The fall of an empire—the Lesson of Byzantium

I saw this film, narrated by Archimandrite Tikhon Shevkunov the father-confessor of Vladimir Putin, shortly after it came out. Edward Lucas ranted about it in the Economist at the time, writing how atrociously Anti-Western it is, and alerted me to its existence. Now I rediscovered it with an English sound.

If you are looking for a comprehensive account of the Byzantine fall, this is not exactly the best thing to watch. I don't want to go into the pedantic discussion about how the movie picks events from different periods of the Empire's long history and weaves them into a narrative because this movie is not quite a history. The narrative is constructed so that it reflects contemporary Russia more than the long period of Byzantium's decline, this is the essence of its genius. It is a convenient way of speaking about the present using images of the past. One of the central themes in this movie is that copying and/or selling out to the West did not bring any benefit to the Byzantines and this is what infuriates people like good Ed.

In their view the West is infallible just like the Papacy and so they fail to see how disastrous the Jeffrey Sachs engineered shock therapy and the subsequent oligarch robbing spree were. It is ironic that Lucas' review displays yet again this type of attitude when it calls the movie "Re-writing History" and summons a scholar to confirm it. If Ed fails to see the movie for what it is and better if the movie enjoys popularity with many Russians then Archimandrite Tikhon did something right.    

I found the video here, on the site dedicated to this movie.

Palaces from hell

I visited Moscow about two years ago and while travelling I can't remember where we passed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (seen on the left). The car was moving rather slowly as we were stuck in the usual Moscow traffic and I thus had a unique opportunity to take a look at the place from the window. I felt like there is something occult about the architecture and ever since that rather insignificant experience I dubbed the building "The Palace from hell".

There are other buildings from Stalin's reign, built in simmilar style around Moscow and so I used a plural in the title. Russian sentry has a nice gallery of them (in fact the illustration to this post comes from there). Furthermore the blog links to a site which has all the answers on things occult, mysterious and simply weird in Russia and elsewhere. I do not take Pravda to be in any way authoritative or trustworthy but since my perceptions coincide with the claims in their article I am more than happy to quote some interesting bits.

Rumor has it that Stalin planned to re-build Moscow to make it look like a Zodiac table. The metro loop line with 12 stations and nine skyscrapers representing planets were designed for these purposes. The Exhibition of Economic Achievements and the Ostankino TV Tower were to represent an asteroid belt. The metro loop line and the skyscrapers were built concurrently.

The project is thankfully not complete:

The Soviet Palace was to take the central place among the skyscrapers. The Palace was to be built at the same spot where the Cathedral of Christ the Savior is located now and where Alekseevsky Convent used to be located. A legend says that the convent’s hegumeness cursed the place and promised that no building erected on that spot would last long.

Thanks God the monks cursed it, the rebuilt Christ Saviour Cathedral surpasses any of these buildings in beauty. I don't say I have anything against the presence of these Stalinist palaces. They have their 'magic' and together with the golden domed Churches make Moscow what it is.

Read the entire article here.

OK, I am an anti-abortionist...

...and guess what? I came to this reasoning entirely without using the arguments of religion. Not that I care about some 'progressive' atheist that is full of him/her self calling me a bigot, but I find the so called rational explanation to be a much smoother path to the terrible reality of abortion. I would not bother you with how I came to this radical conclusion (some readers might have seen my ideas on the issue to be previously ambiguous) and will get straight to my two point argument...

One of the most widely cited arguments is that a fetus developing in the womb is not a fully developed human being and therefore abortion does not qualify as murder. Well then we could also argue that retarded people are not fully developed human beings, or I know a guy here in London who's body was paralyzed by an illness at a young age and most of it did not develop properly, he is bound to a wheelchair and relies on a helper that is almost constantly present in his home. If I used the reasoning of those who advocate abortions I might also advocate for the removal of retarded people and my disabled friend as useless eaters. I would not, but I just want to state that useless eaters is what the argument of pro-choice activists boils down to. Let me explain...

Another argument pro-choice 'intellectuals' deploy against pro-life thinkers is the accusation of insensitivity towards desperate women. You know those desperate career types that sleep with many men and forget to take the pill, or are too drunk to force their men of choice into a condom? You know those desperately promiscuous teenage birds that watched too much MTV and are out to lose their virginity without thinking the entire thing through? When the crap hits the fan there is no daddy to share in their dilemma because few men have respect for such women. I know they are out there, I would not be stoning their behaviour because I have my share of sin but let us admit that such behaviour has its consequences. One of the obvious consequences for women is that they get knocked up with what they view as a burden, a useless eater.

The burden however is a developing human being dependent on the pregnant female for support. Just like my underdeveloped friend depends on his caretaker. Abortion is rewarding irresponsible behaviour and unwillingness to take responsibility. That is all I have to say.

PS: I am aware that there are certain situations where my arguments do not apply, such as a medical condition that threatens the life of the mother let alone the baby. As you can see my article is not about these occasions and I hope the situation I am describing above is clear to everyone. I am also aware that in an event of a ban on abortion there would arise a criminal phenomenon of back alley clinics. I think the problem is largelly moral here... 

Paedo-elf is out to get your kids

This is a type of story that makes the eyebrows rise:

Multi-user internet-based games such as World of warcraft and Everquest allow players to share a virtual world with thousands of other people from around the world. The growing popularity of such games has sparked calls for new regulation.

The Culture Committee of MPs this week raised fears that paedophiles are making growing use of virtual worlds for activities including simulated sex with children. Mrs Hodge told BBC Radio Four that the growing popularity of online games required new rules.

I didn't know that the World of Warcraft allows sex simulation mode or that there are any children characters that the paedos might abuse. I guess potential sexual predators must pick on beardless dwarves but with that heavy armour and deadly weapons they still would hardly pass for innocent five year olds. I guess they use a lot of imagination in the process. Anyway this is what occupies the minds of people like Margaret Hodge.

The site (and a funny blog I must say) I found this piece of insanity at hints that Hodge might in fact be acting this way out of remorse for some past failings. I think she shouldn't be doing the job in the first place, she is not fit for it. Let's hope she ends up like Jacqui Smith soon.

Little Green Hysteria

Ignorance is a bliss indeed. Few years ago (2005-2006 approximately) one poster on a Czech discussion forum linked to two blogs, Gates of Vienna and Little Green Footballs (I will go with the tradition of not linking that place, the link will direct you to a cached version of the site). In the case of the Gates I still return there from time to time, they supply just the information I want, i.e. nice stories from multicultural utopia. With the LGF I came there, I saw, I shook my head and I left. The whole place seemed a little too hysterical and neoconservtive (I will return to this accusation later in the post) and what was that annoying lizard thing about?

The discussion members looked like a pack of rabid dogs fighting over a bone and the content was centered around the idiotic wars in Iraq and Afghanistan something I never agreed with. Neither did I ever agree with pointing out oppressive Islamic cultural practices in traditionally Islamic countries, it is enough that we have minorities in the West who demand Sharia law and what Muslims do in their homelands in none of my business or interest. Pointing out these horrific stories serves the purpose of legitimating Western military interventions more than advancing the anti-immigration discourse. Hunting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan slowly became a fight for democracy and human rights because absence of bin Laden in prison rendered that argument irrelevant, just to give you an example. So I found little of interest there.

Charles Johnson the owner of LGF turned out to be a real Mr.Johnson since the first time I encountered his blog. He kicked out many of the pro free speech and truly conservative posters for simply disagreeing with him or some of his sycophants. I should not care about this because I was never part of the community anyway but there is more to it which is worth my post. Mr.Johnson attacked true conservatives not only in the US (Ron Paul) but in Europe as well, he claimed Vlaams Belang and Swedish Democrats are Nazis basically repeating the lies and smears of the gutter press. In this way he alienated most of the anti-jihad crowd, the Gates including.

In reality Mr.Johnson was never a conservative, he was a neocon, a Trotskyite in disguise. I know he was anti-Islam or that he uncovered manipulating photos from the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Being anti-Muslim or cheering up for a war with them (Iraq and Afghanistan was pointless and Lebanon not our business) doesn't make you in any way conservative. Christopher Hitchens is just that and self-proclaimed Trotskyite, the neocons are former Trotskyites who just hate hippies and use conservatism as a cover. Charles started bashing and banning the Creationsts, while I do not agree with the Intelligent design people either, these people are one of the core constituents of the conservatives in America. If Charles was a conservative he would accept those people's presence and make his position known through blog instalments without the unnecessary bans. But Charles is commie, he thinks that people are too stupid and only he and his clique know the answers, if you do not conform to their vision they ban you (or put you in gulag). The idea is very much like the discourse of humanitarian intervention, if the Afghan women do not change burka for bikini we have a right to force them into it.

But just as with the neocon administration of George W. Bush, a lot of conservatives jumped on the train, gullibly believing that Charles and the lizard crowd were their saviours. Many of those that were thrown out of the place still can't get over the fact and establish blogs devoted to their grief (see here and here and here), others periodically return to that place out of nostalgia. I think this phenomenon needs to be studied by psychologists as a case of mass psychosis. Johnson is a neocon, he always was, the proof of it being that he hates the tea-parties that essentially started as a reaction to government bailouts, a policy started by Bush. 

A discussion on fake conservatives would be a nice topic for another post, so I just finish this one here and perhaps return to the issue in a later instalment. Meanwhile it is good to discern them before you fall under their spell.

PS: Thinking about the whole thing I came to the conclusion that Mr. Johnson goes about promoting the hype only out of the wish for ratings. He doesn't write his blog just for the sake of writing it but does so out of the wish to make money. Fringe elements in his calculation need to be eliminated so that he can sell his product better. It's all about the money, pure and simple.

Some thoughts on guidance...

...from Czech perspective.

Joe Biden looks like he has some trouble with thinking things coming out of his mouth through. About a week ago he made a tour of Central Europe on which he urged us to help Ukraine and Georgia along the path to prosperity and stability. What does he want us to do, and who does Joe think he is talking to anyway? We Czechs have no coherent or sensible policy vis-á-vis Ukraine, Georgia, Russia or Belarus or any other country east of Slovakia. Should we in the name of prosperity in Ukraine pay the gas bill? Should we start criticising Saakashvili's non-democratic regime for being what it is, non-democratic? So far we were only able to reiterate the Western claims about Russian menace and accuse each other of being in cahoots with Moscow and working towards destruction of the wondeful, Occidental, Universalist project of eternal good and happiness for all. Maybe the US should lead the way by paying the gas bill and putting pressure on Georgia, because I am afraid we are not going to do anything without Washington's impulse.

Perhaps Washington is not interested at all in prosperity and stability in Georgia and Ukraine but only in maintaining it's sphere of influence in these countries. In that case all Joe Biden actually says is pretty much irrelevant to the actual reality. These are just words that help to perpetuate the illusions that democracy equals a journey towards prosperity or that usurpation of power supported by the West leads to democracy.  

Young Turks do not like the EU

About a month ago I posted my thoughts about Turkishness and its compatibility with the European project. In the linked article I asserted that there are many factors about the Turkish mindset that make membership in the Union less than desirable (for Turks more than anyone else). I also said that the overt Turkish nationalism that I termed Turkishness is incompatible with the Universalist drive for a European superstate that is the EU. Sadly my previous post was not backed by anything else but my own perceptions and experience and a bit of logic that connected the dots. No books, newspaper articles or interviews conducted with genuine Turks were cited and it made me feel a little bad about the whole thing.

My distress was very much relieved when I discovered that my perceptions and logic weren't that unfounded. Reuters reports that young Turks are thinking in very much the way I described. Here are some quotes from the article:

'What do I think of the European Union?' Danacioglu, 20, said in a throng of Istanbul traffic. 'Make Istanbul the capital of the European Union and then I'd support it.'

Danacioglu, who works as a taxi driver, says it is more important to be proud of being Turkish than to pretend to be European, and surveys suggest many others in Turkey's huge and growing youth population feel the same.

That bodes poorly for Turkey's already troubled EU accession bid as a study in May showed that young people, once touted by Turkish politicians as an asset for aging Europe, are the group where opposition to joining the European bloc is strongest.

And there is more:

Brussels wants Turkey to limit the power of the army, improve free speech, grant more rights to minorities and adopt and implement 80,000 pages of European laws and regulations ranging from the environment to food safety. These reforms are painful and require sustained support from public opinion.

Read the whole thing, it's well worth it.

PS: Strangely enough me and few of my classmates were speaking about Turkic nations, Westernisation and EU today and then I came home and found this article. Might be a nice example of Jungian synchronicity.