Russian Orthodox

On looking out for one's country's best interests

Virtually all countries have something good about them. In fact, name a country, and if I know anything worthwhile about it I shall probably be able to name one good thing about them.

The U.S., for instance, has a laudable tradition for innovation, self-sufficiency and even freedom of speech  - real or perceived. There is also a spirit of innovation in the U.S. that is nothing short of admirable. What I admire most about the U.S. currently, however, is the absolutely stunning growth of authentic Catholicism in the country - often referred to as traditionalism due to the diabolically disoriented times in which we find ourselves. I have met many American traditionalists and I am often humbled by the joy they display and the hope the inspire, and to think we have communities of them sprouting up all over the country gives me some hope that maybe not all is lost over there.

Sweden, for its part, has a population which is very superficially friendly, so a visitor coming to Sweden will meet pretty much only friendly folks - those that engage in conversation anyway. People in this country allow emotions to drive the debate, instead of reason, which of course has its downsides, but one of its few upsides is that for instance, we do not (yet) have euthanasia. However, when it does come to Sweden I fear it will be in a vastly more aggressive form than we have in other countries for the aforementioned reason. Then we have the 'allemansrätt' laws, which allow people to access private lands so long as they do not disturb the landowners, such that the whole population can enjoy much of the beautiful nature that we have in this country. It's what they had in England pre-protestant revolt, if my historical understanding serves me well.

There is too much good about Italy for me to even begin narrowing it down. China, for its part, has pride in its own culture and history - real or perceived - and we have to admit that no matter how ruthless the Chinese have been, they have managed to get more people out of poverty than could have been envisioned 3 generations ago. Of course, it is not worth destroying churches and killing hundreds of millions of unborn and infants, but we cannot argue that at least they have found an economic model which seems to ensure that the economic initiative of the globe will be Eastwards for some time to come. There also seems to be a genuinely-accepted principle in China that interfering in other countries' internal affairs is a bad thing, and this is a principle they actually seem to honour, as opposed to the Western countries which speak of human rights and freedom, but merely as weapons with which to bludgeon countries they propagate against more than principles they accept or encourage.

"What does this have to do with looking out for one's contry's best interests?", you might well be asking. Well, it has to do with Mother Russia.

You see, it too has much to admire and perhaps most admirable is how much value-for-money Russia seems to get out of its technicians and engineers. Another thing no less admirable is the Russia insistence on self-reliance and independence. In fact, Vladimir Putin has labeled Russia's independence "axiomatic": Russia would cease to be Russia were it not an independent and autonomous country. This is integral to Russia's 'goodness'.

Sadly, most of Europe does not seem to share this kind of view. For instance, we see much of Eastern Europe shaking off the chains of the Sovient Union only to shackle itself first to the E.U.'s chains, and then to be lackey's of the U.S. whatever threat this poses to their own security or economic interests. Western Europe, on the other hand, is occupied territory and has been such since World War II, though it seems to be something not to be mentioned in polite company, and seems to revel in this occupation.

Anyway...It may seem somewhat enigmatic that pretty much the closest thing we have to a Christian nation today - Russia (although that says more about the sad state of former Christendom than it does about Russia's virtues) - would choose to forge an alliance with communist China which has outlawed Christianity. Russia has built over 10,000 churches since the collapse of communism; China demolishes churches, frequently and gleefully, as often as they can.

It is probably not until we consider that Russia attempted to make peace and friendship with the West, and was brutally shunned, humiliated and ransacked that we begin to see why Russia felt that the only way to turn was Eastwards. It is not for a lack of trying that Russia is not on good terms with the West; there is simply too much at stake for the political elite in Europe to drive the narrative that Russia is an enemy. Russia, for its part, tired of trying, and decided to take its economic interests elsewhere, and it is turning out well for them.

This topic is the debale on "Bear & Dragon", an episode of the best show on TV - Russia Today's "Crosstalk" programme hosted by Peter Lavelle. It often has very engaging discussions and most of the time one can learn something worthwhile.

For anybody wanting to learn why Russia has drifted closer to China, and why it has drifted away from the West - through no initiative of its own, one hastens to add - this episode might well prove to be an eye-opener.

What one has to remember as well is that with Russia now attempting to integrate itself more with the East and the South, the barrier of the West towards both Russia and China, as well as their trade partners increases. Trade creates partnerships and relationships, and done well and with respect - which both Russia and China do much better than the West which tries to...

A problem so urgent it can be put off for 5 months, and making the Chinese military great again - Sunday 9th of September to Saturday 6th of October

This has been another Bergoglian month, full of scandals and distasteful accusations and insults against the few remaining faithful Catholics.

Much can be written about Bergoglio's implication in the McCarrick scandal, but I feel no need to engage that topic much more. We already know what we need to know: Bergoglio is a pervert, almost certainly a sodomite, who surrounds himself with sodomites and who promotes sodomy at virtually every given opportunity. He has already said that one can make up one's own idea of right and wrong, and he seems to pick people whose moral deviancy is beyond dispute. Anything else is just details, and I feel no desire to soil my blog with more of Bergoglio's sordid affairs.

This does not mean that we still can't cover his many other scandals, and indeed we ought, lest we lose sight of the sustained assault in which Bergoglio has engaged against the faith. In the secular world too, things are not looking good, and Bergoglio's assault on the Church from within has strengthened the Church's enemies on the outside.

By far the most thought-provoking pieces  I have read over the past month were on the Remnant. In a series of articles titled A Wilderness of Mirrors, columnist Jesse Russell laid out "as to why the media, after all this time of knowing about both Bergoglio's and McCarrick's perversions, seems to have decided to turn against them by highlighting stuff they could very easily have done previously, and much earlier, as I summarised them on the 4th of October. His general contention is that, just as news of the Boston clerical scandal was used to undermine Pope John Paul II's opposition to the Iraq war as it was in its planning phase, so too the revelations of Bergoglio's involvement in the McCarrick scandal have been brought up to undermine Bergoglio's assumed opposition to any America-led war on Iran.

I too have wondered "why now?" It turns out that the information about the Boston sexual abuse cases was pretty much well-known in the Boston area at least, and an inquisitive mind ought to at least wonder in that case why the scandal blew up in 2000, just as the American political establishment was making its case for a war in Iraq. So too, information about Bergoglio's perversions has been all-too-easy to find, yet we are supposed to believe that the media has only now got wind of it. The question I have had all along is why the media has not been following up leads on Bergoglio's many scandals, given how much the media likes to drag up dirt on the Church, but it did not take me long to conclude that whoever controls the media sees Bergoglio as their man, and does not wish to see his demolition of the Church come off course by airing his dirty linens in public.

That brings us to the question of why the media now is tentatively covering this scandal, and the only explanation I can come up with is that they simply could not igore it outright, given how hard they have worked to undermine the Church on its handling of sexual abuse, a problem which is not worse in the Catholic Church than it is in other organisations both secular and religious. That is, of course, no excuse, and I do not mind this exposure, because the Church is supposed to be held to a higher standard. It is, in fact, supposed to set the standard. Still, the media coverage of what for any other pope would be a witch-hunt is very half-hearted at best. For this, Bergoglio probably has to thank the media's general homosexualist stance, since any digging into this scandal would reveal its homosexual roots, but that hardly explains everything.

For that reason, Jesse Russell's contribution was an eye-opener in that it allowed one to step back and look at the whole situation from a larger perspective, to see the whole chess board as it were.

I have often maintained that it is important to give Bergoglio credit for what little good he has done, and as far as I am concerned he has done only one good thing since becoming pope, and that is opposing what seemed to be a certain U.S. attack on Syria in 2013 on account of one of the many false/hoax flag events we have seen during that proxy war. Not only did he oppose it, but he called for worldwide prayer for a peaceful solution, which allowed my main man Vladimir Putin to come in and steal the U.S.'s excuse from war from under its nose when he declared that a deal had been reached with the Syrian government to transfer all chemical weapons out of the country. This was later verified by the OPCW and has been re-verified on multiple counts since, not that it has stopped Donald Trump and his neo-cons from attacking Syria on further false/hoax flags.

The main goal for Trump and the American kleptocracy has always been Iran, and so we should not be surprised that the lies against Iran have been ramped up. Iran being what it is - a rather powerful nation - the groundwork for an attack has to be planned out long in advance and opposition to a war has to be snuffed out considerably more methodically than was done against Iraq. Witness false flags against Russia in the U.K., Ukraine and Syria, and Trumps obsession with demonising Iran's presumed allies in Turkey and China, trying to put economic pressure on them, presumably so they can cave in to his war plans in return for an allevation of the economic pressures.

If you ask me, Jesse Russell's conspiracy theory is a bit too clean for my liking. It's too neat, and explains too much too well. I don't see particularly much methodology in the Trump administration, although I must admit that confusion and madness may well be its...

Pages

Subscribe to Russian Orthodox