A Letter of Complaint by His Eminence Metropolitan Serafim Mentzenopoulos of Piraeus to the US Secretary of State

THIS is the end result of American interference in the Orthosphere… take a GOOD look… THIS is what your tax dollars bought in the Bush years… and continue to do so. God give rest to the soul of this honourable Orthodox man (he died during the American-fomented and -supported invasion of South Ossetia) and may God humble the proud who planned the war that killed him.

______________________________

Editor’s Foreword:

Beginning in 2006, informed sources tell me that the Bush II Administration interfered in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church (both the MP and the ROCOR). The good word has it that John Herbst (American Ambassador to the Ukraine) was asked by his higher-ups in the administration to try and derail the pending reconciliation of the ROCOR with the MP. Many accounts have it that he did do his utmost to derail the affair. It appears that American policy towards the Orthosphere hasn’t changed under the Obama Administration. I’d say that it shows all (even the slow learners) that both the Republican neocons and Democratic “humanitarian interventionists” are identical under the skin. That is, both believe in violence and tantrums when the ruling Affluent Effluent in the USA doesn’t get its way (violence towards weaker states such as Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Serbia; tantrums against stronger states such as Russia, China, and Iran). None dare call that evil and vicious. Also, don’t forget how the US State Department slobbered its approval of the fascist juntas in Latvia, Estonia, and the Ukraine glorifying Nazi war criminals and their disenfranchisement of ethnic Russians… just as they drooled in glee over Saakashvili’s aggression against South Ossetia (which started with a sneak Grad bombardment of sleeping civilians at 22.00 in the evening). None dare call that foul and devilish.

The letter below is from Metropolitan Serafim Mentzenopoulos of Piraeus, the Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Local Church of Athens and all Greece. I sent my edit to a friend in Moscow who has facility in Greek (thank God for the eight-hour time difference… it meant I got a prompt reply) and they vetted it and said that it was closer to the original Greek than the original translation into English was. Does that mean that I have a… gasp!… “Greek soul?” It must be that Greek Coffee and those loukoumades…

BMD

******

In the report of your department referring to the respect for religious freedom internationally (and particularly in my country), my name is mentioned and my actions as well as my speeches are described without me having any chance to explain how things really stand. As a world citizen and inhabitant of this planet, I feel I must express my protest, since there’s obviously a violation of human rights and the American Constitution in the way this specific report was constructed.

The establishment of your country by your Founding Fathers was based on universal values that were born in my country, that is, freedom, democracy, and respect of the human person. Since you are an experienced politician and a person of major importance in your great country, you’re certainly aware that, according to the rules of law, convicting someone without giving him the chance to explain themselves is unacceptable, as the universal law of justice demands both sides to be heard before judgement. Therefore, I express my strong dissatisfaction, as without being asked about what I really said or what really happened, I’m literally accused internationally of being a so-called fundamentalist and that I violate the rights of my fellow men.

If your department had the courtesy and the insight to ask me before accusing me about specific issues, I would’ve informed them that I addressed in writing to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Athens and requested the blessing of the school year in the Roman Catholic School of Jeanne d’Arc in Piraeus to come into effect exactly in the way the Roman Catholic School of St Paul in Piraeus does it. I suggested that the blessing of the school year should be conducted by an Orthodox priest for the Orthodox students and by a Roman Catholic priest for the Roman Catholic students (who comprise a minority in this school), given the fact that the Orthodox self-consciousness (and according to the canons) it’s forbidden to pray together with people who believe in different dogma and who aren’t part of our communion. However, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church didn’t condescend to give us an answer; so, I wasn’t able to protect the Orthodox consciousness of the students in this school. As their Bishop and Shepherd, I had no other option but to appeal to justice under the law and resort to the corresponding judicial means. What else could I have done to confront such an intransigent attitude and such obstinate zeal against our Orthodox self-consciousness? In your opinion, is my view irrational?

The justifiable conclusion that I deduced is that the report was biased against me, since there was no knowledge of the real facts and no mention was made of the attitude of the Roman Catholic Archbishop. In your report, there are unproven allegations about my beliefs and they’re combined with anti-Semitic expressions which supposedly were mine, but these are distortions of my words, they’re a defamation. I’ve never expressed myself against the Jewish nation, which I respect exactly as much as I do every other nation on Earth. However, I do comment on the strong opposition of Orthodox Jews against distortions of Judaism, I do express my opposition to departures from a godly approach to life, my opposition to arcane systems based on the dark teaching of Kabala and Theosophy, and my opposition to the practise of black magic.

Therefore, I’ve never expressed antisemitic views, however, as a Christian Bishop, I’ve the right to interpret the Prophesies of the Old Testament (especially, those of Prophet Daniel and Prophet Isaiah) to prove that the longed-for Messiah came into this world in the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the one who is expected by Judaism, who is still to come (and for whom the restoration of the Third Temple of Solomon and ceremonial and worship symbols… as publicised though the internet… are prepared), is the one referred to in the Apocalypse of Evangelist St John as the Antichrist.

Finally, do you consider as fundamentalism and anti-Semitism the obvious and universal reality that financial services is one of the favourite economic activities of the powerful (in your country) Jewish lobby? Would you be kind enough to inform us whom the three international financial institutions Moody’s, Standard and Poor’s, and Fitch belong to? Could you inform us from what nationality some of the founders of the Trilateral Commission came from? Could you inform us of the nationality of the members of B’nai B’rith International in Washington DC, which has branches all over the world, including my country? Could you inform us who comprise the governing body of the Bilderberg Group?

In conclusion, I sincerely wish the Peace of God for you, and that feelings of understanding and tolerance between peoples should prevail on Earth. However, freedom of consciousness is a fundamental value, which we are obliged to defend even with our lives, and, surely, justice imposes respect of all people’s rights, especially of the weak, and of those who don’t have power in this world.

7 September 2012

http://www.impantokratoros.gr/CC87A901.en.aspx

******

Editor’s Afterword:

The US State Department should get out of the “religion” business. It’s none of its business. Reflect on this… the konvertsy do NOT support the Church, its hierarchy, its people, and its incarnate expressions. They support the US State Department and its Free Market fantasies, instead. Fathausen was particularly egregious in this… he sucked up to every Far Right think-tank in the District and he sucked up to “evangelicals” and rightwing papists, too. We should give the konvertsy an ultimatum… give your allegiance to the Orthosphere… NOT to the West and to its bully-boy institutions (both secular and religious, I might add). If they want to tarry in the fleshpots of the West… don’t argue with them… that’s pointless. We should see to it that they leave Christ’s Church… for not only are they “not of us”… they never were.

God wills it…

BMD 

UN Security Council Unable To Move on Syria

I stumbled on the above image whilst researching a post. It’s indicative of the ignorance of many Americans… they only know what their biased media feeds them (whether it’s Fox on the right or the NYT on the left, its American Hegemonist rubbish all the same). Don’t take it out on such people… they don’t know the truth, they only “know” about Russia what the American nihilist ruling class want them to “know”. That’s sad… remember what Our Lord said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”… indeed…

______________________________

The Russian and US foreign ministers refused to take part in a special session of the UN Security Council convened by France on 30 August to discuss the Syrian crisis. France is the chairman of the UN Security Council this month. Vitaly Churkin, the permanent representative of the RF at the UN will represent Moscow. It’s still unknown who will represent the USA. Earlier, the Americans declared that they’d bypass the UN in the Syrian issue, justifying this by saying that Russia and China vetoed resolutions on Syria three times. British Foreign Secretary William Hague is also likely to refuse to take part in the session, so France may become the only first-level power amongst the countries involved in the upcoming discussion on a Syrian settlement.

Diplomatic circles hinted that the idea of adopting a final document has already failed, it happened during the preparations for this special session. Russia and China insisted on emphasising the need to assist Syrian refugees and calling both sides in the conflict to stop the bloodshed. France, the UK, and the USA, on their part, pressed for adopting a political declaration predicated on Bashar al-Assad’s speedy resignation. It is clear that Moscow and Beijing would never allow the Security Council to adopt such a declaration, as they believe that this would be intolerable, it’s set a precedent of interference in Syria’s internal affairs.

Analyst Vladimir Isayev from the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences believed, “Looking ahead at the special session on Syria, the standoff in the UN Security council appears hopeless. France’s attempt to convene the UN Security Council is actually misfiring because it looks like the Council will be in no position to make any decision. This was clear from the very beginning; the opinions of the sides are well-known, they are poles apart. Logically, if there are any attempts to adopt any resolution or declaration, the opposing side will block it. In fact, we can see France’s attempt to draw attention to the Syrian problem once again, but the Syrian problem is so acute that it remains the first priority as it is. For example, it seems that Iran is hinting that it’d send its armed forces to Syria. According to other sources, British special operations units are as good as fighting on Syrian territory. This intel is still unproven, but pressure on Syria continues. The UN Security Council turns out to be helpless in the context of a harsh opposition between the conflicting parties”.

Recently, US President Barack Obama warned about a possible incursion into Syria in case Damascus used chemical weapons. Paris and London supported this approach and coordinated a joint strategy of fighting for Assad’s resignation. They also agreed to provide more support to the Syrian armed opposition, which is bound to trigger a new spiral of contradiction with Moscow. One can say the same about French President François Hollande’s announcement that France is ready to recognise Syria’s interim opposition government.

Meanwhile, Russia continues its attempts to find a solution to the Syrian crisis. Reports say that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will discuss the Syrian problem with his US counterpart Hillary Clinton during the APEC conference in Vladivostok next week. Ms Clinton will also discuss the Syrian problem with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in Beijing between the 4 and 5 September.

29 August 2012

Konstantin Garibov

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_08_29/UN-Security-Council-unable-to-help-Syria/

******

THIS illustrates HH‘s stance towards Syria… any questions? You see, if the American-backed oppositionists win, there’s going to be a massacre of Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Alawis that’ll make anything seen to this point inconsquential. That’s why Russia opposes the American warmongers and their sockpuppets… and it’s in the right.

______________________________

Editor’s Note:

It’s clear that both Neocon Republicans and Interventionist Democrats are itching to install an Islamist dictatorship in Damascus, just as they did in Kosovo, just as they did in Afghanistan, just as they did in Iraq. Orthodox Christians should bear in mind that Orthodox Christians and “orthodox” Muslims get on very well together, and have for centuries (Syria being a salient example of such). In Syria, the oppositionists are bloodthirsty Islamists bent on the murder of Christians, Jews, Shiites, and Alawis.

THEY DO NOT REPRESENT MAINSTREAM ISLAM.

Note well that the USA, both Republicans and Democrats, support the Islamists all over the world, as one saw in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and the “Arab Spring”… oh, by the way, the Islamists are supported by the Americans to destroy local socialist governments. The US news media never says a peep about that. In fact, the vision of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was far closer to American values than that of the Taliban Neanderthals supported by the USA. In fact, the only real result of American intervention throughout the world has been to overthrow socialist states to replace them with One Percent lickspittle juntas.

Of course, Russia and China are too strong for the USA to invade… so, they’re constantly vilified and pilloried. Note well that Cuba stood tall against the USA… and it still exists as a socialist society. America had a chance to reach out a hand of friendship in the 90s, but bitter rightwing Cuban émigré rotters in Florida tilted the Republican Party and the American intel establishment (where so many Batisteros found employment after the defeat of the American client junta by Castro) against a responsible and reasonable approach to Cuba. Yet, little Cuba stands tall… and I should remind my Orthodox readers that HH SUPPORTS Cuba absolutely… not the USA.

In short, a great deal of what Americans “know” about the Syrian situation is self-serving dezinformatsiya… shall they find out the truth? God willing… for the truth WILL set you free.

BMD

Do Drones Know Miranda Rights?

_______________________________

During a short press conference before meeting UN envoy Kofi Annan today, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made some emotional remarks about the “moral” accusations levelled at Russia and China by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Whilst he didn’t mention the madam secretary’s name, Lavrov said it is “incorrect” to put all the blame for the situation in Syria on Russia and China, not to speak about “threats that they [Russia and China] will pay for it”. Lavrov was obviously referring to Mrs Clinton’s recent statement at the so called “Friends of Syria” conference in France. Mrs Clinton said there that Russia and China would “pay a price” for allegedly supporting Assad’s régime.

One shouldn’t shy away from moral dilemmas, but a question immediately confronts one… WHO are the judges? What makes President Obama and Secretary Clinton qualified to pass moral judgements on the, indeed, intricate problem of the moral responsibility of the Russian, or, for that matter, the Syrian government? What enables the Western press take such a high moral ground on “Russia’s responsibility” for the developments in Syria (with the questions on the moral responsibility of the Syrian opposition and its foreign sponsors wisely avoided). The question is made ever more timely by the fact that, in recent months, Mrs Clinton returned to some of the “tough” policies of former-President George W Bush, who based his approach to the Middle East on an unlimited use of warfare (something Mr Obama now euphemistically calls “leaving all options on the table”).

Yelena Suponina, the head of department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies at the Russian Institute for Strategic Research, noted, “It’s interesting to note that Hillary Clinton, who started her career as Secretary of State emphasising a certain contrast between herself and former-President George W Bush, at the end of her tenure, returned to some of Bush’s approaches. Obviously, there are some patterns in American Middle East policies that can’t be changed for long”. Were they ever changed? If we believe recently-published stories in American media, in fact, some of the morally-questionable qualities of this policy never changed. A series of articles published in the New York Times revealed even a certain hardening of the White House’s approach. For example, in reality, Obama adopted a “take no prisoners policy” towards terrorist suspects in the Middle East. Under Obama, American drones reportedly killed hundreds of suspects, destroying in the process thousands of civilians, with only ONE MORE PERSON being put in the infamous Guantánamo camp, which the “humane” candidate Obama had promised to close during his electoral campaign.

The NYT’s Jo Becker and Scott Shane wrote in their review of Obama’s drone strategy, “Whilst scores of suspects were killed under Mr Obama, only one has been taken into American custody, and the president balked at adding new prisoners to Guantánamo”. Both authors point up that Obama’s “killing lists” got longer and longer despite the fact that Obama’s America did not suffer from large-scale terrorist acts, unlike George W Bush’s America which went through the 9/11 disaster in 2001. The New York Times kindly noted, “What remains unanswered is how much killing will be enough”, adding that Mr Obama’s own system of evaluating civilian casualties “in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants” Obviously, the USA is still at war with terrorism, despite having had no hostile action on its territory for the last 10 years.

Now, how would THIS President Obama react to some unknown “militants” (let’s use the Western media’s preferred term) setting off bombs near US government buildings in DC every day, killing children on their way to school in the process? This is what happens in Damascus. How would Obama treat “combatants” who make “targeted liquidations” of US Army officers (“targeted liquidations” is the term used by the French newspaper Le Figaro to describe the drive-by shootings of Syrian General Mohammed Omar al-Derbas and Colonels Abdel Karim al-Raei and Fouad Shaaban, assassinated before the bombardments of Homs and Houla)? How would he react to someone’s taking a whole detachment of American servicemen as hostages (such was the Free Syrian Army’s action that unleashed the battle for Homs)? So, how would Obama react to such actions? The answer would be… drones, at least; nuclear bombs, at most. Somehow, Obama and Clinton deny the same luxury of self-defence to Assad. Is it just because his bombs aren’t as smart as American ones? Yes, American bombs are smarter, but smart weapons put their owners before ever-more terrible moral choices. The New York Times reports that Obama, when deciding to “liquidate” Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, knew that Mehsud’s wife and in-laws were in the same home. However, the American president still preferred “the killing option”. In a way, his moral position in this situation is even more compromised than that of Assad’s artillerists, who at least don’t know for sure which family their shells are going to kill…

Amnesty International looks somewhat less smart than American bombs when it requires Assad, in the current situation, to hold “fair trials” for terrorists. As if the USA, with its death squads of drones and “signature strikes” against “suspicious compounds”, bothers to have such trials. Gone are the days when former-Vice President Richard Cheney suspected Obama of “giving the terrorists the rights of Americans, letting them lawyer up and reading them their Miranda rights”. Drones know no lawyers, and “smart missiles” don’t recognise Miranda rights.

17 July 2012

Dmitri Babich

Voice of Russia World Service

http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_07_16/Do-drones-know-Miranda-rights/

Russia Sees Blackmail in Western Stance on Syria

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (1950- )

______________________________

On Monday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia sees “elements of blackmail” in the West linking new sanctions against Syria with the extension of the international observer mission there, and said it was unrealistic to expect Moscow to force President Assad to step down, saying before a meeting with UN Special Envoy to Syria Kofi Annan, “To our great distress, we saw elements of blackmail. They told us, ‘If you don’t give us an agreement on accepting the [UN Security Council] resolution on Article 7 of the UN Charter, then, we’ll refuse to prolong the UN Observer Mission mandate”. The unarmed observers went to Syria following a UN Security Council vote in April, to observe compliance with the Annan peace plan. Lavrov said that Moscow thinks such an approach “is absolutely counterproductive and dangerous; to use the observers as bargaining chips is inadmissible”.

On Wednesday, Britain, France, and Germany presented the UN Security Council with a draft resolution that linked an extension of the UN Observer mission in Syria with the fulfilment by the Syrian government of a series of demands within ten days, including an end to use of heavy weapons. The draft included introduction of a series of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Damascus if it failed to carry out the resolution’s demands, in line with Article Seven of the UN Charter, which allows the Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression” and to take military and non-military action to “restore international peace and security”. Russia declared that it wouldn’t accept the western draft proposal and countered it with its proposal, which included an extension of the observer mission for another three months to carry out the Annan plan to resolve the conflict.

Lavrov also dismissed calls by Western powers for it to use its influence to persuade Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to stand down as leader of the violence-stricken Middle East country as “unrealistic”, saying, “They tell us that we should persuade Assad to step down of his own free will. This is simply unrealistic. He won’t leave… not because we’re protecting him, but because he has the support of a very significant part of the country’s population. We’ll accept any decision by the Syrian people on who’ll govern Syria, as long as it comes from the Syrians themselves”. Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that both Russia and China would “pay a price” for what she said was their support for Assad. Western powers repeatedly accused both countries of protecting the embattled Syrian leader.

Lavrov will discuss the mounting crisis in Syria with UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan later on Monday. Annan is also due to meet President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday during a two-day visit to the Russian capital, his second since March. The Kremlin is continuing to push Annan’s six-point peace plan as the only way to bring an end to the spiralling violence in Syria, despite the failure of a ceasefire stipulated under the deal, which rebel forces have said they won’t abide by. Annan’s plan doesn’t call for Assad’s departure. Lavrov said, “We need to pressure both the régime and the opposition to make them stop the violence”, adding that Russia had been able to persuade the Syrian armed opposition to drop what he called “radical demands”, saying, “They continued to talk about a revolution”. Lavrov held talks with two Syrian opposition groups last week.

Moscow has come under increasing international pressure over what Western powers say is its support for the Syrian government, the Kremlin’s sole remaining ally in the Arab world. An almost 17-month revolt against Assad has left up to 16,000 people dead, according to Syrian activists quoted by the UN. The UN and human rights groups, both in Syria and abroad, accused government forces and pro-Assad militia of executing and torturing civilians. Over the weekend, the International Red Cross said that the conflict in Syria was now a “civil war”, officially obliging both sides to observe Geneva Conventions regulations on the non-targeting of civilians.

Russia, along with China, refused to support Western-backed UN resolutions on Syria that it says betray a pro-rebel bias, which could leave the door open for foreign military intervention against the Assad régime. Earlier this year, Putin vowed not to allow a repeat of the “Libya scenario”, which saw the ouster and murder of long-time Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi after a NATO military campaign. In a move interpreted as a possible shift in the Kremlin’s position, last week, a Russian arms trade official said Moscow wouldn’t sign new deals on weapons deliveries to Syria until peace was established. Russia insisted its arms supplies to Syria have been of an exclusively “defensive” nature.

Damascus saw the heaviest fighting of the entire uprising against Assad this weekend, the violence in the Syrian capital coming after the defection of Syria’s ambassador to Iraq, the most senior figure to abandon the Assad régime since the conflict began. Lavrov also said Moscow was concerned by what he said was the increasingly sectarian nature of the conflict and the introduction of a “third force” of Islamist extremists, saying, “It’s worrying that, according to multiple eyewitnesses, a so-called third force in the form of al-Qaeda and extremist organisations close to it has become active. This is a tendency that we’ve observed in other parts of the region, it threatens security”.

16 July 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120716/174629132.html