Voices from Russia

Sunday, 15 November 2015

15 November 2015. THIS is What the Uniate Nationalists Do in Novorossiya

00 destroyed orthodox convent novorossiya 151115


This is a Russian Orthodox convent destroyed by the Uniate nationalists. Not only did they set the Dom Profsoyuz arson, they attack our churches, and they shell our neighbourhoods to kill noncombatants… especially, the elderly and children. John McCain supports this. Chilly Hilly supports this. Evil is regnant in America… and it mostly wears a “religious” face. “Evangelicalism” is the Religion of the Beast, with no relation to Christianity in any way (look at their “worship”… that settles the matter). What can one do?

Firstly, do NOT blame the innocent… most “Ukrainian Catholics” are NOT guilty of the blood crimes in Novorossiya. Their hierarchy does support the war crimes, the clergy has to support them, and a loud minority of parishioners do so as well. However… do your best to not harm the innocent. Have discernment. Secondly, vote for Bernie… he’s the only “Peace” candidate. You can end the war by cutting off its American support… but only Bernie would do that. Thirdly, have no relations with “Evangelicals” save for the most “accidental” (at work, in particular). They won’t listen to us and they truly believe themselves the best of Christians (I shit you not).

The times are evil… the image is proof of that. Our FIRST priority is the defence of the Holy Church and of its human incarnations, such as Holy Rus. All else is secondary…



Today’s Republicans Aren’t Conservative

00 trickle down economics at work new

ALL “conservatives” are either dupes or conscious liars… Whiteford is the former… Dreher and Potapov the latter… no one who calls themselves “conservative” (in the Anglosphere definition) has any part of Christ. Such is clear even to fools… it’s clear to HH, as the above quote proves. Christ CHOSE to incarnate in a working family… not that of a priest, of a functionary, of a merchant, of a professor, of a “professional”, or of an official… he’d didn’t choose to live in the “conservative” milieu. Ponder that one…


On Tuesday night, Republican presidential hopefuls took to the stage in Milwaukee to duke it out for the fourth time and to try to win the hearts and minds of Republican voters. One candidate after another took their turn trying to convince Republican viewers that their policies are more conservative than any of their opponents were. They disagreed on immigration policy, they disagreed on the role of the American military in world affairs, and they disagreed about how best to gut Obamacare and what agencies to gut to balance their budget. However, they could all agree on a few things. For example, they all attacked Dodd-Frank with claims that it’s killing community banks and making it easier for big banks to get bigger. They all had their own ideas for how to reform the tax code to even further line the coffers of corporations and the super-rich. Nevertheless, those ideas aren’t “conservative”, so, the Republican Party isn’t really a conservative party anymore.

This Republican Party isn’t the party of Barry Goldwater and Dwight D Eisenhower conservatives anymore; it’s not even the party of conservative Federalist John Adams. It hasn’t been “conservative” ever since the “Reagan Revolution”. Oh sure, they all call themselves conservatives, Donald Trump even evoked Dwight Eisenhower’s conservatism during Tuesday’s debate. However, if you look at the history of American conservatism, it’s clear that this Republican Party isn’t my father’s conservative Republican Party. Before the Reagan Revolution, for literally hundreds of years, conservatives and liberals differed mainly in their understanding of human nature and the role of government in society. Nevertheless, conservatives and liberals were still similar in that they still promoted improving the quality of life for working people in America.

For hundreds of years, the major difference between conservatives and liberals wasn’t whether government had a role to play in improving society. The major difference was that conservatives wanted very slow gradual improvements, and liberals argued for rapid social changes. Most of our Founding Fathers were liberal progressives, heck, they were revolutionaries, they took up arms and fought a bloody revolution to rapidly establish independence and fundamentally transform the agricultural American colonies into a self-sustaining independent country. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine both argued for rapid and frequent changes, Jefferson famously supported a new constitutional convention every generation, every 19 years, so that the Constitution could reflect how society’s values change over time.

America’s original conservatism really has its roots in Europe, mainly in Britain, with Sir Edmund Burke being one of the more outspoken supporters of conservatism during America’s early years. However, Burke was a British aristocrat, one who supported low taxes on the rich to ensure the exact opposite of what Jefferson wanted. Burke argued that laws and customs of England should never really change, and the way to do that is to make sure that the richest families in a country passed their wealth from generation to generation, thus “conserving” Britain’s aristocracy and the status quo at the time. However, it wasn’t until the 19th century that the American conservative movement really emerged, mostly in reaction to anti-slavery movements at first, and later against child labour laws, women’s suffrage, and racial integration. It’s not that conservatives were always 100 percent against all of those issues, but they never supported rapid changes to America’s norms and laws.

Conservatives weren’t obstructionist, but they were circumspect and slow-to-action. Conservatives weren’t totally against change, but they didn’t want to try to improve society too quickly and risk destabilising everything. They wanted to make sure that any changes happened gradually, slowly, and without disrupting the status quo too much. By the way, that is pretty much how one defines “conservative”. Barry Goldwater’s Republican Party wasn’t completely against integration, but they didn’t want it to happen all at once for fear of destabilising society.

However, America’s 200-year tradition of conservatism all changed with Ronald Reagan’s election. Suddenly, the Republican Party was the party of rapid change, rapid deregulation, extreme and rapid tax cuts for the rich and for corporations, and a new focus on increasing the volume and speed of global trade in goods and services. Suddenly, the Republican Party wasn’t conservative in how it saw America’s place in the world, and Reagan wasn’t conservative about the speed of social and economic changes he pushed through, if anything, he was a revolutionary radical.

Reagan’s tax cuts took place almost overnight, and they followed Burke’s conservatism in only one way, by concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few hundred corporations and the billionaires, the new aristocracy that bought Reagan to power. Thirty-four years on, the post-Reagan Revolution reality is that the Republican Party is no longer “conservative” and has no interest in improving society anymore. Instead, the entire focus of the party is enriching the rich and impoverishing the working class and the poor. They want to give tax cuts to the rich and the corporations, and they want to pay for it by gutting social services to the elderly and the poor, like Social Security and Medicaid.

On the other hand, as Ted Cruz proposes, they want to make more room in the budget for corporate giveaways by gutting government agencies like the EPA and HUD, agencies that protect our commons and help the least among us get housing. In addition, going back to Dodd-Frank, they want to gut any financial regulations that keep the banks from defrauding the public and making unimaginable profits as a result. This isn’t “conservative”; it’s a coup by the super-rich. For the modern Republican, government is no longer here for the benefit of the nation or its working people. For the modern corporatist Republican, society and individuals are just pawns used to maximise profits for corporations and to increase the amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of the new aristocracy.

Today’s Republicans aren’t conservative. They’re corporatists… what Benito Mussolini called “fascists”… the takeover of the state by corporate power. It’s time to call them out for what they are, and stop the charade.

13 November 2015

Thom Hartmann

Sputnik International


15 November 2015. A Blast from the Metropolia Past…

00 jersey city nj metropolia 111115

Frs Dmitri Ressetar, Kohanick, and Kuby in Jersey City NJ in the pre-World War II period.


00 tikhvin icon metropolia 111115

Fr Daniel Ressetar (son of Fr Dmitri) with the Icon of the Mother of God “of Tikhvin” (1967?), Harrisburg PA


00 john garklavs tikhvin icon 01 111115

Archbishop John Garklavs of Chicago and the Midwest with the Icon of the Mother of God “of Tikhvin” (1967?), Harrisburg PA


00 john garklavs tikhvin icon 02 111115

Another image of the Icon of the Mother of God “of Tikhvin” visit in Harrisburg PA (1967)


If we don’t know where we came from, we can’t know where we’re going. Most of the loudmouth konvertsy voices on the internet know nothing of the REAL history of the Church here, nor do they have a clue about who the real heroes and villains were. They don’t know who Bishop Kip was, they haven’t heard of anyone other than Schmemann, Seraphim Rose, and the “Evangelical Orthodox” set. Well, if it hadn’t been for the spadework by the pioneers, none of those people would have mattered… ordinary working people and the priests who served them founded our Church… not the rich, not the powerful, not the people in the “big house on the hill”.

I honour what our forebears did. THEY founded the Church, but they get no credit on worthless chatter-sites such as Monomuckos. Keep this in mind… our Church did NOT begin in the “right” suburb… it did NOT begin amongst the garden party set. Our Church started in countless mine and mill towns off-the-beaten-track. Our Church started in obscurity. It didn’t have anyone like Freddie M-G or Rod Dreher in it… but it did have thousands of ordinary Joes and Marys who built up the Church that we have today. THEY ARE THE REAL HEROES.

I will NEVER stop saying such until the day I die. Grasp the real… not the phantasmagorical… that’s where God is…


15 November 2015. ALL “Conservative” Definitions of “Freedom” SUCK… It’s “Freedom” for the Moneyed and Slavery for YOU

00 melville on the poor 151115


One of the shibboleths tossed about by neoliberal “conservative” pundits such as Rod Dreher is “economic freedom”… that is, the moneyed have the “freedom” to shaft you every which way but loose, with no government intervention, with soulless “conservatives” such as Hannity, Dreher, and Coulter urging them on. It’s the argument that the Anglos used to justify slavery and to legitimate the genocide of the Native peoples of the Americas.


That’s what all the honeyed words of the “conservatives” mean. As a priest of my acquaintance put it:

Capitalism: I have mine, so screw you, and get your own.

People like Paffhausen, Webster, Dreher, Freddie M-G, Mattingly, and others push this soulless demonic programme … they have the chutzpah to label it “Christian”. I kid you not. Their real gods are the Almighty Dollar and Exceptional America… do note that none of them speaks up for the oppressed and victimised… none of them do so. They excuse all sorts of clerical corruption, nastiness, and abuse… because “we have to listen to the priests” (Freddie M-G said so). Allied to this is their perverted sense of “religious freedom”. Look at the following image, which captures it brilliantly:


00 signe wilkinson. the morning after... 130615


“Religious freedom” doesn’t mean the right to believe as one wills, nor is it even the right of a particular church body to have a say over what happens on their property. All decent people say “amen” to that. Rather, it’s the “right” to ram one’s religious beliefs down another’s throat. That is, we’re NOT talking about a church not wanting gay weddings on their property or the right of a person to believe such wrong. We’re talking about a pharmacist refusing to dispense a legal drug or an employer to refuse to cover contraception because “it offends their religious beliefs”. I’d fight for any person to hold what they will, even if I find it distasteful or wrong… I’d fight for any church to have the right not to sponsor or allow events that they find wrong. However, a secular business is NOT a person or a church… it’s a legal entity chartered to do business with the public. By definition, it doesn’t and can’t have religious beliefs or rights.

The Church does NOT take the maximalist view. St Nektary of Optina blessed G K Zhukov (a believer) to serve in the Red Army, to serve his country. We are NOT crusaders. The Church witnesses, worships, and prays… it doesn’t protest or fight. We do NOT share the attitude of Catholics and “Evangelicals”… rather, Orthodox bend with the wind… yes, that’s what we do… it’s how the Church survived many a REAL crisis. Mensurius handed over heretical scriptures when the pagan magistrate demanded the holy books… he didn’t protest or engage in empty false martyrdom. Indeed, Bishop Mensurius issued a ukase forbidding Christians to pray for those who “ran to martyrdom”. It was one thing to accept persecution… it was quite another to tempt it.

It’s not as “simple” as the “conservatives” make it out to be. Just know that they push an agenda 180 degrees removed from that of the Church. The Church teaches that the state is necessary and that it must exist to curb the evils and wilful sinfulness of fallen mankind. The “conservatives” preach a nihilistic and demonic “freedom” that extolls mankind’s perfectibility, so much so that man doesn’t need government!

If you want to follow the Church, you must reject American “conservatism” and all of its works… God wills it…


Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.