Connect with us

Religion

Islam and the Free World: What Should be done as an imperative Survival (D)

Published

on

What do all these mean?

What policies should we adopt to fight effectively the Islamic strategy to conquer the world by these three arms of Da’wah, Jihad and Hijrah? There are several important recommendations as a working policy:

1) Deal with the issue of immigration. Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of Islamic Da’wah and Jihad in history; the religious cloak is the Trojan Horse Islam uses to infiltrate the cultures and nations it seeks to destroy from within. Unfortunately, our worst enemy is the belief the Muslims wish to assimilate and will integrate in Western societies. Indeed, Europe is running adrift: not because of fanatics who occupy the land, but because of cowards who let them do it.

When you have an immigration policy that allows for the importation of millions of Muslims, you are also importing their ideology, an ideology that is fundamentally hostile to the foundations of western democracy, such as gender equality, pluralism, and individual liberties and freedoms. The best way to safeguard Europe and the US against the destructive effects of this poisonous reality is to enact laws that would bar the entry of foreign nationals who advocate the Sharī’ah, and for those already inside the borders, this should be a deportable offense. The other side is the annihilation of the U.S. Constitution, and consequently all freedoms.

One has to consider Theodore Roosevelt’s 1907 declaration: “Immigrants who come here in good faith become Americans and assimilate themselves in every facet to us… there can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for, but one flag – the American flag, but one language – the English language, but one sole loyalty – to the American institutions and people.” One should also consider the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard: Immigrants, not Australians, must adapt. It is take it or leave it… This is our country, our land, and our lifestyle you have to adapt with. It was Oriana Fallaci who observed so aptly: “Don’t let the multiculturalists fool you: it has never been about race or ethnicity, but about the threat of Islam’s monoculture; the threat to our minds; the threat to our very existence as a free society.”

Soeren Kern depicts the severe situation of the migration crisis from Hungary’s perspective. Europe’s migration crisis begins to expose the deep divisions exist within the European Union members. The EU is no longer being a model for post-nationalism and global citizenship. In 2014, more than 60,000 people have entered Hungary illegally; during the first six months of 2015, a nearly 900% increase over the same period in 2014. Approximately 95% of the migrants entering Hungary are coming from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia and Kosovo. On July 6, 2015, Hungary’s parliament approved the construction of a massive border fence with Serbia along the 175-kilometer frontier as part of an anti-immigration law that tightens the asylum rules. The move is aimed at stopping tens of thousands of migrants from entering Hungary, which has become a key gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union.

The Hungarian Foreign Minister has justified the moves as necessary to defend his country. “The Hungarian government is committed to defending Hungary and defending the Hungarian people from the immigration pressure. Hungary cannot allow itself to wait any longer.” Hungary is not alone. Bulgaria has built a 33-km barbed-wire fence along its border with Turkey, and more than one thousand police officers patrol the Turkish border. Greece has also erected a 10.5-km, barbed-wire fence along part of its border with Turkey. Spain has fortified fences in the North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. This is not a solution, nor the beginning of it. This has brought Chancellor Angela Merkel to warn that the waves of refugees are a bigger challenge than the debt crisis of Europe. Indeed, unless drastic steps are taken, Europe is becoming a province of Islam, an Islamic lebensraum.

Islamic aspirations to dominate the world politically by also enforcing the Sharī’ah as the only legitimate religion in the world are set to happen by the numbers of demography. In 1900 the entire Muslim population was almost 200 million, while the Christian population of the world was bigger almost by three times. According to data, in 2070, there will be more Muslims than Christians in the world. The number of Muslims will increase at more than double the rate of the world’s population.

There is also the persecution, massacre, enslavement, rape and annihilation of Christians in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Raymond Ibrahim, in his monthly reports and in his research proves very clearly the plight of the Christians. There is seemingly not a day goes by without Christian girls being abducted, enslaved, raped, and forced to convert, with the Islamic doctrinal justification for the Muslims’ horrific actions. It is to recall that Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure. Abusing them is a Muslim right, spoils of war, not to be considered as a crime. London and Sweden have become the capitals of rape, with no authorities’ answer. While unfortunately nobody pays attention to the many patterns of abuse against Christian minorities in the Muslim world, it is now occurring in the West in huge quantities. This is a new kind of Jihad the Free World is witnessing, without retaliation. Can one imagine what will happen when the Muslims become a majority or even 30 percent in the Western world?

2) Ban the application of the Sharī’ah as the state legal system. The first task is to try to ban the Sharī’ah as a legitimate law. It is the law in the Muslim countries, but its application in Non-Islamic states means no less than total disaster. It is possible to understand this when comparing its teachings to the US Constitution. In the US there is the separation of church and state, which was meant to protect the integrity of both, and to avoid religious power struggles. It sanctifies the separation of powers and checks and balances system. It makes the individual freedoms and civil right as a hallmark of the political processes. Islam exactly contradicts these and many more basic issues. Moreover, Islam and its teachings totally violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the freedoms of speech and the press and praises individualism. Islam means the total submission and devotion to Allah, orders collectivism, denies that man is at the center and logic is the focus of human life. It also contradicts human freedoms and civil rights.

Islam and the Constitution of the US are incompatible, exactly like the communist and the Nazi ideologies. That is why it is easy to deny the adoption of the Sharī’ah. In Islam, freedoms and civil rights are absolutely missing; discriminating against women and disappearance of minorities are pervasive; and hatred of the other and incitement against him are the main characteristics. Islamic history and contemporary history clearly demonstrate that it spread by force and violence, which violates James Madison’s, fundamental and undeniable truth, in 1785: “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion or the duty which we owe our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” No wonder he has been known as Father of the Constitution.

The question is how to stop Islam from being imposed on the Free World as the formal religion? Muslims can practice their religion as all other religions do, but Muslims must abide by the laws of their benevolent states’ laws and constitutions. The best way to begin with is to spread the truth about it. If we tell the truth about the bloody violent history of Islam; if we clearly observe and analyse the current Islamic politics with its extremist variations; if we tell the truth about the Sharī’ah, then Islam will be stopped in its march of occupation of the Free World. Instead of hatred and fear, so dominant in Islamic religion and way of life, one has to recall Thomas Jefferson’s: “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Truth will also set the Free World’s peoples free and stick to the separation between the state and the religion. In our democracies man is at the centre and the rule of logic is at focus; while in Islam Allah is at the centre and submission to Allah is at focus.  

The problem is that the majority of the peoples of the Free World are ignorant about the Islamic message and targets, and they are stupid enough not to learn its contents. They are naïve about the Islamic mission and they do not know about the real essence of Islam, because they do not bother to read and to learn. Instead, they act according to their own mirror image, believing the Muslims will become and behave like them. They are stunned by their failure when they watch the radicalization and extremism of the ‘third generation’ Muslims, and still they continue failing to connect the dots and come to the right conclusions. Unfortunately, they get their facts from the media; but the contemporary media is busy with a totally different agenda than conveying the Free World’s interests; and it also disseminates totally different messages.

The question is how to indoctrinate and socialize people about the deep hazards coming from Islam, about what endangers the Free World’s existence. Here comes the successful contribution of the Muslims with their diplomacy of deceit by Da’wah. When one quotes passages from the Qur’an to show how vile and evil they are, the Muslim propagators say that he quotes them out of context; and that he does not understand the meaning: that he does not even know Arabic; and that he reads the Qur’an from dubious translations, and other strange accusations. But they never tell us in what context the hundreds of verses can mean something else, and they never give another meaning. However, the fact is that those very scant verses in the Qur’an that they quote as peaceful are not only out of context, they have nothing to do with tolerance and peacefulness and compassion.

This is crucially important since it is the Islamic Da’wah’s highest strategy. It has been raised in the Netherlands; in Canada; Australia; and it is applied in Britain, after the Archbishop of Canterbury said that adoption of certain aspects of Sharī’ah in UK “seems unavoidable.” This is suicidal. The example to be taken is the Oklahoma House of Representatives which passed a Joint Resolution, 1056, to prohibit Oklahoma courts from considering Sharī’ah law in their court rulings.

If Western civilization really wants to get tough, its nations should outlaw the Sharī’ah. Public funds should be cut off immediately to Muslim groups that refuse to condemn and directly act against Muslim extremism. Muslim local imams who preach Jihad or hatred should be jailed, and those coming mainly from Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Iran must be expelled and ban entering Western states, and their mosques closed.

c) Ban The harassing Islamic lawsuits. Western laws and values have become a weapon of war against its own by Islamic organizations. For that, it is crucially vital to protect our liberties by enacting laws prohibiting the degrading reality of Islamic lawsuits. Freedom of speech is under threat all over the Free World. The Muslim terrorists want to kill us, and Western governments want to silence us by legal or political harassment, out of intimidation and ignorance. A free society should not grant freedom to those who want to destroy it. As Abraham Lincoln said: “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves”. We are not only confronted with the threat of Islamization by adopting the Sharī’ah, but also with the folly of cultural relativism and the appeasement mentality of our political leaders.

In the name of freedom, we have to speak out. No matter what the consequences are. Free speech is a fragile thing that must be boldly and courageously defended. The West’s political, academic, and media establishment are concealing the truth from their own people about the scope of the Islamic threat. Truth is our only weapon, and as long as we are free to speak, we can tell people the truth and make them realize what is at stake. However, when we defend the Judeo-Christian values and speak the truth about Islam it must not be labeled as “hate speech.” Criticizing Islam is considered ‘hate speech’ nowadays, but this attitude is anti-democratic. Criticism is the hallmark of a free society. Freedoms exist and are strengthened by criticism.

We are in the middle of the Third World War, and the battleground is not with tanks and airplanes (although this might come later on), but it is a conflict between freedom and tyranny staged on all fronts. We must spread the message about Islam. That is our first and most important duty. We have to stop pretending that Islam is only a religion. It is political more than it is a religion. It aims to occupy the world, and the Muslims declare it quite clearly, as it is written in the Qur’an. We must speak out the truth without censoring ourselves; draw the conclusions without the hedonism of the politically correct and the vicious slogans of multiculturalism and relativism; and we must act upon these conclusions courageously. If we allow ourselves to be self-censored about anything we say about Islam, soon Islam will start telling us how to live. We should never allow ourselves to be intimidated. That is how civilizations are led into political decay.

d) Change the lenient policy towards Muslim extremists, mainly Imāms that spread incitement and hatred among their followers. Michael Radu relates to the core issue of Islamic radicalism in Europe: Imāms and mosques. Without radical imāms, the entire ideological, political, psychological edifice of Islamism would crumble. No jihadist terrorist act has ever been committed without theological sanction from a cleric. Any solution has to start with the radical Imāms. The Free World states must act to deport the thousands of visiting Imāms, who mostly are financed by Saudi-Arabia and Qatar, and partly by Iran. Every investigation clearly reveals the crucial role of the Imāms in radicalizing the masses, and their role in antagonizing the Muslim communities towards and in Europe and the US. Unfortunately, Oriana Fallaci was so correct to observe that behind every Islamic terrorist there is an Imām. A life-wishing state must begin with this.

Not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims. For over 10 years, we have warned against the dangers of leniency in handling the extremism that is now spreading like a plague among Muslim immigrants. The battle is against the ideology that spreads propaganda of hatred and incitement among the Muslims. In the past, we told you: ‘Stop them!’ Today, we tell you: ‘Expel them.’ Immigration must be stopped and strict rules should be passed and enforced.

e) Ban the petro-dollar money flow of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The so-called “charity money,” Zakat, goes mainly to Da’wah’s hate and incitement organizations. Money is the blood that maintains and nurtures the Islamic occupation of Europe. Between 1982 and 2002, 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centers and 2,000 Muslim schools were established in non-Muslim countries. There are 200 mosques and 90 imams in Austria; 1,600 Mosques and 1,250 Imams in France; 1,000 mosques and 1,500 Imams in Germany; 500 mosques and 2,000 Imams in Britain. Academic chairs for Islamic studies and Islamic research institutes exist in many universities throughout the world. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent by Saudi charities to “propagate” Islam worldwide.

Reza Safa estimates that since 1973, the Saudi government has spent an unbelievable 87 Billion dollars to promote the ideology of Wahhabism in the US and Europe. He brings official Saudi information that shows Saudi funds have been used to build and maintain over 1,500 mosques, 202 colleges, 210 Islamic centers, and almost 2,000 schools for educating Muslim children in non-Islamic countries in Europe and the US.

In 2002, The Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) undertook a survey of Saudi Arabian textbooks and its Wahhabi outlook on the West as well as Saudi notions of government and other political issues. The Report analyzes 93 school textbooks taught in grades 1-10, mostly from the years 1999-2002 and presents the religious and political worldview to school students between the ages of 6 and 16. In these Wahhabi texts, Islam is presented as the only true religion while all other religions are presented as false. “Islam is the only religion leading its followers to Paradise, whereas all other religions destroy their believers in Hell. Muslims are, consequently, superior to followers of all other religions, in both this world and the next.” The message is clear: Wahhabi Islam must dominate the entire world. There is no democratization and no modernization, as Wahhabism stands as a monument to stagnation and decline.

Muslims are obliged to consider all infidels the enemy. The West is the source of all misfortunes of the Muslim world, its most dangerous effect on Muslim society being “its cultural and intellectual influence in all fields of life.” An estimated 30,000 Muslim children attend Saudi-funded Wahhabi day schools in America. Intolerance and outright rejection of American values and democratic ideals are taught. The Saudis have also directed considerable outreach toward the American Afro-American Muslim community, and they have special programs aimed at converting blacks in US prisons.

The preaching of hatred of the Kuffār is part of demonizing and dehumanizing them, and this has been re-enforced in the mosques and Madāris all along Islamic history. Since the mid-1960s the Saudi royal family has funded Islamic radicalization around the world. The Saudi government spends billions of dollars to spread Islam to every corner of the earth deliberately and purposely. This conception resembles the Nazi indoctrination and hatred schooling of beliefs in Germany, which was proven to be so effective. Indeed, beliefs can be modified massively through propagating policy intervention. There is no pause in the Islamist hate propaganda and indoctrination among Muslim communities in the West, and it is a must, a deadly one, to find and to execute immediately effective means to de-radicalize this plague.

Concluding remarks

The Islamic doctrine of assaulting the world took place in two large waves: first, the conquests of the Middle East, Andalusia and Asia, mainly through the years 632-712, which is the period of occupations of the Arab Empire; second, through the years 1453-1683 by the Ottoman Empire. The result was horrific: civilizations have been annihilated, coerced into conversion and subjugation; the Middle East was predominantly Christian; Iran mostly Zoroastrian; Afghanistan and Central Asia were Buddhist; Pakistan was Hindu, and the Balkans were Christian. All have fallen prey to the invasion of Islam, and they are a vivid example of the standards of Islamic way of life.

Now, a third wave is taking place: the Islamic encroachment and occupation of the Free World. It uses the familiar Jihad, all sorts of intimidation, violence, and terrorism; it uses Da’wah, all means of propagation, aiming at deceiving, confusing and misleading the infidels, and to pave the way to Islamization; and it uses Hijrah, of immigration and demography, a lethal threat to flood the Free World’s territories with Muslims, and to convert their inhabitants. This is a calculated strategy by all means to achieve Islam’s universal goals to subdue and to cause Western civilization to capitulate. In the words of Oriana Fallaci, the Free World has become an outpost of an Islamic province, and in each of our cities lies a second city: a Muslim city, a city run by the Qur’an, a stage in the Islamic expansionism.

This situation is exemplified by the words of Abdallah Azzam, al-Qaeda’s founder and Bin Laden’s mentor: The life of the Islamic Ummah is solely dependent on the ink of its scholars, which is Da’wah, and the blood of its Mujāhidīn, which is Jihad, and the Muslim women’s womb, which is Hijrah. What is more beautiful than delineating the map of Islamic history with the black color that writes the Ummah’s history by its scholars, and the red color that shapes its borders by the Mujāhidīn’s blood?

The problem is that the Free World’s leaders, the media and cultural elites do not understand the situation and do not connect the dots clearly as they appear on the picture. They do not see the combined strategy of Jihad Da’wah and Hijrah. They concentrate on fighting Islamic terrorism while they totally ignore the Da’wah propagation, naively believing in a false sense of mutual friendship with Muslims, and they see the Hijrah as a social issue as the immigrants will eventually be assimilated and integrated. However, this is not only a myth, this is one of the greatest misconceptions of the millennium, and this is the worst nightmare ever, because all these groups are working, although separately and with different tactics and timetables, to achieve the same Islamic universal targets. The Free World’s leaders do not connect the dots and in fact they do work for Islam’s sake. What we do not understand is that securing our freedoms means sobriety in understanding reality and vigilance in pro-active vision. Vigilance means identifying and defining the enemy; clearly understanding the situation; and making the right, beneficial and insightful decisions. This is the first commandment of existence.

Indeed, there are moments in life when keeping silent becomes a fault, and speaking becomes an obligation, a civic duty, a moral challenge, and a categorical imperative from which we cannot escape. The moment one gives up his principles, values, and his freedoms, he is dead; his culture and way of life are dead, and his civilization is dead. Muslims who refuse to accept the Free World’s culture and way of life have the alternative not to live there. They must not try to impose their culture and way of life on us. To reject Islamic culture and way of life is an uppermost duty towards our culture, values, principles, and in fact our civilization. Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in mental and cultural senses. The colonization of Europe by tens of millions of Muslims is on a scale unmatched in human history. The states of Western Europe today face a large, angry, separatist population, a third and even a fourth generation of young, radical and fanatical Muslims who are ready to tear down and wreak havoc in their benevolent generous hosts’ countries.

While analyzing these spheres, it is crucially important to understand the Islamic grand strategy. It works on all the spectrums with all available means, with no orderly schemes, but according to the ‘vacuum theory’. This strategy is real, imminent and lethal. While we spend most of our energies, attention, and expenditures on fighting Jihad and thwarting terrorism, we, out of oblivion and complacency, fail to comprehend and internalize the real fronts we face, which are Da’wah and Hijrah.

Islam commands its followers to spread the religion by force of Jihad as much as by propagation of Da’wah, and the demography of Hijrah. Conquests, conversion and subduing and immigration are legitimized and justified as the means to the utmost target. The Islamic empire must continually expand, and no grain of the earth is exempted. Islam insists that the first and utmost allegiance of the believer is to Islam. More than his family, his tribe, or his country, dying for the sake of Allah is the only way to guarantee entrance into Paradise, which is the utmost motivation for creating fearless, enthusiastic, zealots warriors of Islam.

How can we explain the Free World’s ill-suited reaction; its hypnotized paralysis? Is it hedonism alone? Is it the petro-dollar? Is it the guilt and remorse of the imperialist-colonialist past? Is it the unawareness of the implications of the stealth politics of the Da’wah? The fatal errors of policy-makers, public opinion molders and the media communications can be explained by the following components: a) the distorted mirror image, which is scientifically oriented and denotes cultural fallacies; b) the politically correctness, so pervasive in the West and deeply rooted in its social behavior; c) the oblivion and opacity of policy-makers, which is the march of folly, of ignorance and stupidity; d) the mental blindness and selective hearing of the political leaders and the media concerning the situation; e) the politics of denial and mental inhibition of Western leaders. This reality causes a combined politics of appeasement and subjection to intimidation that stems out of a deep fear that runs rampant causing leadership to act as if there is nothing wrong with Islam. Tragically, truth has become the new hate speech. It exemplifies George Orwell’s: “during times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

We are frightened; intimidated; horrified; and terrorized in front of the violent, the villain and the savage, and we want to come back to our sanity out of this madness — by running away; by giving in and paying “protection money;” and by accommodating ourselves to their demands. An indication of this horrific situation comes from Tim Benson, Head of the Cartoonists Union in Britain: after smearing Israeli politicians so many times, in a purely anti-Semite approach, he was asked why he does not even try to blame the Muslims. His answer is the best for unmasking the issue: “the Jews do not issue killing Fatawā.”

This is the whole story: ‘the Jews do not issue killing Fatwahs;’ and the Christians too do not issue killing Fatwahs; only Muslims issue killing Fatwahs. And the horrible thing is that there are so many among the Muslims who run enthusiastically to perform and execute these atrocious obscene Fatwahs. In the same vein, here is the proof: a couple of Danish artists produced an ‘artistic’ exhibition in Berlin in April 2010, by drawing the map of the Middle East without the existence of Israel. Jews and Christians are persecuted, harassed, and at the same time are pictured as demons and the epitome of evil, without any fear of a ‘killing Fatawā.’

However, this is nothing compared to the main issue. Islam would have not won without the close assistance of the empty, unscientific, pseudo-academic ideas of the anarchist-Bolshevik production of multiculturalism and moral relativism. Islam would have not won without the naïve, ignorant, false beliefs, political correctness, and misconceptions of the Free World. The result is horrific: we live in an world turned upside-down, as Melanie Phillips asserts: the rejection of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the victory of post-modernism have paved the way for and facilitated the dooming of Western culture. Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam, an Islamic lebensraum, as much as the entire Free World.

That is, if the Free World does not wake up and sober up very soon; if it does not leave behind its political correctness and complacency; if it continues its ignorance and stupidity about what Islam really means; if it continues its intoxicated slumber and its idiot-fool beliefs about the good in every human being — then there is a high probability that the highest modern technological society will perish. But there is also a great paradox: Islam cannot live on its own. Muslims need others to sustain and to activate modern life. From the very first days, Muslims used to live by raids (Ghazawāt) plundering the others and taking booty (Ghanā’im) from them. What future is left for them without raids on the other and without their booty? That is, a double tragedy occurs: as long as Islam continues its encroachment, the Free World is weakening; and as it weakens, Islam becomes stronger to the point of annihilating the Free World, it being Kuffār. But this annihilation also means the destruction of Islam. This is the pure embodiment of the Pyrrhic victory, a tragedy to all participants.  

Winston Churchill has written the following, in his book from 1899:

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Indeed, this is exactly how civilization dies. In the struggle for our free democratic existence, we must reiterate the quotation of old Cato in the Roman Senate: Ceterum senseo Carthago esse delendam. It was Winston Churchill, to declare in his May 1940 speech in the British Parliament:

“You ask: what is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory; victory at all costs; victory in spite of all terror, however long or hard the road may be. For without victory there is no survival.”

Continue Reading
Comments

Religion

The Evolving Orthodox Triangle Constantinople – Kiev – Moscow

Published

on

Churches think in centuries and are not bound to short-term political mandates. On January 5, 2018 the Patriarch of Constantinople implemented his decision to grant independence to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, a move that upset Moscow. To understand the current developments, it is worth looking back at this centuries-long history of fluid relationship between Constantinople, Kiev and Moscow.

Constantinople-Kiev: Christianization

In 882, Oleg of Novgorod moved his capital to Kiev and continued the work of Rurik to unite Slavic tribes, setting the stage for the history of Kievan Rus. The prediction of Saint Andrew was unfolding. It is said that during the first century, when Andrew the Apostle traveled to what is now Kyiv, he climbed onto a hilltop overseeing the Dnepr River. There he planted a cross, prophesizing the future of the great Christian city and the role it would play.

The Slavs were a loose union of tribes, whilst Constantinople was flourishing. In 980, Vladimir the Great ruled in Kiev and endeavored to consolidate and expand further his territories. In 988, he conquered the city of Kherson, in Crimea, where a bishop see had been established since the fourth century. Although accounts vary on the conversion of Vladimir, what is clear is that the Byzantine emperor sent his sister Anna to marry Vladimir, uniting Kiev and Constantinople. When Anna arrived, Vladimir converted to Christianity, restored Kherson to Constantinople, and returned to Kiev with Crimean ecclesiastics. It is undeniable that economic and political reasons influenced his choice to convert as his agenda leaned toward the Christian world.

Although the Byzantine emperor appointed the head of the clergy in Kiev, he faced opposition from the Kievan princes who did not endorse a filiation of churches from Constantinople, nor did they submit to the emperor’s authority to make Kievan Rus a colony of the Byzantine Empire. Relations with the empire were complicated: Constantinople did not mingle directly in Kiev’s internal affairs but would not let the princes interfere in religious matters. In other words, the authority of Constantinople over Kiev was exerted through the clergy, who enjoyed considerable powers in Kievan Rus. As a consequence, the first inclination toward creating an independent church appeared. Yaroslav the Wise proclaimed Hilarion of Kiev the first non-Greek metropolitan in 1049. Nonetheless, Constantinople regained control over the appointment of the head of the church in Kiev. Constantinople never bestowed upon Kiev the right to appoint its own Slavic metropolitan, establishing a red line that would trigger immediate action from Constantinople. For centuries to come, the position would mostly be held by Greeks, who remained outside of internal Kievan politics. As Kiev had grown to be a major economic center, it was in Constantinople’s interest to stay on good terms with its Slavic neighbor, gaining importance on the international scene.

Yaroslav the Wise passed away in 1054, a key date as it is the year of the schism between Rome and Constantinople.

Kiev choses Constantinople over Rome

Opinions on rites and theological elements diverged over time between Rome and Constantinople, in part because of linguistic differences. Latin became dominant in the West while Greek was the language of choice in the East. Because of the status of language as a major cultural vehicle, the use of different languages impacted religious rites. Gradually, Rome imposed the closure of churches following the rites as practiced in Constantinople and Constantinople did the same to churches following the practices of the Western Church. Eventually, the Roman pope Leo IX and Michael Cerularius of Constantinople excommunicated each other in 1054.

Humbert of Silva Candida, the papal legate who delivered the excommunication to Patriarch Michael Cerularius, decided to stop by in Kiev on his way back to Rome from Constantinople. The newly converted Kievan Rus represented an attractive potential ally for Rome, especially given that the young federation of Slavs was expanding in size and importance on the international scene. Since integrating with this new community of Christians would strengthen their hand against Byzantium, Rome’s envoy visited the Grand Prince of Kiev with the aim of convincing him to join Rome. Yet Yazislav, the new Grand Prince of Kiev, refused any allegiance to Rome. The clergy in Kiev would remain on the Orthodox side with Constantinople in the great East-West schism.

But rivalries amongst Slavs were fierce. In 1169, the pious Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal Andrey Bogolyubsky sacked Kiev and took many religious pieces, including a highly revered Byzantine icon of the Mother of God of Odigitriya, one of the holiest in Russian Orthodoxy. He initiated the construction of many churches in Vladimir-Suzdal, near today’s Moscow and converted more Slavic tribes. He is also renowned for having made the first attempt to set up a new eparchy to compete with Kiev. Around the year 1170, he bypassed the Kiev Patriarchate and directly requested of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Luka Khrizovergus, that he established an eparchy in Vladimir. He also asked for the new metropolitan to have the same rank as the one in Kiev. The patriarch declined his request, but the competition with Kiev had begun.

Moscow enters the scene

The Mongol invasion spread quickly from east to west and reached Kiev in 1240. The city was destroyed and almost its entire population was dispersed. Kiev, the beautiful jewel of a city was shattered. Some sixty years after the destruction of Kiev, the city was still not recovering. So, the metropolitan Maksim moved his residence from Kiev further east to Vladimirin 1299. Nonetheless, he kept his title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus. The transfer of the religious center from Kiev was a major move, the consequences of which greatly affected the future of Orthodoxy and lay power as well. At that time, the Mongol dominated the region. The first union of Slavs, the Kievan Rus had disappeared and new states had not formed yet.

In a short span of three decades, major events shaped the face of the new power that emerged in Moscow, the capital of the Grand Duchy of Moscovy.

Under the relative religious tolerance of the Mongols, the church consolidated its power and the metropolitan Piotr moved to Moscow in 1325, giving the sign that the city was one of the leading politico-religious centers.

In the meantime, Constantinople was mired in its own problems and the Eastern Roman Empire was suffering through its last days. As the Vatican was entering the Renaissance era, it was eager to end the 1054 schism, especially to its own advantage. Thus the Catholic pope was well inclined to help Constantinople, which had asked for help and unity in resisting the Ottoman threat. At the Council of Florence in 1439, the Catholic Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople signed an agreement that should have put an end to the schism. At that time, Constantinople was still appointing the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus, and it counted on the support of Moscow to endorse the agreement. But reality dictated otherwise as Russia had gained much distance from Constantinople and its issues. The Patriarch of Constantinople died soon afterward, and it was decided that his signature was nonbinding for the Orthodox churches. Only Constantinople still hoped that the union with Rome would save them from the Ottomans. But a decade later, in 1453, Constantinople fell under the control of the Ottomans.

Moscow-based bishops decided to emancipate themselves from Constantinople, which had compromised with the Catholics to save itself, yet was now under Muslim rule. For the first time, Moscow elected its own head of the church, independently from Constantinople. Although the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church was recognized only in 1589, the church became de facto independent in 1448, with Jonah as its first metropolitan. One of his first objectives was to maintain religious unity in territories over which his predecessors had authority. Eventually, in 1458, the canonical territories over which the metropolitan professed corresponded to those over which the Grand Prince of Moscow ruled. This transition was reflected in his title, which changed in 1461 to Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus. The Russian Church was now an actor of importance that saw itself as the guardian of Orthodoxy, the Third Rome.

The new Autocephalous Church asserts itself

The remaining element was the recognition of autocephaly by Constantinople. Without the approval of its peers, the self-proclaimed autocephaly has no validity in the Orthodox world.

The Ottomans imposed heavy tributes on patriarchates that fell under their territorial control. Economically weakened, the patriarchates lost considerable weight, especially Antioch, which had been weakened and forced into exile several times due to centuries under the dominion of Arabs and crusaders. In 1586–1587, the patriarch of Antioch, Joachim V, engaged in a journey to collect donations from other Orthodox churches. In Moscow, the future tsar Boris Godunov offered his support and seized this political moment to stir ambitions of an official autocephaly. Two years later, the patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremias II, traveled to Moscow with the same objective of collecting money. During his stay, he would have discussed with Boris Godunov the possibility of remaining the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarch but being based in Russia. Finally, after lengthy negotiations, Jeremias II decided to give autocephaly to the Russian Orthodox Church and returned home. The recognition was made official in 1589 with the concurrence of the other three original patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.

In 1589, the Russian Orthodox Church for the first time had a patriarch at its head, Job of Moscow. There were now five patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Moscow. And the tsar was the guardian of Orthodoxy.

Kiev, the Tsarist Empire and the church

Peter the Great launched many reforms to modernize Russia, following European model. He replaced the patriarchate with a committee termed the Holy Synod, placing a bureaucrat, the Chief Procurator, as its de facto head and the tsar’s eyes and ears in the church. With authority over religious matters and control over the appointment of bishops, Peter succeeded in relegating the church to the status of a ministry or state department, with clerics placed in charge of spiritual matters.

Catherine the Great continued the policies of Peter the Great. She entertained the Austro-Russian idea of dissolving the Ottoman Empire. As part of this scheme, she nurtured plans to embark on a “Greek Project”: re-establishing a Greek Byzantine empire to replace the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which had gained ground in continental Europe. For instance, she supported the Daskalogiannis Rebellion in Crete in 1770, in which Cretans rose up against the Turks. In reality, she was rather indifferent to religion: she embraced the project, promoted by Prince Potemkin, for geopolitical rather than religious reasons. Yet it did not materialize, and no alliance with Austria came into being. In 1783, Catherine decided to annex Crimea, putting an end to the revolts occurring there and, most importantly, pushing the Ottoman Empire back across the Black Sea. Crimea became a Russian province and part of Novorossiya or “New Russia” in 1784.

Religion politics in Russo-Turkish Wars

Eventually, tensions between the Russian and Ottoman empires had reached a climax, and war broke out in 1787. The conflict lasted for five years but was decided to Russia’s advantage. Russia was therefore able to consolidate its positions around the Black Sea but never captured Constantinople, the gateway to the Mediterranean’s warm waters and an Achilles heel for Moscow to this day. Even though the Treaty of Jassy, signed at the end of the war on January 9, 1792, recognized the Russian territorial gains, relations with the Ottoman Empire remained tense. Russian expansion benefited from momentum on the world scene shaken by the French and American revolutions. Consequently, nobody really reacted to Russian expansion until the situation in France had stabilized. But Napoleon reaction was short-lived.

Alexander’s victory over Napoleon gave him a new sense of divine mission, and by 1814, the tsar had grown more religious and prone to messianism. His religious awakening triggered his initiation of the Holy Alliance between Prussia, Austria, and Russia. Signed in Paris in 1815, this alliance aimed to promote Christianity but was also a reaction to the Napoleonic Wars. The Great Powers wanted to ensure a balance of power in Europe and avoid revolutions. During the two hectic decades that followed, the Catholic Church remained strong and Napoleon III pursued a pro-Catholic agenda, as proven by his 1849 expedition to restore the pope. He posed as the champion of Catholicism in Europe, which in part explained his decision to engage in the Crimean War against Russia.

With its territorial gains and advances well into the Black Sea region, Russia represented a growing threat for the Ottoman Empire and its French and British allies. Paris, together with London, backed the Ottoman Empire, whose western territories in the Balkans saw many uprisings, such as those of the Orthodox Serbs and Orthodox Greeks.

The trigger of the Crimean War of 1853–1856 was religious, but the roots were indisputably linked to the fear of Russia’s growing influence in the weakened Ottoman Empire. At the beginning, quarrels between Catholic and Orthodox monks arose in Palestine about their prerogatives. As the matter had reached serious levels, Tsar Nicholas I intervened and asked the Sultan to recognize the right of Russia to protect the Christians of the Ottoman Empire according to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, signed after the war of 1774. This right gave the Russian Orthodox Church further predominance over the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The document also gave Russia access through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. This privilege was certainly not pleasing to France or England.

Catholic France declared that it wanted to have authority over the Eastern Christians, a decision contradicting a previous agreement that gave Russia the right to protect Christians. The French Catholic Emperor Napoleon III promised support to the Sultan if he were to resist this Russian “aggression.” Stung by the humiliating conditions of the treaty following the Ottoman defeat, the Sultan agreed. Consequently, a new war erupted between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. As promised, France, joined by England, intervened in support of the Sultan to preserve the territorial integrity of his empire.

The protection of holy places and Christians became the source of an international war with several fronts around the Black Sea, including in the Caucasus. The war was eventually lost by Russia, which was then forced to hand over several territories around the Black Sea. As a result, France gained influence in the Holy Lands.

Moscow – Constantinople Competition

World War 1 put an end to both Russian and Ottoman empires. Under the Soviet, religion was undermined, priests were killed and churches destroyed. So, the Russian church found itself in a state of confusion when the Soviet government collapsed. The church was divided and weak. During the final years of the twentieth century, the ROC stabilized and consolidated its power over its canonical territory thanks to the support of the Russian authorities. It also reasserted its stance within the Orthodox Church worldwide. By far the largest in terms of parishioners and with growing wealth, the Russian Orthodox Church overshadowed the patriarch of Constantinople.

The later did not enjoy much freedom under the new Turkish rule. In addition, it had lost jurisdiction in the Balkans in the nineteenth century. Turkish authorities imposed that the Patriarch should be a Turkish citizen, usually of Greek origin, and such candidates are rare. All in all, the Patriarch of Constantinople has been in an increasing difficult position for centuries, and Moscow has proved to be a strong challenger. In 2016, the ROC asked to convene the Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete and not in Istanbul as Turkish authorities had downed a Russian jetfighter deployed for operations in Syria. Based on this security argument, the Council agreed to change location. Nonetheless, local Orthodox churches, namely the Bulgarian Church, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Serbian and Georgian Orthodox churches refused to participate because of disagreements over the agenda. The ROC suggested solving those issues to guarantee full attendance, even if it meant postponing the Council. Eventually, the disputes were not resolved and the ROC decided to cancel its participation. By so doing, the ROC expressed a defiant message about the role and authority of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Tensions never resolved and the situation in Ukraine added insult to injury in the relation between Constantinople and Moscow.

Moscow – Kiev: rivals once more

Since the mid seventeenth century, Kiev remained largely under the rule of the Tsar and then Soviet Moscow. Ties binding Ukraine and Russia were strong especially in the field of alimentation, industry and energy.

After the end of the Soviet Union, the Western European World and Russia have tried to attract Kyiv into their respective spheres of influence, a game from which Kiyv benefitted. In 2014, the tables turned drastically with the Euromaidan revolution that toppled President Yanukovych.  Incapable of averting Ukraine’s choice of the EU, Moscow was concerned that Ukraine might ally with NATO. Russian authorities treated the situation as a security matter and actively supported the separation of the autonomous region of Crimea and its attachment/annexation to Russia. The situation spiraled out of control and a kinetic conflict erupted in the Donbas, leading to serious readjustments in international affairs.

Against the backdrop of the complex international relations prevailing in the early twenty-first century, interests of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state have overlapped in Ukraine. The question of religion and allegiance to the Kyiv or Moscow patriarchate has become a matter of identity and call for resistance among some Ukrainians against Russia in 2014. This unfortunate confusion resulted in intra-Orthodox confrontation with the killing of orthodox priests and the destruction of orthodox churches. In a vicious circle, religious and political differences fueled each other.

Many critics have interpreted the positions of the Russian church and the Russian authorities as two sides of the same coin. Consequently, the Russian church became synonymous with Russian interference in Ukraine, and as such the separation as we see it unfolding was almost a fait accompli.

The creation of an autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox Church is another turn in this fluid relationship between the three historic cities of Constantinople, Kyiv and Moscow. And it is hardly to be the last move…

Continue Reading

Religion

Rabbi Arthur Schneier and anti-Semitism

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

Prof. Giancarlo Elia Valori and Rabbi Arthur Schneier

A few days ago, Rabbi Arthur Schneier -the Vienna-born Holocaust survivor, who has been leaving and operating for many years in New York -gave the keynote address to the Austrian Parliament on the 80th Anniversary of Kristallnacht, the terrible “Night of Broken Glass” when the shards of broken glass littered the streets after the windows of Jewish-owned stores, buildings and synagogues were smashed.

It is also referred to as Reichs pogrom and November pogrome, two terms that always use the word “pogrom” (meaning “devastation” or “riot” in Russian) to indicate the attack of small well-manipulated groups against Jews and their property.

Many pogroms were carried out in Russia, a country of ancient and profound anti-Semitism.

What are its roots? The traditional anti-Semitism of the Orthodox Church, as well as the easy manipulation of the apparata, and the obsession with identity, spurred on by the Tsarist regime.

The Nazis, in particular, imitated this terrible political practice, as early as the Kristallnacht of November 1938, to actually start the Jews’ physical elimination until the “Final Solution”, which began in 1940-1941.

During that night over 1,400 synagogues were destroyed and 1,500 people were killed in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.

At that time, as many as 30,000 Jews were deported to the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen.

Before the Kristallnacht, in 1933 there had been a call – or, indeed, an obligation -for a boycott of Jewish shops, businesses and professionals and later, in 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were promulgated.

Rabbi Schneier thought that, after the Holocaust, there would be no resurgence of anti-Semitism – a virus that has characterized modern history from late antiquity until today.

As a Kantian rationalist, Rabbi Schneier thought that – after the evidence of facts – there would be no persecution against Jews in the bright enlightened future of the twentieth century.

Instead monsters remain alive, after visible history putting them temporarily to rest.

But, as Rabbi Schneier said, now – in 2018 – the cancer of anti-Semitism is back and has metastasized in Europe and in the United States.

Ii should be recalled that anti-Semitism has always been present in North America.

Suffice it to recall Leo Frank’s affair of 1915. That American Jewish citizen was at first sentenced to death, but later his sentence was commuted from capital punishment to life imprisonment. Two years later, in response to the commutation of his sentence, he was taken from prison by a band of vigilantes, lynched by an angry mob and hanged from a tree. Today the consensus of researchers on the subject holds that Frank was wrongly convicted.

In 1958, even after the Shoah and the Nazi atrocities against the Jews becoming publicly known, the oldest synagogue in Atlanta was blown up and damaged extensively by a dynamite-fuelled explosion.

Myths and preconceived ideas, especially those based on hatred, do not need confirmation or denial. They exist and that is just the way it is.

Two years later, there was also the shooting attack by a “white supremacist” against a synagogue in St. Louis, with the killing of some Jews leaving that place of worship.

Alan Berg, an anti-racist intellectual, was killed in 1984, because in some of his radio talk shows he had defended black people and Jews.

There is no rational argument that can defeat anti-Semitism, racism, ethnic or even personal hatred.

Over seven major cases of violent anti-Semitism were reported in in the USA between 1990 and 2010, but there were countless actions on a smaller scale.

Anti-Semitism is still alive and is even increasing in terms of quantity and virulence. Just think of the attack against the Pittsburgh synagogue last October.

As Rabbi Schneier maintains, certainly the periods of social, cultural and economic turbulence are always fatal for the Jews – as the whole Western history demonstrates. Hence, unfortunately, with the crisis of Europe and the different, but concurrent crisis of the USA, the increase in anti-Semitism is predictable.

Shortly after the end of the Holocaust, Hanna Arendt rejected the theory of anti-Semitism as the development of the Jewish “scapegoat” theory and she often elaborated on the Rathenau case. Rathenau was the great Jewish industrialist and diplomat, who was Foreign Minister in Germany’s Weimar Republic and was murdered by right-wing extremists.

Elias Canetti reminded us that the idea for his extraordinary “Crowds and Power” sprang to his mind while seeing the many Social-Democratic workers following Rathenau’s coffin during the mourning service.

What is the essence of Arendt’s thesis on the Foreign Minister of Germany’s Weimar Republic?

The essence is that – by traditional position and role – the Jews were the “avant-garde of modernity” – hence all those who hate the values of Modernity are, ipso facto, anti-Semitic.

It is partly true, but Arendt forgets to say that anti-Semitism is widespread even in ancient societies (or in archaic societies, such as the Tsarist Russia of pogroms) and that many critics of the eighteenth-century revolutions are far from being anti-Semitic.

As noted by both Leo Strauss and the Marxist philosopher Lukacs, the modern world is also the symbolic and social organization that has been most opposed during its development, which has probably not ended yet.

The West of technology and of the calculating mind is not yet over, but its death depends on its excess of current and probably future anti-Semitism, which is incredible after the Shoah.

That is an excess of memory of its archaic and anti-modern past, even though modernity itself was somehow anti-Semitic.

Here Rabbi Schneieris very clear: the future of Europe is directly linked to the end of anti-Semitism and of today’s particular hatred against the Jews, i.e. that of anti-Zionism.

The future of Europe, but not only of the European Jews or of the complex world of North American Judaism.

We can certainly criticize Israel and its government – as we can   disagree with the government of Turkey or Finland – but it is certainly nothing new that the polemic against the Jewish State is linked more to the adjective “Jewish” than to the noun “State”.

In the crowds’ minds, the history of Israel is now linked to the assumption – completely ungrounded – that it took away from the Palestinians the lands that originally belonged to them.

Zionism was linked – quite rationally – to the reaction of the French people to the Dreyfus trial that divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus, the so-called “Dreyfusards”, and those who condemned him, namely the “anti-Dreyfusards”. That year also marked the beginning of the unfortunate caste of intellectuals, that is fortunately irrelevant today.

In Theodor Herzl’s mind, the end of the rational and civil relationship between Europe and the Jewish world was evident.

Everything could collapse in an instant for European Judaism. The combined forces of the reaction to 1789 and of the worst 1789 had come together.

Living without history and in the here and now – like the animals described by Nietzsche in his second essay of the Untimely Meditations- is currently the form and the way in which the West thinks of itself. The history of our civilization seems to have finished and, hence, it is no longer necessary to know history, which is the basis of endless manipulations that today still float in the crowds’ minds. This is the worst forgetfulness and neglect of ourselves.

Furthermore, Rabbi Schneier focuses his attention on a fact that few people – who are not tunnel-visioned and narrow-minded as a result of apolitically correct approach or mere interest in the number of votes gained in elections – currently consider: immigration, especially from the Middle East or Africa, where there is a strong presence of Islam, will certainly increase the insecurity of European Jews and, in many respects, of all EU citizens.

In the European and American liberal culture, integration implies acceptance of the other and the kind request that the other adapts to our laws, regulations, customs, habits and practices.

However, there are not only explicit and written rules, at least for us who are the heirs of Roman law.

Hence the other needs to accept the substratum of our civilization, which is not only the trite, idle, frivolous and enlightened “tolerance” – the mechanism in which, as Adorno and Horkheimer maintained, everything is false.

Something more profound is here needed, which can never be written and regulated.

Politics is a metaphysics where the unspeakable is what matters and shapes all the rest.

Obviously this also applies to the citizens of the host countries, who must understand the alterity of the other, in the profound meaning of this concept, and hence respect him / her in his / her becoming other – just to use philosophical jargon.

Hence, although a share of immigrants is – to some extents – inevitable and, however, this has already materialized, we should recall that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the enemies of Jews alone, but of our civilization as a whole.

This held true also for Nazism: it was in fact a political theory – but we should rather say a mere practice – linked to caste ideas typical of Asia where, indeed, the Third Reich also found military, economic and ideological support.

From Tibet to Indian Hinduism, from the Islamic sects of Central Asia to the peripheral Russian cultures of anti-Semitism, such as the Cossacks, while developing the aforementioned myths, Nazism aimed at the annihilation of Europe and hence at its “Asianization”.

Hence Nazi anti-Semitism as a struggle against Europe and its millennia-old civilizations, not less ancient than Asia’s.

Also the economy should be considered: as demonstrated by the most recent historians studying the Third Reich, the Nazi leaders thought to solve their economic and financial crisis with the “Jewish gold”.

Still today, whoever fights against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is like one of the 300 Spartans holding the line in Thermopylae, who rescued the unique Greek knowledge and wisdom from a great Asian Empire that would have equated the maritime civilization of the Mediterranean to the steppes of the Persian Empire, without any culture other than the exaltation of the God-Emperor – or the sad repetition of the “ancients”.

An imperial wisdom that was also typical of the Roman Empire, but with the plurality of gods that already foreshadowed the Weberian “polytheism of values”.

Certainly, as Rabbi Schneier maintained, European leaders are very careful about the resurgence of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, but the issue does not lie in leaders, but rather in crowds, who seem to be ever more seduced by hatred, which is more complex than love but – like the devil -is a very powerful seducer.

But what is really anti-Semitism today?

A mass phenomenon, of course. And this is worrying because preconceived ideas are harder to eradicate than rational beliefs.

In the United States currently the Jews account for 5.5%.

Needless to say, it is not a race, but a set of different ethnic groups, united by the same creed.

Furthermore, between 11% and 20% of North American Jews are “coloured people” – hence not only blacks.

The Jews, however, live in 70% of current nations, ranging from the Jewish communities of Kaifeng in China to the Indian Jews of various Middle East origins, up to the Jewish majority areas in various parts of Latin America.

Nor should we accept the anti-Semitic myth whereby Jews are the “rich” who dominate the world.

According to the most reliable statistics, currently over 50% of the richest people in the world are of Christian faith, while there is a higher number of rich Hindus and Muslims than Jews.

The 2015 data shows that out of the 13.1 million people defined as “rich” globally, 56.2% are Christians, 6.5% Muslims, 3.9% Hindus and 1.7% Jews.

Certainly pathological thinking – a real mental illness, which currently defines anti-Semitism as a “conspiracy theory” – could maintain that this data is “rigged”.

This is not true. Indeed, it is real data taken from the tax returns of the countries recording significant GDP rates in the world.

In the United States, however, Jews are the ethnic-religious group that earns higher wages than any other similar group.

And there are still many poor people – poor like the Jews who arrived in New York two or three generations ago.

Currently 45% of New York’s Jewish children live just below the poverty line, while in the United States the poor Jews account for 26.4% as against an absolute average of 30.8%.

Between 1991 and 2011 the number of poor Jews in the United States increased by 22%.

Hence, as we already knew, the myth of the rich Jews who secretly organize economic crises or the spoliation and dispossession of the goyim peoples is completely unfounded.

But where did anti-Semitism historically originate? Probably in Europe and, above all, in the area of popular Christianity.

There is no difference here between Protestant and Catholic anti-Jewish hatred.

In his treatise On the Jews and Their Lies Luther used terminology and arguments that seemed to be copied from one of Goebbels’ leaflets.

Probably everything began formally with the Spanish laws on limpieza de sangre(blood purity) in the seventieth century and beyond, also after the great pogrom of the Reconquista, which occurred at the same time as the discovery of America.

At that time the Jews escaped –  along with the Muslims – from the “purified” Spain of Isabella of Castile heading to the East, especially to the Ottoman Empire.

The sultan of the time wrote an ironic letter to the Spanish Catholic Kings: “I thank you for bringing me here all these doctors, merchants, scholars and mathematicians, whom I needed”.

Furthermore, in addition to the specific Catholic anti-Semitism –  from which the Pope, St. Paul VI, but above all another Pope, St. John Paul II, definitively freed us – there was a secularist anti-Semitism linked to the scientist, positivist and rationalist ideologies developed as from the French Revolution of 1789.

A revolution which soon led to a resurgence of irrationalist and antiscientific attitudes: just think of Gracchus Babeuf’s Arcadian refusal of technology and factory work and his “Conspiracy of the Equals” or o fRobespierrism, when Lavoisier, the founder of modern chemistry, was guillotined by the revolutionaries under the slogan: “The Republic has no need of scientists or chemists; the course of justice cannot be delayed!”

Here other myths – apparently more “rational” – are already at work.

Darwinian racism, eugenics, the American anti-Communism – where Communism is basically the practice of fraternal help – as well as phrenology or physical anthropology.

This was the “scientific” basis of Hitler’s anti-Semitism and, from the beginning, the “Führer” was a loyal subscriber to the publications of New York’s “Observatory on Race and Eugenics”, which also set the yearly quotas of immigrants accepted by the US government.

Certainly confining the Jews to ghettos is also an excellent practice to eliminate dangerous competitors in trade, business or professions.

This is just what happened in Italy after the racial laws of 1938.

When the West thrived, Jews’ freedom was revived. Just think of the Florentine Republic of the Medici, as well as the Renaissance, the Italian Risorgimento, in which many Jews participated, and finally the German unification.

It should also be noted that, before the Western colonization, the Jews of the Middle East lived without particular restrictions or threats.

However, the number of the sporadic anti-Jewish actions were more or less the same as in Europe.

It is therefore appropriate to say that it was precisely the European anti-Semitism, imported into the French or British colonies, to stimulate the latent and silent anti-Semitism of the local population.

Currently, throughout the Middle East, the avowed anti-Semitism account for 98% on average.

A major cultural and political problem.

In fact, if a powerful Islamic militant group like Hamas, that is currently considered “terrorist” by both the EU and the USA – a group which is also an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood -states in its founding Charter it believes in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, this means that there is a problem of communication between the worst Europe and the most fanatical Middle East, which concerns both us and the Islamists of the Gaza Strip.

The “Protocols” are, in fact, a key example of the new and old anti-Semitism.

From 1880 to 1921, the anti-Semitic pressure in Russia was one of the major mechanisms that favoured the Jewish migration to the United States.

Moreover, the early twentieth century was a phase of extreme weakness for the Russian tsarist system, that the anti-Semitic myth greatly contributed to blocking and stabilizing, until the German operation that favoured the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk and hence Germany’s initial support for Bolshevik Russia.

On the one hand, the tsarist regime accused the Jews of plotting against the Russian Empire, on the other, the Jews were accused not only of the severe economic crisis, but also of the anti-tsarist propaganda, both the revolutionary and the bourgeois and pro-Western one.

Hence the anti-Semitic and the anti-Zionist propaganda are closely interwoven. They develop the same traditional style features and turn them into new slogans. They create the same mechanism of fallacious identity inside and of exclusion outside for Jews and Zionists, but today they are targeted above all against the policies of the State of Israel that we must defend.

Continue Reading

Religion

Ecumenical Patriarchate will face difficulties in the implementation of the Tomos of autocephaly for Ukrainian church

Published

on

Ecumenical Patriarchate, Australia, Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Christiainity, Metropolitan Epifany, Fr. Savvas Pizanias, Patriarch Filaret Denisenko photo: kogarahgreekorthodox.org.au

Having financial interest in rich foreign parishes of the former Kyivan Patriarchate, leadership of the new Orthodox Church in Ukraine will hardly agree to sign them over to the Constantinople.

Although all the necessary provisions were prudently included both in the Tomos and the Charter of the new church, it will not be easy to protect the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to shepherd the diaspora.

On October 11, 2018, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted two largest previously unrecognized Orthodox Christian denominations of Ukraine (the UOC-KP and the UAOC) into its jurisdiction.

At the end of November, the final decision was made to grant autocephaly to the new Ukrainian church, and the text of the corresponding Synodal and Patriarchal Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was approved.

At the unifying council on December 15, in Kyiv, the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), headed by the Metropolitan Epiphany of Kyiv and All Ukraine, was created within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The head of the former UOC-KP Filaret Denisenko remained in the OCU as a honorary patriarch, and will lead the independent church together with Epiphany, who used to be his patriarchal vicar before. Same day, a Charter of the newly-emerged church was adopted.

On January 6, after a joint liturgy in the Phanar, Patriarch Bartholomew will grant Metropolitan Epiphany the Tomos of autocephaly.

This decision not only put an end to the Ukrainian schism, but also put Patriarch Bartholomew in front of new challenges, in particular, concerning the Orthodox diaspora around the world.

According to the official position of Constantinople, expressed in the Charter and in the Tomos, the former UOC-KP parishes outside Ukraine with their hierarchs and clerics should become directly responsible to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

However, dozens of foreign Ukrainian parishes in Europe, the USA, Canada, Latin America, Australia, including two exarchates, generated a substantial income (millions of dollars). The diaspora contribute a lot to the personal budget of the former UOC-KP head Filaret Denisenko (ten years ago his wealth was estimated at 300 million dollars.

With this in mind, will the leadership of the OCU be ready to part with such rich communities? Most likely, it will not be easy to enforce the historic right of the Constantinople to govern Orthodox diaspora.

It is said that during one of his visits to Australia in 2017, the current Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Epiphany received only from Fr. Savvas Pizanias a bribe of 300 thousand Australian dollars.

The scandalous deacon and adventurer Savvas Pizanias, expelled from the dignity of the Constantinople Patriarchate for immoral life and evasion into schism in 2001, was re-ordained by the Exarch of the UOC-KP in Greece Chrysostomos Bakomitros in 2015. In the same year, he was expelled by Filaret and transferred under the head of the non-canonical Russian True Orthodox Church Tikhon Pasechnik. However, he stayed there for a short time. Then he paid a large sum of money (AU$ 300,000) to Metropolitan Epiphany, donated a newly built St. Savva of Kalymnos temple ( Ιερός Ναός του Οσίου Σάββα ἐν Καλύμνω), worth $ 1 million, to the UOC KP, and thus was received back in the Kyivan Patriarchate.

Previously, the very existence of the “Greek Exarchate” of the UOC-KP and activities of Fr. Savvas in particular caused strong protest of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to clear his way to canonical recognition and autocephaly, patriarch Filaret waved the right on some of the parishes in the diaspora and, at the insistence of the Phanar, even abolished his exarchate in Greece.

However, the presence of the UOC-KP in the Pacific region continued. Moreover, in 2017, Savvas Pizanias was appointed a representative of the UOC-KP in Australia.

What will Filaret Denisenko do now, having received everything he wanted from Constantinople? He needed recognition of his canonicity, didn’t he? According to Archbishop Clement of the Crimea (OCU), President Poroshenko ordered not to let the Exarchs of Constantinople leave the country on December 15, until the Unification Council was completed. It clearly shows the determination of the Ukrainian government to achieve autocephaly for national church. And that is exactly why it would be very difficult to force the leadership of the OCU to agree with the historic right of the Ecumenical Throne clergy to minister the diaspora.

Continue Reading

Latest

Style2 hours ago

Breitling Navitimer 1 B01 Chronograph 43 Pan Am Edition

Breitling recently launched its first capsule collection – the Navitimer 1 Airline Editions – celebrating the brand’s important role in...

Newsdesk4 hours ago

Africa Industrialization Day 2018 celebrated in Côte d’Ivoiren

On the occasion of Africa Industrialization Day’s (AID) worldwide celebrations, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) and Côte d’Ivoire’s...

Europe6 hours ago

Why Tony Blair is so angry?

The former British Prime Minister doesn’t have a good time! On the one hand, Tony Blair is witnessing the continuation...

Travel & Leisure8 hours ago

Welcome to Boston’s Newest Destination for Innovative Meetings & Events

Four Seasons Hotel One Dalton Street, Boston is located within the brand new, 61-storey skyscraper in Boston’s Back Bay neighbourhood...

Reports10 hours ago

Renewable Energy the Most Competitive Source of New Power Generation in GCC

Renewable energy is the most competitive form of power generation in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, according to a new...

East Asia12 hours ago

China’s Soft Power Diplomacy on North Korean Nuclear Crisis

For about the last two decades, North Korea’s nuclear weapon development program has become one of the major issues of...

Newsdesk14 hours ago

World Bank Group Announces $50 billion over Five Years for Climate Adaptation and Resilience

The World Bank Group today launched its Action Plan on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience. Under the plan, the World...

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy