The Split Personality Of The Russian Soul: Moscow And Kiev

Via GEFIRA,

All nations can be made to suffer from disturbed or split personality, becoming "unhappy after their own fashion"... toys in the hands of the powers that be.

All healthy nations are alike, but an unhealthy nation is unhealthy after its own fashion. This paraphrase of the opening sentence from Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina neatly serves the purpose of analyzing the Ukrainian soul, a soul that has dissociative identity disorder. A transgender man has an identity disturbance in that he thinks or feels he was born a woman and other females are not his sexual partners. The same is true of peoples. A Ukrainian thinks or feels he is not Russian and, consequently, that Russians are not his brothers. A transgender man physically looks like a man and still thinks he is not a male; a Ukrainian speaks Russian, professes Orthodox Christianity, writes Cyrillic and still says he is anything but.

We from such European countries as Poland, France or Germany may ask ourselves, what is the origin of the Ukrainian state? What is the origin of the Russian state?

Ukrainian and Russian children learn about the same beginnings of their respective countries, read stories about Rurik, Oleg and Olga, Vladimir the Great and Yaroslav the Wise. Polish and Czech, French and Spanish, British and Norwegian children do not learn that their respective nations share the same origin whereas Ukrainian and Russian children do. Kiev is regarded as the mother of Russian cities. True, there was a time when the Russian vast lands were split into a number of principalities, but then Italian, Polish, and German were too.

The land east of the Bug River and west of the Urals is historically, ethnographically, culturally and emotionally referred to russkiy mir (Russian world, Russian civilization). In the Middle Ages it was known as Rus’ or Ruthenia and was comprised of Great Russia with its centre in Moscow, Little Russia with its centre in Kiev and White Russia with its present-day centre in Minsk. They all three share one and the same founding legend.

Parts of Rus’ (or Ruthenia) were once conquered and held by the Tartars (Mongols), Lithuania and Poland, which might have contributed to the split in the collective psyche of the people inhabiting these areas. Yet, Poland too, was partitioned by three foreign powers and kept in subjugation for more than a hundred years. The occupying forces made various attempts to either Germanize or Russify its population, and still Poland emerged as one nation.

True, some Ukrainians, especially in the western parts of the country speak a variety of Russian, which they call a separate language. Yet the Ukrainian language is not more different from Russian than the Bavarian or Liverpudlian dialects are different from German or English. Surely, nobody says we have the Bavarian or Liverpudlian languages? In the 19th century the Ukrainian dialect of the Russian tongue was forcibly turned into a language by deleting some of the Russian and taking on some of the Polish vocabulary and affirming the local west-Ukrainian pronunciation. The Russian Cyrillic alphabet used for Ukrainian has as many as… three ‘new’ characters. Well, the American variety of English, too, has some spelling and pronunciation peculiarities that make it a tiny bit different from its British counterpart, yet American children are taught English at school, not American.

Of course, such differences are skilfully exploited by the powers that be just as it was done in the case of Yugoslavia, where Westerners could be easily duped into believing that Croats and Serbs speak two entirely different languages because… the former use the Latin whereas the latter the Cyrillic script, while in point of fact they speak the same language. The Turkish language has not changed simply because Kemal Atatürk had the Arabic script done away with and decreed the use of Latin characters, or did it?

What’s the matter with Ukrainian identity disturbance? The whole can be traced back to the times of Peter the Great and then again to 19th century when among the Russian intelligentsia the movement of Westernizers (?????????????) came into being, which reflected the split Russian soul. Part of it wants to stay Russian, Slavophile, the other part is ashamed of being Russian. A split personality syndrome. Ukrainians for the most part represent the pro-Western inclination of the Russian soul. In a similar case of the Southern Slavs, Croats have been westernized since the dawn of their history as they accepted Christianity from Rome; Serbs became easterners as they accepted Christianity from Byzantium. A Ukrainian is a Russian desperately in need of westernizing himself and his country. The tighter is the leash on which Moscow holds him, the more disruptive tendencies a Ukrainian will show. This pro-Western strand in the Russian soul is being skilfully exploited by the West for its own purposes. Nations, as we know, can be created when it suits someone’s purposes. At present Germans in Austria are Austrians, not Germans, but there was a time when they were Germans; Catalans are Spaniards or they are not Spaniards, as the case may be; not long ago citizens of the German Democratic Republic would have fought against their historical compatriots from the Federal German Republic. Did we have two German nations?

Ukrainians cutting themselves off from Moscow are like the British colonists across the Atlantic cutting themselves off from the British crown. The difference is, however, that the thirteen colonies at least comprised a significant number of nations other than English, Welsh or Scottish and they were mostly religious rebels from the Church of England. Ukrainians, on the other hand, are like their Russian compatriots Orthodox Christians and have no significant national or religious minorities. Furthermore, throughout history Ukrainians have hardly ever rebelled against Moscow. They willingly declared their allegiance to the Great Russian capital in 1654 (Treaty of Pereyaslav) at the climax of the largest revolt against the Polish Crown. Prior to that event Kiev was part of the the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Thus Little Russians broke away from a culturally western country to happily let themselves be embraced by their eastern brothers. The Russian soul subconsciously knew where it belonged. In Poland Ukrainians were called Cossacks and later Rusini (which in Polish is as close to the word denoting Russians as in English Germanic is to German).

Ukraine’s territory after World War One and the Russian Civil War was carved out of Russia by the Bolsheviks, who happily joined to Ukraine vast eastern areas, without the Crimea, though. The Bolsheviks themselves were mostly of non-Russian nationality or indifferent to national questions, so they didn’t care about such things as delineating territories. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev, Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (for all practical purposes the Soviet Union’s president), himself a Ukrainian, carved the Crimea out of Russia (then a Soviet Socialist Republic) and had it joined to Ukraine (then, too, a Soviet Socialist Republic). Thus the peninsula was not Russian only for a few decades (1956-2014) and only formally because it was and is inhabited by Russians. When it was incorporated back into Russia, not a shot was fired on the Ukrainian side.

Now the West-prone Russians (centred around Kiev) are being played off against the West-averse Russians (centered around Moscow) and both are presented to the world as two separate nations. Were the Americans two separate nations when they fought the Civil War of 1861-1865? The resentment in the southern states against the North has persisted ever since. If Russia were the world’s superpower rather than the United States, she might as well choose to play the southern American states off against Washington. Then, conversely, rather than having Ukrainians jumping in the city squares and shouting “??? ?? ??????, ??? ???????!” (Who is not jumping [with us] is Moscow’s [lackey (useful idiot)]), we would have Southerners jump and shout “Who’s not jumping with us, is Washington’s lackey”. And surely, in due time we would learn that Southerners speak a language other than the Northerners and have every right to be recognized as a separate nation.

UK Public Schools Forcing Girls As Young As Four To Wear Muslim Veil

Research published in The Sunday Times this week revealed that eight state-funded British schools are forcing children to wear the Islamic hijab along with other Muslim female dress code requirements, which includes girls as young as four. The findings are based on open source investigations into published dress code directives of 176 Muslim schools across Britain, most of which are private.

However, the new discovery of public schools among them has sparked outrage across the UK, especially as three of the schools are elementary level schools (including kindergarten). According to The Sunday Times:

Girls as young as four are being “forced to wear the hijab” as part of approved school uniform in state-funded Islamic schools, campaigners have told ministers.

According to research by the National Secular Society, the hijab appears to be compulsory in eight state-funded Islamic schools in England, including three primary schools.

A further 51 private Islamic schools of the 176 surveyed by the society also require the headscarf to be worn by female pupils. Eighteen schools said wearing the head covering was optional.

Shockingly, one particular school called the Independent Olive Secondary requires that, “Hair should be covered by a black scarf; outside the School the face must be covered,” while another UK school is explicit in stipulating that, "It is very important that the uniform is loose fitting and modest and that the hijaab is fitted closely to the head. The College uniform is COMPULSORY" (sic). The Tayyibah Girls School in London warns: "The school is not willing to compromise on any issues regarding uniform."

The Tayyibah Girls School in London.

Meanwhile, some schools go so far as to recommend the niqab. For example girls at Al-Ihsaan school in Leicester are told they must wear either a “jilbaab or niqab”. The jilbaab is a long and loose-fitting gown which covers the entire body expect for hands, face, and feet. But the niqab recommendation is much more significant in that it is practiced by only a small minority within the Muslim world - it covers the entire face except for the eyes, and is typically worn with black garments with cover head to toe. 

In addition to the eight publicly funded schools which require head coverings of veils, thirteen others cite an optional hijab as part of their uniform policy. Islamic academies in Britain came under scrutiny early this month when a previous Times story first reported that "Thousands of state primary schools are allowing girls as young as five to wear the Muslim religious headscarf as part of approved school uniform, a Sunday Times survey has revealed."

The earlier investigation found that even Church of England associated schools were increasingly adopting various forms of Islamic dress as acceptable among students:

Last month a survey by The Sunday Times revealed that nearly a fifth (18%) of 800 state primary schools, including Church of England primaries, in 11 regions of England now list the hijab as part of their uniform policy, mostly as an optional item.

Feversham College is a high school level academy specializing in Science for Muslim girls aged 11-18 years. It"s website spells out that a "close-fitting" hijab is "COMPULSORY" (sic).

Activists associated with the investigation cited by The Sunday Times called the uniform requirements “illiberal and repressive” and stated, “no child should be obliged to wear the hijab or any other article of religious clothing while at school.” Included among those appealing to the UK education secretary to root out such practices, especially when they appear at state funded schools, are Muslim women activists.

Of course, it"s mostly a good thing when the state leaves private religious schools alone to do or require whatever they want in terms of dress code, but that state funded UK schools would enforce Muslim veils is the deepest hypocrisy in a country which has recently been known to target and punish families wanting to opt out of LGBT related curriculum. The British authorities have even threatened Orthodox Jewish schools with closure with the ultimatum: "teach your children about homosexuality and gender reassignment, or we will close you down."

In a trend that began years ago, the British education secretary began warning even Christian private schools that their teaching curriculum must reflect the "UK values" and laws concerning transgender recognition. The government now routinely cites "combating extremist" as a motive for getting private schools to conform.

Britain's Top Priest Slams Rich-Poor Divide In "Britain's Broken Economy"

While the world has grown used to The Pope sticking his papal nose in the world"s business ("horrrific" borders, "grave risks" of libertarians, and the virtues of socialism); Britain"s most senior clergyman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has now decided that it is not enough to preach His word, but better to use his position of influence and adulation to discuss what"s wrong with capitalism...

The British economic model needs fundamental reform.

It is no longer generating rising earnings for a majority of the population, and young people today are set to be poorer than their parents. Beneath its headlines figures, the economy is suffering from deep and longstanding weaknesses, which make it unfit to face the challenges of the 2020s.

Fundamental reform has happened before, in the 1940s and 1980s.

The persistent economic problems we have experienced since the 2008 global financial crash demand change of the same magnitude now. This should be guided by a new vision for the economy, where long-term prosperity is joined with justice for all.

The Most Reverend Justin Welby, writing as part of a new report from think tank, the Institute of Public Policy Research,  said that Britain"s economic system is effectively not fit for purpose, benefitting the haves (to the detriment of the have-nots).

"Our economic model is broken. Britain stands at a watershed moment where we need to make fundamental choices about the sort of economy we need," Welby said in comments released as part of IPPR"s "Time for Change: A New Vision for the British Economy" report.

"We are failing those who will grow up into a world where the gap between the richest and poorest parts of the country is significant and destabilising."

The solution - simple - spend more "government" money, end fiscal austerity, and maker sure everyone "pays their fair share" - sound familiar?

We have experimented with bold monetary policy, but are constrained by pre-Keynesian fiscal orthodoxy. Since the financial crisis, the UK economy has been supported by extremely low interest rates and a major programme of ‘quantitative easing’ (unconventional money creation) by the Bank of England.

Fiscal austerity – public spending reductions and tax rises – has left the UK’s recovery in this period slower than almost all of our major competitors.

Growth is now being fuelled again by consumer spending, based on rising debt and falling savings. With monetary policy having little further scope to deal with a slowdown, there is a strong case for increased public investment now to drive demand.

Archbishop Welby"s comments are by no means the first time he has intervened in the UK"s economic debate. As BI reports, Welby famously said in 2013 that he would effectively help to try and put much maligned payday lender Wonga out of business, by assisting credit unions which compete with the firm. Welby - who worked in the oil business before becoming a clergyman - was later left embarrassed after it emerged that the Church of England had investments in funds which provided money to Wonga.

*  *  *

Full IPPR Report - "A New Vision for the British Economy"

Giulio Meotti: Islam, Not Christianity, Is Saturating Europe

Authored by Giulio Meotti via The Gatestone Institute,

• Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies.


• Sunni Islam"s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when, like Constantinople, Rome will be Islamized.


• It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe"s landscape and imagination.

According to US President Trump"s strategic advisor Steve Bannon, the "Judeo-Christian West is collapsing, it is imploding. And it"s imploding on our watch. And the blowback of that is going to be tremendous".

The impotence and the fragility of our civilization is haunting many Europeans as well.

Europe, according to the historian David Engels will face the fate of the ancient Roman Republic: a civil war. Everywhere, Europeans see signs of fracture. Jihadists seem to be leading an assault against freedom and against secular democracies. Fears occupy the collective imagination of Europeans. A survey of more than 10,000 people from ten different European countries has revealed increasing public opposition to Muslim immigration. The Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs carried out a survey, asking online respondents their views on the statement that "all further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped". In the 10 European countries surveyed, an average of 55% agreed with the statement.

Mainstream media are now questioning if "Europe fears Muslims more than the United States". The photograph used in the article was a recent Muslim mass prayer in front of Italy"s monument, the Coliseum. In echoes of the capture of the great Christian civilization of Byzantium in Constantinople, Sunni Islam"s most prominent preacher, Yusuf al Qaradawi, declared that the day will come when Rome will be Islamized.

Hundreds of Muslims engage in a mass prayer service next to the Coliseum in Rome, on October 21, 2016. (Image source: Ruptly video screenshot)

Do civilizations die from outside or inside? Is their disappearance the result of external aggression (war, natural disasters, epidemics) or of an internal erosion (decay, incompetence, disastrous choices)? Arnold Toynbee, in the last century, was adamant: "Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder".

"The contemporary historian of ancient Greece and ancient Rome saw their civilisations begin their decline and fall, both the Greeks and the Romans attributed it to falling birth rates because nobody wanted the responsibilities of bringing up children," said Britain"s former chief rabbi, Lord Sacks.

Everywhere in Europe there are signs of a takeover.

Muslim students now outnumber Christian students in more than 30 British church schools. One Anglican primary school has a "100 percent Muslim population". The Church of England estimated that about 20 of its schools have more Muslim students than Christian ones, and 15 Roman Catholic schools have majority Muslim students. In Germany as well, there are fears of a massive Muslim influx into the school system, and German teachers are openly denouncing the threat of a "ghettoization".

France saw 34,000 fewer babies born last year than in 2014, a new report just found. The number of French women having children has reached its lowest level in 40 years. A low fertility rate has become a plague all over Europe: "In 1995 only one country, Italy, had more people over 65 than under 15; today there are 30 and by 2020 that number will hit 35." Welcome to the "Greying of Europe".

Additionally, if it were not for Muslim women, France would have an even lower birth rate: "With a fertility rate of 3.5 children per woman, the Algerians contribute significantly to the growth of the population in France", wrote the well-known demographer Gérard-François Dumont.

Thanks to Muslim migrants, Sweden"s maternity wards are busy these days.

In Milan, Italy"s financial center, Mohammed is the top name among newborn babies. The same is true in London, in the four biggest Dutch cities and elsewhere in Europe, from Brussels to Marseille. It is Islam, not Christianity, that now saturates Europe"s landscape and imagination.

Meanwhile, Europe"s leaders are almost all childless. In Germany, Angela Merkel has no children, as British prime minister Theresa May and one of France"s leading presidential candidates, Emmanuel Macron. As Europe"s leaders have no children and no reason to worry about the future (everything ends with them), they are now opening Europe"s borders to keep the continent in a demographic equilibrium. "I believe Europeans should understand that we need migration for our economies and for our welfare systems, with the current demographic trend we have to be sustainable", said Federica Mogherini, the European Union representative for foreign affairs.

The Battle of Tours in 732 was the high-water point of the Muslim tide in Western Europe. If Christians had not won, "perhaps," wrote Edward Gibbon, "the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet". Does that sound familiar these days?

Islamists take culture and history more seriously than the Westerners do. Recently, in Paris, an Egyptian terrorist tried to strike the great museum, the Louvre. He planned to deface the museum"s artwork, he said, because "it is a powerful symbol of French culture". Think about an Islamic extremist shouting "Allahu Akbar" while slashing the Mona Lisa. This is the trend we need to start reversing.