This Year’s Recipient of the Double-Headed Eagle Prize for Being the Antithesis of the Degenerate and Hypocritical West

Before we congratulate the winner, a bit of background. This is an entirely new award, and its origins call for a bit of explanation. As most readers will be well aware, western nations – and most typified by the United States of America – have a wide range of honours and awards which recognize a significant and valuable contribution to the human condition. Recognition for advances in medicine, science, awards for inspiring moral courage, medals for bravery and skill and excellence in a plethora of professions.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Winners should be proud of the contribution their  skill and perseverance made to the betterment of mankind. There is also a number of awards made to advancement of more amorphous concepts – such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, two words that politicians like to sprinkle over everything like kids in control of the sugar bowl. The politically-minded have displayed a tendency in recent decades to honour those the west perceives as ‘Russian dissidents’ for no apparent reason other than that they appear to believe it makes Russians crazy with frustration and rage. Real contributions to such concepts as freedom and democracy – of which those handing out the honours have only the most rudimentary and imperfect understanding themselves – are much harder to measure. Being rewarded with a trophy for scientific excellence because you are the inventor of carbon fibre, for example, is easy to quantify and understand. Making a contribution to ‘freedom’ where most countries are already quite free is therefore often subjected to political spin, and politicians enjoy being able to give a shout-out to their proteges and friends, and to pretend that yahoos who are greatly disliked in countries those politicians regard as enemies are actually some kind of virtuous saints.

Look at the Presidential Medal of Freedom, for example. The highest civilian award in the United States, it was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1963. It is traditionally awarded by the President and is awarded to a person of his or her choice, or as a result of recommendations. It recognizes “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.” It can be and frequently is awarded to non -Americans. Although it is a civilian decoration, it can be awarded to military figures, and when it is it may be worn on the uniform.

Colin Powell was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom twice. It would be difficult to deny his overall humanity and compassion in such cases as his obvious anguish in recall of how Saddam Hussein murdered the Kurds after they were persuaded to rise up against him by American instigators, who then whistled and looked out the window as if there were something interesting going on across the street while Saddam’s forces rolled over them like a sandstorm. The world turned its face away, blubbered Powell in memories of the event. It sure did – including Colin Powell, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time it happened. The President he served then – George H.W. Bush – is on record saying “There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: and that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations’ resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations.” That was on February 15th, 1991. On February 24th, one of the ubiquitous ‘Free Insert Name of Nation Here’ radio stations the CIA frequently sets up to influence the national population, in this case Voice of Free Iraq, broadcast an exhortation to the people of Iraq to rise up and overthrow their leader.

Here’s an excerpt from CNN, with Brent Sadler: “Iraq’s infrastructure: bridges, roads, water, and electrical power systems were severely damaged. Many Iraqis lost services, vital to daily life. By war’s end, one of the most prosperous and modern Arab countries in the Middle East lay in economic ruin; if Iraqis had expected life to improve, they were mistaken. Indeed, 10 years on, their economy is barely functioning. Iraq’s oil revenues are managed by the United Nations, and strict sanctions remain in place on what can and cannot be imported. These trade restrictions have contributed to a spiraling humanitarian crisis for the country at large. A recent UNICEF study drawing a world health organization support and Iraqi data, states that half a million Iraqi children under 5 have died unnecessarily. Under prewar living conditions, they would have survived.”

But that wasn’t enough: the United States for some reason did not kill Saddam Hussein that time around, so it went back for another whack at Iraq, in 2003. Some countries were pretty reluctant, and required coaxing and convincing at the UN. Who convinced them? You know, don’t you? Colin Powell. Using fabricated evidence, pretending to be absolutely sure of facts when many were just assumptions based on Iraqi ‘defectors’ telling the Americans what they wanted to hear, and including Powell’s personal embellishments of recorded intercepts so that they appeared to show the Iraqis attempting to hide prohibited materials from inspectors. Those embellishments were not on the original intercepts.

But he got the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Twice.

George Tenet got the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was Director of the CIA during the run-up to Gulf War II. He assured those present in the Oval Office on a well-known occasion that the collected evidence of Iraq’s conspiracy to conceal weapons of mass destruction was ‘a slam-dunk’. He later did not deny saying it, but said he didn’t remember, and anyway it was taken out of context, inspiring the National Review to describe it as “the other Washington dodge for anyone quoted saying something he wishes he hadn’t.” I’m just surprised Dubya didn’t give the Presidential Medal of Freedom to everyone in the United States named George.

Anyway, I don’t want to get too deep into the weeds on this particular medal; my intent was to show that recipients of grand-sounding decorations rewarding the advancement of ‘freedom’ are often terrible people who did terrible things, but were rewarded nonetheless for their loyalty, and not trying to blame the debacle on their leaders.

Let’s take a look at the White Helmets. Officially known as Syria Civil Defense (to differentiate it from the Syrian Civil Defense Force, which is government-sponsored), the White Helmets were co-founded by James Le Mesurier as an outgrowth of the Mayday Rescue charity. Although discussion of Le Mesurier dances all around whether he worked for British Intelligence, it would not be much of a stretch to imagine it considering he was an intelligence officer in the British Army. But some coverage of the man and his work reveals a planner of amazing depth, a planner who understood and believed that humanitarian aid was ‘more effective than an army’ in theaters of war for steering, managing and prolonging the conflict as desired.

“Indeed, the White Helmets were founded when the West was losing on both the propaganda and military front regarding the push for regime change and foreign intervention in Syria. More specifically, as Beeley told MintPress, the group’s founding took place just after “the Syrian government had raised concerns about a terrorist chemical weapon attack in Khan Al Asal against the SAA [Syrian Arab Army].”

It should come as no surprise then that, since their founding, the White Helmets have been instrumental in blaming the Syrian government for any and all subsequent chemical weapons attacks in Syria, acting as both witnesses and responders to events that were later proven to be the work of the armed opposition in Syria or staged. As a result, Beeley argued that it’s well within reason to speculate that the White Helmets were explicitly founded with this purpose in mind.”

James Le Mesurier may have been a talented manipulator of public opinion, but the White Helmets were not; they were caught over and over staging scenes, rigging disasters, faking rescues – in which the victims seemed always to be covered in a white film of concrete dust (as they probably would be if buried under rubble) while their White Helmet ‘rescuers’ were as pristine and spotless as if they had stepped out of a display window of a disaster-rescue store. They were frequently photographed, sometimes carrying weapons, with al-Qaeda or al-Nusra Front militants, the outfits the west claimed their military presence in Syria was there to fight; sometimes they appeared to be sharing a celebratory moment with the militants, as they are here.

Showcasing how committed the western elite is to promoting a narrative regardless of its provenance or any claim to truth, the film about the organization – “The White Helmets”, which lauded and humanized the actors with maudlin pathos and formulaic emotion – won an Academy Award in 2017, for Best Short Film. The year before that The Syria Campaign – a shadowy outfit whose donors are mostly unidentified – started a push to nominate the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize. It has become routine in the west to politicize awards and recognition so as to score points in narrative building, support spin and legitimize shady characters. As a consequence, the entire process of recognizing real altruism, selflessness and dedication has become so debased and grotesque that it is a mockery of itself.

So it sort of looks as though we need a new award. An award which recognizes real dignity, devotion to duty as assigned by the state the nominee serves, and – above all – a decisive rejection of the sly, reprehensible, cynical manipulation which now characterizes western political maneuvering. And when you get right down to it, there is little or nothing left in the western public purview which is not subordinated to politics – for example, the ‘canceling’ of a 198-year-old tree from recognition because it is Russian. You probably think I am making that up. Not only is it – sadly – completely true, the winner of the European Tree of the Year, a 400-year-old Polish oak, was selected because “Judges said it had become a symbol of Polish resistance to aggression after it welcomed Ukrainian refugees fleeing the conflict.” Saying a tree is a symbol of Polish resistance to aggression – especially when the Poles feature prominently among the mercenaries in Ukraine to fight Russia to satisfy American foreign-policy ambitions – is like saying the tree from which Gepetto carved Pinnochio is a symbol of deception-based growth.

Because of out-of-control stupidity like that is, because the very nomination for a western human-rights award or humanitarian prize is an invitation to jump headlong into a pool of sleaze…I am proposing the Double-Headed Eagle Prize for Being the Antithesis of the Degenerate and Hypocritical West. Here’s what it will look like; I’m thinking a tall cup or goblet, prominently featuring the eastward-westward looking twin eagle heads. I think this one is an Army hat-badge or something like that; you can see the prongs behind that hold it in place.

This is not a cash prize at present, although perhaps some day it will be, if it endures. I propose that it be awarded annually, and starting with the next award, we can make up the rules as we go forward; at the moment, they are simple. As indicated by the title, the winner must embody the rejection of phony western ‘values’, but that does not suggest no westerner can win it. It can be awarded to anyone who meets the criteria, and next year it will be awarded by popular vote. How about by end-November next year? Let’s say the call for nominees should go out by end-April, and the list of nominees – each of whom will have to be substantiated by the individual forwarding the nomination as to how their performance and conduct epitomizes the rejection of phony western values – out by end-August. Then the vote will take place sometime in November, online, here.

But because it was my idea, I get to pick the first winner, and the Double-Headed Eagle Prize for Being the Antithesis of the Degenerate and Hypocritical West for 2022 is…Sergey Vladimirovich Surovikin, ‘General Armageddon’, the ‘Butcher of Syria’.

Ha, ha!! Might as well start as you mean to go on, right? And that is a classic example of western nonsense right out of the gate – I believe they call it ‘branding’, like the way the Leader of the Russian Opposition (who at the moment is indisposed, in jail, and likely to be there for a long time), Alexei Navalny tried to ‘brand’ the ruling political party in Russia – United Russia – ‘The Party of Crooks and Thieves’. Leading up to the election which put Vladimir Putin back into the President’s chair –  let’s see, that’d be, what, 2012? – virtually every time Alexei Navalny appeared in print in the western media, he was spouting about ‘the Party of Crooks and Thieves’ as if he had thought of it himself, and trying to help it grow legs. Although that same western media testified, wide-eyed, that  ‘the Party of Crooks and Thieves’ was catching on in Russia like Eskimo Pies in Hell, it never caught on at all. No Russians said it except for spoiled ‘dissident’ liberals. Alexei Navalny was a nothingburger, just like he is now, and if you asked around in Moscow today you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who even remembers the slogan. And General Surovikin’s English nicknames are the same.

For example, “Armageddon” is not even part of the Orthodox religion, which dominates in Russia. The closest term to it is “великое побоище”, which translates to ‘Great Massacre’ –  ‘Armageddon’ in English has evolved to a generic term for any cataclysmic battle, although the word actually refers to a place; the location (in the New Testament) of the final battle between the forces of good and evil before the Day of Judgment. Why would Russian troops refer to their Commanding Officer using an English nickname – ‘General Armageddon’ – which has no parallel meaning in their beliefs? Well, then, where did this nickname come from? I’m glad you asked.

“Surovikin gained his ominous “General Armageddon” nickname while leading Russian forces in Syria — where he was accused of overseeing a brutal bombardment that destroyed much of the city of Aleppo.

“This is a man who regards terror as a legitimate, maybe even inevitable part of war,” historian Mark Galeotti wrote in The Spectator.”

Did Mark Galeotti give Surovikin his nickname? Gosh; he’s not a Russian soldier, nor has he ever been, although I would have to say I would not be surprised. Mr. Galeotti has a fondness for the bon mot, the catchphrase, such as ‘The Gerasimov Doctrine’. Remember that one? After the western media plastered it everywhere just as if it were a genuine military philosophy, Mr. Galeotti admitted that he made it up.

As for ‘overseeing a brutal bombardment that destroyed much of the city of Aleppo’, so much of what happened in Aleppo was western spin that I seriously doubt anyone really knows what happened there. I do know the ‘last hospital in Aleppo’ was ‘destroyed by the Russians’ not less than 20 times between June and November of 2016, because it is a matter of record. I do know the poignant Twitter messages allegedly sent to the world by 7-year-old Bana Alabed were fake; the child plainly cannot speak or understand English, as was painfully evident in a softball interview conducted in Turkey. When she was asked what she liked best about Turkey so far, she replied haltingly, “Save…save the children of Syria”. Then the story evolved so that her mother actually wrote the Tweets; her mother, the pro-western Syrian activist. Like ‘Syrian Danny’ Abdul Dayem, a British citizen and pro-western Syrian activist who spiced up his ‘reports from Syria’ for CNN with fake gunfire and hysterics.

It is, similarly, extremely unlikely that Russian forces in Syria awarded Sorovikin the nickname ‘the Butcher of Syria’, considering he was credited with the Russian/Syrian victory.

“But Western military officials and analysts note there are already signs of more tactical coherence than was seen under his predecessor General Alexander Dvornikov. “His war tactics totally breach the rules of war but unfortunately they proved effective in Syria,” a senior British military intelligence officer told POLITICO. “As a war strategist he has a record of effectiveness — however vicious,” the officer added.”

Yawn. Tactics that completely breach the rules of war, huh? Like…like shooting up a wedding celebration and then refusing to even apologize for it? Who was in charge of that fiasco?  Mmmmm…says ‘Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt’ – would that be General “the Butcher of  Makr al-Deeb” Kimmitt? Just kidding – you know the west does not award its senior military officers murderous-sounding nicknames; no, they call them, “Stormin’ Norman’ and monikers that imply martial prowess with a human touch. One exception I can think of is James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis, and as I live and breathe, he was a part of this story as well.

“How many people go to the middle of the desert 10 miles from the Syrian border to hold a wedding 80 miles from the nearest civilisation?” said Maj Gen James Mattis, commander of the US 1st Marine Division.

“There were more than two dozen military-age males. Let’s not be naïve.”

Asked about witness testimony and film broadcast by the Dubai-based Al Arabiya television which showed weeping relatives lowering bodies, one of a child, into graves, he said: “I have not seen the pictures but bad things happen in wars. I don’t have to apologise for the conduct of my men.”

There you have it – bad things happen in wars. Mind your own fucking business. Oh, wait: I thought I had heard that name before- James Mattis, the Mad Dog. Where did he get that nickname? Uh oh. Fallujah.

Yes, indeed; General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis led his US Marines into Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004. His troops “shot at ambulances and aid workers. They cordoned off the city, preventing civilians from escaping. They posed for trophy photos with the people they killed.” A reporter who covered the story, and who is the author of the reference, said “During the siege of Fallujah, which I covered as an unembedded journalist, Marines killed so many civilians that the municipal soccer stadium had to be turned into a graveyard.”

Oh, look – there’s more. “In the years since, Mattis – called a “warrior monk” by his supporters – repeatedly has protected American service members who killed civilians, using his status as a division commander to wipe away criminal charges against Marines accused of massacring 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 and granting clemency to some of those convicted in connection with the 2006 murder of a 52-year-old disabled Iraqi, who was taken outside his home and shot in the face four times.”

You probably remember Mattis’s name, too, but in a different context – he was Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense. Not bad for someone whose war tactics totally breach the rules of war, but are effective. You might even say that as a war strategist, he had a record of effectiveness – however vicious.

I don’t think we need to belabor the point of cruel-sounding nicknames awarded by western media, dipshit analysts and western ‘Human Rights’ organizations any further.

Actual details of General ‘Strategic Effectiveness’ Sorovikin are hard to come by in English, as you might expect, and are often couched in terms which suggest disapproval no matter what he did. For example, as Commander of the 34th Motor Rifle Division, he was accused in 2004 by Lieutenant Colonel Viktor Chibizov of “beating him up for leaving his post to participate in elections as an observer.”

Let’s just try to put that in context. The Commander of the East Anglia Horse Guards in the UK (I made them up, if there is any such formation, it is a coincidence) learns that one of his mid-level officers decided to skip being Duty Officer, and go to see “Braveheart” at the nearby cinema instead, because it is a military film, leaving the base with no Duty Officer for more than 3 hours. Upon learning of this, the Commander calls him into his office and punches him right in his stupid face. Do you think that would be the end of the Commanding Officer’s career? Probably not. Because sometimes, confronted with gross incompetence by someone who most assuredly knows better, bad things happen. Does a Lieutenant Colonel in the Russian Army know he is not permitted to leave his place of duty to be an election observer, a responsibility to which he was not assigned? Well, what do you think? Is creativity regarding your responsibility to the armed services encouraged in the west? As a former member of them for nearly 40 years, I can assure you it is not.

In November 2017, Sorovikin was appointed Commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces, by Presidential decree…over his objections. Gosh – certainly sounds a nepotistic social climber, doesn’t he?

“Under the command of Surovikin, a significant turning point in the fight against the Syrian opposition was achieved. The Syrian Government regained over 50% control of Syria by the end of 2017 after a string of successful military campaigns. According to several Russian military commentators, it was Surovikin who managed to turn the tide of the war in Syria.” Multiple substantiation citations for that one – gee, I can’t think why the Russian government would want him in command in Ukraine. Or why the west hates the idea so much it has to make up scary nicknames for him.

Congratulations, General. I don’t know much about Army tradition, having been a Navy man most of my adult life. But in honour of your award, I’d like to propose a toast. Let’s just keep it simple, and use the Toast of the Day, in naval tradition, for today, which is still Thursday where I am. Ladies and Gentlemen, raise your glasses please – “A bloody war, or a sickly season”.

Sounds prophetic on both counts.