IN 2011, European Court of Human Rights ruled that while some of his right were violated, fundamentally Khodorkovsky had not been condemned unfairly. In other words, if he was not sentenced for political reasons, he was sentenced for a crime and that, last time I checked, makes Khodorkovsky a convicted criminal.
Why is it then that from the White House, to Baroness Ashton, to nearly all the European and US elites - everybody is celebrating? Why this sympathy for a justly convicted criminal?
What the hell is wrong with you guys?!
Do you realize that this attitude makes you look like you are in cahoots with a criminal oligarch?
The Saker
Saturday, December 21, 2013
End of year news conference of Vladimir Putin
Ok, this is a *long* press conference: over four hours and thirty minutes. And some of the questions might not be of interest to you. But, for those of you who are interested in getting a sense of Putin's personality, what kind of a guy he really is, this is invaluable: the event is 100% unscripted, the people asking the questions come from a huge pool of 1300 invited journalists so you get all kinds of folks: the official ones, the really subservient types, the obligatory Russia-hating Ukrainian, the western reporter interested about Pussy Riot, but also the local papers from small town with their local problems and tragedies, a few cooks with silly question, etc. Putin also shows his many faces here - sometimes he is serious, sometimes he jokes, and sometimes he bares his fangs, just a little, to show that he will not be pushed around. As character-study materials go, this is great stuff so I will provide it in two variants: first, the official Kremlin video dubbed in English and, second, an original Russian version with English subtitles. I hope that you take the time to listen to this press-conference, it is well worth it.
The Saker
PS: make sure to press the 'cc' button in the second video for English subtitles.
The Saker
PS: make sure to press the 'cc' button in the second video for English subtitles.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
The Truthseeker: Who Has Nukes in the Middle East
Daniel Bushell does a stellar job of delivering a blunt expose of the real nature of the "Jewish state of Israel" and interviews plenty of very good people to make his point. Absolutely brilliant show - MUST WATCH!
The Saker
PS: does anybody know who Daniel Bushell is and were he comes from? I am hugely impressed by this short report and I want to know more about the guy who did it. Thanks!
The Saker
PS: does anybody know who Daniel Bushell is and were he comes from? I am hugely impressed by this short report and I want to know more about the guy who did it. Thanks!
Russia and Islam, part eight: working together, a basic "how-to"
Today I am going to look into the topic of Orthodox and Muslim cooperation, suggest one possible approach to this issue and give a practical example were this could be done immediately and with great benefit for all the parties involved. I consider this post today as the eighth installment of my "Russia and Islam" series and I suggest that those who have not read it take a look at it before proceeding (click here for parts one, two, three, four, five, six and seven). For reasons obvious to anybody who has read these series, I will limit my scope to the topic of cooperation between Orthodox Christians and non-Wahabi Muslims. As an Orthodox Christian myself I do not believe that any cooperation is possible between the Orthodox Church and the Papacy or the Reformed/Protestant denominations, nor do I believe that there is anything to discuss with Wahabis. So when I will speak of 'Christian' below this will strictly refer to Orthodox Christians and 'Muslim' will refer to any Muslim except Wahabis.
The fundamentally misguided yet typical approach:
Having had many opportunities to exchange views with Muslim from different countries and having also heard Christian and Muslim religious figures engaged in various debates, dialogs and discussions, I can describe the typical scenario by which such dialogs are conducted.
Typically, both sides try to establish a list of all the issues Islam and Christianity agree upon. These include that God is love, that the Mother of Jesus was a virgin, that the anti-Christ will come before the end of time, that Moses was a great prophet, that angels are the messengers of God any many other things. Added to this list of topics of agreement are usually statements about how Christians and Muslims have lived in peace side by side and how this should continue today. This is a well meaning and polite way to engage in a dialog, but this is also a fundamentally misguided one for the simple reason that it overlooks absolutely fundamental theological and historical problems. Let's take these one by one.
Irreconcilable theological differences between Christianity and Islam
The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called "Credo" or "Symbol of Faith" (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest 'i' of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms - the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.
The fact is that Muslim would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:
For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called "Shahada" or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". One can often also hear this phrased as "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet".
Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that "Allah" is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don't - this is really irrelevant here), it's the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the "Symbol of Faith"). Saint John of Damascus even called him a 'false prophet'. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the "Shahada" without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the "Symbol of Faith" without giving up his Islam.
So why bother?
Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studying and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.
The next divisive issue is the historical record.
Christians and Muslims - friends or foes? What does history show?
Another well-meaning and fundamentally mistaken approach often seen in dialogs between Christians and Muslims is the attempt to present the history of relations between these two faiths as a long uninterrupted love-fest. This is factually wrong and naive to the extreme.
First, both Muslims and Christians are human beings, imperfect and sinful human beings (both religions agree on that). Second, and just to make things worse, both Islam and Christianity have, at times, been official state religions, meaning that states acted in the name of their religion. As a result, there have been plenty of moments in history where Christians and Muslims fought each other. Yes, it is true that Muslims and Christians often did live in peace side by side, but unless one is a total bigot and ignoramus, it is simply impossible to ignore the fact that Christians and Muslims also waged war, persecuted and mistreated each other, sometimes viciously.
So what?
What needs to be established not whether Christians and Muslims did wrong each other in the past, but whether they can live in peace. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes!". I know, some naysayer will immediately object that both Christianity and Islam have an mixed record of interpretation of whether converting the other to your religion is a religious duty or not. The point here is not whether some Christians or Muslims do (or did) believe that they have to convert each other at all cost, but whether there are those who do not believe so. As long as this is a possibility compatible with one's faith this is sufficient.
I think that history, and plenty of statements from religious figures on both sides, prove that this is possible - and that there is a preponderance of evidence to show that - that both Christians and Muslims can accept that the decision to be a Muslim or a Christian should be freely taken inside each person's heart without compulsion or even interference. The fact that it is possible to interpret Christianity and Islam differently is irrelevant as long as it is also possible to accept such a basic stance on religious choices.
Yes, I know that in Islam apostasy is a capital crime, but I also know that over the centuries Muslims have also chosen to not enforce this. It is not for me as an Orthodox Christian to dictate what Muslim leaders decide, but it is also clear to me that there are enough wise and pragmatic Muslim leaders out there to fully comprehend the consequences of a decision on their part to enforce the death penalty on somebody choosing to abandon Islam.
So where do we go from here?
It is very simply to get Christians and Muslims to feel hostility towards each other. First, make a few theological statements which are unacceptable to the other party, call the other a heretic or unbeliever, then mention a few bloody and contentious episodes in history and soon you will have a very nasty situation on your hands. This is as easy as it is sterile as nothing at all can come from that.
Thankfully, it is just as easy to accept that there are irreconcilable differences between the core beliefs of both religions and that each person should have the means to freely make a choice between these two faiths according to his conscience. As for history, it is a no-brainer to accept that both parties have, at times, done wrong to each other and that we are not responsible for what happened in the past, but only for what we make of our present and future.
Still, having dealt with our differences, we still should ask ourselves whether we have something in common, a common interest, or common values, which we might want to jointly defend. And we most definitely do: our ethics.
The common ground - ethics:
Any religion has two primarily components: what it believes in, what it proclaims, and then the rules of life, the "how to" of daily existence which it mandates. In Christian terms there is the doxa (what you proclaim or glorify) and the praxis (how you live your spiritual life on a daily basis). These are the basic rules common to most religions: not to kill, not to steal, to live a life of modesty, to protect the weak, etc. When comparing Islam and Christianity one can find both differences and similarities between their praxis and ethics. The differences in praxis are not that important because they mostly affect the private lives of the faithful: Muslims will fast during the month of Ramadan, Christians during the four major fasts of the year and on Wednesdays and Fridays. So let them, who cares? They really do not bother each other and, in fact, they are typically respectful of each other's traditions. On ethics, however, the two religions mostly agree both on a social/corporate and individual level and, with one notable exception which I will discuss below, Christianity and Islam have very similar ideas of what is right and wrong and what society should stand for or pro-actively reject. Rather than making a long list of what Islam and Christianity agree on, I will simply introduce a new actor for comparison's sake: the "post-Christian secular West".
What does the post-Christian and secular West stand for today?
First and foremost, the post-Christian and secular West stands for the freedom of each person to chose his/her own system of belief, code of behavior, system of morals, lifestyles, etc. In other words, the post-Christian and secular West categorically rejects the notion that something called "The Truth" exists. From that it is logically inevitable to conclude that there really is no "right" or "wrong" at all. In fact, a core belief of the post-Christian and secular West is that "your freedom stops were mine begins" (originally expressed as "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins"). Ergo - as long as others are not affected by it, you can do whatever you want. Each person has his/her 'truth' and what you consider right another person might consider wrong and vice-versa.
Second, and as a direct consequence of the first point, the post-Christian and secular West places the well-being of the individual above the well-being of the community. This is perfectly expressed by the famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase of the US Declaration of Independence which states that these are the inalienable right of each individual. The contrast with both Christianity and Islam could not have been greater since these religions consider that the real life is the Eternal Life, that the human being is called to be in obedience to God and that true happiness is spiritual and not earthly. In fact, while the West considers life as the highest value, Christianity and Islam welcome death and consider that dying in the name of God is a most desirable act of witness of God (martis in Greek has exactly the same meaning as shahid in Arabic: witness).
Finally, and as a direct consequence of the two points above, the only common value to all people in the post-Christian and secular West is, of course, money. Money is, literally, the only "common currency" of a society without any supreme values in which each person is free to define right and wrong as he/she wishes. This results in an inevitable monetization of everything, including the life of a human being.
This is really a very minimal system of values, but it is plenty enough to make it the "anti-religion" par excellence. In comparison to that, the differences between Orthodoxy and Islam suddenly appear tiny, almost irrelevant. Today, this is best exemplified in Russia where both Orthodox Christianity and Islam are under a direct multi-level attack by the determined efforts of the post-Christian and secular West which spares no effort to subvert and destroy the vales of these religions and replace them by Western "values" promoted in multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns, including music, movies, books, fashion, TV, talk shows, stores, politicians, famous personalities, etc.
The recent and famous cases of Pussy-Riot and the supposed "right" of Russian homosexual to organize "pride" parades in Moscow are the perfect examples of the kind of agenda the post-Christian and secular West is pushing nowadays. And although this is not reported in the Western corporate media, I can attest to the fact that Muslim leaders in Russia all perfectly understand that they are also under attack and that this is not just an "Orthodox problem".
So what could they do about it?
A prefect opportunity - the Russian Constitution
Russian politicians are not blind to what is going on and with the exception of a few pathologically naive or dishonest "liberals", they all understand that what is happening now is a clash of civilizations between the post-Christian and secular West and post-Soviet Russia. The fact that this clash if civilizations is not only ideological, but also political and even military (as the examples of the Euromaidan in the Ukraine and the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe shows) only makes these matters more urgent.
It just so happened that the Russian Constitution is celebrating its 20th anniversary and that possible changes to that Constitution are being discussed in many part of Russian society. On of the most bizarre features of the current Russian Constitution is that it forbids the state from having any ideology. Article 13.2 of the current Constitution states that "No ideology may be established as state or obligatory one". The roots of this rather strange paragraph can be traced to a mix of the general rejection of the old Soviet official Marxist-Leninist Communist ideology and a transparent attempt of the foreign "advisers" to the Eltsin regime in 1993 to make darn sure that nothing "Russian" would find its place in the new Russian Constitution.
Some Russian Orthodox politicians have suggested that this paragraph 13.2 should be expunged and that some formulation would have to be found to express the notion that Orthodoxy played a key historical role in the culture and system of values of modern Russia, that Orthodox values are the basis of the modern ideology of Russia. So far, no exact formulation has been suggested and there is even a debate whether such a phrase should be included in the Constitution itself or in its preamble.
Needless to say, even raising such a notion has resulted in an outraged reaction by the small but very vocal minority of pro-Western "liberal" politicians. More importantly, a lot of Russian Orthodox Christians also have deep reservations about the wisdom of such an amendment because it might alienate all the non-Orthodox people in Russia, which include not only Muslims or Buddhists, but a probably majority of agnostics. Muslim leaders have also expressed concern that this would officially place Islam in a 2nd-category religion status (even though that is exactly the status of Christian dhimmis under Sharia law) and given Orthodoxy a senior, leading role.
I strongly believe that this is the perfect example when Christians and Muslims can easily find a common ground and unite forces: why not simply recognize the special role of Orthodoxy and Islam in the historical formulation of the Russian culture, society and system of values?
First, this happens to be historically correct. Not only were there a lot of Muslims among the Mongols who occupied Russia, in particular in the late period of occupation, but the expansion of the Russian state included many areas with a majority Muslim population who became citizens of the Russian Empire. Muslims have fought in defense of the Russian state and nation in many wars from the times of Saint Alexander Nevsky, to WWII to the 08.08.08 war against Georgia. Last but most definitely not least, Akhmad Kadyrov and his son Ramzan Kadyrov have played an absolutely crucial role in kicking the Wahabis out of Chechnya and thereby they not only saved the Chechen nation from what would have been an absolutely devastating Russian assault, but they also probably saved Russia from a very dangerous and bloody war in the Caucasus. The same can be said of the Dagestani men who for several days single-handedly fought the invading "Islamic International Brigade" of Shamil Basaev and Khattab from Chechnia in 1999 until the main Federal forces got involved. Modern Russia is, beyond any possible doubt, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state whose well-being and prosperity depends in great part from the kind of Islam Russian Muslims will chose: the Islam of Ramzan Kadyrov or the "Islam" of Doku Umarov (the shaitan who fancies himself the "President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Emir of the Caucasus Emirate").
Second, by acknowledging the role of both Orthodox Christianity and Islam the proponents of this constitutional amendment would gain the support of what is by far the largest segment of the religions population: there are Buddhists, Papists, Protestants, Jews and other religious denominations in Russia, but they are tiny compared to the big two. Personally, I would also include Buddhists in this list of "culture forming" religious whose values are shaping Russian society if only because (unlike the other small(er) religions) they are truly indigenous to Russia whereas the other denominations are "foreign imports" which, of course, have the right to exist in Russia, but which have had exactly zero influence on the formation of the Russian national identity or system of values.
As for the nominally religious and mostly agnostic people, the mere fact that two (or three) religions are recognized in a special role should assuage their concerns about any one system of values or ideology becoming official at the expense of everybody else. After all, most people in Russia would agree that the ethics of Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. The only major societal and moral issue in which Orthodox Christianity and Islam really disagree on is the issue of capital punishment. But that is irrelevant since Russia has pledged a total moratorium on executions anyway (of all things, to join - what else? - the Council of Europe); besides a majority of Russians still remain in favor of the death penalty to the point that it might even be re-introduced in the future.
Conclusion
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, cooperation between Orthodox Christianity and Islam is actually very easy to achieve. Both sides have to accept the fact of irreconcilable theological disagreements, both sides have to accept that they did wrong each other in the past, and both sides have to affirm the right of each person to freely chose his/her religion, including the right to switch from one to another. So far that should be a no-brainer.
Next, Christian and Muslims need to define a set of civilizational issues that they fully agree on. Also a no-brainer.
Finally, both sides should systematically defend their cultural, social and civilizational values together, side by side. In fact, as long as their cultural, social and civilizational values are not in conflict with each other, Orthodox Christians and Muslims should defend the values of the other side on principle, as being *Russian* formative/foundational values. For example, Russian Orthodox Christians should defend the right of Muslim girls to wear a scarf in school and elsewhere. Not only because that is beautiful or because before Peter I all Russian woman always war the exact same scarfs not only in church, but all day long - but because the so-called "Islamic veil" is in no way a threat to Christianity: just look at an icon of the Mother of God.
Recently, an Orthodox church was burned down at night in Tatarstan by some Wahabi thugs. The local Muslim community got together and donated all the money needed for a full reconstruction. Likewise, in Chechnia, Ramzan Kadyrov has personally overseen the reconstruction of many Russian churches destroyed in combat or by the Wahabis and the local government has now allocated money for the construction of an Orthodox cathedral in the center of Grozny. In the meantime, the city authorities of Stavropol have ordered the destruction of two "illegal" mosques. That is in a city which has only one mosque - currently used as a museum, it's tiny anyway - and a Muslim population of anywhere 60'000 and 500'000 people (depends on who you ask and how you measure). The city authorities did promise to build a full Islamic Center (with mosque, school, hotel, etc.) which is great, but nothing has been done so far. Granted, the situation in Stavropol is particularly bad and it is complicated by many other factors such as the existence of nominally "Muslim" gangs of thugs and the hostility of the local popularization to what they perceive as the "Islamization" of their city and region. This is the exact type of case where the Federal authorities need to energetically intervene, as Putin has often done in such cases, and deal with this problem in what is referred to as "manual regime" (in contrast to the bureaucratic autopilot). Overall, so far, the record of Orthodox-Muslim cooperation is checkered.
If Orthodox Christians and Muslims could get together and jointly push for a change in the Russian Constitution this would not only get the job done, but it would herald a new era for Russia because it would send a strong signal to the local level in Russia (such as Stavropol) and abroad (Iran, Syria, Lebanon) that Russia has taken the fundamental decision to work with any Muslim party willing to do so on the basis of a few clearly defined, mutually accepted and simple principles.
A special words to any naysayers
I personally find all of the above really basic and self-evident. But having met the naysayers from both sides, I know that some of you will not be convinced. You "know" that Christians are imperialists never to be trusted or the Muslims are out to establish a "world Caliphate" on our dead bodies. Okay. Now let me ask you the question Americans kids like to challenge each other with: "and what are you gonna do about it?!". Expel all Muslims out of Russia and cut-off the Caucasus? Kill all of kufars and organize an Islamic Caliphate in Russia? Fight the righteous struggle against everybody and all fronts at the same time all on your own? Convince everybody to convert?
I don't think so.
In fact, by doing any of that all your are going to do is to do exactly what the Western political elites really want you to do! You do that any nobody will be more happy than the Tamir Pardo, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton. Politics is the art of the possible and to aim at the impossible is simply one form of political suicide. Those who desperately want to pit Christians against Muslims will never achieve anything but delivering yet another blow against the very religion they claim to defend. In my experience, these people have a very poor and superficial religious education and typically no historical education at all. They mistake their hatred for the "other" for a God-pleasing religious zeal, and they act not so much out of love for their own religion, as out of hate for the religion of the other. These are the folks who simply cannot see, in the beautiful words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that
The Saker
The fundamentally misguided yet typical approach:
Having had many opportunities to exchange views with Muslim from different countries and having also heard Christian and Muslim religious figures engaged in various debates, dialogs and discussions, I can describe the typical scenario by which such dialogs are conducted.
Typically, both sides try to establish a list of all the issues Islam and Christianity agree upon. These include that God is love, that the Mother of Jesus was a virgin, that the anti-Christ will come before the end of time, that Moses was a great prophet, that angels are the messengers of God any many other things. Added to this list of topics of agreement are usually statements about how Christians and Muslims have lived in peace side by side and how this should continue today. This is a well meaning and polite way to engage in a dialog, but this is also a fundamentally misguided one for the simple reason that it overlooks absolutely fundamental theological and historical problems. Let's take these one by one.
Irreconcilable theological differences between Christianity and Islam
The highest most sacred dogmatic formulation of Christianity is the so-called "Credo" or "Symbol of Faith" (full text here; more info here). Literally every letter down to the smallest 'i' of this text is, from the Christian point of view, the most sacred and perfect dogmatic formulation, backed by the full authority of the two Ecumenical Councils which proclaimed it and all the subsequent Councils which upheld it. In simple terms - the Symbol of Faith is absolutely non-negotiable, non-re-definable, non-re-interpretable, you cannot take anything away from it, and you cannot add anything to it. You can either accept it as is, in toto, or reject it.
The fact is that Muslim would have many problems with this text, but one part in particular is absolutely unacceptable to any Muslim:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were madeThis part clearly and unambiguously affirms that Jesus-Christ was not only the Son of God but actually God Himself. This is expressed by the English formulation "of one essence with the Father" (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί in Greek with the key term homousios meaning "consubstantial"). This is *THE* core belief of Christianity: that Jesus was the theanthropos, the God-Man or God incarnate. This belief is categorically unacceptable to Islam which says that Christ was a prophet and by essence a 'normal' human being.
For Islam, the very definition of what it is to be a Muslim is found in the so-called "Shahada" or testimony/witness. This is the famous statement by which a Muslim attests and proclaims that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God". One can often also hear this phrased as "There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is His prophet".
Now without even going into the issue of whether Christians can agree or not that "Allah" is the appropriate name for God (some do, some don't - this is really irrelevant here), it's the second part which is crucial here: Christianity does not recognize Muhammad as a prophet at all. In fact, technically speaking, Christianity would most likely classify Muhammad as a heretic (if only because of his rejection of the "Symbol of Faith"). Saint John of Damascus even called him a 'false prophet'. Simply put: there is no way a Christian can accept the "Shahada" without giving up his Christianity just as there is no way for a Muslim to accept the "Symbol of Faith" without giving up his Islam.
So why bother?
Would it not make much more sense to accept that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam and simply give up all that useless quest for points of theological agreement? Who cares if we agree on the secondary if we categorically disagree on the primary? I am all in favor of Christians studying Islam and for Muslims studying Christianity (in fact, I urge them both to do so!), and I think that it is important that the faithful of these religions talk to each other and explain their points of view as long as this is not presented as some kind of quest for a common theological stance. Differences should be studying and explained, not obfuscated, minimized or overlooked.
The next divisive issue is the historical record.
Christians and Muslims - friends or foes? What does history show?
Another well-meaning and fundamentally mistaken approach often seen in dialogs between Christians and Muslims is the attempt to present the history of relations between these two faiths as a long uninterrupted love-fest. This is factually wrong and naive to the extreme.
First, both Muslims and Christians are human beings, imperfect and sinful human beings (both religions agree on that). Second, and just to make things worse, both Islam and Christianity have, at times, been official state religions, meaning that states acted in the name of their religion. As a result, there have been plenty of moments in history where Christians and Muslims fought each other. Yes, it is true that Muslims and Christians often did live in peace side by side, but unless one is a total bigot and ignoramus, it is simply impossible to ignore the fact that Christians and Muslims also waged war, persecuted and mistreated each other, sometimes viciously.
So what?
What needs to be established not whether Christians and Muslims did wrong each other in the past, but whether they can live in peace. And the answer to that is a resounding "yes!". I know, some naysayer will immediately object that both Christianity and Islam have an mixed record of interpretation of whether converting the other to your religion is a religious duty or not. The point here is not whether some Christians or Muslims do (or did) believe that they have to convert each other at all cost, but whether there are those who do not believe so. As long as this is a possibility compatible with one's faith this is sufficient.
I think that history, and plenty of statements from religious figures on both sides, prove that this is possible - and that there is a preponderance of evidence to show that - that both Christians and Muslims can accept that the decision to be a Muslim or a Christian should be freely taken inside each person's heart without compulsion or even interference. The fact that it is possible to interpret Christianity and Islam differently is irrelevant as long as it is also possible to accept such a basic stance on religious choices.
Yes, I know that in Islam apostasy is a capital crime, but I also know that over the centuries Muslims have also chosen to not enforce this. It is not for me as an Orthodox Christian to dictate what Muslim leaders decide, but it is also clear to me that there are enough wise and pragmatic Muslim leaders out there to fully comprehend the consequences of a decision on their part to enforce the death penalty on somebody choosing to abandon Islam.
So where do we go from here?
It is very simply to get Christians and Muslims to feel hostility towards each other. First, make a few theological statements which are unacceptable to the other party, call the other a heretic or unbeliever, then mention a few bloody and contentious episodes in history and soon you will have a very nasty situation on your hands. This is as easy as it is sterile as nothing at all can come from that.
Thankfully, it is just as easy to accept that there are irreconcilable differences between the core beliefs of both religions and that each person should have the means to freely make a choice between these two faiths according to his conscience. As for history, it is a no-brainer to accept that both parties have, at times, done wrong to each other and that we are not responsible for what happened in the past, but only for what we make of our present and future.
Still, having dealt with our differences, we still should ask ourselves whether we have something in common, a common interest, or common values, which we might want to jointly defend. And we most definitely do: our ethics.
The common ground - ethics:
Any religion has two primarily components: what it believes in, what it proclaims, and then the rules of life, the "how to" of daily existence which it mandates. In Christian terms there is the doxa (what you proclaim or glorify) and the praxis (how you live your spiritual life on a daily basis). These are the basic rules common to most religions: not to kill, not to steal, to live a life of modesty, to protect the weak, etc. When comparing Islam and Christianity one can find both differences and similarities between their praxis and ethics. The differences in praxis are not that important because they mostly affect the private lives of the faithful: Muslims will fast during the month of Ramadan, Christians during the four major fasts of the year and on Wednesdays and Fridays. So let them, who cares? They really do not bother each other and, in fact, they are typically respectful of each other's traditions. On ethics, however, the two religions mostly agree both on a social/corporate and individual level and, with one notable exception which I will discuss below, Christianity and Islam have very similar ideas of what is right and wrong and what society should stand for or pro-actively reject. Rather than making a long list of what Islam and Christianity agree on, I will simply introduce a new actor for comparison's sake: the "post-Christian secular West".
What does the post-Christian and secular West stand for today?
First and foremost, the post-Christian and secular West stands for the freedom of each person to chose his/her own system of belief, code of behavior, system of morals, lifestyles, etc. In other words, the post-Christian and secular West categorically rejects the notion that something called "The Truth" exists. From that it is logically inevitable to conclude that there really is no "right" or "wrong" at all. In fact, a core belief of the post-Christian and secular West is that "your freedom stops were mine begins" (originally expressed as "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins"). Ergo - as long as others are not affected by it, you can do whatever you want. Each person has his/her 'truth' and what you consider right another person might consider wrong and vice-versa.
Second, and as a direct consequence of the first point, the post-Christian and secular West places the well-being of the individual above the well-being of the community. This is perfectly expressed by the famous "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" phrase of the US Declaration of Independence which states that these are the inalienable right of each individual. The contrast with both Christianity and Islam could not have been greater since these religions consider that the real life is the Eternal Life, that the human being is called to be in obedience to God and that true happiness is spiritual and not earthly. In fact, while the West considers life as the highest value, Christianity and Islam welcome death and consider that dying in the name of God is a most desirable act of witness of God (martis in Greek has exactly the same meaning as shahid in Arabic: witness).
Finally, and as a direct consequence of the two points above, the only common value to all people in the post-Christian and secular West is, of course, money. Money is, literally, the only "common currency" of a society without any supreme values in which each person is free to define right and wrong as he/she wishes. This results in an inevitable monetization of everything, including the life of a human being.
This is really a very minimal system of values, but it is plenty enough to make it the "anti-religion" par excellence. In comparison to that, the differences between Orthodoxy and Islam suddenly appear tiny, almost irrelevant. Today, this is best exemplified in Russia where both Orthodox Christianity and Islam are under a direct multi-level attack by the determined efforts of the post-Christian and secular West which spares no effort to subvert and destroy the vales of these religions and replace them by Western "values" promoted in multi-billion dollar propaganda campaigns, including music, movies, books, fashion, TV, talk shows, stores, politicians, famous personalities, etc.
The recent and famous cases of Pussy-Riot and the supposed "right" of Russian homosexual to organize "pride" parades in Moscow are the perfect examples of the kind of agenda the post-Christian and secular West is pushing nowadays. And although this is not reported in the Western corporate media, I can attest to the fact that Muslim leaders in Russia all perfectly understand that they are also under attack and that this is not just an "Orthodox problem".
So what could they do about it?
A prefect opportunity - the Russian Constitution
Russian politicians are not blind to what is going on and with the exception of a few pathologically naive or dishonest "liberals", they all understand that what is happening now is a clash of civilizations between the post-Christian and secular West and post-Soviet Russia. The fact that this clash if civilizations is not only ideological, but also political and even military (as the examples of the Euromaidan in the Ukraine and the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe shows) only makes these matters more urgent.
It just so happened that the Russian Constitution is celebrating its 20th anniversary and that possible changes to that Constitution are being discussed in many part of Russian society. On of the most bizarre features of the current Russian Constitution is that it forbids the state from having any ideology. Article 13.2 of the current Constitution states that "No ideology may be established as state or obligatory one". The roots of this rather strange paragraph can be traced to a mix of the general rejection of the old Soviet official Marxist-Leninist Communist ideology and a transparent attempt of the foreign "advisers" to the Eltsin regime in 1993 to make darn sure that nothing "Russian" would find its place in the new Russian Constitution.
Some Russian Orthodox politicians have suggested that this paragraph 13.2 should be expunged and that some formulation would have to be found to express the notion that Orthodoxy played a key historical role in the culture and system of values of modern Russia, that Orthodox values are the basis of the modern ideology of Russia. So far, no exact formulation has been suggested and there is even a debate whether such a phrase should be included in the Constitution itself or in its preamble.
Needless to say, even raising such a notion has resulted in an outraged reaction by the small but very vocal minority of pro-Western "liberal" politicians. More importantly, a lot of Russian Orthodox Christians also have deep reservations about the wisdom of such an amendment because it might alienate all the non-Orthodox people in Russia, which include not only Muslims or Buddhists, but a probably majority of agnostics. Muslim leaders have also expressed concern that this would officially place Islam in a 2nd-category religion status (even though that is exactly the status of Christian dhimmis under Sharia law) and given Orthodoxy a senior, leading role.
I strongly believe that this is the perfect example when Christians and Muslims can easily find a common ground and unite forces: why not simply recognize the special role of Orthodoxy and Islam in the historical formulation of the Russian culture, society and system of values?
First, this happens to be historically correct. Not only were there a lot of Muslims among the Mongols who occupied Russia, in particular in the late period of occupation, but the expansion of the Russian state included many areas with a majority Muslim population who became citizens of the Russian Empire. Muslims have fought in defense of the Russian state and nation in many wars from the times of Saint Alexander Nevsky, to WWII to the 08.08.08 war against Georgia. Last but most definitely not least, Akhmad Kadyrov and his son Ramzan Kadyrov have played an absolutely crucial role in kicking the Wahabis out of Chechnya and thereby they not only saved the Chechen nation from what would have been an absolutely devastating Russian assault, but they also probably saved Russia from a very dangerous and bloody war in the Caucasus. The same can be said of the Dagestani men who for several days single-handedly fought the invading "Islamic International Brigade" of Shamil Basaev and Khattab from Chechnia in 1999 until the main Federal forces got involved. Modern Russia is, beyond any possible doubt, a multi-ethnic and multi-religious state whose well-being and prosperity depends in great part from the kind of Islam Russian Muslims will chose: the Islam of Ramzan Kadyrov or the "Islam" of Doku Umarov (the shaitan who fancies himself the "President of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and Emir of the Caucasus Emirate").
Second, by acknowledging the role of both Orthodox Christianity and Islam the proponents of this constitutional amendment would gain the support of what is by far the largest segment of the religions population: there are Buddhists, Papists, Protestants, Jews and other religious denominations in Russia, but they are tiny compared to the big two. Personally, I would also include Buddhists in this list of "culture forming" religious whose values are shaping Russian society if only because (unlike the other small(er) religions) they are truly indigenous to Russia whereas the other denominations are "foreign imports" which, of course, have the right to exist in Russia, but which have had exactly zero influence on the formation of the Russian national identity or system of values.
As for the nominally religious and mostly agnostic people, the mere fact that two (or three) religions are recognized in a special role should assuage their concerns about any one system of values or ideology becoming official at the expense of everybody else. After all, most people in Russia would agree that the ethics of Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. The only major societal and moral issue in which Orthodox Christianity and Islam really disagree on is the issue of capital punishment. But that is irrelevant since Russia has pledged a total moratorium on executions anyway (of all things, to join - what else? - the Council of Europe); besides a majority of Russians still remain in favor of the death penalty to the point that it might even be re-introduced in the future.
Conclusion
Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, cooperation between Orthodox Christianity and Islam is actually very easy to achieve. Both sides have to accept the fact of irreconcilable theological disagreements, both sides have to accept that they did wrong each other in the past, and both sides have to affirm the right of each person to freely chose his/her religion, including the right to switch from one to another. So far that should be a no-brainer.
Next, Christian and Muslims need to define a set of civilizational issues that they fully agree on. Also a no-brainer.
Finally, both sides should systematically defend their cultural, social and civilizational values together, side by side. In fact, as long as their cultural, social and civilizational values are not in conflict with each other, Orthodox Christians and Muslims should defend the values of the other side on principle, as being *Russian* formative/foundational values. For example, Russian Orthodox Christians should defend the right of Muslim girls to wear a scarf in school and elsewhere. Not only because that is beautiful or because before Peter I all Russian woman always war the exact same scarfs not only in church, but all day long - but because the so-called "Islamic veil" is in no way a threat to Christianity: just look at an icon of the Mother of God.
Recently, an Orthodox church was burned down at night in Tatarstan by some Wahabi thugs. The local Muslim community got together and donated all the money needed for a full reconstruction. Likewise, in Chechnia, Ramzan Kadyrov has personally overseen the reconstruction of many Russian churches destroyed in combat or by the Wahabis and the local government has now allocated money for the construction of an Orthodox cathedral in the center of Grozny. In the meantime, the city authorities of Stavropol have ordered the destruction of two "illegal" mosques. That is in a city which has only one mosque - currently used as a museum, it's tiny anyway - and a Muslim population of anywhere 60'000 and 500'000 people (depends on who you ask and how you measure). The city authorities did promise to build a full Islamic Center (with mosque, school, hotel, etc.) which is great, but nothing has been done so far. Granted, the situation in Stavropol is particularly bad and it is complicated by many other factors such as the existence of nominally "Muslim" gangs of thugs and the hostility of the local popularization to what they perceive as the "Islamization" of their city and region. This is the exact type of case where the Federal authorities need to energetically intervene, as Putin has often done in such cases, and deal with this problem in what is referred to as "manual regime" (in contrast to the bureaucratic autopilot). Overall, so far, the record of Orthodox-Muslim cooperation is checkered.
If Orthodox Christians and Muslims could get together and jointly push for a change in the Russian Constitution this would not only get the job done, but it would herald a new era for Russia because it would send a strong signal to the local level in Russia (such as Stavropol) and abroad (Iran, Syria, Lebanon) that Russia has taken the fundamental decision to work with any Muslim party willing to do so on the basis of a few clearly defined, mutually accepted and simple principles.
A special words to any naysayers
I personally find all of the above really basic and self-evident. But having met the naysayers from both sides, I know that some of you will not be convinced. You "know" that Christians are imperialists never to be trusted or the Muslims are out to establish a "world Caliphate" on our dead bodies. Okay. Now let me ask you the question Americans kids like to challenge each other with: "and what are you gonna do about it?!". Expel all Muslims out of Russia and cut-off the Caucasus? Kill all of kufars and organize an Islamic Caliphate in Russia? Fight the righteous struggle against everybody and all fronts at the same time all on your own? Convince everybody to convert?
I don't think so.
In fact, by doing any of that all your are going to do is to do exactly what the Western political elites really want you to do! You do that any nobody will be more happy than the Tamir Pardo, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Hillary Clinton. Politics is the art of the possible and to aim at the impossible is simply one form of political suicide. Those who desperately want to pit Christians against Muslims will never achieve anything but delivering yet another blow against the very religion they claim to defend. In my experience, these people have a very poor and superficial religious education and typically no historical education at all. They mistake their hatred for the "other" for a God-pleasing religious zeal, and they act not so much out of love for their own religion, as out of hate for the religion of the other. These are the folks who simply cannot see, in the beautiful words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn that
All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today's world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain. The resources we have set aside for ourselves are too impoverished for the task. We must first recognize the horror perpetrated not by some outside force, not by class or national enemies, but within each of us individually, and within every society. This is especially true of a free and highly developed society, for here in particular we have surely brought everything upon ourselves, of our own free will. We ourselves, in our daily unthinking selfishness, are pulling tight that noose...God-fearing and pious Muslims and Christians alike must realize and accept that humility and sincere repentance for our own sins is what God calls us to do and that seeking an external enemy to fear and hate is not profitable for our souls. Our diversity of beliefs has no other cause than our own sinfulness, which itself is a direct consequence of our common humanity, a humanity which we all share regardless of our beliefs. Having found and espoused the True faith does not necessarily make us better people at all, it only makes us more fortunate and privileged ones, and that privilege places a special burden upon us to show forgiveness and compassion towards our erring fellow human being. Finally, if our goal is really to convert the other one, the best way to do that is by our individual example of true piety, purity and love and not by "winning" a political struggle.
The Saker
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Russia will rescue the Ukraine. Yet again. (UPDATED)
President Putin announced that Russia will buy the equivalent of 15 billion US dollars worth of Ukrainian government bonds and that it will slash the price of Russian gas sold to the Ukraine from $400 to $268.5 per 1,000 cubic meters. The most amazing part of that offer is that it is made "unconditionally". In other words - Russia will single-handedly prevent the Ukrainian economy from collapsing and declaring a default.
Well, that is huge money indeed, and I hope it will prove worth it. Russia could have easily set its own list of demands (the EU is making any aid conditional on a very long list of demands similar to the ones imposed on Greece recently and upon the liberation of Timoshenko) but Putin decided to literally bail out the Ukraine on principle.
I guess that this makes it possible for Yanukovich to challenge the Eurobureaucrats and their fans on the Maidan square to make their own best offer and let the Ukrainian people compare. The problem with that is that is that everybody knows that the EU has no money at all, no "best offer" of any kind other than vague promises of a paradisaical prosperity in the distant future. So its money vs promises and gas vs hot air. Everybody know that and it is obvious that the Eurocrowd will respond "asymmetrically". I personally see no other choice for the so-called "opposition" that to escalate the conflict in the hope of making in violent.
Why?
They know they cannot win in the polls. They know that they cannot win by brining money to the table. They know that they cannot rescue the economy. Therefore their only chance is to trigger a violent confrontation and overthrow the government.
Can they topple Yanukovich?
My sense is that yes, not because they are particularly strong, but because Yanukovich is particularly inept and weak.
I hope that I am wrong.
In the meantime, its the Russian people who are paying for the rescue of their Ukrainian "brothers". Again. As in so many times in history. Will they get a "duzhe diakuiu" this time?
I am not holding my breath.
The Saker
UPDATE: Here are some reactions which came out of the Ukraine after the news was announced:
Prime Minister Azarov: Russia saved the Ukrainian economy from declaring a default which the government would have had to do in January 2014.
Oleg Tsiagnibok: Categorically rejects the deal as bad for the Ukraine.
Vladimir Klichko: Wants to know the "hidden" part of the deal.
Arsenii Iatseniuk: Likes the new gas price but that's it.
All three still have declared that their objective (resignation of the President and government, new elections, signature of a deal with the EU) are unchanged by the deal with Russia.
Well, that is huge money indeed, and I hope it will prove worth it. Russia could have easily set its own list of demands (the EU is making any aid conditional on a very long list of demands similar to the ones imposed on Greece recently and upon the liberation of Timoshenko) but Putin decided to literally bail out the Ukraine on principle.
I guess that this makes it possible for Yanukovich to challenge the Eurobureaucrats and their fans on the Maidan square to make their own best offer and let the Ukrainian people compare. The problem with that is that is that everybody knows that the EU has no money at all, no "best offer" of any kind other than vague promises of a paradisaical prosperity in the distant future. So its money vs promises and gas vs hot air. Everybody know that and it is obvious that the Eurocrowd will respond "asymmetrically". I personally see no other choice for the so-called "opposition" that to escalate the conflict in the hope of making in violent.
Why?
They know they cannot win in the polls. They know that they cannot win by brining money to the table. They know that they cannot rescue the economy. Therefore their only chance is to trigger a violent confrontation and overthrow the government.
Can they topple Yanukovich?
My sense is that yes, not because they are particularly strong, but because Yanukovich is particularly inept and weak.
I hope that I am wrong.
In the meantime, its the Russian people who are paying for the rescue of their Ukrainian "brothers". Again. As in so many times in history. Will they get a "duzhe diakuiu" this time?
I am not holding my breath.
The Saker
UPDATE: Here are some reactions which came out of the Ukraine after the news was announced:
Prime Minister Azarov: Russia saved the Ukrainian economy from declaring a default which the government would have had to do in January 2014.
Oleg Tsiagnibok: Categorically rejects the deal as bad for the Ukraine.
Vladimir Klichko: Wants to know the "hidden" part of the deal.
Arsenii Iatseniuk: Likes the new gas price but that's it.
All three still have declared that their objective (resignation of the President and government, new elections, signature of a deal with the EU) are unchanged by the deal with Russia.
Whether real or a spoof, but this is funny
I don't know if this particular guy is real or not, but he does remind me of some folks I have seen down here in Florida. Now, let me stress that only a small minority of Americans are like that - but they are out there, I have seen them myself.
Enjoy!
The Saker
Enjoy!
The Saker
The Ukraine, Crimea and Kaliningrad
Just a couple of short things I want to report on.
Ukraine: I always knew that Yanukovich was a coward and a totally unprincipled man. That, and an idiot, of course. Well, he just proved it again. Not only did he let that old Soviet Politburo-style, semi-mummified, and thoroughly sclerotic moron McCain enter the Ukraine just to visit the "Euromaidan" crowd, he also caved in to the demands of the so-called opposition (which at this point should be called *insurgents* or *rebels*) and ended up sacking top security officials and blaming the riot police for the violence. I have seen the footage of the violence and I can tell you that the cops showed amazing restraint in the face of what was a carefully prepared and well executed assault using heavy stones, metal bars, chains, and tear gas. In any other country the cops would have opened fire. Yet Yanukovich did not even have the courage to stand behind those who protect him. Worse, he also freed all the rioters arrested for assaulting the cops. Now, I am not a big fan of riot police in general - I see them like dogs ready to assault anybody their master(s) order them to - but in this case I have to say that they were extraordinarily restrained, really. And yet, Yanukovich caved in a blamed them for everything. If Yanukovich had deliberately wanted to appear weak and pathetic he could not have done a better job. What a piece of garbage his guys is...
Ukraine: I have been very critical of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russians in the Ukraine and I have to admit that I should have made a special distinction for the Crimean Peninsula were truly interesting things are happening. To make a long story short, the Crimean authorities have officially warned that they would not allow the pro-EU thugs to dictate the future of the Crimean Peninsula. They have also told the population of Crimea to be ready to defend its autonomous status and future. It appears that unlike the lukewarm and confused pro-Yanukovich demonstrators from the Eastern Ukraine who traveled to Kiev, the Crimeans are far more determined and focused. On one hand, this is very good, but on the other, this is also very scary because if it comes to a violent standoff between the central authority (whoever will be in power in Kiev after Yanukovich) and the population of the Crimean Peninsula there is a 100% certitude that the forces of the Black Sea Fleet will get involved. In purely military terms, the Black Sea Fleet forces can defend the Peninsula, but that would mean a de-facto war between the Ukraine and Russia. Again, in purely military terms, Russia can easily beat the Ukraine, but the human and political costs could be horrendous, and the risks of a NATO intervention very big, especially if a crazy person like Hillary is in power in DC. This is stuff of nightmares and may God prevent that from occurring.
Russia - EU relations: several newspapers have revealed recently that Russia has already deployed its Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad. Polish and Lithuanian politicians have expressed their concern and worry. What did these idiots think - that Russia was jocking when it warned about a response to the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe? Now they are all living with a crosshair painted on their thick foreheads. Enjoy!
The Saker
Ukraine: I always knew that Yanukovich was a coward and a totally unprincipled man. That, and an idiot, of course. Well, he just proved it again. Not only did he let that old Soviet Politburo-style, semi-mummified, and thoroughly sclerotic moron McCain enter the Ukraine just to visit the "Euromaidan" crowd, he also caved in to the demands of the so-called opposition (which at this point should be called *insurgents* or *rebels*) and ended up sacking top security officials and blaming the riot police for the violence. I have seen the footage of the violence and I can tell you that the cops showed amazing restraint in the face of what was a carefully prepared and well executed assault using heavy stones, metal bars, chains, and tear gas. In any other country the cops would have opened fire. Yet Yanukovich did not even have the courage to stand behind those who protect him. Worse, he also freed all the rioters arrested for assaulting the cops. Now, I am not a big fan of riot police in general - I see them like dogs ready to assault anybody their master(s) order them to - but in this case I have to say that they were extraordinarily restrained, really. And yet, Yanukovich caved in a blamed them for everything. If Yanukovich had deliberately wanted to appear weak and pathetic he could not have done a better job. What a piece of garbage his guys is...
 |
| Euromaidan |
Ukraine: I have been very critical of pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russians in the Ukraine and I have to admit that I should have made a special distinction for the Crimean Peninsula were truly interesting things are happening. To make a long story short, the Crimean authorities have officially warned that they would not allow the pro-EU thugs to dictate the future of the Crimean Peninsula. They have also told the population of Crimea to be ready to defend its autonomous status and future. It appears that unlike the lukewarm and confused pro-Yanukovich demonstrators from the Eastern Ukraine who traveled to Kiev, the Crimeans are far more determined and focused. On one hand, this is very good, but on the other, this is also very scary because if it comes to a violent standoff between the central authority (whoever will be in power in Kiev after Yanukovich) and the population of the Crimean Peninsula there is a 100% certitude that the forces of the Black Sea Fleet will get involved. In purely military terms, the Black Sea Fleet forces can defend the Peninsula, but that would mean a de-facto war between the Ukraine and Russia. Again, in purely military terms, Russia can easily beat the Ukraine, but the human and political costs could be horrendous, and the risks of a NATO intervention very big, especially if a crazy person like Hillary is in power in DC. This is stuff of nightmares and may God prevent that from occurring.
 |
| Iskander-M |
Russia - EU relations: several newspapers have revealed recently that Russia has already deployed its Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad. Polish and Lithuanian politicians have expressed their concern and worry. What did these idiots think - that Russia was jocking when it warned about a response to the deployment of the US anti-missile system in Eastern Europe? Now they are all living with a crosshair painted on their thick foreheads. Enjoy!
The Saker
Monday, December 16, 2013
European homo-fans strike crushing blow at Russia
Check out this latest "journalistic pearl" from the BBC:
Nobody at the BBC could even imagine that Putin would be extremely un-impressed by a political statement by European politicians who don't even have the courage to openly say why they are not coming! The French "give no reasons" while the Germans "do not elaborate".
Russia had to deal with all kinds of foes from the West, from the Teutonic Knights to Hitler's armies and each time Russia won. I very much doubt that anybody in the Kremlin will be impressed by homo-fans who prefer not to explain their reasons for refusing an invitation.
Poor, poor Europe. How low it has fallen. As for the BBC - does anybody still listen to that crap?
The Saker
 |
| Francois Hollande's government gave no reason for its decision to stay away |
Neither President Francois Hollande nor any top French official will attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius has said. Mr Fabius announced the decision on French radio, but gave no explanation. Last week German President Joachim Gauck also said he was not going to the games in the Black Sea resort of Sochi. Activists have urged leaders to boycott the event over human rights concerns, including a new Russian law banning "homosexual propaganda". Mr Fabius told Europe 1 radio on Sunday: "Top French officials have no plans to be there." Mr Gauck announced he would not attend the Sochi games last weekend, but did not elaborate either. European Commission deputy head Viviane Reding has also said she was not attending. Russian President Vladimir Putin has staked his personal prestige on staging a successful Olympics in an effort to showcase his country, analysts say.Well, I am sure that Putin is heartbroken, he will now go and hug his teddy bear, jump in his bed, and tearfully bawl for a few days. Well, maybe not, but that is the kind of reaction this latest BBC masterpiece of journalism suggest. Putin staked his prestige on Sochi and the homo-fans ain't coming; ergo - he must be crushed. Right.
Nobody at the BBC could even imagine that Putin would be extremely un-impressed by a political statement by European politicians who don't even have the courage to openly say why they are not coming! The French "give no reasons" while the Germans "do not elaborate".
Russia had to deal with all kinds of foes from the West, from the Teutonic Knights to Hitler's armies and each time Russia won. I very much doubt that anybody in the Kremlin will be impressed by homo-fans who prefer not to explain their reasons for refusing an invitation.
Poor, poor Europe. How low it has fallen. As for the BBC - does anybody still listen to that crap?
The Saker
Sunday, December 15, 2013
"Quenelle panic" in the Israeli press
Guys, this is too funny, I have to repost the full Ynet article below. Thanks to "anonymous" for giving me the URL to this typical case of what Gilad Atzmon would call a "pre-traumatic stress disorder" :-)
Enjoy the hilarious article,
Cheers,
The Saker
-------
Neo-Nazi symbol spreads in Europe
Modern 'Hitler salute' gaining momentum among anti-Semites, who pose for pictures in sensitive sites worldwide and in Israel, including alongside IDF soldiers who are unaware of gesture's meaning
Kobi Nachshoni
VIDEO - The right hand and its fingers are stretched downwards along the body, while the left hand performs a "salute" movement on the opposite arm. Sound like an aerobic exercise for beginners? According to anti-Semitism researchers, it is actually a clear anti-Semitic symbol, a modern Nazi salute, spreading among Jew haters across Europe.
In recent months, the researchers warn, anti-Semites have been taking advantage of the lack of public awareness of the new "salute" and taking pictures of themselves performing the salute in particularly symbolic and sensitive places around the world like the Treblinka extermination camp,
the Western Wall plaza and next to IDF soldiers, as well as alongside Jews who are unaware of the "trick." They then post the photos on the Internet.
The phenomenon was revealed in a conference held earlier this week in New York by the World Zionist Organization's Department for Countering Anti-Semitism, in the presence of senior officials involved in researching and countering anti-Semitism in Israel and the United States.
As part of a more concrete effort, the Defense Ministry has been asked to warn IDF soldiers against the phenomenon in a bid to prevent them from unknowingly participating in further embarrassing photographs.
Neo-Nazi gesture in Auschwitz
The new salute, based on a reverse Nazi symbol, was created by a French comedian called Dieudonné, who is known for his anti-Semitic acts and statements and has even been convicted by courts in France several times in the past. The physical gesture, which he dubbed "quenelle," has spread in the country, but the government has yet to define it as illegal.
Under a sign reading 'Jew'
Different sources have been arguing whether it is seen as anti-Semitic gesture in all cases. There are those who say that some of those photographed doing the "quenelle" gesture are doing it for "anti-establishment" motives which are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Among anti-Semites, however, as the WZO indicates, it is a common anti-Semitic gesture, and media outlets have even been apologizing for mistakenly exposing it.
They later realized the meaning of the gesture and were then exposed to cases in which neo-Nazis performed it in Jewish holy sites in Israel and around the world.
Sources fighting phenomenon say this is its origin
"It's gaining more and more momentum, spreading on the Internet and social networks and turning into a clear Nazi symbol, and it doesn't appear to be a passing phenomenon," says Haguel. "It's spreading to Israel too these days, and we must acknowledge that and stop it."
Eitan Behar, director of the Center for Diaspora Communications and Countering Anti-Semitism at the WZO, told Ynet that the phenomenon he defined as "extremely troubling was gaining momentum in recent weeks.
"Saluting with raised hands is banned in the European Union, and people even get arrested for it, so the neo-Nazi activists perform the same gesture in a different angle," he noted.
Defense Ministry asked to warn IDF soldiers against phenomenon in bid to prevent embarrassing photos like this one
In the center led by Behar, volunteers from all over the world monitor anti-Semitic incidents in the media, Internet and social networks. As an expert on the issue, he asserts that the new phenomenon is significant and linked to hatred of Jews.
"It has some general anti-establishment aspects, and the person who invented it is a comedian, but one cannot escape its main message as a new, unhumorous Nazi symbol," he said.
Performing gesture while taking advantage of many people's innocence
The "saluters" take advantage of many people's innocence and ask them to perform the gesture as they take a picture of them – including IDF soldiers and Holocaust survivors.
The sites where they choose to do so leave no room for doubt: The Anne Frank House, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, the Western Wall plaza, against the backdrop of German and Israeli flags, on streets with "Jewish" names. They have also posted processed photos of famous characters, like Superman and Santa Claus, performing the salute.
The conference was initiated by the Department for Countering Anti-Semitism of the WZO in collaboration with the American Zionist Movement and the Israeli Consulate in New York. It was attended by Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ira Forman, former Harvard Professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who wrote "The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise and Threat of Global Anti-Semitism," and others.
The issues discussed during the conference included "anti-Semitism in Zionist ideology," anti-Semitic expressions in arts and culture, the role of the US in fighting global anti-Semitism and the war on anti-Semitism on the Internet and social networks.
The organizers presented hate crimes from recent months, including an attack on Jewish school students in Pine Bush, New York, anti-Semitic statements by an American rap singer in a radio station interview, and more.
"The recent anti-Semitic incidents point to an alarming trend of hatred of Jews around the world and particularly in the US, which is considered by many the safest place for Jews. Unfortunately, we are witnessing dozens of anti-Semitic incidents on average within one week across the US.
"It's as simple as this: If we put our heads down – we'll get hit in the head. I call on leaders of the Jewish communities in the US, of all streams, on heads of the Jewish student organizations in the US and the world, to join forces with us in this important struggle. We have no other people, we have no other past, and we have a shared future. We must put an end to anti-Semitism."
Deputy Defense Minister Danon said, "The anti-Semites of the new era attack Israel incessantly. They are not shocked by the horrors in Syria and are not crying out, but when the State of Israel defends its citizens against merciless terrorists and missiles launched on school, they cry out that it's a 'massacre.' They are characterized by indifference, hypocrisy and racism. They must be renounced by every modern society."
Enjoy the hilarious article,
Cheers,
The Saker
-------
Neo-Nazi symbol spreads in Europe
Modern 'Hitler salute' gaining momentum among anti-Semites, who pose for pictures in sensitive sites worldwide and in Israel, including alongside IDF soldiers who are unaware of gesture's meaning
Kobi Nachshoni
VIDEO - The right hand and its fingers are stretched downwards along the body, while the left hand performs a "salute" movement on the opposite arm. Sound like an aerobic exercise for beginners? According to anti-Semitism researchers, it is actually a clear anti-Semitic symbol, a modern Nazi salute, spreading among Jew haters across Europe.
In recent months, the researchers warn, anti-Semites have been taking advantage of the lack of public awareness of the new "salute" and taking pictures of themselves performing the salute in particularly symbolic and sensitive places around the world like the Treblinka extermination camp,
the Western Wall plaza and next to IDF soldiers, as well as alongside Jews who are unaware of the "trick." They then post the photos on the Internet.
The phenomenon was revealed in a conference held earlier this week in New York by the World Zionist Organization's Department for Countering Anti-Semitism, in the presence of senior officials involved in researching and countering anti-Semitism in Israel and the United States.
'It's reaching Israel and must be stopped'
In order to expose the public to the new movement, which many have encountered but were unaware of its meaning, the conference organizers presented pictures and videos of neo-Nazis documenting themselves performing it in different places around the world.As part of a more concrete effort, the Defense Ministry has been asked to warn IDF soldiers against the phenomenon in a bid to prevent them from unknowingly participating in further embarrassing photographs.
Neo-Nazi gesture in Auschwitz
The new salute, based on a reverse Nazi symbol, was created by a French comedian called Dieudonné, who is known for his anti-Semitic acts and statements and has even been convicted by courts in France several times in the past. The physical gesture, which he dubbed "quenelle," has spread in the country, but the government has yet to define it as illegal.
Under a sign reading 'Jew'
Different sources have been arguing whether it is seen as anti-Semitic gesture in all cases. There are those who say that some of those photographed doing the "quenelle" gesture are doing it for "anti-establishment" motives which are not necessarily anti-Semitic. Among anti-Semites, however, as the WZO indicates, it is a common anti-Semitic gesture, and media outlets have even been apologizing for mistakenly exposing it.
Neo-Nazis do 'quenelle'
Yaakov Haguel, head of the WZO's Department for Countering Anti-Semitism and the conference's organizer, told Ynet that the department's Red Email received initial pictures of the new salute several months ago, but "we didn't understand what it was about."They later realized the meaning of the gesture and were then exposed to cases in which neo-Nazis performed it in Jewish holy sites in Israel and around the world.
Sources fighting phenomenon say this is its origin
"It's gaining more and more momentum, spreading on the Internet and social networks and turning into a clear Nazi symbol, and it doesn't appear to be a passing phenomenon," says Haguel. "It's spreading to Israel too these days, and we must acknowledge that and stop it."
Eitan Behar, director of the Center for Diaspora Communications and Countering Anti-Semitism at the WZO, told Ynet that the phenomenon he defined as "extremely troubling was gaining momentum in recent weeks.
"Saluting with raised hands is banned in the European Union, and people even get arrested for it, so the neo-Nazi activists perform the same gesture in a different angle," he noted.
Popular Facebook page
A special Facebook page is updated very frequently, particularly with photos from around the world documenting the new salute in places with religious and national significance to Jews. It has accumulated tens of thousands of regular followers, and almost 100% of them are active – through "likes," shares and comments. A special website has also been launched for the same purpose.Defense Ministry asked to warn IDF soldiers against phenomenon in bid to prevent embarrassing photos like this one
In the center led by Behar, volunteers from all over the world monitor anti-Semitic incidents in the media, Internet and social networks. As an expert on the issue, he asserts that the new phenomenon is significant and linked to hatred of Jews.
"It has some general anti-establishment aspects, and the person who invented it is a comedian, but one cannot escape its main message as a new, unhumorous Nazi symbol," he said.
Performing gesture while taking advantage of many people's innocence
The "saluters" take advantage of many people's innocence and ask them to perform the gesture as they take a picture of them – including IDF soldiers and Holocaust survivors.
The sites where they choose to do so leave no room for doubt: The Anne Frank House, synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, the Western Wall plaza, against the backdrop of German and Israeli flags, on streets with "Jewish" names. They have also posted processed photos of famous characters, like Superman and Santa Claus, performing the salute.
Rise in anti-Semitic incidents
The Countering Anti-Semitism and Delegitimization of Israel Conference is held every two years in a different country. This year it took place in the United States, following the rise in the number of anti-Semitic events recorded in New York, Louisiana, Long Island, Miami Beach and Michigan, which include violent assaults, vandalism, harassment and threats against Jews.The conference was initiated by the Department for Countering Anti-Semitism of the WZO in collaboration with the American Zionist Movement and the Israeli Consulate in New York. It was attended by Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon, US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ira Forman, former Harvard Professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, who wrote "The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise and Threat of Global Anti-Semitism," and others.
The issues discussed during the conference included "anti-Semitism in Zionist ideology," anti-Semitic expressions in arts and culture, the role of the US in fighting global anti-Semitism and the war on anti-Semitism on the Internet and social networks.
The organizers presented hate crimes from recent months, including an attack on Jewish school students in Pine Bush, New York, anti-Semitic statements by an American rap singer in a radio station interview, and more.
'Alarming trend of hatred of Jews'
Yaakov Haguel said during the conference that "anti-Semitism is a sore evil. We must fight it in any way possible. The hypocrisy of countries in the world must end. It's time to join forces, Jews and non-Jews, governments and organizations, and put an end to rising anti-Semitism."The recent anti-Semitic incidents point to an alarming trend of hatred of Jews around the world and particularly in the US, which is considered by many the safest place for Jews. Unfortunately, we are witnessing dozens of anti-Semitic incidents on average within one week across the US.
"It's as simple as this: If we put our heads down – we'll get hit in the head. I call on leaders of the Jewish communities in the US, of all streams, on heads of the Jewish student organizations in the US and the world, to join forces with us in this important struggle. We have no other people, we have no other past, and we have a shared future. We must put an end to anti-Semitism."
Deputy Defense Minister Danon said, "The anti-Semites of the new era attack Israel incessantly. They are not shocked by the horrors in Syria and are not crying out, but when the State of Israel defends its citizens against merciless terrorists and missiles launched on school, they cry out that it's a 'massacre.' They are characterized by indifference, hypocrisy and racism. They must be renounced by every modern society."
Saturday, December 14, 2013
The clash of civilizations according to Vladimir Putin
As always, in his recent Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly Putin touched on many topics including the Russian constitution, the slow implementation of Presidential decrees, healthcare, social issues, the budget, the military and other topics. Yet, I believe that the most important part of his speech is the following one: (emphasis added)
The first point is obvious: whereas the AngloZionist Empire has the use of force or the threat of use of force as the cornerstone of its international policies, Putin's Russia is categorically against this. And this is hardly due to the relative weakness of the Russian military as some have suggested. The Russian military has changed dramatically since the past decade and it has fully recovered its position as 2nd most powerful military on the planet after the US. And yet, Russia has also made a fundamental, strategic, decision to renounce the use of military force except in self-defense or the defense of an attacked ally.
The second point is clearly aimed another key social feature of the AngloZionist social order: whereas the AngloZionist social order enforces the power of several minorities (1%, Israel Lobby, Oil Lobby, Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc.) over the majority, Putin's Russia also categorically rejects this and says that in a democracy the majority view must prevail and while the rights of the minority must not be violated, the minority must yield to the majority.
The third point can be called "enlightened moral conservatism": whereas the AngloZionist empire is essentially "value-free", Putin's Russia deliberately wants to uphold ancient moral values such as the traditional family, the centrality of spiritual and religious values, the clear affirmation that a "right" and a "wrong" exist and that the two should not be confused and the latter should never allowed to prevail over the former.
One could say that this is the Russian version of Alain Soral's "Gauche du travail, Droite des valeurs" (the Left of labor and the Right of ethics" or the "Progressive of labor and Conservative of values"). It is the opposite of the "values" of the AngloZionist social order in which, in essence, says "don't touch my money (= the Right of labor) and let me have sex with whomever I want (=Left or values).
As far as I know, this makes Putin the only non-Muslim political leader on the planet who openly dares to reject the AngloZionist civilizational model and who instead offer another one. Non-violence + majority rule + progressive economic + conservative spirituality. This is the exact opposite of the AngloZionist Empire's model: violence + minority rule + reactionary economic + libertarian & secular morals.
This is the real clash of civilizations which is happening, primarily in Europe. These are two fundamentally incompatible models, two mutually exclusive social and political orders which threaten each other by their very existence and it is no wonder that Putin is so hated by the western elites and so popular with the western masses (more and more people are calling Putin the "leader of the Free World", including in the West) and that even though the corporate Ziomedia systematically demonizes him.
This is also the real reason behind the new Cold War carefully orchestrated by the Western elites. This is also the real reason behind the unprecedented and, frankly, ridiculous involvement of the western elites in the events in the Ukraine.
This is hardly the first time that the western elites feel that Russia represents a civilizational threat just by its mere existence. During the Crimean War Cardinal Sibor, Archbishop of Paris, declared "It is a sacred deed, a God-pleasing deed, to ward off the Photian heresy [Orthodoxy], subjugate it and destroy it with a new crusade. This is the clear goal of today's crusade. Such was the goal of all the crusades, even if all their participants were not fully aware of it. The war which France is now preparing to wage against Russia is not a political war but a holy war. It is not a war between two governments or between two peoples, but is precisely a religious war, and other reasons presented are only pretexts" while Pope Pius X declared during the World One I 'Se vince la Russia, vince lo scisma' (if Russia wins, then it's the schism which wins).
First the western elites declared a crusade against Russia in the name of the Papacy (Teutonic Knights) then in the name of Freemasonry (Napoleon), then again in the name of the Papacy (Crimean War), then in the name of imperialism (WWI), then in the name of racial superiority (WWII), then in the name of democracy and capitalism (Cold War I) and now the next "Cold War II" will be fought in the name of homosexuality and secularism. Truly Marx was right when he said that "history repeats itself the first as tragedy, then as farce".
The Saker
Coming from a world leader, these are, I believe, amazing words because they are an open and direct challenge to the dominating ideology of the AngloZionist Empire.We have always been proud of our country. But we don’t have superpower aspirations; we don’t want global or regional domination, we don’t interfere with anyone’s interests, trying to play a patron, we are not going to lecture others. But we will strive to be leaders by defending international law, making sure that national sovereignty, independence and identity are respected. This is a natural approach for a country like Russia with its great history and culture, its vast experience in the area of different ethnicities living in harmony, side by side, in one state. This is different from the so-called tolerance, which is gender-free and futile.
Today many countries revisit their moral standards, erasing national traditions and boundaries between different ethnicities and cultures. Society is asked to respect every person’s right to freedom of thought, political vitews and private life, which are good values. But now people also have to treat evil and good equally, which is strange, because these are opposite things. Not only does such destruction of traditional values have negative effects on societies, but it is also anti-democratic to the core, because these are abstract ideas applied to real life despite of what the majority of people think. Most people don’t accept such changes and suggested revisions.
And we know that more and more people in the world support our approach of protecting traditional values, which have been a spiritual and moral foundation of our civilization and every nation. We value traditional family and genuine human life, including a person’s religious life; not just material, but also spiritual values of humanism and the world’s diversity.
Of course, this is a conservative position. But as Nikolai Berdyaev said, the meaning of conservatism is not to prevent moving forward and upward, but to prevent moving backwards and downward, into chaotic darkness, back to the primitive state.
The first point is obvious: whereas the AngloZionist Empire has the use of force or the threat of use of force as the cornerstone of its international policies, Putin's Russia is categorically against this. And this is hardly due to the relative weakness of the Russian military as some have suggested. The Russian military has changed dramatically since the past decade and it has fully recovered its position as 2nd most powerful military on the planet after the US. And yet, Russia has also made a fundamental, strategic, decision to renounce the use of military force except in self-defense or the defense of an attacked ally.
The second point is clearly aimed another key social feature of the AngloZionist social order: whereas the AngloZionist social order enforces the power of several minorities (1%, Israel Lobby, Oil Lobby, Wall Street, Big Pharma, etc.) over the majority, Putin's Russia also categorically rejects this and says that in a democracy the majority view must prevail and while the rights of the minority must not be violated, the minority must yield to the majority.
The third point can be called "enlightened moral conservatism": whereas the AngloZionist empire is essentially "value-free", Putin's Russia deliberately wants to uphold ancient moral values such as the traditional family, the centrality of spiritual and religious values, the clear affirmation that a "right" and a "wrong" exist and that the two should not be confused and the latter should never allowed to prevail over the former.
One could say that this is the Russian version of Alain Soral's "Gauche du travail, Droite des valeurs" (the Left of labor and the Right of ethics" or the "Progressive of labor and Conservative of values"). It is the opposite of the "values" of the AngloZionist social order in which, in essence, says "don't touch my money (= the Right of labor) and let me have sex with whomever I want (=Left or values).
As far as I know, this makes Putin the only non-Muslim political leader on the planet who openly dares to reject the AngloZionist civilizational model and who instead offer another one. Non-violence + majority rule + progressive economic + conservative spirituality. This is the exact opposite of the AngloZionist Empire's model: violence + minority rule + reactionary economic + libertarian & secular morals.
This is the real clash of civilizations which is happening, primarily in Europe. These are two fundamentally incompatible models, two mutually exclusive social and political orders which threaten each other by their very existence and it is no wonder that Putin is so hated by the western elites and so popular with the western masses (more and more people are calling Putin the "leader of the Free World", including in the West) and that even though the corporate Ziomedia systematically demonizes him.
This is also the real reason behind the new Cold War carefully orchestrated by the Western elites. This is also the real reason behind the unprecedented and, frankly, ridiculous involvement of the western elites in the events in the Ukraine.
This is hardly the first time that the western elites feel that Russia represents a civilizational threat just by its mere existence. During the Crimean War Cardinal Sibor, Archbishop of Paris, declared "It is a sacred deed, a God-pleasing deed, to ward off the Photian heresy [Orthodoxy], subjugate it and destroy it with a new crusade. This is the clear goal of today's crusade. Such was the goal of all the crusades, even if all their participants were not fully aware of it. The war which France is now preparing to wage against Russia is not a political war but a holy war. It is not a war between two governments or between two peoples, but is precisely a religious war, and other reasons presented are only pretexts" while Pope Pius X declared during the World One I 'Se vince la Russia, vince lo scisma' (if Russia wins, then it's the schism which wins).
First the western elites declared a crusade against Russia in the name of the Papacy (Teutonic Knights) then in the name of Freemasonry (Napoleon), then again in the name of the Papacy (Crimean War), then in the name of imperialism (WWI), then in the name of racial superiority (WWII), then in the name of democracy and capitalism (Cold War I) and now the next "Cold War II" will be fought in the name of homosexuality and secularism. Truly Marx was right when he said that "history repeats itself the first as tragedy, then as farce".
The Saker
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
And now, a short message from our masters
Check out the list of personalties which Time Magazine either praises or loathes:
Their message is clear. As is their model of what is good or bad. Just listen to these two morons and what they have to say. No wonder nobody takes these clowns seriously.
The Saker
Their message is clear. As is their model of what is good or bad. Just listen to these two morons and what they have to say. No wonder nobody takes these clowns seriously.
The Saker
This is definitely not your grandfather's kind of "interference"
Victoria Jane Nuland is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State distributing bread to the Ukrainian riot police in central Kiev:
I don't get it - how could anyone possible doubt the kind intentions of the USA?!
;-)
The Saker
PS: on another topic, the BBC just woke up to Putin's interest for the Arctic. Better late then never, I suppose.
I don't get it - how could anyone possible doubt the kind intentions of the USA?!
;-)
The Saker
PS: on another topic, the BBC just woke up to Putin's interest for the Arctic. Better late then never, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
