The West’s Policies against Russia Regurgitate Vatican Policy from the Middle Ages.

NATO was supposedly formed to thwart communist and Russian Aggression. Why did it mushroom in size after the fall of the Soviet Union, including many states that were allied with Hitler ?

By

David Gottfried

I feel as if I am living in 1984, in George Orwell’s Oceania.  I was never a blatant Supporter of the Soviet Union, but I am so fed-up with the ignorant and partisan coverage of the current conflict regarding Ukraine that I feel like taking a bullhorn and shouting, at the top of my fucking lungs, Better Red than Dead. 

I submit that the ideas  that were once vested in the Vatican are now the deluded dreams of  Washington’s vengeful might.   This is evident in the West’s policies toward Ukraine and Russia, and most westerners are as oblivious to the details as a Catholic schoolboy is to the details of the doctrine of transubstantiation when he swallows the communion wafer.  Incidentally, the communion wafer is not to be chewed as it is, supposedly, the stuff of Christ’s body.  The psychologist Fritz Perls, in “Ego, Hunger and Aggression,” said it was not to be chewed to encourage the flock not to bite into and analyze ideas and delusions that pass for ideas.  Today, the news coverage, in the United States, regarding Ukraine is as obedient to the White House Line as a peasant or a priest before his holiness the Pope.    

In the Middle Ages, the Popes ordered the Teutonic knights (basically. a gang of Germans) to incinerate the East, and murder Slavs and Russians, in the name of the Roman Church. 

Of course, after the Protestant reformation took place (Martin Luther actually criticized the Pope for being soft on the “infamous Jews” and for contending that the recently discovered “native Americans” were also children of G-d -- modern European racism was born in Germany),  Europe was awash in war between Catholics and Protestants. (Indeed, the allegedly “holy” Vatican bears a painting which celebrates a battle in which French Catholics slaughtered Protestant Huguenots)  

What was Europe’s balm to heal its wounds from the fratricidal warfare between Catholics and Protestants ?  Unity forged by their common hatred of Jews, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Muslims. Indeed, Germany, unable to admit to itself that its chronic disunity was caused, among other things,  by clashes between Protestants and Catholics (It did not become a unified nation state until 1870) fabricated the delusion that the evil Jews and Russian Bolsheviks made Germans hate each other. 

Up until only three hundred years ago, there were dungeons, under the Streets of Rome, which held thousands of  members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, a Church composed primarily of Greeks, Russians, Serbs, Eastern Ukrainians, Rumanians, and a few other ethnic groups.  But that’s par for the course insofar as Rome was concerned as the Pope said, in 1906, that the Jews should be homeless and stateless for eternity for the cosmic crime of killing Jesus.  But the Pope was so ante-diluvian that as late as the 19th century Rome was still castrating little boys as they prized the voices of castratos, or castrated men, as they believed that such voices were “the audible approximation of a wailing Christ.” (Martha
Feldman, October 8, 2015, The London Review of Books)   Through the pain of a mangled male, a dyspeptic dowager, dripping and glittering with jewels radiating rage, will be amused.   And the Catholic Church has the gall to say that we homosexuals are effeminate and perverted.  Hell, the Catholic Church were the biggest purveyors of Cock and Ball Torture on the Planet.  You can sample a castrato’s voice on YouTube (Footnote 1)

Of course, this ancient antipathy toward the East wasn’t unique to Catholics.  Protestants joined in the hatred.  English antipathy toward Russia can be found as early as the reign of Elizabeth the First.  (The Virgin Queen said that Tzar Ivan the Terrible was out of his mind.  In all fairness, she was probably absolutely right)   As I said in an earlier post on Substack, English hostility toward Russia was evident in the 19th century and predicated on a succession of paranoid IFS:  If Russia got access to a port on the Mediterranean, it would threaten the Suez Canal, and if its grubby fingers got anywhere near the Suez Canal, India would be lost.  English hostility toward Russia was so pronounced that it battled Russia for Iran and Afghanistan, never mind that Iran and Afghanistan bordered Russia and England is thousands of miles away from those third world countries.  Likewise, English troops, along with French and Austrian troops, made war on Russia in the Crimean War, one of the most idiotic conflagrations in the past 500 years. As I understand it, the conflict was based on competition, between European states, to be chosen, by the Muslim Ottoman Empire, as the defender of Christian rights in Jerusalem.   To a commie Jew like me, the European goyim decided to kill each other for the title of being the number one Christian goy on the block,

To an extent, Western paranoia toward Russia was augmented by a general sense that evil was accentuated in the East.  For example, Jean Jacques Rousseau said China was a land afflicted with especially evil people.  (Footnote 2)  Also, the last Kaiser commission an “artist” to create a painting with a distinct political message.  Toward the right border of the painting (Or the East on a Map)  stood a scowling, Asian-appearing man.  Toward the center and left border of the painting we see a group of lovely ladies in excellent gowns.  The Kaiser sent copies of this painting to fellow European monarchs along with the message that they must be forever vigilant against Eastern odium and its intrigues.   (I always wondered why the Kaiser fancied himself a  dainty damsel in a delicate frock.)

During the 1930’s, all off Europe ganged-up on Russia as Britain made so many concessions to Hitler that it seemed perfectly clear that Chamberlain was in favor of Hitler so long as Hitler advanced East and demolished the Bolshevik bear.  (Footnote 3)        

Of course most of you probably think that my contentions are leftist gibberish because of the thunder from the other side:   A chorus of talking heads are on the news every night deftly omitting every argument that supports Russia, seamlessly inserting every irrelevancy that burnishes the image of Ukraine and inducing us not to think but to feel as it gives us plenty of film footage which shows carnage sans a sliver of evidence as to what caused the carnage except for the assertion that “sources” report that the Russians were to blame.

IF YOU THINK MY CONTENTIONS ARE INVALID, AND THAT WESTERN CRITICISM ABOUT RUSSIA VISA VIS UKRAINE ARE ACCURATE, TAKE THE DAVID GOTTFRIED CHALLENGE.

Take a look at some of my posts in recent weeks which make the case for Russia.    First, examine reputable, scholarly sources.  If you examine sober and honest records and accounts, you will find that I am correct in contending that:

A) The Russian annexation of the Crimea should be excused because i) Crimea is mostly Russian, ii) most people in Crimea identify with Russia, iii) Crimea was part of Russia for two more than two hundred ears, iv) and Crimea was only briefly part of Ukraine because in 1953 Russia gifted Ukraine with Crimea but at that time Ukraine was part of Russia – so all the time that Crimea was part of Ukraine, until the secession of Ukraine from Russia, Crimea had been part of Russia.    

    Then ask yourself:  How many times has CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times or the Washington Post fessed up about these facts.

B)  Likewise, if you examine sober, scholarly accounts, you will find that the Eastern part of the Ukraine in large measure consists of Russian speaking people, who identify with Russia, who share  with Russia the Eastern Orthodox faith, and who were often victimized by Roman Catholics, from the Western part of the Ukraine, many of whom had fascist sympathies. 

.  Then ask yourself: how many of the aforementioned media outlets have deigned to be truthful about the demographics and loyalties of Eastern Ukraine.

C)  NATO has advanced more than a thousand miles to the East since the Berlin Wall fell.   It now includes many nations that were allied with Nazi Germany:   Hungary, under Admiral Horthy, was allied with Germany and joined German troops in invading Russia and killing 20 million Russians.   Slovakia was solidly Nazi and, as I said in a prior post, was run by a Catholic Priest who, in turning down an American Relief Organization’s donation of Matzah, said, "Bratislava needs no Matzah, all our Jews are dead.”  Although Poland was attacked by Hitler, it tried to be an ally of Hitler as it jointly demanded, with Hitler, the remains of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939 (Germany took Bohemia-Moravia and Poland took some territory South of Poland) Rumania was an ally of Hitler.  Bulgaria was an ally of Hitler.      

NATO was supposedly formed to thwart and resist communist and Russian aggression.  Why did NATO feel the need to expand after the Soviet Union fell?  And Why does it now include so many states that were allied with Hitler.  Russia has every right to harbor the very worst suspicions about the West.

And does it appear that Russia may be poised to attack.  You’re damn right.   Perhaps they want to attack before NATO moves in for the kill.  I am a supporter of Israel, and many people in the United States who lacerate Russia once supported Israel.  And let us not forget that Israel was saved from a second Holocaust by launching a pre-emptive strike on Egypt in June 1967.

You have to strike while the iron is hot.    

FOOTNOTE 1:

A recording of one of the last castratos of the Catholic Church:

FOOTNOTE 2:

Rousseau wrote this in an essay he submitted to the Academy of Dijon in 1750.  The aforesaid academy inquired as to how the Arts and Sciences improved life.  Rousseau said that they did not, and he cited as evidence China, which he characterized as quite advanced, as having made great strides, but which was populated by sinister people.

FOOTNOTE 3:

This subtack article refers to a NY Times article, from 1938, which buttresses the proposition that Chamberlain made concessions to Hitler to enable Hitler to decimate Russia.

Lies America Told You – How the NYTimes’, on October 11, 1938, shattered the U.S. View of Geo-Politics.