The blame probably should (yet again) go first to the Papacy with its unhealthy repression of everything sexual, which itself originates in a most unfortunate misunderstanding of the Christian dogma of the primordial sin by Saint Augustine of Hippo who, at least, never insisted that this interpretation was the correct one (traditional Christianity does not believe that per se sex is bad, but only that it has to be appropriately channeled and sublimated). Alas, his misguided views on this topic were further picked up in a long series of sex-centered teachings, practices and dogmas (celibacy for priests, condemnation of “the flesh”, “Immaculate Conceptions”, etc.) and as a result, these sexuality-repressing teachings triggered a formidable backlash which began in the Renaissance and is sill felt today.
The next group to make things worse were the Freemasons, the various revolutionary movements in Europe and, of course, the openly secular/atheistic ideologues such as Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and many others. I won’t go into the pathetic history of feminism, hippie flower-power, abortion “rights” and all the rest of the nonsense we were fed, nor will I discuss the role of pornography or the so called ‘gay’ rights. My thesis is this: in terms of sexuality the West is now terminally cluster-f**cked. I won’t even bother proving that thesis. Look for yourself a the divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, homosexuality, pedophilia, rapes, marital violence, gross sexism and macho violence or, better, try to find something healthy in anything sex-related in the West. It ain’t there. So I will say it again: in terms of sexuality the West is now terminally cluster-f**cked.
The latest example of that complete absence of any kind of healthy understanding of sex is the “Putin hits in Xi’s wife” non-event scandal. Here is the video of the ‘act’, see for yourself:
You can plainly see for yourself what happened: it was cold, Putin though that Xi’s wife might be uncomfortable in the chilly weather and he offered her his shawl. Notice also her reaction: she accepted it very gracefully, put in on just long enough to thank him (you can see her smile and bow), then took it off and was handed another coat.
This is how the western media saw that: (excerpts from here)
“’Putin’ On the Moves: Vlad Cozies Up to China’s First Lady,” screamed NBC.
“Putin Hits on China’s First Lady,” asserted US magazine Foreign Policy. “Russia’s Don Juan-in-chief just got a little too friendly with Xi Jinping’s wife.”
“The first unspoken rule of diplomacy might be “Don’t hit on the president’s wife,” but Russia’s newly single president Vladimir Putin seems to have missed the memo,” it continued.
Very interestingly, RT also offered this photo as a reminder of the fact that it was not the first time Putin did something like that:
Was Putin also ‘hitting’ on Merkel? |
RT added: This is not the first time Vladimir Putin’s manners have landed him in a mini-storm. A similar gesture last year, when Putin offered a shawl to German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, provoked many of the same kind of comments.
In the typical westerner’s mind, this goes something like that: we know that Russian man spend their lives drinking and beating up their woman, that they are sexist macho pigs, all potential rapists (look at how they behaved in at the end of WWII in Germany!), so if one of them shows what could be misconstrued as courtesy or attentive care, he must be ‘hitting’ on the woman, already ready to jump, beat and rape her”. This is the kind of notion that the western corporate media has been trying to implant in the minds of the poor folks who watch the Idiot-box.
Before I tell you how I, as a Russian, interpret what has happened, let me share with you what a Chinese friend of mine has written about this in a private email to me:
You have probably seen the (non) news about Putin handing Xi’s wife a shawl. Western media has made a big deal out of it and I thought some Russian viewers might misunderstand.
Peng (Mrs. Xi) was not trying to intentionally spur Putin’s kind gesture, but Chinese culture is very sensitive to simple things including these types of social gestures because in Chinese culture such behavior denotes respect, place in society, and awareness of manners. To take another man’s coat is simply disrespectful to your husband in Chinese culture. Peng was caught in the unfortunate position of having to accept Putin’s hospitality yet avoid offending her husband’s “face” publicly. This is very important in Chinese society, perhaps not to myself in particular, but to most of us especially the traditional minded (whom we mostly are… believe me). Of course, as a foreigner Putin is not expected to be aware of these nuances and his “rudeness” can be forgiven and accepted as kindness. Actually Chinese manners dictate that when a foreigner exhibits lack of knowledge of your customs, you are supposed to accommodate them, but Peng’s reaction is understandable given her position. This wasn’t made better by Western MSM claims of Putin “flirting” with Peng — which is completely ridiculous of course.
I believe the best PR fix would be Putin issuing a statement saying something along the lines of, “I was trying to be polite, but the Chinese as we continue to see are very subtle, which I admire them for, and in their culture it is frowned upon for a woman to accept another’s coat. She was simply being respectful towards her husband. This is nothing but growing pains in the fast developing Sino-Russian alliance. Xi and I have a superb relationship and it will continue to bring us success in the future.” Putin has enough of a media personality and credibility to pull this off. It is unlikely that the Chinese will utter anything publicly until Russia does, because they would not want to seem patronizing to Putin or Russians by explaining often-accepted-as-simple-manners.
I will just add that I think that Peng handled the situation *superbly*. She showed her guest, Putin, no discomfort or offense at all, she gave him a warm smile, bowed and thanked him, kept the shawl on for just a second, then slightly turned (thereby signifying the end of her gratitude expressing) and immediately took the shawl off while her (smart) aides handed her another coat so as to make the removal of the now non-needed shawl natural. If I give Putin’s aides a B for not warning him about that, I give the Chinese an A+ about how elegantly they handled the situation.
Now let’s turn to the Russki side of the issue.
First, I will readily admit that there are some Russian man who would make a Cro-Magnon look educated, sophisticated, refined and otherwise civilized (all countries probably have those) In contrast, Putin is a highly educated man. Not only that, but he is a former spy. That does not mean that he is a pro at firing guns, copying documents or evading pursuing cars. As he himself explained it in his book, a spy is first and foremost a man who knows how to make himself liked by others. Being charming, reassuring, friendly and soothing is one of the core qualities of a spy. Putin is also an officer and he very much shares into the Russian officer ethos, especially officers from elite institutions or units. In other words, besides personal reasons, Putin has professional reasons to have impeccable manners. Having watch many, many hours of his town hall style meetings with all sorts of people and having him watched interact with all sorts of different cultural and social groups I can say that Putin’s manners are absolutely superb, every bit as refined and polished as Lavrov’s. And here is the key to what happened:
In Russian culture it is not only normal to take care, be courteous, be protective, attentive and otherwise gallant to woman, it is expected. Russia is still what I call a “sexually differentiated society” in which women and man are not “equals” but which sees then a very different and which strongly believes that real men take care of women. Russian society is also multi-cultural. Just as educated Russians will not offer alcohol to a Muslim guest, they will also know that, for example, you do not physically touch a Muslim woman unless she, for example, is the first one to move her hand forward for a handshake (because this Islamic no-touching rule is not uniformly followed by all Muslim woman). Had Putin known about the fact that handing over a shawl to a Chinese lady is inappropriate he would most definitely not done so and it is absolutely clear by her reaction that lady Peng completely understood this. Neither of them every even considered such a ludicrous and vulgar notion that Putin might be “hitting” on her, a married lady and his host.
But the corporate media of a “Michel Jackson society” (neither child nor adult, neither Black nor White, neither male not female) had to, of course, bring it all down to some vulgar crass move by the Russian “mujik” on the Asian “chick”. This says nothing about Russia or China, and everything about the modern corporate media and the sexually pathological ideology it tries to force down the throats of those who are exposing themselves to it.
Honestly, when I look around myself in western Europe or the USA I feel sorry for most of the people I see. How many happy, stable and truly loving marriages do you see nowadays? However, to measure the fantastic degree of sexual frustration of western men, it is enough to look at the huge income of the porn industry and realize that somebody is consuming that porn and that, by definition, those who are reduced to a sex-by-porn sexuality are completely dysfunctional, frustrated and sadly lonely people. The so-called “sexual freedom” resulted in a terminal case of sexual misery and dissatisfaction. While I often get in trouble for saying that homosexuality is a sexual psycho-pathology, I have to say that hetero sex in the West is rarely and only marginally healthier.
This is really sad as the consequences are devastating. “Sexually differentiated” (where each gender is different and has his/her role) couples are becoming increasingly rare (I won’t even go into the “gay marriage” folly!), most families are “multiply recomposed”, children lack real fathers or mothers, normal and healthy masculine or feminine behavior is frowned upon and even basic courtesy towards a lady is apparently inevitably interpreted as an attempt to obtain sex from her (which is what “hitting” is).
I wonder how long it will take for people in the West to realize this and to revolt against it. It is already happening. I know a few “real” couples (two identifiable genders, male in the father role, female in the mother role, no divorce, no marital infidelity and no domestic violence but true deep love, children who are raised close to their parents and not given up to state schools, etc.) and they are always more or less “off the social grid”: they do their own thing away from the rest of society whose values they have rejected, whose ideology they don’t believe in, and whose brainwashing appliances (TV, radio, papers) they don’t let into their homes. They are also sexually happy, with no need for porn, meds or props. In fact, they know that sex gets *better* with time. But they are still a tiny minority. The vast majority of people out there still follow the prevailing societal model to misery, loneliness and sexual frustration.
Finally, I expect that this post will earn me yet another flood of angry comments and I can’t even begin to imagine how what I did say above will be “re-worded” to make me say something I did not. I offer the above as my own admittedly subjective point of view about the context for the “Putin hitting on Peng” “non-event scandal” in the hope that somebody might find it interesting. As like to say, please view this blog like an AA meeting: you take what you want and simply leave the rest.
In this case, I wanted draw your attention that the (mis-)interpretation of what happened in China by the corporate media is only a part of a much wider problem and that looking at the general context of male-female relations in the West might allow for a better understanding of what is going on.
Frankly, this is not a topic I want to dwell on either. I shared some of my views above, but I have to ask you to please forgive me if I won’t participate in any further discussion about it. You are, as always, welcome to have a healthy and dynamic discussion in the comments section, but please don’t expect me to join it: I am way too busy (but I will lurk and read it though, just for my own education).
Kind regards to all,
The Saker
Anonymous Gay Propagandist:
There is no such unanimity in the scientific community. It’s really a silly idea — homosexual behaviour has so much in common with heterosexual behaviour it’s absurd to suppose it couldn’t be learned.
At 25 I was impatient to be 35 so I would have settled opinions, homosexuality and its origins being one of the topics on which I was undecided. But I finally twigged. All the theories were right, about someone, somewhere. In some people it was innate, in some people it was learned, in some people it derived from Freudian conflicts, in some it was eroticization of a platonic love, in some it was a function of lack of access to the preferred sex. Prisoners don’t consider themselves homosexual for having same-sex sex, just out of options. Mariners, too.
And, yes, in some people it is a lifestyle choice, often secondary to rejecting a role model that is unbearable for many nonsexual reasons. I think this is pivotal for a lot of lesbians.
Much of what is mislabelled homosexual behaviour in animals is about dominance. The alpha male forces rival males to accept being mounted, or even penetrated, to make a point, the point usually being about access to females. This is not sexual.
Homosexual mating, pair-bonding, in animals is rare, although it happens with ducks. (Think about it: it would breed out.) Female ducks attach themselves to homosexual couples and wiggle in between them when they are trying to mate. With two male defenders, these families are successful. It is also a function of misidentification. In some breeds of ducks it’s hard to tell males from females, so the males were under the mistaken impression that they were seeking a heterosexual pairing.
The British public school has been a useful behavioural lab. Thousands of boys in them have had same-sex sex in their teens and abandoned it as soon as an alternative presented itself. Just marking time.
Overcrowding in rats increases the number of homosexual rats in a colony. The high level of stress hormones during gestation seems to affect sexual orientation during foetal development.
Anon, societies are moving in your direction. Maybe you could move a little too and stop being so defensive that you interfere with appropriate policing? Not all behaviour involving same-sex sex is beatified. Luring little boys into the sex trade via the internet, for example, is an appropriate target for law enforcement. People in my very own family think homosexuality is illegal in Russia because of the outcry over the “propaganda to youth” law. Is this okay with you?
If someone were on trial for aggravated assault for fisting, would you picket? Have you ever commented that some camping is misogynistic?
If you and your confreres would start drawing some distinctions, perhaps it would create an atmosphere in which you had more input and laws would be written with less sweeping language, so we would not have to depend on prosecutorial discretion to pinpoint the evils we want to address.
Dear Saker,
Well spoken! Sex is a battlefield between love and lust.
When love is victorious, the sexual union gets healthier, stronger. The creative power is used to have children and happiness in the family.
When lust prevails, the union becomes short and weak, with a premature ending and ensuing frustration. Lust always needs more stimuli, degenerating into fetishes and perversions, and ultimately leading to powerless impotence.
Nietzsche’s view on the subject is as follows:
“Sex: only to the withered a sweet poison; to the lion-willed, however, the great cordial, and the reverently saved wine of wines.”
Sad to read so much prejudice about the “West”. Extrapolating fascist corporate anti-Russian propaganda to all of us is ludicrous. Generalization is always wrong and it is abundantly clear you know very little about European societies. I thought there was some moral values in your writtings beyond learning about Russia and Ukraine. Now I know it was just a facade and I should just take the information and opinion you provide with a mountain of salt, triple check it and use it with extreme caution. The ugly face of a religious bigot is emerging day by day, post by post.
Hi all
Love the blog and come most days. This post has been the most interesting one for comments.
Sit rep for last few years in London, Gay.
Generally a liberal place if you don’t step out of the Middle class ghetto. Keeping a low profile as necessary Been attacked multiple times, mostly verbal. Got hand broken by bit of wood, protecting head 3 years ago. It’s ok now. Fascists doing the attacking either drunk, pissed off men or groups of Muslim boys.
I’ve always been this way and most my family are fine, but not much communication, so my family is now other gay friends. Obviously I wouldn’t choose this if somebody gave me two Choices at birth. Thanks god! Next time choose somebody else, mate
Incidentally, and at the same time as I answered Saker’s insults about Westerners being sexual degenerates (first comment from mine on this topic), I have to thank him for learning me about the historical character of Josaphat Kunciewicz. I just did not know anything about this character.
And a controversial character it is.
Dwell on him a little on Orthodox sites, you will find he persecuted Orthodoxs, killing them and closing their churches, citing as proof a letter by (Roman Catholic) Lithuanian chancellor Lew Sapieha reproaching Josaphat those acts. You will understand his canonization by Rome to be a provocation with political purposes.
Dwell on him on Catholic sites, you will find he was a Saint that Sapieha calomniated for political purposes, which he later repented. You will understand his 19th century canonization to be not only just, but a moral support to Polish Catholics then persecuted by Russian Orthodoxs.
This Roman Catholic has no idea which version is correct.
What I am sure of is this: truth is never to be feared, even less so by Christians. And while unity of the whole Church looks presently out of reach of anything but divine Providence, a precondition which looks within reach is honesty and truth about history.
So whatever the truth of Josaphat was, I hope historical research will be able to uncover.
Cheers,
Alexis
It is revealing to observe the new religion of the West(Zionism-feminism-homosexual-transgender-pedophilia), united in liberal Crusades to destroy human Traditions of family, religion, culture and tribe; exactly as religions were used in the past to justify wars of extermination.
It is the nature of modern pathology to claim victim status in order to justify exemption from law and common decency. The imperial force of the AZ Empire enlists these victim elites to defend and justify genocide in a form of 4G War that exposes the malevolence at the heart of the the homosexual-Zionist-feminist attack on the culture, religion and lives of Muslims and Russians.
I read the posts in this thread, as they expose the useful idiots, Hasbara volunteers and paid cyber-war specialists who post here. I notice the names and style of the defenders of liberal religion (Zionism-feminism-homosexual-transgender-pedophilia)and see their ignorance and malevolence toward the conservative Eurasian Traditions, while they pretend to support Novorossiya. They are hypocrites and destroyers as they wage their wars of humanitarian intervention even in the vineyard of the saker.
The beginning of this post is so disinformed that it is beyond correction. Just please, check Wikipedia or other deep theological sources to make sure you understand, as every Sunday-school kid does, that whatever the Immaculate Conception means has nothing to do with sexuality or with the supposed viginity of Mary.
I must add that I had a very good feeling toward Orthodoxy before reading this blog.
That is why I like your blog, Saker: for honesty and courage to say the truth as it is.
As for amount of “sodomite-rights-religion” worshipers here in comment sections – it clearly shows how low Western society has already degraded (note that all of these commenters come from the “West”). It shows power of propaganda lasting during decades. When a disgusting and unnatural perversion portrayed as something “normal”.
Zionists’ aim in their propaganda of all kind of perversions (along with “feminism” and juvenile justice) – is a demolition of institution of family. And they amazingly succeeded in doing this.
FAMILY along with RELIGION and NATIONAL IDENTITY – are three key barriers on the way of Zionist-led globalization and creating unified society with “universal” culture, “universal” religion and people of “universal” (undefined) gender. And all of these three key institutions are already totally devastated in modern sick Western society.
Saker, you were a big disappointment today, mostly because of your ignorance on many issues on sexuality, Just because you are the common male straight father who married a woman and such doesn’t mean that everyone is like you. If you don’t want abortion , go and bring up all those unwanted children or play the father to single moms who were abandoned from their 17year old fiancees before or after the birth of their accidental child. Next , don’t confuse the genders and sexualities with pederasty and bestiality. Being gay ,lesbian, transgender is happening . it’s not a plot of zionists, not a lab experiment, it’s reality. Wanna know why pederasty and bestiality are real crimes? It’s because they go against fundomental rights of people and animals. get your facts straight and don’t blubber your church propaganda. We are reading you because you provide info that are not said on the telly. Don’t view us as another object to experiment your own propaganda
Saker you should do more – many more! – of these cultural write-ups. The cultural aspect of this war is paramount in my opinion. As an aside, it seems to me that in a situation of acute social dislocation, a married priest is less likely to tend to his flock and more likely to rush home to his wife and children and see to their safety first and foremost. I suppose such an individual would simply be a “bad priest” in the event. In the Orthodox rites, are there any problems with nepotism or hereditary fiefdoms in the clergy/clerical offices?
Dearest Saker,
Thank you for once again standing on your beliefs and principals, how refreshing and inspiring. Your calling to truth what it is and a lie what it is brings me back time and time again! The cool-aid is defiantly contaminated. Blessings!
Putin made a mistake.
Putin is under the world’s microscope 24X7 and I’ve come to expect a flawless “performance” from him at all times.
There appears to be well thought out strategy in everything he does, so this mis judgement was unexpected.
Clearly he was being chivalrous, however it wasn’t appropriate for the event or people.
I don’t know what this mistake means except that maybe when under constant pressure even the super tough Putin errs.
The rest is all circus and none of my friends in social media even said one word about it.
Actually, the Immaculate conception does have something to do with sexuality, albeit tangentially.
Obviously Original Sin can only be passed on by the sexual act whether in a laboratory or in the normal way. According to Rome the Holy Virgin was preserved from Original Sin at the time of her conception by a special miracle.
The Orthodox view is more nuanced – Original Sin is known as Ancestral Sin, which is quite different to and far less dogmatic than the Western Church’s teaching. The most common view in Orthodoxy is that the Holy Virgin was purified of the Ancestral Sin at the time of The Annunciation.
@LATINS: Some of you have accused me of not understanding what the Immaculate Conception dogma means. In fact, you are projecting your own (corporate) ignorance on me. I know exactly what it means and I know that it has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Christ. And yes, I know that it refers to the conception without the original sin of the Mother of God. But don’t you see that the original sin is transmitted by sexual reproduction and that therefore the sexual act is in itself if not sinful, then at least the mode of transmission of the original sin?!
It is this mis-understanding of the original Christian teachings on the original sin which, combined with the mis-understanding of the notion of ‘fallen nature’ which gave the original anti-sexual impetus to the Frank theologians who were, shall we say, not the best educated to begin with, and who did not master the subtle Greek languages of the Fathers (St Ambrose of Milan being the exception here).
So yes, folks, the 19th century dogma of the Immaculate Conception, besides being based on a nonsensical sentence from a grammatical point of view (“I am the Immaculate Conception” is nonsense, it should be something like “My conception was immaculate”) is also based a misguided view of human sexuality and its connection with the original sin.
And did the Papacy not teach even until a recent past that sex is permissible only for reproduction and that the search for sexual pleasure is wrong? Yes, I know, recent catechisms have departed from that and have had to eat humble pie and come back to more traditional Christian views, but you can’t just shove 1000 years of heresy and nonsense under the carpet and pretend like it never happened. Well, I guess you can – but don’t expect those of us who know the past to just turn amnesic to ingratiate ourselves to you :-P
Cheers (or not)
The Saker
All religions follow the teachings of men. I think there is a difference between religion (laws of men) and spirituality (trying to align oneself to a higher good). Women’s spirituality has been marginalized, oppressed and punished for a long long time. It isn’t that one is bad and the other good, but there is always degradation when both are not in balance. Yes, the western culture is sick and corrupt, But who’s been in charge?
Hi Saker–
I am rather glad you brought up the Sexual Pathology issue because it lies at the root of such much of the dysfunction of the West.
I don’t want to get into a long defense of the Catholic Church. There is some truth to what you say but the general message is a bit skewed. In my view the best book on this subject is E. Michael Jones’s book “Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control” — showing how “liberated sex” is a fiction of an elite political agenda. It is reviewed here on my website:
http://from-the-catacombs.blogspot.com/search/label/sexual%20revolution
The propaganda for “gay marriage” and other weird sexual arrangements is unrelenting. It follows the pattern of previous propaganda missions for divorce, contraception, abortion, feminism, homosexuality and now transgender operations. In the meantime the State only gets bigger and bigger and more terrifying and powerful and warlike. Americans just don’t seem to get it. They are being reduced to animalized debt slaves, and a big part of this reduction is the twin program of Usury and Sodomy.
God bless you and your good work! Your friend Caryl in Philly
Religion. Saudi Arabia really disappointed me about Islam. Not just the local wahabis but the millions of normal sunnis here. It’s just legalism and fear. I haven’t heard anything about love or nature. Not for lack of trying. Maybe Zaidis or Alevis have more a grip on what life’s all about (re: Putin’s recent comment). I’m not sure. Anyway, sunnism seems to think that in an ideal world everyone would be exactly the same, following the hadith precisely. Looking around the world, I don’t think this is what a god would have had in mind. Besides, Shia communities seem more functional, intelligent and less prone to “fanaticism.” Shia’s leave room to adapt to the times and don’t leave the religion open to any scholarly wacko’s interpretation.
As for christianity, following the way of the original Paulist institution best is Orthodoxy, following the teachings of christ best are austere anabaptists.
Stoicism was widespread before christianity and lost out not because everyone realised christianity was right but because the christians outlawed stoicism and harassed/tortured/killed/dispossesed the stubborn.
You really should give the Catholic bashing a break, and I say this as a Protestant. I don’t think you get Catholicism.
The bourgeoisie took power in the American, French and Glorious revolutions, and Dutch independence. This was built on maritime trade and discoveries, especially the new world. It led directly to industrialisation, bureaucratization, financialization, nation-states, liberal democracy, scientism, commodification of everything and so on. It was/is innately expansionary.
Modern history according to Crossley is characterized by the tension between maritime trade empires and continental military empires.
The fate of Russia has always been intended to be the same as that of the Ottomans and Mughals. *Not pretty*
In continental empires ‘ethnicities’ lived together, genocide is a modern bourgeiois thing. Russia paid for the Circassians’ emmigration, it was poorly executed, more died after leaving Russia than within.
btw, the Manchu Qing Empire was a universalist empire, The rulers were Great steppe-warrior descendants of Chinggis Khan when facing the steppe peoples, great buddhists when facing tibetan subjects, great confucians when facing the chinese. An interesting model.
The onslaught on Russia over the last year has led me to reassess Leninism. I’ve been thinking it’s very unlikely that Russia and China could have retained/regained sovereignty without Leninism. I don’t like Leninism but the question is there. They needed brutal, bold modernist zealots to mobilize society to create a technological modernity lest they be steam-rolled by high-tech western expansionism. The Leninists’ many excesses were unfortunate and unneccessary, but the ethos that led to those excesses was necessary just to retain any sovereignty over the definition of what it means to be Russian or Chinese.
It’s was kind of like a cultural scorched earth policy, horrible, but unavoidable.
Soviet Atheism was a small detail in a hegemonic Marxist-Leninist ‘religion-substitute.’ The point wasn’t anti-religious evangelical atheists, it was the destruction of all ideological opposition. Atheism was just a detail in a rather crude system of sacred texts, prophets, saints and rituals. As atheism is a detail with Confucianism or Therevada Buddhism.
Bourgeois rule/modernity has changed the world and how we relate to it and each other in inexorable ways.
Technological power since agriculture and before has effected how people see the world and their place in it. Animists are one spirit among the many spirits of nature. Agrarians are god’s stewarts of nature. Now the temptation for man to see himself as god is ascendant, I think only peak oil/malthusianism can reverse this, fingers crossed.
Some have expressed a wish for Mr. Saker to continue writing cultural critiques, because they agree with him. Others have said he should stop, and stick to his excellent reports on factual events in tense regions and particularly Ukraine/Novorossiya, because they don’t agree with him.
I don’t remotely agree with Mr. Saker’s opinions about culture. But for one thing, it’s his blog–not for me to dictate what he says here. And for another, since reports on the situations must inevitably involve political questions, which in turn have cultural baggage attached to them, I appreciate Mr. Saker honestly putting his cultural cards on the table so I can keep that in mind when looking at his opinions of the politics. And thirdly, Mr. Saker is clearly someone who has gone through evolutions of his opinions about important matters, an impressive trait. Perhaps some of the readers have similar mental courage. By all means let everyone put out their opinions and just maybe someone will change someone’s mind.
With all due respect to your Chinese friend, Mr. Saker, as another Chinese person, I have to say that I find the words you quoted from him a complete misreading of the Chinese public’s reaction to President Putin’s gesture. From what I’ve seen in the Chinese-language internet space in the last few days, the reaction has been overall quite positive, with the word “gentleman” being used a lot, together with some affectionate amusement (“lol Vladimir you lady-killer” type), and some pride (“well of course, such attentiveness is only what is due to such a great lady”). At least I myself have seen absolutely no comment to suggest that it is disrespectful somehow. To be honest, I suspect that if your friend had made his comments in Chinese, on a Chinese internet platform, it would be torn apart as being, frankly, rather ridiculous.
Yes, I am sure that there are Chinese people who can find offense based on “traditional culture” grounds. But one thing about modern China is that we also have a very strong ability to be critical (often harshly) towards the negative aspects of our own traditional culture. “Most of us” aren’t actually so stuck in the Nineteenth Century that we don’t know what a gentlemanly action is.
In Saker’s defense, bashing Catholicism and bashing the Vatican are two completely different things. Just like criticizing U.S. foreign policy and the USG in general is not the same thing as criticizing the American public or the nation. Really, what Saker criticizes is a thousand years of Vatican foreign policy. The Vatican is an independent sovereign state in its own right, just as the City of London is a sovereign state within a state. Individual Catholics should not be offended, unless you are a Vatican bureaucrat, Knight of Malta, or whatever. The Black Pope and the Grey Pope might get a little offended by Saker’s stinging criticisms, but they have very thick skins and don’t take it personally, and they expect it anyway and can’t be bothered.
It’s obvious by the position of their arms that both Angela Merkel and Madame Li are preparing for the covering, and it is pre-arranged.
“Aren’t you cold? Would you like my cloak? My blanket?”
“Thank you. How kind”
“Every group of people include some who are bad and some who did unspeakable things. That must not be used to smear all the ones who did NOT.” — Kat Kan
In the Catholic Church? In Germany in the 30s and 40s?
The Ukrainian public, by results in the past several elections, seem to reject people who go in for torchlight marches and the flashy regalia of naziism. But they appear, as a culture, to have incorporated the basic ideas which are the reason the swastika is despised.
They do not reject the politicians who advocate ethnic cleansing for the Donbass, and they all avoid the information that it is proceeding apace. One million plus driven out already is a formidable number for a place the size of the Donbass. The targeting of children is obviously intended to change the minds of people who are willing to make a stand. The targeting of utilities is designed to empty the cities and towns, making life there unliveable.
Anybody with a laptop can find this out. There is a pro-active refusal to know among the general Ukrainian population. They are not blameless.
[from Blue]
Is sexuality messed up in the West (and the East)?
Well, most everything else is, so why should sexuality be left out or be unaffected?
Religion? About the same thing.
Freemasons? Why that that remain the same as it was when it began?
It’s a toss up as to whether humans or computers (built by humans, of course) can screw things up more efficiently.
Liberals? Pain int the rooney know-it-alls — they keep trying to change people and tell them what to do and decide how everything should be and what’s right and wrong — not so different from conservatives and right wingers — and most other humans of various ideologies.
What we really need is a lot more people who understand what is their business and what is none of their business, and stay out the latter.
Freely participating in friendly discussion is one thing, but anyone who wants to be ignorant or foolish (by my thinking) on their own time, in their own space, do not compel me to interfere. Live and let live.
_Blue
Whenever the American or Western media work themselves into a lather over some trivial non-issue like Putin’s gesture, you know there are OTHER agendas at work.
In particular, this is a pathetic and transparent media attempt to 1). discredit Putin and 2). foment distrust between Xi and Putin, and by symbolic extension between Russia and China.
The vaunted Free Press of America and the West increasingly descend to the level of tabloid media like TMZ or the National Enquirer.
But then again, what do you expect?
America is the same country that gave the world Twerking, the Kardashians, and Miley Cyrus’ latest sexual gyrations–not to mention Monica Lewinsky’s Clinton-stained blue dress or Anthony Weiner’s naked selfies!
America is Babylon.
For clarity, Saker is criticizing the Roman Catholic Church as an institution. There was no thousand years of Vatican foreign policy as the Vatican only became a city-state in the 19th century when the Papal States were conquered by the Italian state. Prior to that, it was the Roman Catholic Church itself under its Pope that conducted policy as both a temporal and a clerical institution.
to all Catholic Apologists…
People, we, Saker and all, are not insulting you…please look at the history both long ago and recent of the RC and open your eyes..its not you we`re “bashing“.
The RC is a corporation now…nothing more, and the greatest Catholics are the ones who don`t agree with having a pope.
Please be sure that pro-BRICS South Africans loved president Putin’s human gesture
Saker, one thing: you mistake the catholic (I don’t know about orthodox) reading of the primordial sin with the protestant one. Thinkers from the catholic church, for all their many faults, have for a long time redefined the original sin as hubris (taking yourself for God), which has nothing to do with sex. Granted, it leaves the problems of a totally sexless Godlike figure (Jesus), of his “immaculate mother”, and of the priest celibacy. But the ones who truly demonize sex are the protestants. To this day, a protestant culture, whether the people are believers or not (the keyword here is “culture”, i.e, thinking trends you acquire without even knowing it), demonizes sex either by rejecting it or by derailing it into something cold, without commitments, without love and ultimately, into something as miserable as they can get it.
To go back to Catholicism, the catholic middle-ages were surprisingly free and easy about sex matters, sometimes to the point of jolly obscenities like, for instance, that picture from a famous french book of the fifteenth century where you see a nun picking male genitalia from a phallus tree (once again, I don’t know about the orthodox position).
So, I guess, it’s all more about protestants than about Christians in general.
Ah, I wanted to add to my previous comment that there are no developed countries on earth where the relations between men and woman are as rotten as in Protestants countries.
My, don’t they hate each other: shrill feminists on one side, sadistic porn viewers on the other… and everybody on meds.
Your observations are appropriate to the bringer of cakes.
Fortunately the bringer of cakes was apparently oblivious to the possible perceptions of the bringing of cakes, the giving of cakes, the ways in which cakes were given, and the provenance of the bringer of cakes.
To increase the faux pas blinis or sernik could have been given – perhaps next time if such happens.
There are so many thoughtful comments on this thread, I will enjoy the reading of them even though I have only touched the surface so far. Thank you, Saker for bringing up this subject!
I will just give here my understanding of what I referred to as the subtle difference between western understandings of the Mother of Christ, and what I found present in the teachings of the Orthodox church.
Orthodoxy delights in mystery and is very Greek in that. Catholicism is Latin and wants logical explanations for religious truths. I like very much Pascal’s comment that ‘the heart has reasons which reason cannot understand.’ In other words, for Orthodoxy there are some events that go beyond reason into mystery and the virgin motherhood of Mary is one of those events.
In Orthodoxy we simply call her Theotokos, which quite literally means ‘the Birthgiver of God’. It is that birthgiving which is the human miracle, (her virgin motherhood is the divine mystery).
The ‘giving’ aspect that is human is not just the physical process of giving birth, but it is that she herself willed it, accepted to have it happen, gave her permission – just as her Son will accept his own role in the mystery.
The closest we Orthodox come to any description resembling ‘immaculate’ is to say she is ‘most pure’ – because who but the most pure human (and she is fully human) would be chosen to be the Mother of Christ – she is the pinnacle of human endeavor, having said the words ‘Let it be to me according to your word.’
In this she is above her kinsman, the priest, who has as Luke’s Gospel begins been dumbfounded (quite literally!) by a similar angelic confrontation. She is the new Eve, and boy is that first part of Luke’s Gospel an answer to those folk who think religion is patriarchal!
So, no divine interventions or superhuman qualities, no previous immaculate conception to her own birth – she is SO human as to be the human being we all should strive to be. She is our true link to the divine, because she exemplifies what is humanly possible, the human being each of us was intended to be. Her son took on her flesh, followed her example in accepting his role, and in Orthodox icons of her they are represented via that entwined, intimate relationship.
This makes Saker’s point, I believe, that sexual affinity and procreation is a natural function and is not to be treated as anything but a part of human nature to be enjoyed, treasured, and restored to its quiet place as naturally in harmony with human
aspirations toward sanctity.
These human interconnections in service of spiritual truths are what makes Orthodoxy such a beautiful faith for me, and I think for Saker as well.
Enjoy your birthday celebration, Saker!
Oh dear, Saker, I have just read your comment at 23:03, and I fear you took my opening request the wrong way – I did not wish you to ‘calm down’ (implying you were behaving erratically – it does sound a bit that way, but it is not what I meant.) I said ‘please be calm and accepting…’ and I ought to have said ‘please express your calmness and acceptance’ – as indeed some will misread passionate adherence to beliefs (and we should all feel that passion) to be a good excuse not to come and reason together (that favorite saying of President Johnson from the Old Testament.
I hasten to say I don’t find any of your statements of faith objectionable and have always felt welcome to express my own. Thank you for that. You have a wonderful forum of ideas and beliefs here, and you have managed it superbly.
I apologize for any of my clumsy attempts to assist. I did not mean to offend, but often I err.
Ann@06:37
I love that comment, Ann. “… the difficult, narrow gate through which we can find the Christ, as a Being that is waiting for us to seek him.”
It’s what I love about Orthodoxy – the faith is grounded upon beautiful teachings and the music is as close to heaven (and totally the human voice!) as any music can be. The Orthodox door, besides being beautiful, is as you say, a difficult, narrow gate.
Do you know, in my little church community the custom was when a woman would go into labor, those Royal doors centered in the iconostasis, which are usually closed apart from important moments during the service (but are open all Easter week) were opened for her until she gave birth? That is very Scriptural, I think.
Thank you.
Anonymous juliania said… I apologize for any of my clumsy attempts to assist. I did not mean to offend, but often I err. 14 November, 2014 17:37
Juliana, what we write on the net, especially in email and in blogs, is often misunderstood. I see that happening all the time. I have seen completely unnecessary misunderstandings on this blog, too. Don’t worry about it. I am sure Saker understands you and he may not have addressed you at all.
@ Saker: compliments, this subject truly generated a minor earthquake :-))). And I’ve noted with interest that quite a number of posters see the new gender and family “rules” (“rights”?) as being a manipulation designed to destroy our cultures. I also see it in this light:
Just a generation ago (I know this from personal experience) here in Europe we had
– a functional family (with a minor percentage of failed marriages/divorces)
– a normal reproduction rate
– homosexuality (~5%?) was tolerated as an age-old human orientation (but pedophily and adoption of children were out)
– the male ideals (courage, strength, resistance to violence and hardship) were respected (there were also some men who did not share these views and who often found a dominant female partner or who remained single)
– the female ideals (sensitivity, interest in the home, interest in children) were respected (again there were some women who did not share these views and who either found an understanding partner or who remained single).
Then came the massive propaganda about the modern woman:
– the family is an enslavement of women
– women /must/ discard the family and seek their destiny at work (no choice allowed)
– those women who stay in the family are parasites of man (which is ridiculous because a home + children are a 24h job)
and since the 99% of women (just like the 99% of men) do not question propaganda the divorce rates skyrocketed.
Then came also the massive propaganda about the modern man:
– man /must/ be sensitive
– man /must/ want to “live” (i.e. have pleasure)
– man /must/ avoid violence at all cost
and so the natural defender of the family became feminized, isolated and incapable of defense.
With the additional demographic consequence of plummeting birthrates.
You may look at this in 2 ways:
1. Either the resemblance between the propagandas and the current situation is just coincidence – our governments are just thinking of our wellbeing.
2. Or the current situation is a result of these propagandas believed by the 99%: this means that our AZ governments are busy with a deliberate effort to destroy our societies by social engineering.
???
This thread is old and not many will read it, but I hope at least Saker does. Below, I provide links to articles that are not generally known.
Why are Orthodox Christians upset when they talk about the Catholic Church? The theological differences are obvious, but to really understand the feelings we must study the history of the last thousand years. I will only write about the conflicts in the North. Serbs can tell us about the religious conflicts on the Balkans in WW2, informed netizens can tell us what support was given to Hitler, Franco and Mussolini, others may have information about the Napoleonic wars and the Greeks can tell us about Constantinople being destroyed by crusaders.
My post is about the old conflict between the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church and the unfortunate wars in the North. I don’t want more conflicts between Christians, I want healing, but I want all of us to see the historical roots of the conflicts. Maybe we can understand each other better if we understand how it all started and then went on autopilot.
The many wars between Sweden-Finland and Novgorod/Russia started in earnest in the 14th century and continued until 1809. Before that, the old bonds were still strong despite some geopolitical tensions. Birger Jarl and Aleksandr Nevskii fought in the 13th century, but the two could talk with each other. Birger Jarl was well aware of the strong Orthodox influence in Sweden and so was Alexander. As I understand it, Birger wanted to convert the heathen Finnish tribes in Finland _and_ Russia and expand the Kingdom. By doing so he stepped on Alexanders toes, though Alexander was well aware of the heathen Finnish tribes in present day Russia.
Some say that, as a token of the peace treaty, the border line, the Vane river, was renamed the Neva River. This information should be treated with caution, no historical sources confirm it, but I mention it anyway, since we have modern examples of such strange name changes. NATO/OTAN and Battenberg/Mountbatten (Berg means Mount). EU/UE.
A Catholic saint, St. Bridgit, had King Magnus start a religious war against Novgorod against his will. He was led to war because the Church said so. Magnus lost and according to sources in the Vaalamo monastery he converted to the Orthodox Faith on his deathbed. A tourist saw the gravestone in the 18th century, but it is gone today. If Magnus converted, defying Bridgit and Rome, it is sensational and it should be spread far and wide and that includes in Russia. He is a saint in the Orthodox Church. His day is November 16th. The pope Jean Paul the second nominated Bridgit the Saint of Europe before he died. The pope must have been well aware of the start of the Northern religious wars.
In English, very important:
http://www.recherches-slaves.paris-sorbonne.fr/Cahier7/Lind.htm
In Swedish:
http://sv.metapedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Eriksson
We have to stop these silly conflicts. Reconciliation starts with recognizing facts. Denial is a dead end.
I’ve been waiting in vain for someone to suggest that a culture in which all the women have been desexed might be sexually dysfunctional.
Then I searched. No hits on clitoridectomy. Two hits on mutilation, one on “gender” mutilation eliminating maleness, which I don’t understand and one on circumcision. One mention of India but giving no sense of scale. 50,000,000 missing women might have some impact on sex in a society.
Perhaps we should have started out by identifying what we think “sexual function” is. I think it is cementing bonding through mutual pleasure. There don’t seem to be many definitions of dysfunction here that would arise from my definition of function.
You have my respect Saker..enough said.
Thanks, Anonymous@19:21; you are very kind.
I enjoyed this bit of ritual pantomime carried out by Putin and Xi’s wife. Russia is indeed courting China, to woo her away from the West. He offers her his coat of protection in the coming new cold war. She accepts. No wonder the West is enraged, being the spurned suitor.
DNR news reports that a Kiev civil servant has posted on his Facebook page that they have executed someone for homosexuality.
Do I hear cheers?
It was Spartans, not “Greeks,” who advocated sex among soldiers in order to enhance mutual loyalty.
Sex between mentors and boys was sufficiently accepted that it had rules. Penetration was forbidden.
So its time for the next pill.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/worldservice/tff/tff_20141114-1206a.mp3
Ingrian said… “ 13 November, 2014 19:26
“This was built on maritime trade”
The wonders of atomic half-lives, mapping and the benefits of turning the map “upside down” all illustrated in “recent developments”.
Cassandra said…@ 15 November, 2014 00:48
A step, but why not dysfunction being a function of function?
It may help with illumination if rubbing of the lamp is not restricted to linear motion.
The Warrior Wives of Evangelical Christianity
The intense focus on sexuality, purity, manhood, and womanhood in certain faith communities—and its consequences
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/11/the-warrior-wives-of-evangelical-christianity/382365/
Saker, although I generally enjoy reading your analysis and comments on all matters related to Russia, I would like to know more about your belief that homosexuality is a sexual psycho-pathology.
I would like to clarify that I am in no way attacking you but I think that this characterization is not only not useful but also out of place. As someone who did not grow up in what you call a “Western” society”, but indeed in one “sexually diferentiated” (and I beg your pardon but I’d venture say Mexico is by far one of the most “sexually differentiated” cultures on Earth, much more than Russia’s). Not growing up with Western values as you might consider them, not growing up with Western propaganda and growing in a loving family, I still turned out gay. I don’t like porn, I don’t believe in that nonsense of gay rights or gay-marriage (as people are too stupid to realize it’s all about the taxes and not the “sacredness” of something that doesn’t really exist anymore), I don’t objectivize men, and I’ve fallen in love with other men, I’ve never been promiscuous (people in Western socities might even consider me “a prude”) and getting in a long-term relationship where both parties want to grow together is definitely one of my goals.
May I know how, or why, I’m part of a minority that suffers from this “sexual psycho-pathology”?
I’m sure, based on your other analysis, that your answer will be insightful and well-documented and researched, and not the result of your upbringing.
I am definitely late to this party! Only got wind of it via http://www.4thmedia.org/2014/11/the-west-the-most-sexually-dysfunctional-society-on-the-planet/
I actually skimmed through all these 190+ comments!
Two things.
[1] What Erika said needs to be shouted from rooftops:
“The one thing everyone has missed in both APEC and in Merkel shawl moment is that Putin is wearing a coat.
At the APEC and G-20 in St. Petersburg, all the other attendees (political leaders) were not wearing coats, they were instead freezing their [butts] off.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2413539/Let-eat-cake-Obama-greeted-glamorous-ladies-lavish-Russian-G20-ball-Syria-continues-torn-apart-war.html
On one hand you have leaders WHO ARE TOLD WHAT TO DO, how politics and power is all about optics and on the other you have a leader, who is smart enough to know it is going to be cold outside and wears a coat, and brings a blanket for his lower body. [CAPS are mine]
THIS IS A MAN WHO IS PREPARED, COMFORTABLE, AND CONFIDENT IN HIS BODY AND NOT A FOOL. [CAPS are mine]
And if you look at this APEC video, PUTIN IS THE ONLY LEADER WITH A COAT. [CAPS are mine]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A6hrzJ8s28 “
[2] Regarding homosexuals, my very limited platonic encounters with gay men (meeting them as friends), has led me to conclude this:
They, like not a few Jews, have this unbelievable and incredible drive and/or need to “outperform” and/or “outshine” everyone else. Almost as an uncontrollable mechanism to compensate or over-compensate some glaring defect or inner blemish they secretly harbor!
The account in Genesis about the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is very instructive. Per most translations that I am aware of,
Adam and Eve were originally “man and his wife” like a married couple but without shame at the nakedness of their bodies. One of the first consequences of their “fall” was that they entered a new awareness about their bodies and their sexuality that made nakedness no longer comfortable. In fact, we see in almost 100% of all human societies and cultures the pervasive presence of a special set of values and morality based on very powerful FEELINGS of disgust, rage and shame at sexual contact especially between adult sexually capable men and women. These feelings have generated a special morality with its own terminology which is different from what I would call “wisdom morality”. This special morality uses terms like “pure” versus “impure” or “clean” versus “unclean” and the energies behind this morality have greatly highjacked religions, and concepts of honor, and often this is called “THE MORALITY” when people are judged “moral” or “immoral”. Behavior that violates these sensibilities of disgust, rage and shame at sexual conduct tends to be punished very drastically, often by death of the supposed perpetrators. These feelings also tend to apply to states like pregnancy, menstruation, and anything “carnal”.—These feelings can apply to nations and races, and then we use the same terminology of “cleansing” meaning drastic punishment and mass killing, genocide, applied to large groups of people. Much of racist feelings seem to center around concepts of the preferred race being sexually contaminated and violated by the “other race”. What is the true ultimate origin of such feelings about sexual contact and behavior? Because these feelings generate sometimes the most atrocious acts in the name of “God” or “honor” [just read the genocidal actions
of prophet Moses against selected nations accused of sexual misconduct, reflected in the Bible]
these are indeed examples for our warning and instruction and NOT examples to be followed, given the teachings of Lord Jesus Himself and how He refused to kill adulterous women, and the like.—But the phenomenon involves the concept raised by Christian apostles and thinkers concerning how the satanic entity poses as God and appropriates the name of God to be like a rival of God in human minds.
This is why I call this morality and the feelings and energies underlying it “Satan’s morality”.
If these strong feelings of disgust, rage and shame at sexual contact between adult men and women were eliminated, I strongly suspect that most of current lesbian and homosexual alternative styles would disappear, many destructive sexual deviations [from perspective of “wisdom morality”] would disappear.—The pharisaic- legalistic branches of “new Islam”
like the wahhabists, salafists, taliban and the like are probably the very worst in handling of human sexuality, totally controlled by this “satan’s morality” and its underlying feelings.
Saker,
Here I certainly find a huge amount of common ground with your views. While you would probably label me a Protestant or maybe even an Evangelical (neither of which would likely hit the mark), let’s go with Christian or Christ-follower. The dysfunction of the West with regards to sex I believe largely finds itself in it’s real religion: secular humanism (or self-worship).
There are many in America who look upon with horror the spectre of their country becoming more and more like the EU. It’s an interesting perspective you bring that the EU dances to the US’ s tune. Most conservative Americans would likely believe that the opposite is true, at least for the East and West coasts.