As always, in his recent Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly Putin touched on many topics including the Russian constitution, the slow implementation of Presidential decrees, healthcare, social issues, the budget, the military and other topics. Yet, I believe that the most important part of his speech is the following one: (emphasis added)
We have always been proud of our country. But we don’t have superpower aspirations; we don’t want global or regional domination, we don’t interfere with anyone’s interests, trying to play a patron, we are not going to lecture others. But we will strive to be leaders by defending international law, making sure that national sovereignty, independence and identity are respected. This is a natural approach for a country like Russia with its great history and culture, its vast experience in the area of different ethnicities living in harmony, side by side, in one state. This is different from the so-called tolerance, which is gender-free and futile.
Today many countries revisit their moral standards, erasing national traditions and boundaries between different ethnicities and cultures. Society is asked to respect every person’s right to freedom of thought, political vitews and private life, which are good values. But now people also have to treat evil and good equally, which is strange, because these are opposite things. Not only does such destruction of traditional values have negative effects on societies, but it is also anti-democratic to the core, because these are abstract ideas applied to real life despite of what the majority of people think. Most people don’t accept such changes and suggested revisions.
And we know that more and more people in the world support our approach of protecting traditional values, which have been a spiritual and moral foundation of our civilization and every nation. We value traditional family and genuine human life, including a person’s religious life; not just material, but also spiritual values of humanism and the world’s diversity.
Of course, this is a conservative position. But as Nikolai Berdyaev said, the meaning of conservatism is not to prevent moving forward and upward, but to prevent moving backwards and downward, into chaotic darkness, back to the primitive state.
Coming from a world leader, these are, I believe, amazing words because they are an open and direct challenge to the dominating ideology of the AngloZionist Empire.
The first point is obvious: whereas the AngloZionist Empire has the use of force or the threat of use of force as the cornerstone of its international policies, Putin’s Russia is categorically against this. And this is hardly due to the relative weakness of the Russian military as some have suggested. The Russian military has changed dramatically since the past decade and it has fully recovered its position as 2nd most powerful military on the planet after the US. And yet, Russia has also made a fundamental, strategic, decision to renounce the use of military force except in self-defense or the defense of an attacked ally.
The second point is clearly aimed another key social feature of the AngloZionist social order: whereas the AngloZionist social order enforces the power of several minorities (1%, Israel Lobby, Oil Lobby, Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc.) over the majority, Putin’s Russia also categorically rejects this and says that in a democracy the majority view must prevail and while the rights of the minority must not be violated, the minority must yield to the majority.
The third point can be called “enlightened moral conservatism”: whereas the AngloZionist empire is essentially “value-free”, Putin’s Russia deliberately wants to uphold ancient moral values such as the traditional family, the centrality of spiritual and religious values, the clear affirmation that a “right” and a “wrong” exist and that the two should not be confused and the latter should never allowed to prevail over the former.
One could say that this is the Russian version of Alain Soral’s “Gauche du travail, Droite des valeurs” (the Left of labor and the Right of ethics” or the “Progressive of labor and Conservative of values”). It is the opposite of the “values” of the AngloZionist social order in which, in essence, says “don’t touch my money (= the Right of labor) and let me have sex with whomever I want (=Left or values).
As far as I know, this makes Putin the only non-Muslim political leader on the planet who openly dares to reject the AngloZionist civilizational model and who instead offer another one. Non-violence + majority rule + progressive economic + conservative spirituality. This is the exact opposite of the AngloZionist Empire’s model: violence + minority rule + reactionary economic + libertarian & secular morals.
This is the real clash of civilizations which is happening, primarily in Europe. These are two fundamentally incompatible models, two mutually exclusive social and political orders which threaten each other by their very existence and it is no wonder that Putin is so hated by the western elites and so popular with the western masses (more and more people are calling Putin the “leader of the Free World”, including in the West) and that even though the corporate Ziomedia systematically demonizes him.
This is also the real reason behind the new Cold War carefully orchestrated by the Western elites. This is also the real reason behind the unprecedented and, frankly, ridiculous involvement of the western elites in the events in the Ukraine.
This is hardly the first time that the western elites feel that Russia represents a civilizational threat just by its mere existence. During the Crimean War Cardinal Sibor, Archbishop of Paris, declared “It is a sacred deed, a God-pleasing deed, to ward off the Photian heresy [Orthodoxy], subjugate it and destroy it with a new crusade. This is the clear goal of today’s crusade. Such was the goal of all the crusades, even if all their participants were not fully aware of it. The war which France is now preparing to wage against Russia is not a political war but a holy war. It is not a war between two governments or between two peoples, but is precisely a religious war, and other reasons presented are only pretexts” while Pope Pius X declared during the World One I ‘Se vince la Russia, vince lo scisma‘ (if Russia wins, then it’s the schism which wins).
First the western elites declared a crusade against Russia in the name of the Papacy (Teutonic Knights) then in the name of Freemasonry (Napoleon), then again in the name of the Papacy (Crimean War), then in the name of imperialism (WWI), then in the name of racial superiority (WWII), then in the name of democracy and capitalism (Cold War I) and now the next “Cold War II” will be fought in the name of homosexuality and secularism. Truly Marx was right when he said that “history repeats itself the first as tragedy, then as farce“.
The Saker
I think there is not one iota of change. It was always so. Russia / the USSR was always able to insist on ‘international’ ideas because a) it could insist that internal soviet conditions agree b) it was in world order, country #2 – and did not not have to show it’s true hand.
The USA has been in the meantime allowed to transmogrify itself into a torturing, violent, greedy tyrant.
Which is what you get.
We need leadership from the EU (not yet available) and the Church (now coming along, thank you) to promote and extend love amongst nations and peoples. Both nationalism and capitalism, not to speak of formal communism, have all brought us to grief.
We need now to think of Mother Earth.
Hey Saker,
On the topic of how civilization should be structured, I’ve recently been listening to Stefan Molyneux and his ideas on anarcho-capitalism, have you heard of him or his show Freedomain Radio? I would very much like to hear your opinion on his vision of society. His (highly popular) Youtube channel is here http://www.youtube.com/user/stefbot/videos.
Regards
@Marx said…
Saker, you deprived me of the opportunity to utter a “bon mot”! But that’s the real thing.
I will put the beggining of the assault against Holy Rus before the Teutons.
Cheers
WizOz
The current events in Ucraine and in the Dominican Republic are cultural battlegrounds where the NWO are attempting to elbow there way in. Traditional societies and moral values are openly being assaulted. I hope Putin does inspire more people to throw off the shackles of ZATO imperialism.
Fernando
@SG:anarcho-capitalism
I know these ideas and I have to disappoint you by saying that I don’t like them. First, I believe that the state is what should stand between the powerful and the weak. Notice, I did *not* say that the state by nature does that, only that it *should* be doing that: securing the will, the sovereignty, of the majority against the powerful and rich. Then, I don’t like capitalism either. I am much more of a socialist, at least in economic terms. First, capitalism is based on usury, then it is also based on infinite grown in a finite environment and, finally, it says that the sum of all the greeds of man will yield something good. I disagree with that and I am very much an ANTI-capitalist. Now, I know about the Austrian school and all the rest of it – to me this ideology is even more detached from reality and human nature than Marxism. So no, I am much more of a “socialist statist” to use the terminology of the anarcho-capitalist & libertarians.
WizOz:I will put the beggining of the assault against Holy Rus before the Teutons.
From the West? When would you trace its beginnings?
Cheers,
The Saker
@Assault…
Yes, from the West. Hungary and Poland begin their eastern expansion (in cooperation or in rivalry)at the end of the XIIth Century. Hungary was the dominant force.
In the wake of the IVth Crusade the Hungarian-Polish expansionism in the Russian territories gain a strong confessional colouring. Between 1204-1235 a number of expeditions take place against Halytsch accompanied by efforts to snatch these territories from “Schism” and bring them under the Popes. It is true that the Teutons have been first settled in a territory north of Hungary (most likely in Maramures and not in Transylvania which was not really completely conquered by the Hungarians) in 1211 obviously in order to further the expansion. They came into conflict with the King Andrew II and evicted. Eventually they settled in Prussia.
The Great Tartar Invasion of 1241 stops these first encroachments of the West.
Cheers,
WizOz
@Fernando
13 December, 2013 21:11
Could you briefly point out which development? The last news I heard was the stripping of nationality from Dominican born Haitians.
And of course the endless building of multinational owned all in resorts.
(Santiago looks just like a poor section of Tampa, Fl when you travel by bus)
Putin’s emphasis on the principle of “equality” is spot on. This sophistic (and masonic) principle has become the cornerstone of western “values”. Together with “tolerance”, it is meant to destroy the foundations of the Christian values. The concept of sin has been abolished. Marriage used to be a Christian sacrament. Today, in many Western countries, the “equality principle” has already turned marriage into institutionalized sodomy. Globalist Pope Francis, whose election was officially “welcomed” by the B’nai B’rith, has already extended a message of “Tolerance for LGBT people”.
If you read what the European Union plans for the sexual education of children, you might also come to the conclusion that pedophilia will eventually become not only legal, but also a “right”.
http://www.bzga-whocc.de/pdf.php?id=061a863a0fdf28218e4fe9e1b3f463b3
Sexual education is being enforced from kindergarten age according to another sophistic principle: the concept of human rights (the masonic religion of man). The globalist bodies, including the EU, have decreed that children have the “right” to receive sexual education, therefore parents opposing that “right” will be criminalized.
Our Ukrainian friends should read the above document before assuming that the “EU democracy and rule of law” peddled by their own politicians is something devoutly to be wished.
One point of concern though.
Later in his speech, Putin comes to the Eurasian Economic Union agreement.
From Wiki: “Eurasian Commission, the supranational governing body of the Eurasian Economic Space, which started work on 1 January 2012. The Commission is modelled on the European Commission”. This raises a few questions:
What is the meaning of the Eurasian Commission being “supranational” and modelled on the European Commission? Does it imply similarly a loss of sovereignty for the member states? Is Russia building a supranational Eurasian bloc modelled on the Euro-Atlantic bloc, and this in a WG context?. This would contradict Putin’s statement: “we don’t want global or regional domination”.
Is Russia only preserving its cultural sphere, but globally playing the same end game?
alizard
@Saker
You asked “Do you agree with me that there a clash of civilizations now taking place between Russia and the West? Are we seeing the beginnings of a “Cold War II”? Or yet another anti-Russian crusade?”
The answer of course will be found if we look where the barrel of the gun is pointed. The guns could be actual weapons or propaganda. In fact, Putin is in the crosshairs of several guns- 1. Ukraine 2. The homo lobby 3. Pussy riot 4. Greenpeace. So yes, he’s pissed off the West and so is in its sights.
But I think he should go the whole hog and quit making ritual noises about caring for Israel’s security as he does towards the end of his speech.
@Saker
“I know these ideas and I have to disappoint you by saying that I don’t like them”
Haha I’m not disappointed. I’m not sold on it either, just wanted to see what you thought.
@alizard:What is the meaning of the Eurasian Commission being “supranational” and modelled on the European Commission? Does it imply similarly a loss of sovereignty for the member states? Is Russia building a supranational Eurasian bloc modelled on the Euro-Atlantic bloc, and this in a WG context?.
All interesting questions and I share your concern about this. “Supranational” does not worry me because I think that it is pretty clear that the end goal is a federation of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus which I consider historically, culturally and politically logical and desirable. I have no problems with that. However, “modelled on the EC” that scares me, especially if that will include other members beyond the 3 above. The BIG MISTAKE of the entire European project was to grow far too big, it should have stayed much smaller and it should have progressed in tiny small, gradual, steps. I hope that Russia avoids that pitfall. No matter what, Russia *will* dominiate the region, so the only issue is *how*. I personally hope for a single federal core composed of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, as the center of a larger community of allied nations with a great deal of flexibility built into the system. I would image that countries outside the Big Three should keep their currencies and most of the attributes of sovereignty.
Does that make sense to you?
Cheers,
The Saker
The Chaos Ukranian.
La revanche d’Obama contre Poutine, par Pierre Dortiguier
« Une seconde gifle infligée au locataire de la Maison Blanche pourrait par un jeu logique, pousser non pas l’Ukraine vers l’Europe, mais l’Europe du milieu, vers la Russie, et les conséquences en seraient catastrophiques pour Obama! Dieu veuille que pareil événement se produise!»
http://french.irib.ir/analyses/chroniques/item/306016-la-revanche-d-obama-contre-poutine,-par-pierre-dortiguier
@Anonymous:But I think he should go the whole hog and quit making ritual noises about caring for Israel’s security as he does towards the end of his speech.
That is hard for him to do. He is very popular in Israel and he has a good rapport with Russian Jewry, and I think that this support is important, especially after he mercilessly purged so many Jewish oligarchs. I don’t think that having bad relations with organized Jewry has to be an end in itself. The goal has to be not to fall under its influence and not let it introduce the kind of rot it did in the USA, but as long as organized Jewry in Russia is patriotic (and there *ARE* patriotic Jews in Russia, such as the TV host Vladimir Soloviev) and as long as organized Jewry in Russia is just like any other ethnic group, I do not see the point of provoking them. As for Israel, Putin cannot simply ignore the fact that it full of Russian citizens, many of which are frightened by the local propaganda. So he tells them “hey, we got your back, don’t worry”. I see nothing wrong with that either. The point is not to had Israel disappear into a gigantic ball of fire, but to force it to become a civilized, non-racist and international law compliant “normal state” with full rights for the Palestinians. Putin is not going to do MORE for the (currently most undeserving) Palestinians that anybody else, nor does he owe anybody in the Middle-East anything, its the other way around – Putin basically saved Syria and Iran, at least for the time being. So I think that a few obsequious words in a speech are no big deal, as long as he knows that its for show.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Cheers,
The Saker
APOL: Une seconde gifle infligée au locataire de la Maison Blanche pourrait par un jeu logique, pousser non pas l’Ukraine vers l’Europe, mais l’Europe du milieu, vers la Russie,
Je suis pas sur de comprendre ce qu’il veut dire ici. Entends-il dire que l’Europe Centrale serait poussée vers les Russie a cause de l’attitude des Américains? Si c’est bien ca – c’est pas pour bientôt car, malheureusement, toute l’Europe centre semble être déterminée a être la laquais soumis de l’Empire sauf, peut-être, la Hongrie, et encore…
Vous comprenez cette phrase comment?
Meilleures salutations,
Le Saqr
High Saker,
Very informative as always but I’m most curious about your references, in this essay and the previous one, regarding Napoleon and Free Masonry. I’ve been looking into it and discovered some interesting tidbits (if they are true) such as the “hidden hand” that is made famous in Napoleon portraits with his hand in vest.
Any additional info or resources about that might unravel some mysteries for me.
Thanks.
@Lysander: Hi my friend, hope that you are well. On Napoleon’s freemasonry you can find info very easily since Freemasons have never made a secret of their influence during this era. Napoleon himself and his generals were pretty much all masons and the masonic symbolism is all over the symbols of the French state at the time. A quick look on the net yielded this to me:
Official Masonic website, book in French:
http://www.hiram.be/L-Etat-major-maconnique-de-Napoleon_a3038.html
Another official masonic publication:
http://rehmlac.com/recursos/vols/v3/n1/rehmlac.vol3.n1-esaunier.pdf
Good article in English:
http://www.napoleon-empire.com/freemason.php
I am sure that if you spent 30min looking around, you can find much better sources. This is an old topic, so its all in the open now, no secrets here :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Thanks, that’s very interesting reading. Do you think Stalin might have been a Mason?
You said you think that governments should stand between the powerful/rich and the citizens. Historically the rich and powerful have almost always been in control of the government and used it for their own ends. In very few cases has it been the opposite. The is the case for limited government and freedom of the peasants from over taxation. I do not understand how you can be “more of a socialist”. It’s not working in France, it didn’t work in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or anywhere really. I’ll close with a quote from Putin himself, ““Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,” said Putin. “President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.”
I really don’t understand how you can be in favor of governments having enormous power to tax in order to dominate its citizens as being a good thing. In the US the IRS is showing just how powerful a weapon it is for the Anglo-elite to be able to intimidate its opposition using an audit as a weapon.
oops that Putin quote was fake.
Dear Saker,
Was it Plato who said, hugely paraphrased, that those who rule can not own and those who own can not rule? Is so, that would address the concerns raised by Anonymous 15 Dec 01:44?
And, isn’t the Chinese communist party, as flawed as it may be, to provide such separation of money and governance? A similar function would be carried out by any responsible and humane socialist government.
BTW, there is a spirited debate on Kremlim Stooge regarding the battle between on what I (Patient Observer) call the Anglo Roman empire and the Orthodox east. I would greatly appreciate your comments on our thesis.
Thanks!
@Saker,
I would also feel comfortable with a plain and classic Russian Federation dominating its natural region. But I probably failed to convey my concern in the proper terms.
In my view, “supranational” and “modelled on the EC” are incompatible with a federation of sovereign states.
I do not see any “mistake” in the European Union project. It is by essence an oligarchic project, therefore undemocratic. Remember the vote for the European Constitution in 2005: rejected by the majority of the French and Dutch people, the very same text was later repackaged into the Lisbon Treaty and forced down the throat of the people through their respective Parlements. The EU, as an intermediary phase toward a Euro-Atlantic bloc, is part of the Talmudic enterprise. Under which auspices could the the canonization of Judas Iscariot take place? I view today the sodomite marriage as being an event of the same nature. This clearly indicates who is in charge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9irUEMfPCE#t=0
This video shows the symbolic battle between the Italian tricolour against the European flag.
What the Italian demonstrator with a bloody face says at the end is basically this: “The EU has brought the country on its knees, we want our national sovereignty back.
This is also what is at stake in the Eurasian Union: the destruction of national sovereignties for the benefit of the same end game being played in the Western bloc.
Best
alizard
@Lysander:Do you think Stalin might have been a Mason?
No. Of course, I cannot prove that, but I base my opinion on the following:
a) the absence of any positive evidence that he was a Mason.
b) the fact that he strongly opposed Masons and those connected to them (Trotsky).
c) the fact that he was extremely suspicious of foreign influence inside the country and the Party.
d) the hatred Masonic propaganda has for him.
Stalin was not an ideologue like Trotsky or Lenin, he was a *Caucasian bandit/thug*. This is really important to understand the man. He was a pragmatist and while no nationalist of any kind (not Georgian, not Russian) he was “patriotic” in the “my clan” kind of sense. He was an absolute pragmatist, not pathologically vicious or cruel, but absolutely ruthless. He had very strong personal courage and willpower, and he was very well read (even if he never manged to lose his Georgian accent which made many Russians mistake him for an unsophisticated person, which he was definitely not). He was definitely one of the greatest leaders of history, in the Genghis Khan, Tamerlan or Ivan the Terrible sense – not somebody I would have chosen to live under, but somebody who was clearly the smartest and shrewdest leader of his time. I don’t see any freemasonery fitting in that kind of profile at all. The portraits which show him with a hand inside his trench coat are just showing him aping other great politicians, that all.
My 2cts.
The Saker
@Anonymous:You said you think that governments should stand between the powerful/rich and the citizens. Historically the rich and powerful have almost always been in control of the government and used it for their own ends. In very few cases has it been the opposite
This is a very crude representation of history. In most cases it was neither black or white, but shades of grey. This is one of the reasons I don’t like anarchism and libertarianism: the grossly oversimplify complex issues and thus present a 100% logical theory which no connection to reality. I would also notice that those people who lived in an organized state did FAR better than those who lived as tribes or nomads – which anarchists and libertarians always ignore.
The is the case for limited government and freedom of the peasants from over taxation. I do not understand how you can be “more of a socialist”. It’s not working in France, it didn’t work in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or anywhere really
Again – a typical example of ideology over facts. First, Socialism DID work in France for a very long time until the Socialists de-socialized themselves. The case of the USSR proves nothing, since it is not socialism which caused this system to collapse, but other factors. Finally, I would agree that socialism cannot compete against capitalism, but does that make the latter better? A healthy body cannot compete against a tumor cell. If you put a man and a hyena in a pit, the pit will always prevail against the man. Does that make cancer cells or hyenas better than healthy cells or humans?
Anarcho-capitalisto-libertarians make the worst of Marxists look pragmatic and well-read because unlike the latter, the former really do not bother with history at all, at least beyond sweeping generalizations like “socialism does not work”, or “the state kills more than wars”, etc. etc. etc.
What anarcho-capitalists-libertarians need to do first is ask themselves a simple, basic, question: what is the nature and function of a state? No, I don’t mean an answer in the form of a slogan – I mean a DISCUSSION of what kind of states have been formed, why, by whom and how they have evolved. You will immediately see another fallacy of the anarcho-libertarian ideology: there never as such a thing as “The” state. There have been many different types of state. The Roman state was not the same has the Inca state, which was different from the Russian Empire which was different from Bismark’s Germany of de Gaulle’s France.
Again, this is the key issue: the MANY and DIFFERENT type of answers history gives to the question of the NATURE and FUNCTION (libertarians and anarchists always confuse and conflate these two categories) of the state.
The above is just a pointer – you need to take it from there yourself.
Cheers!
The Saker
@alizard:In my view, “supranational” and “modeled on the EC” are incompatible with a federation of sovereign states.
I do not see any “mistake” in the European Union project. It is by essence an oligarchic project, therefore undemocratic
Ok, I understand what you mean and in this case I think that I can reassure you. When Putin says “modeled on the EU” he really only means “sovereign states with some supra-national institutions” but most definitely not an oligarchic trans-national dictatorship. You have to see his words in the context of the rest where he stresses DEMOCRACY understood as MAJORITY rule (as oppose to minoritie(s) rule over the majority). I think Putin’s record to either crushing oligarchs or getting them to heel when told so by the state speaks for itself. Basically, Putin is not a banker or an internationalist – he is an intelligence officers and a patriot and for him the folks running the EU are the enemy, not an example to emulate.
I hope that I have reassured you and thanks for your clarification.
Cheers!
The Saker
@Anonymous: , there is a spirited debate on Kremlim Stooge regarding the battle between on what I (Patient Observer) call the Anglo Roman empire and the Orthodox east. I would greatly appreciate your comments on our thesis.
Wow,this is a big one. I honestly have to tell you that I don’t have the time to join your discussion: I am already barely keeping up with the comments and correspondence I get on this blog, and I do that in the midst of an already hectic moment in my life and on shitty computer hardware (my main monitor just died on me). I will, however, contribute this which, I am sure, will upset everybody and yet is true:
Modern, Western, Europe does not have its roots in Rome or even in ancient Greece. Yes, I know, Europeans love to fancy themselves as successors to Greeks and Romans, but that is simply a myth, a founding myth, but a myth with NO basis in reality. The real roots of the Western civilization come from the Franks and the “Kingdon of the Franks” (regnum Francorum) which they founded in the 5th century. From the 7th through the 8th century the Franks brutally repressed and persecuted the real Romans and, eventually, they replaced the real Romans with themselves and called themselves “Romans”. This process culminated with Charlemagne, who was King of the Franks, crowed himself as Emperor of the Romans. You can read all about this here: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm.
In the meantime, the real Roman civilization and culture survived in Byzantium whose inhabitants referred to themselves as “Romans” and who were called “Rum” by the Arabs. That “real Rome” survived the fall of Western Rome by a FULL MILLENIUM (Rome fell in 476 while Constantinople fell in 1453). Note that during the same 1000 years Western Europe underwent what is called the “Dark Ages”. In other words, 1000 years separate Western Europe from Rome. In contrast, Russia became the “Third Rome” as a natural and even formal successor to the East Roman Empire of Byzantium.
Bottom line: there never was a Holy Roman (Germanic) Empire any more than there was a Anglo-Roman Empire – these are all European myths. Northern Europe invaded, occupied and subjugated Southern Europe, claimed to have Roman origins, underwent a full 1000 years of Dark Ages and came out of that during the Renaissance which gave birth to modern Europe and modern Europe eventually gave birth to the British Empire which had the USA as its illegitimate offspring which, after WWII, created the Anglosphere and the AngloZionist Empire.
Sorry, that is really all I have time to write today. But I hope that you will investigate that for yourself :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
@Saker,
Thanks for your response. I do also hope that Putin will remain that anchor of sanity that our world badly needs.
Best
alizard
@Stalin mason,
Most certainly not. He was not stupid either. The aura of the uncultured, limited, laking any talent,clueles man, was created by the Trotskyistes, the “intelligent” and “cultured”, “scientific” communists. Stalin was a seminarian.
Talking about “Europe” one should not disregard the fact that Charlemagne was hailed as a “new David” and his Empire as the “new Israel”. A judaizing streak is present in the “new Europe” (old Europe was the land surrounding the Bosporus straits)from the very beggining.
Not much to cheer,
WizOz
@Charlemagne:
One more thing: While Charles “The Great” was illiterate through most of his life, the entire ruling class of Byzantium could read simply because they had to finish primary school. Many had higher degrees and spoke several languages.
So, really, what we have is illiterate Franks in the West introducing 1000 years of darkness versus highly educated Romans in the East who continued the Greek and Roman civilization for 1000 years.
Sorry, I know this hurts, but that is the truth.
The Saker
Dear Saker,
Thank you for your response and viewpoints. Actually, your comments were not upsetting at all, just peripheral to my topic. The term “roman” was simply meant to refer to the Roman Catholic church as a a major asset and leading player in the war against Orthodoxy. Frankly, my knowledge in the area you discussed is so limited that it would not even allow me to be wrong. However, please continue to focus on your own work which I enjoy immensely.
Thanks.
Patient Observer
@Patient Observer:Roman Catholic church as a a major asset and leading player in the war against Orthodoxy.
That I can only fully agree on and, frankly, I would argue that this is simply indisputable – the record on that is too big, even coming from Papist sources.
As for my comments, I did not mean that they would be upsetting to you, but they are definitely offensive to a lot of people because:
A) West Europeans are taught since kindergarten than “Western civilization was born in Greece” and I tell them that this is utter nonsense and that, in fact, Western civilization was born from the fight AGAINST Greece and Rome.
B) Papists really love to think of themselves are “Roman” and “Catholic” (meaning “universal”) and I tell them that they are neither, that they are Frankish and Germanic.
I also have to use the term “Papist” because if I referred to the Papacy by “Frankish Germanic Sect” (instead of “Roman Catholic Church”) nobody would understand even though such a categorization would be historically accurate.
But, of course, the Frankish Germanic Sect is pretty much The Arch Enemy (all in caps) of Russia and of Orthodox Christianity. Sure, since Vatican II it lots a lot of its fangs, but the anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox hostility of the Papacy has now passed from the Papacy to the post-Christian “West”.
It is also interesting to note that Northern Europe is far more anti-Russian that Southern Europe even though the Papacy has its (un-)Holy See in Italy. Nowadays the most anti-Russian politics come from The City in London and from Germany whereas most Mediterranean countries are generally more or less pro-Russian. Even here the Northern Franks versus Southern Romans (which lived all around the Mediterranean – Mare Nostrum) paradigm still holds, even though it is ignored by sociologists and politicians. I promise you – as soon as you reject the East vs West paradigm and look at it as a North vs South you suddenly connect so many dots of West European history that it blows your mind. The only problem with that is that it is a complete rejection of the founding myths of modern West European society. It also completely kills the very concept of “L’Occident Chretien” (The Christian West) which the French Right loves so much. So, in my experience, most people either get offended or don’t care. I am happy that this is not the case with you.
Cheers and kind regards,
The Saker
@North vs South,
That’s it, indeed. An ongoing revision of the presupositions regarding the origins of WC (the short for Western Civilisation and not water closet)on archeological, linguistic, history of religions lines shows earlier dates for “Viking”(type) invasions of the Ancient World originatig on the rims of Northern Seas and the Atlantic, maybe even navigators and tradesmen from farther away, directed at the really “Old European” neo-eneolithic civilisations (of Tripolye-Cucuteni type).
The picture is certainly more complicated than that (it involves concomitant invasions of asian peoples of uralo-altaic origin) and I am not going to give lectures in the archeology of Europe. There is enough material on the net and its study is challenging and enriching experience.
Cheers,
WizOz
In other words, 1000 years separate Western Europe from Rome. In contrast, Russia became the “Third Rome” as a natural and even formal successor to the East Roman Empire of Byzantium.”
Very interesting that you mention this.
Muslim historians say the exact same thing.
The same goes for the inevitable clash of east (Islam and orthodox Russia) vs west.
one of my sources is Sheikh imran Hussein, have you heard of him?
Saker, I’d interpret the ‘family values’ part of President Putin’s speech slightly differently. I think it’s becoming increasingly obvious to those countries caught in the cross hairs of the West that LGBT rights movements increasingly function as a kind of Trojan Horse further opening the door to those whose ultimate goal is subversion and regime change. The many-headed hydra that is the National Endowment for Democracy can easily pony-up ‘civil society’ activists to help putatative LGBT movements along while its real agenda remains that of overthrowing governments it doesn’t like irrespective of whether those governments have been democratically elected.
The LGBT band wagon functions very effectively as a way of recruiting liberal elite opinion formers in western countries into the anti-whichever-country-is- targeted-for-destabilisation camp. A straight forward “Hey, let’s overthrow the Russian government” probably wouldn’t attract much liberal, elite support but phrase it as “it’s our duty to support LGBT rights in Russia” and George Clooney and those like him rush to climb aboard. Focusing on something like LGBT rights gives endless opportunities for endless demonization, ratcheting up of tensions, economic warfare, particularly the threat of sanctions, boycotts etc, etc.
I suspect Putin is giving notice that Russia, absolutely correctly, is not letting this particular Trojan Horse through the gates.
@Anonymous:Sheikh imran Hussein, have you heard of him?
Yes, albeit only recently. I have heard his lecture in and on Russia and he knows the topic very very well. Alain Soral knows him personally and often quotes him too.
@Fern:I suspect Putin is giving notice that Russia, absolutely correctly, is not letting this particular Trojan Horse through the gates.
That makes perfectly good sense. Yes, I think that you are correct.
@Sheikh Imran Hussein,
A peaceful cohabitation and even collaboration between Christians and Muslims is to be welcomed. But Christians should not disregard the fact that Islam not only does not recognize that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,that He died on the cross for our sins, that He raised from the dead, but consider those who believe blasphemers who are enjoyned to “desist” or suffer severe penalties.
WizOz
@wizOz I believe this is where hatred and animosity that eastern orthodox Christians have for Islam stems from.
..these are a few paragraphs which you can find on this link dealing with various topics on eschatology and the middle east.
http://www.imranhosein.org/articles/signs-of-the-last-day/397-madinah-returns-to-center-stage-in-akhir-al-zamn.html
Consider the following:
The army that conquered Constantinople was comprised of several units. Some were volunteers who were attracted by the prospect of looting the city. Others were well-trained regular troops drawn from all parts of the Ottoman Empire. But at the heart of that Ottoman army was the best-trained elite unit of Janissaries. These were comprised of Christian children who were taken by force from their parents (in territories conquered by the Ottomans), and who were then converted to Islam by force and were given the best military training possible. They all owed their loyalty personally to the Sultan. Never in the history of Islam did Muslims ever disgrace Islam in such a way as to seize Christian children and convert them by force to Islam, and to then use them as such an elite fighting force that was supposed to be fighting in the name of Islam. This was manifestly sinful, monstrously embarrassing and a direct violation of Allah’s command in the Qur’an prohibiting conversion to Islam by force. The predictable result was to create eternal hatred and enmity for Islam and Muslims in the territories from which these Christian children were abducted. Those eastern Christian territories were precisely the Rūm concerning whom the Prophet prophesied that Muslims would enter into an End-Time alliance (i.e., with them).
When the Ottoman army broke through the defenses of the city and finally succeeded in entering the city as conquerors, what followed was “killing, looting, raping, burning and enslaving”. This may have been, and may still be the way that armies behave when they conquer a city, but this was not the way of Islam which enjoins respect and protection for the lives and honour of women, children, the elderly and those – like priests – whose lives are devoted to religion. Indeed there is evidence that even the Christian churches and monasteries were violated by the rampaging so-called Islamic army which broke in and proceeded to rape, plunder and kill even inside the church. The Sultan gave permission for this to continue, unrestricted by any ethical norms of warfare, for a period of three days. The Ottomans were unconcerned about the fact that Constantinople was the capital city of Byzantine Christianity (or Rūm). Such conduct on the part of the Ottoman army ensured eternal hatred for Islam in Byzantium.
Continued..
But the conduct of the Sultan himself, as soon as he entered the city, was deplorable. He disgracefully and sinfully ordered that the great Byzantine Cathedral of Hagia Sophia which had been constructed 1000 years earlier by the Emperor Justinian, to be converted into a Masjid. When Muslims conquered Jerusalem at the time of theKhilāfah of Umar bin al-Kahttab, the Patriach of Jerusalem, Sophronius, refused to hand over the city to other than the Khalīfah himself. Umar had to travel from Madinah to Jerusalem to accept the keys to the city. While he was being escorted on a tour of the holy churches of Jerusalem the time for Salāt arrived and the Patriach graciously invited Umar to perform his Salāt right there in the Church of the Resurrection. Umar declined because he feared that it might constitute grounds for Muslims to subsequently convert the church to a Masjid. The Ottoman conversion of Hagia Sophia to a Masjid was not an ordinary event. This was the greatest and most magnificent church in the entire Christian world. It had retained that position for 1000 years. In converting the church to a Masjid the Sultan not only embarrassed the world of Islam, but also drove a venomous knife into the very heart of eastern Byzantine Christianity that would never ever be forgotten. While others may convert churches, monasteries and even masājid (e.g. Cordoba) an Amīr who is personally praised by the Prophet himself cannot be expected to descend to that disgraceful standard of conduct.
We may note finally that Ottoman Sultans never married – because they did want to be encumbered with respect for legal rights which Islam gave to wives and to blood brothers (in matters pertaining to succession to leadership in a hereditary system of leadership). And so they restricted themselves to sleeping with slaves. Islam restricted a man to four wives, but there was no restriction as to how many female slaves he could own and with whom he could sleep. And so Ottoman Sultans had a stable of slaves referred to as the Harem. These women were almost exclusively taken from conquered Christian territories. They had no rights. The prophet of Islam had commanded: Give your slaves to eat the food that you yourself eat, and give them to wear the clothes that you yourself wear. Thus Islam restored the humanity of slaves and gave them rights. The Ottoman Sultans on the other hand, would sleep with a slave woman, and if she became pregnant and gave birth to a son, he would then terminate all sexual contact with her. He did this to ensure that she would have no more children, and hence no rivals to her son if he were ever to become Sultan himself. The Prophet (sallalahu ‘alaihiwasallam) declared that “marriage was a half of faith”. It is not at all possible that the blessed prophet would condone such conduct on the part of Ottoman Sultans.
@WizOz & Anonymous: I am about to write an article on this topic so “hold you fire” and stay tuned. Still, I will submit the following to you:
Orthodox Christian <-> Muslim relations should be considered at three different levels:
1) (Dogmatic) Theology: what each religion believes
2) History: grievances that each party could hold against the other
3) Ethics and Ethos: morals, customs and worldview
I think that the three should be look at separately to avoid conflating different issues. I have an article ready about this in my head, I just need the time to sit down and write it. Can I ask you to “hold you fire” and wait a little longer?
I will address issues such as the status of the dhimmis, Constantinople, Kazan, the Ottoman Empire and the war in Chechnia, I promise :-)
Kind regards and many thanks!
The Saker
@Orthodox vs Islam,
I am looking forward to your article.
I am sure that it won’t contain any of the naivetes sucrees in the genre of The Anonymus of 17.12.13 at 6:59 & 8:13.
WizOz
@WizOz:Orthodox vs Islam
Well, I might disappoint you. First, its not gonna be Orthodox vs Islam but Orthodox and Islam. Second, I would not call Sheikh Imran Hossein “naive”, even though his views are clearly not endorsed by a majority of Muslims. But then, my views of Orthodoxy and not endorsed by a majority of Orthodox Christians either. In the meantime, assuming you have not seen it, here is my seven part series on Russia and Islam:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-one-introduction.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-two-russian.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-three-internal.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/02/russia-and-islam-part-four-islam-as.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/03/russia-and-islam-part-five-islam-as-ally.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/03/russia-and-islam-part-six-kremlin.html
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2013/03/russia-and-islam-part-seven-weathermans.html
But in any case, I am sure that you will have very interesting comments to make once I publish the one I am working on now as it touches upon lots of important issues, I think.
Stay tuned. Kind regards,
The Saker
@Imran…
When talking about naivete I was referring to naivete of the Anon. To be honest I don’t know much about Imran Hosein and I can’t call him either naive or non-naive, so to speak. I will comment after I read all your links.
Cheers,
WizOz