Postflavians' Guide to Why Fascism is a Really Bad Idea

Good riposte, Jerry.
Putin's era is characterized by a resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy. See, for example, this article:

https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/blessing-the-holy-icbms-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-putin/

Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy (Stanford University Press, 2019) by Dmitry Adamsky, a professor at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya university in Israel, is a penetrating analysis of the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia’s nuclear world—both in the military and the scientific communities. This excellent scholarly work is well-researched and extensively documented. It shows how the Russian Orthodox Church has penetrated and integrated itself into the Russian Armed Forces and even some of the closed nuclear cities—to the point where priests bless new nuclear missiles. Indeed, to some extent, Russian Orthodox priests have taken over the role formerly held by political officers during the Communist period: They keep an eye on the spiritual purity of the troops, glorify the military, and ensure the reliability of the soldiers during combat. ....
However, Adamsky is a Western researcher and produces material for his masters. With the collapse of Communism - and the Left generally worldwide, including reformist parties - and Russia's alienation from its early 20th century love affair with Judaism (as Slezkine reveals) it is hardly surprising that Russian Christianity has resurfaced.
The state under Vladimir Putin has encouraged the rise of the Russian Orthodox Church but has drawn clear lines of authority to ensure that the church’s position in society does not exceed what is useful to the Kremlin and does not challenge state policies. Vladimir Putin has demonstrably identified his regime with the Russian Orthodox Church to such an extent that his policies appear to share certain features with Nicholas I’s doctrine of “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality.” It would have been helpful if Adamsky had provided background to the important historical relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state so that the reader could better understand the context of Adamsky’s superb analysis and his extensive narrative of how “… a formerly outcast religion became supported by the state and wormed its way into the most significant wing of one of the most powerful military organizations in the world… within a very short span of time.”

You see the implication too.
Which begs the question, whether Russian Orthodoxy can be seen as somehow distinct or preferable to "Judaeo Christianity". It seems to me that at a philosophical and theological level, the similarities are much more important than any differences. They claim to worship the same deities. And without looking deeply into the matter, how can we be sure whether or not the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches are linked by conspiratorial relationships at the top of their respective hierarchies?
The difference lies in the history of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The two wings of Christianity split in 1054, only the West deferring to the Pope. Combatting Islam, Catholicism was then stabbed in the back by Protestantism which then tried to effect some sort of reconciliation with Orthodoxy.

Henry VIII, by declaring himself head of the Church of England, was following Orthodox principles, whereby the secular ruler appoints the Metropolitans and Bishops, as of course did the Tsar. Hence the church fell with the Tsar in WW1 - but then the Leninist regime also decayed and crumbled, returning to capitalism overtly in 1991, leading not to global peace but to "great power conflict" rather than resolving the ideological struggle - which was only over the flawed caricature philosophy of Communism.

The present situation of Christian recovery in Russia may well of course lead to war between the branches of Christianity with the outbreak of WW3, paralleling the situation between Wahabi-Sunni and Shiite Islam. The point however is that the revival of Christianity is merely due to the poor state of science and philosophy worldwide, where rubbish like Einstein's relativity and the Leftist idiocy of egalitarian democracy still rule the thoughts of the masses worldwide, whatever religion they may profess or grew up in. What is more important however is that the ideological manufacturers in our day (i.e. post-WW2) are primarily of Jewish background e.g. Einstein, Chomsky, Isaac Deutscher, Salinger, Peter Singer, Murray Gell-Mann, Karl Popper, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. etc. You only have to read the Jewish Review of Books (a copy of which I bought in San Diego in July) to see Judaeo-Christianity in its triumphalist Zionist arrogance e.g. cutesy caricatures of the major regular Jewish contributors, confident of forever dominating the dopey Evangelical ideologues who will dutifully urge on the grunts to invade and conquer Iran.

Surviving Russians will change after WW3 - just as the USA will, except that the latter will change more radically.

Yours faithfully
Claude Badley
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The difference lies in the history of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. The two wings of Christianity split in 1054, only the West deferring to the Pope.
Yes, I agree there is a historical gulf. As a result, any cooperation between the two wings can only be covert, furtive and conspiratorial. Which isn't to say that it can't or doesn't happen.

the ideological manufacturers in our day (i.e. post-WW2) are primarily of Jewish background e.g. Einstein, Chomsky, Isaac Deutscher, Salinger, Peter Singer, Murray Gell-Mann, Karl Popper, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. etc.
I see... by "Judaeo-Christian" you mean "primarily Jewish"??

Surviving Russians will change after WW3 - just as the USA will, except that the latter will change more radically.
Yes, I can't dispute that the post WW3 world is likely to be a grim place for liberals.
 
Top