Another excellent cartoon by Stuttmann

Soon after Josef Stalin signed a mutual defense pact with Adolf Hitler, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill said that Russia was a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Russian military planners were undoubtedly pleased by what they might have taken as praise. One of the foundations of their military doctrine is the principle of maskirovka, or the use of various deceptions and denials to mask their true intentions. Maskirovka doesn’t always work, but when it does, it can utterly transform a battle, even a war.

Trusting in the common perception of the state of the Russian military can be designed to be fatal. I have long wondered about the chaotic structure of Russian forces in Ukraine and about the amount of time and resources Russia devotes to secondary targets. It’s tempting to assume that Moscow is foundering or that it was fated to defeat, but the fact that maskirovka is embedded so deeply in the Russian military psyche makes it necessary to periodically rethink Russian plans and resources. These things are unknown by design, but what if it turns out that the Russian bungling is a ploy, its real force and intention hidden, waiting to strike? When thinking about the Russians, creating a model diametrically opposed to what you believe, and then taking it apart, is essential.

The current consensus is that Russia has lost the organization, resources or trained manpower necessary to do more than hold its ground or perhaps advance with very limited objectives. This view is based on command confusion in which the Russian armed forces are competing with the Wagner Group, rather than commanding it. It would explain the extended battle in Bakhmut – to say nothing of Russia’s general inability to cripple Ukrainian forces and penetrate deeper into Ukraine. Penetration and destruction are the essence of warfare. A divided chain of command could explain the failure, and the inability to repair it could easily lead an enemy to assume that a Russian victory is all but impossible.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Russia built the battle of Bakhmut to draw the Ukrainians forward into a more vulnerable position. A smashing defeat of Ukraine there would create a massive crisis in the Ukrainian command and stoke serious tensions with allies. If the disparity of force were sufficient, Russian forces might move decisively to Ukraine’s western border. The purpose of the battle, then, would be to convince Ukraine to carry out a broad attack in the hope of breaking Russia’s will. For Russia, the true goal would not be to end the battle quickly but to significantly weaken Ukraine’s defense of the heartland and to encourage forces planned for the offensive to form into large units. The next step would be massive airstrikes on the concentrations using drones. The key would be the generation of military targets for air attack, followed by a massive, decisive infantry attack into the heartland (the type Russia should have opened with).

To be sure, this scenario is difficult to take seriously. Even if it were all going according to script, the strategy would be compromised by the inability to field large numbers of trained fighters, to protect the transportation of rapid, surprise deployment, and to hide the concentration of forces from Western intelligence. (Doing so is difficult but not impossible. The U.S. and British succeeded at Normandy, and the Germans at the Ardennes, though detection capabilities in World War II were obviously more limited than they are now.)

The critical issue here is the timing of detection relative to the ability of Ukrainian forces to form an attack and disrupt Russian forces. Russian air defense would have to be limited to avoid hinting at a large concentration of other forces. And the infantry would have to move into Ukraine in battle-ready form. The process of moving forward and creating a unified force under coherent Russian command represents the key and most unlikely phase of the operation.

The complexity of the project at all levels convinces me that the Russian command is simply dysfunctional and highly vulnerable to Ukrainian action. If there’s a maskirovka ploy afoot it must have been executed by now. But there is no hint of it. It’s hard to see anything but weakness in the Russian force at the moment.

Original here.

END

A Prague reproduction of the Golem

I (the author of the article) discovered this by asking Chat GPT a few simple questions. When I asked it if sexual liberation was a form of control, I got the following answer:

As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions. However, sexual liberation is a movement that advocates for the freedom of individuals to express their sexuality without fear of repression or discrimination. It is not a form of political control but rather a response to the historical oppression and marginalization of certain groups based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. The goal of sexual liberation is to promote equality and respect for all individuals regardless of their sexual preferences or practices.

Wait a minute, how does an “AI language model,” which presumably does not have a body, and so therefore cannot engage in sexual activity, know that “sexual liberation is a movement that advocates for the freedom of individuals to express their sexuality without fear of repression or discrimination” unless it was programmed to say so? Did our “AI language model” once live in fear of social ostracism because it was engaged in furtive illicit sexual encounters? If not, why does she/he/it (at last a legitimate use for those idiotic pronoun distinctions!) find liberation from the moral law attractive? Homosexuals and women who have had abortions are notorious for talking this way, and Jews are equally notorious for publicizing such testimony as a way of overturning the social order, but why would a machine talk this way unless it was told to do so by a Jew, a feminist, or a homosexual?

If AI were a serious source of information on this topic, it/she/he should have mentioned that there is one essential book on this issue which needs to be consulted to have an informed discussion, and that book is Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control by E. Michael Jones. The fact that that book never gets mentioned means that the computer is programmed to suppress the work that launched that discussion in the first place and without which no informed discussion of the issue can take place. No one thought that sexual liberation was anything but sexual liberation until I proposed that thesis in my book, even though the idea had been batted about for centuries.

 Interested? Then read the article below! 

Why It’s Easier to Talk to a Robot Than to a Jew
How Artificial Intelligence destroyed the Holocaust 
E. Michael Jones • The Unz Review • May 21, 2023 • 5,100 Words • Has Comments

The world’s smartest Jew recently gave a talk on the dangers that artificial intelligence posed for the future of humanity. Yuval Noah Harari claims the fear films like Terminator and The Matrix inspired is misplaced. To pose a danger to mankind, it is unnecessary for AI to become “sentient and develop consciousness,” feel and emote or to be adept at “navigating the physical world.” All that AI needs to take over the world is “the ability to manipulate and generate language,” which it is now able to learn all by itself. Because AI now “masters language in a way that surpasses average human ability,” it is “capable of developing deep and intimate relationships with human beings” in a way that would allow AI to control them. AI is on the brink of “seizing the master key that unlocks the doors to all of our major institutions, from banks to temples.”

As I pointed out in a chapter on this Israeli thinker in Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality, Harari’s mind has been crippled by an uncritical adoption of materialistic tropes he has absorbed—sometimes consciously, sometimes not—from his understanding of Darwinism. As Dennis Bonnette pointed out, most people’s understanding of AI arises:

from the inherently positivistic assumptions that tend to accompany a technological age, such as ours, in which natural science is seen by many as the only true and objective way of looking at the world. All this begets a kind of metaphysical materialism in which everything we find in the cosmos is the product of material entities and the physical forces which govern their behavior.

If consciousness and human language are the result of random mutation, then random mutation can bring about a new super species which will leave humans behind and as obsolete as the dinosaurs:

Since Darwinian naturalism views living things as the end product of material forces and particles, it is naturally assumed that the emergence of self-reflection and intelligence in man is also simply the natural product of eons of physical and organic evolution, such that complex neural networks found in highly evolved brains eventually gives rise to self-awareness and even complex forms of thinking in later hominins, including Homo sapiens. It is a short step to think of modern computers as simply artificial life forms that can develop—through a kind of self-programming—self-reflection, understanding and complex reasoning—even a concept of personhood, which they then apply to themselves. Moreover, the natural sequence of logic here seems to be that, if material nature can produce thinking, self-reflecting organisms, such as man, then, with the advent of computers, super computers can be developed from material components which can even then “out think” human beings, as evinced by their ability to beat our best chess champions. The neural networks of artificial computers can exceed the capacity and natural programming of the human brain so as to produce superior thought processes as is now manifested by the advent of artificial intelligence. Hence, the notion of emergence of “artificial intelligence” appears to be a scientifically correct depiction of the natural evolution of human intelligence which then begets the technology of super computers that can easily outshine even the mental capacities of their creators.

Ignoring the materialistic basis for his own thought, Harari announces that AI “has just hacked the operating system of human civilization,” namely, language, because “we use language “to create God and money.” As an example of two entities wielding that divine power, Harari mentions “Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff,” who “didn’t create much of value but they were all creative story tellers.” When Harari tells us “We’ve just encountered an alien intelligence, not in outer space but here on earth,” the conclusion becomes inescapable. He is talking about himself and the group which gives him his identity, namely, the Jews.

…   …   …   …   …   …   …

Full article and readers’ comments here.

1

END