I have found very few Orthodox responses to the whole Fatima issue with this one exception. It is "Interesting" if nothing else.
Alexandr
http://www.rusjournal.com/conference.htmlThe �Conversion� of Russia: The Fatima Movement (Conference Review)
Fr. Matthew Raphael Johnson
I have dealt with the Fatima movement before on this web journal. As a former supporter of the SSPX, I know, quite well, the basic agenda of the Fatima movement, and, most especially, its focus on the �conversion� of Russia as its central aim. I am uniquely placed in the Orthodox world to take on a complex topic such as this, knowing the Fatima movement from the inside. At the conference I am covering, there were 30 Catholic bishops present, and many priests. Far from a fringe movement, the Fatima movement is central to contemporary Roman Catholicism, as Pope John Paul II dedicated his papacy to it. However, it remains clear that Catholics are split on it interpretation, but not its importance.
This conference took place last year, during the month of October. It featured the same cast of characters, the same in group who speak at nearly every significant Catholic conference nationwide, largely speaking of the exact same topics. One who follows Trentian Catholic affairs can predict the titles of nearly all speakers at one of their confabs, something on birth control, something on the �New Mass,� something on the UN, something on the family and plans to destroy it, something on Protestantism, etc. The same people, the same slogans: some good, some absurd. This in group makes up the core of what I have called the �Trentians,� or those Roman Catholics who basically reject the Second Vatican Council, and who accept the Council of Trent as their main focus theologically. Within this movement, the Fatima message is central, and the group who presented ideas at this conference are at its core. I have never come across a member of this group that is not centered on the Fatima message, and I am very unlikely ever to come across such an anomaly.
Unsurprisingly, the organizer of this conference is the ubiquitous Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the basically decent and well spoken Roman Catholic priest who has made the Fatima message the central core of his ministry. It should be mentioned however, that many Catholics believe Fr. Gruner to be bogus, and a priest without �faculties,� that is, a priest who celebrates the sacraments without the permission of a valid bishop. Whether or not this charge is true is not my place to say. Fr. Gruner, whether justly or unjustly, has suffered his share of both personal and theological attacks over his long career�this I know to be true.
This conference covered much of value: the mentality of birth control and abortion, the liturgical rape of the Latin liturgy over the last generation, the false promises of the UN, and many other issues any right thinking person would consider important, though the Trentians have beaten them to death, and very few new angles have been explored over the last 5 years or so. However, from the point of view of the presenters, it was clear that Russia was the center of the conference. And it is from this angle that I review this conference.
I have dealt with the �consecration� issue in this journal before, and it generated much interest. Most Orthodox are absolutely unaware of this rather interesting fascination of Roman Catholics. The issue can be summarized this way: according to several apparitions of a spirit (Roman Catholics say this was the Mother of God herself), the pope of Rome, in concert with all the bishops of the world, are to consecrate Russia to her �Immaculate Heart.� If this is not done the would will be thrown into anarchy, and nations will be �annihilated.� A large part of the conference was dedicated to proving the claim that this consecration in fact was not done, as the mainline church of Rome claims that such a consecration was in fact carried out.
In other words, the conference organizer himself did not hide the fact that when the consecration is done, the would will then be at peace, and this peace will come, originally, from a Russia converted to the Roman church. I have quoted elsewhere that the Fatima group(s) actually claim that heaven will be brought to earth once this consecration is completed, in the sense that the world�s sin will be expiated, and peace will reign supreme. However, Russia is the key to this expiation.
The conference presenters ranged from the powerfully erudite to the comic. About half of the presenters were focused on Russia, from one angle or another. And there was little actually original in the presenters themselves. In other words, there is little new that is being presented here, most of the content can be accessed from the website of the Fatima Center, a site controlled by Fr. Gruner himself.
Of academic interest, the most powerful and useful part of the conference was two lectures given by Dr. David Allen White, a literature professor at the Naval Academy in Maryland. He, in spite of his obvious love of literature and tremendous lecturing style, makes the claim that Dostoyevskii had predicted the coming of the Fatima apparitions in both the Brothers Karamazov and in The Possessed. Unlike the other conference presenters, Dr. White has a respect for Russia and her literary tradition. In a backhanded way, he expresses also a respect for Russia�s religious tradition. Though, given his audience, he did not say so explicitly.
Dr. White clearly has dumbed down his lectures for his audience. But this does not take away from their power or interest for Orthodox listeners. Dr. White makes the claim that Dostoyevskii was an prophet of God, in the sane that certain artists are blessed by God with a prophetic ability. In the point of view of the lecturer, this prophetic insight was the resurgence of Russian greatness after a period of suffering. Dostoyevskii, though numerous characters, predicts the bloodshed of the revolution and civil war. This is clear enough, though a small army of Russian saints also predicted this revolution, as well as a later restoration. I do think it significant that the head and founder of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile, Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitskii, was a literary critic and Dostoyevskii scholar. I think his insight into Dostoyevskii�s mind led this great bishop to have a tremendous insight into the revolution, and it also made him a perfect choice to lead the Orthodox Church in exile.
Unfortunately, though I respect Dr. White, he seemed to be a bit out of his element in dealing with Russian literature. It always must be kept in mind that Russia is a civilization to herself, combining the best of European and Asian cultures: this was one of Russia�s strengths prior to the revolution. Therefore, going from Shakespeare (Dr. White�s specialty) to Dostoyevskii is not quite the same jump as between Shakespeare and Marlowe. The problem with Russian literature for the non-specialist is that they are making theological and historical references, however veiled or obvious, that often fly over the heads of those not steeped in these traditions.
What is significant, however, is that, unlike the other presenters, the �errors� of �Russia,� is not Orthodoxy, but rather Marxism. Which is a rather curious thing to say, since Marxism is not Russian, and Russia ceased to exist after the revolution, it was replaced by the USSR. The other presenters, rather pointedly, claimed that Russia�s �errors� were in fact her Orthodox faith. Remember, the apparitions at Fatima (and other apparitions afterward) claim that if the �consecration� was not completed, �Russia� would spread her errors throughout the world, causing tremendous chaos and death. The apparitions however, did not specify the nature of these errors. Leading pro-Fatima writers to remain confused on this most important of issues.
However, it must be said that the highest level of conceptual confusion came during the otherwise excellent address by Dr. White, his second, on Solzhenitsyn. Clearly struggling to connect Fatima, in some small way, to both Dostoyevskii and the great dissident, Dr. White makes the breathtaking claim that �Russia�s errors� were collectivism, �atheistic materialism� and collective behavior, or groupthink. Furthermore, he makes the claim, dripping with absurdity, that �Russia� taught �the world how to persecute.� The number of levels on which this is wrong is a far greater task than my paltry abilities allow me to undertake. I need to reiterate for my readers that Russia ceased to exist after the revolution of 1917-21. Russian culture, religion and tradition was violently suppressed. �Russia� existed solely as a cultural entity, in exile in Europe, America and nationalist China. Such a notion, unassailable from a historical point of view, makes a mockery of the �message of Fatima,� which insists on mentioning something called �Russia� long after it ceased to exist in any legal, national sense.
I cannot believe that Dr. White actually believes that the above mentioned vices are something specifically Russian, but in listening to his speech, the implication is unavoidable. Let me explain: materialism is the creation of the west. Groupthink is the mark of modern, liberal and capitalist societies, manipulated by a media/entertainment conglomerate controlled by a tiny and often anonymous group of investors. Persecution has existed as long as civilization has. �Russia�s errors� root and branch, were imports, imports I might add, which the Tsars of Russia (at least in the 19th century) did all in their power to suppress. Of course, what Dr. White means is that these vices are �errors of the Enlightenment.� They are the errors of the Enlightenment in that they proceed directly from the utterly utopian vision of Francis Bacon, Rousseau (though for entirely different reasons), Hess, Lasalle, Compte, St-Simon, Feuerbach, Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche, just to name a handful. It is utterly irresponsible for Dr. White to even imply that these ideas are somehow �Russian.� And even if his motive, belied by his words, was to claim that �Russia� was merely the agent for the West�s errors, even that can be easily challenged. The USSR was a huge, multinational organization: Asians, Jews, Armenians, Caucasians, Russians, Ukrainians, Balts, and, after World War II, Poles, Germans, Romanians, Hungarians, Yugoslavs, Albanians and hundreds of smaller ethnic groups all cooperated to create the �Worker�s Paradise.� The satellites of the USSR spread to America, China, Africa and Harvard. In the west, the Soviet experiment was spread by an army of well funded university professors, political hacks and capitalists. Archer-Daniels-Midland had no difficulty in rescuing the USSR time and again with grain shipments as the evil empire faced famine. Henry Ford, of all people, had no difficulty in investing millions in Soviet Ukraine in the 1930s. �Russia� spreading �its� errors?
It might be worth mentioning that the first real modern �police state,� one of those great western errors created by the west, was, not �Russia,� but Catholic Venice during the Renaissance, who was the first to create an army of police spies, a real �secret� police and a system of mass arrests that blazed the trail for later totalist systems. In Venice the police system was created to protect a minuscule group of usurious capitalists who had little actual right to their property, and lorded it over the rest. Venice was small and wealthy enough to create such a system, and it was a long time before larger countries and social systems could adopt the same. Yet, Dr. White seems to imply that this is �Russian,� though he does so to fulfill a mandate of �Our Lady of Fatima,� who�whoever this spirit was�insisted that it was �Russia� that would spread �its errors� to the world. Therefore, Catholics who believe in these apparitions are forced to fit their idea of the universe into its confines, leading to some comic results.
Dr. White also fails to mention that Comrade Stalin was not Russian (Dzhugashvili is a Georgian name), neither was Chernenko (Ukrainian), or Brezhnev (Ukrainian) or was Malenkov (Macedonian), or Beria (Georgian Karaite), or Sokolnikov (Ukrainian and Jewish), nor Trotsky (Ukrainian and Jewish), or Litvinov or Vishinskii (both Polish), or Shepilov (Turkmen), or Gromyko (Belarussian), Lenin himself was of mixed ethnic ancestry, etc. etc.. . . . in fact, only few of the Bolshiviki were actual ethnic Russians. �It comes from Russia� was Dr. White�s refrain. He refers to the Marxist system as �Russian,� though occasionally as �Soviet.� These are, of course, two very different things. How difficult it is to be Catholic today, if these are the intellectual hoops a clearly brilliant man like Dr. David White must jump through in order to make sense out of Fatima. How could �Russia spread her errors� when the highest officers in the USSR were not even ethnic Russian?
Interestingly, Dr. White makes the claim, basing his observation indirectly on Dostoyevskii, that the monastics will keep the Christian flame burning in suffering Russia. In other words, that it would be the monastics that would suffer the most, but also it is this class that would be the most willing to maintain the faith in the face of persecution. How I wish Orthodox people would realize this. However, in a conference such as this, such a powerful insight seemed to go over the heads of the audience. Was Dr. White praising Orthodox monastics, and therefore, the Orthodox faith? He stated this in such a way as to make it an anti-Bolshevik comment, but the underlying reality is all to clear.
Allow me to address Dr. White directly: if, as you rightly say, the Orthodox monastics were to maintain the flame of the Orthodox faith under persecution, showing tremendous courage and Christian charity in the highest sense, what does that say about your own faith? By your own admission, the horrid �Novus Ordo� was imposed upon the Catholic faithful who overwhelmingly accepted it without persecution from their respective governments. In other words, the Roman Catholic faithful ran to embrace what you rightly call a liturgical abomination without any persecution, yet the Orthodox remain faithful to the ancient eastern rites even under intense Bolshevik executions and tortures; in exile and in the death camps. Does this say anything about Catholicism? Or the Vatican upon which you place your loyalty? What does this tell you about the Orthodox tradition? My personal opinion is that it will become harder and harder for you to remain loyal to the Vatican the deeper you go into Dostoyevskii and Gogol, on the one hand, and the Orthodox church in exile, on the other. Your own intellectual honesty might well save you from papism and its errors.
Regardless, I strongly recommend that my readers listen to Dr. White�s talk on Russian literature, which can be accessed here his conclusion, however, is forced and rather bizarre. It is that because Dostoyevskii predicted a resurgence of Russian glory after the revolution, this resurgence must be the conversion of Russia to Catholicism once the �consecrations� are performed. I refuse to believe that the erudite Dr. White actually believes that, and I do believe that this was a sop to his audience. Being strictly Orthodox himself, Dostoyevskii could have meant nothing other than an Orthodox resurgence, and a Russia aimed directly at converting the Vatican, rather than the reverse. Actually, many passages in The Diary of Writer speak to precisely this.
Prof. White makes a few minor errors, such as referring to Gogol as a �Russian,� and claiming that he was the main and primary influence on Dostoyevskii�s writing. But I remain convinced that it was all down hill from here, and the two major presenters dealing with Russia were not so, how shall I put this, as erudite as the august professor of literature.
A well known presenter at this conference, I must confess, is an old friend of mine, a man to whom I have not spoken for many years, Dr. Peter Chojnowski. Peter and I were friends when I was in grad school in Nebraska. He was a professor of Thomist philosophy at St. Mary�s college in St. Mary�s Kansas, about 3 hours south of Lincoln. As a Catholic then, I would regularly visit the Trentian chapel there, and Peter and I became friends. He subsequently left the college, and I lost track of him. I have the feeling he is quite happy for that. Peter�s presentation was quite pointed, but for the historian, was the most useful of all the lectures on Russia. It deserved to be treated in some detail. It can be accessed in full here.
Peter�s central thesis is that Russia was a religious, diplomatic and military threat to the Vatican throughout the 19th century. Certainly, such a statement is true enough. However, what Prof. Chojnowski says is revealing: the Vatican, threatened by Russia, did all in its power to prop up the Turkish empire, or barring that, keeping Russia out of the Balkans once Turkey was clearly irrelevant. The Vatican did assist in the propping op of the Turkish empire, as a means of controlling Orthodoxy. But what is clear between the lines of Peter�s words is that the Fatima message is intimately connected with the Vatican�s interests concerning Russia in the late 19th century. Chojnowski makes it clear that the Vatican was maneuvering diplomatically throughout the 1800s with one end in view, controlling Russia and Orthodoxy. Near the end of World War I, when, according to Peter, the Vatican succeeded in getting the British to bar Russia from the Balkans, the Fatima apparitions began, almost precisely timed. To make a connection here is incumbent on any journalist. Fatima fit in perfectly with Vatican diplomatic maneuvering in the Balkans, though it was soon rendered moot after 1921, when it was clear the Whites had lost in Russia. Even still, the Soviet based �church� also had designs on the Balkans, and Stalin was central in creating the Greek Civil War after World War II to expand Soviet influence.
Peter makes a serious of astonishing, though basically correct statements about Vatican policy towards Russia in the 1800s. It was uniformly hostile. Such a situation cannot be helped, for one had two churches claiming to maintain the apostolic tradition of the ancients. However, Peter makes the false claim that the �only reason� Russia was hostile to its Catholic population was religious, or, more specifically, irrational prejudice. He neglects to mention centuries of warfare between the Polish Empire and the Russian, the contests between Vienna and Petrograd for influence in the Balkans, not to mention the Vatican�s preference for the Islamic Turks over the Orthodox Russians, and the fact the Catholics in the Russian empire were exclusively foreign, and members of ethnic groups, such as Peter�s, overtly hostile to Russia. These may have some bearing on the hostility of the Russian empire towards Catholics. It mirrored the hostility of the Austrian and (older) Polish empire to Orthodox people, where they were debarred from full citizenship in these empires. The uprising of Khimilnitskii in the 17th century was precisely an Orthodox Cossack protest against the exploitation of Orthodox people within the Polish empire.
Peter once told me in an email that, in terms of European politics, he was a supporter of the Habsburg empire. Indeed, this empire of Vienna was, in many respects, a humane monarchy. But Peter neglected to mention that it was Tsar Nicholas I who reinstalled the Emperor on his throne after the revolution of 1848, and that Vienna returned the favor by supporting the Allies against Russia in the Crimea against the same emperor. It also bears mentioning that the Vatican made it very clear that the war in the Crimea was a �holy war� against Orthodoxy, again something else that might make Nicholas I a bit testy.
Prof. Chojnowski makes a very interesting comment: he makes the claim that Russia wanted Constantinople so as to create a �restored Orthodoxy� and an �Orthodox Vatican.� I�ve always made the comment that Catholics cannot think out side of Catholic categories, but this really takes the cake. As much as I respect Peter, I need to inform him that Orthodoxy has existed for 2000 years without a Vatican. Orthodoxy has endured centuries of Turkish genocide without a Vatican. She has endured Marxist persecution without a Vatican. She has endured Catholic genocide in Poland and Croatia without a Vatican. The Patriarch or Emperor in Constantinople was never constituted a Vatican, and, quite frankly, Orthodox people have always been quite mystified about Roman dependence upon such an institution--an institution, I might add, that, in the last generation, has made the life of Trentian Catholics nothing but miserable. There was nothing to restore here. Orthodoxy has always been the same, whether in our out of communion with the Roman see, Orthodoxy has functioned precisely in the same manner, canonically and liturgically. Orthodoxy has never needed a Vatican to maintain its traditions, its asceticism and its ancient liturgies, though the Roman Church apparently needs one to violate all these and create a �novus ordo.�
Peter really begins to step on toes when he spends a large amount of time on Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov. This is a little of a sore point for your reviewer in that I have spent many years pouring over the works of this great Russian Platonist. Chojnowski misquotes him and largely falsifies the record concerning his philosophy. Catholics for years have been searching for the �Russian Catholic� to use against the Orthodox, and they think they found one in Vladimir Sergeyevich. As a preliminary note, as much as I enjoy reading Solovoyv, it is clear that he was a Talmudist and Talmud scholar. It is also clear that, on his trip to Egypt, Solovyov spoke with a �spirit� who identified itself with the �Divine Sophia.� He philosophical career began with these �visions.� I do not believe that Peter has read anything of Solovyov except his book on the Russian Church, a book, by the way, he repudiated in his Dialogues on Antichrist. In short, Solovyov, however brilliant, is a curious authority for Peter to use here. Solovyov�s thesis in his Lectures on Divine Humanity was that human evolution is leading to the manifestation of the Divine Female, or the Divine Sophia on earth, under a world theological system located in Moscow, a synthesis of Rome and Constantinople, where Christianity will be reunified in a �new synthesis.� If Solovyov became a Catholic, it was solely to bring this about. It is clear however, that all his biographers claim the he received the last rites from an Orthodox priest. What is not so clear is what happened to his �global unification� idea after the Lectures. It seems to be gone in his Dialogues, or Conversations. The purpose of Moscow was to reveal its own destiny in human evolution by, not so much converting to Romanism, but rather to create a global synthesis between the Greek and Latin worlds. Peter might also find it useful to know that both the Churches or Rome and Moscow condemned the �sophia� theory on the person of Christ, so dear to Solovyov and others.
Peter also makes the claim that Dostoyevskii was a �close friend and confidant� of Solovyov. This is false. Dostoyevskii attended the Lectures, but this seems to be the end of their relationship. Solovyov died 20 years after Dostoyevskii. This, however, is a minor error. Peter has clearly not read the Lectures. However, he should do so, largely because so much of his views on Russia revolve around him. Again, Peter is a brilliant Thomas scholar, and I have learned much from him, but he seems a bit out of his element in dealing with this very foreign set of ideas.
The last and least of the presenters on Russia is the lawyer, Chris Ferrara. I have dealt with some of his puerile errors in the past. While Peter, Fr. Gruner and Dr. White are highly educated, intelligent men, who are very interesting to listen to, Chris is not, but comes across as a bit of comic relief in the midst of the very serious conference, and frankly, does some serious damage to the conference as a whole from an academic point of view.
It probably raised some eyebrows among the attendees when Ferrara announces that much of his information is coming from the Washington Post. This is certainly no way to start off a presentation amongst a group of people, like myself, who believe the American media is tightly controlled. It is very difficult to deal with Chris�s presentation, largely because there are errors both of fact and interpretation in nearly every sentence. But let me deal with a few of the most egregious.
Chris� basic thesis is that the �consecration� of Russia was never done properly, and it is the policies of Vladimir Putin that prove this point. If the consecration had been done, Putin would never be president of Russia. I�ve read many of Chris� columns in the past, and he says nothing new in his presentation.
First of all, Chris is very upset about the treatment of Catholics in Russia. He cites a few instances where the Russian security services have deported Catholics, or otherwise made their lives difficult. Given what I�ve said in reference to Peter�s talk, Catholicism is an ancient enemy of Russia. Russia has fought wars with Poland, Austria, Hungary and Lithuania all at least in part based on differences of religion and hence civilization. All the Catholics mentioned in Chris� presentation have clearly non-Russian names, suggesting that it is their connections with hostile foreign governments (such as the Polish or Lithuanian), rather than religious affiliation, that ruffles the FSB�s feathers. Nevertheless, I would ask Mr., Ferrara exactly what would be my legal position in Catholic Austria in the 19th century, or Poland in the 17th? If you were to create a Catholic state somewhere, would Orthodox clergy have the right to convert Catholics? The �Trentian� group within the Roman Catholic church have railed against �religious liberty� in reference to Catholic countries, and yet Mr. Ferrara demands it in Russia.
However, it must be made clear that the western powers, about as Christian as the Aztecs today, have made it a clear policy to ring Russian with enemies, from the Baltics, to Georgia to Ukraine. Russia�s allies, on the other hand, such as Belarus, have been threatened with sanctions from the western powers, and in the sick mind of Sen . John McCain, military invasion. Quite honestly, such a policy would make me, if I was president of Russia, a bit sensitive to foreign interference in Russia, of whatever kind. Russia, as I have said before, owes nothing to the Church of Rome, as Prof. Chojnowski inadvertently admits in his historical treatment of the relations between the Vatican and Petersburg.
Chris has read a little about Putin�s policies concerning Russia�s regions in the Post as well, since that is his next target. Quiting from a Post editorial, Chris rails against Putin�s altering of the election laws of Russia�s regions. He is referring of course, to Putin�s policy of having regional governors appointed from Moscow, and subject to the ratification of regional legislative assemblies (Chris didn�t read about that last part, apparently). This policy is proof, in part, that the consecration of Russia to Mary has yet been done.
The reality, of course, deserves some mention. Back in the days of Yeltsin, the western press was yelling for Boris to do something about the �regions,� for it was they who were perceived as major threats to �reform.� It was the case that regional governors were closely connected to oligarchs, and were making �separate deals� with western firms and politicians concerning their region. If Yeltsin demanded certain tax concessions, for example, from foreign investors, they were nullified in the regions, making local bosses richer and defrauding the Russian population. If Moscow demanded greater banking transparency, money was moved to a more �reliable� part of the Russian landscape, with the regional bosses suitably bribed. Regions had become little fiefs controlled by local big money. Yeltsin, himself in the pocket of oligarchical money (and enjoying a popularity rating of about 6%), refused to move against them. Only Putin had the popularity to do so (roughly 80% and holding), but by then, the oligarchs were transformed into the �good guys� and therefore, the western press shifted their policy a bit, and this became a move to introduce �tyranny.�
The move to alter the electoral laws of the regions were met with cheers from the Russian population, who always viewed regional bosses as puppets of big money, and Putin�s popularity continued to climb. If this was an unpopular move, where were the demonstrations? Where were the riots? If anything, the only people who were worried about riots were the former bosses of the regions. Placing the regions under closer federal control was an absolutely necessary means of dealing with the oligarchs.
The next target of our friend is the Russian media. Chris, again quoting from the Post, finds it unconscionable that Putin has eliminated the Russian �independent� media. Of all the dumb things Chris says, this is definitely the dumbest. I don�t know where to begin. Well, I might begin where the Washington Post was heavily invested in Guzinskii�s Media MOST conglomerate. Not surprisingly, when Putin moved against this particular oligarch (likely the most powerful), it was the Post who complained the loudest. Guzinskii made his millions defrauding the Russian people in rigged bidding in the Russian oil industry in the days of Yeltsin�s drunken privatization deals (deals backed with a nice dollop of western cash, by the way). He then plowed his money into media, creating a media empire; in other words, he had no right to his money and power in the first place.
Guzinskii (as well as his sometime ally, Boris Berezovskii) made no secret about being considered a kingmaker in Russian politics, a dream shared by the oligarchs in general. When Yeltsin backed his prime minister for the presidency in 1999, it was Guzinskii�s money that secured him the election. Putin quickly turned on the oligarch, and confiscated many of MOST�s shares, reselling them at auction. Guzinskii made himself hated in Russia by writing bogus stories about Russian �atrocities� in Chechnya, and demanding that the editorial stances of his massive media empire be anti-Russian and anti-patriotic. Guzinskii himself, of course, rarely allowed his name to be used in his media empire, preferring instead to hide behind front men and kept journalists. As soon as Putin turned on him, Guzinskii began writing of Putin�s corruption, charges echoes obediently by his financial partners at the Post. It might also be worth mentioning that Mr. Guzinskii had a long history of refusing to pay taxes to politicians he didn�t like, rendering himself vulnerable to the tax police, an institution forced on Russia years earlier by the IMF, truth be told. It was to pay his tax debt that his shares in MOST were sold off. Interestingly, it was tax arrears that permitted Putin to go after the regional bosses as well, since, prior to Putin, tax collection from the regions to Moscow were handled by the regional bosses, not the center. The consequences of this were predictable, and billions of rubles lined the pockets of regional bureaucrats. Not in any way am I recommending American IRS police tactics, but, in 2000, the Russian state was broke, and it needed to raise money even for basic services. Thanks to Putin, those days are gone, and Russia sits comfortably as one of the world�s economic powerhouses. Guzinskii lives in exile in England, Spain and sometimes Israel, fully supported by the Bank of England, as Lord Rothschild is backing many of his plans to overthrow Putin. Putin�s popularity went into the stratosphere when this man was exiled. Had he hanged him instead, as I would have liked, he would probably be considered a �god king� by Russians today. Opposing Putin in Russia today is electoral suicide. He does not need �strong arm� tactics with a popularity rating of 80%.
But there are greater issues here. Are we to assume that the state is more biased when it controls a media conglomerate than when an oligarch does? Why are corporate investors not considered biased? And how is it that only the state can �control� media? Private investors can�t? Is a media conglomerate worth billions, and run by a single investor �independent?� How about his journalists? Are they independent too in such a case? Why should anyone be upset that a criminal was exiled from the country? Russians certainly don�t. These are Orwellian buzzwords designed to shelter the rich liberals who control the world�s media.
Lastly, Chris takes aim at the Russian alliance with China. Stoking 20 year old Cold War fears, Chris warns the U.S. about the dire consequences of this alliance. As I am known for backing this alliance, allow me to explain myself:
First, Russia�s interest with China is financial: China needs Russia�s military know how, as well as her energy. Yes, a multipolar world will become a reality, and this alliance will be the cause of it. China sells War-Mart the crap that Americans go into debt over. China then buys this debt to paralyze the U.S. in relation to herself. As China grows, Russia supplies her with high tech weaponry and oil. Russia can then count on Chinese support against the U.S. and her undeclared war on Putin. So, whose fault is this?
Second, Russia�s interest in China is military. As the U.S. claims it has the right to invade countries that displease it, the rest of the world, naturally, will seek to defend itself. Again, whose fault is this?
Third, China�s interest in Russia is defensive. China�s aggression in world politics derives largely from the global financial elite�s attacks on China and East Asia in general. Back in 1996, George Soros, close to the Clinton administration, sought to destroy the economies of East Asia, bringing them under Clinton�s control. Japan and South Korea were brought to meltdown, leading the World Bank to take over these economies, dictating conditions to them that radically restructures their economic lives for the worse. China alone was spared because her currency, the Yuan, is state controlled (i.e. not controlled by bankers), a lesson heard the world over. China then retaliated by buying up much of the Panama Canal, and buying more American debt. Other than her domestic persecution of religion, I can see nothing in China�s policy that is not basically rational, and nothing is the result of anything but American and capitalist arrogance. The Chinese are a highly intelligent hard working people, and I am an admirer of Asian cultures despite Marxist distortions). In spite of the errors of her government in certain respects, she is receiving her share of global power that is her due, and, laughably, she�s done it almost solely upon American stupidity and irrationality. In terms of economic theory, the Chinese Communist Party is about as Marxist as I am.
Fourth, both China and Russia are creating a world that removes the need for the U.S. and her influence. The Russian and Chinese population together create a huge market, and, given their combined GNP growth, it will not be long before she can easily challenge the bankers� EU or the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Their relationship, then, is the creation of an alternative trading bloc that will include Central Asia, Belarus (small, but significant), and maybe even India. It will include most of the globe�s population, a huge, educated workforce, all the oil it needs, and a massive military machine. Far from being a threat, it is alliances like this that will save the world from John McCain. This is a recipe for peace; unipolarity is one for constant war and the gouging of the endlessly bewildered American taxpayer. Chris� talk can be accessed here.
In general, this conference was extremely interesting, but, at least for a certain faction of Romanists, it is Russia that is in the cross hairs. As if she needed any more enemies. I strongly recommend for Orthodox to watch many of the presentations Fr. Gruner has provided for free on his site, and I thank him for making them accessible. Though I disagree with him vehemently, he certainly comes across as an honest and decent man: in fact, he goes out of his way to mention that Marxism is not Russian, and is not the fault of the Russian population. He mentions that the funding for the revolutionary parties came from the west, which is certainly verifiable information. But he seemed to be alone in this. My general criticism, apart from its repetition, is that all the presenters show an abysmal lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy and her tradition, specifically in Russia. They make no reference, for all the hours they dedicate to this topic, to any of her specific practices, saints, or offices. They know even less about Byzantium. This is, to say the least, a major hole in their analysis: they simply do not know Russia. It�s a bit like having a conference on Tibet and having none of the presenters know anything of Buddhism.
