Putin: Western Civilization “going extinct” – low birth rates & political correctness

Some un-PC, straight-talking from President Putin.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Putin: Western Civilization “going extinct” – low birth rates & political correctness

  1. Tom Fisher says:

    Yes, but let’s remember the reality. Putin is a gangster, a hit-man, and almost certainly an atheist. His only interest is in consolidating his power within Russia, and projecting Russian power abroad. His “alliance” with the Church is simply the exploitation of “useful idiots”

  2. Tom Fisher is right. While the things Putin says in this clip are largely true, it really is rather rich that he of all people should lecture anyone on morality. This is especially the case since a US Treasury official has spoken out to confirm the degree of Putin’s financial corruption (http://goo.gl/xIXEm0); while at the same time, the British government has concluded that Putin is probably complicit (http://goo.gl/iWWtKy) in at least one of the murders he has long been suspected of approving.

  3. victor2378 says:

    One might want to check the abortion rate in Russia and who actually is having children there (hint: it is not the nominally Orthodox part of the population). It is a show designated to let the West look bad…

  4. toadspittle says:

    “One might want to check the abortion rate in Russia ..”
    Very good point, indeed, Victor…Then think twice before running this kind of fulsome, naive, pro-Putin, twaddle.
    Personally, I doubt if Putin gives a monkey’s fart about the abortion rate in Russia, one way or the other, as long as he’s got his billions, and his yacht. (I might be very wrong, of course.)

    [Moderator: You’ve crossed a line, Toad – there are limits on crassness permitted. One sentence here plus a previous comment have been deleted.]

  5. ginnyfree says:

    Weird. Most certainly weird. I don’t speak Russian, so I’m wondering what he really said and why this is posted here. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  6. mmvc says:

    “why this is posted here”
    Perhaps because the man himself and what he said is like the proverbial curate’s egg, Ginny. ;o)

  7. ginnyfree says:

    What came first? The Putin or the egg?

  8. kathleen says:

    I know very little about Russia, and have no ulterior motive in defending Vladimir Putin, although I do agree with Robert John (@ 12:38) that most of what Putin accuses the West of here in this conference is undoubtedly “largely true”.

    Could the negative views we have of President Putin simply be what we have been fed by our own Western (anti-Russian) nations? They certainly might be. In the same way we are dished up constant secular, anti-Christian, PC and gender-theory rubbish by our leaders, politicians, MSM, the arts, etc., that most people swallow whole, so we are also dished up plenty of propaganda against troublesome rivals that scorn the weakness of the West. And that we are weak, and even spineless, in dealing with criminals, evil (in all its disguises), ‘enemies’ and troublemakers within our own borders, and problems with which we are faced, is glaringly evident.

    That Putin is ambitious and extremely rich definitely appears to be true though… but can we say with certainty that he is an “atheist”*, corrupt, or that he was involved in approving the murder of Litvinenko?
    Interesting about the high abortion figures for Russia that Victor mentions. Does anyone have any official statistics for that? (If their abortion figures are higher than those of Western nations, and their birth-rate lower or on a par with ours, it would be a bit of “the pot calling the kettle black”, eh?😉 )

    However, it might well all be true, but Russian authorities deny the accusations – “of course they do”, some would say – and yet we have no real proof for many of them it seems, and can only speculate.

    * That Putin was a militant Communist and member of the KGB under the old regime would obviously lead one to assume he was an atheist too… but people change. Or perhaps he was a closet Christian all along! Who knows?

  9. I don’t look in here very often now, as you know. I live on the Costa Blanca where the Russian “influence” is quite significant. I won’t mention the M word: I teach here, and I am not free to comment any more. Putin and his cronies have property all down the coast.

    If you care to look at the history, you will find Putin was a small fry in the KGB when the Soviet Union fell in 1989. He fled East Germany at that time – where he had worked as a minor KGB administrator – in a second hand car, with a cheap washing machine in the back (knowing it would be impossible to buy a washing machine in Moscow!) And the rest is history.

    The history of a bully, a nobody and a manipulator. If he has any connections with the corrupt Russian Orthodox church today, it is through crooked financial deals. And if the Russian Orthodox church today has any remaining connection with the noble ecclesial body it once was, that is pure accident.

  10. johnhenrycn says:

    “Or perhaps he was a closet Christian all along! Who knows?”

    Or perhaps, Kathleen, he is a vile snake who is suborning the Orthodox Russian Church to his own ends. I don’t think too much of its leadership that they allow him to use them for his own nefarious purposes. He is absolutely no better, imo, than that ISIS Caliph. The ORC has willingly swallowed his fascistic drug potion in payment for being “resurrected” after the Soviet years. The ORC will pay the price for their weakness when Putrid and his heirs demand complete allegiance to their racist totalitarianism. A denomination enslaved by a gangster state.

  11. Robert says:

    Lets see we have in the West Abortion, Divorce, Gay Marriage, War on Terrorism. We have rumours and frankly gossip. Right now a small interlocked group of Private Companies controls Globalisation. Nations are subject to these Global Groups.
    We have a Global Apostacy especially in the West and Masonry embedded in Vatican. Ridiculing of a Creator and treating the Faith as myth.
    Putin? Well he asked Rome to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart! Has Obama or any other President or Ruler asked for this?
    No I won’t go down this road of Hatred Rumour AND frankly Gossip.

  12. johnhenrycn says:

    Dear Diary: Who would have ever thought that Gareth Thomas and I were twins in spirit when it comes to Putin? I especially like his second paragraph.

  13. The Raven says:

    I am less than convinced that the corruption of Orthodoxy is a new thing: there have been very strong anti-western, nationalistic/fascistic undercurrents in Orthodoxy for a long time (on holiday in Greece in the late 1990s I visited a bookshop run by a couple of monks, which featured such delights as “the Jewish Spider” and “the Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and, in Cyprus, finding Orthodox churchmen openly supporting new-nazi organisations).

    You also have to consider that most of the current hierarchy in Moskow will either have been KGB informants or infiltrators back when the USSR was a thing; many of them contemporaries of Putin. And if one looks further back, to the time of the establishment of Muscovia as the hegemonic centre of Russian culture, the Orthodox Church was key to building a nationalistic sense of a centralised, irredentist Russian state.

    Although I love Orthodox liturgy and revere Orthodox saints, I would prefer an Old Believer, or even a Molokan or Doukhobor, over the Kelptarchate in Moskow.

  14. toadspittle says:

    Extremely interesting in this context.
    I hope (vainly, no doubt) this comment isn’t deep-sixed as usual because Kathleen will love it.

    The Monk has a disconcerting resemblance to Groucho Marx, doesn’t he? No cigar, sadly.

  15. johnhenrycn says:

    No offence, Paddy, but no, he bears no resemblance to G. Marx. Did you mean K. Marx?

    And your YouTube link was so boring. I could only stick around until 1:27 at which point I still wasn’t sure if it was paean or parody. Hope all is well with you and yours.

  16. toadspittle says:

    Well, JH – takes all sorts, dunnit? I did think The Monk* facially resembled Groucho, but also his manner of speaking and mannerisms were uncannily alike. IMAO. Still, what the hell. Who cares?
    “…at which point I still wasn’t sure if it was paean or parody.”
    Neither was I. That’s what I liked best about it.
    We are all tip-top, thanks, eagerly awaiting being roasted alive by global warming and simultaneously ruined by the financial collapse during 2016. We shall have to survive by eating the dogs, which ought to get us through the year, eked out** with our cats.
    And, more significantly, this may be the year weekly Masses in Moratinos are finally scrapped, But not this week – and I am on advance bell duty at 10.30.
    Ring-a-ding-ding!, as Old Bloodshot Eyes was wont to yodel.

    He also says Mossad was behind 9/11. Oy vey (whatever that means.)
    **Correct usage.

  17. Tom Fisher says:

    The Monk has a disconcerting resemblance to Groucho Marx, doesn’t he? No cigar, sadly.

    Toad, who is that poor man? Does he have any actual status in any religious order? Is he getting the help he needs? Where did you find him?

  18. toadspittle says:

    Ins’t he wonderful Tom? I think he’s an ex-Jew, called Brother Nathaniel. Surely you see the resemblance to G, rather than K? He on UTube. Often.

  19. Michael says:

    Kathleen @ 21:23, January 29th:

    Could the negative views we have of President Putin simply be what we have been fed by our own Western (anti-Russian) nations?

    This is a very important point I think. Putin is, as has been pointed out here and in many other places, a political opportunist, corrupt, and has most likely been responsible for taking out hits on people as well as many other things we would rightly find objectionable. But is he really any more corrupt than the vast majority of leaders that Western governments routinely deal with? Is he really any more responsible for morally objectionable acts than say, the Chinese government, or the Saudis? Moreover, is he, or Russia, really that much of a threat?

    As far as I can see, all Putin is interested in is re-establishing and consolidating Russian sovereignty, and protecting his country from the intrusion of Western movements (e.g.; the LGBT lobby) that have caused so much internal degradation in most of Europe. He doesn’t want to wage war against the West and yet Western politicians continually speak of him as if the Cold War were still going on and he was one of the biggest threats to Eurasian stability there is. That he is ‘absolutely no better, imo, than that ISIS Caliph’ is, quite frankly, ridiculous (IMO), and I am not really sure how we can be ‘almost certain’ that he is an atheist either.

    Even if he were an atheist (and I don’t dispute that he has exploited nationalist currents within the Orthodox Church which were already extant), this doesn’t mean that he is as evil and/or dangerous as most people seem to think he is, nor does it mean that he is any more corrupt than a good deal other world leaders, or a good deal many Russian leaders that preceded him. When speaking about corruption in Russia, one has to remember that it has been a problem there for a very long time, and compared to what went before, the Putin administration is actually not that outrageous.

    Finally, as Kathleen (and Robert) also point out, what he says in the video is pretty much on the money. Just because someone is wrong in some areas, doesn’t mean that they can’t speak truth in others (c.f.; Balaam), nor does their hypocrisy undermine the veracity of what has been said.

  20. Michael says:

    P.S. Here’s a heavily edited video of a debate involving Peter Hitchens on whether Russia is a marginal power or not, which contains some good points:

    Hitchens goes quite a way off topic on several occasions, but thankfully in directions which touch on the issue being discussed above – namely quite how bad Putin is, and the reasons many in the West like to portray him as being decidedly worse than he actually is.

  21. kathleen says:

    Michael @ 12:03

    After the influx of comments bashing Putin, some (not all) apparently basing their horror of the man on nothing more than hearsay, it is a relief to be treated to a much more down-to-earth and levelheaded approach.
    Your second paragraph in particular, “As far as I can see…. Etc.” goes right to the heart of where Putin’s policies stem from, IMO.

    The video debate with Peter Hitchens was excellent and very interesting too. Many thanks.

  22. Michael says:

    Thank you Kathleen. As I said before, I am certainly aware of Putin’s faults, but I do find the extent of the criticism directed towards him surprising. Personally, I think a good part of the reason he is so often marked out as Arch-Despot (as opposed to just a ‘regular’ tyrant!) is that he represents a challenge to a.) European federalism, which aims for an ‘ever-closer union’ that undermines national sovereignty and reduces control over countries’ borders; and b.) the hedonistic and utilitarian way of living promoted in the West. Throw in a view of Russia still entertained by many Westerners because of the hangover from the Cold War, and I think that explains quite a lot of the way Putin is routinely represented.

    Glad you enjoyed the Hitchens video too – he is always informative, and entertaining too!🙂

  23. Mark Armitage says:

    I very much agree with Michael’s two comments.

    I can understand why Moscow Patriarchate regards Putin as preferable to any of the alternatives. Russia endured seven decades of savage persecution at the hands of atheistic Communists. After Communism collapsed, the resulting void was filled with western pop-culture and the worst kind of “cowboy capitalism”, gangsters and oligarchs took advantage of the chaos, and the “three As” (atheism, alcohol and abortion) continued to wreak havoc.

    In the midst of all this, the first green shoots of a Christian revival have begun to appear out of the frozen earth. Churches are being built, monasteries are being re-established, people are rediscovering Orthodoxy. It’s the job of the Moscow Patriarchate to foster this revival, and, just at the moment, that means working with Vladimir Putin.

    Realistically, the alternatives to Putin are either a return to Communism or else a “colour revolution” installing a pro-western (and western-backed) government which would in all likelihood seek to advance the same kind of secularist, anti-Christian agenda which currently holds sway among those who exercise power in the US and the EU. Neither of these alternatives would want a Russia shaped by traditional Christian values; each, in different ways and for different reasons, would seek to marginalise the Orthodox Church as much as possible.

    Just as the Catholic hierarchy in Spain and in the Vatican favoured General Franco on the basis that a corrupt and ruthless dictatorship that supported the Catholic Church was preferable to an even more corrupt and ruthless dictatorship that intended to eliminate the Catholic Church, so also the Moscow Patriarchate regards a corrupt and ruthless regime that affords protection to the Orthodox Church as preferable to alternative regimes that would almost certainly be equally corrupt and ruthless and that would seek to put the revival of Christianity into reverse.

  24. Tom Fisher says:

    Ins’t he wonderful Tom?

    It’s all wonderful Toad. Just two weeks ago Robert / Roger assured us that acknowledging David Bowie’s death was tantamount to idolatry. Hapsburg restorationist thinks he’s going to rebuild the Roman Empire. CP&S is like wandering through Wonderland. You meet fascinating, endearing and erudite creatures who simply have no idea that they’re utterly barking mad. The Putin stuff takes us into the realm of pure comic farce.

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    “…utterly barking mad” opines our friend from Cape Foulwind NZ😉

    WUFF, WUFF!!”, as my dear Rottie used to bark when he was mad. I remain of the view that Putin is as close to the demonic as one can be in this life. Michael, It would make no difference to me even if he made the LGTBrs wear pink triangles; he is still a very bad man, and more of a threat – if you can possibly believe it – to people I care about, to my country and to my ancestral homeland than Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi ever will be before he dies, which we all hope is soon.

  26. Robert says:

    Yes Michael.
    There is nothing new in Canonising and Demonising through the Media (sic Jimmy Saville).
    Putin? Stalin? Hitler? The Media builds them Up and then smashes them down!

    If you study the English Constitution you will find reference to the Crown! But this is a Constitutional Monarchy in other words the power of the Crown is actually wielded elsewhere. In other words behind the scenes. This hidden authority is a feature of Masonry. Since 1960 the Papacy has been watered down. State Church separation is the tool to subjugate the Church to the State exactly what that Apostate Henry VIII did.

    One of the distinctive features of Socialism/Communism is this Church State separation. The Soviets control of Lithunian parishes was to make the priest/Bishop accountable to the parish councils (state). In other words powerless Shepherds. Constitutional Shepherds!!

    Putin speech is placing Russian Policy behind Christianity. A clear statement of primacy of Christianity defended by the Russian State.

    What a contrast with Cameron who personally sponsored the Gay marriage Act (which actually turns out to be a European Court of Rights decision ) and yet he talks of Britain as being Christian.

    Christian means Apostolic since the Faith was through their hands. This leads Us to the CREED
    We have without ambiguity Created, Sacramental (Marriage that’s for Life between Man and woman) .

    I do not know what Creed or derivation that Cameron considers Christian BUT its NOT Apostolic By contrast Putin’s version is.

    Cameron isn’t off course alone because this wishy washy Politically correct version of acceptable Christianity is being globally promulgated it permits Beastility, Evolution, State Church separation, Abortion, Divorce, Fornication etc…
    The West religion is Masonic (like pagan Rome) dictated State Religion!

    Fatima and its consequence and ramifications lie immediately before Us as we approach its centenary.
    St Michael “Who Is Like Unto God?”

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    Cape Foulwind NZ

    Hehe. I like it🙂

  28. Tom Fisher says:

    I haven’t been to Cape Foulwind, but I highly recommend the west coast of the south Island. There are vast and ancient forests, right down to a rugged and wild shoreline. And some beautiful isolated Catholic Churches, though many are neglected these days.

  29. Tom Fisher says:

    I should have done this earlier. St Mary of the Angels in Wellington has been closed for earthquake strengthening since mid 2013. It’s the church I was married in, and I encourage all readers to consider offering their support:

    http://smoa.org.nz/earthquake-strengthening/donations/

  30. toadspittle says:

    “Just as the Catholic hierarchy in Spain and in the Vatican favoured General Franco on the basis that a corrupt and ruthless dictatorship that supported the Catholic Church was preferable to an even more corrupt and ruthless dictatorship that intended to eliminate the Catholic Church,”
    I like the way things are in Spain these days far more than either – although things are very far from perfect.

  31. Robert says:

    Tom I know nothing of David Bowie’s spiritual Life. The PR has his jilted lovers and bisexuality cross gender etc. He had the world at his feet. But what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?
    The Media creates its own worldly saints and demons.
    The topic here however has a foundation in Russia and Fatima. A Vatican Curia who did NOT obey Heaven in 1960 (and the whole world new and awaited the third secret of Fatima and the Consecration of Russia). This visible disobedience by the hierarchy, and the revelations of masonic members (which is automatic excommunication) has been glossed over, played down, BUT this spirit of rebellion started at the top. What we are clearly seeing is a clamorous exterior pantomime, a parody of the Faith without its spirit. Evolution tacitly given the nod! Yet the Faith CREED is CREATOR.
    Birth control, a nod and wink, Gay’s a nod and wink. So when Putin spells this out you demonise Him and thus think you can ignore what he is saying!
    He says what the Curia won’t say!

  32. Tom Fisher says:

    So when Putin spells this out you demonise Him and thus think you can ignore what he is saying!

    Robert, you do have a point there. The script Putin read in that video has many good points. And I acknowledge that what he had to say is more important than his character (in this context). But his moral character does matter; just like David Bowie’s does.

  33. kathleen says:

    @ Tom Fisher (who brands us at CP&S as “barking mad”)

    “And Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness” (Acts 26:25).

    Well, looking at the whole ‘Putin affair’ from the position of a little fly on the wall, I would definitely go with the reasoned, level-headed position of Michael and Mark Armitage, and not with the unproven string of accusations of the Putin-hating position of Tom and JH!😉

    Edit: I also wholly agree with Robert’s comment @ 8:52 this morning (and that I hadn’t read when I wrote the above.) Well said, Robert!

  34. Tom Fisher says:

    who brands us at CP&S as “barking mad”)

    I hope you realised that was tongue in cheek. Michael is erudite as always. I’m not going to put together an essay on the relationship that Putin has with organised crime, and the oligarchs. It’s hardly secret stuff. — In broad outline his career can be researched by anyone who is genuinely interested. — I would characterise him as a gangster, in all soberness. Others may not.

  35. toadspittle says:

    “The Media creates its own worldly saints and demons.”
    No it doesn’t. There’s no need for it to do so.

    We all create our own demons . Robert creates more than most, I’d suggest.

  36. Robert says:

    Toad
    Look at Sir Jimmy Savile. Knighted for his services for what ?(His failings were known and yet he was protected) The knighthood that is the Media’s sainthood BUT at the turn of a coin his remains dug up and removed and his memory demonised.
    John Lennon his song Imagine is played in church’s ever listened to the lyrics? Consider how the Beatles turned away from Christ and sought Indian mysticism. I could go on.
    It was the Media that created the myth orchestrated the sugary sweet bioptic of Savile and Lennon and Bowie among others!

    The Media and its saints and demons? Go back 2000 years and consider just what the worldly popular (Media) means and its choices!

    John 8:44
    Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

    Now consider two prisoners
    1/ Jesus Christ
    2/ Jesus Barabbas
    “..
    Not only was Barabbas’s first name Jesus, but his last name, Barabbas, means son (bar) of the father (abba). Jesus had always referred to himself as the Son of the Father (and his adversaries had always refused to acknowledge that he was). So now we had two men named Jesus, each a “son of the father”, but opposite fathers, it would seem. Jesus was an innocent man about to murdered, and Barabbas was a murderer about to be set free.
    ..”

  37. Tom Fisher says:

    Now consider two prisoners
    1/ Jesus Christ
    2/ Jesus Barabbas
    “..
    Not only was Barabbas’s first name Jesus, but his last name, Barabbas, means son (bar) of the father (abba). Jesus had always referred to himself as the Son of the Father (and his adversaries had always refused to acknowledge that he was).

    Yes Roger. The symmetry you have spotted is the whole point of the story Nobody could possibly miss that.

  38. Michael says:

    Tom @ 09:19:

    As you can hopefully see from my comments above (and the excellent summary of current affairs in Russia by Mark Armitage), nobody is questioning that Putin is or may be many bad things. The point Mark makes is that, compared to the alternatives in Russia, he is the best of a bad lot. My point is that I find it strange that Putin is singled out as being exceptional amongst the world’s tyrants, both in terms of the corruption of his administration and his personal moral character.

    Also, I know you said you weren’t inclined to write essays or anything like that, but could you supply a link (or two) that give any backing to your suggestion that Putin is ‘almost certainly’ an atheist? Just out of interest. It doesn’t really have that much bearing on what he has or hasn’t done, but if it were true that he is an atheist, then it would at least give us a more broad idea of the reasons behind his promotion of Orthodoxy.

  39. Michael says:

    JH @ 23:11, January 31st:

    Again, I don’t dispute that Putin is a bad man (though I do question quite how bad he is, especially when compared with many other tyrants). But I do wonder whether considering him the threat to global security that you do is not a bit excessive? What grounds do we have for thinking he would want to start a conflict on that scale for instance?

    As far as I can see, it wouldn’t be in Russia’s interests at all, and that seems to be what Putin is most concerned with – securing his own country’s rights in a context of globalisation and Western cultural imperialism.

  40. Michael says:

    P.S. This article from the Catholic Herald, whilst primarily looking at Russia’s role in the Middle East, provides some interesting reflections on the importance of resisting the temptation to categorise Putin in black or white terms:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/december-11th-2015/vladimir-putins-holy-war/

    And the following takes a good look at the relationship between Church and State in Russia:

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/orthodox-christianity-in-slavophilic-thought.html

  41. Tom Fisher says:

    My point is that I find it strange that Putin is singled out as being exceptional amongst the world’s tyrants, both in terms of the corruption of his administration and his personal moral character.

    Putin is the only tyrant who has had one of his speeches posted on CP&S within the last month. That is sufficient grounds for ‘singling him out’.

    Putin is by no means the worst. But a video of his speech has been posted here, with tacit approval. — The speech itself was inoffensive — a 20 year old clerk probably needed 30 minutes to write it. It ticked the obvious boxes.

    But what is disturbing is that a video of a gangster like Putin can be posted here, without question. And good on JH for pointing this out as well.

    could you supply a link (or two) that give any backing to your suggestion that Putin is ‘almost certainly’ an atheist? Just out of interest

    That’s a fatuous request; this is a serious issue, if you want to learn more about Putin, do so on your own initiative.
    .

  42. kathleen says:

    As Mark Armitage @ 21:25 yesterday puts it so succinctly:

    “Realistically, the alternatives to Putin are either a return to Communism or else a “colour revolution” installing a pro-western (and western-backed) government which would in all likelihood seek to advance the same kind of secularist, anti-Christian agenda which currently holds sway among those who exercise power in the US and the EU. Neither of these alternatives would want a Russia shaped by traditional Christian values; each, in different ways and for different reasons, would seek to marginalise the Orthodox Church as much as possible.”

    Is there anyone who would deny that those are the ONLY three alternatives for Russia at this time? Either:
    1. A return to Communism,
    2. Installing “a pro-western (and western-backed) government which would in all likelihood seek to advance the same kind of secularist, anti-Christian agenda” etc…, or
    3. A Christian revival “that means working with Vladimir Putin”.

    Agreed: none of the three offer a perfect, idyllic, trouble-free solution to Russia’s problems. But are there any Catholics (not just those who are ‘c’atholic in name only) who would not choose number 3 ??

  43. toadspittle says:

    Putin is on record as being a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. I refer you to my posting of Bro Groucho, on 30th Jan, @6.41 a.m. – which, amazingly, was not censored.

    “Consider how the Beatles turned away from Christ and sought Indian mysticism.”
    They did not “turn away,” they never showed the slightest interest in Christ, Robert – except when Lennon, quite accurately, said they were more famous then Him.
    It’s deeply unimportant, but we should try to get things right.

  44. Tom Fisher says:

    Is there anyone who would deny that those are the ONLY three alternatives for Russia at this time? Either:
    1. A return to Communism,
    2. Installing “a pro-western (and western-backed) government which would in all likelihood seek to advance the same kind of secularist, anti-Christian agenda” etc…, or
    3. A Christian revival “that means working with Vladimir Putin”.

    Yes.
    Of course those aren’t the only three alternatives.
    What makes you think that they are?
    A functioning Russian democracy would be inherently conservative by western standards (because of the religio-cultural background of the Russian people)
    The notion the Putin is inevitable / necessary to Christian Russia is pure propaganda.
    Kathleen you should be embarrassed to have fallen for such blatant propaganda.

  45. Michael says:

    Putin is the only tyrant who has had one of his speeches posted on CP&S within the last month. That is sufficient grounds for ‘singling him out’.

    The ‘singling out’ I mean is the subsequent discussion of him as if he were the most tyrannical, most corrupt, most morally depraved leader in the world. I understand the problems some might have with the video being posted here, and that this might lead to criticism but the whole point I am trying to make is that, given that Putin is at least ostensibly defending Christian values in a part of the world where they are routinely undermined, and given that it is debatable that he is the Arch-Tyrant he is often represented as being, why is the criticism so vociferous and so one-sided?

    That’s a fatuous request; this is a serious issue, if you want to learn more about Putin, do so on your own initiative.

    1. I don’t want to ‘learn more about Putin’ – I know a fair amount about him already (though do not pretend to anything approaching comprehensive knowledge in this area), and in my ‘studies’ so far I haven’t come across any information which would lead me to believe he is ‘almost certainly’ an atheist. You made the assertion that this is so – hence my request for something to back it up.

    2. Do you really have to be so abrasive? This isn’t the first time you’ve responded to my comments, or those of others, in such a manner (e.g.; labelling my request as fatuous), and I really don’t think it’s necessary, nor is it particularly helpful when all others are trying to do is press you for some elaboration on the points you have made. Furthermore, assuming other people’s ignorance and/or their trivialising the debate (‘this is a serious issue’ ‘if you want to learn more about Putin’ etc) is not exactly the most becoming way to conduct yourself.

    Sorry if you think I’m overreacting, but as I said, this is not the first time you’ve responded in a spikey tone, despite there being little or no similar comments directed towards yourself to provoke it in each instance. If other people can a.) direct comments towards you courteously; and b.) assume that their disagreement with you is not based on ignorance or laziness, then it shouldn’t be too much to ask for you to do the same.

  46. Tom Fisher says:

    But are there any Catholics (not just those who are ‘c’atholic in name only) who would not choose number 3 ??

    It is an utterly false choice. There is no reason whatsoever to think that Putin is necessary for, or beneficial to, Christian Russia.

    Sometimes people on this blog talk about Franco being misunderstood. And it’s harmless, however misguided. But what may be written off as endearing silliness when it comes to Franco is not as harmless when it comes to Putin and his gang

  47. Tom Fisher says:

    Do you really have to be so abrasive?

    Yes, here is that “Wonderland” quality I mentioned earlier. There’s no rule saying that speeches by gangsters can’t be posted, But it’s farcical to pretend they are anything else. I’m abrasive because the commonplace truth that Putin is a crook is being treated as if it is controversial; in the real world it is by no means controversial. I don’t apologise for refusing to pretend there is reasonable debate to be had here. It would be disingenuous.

  48. Michael says:

    Tom @ 13:52:

    So because it is the ‘commonplace truth’ that Putin is as bad as you and JH think he is (which of course is not determined at all by propaganda – no only people who think otherwise are subject to such things) there is no point in having a debate – case closed? Wow.

    Also, I find it very strange that you think my reference to your abrasiveness was to do with the fact that you and I disagree! I was referring to the tone of your responses (which are not infrequently acerbic, and are so without provocation) and also the assumption you often make that people disagree with you because they are ignorant or duped, whilst simultaneously hardly ever taking on board the suggestion that your views may have been shaped by a particular telling of events and therefore might require some reassessment.

  49. kathleen says:

    Tom Fisher @ 13:18

    “Kathleen you should be embarrassed to have fallen for such blatant propaganda.”

    Or perhaps, old friend, you should be “embarrassed” to have fallen for Western, secular, lies and propaganda, and those who like nothing more than to vilify their ‘rivals’. And in the case of Putin, constant venom-spitting, abusive attacks and allegations aimed at a man who dares to stand up to them, and show them up for what they truly are?
    For that is what this video is about: giving us Putin’s strongly-worded, defensive critique of the secular, gay-loving, contracepting West. We knew the video would spark controversy, but hoped that it would help reveal some uncomfortable truths about our western nations who have all but totally abandoned their Christian heritage.

    It also baffles me, Tom, how you (and possibly JH too) appear to be under the illusion that CP&S, and some of the commenters above, are fans or admirers of Putin! We are not idiots; we have all (except perhaps Roger) admitted the man is no angel, that he has a murky past, and most likely a murky present too. Yet for him, with Russia’s good, her survival, advancement, and a return to her Orthodox Christian roots, all being at the heart of his policies

    Besides, your idea of a “functioning Russian democracy” is a pipe dream, and not based on reality. There is no longer any “religio-cultural background of the Russian people” after 70 long years of systematic brainwashing under atheistic Communism. Since the fall of the Communism regime in 1989, the Russian people have been slowly re-discovering their Christian past, that is true, but the scars of the damage wrought on the people run very deep. With a powerful Russian mafia at work to keep alive the atheistic mindset (as attested by ‘Aid to the Church in Need’ which has been working hard with the Russian Orthodox Church to heal the wounds) it will be a long time before anything resembling a real “functioning Russian democracy” is a feasible alternative.
    And it won’t be one based on the fascist, anti-Christian (so-called) democracies of the ‘free’ West either!

  50. Robert says:

    Toad
    “..
    McCartney and Harrison were both baptised as Roman Catholics during childhood, although McCartney was raised non-denominationally; his mother was Roman Catholic and his father was a Protestant turned agnostic. Harrison was raised Roman Catholic.
    Lennon attended St. Peter’s Anglican church. He sang in the choir, attended Sunday School and joined the Bible Class. He was confirmed at the age of fifteen of his own free will.
    Starr attended an Evangelical Anglican church during his childhood
    ..”
    “..According to the band’s press officer, Derek Taylor, all four Beatles had abandoned their religious upbringings by 1964. In an interview for the Saturday Evening Post, in August of that year, he stated that the Beatles were “completely anti-Christ. I mean, I am anti-Christ as well, but they’re so anti-Christ they shock me which isn’t an easy thing.
    ..”
    As far as Putin is concerned he is a Russian Orthodox.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s