'Open Democracy' hates Russian Orthodoxy.
Friday, August 6, 2010 at 3:41PM Open Democracy is a gutter site. When is the last time they published anything good about the canonical Russian Orthodox Church? They only write posts about its enemies. Whether it is the Paris Gang, whose only legitimacy is that it is under Constantinople, or an entirely unrecognised pseudo-Orthodox group, the perquisite for appearing on that site is that you must stand in opposition to Moscow Patriarchate...
We are going to here look at an article by Alexa Chopivsky, and we will start with the title:
Prayer and politics: Russia's pincer movement in Ukraine.
Canonical Orthodoxy is a pincer. Ok, moving along...
As Washington and Moscow navigated the wake of a spy scandal, Kyiv was according Russian Orthodox Church Patriarch Kirill, travelling through Ukraine on an official "pastoral visit," a high-profile welcome more suitable for a rock star than the head of a millenium-old church, himself of pensionable age. For the Kremlin, the visit was more about extending Russia’s political sphere of influence than spiritual piety.
How can you fit the spy scandal, and the Patriarch's welcome into one sentence? However what is more interesting is that correct faith is considered to be a projection of Kremlin's power. I do not know how that works. I guess going to a canonical Church makes you understand that the Russians and Ukrainians have common origins. There is also the danger that you may not hate Moskali.
It is no wonder the author thinks like that, since Alexa is one of those moaners that cannot get over the failure of the Orange Farce.
On his way to Kyiv, Kirill to the faithful in the Russia-friendly southern and eastern enclaves of Odessa and Dnipropetrovsk. In the run-up to his arrival the Kyiv municipal authorities advised drivers to stay away from the city centre for the duration of his four-day stay and - in a move reflecting the failure of the Orange Revolution - banned protests for the duration of his visit.
Russia friendly? How about Orthodox, instead of pseudo-Orthodox? The author actually repeats 'the failure of the Orange Farce' line twice:
Since Yanukovych's election, Russia has been using religion to reassert its worldview over its former subject - a volte face after the Orange Revolution, when Viktor Yushchenko constantly taunted Moscow with scorn.
Let's face it, the failure of the Orange Farce is a more indicative of a broader failure of the Ukrainian state and its ideology. How do you maintain national cohesion in a country where one leader designates a historical figure as a hero and the leader after him revokes that decision? That indicates that in Ukraine there is a conflict of two narratives. We have one leader playing the Moskal'-hating card, while the other appeals to the Russia-friendly crowd. The world view Alexa means is the 'Russian world' idea, the anti-thesis of the Ukrainian nationalist view of Ukrainians being entirely separate from the Russians.
This is one of the reasons why the Rusyns of Subcarpathia get such a harsh treatment. They had since their first wave of national revival in the nineteenth century been Russophile and thought of themselves as part of the 'Russian world.' In fact the Galicians in the nineteenth century had called themselves Rusyns as well. I heard of a community in the Republic of Moldova, which has no relations to the people living around the Carpathians, that had been for years insulated and unimpacted by the Ukrainian nationalist ideology and still uses the term Rusyn. This is what makes Rusynism so dangerous to the Ukrainian nationalists.
This homage to Pan-Slavism or, to call a spade a spade, neo-Russian imperialism is seeking to diminish Ukraine and Ukrainians' separateness and to legitimise a wider Russian sphere of influence.
The problem is that this so called 'Russian imperialism' does not originate from the Kremlin but from the masses. Some types might blame the resurgence of Rusynism in Transcarpathia in recent years on Russia but the reality is that the Rusyns do not seem to get much help from Russia, apart from moral support in the media. The Cossacks are defending churches and canonical Church dignitaries in Ukraine from nationalist freaks and heretics.
Speaking of heretics, the author shows true colours here:
When Ukraine gained independence in 1991, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church splintered from the Moscow Patriarchate and formed an independent branch under a new Kyiv Patriarch. This was seen by its adherents as a move to reinforce Ukraine's status of independent and sovereign state. Today, the 9-million-strong Moscow Patriarchate - which has never recognized the Kyiv Patriarchate - is competing for its 14 million members.
They have created a pseudo-Orthodox group where the so called Patriarch has the title 'Patriarch of all Rus'-Ukraine.' I do not know what exactly is Rus'-Ukraine supposed to mean, but can see that even Filaret is unable to do away with the concept of Rus'. Also notice how the author attempts to play the numbers game. Numbers do not translate into legitimacy.
...Kirill shunned any contact with the Kyiv Patriarchate. A spokesman for Kirill commented, 'any collaborative effort with such an unrecognized entity is not possible.'
His Holiness Kirill's words might sound harsh but they are true. Who recognises the so called Kiev Patriarchate? Does Constantinople recognise them? Does Antioch? Does Alexandria? Do the Georgians? Do the Serbs? Do the Czechs and the Slovaks? The answer is no, nobody except for similar ethnophiletist Churches recognise the Kiev Patriarchate. The Moscow Patriarchate can only enter talks with Kiev Patriarchate if the latter exercises repentance and acknowledgement of sin. That sin being heresy, it's pretty serious.
Reader Comments (9)
Certainly, there's good reason to question Filaret's past and motive for undertaking a different line from the Moscow Patriarchate.
One can also find fault among other major denominations.
The oD slant against the Moscow Patriarchate is indicative of that venue's subjectivity against Russia. It seems that a good number of Russian sources utilized by oD are ones that take an overly critical view of Russia; in a way that appeals to non-Russian/Russia unfriendly sources, harboring biases, if not an outright hatred of that country.
I agree that this article has a particular anti-Russian slant, but I don't agree that oD is in general anti-Russian. All manner of people post articles there, and they don't fall into neat categories of "pro-" or "anti-" The Georgian section for example I think is quite balanced.
Spoils of the legacy of the Orange revolutionaries.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israeli-suspected-of-running-ukraine-organ-trafficking-ring-1.306470
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-07-21/sex-slave-industry-odessa.html
It is funny that when they talk about the Orange crowd they fail to mention there connections to right wing fascist groups as Laughland pointed out like Yuschenko and his Reagan affiliated Bandera wife and from what I understand worked for the Central Bank helping to implement IMF policy during the 90’s.
Perhaps it should be called Open Hypocrisy as the US has been stoking nationalist sentiments and rewriting or at least suppressing history Orwellian style to fit the anti-Russian agenda.
Ukrainian chauvinism is what is sparking conflict with groups in Ukraine in the Carpathian region and in the East.
I'm guessing Open Democracy is another Soros front.
Have you noticed how Communist and US terminology converge using terms like freedom and democracy and democratic or if you disagree with the US your anti-American and the constant threat of the external enemy?
The “free” media is controlled by a handful of media moguls who are affiliated with the government and involved through various think tanks and foundations and universities shaping domestic and foreign policy not just in the US which in Britain it is even more obvious in regards to Russia at least as well as in France with the Rothschild family and there media ownership throughout Europe.
At least that anti-Serb/Russian pro- Islam windbag Eric Margolis has been fired from the Toronto Sun.
Richard
I respectfully disagree when it comes to roughly the last year or so. I can cite specifics for substantiation sake. Perhaps it was a bit more objective at one time? Even if so, I suspect it was still slanted.
All
From page 396 of Hedrick Smith's "The New Russians," here's something that flip flop Filaret said back in 1988:
"We have mutual roots in ancient Rus - Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians all drink from the same source. our church is truly multinational. The role of the Rusian Orthodox Church as a unifying factor is characteristic throughout our one-thousand year history."
Sorry, should read as Russian Orthodox Church.
@ Richard
I have made use of RFE/RL material in the past, the same cannot be said about oD.
Richard, keep in mind that your balanced point relates to the former Georgian SSR. Offhand, I recall at least one not too distant oD article which was heavy on Russia's past treatment of Abkhazia, without being as stressing of Georgia's role. In that area of the former USSR, I recall an oD article that very much downplayed the positive copperative spirit among Circassians and patriotically minded Russians - instead stressing on the confrontational.
Its articles on Russia and Ukraine are biased and at times of poor quality in terms of exhibited knowledge.
Leos, RFE/RL comes across as more anti-Serb than anti-Russian. LIke yourself, I find some of RFE/RL's articles on the former USSR to be of worthy use.
Jack, if I'm not mistaken, oD receives funding from Soros orgs. Its slant has a Sorosian aspect.
This is interesting thing that I didn't know which has completely been blocked out by the news media and the internet that a Russian claimed he was part of a group during the Yeltsin regime tasked with forging Soviet documents and inserting them into the archives Orwellian style which he even held a press conference covered by the press in Russia and even Poland with the obvious negative spin.
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/truthaboutkatyn.html#Latest developments in the "Katyn' Affair"
Interesting to note that Orwells book 1984 was originally intended to be based on the British Foreign Office but after the Spanish civil war being a Trotskyite decided to base it on Stalin and became the most famous anti-Stalinist propaganda piece.
@Misha
There was a whole base set up in France of various organisations and websites since Putin came to power dedicated to producing anti-Putin/Russian propaganda which Berezovsky is also involved in the best example of this collaboration being the FSB blew up the apartment building false flag to justify the second Chechen war narrative documentary.
Not the first time that France as been a base for covert operations against Russia.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-01/poland-destruction-ussr-ww2.html
Not that you would know any of this given the fact the Russia does not provide one iota of information even though it has its own NGO based in Paris with the IDC which I have been meaning to contact.
Soros is also involved through his Human Rights Watch of helping establish annual Chechen film festival with a totally biased and one sided view on the Chechen war who when it started HRW started a letter campaign urging western intervention. Same script as what he did in the Balkans.
Not surprising to see Morton Abramowitz and Zbignew Brzezinski at the forefront in the same organisations in both cases advocating western intervention.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Morton_Abramowitz
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zbigniew_Brzezinski
The great humanitarians they are.
“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could.”
-Zbignew Brzezinski
I had to delete the above term Rusych, which is a literary invention, while writing this post I was writing my school work and had to explain this term there. I do not know how it made its way into the post. :-)