Skip to content

Russian Exceptionalism & The Universal Church — Guest Post by Ianto Watt

North, South, East, and West. Kent Clizbe, my intelligent friend, continuously looks to these directions, searching the horizons, seeking to understand the coming weather front. He never seems to realize that there are two other directions. The only two directions from which all truly human storms can approach.

What then are these other two directions? Where should I look to see? First, look up above. Second, look down below. Now draw a line between these two points. Notice the perpendicular nature of this direction. And realize that without this added vertical dimension, nothing horizontal can make sense. Not in the long run. And that’s all that concerns me.

Why is that? Because without these two additional points of reference, my friend’s understanding of the world-map is flat. Two-dimensional at best. His compass is of no effect. And he is lost in time, as the timeless approaches. Yet this friend truly is intelligent. He can comprehend vast quantities of horizontal data. He can quantify it, and thus feels he has comprehended the meaning of all visible events.

But in his counting of chariots, he has confused cause and effect. The continuous flow of time, chock-full of new data waiting to be counted, has hypnotized him. Yet time takes no pause, and so the task is endless. Until it ends. And the horizon disappears. That will leave the only two points that actually matter. Up and down. And the denizens of each have no desire to cross the abyss and visit each other.

I speak of things unseen, but which surely must exist. Things like love, faith, and fealty. Things that you cannot touch or see, but which surely have driven the true life of man throughout history. My friend may think religion is a byproduct of history, and thus cannot be the cause, rather only the effect of the things men say and do. I say the opposite. I say that history is the result of religion, and that religion is the cause of what men say and do. I say further that if you do not understand that, you will never understand the course mankind has trod, nor where it is headed in its long march through time. Ask your local Imam or Rabbi if I’m right. Or try your local priest.

After all, did some men become Hebrews because they left Egypt? Or did they leave Egypt because they were already Hebrews? I know, there are some that say that indeed, it happened the first way, and not the second. So then, why didn’t the Hebrews change again when they left Israel in the next Diaspora? Have they not remained steadfast in their stiff-necked faith, regardless of where they have found themselves? Why was this their only constant?

Would not Christianity have been different in every country, if my friend is right? After all, each new country was made up of men of a different culture. Yet was not Christianity one, with one tongue, one doctrine and one act, for over a thousand years, wherever it was seen and heard? No, the local cultures did not change the Church as it marched through the continents. The Church changed them. And made them one. And yet allowed each to remain distinct.

I could go on with generalities, but let’s not. At least for now. Instead, let’s look at some of the particular things my friend has recently said, and see if they bear the marks of what I have generally described above.

My friend writes that “In the early days of the struggle for world domination between the USA and global communism, American statesmen were clueless about the enemy they faced.  They were clueless about the rules of the struggle. They were ignorant of the communists’ tactics.  And they arrogantly refused to learn.

“Today, Briggs hosts the even more confused, confusing, and convoluted meanderings of Ianto Watts (sic). While Watts is surely expert in tangled webs, I’m not quite sure what his point is. His fascination with the Russian church, and its centuries of machinations is probably useful somewhere—maybe the Crimea, or Dagestan—but probably not for Americans trying to understand what happened to our country, and what’s happening now.”

Do you see what I mean? He feels that the Greco-Russian (Eastern Orthodox) Church and its doings and beliefs have meaning somewhere, but certainly not anywhere outside Russia, or its near abroad. And certainly not here in America.

He fails to see that while he starts his study with a truly concise analysis of Communism and the tactics she has used against the people of Russia, and then against the West, Russia today is not Communist. Yet he feels the danger has not passed. And indeed, it has not. As I have said, my friend is quite intelligent. He is right in so many microscopic ways. But he cannot see the big picture. He cannot connect the dots. Because he has a blind spot. He can’t explain the change in Russia, unless he claims it has not changed in the least. In which case, the original threat was not Communism, no?

Now I will claim that Russia has not changed in the least. But I also do claim that the original threat was not Communism. I claim that it was Russian chauvinism, and that it has manifested itself in various ways at least since the fall of Constantinople in 1453. And that the one constant in the story of Russia has been her schismatic Greek Orthodox heritage. Orthodoxy has formed Russia since her national beginnings. From the time of Vladimir the Great until now. But my friend cannot allow that this heritage drives Russian actions. He feels that this heritage is incidental to her acts.

This brings up my friend’s second inability. He sees time in segments instead of a continuum. Because of this, he sees peoples and tribes in the same way. That is to say, fractionally. Yet tongues and time are tied together, forever. We still have Latins. We still have Franks. We still have Teutons. We still have Angles and Saxons and Jutes. And we still have Slavs. And they never change unless they change their beliefs. Just ask Henry. Or Charlemagne. And Clovis.

Now my friend says that the Greek Orthodoxy of the Russian past is irrelevant today. Here are his words: “The details of their history and religion are interesting, no, fascinating. But useless in understanding the Russian influence operations against the USA. A brief overview of the background can be found below:”

My friend then goes on to describe the Communist tactics used against the West, and gives no hint that these tactics are the timeless means of destroying an enemy, any enemy. Tactics used by every Empire from day one. Yet he feels they are indigenous to Communism, which, unnoticed by him, seems to have disappeared from the Eurasian entity known as Russia. He is arguing circularly. Either these tactics are exceptionally Communistic, or else they are purely Russian. Which is it, my friend? Because if these tactics against the West supposedly began in 1917, in the guise of Communism, how can they continue today if the costume has changed? If Communism has fallen, was it really the true threat?

I will be the first to agree that the tactics continue and that the threat has not changed. But I do not believe that Communism was the real threat. I believe it was, and continues to be, Russian Exceptionalism. ‘Communism’ was simply a Russian ruse. The only constant in this Russian equation, apart from the Slavic racial element, is the cultural constant of Orthodoxy. Why? Because it is this exact belief system that has seized the Russian psyche from her earliest beginnings and whispered in her ears that she is the True Rome. Both Holy and Imperial. Which is why she has always called herself ‘Holy Russia‘.

I have said it before. This feeling of Exceptionalism is not new. It has been there from day one. Just look at the self-given name of these people: Slav. What does it mean? It means The Word. It means Glory. It means Fame. This exceptionalism came to its head in the early 1800’s with Fedorov and his doctrine of Russian Cosmism. Not Communism. Cosmism. In other words, the idea of Universal salvation for all mankind, through the Slavic nation.

This Russian Exceptionalism began with the Russian rejection of the West in the time of Vladimir the Great’s embrace of the Eastern Roman Empire that Vladimir married into. And to be the true descendant of this Empire (which Russia claims to be), she must adopt the same Imperial religion as the Byzantines of that day. That would be the Eastern Orthodoxy of the Photian Schism in 863. This schism, in new garb, continues to this day. The current (but long-standing) Orthodox objection to Holy Rome centers on the status of the Unia. But that’s a story for another day. Here’s the short point: the schism continues. And that supports the Russian claims to exceptionalism in the ecclesial sphere of life. Just as her political claims to the throne of the Roman Empire support her claims to secular exceptionalism.

The only question then, from the Russian perspective, is this: in what manner will Russian Exceptionalism save the world? Will Russia save mankind by military might (like Alexander I, defeating Napoleon, for example)? Or will it be scientifically delivered by Fedorov, and his physical resurrection of all the dead? Or will it be philosophically accomplished by Tolstoy, or rather Dostoyevsky? Or will it be theologically delivered, via Solovyev and his Divine Sophia? Or will it be economic salvation, as attempted by Lenin, and then Stalin? Or will it be monarchial in nature, as Putin resurrects the Autocracy?

Or will it be all of the above, in the person of the Patriarch of Moscow, as he brings unity (and then salvation) to all mankind? Now ask yourself this question. What was the common thread of Russian belief throughout this entire period, from Vladimir the Great until now, in the time of Vladimir the Greater? Yes, it was (and is) Greco-Russian Orthodoxy. In spite of the Bolsheviks. Lenin and Stalin were just speed bumps. Lezhashchii politseiskii. ??????? ??????????? They’re gone, and only stiff-necked Orthodoxy remains.

Yes, you can touch and count all the noses you want. You can cite all the surveys you can find that tell us that only a minority of Russians still identify with the Orthodox Church. But you can’t explain away the fact that throughout her millennial history, the rulers of Russia have always depended upon this very same institution for their legitimacy and support. Even Stalin had to acknowledge this in his time of deepest danger from the West. And that is what Orthodoxy has always delivered; protection from the West.

Throughout every age, in the face of every threat (and opportunity) to their nation, the rulers and people of Russia have always taken their final refuge in the Russian Church. Regardless of how many actually attended church each Sunday, regardless of the relationship between the throne and altar, and in spite of any hostilities between the people and the Patriarchs, one thing has remained constant. Refuge in the Church. Vlad Putin is no exception. Patriarch Kyrill has the keys to that Church. So, be nice, Vlad. Be nice.

So when my friend says that Greco-Russian Orthodoxy is simply an interesting but historically anachronistic detail of Russia history today, and that by extension, religion is only a small (and not the decisive) factor in the life of most nations today, he is whistling past the graveyard. How can I say this? Simple. It’s because the abandonment of a religion is a theological move in and of itself. Even atheism is a religion. Religion is everywhere. Even if you can’t see it.

Do I need to remind anyone that the greatest weakness of the West is theological in nature? And that the danger the West faces had its origins in the long-standing opposition of the Orthodox towards Holy Rome that culminated in 1962, in the form of Vatican II? Ostpolitik was what we called it in the Sixties. They called it Jiu-Jitsu. For it was here that the East overcame the West, by the subversive means my friend describes in exquisitely accurate detail. They used our own force, our own freedoms, against us. We failed to understand that freedoms must have limits. Otherwise, they can be used against us. Subversively, as Kent has shown so well.

Yet these subversive means were primarily directed most effectively at the Universal Church, and not towards any particular Western government. Ask your self this simple question: is the crisis of will in the West the result of the same governmental mistakes in every single western country? Or is it the result of the monumental shift that occurred when Holy Rome let down her guard in her feckless attempt (aggiornamento) o ‘accommodate’ the modern world by ‘updating; the Church? Where was the largest segment of the Church in that day (as it still is now)? The Western hemisphere (Brazil, Mexico and America).

After all, all of the tactics Clizbe has described, from the control of the media, to the collapse of educational discipline and to the loss of filial bonds to faith, family and fatherland, were all directed primarily at Holy Rome. Why? Because Holy Rome was the single greatest constant in the life of all the nations of the West. Weaken Holy Rome and you have weakened all the rest. Wouldn’t this be the most efficient means of subversion? Why would anyone on a budget do otherwise? And isn’t this exactly what has happened? Just look around you. On any Sunday.

Yes, I know. Clizbe says that this was a Communist plot. But ask yourself this. Did the Communists really refuse to allow the Russian Orthodox Patriarch to attend Vatican II, if it would be used as a platform to denounce Communism? Or was it really the Patriarch who used the Communist Party as his foil to avoid coming to Rome if Pope John XXIII decided to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima and to call for the Consecration of Russia? Yes, Fatima. You know, that crazy apparition of The Beautiful Lady, when she asked (before the Revolution) that we pray for the conversion of Russia. Conversion from what? From Orthodoxy. What else could it be?

Seriously, what else could it be?

Ask yourself these simple questions before you say religion is simply an interesting but minor detail of any nation’s life and direction. Is Russia officially a Communist nation today? Or is she an officially Orthodox nation today? And is Russia unified and growing stronger today? What then is the source of her unity and strength?

Now ask the same things about the West. Is the West still officially Christian today? Or is it operationally Communistic? And is the West still strong and unified today? What then is the cause of her dissolution and weakness?

If you say it’s Communism, don’t blame Russia, because we are the Commies now. And if you say it is Russia, don’t blame Communism, because she isn’t Communist anymore. It has to be something else. But whatever else we may disagree on, I do agree with this. The danger we face is Russian in nature. And the timeless nature of Russia is schismatic Greek Orthodoxy.

So there it is, my good friend. It’s all I know to tell you. I don’t know what else to say. And if it is still all Greek to you, then all I can say, in the end, is this: Kyrie eleison!

14 thoughts on “Russian Exceptionalism & The Universal Church — Guest Post by Ianto Watt Leave a comment

  1. “did some men become Hebrews because they left Egypt? Or did they leave Egypt because they were already Hebrews?”

    Neither. Israeli archeologists began looking for evidence of the Exodus upon the establishment of the modern state of Israel, and eventually were forced to conclude that it never happened. It’s just another biblical myth, no more real than Noah’s ark.

  2. I understand the general thrust of Mr. Watt’s thinking, but two points of uncertainty:

    1. The Russian Orthodox Patriarch used the Communist Party as his foil, etc.: however, the Patriarch was a KGB agent, was he not? So who was the real foil?

    2. If Communism and the Bolshevik Revolution were just another form of Russian exceptionalism, how do you explain (as Abp. Fulton Sheen pointed out) that (a) Communism was a creation of the West (i.e. Marx & Engels), and more specifically, ethnic Jews in the West, and (b) almost all of the Bolsheviks were also ethnic Jews? In other words, was the Synagogue of Satan (i.e. the ancient and more recent but still old Pharisee/Talmudic hatred of Christ) using Russian exceptionalism to further its own ends, or vice-versa?

    As a further note about Marx, he was a Satanist (as Cardinal Pacelli discovered upon researching him). Moreover, the Freemasons, who were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, are also Satanists. So I’m leaning, not unlike a certain tower in Pisa, towards Russian exceptionalism being a cloak for Satanic rebellion and global dictatorship.

  3. Israeli archeologists began looking for evidence of the Exodus upon the establishment of the modern state of Israel, and eventually were forced to conclude that it never happened.

    I went looking for evidence for the existence of Lee Philips upon reading his comment, and eventually was forced to conclude he really doesn’t exist.

  4. Gary:

    One can only conclude that, unlike the Israeli archeologists, you do not know where and how to look for evidence in the places where it is most likely to be found.

  5. But why is Russian chauvinism and exceptionalism more significant and dangerous to world in general than American or Chinese or Indian chauvinism?

  6. My Missus is presently rushing in a panic because I’m in an apoplexy of confusion. Am I loosing my mind? Is it possible that I agree with YOS about something?

    Well, I’ll console myself by kicking the ball further in the direction indicated by YOS. I will contend that Eastern Orthodoxy is a subtle Rabbinical corruption of Christianity that makes Orthodoxy a tool of a nationalistic Messianism… in its inception and intent it is barely distinguishable from Muhammadanism and Protestantism. The Synagogue of Satan fears and abhors only one thing… Christendom united in belief and diverse in race, culture, nationality etc.

    I have long had the inkling that Lanto was onto it but for reasons of political correctness he would not say so directly.

  7. Dr. Watts,

    Not sure what you’re saying here (as usual!), but cutting through the Eco/Brownian wrapper, this is what I get:

    “Russian Exceptionalism is a threat to mankind/the West/the world. And the phenomenon of Russian Exceptionalism is due to the Russian Orthodox church and its hierarchy.”

    If I’m getting your message wrong, or missing something, I apologize. Umberto Eco is a jumbled mess of confused jabbering. I could not get through Foucalt’s Pendulum without laughing out loud, and falling asleep at the same time. And Dan Brown’s conspiracy novels are just an extension of Eco’s Italian confusion. Vague references, Socratic rambling, and unclear exposition are difficult to parse.

    You may believe you’ve discovered 8 dimensional chess, and that I’m stuck in the 2D world. All the while, as you’re contemplating Orthodox navels, thieves and brigands are robbing you blind, plundering your household, and making off with your women, here in the 3D world. The difference is not “horizontal” and “vertical” (or something?), but rather fantasy and reality. Let’s just say that I’ve spent a lot of time here in 3D, discovering, uncovering, and reporting on frauds, conspiracies, fakes and conjurers.

    Back to the “dangerous Russian Exceptionalism fueled by their religious convictions” that appears to be your concern.

    Forgive me for presuming, but it appears you may not be familiar with humanity and its civilizations and societies. There’s an entire branch of study, called Anthropology, that deals with human culture and its manifestations. As an expert practitioner of what I call “Applied Anthropology,” let me enlighten you on the subject of what you appear to believe is Russia’s startling and threatening uniqueness, and let me disabuse you of the notion that this startling uniqueness is neither unique nor threatening.

    Excuse the caps, but I don’t know how to do bold-face here, and the emphasis is required:

    A group of humans can be a family, or tribe, ethnicity, or nation, or other grouping. But what makes them a group is their culture. EVERY culture believes it is Exceptional. EVERY culture has a mythology that supports its Exceptionalism. EVERY culture disdains others. EVERY culture looks down on “others.” EVERY culture, to a greater or lesser extent, believes they will dominate all others. Many, and probably MOST cultures, have religious narratives, stories, myths, beliefs, and practices that support their own Exceptionalism. MOST cultures have a name for themselves that usually translates to “The People,” or “The Special Ones,” or “The Chosen.”

    French believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Basques believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Normans believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Swedes believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Welsh believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    English believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Lombards believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Catalans believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Inuit believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Cajuns believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Aztecs believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Yakuts believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Mongols believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Japanese believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Malays believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Javanese believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Tausug believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Hawaiians believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Bushmen believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Amarak believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Haitians believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Puerto Ricans believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Ashanti believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Ewe believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Hausa believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Tutsi believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Portugese believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Sicilians believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Maltese believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    Libyans believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL.
    and on, and on, and on……

    Examine the beliefs of another several hundred cultures, and you’ll find that they ALL believe their culture is EXCEPTIONAL. They all believe their religion is destined to destroy all unbelievers. (Note: The exception proves the rule. So, please do point out exceptions.)

    So, what is it that makes Russian Exceptionalism so unique and threatening?

    Now, for the difference between Communist beliefs and Russian Exceptionalism, which you appear to conflate.

    First, Russia was the closest, and weakest target for the Marxist theology, as the belief system ripened. Revolutionary Russia had a unique combination of weaknesses–government, social pressures, ethnic and nationality mix, was enmeshed in a lost war, with a large oppressed religious minority, the Jews, living within its borders, and more.

    Second, the majority of the major figures in the Bolshevik Revolution were NOT Russians! Lenin, of mixed races, was as close as the Revolutionary upper echelons got to an ethnic Russian. The Times of London’s correspondent was on the scene of the Bolshevik Revolution, and provided a comprehensive description of the revolutionaries and their nationalities–note, at the time, Jewish people’s nationality was identified as “Jew” or “Hebrew” as they were generally not integrated into their host cultures. You’ll find, in reviewing the Bolshevik history, that more Latvians, or as they were called then, “Letts” were active than most other national groups.

    The Bolshevik Central Committee members were:

    NAME, NATIONALITY
    Bronstein (Trotsky), Jew
    Apfelbaum (Zinovief), Jew
    Lourie (Larine), Jew
    Ouritski, Jew
    Volodarski, Jew
    Rosenfeldt (Kamanef), Jew
    Smidovitch, Jew
    Sverdlof (Yankel), Jew
    Nakhamkes (Steklof), Jew
    Ulyanov (Lenin), Russian
    Krylenko, Russian
    Lounatcharski, Russian

    And the Council of People’s Commissars members were:

    MINISTRY, NAME, NATIONALITY
    President, Ulyanov (Lenin), Russian
    Foreign Affairs, Tchitcherine, Russian
    Nationalities, Djugashvili (Stalin), Georgian
    Agriculture, Protian, Armenian
    Economic Council, Lourie (Larine), Jew
    Food, Schlichter, Jew
    Army & Navy, Bronstein (Trotsky), Jew
    State Control, Lander, Jew
    State Lands, Kauffman, Jew
    Works, V. Schmidt, Jew
    Social Relief, E. Lelina (Knigissen), Jew
    Public Instruction, Lounatcharsky, Russian
    Religions, Spitzberg, Jew
    Interior, Apfelbaum (Zinovief), Jew
    Hygiene, Anvelt, Jew
    Finance, Isidore Goukovski, Jew
    Press, Volodarski, Jew
    Elections, Ouritski, Jew
    Justice, I. Steinberg, Jew
    Refugees, Fenigstein, Jew
    Refugees (assist.), Savitch, Jew
    Refugees (assist.), Zaslovski, Jew

    The managing members of the “Extraordinary Committee”, that is the Cheka, which became the KGB, were:

    NAME, NATIONALITY
    Dzerjinski (president), Pole
    Peters (vice-president), Lett
    Chklovski, Jew
    Kheifiss, Jew
    Zeistine, Jew
    Razmirovitch, Jew
    Kronberg, Jew
    Khaikina, Jew
    Karlson, Lett
    Schaumann, Jew
    Leontovitch, Jew
    Jacob Goldine, Jew
    Glaperstein, Jew
    Kniggisen, Jew
    Latzis, Lett
    Schillenkuss, Jew
    Janson, Lett
    Rivkine, Jew
    Antonof, Russian
    Delafabre, Jew
    Tsitkine, Jew
    Roskirovitch, Jew
    G. Sverdlof, Jew
    Biesenski, Jew
    Blioumkine, Jew
    Alexandrevitch, Russian
    I. Model, Jew
    Routenberg, Jew
    Pines, Jew
    Sachs, Jew
    Daybol, Lett
    Saissoune, Armenian
    Deylkenen, Lett
    Liebert, Jew
    Vogel, German
    Zakiss, Lett

    The “executioner of the Revolution,” the Cheka, was headed by a Pole, Dzerzhinsky, and his chief executioner, Jake Peters, who operationalized the bullets to the brains plans of the Bolshevik leadership, was a Lett.

    You can count the Russians in the ranks of the top 100 Bolshevik leaders on two hands.

    With that background, let’s compare Communism’s (or better yet, its Marxist-Leninist manifestation) designs on global domination with “Russian Exceptionalism’s” non-existent global control.

    Marxist-Leninist beliefs literally required Communism to sweep across the globe. Lenin interpreted Marx’s doctrine as requiring the “natural evolution” of communist economies to spread like a wildfire around the world, once the first communist revolution was successful. The entire Bolshevik/Marxist-Leninist international relation infrastructure was built on that requirement, and on the assumption that such an eventuality was a given. The Comintern was a manifestation of that requirement. Its entire mission was focused on overthrowing and controlling every existing government in the world. The Soviet Elite Vanguard, according to Marxist-Leninist doctrine, was the select assembly that would guide the world to Communist utopia.

    Russian Exceptionalism? Sure, they believe they are Exceptional–who doesn’t? But their doctrine does not require Russia to control the world. Russian doctrine, with its left-over communist tinges and fossilized memories of global greatness, may occasionally look like a return to Soviet days. But, seriously, what countries does Russia control now? What is today’s Russian equivalent of the Iron Curtain?

    If you think Russian foreign power today is anything like Soviet foreign power, you’re losing your memory. The USSR was actively striving to take-over the world. Russia is actively striving to maintain relevance in its own (admittedly huge–their country covers 11–that’s ELEVEN–time zones) geographic region. Absolutely no comparison, except in the fevered imaginations of political operatives in Obama’s and the Clintons’ foundations.

    So, to sum up: the obsession with Orthodox vs. Roman Christianity, and the Russian clerics, or whatever it is that is hidden in the Eco-ian verbiage, was probably a useful study–10 centuries ago. Maybe even three centuries ago. But since 1776, and the earlier Protestant reformation, power has shifted from Rome and Constantinopole to America. America was the greatest threat to the Comintern, and was therefore targeted for destruction. The Russian priests were oppressed, and folded into the Communist hierarchy. Turks long ago seized Constantinopole. Catholicism is a rump remnant of its former splendor, thriving among tribal populations in Central America and Africa.

    To understand what’s happening in the world today, one must understand the power of the former American Exceptionalism, and its destruction by the Comintern’s covert actions. The appropriation of the Comintern’s espionage tactics by other national and political interests (see yesterday’s American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital for the best example of the results of these tactics), and related activities dominate the world today. Understanding the strategies and tactics will reveal all you need to know to decipher global, and American politics. No need at all to dive into Orthodox conspiracies, or whatever….

  8. This what it means

    https://www.goarch.org/-/kyrie-eleison-lord-have-mercy

    Kyrie eleison , kyrie eleison, kyrie eleison. Part of any Orthodox Christian liturgy.

    Ianto Watt seems to write from an academic viewpoint ( and perhaps some prejudice) and an extreme Protestant background probably Welsh in origin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSe4UrhBkIA

    Introduction to the Orthodox Faith – Lecture 1
    For those who just might become interested in what Orthodoxy is. Better than looking for a book.! Don’t listen if you don’t want to 🙂

    Here are the words of the liturgy generally used.

    http://www.stgeorgenj.com/the-divine-liturgy-of-st-john-chrysostom.html

    The Orthodox Church is world wide even as far as the Antipodes.
    http://www.antiochianarch.org.au/

  9. I’ll just note that the Church considers (as she should, given the truth of Catholicism) prince Vladimir I to be a saint, and his icons are fittingly venerated at the very least by Russian Catholics.

  10. Mr or Professor Ianto Watt seems the equivalent of Titus Oates. He
    was the one you remember who stirred up the “No Popery, No Wooden Shoes.” riots in England.
    The peasants of France wore wooden sabot and were “Papists” so any dealings with France were to be forceably denied by the mob.

    British people had rough leather boots. Sheep provided the wool and leather
    for clothing. French peasants seem to have worn hempen clothing and sabots.
    The riots were against a king who was too fond of France. English did not trust the king of the French . It was a secondary item that they were Papists , not all were of course, and there was still a lot of puritanism in England after the Civil War and Commonwealth

    The anti Russian Orthodox Church sentiments may come from the large number of Ukrainians in North America. The Ukrainian ‘Orthodox’ Church are on the verge of being censured by the rest of the Orthodox Churches because of their extreme attitude towardthe Russian Orthodox. Setting churches on fire and injuring religious and clergy, I hear. The democratically elected government has been set aside, too.

    Since the U S is on the Ukrainian side you won’t hear about that in the mainstream news media.

    Ukrainians do not seem always popular with their neighbours in E Europe

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Titus-Oates

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/History

    Mr or Professor Ianto Watt seems the equivalent of Titus Oates. He
    was the one you remember who stirred up the “No Popery, No Wooden Shoes.” riots in England.
    The peasants of France wore wooden sabot and were “Papists” so any dealings with France were to be forceably denied by the mob.

    British people had rough leather boots. Sheep provided the wool and leather
    for clothing. French peasants seem to have worn hempen clothing and sabots.
    The riots were against a king who was too fond of France. English did not trust the king of the French . It was a secondary item that they were Papists , not all were of course, and there was still a lot of puritanism in England after the Civil War and Commonwealth

    The anti Russian Orthodox Church sentiments may come from the large number of Ukrainians in North America. The Ukrainian ‘Orthodox’ Church are on the verge of being censured by the rest of the Orthodox Churches because of their extreme attitude towardthe Russian Orthodox. Setting churches on fire and injuring religious and clergy, I hear. The democratically elected government has been set aside, too.

    Since the U S is on the Ukrainian side you won’t hear about that in the mainstream news media.

    Ukrainians do not seem always popular with their neighbours in E Europe

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Titus-Oates

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/History

    Just a warning
    Don’t use wikipedia about anything Orthodox.

    Mr or Professor Ianto Watt seems the equivalent of Titus Oates. He
    was the one you remember who stirred up the “No Popery, No Wooden Shoes.” riots in England.
    The peasants of France wore wooden sabot and were “Papists” so any dealings with France were to be forceably denied by the mob.

    British people had rough leather boots. Sheep provided the wool and leather
    for clothing. French peasants seem to have worn hempen clothing and sabots.
    The riots were against a king who was too fond of France. English did not trust the king of the French . It was a secondary item that they were Papists , not all were of course, and there was still a lot of puritanism in England after the Civil War and Commonwealth

    The anti Russian Orthodox Church sentiments may come from the large number of Ukrainians in North America. The Ukrainian ‘Orthodox’ Church are on the verge of being censured by the rest of the Orthodox Churches because of their extreme attitude toward the Russian Orthodox, I think. Setting churches on fire and injuring religious and clergy, I hear. The democratically elected government has been set aside, too.

    Since the U S is on the Ukrainian side you won’t hear about that in the mainstream news media.

    Ukrainians do not seem always popular with their neighbours in E Europe
    The Russian Orthodox viewed as Satanic seems extreme even for Protestants and may be from other sects.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Titus-Oates

    https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/History

    ,


    M E Emberson

  11. For Mr ‘Watt’ Here is a book recommendation . It can be read online

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/glyn-daniel/the-idea-of-prehistory/

    It is crucial for those interested in the various views of prehistory since the 19th Century when it became all too fashionable to have theories about this new field of study.
    Many unwelcome political ideas were developed from sudden fads . Diffusionism being one where all derived from Egypt and spread around the ancient Mediterranean . Megalith Culture another. Neolithic religion and long barrows
    Marxists and Anarchist used prehistory and so did those who saw a Master Race civilising the world.both in Germany and Eastern Europe. I hope you enjoy it.

    Glyn Daniel was a real Welshman.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *