has put some of his intelligence and army chiefs under house arrest, he has redeployed his troops around Kiev, he has banned Facebook and Instagram, he has stopped European flights, he is nationalizing foreign businesses, etc.

Russian spy chiefs under house arrest – The Independent

Russia arrests military chief – The Independent

So, it may be argued that he’s taking the right steps. All he needs to do now is close down the US and UK embassies, ban the use of English, promote Russian language and culture, and encourage resistance to US-UK imperialism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Nations win and lose wars. — Olivier5

Sometimes it's "nations", but other times it's the foreign powers behind them. If Ukraine won, that would be a win for US-UK and their NWO agenda.

I think the offer Russia made a couple of weeks at the very start of high-intensity warfare, could have been taken. — boethius

In theory, yes. In practice, highly improbable if we consider that, as pointed out by analysts, Ukraine is a pawn on America's chess board and is being pushed by the US and UK to reject all Russian requests in order to draw Russia into a protracted war after which they can impose sanctions to cripple its economy, topple its government, and impose rule by Wall Street.

Niall Ferguson, Putin Misunderstands History. So, Unfortunately, Does the U.S. - Bloomberg

Incidentally, Ferguson is a respected historian, though I'm sure the NATO jihadis on here would like to label him "Putin troll" ....

From the US and UK government, I'd expect no less. What's surprised me on this occasion was the ease with which social media has been wielded to further that agenda. It's scary just how readily such a powerful weapon can be put to such unilateral use. — Isaac

That's very strange, because the mandatory PC consensus on this thread seems to be that Putin has total control over the world's news and social media. And that he's going to invade London, New York, and Finland tonight. Though not necessarily in that order .... :smile:

“According to [NYT reporter David] Sanger, who cannot have written his piece without high-level sources, the Biden administration “seeks to help Ukraine lock Russia in a quagmire without inciting a broader conflict with a nuclear-armed adversary or cutting off potential paths to de-escalation … CIA officers are helping to ensure that crates of weapons are delivered into the hands of vetted Ukrainian military units, according to American officials. But as of now, Mr. Biden and his staff do not see the utility of an expansive covert effort to use the spy agency to ferry in arms as the United States did in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the 1980s.” — StreetlightX

That's exactly what I've been saying. In fact, the US and UK have been arming and training the Ukrainians since 2014, obviously, anticipating Russia's reaction to EU and NATO expansionism:

Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion

At least some of the fierce resistance by Ukrainian forces has its roots in a now shuttered covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines.
As part of the Ukraine-based training program, CIA paramilitaries taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.
After Russia’s 2014 incursion, the U.S. military also helped run a long-standing, publicly acknowledged training program for Ukrainian troops in the country’s western region, far from the frontlines. That program also included instruction in how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and sniper training.

Unfortunately, if you post anything aside from anti-Russian propaganda you get called "Putin troll" by the NATO jihadis on here ....

I won't bother with a Putin troll like you. — ssu

I've already explained to you that the fact that you are a NATO jihadi doesn't make others "Putin trolls".

It ought to be obvious that I was simply stating a fact, namely that Crimea has never been "Ukrainian". It isn't my fault that you are ignorant of European history.

As for dividing Ukraine between Ukrainians and Russians, I thought it was one logical way to solve the problem. Dividing territories has been done for centuries, there is nothing new about it: Germany, Cyprus, Korea, China, etc.

But, obviously, you prefer to see half of Ukraine turned into rubble ....:grin:

Yep. "Criticizing NATO" but calling others "Putin trolls" when they make some real criticism of NATO. I would call that propaganda and dissimulation .... :smile:

BTW I still haven't seen you criticizing Turkey (a NATO member!) for invading Cyprus and Kurdish territories in Syria.

And you forget the criminal and genocidal activities of the Ottoman Empire of which you're so proud and which you're trying to justify.

Armenian genocide - Wikipedia

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire – Wikipedia

It is citizens that support war as a means of foreign policy that are morally wrong. Aggressive war, that is. — FreeEmotion

Well, that's right. Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 on the false pretext that the Germans were "Huns" and violated "Belgian neutrality". And, of course, the whole British populace was for it especially as they were paid by America and they knew that if things got wrong, Uncle Sam (i.e., Wall Street) would come to their rescue ....

And Zelensky is also living proof that Ukrainians were totally and absolutely disgusted with their political class and it's corruption. — ssu

Yeah, right. Zelensky's approval ratings were down to 30% before the war!

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - The New Statesman

And when you never, ever utter anything negative or critical about someone, it tells who you are. — ssu

Yep. That accurately describes your position on NATO.

As for me, I don't think there is any need to criticize Putin seeing that you have made it your life's mission (or obsession) to do that 24/7, possibly under multiple user names .... :smile:

Tell us more about the West's racist "Jihad" against Poland, Czechoslavakia, Bulgaria and Croatia. — Baden

I think there is an "Anglo-Saxon", i.e., Anglo-American jihad against other nations. NATO is basically an Anglo-American operation and a product of Anglo-American Atlanticism:

Atlanticism manifested itself most strongly during the Second World War and in its aftermath, the Cold War, through the establishment of various Euro-Atlantic institutions, most importantly NATO and the Marshall Plan.

the North Atlantic Treaty is a product of the US' desire to avoid overextension at the end of World War II, and consequently pursue multilateralism in Europe. It is part of the US' collective defense arrangement with Western European powers
Established in the aftermath of World War II, NATO implements the North Atlantic Treaty

Atlanticism - Wikipedia

IMO "Keeping the Americans in, the Russian out, and the Germans down" is a racist proposition.

I don't see NATO waging war on Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Britain. Aren't Germans called "Huns", "Jerries", and "Krauts"???

List of terms used for Germans - Wikipedia

Or just stop being a complete idiot. — Baden

Sure. How about you posting comments for us and we just sit and watch? :rofl:

Of course, I mean Ukraine invaded Russia, just as Georgia, Chechnya, and Afghanistan did. — Baden

If that's what you mean, it's alright by me.

However, I said "the West's jihad on Russia", not "Ukraine's". And as far as I'm aware NATO was created by America "to keep Russia out of Europe".

According to NATO's official website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay - NATO

This also seems to be the general consensus, though perhaps not on some philosophy forums ....

Anyway, carrying on playing the fool, I suppose. — Baden

Well, you are doing a good job, so I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. :wink:

It's this simplificationism that keep the fires going. — baker

And the pro-NATO trolls.

We also need to consider that Zelensky has put Ukraine under marshal law, he has nationalized all TV news, and he has banned opposition parties. So, basically, he is running the country single-handedly, with the help of dodgy characters like Sergey Shefir, Kolomoisky, and the CIA.

And, yet, some are claiming that Putin is the "dictator" ....

By the way, do you think the fact that Zelensky is non-Slavic plays a role in the West's jihad on Russia and other Slavic nations?

Before his election, I gather he was doing this: — Olivier5

I think he's still doing it, I mean the sequel. Directed by NATO and produced by Hollywood as we speak.

Another interesting development is that Zelensky has nationalized Ukraine’s TV news and has banned opposition parties …

Zelensky nationalizes TV news and restricts opposition parties – The Week

The whimsically selective memory of the Putin troll. — ssu

As I explained to you earlier, just because YOU are a troll it doesn't mean the rest of us must be trolls.

BTW, no sanctions were imposed on America. Unfortunately, without memory (or a brain) you couldn't possibly remember this even if you tried .... :rofl:

The problem is they aren't actually in NATO ... and maybe should have negotiated actually getting into NATO before "flexing" about it. — boethius

Correct. The question is why they decided to "flex" about it. And the answer seems to be that they were encouraged, as well as armed and trained, by the US and UK.

So, it looks like it was all planned in advance by the West in order to draw Russia into a protracted war. Russia's mistake was to fail to realize this. But this isn't surprising given the levels of corruption even in the ranks of the Russian intelligence and military - which rather demonstrates that Putin is nothing like Stalin or Hitler.

The biggest losers in this are the Ukrainians who are getting killed and having their homes pulverized for no reason. What exactly did Zelensky think? That Israel was going to come and save Ukraine? I know he's a comedian, but how delusional can this guy be??? And is it really him, or the oligarchs and foreign powers behind him?

Incidentally, America's Iraq War left 100,000 Iraqis dead. And no one complained ....

I am not going to bother addressing any of this again. — Fooloso4

Yep, you've already exposed your total ignorance of the subject, so there is no need to do it again. :grin:

However, the fact is that the OT not only says that Yahweh (Adonai) is the Sun and the protector of his followers, but also calls him “the Sun of Righteousness”:

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD (Adonai) of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness (Shemesh sadaqah) arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD (Adonai) of hosts (Malachi 4:1-3)

In Mesopotamian religion, i.e., right next door to Israel/Canaan, the Sun-God Shamash was the God of truth, justice, morality, and healing.

Shamash was said to ride through the heavens in his sun chariot and see all things that happened in the day. Therefore, he knew everything and enforced divine justice on earth.

The Sun-God was symbolically represented as a winged Sun Disk throughout the region (Egypt, Levant, Mesopotamia) and as such was used for protection.

Representations of the winged Sun Disk occur on the cult stand from Taanach near Megiddo (11th-10th centuries BC) and other artifacts from across the country attesting to the prevalence of a solar cult in Israel.

The winged Sun Disk even appears on the seals of the kings of Judah in the period the OT was composed (700's and 600's BC):

The winged solar disk appears on Hebrew seals connected to the royal house of the Kingdom of Judah. Many of these are seals and jar handles from Hezekiah's reign, together with the inscription l'melekh ("belonging to the king"). Typically, Hezekiah's royal seals feature two downward-pointing wings and six rays emanating from the central sun disk, and some are flanked on either side with the Egyptian ankh ("key of life") symbol. Prior to this, there are examples from the seals of servants of king Ahaz and of king Uzziah.

Winged Sun – Wikipedia

As the Book of Malachi that calls Yahweh/Adonai "Sun of Righteousness" was composed in the 400’s, this shows the enduring influence of the pre-exilic Sun cult, promoted by the kings of Judah, on post-exilic Judaism. Moreover, as the Sun-God continued to be officially worshiped in next-door Egypt where there were large Jewish communities, and Israel at the time was under Persian and later Greek rule during which the Sun was an important deity, this influence persisted for several centuries and re-emerged in the early centuries AD as can be seen from Hellenized Jewish synagogues with representations of the Greek Sun-God Helios.

The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel – Haaretz

Note that this was in Israel, NOT Alexandria!

Obviously, the importance of the Sun in Jewish thought decreased over time, but its central place in earlier forms of Judaism is indisputable, as shown by Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun) and many other scholars.

Incidentally, it is a well-known fact (except, perhaps, to the blind and the unthinking) that the Sun surrounds or “covers” itself with its own light “as with a garment”, which is precisely why it has always been represented as a disk or orb surrounded by rays of light!

So, I think Psalm 104 makes perfect sense in a solar context, unless you can explain to us why Yahweh is riding on clouds and making the hills smoke:

O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who maketh the clouds his chariot (Psalm 104) … Let God arise, Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens … O sing praises unto the Lord; To him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens (Psalm 68:1-4, 32-33) … Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud; He is coming to Egypt … (Isaiah 19:1) … There is no one like the God of Jeshurun (Israel), Who rides the heavens to help you, And in His excellency on the clouds … (Deuteronomy 33:26)

Anyway, your vehement denial of established facts can only serve to expose your ignorance and your inability to think. But feel free to converse with your alter ego who, unsurprisingly, seems to relish your counterfactual claims .... :smile:



The history of Ancient Israel is inextricably intertwined with that of Egypt, though not in the way that is usually assumed.

The Bible states that Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph already lived in Egypt. It also says that Moses was born in Egypt and raised at the royal palace, that he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, that he could not speak Hebrew, etc. Indeed, his very name is Egyptian, as recognized by Philo and Josephus.

But history shows that there is much more to the story if we take into account the Egyptian side of it which is missing in the OT narrative.

Pharaoh Ahmose (or A-Moses) I is one of Egypt’s most celebrated rulers. In the second millennium BC, Lower (North) Egypt and part of Upper (South) Egypt were controlled by foreign rulers of Eastern (Levantine) origin, known as Hyksos.

Ahmose/A-Moses, the ruler of Upper Egypt, liberated the North from the foreign rulers, united the country, thus establishing the New Kingdom of Egypt, and restored Egyptian control over Canaan. From the 1500’s BC, Canaan was firmly under Egyptian control. Thus, there would have been no Hebrew population in Egypt capable of invading and taking over Canaan at the time of Moses (13th century BC), and there is no evidence whatsoever that there was.

According to the Book of Kings (re-edited in the 500's BC), the law of Moses was mysteriously "discovered" in the Temple in the late 600's BC during the reign of king Josiah (2 Kings 22:8).

If Moses existed as described in the OT, he may or may not have introduced a new religion. But this religion was not widely known or observed until many centuries after Moses, according to some scholars not until the 2nd century BC.

This was followed by a long period of increasingly Hellenized Judaism:

Hellenistic Judaism was very different from the Rabbinic Judaism that would later supplant it. Prayer and reading of scripture was in Greek, not Hebrew. The practices and beliefs were also very different, if we take the writing of the first-century philosopher Philo as representative. Though lacking any central leadership, the rituals probably varied quite a bit from community to community. Also, a synagogue was headed not by a rabbi but by an archisynagogos (“head of the synagogue”) and a council of elders (presbyteroi).
This form of Judaism is alien to us because it did not last. After flowering in the fourth and fifth centuries – as attested by the synagogues built in this period – Hellenistic Judaism collapsed and disappeared, together with the Roman society in which it existed - Haaretz

Given that Jewish religion was not very different from Greek religion at the time, most Jews had no reason to resist Hellenistic influence, though a small nationalistic-minded group may have done so. Jesus was definitely not one of them.

In any case, Hellenistic influence on Jesus and on the Greek-speaking Jewish community in general (e.g., Philo) is evident not only from language and culture, but also from well-known philosophical concepts like “perfection”.

In the OT, the emphasis is on the perfection of God and his actions. In contrast, in the NT the emphasis is on human perfection:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48).

To strive to become perfect, to see the truth perfectly, etc. is exactly what Plato thought centuries before:

Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise (Theaetetus 176a-b).

And therefore it is just that the mind of the philosopher only has wings, for he is always, so far as he is able, in communion through memory with those things the communion with which causes God to be divine. Now a man who employs such memories rightly is always being initiated into perfect mysteries and he alone becomes truly perfect (Phaedrus 249c).

The aim of becoming perfect or godlike is common to Greek philosophy and Christianity alike, and I think it is safe to say that this is due to Hellenistic influence, and that Jesus used a blend of religious and philosophical currents to convey his message, most likely in the universal language of the time which was Greek.

It seems that the more you're attempting to "think" the more you're demonstrating your inability to do so! :smile:

Why would Yahweh need to cover himself with light? Or ride on the clouds, make his ministers “a flaming fire”, make the hills “smoke at his touch”, etc., etc.?

Why would Yahweh need to reside on a hill like other deities in the region?

Thutmose's memory was erased by preserving it in a distorted form, as suggested by eminent Egyptologists and other scholars who know what they are talking about and don't require your opinion.

Beth Shemesh may have been named by the Canaanites. But the Hebrews were Canaanites:

The word Canaanites serves as an ethnic catch-all term covering various indigenous populations—both settled and nomadic-pastoral groups—throughout the regions of the southern Levant or Canaan ... archaeological data suggests that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with and derived from Canaanite culture... In short, Israelite culture was largely Canaanite in nature

Canaan - Wikipedia

And Beth Shemesh was also the Hebrew name for the Egyptian city On a.k.a. Heliopolis.

The fact that English "Jesus" is phonetically distinct from Greek Iēsoûs and Aramaic Yēšūa, does not mean that it doesn't refer to the same person. Likewise, "Twt"/"Dḥwtj" (Thut) and "Dwd" (Dawid) are phonetically sufficiently close to represent distinct yet related pronunciations of the same name.

Or take English "David" and Arabic "Dāwūd". Different pronunciations of the same name. There is nothing unclear about this.

The issue is not whether Sun worship was "against the rules" but that it was practiced for many centuries. The OT (2 Kings 23:5) indisputably states that the kings of Judah including Solomon, dedicated horses and chariots to the Sun and appointed priests to serve the Sun and other deities. This is corroborated by the archaeological and other evidence (see J G Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun).

The Solomon-era temple excavated at Tel Motza has nothing to do with "the Hebrew word for the direction of the rising sun", but with the fact that its entrance is oriented toward the east, a common feature in Near East temple architecture intended to allow sunlight to enter the temple at sunrise:

Excavations in Motza (2012) unearthed the Tel Motza temple, a large building revealing clear elements of ritual use, dated to the 9th century BCE. A rare cache of ritual objects found near the building included tiny ceramic figurines of men and animals. An analysis of animal bones found at the site indicated that they belonged only to kosher animals.
A wide, east-facing entrance in the wall of the public building is believed to have been built in accordance with temple construction traditions in the Ancient Near East: the sun rising in the east would illuminate an object placed inside the temple, symbolizing the divine presence

Tel Motza - Wikipedia

These are well-known and undisputed facts, that don't need your approval.

The Sun was originally regarded as a deity in its own right and later as controlled by a higher deity. Again, this is a historical fact, not a contradiction.

Readers of the OT tend to focus on the creation story in Genesis. But the fact is that there are numerous references to creation in Psalms. Psalms is also one of the OT books where some interesting defining characteristics of the biblical God are found. In addition to being described as a luminous force and as “covering himself with light as with a garment”, he “rides on the clouds as on a chariot”, he makes his ministers “a flaming fire”, and the hills “smoke at his touch” (Psalm 104).

In ancient religions, the Sun-God is often associated with a mountain (or pair of mountains) from which he is said to rise. For example, the Ancient Akkadian Sun-God Shamash rises from a great mountain and lights up the world. The God of Israel also resides on a hill, namely Mount Zion (Isaiah 8:18; Psalm 74:2).

Zion (Zi-On) may be derived from Hebrew ṣiyya ("desert") and Egyptian Iwnw or Wn Thus, “On of the Desert”, an Ancient Egyptian city and center of the cult of the Sun-God Aten, known as Heliopolis (City of the Sun) in Hellenistic times.

1 Samuel 6 relates that the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem from Beth Shemesh (House/Temple of the Sun). There are several places of that name in Israel, but Beth/Beit Shemesh also refers to the Egyptian city Iwnw/Wn a.k.a. Heliopolis, above.

2 Samuel 5:7-9 states that king David “took the stronghold of Zion, which is now the city of David … So David dwelt in the fort, and called it the city of David.”

There is no historical evidence for a Hebrew king of the name “David”. However, there is plenty of evidence for an Egyptian pharaoh called Thutmose (Twt-Ms, “son or heir of Twt) III whose name in Hebrew would be Dwd (Dawid/David). We know from the original royal archives that Thutmose III led a series of military campaigns into Canaan (see Battle of Megiddo) and Syria, in which the Ark of the Sun-God (a portable shrine holding the statue of the God, or a miniaturized replica of it mounted on a pole like a standard) was carried at the head of the advancing army:

Year 23, 1st month of the third season, day 19 - Proceeding northward by my majesty, carrying my father Amon-Re, Lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands (Upper and Lower Egypt), [that he might open the ways] before me, and my father Amon strengthened the arm [of my majesty] …

- Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 236

Thutmose (Dawid-Mose) III was one of Egypt’s greatest rulers and military leaders, comparable to Alexander the Great. It is highly unlikely that the Israelites who lived next door to Egypt and whose land (Canaan) was an Egyptian colony for many centuries, would have failed to preserve some memory of him. After all, they did remember Pharaoh Necho II defeating and killing King Josiah at Megiddo a few centuries later (2 Kings 23:28-29).

Therefore, it seems that the OT has preserved some of Thutmose's memory, but under the Hebrew version of the name (Dawid). Moreover, Thutmose belonged to Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty whose founder was Ahmose (Aa-Mose or Ia-Mose) I, another notable Egyptian ruler whose name connects the OT narrative with Egypt.

In any case, key factors that shouldn’t be ignored include the following:

The Hebrews came to Canaan from Egypt where the Sun-God Aten was the principal deity, and Akhenaten’s cult had the Sun-God as sole deity.

The Ark was reportedly brought to Jerusalem from a place called “House/Temple of the Sun” (1 Samuel 6).

The First Temple was built by Solomon who was the son-in-law of the Egyptian pharaoh and who built shrines to the Sun-God.

When the Temple was dedicated, it got filled with the light of God which was so strong that the priests could not stay inside the temple to do their work (1 Kings 8:11).

The temple structure excavated at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows established pre-Israelite temple architecture with east-facing entrance to enable the rising sun to illumine the cult statue located in the interior.

When Josiah (640-609 BC) became king, he found horses and chariots, which the previous kings of Judah had dedicated to the Sun, at the Temple entrance (2 Kings 23:11), and his successors continued the same “Pagan” practices all the way to the destruction of the Temple by Babylon in 587 BC.

The fact is that though regarding the Sun as a deity is condemned in the OT, it is also described as official practice of Israelite kings from Solomon to the destruction of the First Temple. And if Sun worship was practiced, it stands to reason that there were also prayers and hymns to the Sun. The similarity of OT psalms to parallel texts from the Akkadian and Egyptian traditions is indeed striking:

O Shamash, noblest and most lordly among the gods, sublime leader, guide, Judge of heaven and earth, not changing in his command, O Shamash, who controls darkness, who provides light for the people, O Shamash, when you set, the peoplesʼ light is darkened, O Shamash, when you rise, the four quarters brighten …

- B.R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, p. 644

Indeed, even in later religion, the Sun in said to be under the control of God, which makes all its actions the actions of God. Whether the Sun acts independently as a deity in its own right or under the control of a higher deity, makes little difference to mankind in practical terms.

All facts considered, I think it stands to reason that references to the Sun (Shemesh) such as Psalm 84:11 may constitute evidence of the divinity of the Sun among the Israelites. If we think about it, the chances that an Israelite who saw the Sun in everyday life as a deity and built shrines to it, would have seen it any differently in a hymn, are pretty slim, not to say nonexistent. Of course, things may have changed many centuries later, when the text was edited to put a more "Yahwist" spin on it.

In the final analysis, it is evident that much of the OT narrative cannot be taken at face value, and that, by comparison, the NT is more consistent and more credible. This is why outdated mythologies must be corrected by attested facts. A major source of resistance to truth is religious fanaticism as manifested among other things by the Muslim authorities’ refusal to allow excavations at the Temple Mount and other important archaeological sites.

Freud may be right, after all. The mysterious death and burial of Moses may be the expression of some Israelites' wish to bury his true identity and their past. But truth tends to come to light eventually ....

In a certain sense I’m sure there were mixtures of cultural practices where many Jews did have these notions, that being said, God being the sun as a deity in and of itself seems like a stretch. — Blake4508

I agree that there were mixtures of cultural practices and I think this is the key to understanding ancient Judaism. However, seeing the Sun as a deity was in fact pretty common in Ancient Israel.

In fact, at the time of the original composition of Psalm 84:11, the words "Shemesh umagen Yahweh Elohim" could perfectly well have meant "God Yahweh is the Sun (source of light and life) and a shield/protector (to those who take refuge in his cult).

Moreover, it must be remembered that the OT was put into writing at the earliest in the 600’s BC, after which it underwent many additions and editing in the Second Temple period, so the current version is the product of an effort to bring the text into line with later beliefs and ideologies.

The lamb was seen as a sacred creature to the Egyptians and this was a way where God essentially had them reject many of the religious/cultural tenants of their polytheistic faith. But whether there was a resurgence of such beliefs in the Hellenistic era is of course another discussion. — Blake4508

As a pastoral people, the Hebrews had always sacrificed lambs at their annual festivals and, presumably, so did the Egyptians. The conflict seems to have been that the Hebrews also sacrificed rams (which had a higher sacrificial value than lambs), whilst the Egyptians held rams as sacred. Clearly, there were cultural differences. But this doesn't mean that there were no other elements that Hebrew and Egyptian cultures had in common, or that the former didn't borrow anything from the latter.

Both the OT text and the archaeological and other evidence indicate that the Jews preserved their ancestral religious practices for many centuries. This doesn't mean that no strictly monotheistic group could have existed. Only that the vast majority became monotheistic many centuries later than usually assumed, as pointed out by the Wikipedia article, "possibly, as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC)".

A curious fact about the Moses myth that scholars have attempted to address is that neither he nor his brother Aaron made it to the promised land. How is it possible that the man chosen by God to lead the Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan, inexplicably died before reaching the goal?

Indeed, not only did Moses and Aaron die in mysterious circumstances, but we are told that God himself buried Moses secretly!

And the LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, ‘I will give it to your offspring.’ I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not go over there.” So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD, and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day (Deuteronomy 34:4-6).

One interesting solution proposed by Old Testament scholar and archaeologist Ernst Sellin is that Moses was an Egyptian who gave monotheism to Jews, rescued them, and in turn was killed by them in retaliation for the strict regulations he imposed on them. Freud adopted Sellin’s idea in his Moses and Monotheism.

Also of interest is that the Egyptian priest Manetho who wrote a history of Egypt in the 3rd century BC, similarly thought that the Moses myth is based on a renegade Egyptian priest who had made himself the leader of a religious group – another possible memory of Pharaoh Akhenaten who appointed himself high priest of the Aten/Adon cult.

Another Egyptian connection was seen by Philo who thought that Moses had been initiated into Egyptian philosophy (De vita Mosis). Quite possibly, these beliefs were based on oral traditions that were still in circulation at the time but that were regarded as inconvenient in certain circles, for which reason they were suppressed by Jewish and Christian authorities.

What seems certain is that an effort was made to erase the memory of Moses’ connections with Egyptian religion.

As observed by the Egyptologist Jan Assmann (Moses the Egyptian), “the most efficient way of erasing a memory is by superimposing on it a counter-memory”.

However, it isn’t only the memory of Moses’ Egyptian connections that is being suppressed. Another important piece in the historical puzzle that has become a casualty of the official narrative is that the dominant form of Judaism for many centuries was not what is officially being claimed.

What becomes clear from the OT text and is corroborated by archaeological and other evidence is that popular Judaism was a form of polytheism and that even in those cases where the Israelite God Yahweh was the principal deity, he was worshiped together with a female consort.

The OT has numerous references to Sun-worship and other forms of Paganism in Israel. To begin with, there seems to have been a tendency among Israelites, that is found in all neighboring cultures, to look on the Sun and other heavenly bodies as deities. Hence the OT’s warning against this: “When you look to the heavens and see the sun and moon and stars—all the host of heaven—do not be enticed to bow down and worship what the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven (Deuteronomy 4:19).

Despite all warnings, however, it seems that it was not uncommon for the populace to do just that, as indicated by the following law: “If a man or woman among you in one of the towns that the LORD your God gives you is found doing evil in the sight of the LORD your God by transgressing His covenant and going to worship other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven—which I have forbidden— and if it is reported and you hear about it, you must investigate it thoroughly, and you must bring out to your gates the man or woman who has done this evil thing, and you must stone that person to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-5).

Even the law failed to have much impact though, as we are told that the Israelite kings themselves observed those very practices: “the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets (2 Kings 23:5). Indeed, we are told that “all the cities of Judah had high places (places of Pagan worship) and sun images” (2 Chronicles 14:5).

Joseph Campbell writes:

No matter what the primitive religion of the Hebrews may have been, or what Moses may have taught, the Hebrews, having settled in Israel and Judah, and having become people not of the desert but of the soil, had assumed the normal customs of that time and paid worship to the normal gods. But in the epochal year of 621 B.C. a priest of the temple (who was the father, by the way, of the future prophet Jeremiah) produced a book purporting to be the book of the laws of Moses (who had died, if had ever lived, at least six hundred years before), and the book of laws then furnished the platform for a thoroughgoing, devastating revolution – the immediate effects of which endured, however, no longer than the life time of King Josiah himself. For, as we read, the following four kings “did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”.
It is hard to imagine how it might have been stated more clearly that until the eighteenth year of the reign of King Josiah of Judah neither kings nor people had paid any attention whatsoever to the law of Moses, which, indeed, they had not even known. They had been devoted to the normal deities of the nuclear Near East, with all the usual cults, which are described clearly enough in this passage to be readily recognized. King Solomon himself, the son of David, had built sanctuaries to the gods, had placed their images in his temple, and the stable of horses of the sun-god stood at the entrance … (Occidental Mythology, p. 100).

So, basically, we are told about the conflict between prophet Jeremiah and his Pagan rivals in the 500’s BC. Historical records also show that in the same period there was a Jewish community on the island of Elephantine who had built a temple to God Yahweh and his female consort Anath.

The OT has another parallel passage:

Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, "We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven [also known as Anath, Yahweh's consort] and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine" (Jeremiah 44:15-18).

The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the First Temple by the Babylonians in 587 BC are said to have been caused by the "Pagan" worship of Jewish kings, including King Solomon himself. So, the religious practices prevalent at the time are clearly acknowledged.

The extent of “Pagan” worship in Israel has been conclusively demonstrated by numerous scholars from Finkelstein and Silberman (The Bible Unearthed) to J G Taylor (Yahweh and the Sun).

As cities in the whole of Canaan worshipped one main deity for whom they were named, we can tell exactly what deities were worshipped: Beth-El (House of El), Beth-Shemesh (House of the Sun), Ir Shemesh (City of the Sun), Jericho (Yareakh, [City of] the Moon), Jerusalem (Ir Shalem, City of the Evening Star), etc.

The Pagan Gods That Still Exist in the Holy Land's City Names – Haaretz

Interestingly, not a single Israeli town or village is named after Yahweh. This suggests that the exclusive cult of Yahweh became established at a very late date, not at the time of King David as often assumed.

In fact, the OT clearly states that David was not allowed to build a temple to Yahweh and Solomon who did build the First Temple, also built shrines to other Gods.

Moreover, the Iron Age temple found at Tel Motza outside Jerusalem, which is from the period of Solomon, follows the established Near East temple architecture which suggests that the Judaism practiced there was not very different from the traditional religion of the region.

If we think about it, even if there had been one central temple in Jerusalem, like Solomon’s Temple, it is highly unlikely that the rural population, for example, would have taken the trouble to travel all the way to Jerusalem to worship some invisible god, when local shrines to traditional deities were at hand as and when needed for everyday purposes.

An interesting case is that of an ancient local god called Reshef whose worship survived well into Hellenistic times when he became identified with the Greek God Apollo and his coastal city Arsuf became Apollonia.

And, as already stated, for several centuries following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Jews had no problem conducting synagogue services in Greek and decorating their places of worship with images of the Greek Sun-God alongside mosaics with biblical themes.

In any case, Hellenistic influence at the time of Jesus is evidenced by the Greek names of some of his close disciples (Andrew, Phillip, Simon) and even members of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin like Nikodemus. The population of Galilee was certainly multiethnic and multilingual, with Greek as the universal language, as was the first Christian community established at Antioch.

Obviously, there is a tendency in hardline reactionary circles to attempt to erase all memory of historical facts. Fortunately, modern archaeology is slowly but surely uncovering the truth and we must move forward with the recent findings instead of staying stuck in the 70’s or 80’s. Or in the 3rd century with Tertullian …. :smile:

So what was the end game here? Could've been a couple of things in my view. Either a wish to further intensify sanctions to weaken Russia. Make it spend a lot of money on a, possibly protracted, war. I don't really know and I Wonder if they actually thought that far. I find it more likely that hubris and incompetence have led to this. — Benkei

I think it's pretty clear what the end game was - and is. The West (America and its client states Britain and France) has always hated Russia for having its own interests. First, it hated Russia for being “czarist”, then it hated it for being “communist”, and now it hates it for being “Nazi” or “Stalinist”. Or, perhaps, “Nazi” and “Stalinist”!

The reality, of course, is that the West resents Russia's resistance to being made subordinate to Western economic and financial interests and for that reason it aims to destroy Russia as an independent power.

It would have been very simple for NATO to give Russia some guarantee that it wouldn't seek further expansion in former Soviet republics. But the British and the Americans knew exactly what they were doing which is why they secretly armed and trained the Ukrainians all these years since 2014:

Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion

The plan is (1) to arm Ukraine, (2) impose more sanctions, and (3) if need be, military intervention, first through European proxies and eventually directly. But the ultimate objective is the same: the destruction of Russia, the incorporation of its economic and political system into America's world empire, and control over its resources. There can be no doubt about it.

I'm asking you for valid premises to your conclusion, so far you haven't. And I still don't know why you're so focused on the Finnish outback when I'm Swedish, maybe you don't pay much attention, which might explain a lot of things actually. — Christoffer

You may claim to be "Swedish", but your claim is insufficient to conclude that you are not from the Finnish outback.

Ergo, you have failed to provide valid premises for your conclusion.

Very simple, IMO. :wink:

Anyway,

American imperialism consists of policies aimed at extending the political, economic and cultural influence of the United States over areas beyond its boundaries. Depending on the commentator, it may include military conquest, gunboat diplomacy, unequal treaties, subsidization of preferred factions, economic penetration through private companies followed by a diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened, or regime change – Wikipedia

Nations don't exist as homogenous, unified entities, so using the national name can sometimes be misleading. — baker

Correct. But given that America is the world’s largest economy and consumer market, that the US dollar is the primary international trade currency, that America controls the World Bank, IMF, NATO, etc., I think when we say, for example, “America dominates the world’s economy or finances”, everyone knows what is meant.

I think the sanctions imposed on Russia show quite clearly that the world is largely controlled by economic and financial interests the majority of whom are headquartered in the US: World Bank (Washington), IMF (Washington), IFC (Washington), etc.

The solution seems to be to restore greater freedom and independence to individual nation-states, however we choose to define them.

Can you come up with a good reason as to why people shouldn't do that?
I'm asking this in earnest, because from what I've seen, people generally don't see this as a problem. They don't seem to see a problem in having a lot of money and fancy education titles to their names, while in their heart, they are lumpenproletariat. — baker

Well, if people don’t see it as a problem, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t one. IMO it doesn’t make sense to speak of “freedom”, “democracy”, “human rights”, etc. and at the same time promote a system that takes people’s freedom away and keeps them chained to itself like dogs to a kennel.

In fact, people are worse than chained dogs as the dogs can see the chains, but people don’t see the strings that tie them to the system and act en masse as commanded by the global media. :smile:

And acting out of ignorance (or denial) doesn’t seem like an ideal situation ....



Well, all I can see there is double standards. If we want Ukraine to be independent from Russia, why don’t we also want Tibet to be independent from China, Kurdistan to be independent from Turkey, Germany (and the rest of Europe) to be independent from America, etc., etc.?

As for Kolomoisky, he is basically like a very wealthy mafia boss with links to the criminal world and influence on Ukrainian politics.

Bogolyubov and Kolomoisky fostered strong reputations as corporate raiders in the mid-2000s, becoming notorious for a series of hostile takeovers. Hostile takeovers Ukrainian style, that is, which often included the active involvement of Privat’s quasi-military teams. These schemes included, among others, a literal raid on the Kremenchuk steel plant in 2006, in which hundreds of hired rowdies armed with baseball bats, iron bars, gas and rubber bullet pistols and chainsaws forcibly took over the plant.
Privat Group has been involved in several court cases and arbitration proceedings in the US, UK, and Sweden. In 2009, a US court made clear its distrust of Privat representatives: “the Court has become increasingly skeptical of these gentleman [at Privat] and the credibility of their statements.”

An Injection Of Rule Of Law For Ukrainian Business? Oligarch's Lawsuit Could Help Improve The Culture Of Business Dealings In The Post Soviet Space – Forbes

The Times describes Kolomoysky’s private militia as one of Ukraine’s most powerful military groups:

In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mr. Kolomoisky played a positive role for Ukraine in financing one of the largest and most effective paramilitary units fighting the Russian military intervention, at a time when the regular army was in shambles. Mr. Kolomoisky’s militia, Dnipro, held a section of the battle front west of the city of Donetsk.

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch - New York Times

According to the Pandora Papers:

Zelensky and his television production partners were beneficiaries of a web of offshore firms that allegedly received $41 million in funds from Kolomoisky’s Privatbank

And The Times:

Mr. Kolomoisky’s television station supported Mr. Zelensky in the 2019 presidential election … Mr. Zelensky’s spokeswoman published an article saying he plans to diminish the role of the oligarchs in Ukraine’s politics. But that is no simple matter. Mr. Kolomoisky controls a faction in Mr. Zelensky’s political party, the Servant of the People, without which the party would not have a majority in Parliament ….

U.S. Sanctions Key Ukrainian Oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky - The New York Times

The fact that Kolomoisky is “not as evil as Stalin” is neither here nor there, as it isn't a criterion to establish evil. What is certain is that he is sufficiently evil for the Ukrainian people to have voted for Zelensky to get rid of him and other oligarchs. Unfortunately, he and other members of his criminal fraternity are still there.

In any case, as I said already, most of this has been discussed on the other thread and there is little point to repeat it here ....

I see no facts here. Nothing about the Nato expansion is in direct relation to evaluating if Putin is being truthful or not. Something that is a fact in itself does not mean it becomes a valid premise just because you think it does. This is called "false cause" fallacy.

Basically you get this:

p1 Nato and EU has been expanding for years.

Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful. — Christoffer

Nonsense. I think it's obvious even to yourself that you're making this up! :rofl:

I never said "Nato and EU has been expanding for years. Conclusion: When Putin said Russia had no intention to invade he was being truthful."

It's impossible to have a rational debate with someone who's so delusional about his own conclusions and who are unable to see past his own biases and fallacies. — Christoffer

From what I see you're drawing your own conclusions and then attribute them to others. And you call others "delusional"? Maybe you're from the Finnish outback after all:

In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated areas of rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings ... - Wikipedia

Incidentally, NATO expansion is a well-known FACT:

After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew rapidly by including Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. The addition of West Germany into NATO prompted the Soviet Union to adopt their own collective security alliance, informally called the Warsaw Pact later that same year ... - Wikipedia

And, of course, the result of NATO expansion has been predicted for many years:

Analysts committed to a US foreign policy of realism and restraint have warned for more than a quarter‐​century that continuing to expand the most powerful military alliance in history toward another major power would not end well. The war in Ukraine provides definitive confirmation that it did not.
George Kennan, the intellectual father of America’s containment policy during the cold war, perceptively warned in a May 1998 New York Times interview about what the Senate’s ratification of Nato’s first round of expansion would set in motion. “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

Many predicted Nato expansion would lead to war. Those warnings were ignored - The Guardian

So, I think you're wasting your (and other people's) time ....

But the fact that the philosophy does not contradict revealed dogma means that it can certainly influence Catholic thought and be a good thing to incorporate. At the end of the day, ALL TRUTH is good, no matter what religion or philosophy discovers it. — Blake4508

Correct. Truth is perceived as “bad” only by those who are afraid of it and seek to impose their own mythology on reality. :smile:

I was unaware of the extent of Hellenistic influence in Judaism. — Blake4508

As pointed out by many scholars, some of whom I have mentioned here, archaeology doesn’t lie. History is a different story given that it can be, and often is, distorted for political and ideological reasons.

As shown by M. Hengel (Judaism and Hellenism), J. Scott Gleaves (Did Jesus Speek Greek?), S. Porter (Did Jesus Ever Teach in Greek?), and many others, Judaism and Early Christianity were heavily influenced by Greek culture. Hengel, in any case, is an absolute must-read.

The way I see it, the discovery of truth can only happen through the elimination of untruth.

Like the Sun, truth is a self-luminous force that reveals (a) itself and (b) things other than itself by casting its light on them. As sunlight can be obscured by clouds when seen from the earth, so the light of truth can be obscured by layers of ignorance arising from conditioned existence.

Truth then, can be unearthed only by chiseling away at the layers of untruth that have sedimented around it.

Most Christians I know are surprised, or even shocked, to learn that Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper did not sit on chairs as medieval or modern Europeans might have done, but were reclining in the Greek fashion – which was to lean on the left elbow on a dining couch and take food from the table in front with the right hand.

And yet the Greek NT says very clearly, “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus reclined (katakeisthai) [at table] in his house …” (Mark 2:15). The Latin translation of the Greek original naturally has accumberet (“reclined”) because the Romans ate in the same way as the Greeks from whom they had adopted the custom (as had the Jews).

The Gothic translation from the Greek similarly has:

“Jah warþ, biþe is anakumbida in garda is …” (Wulfila Bible, c. 350 AD).

However, later translations into English changed “reclined” to “sat”.

Middle English:

“And it was doon, whanne he sat at the mete in his hous …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).

Modern English:

“And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house …” (King James Bible, 1611).

The same occurred with other passages like “While they were reclining (anakeimenon) and eating, he said, “I tell you the truth …” (Mark 14:18). The Latin has discumbentibus (“reclining”), which as we have seen is preserved in Gothic (anakumbjan from Latin accumbere). But later translations into English change this to “sat”.

Middle English:

“And whanne thei saten `at the mete, and eeten, Jhesus seide, Treuli Y seie to you …” (Wycliffe's Bible, 1383).

Modern English:

“And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you …” (King James Bible, 1611).

Another “surprise” or “shock” is to learn that Greek was widely spoken in Galilee (and other parts of Roman Palestine) and that Jesus most likely spoke Greek in addition to Aramaic, and that, as some scholars have argued, he probably even taught in Greek.

As stated earlier, there are three basic possibilities: (1) Jesus was the Son of God, (2) he was a man, (3) he never existed. If we take the mainstream Christian position (1) that he was the Son of God, then it stands to reason (a) that he knew Greek and (b) that he taught in Greek as Greek at the time was the ideal medium of disseminating what was intended to be an universal message to the whole Roman Empire – which is precisely why the NT Gospels were written in Greek.

Even on the hypothesis that Jesus was not the Son of God, it is generally accepted that his message was very powerful and universally applicable and, therefore, it made sense for him to use a universal language like Greek to convey that message to the masses.

Indeed, it is absolutely clear from the NT text that Jesus’ message was for Jews and non-Jews alike. For example, he says that one day non-Jews will dine in heaven with the Jewish patriarchs:

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down (lit. recline) with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11).

(It should be noted that the original Greek text consistently uses "will recline (at table)" (anaklithesontai) even in reference to eating in heaven.)

And

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you (Matthew 28:19).

Likewise, Paul says:

The gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew, and also to the Greek (Romans 1:16).

Obviously, if Jesus knew Greek like most inhabitants of Roman Palestine did, it would have made sense for him to use Greek in his sermons which were addressed to a population that was ethnically mixed and bilingual.

Now, according to the NT, Jesus made some important statements such as “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12) and “I am the truth and the life” (John 14:6).

If we go back to the historical roots of such statements, we arrive, as Freud says, at the Ancient Egyptian solar cult of Aten/Aton whose founder Pharaoh Akhenaten not only regarded the Sun (or its power) as the supreme divine source, but also regarded himself (as all Egyptian kings did) as the son of the deity.

Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible we find statements like “God is the Sun”:

For the Lord God [is a/the] Sun and shield: the Lord will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly. O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee. (Psalm 84:11-12).

And:

I have set my king upon my holy mountain of Zion. I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me [King David], ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [i.e., created or appointed] You” (Psalm 2:6-7).

Psalm 84:11 literally reads “Lord Yahweh [is a/the] Sun [and] shield” (Shemesh Yahweh Elohim). However, we must recall that “Yahweh” (YHWH) is articulated as “Adon-ai” out of respect:

Yahweh: but when being read aloud the title Adonai (‘My great Lord’) was substituted out of reverence. When vowels were added to the Hebrew text, the vowels of Adonai were combined with YHWH to jog the reader's memory to use Adonai (Oxford Reference).

As observed by numerous scholars, this is a very curious practice. In any case, if "Adon(ai)" is substituted for "Yahweh", the text reads “Shemesh Adon(ai)”, “the Sun (Shemesh) is the Lord God” or, in the Egyptian context, “the Sun is God Aten/Aton [and the shield or protection of those who take refuge in him]”.

Here we find all the elements of the NT text: Truth = Light of the World = life-giving Sun = Way of Uprightness or Righteousness that brings protection or salvation.

The same idea occurs in Plato's Republic where the divine Form or Idea of the Good which is the source of truth, knowledge, and justice, is compared to the Sun which is the source of life on earth.

Of course, if we look at it from a modern Western perspective, we may find it difficult to accept that the authors of the Hebrew Bible could have equated the God of Israel with the Sun in any other way than metaphorically. However, the perspective changes if we consider that this was written many centuries ago in a totally different cultural environment and that even Plato equates the source of truth with the Sun which in Greek religion was a deity. If the Egyptians, Babylonians, Canaanites, and Greeks, all saw the Sun as a deity, what are the chances of their Hebrew neighbors seeing it as a “metaphor”? Probably, zero.

This is not to say that no Hebrews saw the Sun as the “light of God” instead of as a deity in its own right. But for the Hebrew masses, as for their neighboring nations, the Sun, Moon, and other heavenly bodies most certainly were divine. And this is entirely consistent with truth, though being one, being perceived differently by different beholders depending on each individual’s cultural and intellectual development.

What remains to be considered is the relation between universal and particular realities (or experience of them), or between Father (universal) and Son (particular). Here, again, we can turn to the NT where Jesus says “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34). The OT itself says: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6).

Indeed, particular realities are creations of universal reality, and humans being creations of the deity, are its “children” and, by implication, divine. The problem is that the “children” or creatures are not consciously aware of the fact that they hold within themselves the divinity or truth of the “Father” or Creator, and as a result of this they think and act in ways that are contrary to the divine or truth.

The task of both religion and philosophy, then, is to make man “divine” or “perfect”, i.e., to bring him into harmony with reality or truth, as far as humanly possible. Becoming or making oneself as godlike or perfect as possible is the central aim of both Platonism (Theaetetus 176b) and Christianity: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

This necessity of the individual to strive for moral perfection is also acknowledged by Jewish thinkers, as observed by Kavka in his discussion of philosophers like Maimonides, Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig, and Emmanuel Levinas:

In a radical sense, human agency has messianic force. I trace this idea back to Cohen, to a lesser extent to Rosenzweig, and further back into the rabbinic tradition. As Levinas formulates the view in one of his first Talmudic readings, “to be myself is to be the Messiah”. This “myself” [[i]moi[/i]] is not the ego who lords power over others, but the ethical subject who gives up that power and takes responsibility for the suffering of others. In Levinas and Cohen, being the Messiah is synonymous with human moral perfection

Maimonides certainly used Greek philosophy, in particular Aristotle, to address issues related to religion and ethics. As he put it:

The true human perfection consists in the acquisition of the rational virtues… Through it man is man (Guide of the Perplexed).

The true philosophical position then, as Kavka concludes, is that “there is no gap between Athens and Jerusalem”.

This doesn’t mean that one needs to renounce Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Platonism, Judaism, or whatever tradition one happens to belong to. Only that one must overcome one’s psychological and cultural resistance to truth, and allow truth, or the light of reality, to illumine our mind and act as a force for good in our life.

Unfortunately, the unphilosophical lovers of darkness and untruth prefer to stay trapped within Tertullian’s polemical distinction which is the only place where they feel at home ….

PS Despite baseless claims to the contrary made by some here, Kavka states very clearly:

This book vigorously rejects the Athens-Jerusalem problem that has been our pet mosquito, sucking our lifeblood since the third century C.E. In its infancy, it was a problem for Christianity. It is first mentioned in the seventh chapter of the early Church father Tertullian’s de Praescriptione Haereticorum (On the Prescription against Heresies).
Thus begins a long history of the fear of miscegenation, paralleled by rabbinic texts from the same time period that proscribe the learning of Greek wisdom. But the Athens-Jerusalem problem is not only about the relationship between faith and the heresy of philosophy. In the modern period, it is about the relationship between Jewish faith and Western culture, which are perceived to be in necessary conflict.
The either/or of the Athens-Jerusalem problem insidiously perseveres to this day. There is no reason why this either/or is necessary. In spite of the uneasy relationship with Athens displayed by the rabbis, some medieval Jewish philosophers refused to admit that there was any Athens-Jerusalem split …. (pp. 2-3).

Fixed it — Isaac

Exclusive: Secret CIA training program in Ukraine helped Kyiv prepare for Russian invasion

At least some of the fierce resistance by Ukrainian forces has its roots in a now shuttered covert CIA training program run from Ukraine’s eastern frontlines.
As part of the Ukraine-based training program, CIA paramilitaries taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.
After Russia’s 2014 incursion, the U.S. military also helped run a long-standing, publicly acknowledged training program for Ukrainian troops in the country’s western region, far from the frontlines. That program also included instruction in how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and sniper training.

I could be wrong but I think some of the reasons I gave are a good part of why this is different than other invasions that happened in the past ... C) as far as anyone can tell in the West, Ukraine wasn't an aggressor — dclements

Well, I don’t think Tibet was an aggressor, or the Kurdish people who are under Turkish occupation. It seems to me that the West is applying some blatant double standards.

Also, if the West’s intention is to prevent Putin from using NBC’s, as it allegedly did in Iraq, then Ukraine is an unrelated issue.

Actually I think Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is just about the best thing that could happen to it after WWII … with Russia invading Ukraine the shock of such an action has been like using a defibrillator on a dying man, it has resuscitated the reason for NATO's existence. — dclements

From what I see, NATO has been constantly expanding, taking in new members like the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999, followed by others ever since. IMO it doesn’t look like a “dead man brought back to life by Putin” at all.

And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine does seem to have scuppered NATO’s plan to incorporate the country.
More to the point, as has been observed by some, Putin’s actions have put a brake on America’s plans to make Russia part of its NWO empire – at least for now.

Even Germany is talking about the need for rebuilding it's military in order to protect themselves from potential wanton aggression — dclements

Germany is a key European country and it makes no sense for it not to have proper armed forces like England and France. So, this was long overdue.

Incidentally, America and Russia invaded Germany in 1945. Russia left but America is still there.

Unless Kolomoisky is the devil himself (or perhaps even if he is), I can't really see how he can be worse than Putin. — dclements

There is no need for Kolomoisky to be worse. I think it’s enough for him to be like or close to Putin. And with Ukraine being next after Russia on Europe’s corruption scale, it looks like it’s perfectly OK to be corrupt as long as you are a friend of America, as can be seen from the case of Saudi Arabia and others.

More to the point if you had to choose which of the three would you rather have almost total world dominance? — dclements

I’m totally against any one power having total or almost total world dominance. My position is that each country and each continent should be free and independent. A multipolar world order is necessary to prevent the emergence of worldwide dictatorship.

As shown by Finkelstein and Silberman, the best way to debunk the mythology and propaganda surrounding the origins and nature of Judaism, is to go to the historical and archaeological sources.

According to the OT, the God of Moses states:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them (Exodus 20:3-5).

Though this is often interpreted in a monotheistic sense, the existence of more than one god is implied in the very words “other gods”: if no other gods existed, the question of “having other gods” would not arise. The sentence “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” makes sense only in a polytheistic context. The same applies to phrases like “the God of Israel”, “the God of Abraham”, “the God of Moses”, etc., which are clearly intended to differentiate between the God of the Jews and the God(s) of other nations.

However, even supposing that what is described at Exodus 20 is a form of monotheism, as observed by Freud (Moses and Monotheism), this still has close parallels in the Egyptian cult of Aten/Aton (the Orb of the Sun), introduced by Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Interestingly, Akhenaten also built a new capital city with a large temple to Aten/Aton and prohibited the cult of other gods and the use of religious statues.

Moreover, the word for “lord” or “master” in Hebrew is “adon” and in Jewish tradition the name of the God of Israel is read as “Adonai” (plural of “Adon-i”,“my Lord”).

As Freud concludes,

If Moses gave to the Jews not only a new religion, but also the law of circumcision [which was an Egyptian custom], he was no Jew but an Egyptian, and then the Mosaic religion was probably an Egyptian one, namely – because of its contrast to the popular religion – that of Aton with which the Jewish one shows agreement in some remarkable points (p.46).

Indeed, if as the OT tells, Moses (whose name is Egyptian, as noted by Philo and Josephus) was raised as an Egyptian prince (Exodus 2:1-10) then he must have been familiar with Egyptian religion and, as suggested by Freud and others he may have been Egyptian.

In any case, what is certain is that Judaism has many elements in common with Egyptian and other religions and cultures in the region, including the following:

Henotheism or monotheism.
God equated to the Sun and described as having war chariots.
Creation myth.
Psalms.
Prayers.
Covenant.
Code of moral conduct inscribed on stone or clay.
Ark.
Kings.
Prophets.
Temple.
Spring and fall festivals.
Animal sacrifices.
Male circumcision.
Prohibition against eating pork.

The equation or comparison of the supreme being to the Sun, which as we have seen is common to the traditions of Greece, Egypt-Israel, and Christianity, is of particular importance on account of the philosophical message it conveys, namely that just as there is only one Sun, there is only one Truth or Ultimate Reality, which however, is perceived differently by different individuals and cultures in the same way the light of the Sun is reflected differently in different objects or at different points in time and space.

This is why true philosophers at the time of Jesus, whether Jewish, Pagan, or Christian, would have had no problem discerning that all truth has one source and that it makes no sense to reject truth just because it is spoken by someone from a different religion or culture.

For the close links between Israel and Egypt see also:

J. Assmann, Moses the Egyptian
F. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch's Ideological Map

Instead of seeing it in terms of "total world dominance by the US and its client states" we can see it in terms of "total world dominance by consumerism and bad faith". — baker

I suppose, we could see it that way, but if consumerism is led by America (the world's largest consumer market) then it boils down to the same thing.

Moreover, America seems to decide which economic and political systems are acceptable, i.e., which policies are in line with US economic interests, and therefore, to be promoted, and which are contrary to US interests, and therefore, to be suppressed and eliminated from the face of the earth.

Consumerism also includes the mass consumption of entertainment and news largely produced by America and disseminated by America's client states.

It may well be that mankind is "willingly" heading in this direction, but that "will" is due to ignorance of the fact that by acting on it we reduce ourselves to consuming entities chained to a self-interested system over which we have no influence or control.

The direction can be changed by raising public awareness of the situation and taking measures to counteract it.

Rommen's book seems to be more about political philosophy but he does make some interesting points.

I think what is important to understand is that there is a lot of mythology involved in the mainstream perception of Judaism as an absolutely unique religion that developed in complete isolation from all external influence.

The truth of the matter is that Judaism did not emerge in a cultural vacuum and that the ancient Hebrews often were (consciously or unconsciously) influenced by neighboring cultures.

For example, following their departure from Egypt, they asked their leader Aaron, the elder brother of Moses, to make them a god to lead them. Aaron made the image of a calf from gold and presented it to his people as the God that had brought them out of Egyptian captivity. He also built an altar to it and the next morning a festival was held in honor of the God, with burned sacrifices, and “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and got up to party” (Exodus 32:1-6).

Obviously, they wouldn't have made such a request and held a festival with sacrifices, food, drink, and dance, unless they thought that this was the right thing to do. And they wouldn't have thought it was the right thing to do unless this was established practice.

Indeed, this may have been ancient Hebrew tradition. But it was also the tradition of neighboring peoples like the Egyptians and the Canaanites, among whom images of calves or young bulls represented the sacred or divine.

Similarly, the OT description of the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25), a wooden chest decorated with winged deities, which contained the Law Tablets, and which the Israelites carried with them on poles, is virtually identical with the ritual chests or coffers used by the Egyptians.

The ark was constructed using a visual language that everyone knew 3,300 years ago but is mostly lost to us today … the Chest of Anubis, a special canopic chest, was used to carry canopic jars to a tomb. It was covered in gold inside and out (as the ark in Exodus 25:11; 37:2), held sacred objects (as the ark in Deuteronomy 10:2, 5), and had its poles attached to its base. Its lid, which fit over the lip of the chest and was known as the “mercy seat,” bore a statue of Anubis (god who escorted the dead to the afterlife) made in one piece with the lid. These features are markedly similar to the ark …

- The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context – Biblical Archaeology Society

The Covenant itself follows the established pattern of ancient Near East treaties:

There seems to have been something of a standard covenant or treaty Gattung all over the ancient Near East. The Old Testament preserves the particular form of the pattern which was current in Israel.

Moreover,

The writers of the Old Testament were using the literary forms of their own age, and much can be learned by studying other examples of the same forms. Thus the structure and subject-matter of some of the Psalms can be paralleled in the literature of Ugarit; the wisdom literature of the Old Testament has numerous parallels in the ancient Near East; many of the laws of the Pentateuch have parallels in the Hammurabi Code and elsewhere; the Old Testament story of the Flood has certain points of contact with the Babylonian flood stories; indeed, examples could be multiplied …

J. A. Thompson, The Ancient Near Eastern Treaties And The Old Testament

Following their return to Canaan, the Israelites requested to be ruled by a king like all other nations:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, now make us a king to judge us like all the nations (1 Samuel 8:4-5).

It may be added that circumcision was widely practiced in Ancient Egypt and thus was not an exclusively “Jewish” custom. Even the prohibition against eating pork is paralleled in an Ancient Egyptian view of pigs as unclean animals and as suitable only for consumption by the poor.

Archaeological evidence shows that, for many centuries, polytheism and idolatry continued to be prevalent in the area inhabited by the Jews. Quite possibly, a religious elite existed that adhered to strict monotheism centered on the God Yahweh. But this doesn’t seem to have been the case in the general population, and monotheism began to gain ground only after the return from Babylon and the construction of the Second Temple in 516 BC (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed).

Between the tenth century BC and the beginning of their Babylonian exile in 586 BC, polytheism was normal throughout Israel. Worship solely of Yahweh became established only after the exile, and possibly, only as late as the time of the Maccabees (2nd century BC).

- Asherah - Wikipedia

Even in the Second-Temple period, the region was under Persian rule for two centuries, followed from the 300’s BC, by Greek rule and, finally, in Jesus’ time, by Roman rule.

As in Greek and Roman religion, animal sacrifice formed a central part of Jewish temple service until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD:

The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides believed that the sacrifices were a concession to the common practices in biblical times, when all nations worshiped by means of animal sacrifices … For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but, all elements of idolatry were removed. Instead, limitations were placed on sacrifices. They were confined to one central location (instead of each family having a home altar) – The Times of Israel.

In Judaism, the korban (קָרְבָּן qorbān), also spelled qorban or corban, is any of a variety of sacrificial offerings described and commanded in the Torah.
The object sacrificed was usually an animal that was ritually slaughtered and then transferred from the human to the divine realm by being burned on an altar.
After the destruction of the Second Temple, sacrifices were prohibited because there was no longer a Temple, the only place allowed by halakha for sacrifices. Offering of sacrifices was briefly reinstated during the Jewish–Roman wars of the second century CE and was continued in certain communities thereafter.

Korban – Wikipedia

In any case, by the time of Jesus, Judaism was heavily Hellenized and there is little evidence that all or most Jews rejected Greek influence. This is supported by the NT description of Jesus and his disciples reclining at table in the Greek manner (Mk 14:18), by later synagogue art depicting the Greek Sun God (or God Yahweh as the Sun God), etc.

So, I think the curious hypothesis to the effect that Jews hated Greeks and therefore couldn’t have spoken Greek or adopted elements of Greek culture including philosophy, can be safely dismissed as bogus.

In fact, as clearly pointed out by the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews took a great interest in Greek ideas and this is confirmed by the works of numerous Jewish philosophers from Philo to Maimonides.

While religious fanatics attempt to see (or imagine) irreconcilable differences, true philosophers understand that Greek philosophy is perfectly compatible with Judaism and Christianity alike.

For example, Platonism, Judaism, and Christianity all believe in one supreme reality or God. Even apparently incompatible beliefs such as reincarnation and resurrection can be reconciled when applied to different classes of souls occupying different levels of spiritual evolution and inhabiting different realms of existence in the afterlife.

As stated by Plato, knowledge and truth are of divine origin. So, I think it makes sense to assume that divine truth is universal and that different aspects of it are revealed at different points in time and space, and under consideration of the prevalent culture.

At the time of Moses, the dominant culture was Egyptian. Which is why we are told that “Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22).

Similarly, at the time of Jesus, the dominant culture was Hellenistic, i.e., Greek-influenced, and this applies to Judaism itself. Therefore, Jesus must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic, and the Judaism he was at home in was Hellenistic Judaism. It is also entirely possible that he had knowledge of Greek wisdom in the same way Moses had knowledge of Egyptian wisdom.

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.

Hellenistic Judaism – Wikipedia

It has been argued that all Judaism after the conquests of Alexander was Hellenistic Judaism … Although many have seen the Maccabean revolt as opposing Hellenistic culture, this is to be very much doubted.

L. Grabbe, Hellenistic Judaism

Hellenization is used with reference to Judea, Persia, etc. to indicate the penetration of elements of Greek civilization into territories which, though subject to Greco-Macedonian rule for a certain period of time, preserved their national culture with conspicuous success … Confronted with Greek ideas, some attempted to combine Greek intellectual values with Hebrew ones; such efforts were more successful in Egypt than in Judea. However, even in Judea the Hellenizing movement under Antiochus IV came near to prevailing.

Hellenism – Jewish Virtual Library

Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 AD, when the Romans razed the place to the ground and banned all Jews from the city, Jews became focused more on the scriptural texts as that was all they had left.

But before that, in Jesus’ time, Judaism, i.e., Hellenistic Judaism which was the dominant form of the religion, was very similar to Greek and Roman religion, being centered on animal sacrifice. Even the ten commandments (Decalogue) were almost identical to Greek laws and customs, as the Greeks had similar prohibitions against blasphemy, murder, theft, adultery, perjury, injunctions to respect one’s parents and honor the Gods, etc.

So, we can see how Greek ideas disseminated by traveling philosophers and missionaries would have been transmitted to those sections of the Galilean population that were receptive to them in the same way Greek language had become the lingua franca of the whole region.

Unfortunately, attempts were made by later generations of Christians, Jews, and Muslims to claim that truth belongs exclusively to them. But I think at least some aspects of truth must be universal ....

I agree that in an ideal world no country should be invaded by another. In fact, in an ideal world there would be no need for countries to take such an action.

Unfortunately, the world is not ideal and invasions do happen: Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir (1947), China’s invasion of Tibet (1951), China’s invasion of India (1962), Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus (1974), America’s invasion of Iraq (2003), Turkey’s invasion of Syria (2019), etc., etc.

What is particularly interesting is that very little if any action was taken by the international community in response to the above (and many other) invasions. So, what makes Ukraine different?

I think part of the answer is that the West (US and UK in particular) has long seen Russia as an economic and military rival to be contained and, as far as possible, to be brought under Western economic, financial, and political dominance. Additionally, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine frustrates NATO’s and the EU’s expansion plans.

Another factor that makes Ukraine different is the media coverage and the public response to it. Since the pandemic and the lockdowns, growing numbers of people have turned to the news and social media and have become susceptible to political and ideological influence or manipulation.

Zelensky himself is a media man and TV actor who for many years has used the media to sell himself and his narrative. His predecessor Poroshenko has described Zelensky as a “puppet of (oligarch) Kolomoisky” and his election as “the biggest electoral fraud in Ukrainian history”.

Moreover,

Despite his campaign promises, no progress has been made in fighting corruption. According to Transparency International, Ukraine remains the third-most-corrupt country in Europe, after Russia and Azerbaijan. Anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies are either stalling or run by loyalists appointed by the president … – New York Times

This does not necessarily justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine - it certainly doesn't justify bombing innocent and unarmed civilians - but it raises some pertinent questions concerning Zelensky’s legitimacy and the accuracy of the way the events are being presented to the public by the Western media.

Incidentally, the EU has announced a €1.2 billion loans package to Ukraine, in addition to €500 million in humanitarian aid and further hundreds of millions in military aid from the EU and US. I think it is safe to assume that in a country with corruption levels like those of Ukraine, a large part of that will end up in the wrong hands (or pockets).

In any case, instead of having one economic and military bloc constantly expanding at the expense of others, I think it would make more sense to have some kind of balance of power in the region and in the world. Otherwise there is a real danger that Western imperialism – economic, financial, military, political, and cultural - will lead to total world dominance by the US and its client states.

In the short term, the West’s actions can only result in Russia turning to China and leaving the latter in a much stronger position than before vis-à-vis the West.

China Sees at Least One Winner Emerging From Ukraine War: China – New York Times

And yes, for a more complete picture it is important to look at it from various perspectives, including the Russian one .... :smile:

Well, as I have nothing to do either with Zelensky or his approval ratings, I doubt very much it's got anything to do with me.

The fact remains though that his approval ratings have reportedly gone up from 31% before to 90% after the conflict. As with anything else in life, you win some and you lose some. In any case, he could have avoided the conflict by accepting Russia's requests, as apparently suggested by Naftali Bennett:

Russia-Ukraine war: 'Bennett wants us to surrender,' says senior Kyiv official - Middle East Eye

PS Incidentally, there seem to be signs that some agreement may be reached within the next few days:

Russia and Ukraine give brightest assessment yet of progress in talks on war – Reuters

The question is whether this could have been done earlier in order to prevent unnecessary death and destruction ...

Why did they elect a comedian and went off with a totally new party to rule in the last elections? — ssu

Let's not forget that the election campaign run by Zelensky was mostly virtual using social media channels and YouTube clips, and with the backing of Kolomoisky’s media network.

If you control the media, you control public opinion. Members of Kolomoisky’s party UKROP campaigned as candidates for Zelensky’s party.

By all accounts, Kolomoisky is basically a mobster:

In reality, Kolomoisky is tied to alleged contract killings and armed militias and jaw-dropping bribery. And all of those tools made Kolomoisky, by the mid-2010s, one of the most powerful figures in Ukraine … 'I think Kolomoisky is super-dangerous,' one American diplomat said. 'He was one of the first oligarchs who began to act like a warlord.' … As both Ukrainian investigators and American authorities have detailed, Kolomoisky allegedly oversaw a multi-year, multi-national money laundering scheme meant to loot billions from unsuspecting Ukrainian depositors … The U.S. directly sanctioned Kolomoisky in early 2021, announcing his 'involvement in significant corruption.'

Who is Ihor Kolomoisky? - The Spectator

Though Zelensky and Kolomoisky are supposed to have grown apart since the elections, Kolomoisky’s party continues to support Zelensky’s. And as a matter of fact, Zelensky’s approval ratings as president had sunk to 31% before the conflict.

How President Zelensky’s approval ratings have surged - New Statesman

So, I think we can see that he isn't much good as a president and that he is obviously profiting from the conflict ….

It's a natural human tendency to support the aggressed against the aggressor. — Olivier5

Correct. And this tendency is exploited by all propaganda operatives worth their salt. Hence the almost automatic recourse to claims of "genocide" on both sides. The inevitable result is that, irrespective of the facts, whoever happens to shout "genocide" loudest, or has the better propaganda machine, will tend to attract the most attention and support ....

Very interesting. However, not particularly coherent or convincing, to be honest.

The way I see it, it is imperative to understand that this isn’t about your opinion but about facts. And the crucial fact is that NATO and the EU have been expanding for decades, not Russia.

After its formation in 1949 with twelve founding members, NATO grew rapidly by including Greece and Turkey in 1952 and West Germany in 1955. The addition of West Germany into NATO prompted the Soviet Union to adopt their own collective security alliance, informally called the Warsaw Pact in 1955 … The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to a number former Warsaw Pact and post-Soviet states requesting to join NATO. This prompted objection from Russia as it viewed these states as falling within its sphere of influence …

Enlargement of NATO – Wikipedia

The European Union (EU) has expanded a number of times throughout its history by way of the accession of new member states to the Union.

Enlargement of the European Union – Wikipedia

Incidentally, Tomas Ries, associate professor at the Swedish National Defence College, has said:

From a Russian military perspective, I can understand that they were worried when Nato was enlarged … It’s an awkward position for the West. It is true that the US and Nato have used force when they felt they needed to. Sometimes it was justified, as in the Balkans in 1995, but sometimes it was very dodgy like in Iraq. From the Russian perspective, I can see how they can make that argument.

In contrast, from what I see, you expect us to assume that everything that Russia says is “propaganda” and everything that America says is the pure and unalloyed gospel truth. But the fact is that America does use propaganda on a regular basis:

Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities … The US military defines psychological operations, or PSYOP, as: planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence the emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals …

Propaganda in the United States – Wikipedia

It certainly seems to have worked on you. In any case, an essential step toward the correct understanding of the current international situation would be to acknowledge that the root cause of the problem is not Russian aggression but Western imperialism, the former being a mere reaction to the latter.

So, basically, what you seem to be arguing is that Russia should not be allowed to react but must always allow itself to be acted on by America and its instruments of foreign policy like NATO and the EU, in any way or ways that Washington or Wall Street fancy .... :smile: