russia-insider--2020-10-21--America Has Traded God for Empire, Narcissism, Militarism, Usury, Sodomy

This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019 It goes without saying that Father Joseph Gleason of Russian Faith is making his mark in the world for the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ .
His theological journey has finally taken him into the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church .
Geographically , the journey he and his family have embarked upon has taken them from the United States to Russia and a place called Rostov-The-Great .
His is a story worth following on an ongoing basis .
I sense his personal odyssey may prove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else imagines right now .
Russian TV is making a film about the Gleason family .
This is an excellent 3-minute teaser .
His most recent entry on the Russian Faith website is entitled , “ Homosexuals Persecuting Christians in America : Do You Feel The Walls Closing In ?
” This marvelous piece is 5,050 words long .
My succinct initial response to his labors before even reading the essay itself was–and is–a simple “ Yes.
” I do not come to this conclusion quickly or without study and engagement .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the rest of my life to attempt to bring the people of America to an awareness of how late the hour is , and the perilous state of both individual souls and a collective people that has turned its back on God in favor of an Empire built on narcissism , militarism , usury , and sodomy .
But the painful truth is that I have failed .
I have lost 17 years of my life in the process .
I admitted as much some years ago in a well publicized essay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finished.
” Later , I found myself being pilloried by the Jerusalem Post and the international Jewish press for telling Press TV Iran the truth after the infamous Obergefell Supreme Court decision of 2015 about who played a pivotally disproportionate role in bringing this latest advance of Cultural Marxism to pass in the United States , as was the case in the Roe v Wade decision of January of 1973 .
Joseph Biden said the same thing I did , only he hailed the development as a new dawning in America .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was in the crosshairs of the usual suspects .
Not one of my Lutheran colleagues in the United States came to my public defense .
I was on my own and I knew it , just as I have been for years in these circles for discussing 9-11 , Empire foreign and military policy , the Kennedy Assassination , and the abortion and LGBTQ issues among many others .
Nothing in the last 4 years has changed the equation .
I said as much in an essay entitled , “ A ‘ Communist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of July , ” appropriately retitled , “ Russia is a Beacon of Promise for a Christian Future ” for Russia Faith and Russian Insider readers .
The thousands of hits on those sites revealed I had struck a chord or a raw nerve depending on the perspective of the reader , which is why editors like Charles Bausman and Father Joseph Gleason have increasingly come under attack by MSM rags in the United States like The Daily Beast as agents of the Kremlin , which assaulted me well before it did these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a badge of honor .
I still do .
Which brings me back to Father Gleason ’ s latest post .
His conclusions about what the LGBTQ movement and the power elite ’ s goals are in both the United States and globally in regard to authentic Christianity and its adherents are no different than what Rod Dreher wrote in Time Magazine after the Obergefell decision , only sharper in focus in the implications .
This sharpening of focus leads the American Christian who prayerfully contemplates the reality of the homeland advances of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or her position very carefully as the Holy Spirit of God leads and directs .
For the record , after examination over time , I humbly conclude personally that : 1 ) Father Joseph Gleason has made the right decision for himself and his family in moving to Russia ; 2 ) Recent developments in that country and elsewhere make it clear to me that Orthodoxy is especially being used of God in the proclamation of the Gospel in an age of advancing heresy and apostasy–not declining Lutheranism , Catholicism , or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zionism and increasing pop accommodation to cancerous American and European cultures headed for absolute shipwreck ; 3 ) For young believers around the world including a couple I have recently read about in Brazil , and young American Christians feeling bewildered and embattled as they Feel the Walls Closing In , examine the Lord ’ s will very closely in regard to the beckoning of Father Gleason and his migrating minions to the place that the Triune God is restoring at this eschatological hour in history to counter the evil plans of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using moral and sexual perversion , mass media manipulation , consumerism , economic sanctions , and overt military aggression to achieve Satan ’ s final victory in this present realm ; 4 ) The latest actions of the United States in the Ukraine in sewing discord in the Orthodox Church only underscore the depths to which the political leadership in America will go on behalf the objectives of the New World Order , along with the entire spectrum of moves being made by The Empire against Iran , Syria , Russia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is understood in discernment by the Christian believer in the West in terms of prophetic developments , those of us whose circumstances mandate remaining in our earthly homeland in exile must do so only in the clear understanding that the outcome is not merely an exilic experience of alienation and marginalization , but one which promises martyrdom itself .
My last public address to a Lutheran group discussed this .
I ’ m still not sure those in the lecture hall in upstate Wisconsin last year really had the foggiest notion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Lord to them .
But Father Joseph Gleason knows of what I speak , and so do most of his readers at Russian Faith .
There are a few Christian homeschoolers in Texas who certainly understand .
For those in the United States and the West in a position to make choices for themselves and their families on the basis of their individual circumstances and Christian witness for the truth in history , follow him to higher ground .
Get out of Dodge while you can .
I believe God has truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical and final hour in world and redemptive history .
Consider his witness and his words carefully .
That is my best advice to you .
The clock is ticking to midnight .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019
It goes without saying that Father Joseph Gleason of Russian Faith is making his mark in the world for the Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ. His theological journey has finally taken him into the priesthood of the Russian Orthodox Church. Geographically, the journey he and his family have embarked upon has taken them from the United States to Russia and a place called Rostov-The-Great. His is a story worth following on an ongoing basis. I sense his personal odyssey may prove larger in history than he or anyone else imagines right now.
Russian TV is making a film about the Gleason family. This is an excellent 3-minute teaser.
His most recent entry on the Russian Faith website is entitled, “Homosexuals Persecuting Christians in America: Do You Feel The Walls Closing In?” This marvelous piece is 5,050 words long. My succinct initial response to his labors before even reading the essay itself was–and is–a simple “Yes.”I do not come to this conclusion quickly or without study and engagement. Since 9-11, I have set aside most of the rest of my life to attempt to bring the people of America to an awareness of how late the hour is, and the perilous state of both individual souls and a collective people that has turned its back on God in favor of an Empire built on narcissism, militarism, usury, and sodomy.
The Gleason family
But the painful truth is that I have failed. I have lost 17 years of my life in the process. I admitted as much some years ago in a well publicized essay entitled, “Why We’re Finished.” Later, I found myself being pilloried by the Jerusalem Post and the international Jewish press for telling Press TV Iran the truth after the infamous Obergefell Supreme Court decision of 2015 about who played a pivotally disproportionate role in bringing this latest advance of Cultural Marxism to pass in the United States, as was the case in the Roe v Wade decision of January of 1973. Joseph Biden said the same thing I did, only he hailed the development as a new dawning in America. I didn’t. Thus, I was in the crosshairs of the usual suspects. Not one of my Lutheran colleagues in the United States came to my public defense. I was on my own and I knew it, just as I have been for years in these circles for discussing 9-11, Empire foreign and military policy, the Kennedy Assassination, and the abortion and LGBTQ issues among many others.
Nothing in the last 4 years has changed the equation. I said as much in an essay entitled, “A ‘Communist’s’ Thoughts on the 4th of July,” appropriately retitled, “Russia is a Beacon of Promise for a Christian Future” for Russia Faith and Russian Insider readers. The thousands of hits on those sites revealed I had struck a chord or a raw nerve depending on the perspective of the reader, which is why editors like Charles Bausman and Father Joseph Gleason have increasingly come under attack by MSM rags in the United States like The Daily Beast as agents of the Kremlin, which assaulted me well before it did these fine people. I wore that as a badge of honor. I still do.
Which brings me back to Father Gleason’s latest post. His conclusions about what the LGBTQ movement and the power elite’s goals are in both the United States and globally in regard to authentic Christianity and its adherents are no different than what Rod Dreher wrote in Time Magazine after the Obergefell decision, only sharper in focus in the implications. This sharpening of focus leads the American Christian who prayerfully contemplates the reality of the homeland advances of the New World Order to examine his or her position very carefully as the Holy Spirit of God leads and directs.
For the record, after examination over time, I humbly conclude personally that:
1) Father Joseph Gleason has made the right decision for himself and his family in moving to Russia;
2) Recent developments in that country and elsewhere make it clear to me that Orthodoxy is especially being used of God in the proclamation of the Gospel in an age of advancing heresy and apostasy–not declining Lutheranism, Catholicism, or a Protestant Evangelical movement overcome with worship of Zionism and increasing pop accommodation to cancerous American and European cultures headed for absolute shipwreck;
3) For young believers around the world including a couple I have recently read about in Brazil, and young American Christians feeling bewildered and embattled as they Feel the Walls Closing In, examine the Lord’s will very closely in regard to the beckoning of Father Gleason and his migrating minions to the place that the Triune God is restoring at this eschatological hour in history to counter the evil plans of a Western Globalist and Zionist movement bent on using moral and sexual perversion, mass media manipulation, consumerism, economic sanctions, and overt military aggression to achieve Satan’s final victory in this present realm;
4) The latest actions of the United States in the Ukraine in sewing discord in the Orthodox Church only underscore the depths to which the political leadership in America will go on behalf the objectives of the New World Order, along with the entire spectrum of moves being made by The Empire against Iran, Syria, Russia, and Venezuela; 5) When all of this is understood in discernment by the Christian believer in the West in terms of prophetic developments, those of us whose circumstances mandate remaining in our earthly homeland in exile must do so only in the clear understanding that the outcome is not merely an exilic experience of alienation and marginalization, but one which promises martyrdom itself.
My last public address to a Lutheran group discussed this. I’m still not sure those in the lecture hall in upstate Wisconsin last year really had the foggiest notion of what I was trying to say in the Lord to them. But Father Joseph Gleason knows of what I speak, and so do most of his readers at Russian Faith. There are a few Christian homeschoolers in Texas who certainly understand. For those in the United States and the West in a position to make choices for themselves and their families on the basis of their individual circumstances and Christian witness for the truth in history, follow him to higher ground. Get out of Dodge while you can.
I believe God has truly raised this man up at this most critical and final hour in world and redemptive history. Consider his witness and his words carefully. That is my best advice to you. The clock is ticking to midnight.


russia-insider--2020-10-21--Easter 1944 - US and UK Bombers Were Murdering Their Serbian Christian Allies

This article from our archives was first published on RI in April 2019 The American and British air force bombed Belgrade and various Serbian towns on Sunday , April 16 , 1944 , during Christian Serb holiday of Easter .
The bombing was performed in a fashion more savage than Hitler did it three years earlier on Sunday , April 6 , 1941 .
There is no easy explanation and certainly , there is no excuse for this barbarity .
To make it even more shocking – while the number of Serbian cities were mercilessly bombed on this Eastern Orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw the same destiny .
Why were the Serbs – the nominal allies bombed while the nominal enemy was not ?
Theories are many and we can only guess .
Michel Lees was one of the British liaison officers dropped by the special forces into Axis-occupied Yugoslavia in 1943 .
He spent a year among the Chetniks .
Chetniks were Serb Royalists loyal to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and to King Peter .
They were anti-Nazi guerilla fighters lead by Serbian patriot General Draza Mihajlovic .
This is a quote from Mr. Lees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about an air force operation ?
Excerpt from : Michael Lees “ THE RAPE OF SERBIA , The British role in Tito ’ s Grab for Power 1943-1944 “ Harcourt Brace Jovanovich , New York , 1990 ISBN 0-15-195910-2 The theory [ in some Serbian circles ] is that strikes by Western Allied aircraft of the Balkan Air Force were called down specifically against Serbian towns and villages , cynically choosing Serbian Orthodox religious holidays for the bombing .
It is an undeniable fact that there was carpet bombing of Belgrade for three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in April 1944 , the intensity of which surpassed even the Luftwaffe attacks of April 1941 .
On Saint George ’ s Day 1944 the Montenegrin towns of Niksic , Podgorica , and Danilovgrad were blasted by Allied planes , allegedly because there were strong Loyalist concentrations around those areas , but , in truth , to demoralize the pro-Mihailovic populations .
The same was done even to Zara [ Zadar ] to demoralize the Italian population .
[ British liaison to Tito ’ s partisans ] Maclean ’ s book Eastern Approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the devastation of [ central Serbia city of ] Leskovac on the opening day of Ratweek , purportedly in order to destroy a concentration of German armor and motor transport .
But fifty Flying Fortresses were used , and Maclean “ tried not to think of the population of small farmers , shopkeepers and railway workers , of the old people , the women and children , who at this moment would be going about their everyday business in the streets .
… the whole of Leskovac seemed to rise bodily into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been heavy.
” The nominal bombing procedure was that Tito and his commander specified the targets through the British mission and their RAF advisors .
One wonders why the BLOs , or the Balkan Air Force advisors at base , did not question the necessity of extensive bombings of Yugoslav [ actually exclusively – Serbian ] areas , of hospitals , and of churches — and on religious holidays too — it there was not some political motive .
Why did Maclean not question the need to flatten [ the Serbian town of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in German cities was one thing .
Germans lived there , and the German morale had to be broken .
But bombing Belgrade or Leskovac on the odd chance of hitting a German barracks or tank and with the certainty of killing massive numbers of Yugoslav [ actually – Serb only ] allies was surely something very sinister .
I feel certain that the Allies would never have contemplated a blanket bombing of Paris , for example , on Easter Sunday — or any other day — however many German tanks were passing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it clear from the start that his was a sovereign army and that he would decide .
Did that go for ordering out massive formations of allied bombers too ?
… Regrettably , the Balkan Air Force files are permanently closed like the main SOE files and those of SIS .
One wonders why .
What should be so secret about an air force operation ?
History seems to repeat itself again .
It was Bosnian Muslim forces that , in 1995 , issued target lists to NATO pilots when Bosnian Serbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Four years later , during NATO ’ s assault on Yugoslavia in 1999 , Albanian KLA terrorists were to provide NATO aviation with data how to bomb Serbs [ again ] in the very cradle of the Serbian culture – Kosovo .
To summarize : the Western allies were always ready to provide their proxies on the ground with air cover .
It is not only the case with recent Yugoslav civil wars .
It is true – different times – round the globe .
In the second half of the twentieth century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States and Great Britain in WWII struggle against the Nazis – were target of vicious “ ally ” air attacks at least three times .
Again , this simply because the “ allies ” had found themselves proxies they wanted to help : • Croat new Nazis in their attack on Krajina in 1995 Each one of the chosen proxy is more astonishing than the next .
Each choice of the proxy is more puzzling than the next .
That Tito was Churchill ’ s hand-picked proxy in the Balkans is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Churchill sent to Roosevelt we see that Churchill insisted Roosevelt should stop supporting Serbian Royalists .
It is said that OSS [ U.S. Office of Strategic Service ] have received instructions , which have been approved by you , to arrange for a small intelligence mission to be infiltrated to General Michailivic ’ s headquarters , and we have been asked to organize the necessary arrangements .
We are now in process of withdrawing all our missions from Mihailovic and are pressing [ Yugoslavia and Serbia ] King Peter to clear himself of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this very time , an American mission arrives at Michailovic ’ s headquarters , it will show throughout the Balkans a complete contrariety of action between Britain and the United States .
The Russians will certainly throw all their weight on Tito ’ s side , which we are backing to the full .
Thus we shall get altogether out of step .
I hope and trust this may be avoided .
Published in “ Roosevelt and Churchill , Their secret wartime correspondence , ” page 482 Saturday Review Press / E.P .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the letter ( Doc # 346 , No .
515 ) two days later ( April 8 , 1944 ) President Roosevelt agrees and says : “ My thoughts in authorizing an OSS mission to the Mihailovic area was to obtain intelligence and the mission was to have no political functions whatever… I have directed that the contemplated mission be not repeat not sent.
” Not much persuasion needed .
In English , whether the British or American version of it the word “ ally ” actually means – a useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maybe even during the time when the American President penned the above letter , the Royalist Chetniks were saving lives of American pilots fallen over Yugoslavia .
Some six hundred of them !
To viciously bomb Serbian cities by another group of American pilots was a typical cowboy way to say thanks .
In 1941 Churchill asked Serbs to commit suicide and say “ No !
” to Hitler at the time when he was at the peak of his power .
The Serbs did it and paid with more than million lives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only three years later he was expressing his gratitude to the same astonishing people of Belgrade who dared chant to Hitler ’ s face “ Rather war than the pact ; rather death than slavery… ” by viciously bombing them on their most important Christian holiday .
On Easter Sunday !
Such is Western morality and every future ally of the Brits and Americans should know the above story .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in April 2019
The American and British air force bombed Belgrade and various Serbian towns on Sunday, April 16, 1944, during Christian Serb holiday of Easter. The bombing was performed in a fashion more savage than Hitler did it three years earlier on Sunday, April 6, 1941.
‘Why?’ – Mother with her murdered child, Belgrade, Orthodox Easter 1944,
There is no easy explanation and certainly, there is no excuse for this barbarity. To make it even more shocking – while the number of Serbian cities were mercilessly bombed on this Eastern Orthodox holiday – none of the Croat cities saw the same destiny. Why were the Serbs – the nominal allies bombed while the nominal enemy was not? Theories are many and we can only guess.
Leskovac destroyed
Michel Lees was one of the British liaison officers dropped by the special forces into Axis-occupied Yugoslavia in 1943. He spent a year among the Chetniks. Chetniks were Serb Royalists loyal to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and to King Peter. They were anti-Nazi guerilla fighters lead by Serbian patriot General Draza Mihajlovic. This is a quote from Mr. Lees’ book…
What should be so secret about an air force operation?
Excerpt from:
Michael Lees
“THE RAPE OF SERBIA,
The British role in Tito’s Grab for Power 1943-1944“
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, 1990
ISBN 0-15-195910-2
Kicevska street, Belgrade
QUOTE, pp 301-302:
The theory [in some Serbian circles] is that strikes by Western Allied aircraft of the Balkan Air Force were called down specifically against Serbian towns and villages, cynically choosing Serbian Orthodox religious holidays for the bombing. It is an undeniable fact that there was carpet bombing of Belgrade for three consecutive days coinciding with the Orthodox Easter in April 1944, the intensity of which surpassed even the Luftwaffe attacks of April 1941. On Saint George’s Day 1944 the Montenegrin towns of Niksic, Podgorica, and Danilovgrad were blasted by Allied planes, allegedly because there were strong Loyalist concentrations around those areas, but, in truth, to demoralize the pro-Mihailovic populations. The same was done even to Zara [Zadar] to demoralize the Italian population. [British liaison to Tito’s partisans] Maclean’s book Eastern Approaches gives his impressive and horrifying eyewitness account of the devastation of [central Serbia city of] Leskovac on the opening day of Ratweek, purportedly in order to destroy a concentration of German armor and motor transport. But fifty Flying Fortresses were used, and Maclean “tried not to think of the population of small farmers, shopkeepers and railway workers, of the old people, the women and children, who at this moment would be going about their everyday business in the streets. … the whole of Leskovac seemed to rise bodily into the air … the civilian casualties had been heavy.”
Militarily it was using a sledgehammer to kill a gnat. … But to the Partisan leadership the purpose of that bombing and others was not military, it was political. It was to show the strongly pro-Loyalist population of Jablanica who were the masters now.
The nominal bombing procedure was that Tito and his commander specified the targets through the British mission and their RAF advisors. One wonders why the BLOs, or the Balkan Air Force advisors at base, did not question the necessity of extensive bombings of Yugoslav [actually exclusively – Serbian] areas, of hospitals, and of churches — and on religious holidays too — it there was not some political motive. Why did Maclean not question the need to flatten [the Serbian town of] Leskovac? Massive bombing of civilians in German cities was one thing. Germans lived there, and the German morale had to be broken. But bombing Belgrade or Leskovac on the odd chance of hitting a German barracks or tank and with the certainty of killing massive numbers of Yugoslav [actually – Serb only] allies was surely something very sinister. I feel certain that the Allies would never have contemplated a blanket bombing of Paris, for example, on Easter Sunday — or any other day — however many German tanks were passing through. But of course Tito had made it clear from the start that his was a sovereign army and that he would decide. Did that go for ordering out massive formations of allied bombers too? … Regrettably, the Balkan Air Force files are permanently closed like the main SOE files and those of SIS. One wonders why. What should be so secret about an air force operation?
History seems to repeat itself again. It was Bosnian Muslim forces that, in 1995, issued target lists to NATO pilots when Bosnian Serbs were to be bombed to submission. Four years later, during NATO’s assault on Yugoslavia in 1999, Albanian KLA terrorists were to provide NATO aviation with data how to bomb Serbs [again] in the very cradle of the Serbian culture – Kosovo.
To summarize: the Western allies were always ready to provide their proxies on the ground with air cover. It is not only the case with recent Yugoslav civil wars. It is true – different times – round the globe. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Serbs – nominal allies of United States and Great Britain in WWII struggle against the Nazis – were target of vicious “ally” air attacks at least three times. Again, this simply because the “allies” had found themselves proxies they wanted to help:
Tito’s Communists in 1944
Croat new Nazis in their attack on Krajina in 1995
Islam fundamentalists in Bosnia in 1995
Albanian terrorists and drug dealers in 1999
Each one of the chosen proxy is more astonishing than the next. Each choice of the proxy is more puzzling than the next.
The National Museum of Serbia in Belgrade
That Tito was Churchill’s hand-picked proxy in the Balkans is not a secret anymore. From declassified letters Churchill sent to Roosevelt we see that Churchill insisted Roosevelt should stop supporting Serbian Royalists.
Doc. 345
CHURCHILL TO ROOSEVELT No. 638 April 6, 1944 It is said that OSS [U.S. Office of Strategic Service] have received instructions, which have been approved by you, to arrange for a small intelligence mission to be infiltrated to General Michailivic’s headquarters, and we have been asked to organize the necessary arrangements. We are now in process of withdrawing all our missions from Mihailovic and are pressing [Yugoslavia and Serbia] King Peter to clear himself of this millstone,… If, at this very time, an American mission arrives at Michailovic’s headquarters, it will show throughout the Balkans a complete contrariety of action between Britain and the United States. The Russians will certainly throw all their weight on Tito’s side, which we are backing to the full. Thus we shall get altogether out of step. I hope and trust this may be avoided.
Published in
“Roosevelt and Churchill,
Their secret wartime correspondence,” page 482
Saturday Review Press / E.P. Dutton Co.
New York, 1975
Immediately, in the letter (Doc #346, No. 515) two days later (April 8, 1944) President Roosevelt agrees and says: “My thoughts in authorizing an OSS mission to the Mihailovic area was to obtain intelligence and the mission was to have no political functions whatever… I have directed that the contemplated mission be not repeat not sent.”
Not much persuasion needed. In English, whether the British or American version of it the word “ally” actually means – a useful fool. Only months before, and maybe even during the time when the American President penned the above letter, the Royalist Chetniks were saving lives of American pilots fallen over Yugoslavia. Some six hundred of them! To viciously bomb Serbian cities by another group of American pilots was a typical cowboy way to say thanks.
In 1941 Churchill asked Serbs to commit suicide and say “No!” to Hitler at the time when he was at the peak of his power. The Serbs did it and paid with more than million lives! Churchill praised them at the time. Only three years later he was expressing his gratitude to the same astonishing people of Belgrade who dared chant to Hitler’s face “Rather war than the pact; rather death than slavery…” by viciously bombing them on their most important Christian holiday. On Easter Sunday!
Such is Western morality and every future ally of the Brits and Americans should know the above story.


russia-insider--2020-10-22--The Enmity Between Ukrainians and Russians Is Artificial, Manufactured by the West

This article from our archives was first published on RI in December 2018 The authorities who forced Ukraine to become a part of the Soviet Union had no regard for the will of the people or the right to self-determination .
Stalin was hell-bent on incorporating Ukraine – a pesky and independent-minded nation with a proud history – into the nascent Socialist empire .
Many Ukrainians resented the process of Russification that followed feeling that it threatened to greatly diminish their rich culture and heritage .
Ukrainians , after all , have their own language , literature , music , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can boast of dozens of world famous artists such as the writers Taras Shevchenko , Lesya Ukrainka , and Gogol as well as the painters Repin , Bogomazov , Levitsky , Murasko and Marchuk .
Ukraine itself has a rather unique history having been at one time a matriarchy .
This explains why Ukrainian women have a reputation for being spirited , assertive and effervescent , so finely portrayed by Mikhail Sholokov in his novel “ Quiet Flows the Don ” .
The most famous example of Ukrainian womanhood was beyond doubt the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beautiful ( like many Ukrainian women ) was captured as a young peasant during a raid in the Carpathians when sex-slave bandits kidnapped her and sold her to the Golden Horde .
She quickly became a favorite of Suleyman the Magnificent .
Witty , smart and a gifted practitioner of “ the amourous art ” , Roxelana ( her Turkish name , Hürrem , means “ joyful one ” ) , would eventually become Suleyman ’ s wife and chief advisor bearing him five children .
After his death she became “ Empress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most powerful women in the world more than four centuries ago .
With regard to recent history , Ukrainians – like Russians - suffered horribly under Communism - especially Stalinism .
Despite the fact that Stalin was Georgian and his enforcer of collectivization Jewish , many Ukrainians now blame Russians for their “ holodomor ” - the brutal artificial famine that killed five million .
The current enmity which exists between Russians and Ukrainians is also artificial .
It has been manufactured to divide two Slavic people who have much in common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent a prosperous and mutually-beneficial bond between Russia and Ukraine .
Global strategists from Bismarck through Brzezinski have tried to separate these two Slavic nations .
And the “ great game ” continues to this day .
The latest ploy and tactic to keep Ukrainians and Russians apart is happening in the religious sphere .
Knowing that Orthodoxy , where “ sobornost ” ( unity ) is valued above all else , serves as a spiritual bridge between Russians and Ukrainians an attempt is being made to create a rift among the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these two Slavic people can be broken the situation would become even more tragic .
It is truly a Manichean drama being played out before our eyes – the forces of light versus the forces of darkness .
It is a battle not only for hearts and minds , but souls as well .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in December 2018
The authorities who forced Ukraine to become a part of the Soviet Union had no regard for the will of the people or the right to self-determination. Stalin was hell-bent on incorporating Ukraine – a pesky and independent-minded nation with a proud history – into the nascent Socialist empire. Many Ukrainians resented the process of Russification that followed feeling that it threatened to greatly diminish their rich culture and heritage. Ukrainians, after all, have their own language, literature, music, art, food and traditions.
They can boast of dozens of world famous artists such as the writers Taras Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, and Gogol as well as the painters Repin, Bogomazov, Levitsky, Murasko and Marchuk.
Anne of Kiev, a Russian princess whose family (Rurik) ruled Ukraine and Russia, who became queen of France by marriage in the 11th century
Ukraine itself has a rather unique history having been at one time a matriarchy. This explains why Ukrainian women have a reputation for being spirited, assertive and effervescent, so finely portrayed by Mikhail Sholokov in his novel “Quiet Flows the Don”.
The most famous example of Ukrainian womanhood was beyond doubt the figure of Roxelana.
Roxelana, strikingly beautiful (like many Ukrainian women) was captured as a young peasant during a raid in the Carpathians when sex-slave bandits kidnapped her and sold her to the Golden Horde. She quickly became a favorite of Suleyman the Magnificent. Witty, smart and a gifted practitioner of “the amourous art”, Roxelana (her Turkish name, Hürrem, means “joyful one”), would eventually become Suleyman’s wife and chief advisor bearing him five children. After his death she became “Empress of the East” and one of the most powerful women in the world more than four centuries ago.
With regard to recent history, Ukrainians – like Russians - suffered horribly under Communism - especially Stalinism. Despite the fact that Stalin was Georgian and his enforcer of collectivization Jewish, many Ukrainians now blame Russians for their “holodomor” - the brutal artificial famine that killed five million.
The current enmity which exists between Russians and Ukrainians is also artificial. It has been manufactured to divide two Slavic people who have much in common. It is a political weapon designed to prevent a prosperous and mutually-beneficial bond between Russia and Ukraine.
Global strategists from Bismarck through Brzezinski have tried to separate these two Slavic nations. And the “great game” continues to this day.
The latest ploy and tactic to keep Ukrainians and Russians apart is happening in the religious sphere. Knowing that Orthodoxy, where “sobornost” (unity) is valued above all else, serves as a spiritual bridge between Russians and Ukrainians an attempt is being made to create a rift among the faithful. If this spiritual bond between these two Slavic people can be broken the situation would become even more tragic. It is truly a Manichean drama being played out before our eyes – the forces of light versus the forces of darkness. It is a battle not only for hearts and minds, but souls as well.


russia-insider--2020-10-22--Solzhenitsyn Correctly Predicted the Decadent Collapse of America 40 Years Ago - (Russian TV News)

This TV segment is from mid-November , but we ’ re running it now because of all the news about Solzhenitsyn .
It starts with a discussion of the US mid-term elections , and how uncivil the tone is in the US , and then has a very good discussion of Solzhenitsyn .
His famous and prescient 1978 Harvard speech “ A World Split Apart ” very accurately predicted the current culture clash in the West .
He specifically calls out excessively individualistic ideology in the Western world as one that will lead to future decline and decadence : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless ... Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence.
” This decadence can be seen in various clips of vicious fighting in the American mid-term elections .
What democracy can endure when such extreme hatred , rather than collaboration , is normalized between the two main political parties of a country ?
On Tuesday , the mid-term elections were held in the USA .
The bottom line is President Trump strengthened his position in the upper chamber of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate .
It means there will be no impeachment .
Trump will remain in office .
But in the lower chamber of the Congress , in the House of Representatives , Trump lost his position .
Now , he has a minority there .
Since it is the Congress that determines the country 's foreign policy , this means that it will be obviously impossible to agree on major issues with Trump .
Trump has only a consultative role .
Also , the governors were elected .
An interesting fact — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there was n't and there still is n't a single black governor after these elections .
Think what you like .
Not a single one .
The number of women in the House of Representatives grew — on the wave of the feminist movement .
There is even the first openly lesbian from an Indian tribe , which is considered a huge achievement of American democracy .
And there 's the first Muslim as well which is also widely discussed as something unusual .
The distinctive feature of the US election campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There 's an example .
CNN 's political observer , Anna Navarro , casually calls President Trump a “ racist pig '' on air , and this was received calmly as something ordinary .
This style , however , reflects the deep irreconcilability and even hatred which is shown to each other by the two American camps — the Republicans and the Democrats .
Since the bloodthirstiness in the split American elite wo n't disappear after the election , the USA will face nothing good with such an attitude of the upper crust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civil conflict .
There are no restraining motives .
But the exasperation is growing .
There is a situation in the elite when everyone hates and everyone is hated .
At the same time , the culture of the political struggle is falling apart .
There 's an important point — Nikolai Berdyaev wrote about the primacy of culture for the sustainability of society .
“ In society ’ s life , spiritual primacy belongs to culture .
It 's not politics or economy but culture where the goals of the society are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public are measured by a high-quality cultural level.
” That is , the quality of culture determines the quality of the public .
This brings to mind the famous Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard University .
Soon , we will be celebrating Alexander Solzhenitsyn 's centenary .
With the anniversary coming up , I 'd like to turn to his thoughts on the symbol of the West , America , that he knew so well , he used to live there while in exile .
What was said 40 years ago turned out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounds relevant , even fresh , and intellectually bold .
Alexander Isaevich spoke then about the `` blinding of superiority '' and `` the fall of courage '' as a `` sign of the end . ''
He spoke of the need for moral criteria and that legal restrictions are never enough for the society .
At that time , intellectual America applauded to the words .
Alexander Solzhenitsyn : “ I 've spent all my life under a Communist regime , and I will tell you that a society without any objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.
” Further , correlating the interests of the individual and the society , speaking against anthropocentrism , against the uncouth man as a measure for everything .
Alexander Solzhenitsyn : “ The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless .
Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space .
Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence.
” Harvard listened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Solzhenitsyn spoke about the very core of the ideas of Western democracy .
Alexander Solzhenitsyn : “ To such consciousness , man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth .
Imperfect man , who is never free of pride , self-interest , envy , vanity , and dozens of other defects .
We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey .
On the way from the Renaissance to our days , we have enriched our experience , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility .
We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms , only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession : our spiritual life.
” It was a call to rise to light self-restraint and to be able to leave this life as a being that 's higher than the one at the beginning of the path .
Solzhenitsyn called material America and indeed humanity to go to the next as he put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solzhenitsyn : “ We can not avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society .
Is it true that man is above everything ?
Is there no Superior Spirit above him ?
Is it right that human life and society 's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place ?
Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity ?
” Yes , it is extremely instructive today to consider ourselves in the light of such deep and sublime thoughts of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where Solzhenitsyn sounded so powerful 40 years ago .

This TV segment is from mid-November, but we’re running it now because of all the news about Solzhenitsyn. It starts with a discussion of the US mid-term elections, and how uncivil the tone is in the US, and then has a very good discussion of Solzhenitsyn.
His famous and prescient 1978 Harvard speech “A World Split Apart” very accurately predicted the current culture clash in the West.
He specifically calls out excessively individualistic ideology in the Western world as one that will lead to future decline and decadence:
“The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless... Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence.”
This decadence can be seen in various clips of vicious fighting in the American mid-term elections. What democracy can endure when such extreme hatred, rather than collaboration, is normalized between the two main political parties of a country?
Transcript below:
Transcript:
On Tuesday, the mid-term elections were held in the USA. The bottom line is President Trump strengthened his position in the upper chamber of the American parliament. He gained a majority in the Senate. It means there will be no impeachment. Trump will remain in office.
But in the lower chamber of the Congress, in the House of Representatives, Trump lost his position. Now, he has a minority there. Since it is the Congress that determines the country's foreign policy, this means that it will be obviously impossible to agree on major issues with Trump. Trump has only a consultative role.
Also, the governors were elected. An interesting fact — among all the governors in the USA, there wasn't and there still isn't a single black governor after these elections. Think what you like. Not a single one.
The number of women in the House of Representatives grew — on the wave of the feminist movement. There is even the first openly lesbian from an Indian tribe, which is considered a huge achievement of American democracy. And there's the first Muslim as well which is also widely discussed as something unusual.
The distinctive feature of the US election campaign was extraordinary fierceness and unrestrained rudeness. There's an example. CNN's political observer, Anna Navarro, casually calls President Trump a “racist pig" on air, and this was received calmly as something ordinary.
This style, however, reflects the deep irreconcilability and even hatred which is shown to each other by the two American camps — the Republicans and the Democrats.
Since the bloodthirstiness in the split American elite won't disappear after the election, the USA will face nothing good with such an attitude of the upper crust. They have no sobering experience of civil conflict.
There are no restraining motives. But the exasperation is growing. There is a situation in the elite when everyone hates and everyone is hated. At the same time, the culture of the political struggle is falling apart.
There's an important point — Nikolai Berdyaev wrote about the primacy of culture for the sustainability of society.
“In society’s life, spiritual primacy belongs to culture. It's not politics or economy but culture where the goals of the society are fulfilled. The value and quality of the public are measured by a high-quality cultural level.”
That is, the quality of culture determines the quality of the public. This brings to mind the famous Solzhenitsyn speech at Harvard University. Soon, we will be celebrating Alexander Solzhenitsyn's centenary.
With the anniversary coming up, I'd like to turn to his thoughts on the symbol of the West, America, that he knew so well, he used to live there while in exile. What was said 40 years ago turned out to be a prophecy, because it sounds relevant, even fresh, and intellectually bold.
Alexander Isaevich spoke then about the "blinding of superiority" and "the fall of courage" as a "sign of the end." He spoke of the need for moral criteria and that legal restrictions are never enough for the society. At that time, intellectual America applauded to the words.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “I've spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.”
Further, correlating the interests of the individual and the society, speaking against anthropocentrism, against the uncouth man as a measure for everything.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless. Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence.”
Harvard listened then with bated breath, after all, Solzhenitsyn spoke about the very core of the ideas of Western democracy.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “To such consciousness, man is the touchstone in judging and evaluating everything on earth. Imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now experiencing the consequences of mistakes which had not been noticed at the beginning of the journey.
On the way from the Renaissance to our days, we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility. We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.”
It was a call to rise to light self-restraint and to be able to leave this life as a being that's higher than the one at the beginning of the path. Solzhenitsyn called material America and indeed humanity to go to the next as he put it, "anthropological level."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that human life and society's activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?”
Yes, it is extremely instructive today to consider ourselves in the light of such deep and sublime thoughts of Solzhenitsyn. To consider ourselves and America where Solzhenitsyn sounded so powerful 40 years ago.


russia-insider--2020-10-23--This Is What 19th c. Russian Families Were Like Before the Devastation of Communism

This article from our archives was first published on RI in November 2018 As soon as he was born , the Russian nobleman already had a purpose and destiny .
He was destined for service , specifically for government service .
Moreover , this child had a particular lineage , and from the moment of his birth , he was embedded in a genealogical chain , making him not simply a private individual , but a continuation of his family .
He had ancestors , whom he doubtlessly knew and honored , and his behavior had to maintain a standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s honor , but instead would increase it as much as possible .
Peter the Great reinforced the obligation of a nobleman to serve his monarch , while also essentially making the noble ranks accessible to non-nobles ( through education or service ) .
For the Russian nobleman—who was most often not very well-off—the very idea of nobility was tied to education , upbringing , and duty .
“ He who receives much may be asked of much ” —such was the unwritten credo of the nobility .
An uneducated nobleman was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the code of conduct could lose note only the respect of those around him , but his very status as a nobleman .
Patriarchal noble families did not dispose one to sensitivity and tenderness .
The father was considered a demigod and absolute ideal ; he controlled everything in the house .
Noble families generally did not spoil their children or bend to their wishes .
Much the opposite : children were harshly disciplined .
Parents took care of their education and upbringing , but they regarded them as little grown-ups , without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regarded as a good reason for choosing a model of behavior—if anything they were seen as the opposite .
The primary traits to be instilled were bravery , perseverance , having a place in the hierarchy , and the ability to control oneself with dignity in any situation .
From a very young age , noble children were obliged to learn how to control their impulses , bad moods , fears , and desires .
They were expected to unwaveringly fulfill their duties .
Thanks to their physical exertion—walks in all kinds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way of life—a young nobleman developed not only bodily ( which was necessary for military service ) , but also spiritually .
Hired specialists , who were usually foreigners , were in charge of their early home education .
They taught languages , etiquette , and good manners .
Music and dance were required subjects .
Balls weren ’ t simply evenings of dancing but one of the ways in which noble society was organized .
For this reason , balls were considered to be less a form of entertainment than an obligation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfill their obligations faithfully .
Parents primarily played the role of moral examples for their children , and their authority was usually very great .
A nobleman ’ s whole life was permeated by a network of written and ( mostly ) unwritten rules , which bore a high cost if broken .
Children could internalize these rules by watching their elders ; they would consciously or unconsciously adopt their manner of conduct—and with it , their worldview .
At a certain age , young men were sent to study in the institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would enter into state service ( which could be civil or military ) .
After the “ Decree of Noble Liberty ” was enacted , noblemen had the right to refuse state service and tend to their estates—a task that also required extraordinary effort and substantial knowledge .
A young noblewoman was expected to marry ; otherwise , she would be in the sad position of an old maid .
It happened occasionally that one sister would remain unmarried in order to live with her aging parents and ease their old age .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be a lady-in-waiting in the imperial court , she would fulfill these obligations until she was married , and then , as a rule , she would be let go .
Young women had no freedom before marriage .
Their reputation and honor were vigilantly preserved .
A young woman who cast doubt on her own reputation would bring shame not only upon herself , but also upon her family—and she wouldn ’ t be the only one to lose a chance at family life , as her sisters would also fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status would change : she would be considered a grown woman and gain much greater freedom—although her husband would have no less authority over her than her father had before .
In contrast , the subjugation of sons to their fathers didn ’ t end with marriage or the birth of children .
The reason for this was simple : the noblewoman ’ s sphere of service was the family , while the nobleman mainly served society .
Incidentally , marriages ( or at least , first marriages ) were primarily arranged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were allowed to follow their hearts , but parents chose brides for their sons ’ first marriages , even if they were relatively mature .
In Russia , women enjoyed a certain amount of economic freedom in comparison with Europe .
Thus , a bride maintained a right to her dowry without exception .
If her husband was a spendthrift and conducted his affairs unreasonably , his wife could file a complaint against him to preserve her own and her children ’ s interests .
Divorce was very complicated : a marriage could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party judged to be guilty would lose the ability to marry again .
The only exception was if one of the parties ( in a childless marriage , or if the children had grown up ) expressed the intention of entering a monastery .
It was more common for couples to separate while formally remaining married .
In this case , the husband was obligated to maintain his wife and pay alimony , assuming , of course , that the separation wasn ’ t caused by inappropriate conduct on her part .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to idealize this whole social stratum—and there ’ s no need to do so , since the Russian nobility , with its poetics of duty , service , and honor , has remained a unique phenomenon by Russian and global standards .
Sadly , it can never be reinstated insofar as it ’ s impossible to recreate the environment that nourished it .
We only have memoirs and Russia ’ s great literary tradition ( which was for a long time written exclusively by nobility ) to preserve for us the spirit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia associates merchant families with the values recorded in the Domostroy and the plays of Alexander Ostrovsky .
As a result , the lives of merchants are often thought to be behind the times and overly calculated .
There is certainly some truth to this : However much the merchant class contributed to the development of Russian society , it always preferred stability and respectability as the guiding principle for its own affairs .
The lifestyles and habits of the nobles and intelligentsia changed with the times and fashions , but merchant families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by their ancestors—and they didn ’ t tire of it .
Merchant wives and daughters were eager to keep up with fashions , especially since they had the money for it .
Fancy dresses made from brilliant , finely knitted fabrics ; expensive shawls ( which would be valued by noblewomen about twenty years later ) , massive jewels—all of this was intended to show that the family ’ s business was doing very well ( making it a more or less necessary expense ) .
The merchants ’ way of life was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needed to be approved by respected people—either representatives of the government or elite merchants .
They needed to walk a fine line between chic and showing off ( the latter being strictly looked down upon ) —and only then they could count on having a certain amount of respect and honor within their class .
Merchants preferred to live in an insulated environment : the vast majority of merchants ’ wives were also the daughters of merchants , who had grown used to calculations and imbibed the spirit of commerce since a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in for their husbands if he needed to leave on business .
A merchant ’ s widow would have been entirely capable of conducting business on her own until her children were old enough to take over .
Merchants had sons in order to continue the family business—and they didn ’ t ask for the child ’ s opinion in the matter .
As a rule , they taught their children management and bookkeeping right in the shop beginning at school age .
Boys were then sent to a technical school , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to preparatory schools for fear that they would be tempted to ditch the family business .
Incidentally , the merchant class gradually accepted the idea that higher education was a virtue rather than a temptation : in the beginning of the 19th century the Moscow Commercial School and Moscow Commercial Academy both opened .
A girl ’ s education wasn ’ t limited to sewing , weaving , worship , and keeping after the house .
No one would be surprised to see a literate daughter keeping the books for her father .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ families were also obligated to please their masters by keeping up the house in such a way that it would impress others .
Merchant dynasties brought many benefits to Russia .
It was precisely the wealthy , God-fearing , and knowledgeable merchants who sponsored the construction of hospitals , conservatories , schools , and museums .
They generously gave money for a variety of projects that didn ’ t benefit them directly but were essential to society as a whole .
The clergy has long been a respected part of Russian society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ important in the lives of the clergy .
( Naturally , we are talking about the married clergy ; the monastic clergy isolated themselves from the world and could not have attachments such as familiar ties . )
For the parish priest , the family was one of the most important parts of his life .
Just as the priest was supposed to be a moral compass for his parishioners , his wife was supposed to provide a model for women .
Mistakes , bad habits , and personal failings transformed the priest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Every aspect of the lives of a priest ’ s family was attentively and scrupulously analyzed—in the country this was accompanied by envy ( since the priests were generally better off and had more authority than the typical peasant ) , and in the cities it was accompanied by derision .
The family life of priests was strictly regulated by canonical rules .
Divorce and remarriage were allowed to the layperson ( although not without difficulties ) , but it was unthinkable for a priest .
What ’ s more , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priest was considered a widower for his whole life .
A priest could not marry outside his religion , just as his children could only unite themselves with other Orthodox Christians .
The priest ’ s house was to be a hearth for Orthodox culture .
A priest could not marry a widow or an actress .
If a priest ’ s wife conducted herself in an inappropriate way , he was expected to leave her or become a monk .
Since the clergy were encouraged to have children , a priest ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would have several of them—and each would have to be educated , raised , and prepared for future service .
It was entirely natural for a priest ’ s son to proceed to a seminary and then to become a priest , while a daughter would eventually marry another priest .
As a rule , a son would inherit his father ’ s parish : when he had finished his education and was ordained , he would return home with a young wife and continue services in his home town .
Another way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a priest ’ s daughter .
A priest-to-be only had the short period of time before taking vows to get married—and since these young men spent ten years in seminary , the search for a future companion was a serious problem .
After all , they had to find not just wives , but companions , who thought the same way and could be trusted with their futures and those of their children—someone who would help build a “ domestic church.
” If the representatives of other social groups had plenty of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know a bride , the clergy were deprived of this possibility .
Those future priests who couldn ’ t bring themselves to take monastic vows , but also couldn ’ t find a wife , could put off their consecration , though not for long .
Meanwhile , they were helped out by special diocesan schools for priest ’ s daughters , where young women not only received a general education , but also learned Old Church Slavonic , singing , and the rules and history of the Church .
Most often , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parish ’ s charitable efforts .
Women came to her for advice and compassion .
At the same time , she was obligated to run the household irreproachably in order to free her husband from all concerns and allow him to fully devote himself to his profession .
In general , there were fewer parishes than potential priests .
Also , not all children of the clergy wanted to have the same fate as their fathers .
Those who didn ’ t go to seminary , or were expelled from there , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those who stayed with their father until the age of 15 without receiving the required education .
They could then enter the petit bourgeoisie , peasantry , or merchant class .
If a priest ’ s son didn ’ t have any other prospects , he was sent into the army .
Upon joining the civil service , children of priests had the same rights as nobles .
The children of clergy made up a large portion of the so-called raznochintsy , a social group that had a great influence on Russian history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of educated individuals who lacked either nobility or sufficient material means from their families .
They could depend only upon their hands and head .
The Peasantry .
An Ancient World in a New Time Among the peasantry , the concept of “ family ” extended beyond a married couple and their children .
As a rule , their families were very large , with several generations living in a single hut : the elderly parents , their sons ( both single and married ) , the sons ’ families , and any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discounting young children , there might be 12 to 20 people in a hut .
This family was built on the principle of strict hierarchy and patriarchy .
The domestic work in the house was directed by the “ mistress ” —usually the mother-in-law , who ordered about the women in the house , especially any young and inexperienced daughters-in-law .
After the mother-in-law ’ s death , her title and responsibilities would pass on to the wife of the eldest son .
This set-up led to a whole range of family conflicts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to leave and live on one ’ s own for economic and administrative reasons .
( Sometimes a landowner would directly forbid such moves .
This made it easier to conduct a census and gather drafted soldiers , while also avoiding the need to divide the livestock . )
No one gave a thought about the psychological problems that could result from this overcrowding , and peasants virtually spent their whole lives being watched by other people , including children .
This meant that the adults ’ sexual lives , their arguments , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the children .
A peasant ’ s life depended on the yearly cycle of farm labor .
Every family member , including the youngest , had household obligations , which they needed to perform to their fullest abilities .
During harvest times , during times of sowing or reaping , only very young children or enfeebled old folks stayed home , even on the hottest days .
Children learned to work from a very early age .
The Russian peasant household could not afford to feed someone who didn ’ t work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to weave and spin at the age of six , and by the age of ten or twelve they were capable workers and began to amass a dowry of linen , towels , shirts , and dresses .
Young boys learned to control an axe , to work the land , and to handle horses .
If a village was known for one industry or another , the children learned it from a young age : it never hurt for the household to have an extra kopeck .
Education in peasant families was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ religious studies ( the most widespread prayers and stories from Scripture ) , and to the ethical norms of peasant life .
Village life was based upon unwritten laws—a large number of customs and superstitions that were regarded seriously .
Old men and women told their children fairy tales , local stories , interesting anecdotes , and various legends ; they taught them how to act in the most varied situations .
Virtually every event or activity in the lives of villagers was accompanied by a whole range of superstitions , folk sayings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the children took in the organic , half-Christian and half-pagan , worldview that characterized the Russian peasantry for centuries .
When bathing their children , feeding them , massaging their limbs , or rocking them to sleep , mothers , grandmothers , and older sisters always recited poems or sang songs and lullabies , and so they would have to remember and repeat rhymed lines .
Literacy was not widespread in the villages , but all necessary information was communicated from generation to generation , so that it would be wrong to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childhood mortality was extremely high in peasant families .
Overcrowding , the lack of sanitation , the absence of proper medical help , and poor supervision of children—all these things contributed to the fact that on 3 or 4 out of the 8-13 children born to a peasant family would survive to adulthood .
Death was not something at all unusual in peasant existence , and they mostly responded to it with total equanimity .
Sudden or unnatural deaths frightened them , but they didn ’ t perceive death from illness or old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were married off at a young age—they could be betrothed at the age of 16 .
Grooms were generally a couple years older than the brides , but they could also be younger if the marriage were in the interest of the household ( for instance , if it could make a tie to a rich family ) .
In comparison to noble daughters , young peasant women enjoyed unlimited freedom .
Gatherings with young men , strolls , conversations—even premarital relations were not seen as especially sinful ; they were even accepted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the traditional wedding “ crown covers everything.
” But women , and only women , were punished harshly for marital affairs .
Fathers and husbands had complete control over their wives and children ; their word was law .
Nonetheless , societal powers could interfere in family affairs if a man terribly abused his power or neglected his responsibilities as head of the family .
The well-balanced structure of the peasant world was based on deeply archaic principles : it would be very difficult for someone of today to understand how it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as a peasant who made his way into a major city would have been at a total loss for how to live in this giant anthill .
If the nobles and landowners knew the common people and could come to an understanding with them , many intellectuals and populists were completely unfamiliar with the real Russian peasantry .
Everything changed after the October Revolution .
But that ’ s a whole other story .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in November 2018
The Nobility. Duty and Honor
As soon as he was born, the Russian nobleman already had a purpose and destiny. He was destined for service, specifically for government service. Moreover, this child had a particular lineage, and from the moment of his birth, he was embedded in a genealogical chain, making him not simply a private individual, but a continuation of his family. He had ancestors, whom he doubtlessly knew and honored, and his behavior had to maintain a standard that would not possibly stain the family’s honor, but instead would increase it as much as possible.
Family Portrait Indoors, 1840s (Unknown Artist)
Peter the Great reinforced the obligation of a nobleman to serve his monarch, while also essentially making the noble ranks accessible to non-nobles (through education or service). For the Russian nobleman—who was most often not very well-off—the very idea of nobility was tied to education, upbringing, and duty. “He who receives much may be asked of much”—such was the unwritten credo of the nobility.
An uneducated nobleman was a barbarian. One who rudely broke the code of conduct could lose note only the respect of those around him, but his very status as a nobleman.
Patriarchal noble families did not dispose one to sensitivity and tenderness. The father was considered a demigod and absolute ideal; he controlled everything in the house. Noble families generally did not spoil their children or bend to their wishes. Much the opposite: children were harshly disciplined. Parents took care of their education and upbringing, but they regarded them as little grown-ups, without making allowances. Emotions weren’t regarded as a good reason for choosing a model of behavior—if anything they were seen as the opposite. The primary traits to be instilled were bravery, perseverance, having a place in the hierarchy, and the ability to control oneself with dignity in any situation.
From a very young age, noble children were obliged to learn how to control their impulses, bad moods, fears, and desires. They were expected to unwaveringly fulfill their duties. Thanks to their physical exertion—walks in all kinds of weather, exercise, and a Spartan way of life—a young nobleman developed not only bodily (which was necessary for military service), but also spiritually.
Hired specialists, who were usually foreigners, were in charge of their early home education. They taught languages, etiquette, and good manners. Music and dance were required subjects. Balls weren’t simply evenings of dancing but one of the ways in which noble society was organized. For this reason, balls were considered to be less a form of entertainment than an obligation, and the nobility were taught to fulfill their obligations faithfully. Parents primarily played the role of moral examples for their children, and their authority was usually very great.
A nobleman’s whole life was permeated by a network of written and (mostly) unwritten rules, which bore a high cost if broken. Children could internalize these rules by watching their elders; they would consciously or unconsciously adopt their manner of conduct—and with it, their worldview.
At a certain age, young men were sent to study in the institutions of higher education, and then they would enter into state service (which could be civil or military). After the “Decree of Noble Liberty” was enacted, noblemen had the right to refuse state service and tend to their estates—a task that also required extraordinary effort and substantial knowledge.
A young noblewoman was expected to marry; otherwise, she would be in the sad position of an old maid. It happened occasionally that one sister would remain unmarried in order to live with her aging parents and ease their old age. If a young woman had the honor to be a lady-in-waiting in the imperial court, she would fulfill these obligations until she was married, and then, as a rule, she would be let go.
Young women had no freedom before marriage. Their reputation and honor were vigilantly preserved. A young woman who cast doubt on her own reputation would bring shame not only upon herself, but also upon her family—and she wouldn’t be the only one to lose a chance at family life, as her sisters would also fall under suspicion. After marriage, her status would change: she would be considered a grown woman and gain much greater freedom—although her husband would have no less authority over her than her father had before.
In contrast, the subjugation of sons to their fathers didn’t end with marriage or the birth of children. The reason for this was simple: the noblewoman’s sphere of service was the family, while the nobleman mainly served society. Incidentally, marriages (or at least, first marriages) were primarily arranged by the older generation. Widow and widowers were allowed to follow their hearts, but parents chose brides for their sons’ first marriages, even if they were relatively mature.
In Russia, women enjoyed a certain amount of economic freedom in comparison with Europe. Thus, a bride maintained a right to her dowry without exception. If her husband was a spendthrift and conducted his affairs unreasonably, his wife could file a complaint against him to preserve her own and her children’s interests. Divorce was very complicated: a marriage could be annulled under certain conditions, but the party judged to be guilty would lose the ability to marry again. The only exception was if one of the parties (in a childless marriage, or if the children had grown up) expressed the intention of entering a monastery. It was more common for couples to separate while formally remaining married. In this case, the husband was obligated to maintain his wife and pay alimony, assuming, of course, that the separation wasn’t caused by inappropriate conduct on her part.
Naturally, it’s not possible to idealize this whole social stratum—and there’s no need to do so, since the Russian nobility, with its poetics of duty, service, and honor, has remained a unique phenomenon by Russian and global standards. Sadly, it can never be reinstated insofar as it’s impossible to recreate the environment that nourished it. We only have memoirs and Russia’s great literary tradition (which was for a long time written exclusively by nobility) to preserve for us the spirit of the Russian nobility.
The Merchant Class. Archaism and Pragmatism
Popular consciousness in Russia associates merchant families with the values recorded in the Domostroy and the plays of Alexander Ostrovsky. As a result, the lives of merchants are often thought to be behind the times and overly calculated. There is certainly some truth to this: However much the merchant class contributed to the development of Russian society, it always preferred stability and respectability as the guiding principle for its own affairs.
The lifestyles and habits of the nobles and intelligentsia changed with the times and fashions, but merchant families were able to maintain the order instituted by their ancestors—and they didn’t tire of it.
A. Riabushkin. A 17th-century Merchant’s Family, 1896
Merchant wives and daughters were eager to keep up with fashions, especially since they had the money for it. Fancy dresses made from brilliant, finely knitted fabrics; expensive shawls (which would be valued by noblewomen about twenty years later), massive jewels—all of this was intended to show that the family’s business was doing very well (making it a more or less necessary expense).
The merchants’ way of life was guided by society, and their conduct needed to be approved by respected people—either representatives of the government or elite merchants. They needed to walk a fine line between chic and showing off (the latter being strictly looked down upon)—and only then they could count on having a certain amount of respect and honor within their class.
Merchants preferred to live in an insulated environment: the vast majority of merchants’ wives were also the daughters of merchants, who had grown used to calculations and imbibed the spirit of commerce since a young age. They were able to stand in for their husbands if he needed to leave on business. A merchant’s widow would have been entirely capable of conducting business on her own until her children were old enough to take over. Merchants had sons in order to continue the family business—and they didn’t ask for the child’s opinion in the matter.
As a rule, they taught their children management and bookkeeping right in the shop beginning at school age. Boys were then sent to a technical school, but merchants were reluctant to send their kids to preparatory schools for fear that they would be tempted to ditch the family business. Incidentally, the merchant class gradually accepted the idea that higher education was a virtue rather than a temptation: in the beginning of the 19th century the Moscow Commercial School and Moscow Commercial Academy both opened. A girl’s education wasn’t limited to sewing, weaving, worship, and keeping after the house. No one would be surprised to see a literate daughter keeping the books for her father. But of course, women in merchant families were also obligated to please their masters by keeping up the house in such a way that it would impress others.
Merchant dynasties brought many benefits to Russia. It was precisely the wealthy, God-fearing, and knowledgeable merchants who sponsored the construction of hospitals, conservatories, schools, and museums. They generously gave money for a variety of projects that didn’t benefit them directly but were essential to society as a whole.
The Clergy. “Church-Tower Nobles”
The clergy has long been a respected part of Russian society. Family life and family ties were especially important in the lives of the clergy. (Naturally, we are talking about the married clergy; the monastic clergy isolated themselves from the world and could not have attachments such as familiar ties.) For the parish priest, the family was one of the most important parts of his life.
Just as the priest was supposed to be a moral compass for his parishioners, his wife was supposed to provide a model for women. Mistakes, bad habits, and personal failings transformed the priest’s family into a shameful parable. Every aspect of the lives of a priest’s family was attentively and scrupulously analyzed—in the country this was accompanied by envy (since the priests were generally better off and had more authority than the typical peasant), and in the cities it was accompanied by derision.
Portrait of a Priest and a Deacon (Deacons. Reception), 1907
The family life of priests was strictly regulated by canonical rules. Divorce and remarriage were allowed to the layperson (although not without difficulties), but it was unthinkable for a priest. What’s more, a second marriage was impossible, since a priest was considered a widower for his whole life. A priest could not marry outside his religion, just as his children could only unite themselves with other Orthodox Christians. The priest’s house was to be a hearth for Orthodox culture. A priest could not marry a widow or an actress. If a priest’s wife conducted herself in an inappropriate way, he was expected to leave her or become a monk.
Since the clergy were encouraged to have children, a priest’s family, as a rule, would have several of them—and each would have to be educated, raised, and prepared for future service. It was entirely natural for a priest’s son to proceed to a seminary and then to become a priest, while a daughter would eventually marry another priest. As a rule, a son would inherit his father’s parish: when he had finished his education and was ordained, he would return home with a young wife and continue services in his home town.
Another way of acquiring a parish was to marry a priest’s daughter. A priest-to-be only had the short period of time before taking vows to get married—and since these young men spent ten years in seminary, the search for a future companion was a serious problem. After all, they had to find not just wives, but companions, who thought the same way and could be trusted with their futures and those of their children—someone who would help build a “domestic church.”
If the representatives of other social groups had plenty of time and opportunity to find and get to know a bride, the clergy were deprived of this possibility. Those future priests who couldn’t bring themselves to take monastic vows, but also couldn’t find a wife, could put off their consecration, though not for long. Meanwhile, they were helped out by special diocesan schools for priest’s daughters, where young women not only received a general education, but also learned Old Church Slavonic, singing, and the rules and history of the Church. Most often, the priest’s wife organized the parish’s charitable efforts. Women came to her for advice and compassion. At the same time, she was obligated to run the household irreproachably in order to free her husband from all concerns and allow him to fully devote himself to his profession.
In general, there were fewer parishes than potential priests. Also, not all children of the clergy wanted to have the same fate as their fathers. Those who didn’t go to seminary, or were expelled from there, were excluded from the clergy. So were those who stayed with their father until the age of 15 without receiving the required education. They could then enter the petit bourgeoisie, peasantry, or merchant class. If a priest’s son didn’t have any other prospects, he was sent into the army.
Upon joining the civil service, children of priests had the same rights as nobles. The children of clergy made up a large portion of the so-called raznochintsy, a social group that had a great influence on Russian history and culture, which was made up of educated individuals who lacked either nobility or sufficient material means from their families. They could depend only upon their hands and head.
The Peasantry. An Ancient World in a New Time
Among the peasantry, the concept of “family” extended beyond a married couple and their children. As a rule, their families were very large, with several generations living in a single hut: the elderly parents, their sons (both single and married), the sons’ families, and any unmarried daughters. This meant that, discounting young children, there might be 12 to 20 people in a hut. This family was built on the principle of strict hierarchy and patriarchy. The domestic work in the house was directed by the “mistress”—usually the mother-in-law, who ordered about the women in the house, especially any young and inexperienced daughters-in-law. After the mother-in-law’s death, her title and responsibilities would pass on to the wife of the eldest son.
This set-up led to a whole range of family conflicts, but it was very often impossible to leave and live on one’s own for economic and administrative reasons. (Sometimes a landowner would directly forbid such moves. This made it easier to conduct a census and gather drafted soldiers, while also avoiding the need to divide the livestock.) No one gave a thought about the psychological problems that could result from this overcrowding, and peasants virtually spent their whole lives being watched by other people, including children. This meant that the adults’ sexual lives, their arguments, and difficult moments were not hidden from the children.
A peasant’s life depended on the yearly cycle of farm labor. Every family member, including the youngest, had household obligations, which they needed to perform to their fullest abilities. During harvest times, during times of sowing or reaping, only very young children or enfeebled old folks stayed home, even on the hottest days.
Children learned to work from a very early age. The Russian peasant household could not afford to feed someone who didn’t work, so everyone labored. Little girls began to weave and spin at the age of six, and by the age of ten or twelve they were capable workers and began to amass a dowry of linen, towels, shirts, and dresses.
I. Kulikov. In a Peasant’s Hut, 1902
Young boys learned to control an axe, to work the land, and to handle horses. If a village was known for one industry or another, the children learned it from a young age: it never hurt for the household to have an extra kopeck.
Education in peasant families was primarily devoted to professional habits, to religious studies (the most widespread prayers and stories from Scripture), and to the ethical norms of peasant life.
Village life was based upon unwritten laws—a large number of customs and superstitions that were regarded seriously. Old men and women told their children fairy tales, local stories, interesting anecdotes, and various legends; they taught them how to act in the most varied situations. Virtually every event or activity in the lives of villagers was accompanied by a whole range of superstitions, folk sayings, and relevant stories—and in this way, the children took in the organic, half-Christian and half-pagan, worldview that characterized the Russian peasantry for centuries.
When bathing their children, feeding them, massaging their limbs, or rocking them to sleep, mothers, grandmothers, and older sisters always recited poems or sang songs and lullabies, and so they would have to remember and repeat rhymed lines. Literacy was not widespread in the villages, but all necessary information was communicated from generation to generation, so that it would be wrong to call peasant children uneducated.
Unfortunately, childhood mortality was extremely high in peasant families. Overcrowding, the lack of sanitation, the absence of proper medical help, and poor supervision of children—all these things contributed to the fact that on 3 or 4 out of the 8-13 children born to a peasant family would survive to adulthood. Death was not something at all unusual in peasant existence, and they mostly responded to it with total equanimity. Sudden or unnatural deaths frightened them, but they didn’t perceive death from illness or old age as a tragedy.
Village women were married off at a young age—they could be betrothed at the age of 16. Grooms were generally a couple years older than the brides, but they could also be younger if the marriage were in the interest of the household (for instance, if it could make a tie to a rich family).
In comparison to noble daughters, young peasant women enjoyed unlimited freedom. Gatherings with young men, strolls, conversations—even premarital relations were not seen as especially sinful; they were even accepted in some areas on the condition that the traditional wedding “crown covers everything.” But women, and only women, were punished harshly for marital affairs. Fathers and husbands had complete control over their wives and children; their word was law. Nonetheless, societal powers could interfere in family affairs if a man terribly abused his power or neglected his responsibilities as head of the family.
The well-balanced structure of the peasant world was based on deeply archaic principles: it would be very difficult for someone of today to understand how it was possible to live in a19th-century village, just as a peasant who made his way into a major city would have been at a total loss for how to live in this giant anthill. If the nobles and landowners knew the common people and could come to an understanding with them, many intellectuals and populists were completely unfamiliar with the real Russian peasantry.
Everything changed after the October Revolution. But that’s a whole other story.


russia-insider--2020-10-23--The Industrial Age Is Ending, Low-Tech Neo-Feudalism Will Replace It - No Fossil Fuels, No ‘Green’ E

The Industrial Age Is Ending, Low-Tech Neo-Feudalism Will Replace It - No Fossil Fuels, No ‘Green’ Energy

`` The process will be uncomfortably sharp and disorientating .
The West especially will not know what hit it as it emergently self-reorganizes back into something that resembles the old-time feudalism .
We have a new kind of mass squalor in America ... '' This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019 The author is a prominent American social critic , blogger , and podcaster , and one of our all-time favorite pessimists .
We carry his articles regularly on RI .
His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining .
He is one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dubbed 'The Dystopians ' in an excellent 2009 profile , along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov , another regular contributor to RI ( archive ) .
These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up .
You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject , here .
To get a sense of how entertaining he is , watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED .
Here is a recent audio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overview of his work .
And so the Democratic Party has gone and hoisted the flag of “ socialism ” on the mizzenmast of its foundering hulk as it sets sail for the edge of the world .
Bad call by a ship without a captain , and I ’ ll tell you why .
Socialism was the response to a particular set of circumstances in time that drove the rise of industrial societies .
Those circumstances are going , going , gone .
The suspicion of industry ’ s dreadful effects on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public imagination with William Blake ’ s poem “ Jerusalem ” in 1804 and its reference to England ’ s newly-built “ dark satanic mills.
” Industry at the grand scale overturned everyday life in the Euro-American “ West ” by the mid-19th century , and introduced a new kind of squalor for the masses , arguably worse than their former status as peasants .
And thus it was to be , through Karl Marx , Vlad Lenin , and the rest of the gang , ever-strategizing to somehow mitigate all that suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government owned the industry ( the means of production ) , then the riches would be distributed equally among the laboring masses and the squalor eliminated .
You can ’ t blame them for trying , though you can blame them for killing scores of millions of people who somehow got in the way of their plans .
Nobody had ever seen anything like this industry before , or had to figure out some way to deal with it , and it was such an enormous force in everyday life thereafter that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet nature rode in on .
Of course , the history of everything has a beginning , a middle , and an end , and we ’ re closer to the end of the industrial story than we are to the middle .
Which opens the door to a great quandary .
If industrial society is disintegrating ( literally ) , then what takes its place ?
Many suppose that it is a robotic utopia powered by some as-yet-unharnessed cosmic juice , a nirvana of algorithms , culminating in orgasm-without-end ( Ray Kurzweil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would check the “ no ” box on that outcome as a likely scenario .
The self-proclaimed socialists are actually seeing the world through a rear-view mirror .
What they are really talking about is divvying up the previously-accumulated wealth , soon to be bygone .
Entropy is having its wicked way with that wealth , first by transmogrifying it into ever more abstract forms , and then by dissipating it as waste all over the planet .
In short , the next time socialism is enlisted as a tool for redistributing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovery that most of that wealth is gone .
The process will be uncomfortably sharp and disorientating .
The West especially will not know what hit it as it emergently self-reorganizes back into something that resembles the old-time feudalism .
We have a new kind of mass squalor in America : a great many people who have nothing to do , no means of support , and the flimsiest notions of purpose in life .
The socialists have no answers for them .
They will not be “ retrained ” in some imagined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code-writers for Google .
Something the analysts are calling “ recession ” is ploughing across the landscape like one of those darkly majestic dust-storms of the 1930s , only this time we won ’ t be able to re-fight anything like World War Two to get all the machines running again in the aftermath .
Nor , of course , will the Make America Great Again fantasy work out for those waiting in the squalid ruins of the post-industrial rust-belt or the strip-mall wastelands of the Sunbelt .
Most of the beliefs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturned with the demise of the industrial orgy , like the idea that humanity follows an unerring arc of progress , that men and women are interchangeable and can do exactly the same work , that society should not be hierarchical , that technology will rescue us , and that we can organize some political work-arounds to avoid the pain of universal contraction .
There are no coherent ideas in the political arena just now .
Our prospects are really too alarming .
So , jump on-board the socialism ship and see if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the end of the earth .
But mind the gap at the very edge .
It ’ s a doozie .

"The process will be uncomfortably sharp and disorientating. The West especially will not know what hit it as it emergently self-reorganizes back into something that resembles the old-time feudalism. We have a new kind of mass squalor in America ..."
This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019
The author is a prominent American social critic, blogger, and podcaster, and one of our all-time favorite pessimists. We carry his articles regularly on RI. His writing on Russia-gate has been highly entertaining.
He is one of the better-known thinkers The New Yorker has dubbed 'The Dystopians' in an excellent 2009 profile, along with the brilliant Dmitry Orlov, another regular contributor to RI (archive). These theorists believe that modern society is headed for a jarring and painful crack-up.
You can find his popular fiction and novels on this subject, here. To get a sense of how entertaining he is, watch this 2004 TED talk about the cruel misery of American urban design - it is one of the most-viewed on TED. Here is a recent audio interview with him which gives a good overview of his work.
And so the Democratic Party has gone and hoisted the flag of “socialism” on the mizzenmast of its foundering hulk as it sets sail for the edge of the world. Bad call by a ship without a captain, and I’ll tell you why. Socialism was the response to a particular set of circumstances in time that drove the rise of industrial societies. Those circumstances are going, going, gone.
The suspicion of industry’s dreadful effects on the human condition first sparked in the public imagination with William Blake’s poem “Jerusalem” in 1804 and its reference to England’s newly-built “dark satanic mills.” Industry at the grand scale overturned everyday life in the Euro-American “West” by the mid-19th century, and introduced a new kind of squalor for the masses, arguably worse than their former status as peasants.
And thus it was to be, through Karl Marx, Vlad Lenin, and the rest of the gang, ever-strategizing to somehow mitigate all that suffering. Their Big Idea was that if government owned the industry (the means of production), then the riches would be distributed equally among the laboring masses and the squalor eliminated. You can’t blame them for trying, though you can blame them for killing scores of millions of people who somehow got in the way of their plans.
Nobody had ever seen anything like this industry before, or had to figure out some way to deal with it, and it was such an enormous force in everyday life thereafter that it shattered human relationships with nature and the planet nature rode in on. Of course, the history of everything has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and we’re closer to the end of the industrial story than we are to the middle.
Which opens the door to a great quandary. If industrial society is disintegrating (literally), then what takes its place? Many suppose that it is a robotic utopia powered by some as-yet-unharnessed cosmic juice, a nirvana of algorithms, culminating in orgasm-without-end (Ray Kurzweil’s transhumanism). Personally, I would check the “no” box on that outcome as a likely scenario.
The self-proclaimed socialists are actually seeing the world through a rear-view mirror. What they are really talking about is divvying up the previously-accumulated wealth, soon to be bygone. Entropy is having its wicked way with that wealth, first by transmogrifying it into ever more abstract forms, and then by dissipating it as waste all over the planet. In short, the next time socialism is enlisted as a tool for redistributing wealth, we will make the unhappy discovery that most of that wealth is gone.
The process will be uncomfortably sharp and disorientating. The West especially will not know what hit it as it emergently self-reorganizes back into something that resembles the old-time feudalism. We have a new kind of mass squalor in America: a great many people who have nothing to do, no means of support, and the flimsiest notions of purpose in life. The socialists have no answers for them. They will not be “retrained” in some imagined federal crusade to turn meth freaks into code-writers for Google.
Something the analysts are calling “recession” is ploughing across the landscape like one of those darkly majestic dust-storms of the 1930s, only this time we won’t be able to re-fight anything like World War Two to get all the machines running again in the aftermath. Nor, of course, will the Make America Great Again fantasy work out for those waiting in the squalid ruins of the post-industrial rust-belt or the strip-mall wastelands of the Sunbelt.
Most of the beliefs and attitudes of the present day will be overturned with the demise of the industrial orgy, like the idea that humanity follows an unerring arc of progress, that men and women are interchangeable and can do exactly the same work, that society should not be hierarchical, that technology will rescue us, and that we can organize some political work-arounds to avoid the pain of universal contraction.
There are no coherent ideas in the political arena just now. Our prospects are really too alarming. So, jump on-board the socialism ship and see if it makes you feel better to sail to the end of the earth. But mind the gap at the very edge. It’s a doozie.