Divide et impera: KGB influence on Middle East violence

CLICK TO BUY

As I watch the nasty business with the Gaza Strip, I continue my reading of Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism.  It was written by the former head of Romanian intelligence together with a law professor who is an expert on evidence (and on the smearing of the reputation of Pius XII). (UK link HERE)

Here is an excerpt, which pertains to what is happening in the Middle East right now:

By 1972, Andropov’s disinformation machinery was working around the clock to persuade the Islamic world that Israel and the United States intended to transform the rest of the world into a Zionist fiefdom. According to Andropov, the Islamic world was a petri dish in which the KGB community could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought. Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep. The message was simple: The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology. Andropov pontificated that “we” should make them feel sick to their stomachs just thinking about that “Council of the Elders of Zion” (meaning the US Congress), the aim of which was to have the Jews take over the world. We should whip up their illiterate, oppressed mobs to a fever pitch. Terrorism and violence against Israel and America would flow naturally from the Muslims’ anti-Semitic fervor, Andropov explained. The Kremlin has always been a strong advocate of divide et impera. The split between the Judeo and the Christian worlds generated by the framing of Pius XII proved that this archaic strategy of divide and conquer worked in modern times as well. In 1972, Andropov launched Operation “SIG” (Sionistskiye Gosudarstva, Zionist Governments). This was the code name for a “socialist division of labor” aimed at turning the Islamic world into an “explosive” enemy of the United States. The Romanian DIE’s [Romanian intelligence agency] sphere of influence for the operation embraced Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, where Romania was involved in building hospitals, schools, and roads and maintained large colonies of builders, doctors, and teachers. The DIE’s task was to scour Romania for trusted Communist Party activists belonging to Islamic ethnic groups, train them in dezinformatsiya and terrorist operations , and infiltrate them into its target countries. They would be charged with the task of implanting a rabid , demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by many people in that part of the world. Before I left Romania for good, in 1978, the DIE had sent about five hundred undercover agents to its Islamic target countries— and, as I later learned, it continued to send such agents until the Soviet bloc collapsed, in 1989. Most of them were engineers, medical doctors, teachers, and art instructors. According to a rough estimate received from Moscow, by 1978 the Soviet bloc intelligence community had sent some four thousand such agents of influence into the Islamic world. The assumption was that about 70– 75 percent of those assets would end up being really useful. In 1972 , the DIE received from the KGB an Arabic translation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion along with “documentary” material, also in Arabic, “proving” that the United States was a Zionist country whose aim was to transform the Islamic world into a Jewish fiefdom. The DIE was ordered to “discreetly” disseminate both “documents” within its targeted Islamic countries. During my later years in Romania, every month the DIE disseminated thousands of copies throughout its Islamic sphere of influence. In the meetings I had with my counterparts in the Hungarian and Bulgarian services, with whom I enjoyed particularly close relations at that time, I learned that they were also sending such influence agents into their own Islamic spheres of influence. (Kindle pp 256-257)

And then there is this:

On December 31, 2000 , President Putin, celebrating his first anniversary as president, announced that Russia had a new national anthem. In fact, the law signed by Putin restored the melody of Stalin’s national anthem, which had been prohibited after the collapse of the Soviet Union . Those original lyrics, written by the poet Sergey Mikhalkov, praised Stalin, Lenin, the Communist Party, and the “unbreakable” Soviet Union. At Khrushchev’s request, Mikhalkov wrote a second version of the lyrics, removing Stalin’s name, after his memory had become politically unpalatable. Mikhalkov has now again rewritten his lyrics, this time to satisfy Putin. Yelena Bonner, the widow of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrey Sakharov, denounced Putin’s actions in this matter as a “profanation of history.” Putin disagreed , explaining: “We have overcome the differences between the past and the present.” (p 267)

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Religion of Peace and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Divide et impera: KGB influence on Middle East violence

  1. Priam1184 says:

    I’m confused Father. What exactly are you saying here? That Putin tricked the Israelis into being stupid enough to launch a ground invasion into a massively tangled and densely populated urban environment like the Gaza Strip that Hamas has been preparing for for the better part of a decade?

  2. incredulous says:

    “The Muslims had a taste for nationalism, jingoism, and victimology.” In a similar vein it sounds like the Sinsinawa Dominican Sisters. They are nationalist in the manner that their world view is based on their own tribe/culture, i.e. wymen “victims”. It’s the result of the same communist psyops methodology. We know the source.

  3. danidunn says:

    “You will know them by the fruits they yield”

    I think with all of the trouble the Russians are having with Chechnya and other Muslim populations that we can see the fruits of the seeds they have sewn. Or, in the words of another eminent theologian, “their chickens have come home to roost.

    And, reflecting on the imam’s remarks in the Vatican garden, further down in Mathew, “so, indeed, any sound tree will bear good fruit, while any tree that is withered will bear fruit that is worthless.”

    “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Christianity did not expand throughout the know world by the sword but through love and bearing ills patiently. Instead of complaining about every conceivable insult, we should be doing as the Lord commanded and turning the other cheek. By this, we will win over the non-believers. This does not mean to standby and getting slaughtered, but it does mean that we should not get upset because people (which we now know may also mean corporations) do not say Merry Christmas. We will conquer by bearing witness to the Gospel and this may mean a smaller Church in the short time.

  4. Supertradmum says:

    I had friends from both Croatia and Serbia who fled the war there. Europe and the USA ignored the fact that this area was being stirred up not only by ancient ethnic prejudices, but by the Russians as well. The old Soviet tried to assassinate Tito many times, because the Soviets wanted control and a free Serbia would allow this. That the Soviets helped the divide and conquer in old Yugoslavia is clear in history-although at that time they were against the Muslim Croates.

    The population of Muslims in Russia is about 16 million. It is not the largest of the minorities, but potentially the most dangerous. As Putin witnessed in Checnya, some areas will fight him.

    But, the EU and Israel, which is an odd combination of Europeans and Middle Eastern Jews, as well as ex-Russian Jews, are the great nemesis of Russia. The age-old hatred of Jews in Russia, as documented in the pogroms, still exists. Both the Muslims and Russians have a common goal-the destruction of Israel.

    Where does Hamas get the sophisticated weapons? Where do the Saudis get weapons? Where do the Syrian rebels get weapons? Where do the Ukrainian separatists get weapons? France does not have enough to sell to all these, and more Muslims, such as the ones in Africa.

    To deny that those who hate democracy and the only Jewish nation on earth would unite to wipe Israel off the face of the earth is simply naivete.

    Once a Marxist, always a Marxist. Once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent. Putin did not get to power by being a nice guy, but a shrewd, highly intelligent and anti-West leader.

    Americans are asleep.

  5. J_Cathelineau says:

    With due respect, let me say that in my opinion Putin is an extreme right wing nationalist with populist tendencies (a typical Russian phenomena), and the only marxist in this story is Barack Hussein Obama. A 60´s marxist, meaning anti-colonial, left winged muslim. He profoundly dislike Israel and personally, Netanyahu.
    That is why he encourage and gave arms to all the muslim terrorist groups including the ones that are attacking Israel now, and by the way, killing Christians all over.
    Your country used to be a warrantor of peace or, at least, balance. Now with this President things have changed a lot. And I mean your President, not American people.
    This is the way things seems to be from the outside.

  6. Amerikaner says:

    Putin is only getting warmed up.

  7. Tamquam says:

    Am slogging through it, thanks for the heads up on this book, Fr. It makes me think of KGB defector Yuri Bezemov. A very instructive fellow.
    http://associationoffreecitizens.org/2012/02/19/hard-to-find-yuri-bezemov-video/

  8. Priam1184 says:

    @Supertradmum

    I am very dubious that Putin has any interest in destroying Israel. The Israelis are doing a fine job of that themselves. A large portion of the Israeli population is Russian speaking and, despite the pogroms of the past and their difficult time in the Soviet Union, still maintain close links with the motherland. I was in Israel three months ago and if you sit in the terminal at Ben Gurion airport and look at the monitors, half of the flights are going either to Russia or to some other area of the former Soviet Union.

  9. incredulous says:

    How about a real, explicit consecration of Russia? Our Lady did have an instruction along those lines…

  10. Reconverted Idiot says:

    @supertradmum “Once a Marxist, always a Marxist.”

    Nope. I love your writing, but please avoid these kinds of generalisations, so I can avoid the need to write lengthy comments in rebuttal, which I then delete and think and think “whatever” about….

    Thanks.

  11. Johnno says:

    Israel created HAMAS to counter the secular Palestinian nationalists & Yasser Arafat, and the American CIA tried to Radicalize Muslims further to have them fight against the Russians, in turn creating the Mujaheddin & Al Queda.

    America supplies arms to Islamic Jihadis through various channels. America supplied the gas to the Saudis who supplied it to the Syrian rebels who let it loose, and then America lied that Assad did it, no different than when it claimed Saddam Hussein had WMD.

    Frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if the non-democratically elected but American installed Kiev government were the ones who shot down the Malaysian airlines flight and then tried to pin it on the pro-Russian fighters with Washington’s backing to frame Russia for political gain. Another false flag operation.

    For whatever Putin’s faults, he’s the way-lesser of two evils in this conflict. And aren’t we all about voting for the lesser of two evils because there’s nobody perfect? Hmmm? But if you want Russia to be perfect, then the Pope and world’s bishops know what they’re supposed to do.

    The Communist threat is the BIGGEST problem you face! Not the supposed Jihadis who are its useful puppets whenever they need a convenient boogeyman. And Communism’s errors are alive and well and celebrated in America! Many Americans and Western people for that matter truly are asleep and missing the forest for the trees.

  12. jflare says:

    Priam, Reconverted,
    I’m thinking I’d go rather more slowly in dismissing Supertradmum’s comments. I think we’d all prefer to understand the world in optimistic terms, but I’m not convinced that we’re justified in doing so. Whether Putin is now or has ever been a card-carrying Marxist–or not, he DOES know how to wield power and influence in a way that can be dangerous to anyone he perceives as an enemy. Unfortunately, that all too easily could be us.

    Keep in mind, flights going between Russia and Israel don’t precisely prove friendly and willing relations. Rather, it means that neither country has forbidden such flights from occurring. Yet.

    Consider the effect of 9/11: We went from busy skies to near dead silence aloft in a matter of a few hours. Assuming you could find them, the only aircraft allowed were military fighter jets and related support aircraft. We remained that way for days.
    If either Israel or Russia deemed the other as a threat, you can bet those flights would cease quite quickly, family connections be hanged.

  13. CrimsonCatholic says:

    @supertradmum

    Where does Hamas get the sophisticated weapons? Where do the Saudis get weapons? Where do the Syrian rebels get weapons? Where do the Ukrainian separatists get weapons?

    Easy answer, the same place where the drug cartels got theirs, from ole Barry in the White House.

  14. Supertradmum says:

    Reconverted Idiot, I was referring to Putin. You should talk to Europeans on the ground. The Poles and others in the old Soviet regime understand what is going on. They are very, very concerned.

    Americans are naive for the most part on the reality of Russian politics and war-mongering.

  15. pj_houston says:

    @incredulous
    As well, Pope Pius XI decreed the prayers after the (Latin) Mass should be for the chief intention of the the return of Russia to God. Not a time for the priest to tell us there’s coffee and donuts in the parish hall, and the KofC are having a chicken raffle.

  16. SKAY says:

    Tamquam–thank you for the video link –wow. It goes right along with this post by Father Z.

    The former KGB defector in the video describes Ted Kennedy and all the leftists in the US perfectly Putin knows exactly who Obama is and is behaving accordingly and can’t believe his luck. Bezenov uses the term “usefull” idiots quite a lot and they are not just in the US. They knew what our media was then–and for the most part–still is.

    “Americans are naive for the most part on the reality of Russian politics and war-mongering.”
    So true, Supertradmum Same for China. Americans are also naive about what is happening within our own country and our freedoms.

  17. SKAY says:

    Sorry–Bezemov.

  18. Charlotte Allen says:

    The Soviets might have been anti-Israel, but Putin’s main job is promoting a Putin-led Russia, not reviving the Soviet Union. Of course the Poles hate Putin and everything else Russian. The Poles and the Russians have been at each other’s throats for centuries, since there is no natural border between those countries. My theory is that the Israelis and Putin have plenty of back-channel communication and also a good deal in common. This main support for the Gaza Palestinians is coming from (1) other Muslim countries; and (2) cultural Marxists in the West who view Israel as a bulwark of their hated Western civilization. Muslims and cultural Marxists are natural allies in their detestation of Christianity. Putin is one of the few vocal defenders of beleaguered Christians in the Middle East. You don’t hear a word of support for them from, say, the Catholic bishops of the West, who seem fearful of offending Muslims.

  19. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    Well, quite interesting claims, especialy if we know that Nicolae Chaucesku, despite being Communist dictator was US ally.
    Anyway, do you really think Russia has something with Middle East radical militants? Lets, see it from this perspective, who produced Osama bin Laden, and trained him military? First letter C, middle I, and third A, its acronym and its major inteligence agency of Second biggest country in Northern America.
    Who was selling weapon to Saudia Arabia, which is supporting Hamas, and various Syrian jihaists? Major US party which is never considered leftists, and who had one mid level actor as its greatest president in past 30 years…
    You think, KGB is bad? Yes they are dreadfull. But they did not invaded Iraq and left it, leaving milions of dolars in weapon to ISIS. Dont blame Putin for incompetence of non-Marxist Bush. Obama is ridiculous? Without any doubt. He is laughing stock worldwide. But George H. W. Bush was as well, and Bil Clinton, and even Ronald Raegan. Raegana and Clinton had enormous luck, he had even bigger clowns like Gorbatshcov and Yeltsin… but Obama and Younger Bush could not afford such luxury.

    Now, I understand you all are American patriots, but please, dont dogmatise it. United States are not craddle of Christianity, nor its Champion. It was founded by bunch of deists, Anglo-Saxon supermacists, who were strongly influenced by ideas of various European Christianophobes. Of course, US is country of grat democratic tradition. But, it is not Christian country. Nor is modern Russia. But when you compare Putin with your past few Presidents… you have one bad Christian and few bad quasi-Christians.

    And, just check who was plying with Islamist rebells in half of world, and now has terrible problems with them. And dont worry for Israel, they know how to defend themselves. Also, Putin know how to crush Chechen rebells. But why US did not Crush Islamists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Think a bit.

  20. Tamquam says:

    Thank you, danube-bosphorus-moskva, for illustrating perfectly the art and science of dezinformatsiya. Couldn’t have done it better myself.

  21. SKAY says:

    In case you are interested in more truthful American history, danube-bosphorus-moskva — and Catholic signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

    Charles Carroll of Maryland signed the Declaration of Independence and his cousin Danial signed the Constitution. Another Catholic Thomas Fitzsimons also signed the Constitution.
    John Carroll,brother of Danial, was the first Catholic bishop in the US. Hardly Christianophobes.

    Many of the other signers were not Catholics-but they certainly were Christians.

    http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0016.html

    By the way, Stalin was an ally of the US during WWII. Nothing to be proud of but
    we were all at war with a common enemy. There is a difference I hope between
    the Russian people and their communist leaders.

  22. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    SKAY, have you ever heard of Thomas Jefferson, and his stance on Christinity? Do you know how he purged Bible from Christianity? How he called Christianity superstition? Do you think, somehow Carrolls were more influental than him? Did you at any point counted how many Masons were among Signers of Decclaration of Independence? Did you for some reason, forgot discrimination, Roman Catholics faced in few first decades of existance of United States.
    And, my point about book from OP, you have former chief of Securitatea, who is by misterious way involved in KGB dealings, despite the fact Causesku was ally of United States. Do you think KGB was composed of idiots who would make such data available to Romania? Do you think, internal inteligence service, like Securitatea was somehow involved in foreign inteligence?

  23. SKAY says:

    danube–

    “It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House–a practice that continued until after the Civil War–were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a “crowded audience.” Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”

    I hope you read the link I put on my first comment about Charles Carroll.
    “Catholics could no longer hold office, exercise the franchise, educate their children in their faith, or worship in public. With the Declaration of Independence, all this bias and restriction ended. Charles Carroll first became known in colonial politics through his defense of freedom of conscience and his belief that the power to govern derived from the consent of the governed. He was a staunch supporter of Washington,”
    There is a lot more about Mr Carroll. I think he was a lot more influential at the time than most of us ever learned.

  24. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    Jefferson was not Christian. Neither Madison. For Washington, there are contradictory data. But, here are his own words:
    Thomas Jefferson on four Gospels:
    “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to Him by His biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same Being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the dross; restore to Him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others, of His disciples. ”
    Thomas Jefferson on clergy:
    “They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.”

    “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. ”

    “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.””

  25. SKAY says:

    danube–

    My whole point is to say that the founding of our country and the people involved is much more complicated than your blanket statement of the “founders” indicate. I am not arguing whether Jefferson was or was not a Christian. In allowing church services in the Capital building and attending does seem to say that he was not anti Christian. You can “say” you are Christian and then try to destroy any Christian religion that does not conform to your ideology(as we are sadly experiencing in this country at the highest level).
    In my journey as a convert–I know people are capable of changing. John Adams -a founder and 2ed President was certainly a Christian. He and Jefferson had a very interesting friendly yet adversarial relationship during their lifetime. They were both in France for a time -at the same time.
    I think things are beginning to be more clear about Washington — we seem to have had some books trying to insinuate something that is not true. I will agree–he did not chop down the cherry tree. : )
    I do have a book on my Kindle about Jefferson–because after reading about Adams I thought I needed to know more about Jefferson. I wanted to make a fair comparison since I come away from the John Adams book not liking Jefferson very much.
    This is a good bio about John Adams-at least I think so– if you are interested.
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_1?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Ajohn+adams+big+by+mccullough&keywords=john+adams+big+by+mccullough&ie=UTF8&qid=1406134665

  26. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    Seems we somehow misunderstood. I told that among leading founding fathers of US, there was lot of Christianophobes. Not in sense, they were persectuing Christians… but if you read about time of Enlightement, and Rationalism, it was quite modern to question Christian Dogma, and make ridicule of it… Further problem was that, people in same time, felt no binded to be formal Christians (in case of bulk Founding fathers of US, they were nominal Anglicans/Episcopalians)… they had, lets say genuine dislike for Christianity, and inherrited antipaty towards Roman Catholicism… that was my whole point. There is famous atraty between Bey of Tripolis and US, where US Senate, mad declaration that US is not founded on Christian principles. True majority of people were Christians, its tuth even today… but it does not mean intelectual and political elite was trully Christian. Hope you now see what I wanted to say.

    PS, Adams was afaik, Unitarian. I guess he could be labeled as some kind of Christian..

  27. jflare says:

    danube,
    When I read postings like what you’ve written, I find that I have little choice but to groan. Certainly it’s a good thing to review the character of the US from the outside, but I think your appraisal suffers distinctly from a recency bias; one that many a secularist will thrill to read, but which substantially blinds one to the whole of the facts of history. It’s quite true that the United States, in the sense of being based on the Constitution, was not founded as a Christian nation per se. Our Founding Fathers not only did not adequately agree regarding what faith tradition would be followed, but also remembered the Church of England all too well, and knew they wished to avoid that path altogether. They instead depended on the standing Judeo-Christian culture of the nation to determine how faith would be practiced and lived. Interestingly, they did so some two centuries before John Paul explicitly stated that law follows culture!
    We can certainly agree that Jefferson, Franklin, and others remained especially skeptical of faith in general, and certainly they held Catholic faith in great disgust/contempt. We can also agree that this nation witnessed intense anti-Catholic prejudice throughout it’s history. I think you’d be gravely mistaken though, to assume that the nation has never intended Christian ideals. If anything, while secularists will loathe to hear it, Charles Carroll and others certainly did exercise a degree of influence. Perhaps not as much as our more famous figures, but let’s remember that the Constitutional Convention wasn’t a four-man affair. Washington may have chaired it and kept the delegates in line; Madison may have developed some of the key political content. Neither wrote the entire thing on their own. We have too little understanding these days of how much influence most of the delegates might’ve exercised within their own States, but the whole crowd of delegates wrote the Constitution.
    I understand just find that secular interests don’t want to admit it, but schools actually did recognize the virtue of religion, with the wider public’s general consent, for a solid 150 years, until the Supreme Court decided that such things could not be admitted in 1954. Such secular intentions have been on an angry tear ever since.

    As for the merits of the CIA, Putin, bin Ladin, or whomever, remember that Reagan operated from the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” in political terms. I think he understood the implications of that idea very well, as Putin does now (and probably did then).
    Is Putin backing Mid-East violence? Who knows? I think though, whether he’s supporting them or not, he’s not detracting from them. He wouldn’t for obvious reasons: They’re going against a nation that he, Putin, will naturally view at least in part as an enemy or probably enemy.

    Such is the way of statecraft when non-Christian values receive the most emphasis.

  28. Reconverted Idiot says:

    Supertradmum: “Reconverted Idiot, I was referring to Putin. You should talk to Europeans on the ground. The Poles and others in the old Soviet regime understand what is going on. They are very, very concerned.

    Americans are naive for the most part on the reality of Russian politics and war-mongering.

    1) I AM a European on the ground.
    2) thanks for the gracious response.

    Whatever Putin is or isn’t, you are better than such silly generalizations. Get over it.
    God bless.

  29. Reconverted Idiot says:

    Hmm, I take that second part back. I’m sorry.

    Seriously, I do know what you’re trying to say. Only today I was talking with a close friend about Putin, ex-KGB “true-believer”.

    One way of seeing it, I think, is almost as though Russia has gone back 100 years in one sense, but retained the worst of the Leninist-Stalinist authoritarianism mid-period in another sense. It isn’t ‘communism’ for sure – hence the ambiguosity – but then, neither was Bolshevism and all it’s children. I don’t mean the canard “communism was never tried” (it was, it failed — bolshevism was but one form of that failure) but that what Putin is advancing is a weird novel political philosophy (sure, another child of Bolshevism, if you like) which is an amalgam of the worst of pragmatic capitalism on one hand, with a strange (as in unfamiliar) dependence on a corrupt oligarchy on the other. As with China and Mao’s Cultural Revolution (with the utter destruction of all historical tradition), it seems that ‘communist revolutions’ clear the ground, not for a new egalitarian order of peace, but for a mid-period preceding the arrival of an ugly monstrosity which may be communist in name, and capitalist in ostensible political philosophy, but which is ultimately an amalgam of the worst excesses of each.

    I hope this is clearer.
    Best wishes, and thank you for sharing your insights.

  30. Reconverted Idiot says:

    Re: being a “European on the ground” fwiw: my grandfather on my mother’s side was an Eastern European Jew whose family escaped the pogroms and fled to the UK. He fought in WWI, and my uncles – his sons – fought in WWII. My grandfather on my father’s side was killed in the North African campaign in WWII.

  31. The spread of the “errors of Russia” should not be news to any Catholic.

    This is why Mary begs us to pray the Rosary. Sister Lucy was told that the Rosary today has been given unprecedented power by God.

    This is why Mary tells the Church to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart [which according to Sister Lucy won’t be done until its virtually too late]. To avoid the he-said she-said hearsay and arguments about the Consecration having been properly done, simply compare the texts of the consecrations to the specific request of Our Lady of Fatima. The requirements don’t match. And the ills and evils of Russia continue to spread, that is what first made me wonder, as I myself used to argue with those that said the Consecration hadn’t been done.

    Of course the Russians are sneaky and doing stuff behind the scenes while looking peaceable and innocent. They did the same thing in World War II. It worked then.

    Pray the Rosary. Every day as frequently as possible. The Five First Saturdays are very, very important [Holy Communion, confession, say the Rosary, intend to make reparation to the Immaculate Heart]. Pray for the speedy triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our Lady said she would save the world through the Rosary and the Scapular.

    Jesus told Sister Lucy that the triumph over evil must be through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This will prove to Lucifer the power of our Blessed Mother. This will fulfill Scripture.

    You want to fight the devil? The errors of Russia? The 15 Mysteries of the Holy Rosary is the weapon. Waste no more time, put it in your hand and ‘do battle’.

  32. jflare says:

    “The 15 Mysteries of the Holy Rosary is the weapon. Waste no more time, put it in your hand and ‘do battle’.”

    Agreed. However, on a somewhat technical note, there are now 20 mysteries, not 15.

  33. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    It’s quite true that the United States, in the sense of being based on the Constitution, was not founded as a Christian nation per se. Our Founding Fathers not only did not adequately agree regarding what faith tradition would be followed, but also remembered the Church of England all too well, and knew they wished to avoid that path altogether.

    For most part they were part of Church of England. Which was established Church in most of colonies.

    but I think your appraisal suffers distinctly from a recency bias; one that many a secularist will thrill to read, but which substantially blinds one to the whole of the facts of history.
    Thanks for accusing me for bias. I did not accuse anyone here, even tough I had chance to read implications that Russia is giving arms to Saudia Arabia and Syrian jihaists… My point was, key leaders of American revolution were religious sceptics, who while acknowledging existance of God, were quite biased towards Christianity in any form. That was not American problem. We are speaing about Age of Enlightment, when majority f intelectuals in Europe were quite biased towards Christianity. Key players among US founding Fathers were part of that cultural mileau, for most part. It is historical fact. US were not based as Chrsitan nation, I did not mean to denigerate US by that. Almost all countries in Europe, Americas, Eastern Asia and Africa are secularist… Just point was, US were never Chrstian nation, so looking for religious sanction to US foreign politics, is problematic, for Christians. Of course same applies for Russia, which, was, you had to admitt, Christian nation for most part of its existance, but today we have to secularist powers clashing.

    As for the merits of the CIA, Putin, bin Ladin, or whomever, remember that Reagan operated from the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” in political terms.

    My point of Reagan, was more about source of Claims from OP. Chief of Romanian Securitatea cant be argumentaitve source for KGB international dealings, since Securitatea was internal security agency, espionage was not its job, and Romania was US ally, so KGB and Soviets did not share vital informations with them. Anyway, about Bush (ex CIA) director, unless you accept double standards, he cant escape guilt by assotiation. KGB was doing murders, espionage, beatings etc. 100% treu. So does CIA, so if Putin is bad guy, older Bush is to. Even more so, Putin was officer at Leningrad office of KGB Bush was chief of CIA.

    About Middle East, well historical facts say both Soviets (now Russia) and US pull strings there. Sadaam Hussein was US ally, he refused to listen, attacked Quwait, so he was bombed. Latter, happened something, all we know what. US, invaded, Iraq become hotbed for Al-Quaeeda, and today, our Christian brethren in Mosul, suffer most.

    I understand point of being US patriot, but linking it with religion in any sense, or religiously demonizing Russia… it is bad Theology.

    You, as Roman Catholic, did not notice, Pope did not comment on Ukraine, or Putin?

  34. jflare says:

    I would love to dissect a good bit of that last posting, danube, because I think history reflects a rather more complex situation with religion in the US around the time of ratifying the Constitution. Regrettably, that’s not quite the point of the posting and I have pretty limited time, so I can’t go that route.
    I will say though, I’ve typically understood that this nation, or at least some of the colonies, came about in part because people aimed to be free from, not enmeshed in, the Church of England.
    I generally gather that we had quite a plethora of religious sentiments running about.

  35. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    It would be more true, if among signers of Declarationof Independence Angliacns would not be most numerous. Anyway, my point was, United States were not based on Christianity, nor partialy, on resistance to Church of Enlgand, both nominal and sincere Anglicans/Episcopalians, were leading force in Patriot case. It was political unrest, Collonies demanded places in English Parlaiment and latter Independence.

  36. jflare says:

    Being the most numerous amongst the signatories does not make the Declaration a statement of support for the Church of England, danube. No, the United States wasn’t explicitly Christian; it was based on a Judeo-Christian philosophy. In other words, if it wasn’t blatantly Christian, neither was it intended to be secular. Don’t forget, the 1st Amendment WAS written with the interest that no person would be required to join a particular church.

  37. jflare says:

    I should add, the fact that the nation was allowed to remain motivated by a general Judeo-Christian philosophy also means that the over-riding idea was that religious precept would have a place in public life. It simply would not come from one, single church, but would need to be agreed upon by most people who attended the various churches available.

  38. danube-bosphorus-moskva says:

    Being the most numerous amongst the signatories does not make the Declaration a statement of support for the Church of England, danube

    Of course. I just wanted to say, United States were not based on revolt against CoE, but against English King and Parlaiment…


    I should add, the fact that the nation was allowed to remain motivated by a general Judeo-Christian philosophy also means that the over-riding idea was that religious precept would have a place in public life. It simply would not come from one, single church, but would need to be agreed upon by most people who attended the various churches available.
    We could say that general Judeo-Christian philosophy, or better to say ethics prevailed even among quite anti-Christian movements, like French Jacobines, and Communists.

    Liberté, égalité, fraternité

    Anyway, I never argued US were anti-Christian… just most influentual Founding Fathers had significant bias against Christianity…