JW Insider

This is one of the reasons apparently why the book of Daniel was nearly not accepted into the Jewish Canon of Holy Scriptures (and why Revelation for similar reasons was nearly not accepted into the Christian Canon of Holy Scriptures). Of nearly all the books, these were two where the disputes lasted about the longest. It probably seemed too specific to the circumstances of the first group for whom it had an intended audience. But we have it recorded that Jesus quoted the book of Daniel, where the context was about the KON, and he implied that Rome was taking on the role that the Seleucids had fulfilled. But this implication can be disputed, too, because Jesus never mentioned the King of the North, but he did imply that the fulfillment of the "disgusting thing that causes desolation" was to have a fulfillment at around the time when the Roman armies would be surrounding, or preparing to surround, Jerusalem and the Temple. (Matthew 24:15, 16) . . .“Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken about by Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place (let the reader use discernment), 16 then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains." (Luke 21:20, 21) 20 “However, when you see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·deʹa begin fleeing to the mountains,. . . And if Jesus was allowing for a second fulfillment , or completion of the fulfillment in those years, then do we have the right to go beyond what Jesus said and also make it about who the King of the North and King of the South should be in all the future years after Rome?

I was hoping to avoid the typical sarcasm (I'm guilty of it too) against the organizations of Christendom and our own WTS, too, who have had a lot of untenable explanations and interpretations over the years for these things. I don't want to impute bad motives when I don't know the motives. I understand the circumstances that the WTS and GB have sort of boxed themselves into by believing that there must be a specific "last days" interpretation. I know some of the reasons for this interpretation, especially the identification of the KON with Russia now, and Germany in the 1940's, for example. But I see some issues with the explanation, and hoped to deal specifically with the issues about the explanations, not the motives.

Also, the directions from which both of these kings would effectively take turns oppressing Israel is clear from the map found below:

But that's a bit beside the point, which is that Daniel 11 clearly has a very specific set of kings in mind. I have not yet figured out exactly why so many Bible commentators have decided that they should apply new and different kings to these kings of the north and south. Why do we do this for the KON and KOS, but not for any of the predecessor kings like Alexander the Great. If Daniel 11 referred to the Seleucid and Ptolemaic empire/kingdoms which were two of the four generals split from Alexander's empire when he died, then why do we say that it has changed its meaning over the years?

Under another topic "Dmitar" quoted from material that matches Wilmington's Bible Handbook, p439, about Daniel 11: Then Dmitar quoted material that matches the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia about Antiochus, p.143-4 in the edition I'm referencing (1979): ANTIOCHUS 2. The favorite name of the Seleucid kings, whose history with reference to Jewish affairs is contained particularly in the books of Maccabees, and is predicted with remarkable minuteness in Dan 11. The name was first borne by one of the generals of Philip, whose son SELEUCUS , by the hold of the first Ptolemy, established himself as ruler of Babylon. In the Macedonian calendar the Seleucid era began with Dios 1 (Oct. 7), 321 B.C.; in the Babylonian it began with Nisanu 1 (Apr. 3), 311 B.C. Parker and Dubberstein cautioned: "The beginnings and ends of their reigns cannot always be determined with exactitude" (Babylonian Chronology [1956], p. 20). When Ptolemy, son of Lagus, became master of Southern Syria, the line dividing Seleucus and his successors from the Ptolemies (cf. "king of the north" and "king of the south" in Dan 11) was drawn somewhat to the north of Damascus, the capital of Coele-Syria. If anyone is interested, the context of that quote is here, on page 20: http://www.caeno.org/pdf/Parker_Babylonian chronology_Kings reigns.pdf I reference the context of the original because some of us might be tempted to make use of this quote from P&D to indicate that Neo-Babylonian chronology cannot always be determined with exactitude. So it's good to notice the entire sentence: "The beginnings and ends of [their] reigns cannot always be determined with the exactitude that was possible in the earlier periods. However . . . there is no difficulty in establishing the calendar or in translating [these] dates into Julian dates."

It seems like all the major JW-related topics on this forum, no matter what the original topic, have become a mix of discussions that will end up including: Russia, Ukraine, Covid19, the UN, the KON, the KOS, and China. That's perfectly fine, of course. But for ease of reference, what if we could include our basic ideas and opinions about the KON, KOS, GOG and MAGOG, in one place. I'm not proposing to move any posts from other topics to here, but anyone should feel free to copy and quote what's been said elsewhere, if they wish. I wanted to start with some quotes from WTS publications as a basis. First from the Pure Worship book: *** rr chap. 17 p. 183 par. 8 “I Am Against You, O Gog” *** 8 “The king of the north.” (Read Daniel 11:40-45.) Daniel foretold the march of world powers from his day down to our time. The prophecy also mentions rival political foes—“the king of the south” and “the king of the north”—each of them having changed identity over the centuries as various earthly nations have fought for supremacy. Regarding the final campaign of the king of the north in “the time of the end,” Daniel said: “He will go out in a great rage to annihilate and to devote many to destruction.” Jehovah’s worshippers are the primary target of the king of the north. But like Gog of Magog, the king of the north comes “to his end” after failing in his attack on God’s people. And on the topic of Gog of Magog, just previous to the above quote: *** rr chap. 17 p. 182 “I Am Against You, O Gog” *** The Enemy—Gog of Magog 3 Read Ezekiel 38:1, 2, 8, 18; 39:4, 11. Here is the gist of the prophecy: “In the final part of the years,” an enemy called “Gog of . . . Magog” invades “the land” of God’s people. But that vicious attack causes Jehovah’s “great rage” to flare up, and Jehovah steps in and defeats Gog. Victorious, Jehovah gives his defeated enemy and all those with him “as food to all kinds of birds of prey and the wild beasts.” Finally, Jehovah gives Gog “a burial place.” To understand how this prophecy will be fulfilled in the near future, we first need to identify Gog. 4 Who, then, is Gog of Magog? From Ezekiel’s description, we may conclude that Gog is an enemy of pure worshippers. Is Gog a prophetic name for Satan—the greatest of all enemies of true worship? For many decades, that is what our publications said. However, a further consideration of Ezekiel’s prophecy led to an adjustment in our understanding. The Watchtower explained that the title Gog of Magog refers, not to an invisible spirit creature, but to a visible human enemy—a coalition of nations that will fight against pure worship. Before we review the basis for such a conclusion, let us first examine two clues in Ezekiel’s prophecy that indicate that Gog is not a spirit creature. 5 “I will give you as food to all kinds of birds of prey.” (Ezek. 39:4) The Scriptures often use the idea of birds of prey devouring a carcass as a warning of divine judgment. God gave such warnings to the nation of Israel as well as to non-Israelite nations. (Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33; Ezek. 29:3, 5) Note, though, that those divine warnings were given, not to spirit creatures, but to flesh-and-blood humans. After all, birds of prey and wild beasts eat flesh, not spirit. So this divine warning in Ezekiel’s prophecy suggests that Gog is not a spirit creature. 6 “I will give Gog a burial place . . . in Israel.” (Ezek. 39:11) The Scriptures do not speak of spirit creatures as being buried on earth. Rather, Satan and his demons will be abyssed for 1,000 years, and later they will be hurled into the symbolic lake of fire, signifying their everlasting destruction. (Luke 8:31; Rev. 20:1-3, 10) Since Gog is spoken of as being given “a burial place” on earth, we may conclude that he is not a spirit creature.

Clever.

The 520 are all the notifications I have in the last 30 days from the dozen or so people I follow, or people who respond to posts I made, or react to them, or mention me. But I am saying that out of every 500+ notifications, it's not unusual to have over a hundred of those notifications where Dmitar has referred to me or down-voted me, or tried to draw my attention to him in some negative way.

When I click on the Notifications icon (looks like a bell) there is a link at the bottom that says "Seel All Notifications." When I click on that link, I get the 520 notifications that I received for the last 30 days (since February 13). There are 25 on a page, and I have 21 pages of them. On every page there are usually a few out of the 25 that say "Dmitar mentioned you in a topic: . . ." In fact, some pages have you mentioning me 4 or 5 times on the same page. Here's a representative example, below, of 6 notifications in a row where half of them show Dmitar mentioning me in a topic -- and it's often a topic that I had not even participated in. I just figure it's usually Dmitar trying to cause divisions again. (See Titus 3:10 NIV.) It's a little bit like a notification that "Dmitar has reacted to a post in a topic . . . " Whenever I see that latter notification, I can always predict that it's a down-vote of some kind, and I can usually be assured by the down-vote that what I said was most likely correct. I have received hundreds of these from you (under your various names). After a while, it's so predictable that I think of it as a kind of proofreader's mark: If Dmitar down-voted it, then it's probably correct and there's usually no need to go and re-read what I wrote there. I noticed your implication that I will respond to only your mistakes and not others when you said: This is rather absurd, because, as I showed above, you have tried to draw me into hundreds of your posts and I have often never even looked at them, or at least never responded to most of them. Also, I don't keep a count, but I suspect that I have seen well over 10,000 mistakes you have made, under your various names here, and most of these mistakes are obvious to everyone. Yet, I have responded only to a tiny fraction of them, even ignoring the grossest of those errors. And, of course, I have made many mistakes here and welcome correction by others, and I hope most others have welcomed the times when I have corrected their mistakes, too. In fact, the only reason I responded to your mistake about Paul vs. Matthew Levi (son of Alphaeus) is that it reminded me of the fact that I have only seen you twice admit a mistake and then only when it didn't really matter. It was someone else who pointed it out once and I had pointed out the other one you admitted to. But I have seen people (including myself) point out mistakes you have made and I have seen you go to extremely ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting having made an error. I just happened to get curious about what you would use as your excuse this time. Predictably you came up with a "good" one: that you had made the mistake on purpose, just to see if you could draw me into the conversation. Quite a stretch, but I see you have tried to make it work by purposely throwing in another mistake about Levi being the name of Matthew's father, instead of Alphaeus. This one, of course, you DID put in there on purpose, evidently to claim that my current response somehow can convince stupid people that it was what you intended with the first mistake, too. I don't think most people here are stupid enough to fall for it.

If you got that from the NWT Glossary, you probably weren't the only one to understand it this way: *** nwt p. 1707 Glossary of Bible Terms *** Some were also members of the Sanhedrin. They often opposed Jesus regarding Sabbath observance, traditions, and association with sinners and tax collectors. Some became Christians, including Saul of Tarsus.—Mt 9:11; 12:14; Mr 7:5; Lu 6:2; Ac 26:5. It's easy to misread this and come to the conclusion that Paul was a tax collector. But it is really referring to the fact that Saul/Paul had been a member of the Pharisees.

I'm very willing to listen. Sounds like you have a good idea.

I don't know.

Christendom's commentaries have often promoted a tradition that Gog/Magog refers in modern times to Russia/USSR. I grabbed the above map from somewhere on Wikipedia and saved it in a Microsoft Notebook. Probably from an article on the Seleucid Empire. So it's meant to represent a time about half-way between Ezekiel and Revelation. Historical maps of the Russian Empire can be found here: https://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1100/index.html Good historical maps here include the overlapping Scythian Empire: http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/scythian_empire_map.htm

Oh no! I promised myself I wouldn't respond to any of this 1975 stuff unless someone asked me a direct question, either on "private messaging" or directly in the forum. We've beaten this subject to death under other topic headings. When you ask, "how was it back then?" I can naturally only speak to my own experience and those near me at the time. Many people have already made the point that there was more speculation in some regions than in others. I was baptized in 1967 but was only 10 years old, and I know that I was personally influenced by all the talk, and the books about 1975 that had just been published. I started auxiliary pioneering every summer since 1967, and finally quit high school when I was still 15, to start regular pioneering in 1973, and hoped to go to Bethel in 1975. I wasn't old enough until the beginning of 1976. We were in a region that also had a District Overseer who pushed the "Stay Alive 'til 75!" idea, although he used different words. We had two different circuit overseers during that time, and I've spoken to one several times since then (Kent Carras) over the years. He had the most influence on me quitting school and going to Bethel. My mother was a great believer in the 1975-era speculation. My father was actually against all of it, and it even got him in a bit of trouble with the District Overseer, a Circuit Overseer and one of the elders who worked for him. It was on his side of the family that my great-grandfather and grandfather and grandmother had listened to the same type of speculation over 1925. It was my father who told me that the same phrase had been used: "Stay Alive Until 1925!" He recognized it for what it was, and always tamped it down with Jesus' words about no one knowing the day or hour. (That's actually what got him in trouble with the the District Overseer.) So I was very much in the middle of the speculation, and was too young and enthusiastic about the Watchtower Society's "likely" prediction that I might not have time in this system to graduate high school, and that it would be even less likely that I could complete a degree in college. And then there was the direct and absolute prediction in the Watchtower publications that I would never be able to take advantage of a college degree in this system. (My father was the "presiding overseer" but he taught at the local university, and ran the electronics labs there. He hired several Witnesses and two other elders, so he never got the flack about education that some Witnesses got in those days. He also had a two-year electronics trade school program in mind for me.) There were very few in my area who weren't pretty well versed in all the speculation. They could quote the Watchtower's material, and only a few people were actually speculating that Armageddon had to happen by 1975. This was their own speculation, not the Watchtower's. My mother was a 1974 person, because it still had to be a surprise. That was also her own speculation, of course. But our Circuit Overseer (Carras) understood that it was not about the system ending in 1975, per se, but it was about what the "1970's" will bring. He was able to show how the Watchtower was actually only predicting that it "could" happen by 1975, but that the system COULD go on as late as 1977 or even 1978. In other words, it could happen by 1975, but it will happen before the end of the 1970's. Curiously, all that talk about the 1970's went away by the end of 1975, or even by 1974, and the new "date" was soon pushed out to as late as the year 2000, for when this system will have already ended. When I got to Bethel in 1976, I was in the Art Department, but given some research assignments that eventually led to working for Brother Bert Schroeder starting in 1977 (until 1982). This kept me in the Bethel Library (and Gilead Library) almost daily and I began working with several of the other members of the Writing Department. My current understanding of the 1975 issues is very much influenced by what I learned from them (including Brother Swingle, Schroeder, Chitty, Rusk, and 3 members of the "Aid Book" team). Although I hardly said more than just "hello" to Raymond Franz in those years, I did speak to F.W.Franz for several hours of taped interviews in 1978 (mostly about organizational history after 1925). After reading what R.Franz said about the 1975 issue in "Crisis of Conscience" I'd say that it is probably the most accurate recounting of the 1975 situation. I don't think anyone who was at Bethel during those years would find any inaccuracy in what he said.

That’s the trouble with you Australians. You Georgian and Albanians too. And you Spanish. And you Texans. And you….well pretty much everyone not in the non-Texas USA I mentioned the Indian and Pakistani phone scammers recently. Sometimes they call to tell me that they are the Office of Customs and Border Patrol and it's usually about a rented car under my name on the Texas border in which they found drugs and evidence of wire transfers to a bank account. They give themselves names like "Officer John Williams" even though they have trouble making that name sound "American." I have sometimes responded with in an exaggeratedly slow Texas drawl: I say: "This is Officer Srinivas Patel." (pronounced: SuhREEEE-nee-vaaahs Paw-Teyyaaaal') Nothing sarcastic about it!

Of course, I was being a bit flippant. I was thinking a bit like Dmitar when he used this kind of wordplay a while back in another topic: The Watchtower did something similar when we used to emphasize more often that even Abel was one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Using the same reasoning, if you are a Witness, I would certainly hope you are also both a Restorationist and a Unitarian. I know you knew what I meant, but for those who didn't, I'll offer a bit more explanation. If you believe there is only one God then you are a Unitarian and not a Trinitarian. Merriam-Webster includes the following as the very first Definition of unitarian: 1a often capitalized : one who believes that the deity exists only in one person And the Watchtower recognizes this as a the primary tenet of unitarianism. *** w77 4/15 p. 247 Isaac Newton’s Search for God *** Our Unitarian Heritage, by Earl M. Wilbur, Boston 1925, pp. 289-294. *** w57 7/15 p. 428 par. 3 The Holy Spirit—Third Person of Trinity or God’s Active Force? *** With but very few exceptions the creeds of Christendom state that God’s holy spirit is the third person of a trinity, coequal, coeternal and cosubstantial with the Father and the Son. . . . An exception is the Unitarian creed . . . ”—Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott. And of course we believe strongly that the true religion should be restored according to first century Christianity rather than the apostasy that took over mostly from the second century onward, which was the goal of the Restorationist movement that Russell participated in: *** w14 5/15 p. 26 par. 1 Are You Moving Ahead With Jehovah’s Organization? *** JEHOVAH is rightly credited with the establishment of the Christian congregation in the first century and with the restoration of true worship in recent times. *** g89 10/22 p. 20 Part 20—19th Century Onward—Restoration Imminent! *** Clearly, what was needed was restoration, the restoration of true worship!...Back in the first century, Jesus reactivated true worship in the form of Christianity. Yet, he prophesied that there would be an apostasy. ... In the latter half of the 19th century, the appointed time for this restoration of true worship was at the doors. Charles Taze Russell was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1852... @Space Merchant appears to use this same idea of restorationism similar to the first sentence under that topic in Wikipedia. Restorationism (or Christian primitivism) is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the apostolic early church, which restorationists see as the search for a purer and more ancient form of the religion.[1][2][3]

Czech-mate!

That's exactly what I was thinking. Not what I was thinking. If I were Russia, I would definitely not give a head's up to the US or Ukraine that one of the things Russia was going to look for was evidence that these biolabs were military-related. The US has always been careful, I'm sure, to keep military uses of bio-weapons hidden, but a surprise visit by Russian military forces could catch the paper-trail destroyers off-guard.

Copied from https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-07/Russia-reveals-evidence-of-U-S-funded-bio-program-in-Ukraine-18cUbBlPXhu/index.html --------------------------all of the below is copied--------------------- U.S. embassy deletes files on Ukrainian bio-labs According to a report of The Rio Times and a Twitter message posted by the Brazilian new agency's investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva, the American Embassy in Ukraine on February 26 removed all documents about Pentagon-financed bio-labs in Ukraine from its website. But they forgot to remove a document showing that the Pentagon is funding two new biolabs in Kyiv and Odesa. One of the old labs financed by the U.S. in Ukraine is located in Kharkiv, the country's second-largest city. In January 2016, at least 20 Ukrainian soldiers died there from a flu-like virus in two days while another 200 soldiers were hospitalized. However, the Ukrainian government did not provide details on the soldiers who died. A screenshot of The Rio Times' investigative journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva's Tweet. U.S.-funded overseas bio-labs concerns The U.S. has set up over 200 bio-labs in 25 countries and regions across the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union, with 16 in Ukraine alone. Some of the places where the labs are based have seen large-scale outbreaks of measles and other dangerous infectious diseases, triggering international concerns about the safety of U.S. overseas laboratories.

Yes. I believe the US funded bio-labs in Ukraine were openly admitted in 2016. They didn't become an "accusation" until just now.

The situation from about the time of the "Orange revolution" in the decade or so prior to the 2014 "Maidan revolution:" 2000s-2013: Ukraine was pretty much split into two political groups. Each election allowed them only two choices, and neither of them ever did much good. One choice would be a politician who wanted to work with the EU, NATO and have US support. The second option would be a politician who wanted to work with Russia, or was at least for neutrality. But neither choice ever really resulted in help from US/NATO or Russia. Still, western Ukraine tended for option 1, and eastern Ukraine tended for option 2. Easterners, more of them Russian-language speakers, still saw the old Soviet factories as a way to provide employment and products for economic trade, and this was seen as a way out of the severe economic hardship of the 1990s. Westerners, more of them Ukrainian-language speakers, looked for new opportunities with the EU and the US. (Languages were actually very mixed on both sides.) The 2004 election was close, and resulted in mostly western Ukraine protesting when Yanukovych won. He was considered too "pro-Russian." They ran the election again and this time Yushchenko won. He was considered pro-EU. The protests on both sides at this time was dubbed the "Orange Revolution" (2004). Right-wing nationalists and white supremacists, Nazis, and Neo-Nazis (Svoboda, Popular Front, Right Sektor, etc.) also ran for positions in parliament, the cabinet, and the military. Especially from 2004 to 2007 was a time when statues of Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera went up all over Ukraine.

For the record, I never thought SM was associated with the Unitarian Church. I've even corrected others who thought so, because SM was always careful about how he used the term Unitarian (and Restorationist, etc.). For that matter, I am also a Unitarian (and a Restorationist). I don't know much of anything about these Truthers, though.

Assuming that many world-watchers these days were much younger than I am, and assuming that most of us also have short memories, I will jump to the major events of 1991-1994 or so, before going back to pick up more history from between the 1930s and the 1960's. 1991 to 1994: The fall of the USSR included the US selecting Yeltsin and his vice-president (PM) Putin, to put into power. It was a violent coup in the midst of very large pro-communist protests in Moscow. The US gave tons of money and intelligence support. Naturally, the US backed the privatization of all major industries and factories. Yeltsin/Putin had US support to abolish the constitutional bicameral legislature to rule by Presidential Decree only and ban political parties (1993). Yeltsin sent tanks and shelled his own government buildings when the elected representatives refused to accept this. The US then promised Yeltsin/Putin that NATO would no longer try to expand even "one inch to the East." But seeing that Russia might be able to integrate economically into Europe because of its control of 30% to 40% of Europe's gas supply (along with oil, potash and other resources) the US decided to break that promise. The US capitalists wanted the gas/oil monopoly, and used NATO as a bullying army to protect monopolistic interests against resources in Yugoslavia, Syria, and Iraq -- literally killing MILLIONS. The Nord Stream 2 was a cooperative effort between Germany and Russia to supply natural gas, which would also have interfered with the monopolistic goal of the US. Russia had already figured this out when NATO bombed Yugoslavia and when NATO used the strategy of recruiting parties of former European Nazis/ultra-nationalists to help use ethnic differences to split up countries. Russian officials had declared countries along their border as the "Red Line" that NATO wouldn't cross, so the US pushed, not just NATO expansion to Russia's border, but even nuclear weapon across that line wherever possible -- so that Russia would be surrounded with US-supported troops and weapons. This is the part of the background to the recent statement by Adam Schiff, when he declared in January 2020, that we are using Ukraine to “fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia here.” But back to the 1990's. With the fall of the USSR, nearly all the once-Soviet countries suffered from the capitalist privatizations. In Russia, Armenia, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Azerbaijan, for example, it quickly led to deep poverty, unemployment, etc. What was rarely reported in the West was actual starvation, mass emigrations, and even millions of deaths across these countries. With employment, trade and production interrupted, people tried to provide for their own dietary needs through gardening. This was much greater damage in Eastern Europe even than that of the Great Depression. In GDP terms, the Ukraine itself has still not recovered from the 1991 independence. This makes a country ripe for partisan strife and civil war. About 30% of the population is Russian (or Russian-Ukrainian). The ethnic diversity around the ex-Soviet states left Russians, Georgians. Poles. Armenians in additional potential conflict in many places. Examples were the conflicts in Azerbaijan and Armenia, and even worse in the case of Georgia, where wars occurred in 1991, 2004 and 2008 between Georgians in the south and "pro-Russia" Ossetians in the north bordering with Russia. Russia intervened especially in 2008. Although Putin sees the fall of the USSR a "major geopolitical disaster of the century," he has not given indications that he supports reconstituting it, as the West will often claim. (Even by purposely mistranslating Putin's comments.) But he does acknowledge that tens of millions of Russians "patriots" immediately found themselves outside Russian territory. This is why most of the Ukrainians who fled Ukraine during the last 8 years of US-supported bombing of their own citizens were actually fleeing to Russia. Even now many Ukrainians who end up fleeing to Poland would prefer to flee to Russia but the entire border is now an "eastern front." A third of Ukrainians still claim nostalgia for the USSR, since their standard of living was somewhat higher for most of them. And Moscow's leadership often showed preferential treatment for Ukrainians, since many of those leaders were from Ukraine to begin with. Polls (Gallup, Pew) show that this nostalgia, believing things were better, is actually a majority view in many former Soviet states, even parts of Germany. But with the former state-backed industries sold off to capitalists and "oligarchs," there has also been a terrible influence of corruption along with an associated right-wing influence in politics. The oligarchs (and oligarch-backed politicians) were inclined to pay the OUN and neo-Nazi street gangs to serve as their own mafia protection, which helped legitimized the Nazi problem. (Should note that the word "oligarch" tends to imply non-Western corruption, but it's just as true in the West that the billionaire pharmacy leaders, the billionaire tech leaders, the billionaire petroleum giants, etc., are just as much oligarchs, and also spend millions upon millions in the West to influence decisions of government.) Ukraine's Nazi problem is openly out of control, but similar issues have arisen in Poland, Bulgaria, Lithuania, etc.

In the event of war, American main-stream media (MSM) becomes State Media. MSM outlets can become partisan on public bipartisan issues and might lose half their population of listeners, but at least they believe they will gain loyalty from the remaining half. But with the State apparatus pushing against a common national enemy or antagonist, these outlets can't afford to be seen as anti-American. Today, even attempts at neutrality are seen recently as pro-Putin, and therefore anti-American. BBC journalists who just recently exposed the corruption of ultra-nationalists at all levels of the Ukrainian government are already re-writing their position to claim it's a recently coined "Putin myth." Wikipedia articles that discussed Russian issues with Ukraine, Georgia and Crimea have been undergoing very recent changes in the last few weeks, even to the point of re-titling links and names of newspaper articles so that it appears they were saying the opposite of what they originally said. So I thought it would be a good idea to review some of the well-documented history, even as that "history" changes before our eyes. For the first part, I'll deal mostly with the early background. 1930s through WW2: The German Nazis worked with the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) in order to sabotage, destabilize, and hopefully destroy the Soviet Union. Prior to WW2, the US and UK had not decided which side they would support in the event of war, and Churchill was ready to side with the "Axis Powers" wanting Germany to invade the USSR. Thus, pre-WW2, the US and UK supported the OUN. Immediately after WW2, the US and UK began supporting the OUN again. The OUN's UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) had been guilty of dozens of horrendous massacres, including the rounding up of Jews in barns, for example, and then burning them alive in those locked barns. There is a direct link between this practice and the praise of OUN leaders by the current Ukrainian Nazis. In fact, during the Euromaidan uprising (around 2014), one of the most famous repetitions of this practice was the rounding up of about 50 counter-protesters into a building, and burning them alive in Odessa. To get a better understanding of OUN history, one can look up Category:War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army Here there are links to articles about nearly 20 of the more famous Nazi war crimes and massacres committed by this Ukrainian army. Under Stepan Bandera, the OUN massacred Jews, Russians and communists. The Ukrainian Nazis established a so-called independent government allied with Germany and joined Hitler's attacks. They led their end of the Holocaust and pledged allegiance to Hitler, while Hitler's invasion of the USSR (1941) ultimately resulted in the deaths of about 26,000,000 Soviets and communists. By the end of the war, the OUN was forced "underground." Stepan Bandera's name is still celebrated in Ukraine. The anniversary of his birth is celebrated. His picture is still carried. Streets are named after him. Imagine if every major US city had streets and avenues named "Hitler Boulevard." President Zelensky himself has been forced to acknowledge Bandera's "hero" status, although appears very uncomfortable about the number of streets named after Bandera: "There are indisputable heroes. Stepan Bandera is a hero for a certain part of Ukrainians, and this is a normal and cool thing. He was one of those who defended the freedom of Ukraine. But I think that when we name so many streets, bridges by the same name, this is not quite right," The commonly heard Ukrainian chant: "Glory to the Heroes" is actually a reference to the WW2-era Ukrainian "Nazi heroes" and has become the equivalent of the "Sieg Heil" among modern Ukrainian Nazis. There are dozens of modern pictures of Ukrainians with Nazi swastikas and other Nazi symbols. I won't put them here, but it's easy to find pictures of single large rallies with all these things at once, including the Svoboda party, Right Sektor, the red-black OUN flag, images of Stepan Bandera, and the "Sieg-Heil" salute. Of course, there are also pictures of American politicians (e.g., John McCain) standing with members of these same white supremacist, nationalist parties. https://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/ In spite of the bad optics, the US and Ukraine were the only two countries that voted against a UN resolution condemning Nazism and Neo-Nazism just a few months ago (December 2021). Overwhelmingly, 130 countries voted in favor. Why not just abstain like several other countries, including Germany and all members of the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand? It's because Russia is among the 30+ co-sponsors of the anti-Nazi resolution every year since 2015. And the US always votes against it, and US allies also feel they must abstain. As this article points out: https://countercurrents.org/2021/12/u-s-and-ukraine-only-two-countries-vote-against-un-resolution-condemning-nazism/ On December 16, the UN General Assembly passed its annual resolution on “Combating Glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” with 130 countries voting in favor and only two in opposition. . . . Sponsored by Russia and more than 30 other UN members, the resolution expresses concern about any form of glorifying Nazism, including putting up monuments and holding public parades honoring the Waffen SS – combat units within Nazi Germany’s military – or declaring them national liberation movements, among other things. Russia has long taken issue with Ukraine and the three Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – honoring individuals and organizations affiliated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.

If people can put up with extremely foul language, there are some very "funny" videos from a person who makes his living off making scammers angry. About three days ago, my son was here and I had just shown my wife a nearly sure-fire way to make phone scammers angry, and while I was explaining the method, I got the same kind of scammer, and I tried it, and this time I let the scammer go on screaming (FOR 25 MINUTES!!!) about what he was going to do to me (and my wife) and we thought it was hilarious. But my son then told me about this expert I had never heard of who uses all kinds of methods, and even has a video about how he has ranked some of latest "victims" in order of their anger: But that's not why I bring him up. In exposing scams he just did one about the "Propaganda Scams" going on to promote the war against Russia in Ukraine: