Dr. Srdjan Trifkovic (recently banned from Canada for questioning the “sacred narrative” of the Srebrenica “genocide”), has just tried to offer the Ziocrazies an olive branch:
“To put it bluntly, the survival of the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes, is “objectively” becoming the optimal survival strategy for the Jewish community as a whole, Israel included. (I’ve known several Jews who understand, notably my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman.) In the postmodern mélange of races, cultures and cults still desired by the likes of Abraham Foxman, the narrative of victimhood and its associated claims will carry little weight with the brown, black, and yellow multitudes blissfully devoid of European self-loathing, guilt and shame. The results may easily exceed in ferocity and magnitude the events of 1942-45.
It is essential for the Jews to grasp that the survival of European gentile identity and institutions is a sine qua non of their own survival.”
If the Ziocrazies were rational, they would accept what Trifkovic says. However, the Ziocrazies are not rational and they will never accept this. Ultimately, this is metaphysical and religious. The Ziocrazies (like the Pharisees before them) base their whole identity upon the rejection of their Messiah, Jesus Christ. They would rather die, and make everyone else around them die, than repent and admit that Christ is right and they are wrong.
For them, Christianity is always the Number One enemy. It does not matter that Christians have treated them better than anyone else. It does not matter that Muslims, Hindus and others would exterminate them with far less compunction than even the Nazis did. What matters is that the Christian faith exposes the lie at the basis of their religion. Therefore, they would rather die, and destroy the whole world if possible, than renounce the lie upon which they have based their entire identity.
It is beginning to look, as though the world will soon grant them their wish, in a way they don’t like. It will not be pleasant to watch.
@Michael: Yes, I know Dr. Trifcovic. We even corresponded for a while. I have to say, with great sadness, that Srdja has concluded that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, hence his courting of the myth of a “Western Christianity” and his courting of the Zionists. Add to this his absolutely hysterical hostility towards Islam (all of it), and you end up with a very sad situation. I think that he had a far better potential. He is very smart, and I would say that he is also honest. But his bitterness at what happened in Bosnia pushed him into all sorts of fundamentally non-Christian stances which I very very much deplore.
Anyway, I don’t believe that there is such a thing out there which could be described as “the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes”. That is utter nonsense.
Where he IS right, it is when he says that for the Ziocrazies (and for Rabbinical Judaism) Christianity is the ultimate and most hated enemy. But that enemy has been long gone from what is called “Europe” and has been replaced by a mixture of ethics and what I would call “post Christian cults”, including the Papacy.
“I have to say, with great sadness, that Srdja has concluded that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, hence his courting of the myth of a “Western Christianity” and his courting of the Zionists. Add to this his absolutely hysterical hostility towards Islam (all of it), and you end up with a very sad situation.”
Indeed. I especially deplore the hostility to all of Islam. I just read a story, that (Muslim) Bedouins have spontaneously and voluntarily taken up the defense of St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai during the current revolution in Egypt.
In fact, I recently wrote to Srdjan my own view, that the so-called “Islamic terror” is either manufactured, or at least propped up, in much the same way as the West propped up the USSR throughout its entire existence. He did not directly rebut me, but I think he disagrees with that.
“Anyway, I don’t believe that there is such a thing out there which could be described as “the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes”. That is utter nonsense.”
Here, I differ with you, if only slightly. I am Orthodox myself (by conversion, not by birth). I came to the Orthodox church precisely because I saw Western Christianity as having fallen away from the Gospel. On the other hand, the West undeniably has an Orthodox heritage, derived from before the Schism. Whatever is good and noble about the West, it inherited from its Orthodox past. Srdjan (like Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow) thinks that there is enough of this heritage left, to be worth saving. Sadly, I am much less sure of that. However, I do not ridicule the efforts of those who hold out one, last bit of hope in that regard.
@Michael:the West undeniably has an Orthodox heritage, derived from before the Schism. Whatever is good and noble about the West, it inherited from its Orthodox past.
Alas, the West’s roots today are not in the (Orthodox) Roman Empire, but in the Frankish. Yes, southern Europe and the British Isles used to be Orthodox and they produced a huge amount of saints (Saint Patrick, Saint Ambrose, Saint Gregory of Tours, my beloved Saint Vincent or Lerins, and so many others), but that faith AND that culture were crushed when the Franks came in. Have you read Fr. John Romanides’ essays on this topic? Check out these:
Western historiography speaks of a schism between the East and the West, whereas what happened was an annihilation of the South (of Western Europe) by the North (of Western Europe).
Those Europeans who nowadays speak of the “Western Christianity” (or ‘Occident Chretien’ as they French Right likes to say) are inevitable the WORST proponents of the Papacy, and apologists for its history of heresies and murder. I know them well, I used to spend a lot of time with them trying to make sense of their worldview (I am from Europe myself).
I believe that an Orthodox Christian like myself has a lot more in common with traditional Islam than with the Frankish perversion of Christianity. Yes, in terms of dogmatics we have differences, big ones, with both groups. But in terms of ethos and in terms of a common shared history we are far far closer to Islam, in particular to the Shia and the Sufi (which I suspect were greatly influenced by Byzantine hesychasm. To the risk of shocking many, I would say that even Hindouism is closer to us, in particular in its “Dvaita Vedanta” school.
And how can we explain the perverse symbiosis we see nowadays between the Papacy and Rabbinical Judaism (which is a direct descended of Pharisee sect!).
No Michael, I believe that the so-called “West” as absolutely cut its ties with the first 1000 years of our era when, indeed, it was Christian, in a patristic sense of the word.
As for the Patriarch of Moscow Kirill, his spiritual father was Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), a hidden Papist who died in Rome in the hands of the Pope. I have it from some very good sources that Kirill himself is a “cardinale in pectore“(a “cardinal in the heart” – a person who is a Papist cardinal in secret) and it is no wonder that he wants to achieve a historical rapprochement with the Papacy. The Balamand Union has clearly shown that the potential for apostasy no political grounds in as big today as it was at the times of Saint Mark of Ephesus. I believe that such apostasies will yield not benefits at all, and that the Body of the Church, which is the theandric Body of Christ, will reject it as easily as it did in the times of the Union of Florance. Srdja is mixing politics and religion and that is a bad mix. I also told him that and he replied that sometimes things are unpalatable but needed. I fundamentally disagree with that. This is a very Frankish concept, developed to its apogee by the Jesuits, not something which the Fathers would have accepted. I hope that the upcoming Great Lent will be peaceful and blessed for you! The Saker
is what finally convinced me that Orthodoxy was the true Church.
However, my historical view is formed more by the writings of Fr. Andrew Phillips of “Orthodox England.” Fr. Andrew’s opinion (and my own as well) is that Orthodoxy was brutalized. beaten down, and suppressed, but not totally destroyed, in the West, at least until modern times. He continues to see faint signs of spiritual life, although he has no illusions about how difficult it is for Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc. to truly become Orthodox.
Now Father Andrew (and I), may be completely wrong about this. On the other hand, I think you and I both agree that “making a pact with Beelzebub to control Satan” is no answer.
As for Patriarch Kyrill, I cannot give an opinion, as I truly do not know the man. I am actually in the Serbian Church, not the Russian. Therefore, I just do not hear the “grapevine” stuff that you may be privy to. The Serbian Church (as I am sure you know) is also in the throes of a life-or-death dispute as to how to deal with “post-modernity.” In this case, I do hear “grapevine” stuff, but I have kept silent, because I honestly do not yet know how much of what I hear is factual, and how much is disinformatsiya by the Soros gang, former UDBA operatives, etc. Let me only say, that there are bishops I trust, and bishops I don’t, and leave it at that.
As you say, Great Lent starts Monday, so you will hear little (if anything) from me between then and Pascha.
Serbian monk Gavrillo ‘The Long Suffering’ and prophet of the last ages mentioned that both the Patriarch of Russian and Serbia will submit to ecumenism and that only 5 bishops will remain steadfast.
@Michael: I am actually in the Serbian Church, not the Russian.
I used to be in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but following its union with the Moscow Patriarchate, my family and I have found a refuge in the Greek Old Calender Synod in Resistance under Metropolitan Cyprian, which used to be in communion with the ROCA until its union with the MP. I have to say that I am immensely relieved not to be exposed to any form of nationalism anymore, not Russian, not Greek.
The Serbian Church (as I am sure you know) is also in the throes of a life-or-death dispute as to how to deal with “post-modernity.”
Yes, indeed. And my heart goes out to it. My mother was born in Belgrade in a family of refugees from Russia and, as you know, the ROCA used to be in communion with the Serbian Church. My first spiritual father (who also replaced my biological father who abandoned us) was ordained there. All this is just to tell you that I feel very close to traditional Serbian Orthodoxy and that I am quite aware of the decades long persecution it has seen from all sides, including from within. But we both know that “And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”. I do believe though that as so many times in the history of the Church, the force to overcome the current crisis shall come not from political leaders or even from the many secularized church hierarchs, but from the cells of the Serbian monasteries.
Hello, Saker;
Dr. Srdjan Trifkovic (recently banned from Canada for questioning the “sacred narrative” of the Srebrenica “genocide”), has just tried to offer the Ziocrazies an olive branch:
http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/paul-gottfried-taki-theodoracopulos-srdja-trifkovic/
In particular:
“To put it bluntly, the survival of the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes, is “objectively” becoming the optimal survival strategy for the Jewish community as a whole, Israel included. (I’ve known several Jews who understand, notably my late friend Sir Alfred Sherman.) In the postmodern mélange of races, cultures and cults still desired by the likes of Abraham Foxman, the narrative of victimhood and its associated claims will carry little weight with the brown, black, and yellow multitudes blissfully devoid of European self-loathing, guilt and shame. The results may easily exceed in ferocity and magnitude the events of 1942-45.
It is essential for the Jews to grasp that the survival of European gentile identity and institutions is a sine qua non of their own survival.”
If the Ziocrazies were rational, they would accept what Trifkovic says. However, the Ziocrazies are not rational and they will never accept this. Ultimately, this is metaphysical and religious. The Ziocrazies (like the Pharisees before them) base their whole identity upon the rejection of their Messiah, Jesus Christ. They would rather die, and make everyone else around them die, than repent and admit that Christ is right and they are wrong.
For them, Christianity is always the Number One enemy. It does not matter that Christians have treated them better than anyone else. It does not matter that Muslims, Hindus and others would exterminate them with far less compunction than even the Nazis did. What matters is that the Christian faith exposes the lie at the basis of their religion. Therefore, they would rather die, and destroy the whole world if possible, than renounce the lie upon which they have based their entire identity.
It is beginning to look, as though the world will soon grant them their wish, in a way they don’t like. It will not be pleasant to watch.
@Michael: Yes, I know Dr. Trifcovic. We even corresponded for a while. I have to say, with great sadness, that Srdja has concluded that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, hence his courting of the myth of a “Western Christianity” and his courting of the Zionists. Add to this his absolutely hysterical hostility towards Islam (all of it), and you end up with a very sad situation.
I think that he had a far better potential. He is very smart, and I would say that he is also honest. But his bitterness at what happened in Bosnia pushed him into all sorts of fundamentally non-Christian stances which I very very much deplore.
Anyway, I don’t believe that there is such a thing out there which could be described as “the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes”. That is utter nonsense.
Where he IS right, it is when he says that for the Ziocrazies (and for Rabbinical Judaism) Christianity is the ultimate and most hated enemy. But that enemy has been long gone from what is called “Europe” and has been replaced by a mixture of ethics and what I would call “post Christian cults”, including the Papacy.
@Saker;
“I have to say, with great sadness, that Srdja has concluded that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, hence his courting of the myth of a “Western Christianity” and his courting of the Zionists. Add to this his absolutely hysterical hostility towards Islam (all of it), and you end up with a very sad situation.”
Indeed. I especially deplore the hostility to all of Islam. I just read a story, that (Muslim) Bedouins have spontaneously and voluntarily taken up the defense of St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai during the current revolution in Egypt.
In fact, I recently wrote to Srdjan my own view, that the so-called “Islamic terror” is either manufactured, or at least propped up, in much the same way as the West propped up the USSR throughout its entire existence. He did not directly rebut me, but I think he disagrees with that.
“Anyway, I don’t believe that there is such a thing out there which could be described as “the West, which is recognizably Christian in spirit and European in genes”. That is utter nonsense.”
Here, I differ with you, if only slightly. I am Orthodox myself (by conversion, not by birth). I came to the Orthodox church precisely because I saw Western Christianity as having fallen away from the Gospel. On the other hand, the West undeniably has an Orthodox heritage, derived from before the Schism. Whatever is good and noble about the West, it inherited from its Orthodox past. Srdjan (like Patriarch Kyrill of Moscow) thinks that there is enough of this heritage left, to be worth saving. Sadly, I am much less sure of that. However, I do not ridicule the efforts of those who hold out one, last bit of hope in that regard.
@Michael:the West undeniably has an Orthodox heritage, derived from before the Schism. Whatever is good and noble about the West, it inherited from its Orthodox past.
Alas, the West’s roots today are not in the (Orthodox) Roman Empire, but in the Frankish. Yes, southern Europe and the British Isles used to be Orthodox and they produced a huge amount of saints (Saint Patrick, Saint Ambrose, Saint Gregory of Tours, my beloved Saint Vincent or Lerins, and so many others), but that faith AND that culture were crushed when the Franks came in. Have you read Fr. John Romanides’ essays on this topic? Check out these:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.16.en.romanity_romania_roumeli.01.htm (Part I in particular)
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm
Western historiography speaks of a schism between the East and the West, whereas what happened was an annihilation of the South (of Western Europe) by the North (of Western Europe).
Those Europeans who nowadays speak of the “Western Christianity” (or ‘Occident Chretien’ as they French Right likes to say) are inevitable the WORST proponents of the Papacy, and apologists for its history of heresies and murder. I know them well, I used to spend a lot of time with them trying to make sense of their worldview (I am from Europe myself).
I believe that an Orthodox Christian like myself has a lot more in common with traditional Islam than with the Frankish perversion of Christianity. Yes, in terms of dogmatics we have differences, big ones, with both groups. But in terms of ethos and in terms of a common shared history we are far far closer to Islam, in particular to the Shia and the Sufi (which I suspect were greatly influenced by Byzantine hesychasm. To the risk of shocking many, I would say that even Hindouism is closer to us, in particular in its “Dvaita Vedanta” school.
And how can we explain the perverse symbiosis we see nowadays between the Papacy and Rabbinical Judaism (which is a direct descended of Pharisee sect!).
No Michael, I believe that the so-called “West” as absolutely cut its ties with the first 1000 years of our era when, indeed, it was Christian, in a patristic sense of the word.
As for the Patriarch of Moscow Kirill, his spiritual father was Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), a hidden Papist who died in Rome in the hands of the Pope. I have it from some very good sources that Kirill himself is a “cardinale in pectore“(a “cardinal in the heart” – a person who is a Papist cardinal in secret) and it is no wonder that he wants to achieve a historical rapprochement with the Papacy.
The Balamand Union has clearly shown that the potential for apostasy no political grounds in as big today as it was at the times of Saint Mark of Ephesus. I believe that such apostasies will yield not benefits at all, and that the Body of the Church, which is the theandric Body of Christ, will reject it as easily as it did in the times of the Union of Florance.
Srdja is mixing politics and religion and that is a bad mix. I also told him that and he replied that sometimes things are unpalatable but needed. I fundamentally disagree with that. This is a very Frankish concept, developed to its apogee by the Jesuits, not something which the Fathers would have accepted.
I hope that the upcoming Great Lent will be peaceful and blessed for you!
The Saker
Yes, Saker, I did read Fr. John’s works, during my catechumenate. In particular, his explanation of “The Neuro-Biological Sickness of Religion”:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.02.en.the_cure_of_the_neurobiological_sickness_of_rel.01.htm
is what finally convinced me that Orthodoxy was the true Church.
However, my historical view is formed more by the writings of Fr. Andrew Phillips of “Orthodox England.” Fr. Andrew’s opinion (and my own as well) is that Orthodoxy was brutalized. beaten down, and suppressed, but not totally destroyed, in the West, at least until modern times. He continues to see faint signs of spiritual life, although he has no illusions about how difficult it is for Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc. to truly become Orthodox.
Now Father Andrew (and I), may be completely wrong about this. On the other hand, I think you and I both agree that “making a pact with Beelzebub to control Satan” is no answer.
As for Patriarch Kyrill, I cannot give an opinion, as I truly do not know the man. I am actually in the Serbian Church, not the Russian. Therefore, I just do not hear the “grapevine” stuff that you may be privy to. The Serbian Church (as I am sure you know) is also in the throes of a life-or-death dispute as to how to deal with “post-modernity.” In this case, I do hear “grapevine” stuff, but I have kept silent, because I honestly do not yet know how much of what I hear is factual, and how much is disinformatsiya by the Soros gang, former UDBA operatives, etc. Let me only say, that there are bishops I trust, and bishops I don’t, and leave it at that.
As you say, Great Lent starts Monday, so you will hear little (if anything) from me between then and Pascha.
Serbian monk Gavrillo ‘The Long Suffering’ and prophet of the last ages mentioned that both the Patriarch of Russian and Serbia will submit to ecumenism and that only 5 bishops will remain steadfast.
@Michael: I am actually in the Serbian Church, not the Russian.
I used to be in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, but following its union with the Moscow Patriarchate, my family and I have found a refuge in the Greek Old Calender Synod in Resistance under Metropolitan Cyprian, which used to be in communion with the ROCA until its union with the MP. I have to say that I am immensely relieved not to be exposed to any form of nationalism anymore, not Russian, not Greek.
The Serbian Church (as I am sure you know) is also in the throes of a life-or-death dispute as to how to deal with “post-modernity.”
Yes, indeed. And my heart goes out to it. My mother was born in Belgrade in a family of refugees from Russia and, as you know, the ROCA used to be in communion with the Serbian Church. My first spiritual father (who also replaced my biological father who abandoned us) was ordained there. All this is just to tell you that I feel very close to traditional Serbian Orthodoxy and that I am quite aware of the decades long persecution it has seen from all sides, including from within. But we both know that “And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”. I do believe though that as so many times in the history of the Church, the force to overcome the current crisis shall come not from political leaders or even from the many secularized church hierarchs, but from the cells of the Serbian monasteries.
Please do stay in touch!
The Saker