Thursday 17 September 2009

A New Dawn In The East

So, probably no “defensive” missiles in Poland or the Czech Republic, after all. Very close to Iran (of which, another time) as those countries obviously are, such location would in no sense have been an expression of hostility towards Russia. Would it? Russia understandably responded in kind and prepared to move her own missiles to within the old Kingdom of Prussia.

Obama should now make it clear that he wants nothing but peace with a country which, among so many other things, has done as both his new supporters across small town white America, and his bedrock supporters across black America, long to do, and restored the teaching of Christianity in schools.

Of course we should be developing nuclear power, and applying clean coal technology, for reasons including (though far from restricted to) the simple and indispensable principle that we should never be beholden to any foreign country, regardless of which one it is. This island stands on coal. And we can obtain uranium from the Canadians, who are not foreigners, but Her Majesty’s Loyal Subjects. We do not need either Arab oil or Russian gas. So we must, if necessary, force ourselves to do without them.

But today’s Russia, rather than the day before yesterday’s, has no reason to attack a country with bishops sitting as such in her legislature, with publicly funded Christian chaplains in her Armed Forces and her National Health Service, or with (at least on paper) Christian RE and collective worship in her schools.

Likewise, today’s Russia has no reason to attack a country with church taxes, with numerous public services provided by the churches as the largest employers after the several tiers of government, or with the Kirchentag. Russia has no reason to attack a country which recently reaffirmed that marriage is only ever the union of one man and one woman.

Today’s Russia has no reason to attack any beacon of Christian sacral monarchy, monarchy being an institution for which no purely secular argument can be created, and there being 11 Christian sacral monarchies in Europe (12 if you count the Vatican), which Russia would do well to join, and one of which also exercises several interrelated global roles such as make it the contemporary world’s pre-eminent or even only example of the tradition of the Holy Roman Emperors, the Byzantine Emperors, and the Tsars of All The Russia. And so on.

Spain, the Irish Republic (yes, the Irish Republic) and others need to make sure that they do not make enemies of today’s Russia by digging up their roots in Christendom. And we all need to watch out that we do not submit to Islamisation, not least including the creation of Islamic states in Europe such as Kosovo (although the cry of the muezzin now also echoes around Harvard Square), or the economic (and thus, inevitably, cultural and political) domination by the Far East.

But two Western countries have, for reasons of their own, particularly pressing needs to mend their ways.

One is France.

The other is the United States, where, if such things as California’s and Florida’s simultaneous results of the Presidential Election and of certain ballot line propositions are anything to go by, those most committed to such way-mending, and previously divided by ethnicity and pigmentation, last year united behind Barack Obama. But could just as easily unite behind someone else next time if he had failed to deliver the goods.

37 comments:

  1. David, I'd like to thank you for bringing this to people's attention. I like you am appalled that Russia would even consider using its military and economic power to force its own religious beliefs on sovereign nations. Well down for calling out this tyrannical and unchristian behaviour.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To protect the Biblical-Classical Christian heritage that it shares with other nations, peoples and communities, I think you'll find. Not least against the pseudo-West of stupefaction, promiscuity and usuary favoured by the old Trots who surrounded Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Laudable though both you and Putin may find this goal David, the means you are suggesting amount to no less than extortion and threats of violence. Despicable bullying, in other words.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe Zoe is thinking of Bush's war to convert Iraq to Christianity?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anna K, how, why, and compared to what?

    Kirkuk Kirk, of course that war was no such thing, nor ever claimed to be. It has brought the ancient Church in Iraq to the brink of oblivion. Assyrians are much better off in Iran than in Iraq. Just as Armenians are much better off in Iran than in Turkey.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Zoe those beliefs are the foundations of the states in question.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As of this one, Russian Rob. And as of the civilisation of which they and we are part. There has to be some bulwark. Would that there were more than one. Would that Britain were one. If the cards were played right, then wars on this point need never be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David, how and why what? You're the one who just told us that countries "digging up their Christian roots" need to be afraid of Russia - presumably you have some idea what it is they need to be afraid of. Based on you post, and recent events, I'd suggest blackmail through the withholding of energy resources, and the hostile deployment of missiles. You may of course have had other potential attacks in mind, when you wrote that Russia had no reason to attack the UK. I'd be interested to hear what you think those are.

    I'm not sure what comparison you need either, to be honest. Attempting to change religious attitudes in another country by means of military or economic power is bullying no matter who is doing it or which religion these attacks are in the service of. Surely you wouldn't disagree with that?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many hard line Russian Orthodox would be far from certain about Irish or Spanish Catholics for example. Or Dutch or Scandinavian Protestants in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is true, but they are at the margins politically. They can vote for hopeless finge parties. They can not vote at all.

    Or they can vote for those whose, on the principles set out here, are already backing Armenia and the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Armenians aren't Orthodox in the Russian (or, for example, Greek) sense, either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anna K, they (we) are not the ones trying to bring about any change, but simply to protect those who want things left as they are.

    From the French Terror onwards, we have learned what to expect when the forces now rampant in certain countries really get into their stride.

    That there is at least one brake on those forces is no bad thing at all. Would that there were more. Would that Britain were one.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rob, that's as may be, but if the people of that country want to change that, it's not to up to Russia or anyone else to scare them into doing differently. This is a very basic point about the nature of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What about the liberty of those who continue to adhere to a state's, a society's, a culture's and our whole civilisation's historic basis?

    Their liberty never lasts when the secular, "history begins with us" tyranny takes over, at any time at least from 1789 onwards. Just ask the Greeks and Armenians formerly of Atataurk's Turkey. Or the Chaldo-Assyrians of today's Iraq. They survived Islam. But they couldn't survive, and aren't surviving, this.

    There has to be someone looking out for them, for us.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The French Terror? Yes, when I think of a country which can save us from the ruthless suppression of dissent by a narrow political elite, it is to Russia that my hopeful eyes longingly turn. Only they can save us from the rampant Jacobinism currently ravaging the Republic of Ireland.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those are interesting historical parallels, David, uncannilly similar to the West in the early 21st Century. If I could highlight one slight difference, I would suggest that neither Britain nor anywhere else in the world is in danger of violent revolutionary overthrow, which I think might have some impact on your chances of avoiding jail and/or summary execution at the hands of a tyrrany.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry - for world read Western world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Gogol, not yet.

    But crosses banned from hospitals and such like? Catholic adoption agencies forced to place children with same-sex couples? The governing party requiring candidates for certain seats (such as this one) to sign up to nothing except abortion on demand up to and including partial-birth? That's how things start.

    And violent revolutions become much more likely when mass economic hardship is combined with rampant corruption at the centre, most of all when that centre is also compelling the country at large to fight a pointless war.

    "Only they can save us from the rampant Jacobinism currently ravaging the Republic of Ireland."

    Someone has to, Tolstoy. Someone has to.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good news, David:

    But crosses banned from hospitals and such like?

    This isn't true.

    Catholic adoption agencies forced to place children with same-sex couples?

    This isn't true.

    The governing party requiring candidates for certain seats (such as this one) to sign up to nothing except abortion on demand up to and including partial-birth?

    This isn't true.

    Phew!

    In any case, even if they were true, it would suggest the violent revolution you fear so much you want Russia to shut off our winter gas supplies and/or threaten to nuke us will be lead by people who are already in power. This seems unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
  19. All the things that you cite are perfectly true. The third one, at least, is very much a live issue in these parts as I write.

    Yes, this is a revolution from above. Until it gets out of control. Which is no doubt what the overgrown student Trots at the top want it to do.

    I am against nuclear weapons, and in favour of energy independence. Neither of these is the point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rob, are you going to respond to my point?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Im amused as much by the notion that Ireland (or the Irish Republic as it has been described) has anything to fear from Russia as I am by the notion that Canadians are loyal subjects of her majesty.
    We obviously know different Canadians.
    A full century ago a small weekly newspaper, The Skibereen Eagle was warning the Czar of Russia it had its eyes on him.
    Good to see you keeping this tradition alive David.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It is inconceivable that Canada could ever cut the tie with the Crown. Scotland and Canada guarantee each other on that score. And Canada would never do anything that made her less distinct from America, certainly nothing that required public consent rather than a political stitch-up. But it is time that the Crown did what it is supposed to, and guaranteed Christendom. Broadly conceived, perhaps. But even so.

    The Irish Republic is well on the way to being the most viciously anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, place. Anyone who sees any merit at all in the Faith, or even who wishes to set the historical record straight (just how many children were educated either by the Christian Brothers or the nuns, and just how many abuse cases have there been as a percentage of that?) is accused of wishing to return to "the bad old repressive Ireland", and cast out of cultural and political life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yes, David, but you're hardly in a position to answer for him.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If Russia is a ptential threat to Britain then it's sure as hell a potential threat to Ireland. The Irish have a disgraceful history of not pulling their weight unless you count their regiments in the British army. Never even joined Nato at the height of the Cold War but just assumed that America or really Britain would look after them. Like in the War.

    The term the Irish Republic is well chosen. As David sets out there is no little or no cultural similarirty between that country and not only the Unionists but also the Nationalists in Northern Ireland these days. They are nostalgic, Gaelic and Catholic. The South is now none of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zoe, he hasn't disagreed with me, although of course he is perfectly free to. Unless he says otherwise, one can only assume that he agrees with me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I don't only agree with David I have been transcended by him.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Irelands position in WW2 was exactly the same as USA, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium and Switzerland.....it was neutral.

    All of the above were neutral until attacked. Except of course that the "Irish Republic" sent (in a flagrant breach of neutrality) fire engines to deal with the blitz in Belfast and informed the Germans that a future attack was regarded as an attack on Ireland. Strangely no more attacks on Belfast.

    Which suited "loyal" unionists in the North. No conscription in "Norn Iron" as the population happily watched for fires that never happened.
    The first duty of a nation is to protect its OWN population. Ireland did exactly that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. More people from the Free State than the North joined the British Armed Forces during the War, so, among other things, one can't help feeling that there might as well have been conscription in the North, for all that anyone would have objected. Or had the divergence between Northern Nationalists and the South, now absolutely complete, already begun even then?

    The question of what Ireland ever did in the Cold War is a valid one, though. Provided troops for the British Army again, I suppose. The role of Ireland ever since the Union, her part of the deal (along with the treaty ports). And still going on, much as if nothing had happened.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The British army now parade through the streets of the South in dress uniform at funerals.

    ReplyDelete
  30. And God Save The Queen is sung at Croke Park. She herself has been to the Republic several times, I understand.

    The only thing keeping them out of the Commonwealth would now be that they have signed up to the decadent pseudo-West beloved of the neocons, rather than to the Christendom embodied by the Crown and to which every Commonwealth country, whatever its own history or composition, therefore has some sort of relationship because it acknowledges the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.

    Which brings us back on topic. Sort of.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Crosses banned in hospitals? Many NHS hospitals have chapels and chaplains, for goodness' sake.

    ReplyDelete
  32. For now.

    Let's keep it that way. However we can.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Right and proper that "God Save The Queen" was sung at Croke Park. I was actually there.
    And of course right and proper that the Last Post be played for a fallen British soldier (in I believe Westport County Mayo) and a fallen Canadian soldier in Dublin. Full military honours in I believe both cases.
    And of course equally right and proper that the young Irish soldier killed in a training incident in County Wicklow had the same honour in County Armagh.
    I myself have attended military and police funerals and they have a great sense of dignity.
    As for a Royal Visit. Well I dont think she has actually been ...although the Princess who does Eventing has been on many occasions as have various sons.

    Of course President McAlease (herself from Belfast) has a schedule which brings her to the North at least once every three months.
    The Commonwealth....well of course rejoining IS ON THE TABLE. But at a price.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What price? The Republic has everything it wants from Britain.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I do guess they want us bury alive? Or, what??? We need all the protection we can get due to the hate they have for us and our "Freedom"!!! Help!!!

    ReplyDelete