Dear friends, I apologise for this long article. I intended to write a short piece but the material led me on. Much of the detail is my thinking because I don't want merely to make pronouncements of Truth so I'll post it all. Who is the real Zelensky?
Over a week ago I watched the first part of The Zelensky Story that was the BBC’s attempt to have us think that Volydymir Zelensky is a warm and cuddly man-of-the-Ukrainian-people who he’s protecting following a ‘democratic revolution,’ a new BBC concept. Vladimir Putin is said to have responded to this democratic innovation by seizing Crimea and invading the Donbass areas. It’s available on the BBC Iplayer if you can watch and suspend reality.
Around the same time I came across Naftali Benett’s video here in which he talks about his involvement in the Istanbul negotiations. (Ukraine discussion starts at point 2.19) This is great material and I started an article on it but did four or five drafts, revised them constantly and thought I’m missing something. Then Victoria Nuland came out with her ‘confession’ that she and other warmongers ‘advised’ Zelensky about negotiating with Putin. Well, we knew anyway that Boris Johnson was Washington’s Judas to Europe. It’s been public information for well over a year. Why confess now? What’s going on? The BBC and Nuland are reacting to Benett’s video in the same way as the BBC reacted with its ‘Putin Vs The West’ piece to Angela Merkle’s confession that she and Francoise Hollande never intended to honour the Minsk2 Agreement. So what is it about Benett’s video that’s significant? I'll give the story as I understand it but check out the video although its nearly 5 hours long and mostly Israeli politics. Benett tells us that he was in Sochi for his first meeting with Putin that was about the Middle East two months before Putin's 2022 incursion to Kiev. He mentioned to Putin that he had interests in Syria and was concerned that the Russian S300 anti-aircraft system in Syria would kill Israeli pilots. There was evidently no agreement, but subsequently things worrying to Israel that had been happening in Syria didn’t happen any more. His interviewer who is rather dull asks, “What did he want in return?” Benett says, “It doesn’t work like that.” But he owes Putin and they have a working understanding.
At this time Zelensky phones Bennett in Sochi and asks him to convey that he wants to meet with Putin. Bennett raises it but Putin rejects a meeting. Zelensky’s a Nazi, he says. Bennett considers that it doesn’t affect Israel so it’s not his concern.
On 24 February 2022, two months after this discussion, Minsk2 is going nowhere, José Barroso from the EU has been telling Putin nonsense so several days after meeting Barroso, Putin makes his attack on Kiev. It’s evidently designed to say that he’s not going to tolerate Kiev’s war on the Donbass any longer and to force some sort of resolution.
The Russian incursion is too light-weight and isn’t done well, proven in the event by being halted by fierce resistance with heavy Russian losses, so they have to withdraw. It’s a tactical victory by Kiev but also a shock to the West and Kiev that Putin is willing to undertake an open war, which then carries on.
Bennett knows that the Americans will want him to side with them against Russia. He decides to avoid this by adopting the role of a neutral mediator between Kiev and Moscow. He realizes that he has a unique relationship of trust with Putin that he can use to get both sides talking before civilian casualties become so high that talking becomes impossible. He’s primarily concerned about the Jews in Ukraine and Russia.
Bennett starts by getting immunity from Putin for a field hospital that he sets up in Lvov. He tells the Americans, British, Ukrainians and Europeans what he’s doing. He then tells the Americans that he has Putin’s ear so he can be a pipeline in negotiations.
Zelensky now asks Benett for help and to speak to Putin because Putin considers him a Nazi and he knows he’s going to be killed. He’s hiding terrified in a secret bunker and appeals to Benett as a fellow Jew. Benett tells Putin that Zelensky is afraid that he'll kill him and Putin immediately says "I won't kill him". He gives his word. Benett convinces Zelensky that he’s safe and two hours later Zelensky films himself on the phone in his office with “I’m not afraid!” as Benett says. The world then saw him strutting the Kiev streets boldly, a born leader of men. Benett mediates a series of exchanges between Zelensky and Putin that develop into the Istanbul negotiations with draft agreements exchanged.
In the Isatanbul drafts Putin gives huge concessions on his original demands for a cease-fire and Zelensky renounces joining NATO that is Putin's principal concern. However, Zelensky’s life is safe, Washington wants the war to continue and Boris Johnson carries a great Washington deal to him for continuing the war and protecting Nuland's investment of $5 billion in subversion in Ukraine. Personally, Zelensky can’t lose. As for any wreckage to Ukraine, loss of territory or loss of life, win or lose, why should he care? He’ll come out fine whichever way it goes, so as we know, he takes Johnson’s deal and walks away from the Istanbul process.
Benett says that the Bucha massacre (that Russia denies) finished the Istanbul negotiations but that's not necessarily true. The 419 people allegedly killed needed to be set against 14,000 killed over the previous seven years of fighting with unknown thousands more deaths if the war were to continue. Putin wanted a cease-fire. Genuine or not, Bucha could have been overcome politically if Zelensky had wanted to work with Putin to stop the war - but he didn’t. He was having too much fun playing his new role of David against Goliath, being flattered by Washington and Western media for his bravery, a standing ovation in the US Congress and on the cover of Vogue Magazine looking resolute with his wife. His film fantasies had come to life.
The point about Benett’s revelations is that he’s an ex-hit-man and he’s doing a hit on Zelensky. Zelensky hasn’t taken the advice that Benett undoubtedly gave him about working with Putin. He hasn’t been trying to stop the war as Benett had intended and has become very dangerous to everyone by wanting weapons to attack deep into Russia. The war is out of control. Zelensky's been thinking that he’s untouchable and in fact Putin is keeping his word, despite his behaviour, by not trying to kill him, which Benett, the expert on this, says would be easy. It appears that by revealing the deal on Zelensky's life, Benett is releasing Putin from his word on it.
Two months prior to his incursion on Kiev Putin wouldn't meet Zelenski but after the incursion when Zelenski knows he's serious, Putin is willing to negotiate with him, so he says immediately, "I won't kill him," and gives Benett his word, so it’s Putin’s negotiating gesture to establish trust with Zelensky. Zelensky doesn’t understand this and immediately goes into his Presidential National Hero role, thinking that he's protected due to Benett's and Israel's importance to Putin, not that it's part of a process. You might not understand Hebrew but listen to the sarcastic note in Benett’s voice as he recounts this.
So now Benett is fed up with Zelensky, concerned about the Jews in Ukraine and Russia and the bloodshed generally as he was originally. It’s all a bad thing. Zelensky’s just an actor who doesn’t care about anyone but himself and is following an American script. The war is escalating out of control with an unpredictable future so he’s ditching Zelensky. Benett says that he’s not sure that he did the right thing but doesn’t specify how. He’s been reflecting, I would think, on whether he should have intervened in saving Zelensky's life.
This video looks like Benett returning the favour that Putin did him. That’s how it works. The truth is that Zelenski has immunity from Putin while carrying on a war for Washington and having hundreds of thousands of his own people killed with huge destruction, loss of territory and nuclear war a possibility. Whether or not Putin kills him, the Ukrainian people might if he doesn't skip to America and if they'll have him.
So Zelensky is back to worrying about his life which is probably why he’s now pushing for an end to the war and wanting missiles to strike deep into Russia, as if that will help him. Victoria Nuland coming out on this suggests that the Americans might want to ditch Zelensky as well.
It's worth noting that toward the end of the interview Bennett summarizes Israel’s situation as predictable, well managed and optimistic. Bill Gates has encouraged his view that Israel is the innovation and brains centre of the world, able to solve any problem. The interview was about a year ago, that is, immediately before Hamas’s attack of 7 October 2023 when Bennet says that they had Hamas under control by regulating the Palestinian population’s access to work in Israel and had a ‘price tag’ system for controlling Iran. He says that the world needs Israel as a 'light to the nations'.
There's a general point to note from Benett's errors in evaluating Israel's security situation and its value to the world, since it would be charged with genocide at the ICJ within months. Israel and the Jews are not unique with these errors. It's extremely difficult if not impossible to evaluate oneself or one's culture from within one's culture. It's necessary to get outside it to see it. For this reason I'm attempting to present Jesus' viewpoint, although with my own comments based inevitably, on what information I can get.
Who is the real Netanyahu?
Speaking of Israel, I suggest that Benyamin Netanyahu’s motivation is not to avoid criminal charges and prison. From his Jewish viewpoint he is probably seeking a legacy of fame in Jewish history as God’s warrior of biblical stature who restored the Promised Land to Israel. He won’t agree to stop the war. As I said in my last article he accelerated clearance of Palestinians from the West Bank, possibly in anticipation of a nuclear war in Europe. The Ukraine and Palestinian wars are connected. He's by no means acting alone and will be protected in the USA if he’s in any danger.
What about Putin?
I’ve never quite known what to think of Vladimir Putin but I do know that Russia's first approaches to the EU by Dmitry Medvedev and Putin with the Deauville Agreement in October 2010 were friendly and cooperative. The journalist Vladimir Pozner summarizes some public information in his Harvard lecture on How The United States Created Vladimir Putin. It looks factually good to me.
In passing, please note that Pozner cites the Wolfowitz/Bush doctrine as the basis of the US foreign policy of world supremacy. As I've discussed in my previous article, this had its origin in the Project For The New American Century, the Jewish Zionist/Military-Industrial-Complex think tank that conceived the US world hegemon as the protector of Israel. That is what it has become.
Putin is tough although not aggressive but what is his motivation? It's important because he has a key role in the BRICS group that, not to exaggerate, might be the only hope for the future of the world itself. We need a progressive culture and world view to take us forward and in the immediate future to counter militarism in the West based on Zionism among other elitist fantasies. The USA and European elites since WWII have gradually lost touch with reality to the present point of self-destruction for their countries. BRICS and multipolarity looks like the way forward and Tucker Carlson gives us some useful information despite himself. Hopefully, Mr Putin can do more than merely coodinate another anti-West bloc like a bigger Soviet Union. We need much better, not more of the same thing.
The Tucker Carlson - Vladimir Putin Interview
I saw the original Carlson-Putin interview and thought that President Putin gave an accurate account of facts about the Ukraine war. His comments on CIA trouble-making in the Caucasus filled a knowledge gap as well. He seemed genuinely open and I wanted to check some things that were said so I went to Carlson’s website.
On Tucker Carlson’s website was a surprise. Carlson and his team were ‘shocked’ by their conclusion that Putin’s account of Russia’s historic development was that “Vladimir Putin believes that Russia has a historical claim to parts of Western Ukraine”. Carlson just wants sensational revelations, hasn’t understood anything he was told so the American narrative must be right. Notwithstanding, the interview had much of interest.
Early in the interview Carlson asks Putin this question: (Point 1:41 in the interview) “...You’ve described Russia itself as Orthodox... you’ve said that you’re Orthodox. What does that mean for you? You’re a Christian leader…” Putin describes at some length the development of Russia, its Christianity, tolerance for other religions, common values and geography. Carlson does not know where this is going but does not ask or wait. He interrupts Putin after a time to get a quick teleshow answer, asking “Christianity is specifically a non-violent religion. Jesus says, “Turn the other cheek. Don’t kill”. How can a leader - who has to kill - of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?”
Putin answers: Religion is ‘in the heart’. He says (Kremlin text):
“It’s very easy when it comes to protecting oneself and one’s family, one’s homeland. We won’t attack anyone. When did the developments in Ukraine start? Since the coup d’ état and the hostilities in Ukraine began, that’s where they started and we’re protecting our people, ourselves, our homeland and our future.
As for religion in general, you know, it’s not about external manifestations. It’s not about going to church every day or banging your head on the floor. It is in the heart (my italics), and our culture is so human oriented. Dostoyevsky who is very well known in the West and the genius of Russian culture, Russian literature, spoke a lot about this, about the Russian soul.
After all, Western society is more pragmatic. Russian people think more about the eternal, about moral values. I don’t know, maybe you won’t agree with me, but Western culture is more pragmatic after all.
I’m not saying this is bad. It makes it possible for today’s ‘golden billion’ to achieve good success in production, even in science and so on. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’m just saying that we kind of look the same…” [Carlson interrupts again. Kremlin transcript continues] “...but our minds are built a little differently”.
Carlson asks, “Do you see the supernatural at work?...do you see God at work?...Do you ever think to yourslf that these are forces that are not human?” Putin says, “No, I think that the development of the world community is in accordance with inherent laws and these laws are what they are. It’s always been this way in the history of mankind.”
Now, I’d been searching the internet for a meaningful difference between Eastern Orthodox and Western Protestant religion and here it was. It’s not in theology; it’s a difference in perception of the same theology.
Putin has explained that there is a cultural difference between Americans and Russians that he or his translator express as the ‘pragmatism’ of the West contrasted with Russian Orthodox concern with ‘eternal and moral values’. This is the difference between intellectual/analytical thinking and experiential/empathic ‘human’ thinking that is concerned with ‘soul’ and values. He uses the analogy of brain laterality which has this dichotomy. Individuals can be informally described as having predominantly right or left brain personalities which Putin is applying to culture. Carlson does not understand this, interrupts and changes the subject.
Putin’s account of the historical development of Russia is not about attachment to territory. It is about attachment to people, the people of all Ukraine. He makes this clear at the end of the interview when he speaks of the persistence of cultural identity in a Hungarian community despite its isolation by the change of a national boundary.
Putin’s whole point is that ethnic Russians were under attack in the eastern Donbass region on Russia’s border in a civil war started by the coup in Kiev. At the end of the interview, he is saying that Western Ukrainians are really Russian in heart and it is unification of people of the same ‘heart’ that is important, (rather than territory).
Putin says, “But the relations between the two peoples will be rebuilt anyway. It will take a lot of time but they will heal.” He gives an example of a combat encounter on the battlefield where twelve West Ukrainian soldiers identify as Russian at cost of their lives. The trapped soldiers refuse to surrender because they say “We’re Russians and Russians never surrender!” Putin then says, “So they perished... What is happening is to a certain extent an element of a civil war. Everyone in the West thinks that the Russian peoples have been split by hostilities forever. No, they will be re-united. Their unity is still there. Why are the Ukrainian authorities dismantling the Russian Orthodox Church? Because it brings together not only the territory of Ukraine and Russia but also our souls. No-one will be able to separate the souls”.
Whether he is right or wrong is not important. That is what he thinks.
Putin’s brief account of the soldiers is really very emotional despite his factual demeanour. Relevant to this I have notes from the February 2023 BBC propaganda production Putin Vs the West that appeared to be a marketing counter to Angla Merkle’s confession a few months previously that she and Francois Hollande had never intended to implement the Minsk 2 Agreement. It was a compilation of gossip, trivia and innuendo out of context.
In an anecdote from this, José Barroso, former President of the EU Commission speaks of a conversation with Putin several days prior to the invasion of 6 September 2022. They had met many times so Barroso knows him well and says that Putin knows how to assess risk and is rational in his decision making. Barroso says that on this occasion his “...emotion was stronger than rational thinking. He was expressing very, very deep frustration against the West, against the past, against history... He was more emotional than rational” (quote). Barroso did not have a point except to say that Putin was uncharacteristically emotional. What he should have said was that Putin was bitterly disappointed by the EU's treachery, Washington's aggression, that he needed to act and was deeply concerned about the consequences of his limited options. Putin probably said much the same thing as he did to Tucker Carlson but at a time of decision.
It seemed that with lack of progress in implementing the Minsk 2 peace Agreement, Putin had concluded that he was being stonewalled and at that moment was deciding whether or not to force progress by military means. My note was that Barroso himself had probably triggered the Russian army thrust on Kiev; that Barroso’s EU nonsense and equivocations convinced Putin that Minsk 2 was going nowhere and Barroso was there merely to check his intentions. A few days later Putin launched his ‘special military operation’ although he had said previously, possibly to Barroso, that he was not going to invade Ukraine. Some months later Angela Merkle confessed that Germany and France never intended to implement Minsk 2, so Putin was right.
Putin had trusted France and Germany while they were in fact stone-walling him and killing ethnic Russians in Ukraine who he believed were his people. Moreover, they had put him in the position of killing Western Ukrainians whom he considered were of the same soul as Russians. That is certainly a cause for emotion, as well as his apparent perception that they were deceiving him. There’s also concern for the unpredictability of military action. What could he do to stop the civil war?
The military thrust on Kiev was a light-weight attempt to force Zelinsky to negotiations, which it did with Naftali Benett’s help. Despite apparently poor military execution, it succeeded in its objective and with Zelensky terrified as Benett tells us, would probably have succeeded anyway, perhaps with a better outcome. We know Washington’s reaction and how Zelensky viewed the Istanbul peace process.
In Putin’s story of the twelve Ukrainian soldiers who were killed, his translator said that ‘they perished’. That is an unusual word, not used in vernacular English. It has depth as something meaningful, momentous or tragic. The Kremlin transcript uses the word погибли that, as I understand it, is an equivalent rather than умерли (died) or убиты (killed). Погибли does seem to be preferentially ‘perished’. It has equivalent biblical usage at Numbers 16:33 in circumstances both momentous and tragic. You can look it up here, where Yaweh makes the earth swallow up a large number of Israelite rebels against Moses on his invocation.
Putin’s extemporaneous use of the complex, meaningful word ‘perished’ is excellent, even convincing evidence of his genuine depth of feeling about this event that he relates to enable the American Carlson to feel a wider tragedy beyond unnecessary deaths. His military involvement in Ukraine has always been from genuine concern for ethnic Ukrainian Russians as well as reluctance to use force due to the relationship that he describes with Ukraine as a whole. He is genuine in saying to Carlson, that he has no territorial objectives. It also shows thoughtfulness and awareness of ‘heart’ as he says.
As another indicator of Putin’s lack of aggression we might also note that the Russian national anthem, that he introduced, is completely about Russians’ experience of love of their physical country. By contrast, the anthems of the USA, France and UK all contain elements of militancy as I commented in my article of 13 September 2023.
I had attempted to learn from desk research the differences between Protestant and Eastern Orthodox cultures without success, but here it is. Putin speaks in his Carlson interview of the living experience of culture as ‘souls’. It was an education to realize that this was the Russian Orthodox characteristic. One might equally describe our relationship with others as of souls. Indeed, there is a common expression of ‘soulmates’. No politician in the UK would speak in this way, nor to my knowledge in America.
Putin says that religion is a matter of the heart, meaning of love, empathy, motivation within the experience of being human rather than a matter of rational calculation or evaluation of deeds, good or otherwise. We are emotional creatures with rationality a means of managing our environment for survival while also using the information from our senses to enable the human experience. The supreme confirmation of our existence is love; to love and be loved are our primary motivators that can even over-ride survival. It is the aim of liars and deceivers to manipulate our love for family and country for their wars. Why else would anyone risk death for other people but for love?
Tucker Carlson’s Christianity Question
Let’s now drill down into Carlson’s question: “Jesus says, ‘Turn the other cheek. Don’t kill’. How can a leader - who has to kill - of any country, how can a leader be a Christian? How do you reconcile that to yourself?”
For a follower of Jesus this is a serious problem. Strictly speaking one should adopt Jesus’ example and accept death oneself rather than harm another person. That is the admirable example of the martyr but in our imperfect world there are many obvious circumstances against it.
Is killing in defence different from killing in aggression? Theologically no. Killing another person is always wrong. The concepts of aggression and defence are defined by culture and law.
Jesus said “Blessed are the pure in heart for they will see God,” which is an intriguing promise, but more to the point, both Old and New Testaments as well as the Koran use ‘heart’ to mean a person’s true nature in motivation and empathy. Putin, we’ve noted, uses the same word. In pre-scientific times the heart was thought to be the seat of emotion.
It’s problematic if we are to use Jesus’ message to advance human culture. In the material world we can only approximate his criteria for thinking and behaviour and sometimes not even that. We need a material model for survival in this world while we make the attempt. Let’s consider how the idea of ‘heart’ seems to work.
Let’s envisage a model based on John Bunyan’s Path on which the individual progresses through difficulties, resisting diversions, toward the Celestial City after death for which we substitute the real-world Culture of God. We do not know whether loving God, each other and our enemies will lead to Heaven. It might. All we can do is attempt to live in this way. We do know that it will improve our culture. Over time our culture can be cumulatively improved and we will be doing as Jesus told us whether we get to Heaven or not. We need, therefore, to model the material world attempt.
It is the ‘heart’ that can remain constant in our commitment to Jesus, his universal message and the objective of the Culture of God in our imperfect condition that forces distortions in behaviour.
Let’s envisage our commitment to Jesus to be the ‘heart’ that keeps us on the Path to his objective. We may be forced off by circumstances or wander off through our own imperfections. By killing another person, even defensively, one has ceased to be following Jesus and is off the Path. That is necessarily the case, but it does not mean that one is lost and should abandon the Path or Church. Indeed it would be more important to attend Church with recognition that one is off the path until one can regain it.
By modifying Bunyan’s model, our ‘hearts’ can remain on the Path. Whatever exigencies take us from it in behaviour, our ‘hearts’ must bring us back to the Path. We must remain aware of being behaviourally off the Path, always be conscious of the error and strive to correct it. It requires honesty with oneself and one’s motivations.
Pre-Industrial societies often had prescriptions for the condition of those who had offended their Gods or societies such that they were deemed apart but may be rehabilitated. Roman Catholicism has a similar doctrine that one should maintain a state of grace given by God on baptism but which can be lost by wrong-doing. It can be regained by recognition of error, confession to the Church and repentence.
The evidence is that we humans have come from first creation to this point by following a cosmic design and should keep to Jesus’ perception of the design because it works. It's not a scientific perception; its a human experiential perception. There has clearly been a path to the present in human history and experience and it appears that Jesus is part of it.
Let’s summarize our comments on Tucker Carlson’s claim that Putin has a claim on Western Ukraine. The facts are that Vladimir Putin is fighting a defensive war against American aggression, its 2014 coup with murder in Kiev and attack on the ethnic Russians of Eastern Ukraine. It is undeniable. He has told Carlson that it is defensive and it is from the ‘heart’ that he has been forced to defend the Russian people by means that he did not wish to use.
Carlson wants a theological explanation, but really, there isn’t one. Jesus tells us of a universal direction, the destination and how to get there. Forgiveness is necessary or we will never get there but how we’re evaluated in the meantime we do not know. Does God want people in Heaven who can think outside the box? Are Naftali Benett’s and Putin’s motives more valuable than they might appear? There’s a lot to discover.
Although we model our understanding of the universe and our place in it, it’s obvious from history that our model must be revised regularly. It would be worse than foolish to believe that we know all that there is to know. We have a positive path that works so it’s prudent to keep to it as best we can because the trend is that it’s creating something beneficial.
We cannot say how Tucker Carlson’s question can be answered, except with a model such as we’ve envisaged. If he had listened more carefully and thought more about it he would at least have learned something about Vladimir Putin and perhaps more besides.
Consequences and Possibilities
Zelenski at this moment is back to worrying about his life. Netanyahu is unpredictable. Will he be forced out and quietly take refuge in America or will he go all-in with an attack on Iran to force US involvement? Will he gamble and use nuclear weapons if being forced to stop his war? Israel has never been a place of safety for the Jews. It’s a mystical idea from a distant time that they can’t admit to and can’t let go. In an individual, inability to let go of the past leads to neurosis or even psychosis as I saw occur in real time in a close friend’s mental collapse, a story worth telling another time.
The analogy holds true for nations, including the ex-imperialist UK where I live. We have food poverty and charitable food banks over the whole country, particularly the de-industrialized North. The new Keir Starmer government promised prosperity. On election, Starmer announced ten years of austerity and removed the winter fuel allowance from 11 million pensioners.
At the same time, our UK government supports the sanctions on Russia and weapons for the Ukraine war that are the immediate cause of our poverty, leaving aside absence of economic strategy. We’re at war with Russia, but no-one will admit it. It’s dysfunction with excuses, that is, serious national neurosis but close to total psychosis that would be UK weapons used on Russia or UK personnel killing Russians, apparently being planned.
It’s necessary to recognize that our culture itself is pre-psychotic, based on a Christianity that conflates two incompatible world-views. It’s a bigger problem than normal human greed, nationalism or blaming individuals like Hitler, Stalin, Bush or Putin. The psychotic potential is in our minds and has been breaking out for centuries. It’s not recognized because it’s so familiar as part of our normal thinking, but with nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction we can't afford it now. There's no recovery from the next psychotic episode.
Naftali Bennett and Vladimir Putin are very smart guys who are both concerned about their people and understand each other, which is how their relationship was possible. Bennett says he thinks out of the box but we’re all necessarily born into boxes and think within them, his Judaism with the Torah, Putin’s Orthodox Christianity incorporating the Torah/OT. Is there a better box for both to get into? Not long ago I asked an ex-Hindu why he had converted to Christianity. He said that the Hindu gods had always terrified him. He wanted a God who loved him and changed boxes just like that. It's perfectly possible when one thinks about it.
Bennett the ex-assassin reminds me of the Jew Saul of Tarsus who went around killing people who he thought were his enemies. I’d like Bennett to read the Gospel of Mark which he probably hasn’t done. Like Saul, who we'll recall became the first organizer of the Christian Church, he could flip. For Christians it's a barely noticeable change but with enormous positive consequences.
I’d like Putin and his Russian strategists to consider the effect on the Zionist West if the Russian Orthodox Church were to start a debate about assigning the OT to history. It would mean simple Christianity with Jesus and the Gospels, which is where it started. Jesus’ instructions define an open ended box with infinite possibilities:
Love God; Love your neighbour as yourself; Love your enemies; Preach and seek the Kingdom/Culture of God.
Who can argue against these? Whereas the OT required compensation as sacrifice for the problem of human imperfection, to Jesus our imperfection needed elimination. He saw humans as perfectible, hackable if you like, but in a positive way and set about his project to do it. That’s thinking outside the box.
Toward the end of Naftali Benett's interview he speaks of Israel as stable and optimistic with Hamas under control by regulating access by the Palestinians to work in Israel. Bill Gates has assured him that Israel is the brains centre of the world, able to solve any problem. Benett says that Israel's essential as a light to the world, what Madelein Albright used to say to Americans, telling them what they wanted to hear. Benett's interview is apparently recorded about a month prior to Hamas's 7 October 2023 attack that was designed to show Israel's underlying nature. It's straight Old Testament.
There's a general point from Benett's remarks. We can't see ourselves and our culture from within the box of that same culture. All cultures are self-referencing as closed systems. One needs to get outside the box and take a different viewpoint to see our own clearly. A Palestinian one for example. Jesus gives us a box enclosing universal human benefit.
The Jewish box is exclusively for the Jews' benefit and any benefit to others depends on the Jews in some manner that's not specified. We're free not to believe that and to believe in a box that's designed for everyone equally. Let's face the truth. That's why the Jewish elites killed Jesus - because he saw all humanity as potential sons of God from a universal viewpoint.
I'm not blaming the Jews. It was a mistake and no-one cares now except the Jews. I recall that a Jewish comedian used to get a laugh from Jewish audiences with the line: "Killing Jesus? Well, it was a party that got out of hand. The Son of God? What did we know?" Exactly, but no-one wanted to think about it at the time. We're into deja vue.
Naftali Benett actually tells us that the Israeli/Jewish elites have the same world view that the religious leaders of Jesus time had. "Today", he says, "the world needs Israel more than ever." They sincerely believe it but it's not viable in the 21st century because it doesn't work for everyone. Ask the Palestinians. What's more, it's untrue, because we would be better off without the Israeli/Jewish ethics that we see daily as indiscriminate murder of the Palestinians by every means possible and no restriction. We can do without Israel for the technical prowess that Benett thinks is what the world needs. Benett's view of Israel was the sort of thing that Madeleine Albright used to say about the United States, telling Americans they were the light to the world, that was what they and their Military-Industrial Complex wanted to hear as the basis for US World Hegemony.
BRICS, The Changing World Order And Culture
We need to change the debate from competition on the battlefield with nuclear weapons to a debate about the ideas creating the present crisis. These wars and the ambition for an American world hegemony are Zionist religious ideas. A debate about the validity of the Old Testament's place in the Christian bible will force examination of its relevance to the 21st century world.
Jesus changed the world by his vision, his decision and an effort of will. He took twelve ordinary men and changed them to extraordinary men. Western Christianity emerged from his intervention. The European explorers spread Western Christianity and its culture both intentionally and by its nature of being a more powerful world view, to produce the social and material benefits that we now enjoy. It's now clear that that this has run its course. Further positive change is needed for our survival. Jesus has brought us this far so staying with him and removing the impediment of the OT along with Zionism is conservative and makes sense.
In the context of Russia and other countries that are redefining their cultures to a new BRICS paradigm, Jesus is culture-free and universal, available for adaption to the idom of any existing culture. The West built a dominant culture on Jesus even though the OT was a destabilizing component. Without the OT, Jesus provides a stable and positive cultural base for adaptive future development. Carrying an OT-free Christianity into the BRICS would start world culture into an enormous positive boost with a variety of idioms and a valuable internal dialogue. It makes sense both to adopt Jesus' universal view that is necessarily without the OT and to take it into the BRICS. To continue with Christianity defined by the Nicean Councils that included the OT will perpetuate aggressive Western Christianity.
It’s time for a review of what Christianity is after seventeen hundred years since the Nicean Councils gave us the present Zionist World Hegemon now being imposed by the mass killing that we’re witnessing in Ukraine and Palestine. The Jewish/American neo-cons have also conceived plans for China as well, thinking in their dual OT/NT box and what about India that wants to go its own way? We need cooperation not co-existence, much less forced compliance. Ukraine/Russia is just the beginning for the World Hegemon and we can see only disaster coming of it.
To bring Jesus’ instructions into our understanding of what’s possible, we’ve envisaged here a specimen path to a real-world culture of God with help from John Bunyan, Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin himself. Maybe Naftali Benett. It’s an active project on which we can make more progress than by expecting Jesus to return and solve our problems with no thinking or effort on our part. It's not a military matter. It's a matter of thinking in a better box. (Highlight added for clarity).
If it were to make the OT history, what would be the impact on liturgy and practice in the Russian Orthodox Church or any church? Some minor adjustments only. On its theology? We focus on Jesus which is what Christianity is supposed to be about. What of the effect on the Zionist movement, its sympathizers and Western Christianity? It’s an earthquake. Zionism and the OT can’t withstand 21st century scrutiny, which is why there are now attempts by the Neo-cons to label anti-Zionism as antisemitism and illegal.
Removing the OT from the bible can be done by anyone, any group, religious order or religion. As a thought experiment, try thinking like Jesus for a day without the background of the OT, its killing and sacrifices.
We're normally unaware of how important our world-view or box is to us. It's only noticeable when challenged by a different one when emotions of various sorts kick in with anger at being challenged, fear of what losing one's existing group would mean such as isolation, loss of vested interests, even loss of family etc. We're group creatures because it's our strength, but also our weakness. Real courage is not only on the battlefield. It's in taking conscious control of one's own mind, evaluating and choosing, which is the purpose of rationality for survival.
These wars can’t be won on the battlefield. The fundamental problems remain as spiritual/psychological and have to be solved in those terms. They’re wars of ideas and Russia isn’t very good at this. I’m qualified in marketing, which is how one can think of these information wars. The Americans are very good at marketing rubbish ideas because that’s what their version of market capitalism is based on and they have a lot of experience. Russia is 'way behind at this because it very recently emerged from a command economy. People’s minds need to be changed and in this case the fastest, easiest and best-for-the-world thing to do is to remove the Old Testament from the Christian bible for the reasons I’ve described.
There is no other way. International law has disintegrated; its courts are powerless. United Nations votes are ignored. Agreements are deceptions, Trust does not exist, words have lost their meaning - invasion is liberation, genocide is defence, apartheid is democracy, provocation is legal entitlement, lies are truth, communication is a waste of time. Warfare has unmistakable meaning when everything else fails, but there are other actions possible. I am proposing to stay with the most powerful one we have: Trust Jesus, by which I mean the principles that he's given us that are unambiguous, positive and are proven beneficial. Remove the Old Testament from the Christian bible and rely on Jesus and the Gospels. We need the debate.
I’ll say it again: I’m not anti-Semitic. I want the Jews to take up their Prophet Jesus for their own safety. He wasn’t a self-hating Jew - he died for his people. Naftali Bennett says that dissention among the Jews made the Romans’ destruction of Jerusalem an easy exercise. Very likely, but rebellion against Rome was inevitably going to fail. Bennet thinks that Jewish solidarity could have defeated Rome and he’s advocating it now. The solution was the third way that Benett says he looks for, which was listening to Jesus for them then and for all of us now.
The Jews have a second chance but as their God Yaweh said to Moses, they’re a stiff-necked people. BRICS and Christianity without the OT is a good place to start for everyone. There’s a high probability that it will have an immediate effect on the Ukraine and Palestine debates.
Post Script Today I was listening to Iranian President Pezeshkian make a keynote speech about domestic political and economic change if not reform and also to create greater political cooperation with neighbouring countries. He also raised the idea of a pan-Islamic union modelled on the European Union (EU), a proposal that has been raised previously. Pezeshkian will attend the October BRICS summit in Kazan. US Secretary Of State Anthony Blinken naturally presents the prospect of Iran joining BRICS as a threat to Europe’s security but the development of BRICS has passed beyond substantial damaging influence by the US. A problem might be that Russia’s key role in BRICS might draw intensified US pressure through Ukraine as well as on Iran. Both Islamic and Christian countries cooperating within BRICS will facilitate religious integration with positive cultural and political convergence. As I have suggested previously, there is a strong case from the Koran for a more prominent place for Jesus in Islam as The Messenger Of God that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) calls him. Christianity moves closer to Islam with the Old Testament as history rather than an integral part of belief. This is the route to eventual integration of Islam and Christianity, hopefully with Judaism making the necessary adjustments as well.
A basic principle of Islam and the NT, the equality of all humankind before God, is vitally important in terms of real-world practice. The OT belief that the Jews are God’s Chosen People emerges destructively in Palestine as a more ancient conception of God's nature that is plainly not compatible with Islam or the NT.
We need to use rationality in moving us closer to a peaceful world. Rational examination of the fit between Moses' OT and Jesus' NT shows that they're not compatible. The rational course is therefore to separate them into the Bronze Age early understanding of God's nature as history and Jesus universal view of a God who loves Humanity and offers a path forward to a culture of peace and security.
The choice at this moment is of a rational debate as a battle between the Gods and their ethics underlying the OT and NT or alternatively of acting the battle out materially in warfare and nuclear destruction.