Voices from Russia

Sunday, 30 October 2016

Russian Orthodox Church Against Liberal Globalisation, Usury, Dollar Hegemony, And Neocolonialism

00 trickle down economics at work new



Remember… in European political parlance, “liberal” means “conservative” in Anglospeak. Therefore, the Church is condemning both “conservatism” and liberalism” in the Anglosphere sense. That is… the Church condemns the ideology of the Republican Party and of neoliberal Democrats as against the God-given Order, if not actually demonic. It condemns the Free Market. I’m indebted to a Russian friend who make some Russian texts available to me, which allowed me to issue a clean version (the Katheon version was overly literal and jangly).

To reiterate… if you call yourself a “conservative” in the Anglosphere, you spit on Christ and His Church. I can’t put it any more plainly…



The Moscow Patriarchate published a draft document Economy in the Context of Globalisation: An Orthodox Ethical View. This document demonstrates the key positions of the Church on a number of issues relating to the economy and international relations. The MP emphasised that it supports only the trends in modern international processes that aim to build a multi-polar world and a dialogue of civilisations and cultures based on traditional non-liberal values:

Consolidation of mankind based on the moral commandments of God is fully consistent with the Christian mission. A reasonable and pious incarnation of globalisation provides an opportunity for fraternal mutual assistance, free exchange of creative achievements and knowledge, respectful coexistence of different languages and cultures, and the joint conservation of nature. If the essence of globalisation is only to overcome the division between people, its economic processes have to overcome inequalities, prudently use our natural endowment, and ease equitable international coöperation.

At the same time, a large part of the document critically examines the process of globalisation. The Church says that globalisation “removes barriers to the spread of sin and vice”. The Church condemns Westernisation and dissemination of the Western cult of consumption, noting that “the Western way of development” is a road to nowhere, to hell, and the abyss. The “catch-up model of modernisation”, having before people’s eyes an uncritically perceived external sample, not only destroys the social structure and spiritual life of the “catch-up” societies, but often doesn’t allow it to approach the idol in the material sphere, imposing unacceptable and ruinous economic decisions.

In contrast to the immutability and universality of moral commandments, economics can’t have a universal solution for all peoples and all times. God created a variety of people in the world. That reminds us that every nation has a task given by the Creator, each is valuable in the sight of the Lord, and everyone is able to contribute to the creation of our world.

The Church denounced neocolonialism and the exploitation of the Third World by Western multinationals. The Church considers such a policy to be deeply unjust and sinful. It especially noted that control over the financial sector was the main weapon of the new colonialism:

Although the world colonial system outwardly collapsed, the richest states of the world pursued ever-receding horizons of consumption. They continued to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. It’s impossible to recognise as just an international division of labour in which some countries are suppliers of absolute values, especially human labour or raw materials, whilst others are suppliers of conditional values in the form of financial resources.

The Church insists that a Christian approach to the economy is primarily ontological. The only alternative to the fictive global liberal economy can only be a real Christian economy. One can only counter the hegemony of global plutocracy, based on financial capital and the dollar as the universal currency, by a global policy of sovereignty:

Often, money paid for non-renewable natural resources “comes out of thin air”. It’s nothing but printing press money, but since it comes from the monopoly issuers of world currency, one must accept it. As a result, the abyss in socioeconomic status between nations and entire continents is becoming increasingly profound. This one-sided globalisation, giving undue advantages to some of its participants at the expense of the others, entails a partial and, in some cases, a virtually complete loss of sovereignty.

As one of the ways to solve this problem (dollar hegemony), the Church proposes to establish international control over global currencies:

If mankind needed freely traded currencies throughout the world to serve as a universal yardstick for economic calculations, the production of such units should be under fair international control, where all states of the world would proportionally take part. A possible benefit of such controls is that we could channel funds to the development of the poverty-stricken regions of the planet.

However, the Church believes that the strengthening of international institutions shouldn’t lead to the strengthening of the transnational élite. The unconditional support of state sovereignty against the transnational élite is a distinctive feature of the position of the Orthodox Church. This differentiates Orthodox from Catholics, who are members of the globalist transnational centralised structure, in contrast to the Orthodox Churches, which have union in faith, but aren’t administratively united.

National governments are increasingly losing their independence and becoming less dependent on the will of their own people, and more and more on the will of the transnational élite. These élites aren’t a legal entity; therefore, they’re not accountable to the people or to national governments, rather they’ve become a shadow regulator of social and economic processes. Greed shadows the rulers of the global economy; this leads to the fact that a small fraction of the “élite” is getting richer and at the same time more and more relieved of the responsibility for the welfare of those whose labour created the wealth.

The church believes that the gap between rich and poor, the predatory morality of Hayek-style “laissez-faire capitalism”, and neoliberal thought is incompatible with Christian teaching:

A moral society shouldn’t increase the gap between rich and poor. The strong don’t have the moral right to use their benefits at the expense of the weak, but on the contrary, they’re obliged to take care of the dispossessed. All employees should receive decent pay.

The Church openly declares that usury is a sinful phenomenon, and notes the destructiveness of the global debt economy:

Whole countries and nations plunge into debt, and generations not yet born are doomed to pay the bills of their ancestors. In business, paper profits from lending become more lucrative than the production of tangible goods. In this regard, we must remember the moral ambiguity of the situation where money “makes” new money without the application of human labour. Declaring the credit sphere to be the main engine of the economy, its predominance over the real economic sector comes into conflict with God-revealed moral principles condemning usury.

The document takes heed of the important topic of mass migration. Unlike the Catholic approach, that unduly favours migration, particularly in Europe, the Orthodox notice negative aspects to the process, as well as the fact that it leads to confrontation of different identities and value systems. In addition, the Church proposes to look at the roots of this phenomenon. The reasons for mass migration are the liberal hedonistic ideology bleeding the peoples of Europe and the interests of the capitalist elite, who need a cheap and disenfranchised workforce:

Attempts by the native populations in the rich countries to stop the migration flow are futile, because they conflict with greed of their own élite, who are interested in a low-wage workforce. However, an inexorable factor driving migration is the spread of a hedonistic quasi-religion capturing not only the élite, but also the broad masses in countries with high living standards. A renunciation of procreation for a thoughtless, arrogant, and selfish existence is a sign of the times. The popularisation of a child-free ideology leads to a cult of childless family life, which leads to a reduction in the population in the most seemingly prosperous societies. We mustn’t forget that the commandment to all the descendants of Adam and Eve said, “Fill the earth, and subdue it”. Anyone who doesn’t want to continue the race will inevitably have to give way to those who prefer having children to material well-being.

The Church noted that the current level of consumption and the ideology of infinite progress are incompatible with the limited resources of the planet:

Globalisation accelerated consumerism, but this is isn’t proportionate to the natural resources granted to mankind. Volumes of consumption in those countries recognised worldwide as models have reached the equivalence of billions of people; their needs have long gone beyond their resource capabilities. There’s no doubt that if all of humanity consumed our natural wealth at the rate of the countries that lead in terms of consumption, it’d lead to a planet-wide environmental disaster.

This document is very important because it shows that the MP not only takes a critical position in relation to liberal globalisation, it also offers a Christian alternative to globalisation processes. Whilst Catholics and most Protestant denominations have keen humane ideals, and in the best case, criticise globalisation from the left or left-liberal positions, the Church advocates sovereignty and national identity. The most important aspect of the Orthodox critique of globalisation is the idea of multipolarity and its recognition of the destructiveness of modern Western civilisation’s path.

26 May 2016




30 October 2016. A WRY Point to Ponder…

Filed under: personal reflections — 01varvara @ 00.00
Tags: , , ,



Sit back and laugh… for doing the right thing! Trust me… there are people who love to hate and write hateful things all over the net for the whole world to see. I may oppose Whiteford and Dreher… but I forgive them… the first one isn’t overly bright and the second is nothing but an opportunistic mercenary. Neither one is a heavyweight… so why should I attend to what they say about me? Kids… the rest of you should take the same attitude. Pay no mind to asshats, praise God, and love life… now, that’s the ticket.

Pass the jug and cheer! The plug-uglies can only hurt you if you let them. Come join the happy warriors and roll out the barrel!


War in the Donbass: At Least 3,600 Civilians Killed by Ukrainian Forces and Neo-Nazi Militia since Minsk II Agreement


Patriot soldiers wiping their boots on an Ukrop banner during the Battle of Debaltsevo, a major patriot victory in early 2015.


The Donetsk Peoples Republic (DNR) and the Lugansk Peoples Republic (LNR) broke away from the Ukraine in May 2014 following “status referendums”, and on 24 May the two republics signed an agreement creating a confederation, Novorossiya, but the region is more widely known as the Donbass. After the February 2014 coup in Kiev, an “Anti-Maidan” movement rapidly grew in the largely Russian-speaking Donbass, Odessa, and Crimea regions, which sought to prevent the far-right groups that hijacked in the “Euromaidan” protests entering their towns and cities. On 2 May 2014, the Odessa Dom Profsoyuzov fire confirmed their fears; a far-right mob surrounded the building and petrol-bombed it… at least 50 Anti-Maidan supporters died. There are reports of civilian casualties caused by Ukrainian attacks on the patriot republics on an almost daily basis. On 28 August, according to residents of the Petrovsky Raion of Donetsk, a Ukrainian sniper shot two women dead.

It was hoped that Minsk II, which followed the September 2014 Minsk Protocol signed by V V Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, and Ukrainian President P A Poroshenko, would bring the war in the eastern Ukraine to an end, paving the way for elections and separate status for the two Donbass People’s Republics. However, low-level clashes continued unabated for the past 18 months, with increasing warnings of escalation and a build-up of forces and equipment by the Ukrainian side in recent months. Three weeks ago, tensions increased with allegations of armed incursions by Ukrainian forces into the Crimea.

According to data obtained recently from DNR authorities, 3,609 civilians died in attacks by Ukrainian forces between 13 February 2015 and 26 August 2016, of which 3,133 were men, 476 women, 65 children, and 352 “unknown”. In addition, figures from the DNR Ministry of Utilities and Housing Construction state that up to 20 July 2016 military action damaged 4,359 “multi-family houses” (54 irreparable) and 6,307 private houses (1,853 irreparable). The neighbouring LNR also experienced similar military strikes and civilian casualties, so a rough estimate would suggest that at least 6,000 civilians died in attacks by Ukrainian forces in the Donbass republics since Minsk II. Obtaining exact figures for casualties in the war is extremely difficult due to the unstable and insecure situation on the ground, and the fact that the conflict is highly politicised and controversial not only locally, but also across Europe and globally.

On 3 August, UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Tayé-Brook Zerihoun reported to the UN Security Council that the total number of conflict-related casualties since the Ukrainian government launched its “Anti-Terrorist Operation” in April 2014 was 30,729, including 9,333 killed and 21,396 injured. However, the report provides no breakdown of where the casualties occurred other than “in the conflict area”, and there’s no sign of which side was responsible. According to the latest figures from the UN Human Rights Office and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, from February 2015 to June 2016 261 civilians died in the conflict on both sides… far fewer than DNR figures would suggest. However, the UNHRO stressed that its figures are a “conservative estimate of the OHCHR based on available data”, which are “incomplete due to gaps in coverage of certain geographic areas and time periods, and due to overall under-reporting”.

In February 2015, press reports quoted claims from the German BND intelligence service that 50,000 civilians and troops died in the Ukrainian conflict, almost 10 times than figures given by Ukrainian President Poroshkenko only days before, which said 1,200 Ukrainian soldiers and 5,400 civilians died. In fact, the Ukrainian government doesn’t appear to have any exact figures for civilian casualties in the conflict. A report in May quoting Mikhail Koval, First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, said, “Russian-backed militants killed 10,000 Ukrainians and injured more than 20,000 over the past two years”… a strangely precise number, but with no breakdown of civilian and military casualties, or locations.

The only other body providing detailed information on casualties in the conflict is the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SSM) to Ukraine, which has over 570 unarmed civilian monitors in the conflict region. However, apart from daily updates, the SMM provided no total figures for casualties in the conflict, although it issued reports on the displacement of civilians, access to water, and “Gender Dimensions of SMM’s Monitoring”. Relations between the DNR and LNR governments and the OSCE mission have deteriorated for months. The People’s Republics claim that OSCE reporting favours the Ukrainian side, whilst the OSCE alleges its monitors are harassed in the republics. On 29 August, the DNR Defence Ministry claimed OSCE observers refused to register damage caused by Ukrainian shelling of Yasinivataya, just north of Donetsk city, “explaining this by the absence of security in this area”.

Last April, the Donbass International News Agency reported that the OSCE mission failed to report heavy shelling of Zaitsevo, a village close to the frontline by Ukrainian forces. At the time, Zaitsevo was a flashpoint stoking fears of a return to all-out war, with over a thousand residents denied electricity, gas, and humanitarian aid for several months. Also in April, the DNR claimed that the OSCE failed to report the shelling of a hospital in Yelenovka, despite reporting another shelling only 880 metres away. According to reports from the DNR side, the two attacks killed six civilians and wounded 10 more. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to the Ukraine’s mandate states that its mission is “to reduce tensions and to help foster peace, stability, and security” by engaging “with authorities at all levels, as well as civil society, ethnic and religious groups, and local communities to facilitate dialogue on the ground”.

Last May, DNR leaders reacted strongly to claims by Poroshenko’s media office that the other leaders of the “Normandy Four”’ contact group (Russia, France, Germany, and the Ukraine) had approved the deployment of an armed OSCE police force to the region, which Poroshenko said would be “well-armed with heavy weapons”. The most senior members of the DNR government, D V Pushilin and A V Zakharchenko, said that such a force would be “foreign intervention”, and Zakharchenko called on Kiev to make a real effort for a peaceful settlement of the conflict, “rather than trying to arm the OSCE to seize the Donbass”.

It is important to bear in mind that the “Armed Forces of the Ukraine” include 84 far-right and neo-Nazi militias incorporated into it last year. These units are extremely undisciplined; to this day, they continue to run amok across the Ukraine, mounting racist, anti-Semitic, anti-communist, and homophobic attacks. They murder journalists, threaten and intimidate judges, and often kidnap defendants when the courts release them. These militias played a major role in the continuing clashes on the contact line with the Donbass, as well as deliberately targeting DNR/LNR civilians in various ways.

The latest ceasefire announced on 1 September announced by the “Trilateral Contact Group” (the Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE) showed promise of holding for several days, building hopes of a return to talks on the implementation of the Minsk agreements, but already the Ukrainian side is alleging DNR/LNR violations. Despite the problems with obtaining a clear picture of casualties in the eastern Ukraine conflict, what is clear is that up to now, the fighting continues, with civilian and military casualties on both sides. This blocks any prospect of a resolution allowing separate status for the Donbass republics. Given the huge variations in figures given by the various parties, observers should give serious consideration to the latest very detailed data from the DNR authorities.

15 September 2016

Theo Russell


War in Donbass: 3,600 Civilians Killed by Ukrainian Forces and Neo-Nazi Militia since Minsk II Agreement

30 October 2016. Your Tax Dollars at Work… Syrian Terrorists With Western-Supplied Rockets



Look at the above image. Syrian terrorists are unloading rockets supplied by the West (both USA and NATO are doing this). If you were wondering who’s doing the heavy killing in Aleppo, look no further. Reflect on this… your tax money supports terrorism. The Three Stooges (Clinton, Trump, and Johnson) support American terrorism. Only Jill Stein opposes this. America’s become an utterly fucked-up excuse for a country. It tasers Native grandmas… it sets Mormon terrorists free… it sends rockets to terrorists in Syria… it props up a fascist dictatorship in the Ukraine that murders Orthodox kids. It’s so bad that the one can even say that the Nazis were better. At least, if they found you “Aryan”, you got decent treatment. It’s a stinking morass of sheer and unrelieved evil. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” mouth apologias for it. They all gape in toothless adoration whenever their oligarch masters pass by.



Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.