About Zircon, Again.

Judging by the stream of the news re: latest launch by Admiral Gorshkov of 3M22 Zircon, tests are very successful and as TASS reports (in Russian) another three launches from Gorshkov are planned by the end of the year. This includes the strike at the target imitating aircraft carrier. This is only natural and easy to foresee. Somewhere in these launches is supposed to be an underwater launch from one of the Yasen-class (project 885) SSGNs, last time it was Severodvinsk, I believe, which was planned to be used as a platform for this launch. As was expected, and guys on discussion boards already pointed out to this fact--there is a lot of butt-hurt and spin in Western media re: this launch. But then again, recall an initial reaction and then torturous (for the West) transition through Kubler-Ross Grief Model. It eneded up, of course, the United States demanding to include those non-existent weapons into the START treaty. I wonder why I don't hear anything yet from our great "strategist", prognosticator of prognosticators, exemplary military mind David Axe, but I am sure he will lend his expertise in Soviet/Russian weapons' programs any minute now.

I am on record, consistently, that moving into hyper-sonic paradigm IS a real revolution, cannot get any more real than that. It is a revolution because it changes the nature of warfare. Putin, when speaking to Valery Gerasimov upon Zircon's launch was explicit--it is event  of a massive scale for Russia. Well, for the world too. Another "expert", Kyle Mizokami, writing about Zircon gets it all wrong. 

Zircon is designed to use white-hot speed to hit targets before they can mount an effective defense. If a defending ship has its search radar mounted 100 feet off the ground and Zircon flies at an altitude of 1,000 feet (the real number might be much lower), the radar should detect the missile around 50 miles. At 1.7 miles per second, Zircon will close the gap in just 29 seconds, meaning the defending ship will need to detect, track, identify, launch defensive missiles, and achieve intercept in less than half a minute. 

As any Russian anti-shipping (or land-attack) missile Zircon has a multi-variant flight paths and it can approach target on different trajectories, including "diving" into the cone of radar blindness, attacking almost vertically, similar to X-32. But this is beyond the point, any intercept of maneuvering M=8+ missile is not the matter of "29" seconds (granted it will be detected at all--and there are reasons to assume that even detecting this type of missile is extremely difficult), it is physically impossible even under the best of circumstances to do anything. The salvo of 4 or 6 Zircons--it is beyond capability of the most advanced anti-air/missile systems to even react and will remain so for a long period of time. 

There is no technological solution for stopping this type of weapons  in the US currently. Ramifications are colossal: generally, it will be slow arduous reshaping of surface fleets towards smaller (frigate size) strike platforms. For Russian Navy, Zircon unties hands in terms of Sea Control not only in littoral and Green Water zones but, upon necessity, in the remote or ocean zone, allowing to guard surface strike groups against any attempts of US Navy to bring to bear its CBGs' fire power. Thus aircraft carriers are finally removed to the niche where they belong--primarily a power projection tool against unstable entities. Obviously a gigantic expenditure of building and maintaining any US Navy's CBG  raises the serious question about a validity of the approach of having roughly $20 billion worth of hardware (CVN+escort ships+air wing) being commensurate with a rather very limited tasks this insanely expensive force can perform under present conditions. It is too expensive to bomb some shithole of a country somewhere, but attacking Russia? What a wonderful collection of expensive, prestigious targets. 

With Russia having officially announced 7 subs and 5 frigates already planned for being armed with Zircon, plus having potentially other 6 modernized Udaloys (project 1155M) armed with a full version (1000+ km range), not to speak of a massive fleet of Russia's small missile ships (pr. 21631 and 22800) slanted to receive Zircon Light (around 500+ kilometer range) version, one is forced to ask a question--What Now? Now Marshal Billingslea will try to, yet again, pretend that Russia will negotiate on her newest arsenal and he will "press" Russians who, probably, will giggle in private about being "pressed", into some sort of compliance with... whatever will be the flavor of the month in D.C. Of course, the most terrifying prospect for the US is appearance of some sort of similar weapon in China's hands. Not that it will happen necessarily, but who knows--Russia will not allow China to fall militarily if the shit will hit the fan (God forbids) and some crazies (and there is plenty of those) in D.C. will decide to finally direct America's implosion outside by starting a "little victorious" war. Even old fool Kissinger noticed:

The US needs to rethink its hegemony and talk to China about imposing limits on their competition, because the alternative is the creation of conditions similar to those that preceded World War I, Henry Kissinger has warned.“Our leaders and their leaders have to discuss the limits beyond which they will not push threats, and how to define that,” said Kissinger, a top diplomat during the Nixon administration, who is credited with orchestrating US rapprochement with China. “You can say this is totally impossible, but if it is, we will slide into a situation similar to World War I,” he warned.

The United States simply has no good options currently. None. The less bad option, however, is to talk to Russians and not in terms of geopolitical BS and wet dreams that the United States, somehow, can convince Russia "to abandon" China--US has nothing, zero, to offer Russia to do so. But at least Russians and Americans may finally settle peacefully this "hegemony" BS between themselves and then convince China to finally sit as a Big Three at the table and finally decide how to run the world. This is the only chance for the US to stay relevant in the new world. US either negotiates and accepts limits of its influence or it will vanish one way or another. Anyway, there is a lot to ponder on this issue, because the world changes with the insane speed. Bad timing, I picked the wrong week to finish my third book, LOL. 

God, do you remember those times when America was fun and laughed at itself sincerely. MAFA--Make America Fun Again, I kid, I kid;) 

Why I Am Not Surprised-2.0.

You gotta love these headlines.

 Stocks up slightly amid dismal economic data

And why shouldn't they be? Greed has no relation to reality, economic or human, for that matter. All this Wall Street gobbledygook was never designed to give clear sharp definitions of real things or processes. Just take a load of this:

That rotation from high-growth tech to value names also came alongside states reopening their economies and helping catalyze an uptick in activity, bringing investors back into a broader basket of equities.

Oh, what a load of pretentious contrived shit which serves only to cover for this data and it is horrifying, because it affects lives of millions of people who are not "into a broader basket of equities". 

The S&P 500 has crossed the 3,000 level again and investors are clearly riding high on hope for a second half economic recovery post the worst of COVID-19. But that doesn’t mean the market is immune to a pullback this summer primarily because the economic data will likely continue to be horrible. Remember bulls, the U.S. economy has been kicked in the face by the pandemic, and a rebound won’t happen overnight simply because states are reopening. Corporate sales and profits remain under severe strain, sending many off to explore bankruptcy or cut thousands of workers even with quarantines being lifted. “We think that the reported unemployment rate may be around as high as 20% in May,” Barclays chief U.S. economist Michael Gapen warned on Yahoo Finance’s The First Trade. The unemployment rate in April increased by 10.3 percentage points to 14.7%. Gapen believes the U.S. economy may contract a whopping 40% annualized in the second quarter, then surprisingly grow by 25% in the third quarter and 8% in the fourth quarter.

Yes, yes, it will "surprisingly" grow, never mind unsurprising 20% unemployment rate. And let's not talk, like absolutely not, about what was going on before the seasonal flu...I mean COVID-19 struck its blow at impressionable universe of social networks' slaves. The question is not about if the recovery is in cards--it is, at some point of time, at least--but about what will the country do once the full (real--I underscore it, real) scale of unemployment hits home. If there ever was a better way to demonstrate how a huge chunk of "white collar" jobs is not only useless but a burden on real economy, the COVID-19 was it.  

A new video, few days ago, caught my attention. Remember this?

I knew from the get go that this whole thing was nothing more than a "sell" for a bunch of uncultured nouveau riche class which spawned on the ponzi scheme of easy virtual money. "Respectable" people with real money usually reside in their castles and mansions in Europe, closer to actual, however degenerate today, culture and landscapes.  Middle Eastern shitholes covered with the glitz of oil money are for plebes, even if with money, virtual ones, that is. This is one of the suites on the "middle" floor of Burj Khalifa--a symbol of human post-modernist imbecility and ambition--during the storm, which are frequent guests in the region. 

Anyone who thinks that this "experience"of satisfying own ego in this building is so great--let them. No normal person, that is the person who has own two feet on the ground and values real things in life, be them emotionally, aesthetically or materially, would ever want to spend a day (or night) in this pretentious tower looking out at the desert, sea and ugly concrete jungles of Dubai, or any other location in the area. If I need to experience a desert (but it is just me), I know how to get to Nevada (driving through some of the most wonderful landscapes in the world), check into decent Holiday Inn or (all right, all right) Bellagio, and still be within easy driving distance to everything I really value in life--wonderful nature's sights, few hours of drive away lake Tahoe, being among (mostly) people of the same culture and good ol' Black Bear Diner or IHOP, for that matter. Excellent experiences and they cost order of magnitude less than any "vacations" in Dubai or whatever other radically un-touristy locations in backward Middle East. But, as I said, it is just me, many still think that if they could (not anymore, evidently) afford some, never materialized, mansion on one of the Dubai's "islands" that would set them apart, I agree. One has to be a complete moron to "invest" into the "real estate" in the place which goes (not will, but IS going) kaboom in the new economic reality where things of real value only matter.

What is this real "value"? Very simple, our families, our loved ones, friends, colleagues, our real skills in building, repairing, growing, harvesting things, maintaining the safety of our communities, leading truly healthy, in every sense of this word, lifestyles (not you, vegans and pot-smokers), reading, listening to good music, contemplating, creating, being human--these are real values. This is the way to contentment, in being satisfied with smaller but important things. Of course jobs matter, of course our houses matter, but normal person doesn't need Bentley or $4,000 a night suite, or $3 million mansion at the sandy isles in the midst of stinky water, in the area which goes bust, as was predicted, to be happy. As I say all the time, the economy is a consumer pattern. Yes, we all got screwed over by moneyed and subservient political class, nothing new here, it happened before (and was predicted), it is happening now and may happen yet again in the future--such is the nature of capital. But while being condescending (justifiably) towards this class' consumerism, much of it drowning in consumption of useless, wealth-signalling, luxuries, which is always a sign of a lack of true culture and real refinment, there is nothing wrong with us taking a look in the mirror at our own selves and asking the question if continuous consumer pattern is sustainable? I don't think so. But what is the normal pattern? How can it be defined, in what material and moral terms? We all will have to answer this question at some point of time. I, personally, do not need Bentley to be content, as long as my air conditioner and stereo in the car work, as long as it is clean and tidy, I should be fine, in material sense. I also can live without single cask Scotch $500 a bottle. 

In fact, even today, when looking at consumer patterns of modern "elites", one cannot fail to notice how much those "luxuries" are kitsch and tasteless in their attempt to emulate glorious antiquity and royal opulence of Renaissance while in reality most of those in the possession of that opulence have nothing more than a psyche of the small shop keepers. They may yet, many of them, experience a rude awakening. In the end, how can we balance out the need and the want, how does this proverbial "enough" in material sense look like? It is a known fact that Marx considered the United States to be the first country where socialist revolution will succeed. Marx may yet turn out to be correct but what we all, without exception, need to prevent is revolution in a sense of an outright physical conflict, however difficult this may seem now. But it is in everyone's interest to see evolution towards maybe, just maybe, more sane economically and, as a consequence, morally future. For everything else there is a new generation of weapons to help keep this all under control for now.

So how does this end?

Stumbled upon yesterday's Michael Hudson's interview where he answers this question: 

Ross: Well, let me suggest that you were living in one of the most advanced oligarchies in the world at the moment. So how does this end?

Michael Hudson: Ha! The same way that Rome ended. In Rome the oligarchy always overreached itself, impoverishing the economy. In Rome that led to a Dark Age. We’re going to be entering something like that at the end of summer in this country, because you’re going to have many homeless pouring onto the street, many families losing their homes, small businesses who’ve had to go under, medium-sized businesses that have decided to sell out to the large private capital funds. The economy is not going to look very pretty.

Read the whole interview, especially oligarchy part, but while I agree with Hudson, I think one important detail must be added to purely economic outlook and I mean, of course, real economy. I read at Saker's site a very interesting piece by Ramin Mazaheri about millenials: Pity post-corona Millennials… if they don’t openly push socialism. Before going there let's remove a little 800 pound gorilla or two out of the way:

1. The term "socialism" as it is used in the United States is absolutely meaningless term because it doesn't cover all complexities of "socialist"  model which is way more complex than mere "state's (collective) ownership of the means of production". So when you read the term "socialism" be aware that even if to use adjusters for state's involvement into the economy it still wouldn't give people in the Western block any better understanding of such a complex phenomenon as socialism. One thing for sure, however, is that whatever "socialism" means under any particular circumstances it surely means ANTI-laissez faire'. This one applies well.

2. I am NOT a "socialist", despite giving Soviet version of it proper credit for a number of outstanding achievements in every single sphere of human activity ranging from culture, to economy, to war, to science and the list is huge. I am, however, in no way reluctant to discuss failures of said Soviet model nor am I a Marxist, despite using Marxist method in my analysis. I am an economic fusionist, who understands human nature and self-interest as NOT always rational, plus it is my long-standing position that Anglo-American economic "theories" are the theories created inside the environment which never knew Continental Warfare of any serious scale and are absolutely anti-scientific and are nothing more than ideological concoctions, especially as is the case for modern era. 

Now that this is out of the way, I have to give Mazaheri a credit where credit is due because he states some crucial truths about modern generation:   

... the very sectors where Millennials can be most often found – restaurants, retail, tourism, hospitality and creative – will be the most decimated by corona lockdowns. What’s more, this age group has – necessarily – the least seniority, experience and skills and thus they will be the first to be fired in every sector. Labor participation rate for Millennials had only just returned to pre-2008 levels, but – as I stressed to my often-dismissive elders – levels “returned” only via terrible part-time jobs, gig economy work and short-term contracts in Europe. How long will it take to return to (these fundamentally inferior) pre-2020 levels? ....if you thought Millennials were too sensitive before, then imagine how they will be after the corona trauma? There is no “victory” to be had here for the survivors – all they did was cower at home, sometimes snitch on their neighbors, and often couldn’t even risk trying to volunteer to help the elderly and vulnerable. This is going to create guilt and shame personally, mistrust and resentment socially, and a desire to save, hoard and not take risks economically.

Pay attention to the fact of this very generation being one of the most important pushers for legalization of pot and users of it, not to mention other drugs of choice, which automatically precludes them from entering a serious labor force thus reducing their already less than impressive competitiveness, once, especially the "level" of education in the American public schools is considered. Moreover, apart from drug problem it is also a generation of the most active Social Justice Warriors, namely people with a complete mental breakdown being exhibited daily all over every existent social media platform where this generation worships bat shit crazy Greta Thunberg, fights for the rights of the unicorns and goes "woke" in vast numbers daily. Make no mistake, this whole psychiatric event didn't start with millenials, it started with Boomers. So much so, that the best of them, people with enough intellect and consciousness to see what is going on, apologizing:

History will probably record that America’s Baby Boom generation threw one helluva party; Gen X was left with the sorry task of cleanup crew; and the Millennials ended up squatting in the repossessed haunted party-house when it was all over. On behalf of the Boomers, let me try to explain and apologize.

But it is too little, too late on a scale of generations. And I do feel sorry for generation which was convinced that FIRE economy was a viable one, it never was. In case of emergencies first casualty is always a service sector. Millenials, using Russian expression, were left at the broken trough. But if that wasn't bad enough, this generation, especially its urban "advanced" category of iPhone users, Elon Musk-worshiping, Beyonce listening, metrosexually sensitive, part is absolutely not ready for real life. They never were from the inception, and that is a huge problem. Them "pushing for socialism"? With all my respect to Mazaheri otherwise excellent piece, here is how their "pushing" looks like: 

I am sure American oligarchy couldn't have asked more for feeling absolutely secure in their position than Millenials' "socialist aspirations". It also makes a significant segment of Millenials who know how to shoot, fight and start fire in the woods, delightful by looking at their future victims. But I know what I am talking about from the rich personal experience of studying Marxism-Leninism not only in theory but seeing how this theory was applied to creating a powerful, technologically very advanced, military, massive economy and suppression apparatus of appropriate scale. After all, it was none other than Lenin himself who is on record that "Revolution is worth something only when it can defend itself"(c). Bingo! I doubt that liberal arts graduate who used to work in Starbucks as a barista and who knows all differences between iPhones and what Game of Thrones characters are all about, understands anything about basic tactics of urban combat or ever saw how a person dies. So, under these circumstances, the case for socialism's triumph in the US is rather weak. Increase in banditry, gangsterism, street violence--that goes without saying, it is to be expected, but not the push from generation of many splendored genders brought up on Star Wars "woke" versions for "socialism". Industrial plant and its labor force are a much better medium for arriving to the threshold of "socialist" aspirations simply because of a different cultural outlook. But never mind, we all should remember that Marx saw... the United States as the country perfectly primed for socialist revolution. Well, he abhorred Russia and Russians and I am not sure what a level of a butt-hurt would he have experienced should he lived long enough to witness the events of 1917. 

This is my only quibble for otherwise superb article which is worthy of reading. At this stage, however, we all should also expect a degree of social disobedience from many Americans who, actually, ARE bearers of a true spirit of freedom which could be one of those unforeseen factors for present American oligarchy who thinks that it had it all under control. Many Americans, and even some Russians (wink, wink) still believe in some inalienable, God-given rights and that it is on display today in Michigan. 

And liberty for all. This is the factor X in all of that, not to mention the fact...drum roll...of Democratic Party trying to sabotage the nation to have any chance this year at elections. Read attentively: I still didn't disclose my theory of which I stated some time ago, but more and more facts begin to emerge that make Covid-19 affair in the US look rather suspicious.    

Rod Dreher As A Symptom.

Nowadays, when I speak about American "intellectual" class, I cringe. No, it is not just the issue of an ongoing disaster which American foreign policy is, or cooking of books in terms of American economy--a euphemism for Stock Market. It is because there is nothing intellect-related in this class and most importantly, there are no indications whatsoever that any improvement is expected. Colonel Lang, evidently, had it with this American "academe" and wrote some really succinct observations on this issue. 

The world is filled with conformism and groupthink.  Most people do not wish to think for themselves.  Thinking for oneself is dangerous, requires effort and often leads to rejection by the herd of one's peers. The profession of arms, the intelligence business, the civil service bureaucracy, the wondrous world of groups like the League of Women Voters, Rotary Club as well as the empire of the thinktanks are all rotten with this sickness, an illness which leads inevitably to stereotyped and unrealistic thinking, thinking that does not reflect reality.

It is an excellent piece and I strongly suggest to everyone to read it. Now that we established a framework of sorts, I can go back to my shtick which long ago became my part-time job of sorts and repeat all over again--American Russia Studies field is a wasteland of ignorance, propaganda, cliches and stereotypes. It is literally dominated by two types of people: those who have no clue or those who have their own agenda, with the latter being by far the largest contingent. The fact that American "academe" which allegedly specializes in Russia has no clue about the subject of their study can be easily observed through the well documented, and easily referred to, events of the last 20 years. A bunch of neocon baboons and mediocrities such as Obama completely destroyed Russian-American relations because they thought that Russia would crumble. Well, we know the result, don't we? In civilized societies such "scholars" and politicians would have been long ago ostracized and had their sinecures removed. Not in the United States. 

But if that wasn't bad enough, a new, much larger disaster, has struck the field of American Russian Studies field, which, probably, now will never recover from a complete epistemic closure--Rod Dreher visited Russia. It is an unmitigated catastrophe on unimaginable scale since this guy who has a degree in "Journalism", that means no viable tools for sensible generalizations, started writing his impressions about Russia in The American Conservative which today culminated in an Exhibit A of American so called "intellectual" class inability to learn anything. Coincidentally, Dreher's piece is precisely about that--inability to learn. How ironic. The title of Dreher's piece is symptomatic for a history, especially Russian history, ignoramus: 

The Russian Twilight Of Late Imperial America

Bang! There you go, from the start--drawing historical parallels between two countries which have dramatically different histories in virtually every single aspect of their existence. Recall, if you will, my constant warnings about those parallels. From my latest: 

This brings us to the more important issue—historical parallels. Drawing historical parallels is an extremely dangerous business wrought with huge risks of miscalculation and learning wrong lessons. History, certainly, does provide some valuable lessons but at this stage the entirety of the term history, as it was understood even fairly recently, does not reflect the immense complexity of human development and activity for the last roughly hundred years. Those developments can no longer be described within traditional frameworks because an greater number causalities are being afflicted not just due to human nature but now to the technology created by and in service to it

But, of course, Rod Dreher knows better and without much ado pulls out what he calls "revered" (revered by who?) piece of the so called "Russian history" by James Billington. Billington's 1966 opus The Icon and the Axe is your typical Cold War fodder filled with all so familiar narratives of Russia's origins to a now pretty standard routine of quoting great Russian writers (Dostoevsky, of course him) trying to show that Russian culture, that is pre-Revolutionary culture, the culture of Russian aristocracy and land-owners, pretty much ended with 1917. As Dreher narrates:

According to Billington, in the 1890s, younger Russian elites became frustrated with the country’s long struggle towards constitutional liberalism, especially when the reactionary Tsar Alexander III took over from his assassinated father, a (relative) liberal who had ended serfdom. The new generation of intellectuals and artists moved into two different directions: dialectical materialism (that is, Marxism, whose leading exponent at the time was Gyorgi Plekhanov), and transcendental idealism, along the lines of the visionary Christian thinker Vladimir Soloviev. Plekhanov, the father of Russian Marxism, wanted to revitalize society through working-class revolution. Soloviev, an Orthodox Christian, but one strongly influenced by Western Christianity, sought social renaissance through a return to a kind of religious mysticism. Writes Billington, “The materialists claimed to be the heirs to the traditions of the iconoclastic Sixties [1860s] ; the idealists claimed to be developing the traditions of Dostoevsky’s aesthetic and religious reaction to iconoclasm.” What drove them was  “the exasperation of a new student generation with the subjectivism, pessimism, and introspection of the age of small deeds.” Writes Billington, the “new radicals of both right and left” were both seeking “some new philosophic bedrock on which to stand.”

Let me make a short commentary here: it is easy to "learn" about culture, it is sure as hell not Signal Processing or Differential Equations. That's the point, only highly trained people provide solid opinions on such topics. Let's put it this way, unless a person has a damn serious scientific background, he cannot pass a sound judgement on a variety of complex issues related to modern civilization and its main driver--industry and technology. On culture? Oh boy, what a wonderfully unstuck field it is, one can go and "interpret" the shit out of anything without even referring to things which actually matter. I can wax philosophical and "cultural" whatever I want. Anyone with even basic education and average intelligence can concoct a couple of narratives which will simultaneously prove, say, Dostoevsky as being correct and wrong on some critical issue. In the end, Tolstoy's Anna Karenina can also be "explained" simultaneously as both a victim of Russia's upper class peculiarities and social dogma, and as a self-centered psycho-bitch--both characterizations work. That is the nature of "humanities" which rely as much on a spin as on actual facts. In the end, Strobe Talbot was educated on Russia by arguably best Western scholar on Russian culture and intelligentsia Isiah Berlin. Boy, what a waste of time that turned out to be, either due to Talbot's lack of intellect, which I totally can conceive, or Berlin not being a great mind and teacher--this one is hard to believe.  

But here is the problem, after Dreher spent a month in Russia, visited here and there some churches, spoke to some fringe figures and now tries to draw parallels between Russia and US. Sadly, Dreher, I guess after he found out who he was meeting with in Moscow, removed the piece called Moscow Diary, but my comment to him remained on Disqus:

Rod, pardon me, but you are wasting your time and learning nothing of value in Russia and about Russia, especially when one considers a category of public you meet, I don't understand why you went there, when you could have wrote same thing by reading materials about Russia in US media.

He met, totally expectedly some "dissident" so called "Christians", one of them was, if my memory doesn't fail me, after Dreher removed his "Diary" was Mr. Ogorodnikov--a rather shady figure who still tries to pass for Christian Democrat and still listens to Radio Liberty, which characterizes him extremely well. These were this kind of "dissidents" about who Russian Orthodox Church had this opinion:

В конфликте между религиозными диссидентами и представителями государственных структур Церковь, в лице иерархов, занимала позицию государства, в первую очередь, потому что официальная поддержка диссидентов могла навлечь на Церковь новые гонения. Другой причиной было то, что среди религиозных диссидентов было много людей, оторванных от подлинной церковности, для которых протестная деятельность становилась самоцелью. Позднейшие годы со всей убедительностью показали правильность такой позиции церковного руководства. Когда богоборческого государства не стало люди, привыкшие бороться против чего угодно, лишь бы бороться, направили свою энергию против Церкви.

Translation: In the conflict between religious dissidents and representatives of the state structures (in Soviet times), the Church as represented by Hierarchy took the position of the state, primarily because of the fear that Church's support for these dissidents could inspire new persecution. The other reason was the fact that among religious dissidents many people were detached from true Church and for who the protest activity was the main purpose. Later years demonstrated convincingly the correctness of such position by Church. When the godless state disappeared, people who got used to protest against anything, as long as they could protest for the sake of protesting, directed their energy against the Church.      

That's warmer and this definition covers pretty much most (not all) of the Soviet dissidents and Russia's professional "protesters" today. As long as the pressure on Russian state is maintained, the better it is. Moreover, nowadays Russian Orthodox Church is viewed by many in the West as a part of the Russian State and as such is perceived as an enemy. I wonder (wink, wink) if Dreher removed that post after recognizing the fact that some of his contacts in Russia could hardly be representative of Russia and Russians in general, and Russian Orthodoxy in particular. But it is, indeed, a peculiar fact that he removed that post.  Yet, even if recognizing this fact, references to ANY Russian experiences, as Billington limited them to pre-1917, not to mention drawing any parallels to the United States, even if one would find a degree of commonality in a  classic liberal thought between Russian intelligentsia and Western thinkers (after all, Tolstoy even carried a medallion of Jean-Jaques Rousseau all the time), any parallels are not only incorrect, they are harmful. 

Two things which all those Russia "scholars" in the United States fail to grasp about Russia because it is beyond the grasp of most of them:  

1. Russian peasant commune and its world-view;
2. War. 

These two factors explain why Bolsheviks were able to get and hold on to power for so long, the same as why Bolshevism transformed itself into something else entirely in Stalin and post-Stalin period. 

Crimean War, a simple fact, Russian Army faces Anglo-French force, armed with rifles, with smooth bore muskets which barely have a half range of British and French arms, not to mention not being in the same league in terms of accuracy. I will abstain from comparing respective fleets. Russia loses the war, is humiliated and is forbidden to have any fleet on the Black Sea. As none other than Grand Duke Konstantin noted:

We cannot deceive ourselves any longer; we must say that we are both weaker and poorer than the first-class powers, and furthermore poorer not only in material terms but in mental resources, especially in matters of administration. 

Did this thought ever visit Dreher or Billington when almost exactly 50 years from humiliating defeat in a Crimean War, Russia will be humiliated yet again in Russo-Japanese War with Russia's Baltic Squadron annihilated at Tsushima by Japanese Fleet in one of the most lopsided defeats in history. Almost surreal defeat which exposed Russia's weakness. Then comes Revolution of 1905 precipitated both by humiliation of Tsushima and by Bloody Sunday. Then comes its suppression with Russia's peasantry, when not executed, literally whipped--yes, villagers crowded at the central square, with Cossacks administering public whipping of men and women. Russia was literally whipped in 1905-07. And then comes WW I. I have to put it politely, American history, even when one considers Civil War looks almost tame compared to what even old Russophobe and falsifier of Russian history Richard Pipes called "rougher political climes".  

In what state Russia approached WW I is a separate topic, especially after everything became public and was generally settled--for Russia WW I was a catastrophe which resulted in millions upon millions of killed, maimed, displaced and, in the end, proved Grand Duke Konstantin's post-Crimean War diagnosis correct yet again, this time on a gigantic scale. Can some American journo who can not even speak Russian and who writes some fantasies about some Benedict Option even comprehend what effect those wars which saw millions of Russian lives wasted for the reasons which are beyond his grasp had on Russia and Russians? I am sure he has no clue as one would expect from a product of US humanities "education". Then it is no surprise that one will try to find some elusive symmetries between Russian and American history when in reality there are none and can not be. I am not sure Rod Dreher had time to actually get himself into the memorial on Poklonnaya Gora in Moscow, but in the Hall of Memory and Sorrow there are 2, 660,000 small chains with tear drops on them, each chain symbolizing 10 people, in all--a memory of 26,660,000 Soviet citizens who died in WW II. Remarkably, those 2,660, 000 chains is roughly the number of Russian soldiers killed in WW I, without civilians. If Dreher wanted to experience epiphany, he should have gone there to take in a remote physical representation of what almost 2.7 millions killed look like as tear-drops. I think he would have had some answers, maybe, and would avoid drawing parallels to a fate of an American nation (???) which has no grasp of horrors of continental warfare and no experience with it. 

Then maybe, all those platitudes about culture, GULAG and other Cold War cliches and falsities will yield to an attempt, as late Father Robert Tobias wrote to perceive great depth and maybe understand that real Russian Church is not just in, however magnificent, Orthodox Cathedrals but in this:

Or in this, the closest one can get to living and dead marching together as one. 

If that is not a spiritual religious experience, I don't know what is and that is how Soviet Flag flies proudly by, in many cases, people wearing Christian cross. But that is the fact which is beyond comprehension of the American intellectual class, the thing they cannot wrap their brain around, the same as inevitable leaning to the  REAL Left of Russian society. They just don't get it in the US and Rod Dreher is a symptom of this narrow mindedness which cannot be cured, with protracted pseudo-intellectual discussions about Russian culture or without them. But I repeat myself.