russia-insider--2020-10-10--Are Whites Really the Most Privileged Race in America?

`` The Yellow Jackets are n't roaming the streets of France , burning and smashing structures , because they are privileged , they are doing so because they are powerless .
They are in the streets trying to overthrow a highly oppressive , extremely privileged , supremely extractive bankster-owned power class ... '' This article from our archives was first published on RI in December 2018 White privilege is real .
Whites really do enjoy some privileges on account of being descended from other whites .
Whites daily enjoy the technological fruits of white genius , rights framed in law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the many good things which arise from parents and grandparents and great grandparents and even their predecessors who made good decisions and great sacrifices on our behalf .
White privilege is real .
You know what 's more real though ?
The privilege of those groups that exploit the nations and systems whites built , the machines whites invented , and the rights whites won , despite the fact that their ancestors had nothing to do with those feats , did n't earn them or sacrifice for them , and were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achievements and triumphs .
Indeed , many of these groups have far , far more “ privilege ” than do whites in the modern West .
Consider Jewish-Americans , a not truly white population which can trace its origins to the Near East .
On average , Jews earn three times as much money annually as white Americans .
Jews are 2 % of the country , and 40 % of the major donors to both major parties .
Talk about outsized power and influence .
What 's more , they are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like Jews , both of these populations also have far more wealth than whites on average , they are more likely to enter the U.S. power class , they are more likely to be millionaires , they have better health outcomes than whites on average , they are more likely to be doctors and scientists , they have access to greater resources in education , they enjoy even better public images than do whites ( “ model minority ” perks ) , they often ethnically network with impunity ( Hollywood/MSM – Jews @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they enjoy more advantages and more success than whites by every relevant metric of human success and well-being .
So why does n't the media address the outsized “ privilege ” of Jews , East Asians , or Indian-Americans ?
Why do n't academics study their “ privilege ” ?
Why are n't legislators trying to close the educational success gap between whites and East Asians ?
Why do Western elites long to bring whites down to the level of blacks ?
Why do n't they want to bring whites up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are n't Jews vilified daily for their outsized power and privilege ?
As it always is under Marxist systems , Cultural Marxist systems being no exception , the supposed dominant , oppressive class/group remains as the principal target of the proletariat 's malice and enmity long after the Marxists themselves have become the dominant , oppressor class .
The Cultural Marxists who today rule America are still waging a war against whites , long after whites ceased to be anything resembling a dominant power group in America .
“ White privilege ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cultural Marxist propaganda terms , is a vicious , racist slur .
Its roots simply can not be discovered in reason or data or truth .
It is rooted in prejudice and animus toward whites ( prejudice and animus felt by and exhibited by various non-white populations , Jews , Arabs , and blacks in particular ) , and in the selective vilification of one particular population for privileges and advantages which are actually more common and more pronounced among many non-white populations in America , and in the West more generally .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ privilege ” not anti-racist , it is the very opposite of anti-racist .
It is steeped in white-hatred , like the Cultural Marxist philosophical paradigm which spawned it .
The ugly reality of course , is that the few perquisites and privileges whites today possess merely on account of being white , are more than offset by the many systemic disadvantages whites now face in the nations our ancestors founded .
In fact , we are an aggrieved , despised , often completely ignored population in the modern West .
We dominate neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be no diversity seats set aside for our children at Harvard , I assure you .
While we generously , albeit foolishly give away our resources , our governments , and our lands to ethnically alien peoples , we receive only scorn in return .
When blacks spread into an area or a boardroom , it is considered “ progress ” , when whites spread into an area it is labeled “ gentrification ” or “ white flight ” ( dirty words ) , when we remain in a boardroom it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mere existence seems to offend those who rule over us .
The Yellow Jackets are n't roaming the streets of France , burning and smashing structures , because they are privileged , they are doing so because they are powerless .
They are in the streets trying to overthrow a highly oppressive , extremely privileged , supremely extractive bankster-owned power class comprised of various groups with diverse interests , but with a common enemy in us , their white subjects .
This power class clumsily and callously rules over us , routinely ignoring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the indigenous French people have had about enough of it , it would seem .
Granted , “ privilege ” is a complex issue .
Privilege is primarily a function of class , not of race , after all .
The notion that a poor white child on food stamps in Appalachia is more privileged than Tiger Woods ' non-white billionaire children is laughably idiotic .
However , to the extent “ privilege ” can be linked to race , whites do not possess the lion 's share of it , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The utterly anti-white , predominantly non-white folks who rule the Western World wo n't ever let you know that though .
You ca n't lead a class struggle against imaginary sources of oppression and imaginary oppressors if the common people know the truth about whose boot is on their throat .
Furthermore , the argument could be made that the anti-white , racist propaganda ( “ white privilege ” propaganda included ) which serves as the philosophical foundation for the Cultural Marxist class struggle here in the West , serves multiple other functions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place , so long as whites wrongly see themselves as powerful and privileged they will not rise up against their extractive , hate-filled , anti-white overlords .
In the second place , “ white privilege ” propaganda can be seen not merely as highly ideological , prejudicial , weaponized anti-white hatred , but as a shrewd , self-serving ploy by parasitic , anti-white , Cultural Marxist power players to offload the long-term consequences ( riots , coups , blame for market crashes , interracial violence ) of their own policies onto @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whites around the world seem to no longer be buying it .
They have identified the enemy , and it is no longer themselves .

"The Yellow Jackets aren't roaming the streets of France, burning and smashing structures, because they are privileged, they are doing so because they are powerless. They are in the streets trying to overthrow a highly oppressive, extremely privileged, supremely extractive bankster-owned power class ..."
This article from our archives was first published on RI in December 2018
White privilege is real. Whites really do enjoy some privileges on account of being descended from other whites. Whites daily enjoy the technological fruits of white genius, rights framed in law by great white leaders of the past, and the many good things which arise from parents and grandparents and great grandparents and even their predecessors who made good decisions and great sacrifices on our behalf. White privilege is real.
You know what's more real though? The privilege of those groups that exploit the nations and systems whites built, the machines whites invented, and the rights whites won, despite the fact that their ancestors had nothing to do with those feats, didn't earn them or sacrifice for them, and weren't even the intended recipients of those achievements and triumphs. Indeed, many of these groups have far, far more “privilege” than do whites in the modern West.
Consider Jewish-Americans, a not truly white population which can trace its origins to the Near East. On average, Jews earn three times as much money annually as white Americans. Jews are 2% of the country, and 40% of the major donors to both major parties. Talk about outsized power and influence. What's more, they are not alone. Consider East Asians and Indian-Americans. Like Jews, both of these populations also have far more wealth than whites on average, they are more likely to enter the U.S. power class, they are more likely to be millionaires, they have better health outcomes than whites on average, they are more likely to be doctors and scientists, they have access to greater resources in education, they enjoy even better public images than do whites (“model minority” perks), they often ethnically network with impunity (Hollywood/MSM – Jews, Nail Industry – E Asians), they enjoy more advantages and more success than whites by every relevant metric of human success and well-being.
So why doesn't the media address the outsized “privilege” of Jews, East Asians, or Indian-Americans? Why don't academics study their “privilege”? Why aren't legislators trying to close the educational success gap between whites and East Asians? Why do Western elites long to bring whites down to the level of blacks? Why don't they want to bring whites up to the level of East Asians? Why aren't Jews vilified daily for their outsized power and privilege?
As it always is under Marxist systems, Cultural Marxist systems being no exception, the supposed dominant, oppressive class/group remains as the principal target of the proletariat's malice and enmity long after the Marxists themselves have become the dominant, oppressor class. The Cultural Marxists who today rule America are still waging a war against whites, long after whites ceased to be anything resembling a dominant power group in America.
“White privilege”, like “white fragility” and other Cultural Marxist propaganda terms, is a vicious, racist slur. Its roots simply can not be discovered in reason or data or truth. It is rooted in prejudice and animus toward whites (prejudice and animus felt by and exhibited by various non-white populations, Jews, Arabs, and blacks in particular), and in the selective vilification of one particular population for privileges and advantages which are actually more common and more pronounced among many non-white populations in America, and in the West more generally. Not only is the term “white privilege” not anti-racist, it is the very opposite of anti-racist. It is steeped in white-hatred, like the Cultural Marxist philosophical paradigm which spawned it.
The ugly reality of course, is that the few perquisites and privileges whites today possess merely on account of being white, are more than offset by the many systemic disadvantages whites now face in the nations our ancestors founded. In fact, we are an aggrieved, despised, often completely ignored population in the modern West. We dominate neither the economy nor the culture. There will be no diversity seats set aside for our children at Harvard, I assure you.
While we generously, albeit foolishly give away our resources, our governments, and our lands to ethnically alien peoples, we receive only scorn in return. When blacks spread into an area or a boardroom, it is considered “progress”, when whites spread into an area it is labeled “gentrification” or “white flight” (dirty words), when we remain in a boardroom it is deemed intrinsically discriminatory. Increasingly, our mere existence seems to offend those who rule over us.
The Yellow Jackets aren't roaming the streets of France, burning and smashing structures, because they are privileged, they are doing so because they are powerless. They are in the streets trying to overthrow a highly oppressive, extremely privileged, supremely extractive bankster-owned power class comprised of various groups with diverse interests, but with a common enemy in us, their white subjects. This power class clumsily and callously rules over us, routinely ignoring our interests and mocking our concerns, and the indigenous French people have had about enough of it, it would seem.
Granted, “privilege” is a complex issue. Privilege is primarily a function of class, not of race, after all. The notion that a poor white child on food stamps in Appalachia is more privileged than Tiger Woods' non-white billionaire children is laughably idiotic. However, to the extent “privilege” can be linked to race, whites do not possess the lion's share of it, not per capita or on average anyway. The utterly anti-white, predominantly non-white folks who rule the Western World won't ever let you know that though. You can't lead a class struggle against imaginary sources of oppression and imaginary oppressors if the common people know the truth about whose boot is on their throat.
Furthermore, the argument could be made that the anti-white, racist propaganda (“white privilege” propaganda included) which serves as the philosophical foundation for the Cultural Marxist class struggle here in the West, serves multiple other functions for our Cultural Marxist overlords. In the first place, so long as whites wrongly see themselves as powerful and privileged they will not rise up against their extractive, hate-filled, anti-white overlords. In the second place, “white privilege” propaganda can be seen not merely as highly ideological, prejudicial, weaponized anti-white hatred, but as a shrewd, self-serving ploy by parasitic, anti-white, Cultural Marxist power players to offload the long-term consequences (riots, coups, blame for market crashes, interracial violence) of their own policies onto their racial and political enemies.
Fortunately, whites around the world seem to no longer be buying it. They have identified the enemy, and it is no longer themselves.


russia-insider--2020-10-11--Political Correctness Is Much More Harmful Than People Realize

This article from our archives was first published on RI in January 2019 A recent poll found that Political Correctness is extremely unpopular in America , even amongst moderates and independents , which got me thinking on the subject .
There exists an old quote from a famed British psychiatrist by the name of Anthony Daniels regarding Political Correctness .
It is the best quote I know of on the subject , and I have been mulling it over for some time , considering its meaning and its implications .
The quote reads : Political Correctness is communist propaganda writ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ societies , I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince , nor to inform , but to humiliate ; and therefore , the less it corresponded to reality the better .
When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies , or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves , they lose once and for all their sense of probity .
To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oneself .
One 's standing to resist anything is thus eroded , and even destroyed .
A society of emasculated liars is easy to control .
I think if you examine Political Correctness , it has the same effect and is intended to .
In this way , Political Correctness can be seen not only as a form of narrative control and truth suppression , but as a type of relentless bullying .
Speech codes and persistent propaganda no one is even allowed to object to ( like diversity worship or the fictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reinforce society ’ s sense of powerlessness .
If you can get people to assent to obvious lies , or better yet to repeat them , or better still to absorb them , which is to say to lie to themselves , there is virtually nothing you can ’ t make them do .
You have broken the seal , as drinkers say .
It is as if you have forced a man to murder an innocent , or to rape his own sister .
You have destroyed a bit of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrender , to submit , to choose pragmatism over rectitude , to abandon his reason for the sake of social or professional survival .
Once a man has lost his sense of shame , of pride , of agency , of integrity , once he must abandon his own conscience and put on a performance for all the world to see just so that he ’ ll be socially accepted , he ’ s a sheep being led to slaughter at that point .
He has been subjugated completely .
His heart is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warped and debased to his core , to his essence .
We must see Political Correctness then as a very intense form of psychological and spiritual warfare .
The goal of it is not just to censor ideas and words and keep people in the dark .
The ultimate goal is to destroy the subject ’ s sense of right , and the subject ’ s sense of shame , and most importantly , the subject ’ s will to resist , to live a life of authenticity , of honor , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , vice flows effortlessly downhill for the individual , and for societies living in the shadow of these dams , known colloquially as principle , conscience , probity , integrity , honor and civic virtue -- - the things that uphold human civilization .
If people aren ’ t even willing to stand up and rebuff the most glaring of falsehoods , what will they stand up to ?
They will go along with most anything at that point .
People conditioned to wear a mask every day of their lives , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self , to celebrate things no decent or sensible person could or would celebrate , have already assented to the intolerable .
When the most unthinkable atrocities arrive , they will be more than ready to tolerate them .
They have had ample practice tolerating the unthinkable already .
They have already assented many times to denying the reality right before their very eyes , and to countenancing what they know in their hearts to be pure evil .
If we understand Political Correctness this way , we must understand Political Correctness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , which it is of course , but as the main front of a war on human liberty itself , on free minds , on free peoples , on free nations .
Political Correctness paves the way for the army of horribles behind it , by turning madness into gospel , meekness into fashion , and surrender into habit .
Vanquished , demoralized peoples do not fight back , they do not rise up and deliver themselves from Marxist tyranny .
They applaud rather than cringe ( as all people of sound @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trot out , on national television , an 11 year old drag queen dressed up in the attire of a street hooker .
They do nothing when told that 9 year old boys are perfectly capable of deciding to start physically transitioning into girls via powerful , permanently mind-altering and body-altering pharmaceuticals .
They play along when Cultural Marxist oligarchs and media personalities tell us that flooding the country with criminals and imbeciles from the third world will lead to moral and social progress .
They remain silent when they are told that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racists for not wanting to be systematically racially discriminated against in hiring and university admissions countrywide .
Because who would assent to absurdity is half-way to atrocity already .
He has sacrificed a piece of his soul for security , but will not receive it .
The universe never has and never will reward such a bargain .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in January 2019
A recent poll found that Political Correctness is extremely unpopular in America, even amongst moderates and independents, which got me thinking on the subject. There exists an old quote from a famed British psychiatrist by the name of Anthony Daniels regarding Political Correctness. It is the best quote I know of on the subject, and I have been mulling it over for some time, considering its meaning and its implications. The quote reads:
Political Correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine Political Correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
In this way, Political Correctness can be seen not only as a form of narrative control and truth suppression, but as a type of relentless bullying. Speech codes and persistent propaganda no one is even allowed to object to (like diversity worship or the fictions we constantly hear about human equality), reinforce society’s sense of powerlessness. If you can get people to assent to obvious lies, or better yet to repeat them, or better still to absorb them, which is to say to lie to themselves, there is virtually nothing you can’t make them do. You have broken the seal, as drinkers say.
It is as if you have forced a man to murder an innocent, or to rape his own sister. You have destroyed a bit of his soul, you have forced him to surrender, to submit, to choose pragmatism over rectitude, to abandon his reason for the sake of social or professional survival. Once a man has lost his sense of shame, of pride, of agency, of integrity, once he must abandon his own conscience and put on a performance for all the world to see just so that he’ll be socially accepted, he’s a sheep being led to slaughter at that point. He has been subjugated completely. His heart is a gaping wound. He has been warped and debased to his core, to his essence.
We must see Political Correctness then as a very intense form of psychological and spiritual warfare. The goal of it is not just to censor ideas and words and keep people in the dark. The ultimate goal is to destroy the subject’s sense of right, and the subject’s sense of shame, and most importantly, the subject’s will to resist, to live a life of authenticity, of honor, of virtue. Once these dams are broken, vice flows effortlessly downhill for the individual, and for societies living in the shadow of these dams, known colloquially as principle, conscience, probity, integrity, honor and civic virtue--- the things that uphold human civilization.
If people aren’t even willing to stand up and rebuff the most glaring of falsehoods, what will they stand up to? They will go along with most anything at that point. People conditioned to wear a mask every day of their lives, to present to the world a perfectly false self, to celebrate things no decent or sensible person could or would celebrate, have already assented to the intolerable.
When the most unthinkable atrocities arrive, they will be more than ready to tolerate them. They have had ample practice tolerating the unthinkable already. They have already assented many times to denying the reality right before their very eyes, and to countenancing what they know in their hearts to be pure evil.
If we understand Political Correctness this way, we must understand Political Correctness to not only be an assault on the truth, which it is of course, but as the main front of a war on human liberty itself, on free minds, on free peoples, on free nations. Political Correctness paves the way for the army of horribles behind it, by turning madness into gospel, meekness into fashion, and surrender into habit.
Vanquished, demoralized peoples do not fight back, they do not rise up and deliver themselves from Marxist tyranny. They applaud rather than cringe (as all people of sound mind would do) when their overlords trot out, on national television, an 11 year old drag queen dressed up in the attire of a street hooker. They do nothing when told that 9 year old boys are perfectly capable of deciding to start physically transitioning into girls via powerful, permanently mind-altering and body-altering pharmaceuticals. They play along when Cultural Marxist oligarchs and media personalities tell us that flooding the country with criminals and imbeciles from the third world will lead to moral and social progress.
They remain silent when they are told that East Asians and whites are the real racists for not wanting to be systematically racially discriminated against in hiring and university admissions countrywide. Because who would assent to absurdity is half-way to atrocity already. He has sacrificed a piece of his soul for security, but will not receive it. The universe never has and never will reward such a bargain.


russia-insider--2020-10-11--This Ultra-Conservative Christian Genius Had Total Influence in 19th C. Russia (Pobedonostsev)

`` For him , the most important job of government was to preserve and uphold the traditional , religious worldview of the common people . ''
This article from our archives was first published on RI in January 2018 About the author : For lovers of Russian culture , folklore , and history , Kotar ’ s work is a treasure .
The grandson of White Russian immigrants , the 34-year-old is an author of epic fantasy novels inspired by Russian fairy tales .
You can see his four books here on Amazon .
He is also a deacon of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ translator , and choir director at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville , NY , where he lives .
Here is his bio from his blog , where he writes about many aspects of Russia .
We highly recommend following it and subscribing to his email list to get exclusive material .
He has an excellent Pinterest page , and you can follow him on Facebook .
Here is an archive of his work published on Russia Insider .
He is currently running a remarkably successful crowdfunding on Kickstarter to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him if you can !
Then we have a strange , sometimes morbid , obsession with Vladimir Putin in Russia .
I am fascinated by individuals in history who manage to reach an apex of power where they directly affect the domestic and foreign policy of entire nations .
It ’ s not so much the politics that fascinate me , though .
More interesting is the effect of that power of the individual , the interior conflicts and reality of someone who can dispose of the fates of thousands with a wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one ’ s country begin and self-interest end ?
How can the personal strengths and shortcomings of such individuals help or hinder their work ?
Can their mistakes destroy nations ?
As I started to research books 4 and 5 of my epic fantasy series , I read a fascinating character study of a man some people believed to be the real power behind the throne of Alexander III and Nicholas II .
A man whose political and personal demise coincided with the demise of one of the greatest empires this world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this post is my translation of an article from the Russian magazine Foma ( here is the original Russian ) .
Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is a significant figure in Russian history and culture .
Even so , he remains a bit of a mystery , both to his contemporaries and to us .
Many myths have been created around his incredible energy and activity .
Some consider that he was the power behind the throne of Alexander III and Nicholas II .
Others consider him to be the head of a conservative reactionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outright that he dreamed to plunge the country back into the Middle Ages .
The liberal intelligentsia hated him , but plenty of conservatives couldn ’ t stand him either .
Pobedonostsev was born in 1827 in Moscow .
His grandfather was a priest , and his father was a professor of literature at Moscow University .
In 1846 , he finished his study of law at the Imperial College of Law .
He prepared for a political career and soon became a senator and a member of the National Council .
From @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Most Holy Synod and a member of the Committee of Ministers , one of the highest political positions in the land .
Other than being the political administrator of the Church , he influenced national politics and education policy , as well as international affairs .
From 1884 , he energetically promoted a national program of parochial schooling for children of all social classes .
By the end of the 20th century , nearly half of all children in Russia were taught at such schools .
He was also personal friends with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ best from a poem by Alexander Blok .
Blok understood that Pobedonostsev was something extraordinary .
He never met him , but he knew people who had regular meetings with him or even were his friends .
We see from the poem that Blok himself doesn ’ t quite know what to make of him .
Pobedonostsev was remarkably unattractive , reminiscent of Koschei the Deathless , a popular figure from fairy tales .
But when he started to speak , all such comparisons faded away .
He was a fabulous orator , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech , even if they were his enemies .
So this image of the wizard , sometimes frightening , but always intelligent and hypnotic , is not accidental in Blok ’ s poem .
Everything Pobedonostsev did , as indeed everything in Russia at that time , must be measured by the monumental events of the 1860 ’ s , in particular , the abolishment of serfdom .
Culturally and politically speaking , everything in Russia was a response to that event .
For example , there was the liberal answer to those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to follow the path of European industrial development .
Then there was the revolutionary response that considered all the reforms insufficient .
Finally , there was the conservative response .
One of the conservatives was Konstantin Pobedonostsev .
He and many others of his ilk considered the liberal and the revolutionary responses as two sides of the same coin .
In fact , Pobedonostsev considered the liberals even more dangerous than the revolutionaries , because they paved the path to revolution .
The conservative response was to come up with a complete and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In part , it was centered on a conception of the so-called “ common folk ” of Russia and an attempt to save the traditional values that they believed were being preserved in the sphere of the “ folk.
” However , the “ folk ” is always a kind of huge , mute animal that no one really understands .
What is he thinking , what is she feeling ?
Everyone had their own ideas , and no one really bothered to ask the folk themselves .
The revolutionaries believed the folk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the revolution would be cultivated .
But the conservatives saw something completely different in the “ common man.
” Pobedonostsev was effectively cutting the ground from under the revolutionaries ’ feet when declared that he spoke for the people , not for the narrow-minded elite that was more interested in foreign reforms than the true good of the Russian people .
He said that the “ common people ” were nothing like the revolutionaries imagined .
The Russian folk are patriarchal , he said , devoted to the Tsar , monarchist to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible life outside the Church .
Pobedonostsev ’ s grand and unprecedented political and cultural program to develop parochial schools came out of such views concerning the nature of the Russian people .
As strange as it may sound , it was actually a very democratic project .
He tried to give the people the opportunity to take the initiative themselves to create something that both he and they would be proud of .
This was a course of study centered on the study of religious texts first and foremost , of church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case , the school was intimately connected with the church , and education went hand in hand with active participation in the daily life of the local church .
As Pobedonostsev said , “ This is what the people want .
I am merely expressing their will.
” Some people even go so far as to call Pobodonostsev the “ ideologue of the reactionary policies of Alexander III , ” when all the reforms of the 1860s were slowly scaled back .
However , nothing could be further from the truth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time had many different aspects .
It was not a single , unified political ideology .
Pobedonostsev represented only one of these aspects .
And he was very skeptical of the reactionary policies designed to scale back the reforms of the 1860s .
This is because he was afraid of any and all kinds of change in the administration and political institutions of Russia .
He believed that the 1860s had done enough damage in terms of total societal change .
It was better to stay the course than to encourage any more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s like zugzwang , a stalemate in chess where every move worsens your general situation .
At the same time , he was a proponent of tight control over anything that had to do with information , culture , and education .
And his actions were often severe and uncompromising .
Hence his popular image as a “ dark wizard ” or “ grey cardinal.
” Still , he didn ’ t control the entire apparatus of government , even if he did have influence over the bureaus of censorship , culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ober-Procurator of the Synod , he had limited authority over the politics of censorship , but in fact , he was a kind of tsar in the censorship office , ruling it as he saw fit .
But rather than using this position arbitrarily , Pobedonostsev personally read nearly every single item that was published in official Russian channels .
He was an incredibly hard-working man .
At that time , if you applied yourself , you could read most of what was published in Russia in any given year .
In our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems incredible .
As for Pobedonostsev ’ s answer to the eternal question “ What is to be done ?
” he believed that the answer was to be found by influencing people directly .
One of the aspects of his program can be defined thus : “ People , not institutions.
” He believed that everything would get better only if the government took an active interest in forming the inner world of people through social consciousness , schools , and the culture at large .
That ’ s why he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was interested in suppressing information , but because he was interested in cultivating minds and hearts .
Another aspect of this “ cultural formation ” was his control over the fine arts .
His influence could remove famous paintings from official galleries .
For example , he had Ilya Repin ’ s famous “ Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan ” removed .
At the same time , he supported many artists personally .
He also encouraged many famous composers , especially when they turned to composing church music , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get a personal grant from Alexander III himself .
THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT As strange as this may seem , Pobedonostsev was one of the first Ober-Procurators ( government ministers in charge of the administration of the Russian Church ) to actually be a pious Christian .
Most of his predecessors failed to even appreciate the significance of the Church for the State .
Pobedonostsev , on the contrary , saw the Church as giving a moral foundation to the nation that was indispensable , if the government were to accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government was interesting .
He considered government to be part of a larger social organism , and that a large part of government ’ s responsibilities was to take care of the spiritual life of society .
He considered that all financial growth , institutional improvement , or political projects were pointless if the spiritual foundation of the society at large has been undermined .
And the spiritual foundation of Russia , he believed , was the worldview of the common people , which was founded on the Orthodox faith and Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be first of all involved in fulfilling the spiritual requirement of society , even before political ones .
Thus , ideological or political goals were subservient to spiritual ones .
For example , in the 1860s , part of the reforms called for the closing of a certain number of parishes and priestly positions ( which were government positions at the time ) in the interest of fiscal economy .
Pobedonostsev considered such an idea to be detrimental not so much to the church , as to the government , and he actively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most important job of government was to preserve and uphold the traditional , religious worldview of the common people .
If the government were to close parishes and churches , then the government would risk an upheaval in the worldview of the folk .
If the government is an Orthodox one , it can not close churches , because if it does , it ceases to be Orthodox , and it breaks its link with the common people .
And if the people realize that the government is effectively no longer Orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind , would lead to revolution .
It may seem strange to a Western mind to consider the Church being so subservient to the State .
However , at that moment in time , giving the Church more independence in the social space was effectively impossible .
The Church and State had become so intertwined that any change in their relationship without a complete shift in the style of government was impossible .
It is enough to mention that though the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1905 , the relationship with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the Revolution of 1905 , Pobedonostsev famously said , “ I did warn you all.
” However , he was shocked , destroyed , undone by the chaos of that first revolution .
He saw no way out of the situation .
He was especially shocked when several church hierarchs , including the effective head of the church , Metropolitan Anthony ( Vadkovskii ) of St. Petersburg , spoke out against him .
After all , he had considered that everything he did , he did first of all for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , was that he never gave the Church any freedom , keeping all authority to himself .
He ruled over the Synod of bishops like an autocrat , cutting off any discussions he didn ’ t like even before they started .
Naturally , the bishops protested .
But rather than listen , he simply instituted even more draconian measures to silence them .
Paradoxically , he wanted the Church to be independent of the government , but only under his patronage and favor .
He believed that he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who truly understood the needs of the people and the Church .
He thought that he alone knew what needed to be done and what direction was best .
What complicates his persona even more is that he was clearly an ambitious man who wanted power .
He hated the direction the country took in the 1860 ’ s , taking many of the reforms as a personal offense .
He was , it must be said , an expert in Russian law , but his recommendations for the proper administration of reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So his rise to power was at least partially motivated by a desire to show everyone that they had been wrong to underestimate him .
And for all that , he had a creative or even mystical component to his personality .
He thought of himself as a kind of prophet , a bearer of the truths of the principles of the common people .
And he believed that quiet , efficient local reform would slowly rework the fabric of society to make it eventually a truly “ Holy Russia.
” In effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a utopian at heart .
His worldview was based on a myth , even though it was a beautiful one .
This myth was that the common man was at heart religious , patriarchal , and monarchist .
Another aspect of the myth was that quiet work on a local level could effect monumental societal change .
It was a belief that if only he could influence the spiritual worldview of the people , he could fix all of Russia ’ s social problems .
At the heart of this myth was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that Russia is somehow equal to itself at all times and will remain the same , in some sense , forever .
Because he believed that , he abhorred all change as inherently evil .
But to be able to contain Russia in this stasis and yet effect small changes on the level of the human heart—this is the work of a superman .
And for all his influence , Pobedonostsev was no superman , and he died a broken and disillusioned man .

"For him, the most important job of government was to preserve and uphold the traditional, religious worldview of the common people."
This article from our archives was first published on RI in January 2018
About the author: For lovers of Russian culture, folklore, and history, Kotar’s work is a treasure. The grandson of White Russian immigrants, the 34-year-old is an author of epic fantasy novels inspired by Russian fairy tales. You can see his four books here on Amazon.
He is also a deacon of the Russian Orthodox Church, a professional translator, and choir director at the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, NY, where he lives. Here is his bio from his blog, where he writes about many aspects of Russia. We highly recommend following it and subscribing to his email list to get exclusive material.
He has an excellent Pinterest page, and you can follow him on Facebook. Here is an archive of his work published on Russia Insider.
He is currently running a remarkably successful crowdfunding on Kickstarter to be able to publish his upcoming novels. Please support him if you can!
The problem of power and personality is one that has fascinated people from the beginning of history. We are going through our own particular version of it right now in America. Everyone seems to be at war with the President and Congress.
Then we have a strange, sometimes morbid, obsession with Vladimir Putin in Russia.
I am fascinated by individuals in history who manage to reach an apex of power where they directly affect the domestic and foreign policy of entire nations. It’s not so much the politics that fascinate me, though. More interesting is the effect of that power of the individual, the interior conflicts and reality of someone who can dispose of the fates of thousands with a wave of his hand. Where does concern for one’s country begin and self-interest end? How can the personal strengths and shortcomings of such individuals help or hinder their work? Can their mistakes destroy nations?
As I started to research books 4 and 5 of my epic fantasy series, I read a fascinating character study of a man some people believed to be the real power behind the throne of Alexander III and Nicholas II. A man whose political and personal demise coincided with the demise of one of the greatest empires this world has ever seen. The rest of this post is my translation of an article from the Russian magazine Foma (here is the original Russian).
THE “GREY CARDINAL”
Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev is a significant figure in Russian history and culture. Even so, he remains a bit of a mystery, both to his contemporaries and to us. Many myths have been created around his incredible energy and activity. Some consider that he was the power behind the throne of Alexander III and Nicholas II. Others consider him to be the head of a conservative reactionary movement that championed censorship. Some say outright that he dreamed to plunge the country back into the Middle Ages. The liberal intelligentsia hated him, but plenty of conservatives couldn’t stand him either.
Pobedonostsev was born in 1827 in Moscow. His grandfather was a priest, and his father was a professor of literature at Moscow University. In 1846, he finished his study of law at the Imperial College of Law. He prepared for a political career and soon became a senator and a member of the National Council. From 1880, he became the Ober-Procurator of the Most Holy Synod and a member of the Committee of Ministers, one of the highest political positions in the land.
Other than being the political administrator of the Church, he influenced national politics and education policy, as well as international affairs. From 1884, he energetically promoted a national program of parochial schooling for children of all social classes. By the end of the 20th century, nearly half of all children in Russia were taught at such schools. He was also personal friends with Dostoyevsky.
“WITH WINGS LIKE AN OWL”
Most Russian people know Pobedonostsev best from a poem by Alexander Blok.
In those distant, deaf years Dream and dark ruled over hearts With owl-like wings, Pobedonostsev Flew over the skies of Russia. And there was neither day, nor night, Only the shadow of those wings. He drew a magic circle around Russia, Staring her in the eyes With a glassy wizard’s stare. And to that music of the magic story, The beauty fell asleep with ease, Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free! Enveloped in his magic mist, And all her thoughts and hopes and passions slept…”
Blok understood that Pobedonostsev was something extraordinary. He never met him, but he knew people who had regular meetings with him or even were his friends. We see from the poem that Blok himself doesn’t quite know what to make of him.
Pobedonostsev was remarkably unattractive, reminiscent of Koschei the Deathless, a popular figure from fairy tales. But when he started to speak, all such comparisons faded away. He was a fabulous orator, managing to almost hypnotize people by his speech, even if they were his enemies. So this image of the wizard, sometimes frightening, but always intelligent and hypnotic, is not accidental in Blok’s poem.
CONSERVATIVE VS LIBERAL
Everything Pobedonostsev did, as indeed everything in Russia at that time, must be measured by the monumental events of the 1860’s, in particular, the abolishment of serfdom. Culturally and politically speaking, everything in Russia was a response to that event. For example, there was the liberal answer to those early reforms. Liberals clamored for Russia to follow the path of European industrial development. Then there was the revolutionary response that considered all the reforms insufficient. Finally, there was the conservative response.
One of the conservatives was Konstantin Pobedonostsev. He and many others of his ilk considered the liberal and the revolutionary responses as two sides of the same coin. In fact, Pobedonostsev considered the liberals even more dangerous than the revolutionaries, because they paved the path to revolution.
The conservative response was to come up with a complete and very attractive political and cultural program. In part, it was centered on a conception of the so-called “common folk” of Russia and an attempt to save the traditional values that they believed were being preserved in the sphere of the “folk.”
However, the “folk” is always a kind of huge, mute animal that no one really understands. What is he thinking, what is she feeling? Everyone had their own ideas, and no one really bothered to ask the folk themselves. The revolutionaries believed the folk to be the natural soil in which the revolution would be cultivated. But the conservatives saw something completely different in the “common man.”
Pobedonostsev was effectively cutting the ground from under the revolutionaries’ feet when declared that he spoke for the people, not for the narrow-minded elite that was more interested in foreign reforms than the true good of the Russian people. He said that the “common people” were nothing like the revolutionaries imagined. The Russian folk are patriarchal, he said, devoted to the Tsar, monarchist to the core, profoundly religious, seeing no possible life outside the Church.
Pobedonostsev’s grand and unprecedented political and cultural program to develop parochial schools came out of such views concerning the nature of the Russian people. As strange as it may sound, it was actually a very democratic project. He tried to give the people the opportunity to take the initiative themselves to create something that both he and they would be proud of.
This was a course of study centered on the study of religious texts first and foremost, of church chant and the Slavonic language. In this case, the school was intimately connected with the church, and education went hand in hand with active participation in the daily life of the local church. As Pobedonostsev said, “This is what the people want. I am merely expressing their will.”
PEOPLE, NOT INSTITUTIONS
Some people even go so far as to call Pobodonostsev the “ideologue of the reactionary policies of Alexander III,” when all the reforms of the 1860s were slowly scaled back. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The conservatism of Alexander III’s time had many different aspects. It was not a single, unified political ideology. Pobedonostsev represented only one of these aspects. And he was very skeptical of the reactionary policies designed to scale back the reforms of the 1860s.
This is because he was afraid of any and all kinds of change in the administration and political institutions of Russia. He believed that the 1860s had done enough damage in terms of total societal change. It was better to stay the course than to encourage any more changes, even conservative ones. It’s like zugzwang, a stalemate in chess where every move worsens your general situation.
At the same time, he was a proponent of tight control over anything that had to do with information, culture, and education. And his actions were often severe and uncompromising. Hence his popular image as a “dark wizard” or “grey cardinal.”
Still, he didn’t control the entire apparatus of government, even if he did have influence over the bureaus of censorship, culture, and education. Officially, as Ober-Procurator of the Synod, he had limited authority over the politics of censorship, but in fact, he was a kind of tsar in the censorship office, ruling it as he saw fit.
But rather than using this position arbitrarily, Pobedonostsev personally read nearly every single item that was published in official Russian channels. He was an incredibly hard-working man. At that time, if you applied yourself, you could read most of what was published in Russia in any given year. In our own time of the internet, this seems incredible.
As for Pobedonostsev’s answer to the eternal question “What is to be done?” he believed that the answer was to be found by influencing people directly. One of the aspects of his program can be defined thus: “People, not institutions.” He believed that everything would get better only if the government took an active interest in forming the inner world of people through social consciousness, schools, and the culture at large.
That’s why he was so active in censorship, not because he was interested in suppressing information, but because he was interested in cultivating minds and hearts. Another aspect of this “cultural formation” was his control over the fine arts. His influence could remove famous paintings from official galleries. For example, he had Ilya Repin’s famous “Ivan the Terrible and His Son Ivan” removed.
At the same time, he supported many artists personally. He also encouraged many famous composers, especially when they turned to composing church music, including Tchaikovsky himself, for whom he managed to get a personal grant from Alexander III himself.
THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT
As strange as this may seem, Pobedonostsev was one of the first Ober-Procurators (government ministers in charge of the administration of the Russian Church) to actually be a pious Christian. Most of his predecessors failed to even appreciate the significance of the Church for the State. Pobedonostsev, on the contrary, saw the Church as giving a moral foundation to the nation that was indispensable, if the government were to accomplish anything at all.
His view of the government was interesting. He considered government to be part of a larger social organism, and that a large part of government’s responsibilities was to take care of the spiritual life of society. He considered that all financial growth, institutional improvement, or political projects were pointless if the spiritual foundation of the society at large has been undermined. And the spiritual foundation of Russia, he believed, was the worldview of the common people, which was founded on the Orthodox faith and Church.
The government, then, should be first of all involved in fulfilling the spiritual requirement of society, even before political ones. Thus, ideological or political goals were subservient to spiritual ones. For example, in the 1860s, part of the reforms called for the closing of a certain number of parishes and priestly positions (which were government positions at the time) in the interest of fiscal economy. Pobedonostsev considered such an idea to be detrimental not so much to the church, as to the government, and he actively campaigned against it.
For him, the most important job of government was to preserve and uphold the traditional, religious worldview of the common people. If the government were to close parishes and churches, then the government would risk an upheaval in the worldview of the folk. If the government is an Orthodox one, it cannot close churches, because if it does, it ceases to be Orthodox, and it breaks its link with the common people. And if the people realize that the government is effectively no longer Orthodox, that, in Pobedonostsev’s mind, would lead to revolution.
It may seem strange to a Western mind to consider the Church being so subservient to the State. However, at that moment in time, giving the Church more independence in the social space was effectively impossible. The Church and State had become so intertwined that any change in their relationship without a complete shift in the style of government was impossible. It is enough to mention that though the country became a constitutional monarchy in 1905, the relationship with the Church didn’t change one bit.
REVOLUTION
After the Revolution of 1905, Pobedonostsev famously said, “I did warn you all.” However, he was shocked, destroyed, undone by the chaos of that first revolution. He saw no way out of the situation. He was especially shocked when several church hierarchs, including the effective head of the church, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovskii) of St. Petersburg, spoke out against him. After all, he had considered that everything he did, he did first of all for the good of the Church.
The irony, of course, was that he never gave the Church any freedom, keeping all authority to himself. He ruled over the Synod of bishops like an autocrat, cutting off any discussions he didn’t like even before they started. Naturally, the bishops protested. But rather than listen, he simply instituted even more draconian measures to silence them.
Paradoxically, he wanted the Church to be independent of the government, but only under his patronage and favor. He believed that he was the only person in all of Russia who truly understood the needs of the people and the Church. He thought that he alone knew what needed to be done and what direction was best.
What complicates his persona even more is that he was clearly an ambitious man who wanted power. He hated the direction the country took in the 1860’s, taking many of the reforms as a personal offense. He was, it must be said, an expert in Russian law, but his recommendations for the proper administration of reform in the 1860s were summarily ignored. So his rise to power was at least partially motivated by a desire to show everyone that they had been wrong to underestimate him.
And for all that, he had a creative or even mystical component to his personality. He thought of himself as a kind of prophet, a bearer of the truths of the principles of the common people. And he believed that quiet, efficient local reform would slowly rework the fabric of society to make it eventually a truly “Holy Russia.”
In effect, despite his conservatism, Pobedonostsev was a utopian at heart. His worldview was based on a myth, even though it was a beautiful one. This myth was that the common man was at heart religious, patriarchal, and monarchist. Another aspect of the myth was that quiet work on a local level could effect monumental societal change. It was a belief that if only he could influence the spiritual worldview of the people, he could fix all of Russia’s social problems.
At the heart of this myth was a belief that there is movement in history, that Russia is somehow equal to itself at all times and will remain the same, in some sense, forever. Because he believed that, he abhorred all change as inherently evil. But to be able to contain Russia in this stasis and yet effect small changes on the level of the human heart—this is the work of a superman. And for all his influence, Pobedonostsev was no superman, and he died a broken and disillusioned man.
Source: Nicholas Kotar


russia-insider--2020-10-12--Why Russians Hate the Idea of the Separation of Church and State

This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2017 This article originally appeared on a new site about the Christian renaissance in Russia , called Russian Faith .
Their introductory video is at end of this article .
President Putin of Russia and President Lukashenko of Belarus in the throne room of the Moscow Patriarch .
Together with Ukraine , Russia and Belarus form Holy Rus ' .
Note the blue and gold Ukrainian Flag displayed proudly between Putin and Patriarch Kirill , along with all the other flags of Russian Orthodox Lands .
One of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that it involves itself in the affairs of politics and war .
People say : “ Why are religious leaders getting involved in political discussions ?
Politics is Politics , religion is religion , never should the two meet.
” Non-religious people point to the Papal States and the Spanish Inquisition as examples of religion being too political .
Likewise , many religious people have reasonable concerns that religion could be corrupted by politics and used for nefarious ends .
Meanwhile , throughout history , there has always been a close relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; this is true from the times of the Roman ( Byzantine ) Empire to the Russian Empire and even in modern countries such as Greece , Romania , and , of course , Russia .
“ Should the Orthodox Church have a close relationship with the State ?
” In Orthodox countries , the answer is obvious - of course , it should !
But should the Church involve itself in the State , which may involve itself in the dangerous affairs of politics and warfare ?
Yes , because the Orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much as an “ invisible church , a body of the elect ” but as a spiritual hospital .
Our Father Among the Saints , John Chrysostom , Archbishop of Constantinople says : Enter into the Church and wash away your sins .
For here there is a hospital and not a court of law .
Do not be ashamed again to enter the Church , be ashamed when you sin , but not when you repent .
The Orthodox Church always saw it first and foremost as a place to heal people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease of sin .
In Orthodox theology , the term mortally ill is quite literal ; Orthodox people believe that death is the direct result of sin .
This is the Orthodox understanding of original sin , rather than making us all born “ guilty ” , we believe original sin infected the human race with a terminal illness - death , and a fondness for death .
Where are hospitals and clinics most needed in the world more than anywhere else ?
In places where people are the sickest , in places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church cherishes her dignity as an ivory tower rising from a city surrounded by seven hills and seven walls , she is also a missionary church .
Her people , especially her clergy , go where they are called and most needed .
If politics and war are where the darkest human actions are expressed , then that is exactly where the Church must be , to be a lighthouse on moonless nights to lead souls to safe harbour .
One might go as far as to say it is the opinion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church must involve itself in war and politics to prevent war and pacify the darker side of political intrigue .
Although Americans and their relatively young civilization assure the world that the Church and State must be separate , Russians actually believe that removing or separating the Church from the State destroys another ideal Americans hold very dear , namely : checks and balances .
For Russians , the Church is a moral check on the State .
Were it not for the Russian Orthodox Church , Russia could have been destroyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domestic fifth columns .
One could say that the Russian State - one of the most ancient states and the birthplace of patriotism - originated from the Orthodox Church because it was by the Baptism of Rus ’ that Saint Vladimir of Kiev united Russia .
The Baptism of Rus ' by Saint Vladimir of Kiev ( on the longboat holding a cross ) was the most important and seminal moment in Russian history .
Everything archetypicallyknown as Russian , Ukrainian , and Belarusian , and what we recognize as Russia today was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rus ' by Saint Vladimir of Kiev ( on the longboat holding a cross ) was the most important and seminal moment in Russian history .
Everything archetypicallyknown as Russian , Ukrainian , and Belarusian , and what we recognize as Russia today was born at this moment .
These two entities can not be truly separated in Orthodox countries because in many cases it was the Church which first formed the national consciousness of the nation itself , or preserved it during times of occupation .
As President Putin himself has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine Russia without the Orthodox Church .
Moreover , Russians remember what happened when Russian revolutionaries implemented Communism , a foreign ideology ( invented by German and English thinkers ) which , first and foremost , tried to sever the ancient relationship between Church and State .
Communism , really foreign to the Russian context , was physically imported into Russia , when the German Empire , during WW1 , secretly returned Lenin to Russia so he could spread the plague of revolution , something more effective and deadly than any biological weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Church from the State because they knew that it would destroy both .
And because they knew they could never corrupt the State without first attacking its moral foundation .
Russians remember well what it was like to live under a system that hated the Church .
When Lenin and his Bolshevik elk tried to remove the Church from ALL aspects of Russian life , these saboteurs and traitors promised that without the Church corrupting the state , politics could become truly focused on helping humanity , and Russia would thrive .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the endless destruction of Russian lives .
`` The Market Place of Our Democracy '' by Glazunov depicts the inevitable result of not only Communism , but the pernicious result of the `` westernizing '' trend we experienced in our country in the 1990 's .
Russia , her people , and culture were effectively prostituted like Biblical Israel in heathen Babylonian or Egyptian captivity .
It is when the Russian Church and State operate in symphony , that the reflowering of Orthodoxy in Russia becomes possible .
The Russian State and Church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the same body , they operate differently , but they are both crucial to the survival of the whole .
This relationship is very practical as well .
Patriarch Kirill spoke perfectly when he addressed sailors of the Northern Fleet in Severomorsk in 2016 .
His Holiness said the Church attaches `` [ a ] very great importance to cooperation with the Armed Forces '' .
Critics immediately stop here , and use this as an example of the Church being overly politicised , or supportive of violence , but if they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the Patriarch believes this relationship helps ensure peace !
The Patriarch said that the condition of servicemen ’ s souls is `` an essential part of maintaining peace . ''
Have cynics ever stopped to consider that maybe if the Church were more involved with the state , and if Priests were amongst the soldiers in their darkest hours , they could bring light into the nights of war ?
Russian servicemen certainly do , when asked if they wanted more Priests in their ranks , the result was an overwhelming Da @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Russian servicemen because this is not only good for them and Russia , but as Russia is a nuclear power , the presence of the Church and her mission for peace amongst the Russian military is a guarantee of world peace .
Many people forget that even the war in Syria has been influenced by this relationship .
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and Ignatius IV of Antioch ( +2012 ) , the leader of Syrian Christians .
Antioch , the ancient capital of Syria is where , according to the Bible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called Christian .
( Acts 11:26 ) .
Syrian President Assad , ( pictured in signs ) , is a protector of Christians in Syria , believing them an inseparable part of the countries history .
Patriarch Kirill urged President Putin to protect Christians in Syria , and Putin answered the call .
Just like Saint Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kiev sent his elite Varangian “ Viking ” Guard to the Roman Empire to fight jihadists , Vladimir Vladimirovich [ Putin ] is combating terrorism to save Christians in Syria .
If you disagree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an Antiochian Orthodox Church , and ask Syrian immigrants to tell you their stories , and to ask them which country is really helping them .
What you hear may surprise you .
So next time you think to break a thousand year union , ask yourself this , when was the last time you ’ ve seen a western leader bow and kiss the relics of Saint Nicholas himself ?

By severing the union between them, you don’t decrease corruption. You increase it
This article from our archives was first published on RI in October 2017
This article originally appeared on a new site about the Christian renaissance in Russia, called Russian Faith. Their introductory video is at end of this article. President Putin of Russia and President Lukashenko of Belarus in the throne room of the Moscow Patriarch. Together with Ukraine, Russia and Belarus form Holy Rus'. Note the blue and gold Ukrainian Flag displayed proudly between Putin and Patriarch Kirill, along with all the other flags of Russian Orthodox Lands. One of the most common criticisms of organised religion is that it involves itself in the affairs of politics and war. People say: “Why are religious leaders getting involved in political discussions? Politics is Politics, religion is religion, never should the two meet.” Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free! Non-religious people point to the Papal States and the Spanish Inquisition as examples of religion being too political. Likewise, many religious people have reasonable concerns that religion could be corrupted by politics and used for nefarious ends. Meanwhile, throughout history, there has always been a close relationship between the Orthodox Church and various states; this is true from the times of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire to the Russian Empire and even in modern countries such as Greece, Romania, and, of course, Russia. “Should the Orthodox Church have a close relationship with the State?” In Orthodox countries, the answer is obvious - of course, it should! But should the Church involve itself in the State, which may involve itself in the dangerous affairs of politics and warfare? Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free! Yes, because the Orthodox Church, does not see itself as much as an “invisible church, a body of the elect” but as a spiritual hospital. Our Father Among the Saints, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople says: Enter into the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed again to enter the Church, be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. The Orthodox Church always saw it first and foremost as a place to heal people from a mortally ill condition, the disease of sin. In Orthodox theology, the term mortally ill is quite literal; Orthodox people believe that death is the direct result of sin. Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free! This is the Orthodox understanding of original sin, rather than making us all born “guilty”, we believe original sin infected the human race with a terminal illness - death, and a fondness for death. Where are hospitals and clinics most needed in the world more than anywhere else? In places where people are the sickest, in places of war and suffering. While the Church cherishes her dignity as an ivory tower rising from a city surrounded by seven hills and seven walls, she is also a missionary church. Her people, especially her clergy, go where they are called and most needed. If politics and war are where the darkest human actions are expressed, then that is exactly where the Church must be, to be a lighthouse on moonless nights to lead souls to safe harbour.
One might go as far as to say it is the opinion of Orthodoxy, especially Russian Orthodoxy, that the Church must involve itself in war and politics to prevent war and pacify the darker side of political intrigue. Although Americans and their relatively young civilization assure the world that the Church and State must be separate, Russians actually believe that removing or separating the Church from the State destroys another ideal Americans hold very dear, namely: checks and balances. For Russians, the Church is a moral check on the State. Were it not for the Russian Orthodox Church, Russia could have been destroyed many times by both foreign enemies and domestic fifth columns. One could say that the Russian State - one of the most ancient states and the birthplace of patriotism - originated from the Orthodox Church because it was by the Baptism of Rus’ that Saint Vladimir of Kiev united Russia. The Baptism of Rus' by Saint Vladimir of Kiev (on the longboat holding a cross) was the most important and seminal moment in Russian history. Everything archetypicallyknown as Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian, and what we recognize as Russia today was born at this moment. These two entities cannot be truly separated in Orthodox countries because in many cases it was the Church which first formed the national consciousness of the nation itself, or preserved it during times of occupation. As President Putin himself has said, it is not possible to imagine Russia without the Orthodox Church. Moreover, Russians remember what happened when Russian revolutionaries implemented Communism, a foreign ideology (invented by German and English thinkers) which, first and foremost, tried to sever the ancient relationship between Church and State. Communism, really foreign to the Russian context, was physically imported into Russia, when the German Empire, during WW1, secretly returned Lenin to Russia so he could spread the plague of revolution, something more effective and deadly than any biological weapon. The Russia-hating revolutionaries tried to separate the Church from the State because they knew that it would destroy both. And because they knew they could never corrupt the State without first attacking its moral foundation.