While Pres. Trump is visiting Japan this week, it is the appropriate time to comment about his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize by Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The nomination was announced by none other than Pres. Trump himself who boasted that Abe had given him “the most beautiful copy of a five-page letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel Prize.”
Japan’s Asahi newspaper reported that Pres. Trump had asked Shinzo Abe to nominate him. Abe refused to confirm the nomination, citing a Nobel Committee policy of not disclosing nominees for 50 years after prizes are awarded. When Abe was asked in Parliament if the report was accurate, he responded: “I am not saying it is not true.”
Two Norwegian lawmakers had already nominated Pres. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in June 2018. Interestingly, in February 2018, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that two Nobel Peace Prize nominations for Pres. Trump were forgeries. In addition, 18 Republican Members of Congress sent a joint letter to the Nobel Committee last year nominating Pres. Trump for the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.
Japanese Prime Minister’s nomination of Pres. Trump created a major political stir with domestic opposition leaders protesting Shinzo Abe’s move. Junya Ogawa, a lawmaker representing the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, criticized Pres. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord and the nuclear agreement with Iran, his decision to suspend the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and his relocation of the American Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. These actions, Ogawa said, should make it “not possible to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and it’s shameful for Japan.”
The reason the Japanese Prime Minister nominated Pres. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is that the leader of Japan had figured out that flattery is the best way to be on Pres. Trump’s good side. Apparently, playing countless rounds of golf together was not sufficient. Japan has three requests from Pres. Trump:
1) To seek Pres. Trump’s help in arranging for the Japanese Prime Minister to meet with the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to discuss “unconditional” denuclearization. This is an important request for Japan as recent North Korean missiles have either fallen in or near Japanese territorial waters or have overflown the Japanese territory panicking the population.
2) To dissuade Pres. Trump from his repeated threats to impose U.S. tariffs on Japanese imports, mostly cars, which would impact Japan’s economy and undermine Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s re-election.
3) To get Pres. Trump’s assistance in negotiating the return of Japanese citizens who were abducted by North Korea between 1977 and 1982.
Nevertheless, Shinzo Abe’s nomination of Trump “was unexpected, given Trump’s aggressive ‘America first’ foreign policy and disdain for multilateral international cooperation. After U.S. talks with North Korea collapsed… a Nobel nod seemed wholly unwarranted,” according to the Washington Post.
While the Prime Minister of Japan may have good reasons for nominating Pres. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Committee has better reasons to reject the request in order not to dishonor its prestigious award by presenting it to such a charlatan, liar and cheater, both financially and morally. He has insulted other races and religions, abused minorities and immigrants, and refused to comply with U.S. laws and international treaties.
Just in case some may think that my antagonism to Pres. Trump’s nomination stems from partisanship, I need to remind readers that when Pres. Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people,” I wrote an editorial expressing my opposition to his award. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Pres. Obama within the first year of his presidency, way too soon to judge his accomplishments. Pres. Trump had criticized Pres. Obama for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and some say that he wants the same award that Obama received out of jealousy. Pres. Trump was quoted saying: “They gave it to Obama. He didn’t even know what he got it for. He was there for about 15 seconds, and he got the Nobel Prize.” In addition to Obama, three other U.S. Presidents were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter.
In Pres. Trump’s case, he has already served over two years as President, and it is clear that he does not deserve any kind of an award, let alone the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, he does not even deserve to be President of the United States. With each passing day, the actions and statements of the self-declared “extremely stable genius” further antagonize more people both in the United States and around the world. As Lord Acton had wisely written: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”
Not surprisingly, Pres. Trump continued his controversial behavior by sending a series of tweets during his first morning in Japan. In one of his tweets, Pres. Trump committed three errors or improprieties:
1) He agreed with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that the leading Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is “a low IQ individual,” violating the long-held principle of not speaking about domestic divisions while overseas;
2) He misspelled Biden’s name as “Bidan”;
3) He contradicted the statements of his own National Security Adviser John Bolton and Japan’s Prime Minister that North Korea’s recent missile launches are a violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Finally, Pres. Trump admitted that he will probably never get the Nobel Peace Prize. For once, I agree with him!
Pres. Donald Trump issued last week his third April 24 statement “on Armenian Remembrance Day.” And for three years in a row he did not muster the courage to use the correct term — genocide — to describe the annihilation of 1.5 million innocent Armenian men, women, and children by the Ottoman Turkish government!
Pres. Trump basically repeated the same words that he used in the past two years, with very minor changes. Again he used the Armenian term “Meds Yeghern” (Great Crime) to avoid calling the mass killings a genocide! Meds Yeghern is simply a description that Armenians used before the word genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940’s, whereas genocide is a term of international law and has legal consequences. Besides, if Pres. Trump insists on using an Armenian word, he should have said “Tseghasbanoutyoun” (genocide)!
Many Armenians had been hoping ever since his election that Pres. Trump would rely on his unpredictable impulses to describe the Armenian mass killings as genocide, ignoring the counsel of his advisors and the position of his predecessors. Unfortunately, Pres. Trump knows very little about Armenian-Americans and can care less about their interests. The only time Pres. Trump will pay attention to the genocide issue is when Armenian-Americans gain more political clout.
It should not take much courage for Pres. Trump to use the term Armenian Genocide since Pres. Ronald Reagan already used it in his Presidential Proclamation on April 22, 1981. In fact, Armenian-Americans do not need Pres. Trump to say anything on April 24, if he cannot call it genocide. The Armenian Genocide has been already recognized by the United States several times. In addition to Pres. Reagan’s statement, the US House of Representatives adopted two resolutions in 1975 and 1984 acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, and the US government sent an official document to the International Court of Justice (World Court) in 1951 recognizing the Armenian mass killings as a case of genocide.
Nevertheless, Pres. Trump’s inadequate statement has a couple of secondary benefits to the Armenian Cause:
1) It irritates the hell out of Turkish leaders who seem to be ashamed and outraged that the President of the United States is reminding the world of “one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century,” and asserting that “beginning in 1915, one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire.” Both Turkish President Erdogan and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu reacted with indignation and denial to Pres. Trump’s April 24 statement.
2) The statements of Pres. Trump and his predecessors cause each year a major political reaction around the world, generating mass publicity in the international media which is further fueled by the Turkish leaders’ denials.
On April 24, 2019, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan issued an important statement on the 104th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Surprisingly, his statement did not mention Turkey or the Ottoman Empire as the perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide! This must have been an unfortunate oversight on the part of the Prime Minister and his aides. I do not think it was done intentionally, particularly since the statement does include a strong reference to Armenians losing their homeland in addition to the human losses. In the past, Armenia’s leaders have refrained from raising the issue of Armenian territorial demands from Turkey.
Meanwhile, Pres. Erdogan issued a particularly disgraceful statement on April 24, speaking at a Symposium in Ankara: “The relocation of the Armenian gangs and their supporters, who massacred the Muslim people, including women and children, in eastern Anatolia, was the most reasonable action that could be taken in such a period.”
Erdogan is shamefully accusing the Armenian victims of committing a mass crime against the victimizing Turks. This is an outrageous lie which is the equivalent of accusing Jews of killing Germans during the Holocaust! Erdogan must be suffering from a serious mental illness!
In a surprising development, Prime Minister Pashinyan responded forcefully to Erdogan’s pathetic lies. Pashinyan described Erdogan’s statement as “hateful” and called on the international community to respond: “On the day when Armenians around the world mourned the innocent victims of the Ottoman Genocide, Turkey, this country’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan reiterated a statement denying the greatest crime of the 20th century, calling it only, ‘the deportation of Armenians.’ To call the extermination of the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, as well as the massive forced deportation of Armenians (death caravans) ‘Armenian bandits and their accomplices,’ and the massacre of 1.5 million indigenous people, ‘the most logical behavior’ is not only a new level of denial of the Armenian Genocide, but also an excuse for the destruction of an entire nation. Such a statement on April 24, on the day of the anniversary of the Genocide, is a deep insult to the Armenian people and all of humanity, and an expression of extreme hatred personally by Erdogan. The world should not be silent.”
We are heartened that Prime Minister Pashinyan raised the issue of the Armenian territorial demand from Turkey, a demand that the Armenian government should pursue officially at the International Court of Justice!
Ever since Trump became President of the United States he has ignored both U.S. and international laws.
A few months ago, National Security Adviser John Bolton surprisingly announced that if the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigated any wrongdoing by American soldiers in Afghanistan, the U.S. government would ban ICC Judges from entering the United States and would sanction their assets in U.S. banks.
This represents the height of arrogance and flouting of international law. Instead of serving as a model of a civilized democratic country to the rest of the world, the Trump administration is ignoring and violating several international treaties.
While it is common knowledge that “might is right” in international relations, no previous U.S. President has such flagrantly disregarded the rule of law.
Pres. Trump’s recent actions in foreign policy are even more alarming. He has never taken seriously the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, he has ignorantly announced that it is easy to solve the Middle East problem and has irresponsibly appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has no experience in diplomacy and knows nothing about the Middle East, to be in charge of the Arab-Israeli peace plan.
Last year, in another unwise and dangerous decision, Pres. Trump moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem which is “tantamount to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over land that is captured in the Six-Day War in 1967,” according to Professor of Law Eugene Kontorovich. In other words, the move to Jerusalem is a violation of international law.
Last week, Pres. Trump shocked the world when he tweeted that the Syrian territory of Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, is Israeli territory: “After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability.” Pres. Trump signed a proclamation on March 25, 2019, with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu standing next to him in the White House, recognizing the Syrian Golan Heights as Israeli territory.
Can anyone be so flippant as to make such a grave announcement in a tweet? Just about every nation, except for Israel, condemned Pres. Trump’s unwise announcement. European Union countries, including Germany and France, criticized Pres. Trump’s decision on Jerusalem. Iran, Turkey and Egypt also sharply criticized the U.S. President. As expected, Syria declared that it will recover the Golan Heights with “all available means.”
The Golan Heights is one of the contentious territories that has been subject to serious negotiations between Syria and Israel, as part of the overall peace plan between Israel and Arab states. Announcing that Golan Heights belongs to Israel destroys what little remains of the United States claim that it is an impartial mediator. Rather than help the parties move towards peace, the United States has once again taken an unwise initiative that has aggravated the situation.
A German government spokesperson was quoted in The Independent newspaper saying, Berlin “rejected unilateral steps” to redraw national boundaries, adding: “If national borders should be changed it must be done through peaceful means between all those involved.”
The French foreign ministry stated that it did not recognize the Israeli annexation [in 1981] of the Golan Heights and that Mr. Trump’s statement is “contrary to international law.”
Palestinians quickly blasted Pres. Trump’s decision, saying it undermined the chance for peace in the region. Palestinian spokesperson Nabil Abu Rudeineh said any action taken on the decision would be “a violation of the UN resolutions, have no value whatsoever and would remain mere ink on paper.” Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Executive Committee, called it an “assault on international law.”
Pres. Trump has foolishly undermined Israel’s safety by provoking all Arabs and Muslims against Israel and the United States rather than taking measures to calm the situation and find a peaceful solution.
To complicate matters further, Pres. Trump’s controversial announcement came shortly before the April 9 Israeli elections which will determine whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will retain his post. The U.S. action is not only misguided but also an interference in the elections of a foreign country, boosting the chances of victory for Netanyahu, who faces indictment for corruption. At a time when the U.S. is accusing Russia for interfering in the 2016 American presidential elections, the U.S. itself is blatantly interfering in Israel’s elections!
And for those Armenians who naively expect Pres. Trump to recognize Artsakh as Armenian territory, just like he recognized the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, I hate to disappoint them by stating that Armenia does not have Israel’s political clout in Washington. Secondly, Armenians should not validate the unjust handover of the occupied Syrian territory of Golan Heights to Israel by comparing it to Artsakh — an historical Armenian land given to Azerbaijan by Stalin.
Armenians should also be concerned that Pres. Trump’s flawed argument jeopardizes the recovery of Western Armenian lands occupied by Turkey. Saying that after 52 years of occupation, Golan Heights belongs to Israel, Pres. Trump is undermining the Armenian claim to Western Armenia since it has been occupied by Turkey much longer than that! No matter how long those territories remain occupied, they will always belong to Armenians just as the Golan Heights belongs to Syria!
President Trump got a lot of cheers when he said the following during his State of the Union address:
There could be no greater contrast to the beautiful image of a mother holding her infant child than the chilling displays our nation saw in recent days. Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth.
These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world. And then, we had the case of the governor of Virginia where he stated he would execute a baby after birth. To defend the dignity of every person, I am asking the Congress to pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb. Let us work together to build a culture that cherishes innocent life.
And let us reaffirm a fundamental truth — all children — born and unborn — are made in the holy image of God.
But are the sentiments expressed here about protecting innocent life, about affirming the truth that man is made in the image of God, consistent with the aspirations and history of the American project, or with non-Orthodox Western civilization in general? Unfortunately, they are not.
Charles in Charge of the West
No, not that Charles:
This one:
Since Western Europe first began to conceive of herself in the eighth century as an entity apart from the worldwide Orthodox Christian Empire, the innocent have suffered greatly. This process began when Charlemagne (742-814) set up his heretical version of the Christian Empire in Aachen, heretical because he denied the validity of the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s teachings on the necessity to venerate the holy icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, His Most Pure Mother, and the other saints and angels; and because of his addition of the Filioque to the Nicene Creed. Given this auspicious beginning, it is unsurprising to find in the history of his reign that he caused much blood to flow in the expansion of his ‘Holy Roman Empire’, including the 4,500 Saxons slaughtered at Verden:
Yet this is the same Charlemagne whom Pope Benedict XIV saw fit to beatify in the 18th century. The Roman Catholic faithful are to address him as ‘Blessed Charlemagne’:
—https://catholicsaints.info/blessed-charlemagne/
Roman Catholic West
That beatification by the Pope is quite fitting, however. For with Charlemagne’s death in 814, his false empire collapsed, and the next attempt at Western self-exaltation, at setting up a false Christian Empire in opposition to the Orthodox Empire, came from the bishops of Rome themselves, beginning officially in 1054 and lasting to this very day. Following this sundering came, predictably, more needless bloodshed. The Roman Catholic Norman Invasion of the Orthodox kingdom of England took place in short order (1066) with the blessing of Pope Alexander II. William the Conqueror’s own words tell how grisly this early attempt at papal conquest was:
I have persecuted the natives of England beyond all reason. Whether gentle or simple I have cruelly oppressed them; many I unjustly disinherited; innumerable multitudes perished through me by famine or the sword … I fell on the English of the northern shires like a ravening lion. I commanded their houses and corn, with all their implements and chattels, to be burnt without distinction, and great herds of cattle and beasts of burden to be butchered wherever they are found. In this way I took revenge on multitudes of both sexes by subjecting them to the calamity of a cruel famine, and so became the barbarous murderer of many thousands, both young and old, of that fine race of people.
William’s death-bed confession, according to Ordericus Vitalis, c. AD 1130
—Quoted in Fr Andrew Phillips, Orthodox Christianity and the Old English Church, p. 23 of PDF,
Fr Andrew continues,
It has been estimated that during William I’s reign up to one in five of the English population died by the sword or in famineslxii. This does not include the deaths of the non-English population in Wales or Scotland, nor the civil war deaths in the reign of Stephen, nor the deaths resulting from the Papally-sponsored Norman invasion of Ireland, nor those of the One Hundred Years War which was provoked by the territorial claims to France of the Anglo-Norman kings. Even if the figure of one in five is exaggerated and it can be halved, one in ten is equivalent today to over five million deaths – fifteen times the number of British deaths resulting from the Second World War. The account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is unambiguous: ‘And they built castles far and wide throughout the land, oppressing the unhappy people, and things went ever from bad to worse’. ‘Only amongst the monks, where they lived virtuously was righteousness to be found in the land.’ Of William ‘the Bastard’, the Chronicle says the following: ‘Assuredly in his time men suffered grievous oppression and manifold injuries … he was sunk in greed and utterly given up to avarice. He was too relentless to care even though all might hate him … Alas! That any man should bear himself so proudly and deem himself exalted above all other men.lxiii’ Of the tortures inflicted on captives and the gruesome account of William’s funeral, when his stomach burst open in stinking putrefaction, one can read elsewhere (pgs. 25-6).
Not too long after the Norman Invasion, the Crusades were launched by Pope Urban II in 1095. Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) justified the killing this way in his work In Praise of the New Knighthood:
To be sure, precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his holy ones, whether they die in battle or in bed, but death in battle is more precious as it is the more glorious (Ch. I, section 2). . . .
BUT THE KNIGHTS OF CHRIST may safely fight the battles of their Lord, fearing neither sin if they smite the enemy, nor danger at their own death; since to inflict death or to die for Christ is no sin, but rather, an abundant claim to glory. In the first case one gains for Christ, and in the second one gains Christ himself. The Lord freely accepts the death of the foe who has offended him, and yet more freely gives himself for the consolation of his fallen knight.
The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God’s minister, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an evildoer, he is not a mankiller, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is evidently the avenger of Christ towards evildoers and he is rightly considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts death it is to Christ’s profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain. The Christian glories in the death of the pagan, because Christ is glorified; while the death of the Christian gives occasion for the King to show his liberality in the rewarding of his knight. In the one case the just shall rejoice when he sees justice done, and in the other man shall say, truly there is a reward for the just; truly it is God who judges the earth.
I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful, but only that it now seems better to destroy them than that the rod of sinners be lifted over the lot of the just, and the righteous perhaps put forth their hands unto iniquity (Ch. 3). . . .
Note the utter dehumanization by Bernard of the Muslims. They are no longer men but simply ‘evil’ itself, confounding person and attribute. No wonder that upwards of 1,000,000 are estimated to have died in the Crusades ). This sort of mindset has remained typical of the post-Schism West in her wars of righteousness against those she believes to be ‘evildoers’. And let us also recall that Bernard has been not simply beatified like Charlemagne but fully canonized as a saint of the Roman Catholic congregation.
When the peoples of Western Europe democratized the papist principle (that one man, instead of a council of bishops guided by the Holy Ghost, can determine what is and is not the True Faith), applying it to themselves one and all, then the Protestant Reformation was born, and the shadow which lay across that part of the Eurasian land grew darker. Delusional apocalyptic fervor grew, and along with it the flow of blood. A couple of ensamples will suffice.
The actions of Martin Luther, who began the Reformation in earnest in 1517, during the Peasants’ War in Germany is the first. He wrote,
I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without first offering to submit the case to judgment (quoted in Archpriest Josiah Trenham, Rock and Sand, Newrome Press, 2015, p. 98).
Fr Josiah goes on to relate the consequences of such statements:
On May 15, Müntzer’s forces were slaughtered by the nobility at Frankenhausen. Some 6000 peasants were killed, with only some six casualties on the side of the princes. Müntzer was captured and beheaded twelve days later. In upper Germany alone, it is estimated that some 130,000 peasants were slaughtered. . . . Luther was sharply criticized by many for his position, and was called “the hammer of the poor” by Hermann Mühlpfort, the mayor of Zwickau (Ibid.).
The next, which would decisively cripple what was left of Christianity in Western Europe, is the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48), which was fought between various Roman Catholic and Protestant countries for the supremacy of their creeds over Western Europe. There were upwards of 8,000,000 casualties due to the fighting of these ‘Christian nations’, which included death by hunger and disease of many civilians ).
During the Thirty Years’ War, many of the contending armies were mercenaries, many of whom could not collect their pay. This threw them on the countryside for their supplies, and thus began the “wolf-strategy” that typified this war. The armies of both sides plundered as they marched, leaving cities, towns, villages, and farms ravaged.
From here onwards, Western Europe and her children became the breeding ground for all manner of utopian (i.e., demonic) ideologies meant to replace the simulacrums of Christianity they had experienced, but sometimes still masquerading in the costume of Christianity. But this would not end the bloodletting in the West, but only increase it exponentially. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, from the War of Northern Aggression against Dixie to the War on Terror, Western wars of ideology have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions, with millions more suffering besides.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s famous quote about sanctions on Iraq from 1996 show that the Western soul hasn’t much changed since Bernard’s propaganda of the 12th century:
Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, “We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and, you know, is the price worth it?”
Madeleine Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”
The U.S./NATO bombing of Serbia during the holy seasons of Easter and Pentecost in 1999 shows the same:
According to the estimates of the government of Serbia, at least 2,500 people, of whom 89 children, were killed during the attacks (according to some sources, the total death toll was nearly 4,000), while more than 12,500 people were wounded and injured.
. . .
Almost every town in Serbia had been targeted during the 11 weeks of the air strikes.
The bombing destroyed and damaged 25,000 housing units, 470 km of roads and 595 kilometers of railways.
The attacks also damaged 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments and 44 bridges, while 38 were destroyed.
During the aggression NATO carried out a total of 2,300 airs trikes on 995 facilities across the country, while 1,150 combat aircraft launched nearly 420,000 missiles.
NATO also launched 1,300 cruise missiles, dropped over 37,000 cluster bombs, which killed some 200 people and wounded hundreds, and used prohibited ammunition with depleted uranium.
A third of the electrical power capacity of the country was destroyed, two oil refineries, in Pancevo and Novi Sad bombed, while NATO forces used the opportunity to for the first time deploy the so-called graphite bombs to disable the power system.
This same grisly barbarity is still on display by the Most Christian Country, The Holy Republic of America, the greatest country that ever was, is, or is to come. Venezuela is a telling example:
This is unprecedented—Bolton publicly announcing a military coup (usually with hundreds if not thousands of deaths). He deliberately showed off his notebook with scribbled invasion plans, so there would be no question about the agenda.
But that’s how the neocons operate. Lies, falsifications, grandiose claims, and invasions to forcibly install “democracy,” which is nothing of the sort.
Bolton’s “democracy” is doublespeak in action. It’s a thinly disguised euphemism used to obscure the actual objective—the destruction of entire nations, cultures, and societies at the cost of hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Untold millions of lives have been destroyed by the sort of “democracy” Bolton is talking about. It was put into action when Bolton was a toddler.
Let’s get real. Bolton doesn’t care about the people of Venezuela. If he did the US would not be imposing harsh sanctions that are resulting in malnutrition and starvation. Bolton is using the age-old technique of starving and depriving people so they will overthrow the government (this tactic rarely works—leading me to believe it is inflicted out of pure sadism—leading to the exact opposite reaction).
One could substitute ‘Iran’ or ‘Yemen’ for ‘Venezuela’ and have largely the same essay.
All of this seems to sit just fine with the Evangelicals in the States (just listen to Frank Gaffney sometime, ; Thomas DiLorenzo offers this description of them, together with some of their backstory:
These are the people whose churches are littered with gigantic American flags that dwarf any Christian icons; who routinely ask anyone who owns a military uniform to wear it to church; who sing the state’s war anthems at their services; who divert their Sunday offerings away from the poor and needy in their communities so that the money can be sent to grossly-overpaid military bureaucrats; and who can never stop thanking, thanking, thanking, and thanking “soldiers” for their “service” in murdering foreigners and bombing and destroying their cities – if not their entire societies – in the state’s aggressive, non-defensive, foreign wars.
Where did this very un-Christian “religion” of violence come from? The answer to this question is that it first developed as a part of New England’s neo-Puritanical “Yankees” in the early and mid-nineteenth century. It reached its zenith in the 1860s when, finally in control of the entire federal government, the New England Yankees waged total war on the civilian population of a large part of their own country, mass murdering fellow Americans by the hundreds of thousands, and then singing a “religious” song that described it all as “the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
As Murray Rothbard described them in his essay, “Just War”:
The North’s driving force, the ‘Yankees’ – that ethnocultural group who either lived in New England or migrated from there to upstate New York, northern and eastern Ohio, northern Indiana, and northern Illinois – had been swept by . . . a fanatical and emotional neo-Puritanism driven by a fervent ‘postmillenialism’ which held that as a precondition of the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, man must set up a thousand-year-Kingdom of God on Earth. The Kingdom is to be a perfect society. In order to be perfect, of course, this Kingdom must be free of sin . . . . If you didn’t stamp out sin by force you yourself would not be saved.
This is why “the Northern war against slavery partook of a fanatical millenialist fervor, of a cheerful willingness to uproot institutions, to commit mayhem and mass murder, to plunder and loot and destroy, all in the name of high moral principle,” wrote Rothbard. They were “humanitarians with the guillotine,” the “Jacobins, the Bolsheviks of their era.”
Clyde Wilson described these neo-Puritanical zealots in a similar manner in his essay, “The Yankee Problem in America”:
Abolitionism, despite what has been said later, was not based on sympathy for the black people nor on an ideal of natural rights. It was based on the hysterical conviction that Southern slaveholders were evil sinners who stood in the way of fulfillment of America’s driving mission to establish Heaven on Earth . . . . [M]any abolitionists expected that evil Southern whites and Blacks would disappear and the land repopulated by virtuous Yankees” (emphasis added).
And here we are, awaiting still the final grand unveiling of the Yankee/Western Millennium.
The Genocide of the Saints
As horrendous as the foregoing has been, there is still a crime of the apostate post-Schism West that we have not yet spoken of which we consider more hideous than all of that: the desecration of the saints, whether their bodily relics, representations, or shrines. More depraved than the slaughter of innocent children? Yes. A little child does indeed bear the image of God and is innocent of any purposeful wrongdoing, has not yet known the fall into the knowledge of evil. The saint, on the other hand, while retaining the image of God, has nevertheless cooperated with the Grace of God to such a degree that he has attained the likeness of God as well (see Gen. 1:26), overcoming his fallen, sinful nature and uniting with the Holy Ghost. Therefore, the saints are the most innocent, the most guileless, moreso than even children.
But this did not matter to the West. In her self-righteous zeal she sought to brutalize the saints as well. We have already mentioned very briefly Charlemagne’s effort at this. His rejection of the Seventh Ecumenical Council’s command to venerate images of the saints is already a rejection by the West of the Holy Ghost, Who resides in the images and shrines of the saints, and also especially in their incorrupt relics, with which He remains united as a foretelling to man of the Resurrection to come.
The Roman Catholic Normans who invaded Orthodox England in 1066 went further. Fr Andrew Phillips writes,
The record of the losses of Old English art and architecture is heart-rending. Today we have little more than fragments of Old English architecture. Of course much was built of wood and could not have lasted, but nevertheless the story of the Norman destruction of Old English church buildings is too much like barbarian vandalism to be excused. When they came to demolish the Cathedral in Worcester in 1086, the saintly Bishop Wulfstan remarked: ‘The men of old may not have had stately edifices, but they were themselves a sacrifice to God, whereas now they pile up stones, but forget the soul’lxiv. It is more distressing to read of the destruction of the European treasurehouse of church art which Old England was. If the churches were razed, leaving us with a pitiful idea of what the former architecture was really like, then, what can we say of Old English Art?
‘Nowhere in Europe, even in Byzantium itself, was there a more advanced conception of manuscript illustration and decoration than in Britain. Nowhere, even in Persia, were finer textiles embroidered; nowhere was finer sculpture in stone executed nowhere were finer ivories carved … they are all quite easy to distinguish as English. They stand out, moreover, by virtue of their quality.’ So speaks the art historian, Talbot-Ricelxv. Indeed the English were renowned for the quality of their embroidery and we know of a school of embroidery at Ely, though doubtless there were many others. The Winchester School of manuscript illumination was widely known and represented the spiritual and artistic flowering of the tenth century English Renaissance.
The destruction of nearly all of this heritage makes lugubrious reading. ‘In the spring of the year (1070), the King had all the monasteries in England plunderedlxvi’. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries there are unending lists of gold crucifixes, vestments of woven gold, silver and gold sacred vessels and censers, chalices and patens, shrines and altars with their embroidered hangings, silver and gilt ewers of Byzantine work, Gospel-books adorned with precious stones, gold reliquaries and the holy relics contained within, silks and precious hangings, ornaments which in the words of William of Poitiers, ‘Byzantium would hold very dear.’ In the twelfth century he wrote: ‘A Greek or Arab visitor would have been carried away by delight’ at the sight of the treasures melted down or sent to France by William. From one church alone he stole treasures worth £6,000, a colossal sum in modern termslxvii.
All this was pillaged; the Old English Church was raped and ravaged. The depths of blasphemy and sacrilege were reached when the Norman clergy began burning the relics of the Old English saints to see if they were authentic; their doubts sometimes seem to have been founded merely on the Norman inability to pronounce the Old English names. Such barbarian acts were not to be seen again until the sack of Christian Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Later we shall see the Old English connection even here. The accounts of the sack of Old English art are among the most shameful in Western history. After William and his descendants, then the fires of the Middle Ages, followed by the syphilitic frenzy of greed of Henry VIII and the outbursts of the Puritans, then the vandalism of the Victorians, it comes as no surprise when we realise that what we possess of a half-millennium of Old English Art and Architecture is nothing but a single crumb from a huge but ever lost royal banquet. It is an immensely sobering but nonetheless true fact that there is a part of human nature that delights in the destruction of everything beautiful, be it the creation of God or of man.
—Orthodox Christianity and the Old English Church, pgs. 26-7
As Fr Andrew indicates, the Protestants too would take part in this genocide against the holy saints and their memory.
Motadel writes that,
“The prototype of all modern forms of iconoclasm [Noyes] found in Calvin’s Geneva and Ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s Mecca. Sixteenth-century Geneva witnessed one of the most devastating waves of religious image-breaking in history. Incited by a group of charismatic theologians – among them John Calvin himself – mobs raged against objects associated with miracles, magic and the supernatural, destroying some of the city’s most precious pieces of Christian art. Invoking the Second Commandment, they denounced these works as idols, and as remnants of a rural, feudal and superstitious world, a world corrupted by Satan.” The Western Assault on Innocent Life
Nor was Geneva unusual. In Basel in 1529, widespread iconoclastic riots destroyed virtually all the material tokens of traditional Catholic worship and devotion in the cathedral and the city’s leading churches. Even these German and Swiss manifestations were dwarfed by the devastating Storm of Images (Beeldenstorm) that swept over the Netherlands in 1566.
This movement was directed against any and all Catholic material symbols — against stained glass windows, statues of the Virgin and saints, holy medals and tokens.
Such stories of image-breaking (iconoclasm) are familiar enough to anyone who knows about the Reformation, and there are plenty of scholarly studies.
Recent works, though, highlight two features of the movement that often get underplayed:
1. Iconoclasm was central to the Reformation experience, not marginal, and not just a regrettable extravagance.
Historians of the Reformation tend to be bookish people interested in books, so they focus on aspects of literacy and translation, with the spread of the vernacular Bible as the centerpiece of the story. The idea of the Reformation as a “media revolution” is common enough.
Yes, we do read of outbreaks of destructive violence and iconoclasm, but these are usually presented as marginal excesses, or understandable instances of popular fury against church abuses. Once we get those unfortunate riots out of the way, we can get back to the main story of tracing the process of Bible translation.
That’s very misleading. For anyone living at the time, including educated elites, the iconoclasm was not just an incidental breakdown of law and order, it was the core of the whole movement, the necessary other side of the coin to the growth of literacy. Those visual and symbolic representations of the Christian story had to decrease, in order for the world of the published Bible to increase. The Western Assault on Innocent Life
In terms of the lived experience of people at the time, the image-breaking is the key component of the Reformation. In the rioting and mayhem, a millennium-old religious order was visibly and comprehensively smashed.
In words adapted from the Vulgate version of Job, the Calvinist motto proclaimed, Post Tenebras Lux: After darkness, Light. (And that is still Geneva’s motto).
One would think such crimes as these might cause Protestants to have some hesitation about judging the sins of others, but it has not. Regarding China, for example, they say,
WASHINGTON — The Chinese government is supervising a five-year plan to make Christianity more compatible with socialism in which there will be a “rewrite” of the Bible, a prominent religious freedom activist has told Congress.
The Rev. Bob Fu, a former Chinese house church leader who immigrated to the United States in 1997 and founded the persecution watchdog organization China Aid, provided great detail during a House hearing Thursday about a plan enacted by leading state-sanctioned denominations in China to “Sincize” Christianity.
As China’s crackdown on religion has seen many house churches demolished and thousands of crosses removed from churches nationwide, Fu warned upfront that what is happening right now in China represents the highest degree of persecution for independent faith groups the country has seen in decades.
Yet in all three areas they raise in criticism of China – rewriting the Bible, tearing down churches, and destroying Crosses – Protestants are guilty themselves. The Protestants removed several books from the Old Testament canon of the Bible, and Martin Luther himself added ‘alone’ to his translation of Romans 3:28 (‘man is justified by faith alone’) and also wanted to throw out the Book of James because it contradicted the theological system he created. See, e. g.,
Of the other two, it is enough to recall Mr Jenkins’s article just above as well as the quote of Bishop Joseph Hall shown in the linked section of this article:
This in no way excuses China’s repressive measures, but the Protestant hypocrisy is extraordinary. For these children of the Chinese Communist revolutionaries (and their forebears in France, Russia, etc.) are, in the end, only carrying on the legacy of the Protestants (and the Roman Catholic popes) by overturning the received traditions and replacing them with new, self-created ones.
The Future of the West
How does one even begin to close an essay like this, cataloguing such inhuman evil in the West? Only one word seems appropriate: Repent.
Most popular
Mar 4, 2019 1:00 am 13309 The Western Assault on Innocent Life
Mar 5, 2019 3:39 pm 11403 Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 1
Mar 6, 2019 1:00 am 9630 Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 2
Mar 6, 2019 5:19 am 7038 More Than Half of Americans Say Trump Is Dishonest Author: Walt Garlington
“The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming” is the name of a comedy film (1966) that reflects the fear of Western people from the Soviet threat during the Cold War. The main point of the film is the mockery of Westerners’ panic at that time.
It’s not known whether this fear of the USSR was justified or exaggerated–that is a topic for another article. However, today if they were to make a film, not a comedy, but a horror flick in Europe with the name “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming,” it wouldn’t be surprising.
Yes, you read that right. Neither in the Middle East, nor in Russia, nor in China, nor in Venezuela or in Africa, but in Europe. Europeans’ fear of the United States and the attentive attitude of European capitals towards Washington is very clearly shown by recent polls and the semi-official European media.
Let’s have a look at some examples over the past year:
– Data from a controversial Pew Research Center study, which was published in February 2018, showed that the two allies, Germany and the USA, face the threat of separation. More than half of Germans (56%) described German-American relations as bad. And the common defense effort is considered urgent by only a small proportion of Germans (16%). (https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article174067166/Bilaterales-Verhaeltnis-Entfremdung-zwischen-Deutschland-und-den-USA.html)
– The results of a public opinion poll conducted by the Allensbach Institute for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine on May 16, 2018 showed that the German population follows the course of the United States with growing concern. The U.S., which for decades has been the Germans’ most important and most reliable ally and friend, is suddenly becoming foreign, even threatening. The overwhelming majority have the impression that Europe and the United States are drifting apart; for decades this was the opinion of a minority in Germany; now 70% are convinced of it. German-American relations are perceived as profoundly disturbed. Just under two-thirds of the population ranked relations as good or very good three years ago; now it is only 20%; 71% consider German-American relations to be tense. At the same time, more and more Germans treat the United States as a state that is “ruthless” in pursuing its interests. Five years ago, 24% of respondents negatively assessed the influence of Washington on events in the world; in the beginning of 2018 – 54%. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/allensbach-umfrage-zeigt-entfremdung-deutscher-von-amerika-15593293.html)
– The results of a Politbarometer poll, conducted by the research group “Elections” (Wahlen) from May 15 to 17, 2018 for the TV channel ZDF showed that according to 82% of respondents, the United States is not a trustworthy partner for Germany when it comes to political cooperation. Only 14% viewed the United States as a reliable partner. )
– The German Der Spiegel of May 28, 2018 depicted the relationship of the Trump administration to Europe with this cover:
“The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”
– A YouGov survey in July 2018, commissioned by the German Press Agency DPA, found 42% of respondents want U.S. troops out, while 37% want them to stay and 21% are undecided or didn’t answer. Nearly one in two Germans want U.S. troops to retreat. (https://www.stripes.com/news/poll-42-of-germans-want-us-troops-out-of-country-1.537230) According to a YouGov poll in June 2018, the majority of Germans (59%) and French people (51%) negatively evaluate the U.S.
– A survey of 25 nations, conducted between May and August 2018 by the Pew Research Center, showed that America’s image continued to deteriorate in many countries during Trump’s first year in office, particularly in Europe. Only 30% of Germans have a favourable view of the United States, down five points from the previous year–the lowest score in the entire survey after Russi (26%). Only 38% of French said they had a positive view of the United States, down from last year. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-image-survey/americas-image-worsens-under-trump-idUSKCN1MB3V9)
– A representative study carried out by Atlantik-Brücke and Civey in Germany in November and December 2018 shows the dwindling confidence in transatlantic cooperation and the USA. In the representative survey of 5,000 people who attended the panel, 85% rated the relationship as negative or very negative. In addition, a significant part of the respondents believes that now China is a more reliable partner for the Federal Republic of Germany than the United States and that it is necessary to distance itself even more from American partners. (https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/wp-content/uploads/AtlantikBrueckeUmfrage2019.pdf)
– According to a poll conducted and published in February 2019 by the Pew Research Center, 49% of Germans (in 2013 — %9, in 2017 — 35%) and French (in 2013 — 20%, in 2017 — 36%) see the U.S.’s power and influence as a greater threat in 2018. )
– The Security Report 2019 of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership, which was published in February 2019, shows that the Germans see the U.S. as the biggest threat to peace. “The Security Report 2019 clearly shows that there is a central factor of uncertainty among Germans that scares them. And that is the USA under the leadership of Donald Trump” said Professor Klaus Schweinsberg of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership. (https://www.sicherheitsreport.net/wp-content/uploads/PM_Sicherheitsreport_2019.pdf)
The recent picture of the last Munich Conference confirms the above facts. Deutsche Welle, referring to the former president of Estonia and one of the old-timers of the Munich security conference Toomas Hendrik Ilves and the head of the Munich Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, writes the following:
“‘The division lines between the Atlantic have become more rigid,’ the politician said in an interview with DW. The Munich Conference is, first of all, a demonstration of what is called the transatlantic partnership of the United States and Germany, as well as the United States and the European Union. But the partnership that developed after World War II was started to be questioning from the beginning of Donald Trump presidency. ‘The current administration has destroyed the basic trust in the United States,’ says Ilves. ‘It will have to be built in a new way.’
Similar, although more restrained statements were made by the head of the Munich Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger. ‘If we called our conference ‘To the brink of the abyss and back,’ in previous years, it might be an exaggeration we would think, now, after many conversations, the majority of the participants say that there really is a problem,’ the former German diplomat said summing up the meeting.” (https://www.dw.com/ru/%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/a-47556723)
And the results of the conference are reported by Der Spiegel in the following way:
“America does not lead, it retreats. Others are pushing into the vacuum left by Trump’s erratic ‘America First’ policy. China, Russia but also Iran. And the U.S. does not lead, they give instructions.” )
As we can see from these examples, the whole world suffers from Washington’s aggression. It is not just Asia, Middle Eastern countries, Russia, China or Venezuela. The U.S. used to isolate other countries with its aggressive policies; now it’s isolating itself. It’s losing its closest allies. The reckless and barbaric aggression of the U.S. has been a problem for Europe too. The U.S. has no respect for its so-called allies Germany and France.
In the film “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” the main idea was expressed in the words of the sailor Alexei Kolchin, who told a local girl: “I do not want to hate.” But the whole world has begun to hate the American aggressors. Thus, restraints on the U.S. relieve everyone.
Most popular
Mar 4, 2019 1:00 am 13309
The Western Assault on Innocent Life
Mar 5, 2019 3:39 pm 11403
Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 1
Mar 6, 2019 1:00 am 9630
Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 2
Mar 6, 2019 5:19 am 7038
More Than Half of Americans Say Trump Is Dishonest
Pentagon Chief Weighs Broader Approach to Border Security
The military considers how best to use the 6,000 troops sent to the U.S.-Mexico border, who cannot legally stand in for CBP.
By Lara Seligman
|
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, center, fires a modified paintball gun that shoots pepper balls during a tour of the U.S.-Mexico border at Santa Teresa Station in Sunland Park, New Mexico, on Feb. 23. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The U.S. military is sending an additional 1,000 troops to the border with Mexico, bringing the number of U.S. military personnel there—both active-duty and National Guard—to about 6,000, a senior defense official told reporters at the Pentagon on Feb. 22.
That’s a significant chunk of military resources going toward a mission that can only legally be performed by domestic law enforcement such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers: border security. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the U.S. military is prohibited from taking any direct role in law enforcement—including search, seizure, apprehension, or arrest.
So what, then, are those 6,000 troops actually doing there? So far, the U.S. military has functioned primarily in a supporting role—installing concertina wire, transporting law enforcement officers by air, providing medical services to migrants, hardening points of entry, and helping with surveillance. In addition to stringing another 140 miles of concertina wire, the troops will be supporting the CBP officers between the points of entry, as well as installing ground-based detection systems, the senior defense official said.
The goal is “freeing up agents and putting them in a law enforcement role instead of administrative duties,” according to the official.
Despite their restricted role, it now seems like the troops on the border are there for the long term. As the Trump administration trumpets the so-called national security crisis of border security—and seeks to divert billions of dollars in military funding to building his long-promised border wall—the Pentagon is reassessing the role of the U.S. military in securing the border.
Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan indicated on Feb. 23 during a surprise trip to the border—which, as is more common for trips to combat zones, was kept secret until his arrival—that the U.S. government needs a broader, more holistic approach to border security instead of a short-term solution.
“Let’s not do triage. Let’s really solve the fundamental problem,” Shanahan told reporters during the trip. “I think of it as: This is an opportunity, as we’re addressing this issue, to recommend solutions that are systemic and major and not a triage solution.”
“I don’t want to just add resources and not fix the problem long term,” Shanahan stressed.
As part of that holistic strategy, a U.S. military presence at the border could become the new normal. Shanahan said he and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed a two- or three-year support role. For example, the troops could potentially take on more of the monitoring and detection mission in order to free up the CBP officers for other aspects of their mission.
Arguably, as long as the troops stick to the support mission, the deployment does not run afoul of the law, said Andrew Boyle, who works as counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. However, an increased military presence in the border communities does raise concern about the possibility of violent cross-border incidents, he said.
“It does raise alarm bells in regards to the militarization of the domestic sphere,” he said.
Trump May Have $21 Billion in Military Funds Available for the Wall
The president plans to sign a federal spending bill and declare a national emergency to bankroll his long-promised border wall.
But William Banks, an emeritus professor at Syracuse University’s College of Law and Maxwell School, believes there is no “clear, positive legal authority” for active-duty U.S. troops to be at the U.S.-Mexico border. The surveillance and detection role could pose a particular problem, he added.
The laws allowing U.S. military forces to conduct surveillance in support of CBP officers dates back to the “war on drugs” in the 1980s and were specifically designed for counter-drug activities, Banks explained.
That means that any surveillance the U.S. military is conducting that is not directly related to drug trafficking—for example, monitoring the border for illegal crossings—could be challenged in a court of law.
“If a federal lawsuit is brought challenging the scope of the military’s activities at the border, it remains unclear how a court would rule on such a challenge when drug trafficking is not remotely the issue,” Mark Nevitt, a Sharshwood fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, wrote in November 2018.
Either way, it doesn’t look like these troops will be heading home anytime soon.
“What’s the core issue that has to get addressed?” Shanahan said. “How do we get out of treating the symptoms and get at the root of the issues?”
Lara Seligman is a staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @laraseligman