One of our contributors, John D sent us this. Very apropos to our times. Thank you, John D!
***
Watched V For Vendetta last night after many, many years. V’s Broadcast Speech is very succinct to our times.
V, Remember, Remember, the 5th of November and Solzhenitsyn
[V]
Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine – the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone’s death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat.
There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn’t there?
Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who’s to blame? Well certainly there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you’re looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.
I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn’t be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night, I sought to end that silence. Last night, I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago, a great citizen wished to embed the 5th of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words – they are perspectives. So if you’ve seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you, then I would suggest you allow the 5th of November to pass unmarked.
But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a 5th of November that shall never, ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, (born 1570, York, England—died January 31, 1606, London), British soldier and best-known participant in the Gunpowder Plot. Its object was to blow up the palace at Westminster during the state opening of Parliament, while James I and his chief ministers met within, in reprisal for increasing oppression of Roman Catholics in England.
Fawkes was a member of a prominent Yorkshire family and a convert to Roman Catholicism. His adventurous spirit, as well as his religious zeal, led him to leave Protestant England (1593) and enlist in the Spanish army in the Netherlands. There he won a reputation for great courage and cool determination. Meanwhile, the instigator of the plot, Robert Catesby, and his small band of Catholics agreed that they needed the help of a military man who would not be as readily recognizable as they were. They dispatched a man to the Netherlands in April 1604 to enlist Fawkes, who, without knowledge of the precise details of the plot, returned to England and joined them.
The plotters rented a cellar extending under the palace, and Fawkes planted 36 (some sources say fewer) barrels of gunpowder there and camouflaged them with coals and fagots. But the plot was discovered, and Fawkes was arrested (the night of November 4–5, 1605). Only after being tortured on the rack did he reveal the names of his accomplices. Tried and found guilty before a special commission (January 27, 1606), Fawkes was to be executed opposite the Parliament building, but he fell or jumped from the gallows ladder and died as a result of having broken his neck. Nevertheless, he was quartered. -Britanica
Remember, Remember, the 5th of November
“Remember, remember, the 5th of November,
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I see no reason
Why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, ’twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match
Holler boys, holler boys, let the bells ring
Holler boys, holler boys
God save the King!”
Live Not by Lies Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn penned this essay in 1974 and it circulated among Moscow’s intellectuals at the time. It is dated Feb. 12, the same day that secret police broke into his apartment and arrested him. The next day he was exiled to West Germany. The essay is a call to moral courage and serves as light to all who value truth.
LIVE NOT BY LIES the complete text of Solzhenitsyn’s seminal 1974 essay, Live Not by Lies, in the definitive translation by Yermolai Solzhenitsyn.
On the day Solzhenitsyn was arrested, February, 12, 1974, he released the text of “Live Not by Lies.” The next day, he was exiled to the West, where he received a hero’s welcome. This moment marks the peak of his fame. Solzhenitsyn equates “lies” with ideology, the illusion that human nature and society can be reshaped to predetermined specifications. And his last word before leaving his homeland urges Soviet citizens as individuals to refrain from cooperating with the regime’s lies. Even the most timid can take this least demanding step toward spiritual independence. If many march together on this path of passive resistance, the whole inhuman system will totter and collapse.
— by Edward E. Ericson, Jr. and Daniel J. Mahoney, The Solzhenitsyn Reader
________________________________________
At one time we dared not even to whisper. Now we write and read samizdat, and sometimes when we gather in the smoking room at the Science Institute we complain frankly to one another: What kind of tricks are they playing on us, and where are they dragging us? Gratuitous boasting of cosmic achievements while there is poverty and destruction at home. Propping up remote, uncivilized regimes. Fanning up civil war. And we recklessly fostered Mao Tse-tung at our expense—and it will be we who are sent to war against him, and will have to go. Is there any way out? And they put on trial anybody they want and they put sane people in asylums—always they, and we are powerless.
Things have almost reached rock bottom. A universal spiritual death has already touched us all, and physical death will soon flare up and consume us both and our children—but as before we still smile in a cowardly way and mumble without tongues tied. But what can we do to stop it? We haven’t the strength?
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants—but just don’t disturb our fragile existence. We lack staunchness, pride and enthusiasm. We don’t even fear universal nuclear death, and we don’t fear a third world war. We have already taken refuge in the crevices. We just fear acts of civil courage.
We fear only to lag behind the herd and to take a step alone-and suddenly find ourselves without white bread, without heating gas and without a Moscow registration.
We have been indoctrinated in political courses, and in just the same way was fostered the idea to live comfortably, and all will be well for the rest of our lives. You can’t escape your environment and social conditions. Everyday life defines consciousness. What does it have to do with us? We can’t do anything about it?
But we can—everything. But we lie to ourselves for assurance. And it is not they who are to blame for everything—we ourselves, only we. One can object: But actually you can think anything you like. Gags have been stuffed into our mouths. Nobody wants to listen to us and nobody asks us. How can we force them to listen? It is impossible to change their minds.
It would be natural to vote them out of office—but there are not elections in our country. In the West people know about strikes and protest demonstrations—but we are too oppressed, and it is a horrible prospect for us: How can one suddenly renounce a job and take to the streets? Yet the other fatal paths probed during the past century by our bitter Russian history are, nevertheless, not for us, and truly we don’t need them.
Now that the axes have done their work, when everything which was sown has sprouted anew, we can see that the young and presumptuous people who thought they would make out country just and happy through terror, bloody rebellion and civil war were themselves misled. No thanks, fathers of education! Now we know that infamous methods breed infamous results. Let our hands be clean!
The circle—is it closed? And is there really no way out? And is there only one thing left for us to do, to wait without taking action? Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen—and do not sever ourselves from the most perceptible of its aspects: Lies.
When violence intrudes into peaceful life, its face glows with self-confidence, as if it were carrying a banner and shouting: “I am violence. Run away, make way for me—I will crush you.” But violence quickly grows old. And it has lost confidence in itself, and in order to maintain a respectable face it summons falsehood as its ally—since violence lays its ponderous paw not every day and not on every shoulder. It demands from us only obedience to lies and daily participation in lies—all loyalty lies in that.
And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, but not with any help from me.
This opens a breach in the imaginary encirclement caused by our inaction. It is the easiest thing to do for us, but the most devastating for the lies. Because when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism.
We do not exhort ourselves. We have not sufficiently matured to march into the squares and shout the truth our loud or to express aloud what we think. It’s not necessary.
It’s dangerous. But let us refuse to say that which we do not think.
This is our path, the easiest and most accessible one, which takes into account out inherent cowardice, already well rooted. And it is much easier—it’s dangerous even to say this—than the sort of civil disobedience which Gandhi advocated.
Our path is to walk away from the gangrenous boundary. If we did not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside.
That which should be naked would then really appear naked before the whole world.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood—of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies—or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.
And from that day onward he:
- Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth
- Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
- Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
- Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
- Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
- Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
- Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question.
- Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
- Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.
No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.
But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.
And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul—don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general—let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm.
Even this path, which is the most modest of all paths of resistance, will not be easy for us. But it is much easier than self-immolation or a hunger strike: The flames will not envelope your body, your eyeballs, will not burst from the heat, and brown bread and clean water will always be available to your family.
A great people of Europe, the Czechoslovaks, whom we betrayed and deceived: Haven’t they shown us how a vulnerable breast can stand up even against tanks if there is a worthy heart within it?
You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is the only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.
So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.
If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wail, and our brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.
Well, I have a great respect for Solzhenitsyn; however, I would remind everyone that it was not Solzhenitsyn or samizdat that brought down the Soviet Union.
External forces provided the impetus for internal change. Bolshevism is unnatural – it actively works against nature and nature’s God. Not only is it atheistic, but it directly contradicts that aspect of human nature that seeks personal profit from personal, productive action. That dynamic is unstable. It cannot produce a self-sufficient economy. In fact, such an ideology cannot endure outside the structure of a police state.
American military spending compounded this problem and Mikhail Gorbachev fashioned his answer of economic reform and openness to attempt to address this pressing problem. Allowing the republics a serious degree of representative government proved to be the end of Soviet communism when the old guard tried to overthrow him and the president of the Russian Republic rescued him. By that time, the Union no longer had legitimacy in the eyes of the people when compared with the elected representatives of the republics.
And that was the end.
Notice, this had nothing to do with dissidents. Nothing at all. That is not to say that their testimony is not important. It most certainly is, as is that of the martyrs throughout history. But it was Constantine who first legalized and then normalized Christianity in the Empire.
So it depends on what you intend to accomplish. Personally, if I had lived in the Soviet Union, I would have simply played along as most people did in order to get along. I’m sure there are limits to my cooperation, of course. But life is short and I would weigh my odds of actually accomplishing positive change against the cost of speaking out.
This is why we (the Russian Orthodox) sympathize more than most Americans with Soviet cooperators, those that went along to get along. Christ faced the overwhelming reality of the Roman Empire from which the Judeans could not escape and whose yoke they could not throw off. What did He say in that particular situation? “Love your enemies. Bless those that curse you. Do not resist evil.” This is cooperation, not non-violent resistance.
That is not to detract one iota from Solzhenitsyn. He saw the weakness of the Soviet Union which he described in his essay. And he knew the degree of effect that his tactics could have if implemented. Yet, though the words sound courageous – and they are courageous – you will notice that the Soviets simply got rid of him and sailed on merrily for the next fifteen years, at which time the internal contradictions of the Soviet system finally caught up with them.
All of that notwithstanding, dignity itself is worth fighting for.
I do believe this is one of your best posts. Thank you. As someone who has been steeped in ROCOR for over a decade, this articulated the complicated feelings and expressions I’m surrounded with in regards to communism, socialism, and the Soviet Union. As a Californian, it’s been difficult to weave together all the threads of this very complicated history, but you’ve done it admirably. Sometimes I feel lost in ROCOR as it is so culturally different than what I’ve been raised with, and the history is oh so complex. Most of the time, though, it is Home in the deepest and most profound ways–that also are hard to articulate.
Thank you, Christine.
I was born in America; however, like you I know many people who left the states of the former Soviet Union both before and after its fall. As you say, it is complicated. It is complicated because they actually lived in a totalitarian police state. We merely try to imagine it. But the calculations are much different, much more practical and much less idealistic if you are really, truly there.
They seriously had to decide for themselves, in their respective contexts, for real, which hill is worth dying on.
Speaking up is not everybody’s cup of tea, I’ll grant you that. I do think people listen to those who do, hoping they’ll hear something that resonates with them. If no one spoke up, how would anyone be sure something lost its legitimacy?
People need validation. When they heard Solzhenitsyn, I imagine it validated how they were feeling even though they remained silent. This would especially be true during a time when people were literally pulled off the street for nothing.
There is this place in Russia. It might be called the Killing Fields. It was so disturbing. Even the trees in the surrounding forest were traumatized. They wrapped their trunks around each other in strange configurations as if they were recoiling in horror. – The museum takes you through a dark passage and the pictures of some of the people who were killed pop up in the dark. I remember one who was just a piano teacher. She had done nothing. They had to meet a quota so they pulled her off the street. This place was one of the most disturbing places I have ever been. I couldn’t imagine how people could do that to each other.
“If no one spoke up, how would anyone
be sure something lost its legitimacy?”
In this, I think, you have the rights of it Gail.
The Prophets spoke up.
Though little good it did them personally,
it kept truth alive in the eyes and ears of men;
as indeed did Solzhenitsyn in his day.
As for the example of Jesus Christ, cited by Misha,
he opposed the powers that be on matters that mattered;
of which to whom the taxes were paid
was not exactly the most pressing.
The “House of Terror” in Budapest is similarly horrifying. Half of the museum is devoted to the Arrow Cross Party (the Hungarian branch of Nazism), the other half to Hungarian Communism, especially as it dominated the country post-WWII. The museum shows in devastating clarity how the two sides, which supposedly are at opposite ideological poles, were essentially the same. One historical video playing inside shows an Arrow Cross thug signing a declaration that he recanted his Nazi beliefs, then changing uniforms and going right back to work as a thug for the Hungarian Communist Party.
When the Socialists returned to power in 2002, they tried to shut down the museum, but the truth was already clear enough that popular resistance kept it open. (Or so I’ve been told by Hungarian friends.)
It’s interesting how they have that cut-out in the rafters to make the word TERROR appear across the top of the building. – I think they should keep these museums. It’s OK to be uncomfortable. It changes your thinking. https://www.historyhit.com/locations/house-of-terror/
What’s truly terrifying is that we have the capacity to insulate ourselves from the suffering we bring onto others for an idea.
The “Red Terror” Martyrs’ Museum in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia is another chilling example. These museums are important. I’ll never forget the statue of grieving women with “Never, ever again” inscribed on it outside the front entrance to the museum.
Absolutely.
Misha, excellent observation. That said, Solzhenitsyn was a prophet and he needed to say what needed to be said, not only for his own conscience but to preach to those few people in the West as to what totalitarianism is.
Gail and I sometimes wonder whether our own witness is to any avail. That is to say whether we (and millions of others) can turn this ship around. I for one believe we can, probably for the same reasons you stated about the untenable nature of the Soviet economy. (Our own is almost beyond repair at this point.)
But even if not, someday, after the collapse of the American empire, at least some in the future can say that at least we didn’t believe the Rainbow Marxists were spouting. A memorandum for the record, so to speak.
There is however another spirit that animates us and those who read & comment on our blog: we aren’t going to stand by and let our Church collapse. Not without a fight. Elpi and the Fordhamites may want to queer the Church but it’ll be over our dead bodies.
George,
You and Galinushka are a godsend. Monomakhos is one of my go to “fireside chat” sites where you can see real stories and comments about things we care about without the CIA propaganda we get from practically all non-alternative sources. You all are one of the fires that burns to light the way and comfort us that there are indeed still sane people around during the night we are enduring.
God bless you all and keep up the excellent work. I’m sure the Lord will reward you all in the next life and hopefully in this life as well.
What a lovely thing to say! I like that the blog goes on whether or not we’re here. You’re a big part of that.
Misha, it’s a joy to read such compliments. We can’t thank you (as well as our other readers/contributers/commentators) enough.
I second that emotion!
I have a lot of shame myself in how I judged in my deluded in the past brain some of the Russian Orthodox Patriarchs and leadership during the Soviet period – such as Patriarch Pimen and Metropolitan Nikodim, for example.
I was wrong to judge them – growing up in late 20th century America as an Orthodox Christian was so different than trying to live in Soviet Russia as an Orthodox Christian.
I’ve been reading a lot about Patriarch Pimen and his life and have grown to have such deep admiration and respect for him.
Even one of my favorite saints – St Matrona of Moscow – she didn’t urge her fellow Russians to overthrow the Soviets! Love your neighbor, behave lovingly to those whom God puts in your path, protect yourself and your family, learn how to suffer, serve God with your life. This is it.
But this approach is so different than much of the judgmental triumphalistic garbage that we sometimes hear – that “real Christians” wouldn’t deign to let themselves live under Soviet rule.
Thanks so much for this post, Misha.
Great question.
“ Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?”
Great piece. Love Solzhenitsyn. He’s a breath of fresh air in this crazy world.
Looks like they’re full-steam-ahead moving forward with it in 2025.
George and Gail, why don’t you submit a paper?!? I’m sure it’ll be accepted…. haha.
You go first!
FTS, Wow.
The Council of Nicaea (325) is foundational for Orthodox-Catholic unity. They are very bad boys: Pope and Bartholomew. Very bad.
If the Roman Catholic Church were to return to both the letter and the spirit of the Council of Nicaea, it would be foundational for Orthodox–Catholic unity!
The Ephors said to Philip II of Macedon: “If…”
My point exactly.
I can’t go. I’ll be too busy washing my socks.
2025 is a long way off, who knows what the world will look like at that point.
The West is already starting to drop Ukraine like a political hot potato. The Dems don’t want a Ukrainian loss to tarnish their 2024 chances so they are in the process of phasing out discussion of it.
What does this have to do with the above article? Bart has outlived his usefulness to the West so why would they continue to support him?
He’s a pariah in the Orthodox world. So imho if Bart and the fordhamites want to go Rome or whatever their plan is for this Frankenstein “church” then, Ciao.
Having just returned from Europe, including Greece, I can tell you that of the 3 Greeks I spoke to about Barts plans to unite with Rome they laughed and said that would never happen in Greece.
The RC “Synod on Synodality” starts tomorrow and goes through the end of October. Given the problematic statements already from Francis on same sex blessings, and the refusal to punish the German Bishops Conference who is already allowing for same sex blessings, this is the direction that Francis is, and has been, steering the RCc since his election. It’s also the direction papalism has been moving since the notion of development of doctrine, with a speeding up at Vatican 2.
My own personal opinion, for what its worth and as a former RC, is that this will be much worse than Vatican 2.
Why? Because at least at Vatican 2 had a semblance of tradition (in the RC communion) that was left over from the “old days” which at least stifled the more radical aspects of the council.
What does Catholicism have in 2023:
Almost 60 years of no catechesis, collapse in RC doctrinal beliefs, collapse in the RC belief in the real presence, collapse of liturgical and devotional life, collapse of the monastic life to where its essentially non-existent. Promotion of cardinals, bishops and priests who promote things antithetical to RC beliefs.
This synod is opening up decisions on doctrine/practice to laypeople who, for the last 60 years of the above mentioned problems, have been formed in a version of Roman Catholicism that is in collapse and so radically different than pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism that it’s impossible to see how this will not be a disaster.
That’s why it’s bafflingly to me, and presumably other converts to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, why any Orthodox whether they be laypeople or clergy would want anything to do with Roman Catholicism. Do Roman Catholics occasionally say good things, sure, but so do Muslims, Jews, Hindus and atheists. Does that mean we should hitch our bandwagon to them? Absolutely not.
So much of government is theatrics, they play an actors role while the machine grinds to its inevitable end. No system on Earth has lasted more than a few hundred years (with the possible exception of Byzantine Rome) before it succumbs to the weight of accumulated greed and corruption, ours is certainly no exception.
I agree there is much to be admired in the Constitution and indeed I have pledged my allegiance to it I suppose hundreds of times since I was a child. But bureaucracy is the poison of even the best intentioned systems of governance, diluting the limits of authority as it expands until we have a thousand despots, each with their own little kingdom. I believe that is why the economy of scale is quite low when it comes to quality governance, Singapore or Sweden may be exemplary in many ways but are not repeatable in a country as large as the USA or even Australia. Russia is still fairly autocratic but at least attempts to have its own interests as the rationale for its policies, while the “free world” embarks on a trip right back to where Solzhenitsyn came from. And I fear the blue haired Bolsheviks will be combine the righteous indignation of the Soviet’s with the demonic fervor of the horde which called out for Lot to send out his guests that they might be “known”.
From a black combat veteran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3ygMNBSRCg
Not too long ago, I finished the three volumes that have been translated into English of Archimandrite Athanasios Mitilinaios’ talks to his own community during the 80s on the book of Revelation.
It’s much more than just another book about the end times or the Antichrist, but one thing he did say about what Christians are to do when the Antichrist appears and we are being persecuted is not to stand and fight. It’s to flee. Flee to the desert.
That doesn’t sit very well with me. But there it is.
Historically, flight to the (literal or metaphorical) desert has often been a positive development for the Church. Early Christians fled from the world and created strongholds of prayer in the desert. These grew into the monastic movement, which provided the spiritual backbone for the late Roman Empire.
There’s 5 volumes in case you hadn’t located them yet. Great series, but don’t worry there is a happy ending.
Good initiative by Patriarch Theophilos but not exactly sure why he needs to include Francis in this.
In my replies on the “Black Pill” article (which were not posted, I don’t know why), . . .
EDITOR NOTE: We’re not a platform for those who trash our blog.
My wife’s family, and my wife herself, were Soviet citizens by birth. They resisted the system in a way they could. None of them becasme a member of the communist party, even when encouraged by the local authorities. As a for instance: Senior Lieutenant Geroev refsued to become a member of the Communist party and was stuck at his rank until he took his pension. No huge sacrifice, but that was his resistance to the corrupt Soviet Union. He forewent “career progression” on principle. Small things like this add up.
I don’t think the real Right in the US has faced the dilemma that it is in, judging from the rhetoric I hear from MAGA. “Restoring the Republic” will not work. The Dems and Uniparty have torn up the Social Contract with the overthrow and persecution of Trump. Their only path to government now is a police state. They are at war with over half the electorate. Which means . . .
. . . returning to some status quo ante simply tees up another opportunity for them to seize power and disenfranchise the Right. Sooner or later, it will dawn on the Right that the Republic, in the old sense, is dead and that the choice now is between left wing totalitarianism or right-wing authoritarianism, the main difference being the religious base of the Right. They have to be willing to impose the latter to avoid the former. It’s that simple.
The Right cannot afford to delude itself that it can share power with the Liberals. The Liberals are absolutely committed to one party rule. If the Right is not also committed to the same, it loses. It’s an equation.
If the Right maintains an adherence to the two-party system and somehow makes believe that some electoral rebuke of the Dems will bring them to Jesus, they are dangerously and gravely mistaken. If the opposition is playing zero sum and you’re not, then you simply prolong their march to complete victory by providing a period for them to rest and regroup every time you temporarily win.
They must be permanently defeated and that cannot happen within the two-party system. So MAGA must win by such margins that it can consolidate power once it is in office and erect a plethora of barriers to the Uniparty ever gaining electoral power again. This will almost by definition be authoritarian use of power. Disenfranchising the other side is ugly business. But it is completely unavoidable if they are devoted to disenfranchising you.
Now, the rhetoric will of course be tailored to fit American culture and they may, in effect, deny what they are doing even as they are doing it. But be prepared for the fact that if the Right is to prevail, they cannot do it by playing by the rules.
We’re past the rules. “War is not about who’s right, but who’s left.”
Here’s a good take in the critics of Gaetz.
What is being revealed is just how uphill a battle we face. Consider even Boebert and Greene balked at the motion to vacate. And that is within MAGA.
The influence of the Uniparty Establishment runs very deep.
Regrettably, one of my Senators (Markwayne Mullin) is talking smack about Gaetz. I’d say that he’s been tasked by the Uniparty to help them take Gaetz down.
At least they’re not racist. It’s not just
the white folks that they want to kill…
COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere:
Denis G. Rancourt, * PhD ; Marine Baudin, PhD ; Joseph Hickey, PhD ;
Jérémie Mercier, PhD
https://correlation-canada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-09-17-Correlation-Covid-vaccine-mortality-Southern-Hemisphere-cor.pdf
Abstract
‘ Seventeen equatorial and Southern-Hemisphere countries were studied (Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay), which comprise 9.10 % of worldwide population, 10.3 % of worldwide COVID-19 injections (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person, all ages), virtually every COVID-19 vaccine type and manufacturer, and span 4 continents.
In the 17 countries, there is no evidence in all-cause mortality (ACM) by time data of any beneficial effect of COVID-19 vaccines. There is no association in time between COVID-19 vaccination and any proportionate reduction in ACM. The opposite occurs.
All 17 countries have transitions to regimes of high ACM, which occur when the COVID-19 vaccines are deployed and administered. Nine of the 17 countries have no detectable excess ACM in the period of approximately one year after a pandemic was declared on 11 March 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO), until the vaccines are rolled out (Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines, Singapore, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay).
Unprecedented peaks in ACM occur in the summer (January-February) of 2022 in the Southern Hemisphere, and in equatorial-latitude countries, which are synchronous with or immediately preceded by rapid COVID-19-vaccine-booster-dose rollouts (3rd or 4th doses). This phenomenon is present in every case with sufficient mortality data (15 countries). Two of the countries studied have insufficient mortality data in January- February 2022 (Argentina and Suriname).
Detailed mortality and vaccination data for Chile and Peru allow resolution by age and by dose number. It is unlikely that the observed peaks in all-cause mortality in January-February 2022 (and additionally in: July-August 2021, Chile; July-August 2022, Peru), in each of both countries and in each elderly age group, could be due to any cause other than the temporally associated rapid COVID-19-vaccine-booster-dose rollouts. Likewise, it is unlikely that the transitions to regimes of high ACM, coincident with the rollout and sustained administration of COVID-19 vaccines, in all 17 Southern- Hemisphere and equatorial-latitude countries, could be due to any cause other than the vaccines.
Synchronicity between the many peaks in ACM (in 17 countries, on 4 continents, in all elderly age groups, at different times) and associated rapid booster rollouts allows this firm conclusion regarding causality, and accurate quantification of COVID-19-vaccine toxicity.
The all-ages vaccine-dose fatality rate (vDFR), which is the ratio of inferred vaccine-induced deaths to vaccine doses delivered in a population, is quantified for the January-February 2022 ACM peak to fall in the range 0.02 % (New Zealand) to 0.20 % (Uruguay). In Chile and Peru, the vDFR increases exponentially with age (doubling approximately every 4 years of age), and is largest for the latest booster doses, reaching approximately 5 % in the 90+ years age groups (1 death per 20 injections of dose 4). Comparable results occur for the Northern Hemisphere, as found in previous articles (India, Israel, USA).
We quantify the overall all-ages vDFR for the 17 countries to be (0.126 ± 0.004) %, which would imply 17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths worldwide, from 13.50 billion injections up to 2 September 2023. This would correspond to a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.
The overall risk of death induced by injection with the COVID-19 vaccines in actual populations, inferred from excess all-cause mortality and its synchronicity with rollouts, is globally pervasive and much larger than reported in clinical trials, adverse effect monitoring, and cause-of-death statistics from death certificates, by 3 orders of magnitude (1,000-fold greater).
The large age dependence and large values of vDFR quantified in this study of 17 countries on 4 continents, using all the main COVID-19 vaccine types and manufacturers, should induce governments to immediately end the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly residents for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made. … ‘
7. Conclusion
7.1 Causality proven
The 17 countries studied (Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Malaysia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay) comprise 9.10 % of worldwide population, 10.3 % of worldwide COVID-19 injections (vaccination rate of 1.91 injections per person, all ages), virtually every COVID-19 vaccine type and manufacturer, and span 4 continents.
The scientific tests for causality are amply satisfied, as extensively demonstrated in these sections of the present paper:
• COVID-19 vaccines can cause death
• Absence of excess mortality until the COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out
• The COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives and appear to be lethal toxic agents
• Strong evidence for a causal association and vaccine lethal toxicity
• Causality in excess mortality is amply demonstrated
• Assessing other interpretations of the cause of the excess mortality
• Implications regarding age-dependence of fatal toxicity of COVID-19 vaccines
Also, there are no known facts that disprove the inferred and quantitative causal relation between the observed excess ACM peaks and the temporally associated COVID-19 vaccine and booster rollouts.
7.2 Actual vaccine mortality much larger than
that incorrectly inferred from faulty data
There can be little doubt that the peaks in excess ACM are caused by the COVID-19 vaccinations, with a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR = (0.126 ± 0.004) %, or approximately 1 death per 800 injections, which is reasonably expected to be globally representative.
This is a staggering number, compared to what is generally believed about traditional vaccines, which is approximately one serious adverse effect per million (Malhotra, 2023). It is three orders of magnitude (one thousand times) larger.
In contrast to this large number from ACM data, the effective all-ages vDFR values inferred from other sources — the small number of autopsy confirmations, adverse effect monitoring of deaths, the small number of national vaccine injury compensation payments for deaths, pharmaceutical-industry clinical trial reports, and death-certificates and corresponding government-reported cause-of-death statistics — for COVID-19 vaccines are significantly smaller, again by orders of magnitude.
Therefore, we conclude with a high degree of certainty that adverse-effect monitoring, clinical trial reports, and death-certificate statistics greatly underestimate the fatal toxicity of the injections.
The large gap between incorrectly inferred and actual population-level vDFR values probably occurs because of systemic avoidance of admitting the injections as a possible cause of death in frail and vulnerable patients. For example, the cause(s) of death will be attributed to particular organ or system failures, without reference to the vaccine, even if the injection was recent and the patient was previously stable.
The measured all-ages vDFR of (0.126 ± 0.004) % implies that 17.0 ± 0.5 million COVID-19 vaccine deaths would have occurred globally, up to 2 September 2023. It appears that the global COVID-19 vaccination campaign was in effect a mass iatrogenic event that killed (0.213 ± 0.006) % of the world population (1 death per 470 living persons, in less than 3 years), and did not measurably prevent any deaths.
7.3 The policy of prioritizing elderly residents
for COVID-19 vaccination must be ended
The detailed age and dose-discriminated data for Chile and Peru allows unprecedented certainty in quantifying the age dependence of the fatal toxicity from COVID-19 vaccines. The risk of death per injection (vDFR) increases exponentially with age, for 60+ years ages, doubling approximately every 4 years in age, and attains values of approximately 5 % for 90+ year-olds subjected to dose 4 (2nd booster). VDFR = 5 % corresponds to 1 death per 20 injections of dose 4 for 90+ year-olds.
These vDFR values are consistent with all prior evaluations based on ACM:
• 1 % (1 death per 100 injections) (nominally all ages) in India (Rancourt, 2022)
• 0.55 % (1 death per 180 injections) for 80+ year-olds in Israel (Rancourt et al.,
2023; their Table 2)
• 0.93 % (1 death per 110 injections) for 85+ year-olds in Australia (Rancourt et al.,
2023; their Table 1)
The population-level age-dependence of vDFR (doubling every 4 years in age) and its large magnitude should induce governments to immediately implement an absolute pause on the baseless public health policy of prioritizing elderly people for injection with COVID-19 vaccines, until valid risk-benefit analyses are made and publicly reported.
The same may be true of seasonal influenza vaccines. … ‘