by Jimmie Moglia for the Saker blog
When events do not make sense or are such as sense cannot untie, an option is to forget all about them – the head-in-the-sand solution. Another is to remember that man is but a quintessence of dust and often, therefore, not even worth the dust that the rude wind blows in his face.
Yet another option is an attempt at interpretation, with emphasis on ‘attempt’ and limits on ‘interpretation.” In the instance, the events in question are: one, the claim – by the Western signatories of the so-called “Minsk Agreements” on Ukraine in 2014 – that they did not intend to respect them. And two, that the commitment by the USA to Gorbachev in 1989 not to expand NATO Eastward was invalid for not having been set in writing.
But how can we interpret shamelessness? For to define true shamelessness, what is it but to be nothing else but shameless? At least Shakespeareanly speaking.
In past similar historical occasions, perjurers usually found some fancy or preposterous reasons to justify their behavior. Often those affected by the perjury sought redress through vengeance, leading to bitter wars and to the execution of the perjurers. During the 100-year war (1337-1453), King Henry V, uncovered and executed three English traitors, the Earl of Cambridge, Lord Scroop and Sir Thomas Grey, who were working for the French king.
In other cases, such as the momentous event when Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement of 1939 and invaded the USSR in 1941, Germany’s official reason had some pretense of authenticity, however false or questionable. Namely the alleged violations of German air space by some Soviet planes.
Yet history abounds with enigmas. In that instance, some sources have claimed that Stalin was himself planning an attack on Germany. But as of today, available evidence doesn’t support the claim, and suggests that Stalin ignored or pretended to ignore the reported and warnings of a pending, massive German invasion.
Though even Count Schulenburg, the German ambassador to Moscow, only learned about the invasion at the last moment. And having developed strong friendships during his stay, Schulenburg was reported to be crying when he took the last train from Moscow to Berlin. For the record, he died in a German concentration camp in 1944.
Given this and other precedents, the current belligerent stance of US-NATO versus Russia is astonishing. For the Western Juntas and their puppets find no shame in hiding their bad faith.
And yet an avowed impostor usually still triggers more dislike than admiration – for the difference between an impostor and a traitor is one of degree, not substance. And breach of trust, at least at large, is still rated more negatively than positively. For example, it is not something that a job applicant (as yet), would claim in his resume as a ‘strength’– e.g. “I am particularly skilled at breaching the trust placed on me by whomsoever.”
But the American and Western European actors involved in the current breaches of trust do not seemingly care. Therefore the tragic, absurd and Orwellian posture of political and Zionist America (with Europe in tow), towards the Ukrainian business and war should give us pause. Considering that history is concerned with the relation between the unique and the general. And that a historian can no more separate them, or give precedence to one over the other, than he can separate fact from interpretation. Further realizing that there are as many interpretations as there are tongues, are hands, are accidents.
In this writing I will deal separately with the two main parties involved, Russia and the USA. For puppets nominally rule the European Union and their media is historically irrelevant.
As for the USA, the inaudible and noiseless foot of time, along with forgetfulness and dark oblivion, have erased from the collective memory the purportedly original reason that triggered the Vietnam war – and the consequent millions killed, the many maimed and the countless wounded on both sides. Namely the ‘Gulf of Tonkin’ incident. When, allegedly, North Vietnamese torpedo boats fired on a US destroyer that was in international water according to the US, and in domestic waters according to the Vietnamese. Nevertheless those involved on the US side still found it then necessary to invent a plausible cause.
But not now. What changed or what happened then between 1965 and the present? And what identifiable original or ideological cause can be found for the Western so-called ‘rulers’ to disregard the Minks agreements and the agreement about the non-expansion of NATO? Even the often quoted notion of so-called ‘plausible deniability’ has seemingly gone the way of all flesh.
One socio-political interpretation may be perhaps found well over 20 years ago. That is, a related pattern-setting event can be traced back to the Clinton-Lewinsky business. When the president of the Unites States had the gall to tell the nation, in prime time, that ‘I did not have sex with that woman’ notwithstanding ample, legal and irrefutable evidence.
That the president of the ‘exceptional nation’ would allow himself to be entrapped into an obvious and decidedly bawdy situation, while simultaneously showing himself as the lyingest knave in Christendom, should at least have raised some doubts about his qualifications for the position.
But it didn’t, and at the time various qualified voices expressed concern about the implications of the resolution. For when a preposterous lie to the public and parliament (by the highest representative of the state) is essentially endorsed by allowing the perjurer (for he was under oath) to remain in office, a pattern and precedent is established for others to follow suit in times to come.
One obvious, recent and worthy fellow and follower is Giuseppe Biden along with his remarkable family. And we can see clearly an evolution. For what with Clinton was a matter of lying to save his bottom, with Biden lying seems actually a matter of pride. (E.G. “18 FBI agents have verified that Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation!”)
Yet already after the Lewinsky business, the list of patent, unrestrained and preposterous lies excreted by subsequent US state department administrations would fill a long row of portable toilets and stink to high heaven. Beginning with Yugoslavia, followed by the very murky 9/11 affair, Saddam’s weapons of mass distraction, Gadhafi’s breach of human rights, Hassad’s ‘chemical poisons’ in Syria, bringing democracy to Afghanistan, Georgia, Ukraine, and the Middle Eastern terrorist groups that are enemies one day and freedom fighters the next, financed and supplied in either case by the exceptional nation.
Giving the proverbial seal of approval and certificate of authenticity to much of the above was, among others, the ex-CIA director, plump and pompous Pompeo. Who, in a relatively recent conference declared, in a vein of satisfied and entertaining pride, that (at the CIA), “we lied, we cheated, we stole. We had entire related training (how to) courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment.” With the audience erupting in spontaneous applause.
Yet, it is possible to detect another ideological connection among these past events and the present – namely a clear pride in disregarding the truth. Or rather, in a brave new world and new world order, verification of truth is no longer necessary. Truth is what is declared to be by questionable academia, by imposed ideology and by the interests that push forward academia, academics and ideology.
Donald Rumsfeld, departed and un-missed secretary of defence, said it best, “We create our own reality.” In the circumstances, it is already extraordinary that – seemingly – a majority of the American people have not followed suit. Otherwise most of us would be forced to walk around town with a loaded AK-47, and each state would be transformed into a myriad of mini-Ukraines at war with each other.
A thornier yarn to unravel or issue to interpret, in the limited confines of an essay, is the political-ideological relationship between the US and the Russian Federation.
As far as the US, my perceptions, for what is worth, are a possibly unwarranted extrapolation of impressions gained over the years by observing behavior, reactions, and points of view among people whom I either know personally at work, or socially, or whose manners and expressions I had occasion to follow on various media channels.
To begin with – and however obvious – it is unfair and useless to tag or label the actions of one or more US governments, politicians, questionable bigwigs or equally questionable oligarchs as representing “the Americans.”
Further considering that, historically and commercially, the evil and turbid sell more than the good and limpid. And since “to things of sale a seller’s praise belongs” the relentless media-driven emphasis on prurient narratives of evil ends up popularizing it. Considering that notoriety contains in itself an undeclared or hidden element of quasi-praise. Praise not for the evil act but for the profit produced by the sale of evil. Therefore, in the end, the evil, the turbid and the prurient join together to maximize returns. A proposition beautifully condensed in the expression, ‘anything for a buck’.
I will not pursue further this line, other than with a few remarks on what I think remains of the collective American psyche, until (if the trend continues), it will be overrun by the “new world order”, transgenderism, fluid sexuality, male maternity, wokism, cancel culture and various other Gomorrish items of insanity. Leading, finally, to the satanic substitution or replacement of the Western European population, or population of that extraction, as promoted by various notorious and vocal so-called ‘intellectuals’.
At the root of the historical American psyche, it could be said that there are two prevailing world-views, quite different from each other, and yet both deriving from events associated with the birth of the nation and the so-called conquest of the American West.
According to one view, man has to do with the practical, the risky, the impending and the inevitable. He must assert himself whatever the circumstances and the consequences. He is the macho man, the winner who takes all. Culture is essentially a feminine thing, as women are exempted from the masculine duties and have time to spare. A man (or a nation for that matter) who presents a posture of respect, regard, conformity to good form, aperture to disinterested friendship, interest, maybe with a view to learn the good points of the other, is essentially weak.
This version of the American man may admire Lincoln for having crushed the South, but especially for having succeeded in ignoring the statutes of the Confederation, which included the option for the single states to leave the Union. And perhaps, above all, for having been so smart as to sell the idea that the war was declared to free the slaves, rather than to patently ignore the covenant of the Union. Can one be smarter than that?
A more modern version of the ‘macho man’ is captured or described by the famous sentence, ‘Speak softly but carry a big stick’ – a philosophy applicable to reluctant regimes, especially in South and Central America. The assumption being that genuine kindness is a sign of weakness and he who wastes his time in ‘culture’ is equally weak and un-suited to lead armies into battle or economists into plunder.
I am broadly simplifying and generalizing, but I have personally watched one such man (and his entourage) drive to the ground a successful and innovative Fortune 500 corporation – eventually sold to the proverbial highest bidder – and I know of other cases.
These traits describe in their entirety the class ‘A’ Americans, (‘A’ for ‘arrogant’ and for simplification). They are not the majority by any means and yet, by default, design, or through the inscrutable paths of fate, end up projecting abroad the cartoon-image of the ‘typical’ American.
‘Security’ is the nominal, illogical reason why this class imposes criminal measures on behalf of the rest of the nation, claiming to act for the nation’s interest. Unable or unwilling to realize that the most tragic form of loss isn’t the loss of security – rather the loss of the capacity to imagine that things could be different.
Counteracting the ‘macho’ view there is (luckily), the great majority of the ‘other’ Americans, who are helpful, independent, practical, kind, considerate, genuinely interested in others, generous and helpful to their neighbors as a matter of course. These traits were equally necessary and indispensable during the ‘so-called’ conquest of the West. And they equally and globally describe the class ‘H’ Americans (‘H’ for ‘Humanity’).
It is an extremely simplified and maybe questionable view, but I think it goes beyond the mere generalization captured by the sentence, ‘there are good and bad people everywhere’ or similar. In fact, I do not think it is far fetched to detect, in the proliferation and almost exaltation of transgenderism, ‘fluid sexuality,’ etc. a kind of psychological reaction to the cult of the macho man of the American sort.
Moving now to Russia, the prevailing and official US ‘macho man’ attitude is reflected in and enhanced by the current posture of the US Administration on the Ukraine business. We should also include the non-American elephant-in-the-room affecting the whole thing. But it would un-necessarily complicate the historical perspective.
I will attempt – however cursorily – to observe Russia’s current posture on Ukraine and the world at large, in the context of Russian history and of the present historical moment.
Some may recall proverbial statements by notable personalities about the mystery and the ‘difficulty’ of understanding Russia. Notorious is Churchill’s saying about Russia being a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”
Actually, in the past, even notable Russians were not shy about the issue, admitting not to understand their own nation. So much so that Dostoyevsky, in his ‘Diary of a Writer’, pokes fun at this doubting class of Russians.
“In days gone by – he says – the words “I understand nothing” meant merely ignorance on the part of him who uttered them; yet, at present they bring great honor. One has only to declare with an open air and snobbishly: “I do not understand religion; I understand nothing in Russia; I understand nothing in art” – and at once he is lifted to lofty heights. And this is all the more advantageous if one, in fact, understands nothing. However, this simplified device proves nothing…”
It is possible to follow some of the speculations that may explain the effect of such national self-questioning. Of course in this field no theory is perfect but any is better than none.
Reasons for the air of mystery surrounding Russia, as per Churchill’s quote, or for the lack of national self-understanding, as noted by Dostoyevsky, would be but speculative. Dostoyevsky himself does not pursue this line of inquiry, other than hinting that it may be a self-satisfying form of eccentricity. There remains the fact, however, that the Russian culture and language have given the world some of the most extraordinary and unique literary masterpieces.
Language being the scaffold of civilization, we can more fruitfully read the history of a nation once that nation has a language for writing it. In this respect Russian culture is the tale of three cities, Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Kiev was founded around the 8th century, Moscow in the 12th and St. Petersburg at the beginning of the 18th. For traditional chroniclers and historians, Kiev has remained the “mother of Russian cities”, and memories of its accomplishments gave to the Orthodox Eastern Russians an enduring sense of unity. Especially in the midst of religious turmoil, when the confrontation between Poland’s Catholicism and Ukraine’s Orthodox Christianity led eventually to the treaty of Pereiaslav in 1654 and the formal annexation of Ukraine to Russia. Thanks to which the Cossack ruler Bohdan Khmelnytsky, who was confronting the attacks and belligerence of Poland-Lithuania, sought to join Russia and pledged the allegiance (of Ukraine) to the Tsar.
According to one school of thought, the year 1252 marks the beginning of the historical-cultural split between Russia and the rest of Europe. When Alexander Nevsky – a most beloved protagonist in the history of Russia – struck an agreement with Khan Bayi of the Mongol Golden Horde, whereby Nevsky could reign as Sovereign of Kiev and of all Russia.
This was a situation quite different from than in the West, where Western kings or emperors needed the benediction of the Pope and the Church to be able to reign – or, if not, suffer excommunication. And this on the ground that the Pope was the prime minister of God. And God, via the Pope, conferred on the kings the authority to reign.
One historically famous consequence of this arrangement took place when the German Henry IV was Emperor of the Western Roman Empire and Gregory VII the Pope. Henry nominated as Bishop of Milan a prelate not approved by the Pope. Whereupon Gregory VII excommunicated the Emperor, and the Emperor the Pope. In the instance Henry IV – in 1077 – had to yield and do penance by waiting in the winter snow for 3 days and nights outside the castle of Countess Matilde of Canossa (heir to a feudal domain that comprised most of Northern and a good part of Central Italy), until being received and pardoned by the Pope.
The feud became symbolic of the “Fight for the Investitures.” Meaning the fight for ‘who really called the shots’, when electing high-rank church officials, the pope or the emperor. And until about the time of the discovery of America, and sometimes even later, it was difficult for a king to reign by antagonizing (or without the approval of) the Pope. For it made it easier for rebellious princes to disregard the authority of the king.
That German emperor’s distressful pilgrimage gave rise to the saying “going to Canossa” indicating an act of repentance. Even in the late 1800 Bismarck, the unifier of Germany used the sentence, “We will not go to Canossa, neither in body nor in spirit” (Nach Canossa gehen wir nicht, weder körperlich noch geistig) to signal his steadfastness on a certain decision.
But the last dispute on whether it should be the church or the king to have the final say in appointing bishops or cardinals occurred during the time of another Henry IV, this time a king of France (1553-1610). Who, when essentially forced to ban the Huguenots (protestants) from France, pronounced the famous sentence, “Paris is well worth a mass” (Paris vaut bien une messe).
None of this occurred in Russia. Nevsky (with much questionable simplification) not having to fight in the East, was able to pursue a ‘nation consolidating policy’ on the Western Front. He fought victorious and legendary battles against German and Swedish invaders. And he served as Prince of Novgorod, Grand Prince of Kiev and Grand Prince of Vladimir during some of the most difficult times of Kievan Rus’ history.
The difference with the West is that there were bitter and sometimes deadly religious disputes inside the Orthodox church and factions, but they did not affect (on the whole) the integrity of the state. All the while Russia could pursue her Eastern expansion mostly with agreements and treaties with various Eastern potentates.
It may be instructive to compare significant historical events during the same timeframe in Eastern and Western Europe and their respective impact.
Nevsky’s agreement with the Mongols took place in 1252, two years after the death in the West of Frederick II of Svevia, Holy Roman Emperor, who had a German father, a Norman mother and a Sicilian upbringing.
At the time of the Crusades, Frederick II (whom later historians named “the wonder of the world” due to his personality defined as ‘polyhedric’), rather than fighting the Arabs and the Turks found an agreement with them – whereupon the pope excommunicated him. With his actions Frederick II wanted to restore the glories of Charlemagne’s original Western Roman Empire, established in 800 AD and later plagued by internal disputes, splits and wars.
Frederick II did not seem interested in Northern and Eastern Europe. He did not succeed in revitalizing the Western Roman empire, whereas Nevsky succeeded in building the base of the Russian state and eventually empire. To the success of one and failure of the other, historians have attributed the beginning of the difference between the developments of Russia and of the rest of Europe as well as the notably different and respective ‘weltanschauung’.
Though even before Nevsky, Pope Honorius III promoted the wars between Finland and the Republic of Novgorod, one of the important Russian medieval states, eventually incorporated into the Grand duchy of Moscow.
The pope authorized the bishop of Finland to establish a commercial embargo against the ‘barbarians’ (Eastern-Orthodox) who threatened Catholic Christendom in Finland. A measure echoing today’s US sanctions and embargos on Russia, due to Russia contesting Western ‘exceptionality’ and its related pretended rights to a planetary empire.
Pope Gregory IX supported or encouraged the efforts at destroying the Orthodox Church, which culminated in a famous battle between the Western coalition (Poles, Danes, Swedes, Baltic elements and German forces) against Alexander Nevsky, whose army, complemented by Mongol archers on horse – won the battle on the frozen lake Peipus (1242), now the border between Estonia and Russia. In that battle the Mongols, allied with Nevsky, forced the antagonist cavalry to retreat to the part of the lake where the ice was thinner and broke under the weight of the heavy medieval armory of the enemy.
There was a schism in the Russian Orthodox church, about 150 years after the Catholic-Protestant Western schism, triggered by Luther in 1520. But the outward items of the Russian dispute had to do with disputes that (I assume), even to a Western mind of the time may have appeared odd. Such as the advocates of unison versus harmony in singing, the use of two fingers instead of three in making the sign of the cross and similar others. Whereas the Western Schism had to do with the sought-for independence, by Luther and the Protestants, from Catholic Rome.
According to many, the most emblematic character, in the clash between Eastern and Western cultures, was Peter the Great (1672-1725). As described by an eminent Russian historian, his Russian traits were simplicity, coarseness, dislike of ceremony, conventions and etiquette, a curious sort of democracy, a love of truth and equity, a love of Russia, and at the same time “the elemental nature of a wild beast was awake in him”. And there were traits, in Peter, that may be compared with the Bolsheviks. Some historians have defined the Peter the Great as the first Bolshevik.
In the wake of Peter the Great’s era both French enlightenment and German Romanticism were imported into Russia. Emblematic of the influence that French ‘philosophes’ had on Russian culture was the era of the reforming despots, in turn exemplified by Catherine the Great’s correspondence with Voltaire. In recent years, 26 letters of her correspondence with Voltaire were returned to Russia.
In the wake of these new links and connections a wave of admiration for France and French culture spread among the Russian nobility and intellectuals at large. It became fashionable to speak French alongside Russian at home and on social occasions. A curiosity reflected in a number of Russian novels. By the way, this is one more point that throws into ridicule the current subservience of the French government to the dictates of the EU and US, as recently also commented on, in an interview, by the grandson of Charles DeGaulle on a French YT channel. Who – De Gaulle – kept France out of NATO and maintained cordial, peaceful and economically beneficial relations with the USSR even at the peak of the Cold War.
Anyway, following, or out of the wave of thought inspired by Peter’s reforms, and the strong connection with European Illuminist thinking, came that stream of Russian literature that has ennobled mankind in a unique and inimitable way. And that has enabled Russia – even allowing for the distortions, the folly and the absurdities of Bolshevism – to still remain, so far, a bastion of resistance against the plague of cancel culture, wokism and the like.
In fact, in my view, even in Gorbachev (whose life I have described in a video – link at the end) it is possible to find traits of two of the three brother Karamazov of Dostoyevsky, the adventurous Dmitry (reflected in Gorbachev’s daring opening towards the West) and the sincere and spiritual Alexei (reflected in Gorbachev’s belief that his Western counterparts spoke and acted in good faith).
Often, and perhaps inevitably, the persona portrayed by the corporate media is a caricature, and many, including him who writes here, are prone to be tricked or misled.
Finally and for what is worth, this write-up in no way can be considered adequate, let alone sufficient, for drawing a comparison between two states, two peoples, two histories and two cultures. In partial disculpation, I can only repeat to my twenty-five readers what Dr. Johnson said of dictionaries, “No dictionary is perfect, but any is better than none.”
Video “Goodbye Gorbachev” — https://youtu.be/Zei7elnxJ0s
Jimmy, don’t pretend to be so naive. Surely you know that shameless goes way back:
How Could You Believe Me When I Said I Loved You
(When You Know I’ve Been a Liar All My Life)
https://youtu.be/8q2fTSo8aoY?t=3
A little quibble about spelling names.
Hassad = Envy
Assad = Lion
Syrian Presidents Name : Bashar Hafez Al Assad ( Hafez Al Assad was his father, translates to Protector of Lion, Bashar translates to Human/Man)
Dr. Johnson said of dictionaries, “No dictionary is perfect, but any is better than none.”
Such wrong, misled, perception. If I add a teaspoon of dog poop to a carton of ice cream, would it be said, “well, on a hot day , any ice cream is better than none” and who among us would happily eat it?
lIf there is a huge problem current among most humans and which has grown more than exponentially in this Age, it is a fear of stating that we dont know something. We just have to claim we know everything, vide the armchair warriors who know nothing of military affairs, equipment, warfare, Putins Secret Service Intel, but still believe they know enough to tell Putin when he is wrong. Why can they never say “I just dont know”. ? Doctors who wont admit they have no idea what has caused symptoms, but rather than admit same, say “Its just a virus”. On and on it goes.
No, it’s not better to have a dictionary with errors, because then we fool ourselves we know something, and we get distorted wrong perceptions upon which we base our thinking and decision making, making horrific errors often costing lives.
Better to say, flatly and categorically, “I have no idea, I just dont know” and work out where to go from there.
Rather than look at the actions of a few and compare modern day cultures I would rather tell a tale of two peoples going back a long way, and just record actions.
Hundreds of years ago, there were a people in a small part of what is now Russia, who slowly spread across the land. As they went, they came across other groups of people, different to themselves, but living peacefully. These they absorbed into a whole they were slowly growing, with little and often no damage. They slowly grew and took 2 identities, as their own group and as the whole nation.
Hundreds of years ago, on a small part of what is now America, a group of people arrived and took up residence. As they spread across the land, they came across other peoples of other groups, living their own lives. These they reacted to with aggression, killing women, children, men, until nearly all those who had once lived there were slaughtered. Then these invaders claimed all the land as theirs.
Today, In Russia, there are at least 90 different ethnicities, living, flourishing, living their own ways, in memory of their own ancestors. Today, In America there are very few of the original ethnicities, living miserable lives in open air camps called reservations and are almost extinct.
This is a difference between those of modern day America, their mind sets, their attitude to those not like themselves, and Russians, and their mindset and attitude to those not like themselves.
As the twig is bent, so the tree will grow.
That’s more like it! You do more justice to the title. Just the facts, Ma’am.
Jimmie: Thank you for both the richness of this history lesson and your general acknowledgement that one does not need to claim to know or understand completely in the face of it.
My favorite takeaway is your description of what “history” is interested in. It is a very interesting thought to say that “history” is interested in something. To say such, to me at least, implies that “history” carries an inner meaning, that leans into us with its own purpose. Surely a metaphysical or, if you prefer, a cosmological value is implied. History exists to teach us the real human path perhaps. “History” being an interpretation of our shared experience within time.
So you say history is interested in the relations between the unique and the general. This speaks to the current contradiction very well. The uniquely self exclusiveness egoism of the Western ruling mind (well characterized by Pamela) is in a zero sum conflict with the general interests of humanity. Does that conflict of the unique egoism of the West with the needs of the general universal not entail a “historic” contradiction on all levels of reality? All levels must include the military-political? If so then can we attach a deeper, perhaps transcendent, meaning to the new phase of the Russian SMO?
I suspect the reaction of the Western Ruling Class to what is now beginning to happen will help us answer that.
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”
― Henry Kissinger (war criminal awarded Nobel peace prize)
As for this assertion:
“…not to expand NATO Eastward was invalid for not having been set in writing.”
Whether the promise was set in writing matters not in the least to the United State of Atrocities (USA) as it simply makes up sh*t as it goes along.
“History is dotted with treaties that the US has signed but not ratified, signed and then unsigned, and even refused to sign after pushing everyone else to sign.”
Source: All the international agreements the US has broken before the Iran deal (qz.com)
“Unable or unwilling to realize that the most tragic form of loss isn’t the loss of security – rather the loss of the capacity to imagine that things could be different.”
When the template for our imaginations are all gleaned from Hollywood productions the outcomes before us seem predicable. All our diplomats have graduated from the Eastwood School.
I can imagine sharing a laugh with Lavrov but not with Nuland.
All very good. One minor but important objection.
“…the Western Schism had to do with the sought-for independence, by Luther and the Protestants, from Catholic Rome.”
The Western schism started as an internal reform effort and only after much intransigence became a separate entity from Rome.
Any of the early reformers would have been happy to see their policies embraced as orthodoxy. They did not set out to establish a new church. It was kinda like Reagan: “I didn’t leave the Catholic church, the church left me.”
I still remember the day I came across Gobachev and saw that birthmark of his. I took it to be a sign from heaven {a vial poured out} and had worries about what was in store for him and for Russia.
Thanks for the history lesson and yeah, Gorbachev in a picture eating American fast food pizza is weird?
Thank you for this excellent article. The video at the end sums up the relationship between Russia and the west well. The question Russians need to ask and Lavrov asked it as well when he said that the west cannot be trusted so one must ask why deal with them from a position of trust. The point here is that the West has already brainwashed its population that Russia lies and cannot be trusted.
The Western narrative is summed up in a statement such as this; “One of the stickiest challenges for Western governments has been how to deal with, or even understand, a Russian leadership that lies insistently and incessantly, even when it doesn’t need to.” This is a blatant lie which has its origins in the British-Russian empire conflicts where every British defeat was sold to the British people as a victory. Today the narrative lie used by the western media is more sophisticated. They use he technique of ‘diversion’ and it works by affirming the lie by their government by omission of the facts and framing their narrative as building democracy while the other side and their government is portrayed as and undemocratic and a brutal dictatorship. This narrative gets full medias play while the other side is excluded and never allowed a forum to provide balance on the issue.
You provide many examples of western lies and liars. Bill and Hillary Clinton are prime examples of liars. The American public knows that they are liars and accepts them from a premise that all politicians lie. Bill was asked why he lied about having sex in the Whitehouse with Lewinsky, he responded, “because I could”.
Clinton and Hillary are front people for the multinationals who defended them using their control of the Media and the legal system of the USA. This is best expressed many years ago by Smedley Butler a senior officer in the Marines in the 1930’s who said “War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.”
Such lies were used by Britain in WWI where the Keiser was portrayed as a butcher who killed British prisoners of war and made sausages using their flesh. Cartoons and articles inundated the British tabloids and the people in unison wanted German blood.
Our school books and curriculum is framed in such a way where our children study literature which portrays Russia as a totalitarian regime, plots in movies usually portray Russians as members of criminal gangs and Russian soldiers acting without thinking and killing people without compassion.
The Russians are portrayed as people who dint love children, have no family and hate their country. Always the diversion is personal, Russians use poison gas, Russians break treaties, Russians Rape women and kill children. The facts are that the West used poison gas against Russia, The Americans raped and starved more German women and starved more German people in their occupation zone than the Russians and we know that in the post WWII American wars the America military killed thousands of Children and other civilians which they called collateral damage. Nick Turse writes in his book about Vietnam “Kill Everything that Moves” where he writes that “the pressure on U.S. forces to produce a body count during the Vietnam War led to mass civilian deaths.
The mass media in the west has created a zombie like society whose response to my comments above will be “We are better than they are, or if you don’t like it here go back where you came from.” Very few that I know would respond to my comment by saying, “yes, we have many problems and we need to acknowledge that we need to change in order to be a better example to the world.”
‘ a blatant lie.’
I believe that at one time the shoe was on the other foot.
“We have learned the bitter lesson that international agreements, historically considered by us as sacred, are regarded in Communist doctrine and practice to be mere scraps of paper,”
So said Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his State of the Union message when he was President.
“Promises are piecrusts to be broken.” Lenin
“Honest diplomacy is as impossible as iron wood or dry water.” Joseph Stalin
funny enough, there’s dry water. it’s called dry ice
the other quotes have no references…
These are just few examples where you are in error there are many more. Such as UN treaties, Climate, Helsinki on Borders, Human Rights, ICC, and many more.
First —- The “Scrap of Paper” was the Munich Agreement signed September 30th 1938 by Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain as well as French and Italian leaders. Russia was not invited to the discussions.
Some examples where you are wrong.: According to the US national archives, 374 treaties (pdf, p.4) signed between the U.S. and Native American Tribes from 1772 to 1867 were ratified. Of these, many were not respected: Only one article of the Pickering Treaty, or Treaty of Canadaigua of 1794, for instance, has been observed.
The U.S. never ratified the Treaty of Versailles that President Wilson formulated.
INTERNATIONAL LABOR CONVENTION, 1949
The agreement was signed by 154 countries, including the U.S., and entered in full effect in 1950. However, the U.S. never ratified it
The treaty banning nuclear testing was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, and has been ratified by 166 countries, the agreement is not yet into effect due to eight key countries who have not yet ratified it. The U.S., which signed in 1996, is one of them—the others are China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
Please provide some examples where USSR and more specifically Russia violated the treaties that they signed.
@ Vuki
Well, for one as Dr. Cantelon wrote:
“In 1958 the US had a five to one nuclear superiority over Russia. to keep its lead, the US was testing bigger nuclear bombs, and so was Russia. Suddenly Russia announced she would like a moratoriumon these tests. Radiation fallout was alarming the world, so the US and Russia agreed to explode no more test bombs in the air. In the spirit of that moratorium, the US began dismantling its testing installations and stopped developing bigger bombs.
Russia did the exact opposite. It secretly raced ahead. Suddenly, in September, 1961, russia vilolated the moratorium with a series of tests in which it exploded the worlds biggest hydrogen bomb, an incredible hundred megaton monster vastly more powerful than anything the US had. Overnight, Russia wnet years ahead of the US in vital knowledge.
Tricked and dismayed, the US then negotiated the famous test ban treaty. It was approved by the US Senate. President Kennedy acclaimed a new ear of successful cooperation between the two countries. In that spirit the US started cutting back on our missiles, taking the largest ones out of our stoickpiles.
Russia again did the exact opposite. It raced ahead. Suddenly, in June 1967, a special study was ordered by the Congress showed that while the US had gone backward, the Soviets forged ahead in total megatonnage. pgs 121-122
and then there’s this on the SALT talks pg 123:
“For years I followed with interest efforts made by leaders of Russia and America in the SALT Talks. After endless months and thousands of dollars had been spent in these discussions, suddenly the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks became virtually meaningless, becaue China had reached the place where she to had become a major atomic power threat.
Sentaor Stuarrt Symington, addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee on Januaary 9, 1973, said,
China is expected in 1975 to have an operational intercontinental ballisitic missile which could be capable of striking the US…I was shocked to find out how close another power is to becoming a super-power in missiles. this to me reduces the practical effect of the Strategic Armed Limitations Talks with the Soviet Union.”
You know Mr. Moglia got it right in his first sentence:
“When events do not make sense or are such as sense cannot untie, an option is to forget all about them – the head-in-the-sand solution.”
One can paint America as the great black sheep of history but I got to tell you something else is going on which seeks to not only destroy America but even Russia. to read this history that i have before me and to learn how communism was financed by the very bankers who hold the purse strings of America is shocking.
A former Communist said,
They asked me to forget Katyn Forest. Forget the slave labor camps, forget the genocide of the captive
nations, forget the butchery of Budapest, forget the annihilation of 30 million people, forget their anti-God,
anti-Christ, anti-church, and anti-home doctrines, and to forget all that is dear and place our faith in them.
With amazing courage some of Russia’s finest writers have dared to express the true feelings of their hearts. Alex Solzhenitsyn, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest author writes,
The USSR is guilty of committing spiritual murder, a variant of the gas chamber but more cruel.
In an edition of the Los Angeles Times in April, 1973,
Murray Seeger tells how the government leaders in Russia seek to control men’s minds and spirits. He describes the heavy volume of anti-religious action and propaganda which have been continued in all parts of Russia against many different faiths ever since the Bolshevik Revolution took place 55 years ago.
In light of the Communist attitude toward Christians and Jews, are men not justifled in asking why this government should receive favored treatment?
Why should American taxpayers pay $300 million in taxes to subsidize cheap wheat for the USSR? Or why
should Russia get 200,000 tons of butter from The European Common Market for 20 cents per pound, when the British pay 60 cents for the same butter?
Perhaps some of the international bankers might shed some light on this. They might tell us how the Communist banks were able to borrow 40 billion Eurodollars six months before the dollar was devalued 10% Febnruary 6th of 1973, and comment on the extraordinary good fortune of their timing. For when this debt is repaid, it will be repaid with dollars valued at 90 cents which means a net profit of $ billion for the borrowers.
“Only one thing is clear,” wrote one economist from Eurpoe, and “that is the mystery that surrounds these strange actions.”
That Russia was receiving favored treatment was bevond any question. It had been ever since the birth of the United Nations. When it was first organized in1945- there were only 50 nations of the world represented in the UIN. In the l0 years following its birth however, Communism had spread across the world at the rate of 44 square miles per hour.
As new nations’ were being born.and being admitted to he UN, the roster clearly revealed the young and struggling nations being admitted were often those who had accepted the doctrines and principles of Communistic personalities. this doctrine thrived especially in underdeveloped areas, estimated to be at least 72% of the whole.
With apparent domination of communistic personalites in control of UNESCO and the International Olice force , reflected in the UN Charter, it was difficult to understand how the United States could be removed much further from the position of leadership.
In the 21 years following the establishment of the UN there were 22 presidents of the UN General Assembly. not one was American. The same could be said about the highest office, that of Secretary – General.” pgs 122-123
Follow the money to find where it all leads yes, the capitalist bankers have financed the great utopian society envisioned by the Socialists and woe damn if it takes a nuclear war to bring it to pass, there one world government, that price is worth paying?
“On Friday 6, November 17, 1972, the Los Angeles Times carried an article which read:
Russia urges US to increase UN Aid. The normally humdrum budgetary committee broke into oratorical fireworks…V. S. Safronchuk speaking to the General Assembly said, “The US should be assessed 38.4% instead of its present 31.52.%” This brought US Ambassador George Bush to his feet; pointing to Safronchuk, Bush asserted that his government pays 40% of the overall costs, those outside as well as inside the regular budget, compared with the Soviets Union’s 7%.” pgs. 115
Do you think WE ARE ALL BEING PLAYED FOR FOOLS?
Yeah, a one world government is coming and I’d imagine in the eyes of our elite 20 or 30 million dead is as good a price as any? Stalin and the rest of his ilk would be just fine with that yes?
So Mr Moglia :
Another is to remember that man is but a quintessence of dust and often, therefore, not even worth the dust that the rude wind blows in his face.
Thanks!!!
Hey, Moglia and O of course Vuki !!!!!!!!!! know what needs doing?
https://youtu.be/je0-XHg9jLY
Make no mistake about this!!!!!!!!! We all have our own way of expressing our faith but believe me from Father we need a Spiritual Awakening. Beyond that Ecclesiastes 12 is at the door, i know and understand well verse 2:
“and the clouds return after the rain;”
verse 6 i suppose though is the most important yes?
Cheers
O, and Mr. Moglia on a more personal note I watched your series on the Great Schism but was greatly disappointed you spent little time on the martyr Jan Huss. A real shame sir because he was a great saint of the Eternal who later fired the Zeal of Count Ludwig Von Zinzendorf. There is a history there sir which is simply magnificent taking one into the the history of John Wesley and how climate change was part and parcel of their experience. I tried writing about it in my book alas in needs the mind of a Shaksperian!?
“To avert from men God’s wrath
Jesus suffered in our stead;
By an ignominious death
He a full atonement made;
And by His mnost precious blood
Brought us sinners nigh to God.”
“But examine first your case,
Whether you be in the faith;
Do you long for pardoning grace?
Is your only hope his death?
The, how’er your souls opprest,
Come, you are a worthy guest.”
Composed by John Huss, circa 1400, several years before his martyrdom. Oldest Moravian Hymn known.
and lol Dr. Michael E. Jones…”Now your coming to see me, tommorow!!!!!!!!!” lol? ask him abuut it? lol
Buckets of bile here.
Remember, without Russia there would be no USA.
And don’t forget, without Russia there will be no USA.
Happy New Year.
Thank you for your response, however by 1958 USA had substantially more (12 times as many) nukes than the Soviet Union. UK was testing them and USA also underground. The agreement to suspend was informal.
Russia did not race ahead of USSR in fact in 1965 USA had over 31000 nukes while USSR had a bit over 6000. It was in 1980 that USSR surpassed USA in the number of Nukes. Between 1955-59 USA tested 145 times while USSR tested 65 times. Your comment on who was violating the informal agreement just does not meet the test of numbers. The main violation which you seem to ignore is the delivery system. Most of USA nukes were on submarines while USSR had two bombers, however, they did start to produce ICBM’s but the agreement did not include submarines and that made Russia way more vulnerable than the USA.
USSR did not race ahead even in 1970 USA had over 23,000 nukes while Russia had some 11000. We are not even factoring UK and French nukes here. USA started placing nukes closer to USSR (Turkey for example) and was constantly using U2 overflights spying on USSR. The key to all of this was the time element to strike particularly since USA did not renounce the first strike option. Because USA nukes were on Subs USA had a greater advantage over USSR if nuclear option was used.
The SALT 1 and 2 agreements limited the number of ABM’s and land-based ICBM but it froze the submarine numbers at the existing levels giving USA a great advantage in numbers and time to deliver the nukes on target. USSR countered this by placing multiple re-entry nukes on one ICBM. This did not violate the treaty as this issue was not included in the treaties.
You include China in your response but like many journalists in the west you ignore the fact that China and USSR were not on friendly terms while UK and Fr and USA were, so USSR had an Eastern enemy as well at that time. This is similar to what USA is doing with the Brazil situation. The Biden administration has condemned Belisario, they had to otherwise their condemnation of Trump would ring hallow even with the most delusional American. If they did not have Trump as a target the target of the Democrat in Brazil would have been the socialist Lula.
Bankers tend to finance their profit margin. I do not need to paint America black, white or red they by their actions have done that. Yes, the bankers financed Lenin but they financed Hitler and Bush and many others
History should not forget any of the things the former communist said, but we have a tendency to forget our crimes. We are horrified when a 6-year-old child shoots his teacher and we condemn it but we never condemn the cause. We ignore the lies about the indigenous people in the Americas, the American wars since the nation was founded, slavery , millions of dead colonial people due to US wars the assassinations of American and world leaders and jailing of truth tellers There are too many things to mention here but let me suggest that you read Howard Zinn’s book “Peoples History of the United States” and that will not justify what the former communist said, however, in comparison it should shame any descent person.
Maybe you need Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Commencement Address at Harvard University link https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm and then come back and tell us what he said.
Controlling people’s minds is not a Russian monopoly. Propaganda is a fine Art in the USA as were eugenics and LSD tests by the CIA on prisoners and in Canada. All of this was learned and used by the Nazis when they came to power in Germany. America is resurrecting all of this as we write about it.
The main destabilisers of the planet is the IMF and the World bank which are controlled by USA. USA refused to join the UN in 1946 if these two institutions did not come under her control. Ever since the USA has used them to destabilize the world economy and nation after nation. Using the dollar as reserve currency has given USA purchasing and selling advantage at an inflated rate 0f almost 20%. As for wheat USA and Russia sell wheat through a wheat pool and world price is set by Supply and Demand. The fact that Russia is the biggest wheat producer as well as fertilizer producer with its vast lands makes them the bread basket of the world and has nothing to do with US benevolence. You ask about butter. Why would Russia import butter when it exports it and even in the cold climate, they are 7th in the world in butter production.
Russia never received favoured Nation treatment and only recently was allowed to pay with US dollars like all other nations. Before that USSR always had to pay in gold. Russia’s foreign debt is 12 % GDP so its not onerous on the national budget like that of the USA with 133% debt to GDP.
You write nonsense about the developing world. Their economic status is due to colonial exploitation and UK and USA are the main culprits in that.
USA is not a leader in international affairs as it violates everything UN stands for. It and Ukraine even refuses to condemn glorification of Nazism
.
You ask “Do you think WE ARE ALL BEING PLAYED FOR FOOLS? Yes, your government is playing you for fools as it lies steals and cheats the American people first and the rest of the human race as well.
Now you have a good day. After you read Zinn’s book come back and apologize for your post
Eisenhower was projecting, Lenin and Stalin was talking about lessons of life.
“Otherwise most of us would be forced to walk around town with a loaded AK-47, and each state would be transformed into a myriad of mini-Ukraines at war with each other.”
Just you wait, Sparky.
Were the US to go down with a single mass explosion, then definitely most would be walking around with ak-47’s. But the US is going down via controlled demolition: economically via transfer of manufacturing to China, the green movement and the dollar’s reign as global reserve currency is coming to its accepted 100 year end; socially via the woke LGBT, BLM, and the open southern border policy; and politically by the Democrats rigging elections becoming standard practice. With a controlled demolition, the slow boil of the frog scenario, the shocking circumstances for an every man for himself and God for us all type apocalypse might never arise. It may be like Israel Shamir liked to say, Americans like their guns but they never use them.
Bill Clinton debauched the USA. The moral slide started when he said, “it may not be moral, but it’s legal”, when he claimed “he did not have sex with that woman”
from then, the USA has become a perveted version of itself… it’s all because Billy was the first “owned” president by the globalists
It started WAYYYYYYYY before Billy the Hick and his out-of-control d***. JFK, for example, was pretty damn sleazy as a person, although for some bizarre reason people still seem to hold him in high esteem.
The line : “That depends on what your defenition of is, IS” was pretty slick.
It’s right up there in famous quotes, along with partner in crime and wicked wich of the west :
“At this point, what difference does it make ?”
Thankyou Jimmie, Another historical tor de force!
I’ve found you too late in life.
I love your writing style.
One term I had to look up: the name “Svevia” is the Italian-language exonym for Swabia, the historical region in Germany.
I would like to add its also the ethos that determines how a country & its people operate. As broad generalizations: the ethos of the the United States is: ‘I won’t rat on your scheme, if you don’t rat on mine’. Compare that with Australia’s ethos ‘everyone deserves a fair go’ (although that is changing).
I’m not familiar woth other countries sufficicently to observe their prevailing ethos, but I’ve always been struck by the humility of Russians who tell the joke about their own country ‘In Russia, there’s no roads – there’s only directions’ (hehehe)
Thanks for putting pen to paper yet again.
Best,
And the difference between these two cultures highlighted, not only by the current face off in Ukraine, now chosen to the field of Armageddon, but it’s follow on.
From InfoRuss, translated using Yandex Translator
“Americans. We Russians will never forget what you did to us. Please wait”
13.01.2023
Today, many Russians are deeply outraged by the State Department’s hypocritical appeal to Russian citizens. No matter who I read, no matter who I talk to, they all crinkle the corners of their eyes and nod, “We’ll remember everything they did to us.” Let us remember that they set us against each other in the civil war within our people. We will definitely remember and do everything we can to make the Americans pay for this in full.
Even if it takes more than a decade to do this, although I see the deadline for reckoning much closer, the Russians will definitely return the favor to the presumptuous hypocrites who should be grateful to us for existing in principle.
When in 1775, the British King George III appealed to the Russian Empress Catherine II for military assistance, asking her to help pacify the American rebels and send Russian troops numbering 20-30 thousand soldiers and officers to the New World, the empress refused this request. Thanks to this step on the part of Russia, the United States basically took place, ceasing to be a British colony.
I recently gave an interview to a Western journalist who was visibly upset when I answered the question ” What is the most stupid and terrible thing the West has done to Russia?”
“You’ve disappointed us,” I said.
You have lost our trust, and with it our respect. This is the most terrible thing, followed by other negative consequences, including revenge. Yes, it is revenge, but Russian. Don’t count on Russian generosity. To receive it, one must be worthy of this generosity. You, like Hitler’s Nazis, deserve only revenge, evil and merciless, with all the Russian breadth and diversity.
Of course, this is not about the entire American people, not about ordinary Americans. First of all, the elites are to blame for this, including the creative and other aristocracy of the level of Tom Cruise or Stephen King, who agreed to participate in the persecution of Russians. Rest assured, everyone will answer for this crime against the Russians. Where we can’t reach you, God will.
I assure you, we know perfectly well the rule of ” Revenge is mine. I will repay.”
We won’t stop Him from doing it. But you shouldn’t even hope for our help when He punishes you. We will look at you blankly, quietly and calmly. We Russians can do this indefinitely. There will be no more words. Only prayers will be heard…
We understand the value of you, your hypocritical smile and pat on the shoulder. We realized everything. The same can’t be said for you. You’d really have to be a fool to mess with the most warlike people who’ve won the vast majority of their wars…
You’d have to be crazy to fight the Russians.
We will deal with the schismatic Ukrainians soon. This is an internal task that we will solve. But when we’re done with them, we’ll take on you Americans. Please wait.”
Russia bailed out Europe several times . Russo Turkish wars, Napoleonic wars and of course the Great Patriotic War.
About the ‘difficulty’ of understanding Russia and a warning against confronting it, Otto von Bismark wrote “Never fight with Russians. On your every stratagem they answer unpredictable stupidity.” What he may have tried to say is that it’s very difficult to comprehend the Russian mind and, therefore, other nations should not engage in a conflict with Russia, or they could very well receive a response which is beyond their ability to understand.
Dostoevsky, White Nights –
“It was a wonderful night, such a night as is only possible when we are young, dear reader. The sky was so starry, so bright that, looking at it, one could not help asking oneself whether ill-humoured and capricious people could live under such a sky.”
If I correctly recall from watching the Clinton testimony, Clinton said something slightly different than you relate. Clinton did not say, “I did not have sex with that woman.” Rather, he said, “I’m not having sex with that woman.” The question he was asked referred to the past. Clinton’s sly, obfuscating, legalistic reply left him an opening by claiming in future disputations that his testimony referred to the present, not the past … which may in fact have been true. Clinton, as a lawyer, was smart and cunning enough to avoid purging himself, which could then have become a new ground for impeachment had anyone of importance sought to bring it to light.
A better indictment of the West as doing the devil’s work comes later in three acts. The first is when President H. W. Bush in 1990 announced a “New World Order”. The Soviet Union had collapsed, giving the United States a victory in the Cold War. The US now controlled a global empire without a competitor… a unitary Anglo-Zionist Empire that included control over the world’s sea lanes, the world’s reserve currency (the dollar), and the SWIFT system for processing commercial payments in international transactions. It also had the world’s largest military budget by orders of magnitude. To enforce its imperial order, it also acted to destroy countries that sought independence from the Anglo-Zionist economic system, i.e., Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and now the ongoing war against Russia.
Then, in 1992 American political scientist Francis Fukuyama declared that the American victory in the Cold War signified the “End of History”. This meant that, as the outcome of a Hegelian/Marxist dialectic, Western liberal democracy and “free market” capitalism were now the end of human political and economic evolution. The role of the United States as the global hegemon, as it were, was a permanent condition.
The grand finale (or last act) was exposed by columnist Robert Suskin who in 2004 related a conversation he had had with one of President G. W. Bush’s advisors in 2002. The advisor had said that guys like Suskin “were in a ‘reality-based’ community that believes that solutions emerge from a judicious study of discernible reality. But that is not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality … judiciously, as you will, we’ll act again creating other new realities which you can study, too. We’re History’s Actors and all of you [plebs] will be left to just study what we do.”
This sounds more like a declaration of Divinity rather than describing a slice of time in world history. The arrogance of Eve trying to create a “new reality” described in the Book of Genesis comes to mind. The result for Eve was the Fall of Humankind for presuming God-like powers. Although a Second Fall of Humankind might be upon us, I’ll focus on the lesser claim that “pride cometh before the fall!” that points to the same outcome. The hegemon that once claimed powers to “create new realities” is now economically, culturally, and militarily bankrupt as the rest of the world creates (yet again) a new world order based on a more sustainable set of values.
The epilogue: The continuance of the United States as a world power was premised on Saudi Arabia maintaining the 1975 agreement with the United States that forced the rest of the world to use the dollar as the medium of exchange for oil and gas. Ergo, the “petro-dollar” replacing the defunct gold-based dollar as the world’s reserve currency. On December 9, 2022, President Xi Jinping announced that China was working with Saudi Arabia to buy oil and gas in yuan. The end of the story … or perhaps the beginning of the next chapter in world history.
The schism in the Russian Orthodox church whether to do the cross with two or three fingers is a schism between Dualists and Monists that exists or has existed within all five major world religions.
The Monists are the same as the advocators of Trinity and which has nothing to do with the Holy Trinity consiting of the Creator, the Divine Feminine and the Divine Masculine (the two foundational archetypes within us all), but – of course – the Jungian shadow side of Trinity in which subjectivity, the emotionally based ego, has replaced the Creator. They are nihilists and not only in a moral sense, hence the politics of NATO and all its partners in the International Coalition of 59 countries.
* https://www.academia.edu/74112833/The_Monist_Cosmic_Constitution_of_2019