Dear friends,
Yesterday one of you made a very perspicacious comment about my views: “You live in Florida, but you could as well have been writing from Neptune or the Moon“. This is absolutely correct. In fact, on the old blog, I posted the following little blurb about myself “I am a ‘legal alien’ currently living in the Imperial Homeland“. Of course, what I mostly meant was that I was a European exiled in the USA. But in a deeper sense, I was also calling myself an ‘alien’ in the modern world. Let me explain.
By culture and upbringing, I am Russian. But a very specific kind of Russian: I come from a family which fled Soviet Russia after the end of the civil war. This my cultural roots are not in modern Russia, but in the old, pre-1917, imperial Russia. That does not mean that today I endorse that old Russia or its political system, but that does mean that culturally speaking I am some what of a fossil or an endangered species soon to become extinct. Thus, culturally speaking, I come from a place and time which has vanished 1917.
In religious terms, I am a traditionalist Orthodox Christian, meaning that in a religion already inclined to traditionalism, I chose to live and worship according to the most traditional and ancient model possible. My religious references are thus not modern theologians, regardless of my appreciation for some of them, but the saints and monastic of the Early Church: the Church Fathers and the Desert Fathers. Thus, in religious terms, I come from a place and time which has vanished in 1453.
Me “retrograde”? Hell yeah!
As for my political views, a modern tests (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) has me pegged as a “Left Libertarian” even though I consider that the ideal political system would be an Orthodox monarchy. Here is how I described my views in the December 2015 addendum to my Submarines in the Desert post:
“Personally, I reject the Left-Right reference system and consider myself an Orthodox “People’s Monarchist” (народный монархист) in the tradition of Lev Tikhomirov, Feodor Dostoevsky, Ivan Solonevich and Ivan Ilyin. Just like the Russian philosopher Berdaev, rather than looking left or right, I rather look *up*! I also recognize myself in the notion of “Left of labor, Right of values” (Gauche du travail, droite des valeurs) of Alain Soral. My economics are: laissez-faire capitalism for the family and small business level, socialism for the corporation level and communism for strategic/national level sectors of the economy“.
Why am I saying all that?
Because I want you all to see that I am what is called a чудак in Russian, a weirdo, an eccentric, an oddball or even, if you prefer, a crackpot, a lunatic or a retrograde, bigoted fanatic. These are all definition which I fully endorse.
So while I am not writing from the Moon or Neptune, I indeed might as well be. Because not only do I not agree with the modern ideologies or systems of values, I completely reject the entire civilizational model we all live in. All of it. If you want, you can say that while I live in this world, I am not of this world. That I might as well be ET or a revived Neanderthal – pick the image you prefer.
If you expect me, or my blog, to comfort you in your views and idea, then I can only reply to you with the words of Dante’s Inferno: “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate” (Abandon all hope, you who enter here) – this blog is by a weirdo and, probably for other weirdos, not for doubleplusgoodthinking modern folks. And I make no apologies for that either. I am what I am, and I won’t pretend otherwise, even with challenged by an outraged mob.
And while everybody is welcome to this blog, I write primarily for those who actually appreciate that difference, that “otherness” and, I dare hope, my honesty. As for those who rather peg a label on me and my views, or call me names, I will simply reply “guilty as charged”. And then proceed on exactly the same course as if nothing had happened :-)
In conclusion I will add one more thing: I am amazed and, frankly, appalled at how intolerant most people are to a political or philosophical discourse which disagrees with their own views. While in theory it’s all about freedom of speech, pluralism and all the rest of the modern bla-bla about liberty, in reality if you dare deviate from the dogmas of our time you will be met with an angry lynch mob. Every time. One more reason for me to reject the modern civilizational, cultural and philosophical model in toto. If that is what you call freedom of speech or freedom of thought, you can keep it – I want none of it for myself.
Hugs and cheers to all,
The Saker
Off topic: ” while I live in this world, I am not of this world”
There is a Sufi saying that is pretty much identical to this.
Back to topic: The more a society is conditioned the more reactions will be strong to pieces that don’t conform to the thinking of the day. I was very surprised to see the intensity of the reaction to your piece on Cologne, especially when people seem to draw conclusions to things that you write that are not warranted or explicit and then proceed to attack those conclusions. I liked your response to some of those commenters but unfortunately those that draw those sorts of conclusions will not be open to the response.
This also reminded me of the Charlie Hebdo reactions. It is very hard to have differing opinions and have intelligent discussions with people nowadays – reactions are often emotional bordering on the irrational and discussions are cut short as a result. This can happen regardless of topic, whether expressing doubt to an American about the absolute supremacy of their army (that was a fun conversation on Christmas!) or making general comments about the degeneracy of our society.
Anyways, keep on trucking, there are other aliens out there. :)
From Pluto,
Hornet
This also reminded me of the Charlie Hebdo reactions.
Oh yes, same here. Or of my post about guns (/saker-rant-gun-control-should-only-mean-hitting-your-target/). Then too some “quit” the blog utterly disgusted with my heretical views.
I suppose that “terrestrials” don’t really feel comfortable around us, aliens, and even though they pay lip service to galactic diversity, they rather keep to themselves :-)
Hugs and live long and prosper fellow alien \\//_
There’s no doubt – the saker remains a riveting blog and forum ;-)
What I don’t get…you’re obviously intelligent and can mostly spot a psyop for what it is.
Why on earth (or wherever) can you not apply that critique to what smells of similar odour – all the various forms of religion (including orthodoxy).
I know this will not make one jot of difference to your opinion and I am smiling about that.
We are, most surely, very interesting but strange little beings.
Keep up the work – good, bad or indifferent.
Dear Mod_PS,
Here’s the posting I submitted earlier that seems to have gone to the SPAM filter: (Thanks for your assistance is fixing this).
@Saker
Re:
if you expect me, or my blog, to comfort you in your views and idea, then I can only reply to you with the words of Dante’s Inferno: “Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate” (Abandon all hope, you who enter here) – this blog is by a weirdo and, probably for other weirdos, not for doubleplusgoodthinking modern folks. And I make no apologies for that either. I am what I am, and I won’t pretend otherwise, even with challenged by an outraged mob.
Exactly right. That’s the right the way to be. In my opinion, it breaks down our conditioning and helps one see the world from an outside position (and therefore more objective position).I few nights ago I tried posting a response on your article about some Hindu Chants, it didn’t go thru because the browser I was using proxied my post thru a cacheing server (Opera Mobile). But I pretty much wrote -in disjointed way- the point that you cannot be cubby-holed into any category – which is good which is the way all of us should strive to be, that is to be independent enough in our thinking that we cannot be stereotyped and where we judge each situation on its own merits rather that a blind judgment based on an ideology test.I was really disgusted (but not surprised) at the bigotry that came thru against you and others, because you a Christian, dared to find something of value in another culture or religion (Hinduism). Personally I really didn’t like those chants (from an aesthetic point of view of the implementation – that’s just my personal taste – certainly the words were beautiful to me and apparently to you and others holy). The fact that I’d didn’t find the chants musical qualities to my personal taste didn’t preclude my gratitude that you shared them with us. I certainly learned from your discussion and explanation.
And while everybody is welcome to this blog, I write primarily for those who actually appreciate that difference, that “otherness” and, I dare hope, my honesty.
That’s exactly what I find valuable here, and why, I believe, that intellectual level of many of your commenters is fairly high. There is another benefit that you may not appreciate about what you do for many of us: “You mature people.” At least that’s been my personal experience.By maturing people you give us a chance to experience the cold-shock of facing our own personal political correctness and conditioning. That’s right, we’ve all been tainted by this culture we’ve grown up in (across the globe) and we have trip-wires of conditioned outrage on certain topics. In addition, many of us are self-blind to our own hypocrisy and ideological assumptions. A good example of it came out in the commenters defending you against an arrogant posting by a single individual: one who used the occasion to slander most Hindus as being especially arrogant and ignorant about their own culture. The self-blindness of accusing others of ignorance & arrogance while simultaneously exhibiting ignorance & arrogance themselves is an oxymoronic product of the conditioning of this civilization. It is an example of something we’re all capable of being guilty of and only a cold splash of unapologetic truth can make us aware of this self-blindness – your blog and your approach often does that for us.
When the Saker and like-minded authors refuse to bend in the face our knee-jerk outrage it gives us a chance to reflect on own reaction and face it – it’s very sobering and breaks the conditioning right there. Then, at that moment, one understands the true meaning of free-speech and diversity of ideas and it opens your mind. It breaks down barriers in our own thinking and starts to show how valuable it is to have consideration or ideas we may initially disagree with in forming new ideas or analyzing current situations.
I’m glad you will continue to defy categorization and continue to have the courage say things they way you see them and even be wrong on some occasions, it is what we all should practice. I consider this to be a the real gift passed on to us by the approach of this blog, whether we stay here or move on to another blog, start our own or come back on occasion.
super response, hear hear…………
This expresses my sentiments exactly. I feel/suffer from my own tripwires of conditioned outrage. The Saker’s analyses help me recognise and question this conditioning. I have felt this frequently but I think this is the first comment that I have read that expresses it so eloquently.
Oops just posted the comment without adding my name. Sorry. The previous comment agreeing strongly with Mirror was mine.
Mirror.. i echo your points.
Saker please don’t despair at the level of rage.. as mirror say we are all trying to break free of the conditioning we have grown up with.
Cheers from down under.
Saker is on the defensive big time. He threw a torch to Europe and thinks he has all the answers.
He has done a lot of good in past, but this time he faces severe criticism. Many commenters are trying to educate him about the situation in Europe. He dodges.
What really irks him is that somebody, who mentioned he antagonized some of his most faithful supporters, among which some have contributed to the blog, said Saker could as well have been writing from another planet in the solar system. The meaning of that is that he does not understand the situation and speaks from afar. He cannot possibly understand the reality in some European countries and some of them have no colonial past and no guilt at all. Now he turns that into a completely different debate. He says he is off this world because he is Russian and Orthodox and that is why he is writing from the Moon.
My eldest daughter is afraid to take the subway. Many women in my country do not leave their homes in the evenings. Saker needs to understand this situation.
Saker is on the defensive big time.
Nothing new here, at least not for me. I spent all my life in the minority and being intensely disliked by most people. For me this is par for the course and simply the price to pay for daring to dissent from the prevailing wisdom of the day.
It is true that most comments, the vast majority in fact, have been extremely critical, if not hostile, to what I wrote or even to me. That is fine. I really wrote for the few out there who were open and willing to hear my dissenting and crimethinking voice. I expected no understanding, or even tolerance, for the others.
I leave you with these beautiful words by Roger Waters:
You say the hill’s too steep to climb,
Chiding!
You say you’d like to see me try,
Climbing!
You pick the place and I’ll choose the time
And I’ll climb
The hill in my own way
just wait a while, for the right day
And as I rise above the treeline and the clouds
I look down hear the sound of the things you said today
Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd, smiling
Merciless, the magistrate turns ’round, frowning
and who’s the fool who wears the crown
Go down in your own way
And everyday is the right day
And as you rise above the fearlines in his frown
You look down
Hear the sound of the faces in the crowd
Cheers,
The Saker
Hi Saker, I want to say that I love you and follow your blog devotedly!
I want to ask you who say you aren’t a part of this world, yet you have a wife and children? And must therefore participate in the American economy how some would describe as inordinately, compared to our brothers and sisters who inhabit this earth with us in the same time and space, and I would guess in the past too.
I am not against any of that, really, and I would try to be the first to address my own inherent hypocricies and paradoxical life circumstances, like typing on a computer for one, but I find your quest to distinguish yourself as something “other,” kind of problematic.
A better world has always and may always be only a possibility until the good lord or one of the impending calamities obliterates the human species, then who knows?
Saker did not say that he does not participate in the world – what he said was the equivalent of “being in the world but not of the world”. This has to do with state of mind more than with action. As such, no inherent hypocrisy in having a wife, kids, participating in life, etc. Anyways, that is my interpretation.
Hate to agree with the “out there” conspiracy theorists, but maybe waht I’m implying is that our dear brother Saker is attempting to be a human being in an alien world. How better to explain the degree to which especially we here in USA attached as we are to our various bubbles fight tooth and nail to deny our humanity, or to have it drubbed out of us by….just about e everything in this cultural imperative.
And my heart goes out to you Saker for the wonderful integral balance you constantly reveal in your ongoing work and reporting. Your great strength lies in your spiritual independence of outlook. At this time there is great merit in having the capacity to transcend merely intellectually based world views. I for one trust your “perspective” more deeply than any brand or western thinkers.
I tend to agree. The Saker nails his flag to the mast and I for one salute it
Well, theologically that places you right around the tail end of the Council of Florence, attended by Metropolitan Isidore of All Russia, who then attempted to proclaim unity in Constantinople, which was rejected, and wasn’t received very well when he got home, either. If only he’d spent more time with Nicholas of Cusa. Confusing times, like today. I don’t think you’re so eccentric, just a little bit touchy (lately), and understandably so. And though you probably don’t care, I really don’t mind. As a fellow submariner, I enjoy your perspective.
BTW, my mother also says my kingdom “is not of this world.”
theologically that places you right around the tail end of the Council of Florence, attended by Metropolitan Isidore of All Russia,
Yes, but only in the sense that I would have stood with Saint Mark of Ephesus and the Russian people who jailed the apostate Isidore :-)
Sorry – no sympathy for any unias from me!
Cheers,
The Saker
Pretty basic difference, indeed, and I’m not pleading for Isidore. The apostasy charge, however, sounds a lot like today’s takfiris, especially when Florence merely meant to achieve a union of faith, not of hierarchy or rite. To this day many (non Protestant) Christian churches continue to evangelize separately but in communion with Rome, under whose aegis I, as a Latin American, was raised, though at this point it’s a purely cultural thing. Some belief structures are almost entirely a product of geographical accident. Still, I’m pleased with Rome’s current ability to join forces with Antioch, among others, in the pursuit of God’s plan for *all* mankind. That’s called catholicity. But again, religion’s not my thing, so I won’t go into the whole “Third Rome” story, etc. To each his own.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/size680/Pope_Francis_1_with_Patriarch_of_the_Syrian_Orthodox_Church_of_Antioch_M
Sorry, that link doesn’t work. Try this one: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/syrian.christian.leader.tells.west.stop.arming.terror.groups.who.are.massacring.our.people/57747.htm
The apostasy charge, however, sounds a lot like today’s takfiris,
Fair enough. I will settle for the term chosen by Saint Mark: heresy.
Inasmuch as heresy is defined as opinion contrary to dogma, I can live with that, too. Be well.
wonderful, Gatopardo
Correct definition. And I will live with this too.
Thanks and be also be well,
The Saker
I can read english but I can’t speak or write. Saker, como puede un hombre inteligente como Usted todavia hablar en heresias o apostasias? Saludos. José, de Brasil.
Simple! For technology, I use technological terminology. For medicine, I use medical terminology. For music, I use musical terminology. And for theology, I use theological terminology :-)
The fact that most people today do not understand this terminology is not a reason for me to stop using it. After all, somebody must keep the correct terminology, words and expressions or we will permanently sink into an Orwellian “newspeak” world were certain concepts will simply disappear and loose their meaning.
Cheers,
The Saker
Earth girls are easy. Ask any alien.
Funny.
It was a sily comedy movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097257/
Somewhat along those lines. I’ve noticed how “modern Russia” is trying to combine the past of Imperial Russia and also the USSR. I think that they are doing a good job of it. Trying to take the feelings that different sections of the Russian people have for those times. And combine them into a whole. To see their past as “one” past. Only divided into different era’s. A few other countries also have done that. But none better than Russia I believe. Whether that is a conscious plan. Or just a circumstance,I’m not sure. But I believe it is a conscious plan of Putin’s.
I’ve noticed how “modern Russia” is trying to combine the past of Imperial Russia and also the USSR.
Yes, and that is a fantastically difficult task as, in many way, the Soviet Union was an “anti-Russia”, especially in its early years. There is also the danger of the position of some ultra-nationalists which say that everything and everything Russian was good, from Ivan the Terrible, to Stalin, of course. This really is ethno-worship and self-worship, a form of idolatry which, alas, often tries to impersonate Orthodoxy (even though from an Orthodox point of view ethnophyletism is a heresy).
Cheers!
The Saker
„This really is ethno-worship and self-worship, a form of idolatry which, alas, often tries to impersonate Orthodoxy (even though from an Orthodox point of view ethnophyletism is a heresy).“
Do you have any experiences/thoughts with this phenomenon concerning orthodox-christian nations in Balkans? My experience is that ethnophyletism is the focal point arround wich everything else revolves and is the root of almost all the frictions and conflicts in Balkans among orthodox-christians. It also causes the inability to share the living space with the „other“ without subduing them. Until your disclosure, I wasn’t completely aware of the official (or maybe – mainstream) stance of the Orthodox churches that this is idolatry and heresy. I thank you for that.
@Boris
Orthodoxy is very closely attached to Hellenistic principles, which always were very multiethnic.
The principle “Live and let live” reflects its character.
I beg to differ on your point. Without the least intention of being malicious, there are numerous examples of rather serious problems between f.ex. Macedonians and Greek; or Macedonians and Bulgarians; or Serbs and Macedonians; or Serbs and Montenegrins etc.
When Greece took over Aegean Macedonia in 1913, they killed, tortured and ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Macedonians. They changed the names of people, villages, and landmarks from Macedonian to Greek in their attempts to eradicate the Macedonian name.
The Serbs completelly deny Montenegrin identity, claiming that anybody stating to be orthodox-christian in ex-Yugoslavia must be a Serb, following a specific type of „St. Sava orthodox-christianity“.
It’s rather similar between Serbs and Macedonians. For instance, Serbian nationalists claim that Macedonians are „Serbs with speech impediment“.
We should also remember that Serbs and Bulgarians from a historical stand point have had a mutualy suspicious view of each other from ancient times right up till the end of WW2 due to a series of battles that have lasted generations. It is well documented that Bulgarians killed more Serbian souls in the 20th century then the Turks did in 450 years of their rule.
There’s also always been the contention and rivalry between Serbia and Bulgaria over the Macedonian question. Serbs historicaly have refered to the Macedonians as Southern Serbs, while the Bulgarians view the Macedonians as Bulgarian property.
The exploitation and rather colonialistic treatment of the native orthodox-christian population in Herzegovina, by Phanariot Greek priests is well remembered and documented. It is said that they were worse then even the Turks.
It certainly looks like that without Albanians, who represent the common problem of those Balkan orthodox-christians, those old conflicts would’ve been much more active nowadays.
with respect, it is not up to bulgairian, or serbian, or russian orthodox churches to grant autokefalia to would be ‘Macedonian orthodox church’ i beleve there is a fixed protocol for application. once granted, you would probably not feel oppresed by other orthodox neighbours, who accuratly deny the existance of macedonian autokefalia/self rule of macedonian church authority..i.e. until such time, macedonian church will not be self regulated and it will continue to be under the serbian orthodox authority.
blaming serb, bulgarian, greek and other nationalists does not help.. it only attracts counterproductive geo-political machinations
best wishes
surely it is a plan……..to value the traditions and learning within context the depth and breadth of Rus history good or or bad……to ensure todays “modern” world doesn’t subsume sensibility.
Saker
When I was fascinated by your blog in spring 2014 it was this fresh breeze from that immense country Russia and the according thoughts of an “alien” living in the belly of the monster. According in parallel it was Пётр Матрёничев with his kitchen- music, that carried a similar kind of feeling released.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHsjrcOoHkM
As you mention Neptune and Luna, I might add Jupiter and Pluto not without certain reason. I think to your “small reminder” my astrological analysis of the Saker’s blog, done last week, will be suitable, as posted firstly in a comment to your technical alert which caught primarily technical advice.
http://astromundanediary.blogspot.de/2016/01/astrology-with-saker.html
produce much comment.
Dear mundanomaniac,
I read your Astrology with the Saker but this time *I* am the one with reading comprehension problems. In your opinion, what does all this mean for me and for the future of the blog?
The essence of “the Saker in the Vineyard” according to it’s horoscope:
“The verbally competence … of sovereign expression of personal passion.”
” “anonymous meaning in the cradle” of the idea.”
Aquarius (the essence of the blog) is “nearness to God” …” the superior kind of spirit … in zodiac.”
“The spirit (dwells) among the folks.”
“The ideas are coming by resonances as “angelos”, gr. messengers.”
“Opening doors” ( without remorse.)
“Expression of analyses.”
These are the condensed sentences in the middle part of my blog.
You see sounds not really groundbreaking. Ask your community about the Saker and you will have a lot of sentences like that.
But an active private astrologer in the realm of his A B C , however, were aware, that I did nothing but read the lights of the blog’s birth – the child of Saker – which is he, self, who opened that door to the heaven of Aquarius and it’s Uranian resonances here down among us folks, me and my brother inclusive.
“It’s obvious, Saker entered his wheeler in a highly meaningful moment. What will arise from that – depends on what he carries along with himself, be it knowledge, be it spirit,be it character.” So much for the future at this place.
Another subject is the ‘Astrology of the Saker’. You must know, I believe Astrology is beneath the three basic languages – words and numbers the third: pictures –
And like numbers and words pictures carry order, and charge. Astrology studies the order, psychology deals with the charge.
The great caliphs had their astrologers, Messahala’s horoscope helped founding Baghdad.
Good wishes
mundanomaniac
Thanks mundanomaniac!
Kind regards,
The Saker
Charlie Hebdo was a deliberate psyop to provoke Muslim rage. The German women in the train station and other parts of Germany did nothing whatsoever to provoke the violent physical attacks perpetrated against them. They are completely innocent random victims. From the point of view of a woman, rape is as heinous as murder. That is why probably 98% of women readers are disturbed by the lack of sympathy and sensitivity for the victims in that controversial post.
The German women in the train station and other parts of Germany did nothing whatsoever to provoke the violent physical attacks perpetrated against them
Absolutely true and I clearly said so. But the German regime and, generally, the folks in power in the EU did everything they could to trigger hate from the Arab-Muslim world. This does not excuse anything, but it does contribute to the explanation, at least in part, of what happened.
That is why probably 98% of women readers are disturbed by the lack of sympathy and sensitivity for the victims in that controversial post.
No. It is because those who were “disturbed” to use your expression apparently did not bother reading what I *actually wrote* but instead reacted to what they though I was thinking or feeling. This is also what happened with I wrote my “Je ne suis PAS Charlie” article, instead of reading it, many read INTO it. For example, this notion of my “lack of sympathy” (or even male chauvinism and sexism!) is a pure invention, I never wrote anything which would justify such an accusation. In fact, I clearly wrote “ I don’t intend to excuse anything, but I do want to contribute at least a possible and partial explanation to what happened.” and bolded out in red ” I don’t intend to excuse anything”. But that was, apparently, not clear enough.
Frankly, it is highly frustrating to be attacked for things I never said and I am very, very tired of this.
It is perfectly valid to criticize what someone does not say on a topic and you do it regularly yourself.
“Frankly, it is highly frustrating to be attacked for things I never said and I am very, very tired of this.”
You share this with other very high flying submarines, think of Hannah Arendt, think of Carl Jung, … all analytical self thinkers
For many readers of “seasoned” [or cynical] sort, your profession to not “excuse” was considered insincere, just a tactic to try to “cover yourself” by anticipating opposition. In other words, they figured that you were only being verbally clever and that you really were indeed seeking to excuse the assaulting and raping of the women.—The behavior of the assaultive men boiled down, probably, to intense gut-level rage, disgust and shame at any sexual behavior, attraction, display, etc., all to be attacked and drastically punished.—Think of the Taliban or Da’esh behavior towards women, it is really the dynamic of men feeling extremely “sexually harassed” by women, just even by the presence of any women anywhere near them,—not so different from many women in the West feeling rage and terror from being “sexually harassed” just even by the presence of men anywhere near them.—All stems from the same set of feelings, operating within men on one hand, within women on the other hand,—everything to destroy most if not all attraction and trust between the male and female genders as the overall direction, so that ultimately men and women should be hating and fighting each other all the time and should separate and have as little to do with each other as possible within the given society.
can’t agree-I saw it as organised mass “teenage” sexual ritual , however disturbed , as confirmed by this group behaviour
“The Arabic gang-rape ‘Taharrush’ phenomenon which sees women surrounded by groups of men in crowds and sexually assaulted… and has now spread to Europe
The Arabic term ‘taharrush’ roughly translates to ‘collective harassment’
It refers to sexual assaults carried out by groups of men in public places
Surrounded by dozens of attackers, lone women are groped or raped
The phenomenon was first seen in 2011 when a reporter was attacked
Lara Logan endured an assault while reporting on the protests in Egypt
Police say attacks in Cologne marked Europe’s first instance of taharrush
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3395390/The-Arabic-gang-rape-Taharrush-phenomenon-sees-women-surrounded-groups-men-crowds-sexually-assaulted-spreadEurope.html#ixzz3x73Phsjr
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Full horror of Cologne migrant gang sex attacks revealed for the first time: Police logs detail terrifying experiences of victims
Shocking police notes from Cologne sex attacks revealed for the first time
Reveal how sexually frustrated men put their hands in tights and knickers
Mobile phones, bank cards and cash was stolen from frightened victims
More than 500 women were attacked by angry sex mobs on New Year’s Eve
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3396091/Full-horror-Cologne-migrant-gang-sex-attacks-revealed-time-Police-logs-terrifying-experiences-victims.html#ixzz3x73hPdWq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Very insightful observation which addresses my own gut reaction to the “far be it from me to judge, but…” attitude. Since I’ve been following The Saker what has most struck me about his general demeanor and the tone it sets for this blogsite is its reasoned balance and equanimity, which the referenced “red bold letters” musings departed from. I was surprised by the sudden irruption of apparent hypocrisy and ideological bias in a forum I prize for the absence thereof. Fortunately intellectual liberalism (not to be confused with moral relativism) prevails, and our collective consideration has not only put the issue to rest but opened up new avenues of discussion. This precious opportunity may be more important for humanity than this small group is able to see for now.
Excellent comment, Anonymous at 7:07 AM!
Quoting the Saker, one level above:
» But the German regime and, generally, the folks in power in the EU did everything they could to trigger hate from the Arab-Muslim world. «
Dear Saker, I think this shows you’re out of touch with the reality of these migrants in Germany and other European countries. Sounds like for you it’s all about the bigger picture and world relations and religion and so on. Well, it’s not. It’s just people, good and bad.
First, these Muslims do not hate us, but there are too many among them who do despise the liberal society where they can engage to their hearts’ content in criminal activity without being punished. It is perfectly clear how this contempt develops. These people are culturally unfit for our societies. They’re not the progenity of the first generation of Turkish immigrants who came for work; they’re the progenity of those people who came for social welfare. The fact that they’re all Muslims is coincidental, not essential.
Second, we and our despicable government and even the EUrocRats didn’t » do everything we could to trigger hate from the Arab-Muslim world «. Germany, in particular, has no history of Mid-Eastern or North African colonialism. Some may hate the English and the French, perhaps, but not Germans, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, Finns. Germany even did have a good reputation with these folks in past decades because they knew how Germany fought against the evil colonial powers. (Guess the credit is used up now.) But that is the past and doesn’t matter much in day to day life. As for the present, much more important, these folks do receive goodies and benefits here which they don’t receive at home. That’s precisely the reason they’re here. They cash in the welfare money, complain it ain’t enough, despise the giving hand, complain about racism, and despise again when they see how that nice little ploy works to their advantage.
And third, I’m at a complete and total loss to understand how considerations of world affairs should have any effect on a men’s behaviour toward women in that precise kind of situation as in Köln! There’s really no connection. » You see, your government or institutions or what not did harm to my poor country and my poor family, you understand, so I don’t ride in a big Mercedes as I deserve, so now let me be compensated by feeling your nice titties … « I mean what kind of weird logic is that?!
The fact is that the kind of immigration / asylum / refugee policy that’s been treacherously forced upon the peoples of Europe has attracted and encouraged a lot of bad people. And they all happen to be Muslim, giving Islam a bad reputation. But I don’t think blaming Islam hits the problem on the head. Because we see many people who are Muslims and who are good people.
The question is who let those people in? It was planned and coordinated and clearly seen months before. Who collaborated in lying to the German people about all these poor refugees, kids with big sad eyes … when in fact 75 % were able-bodied young men seeking their fortune? If you invite such people then you are asking for trouble.
My solution would be an »integration camp« – with zero comfort, just like back in the day, self-administered at the lower levels, kapo-style, with work to do. The old facilities, which serve as museums to show people from all over the world that Germans are bad people and must forever skid around on their knees while flagellating themselves, could be boldly repurposed. All the asylum abusers and criminal migrants would be accomodated there – together with all the German politicians, presstitutes and other systematic liars and swindlers, who would thus be given a fair chance, by integrating in close community with the charming people they allowed in, to reap the well-deserved fruits of their foul deeds. The public would be most interested to learn of the progress – cultural, intellectual, spiritual – that would certainly be made in this well-disciplined integration process.
Some people think that would be »radical« – others think it sounds like a good idea.
” enough.
Frankly, it is highly frustrating to be attacked for
things I never said and I am very, very tired of
this.”
Know the feeling.
The Atlantic carried an article on the theme of Muslim disgust (including Muslim women) at the pornification of Western women only recently.
Maybe a mini-essay on the ‘ought-is gap’ might help to enlighten folks. And a reminder that explanation is not endorsement.
And I say that as a self-described feminist (though not the of the McMedia/McAcademia kind.)
Chin up, and soar, Saker!! :)
Thanks a lot and will do :-)
I came here when the Ukraine crisis started and liked your geopolitical analysis. Your conservative views became apparent only later. I would say for many of your readers the “otherness” is their geopolitical views rather than how liberal/conservative they are – at least that is the case for me.
I just wonder what would have happened if I had read some of your conservative views first – before the ”purely” geopolicital texts. I believe you are alienating some of the potential people you could ”wake up”. But of course you are free to write as you wish on your own website and I probably still keep reading and occasionally disagreeing.
Your conservative views
This is just a label and a gross over-simplification. I remind you that on the online test I mention (https://www.politicalcompass.org/) I scored as a Left Libertarian. And notice that I am much of a Leftist than a Libertarian (just look at the graph above).
Now let me suggest this to you: why don’t you go and take the same test and then let’s compare scores and see if I am as ‘conservative’ as you apparently believe me to be.
Okay?
Pretty close to you:
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56
I still think conservative was the best word to use. I’m gay so mostly I’m annoyed by homophobic rants. Religion doesn’t bother me as long as people don’t try to restrict my life because of their beliefs.
I’m gay so mostly I’m annoyed by homophobic rants.
Dear fellow Left Libertarian,
I don’t recall ever writing any “homophobic rants” and I neither fear, not hate, homosexuals. I do have a real beef with what I call the “homo lobby” just as I do with the “Israel lobby”, but that does not make me anti-Jewish. Were we would disagree is that I do not consider homosexuality as a “normal and healthy variation of human sexuality” (as Wikipedia calls it) but I consider it a personality disorder, as did the APA until political pressures forced it to recant that position. On that we simply can agree to disagree and keep our mutual respect for each other. But when I write critical essays about the “homo lobby” I would ask that you not brand them as “homophobic” because that expression is now used just as the word “anti-Semite” to obfuscate the “offending thought” and disparage the person expressing it. It would be just as absurd for me to call any advocacy of homosexuality a form of “heterophobia”. I think that we can disagree on the nature of homosexuality without resorting to such labels (especially considering that since we scored so close on the test we much have many, if not most, of our values in common!)
My 2cts. Kind regards,
The Saker
Criticizing ”homo lobby” is fine. Otherwise let’s agree to disagree on this issue. Mostly I enjoy reading your site. Keep writing and I keep reading.
Thanks!
Will do :-)
I think, one could say a “personally healthy disorder”. I see the healthy disorder as being a stable minority contained in the order of nature. Homosexual animals. The “Indianian” communities had, have? their “contrarians”.
The Saker,
Can I ask how a “left libertarian” can be a monarchist? And, yes, the question is probably a reflection of my ignorance of what a “people’s monarchist” is. It’s an eternity since I’ve read Dostoyevsky (alas) or Berdyaev. I don’t know the other authors. Has any of them written a precis, at all, that has been translated into English? (I find it hard to picture Dostoyevsky as Left or as Libertarian.)
@AEM:Can I ask how a “left libertarian” can be a monarchist?
Yes! Now this is a very interesting question and you really made my day :-)
Problem – you don’t read Russian. Partial solution: please peruse the website http://souloftheeast.org/ and, especially, their “translations” section. There is some very good stuff there.
Let’s begin here. You write “I find it hard to picture Dostoyevsky as Left or as Libertarian”. Did you know that he began is life as a revolutionary and terrorist? The same goes for another very famous Russian monarchists: Lev Tikhomirov. So what is the deal here? Are these just “turncoats” or did the “czarist oppression” make them “love Big Brother”? Hardly.
The two most important things to understand about this topics are these:
1) pre-1917 Russia was run by a largely westernized class of aristocrats, most of whom where Freemasons, and this class was largely opposed to the worldview and interests of the Russian masses (mostly peasants). While this class paid *lip service* to the monarchical ideal, these were in reality hardcore aristocrats who saw the monarch as a threat to their power, especially if the monarch had some backbone.
2) Russian monarchism, which takes its roots in Orthodox spirituality, is anti-aristocratic, anti-plutocratic and most definitely “pro-masses” (ugly term, but I can think of no better one). As were many Russian Czars who, like Putin today, felt that while the people supported them, the elites (the court) hated them. And they were correct – look at the number of Czars killed by these elites.
Just like Saint Paul thought he was serving God when he was persecuting Christians eventually re-directed his zeal to serving God by defending Christianity, so the Russian revolutionaries like Dostoevsky or Tikhomirov who served the people and opposed the reactionary elites re-directed their zeal to serve the people by defending the monarch and the monarchical principle.
I know that this might be hard to understand in the modern context where monarch are either globalist parasites like in the UK or head-choppers like in Saudi Arabia, but the Russian monarchy takes its roots not in the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire but from Byzantium.
Furthermore, while some (many) Orthodox bishops did, at various times, subserviently serve the powers that be, Orthodox philosophy is actually very “progressive” in many ways. The Church Fathers wrote many scathing critiques of the elites which, if read today, would almost sound like the Latin American “Liberation Theology” (minus the support for violence, of course).
Ivan Solonevich, in his seminal book “People’s Monarchy” compares the social and labor laws under Nicholas II and the British government and comes to the conclusion that Nicholas II was much more of a real socialist then the British Prime Minister. Solonevich is another interesting case, a man who came from a family of peasants and who absolutely *hated* the Russian aristocracy and who defended the monarchist principle as the only one which 1) correspondent to the Russian cultural and historical roots (he called it the “people’s dominant”) and 2) which could protect the people from the abuses of the elites.
Really, I could write an entire PhD thesis or book on this topic, but all I could share here is some pointers on a much misunderstood topic.
One more thing: Russians, far from being the willing passive serfs which the western historiography likes to present to us, are actually extremely libertarian. If you study the history of the popular resistance to the introduction of serfdom in Russia (the result of copying the West, by the way, serfdom did not really exist until the mid 17th century), the numerous revolts, the resistance to religious oppression against the Old Believers or the Dukhobors and many other groups (pre-17th century Russia used be much more tolerant of other confessions), then the various uprisings in 1905, followed by even more uprisings against the Soviet rule (Tambov, Kronstadt, etc), then the civil war, you will see that the popular Russian culture is, like the American one, a frontier culture with a strong libertarian streak. In fact, Russian see *westerners* as passive, submissive and law-abiding in a way which nor Russian could accept.
Again, these are just pointers. But for me, to be a Left-Libertarian Russian monarchist is, really, self-evident and very natural. I know that this does not fit into the normal “Left-Right” paradigm, but why should I care? I am what I am :-)
Sorry for not being able to go into more details, I simply lack the time tonight. Also, you can check out one of my podcasts (don’t remember which one), the transcripts are posted on this blog, where I also touched upon this topic.
Hope that this helps, kind regards,
The Saker
Fascinating. I don’t know about the United States, because I didn’t grow up here, but during the Cold War in Latin America to be a communist was to be pro-Soviet (except for the Maoists and other crazies, who always babbled incoherently at rallies), which in turn really meant pro-Russian, and we avidly absorbed every bit of Russian culture we could get a hold of, beginning with Dostoyevski, Tolstoy, Gogol, Pushkin and Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky (for those of us with classical aspirations) or the popular Otchi-Tchor-Ni-Ya, which appears as a motif in a well known Afro-Cuban hit, and a Rachmaninoff piano theme in Richie Ray’s “Sonido Bestial”. Imagine our brown little asses dancing away to hard-core salsa arranged over arctic Russian tunes–indeed, with our scantily-clad chiquitas in the sugar-cane sweet air of the tropics (please excuse a hint of yearning). Freedom was always a theme in our distant respect for Russia–to defend freedom was to defend her. And strangely enough an opposite phenomenon occurred in the US: to defend freedom was to hate Communism, and that of course meant hating Russia. My American mother was a victim of the McCarthy disease, and my youthful passion for freedom clashed with her visceral loathing of Communism/Russia, an impassable chasm that eventually led me to leave home. So I guess I do know about the United States, vicariously through my mother, and when I came to live here I realized how deep this gut cultural reflex ran. To any criticism of the American Way of Life the most cogent argument Americans could come up with was “Go back to Russia!” Historical Russian identity is indeed a cyrillic enigma that our times call for deciphering, in light of Russia’s growing role in world affairs and coming into being as a sovereign force for good. To know this is to know peace. I think that is one of the net benefits that your “perspective” brings to this website.
Silly, quaint detail I just remembered: innumerable pet dogs in that era were named “Trotsky”.
“1) pre-1917 Russia was run by a largely westernized class of aristocrats, most of whom where Freemasons, and this class was largely opposed to the worldview and interests of the Russian masses (mostly peasants).”
If you have chance, another answer to this would be in the old 1889 “The Great Red Dragon” book’s introduction. It’s financial sociopaths, agents of The Great Red Dragon (Serpent, Snakes In Suits, etc.) that finance and keep sociopaths in office that cause most of any country’s problems. The 99% of EVERY country are decent folks, but peace is not profitable to these sociopaths.
Whether I agree or disagree with commenters here, I do consider (and respect) their viewpoints. My quest was stated well by Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910): “Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.” It’s not an easy pursuit.
Thank you.
I have started on Soul of the East. In particular, Ivan Ilyin “On Orthodoxy”. He compares and contrasts Orthodoxy with Western churches. What he says of Western churches seems incomplete, a misunderstanding, or a travesty. What he says it is distinguishes Orthodoxy seems applicable to Western churches as well. He then uses his description of Orthodoxy to “big up” the Russian soul and, it appears, justify Russian exceptionalism.
Should I start with someone else?
I have to say I found your response so much more cogent.
I think the proper starting-point would be an account of the true Orthodoxy you subscribe to, accessible to an interested ignoramus (me).
I can see what you mean about “Leftist”. I’m still not sure how libertarianism can be squared with autocracy.
You probably don’t have time to give me more pointers. Don’t worry. I’ll plowter around some more in the Soul of the East website.
AEM, Monarchies, even when absolute, can be less autocratic than certain kinds of governments. Just compare the “ancien regime” with the Jacobins.
But like you, I also struggle with a concept of a czar.
Maybe I can help.
A strong monarch will tend to be opposed by the upper class in most societies because what the upper class prefers, most of the time, is a monarch that is one of their peers and will front for their collective interests. If the monarch is much stronger than the upper class, that means that the monarch can have a conception of public interest that is broader than just the well-being of the upper class.
Such monarchs tend to be vulnerable to coup-plotting by the upper class since, after all, the monarch is still just one person and still has to sleep sometime. To some extent, a monarch can deter this by assembling a coterie of persons personally devoted to him to run things but that approach has limits, the most obvious being that, by the second generation, that coterie of advisors who were initially from outside the traditional upper class has now become part of that upper class.
What really deters such coup-plotting by the upper class is the fear that the lower classes will riot and burn down their estates if the monarch is done away with. For the lower classes to have that kind of loyalty to the monarch, he has to look out for their interests as well. To some extent, looking out for the interests of the general populace means public works. However, for the most part, it means letting the general populace go along their lives without being molested by the authorities. The monarch’s primary peacetime public function is to act as the moral center of the society rather than to try to “run” things directly.
You “nailed” that entirely. That has always been my thinking about the past too. Many times a monarchy has been a better choice than a government of elites. That are only after power and money while they hold office. While a monarchy as you described it, already has the power (the trappings of wealth go with that) and can care more about the stability of the “state” and nation.Than a government of oligarchs carrying on with a pretense of “democracy”, could ever or would ever.
Can I just say “The Soul of the East” site recommended by the Saker is a treasure trove.
One thing strikes me in addition to the oddity of libertarian autocracy.
The Church/state/people (a kind of idealized Rus’) – I can’t see how it would translate into the modern industrialized world we all live in. As a retreat from the world for a small community, maybe; as a live option for the rest of us, I can’t see it.
A request, if anyone is still visiting this thread: the Saker said Western historians get old Russian history wrong – is there an accurate history in English anyone knows of?
“Many times a monarchy has been a better choice than a government of elites.”
Perhaps.
Let’s leave history in the past and organise a better future (no elites / no monarchy).
Yes, no elites, no monerchy, and NO State, please! One world, one people, one social class!
A monarchy is a very old, obsolete way of running a nation… And it is dangerous, too, unpredictable… No, it would not work in our modern world. Direct democracy is a better solution, where everybody has responsibilities and everybody is equal. NO power to a few, only.
That isn’t in the human psyche I’m afraid. We crave authority figures (though some don’t like to admit that). All the thousands of years of written written history tell us that. I don’t see us all of a sudden changing.Certainly one section of us rebels against that from time to time. But we always end with something similar. And that’s because we can’t understand or accept any other way. That I believe is the main attraction for some kind of a “socialism” in societies. It offers the “people” theoretically a chance to be a part of the power that rules them. And not be totally dependent on the “gods of the earth” like we normally are.
“We crave authority figures”
Speak for yourself – I crave the opposite, all the time. We don’t need figures to have authority.
Yours is the hopeless story of history.
If i’m not programmed like that others can learn to wipe the slate clean.
Get up off your knees man.
Uncle Bob 1:
I believe that ‘authority figures’ are necessary only when there is fear, starting with fear of rejection when we are born – usually, our mother is our salvation! Other fears follow: fear of nature, fear of pain, fear of god (the supreme authority?), fear of punishment, fear of hatred, fear of redundancy, fear of poverty/hunger, fear of war, fear of death…
Our fears have been used by the elites/’authority figures’ since the beginning of times to control us, keeping themselves in power. But, this does NOT need to be so forever.
As our technology and social structures evolve (automation is our most liberating technological and social development ever!), our fears are fading away. Consequently, our instinct in seeing our salvation in ‘authority figures’ is also fading away. Moreover, as today the use of fear by the ‘authorities’ has become more visible than ever before (thanks to the alternative media, including The Saker, Sputnik, RT, PressTV, and many others), instead of turning to these ‘authorities’ for salvation, we FEAR THEM more than anything else and, actually, want to get rid of them once and for all!
We do want to get rid of them.But then we always end up replacing them. Its just a human trait (both sides of it). The best we can do is to try and control those we give power to. And make sure (when we can) that they will try and work for our benefit more than they work for their own. I’ve read it all in history before. And lived some of it personally in history. So I’ve seen how it works many times. Even those we say we admire,if you look at it,aren’t really consensus people. They are those that take stands and do what they consider correct.Sometimes I’ve noticed the ideal that people want to believe they want. Isn’t really what they want. Whether that is a good think or not is debatable. But regardless it just is. I haven’t seen a poll on here over it. But I’d say the most popular leader we talk about is Putin. Does anybody not consider him as a leader that exudes strength and power. On the other hand how many of us have seen or make posts about Obama being a weak leader. That is just one single example. We could talk about Xi or Assad and compare them to Hollande and Cameron just as well. And the list in history is endless. We all have that ,”you ain’t the boss of me” in us. And yet,when it comes down to it. If ,say,Putin was standing in front of you.And told you he wanted you to be quiet. Just how many of us would tell him “hell no,I’ll shout if I want to”. I’m going to guess extremely few of us.I find that its better to admit who we really are. And work from that. Instead of making a dreamworld about ourselves.
“The best we can do is to try and control those we give power to.”
If that is the sum of your aspiration…
Futile – we all pack up now and resign to much more pepper spray and Animal Farm.
In fact – just wind up the blog now and let’s get what’s coming.
Tipping your hat and history discussion is surely interesting but…it will never get us up off our knees.
It isn’t a human trait – the behaviour you refer to is learned & imposed.
People discussing the traits of the powerful on this blog make me nearly as sick as those who constantly whine about the exploits of the latest celebrity.
Become more of an alien and forget what you have been spoon fed.
The alternative, they never get the power – how? by ensuring they don’t get the money. Ultimately a societal reorganisation with severe control on income disparity and associated wealth accumulation and it’s associated inheritance (we all need to realise that our own little Johnny is due no more than the neighbours by what we accomplished).
Not that I give much creedence to such “metrics,” but I took the test out of curiosity and also got a left-libertarian score of Economic Left/Right: -6.38, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21; i.e., a bit more to the center than Saker. However I’d venture that an additional ‘z’ axis would be required perpendicular to the screen or page, to render a more 3D picture of the subject. Perhaps that scale could measure spirituality or some other abstract value, such as materialism vs. idealism, but would still fall short of defining both our differences and unique qualities as individuals. There may still be some significance to the apparent convergence of some of us on this matrix, though.
Yes, of course materialism vs. idealism is fundamental. Let’s go back to Marx Theses on Feuerbach!
There’s no such thing as a “left libertarian”. If you’re really an anarchist, then you’re an anarchist, if not, you are a *far right* libertarian. Yes, we share a lot of common views but there is a world of difference.
I tried to take that test, but abandoned it half way through. Too many of the questions were unrepresentative, whatever way I answered, of my political viewpoint. Other questions were simply too vague and/or simplistic. Not an accurate way of mapping a person’s political positioning at all.
I can say that at heart I believe all people are equal and that would make me sound like an egalitarian progressive. Yet although I do have an innate sense of fairness, I don’t think all races are equal in all things and I vehemently oppose multiculturalism and favour my own caucasian race above all overs and believe that charity begins at home. That would have most progressives lash out and call me a Nazi, but I can assure everyone I do not want such a system. We love to pigeon hole.
It’s too easy to say you’re a complete throwback and reject everything about current civilization. You’re not and you don’t. Even if you wanted to, you can’t be and you can’t. It does I suppose allow you to close down and dismiss uncomfortable challenges to your opinions. Surely part of the point of this blog is to put your opinions out there and see what response you get (with moderators kindly blocking the abusive and excessively tiresome). There may well be those who are intolerant, but there are also those who want to engage in debate, which you appear to be rejecting with your “I want none of it” (which, I can’t help feeling, somewhat takes away from the – otherwise considerable – value of having you say what you do).
It’s too easy to say you’re a complete throwback and reject everything about current civilization. You’re not and you don’t. Even if you wanted to, you can’t be and you can’t.
Depends on what we are talking about. In terms of ethnics, of values, of philosophy or theology I do believe that our modern civilization has added exactly *nothing* to mankind’s legacy. For ever Sartre or Nietzsche of our times, I much prefer a Saint Maximos the Confessor or Saint Gregory Palamas, and for every Slavoj Žižek or Bernard Henri Levi I much prefer Plato or Saint Justin Martyr. But yes, I like modern kayaks, computers, guitars and shoes.
It does I suppose allow you to close down and dismiss uncomfortable challenges to your opinions
Can’t we do without such passive-aggressive insinuations? They are as cheap as they are unsubstantiated.
The first paragraph of your response is very modern.
The second is misguided. – You have before now fobbed me and others off with 1. “everyone knows this, so I’m not going to give you any references” (after some outlandish uncorroborated assertion) or 2. “everyone knows this, so this is clearly a time waster” (maybe not passive, but certainly aggressive) or 3. “I couldn’t be bothered giving the time of day to this person, so thank you, community, for dealing with them for me” (after various Jew-haters have referred a contributor to holocaust-denial sites – and I mean holocaust, not Finkelstein’s “Holocaust”) or 4. The multiple !!!! and heavy-handed humor I notice you doused a contributor with, or the Pussy Riot Lesbian Cantata nonsense (sorry, humor) you dismissed me with – again, not so passive.
So, yes, we could do without the insinuations and the aggressive brush-offs and unsubstantiated assertions (which you positively refuse to substantiate). I’m asking you to engage in civilized debate with those who don’t always agree with you but attempt to provide reasons for their disagreement.
There is no reason to close off debate by pretending to be an alien or responding as if you labor under a variety of chips on your shoulder – the tenor of your geopolitical analysis suggests something a bit more robust.
I won’t respond to most of that “inventory” except for one point ““I couldn’t be bothered giving the time of day to this person, so thank you, community, for dealing with them for me”.
If you are referring to the Catholic who did not know the meaning of the word “Catholic” then I think I did the right thing. This blog is all voluntary contributions, both from me and from others. I have no interest in giving a rather arrogant commentator a 101 lesson in the meaning of the words he uses and I make no apologies about that. However, I think that if somebody else did it that might be helpful.
Look, you can “wash each of my bones” as we say in Russians, but the fact remains that this is my blog and I write it the way I want. If you have a problem with that, you are more than welcome to read other blogs more to your liking. As for closing off a debate, I normally do that by simply ignoring it. But if I chose to join it, please allow me to do it any the way I chose.
First of all, of course it’s your blog and you can say what you want. We read it because what you say is worthwhile.
Second of all, that is no reason to be so hyper-sensitive to criticism that you either go all tabloid-headline and multiple !!! or, as you say, “close off debate by simply ignoring them” (which is less than helpful when (if) the person debating you has pointed out a flaw in what you say).
Third of all, the “I can’t be bothered… thank you to the “community”” refers in particular to your “8 out of 10 Bolsheviks were Jews”. You refused to give references because this “fact” is so “well known” (sic). A succession of “community” members then gave references to Jew-hate sites or spouted absurd Jew hatred, and you thanked them for their efforts on behalf of your “community”. (And yet, Jew hatred clearly has nothing to do with what makes your blog worthwhile and is not something you yourself indulge in, despite the odd “terminological inexactitude”.)
It’s an odd approach to debate – “I’ll say what I like and if you don’t like it you can clear off!” It seems so out of keeping with the otherwise so often first rate analysis and shrewd criticism of other positions.
All I’m saying is that the value of the blog is enhanced by to-and-fro, not just take-it or- leave-it. I consider myself a fan.
the “I can’t be bothered… thank you to the “community”” refers in particular to your “8 out of 10 Bolsheviks were Jews”. You refused to give references because this “fact” is so “well known” (sic)
Yes, I did. And I stand by it. Use google. This info is really not hard to find.
One interesting point on that. Up until the Israeli-US alliance (which meant they needed to be anti-Communist) many Jews were very proud to be thought of as Communists. And in almost every Western and East European country. Made up a large part of the Communist membership (and certainly in the leadership rolls). A really easy fact to prove by looking at the names and backgrounds of Communist leaders in those countries. It wasn’t really a “hidden fact” back then. But now with the fall of the USSR and the Israeli connection to the US, Jews run like crazy from being thought of as connected to Communism. They act as bad as Austrians did after WW2. When they did everything they could to disconnect themselves from nazism. Even though the nazi movement was staffed from the top to bottom with many Austrians.Why the “need” to do that is something I can’t understand. Just tell the truth and be done with it is always the best way. And in this case the truth is, compared to population percentages, the Jews made up more Communist members than any other ethnic group in Europe.Instead of running away from the truth. One would think a better idea would be to understand why that was. What was the attraction to Jews of Communism.I won’t get into that,it would take a book to explain that in detail.
(Sidebar: A few examples. Out of 34 of the main Polish Communist Party founders and leaders 11 were Jewish. In Hungary the first Communist leadership was almost entirely Jewish from Bela Kun on down. The second after the war was headed by Mátyás Rákosi and then Ernő Gerő both Jewish. In Czechoslovakia until Stalin purged them over Titoism and Zionism, the General Secretary of the Party was Jewish as well as 12 other of the top officials.And in France not only were Jews prominent in the Communist Party but also in the Socialist Party (Leon Blum). And make up a large part of the French Resistance during the war.In Germany some of the main founding German Communist leaders were Jewish (Rosa Luxemburg and Kurt Eisner). Its simply ridiculous to deny the importance in the Communist movements of Jews. That would be like denying the importance of Jews in the Christian founding. Considering that “all” the first Christians were Jewish.
“Jews run like crazy from being thought of as connected to Communism” because they deny having any responsibility in the massacres of Russians, Hungarians, Czechs, Romanians, Germans, Poles during the time when “Israel was king” (it’s the title of a well-known book of 1921 “Quand Israel est roi” by the brothers Jerome and Jean Tharaud, naturally an “anti-semitic” book describing the Bolshevik Revolution in Bela Kun’s Hungary). They always were “victims”.
True,the vast ,vast,majority of Bela Kun’s supporters in Hungary were Jewish. But Hungary was always a special case anyways. During the period of the late 19th and the first half of the 20th Century nowhere else in Europe was there the degree of assimilation of Jews into the national society of a European state.The Jews were considered the most loyal element,next to Magyars,in the Magyar state (they were called “Magyars of the Mosaic faith”) . And were readily accepted as allies of the state (the Magyars needed them to increase their national numbers). It came as a shock that the socialists among them would turn Communist after WWI. And to be fair,the White Terror unleashed against anyone with leftist views (Jewish or not) was easily as savage as the Red Terror had been. And probably claimed more victims. But leaving that aside. Yes Jews,were extremely important in the Hungarian Communist Party until the rise of Israel threw their loyalty into question.
It is not a “fact” but a highly contentious assertion – as another contributor demonstrated – by Googleing. There is a historical discussion to be had, but only with sources, evidence etc. As I understand, for example, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn has written about this. Others have reviewed what he has written, conceded that his work is a serious effort not mere anti-Semitism, but then gone on to indicate where he appears to have misread sources, omitted relevant evidence, drawn invalid inferences, made errors of fact etc. In other words, it is not simply “fact” or “info” that allows you to assert it without any attempt to defend what you assert.
Again, this is not trolling, but a request that you hold yourself to the standards you so ably demonstrate on other topics.
I think it important that you do (i.e. I’m not just doing it to be a pain). – It is very difficult to extricate oneself from the official worldview – we all live it and breathe it. Luckily the internet for now provides an alternative. But the important stuff like yours is almost swamped by kooks. If you are careless on occasion and attract among many informed and informative commenters a sufficiency of kooks, you increase the risk that analysis of vital importance (yours) will be dismissed out of hand.
There. I will now stop snapping at your heals like a demented chihuahua..
In answer to: ali on January 13, 2016 on snapping at “heals” (heels):
Oh god, thank the lord you will stop the snapping of the chihuahua!!!!
My partner and I have been doubled up giggling over the absurdity of posters telling The Saker that he can’t be a neaderthal, can’t be an alien, can’t close down debates, can’t get away with not sourcing (when he did and so did others, but they are not “acceptable”.), the list is endless … and then, you say: of course it’s your blog and you can say what you want.
Jimminy Cricket! Hallelujah!
I think the Saker is brilliant. I also think his patience is that of Saint Job.
Thanks for correcting my mistake/typo. As for the rest, read more carefully. BTW Job was no saint, but hey ho. I do agree with you about the Saker, however.
he absurdity of posters telling The Saker that he can’t be a neaderthal, can’t be an alien, can’t close down debates, can’t get away with not sourcing (when he did and so did others, but they are not “acceptable”.), the list is endless …
Indeed. This is nothing new. As Antoine de Saint-Just (1767-1794) used to say “Pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté” (no freedom for the enemies of freedom). All my life I have always observed how the putatively “democratic”, “progressive” and “liberal” folks are, by far, the LEAST tolerant of “otherthought” (инакомыслие) and how easy it is to turn them into a lynchmob (verbal or physical). But then, this is a characteristic of the entire modern “western” civilization, to preach freedom, and to enforce it with violence and terror. This is a deep internal consistency here.
My “crime” here was not to defend, excuse or otherwise exculpate the thugs who assaulted women (I did none of that). My crime was to do what Malcolm X did and dare speak about the “chicken coming home to roost”. I made it all even worse by daring to offend the Holy of Holies of our society: sexual promiscuity as a norm.
My choice of a Saudi lady was a very calculated provocation: I took an example from a society I loathe (the Saudi society) and a religious ideology I despise (Wahabism) and I dared make a *favorable* comparison between it and what is the norm in our society (to publicly engage in sexual behavior). That was a slap in the face of all the doubleplusgoodthinking folks who have lost even the ability to realize that kind of behavior belongs in a cage for apes in a zoo rather than in the public display of a society which fancies itself to be ‘civilized’.
As for those who think that they scored some kind of point by being in the majority, they could ask themselves why I would let them post all these criticisms or even hostile and often condescending remarks. The truth is that I have never been impressed by those who attack in numbers and I am used to handle them. I spent most of my life “one against many” and I have yet to regret the outcome of any of those situations :-)
So no worries, while much of what I read here has been discouraging, I really expected nothing else, so I will be fine. Comes with the territory.
Kind regards,
The Saker
I made no criticism of the Saker such as he itemizes here, certainly no suggestion that he not express his opinions. And I am part of no lynch mob. I trust the Saker can distinguish between his various critics. Some of us seek a constructive discussion. Nothing more.
So just what “more evidence” are you looking for? Karl Marx,you may remember him. The founder of Communism I believe, was Jewish. Lenin,the main person that brought Communism to power in Russia was part Jewish. And his second in command,Trotsky,was Jewish. Kamenev, Zinoviev,Radek,Litvinov,Kaganovich, Sokolnikov ,Uritsky,Joffe,Sverdlov,etc,etc,some of the most important leaders of the Communist Party in the founding of the USSR were Jewish. And that doesn’t include the multitude of other officials that were Jewish. Out of the 7 members of the first Politburo, founded to manage the Bolshevik Revolution: Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Stalin, Sokolnikov and Bubnov,4 were Jewish,one partly Jewish.And 1 was Georgian,leaving 1 as fully Russian.So from a population of around 3-4%,Jews made up at least 60% of the early Communist leadership. So again,just what more “evidence” would you require to accept that “what is,is”. Personally,I don’t see a problem with just accepting the truth. I’m not an anti-Communist,nor am I anti-Jewish. So those facts don’t “shock” or “horrify” me.But what I do have an aversion to,is lying about history. No one,and no people,has a “lock” on goodness in history. So hiding “dark deeds” is the wrong way to look at history. That is no different than neo-nazi revisionism,only coming from the opposite side.
‘”So from a population of around 3-4%,Jews made up at least 60% of the early Communist leadership. I wonder, How accurate would the following statement be?”
So, from a population of 3-4%, Jews made up at least 60% of the early NeoCon leadership?
Well,you seem to have a point there as well. We do know (just by looking at the backgrounds of so many neo-cons) that Jews are also very powerful among them as well. But I’d argue, for very different reasons. The Communist Jews sided with a “Communistic” ideal that eliminated the requirement of ethnicity and religion making “winners and losers”. To them,Jews could only be accepted in a society that didn’t have that as an ideology. And at that time Socialism and its child, Communism, was that ideal. The neo-cons are different. They seem motivated by one main ideology. To protect and serve Israeli interests above all else. If it helps Israel its “good”. If it is a danger to Israel it must be destroyed. And no matter how many non-Israelis (including Jews) suffer for that.It doesn’t matter to them.
Dear Uncle Bob the First
1. Another contributor (on an earlier thread) simply used wikipedia to show that the numbers bandied about here cannot be entirely accurate. Therefore: You cannot just insist that it is a matter of fact. Please produce facts from reputable sources otherwise this comment is just an attack. Thanks. Mod TR
2.Assume that you are right. What follows? What is your explanation for it? What do you think the effect of this alleged preponderance on events in Russia?
Moderator,
Sorry.
You have me a bit confused, however. A contributor to a previous thread provided the numbers from wikipedia. You or your colleague allowed the numbers to appear. Uncle Bob the First I know read that thread. The numbers are better sourced than any so far provided by Uncle Bob (just read him)
The point is a very modest one: if someone can provide numbers that contradict Uncle Bob, and cites sources, Uncle Bob (and the Saker) cannot simply say that they are retailing facts that can be readily ascertained, and cannot simply dismiss me out of hand when I ask them where their numbers come from, especially when, in addition to the numbers from the other contributor, I have earlier still provided (to resounding silence) a detailed alternative account, with reputable sources, to the one they say their numbers substantiate.
This is not an attack(!). It is a request that they observe the normal etiquette of reasonable and polite debate.
You must think yourself more clever than you really are, certainly to be effective on a site like this, “ali”. Also, there’s a difference between debate and honest discussion. Debate implies trying to win, rather than shed more light on anything. See?
For one of the best sources, read Douglas Reed’s “The Controversy of Zion” book (available free on the internet) – very good among his other great work. Reed was the most prominent and well-respected British war correspondent. Reed clearly lays out that every Jewish family in Russia was full of revolutionaries – either Zionist or “communist”. They only argued over the label of the revolution. Reed and his work have been pretty much erased from history.
Now a question for you: can YOU explain why and how Reed and his work have been erased from history – such a prominent and well-respected figure during the WWII years?
You say that. But I see no proof. I gave you the “actual” names of the seven heads of the Bolshevik government set up to rule Russia by Lenin. Are you saying that history is lying about those names? I also told you out of the 7,4 were Jews. And Lenin himself was partly Jewish. An easy search of their bio’s will show you they all are recorded as Jews (and with their birth names). Is that a lie too? I know that many authors that write on that are anti-Jewish. And write about it for that reason. But that still doesn’t mean it is a lie. Just as there are authors that try to minimize Jewish involvement because they are pro-Jewish. And that doesn’t mean they are right. The point is that, Jews made up a huge proportion of the Communist movement throughout history.By far outside their proportion of the populations. . Pro-Jewish authors in that period knew that. And wrote positively about it. Anti-Jewish authors in that period knew it also and used it in anti-Jewish propaganda. The difference is,that ever since the rise of Israeli,Jews have been leaving the Communist movements. And right now would like to minimize and hid their former involvement in Communism. Not being anti-Communist,nor,pro or anti-Jewish,I have no reason to aid them in that task. History “is what it is” no matter which side “current expediency” would like it to be. So you are free to think what you will. But don’t expect to “spin” history to serve your thinking. It just doesn’t work that way in a World with the internet.
Hey, Saker, are you familiar with the work of St. Isaac the Syrian (or the work of Death to the World zine)?
You wrote that: “Because not only do I not agree with the modern ideologies or systems of values, I completely reject the entire civilizational model we all live in. All of it. If you want, you can say that while I live in this world, I am not of this world.”
These words, somehow remind me very much of the words of the St. Isaac:
“The world” is the general name for all the passions. When we wish to call the passions by a common name, we call them the world. But when we wish to distinguish them by their special names, we call them passions. The passions are the following: love of riches, desire for possessions, bodily pleasure from which comes sexual passion, love of honor which gives rise to envy, lust for power, arrogance and pride of position, the craving to adorn oneself with luxurious clothes and vain ornaments, the itch for human glory which is a source of rancor and resentment, and physical fear. Where these passions cease to be active, there the world is dead…. Someone has said of the Saints that while alive they were dead; for though living in the flesh, they did not live for the flesh. See for which of these passions you are alive. Then you will know how far you are alive to the world, and how far you are dead to it.”
Hey, Saker, are you familiar with the work of St. Isaac the Syrian
Oh yes, of course, and I have his big volume of “Ascetic Homilies” in my library. But I have to say that while I cannot disagree with his more lofty definition of the world, mine is also more pedestrian: I refer to the modern western civilization which I do not believe to be “Ortho-compatible” so to speak. For me the choice is both simple and stark: to live by the modern world’s rules, principles and values or to live by those of the (original) Church. I chose the latter many years ago and I have never regretted this decision.
Cheers,
The Saker
Monasticism and asceticism took over the spiritual leadership within Christianity very early, and this has been the first great deviation from the actual example of Lord Jesus and His overall lifestyle as recorded, which would be considered essentially a secular lifestyle by today’s standards of “secular” versus “spiritual” as determined by those monastic and ascetical cadres.
In the Roman Church we have a popular summation of this so-called supremely virtuous Christian life in the book “Imitation of Christ” by Thomas à Kempis, where the virtuous Christian life is to live in imitation of Jesus suffering on the cross, and through denial of all pleasures and the embracing of all forms of suffering, including self-abasement, mortification of the flesh, hatred of the body, etc.. We suspect that Christian Orthodoxy is based on similar
monastic-ascetical teachings as the supposedly supreme superior spiritual and virtuous life
and ethics. But these teachings actually have little if anything to do with the kingdom of heaven within and among humans as taught and shown by Lord Jesus Himself. Monasticism and asceticism seem to essentially belong to the way of functioning through disciplined fury and/or disciplined fear, only the fury and fear are directed primarily against oneself, and because of that
they are made to appear like spiritual and virtuous and superior to the so-called “decadent” ways of selfishness.—That is why monasticism and asceticism are a deviation from the ways of the kingdom of heaven shown through the sayings, thoughts and example of Lord Jesus Himself,
as for instance cited above.
There appear to be only three major documentable fundamental ways for humans to function both as individuals and collectively-socially:
—1) the way of the “kingdom of heaven” both within and among humans, being through creativity in liberty and peace within oneself and with others, this being the fundamental way taught and exemplified by Lord Jesus the Anointed (Christ);
—2) the way of disciplined furor and/or disciplined fear;
—3) the way of idolatry, the sacrifice of oneself and others for the sake of something given greater value that concrete human well-being, be that a concept of God, or nation, or race,
or money, or whatever else for which humans go so far as to kill and/or die. Note:—the humans are the only species on the planet that will even kill or die for the sake of something that they have constructed purely from their imagination.—These things we say are based on life experience and on studies of the thoughts, words and example of Lord Jesus of Nazareth through the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew and John and other texts of the Holy Bible, the so-called canonical books thereof. Douay-Rheims English translation and King James English translation were used. No special so-called supernatural revelation, angelic visitation and the like are being claimed here, only personal thinking and conclusions, and let others simply judge whether this makes sense or no sense.
More specifically, the way of human functioning, the universal kingdom of heaven within and among persons is a kind of divine grace-energy, notably including multiplication of one’s given talents [Matthew 25:14-30]; the leaven of development [Matthew 12:33]; arising of itself without coercion, freely and spontaneously [Mark 4:26-29]; in reconciliation between human and God, human and human, and within each human [Matthew 18:21-35]; the conciliating motive
underlying [Luke 17:3-4]; worldwide and often operating unawares, even to a degree within unbelieving Pharisees for instance [Luke 17:20-21].—And the best definition of God would be as pronounced by Apostle Paul:—God is (the whole truth) in whom we live and move and have our being, our continuity [Acts 17:27-28].
We very strongly suspect that the ultimate true objective of the so-called “great geopolitical game” in human history with its perpetual warfare on all sorts of levels is to the simply generate the maximal amounts of rage energies and fear energies,—and we suspect this is for the nourishment of certain emotional organisms that influence and even possess humans, so that
humans become like the gladiators in the arena, fighting for the enhancement of Romans, in this case, “invisible Romans” one might say. Therefore, no side ever wins, no peace ever prevails. There are always at least two sides in ferocious and often bloody conflict against each other. The emotional entities which crave rage energies and fear energies as a kind of nourishment seek to influence and/or possess humans to make humans high on predatory rage like on a drug. The objective is nothing but the generation of maximal rage energies and fear energies as the end in itself. All else are pretexts and rationalizations (“conclusions searching for reasons”) for the fundamental maximal action of predatory rage and the stimulation of terror reactive
to this rage. Thus there is only endless churning among humans and also predominantly among other species on the planet, for the endless production of maximum fear energies and rage energies, just thrown out into the air so to speak. Who or what really benefits? We can only perhaps say that it is these observable and verifiable emotional entities within and among humans which get enhanced on a level that is spiritual in the sense of “evil spirits”.
—Only strong human willpower driving a flexible analytical intellect can serve to defuse the ferocious emotionalistic currents. Then the way of the kingdom of heaven within and among humans, which is the way of Lord Jesus, provides as the one and only path to the most ultimate imaginable well-being, which is “salvation”.—Monasticism and asceticism would have little if anything to contribute, which is why the monastically-led churches too often sided with the elites of torturers and oppressors, that torture and oppression should simply be endured because virtue is living like Jesus crucified on the cross, as in the elsewhere mentioned “The Imitation of Christ” book of the Roman Church, and in similar teachings in other denominations.
Note,—here we mean “Jesus” as the way of functioning, including thinking, feeling and acting, that within and among humans is the “one and only way to salvation”. No one comes to salvation except through “Jesus” must mean “Jesus” as the way of functioning through the grace-energies of the kingdom of heaven both within and among humans. This is not any particular group of people or institution or cultural thing, it is not necessarily Catholicism or Orthodox Christianity or Protestantism or Judaism or Islam or any so-called “denomination”.
But the collective of all the humans who predominantly function through the grace-energies of the kingdom of heaven as described by Lord Jesus is the true spiritual worldwide church.
“Invisible Romans”. Yes. And then there’s captagon…
Thanks for that elucidation… while I have always appreciated and usually agreed with your writings, it’s interesting to feel an extra degree of common ground. I went and took the test, and found that I come out a shade more libertarian and a shade further to the right than you. But hardly enough to matter.
Keep on with what you are doing, Saker. Of course, nitwits object to what you say. Your life and experiences can change and/or broaden your outlook, so much the better for us.
I will, no worries, and thank you!
Thanks for taking a stand, even if from some distant galaxy. It helps me in knowing where I stand, whether on rock or sand; and in being able to take a stand at all.
I’ve been away, like a hurt animal lying on the earth in a sheltered place, licking my wounds from just being in this uncivil civilization.
From what I know of the desert fathers, they loved mystery and paradox in an orthodox way. Kind of like a vineyard oasis in a submarine desert.
Sometimes I just have to get away from even trying to “stop the empire’s war on Russia.” The empire rubs off on me even when I engage it in a forum like this.
Augustine said something like: “My heart is restless until it rests in thee.” I think he was talking about love in the anti-love Roman empire of his time.
I just started scrolling back to see what I missed after a three week sabbatical when I found this. If I have the strength, I’ll keep scrolling back to see what I missed else.
From my Yahoo news feed on my email account I see Russia and Putin are making inroads through the empire’s iron curtain of lies. People are so hungry for the truth and despite themselves, can’t take their eyes and ears off Russia. They simply cannot entirely suppress their admiration and envy.
At some point about fifty years ago I fell in love with the fathers. I was a hermit and monk myself. Today when I remove most of the patriarchal elements I still do. I mean if they could tame the 666 beast of Rome why can’t we today do the same for our 9/11 planet home?
Well stated, Mr. Leary. Your piece is very much in the same spirit as this German interview with Putin:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/51155
It is such a comfort to hear we are not alone. Apocalypse, after all, quite literally means the pulling back of the tide from the island, to reveal the shoreland that lies beneath the sea. And if they could do that (beautifully put) surely we also must do our very best. It was all the world at stake then; it is all the world at stake now.
Saker,
I have found your blog quite refreshing as well. I am also an “alien living in the imperial homeland” so to speak aka exiled European. I completely agreed with you when it came to the Hebo affair. However, I had to agree with many other commentators in relation to your “analysis” of the Cologne affair. It seemed basically that your article did not take the basic facts under consideration such as the police stand down. You choose instead to focus on the decay of western society. It really did sound like you were saying “the women were to blame” although you keep saying I don’t want to excuse the action. It was also divorced from the bigger geopolitical picture. You did mention it in one of your comments but why not in the article itself?. Your also chose to respond to that criticism in a quite arrogant attitude. I think maybe you like to have some fun by provoking others and watching their reaction. Which is fine, however, considering the subject matter, you must admit that it was a bit distasteful.
your article did not take the basic facts under consideration such as the police stand down. You choose instead to focus on the decay of western society.
YES! I did. And this is why I wrote in the preamble: “I do want to contribute at least a possible and partial explanation to what happened”
Why is it that nobody seems to read what I actually write?
Sorry, but this is really becoming very aggravating.
Cheers anyway :-)
I for one appreciate you’re unique views, the diversity of content available to readers, and dissenting opinions – all of which help provide a healthy counter-point to the uniform MSM parrots we must suffer through in the daily life.
Regarding the website and your POV…Sure, at some level you’re simply providing your opinion on geopolitical events on the internet. And I understand you must preserve your own identity in the face of anonymous comments. However, this website is much more than that – a forum, a means of interacting with your readers and even learning from them. I suppose you could make a website where your posts are simply displayed without comment from anyone, but I doubt you would want that. Your website grows from input from its readers, and we learn from each other and consider novel interpretations to world events.
Finally, sometimes questions must be asked by a diligent reader to serve as a litmus test, so to speak. How else can I try and deduce if you’re providing honest analysis or simply another government-funded opposition (or something along those veins)? So questions on your background (within reason extent), connections to academic institutions (think NGOs and other spook gathering spots), and even things like 9/11, serve to inform the reader what your limits are and therefore gauge your authenticity.
Truth is so rare today it can hurt when it hits your ears. I appreciate the work you do very much but understand this is a two-way highway, which is a privilege with responsibilities I would say.
Thanks for good work.
Well said Nils.
I come here for Saker’s content plus the comments. The diversity of comments adds fire and passion but mostly ideas and points of view that the reader can learn from or reject.
I feel sad when some long time contributors threaten to leave. But that’s life — their choice.
Keep up the great work Saker.
It’s the fact that you deviate from “the 3×5 index card of acceptable thought” (as Tom Woods puts it) that makes your blog so interesting.
thanks a lot, I try to make that kind of ‘deviation’ a rule, at least for me :-)
Dear Saker,
I perfectly understand that the vast majority of people need their very own system of pigeonholes in order to put each and everything/everybody in the corresponding compartment – preferably with a black/white right/wrong sticker. So the question if you are left or right-wing etc. is completely understandable too. But I can’t see any good reason why a self-declared alien should contribute to such things and locate himself voluntarily in that stupid scheme.
My suggestion: Make your own scheme and thus force people to understand YOUR position.
Make your own scheme and thus force people to understand YOUR position.
I try. But I have yet to find a way to make some people read what I actually wrote, and not what they think I have written.
For me, this has been, by far, the hardest challenge. No matter how explicit I try to make my goals and assumptions, no matter how many caveats I put, modern people simply seem to have a fantastic reading problem, especially when certain ‘sacrosanct” (such as sexual immorality) topics are touched upon.
People read what their consciousness allows them to read… give them time to understand and grow, Saker!
This is normal. We cannot but see the world through our own personal filters. We don’t see reality as it is. Hence we don’t read a text as it was meant by the writer, but as it comes across to us after multiple distortions. We interpret, without realizing so.
The less we have worked on ourselves to eliminate at least some of the filters and preconceptions, and the more we have been indoctrinated, the fuzzier the picture gets. This is not your problem, it’s everyone’s.
Being the learned man you are, I am sure you are aware of this. The only thing you, as the creator of the picture, can do is to not take the feedback personal. It’s not about you, it’s about everyone of us who reads your blog. We like to see our views reflected back. We dislike to see our blind spots, or the log in our own eyes.
Dear Saker, Dostoievski’s eccentric, Alyosha, is instructed by his elder to love Ivan. Alyosha’s attempt to do so takes him on a painful path forcing him to actually, for a moment, become his brother. It is only after doing so that Alyosha becomes aware of all that his own humanity involves.
I’m thrilled that you place Dostoievski high in your list of esteemed writers. I do too. And also, there is Plato, whose teaching method is dialogue. And I wonder, don’t we all aspire to be such eccentrics as is Dostoievski’s hero, Alyosha? For the author poses the question, are not such eccentrics in possession of the heart of the whole, which has been abandoned by what might be called modernity as if torn away by a rushing wind. (I am paraphrasing.)
So, I am very much in agreement that we should be open to one another’s ideas. Because, really, painful as that sometimes is, even an eccentric can (as you in your finest moments do) change his mind, enlarge his perception, discover something new about himself. From another human being. And that’s what makes being in this chaotic time and place a constant challenge and sometimes a joy.
“Eschatologically speaking, an event of the past can be caused by what happens in the present, and even by what has not yet taken place.” [Manoussakis]
I have also noted the zealous advocates of free speech, etc. do indeed take it quite unkindly to any challenge of their views.
On the Internet I have noted they are generally the simple brainwashed folk or paid agents of disinformation.
I daresay the honesty of Saker and those of like mind to his is beyond the capacity of these critics to understand.
Well, you see, not only slutty looking western women get raped on the streets because their clothing provokes attack. Catholic nuns in Central America were raped and/or killed frequently, by the death squads, and they probably were attired very conservatively. And even if they decided to wear shorts or a tee shirt because of the heat and humidity, that’s not the reason they were attacked in the first place.
Very interesting article. The complete refusal of the contemporary civilizational model resonated well with me.
My cultural sympathies are however more aligned with (Central) European reformation, renaissance and baroque civilization. The explosion of civilizational creativity of that era was simply unparalleled in history of human race.
I also appreciated the distinction between current Russia and prerevolutionary one. I am far from being competent on commenting here, but todays Russian ethnos exhibits way too Sovietic outlook. The desovietisation of Russia could have perhaps any chance if the old imperial aristocracy was involved in social, cultural, political and economic life of post-1991 Russia.
Hi Saker,
Politicalcompass.org is a very interesting site, thanks for providing it!
I agree that there are some loud, thin-skinned and intolerant people reading this blog. Perhaps “Authoritarian” according to the politicalcompass.org? This is what it says in the FAQS section:
“authoritarian[s] [régimes] frequently attack highly imaginative and unconventional art, music and literary works as a threat to the rigid cultural conformity they uphold”.
Stay the course and courage Saker!
Mods. .. sorry if multiple post went through. Posting from a mobile ahhh
I’m not sure there’s anything inconsistent in being both “left-libertarian” and an “Orthodox monarchist,” as in benevolent dictatorship. I guess a lot depends on how well the monarch respects “laissez-faire capitalism for the family and small business,” and enforces socialist/communist values for corporations and the nation.
I’m actually not jesting when I say maybe we all are part alien hybrids courtesy of ETs.
That is heretical from point of view of Christianity and most religions. It is “tin foil hat plain nuts” from point of view of science and mainstream media/culture. It is something I have ridiculed in the past.
But in recent years I’ve delved down the rabbit hole of conspiracies starting with 9/11.
Before indulging in doctrinal rejection or mainstream programmed ridicule – pause and think.
Think of the size of the Universe, the unknowns of mainstream physics and astronomy with regard to dark matter and dark energy and extra dimensions. Consider theology based on a geocentric cosmology. Consider the ubiquity of life from deep underwater thermal vents to Antarctica. Consider NASA saying 20% of stars have earth-like planets, consider a Creator who Loves life and has created this Universe at least with a Milky Way of billions of solar systems multiplied by billions of galaxies. Consider deep time.
Then go and research:
Disclosure Project
UFOs and Nukes
John Callahan UFO FAA
Citizens Hearing on Disclosure
Stephen Greer – see his short but info packed interview with Abby Martin on RT
David Wilcock
Corey Goode. Secret Space Program. Exopolitics +Michael Salla
Thrive movie
Rev Howard Storm + NDE + life in the universe
Prepareforchange.net
Watch Dimitri Medvedev say aliens are real and it is top secret but govts have contact: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcvVzXzzJZk and see the Russian doco “Men in Black” (not a comedy) he refers to.
Theologically Jesus summed up the Universal Law: Love God and neighbour as oneself. He also repeatedly said the Kingdom is within us. At deepest level all beings come from the One Source. We are called to find our way back through a multidimensional multiverse of realms and incarnations. We are called to the Eastern Orthodox idea of Theosis. Beings who cling to selfishness remain in the dark side for as long as they do so.
It seems that on this planet there is an epic battle between the dark side and the Light. It is not just terrestrial, it is spiritual and extraterrestrial. It may have happened before (ancient alien theory). It may relate to a more sci-fi reading of the Book of Revelation. The Cabal may at top be Luciferian satanists in league with malevolent or at least selfish ETs. There may be an alliance involving certain BRICS nations and groups within the Pentagon with benevolent aliens that at highest level equate with angelic.
Crazy stuff?! But go research the above list. Gets harder to dismiss.
Peace.
“Theologically Jesus summed up the Universal Law: Love God and neighbour as oneself.”
I think you’ll find his dadness (God) or the whole threeness (father, son & holy spirit) cobbled together a self-description of onmi-stuff (being omnibenevolence, omnipotence & omniscience). If that were true then how does shit happen?
If you come to the conclusion the self-description is not watertight then, theologically, Jesus and his cohorts are a group of bounders.
Read the Book of Job. Several times. Slowly.
Then go camp next to a sapling on top of a mountain. Do that for several years. (Maybe take up residence.)
You’ll finally figure it out.
What about the Quran 12:2…or something – has it a similar yarn.
More seriously though, why no attempt to directly answer what is, after all,an incredibly simple question?
“You’ll finally figure it out.”
Initiation process to 33rd Degree Mason?
it’s a fine art staying away from one’s “I” and sticking with one’s output.
if successfull, this would safeguard against sinking down with that old devil called Ego
May God bless those who are able to master the fine art of remaining with their own ego whilst engaged in output. Amen
A “people’s monarchy”? Might only be possible if leadership is practiced as leader genuinely serving his/her followers rather than lording it over them.—But it seems that such leadership only rarely manifests itself.—A monarch who is independent and self-supporting, exercising only very limited though important functions, namely, commander in chief of armed forces, leader of spiritual schools, and the supreme judge in the legal system,—and all other affairs left to elected leaders accountable to their followers, that may be a stable system,—but if a monarch breaks down due to health issues, mental issues, etc., then still some orderly system of replacing him/her needs to exist.
According to Lord Jesus, peace be upon Him, two fundamental systems of human government flow out of the given ways of human functioning described elsewhere. One type of government [we can also use the clearer term “leadership in society”] flows from the way of the kingdom
of heaven. According to the way of the kingdom of heaven, leaders serve the followers whom
they lead rather than lord it over the followers [see Matthew 23:11-12; Mark 9:34, 10:42-44; Luke 22:25-26], and under such a system of rulership as service the average human will have
the best environment to function through that divine grace-energy of creativity in liberty and
inner-outer reconciliation and peace, as per the kingdom of heaven both within and among humans, preached by Lord Jesus.
There appear to be only three major documentable fundamental ways for humans to function both as individuals and collectively-socially:
—1) the way of the “kingdom of heaven” both within and among humans, being through creativity in liberty and peace within oneself and with others, this being the fundamental way taught and exemplified by Lord Jesus the Anointed (Christ);
—2) the way of disciplined furor and/or disciplined fear;
—3) the way of idolatry, the sacrifice of oneself and others for the sake of something given greater value that concrete human well-being, be that a concept of God, or nation, or race,
or money, or whatever else for which humans go so far as to kill and/or die. Note:—the humans are the only species on the planet that will even kill or die for the sake of something that they have constructed purely from their imagination.
More specifically, the way of human functioning, the universal kingdom of heaven within and among persons is a kind of divine grace-energy, notably including multiplication of one’s given talents [Matthew 25:14-30]; the leaven of development [Matthew 12:33]; arising of itself without coercion, freely and spontaneously [Mark 4:26-29]; in reconciliation between human and God, human and human, and within each human [Matthew 18:21-35]; the conciliating motive
underlying [Luke 17:3-4]; worldwide and often operating unawares, even to a degree within unbelieving Pharisees for instance [Luke 17:20-21].—And the best definition of God would be as pronounced by Apostle Paul:—God is (the whole truth) in whom we live and move and have our being, our continuity [Acts 17:27-28].
The two forms of rulership,—as serving others, or as lording it over them,—are fundamental.
Leadership as serving the followers entails mechanisms of holding leaders accountable to their followers and of removing leaders who no longer serve the followers. The customs and practices of elections, referenda and recalls, impeachment, are among mechanisms evolved to help ensure that leaders do largely serve their followers and not abuse and lord it over their followers, and that removal of abusive leaders can be done by orderly consensus with minimal fights and physical violence, injuries, deaths, etc. This is defined, with a lot of variation and confusion,
as “democracy” or “representative republic” and a balance is supposed to be reached between
an individual person’s autonomy and/or freedom to speak, act, work, pursue recreation and hobbies, and the limits set by laws of society. Laws are passed by people who are deemed accountable to rank and file people, the great common people, and laws can be orderly changed if rank and file people organize themselves and take action. That is democracy implemented by representative republican forms of government [at the early tribal level, the implementing would be through councils of elders, and the name “senator” in a “res publica” are old Roman tribal terms meaning “elder” participating in the “open social thing” so to speak].
—The leadership as lording it over is based essentially on rage and fear by the leader against his followers. In that system, the leader will somehow create professionals who keep him or her away from the common people. The leader may invoke some concept of “divine right” to rule,
or else that he or she establishes some mystical mind-meld with the “spirit” of the followers, the “vozhd” principle, or the “fuehrer” principle. Then such a leader seeks to become like some “god king” who based just on his own personal whim can decide who lives, who dies, who eats, who starves, who walks around free and who goes into a dungeon or a death camp. This style of government probably derives from instances where a given tribe is conquered by military force by strangers who then set up a government over the defeated tribespeople. The conquerors-robbers from the beginning are predators. They establish succession of leaders not by vote of the common people, whom they have brutalized and conquered and essentially hate and fear, but rather by hereditary succession among themselves, depending on family ties among
themselves.—Such is likely the negativistic origin of “hereditary monarchies” as versus original “tribal monarchies”. One example comes to mind:—the hereditary kings of Rome, ultimately deposed and chased out, were not indigenous Romans but were of foreign Etruscan origin.
how’s about Saker “commissioning” an article from a societal psychologist re evaluation of the “thin veneer of society and civilisation?”
It seems there is so much stress, tension, unbelief-disbelief, the absence of reasoning, absence of engaging in perception of truths(ie Rus stole Crimea from Europe)logic in balance with emotions, the rise of violence, lack of willingness to engage, understand, reflect, rise? in crime, machinations, scheming, desperation, black markets group bullying and menacing, right sector …etc etc………….is society , the world, communities,rebalancing, or heading for the nearest sinkhole except for those people desparately hanging onto old style lives eg native communities, those people retreating to such things as intentional communities or valuing those places where traditional values are not subverted, infected, challenged, torn apart etc ?
We have apparently created a new geological age since the 1950’s…but surely with the saturation of radio and microwaves, electronic networks(after society being connected by mains services water gas oil drains roads etc) we have created a new non geological age but societal age that doesn’t know how to handle itself,if you see what I mean.
Am I too worried? how do e hang onto who we are in the present world of chaos sp it seems?
Hmm..certainly concerned.had thought about retiring to a nice country place in Europe, but now……..Uk may not seem too bad to stay in(well Scotland), unless mrs gets desparately to go back to Russia…..too hot in Crimea for me, she says 15 years ago the summers were much cooler, climate warming has definitely raised the summer temperatures down there, av summer temp was c 25-26, now probably over 30 ish.
Otherwise I hope everyone is settling into the new year.
Dear Saker,
Thank you for this post !
I had bet that you origins related to pre-1917 Russia. What a joy it must be for you to see this nation rising again !
I totally agree with your political views. As strange at it may seem, I think the only thing that could save France is the return of a King, blessed by god, and baptized in the holy church of Reims.
If you look at the French history, we had such kings from 500 A.D (Clovis) until the king Philippe IV provoked God’s anger (IMHO, I will look as a crazy biggot for most people) by burning the templars, expelling the jews…
Then, we had more than a century of wars, plagues… This event is still called “The cursed kings”
After that, Johan of Arc came along, ang gave back God’s support to the french monarchy.
It may seems crazy, but then, the French monarchy was stable, and generaly praised by the people until 1789.
1789 was our 1917. There were a civil war then, as violent as the 1917 one in Russia. The religious french people marched against the republic, and got slaughtered. Then we got our own Stalin/Hitler, Napoleon…
The only way out of this mess IMO is the return of a King blessed by God. It look crazy, and all my friends laugh at me when I speak about it.
But somehow, I really think and believe it will happen. A lot of signs point to that. BTW, most of those signs / prophecies also mentionned the return of Russia within the holy heart :-)
So, dear Saker, I just wanted to let you know that you were not the only biggot out here thinking that, in 2016, God and a king is the way to go. An the future may prove us right
God bless you !
P.S : I do not know if you speak French. If you do, I strongly recommend those books from Dominique Venner, a fantastic French historian, sadly not translated :
http://www.amazon.com/Siecle-1914-French-Dominique-Venner/dp/2857048327/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&qid=1452676496&sr=8-15&keywords=dominique+venner
http://www.amazon.com/Blancs-Rouges-Histoire-guerre-civile/dp/2857045182/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1452676525&sr=8-25&keywords=dominique+venner
It may seems crazy, but then, the French monarchy was stable, and generaly praised by the people until 1789. 1789 was our 1917. There were a civil war then, as violent as the 1917 one in Russia. The religious french people marched against the republic, and got slaughtered. Then we got our own Stalin/Hitler, Napoleon…
I agree 100%
I do not know if you speak French.
Mais oui, bien sur, j’ai vécu plus de 30 ans à Genève :-)
Kind regards,
The Saker
The Ancien Regime was supported by the bulk of the population? Can that be right? And do you think the conditions of the bulk of the population acceptable?
On the Revolution, are you just saying that revolutions cause mayhem (and are therefore to be avoided) and, in the French and Russian revolutions, the revolutionary forces were secular and the religious therefore sided with the existing regime (understandably)?
Unless you yearn for a return to the Ancien Regime (which is not possible), there is a genuine problem, is there not? If the current regime is widely agreed to be unjust (as in the US now), how is that regime to be changed? Revolution causes immense suffering and the outcome is uncertain (we got Robespierre and Napoleon, the Bolsheviks and Stalin!). Piecemeal reform requires perpetual activism, improves the lot of many, but leaves the entrenched interests, well, entrenched (because they have to be persuaded to buy into the reforms).
How, for example, are Americans to overthrow the plutocracy?
The only way to bring down the US plutocracy is with an “American Spring”. It might be able to be “reformed” (might!),without that,but its highly unlikely. Reform of it, as a US politician once described about something else,” you can put lipstick on a pig. But its still a pig”.
If I understand TeGnY and the Saker, that would be a “Spring” or revolution for “God and King”. Revolution – bad. God and King – good. Counter-revolution – better? It doesn’t sound like practical politics, anyway.
There is no “God and King” in the US. So it would have to be for “God and the People” here.
Uncle Bob 1
If you want some idea of the practicality of TeGnY’s nostalgia, bear in mind that the Colonies were the possession of His Britannic Majesty King George III.
You aren’t so crazy. Maybe a bit outdated. The Monarchy was restored to France until 1830 (and really 1848 when you include the Orleans). And only truly passing from France in 1870 with the end of the Bonapartists. But remember it was until the 1880’s in France that probably half (or very close) of the French people wanted the return of a monarchy. It was the foolishness of the Bourbons that stopped that. Some in the government actually asked the Bourbon claimant if he would be willing to take the throne. But he demanded that the French drop the tricolor and go back to the old Bourbon flag before he would agree. The government refused to do that. They wanted to politically unite France behind a King. And the Bourbon demands would have made the political divide larger. So it was the Royalists themselves that are to blame for France entering the 20th Century as a Republic. Since then Royalist sentiment has dropped over the years. So a return would today be very hard. The curse for France was summed up by Talleyrand when talking about the Bourbons foolishness when restored to the throne in 1814: “They had learned nothing and forgotten nothing.”
Thank you for your responses !
Indeed Uncle Bob, Monarchy did not came back the way it was not because of a lack of popular support, but because there were no legitimate candidates IMHO
Funny fact, during WWII, De Gaulle allied with the french monarchist, and pretended he was ready to restorate the monarchy. He did not do it in the end, probably because the communists would have never accepted that (in 1945 they represented a third of the population, and they had lots of guns).
Saker, je savais que tu parlais français :-) Je te conseille vivement de lire “Le siècle de 1914”. C’est un des meilleurs livre d’histoire que j’ai pu lire, et je penses que tu seras à 90% d’accord avec la position de Dominique Venner.
Son analyse de la guerre de 1914-1918 comme mise à mort de la noblesse européenne est extraordinaire, et s’applique aussi bien à la France qu’à la Russie ou l’Allemagne.
Bonne Journée !
Yes,the “Great War” was the death of Europe in so many ways (not that it is hopeless.But that war was like getting cancer and not treating it).Unlike past and future wars,WWI was a “killing machine” that chewed up not just the poor and peasant soldiers as before. But decimated the middle and upper classes in Europe. A whole generation was lost. The best and brightest in all those nations was sacrificed,and for nothing.It destroyed stability and order throughout Europe. And paved the way for fascism to take hold of nationalism. And for the rise of Bolshevism to destroy traditional Russia. Without the disaster of WWI the rise of a Hitler would have been almost impossible. And the millions lost in WWII almost certainly would have been prevented. To me,WWI was the greatest disaster of the 20th Century (even more than the break-up of the USSR and WWII). When looking at history for “original sins” or the “chicken and the egg” theories. WWI would have to be in first place for the start of the decline of Europe.
okay, merci du conseil! amities d’outre-Atlantique :-)
“The Monarchy was restored to France until 1830 (and really 1848 when you include the Orleans).”
Well, here’s a problem with that argument, any french monarchist will tell you that France, after 1815, is not “France” anymore, it has been thoroughly defeated, flagelated, humiliated and it’s ruling classe is entirely made up of comprador bourgeois by that time. As all the true elith has been sent to the slaughter either undeer the guillotine or on the battlefield.
“Some in the government actually asked the Bourbon claimant if he would be willing to take the throne. But he demanded that the French drop the tricolor and go back to the old Bourbon flag before he would agree. The government refused to do that.”
And now, I’m sorry to announce you that you’ve entirely bought into the third republic’s historiography’s lies. Trust me, historians in the 1880’s 1890’s and 1900’s are NOT historians at all. More like novelists. You just need to read them to udnerstand what I mean.
The bad thing being that they still hold authority to these days (For political reasons.).
Seriously though, the ruling class at that time, decided the future political establishment of France for such a petty reason as a FLAG
“Well, here’s a problem with that argument, any french monarchist will tell you that France, after 1815, is not “France” anymore, it has been thoroughly defeated, flagelated, humiliated and it’s ruling classe is entirely made up of comprador bourgeois by that time. As all the true elith has been sent to the slaughter either undeer the guillotine or on the battlefield.”
And I would tell any French monarchist that they were wrong there. Look at the history of France. The Monarchist’s in France were not a “monolithic” group. Even during the “Ancient Regime” they were divided. You had the ” noblesse d’épée” and the “noblesse de robe” that were in about equal numbers by then (with the noblesse de robe,usually richer). And so intermarried together as almost forming one noble class at that late a date. Certainly some of the nobles died in the Revolution or fled. But the vast majority stayed behind in France. And a huge number of them served in Napoleon’s military and government. If you look at the backgrounds of his military officers. You’ll find more from the noble class than not.
It was only the most Conservative (tradition bound) that rejected serving Napoleon after he restored a monarchy in France. And even the new non-noble people brought into the elite easily intermarried into the old nobility after a while (money conquered all). It was the foolishness of the restored Bourbons that destroyed monarchy in France. They were looking to restore the “Ancient Regime” in all its ways. And even most of the nobles,and certainly the peasants and middle class wouldn’t agree to that. Most peasants didn’t agree with the anti-Religious attacks of the early Revolution. But few and far between peasants wanted the return of serfdom. And the nobles themselves gained from some of the reforms of the Revolution. Though the biggest gainers were the middle class and peasantry. It was the anti-Religious attacks and constant wars that made the people upset. But the Bourbons wouldn’t accept any changes if they could stop them. Louis XVIII understood that and was willing to compromise to stay as King. His brother Charles X wasn’t smart enough to understand that time doesn’t stand still. And he lost the throne.
Knowing the mentality of the Bourbons why would you doubt the flag issue. If the pro-Republic historians write about that,where are the pro-Bourbon historians writing to dispute it. Since at that time the monarchists held the majority in the “National Assembly” it wasn’t “Republican politicians” reporting on that issue. Here is what is said about it (his mother’s side of the family were the reactionary Bourbons of Naples.So that may help account for his foolishness.): “In the early 1870s, as the Second Empire collapsed following its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War at the battle of Sedan on 1 September 1870, the royalists became a majority in the National Assembly. The Orléanists agreed to support the aging comte de Chambord’s claim to the throne, with the expectation that at his childless death he would be succeeded by their own claimant, Philippe d’Orléans, comte de Paris. Henri was then pretender for both Legitimists and Orléanists, and the restoration of monarchy in France seemed a close possibility. However, Henri insisted that he would accept the crown only on condition that France abandon its tricolour flag and return to the use of the white fleur de lys flag. He rejected a compromise, whereby the fleur-de-lys would be the new king’s personal standard, and the tricolour would remain the national flag.” What can account for such foolishness,I can’t really say. But that the Bourbons themselves threw away their chance to restore their family to the throne of a Kingdom of France is almost a certainty.
Okey, you wrote a good piece of the third republic usual propaganda. I’m sorry If my answer won’t be complete but I just don’t feel like going over every single one of those lies and half truths. (It’s not your fault, most historians promoted since the 1880’s are state payed propagandists…)
First, you are right about the divide within the “noblesse”, and I will even add that the only reason the “coup d’état” we call “révolution” worked so well was because a good number of the high nobility joined up with the bourgeois revolutionaries. At the head of them all, none other than the Prince of Orléans himself (Who was known to be quite the satanic/pedophile piece of c***. But that’s another story, albeit quite interesting and enlightening about this period’s hidden nature.).
The reason for this … um, “treason”, is to be found in a historical “non-dit” about the relationship between the monarchy and the nobility, which is not exactly a friendly one since at least Charlemagne.
It is no secret that Napoléon appeared to most anti revlutionaries of that time as someone who could finally restore order and prosperity to the country. In fact, Napoléon was even approached by supporters of the Bourbons asking him if he had in mind to restaure the legitimate crown. To which his answer was that ; if anyone was to be made king of France again, it would be him and no one else.
It comes as no surprise that most of his generals and trusted military advisors were pro-monarchy nobles. But they didn’t understand the bigger picture, which is easy to say in retrospective, I’m not blaming them.
Now about the so-called abolition of serfdome/priviledges and so on…
Well, now we are entering the meat of the subject.
Let me tell you dear Uncle Bob, that there are probably very few historical lies as hypocrite as this one. Not only did this abolition wasn’t in the program until angry peasant mobs stormed a few castles to find and burn some documents called “terrier”. But when the revolutionaries DID take this into consideration they went ahead and abolished ALL “priviledges”. Problem ; what we call “priviledges” in the ancien régime is not a “Noblesse” exclusive right. In fact there are all kinds of “priviledges”. Such as, to give just one exemple, the “communaux” “priviledges”. In the ancien régime, old style peasants communities/villages had “priviledges” such as large swath(?) of lands that were “common property” (That sounds kinda communist ; )) that could be used by anyone from the community without any interferance/taxes/regulations. Even the pourest of the poor could find what they needed to live by. These “communaux” also included large depot of tools, grains, etc etc.
Even better, the corporations’ priviledges, which I will let you research on your own.
All of these were abolished along with the nobility’s. Why ? Because they were an obstacle to Free-Trade™ ! (That sounds kinda familiar again.).
You should also look into the “Loi du Chapelier” to see how much the revolution was a social REGRESSION for the working class, and nothing like a “liberation”.
If you know french, I would like to redirect you to Marion Sigaut’s works on the ancien régime. She is a great historian and has the support of Alain Soral, whom I believe is a higly regarded individual in these parts.
“Knowing the mentality of the Bourbons why would you doubt the flag issue.”
Geez… dear Uncle Bob, do you realize how stupid of an excuse that is ?
I already told you the real reason. But let me put it into context.
The second half of the 19th century saw a huge rise in counterrevolutionary movements from both sides of what the official historiography qualifies as “far-right” and “far-left”. In other words the rise of the Whites(Monarchists) and the Reds(Socialists) against the reign of the Blues(Republicans).
The tenants of the bourgeois order saw the upcomming alliance of the whites and the reds as ineluctable unless they tried to buy the support of some of them to put these two factions at odds with each other. That’s why they tried to get the last heir of the bourbons to be the defendant of their own “priviledges”. But that didn’t work out. Again go find the manifesto I told you about. It is very clear.
To support my claim on the de-facto alliance of the whites and the reds, all one has to do is research this political experiance that was the “Proudhon Circle”.
I’m kinda tired nowadays, so I probably won’t be answering a lot… As my pseudonyme says, I’m just passing by .
But I will be keeping an eye on the blog and on this conversation, so do ask away if you want precisions.
Au plaisir,
Best regards.
Oupsi, my bad, i sent the comment by inadvertance, before finishing : S
So as I was saying, It wasn’t the flag (Of all things, what a ridiculous excuse.) that decided the ruling bourgeois class to make France a republic but the public manifesto of the throne’s heir that clearly stated he refused to be a puppet in their hands and would defend the common folk in case he was to be reinstated(?)(Im’ not too good with english. Do correct me.). That, is why France ended up being a republic, because the only ones who were legitimate to take up the thrones refused to be the defendant of the bourgeois order. That is all.
Also, royalist sentiment did not drop that much. Before 1945, it was still very strong in most places despite the ruthless propaganda initiated under the third republic.
By the way, Im not a monarchist, but i’m not a republican either. More like a right wing anarchist. If that makes any sense to you.
Hello to the saker and the community from France.
Regards ~
“right wing anarchist”
More detail?
“Well, here’s a problem with that argument, any french monarchist will tell you that France, after 1815, is not “France” anymore, it has been thoroughly defeated, flagelated, humiliated and it’s ruling classe is entirely made up of comprador bourgeois by that time. As all the true elith has been sent to the slaughter either undeer the guillotine or on the battlefield.”
Could not have said it better, thank you for your comment !
The last stronghold of the “Old France” (monarchic and catholic) was the French army, where most of the officers used to belong to that category.
There were discredited in the Dreyfus scandal circa 1900, then butchered in the summer of 1914.
The remaining ones teared each others during WWII, and the republican + communist combo dealt with the last ones during the “purification” that took place in 1945
You maybe forgot that many of those old officers had shown themselves incompetent in the war against Germany (both wars). And that many of them were also compromised by dealings with Vichy during those years.
Uncle Bob I
I think you are unjust to the French Army, its officers as well as its men, in the First world War.
If you think that, I think you haven’t read the history of that war. And I would suggest doing that before commenting. I would suspect that having over 4.2 million casualties (1.3 million of which were dead) more than Britain who had a larger population at the time.Having been so bad as to shoot over 600 of their own soldiers for “disobedience” including one man because he asked for another pair of pants when his was ruined in battle. And then refused to put on a pair of blood soaked pants stripped from a dead body.Shooting dozens of soldiers as “punishment” for the 1917 French Army Mutiny. Caused by the soldiers not trusting in their own officers concern for their men’s lives. And having the Army commander Joseph Joffre have to be replaced because of his failures. To me those things speak to a level of incompetence. But how to join my just criticism of the “officers” as an attack on the “army soldiers”. Now that, totally escapes me. If you can find a word in my comment that does that,please point to it.
(Sidenote: That in no way excuses vast errors and sometimes incompetence in the other officer corps of the other WWI states. But there are levels of incompetence in every war and army. Some much more than others. France,while certainly not alone, was badly served by her officer corps. And the brave ” poilu” paid the price because of it.
Uncle Bob I
Yes, you are right, my comment was careless. Apologies.
I don’t, however, think the “lions led by donkeys” cliche any more accurate of the French than the British.
Of course, they were all learning. Of course, they all blundered horribly. Of course, the culture of the officer class promoted blimps, idiots, and psychopaths. And, yes, France, Britain, and Germany all got better at fighting mechanized war as the years wore on. This is not the same as systemic incompetence in the military conduct of the war (as opposed to widespread incompetence, which yo acknowledge is a common feature of war, and as opposed to the diplomatic incompetence or cock-up that started the war).
France bore the brunt of the Allied effort on the Western Front. Casualty statistics do not therefore support your conclusion of particular French incompetence.
Robert A. Doughty, “Pyrrhic Victory”. Paul Jankowski, “Verdun”. William Philpott “Bloody Victory”. For starters. Each will give you plenty of ammo for disparaging the officer class, but also, I think, plenty of evidence for more nuance.
Uncle Bob I
Sorry – I also wanted to ask what reading you found useful on the subject. Thanks.
Quant à la revolution française, j’insiste qu’elle n’aurait jamais eu lieu si la Reine avait compris l’importance extraordinaire de son propre dévis fameux, comme l’a fortement demonstré Mme. Nuland il y a deux ans à Kiev. Sachez aussi que l’empereur Napoléon III a réussi incontestablement à mobiliser le même genre de salauds contre les ouvriers parisiens au cours des années 1848-1851 (“Vive Napoléon! Vivent les saucissons!”).
Tu parles de quelle reine? C’est si bon, saucisson, saucisson. I am sure the melody rings in your ears and you do understand the German word “wurst”. “Pölse ” in Danish and “korv” in Swedish. “Makkarra” in Finnish. What is your point? I do not believe the revolutionaries in France were only interested in the French Queen.They wanted power.
Pas un peu bête, non?
If the French Queen had doled out those damn eatables right in the spirit which Victoria Nuland proudly demonstrated 224 years later, she might very well have been spared the head-choppers. The fact of the matter is that just like their Pindo kith and kin, the French “revolutionaries” were anything but “egalitarian”. They were imperialists, plantation profiteers, and hard-core racists. And like the Pindos, they wanted no royal slobs to interfere with their lucrative business enterprises.
” I write primarily for those who actually appreciate that difference, that “otherness” and, I dare hope, my honesty.”
Some of us are very much aware of this and that is exactly why we are hanging out here. :-)
Thanks for these kind words as, I have to tell you honestly, I have found the quasi-unanimous condemnation of what I wrote rather discouraging, especially since most of it (90% at least) was in response to things I never wrote. Of course, I won’t let any of that change my course, silence me, or deter me from repeating my crimethink in the future, but it leaves a very discouraging aftertaste and a sense of futility. Our times are not good times for those who dare think outside the very narrow social consensus.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Look on the bright side. Probably being burned at the stake for heresy is out. Today they use “character” assassination. Which brings me to a point I’ve wanted to make in this affair. It seems to me that there are some Saker enemies that wait around for him to say something “controversial” and then all pouch on him like “stink on sh..”. What he said (or actually “didn’t” say) wasn’t even a molehill. And yet from all the “hate Saker” speak I read. You’d think it was Mt Everest. Is that a coincidence I wonder. Or since much of the hate speech seems to come from Anonymous posters ,or new posters. Is it maybe just another hasbara attack from the “usual suspects” meant to discredit him and the blog. I’m not buying all the bs attacks on him. I come here to be informed. And to hear Saker’s and others thoughts. I might not always agree,which is my right. But most times I do agree. And I’m always learning either way.
Not at all Bob – for this particular anonymous.
If I agree with you I see it as a waste of time to comment (zero info and all that).
If I think you (or saker or anyone) are talking shit i’ll say so in the hope of either
(i) making you reply with something that let’s me know you’ve seen the light
or
(ii) looking at your reply to see if it makes me see a different/better light.
I “feel you” on the comments. But while like you,there are “legitimate” posters that feel that way. There has been an “avalanche” of hatred directed at Saker. And much of it not directed at his current posts. Instead it seems that those people are trying to discredit him totally. And by doing that discredit the blog with him. Trying to sow dissension among the readers. So that’s why I see this as an attack meant to harm the blog’s stand for Russia and against the empire. More than an attack on him personally. Of course,I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.
Dear Uncle Bob,
Thank you for this comment and your previous one at 4.55am. I agree with you totally and have noticed this unfortunate trend over the past few days. A deliberate avalanche of attacks all trying to discredit (and it is a shame that some old commenters have fallen into the trap). It reminds me of the Je ne suis pas Charlie post. All hell broke loose then too – and the Saker was proven right.
The fact this has happened means that the Saker’s site is a threat to the Hegemon/Cabal/AZ’s/ Masters etc. He is getting the truth out there – even if some don’t like to face it or hear it. People need to open their eyes and ears because they are reacting exactly the way they want you all to. They are manipulating individuals to react in this fashion – it is all planned.
Remember we are the many they are the few – wake up!
Don’t be disheartened Saker – you are obviously doing something right.
Rgds,
Veritas
Yeah, I think we all get it that these rapes are a Gladio type operation. That’s not why some readers were offended.
Not necessarily a Gladio psyop, but most certainly an MSM stunt successfully playing on the anguish and paranoia prevailing among Europe’s ever more socially insecure petty bourgeoisie. Again: A New Year’s Eve street brawl anywhere in the West is a complete, utter non-event as compared to what’s going on in the countries actually being mercilessly raped by selfsame Europeans’ elected governments. Oligarch rule a.k.a. Western democracy clearly has its less pleasant “side effects” even for the beneficiaries of Western kakistocracy. Most sadly, imperialism without immigrants and refugees is not on the agenda any longer, if it ever was. Moreover, just wait until the Ukros start coming here in droves — then we could well be in for something much more violent for real.
Whitey has been fooled big time here. Today, imperialist wars are being waged also for the benefits that accompany mammoth population transfers. Whitey feeling duly betrayed by Massa.
Thank you,I noticed the same on the “Charlie” thread as well. He is a threat to them. And as more people read his posts. And more other media copy or comment about them. He appears more of a threat to them. They don’t usually just eliminate people like that. They try to assassinate their character,or buy them off first. Since being anti-Russian pays much better than being pro-Russian (which as far as I know doesn’t pay at all).They figure if that mattered to him he’d be spouting anti-Russian propaganda already. So their best move is personal attacks and discrediting him and his views.Its up to us here to not “fall” for that trick.
There has been an “avalanche” of hatred directed at Saker.
Actually, having spoken to a few other, experienced, members of our community I am coming to the conclusion that while some comments are a sincere, if misguided, expression of outrage over my crimethink a lot of them are something very different – either simply the inevitable increase in trolling on any successful blog (our numbers continue to rise, by the way) or possibly a genuine attempt at sabotage. Whatever may be the case, I am not too worried here because we have enough smart people in the community and amongst the commentators to deal with this. This latest bout of hysterics will slowly peter out. No worries and thank you!
Hugs and cheers,
The Saker
Saker, don’t worry about that. We are all čudak’s here ;)
My results are not far from your, even sometimes we are not on same track.
My results: https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-6.88&soc=-3.9
Best regards from Croatia
We are all čudak’s here ;)
To paraphrase Orwell, “if there is hope, it is with the čudaks” :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
I has a German speaking great grandmother whose parents had being invited into -“Little Russia”, to demonstrate by doing the new changes to dairy practices that setting milk cans on a train cars at 4 in the morning, for sale in cities brought about. Then A new Czar, didn’t like Germans(because he married one?) so they left.
“We were in Russia(Ukraine),were called- Dirty Germans. We were in Germany(Poland?), were called -Dirty Russians. So me, I came to Canada.”
So I’m familiar with the cultural displacement you describe.
In waves we have had the confusions added to as I’m sure you have noticed.
So while not prying too much-Orthodox(?).
Old believer ? making the sign of the cross with the traditional digit count ?Or one of the “evil”- post Nikon heretic’s killing those “pure” enough , who wouldn’t change ?
This does go back before the official 1666 date but accounts are very confused and that is no accident on any side.
Information on these matters has always being -confused. Now its a perfect mess and being exploited to get power by making trouble-again.
This can now run into -Catholic Church and Ukrainian Catholic Church(with the marrying clergy and Slavonic services-Old Slavonic of course!) which also is now all run together to confuse the simple, who long ago lost the historical thread. But not for the century required for it to do any good.
To this we can know add the Nestorian derived church in Syrian and Iran-Which Rome reports is “reconciled to them”. Syria tic speakers put a different shading on that translation. Which is a point to watch, since the first officially infallible pope; reportedly-was Jewish!
With the translation issues-what could go wrong? Its as safe as building breeder reactors on Egyptian fault lines.
Dear Saker, Please don;t take it a miss but where would you put Jesus Christ on your graph?
Blasphemous? No I don’t think so. He was god, above all this ? He was a ” Son of Heaven by the Body of the Earth”. Born from the womb of the Virgin, He ate drank slept like anyone else. he even indulged in rather profane activities providing wine at a marriage feast, when most of the folks had already served themselves liberally. he even had to face the temptation of the “world” He came to bring a new message or a message renewed. Definitely he was no conservative .Now if you say you are from 1453 do you move about on horseback or wear the tunics of those times? The essence is you still wear clothes I guess. The same goes for religious concepts. One can try to find and keep the true essence but the external rites gestures words etc. can change. Must change to have any meaning now
Now to come back to my question. If the soul in man is a portion of the what is called god then the soul is also god. How can it be not god? Water can be in the sea or in a bottle but remains water. The soul being the true self of man, that what one really truly is deep inside is is thus god.. How can one claim otherwise? True this Godhead is covered by mental ,life and physical sheaths,. the recipient. Maybe the goal of life is to bring the God within forth to become openly god or change the recipient into an image of god?But the image is still made of the substance of god. So if you place yourself on the graph why not the Saviour?
Dear Saker, Please don;t take it a miss but where would you put Jesus Christ on your graph?
Very interesting question. Alas, I quite literally don’t think that it is possible to “squeeze” Him into a graph which is already an oversimplification even for your common human being. But no, I don’t find that question blasphemous at all. Cheers!
Question about pre-1917 Russia:
elsewhere in this discussion you wrote that basically the Russian Empire was run by the westernized aristocracy, and there was a chasm between these people on one hand and Emperor+commoners on the other hand.
I don’t get it. The Emperor was an Autocrat, with all the legislative power (pre 1905). The legal system of serfdom was completely in his capacity to abolish – why he chose to do that in 1861, not centuries before ?
The serfdom did not (in general) survive the renaissance in Western Europe. In central Europe, it was abolished in 18th century. The positions of rules in those countries were much more precarious and aristocracy-dependent than in Russia.
You mentioned freedom loving Russian peasants. The most freedom-loving of them were cossacks. In fact, they voluntarily migrated to Russia from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. You know very well what happened to them under Catherine – and the uprisings of Razin and Pugachev, were crushed not by the private armies of westernized aristocrats, but by imperial army.
Why was literacy rate so low among the Russian commoners in mid-19th century ? Especially given the tremendous opulence of *both* imperial and aristocratic palaces ?
Those are good questions,but the answers are very complicated. In Russia (and not just Russia) an Emperor might rule. But there are lines even they can’t cross without stirring a revolt. The Tsars never feared a “peoples” revolution. That they could control,and did countless times. They feared an “elite” revolt. It was the elite that unseated the Godunov dynasty after Boris died. And it was the elite that brought the Romanov’s to the throne. The last 6 Romanov’s were quite aware of how their branch of the family gained power. And they knew that Catherine gained power by an elite revolt against her own husband, Peter III. That her son was murdered in an elite revolt (Paul I) that brought her grandson Alexander I to power. That his younger brother Nichols I was almost dethroned in an elite coup. And that Nicholas’s son Alexander II (The Tsar Liberator) was murdered by what we would call today sons of the upper and middle classes. So as long as enough of the elite benefited from the Tsars rule,they were able to rule. But changing society (like ending serfdom) had to have a consensus among the elite before it could be done. Remember in Brazil the Emperors ending slavery,was a main cause of the House of Braganza being dethroned and a Republic proclaimed. The Emperor went against what some of his main supporters (the slave holding elite) wanted. And they deserted him when he needed them.
In some few countries in Europe there wasn’t a real “serfdom” and in some there was until near the end of the 18th Century. But in most there was until the French Revolution. After the revolution was defeated in Central Europe and Eastern Europe it took various states different dates to end serfdom. A couple of decades for the German states. And the middle of the 19th Century for Eastern Europe. So really not that long between when it was ended there, than in Russia (I believe it was 1848 in Austria-Hungary and 1861 in Russia). In the Ottoman areas there was no official serfdom. But until the 1840’s in Romania there was actual slavery. With many of the Roma being kept as slaves. But serfdom itself was a personal condition of the peasants. Usually connected to paying duties to the serf owners and forced working on the land the owners set aside for themselves.
If you thought the above was complicated,now we turn to the land issue. Except for a few countries of Western Europe (mainly France). The ending of serfdom only freed the peasants from those duties and forced work on the land. What it didn’t do in most of those countries was give them the land.Most of that remained with the noble (now) ex-serf owners. And the peasants were to still work the elites land unless they wanted to starve. So you had in most of Central and Eastern Europe a “share-crop” system. Where the peasants worked the land and paid the elite for the use of it from their profits (if they had profits). Many people considered it to be as bad or in some cases worse than serfdom. In all those countries the land issue was the most serious of the late 19th and until the middle of the 20th Centuries. Some governments tried to get the nobles to agree to land reform (actually Russia doing better than most with that). But it was hit and miss. And almost every country had small (and a couple of larger) peasant revolts over that issue. Romania having a huge one in the first decade of the 20th Century. The situation was only partly settled after WWI where some countries forced land reform (the countries gaining lands in the war forced the old nobles of the losing country to give land to the peasants). But really it took the USSR victory in WWII to force real total land reform. That broke-up the great noble estates throughout Poland,Hungary,East Germany,and parts of Yugoslavia and Romania. The old Ottoman areas (by then Christian Balkan States) didn’t have that problem. Those countries were free of serfdom. And the Turkish noble estates had long been seized and divided between the peasants there.
As to the literacy issue. That wasn’t a purely Russian issue. It was the same throughout most of Eastern Europe (some countries better,some worse). But more importantly,it was a “peasant” issue. The countries where the vast majority were peasants,there was more illiteracy. Most people today think of schools as a normal place for children to learn. And most think it is the duty of the nation to see to that. But really,in the past “the bourgeoisie elite” didn’t believe the state should be responsible for that (in Eastern Europe). And even in much of Western and Central Europe schools had the purpose of “creating citizens”. It wasn’t totally altruistic of the governments. There was a nationalist purpose there. They were meant to teach the “state” language to their many citizens that normally at home spoke only “dialects” of that language (or another language).And where schools did open in Eastern Europe that was a main purpose for them. Russia,as I mentioned on another thread. Even in the “hay day” of nationalism was always “half-hearted” with that. Had they been more through with it, “Ukrainian”,”Belorussian”,and many of the smaller dialects or languages in Russia,would have disappeared,or mostly disappeared as happened through most of Western Europe. While the French were busy making standard French enforced throughout the country. While Germany was making High German the “accepted” language throughout the Low German regions. And the British making English the main language of Scotland,Wales,and Ireland. And the US to “melt” the millions of European immigrate children in their schools to English speaking Americans,etc,etc. Russia allowed their peoples to speak whatever they wanted. It took the Communists to really bring universal education to Russia. And they even made the error of leaving the regional dialects mostly unchallenged. Letting the schooling be done in those dialects.
Thank you for your well-informed and thought-provoking historical overview. But while it described honestly the situation of peasantry across the all the postmediaeval and modern Europe (from France to Russia), it did not support Andrey-Saker’s description (not in the article but in the comments section above) of social fabric of pre-1917 Russia.
I come from a country with heritage of universal schooling introduced by Maria-Theresia in 18-th century. Her son Joseph emancipated the serfs in 1792. And still, those reforms came much later than comparable ones in western Europe.
Reading both classical Russian literature and historical description of pre-1917 Russia, one cannot escape the conclusion that Russian peasants in the 19th century was in the state of deep social and civilisational misery – in many aspects much worse than in the Germany or (parts of) Austro-Hungary.
To blame only aristocrats and saying the Emperor was on peasant’s side sounds like a fairy tale supported by neither historical evidence nor known facts about governmental system of Russian Empire.
The Emperor Joseph did abolish serfdom. But at his death those reforms were undone. The elite considered him a dangerous “Godless radical”. And the schools were all taught at that time in the German language. In an Empire in which German was only spoken by maybe a quarter of the population ( if that high). In France in took the 1789 Revolution to abolish serfdom. In Britain they didn’t have serfdom after the 1500’s. But what they did have (and I believe still do. Some British posters hopefully can let me know if I’m wrong.),was the great nobles and other elite owned almost all the land (or a huge portion of it). And the farmers (they weren’t called peasants there. Though it meant the same thing.),were forced to lease the use of it from them (I think in Spain and Scandinavia it was much the same). While Italy and the Low Countries I believe had serfdom until the French Revolutionary armies ended serfdom in those places. So that would also be in the 1790’s at the earliest. But again in much of Germany it was the French Revolution that forced the end of serfdom. One thing important to remember was that “serfdom” wasn’t always called serfdom. It was masked as “manorial laws”. Which operated in much the same way as serfdom. In enforcing land and economic controls on the peasants to the advantage of the elites.
There is no getting around the fact that you are right about the economic problems of the Russian peasantry (and the workers were even worse off) of that period. But whether worse than in some other areas of Eastern Europe (Western Europe was a whole different World then,as now.), I’m not sure about that. Conditions in many areas of Austria-Hungary (especially Galicia and Hungary) were horrible. And the peasants in Romania lived in misery too. But I think Saker is talking more about spiritual and human feelings. And less about economic happiness. As bad off as the peasants were economically. It was that culture that inspired generations of nationalists (an age when nationalism didn’t have the meaning it can have today) throughout those countries during that period. They were looked at as the “pure expression of the nation”. And throughout those regions young middle-class nationalists used to visit the countryside to get inspiration. And record the music,ancient stories,and peasant art of those peoples. There was also a great improvement in that period as well. Russia was developing a great deal. And economically was projected to be catching up with other parts of Europe. While culturally, as we all know, she was a leader in music,literature,and making great strides in science. All wasn’t doom and gloom there. As for loyalty to the Tsar. It was widespread among the peasantry (true among most peasants of Europe towards their Kings or Emperors in that period as well). There are many stories in books. And a lot of diary entries from the Tsars about how humbled they felt at the love shown them by the peasants. Huge crowds would knell before them when they visited peasant areas. Carrying their pictures as if they were Icons.If you are interested in a easy to read study of pre-Revolutionary Russia. A good book to start with is called “Land of the Firebird”. It goes a lot into the culture of that period. And the life of the people,famous and not famous.
Slavery was abolished in Sweden, Finland and Norway in the 14th century. Those who do not want to admit that serve the old colonial masters. So many lies.
Too bad it survives to this day in that great democracy on the middle east…
Saker, keep up the good work. Time and again I’m being convinced that mob is silly. Don’t forget that it was absolute majority who demanded God to be crucified.
Your article on events in Cologne was absolutely – in every bit – correct and spot on.
I also was amazed that majority of commenters were reacting on something you never wrote. The thing is butthurt Europeans demand compassion and sympathy *they don’t deserve* (not those particular victims, but Europe and passive Europeans as a whole). Being servant of the devil (US-EU Zionist Empire) means that sooner or later *you have to pay the price for that*.
Truth often hurts, not everyone can comprehend it like it is. Instead of understanding of what they did wrong and how to fix it, they blame the messenger.
Every human being deserves compassion and sympathy, even decadent westerners. Especially them. That’s what Christ preached. Christ went to the sinners, not to the self-righteous holier-than-thou perfect types. Jesus accepted the hospitality of tax collectors, prostitutes, lepers, Roman soldiers, any and all outcasts, and treated them with great love and compassion, and he didn’t judge.
Which is one more proof that human beings are not Christ.
“proof…Christ”
since Chist belief is faith based that strikes as oxymoron..esk.
Haha,maybe so. But it was meant as a bit “cheeky” of a comment.
Actually, no. While the belief in Christ as a “God-man” or “Son of God” is, definitely, based on faith, His historical existence is an established historical fact as are the contents of His teachings.
Cheers,
The Saker
“and he didn’t judge”
well, not until the poor suckers die at least.
Hi Saker, I´m a long time lurkin´ learner at your blog and come here more then once a day just to stay sane.
My comment is to Gatopardo. Being a salsa lover I quickly looked up your Richie
Ray reference about Rachmaninov being curious to how the piano would sound.
Here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzLTFQE4vGE
It is delicious but it is Stravinsky they are using just to be a know it all and for accuracy. I only know because they call it in the song itself!
To push further off-topic* (if this makes it through), I give you Markolino Diamond’s “El Quinto De Beethoven”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PH7Lv7W7k
Just waving my salsero flag.
*I realize the Ricardo Ray reference was part of a large point.
In thinking about ‘modernity’ along with your essay, Saker, I was trying to find an American author who could stand amongst the one you mention in your upward gaze – for me there is Robert Frost in his poem “The Lovely Shall Be Choosers”. The poem is rather long to quote it whole, so I went to a search online and found this link:
http://julessearchforvirtue.blogspot.com/2011/09/robert-frost.html
To me the poem is about the soul, and Jules’ post gave me more understanding of this. Here are just the final lines, which speak of the last of the seven joys to be given:
************
“And be her next joy this:
Her never having deigned to tell them.
Make her among the humblest even
Seem to them less than they are.
Hopeless of being known for what she has been,
Failing of being loved for what she is,
Give her the comfort for her sixth of knowing
She fails from strangeness to a way of life
She came to from too high too late to learn.
Then send some ÷one÷ with eyes to see
And wonder at her where she is,
And words to wonder in her hearing how she came there,
But without time to linger for her story.
Be her last joy her heart’s going out to this one
So that she almost speaks.
You know them – seven in all.”
“Trust us,” the Voices said.
****************
“I completely reject the entire civilizational model we all live in.”
It’s not very nice, I agree.. perhaps just in these words, even if you don’t know the language, there is some secret, some beauty, some model, waiting to be found.
The first verse of “The Lullaby of the Snow”
Is fuar fuar a nochd m leaba,
Is fuar fuar a nochd mo leanabh,
Is buan buan a nochd do chadal,
Mis am anart ‘s tus am achlais.
dolce padre, salome, salome…
Thanks everyone for this tour de force of an article and comments.
I’ve been away for awhile so I’m getting up to speed still. This alien article visit is a keeper; I’ve just had time enough to skim through and over but I want to go back and digest it all.
We moderns find ourselves in the position of the church fathers, caught between a rock and a hard place. The empire had turned into a beast. The stories of the gods were laughed at. The rational philosophers were causing confusion upon chaos.
The mideast world was ruled by three families: the Flavians in Rome, the Herodians in Palestine and the Alexandrians in Egypt. They felt threatened because the old order was teetering on the brink. They were brilliant strategists and able to hire the best and the brightest. They were the psy-ops masters of the time.
Enter the church fathers, including Paul of Tarsus, a Jew and a Roman citizen, and the gospel (good news) writers canonical and not. They had a revelation on the road to Damascus, Syria on how to save themselves and the empire.
Create a story that combines the safety and security of an absolute authority and channels the desires and passions of a restless humanity. The church fathers knew how to do this since they had one foot in the Judeo culture and the other in the Greco-Roman.
They kept the absolute one God but that alone would not do. What about humanity? What about love? For this they created a supreme lover, Jesus, from the folklore, speculations and real life rebels of the time.
Jesus became both God and Man, a brilliant chess move that blunted the Jewish Zealot rebels and the other freedom fighters. The literary Jesus was given Roman citizenship like Paul. Jesus was a Jew and a Roman and a humanity lover. How could you argue against that? It made no logical sense but it was politics at its best.
The church fathers brought a new energy into play which burst onto the scene like fire. The three families saw the firestorm because they largely created it out of the dry brush culture and directed it to their advantage. In no time the empire and the church fathers changed the world.
Today another firestorm is building. The families are losing control. Russia is on the rise, not just militarily but intellectually. At some point the new empire, like the old, will see the futility of opposing Russiana and will offer them a deal. If Russia accepts, the new multi-polar empire will be the new christianity. The empire will be saved and we will all feel saved.
The root causes of empire will be covered over and we’ll gain time. The old game will continue until it turns into a beast and another saving story will be invented.
The saker vineyard has the potential to see through the ruse of empire because it is basically honest in its intent to save Russia from the empire within and without. It allows raw emotional pain to be expressed rather than suppressed.
An empire cannot afford to be honest. A small community of vineyard dwellers can because they have less to lose. And as the church fathers would say: when you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to lose.
“I spent all my life in the minority and being intensely disliked by most people. For me this is par for the course and simply the price to pay for daring to dissent from the prevailing wisdom of the day.” Well said, and certainly the way I’ve lived my life. I’ve paid the price as I am transgender. Every day I dare to dissent from the nearly universal cultural binary definition of gender.
That said, there are native cultures which recognize and respect non-conforming individuals such as myself. I live in Oregon, and can tell you that generally speaking young people get it and how one presents their identity is not an issue for them. I would go a bit further and say that they understand that ALL gender identities and assumed roles – including what it means to be a “man” or a “woman”, are constructed.
Your background is interesting, but your wise words earn you all my respect.
Sincerely,
Trisha
Hi Trisha,
Thanks for your kind words and understanding. It is an irony that a transgender person who understand me better than most of my so-called “peers” (especially if you are aware of my politically crimethinking views on other sex-related topics. I thank you for your open mind and I welcome you to our community!
Kind regards,
The Saker
I find your description of yourself cooler than cool. No matter how much one tries to fit in (why in heavens name does anyone feel obliged to apologise for being themselves, most people do not dare be themselves. Therefore cooler than….)
There are belief systems that demand you to speak truth to power such as Islam after that horrible set up time after 9/11 where I took refuge for my life as I had just proudly done Shahada in the Cambridge, Massachussetts, Mosque, in Greek Orthodoxy by way of a friend from ‘Saloniki’ studying choral music in Boston, we both living in the YWCA Berkeley apartments. Walking distance to where the Boston Marathon Kettle drum “Terrorist” federal set up was later done. Set up? For sure just like 9/11 was set up. Known to happen one year in advance and fully allowed.
I have never tried to catagorise myself. Feels like it is a fun thing for you to do. Do not think I would want to ever. Thanks for yours though! Suzanne
I read this and some of the comments yesterday..but did not immediately reply…
First of all…I come out at almost exactly the same point in the political compass an does The Saker (in two tests separated by several years – I first saw it on Craig Murray’s website)…(I disagree with him only about some of the important things – he doesn’t get 9/11 yet – but he’s good bloke (very courageous actually – read his book Murder in Samarkand – it’s a page turner – nearly as good as “Extreme Prejudice” by Susan Lindauer – which is probably the most exciting book I have ever read)
and then the discussion went on to question The Saker’s very old Russian Orthodox Christian views (I must warn you I have read “Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold” by Acharya S (I think she is very ill at the moment – pray for her (it works))…
and then I wrote this on Craig Murray’s blog..I just thought it was kind of on topic
These two beautiful very polite refined ladies knocked on my door yesterday morning, when it was really cold. I actually wanted to invite them both in and talk to them…but my wife might have snarled.
If I had have been alone I would have done and asked them if they would like a cup of tea or coffee…
Whilst I didn’t recognise them I recognised what they were selling…
It was in their hands – and on the face of it, it was something very welcoming and nice.
They were trying to sell God to me…
Now it doesn’t matter which brand – but you can guess…
I accept that some of these people do good to lonely, depressed people – they bring hope into their lives – God …etc…
Look I am not saying the jehovah’s witnesses are that much worse than the catholics – which both my wife and I escaped from … but we did so without any threats to our family and friends – and we were never compelled to give 10% of our earnings to the church…
Who locally I have known through friends – and the chief high priest very well…
In fact the high priest / bishop Jehovah equiv – I told him to get the hell out of my house about 15 years ago – at a quiet family dinner…he is a mad biker…and I asked if you had a bad accident on your bike…and the only way you could survive was if I was with you…and I was unharmed and had the same rare blood type as you – and the surgeon – says to me – I need a pint of your blood – and I was more than happy to give it, to you save your life…
He said “I wouldn’t accept your blood – I would rather die..”
Well fucj off out of my house then
Goodbye
We managed over years to help release a couple of our friends from the cult – because they wanted to leave. The cult was destroying their lives.
They are free now with new lives, wives and children (with no religious tax)
God and religion are two almost completely opposite things.
God comes from within you and produces a connecting aurora with everything. It’s got nothing to do with religion.
“David Bowie – Starman (1972) HD 0815007”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B5zmDz4vR4
Tony
Saker,
It is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible for the “West” to have any idea about Russia, or even about the “West” before the terrible social and cultural upheavals which came in the wake of WWI. A few of us from older generations had the chance to live with survivors of that era. My grand parents were adults in 1914 and “did” the Great War, as they did the Second as well and they lived to a ripe old age in the 70s. They continued to behave like they did in “la Belle Epoque” and transmitted to us a different code of behaviour and a history that was different from the lies the Communists were teaching at school and in society. They still possessed large libraries full of books that we read avidly and commented with them. They insisted to teaching us foreign languages.
But most of all we could still live a live Orthodoxy. Persecution of the Church, in Romania, was far “softer” than in the first decades of the Bolshevik Revolution. The atheist (actually anti-Christian) education which triumphed in the West (the part of the world where the Bolshevik Revolution succeeded) failed.
The Western younger generations (who form the majority of the commenters on your blog) are the product of this revolution, even at the third level. Their points of reference cannot go beyond the 60s. Beyond that point, everything is a great void filled with the platitudes of the Freudo-Marxisto-Femocrat slogans or lurid egocentric “spiritualities”. They are simply not equipped with the intellectual pre-requisites to understand what Orthodoxy is. They lack (not necessarily through their fault) the “Orthodox mind”. In the case of Orthodoxy, the loss of that mind goes far, far back. The brainwashing starts before the Great Schism. No wonder that they actually react with frustrated rage at things that they cannot comprehend.
I know exactly what you mean, and I totally agree with you. Thanks!
Is there not a risk here of a closed mind? Only those who agree with you understand. Those who don’t agree simply don’t understand, indeed can’t because of their education or indoctrination (unlike yours, which promotes understanding…).
It is not a matter of “my” education vs “your” education. It is just a matter of education vs. lack of it.
I rest my case, m’lud.
Hi, Saker,
Thanks for the address of the Political Compass! I did the test and scored very, very close to yours. I was not surprised, though… It would be interesting to see the scores of other readers of The Saker website – I guess nobody will be a (economic) right / autoritatian, otherwise they probably would not be here.
I’m writing this after some time, so probably no one will read it..
Saker, you can still count me as a fan of your geopolitical analysis. I am not going to shun your blog. To be honest, I have started following people who are literate in Russian to find out what is going on. It has become painfully clear that Dmitry Orlov was correct in his observation that we have closed the hated-evil-empire gap. It was probably always corrupt, but English language news has degenerated to laughable propaganda lies, which I can no longer endure.
And it’s quite refreshing to see that Russian speakers have quite a range of opinions, from the hipsters who play x-ray records, complain about prices in the grocery store, and opine about the ‘free world’, to e.g. Evgeny Fedorov, who wonders why Russia doesn’t apprehend all the ‘fifth columnists’. And what astonishing arrogance and ignorance from the ‘diplomats’! Well, never mind.
But I have only absorbed about 85% of the Cyrillic alphabet, and haven’t really started on syntax or idiom or vocabulary…
Anyway, in my opinion, you are wrong to assume that the woman who stood naked with the sign did not have any self-respect. As I see it, she was making a political statement, and yes, trying to get some attention. It worked. It was an in-your-face political statement: “Here, look at this! I hope your head explodes!” It worked, attention was paid.
And, the way I see it, those Arab women in the west, who wear the robes and such, are making a very similar statement. They have no respect for the people of this part of the world. In particular, you will sometimes see a couple, an Arab guy dressed in blue jeans, sneakers, and a t-shirt, with his wife trailing several paces behind all in robes, with a baby on the hip. It’s insulting to everyone in the mall or airport.
There are always group-identity things, the Jew who wears a little beanie thingy, or the Sikh covering his long hair with a funny hat. But then again, there are in-your-face shows of piety, and sometimes one’s mode of dress is just such a show.
But of course, now that we’ve seen a number of ‘color revolutions’, ‘euromaidan’, ‘electric yerevan’, and so forth, the New Year’s events in Eruope come into focus as just such a planned provocation. It has the hallmarks.
Take care, and happy camping,
– A
“I’m writing this after some time, so probably no one will read it.. ”
Those who use RSS gets it delivered to their reader or email. So old or new does not matter. It is a real pain to manually read the web pages.
mmiriww:
Thanks for this info. I did not know that RSS (Rich Site Summary?) could be used to keep us informed about comments, as well! May be it is just in The Saker, as there is a link, at the bottom of the front page, specifically for two kinds of RSS: for articles and for comments (I had never seen this before – obviously, I am not very observant…).
Well, although I have this pride in myself for being able to do all sorts of things in my computer (and more or less the same in a new mobile, hehe), it is obvious that technology has changed too fast for me… Sign of age?
Its standard most anywhere that uses the blog template. In forums you have an option to send via email and not RSS… RSS is easier but they both appear very similar. I use Microsoft outlook but I saw opera browser also had a reader and in fact all new email clients come built in with an RSS reader.. RSS will even work without creating an account at the site.. And the major difference is, if you enter email to get updates you find 90% of stuff you get is spam. RSS will only read stuff you specify. It actually reads the site and stores it in an email format. I like that better.. I hate the 100’s of email spam I get every day because I used to subscribe by email to topics long time ago when RSS was not available..
Incidentally, I have subscribed to RSS for comments, hehe!
There are religious differences and culture.. Sikh’s wear a turban to keep their hair in place as they can not cut it and you really want them to wear that turban and in fact in the US army you are allowed to wear a turban instead of a helmet and it is the same in the british and indian armies..
Now nuns wear a burkha everywhere.. I seen them on planes, malls, super markets… Although I think they mostly do that so as not to get hit on. As I seen nuns also in civilian cloths but they dont have money to buy them so maybe that’s also it. My wife also wears a head scarf in places, shes not a muslim and that’s also a religious thing. In many countries women cover their hair for health and religious reasons in public. Since my cousin wears jeans and tshits when he comes to see me so I suppose the uniform is only when he is on official god’s work. unless he is giving mass he wears they same overall that Arabs wear even though he is not Arab, he is a catholic priest and I seen nuns wear short skirts, only upto the knees or maybe it was because we are family. This seems to change with what ever schemes Rome decides on the spur of the moment I think.
So dress codes define nothing in particular because if you make it a religious issue then you would have some major problems. It is how you behave that should matter. How are nuns going on about in france? I know n the US they wear their nunnery outfits including the habit/hijab and what not. Would they give special permission since you are doing god’s work? I think the Pope was serious about excommunication..
In the immortal words of Jim Morrison
Riders on the storm, Into this house we’re born, Into this world we’re thrown…
But what causes the appaling scarcity of intelligent discourse? I blame the lack of education, coupled with delusions about one’s place in the world… The West has created a world where everyone is supposed to feel like a millionaire, just temporarily down on luck. A super-predator, looking at it from a different angle. Predators have little to discuss with their victims (if one considers himself a prime predator, they cannot escape considering everyone else a potential prey).
I don’t even think that “our civilization has advanced technologically while not advancing ethically”, a popular mantra. Ethics is science too, advancement was made. It was just squandered. There’s a war going on, and the good guys are down on luck. Maybe only because the predators are always more desperate than social animals, who’d rather enjoy life than fight for the mirage of dominance.
another Alien who rejected the system in his own great way :
https://youtu.be/pCpua4dvUXs ….. Fela Kuti – Beasts of No Nation
Thank you Saker for all your eye opening articles , and Mental Tackles that makes one try to change perspectives ( Good for Brain Plasticity :) )
I was wondering if you could shed some light on the relations between Russia and Africa ( i know historically , Russia had a different approach towards Africa in contrast to the Western Bloc ) , i read somewhere that Russia is looking to renew its commercial links with various african countries
anyway , thank you again for your contribution and looking forward to reading you again
About Christ, you say ….”His (historical) existence is an established historical fact as are the contents of His teachings” …these are the words of a man of faith ….not of the genius I have learned to admire for the last one year or so….nevertheless, still a huge fan
Historical existence of Christ is undisputed fact among all historians (including atheists of course). Go educate yourself.
(You may start from secular Wikipedia: “Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically”.)
We know David Koresh existed but it’s hardly the point of interest.
to Anonymous
Jesus Christ man! virtually all my gay friends are intelligent and aggressive …could we be friends? English is not my mother language … would you be so kind and help me understand the meaning of “virtually” ?
If I could butt in, the historical Jesus is one of the better attested figures in the ancient world. Scholars who’ve summarized the evidence include E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart D. Ehrman. I mention these because their work is readily available.
I feel like a trespasser in a territory inhabited by brilliant intelectuals capable of making a long list with citations …. myself I am just an old sceptical who intimidated is retreating humiliated….but not without saying that to me a scant reader any list of citations is incomplete without Harold Bloom ‘s “Jesus and Yaweh”
Not a long list of citations. Three scholars who have written popular accounts of their work. Probably better to start with the experts than a literary critic (whose book on Shakespeare I have to say I found horribly overblown).
To AEM
Breaking my promise…..but you instigated me…thank you for your polite way of telling me “go educate yourself”… I kind of resent your tagging Harold Bloom an “art critic”….
I am sure you know he is much more than that ….I apologise for appearing rude in my previous entry (although true rudes are the ones that are rude unwilling….). Best regards
gatopreto
Absolutely not saying, Go educate yourself! Only, Here are some good writers on a subject interests you. I can recommend them. Harold Bloom – no insult intended. He’s a literary critic, a professor of English literature (now of “humanities”). All I’m saying is, He’s not a biblical scholar, historian, classicist, or whatever is relevant to assessing the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. Really didn’t intend any offence.
Please shut down this conversation now. Thanks.
Mr Saker:
I am a bit late, because I have been a bit busy
Commenting on your ideological stances, I am delighted to see people like you that can be free of dogmas of political correctness and the “official” instated “Liberal” ideology of “apoliticism and consensus” (on capitalism and Western values supremacy). Although I do not agree fully with you, I admire your brave spirit in fight for sovereignty and resistnce, and also to de-construct the ideological dogmas of the Empire.
Once i wrot an article for this blog, some people did not understand why I was so critic with the “Left”. I fact (and is due to my poor English I did not eplain better that time), my criticism wa more to the “neo-Left” which has been absorbed by the imperialist ideology via post-material ideology. In this sense I am a “Paleo-Marxist” (a pre-1968 Marxist), that is very far away form the contemporary “consensus Left” (even teh so-called “radica Left”). That way, I am much more closer to a conservative like you than from an average “progressive”.
A Serbian song from Kosovo for you (and for all readers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smxpYLVkJrA
Cheers!
I know this discussion has pretty much drawn to a close, but here’s just one last thank-you cum question relating to the excellent Soul of the East website.
It promotes a (somewhat idealized?) image of the mystic union between the Orthodox Church, the Russian state, and the people (best represented by the peasants). It promotes it as a model of what a polity can be at its best.
By the last years of Tsarist rule, Russians were in the minority within the Russian Empire. This raises an obvious question about how this minority governed the minorities. By definition, they were not part of the mystic union. They were tolerated – but only insofar as consistent with the interests of the Russians and their “intolerant” religion (and this extended to inflicting violence).
I do not see how the polity described on the site can work as a model except in an entirely homogeneous culture.
The Saker has touched on this in discussing Muslims in Russia. I still do not quite get it. Do all non-Orthodox enjoy dhimmi status, as it were?
So my initial question about a “people’s monarchy” now comes in three parts: How is libertarian autocracy possible; how can a model from medieval times apply to the modern industrialized world; how can an exceptionalist model work in a multi-cultural polity.
Saker seems to think all European countries have a colonial past and a debt to the Muslims. Well, we do not. My country never exploited the Middle East. Never.
Saker lives in Florida, a country I have never seen and do not wish to see. Does he worry about his daughter/daughters? I do every day and my feelings are not taken seriously.
I might be a square or 2 to the south and east of yours.
I would have graduated from Cal in 1966 had I not spent a few years on active duty in Viet Nam. Needless to say, I grew up with an anti-Soviet bias with only three windows open in that direction,
The first was “Fiddler on the Roof.” The second was the burial music of Youri Andreyivitch’s mother in the movie “Doctor Zhivago,” which led, eventually to this: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL61F7A648358A3586,
and this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-cG0N94LPw&index=2&list=LL1ie_8r435CaGJPLPev1Z_w
I am a former Christian/Believer in a God. I am also a former musician, and am married to a professional musician.
She has performed twice for John Paul II, as the liturgical music director of an outdoor mass in Anchorage, AK. (Below freezing with over 10% of the entire state’s population in attendance.) The second was at his personal invitation at the Basilica of St. Peter’s in Rome. She was later the assistant chorus master for a production of the opera “War and Peace” during the 1990 Goodwill Games in Seattle.
RT is opening the third window on the Russian Empire. AJAM is helping.
One advantage to having my graduation delayed a bit was having to read “Limits to Growth.” It was required reading then. It remains the only undergraduate textbook in my library. Have you read it, or seen this: http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=703