text:
The journalist for the liberal website Open Russia, Zoya Svetova, is the daughter of Zoya Krakmalnikova. Anyone who followed news coming from the Soviet Union in the 1980s about prisoners of conscience, particularly Orthodox Christians, would most certainly have heard of or read articles published by this author. Zoya Krakmalnikova was especially known in the West for her article published in the Parisian journal Russky Mysl entitled, "The Bitter Fruits of a Sweet Captivity". Z. Krakmalnikova's authority in matters of Church persecution was hard-earned—she was in prison for five years and exile for a number of years in Siberia, and suffered significantly for her outspoken Orthodox faith. Her article discussed the topic of Church officials' submission to the government, and how it affected the lives of believers.
Out of his deep respect for this journalist's mother, Bishop Tikhon (Shevkunov) of Egorievsk, abbot of Sretensky Monastery, Chairman of the Patriarchal Council for Culture, and the author of the popular book, Everyday Saints and Other Stories, agreed to an interview and the unusual publication of it on Radio Liberty. In keeping with our intention to publish articles about the Russian revolution and its effects on the Russian Orthodox Church, we have translated this interview for our readers. The journalist asks rather provocative and uninformed questions about the Church's past and present relationship with the Soviet and Russian governments, and Bishop Tikhon provides his views on the complex subject of "Sergianism", dissidents, and the Church in Russian society today. Although the liberal journalist and the bishop generally aren't on the same intellectual page, this interview reveals what the Church in Russia now faces—no longer from the communist but now from the liberal press.
—You were baptized in the 1980s. Then believers were persecuted, and my mother, the writer Zoya Krakhmalnikova, was one of them. What did you hear about her in those years?
—I have great respect for your mother's, Zoya Alexandrovna's, memory. Your proposal to recall what little I know about her, to share impressions that we, the generation of young Orthodox Christians in the 1980s, took away from our acquaintance with this remarkable personality, is the only reason I agreed to give an interview for the media you represent.
I heard about Zoya Alexandrovna Krakhmalnikova from the priest Vladimir Shibaeva. My friends and I would sometimes go to services at his church in the Moscow suburbs. Then we were young graduates of the capital's universities, and were just beginning our acquaintance with Moscow church life, visiting various churches. This was almost forty years ago. Once in his sermon Fr. Vladimir told us about the arrest of Zoya Krakhmalinikova, that very author who published the illegal Christian almanac, Nadezhda ("Hope"). This periodical published texts from the holy fathers of the Church, sermons, and stories of the New Martyrs. We read these volumes and passed them around to each other (Zoya Krakhmalnikova was arrested on September 3, 1982.—Auth.).
—But this collection of Christian readings was the only one of its kind.
—It was aimed precisely at such neophytes as we were. In Fr. Vladimir's church we collected money to help support Zoya Alexandrovna, and a certain person took it upon himself to bring this aid to her in prison and buy her things she needed. Others tried to scare us, saying that this was dangerous and that there could be unpleasant consequences. But we paid no attention to them. With regard to the dissident movement itself, we were not particularly interested in it—my friends and I had completely immersed ourselves in learning Orthodoxy. At the time I had already written my statement of quitting the Komsomol (Young Communists) and didn't particularly concern myself with any ideological problems. There was no heroism in this. This was basically the sunset of the soviet regime.
—1982 was not at all the sunset of the soviet regime. They were still sending people to prison for their faith and for possessing "anti-Soviet" literature. I would like to ask you a little about something else: In 1989, my mother Zoya Krakhmalnikova published an article in the paper Russkay Mysl' entitled "The Bitter Fruits of a Sweet Captivity", which drew great attention and commentary. This was an article about so-called "Sergianism" (the politics of loyalty to the regime in the USSR), the beginning of which is generally connected with the Declaration by Metropolitan [later Patriarch] Sergius [Starogorodsky].—Auth.). Is the Church infected with Sergianism today?
—Let's first define what Sergianism is. Sergiansim, as critics of the Patriarchate of that time understood it, is a specific political Church policy chosen by Metropolitan Sergius. It consists in the fact that under the conditions of the Bolshevik government's open terror against the Church, in conditions of the real threat to craftily replace Orthodoxy with so-called renovationism—and that is what the Bolshivik regime was actively trying to do—the locum tenens of the Patriarchal throne Metropolitan Sergius (Starogorodsky) chose the path not of an underground existence for the Church, but the preservation of a legal Church structure. To do this he had to agree to serious compromises. The most tragic of them consisted in the fact that the Church administration practically gave the government the right to appoint or transfer hierarchs and priests and to remove unsubmissive clergy from their cathedras and parishes, and the Church administration practically never protested against the persecution of clergy and the lawlessness that was going on in the country.
So what happened? Maybe the metropolitan was saving his own skin? No, this is not what the rigorous ecclesiastical critics of his course were criticizing him for. All of them were frank with themselves; for an elderly bishop who had lived a long life, part of it during the period of unspeakable persecutions, and who bore responsibility for the entire Russian Church, dying would have been the easiest way out. No, they criticized him not for this, but for the mistakenness of the course he chose toward the authorities. Metropolitan Sergius himself justified his ecclesiastical policy with the conviction that if the Church were to go underground, the Bolsheviks would inevitably inculcate into the country the uncanonical, false, renovationist church that they had already prepared for this task. And with the prolonged presence of the Bolsheviks at the head and the total destruction by them of the canonical Orthodox Church, this would have had unpredictable consequences, even up to the complete disappearance Orthodoxy among the Russian people. Unfortunately, there have been just such examples in history.
But a truly terrible price was paid for this chosen ecclesiastical policy. There were instances when Metropolitan Sergius took upon himself the very serious sin of falsehood, when, for example, in his tragically known interview of February 16, 1930 published in Pravda and Isvestia newspapers, he affirmed that there were no persecutions against the faith in soviet Russia. Of course this was a lie, albeit forced, but a lie. Why did he consent to such steps? Metropolitan Sergius knew very well that any opposition to the authorities' commands, as experience had already shown, would immediately cause a manifold increase in the repressions and mass executions of bishops and priest who were then in prison. They only thing we can say is: Lord forbid that we should ever find ourselves in his position.
The policy that Metropolitan Sergius chose found both sympathy and severe criticism and opposition in Church society. The ugliest thing we can do from the safety of today would be to judge specific persons on either side. There were great saints among those who supported the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius: Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky)—one of the most courageous New Martyrs of the 1920s, and the famous hierarch, confessor, and surgeon Luke (Voino-Yasnestky), who became a priest and later a bishop, understanding full well that only prisons, suffering, and most likely death lay ahead of him. Metropolitan Konstantin (Diakov), Metropolitan Evgeny (Zernov)… we could go on naming many others, almost all of whom received a martyr's crown, who remained supporters of Metropolitan Sergius's ecclesiastical course.
But among their spiritual opponents were no fewer distinguished hierarchs—Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), Metropolitan Agathangel (Preobrazhensky), Archbishop Varlaam (Ryashentsev), and Archbishop Seraphim (Samoilovich). They are also glorified among the saints of the Church. The ecclesiastical policy separated them to different sides of the barricade in those unprecedented, difficult times, but their martyrdom for Christ has united them in eternity. Thus, on November 20, 1937 in Chimkent followers of three different warring trends in Church life were shot and buried in the same common grave—Metropolitan Joseph (Petrovikh), Metropolitan Kirill (Smirnov), and the "Sergianist" Bishop Evgeny (Kobranov).
Metropolitan Sergius (Starogorodsky) was not canonized by the Church as a saint. But I have no intention of judging him from he vantage point of our own times, and especially not to throw stones at him.
My spiritual father, Fr. John (Krestiankin), told me about a vision he had (one of three that he had over his 96 years of life), which fundamentally influenced his fate. Still a layman, in the early 1930s he was in opposition to Metropolitan Sergius. So here is the vision: They are in the Elokhovsky cathedral, and everyone is waiting for Metropolitan Sergius. There is a thick crowd in the church, and in it is the future Fr. John, then Ivan Mikhailovich Krestiankin, standing there and knowing that the metropolitan would now pass by and go into the altar. And truly, the metropolitan was greeted at the doors, and as he passed by he suddenly stood next to Fr. John and said quietly to him, "I know that you judge me very much. But know, that I repent." The Metropolitan entered the altar and then the vision ended. For Fr. John this was an extraordinary shock, and he had to reassess very much.
—My question is not specifically about Metropolitan Sergius (Starogorodsky), but about an evaluation of Sergianism as a phenomenon. We secular people understand that Sergianism means the Church's cooperation and support of the authorities and the government.
—I don't entirely understand what you mean. Let's be more specific. We [Sretensky Monastery.—Trans.] for example have a children's home. It is subsidized by us, and by the local authorities.
—But you understand what I am talking about.
—About what?
—I am not talking about charity work. What was Metropolitan Sergius criticized for? In his famous Declaration of 1927 he said, "We want to be Orthodox and at the same time recognize the Soviet Union as our civilian motherland, the joys and successes of which are our joys and successes, and the misfortunes of which are our misfortunes." Meanwhile, at that time priests were being imprisoned and executed everywhere.
—I already talked about the serious compromises, about the sin of lying that Metropolitan Sergius took upon himself. This is what we today, without judging personally Metropolitan Sergius and his supporters, do not accept, and have many times declared that church life definitely cannot and should not be built upon such principles. In its center is only God, Christ. This is the "alpha and omega" of Orthodoxy. As for "your joys are our joys", Metropolitan Sergius's declaration talked about the "joys and successes" of the motherland, albeit soviet—to the ecclesiastical consciousness sick, tragically distorted—but the motherland nevertheless.
—I am asking you about today.
—I think that the majority of the many-million-strong Russian Orthodox Church accepts the joys and misfortunes of contemporary Russia as their own. You say that the Church supports the government. Of course it supports it in everything constructive and good. And it calls upon the government to correct anything that is sick and bad. Why do you criticize the Church for that? Have you ever thought about the fact that for over 1000 years of our history it was precisely the Church that in many ways created and formed the Russian nation? And there were times, let's say, in the period of the Mongol Tartar invasions or the Time of Troubles when precisely the Church and only the Church saved and preserved Russia. And why, after these thousand years of motherhood, can it not support the nation in everything constructive and good, and help it difficult times? Because the liberals don't want it to?
—I am not comparing the positions. I am comparing the spirit.
—What do you mean?
—What does the intelligentsia criticize the Church for today? For the fact that it cooperates with the government, it glorifies the government. Remember the presidential elections of 2012, when Patriarch Kirill practically called all to vote for Putin.
—That did not happen. The rules of the Russian Orthodox Church forbid calling anyone to vote for one or another politician or political party.
—Here is the quote: "I should say completely openly as the Patriarch, who is called to speak the truth, without paying any attention to political conjuncture or propagandistic accents, that it was namely you who played an enormous role in correcting the crookedness of our history, Vladimir Vladimirovich. I would like to thank you. You once said that you work like a galley slave—with only one difference: a slave has never produced such output, and you have had a very high output" (speech given on February 8, 2012 at a meeting of the president with leaders of religious communities). The Patriarch talks about Putin as a candidate "who has, of course, the greatest chance of realizing this candidacy as a viable position". This is not a command, but it is definitely support, from which the flock should draw their own conclusions.
—Look, that is the Patriarch's business. He decided that that is how he should give his speech in the presence of all the leaders of Russia's religious congregations. I agree with you that this was support within the framework of the law, and not a direct call to vote for a candidate. You have said it correctly. So what is the crime here?
—The Church almost never criticizes the government. It never defends political prisoners. The Church supported the annexation of the Crimea, although there were differing opinions. The Church always holds to the "party line".
—Let's take things one at a time. "The Church does not criticize the government." Undoubtedly, for the Church, as opposed to today's oppositionists, criticism of the government is not an end in itself or the meaning of its existence. There you are right. But when the Church considers it necessary to point out dangers and mistakes to the government and society, we of course say something. It is precisely from the Church, the Patriarch, and a multitude of priests and laity that the toughest criticism is demonstrated against the governmental law on abortions. There were a collection of signatures, the Patriarch's appearance before the Duma criticizing the government over this matter, criticism in the media and in sermons, after all. We are talking about millions of people, about a systemic cease to this outrageous permissiveness and systematic murder. We propose steps based upon international experience in decreasing abortions.
Further there is the governmental policy on the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. This indulgence in unregulated alcohol production has gone on under the guise of strengthening the free market. The result of this criticism, and then the cooperation over many years between the Church and the government in this work is that new laws were passed several years ago to reduce alcohol consumption, and now changes for the better have occurred with regard to this problem—and the Church participated in this change. Alcohol consumption per capita in 2008, according to the Russian Ministry of Health, was 15.8 liters (in reality it was about 18 litters) and by 2015 it was reduced to 10.5 liters. I can cite these figures because I was directly involved in this matter on the Church's side.
Political prisoners. This is my personal opinion: If you personally know someone and know that he was in fact sentenced for his political views, you have a right to defend him from this arbitrary abuse. Therefore this matter is truly exclusively personal for every priest. I knew one man, my friend, who was arrested and sent to trial for his political views after October of 1993. And precisely because I knew him, I was sure of him and his rightness and innocence, I came to the trial and defended him as a social advocate. But if you do not know the person in the least, nor the essence of the matter, and you are only told that "from our point of view" this is a political prisoner… The Church does not have the facilities for investigation. You must agree that these are absolutely different situations.
About the Crimea. There are Church people who supported the reunification of the Crimea—very many of them, including those living in the Crimea. There are also Orthodox Christians who spoke out against it. There are priests who spoke out publicly against it and there were no repressions against them.
—Name those priests.
—Well, I can't remember them offhand. I know that several people spoke their opinion on it. Archdeacon Andrei Kuraev, a clergyman in my vicariate in Moscow, wrote and spoke of it as being a mistake.
—But that is not what can be called "speaking publicly and there were no repressions against them." We are talking about statements by Church representatives or hierarchs, and not about Fr. Andrei Kuraev's blog.
—Of course our Fr. Andrei is not a hierarch, but neither is he an ordinary church blogger. He repeatedly and specifically publicly stated his opinion on the Crimea and there were no repressions against him whatsoever. As for hierarchs—why do you think that they should have such an opinion on this issue that is identical to yours, and not be in solidarity with the ninety-five percent of Crimean inhabitants who voted for reunification with Russia?
—Well that same Deacon Andrei Kuraev gave an interview on the "Dozhd" ("Rain") TV channel entitled, "This is Patriarch Kirill's sin." Did you see it?
—No. What was the sin?
—In Kuraev's opinion, "Neither Patriarch Kirill, nor Metropolitan Hilarion [(Alfeyev), the head of the Church External Relations Department.—Trans.], nor Vladimir Legoida [the chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for interaction with society and the media.—Trans.] nor anyone else in that group gave a moral, ecclesiastical-moral, or theological evaluation of pogromist moods and acts."
—Judging from what you've quoted this is once again about "Matilda".1 The official representative of the Russian Orthodox Church Vladimir Romanovich Legoida several times officially stated that the Church categorically condemns any extremist acts with regard to the film "Matilda". Metropolitan Hilarion said the same thing. One would have to really make an effort not to notice these statements in the press.
—I understood that in speaking of "the Patriarch's sin", Kuraev meant that the Patriarch did not stop these people in time who were calling themselves Orthodox Christians but were essentially pogromists.
—You mean the organization, "Christian Nation?" Which consists of two people, both of whom, it seems, were already under investigation? I repeat, at the blessing of the Patriarch, his official press secretary and the head of the department for interaction with the media condemned any manifestations of extremism. All the hierarchs in the many dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church warned their flocks in the local newspapers, on diocesan websites, and in other media about the unacceptability of protests outside of the legal field, although I am convinced that only deliberate provocateurs with no connection to the Church would go in for extremist activities. As for lawful civil protests—do you suppose that the Patriarch should forbid them? Do you propose initiating ecclesiastical repressions against lawful protests?
—And what about the "Tsar worshippers"? What do you think of them?
—Have you ever seen at least one Tsar worshipper? Can you name at least one name? I have seen only one such lady. One. That's all. I know that there are a few tiny groups who have proclaimed the Tsar [Nicholas II] "the redeemer". It's true that there are a few more of them than those two from "Christian Nation". But if priests hear about such sects, they try to talk to their adherents and explain to them their error. Do they really interest you that much?
—They are also very aggressive.
—We have activists of all different stripes in our country. But we don't demand a ban on all crackpot "democratic schizophrenics" only because we don't like them. If it inspires them let them pop up from time to time, each with his own repertoire, as long as they don't break the law.
—And what about the protest at "Tannhäuser" in the Novosibirsk Theater?
—Another strange example. The metropolitan of Novosibirsk is a citizen of the Russian Federation, right? In accordance with the law, he filed a lawsuit to close the show based upon the Russian law against offending religious sensibilities. And he won that lawsuit! Only later did the Ministry of Culture make the decision to remove that opera from the repertoire, because it could see a civil conflict quickly growing around this story.
—Did the Novosibirsk metropolitan take counsel with any of the other hierarchs before filing this lawsuit?
—Every bishop is absolutely free to make his own decisions. The more cautious of them ask advice. But it is their right to do or not do something.
—You were sharply critical of the film "Leviathan". I quote: "This film is as much a piece of 'art' as what 'Pussy Riot' did in the Christ the Savior Cathedral."
—That is not an exact quote. I said, word-for-word: "Those who applauded 'Pussy Riot' also applauded 'Leviathan'. But aside from my negative attitude toward the film, which is connected with its obvious tendentiousness and hyperbole, no one, including your obedient servant, had any thought of making statements calling for the banning of that film. I have repeated many times that bans are absolutely a dead-end and an erroneous path. Incidentally, the obligatory slander concerning this subject is becoming habitual.
Not long ago I was informed of the rumor that the premier of the show "Nureyev" by Kirill Serebrennikov was shut down either by me or with my participation. The author of this rumor was Alexei Venedictov. Where did he get it? My reply to him was very stern.
—But you answered him rather vaguely.
—I told him that he is lying. Is that vague?
—Venedictov wrote on his telegram channel that there were representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church at the show wearing civilian clothing. They didn't like the show; they called you, and you called the Minister of Culture Medinsky.
—Lies. Morbid imagination.
—Then why are rumors flying around Moscow that you didn't like Serebrennikov's film, "Uchenik" ("The Student")?
—I can't say. I didn't see the film. But I would like to watch it since the theme interests me. But why rumors are going around Moscow and St. Petersburg—this is happening only because rumors and gossip are the inspiration and delight of a significant portion of our progressive "creative" society.
—They love rumors. There was one well-known polemicist, Ivan Lukianovich Solonevich. He said, "Russia was destroyed by rumors and gossip," meaning the February 1917 revolution.2 A rumor was generated that a telegraph line had been set up between Tsarskoe Selo and the German General Staff, and that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna was personally informing the enemy of all military secrets. There was a rumor that because no rye flour was sent to Petrograd for several days that a famine would begin any day, although Petrograd had the most food of all the capitals of European countries fighting in World War I. That, by the way, is why some historians call the February revolution the "revolution of the sated". Now we know that there was plenty of bread available on the eve of the February revolution. 197 million poods (over 3.5 million tons.—Trans.) of grain were left until the next harvest; this would have been enough for the country, and the front, and to provide to the allies. There were temporary interruptions due to deep snow and sabotage by high-ranking revolutionary conspirators working in the railway system. All of this ultimately led to controlled chaos, revolution, and everything else that followed. Gossip, and more gossip. Don't think that I am intimating that the activities of today's "creative class" and handshaking slanderers and gossipers will lead to revolution. That's hogwash—they are too trivial and primitive when held up against the Guchkovs, Miliukovs, and Rodziankos. But let's leave that alone. I did not see the film by Kirill Serebrennikov that you are talking about, and have never watched anything he has produced.
—But you know who that producer is?
—Of course I do.
—How do you know if you have never watched anything by him?
—This surprises you? He's a well-known figure. I read the news.
—"The Student" is a harshly anti-clergy film.
—I know that much, I know of its plot. Only from what I've heard, it is not anti-clergy but more a film that exposes aggressive fanaticism and super-correctness—phariseeism.
—But you've never seen it? And you haven't shown it to Putin?
—You wish to make a joke?
—I am telling you what they say.
—You never know what they'll say.
—Then explain why?
—Because, I repeat, there are plenty of liars and gossipers in the world.
—Is it just to make trouble for you?
—I think that for the most part, it's in order to create the illusion that they are well informed and important.
(The interviewer asks about articles and films being produced against the interviewee, and who is paying for them.)
—As far as I know, the "Dozhd" TV channel is making a film about you because you play such a large role in politics.
—Are you being ironical?
—It is written everywhere that you are Putin's confessor. And you never deny it.
—"Dozhd" ordered a film. There will soon be a great flood of similar films and articles about the Russian Orthodox Church. We know about this. We view this calmly.
—Why do you say, "ordered"?
—There are people who think that its [the Church's] influence should be weakened to a minimum.
—Influence on the government?
—First of all on the people.
—In Russia the government controls everything.
—Here you and I diverge somewhat. In my humble opinion, God controls both Russia and the world.
—But nowadays all the people in our government are believers.
—All of them? Of course not all of them.
—Dozhd only has 70,000 subscribers. So it's not a big influence.
—"Iskra" (The Spark) newspaper had an even smaller circulation in its time. But it successfully helped to start a fire [of revolution.—Trans.]. So all is not lost for the folks at "Dozhd".
—That's a conspiracy theory. People have a purely journalistic interest in you. I for instance have one question. When you were young, when you studied at the cinema institute, you read The Gulag Archipelago in samizdat. Why then do you trust the KGB and the FSB?
—In what way is this trust expressed? Especially explain about the KGB.
—For me the two are one and the same. After all, you don't deny that you are Putin's confessor?
—I have already repeatedly said that for answers to questions about Christianity, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has the possibility to consult with no small number of competent people, from His Holiness the Patriarch to ordinary priests and laity. Among such clergy is also your obedient servant—this is true. The president regularly visits Valaam Monastery, and talks with well-known spiritual fathers on Mt. Athos. Incidentally, when you say "confessor" you of course mean some evil-doer who is capable of having a special influence on the president. It's your right to fantasize as much as you like on this subject or to create any number of enthralling fairy tales, but the fact is that no such person exists in nature—if only because the president, as most everyone knows, does not tolerate any direct or even oblique attempts to influence him. It is simply laughable to suggest such a thing. Any analyst who has objectively studied the president's movements over the span of his public life in politics can grasp this fact. The rest is for people who like conspiracy theories. Incidentally, I have had to repeat this ad nauseum.
—But you do know the president?
—Well, who doesn't know him here? Oh, all right—I do have the pleasure of being somewhat personally acquainted with him.
—Well, you are being evasive.
—Why? Forgive me, but if I say that I somewhat know him it only means that I really do know Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin a little. Whoever can say that he knows our president fully, let him cast the first stone at me.
—Who wrote first that you are the president's confessor? Wasn't it you yourself?
—Of course not. I know that journalist. I won't name him right now. I respect him, although then, sixteen years ago, when he first wrote something like that in his article, I was terribly disappointed in him.
—Do you get any benefit from being called the president's confessor by the media?
—I don't pay any attention to it.
[The interviewer says that all the high-ranking officials came out to meet him when he was in Ekaterinburg, at which Bishop Tikhon answers that he came to that city to open an exhibit as the head of the Patriarchal Council for Culture and as a member of the presidium for the Presidential council on culture and art. He was met at the airport by other bishops and members of the local government administration. He discussed with them the opening of a historical park. In this case the governor himself came, but in other cases the governor sends his representative.]
—Does it bother you that the Russian government persecutes those who think differently?
—In this matter there is a fundamental difference between soviet times and our times. During soviet times, we knew specific people who were repressed for thinking differently according to the political codex. In the first half of the twentieth century these were, say, the new martyrs, whom we all know. Later, already within our own memory, everyone in our country knew people like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Zoya Krakhmalnikova, and Alexander Ogorodnikov (a famous Orthodox dissident and organizer of the Christian seminar; he spent ten years in prison.—Auth.), while in the churches they prayed for Victor Burdiuga (sentenced in 1982 to three years in prison camp for possessing and distributing anti-Soviet literature.—Auth.), and Nicholai Blokhin (sentenced in 1982 to three years in prison camp for possessing anti-Soviet literature.—Auth.). I know the last three personally. But today I simply don't know the names of those people who are incarcerated in camps and prisons for their convictions.
—You probably don't have the opportunity to follow this, but such cases are being falsified everywhere, and we have just the same political prisoners as we did then. There are fewer, but they exist. The Church should defend those who have been innocently condemned.
—Do you want us to head a dissident movement?
—That would be too much. I understand that you were in favor of the reunification of the Crimea.
—And the war in the Donbass?
—Have you heard of the Ukrainian film producer Oleg Sentsov, who was sentenced to twenty years because he supposedly wanted to blow up the Lenin statue in Simferopol? He was defended by producer Alexander Sokurov. You should know that the government today, albeit not on the same scale, basically does the same things it did before.
—I saw it in the news.
—Another question: Which is closer to you—Metropolitan Philip (Kolychev) (who was murdered at the orders of Tsar Ivan the Terrible for his criticism.—Trans.) or Metropolitan Sergius (Starogorodksy) (who was famous for signing the compromising declaration with the soviet regime.—Trans.)?
—Metropolitan Philip was a great saint and a man of remarkable courage. He rebuked the Tsar for evil-doing that was absolutely obvious to all. But he did not have the choice before him that tormented Metropolitan Sergius. Metropolitan Philip knew that he would rebuke Ivan the Terrible and then die, but Orthodoxy and the Church would go on. Metropolitan Sergius, however, had a different choice to make: the first option was to save the Orthodox Church in the legal space of Soviet Russia. But this would mean consenting to the most serious compromises, in order to prevent the renovationists, who followed upon the Bolsheviks, from taking over Russia. The renovationists' activities, which were supported and encouraged by the theomachic government, were leading to the replacement of Orthodoxy with the pseudo-Christianity that the renovationists preached. Similar situations are known in the history of the Universal Church. As time goes on, as we know from that same history, a return to Orthodoxy, to true Christianity among nations who have gone through similar calamities becomes impossible. Metropolitan Sergius knew this very well, and by preserving the Church, waited it out until the crumbs of the Church institutions that were left after those repressions could be brought back together and restored.
The second choice offered to Metropolitan Sergius was to give up on the Church's legal existence, heroically perish along with his brothers, and remain irrefutably a hero for eternity. But this would have opened the door to unhindered strengthening in the country of this false Christianity—renovationism in its various forms—with no alternative. There would have been a huge probability that the Local Russian Orthodox Church would have been totally and forever destroyed in its hierarchy. There are such examples in history.
"Let my name perish in history, as long as the Church be benefitted"—these words belonged to holy Patriarch Tikhon. Metropolitan Sergius could definitely have repeated them. He himself said, "The easiest thing for me now would be execution." Of course we cannot say now whether the Local Russian Church would have been saved had it taken a different course. Maybe, despite the renovationists' totalitarian pressure and political power, the government's all-out support of them and its all-engulfing repression machine, Orthodoxy could have been reborn in the 1990s from what would have remained of it underground. But this is only conjecture. Those people lived in those times and in those realities. They were responsible for the Church before God, and they will answer for their decisions and acts at the Last Judgment. I repeat: It is not for us to judge!


text:
Yo yo,
Recently I got two excellent news!
Around the end of last year I wrote a research proposal for a DPhil in Anthropology at Oxford University. Last week I was delighted to get an offer letter from their School of Anthropology. My research will be in the area of Geospatial Paleoanthropology, meaning using remote sensing to discover potential hot spots of fossil human ancestors. Plus, I got an excellent supporting team as well! Professor Susana Carvalho as my supervisor and Professor Robert Anemone and Professor Eugénia Cunha as my co-supervisors.
This week the official results of the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia grants also come out. For me, it was positive! Which was awesome, unexpected good news. This scholarship will help me pay my studies and my life for the next 3 or 4 years in England.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Any Amazon seller that is also a shopper on Amazon has likely heard of Lightning Deals. The deals are found on the popular "Today's Deals" page all year long and are featured more prominently across all of Amazon during popular shopping times including Prime Day, Black Friday, Cyber Monday and the month of December.
Like all promotions, running Lightning Deals as an Amazon seller has its pros and cons. In this Lightning Deal primer, we'll cover those pros and cons, how to set up a Lightning Deal campaign and much more to help you decide whether these popular deals are right for you and your business.
How Lightning Deals Work
A Lightning Deal is a discount offer with limited time and quantity. Every Lightning Deal on the deal page runs for either six hours or until the product completely sells out, whichever comes first. The deals are laid out in a way that demands action; shoppers can see how big their savings are (the sale price is listed above a crossed out regular price with the percentage off of that price noted), what percentage of the product's stock has already been claimed, and how much time is left on the deal.
Lightning Deals are limited to one per customer. When a customer adds a Lightning Deal to their cart, they have 15 minutes to process the transaction or they miss out on the deal. Even if a customer comes across a Lightning Deal somewhere outside of the deal page such as through an advertisement or a search, Amazon still notes that the product currently has a limited time offer on it.
All of these factors make Lightning Deals extremely attractive to buyers. The limited time, limited quantity and only being allowed to purchase one make these deals feel extremely time-sensitive and worthwhile. Shoppers that might usually take their time to shop around feel compelled to buy on the spot so that they don't miss out on this deal.
Eligibility Requirements for Lightning Deals
To try to keep the integrity of their famous Lightning Deals intact, Amazon has some requirements for what makes a seller and a product eligible for the promotion.
In order to be eligible for Lightning Deals, a seller must have a Professional Seller account. They must also receive at least five Seller Feedback Ratings per month and maintain an average of at least 3.5 stars on those ratings.
Products must meet each of the following requirements to be eligible for inclusion as a Lightning Deal:
- A sales history that includes a product review rating of at least 3 stars.
- Coverage of multiple product variations, when applicable. For example, if a Lightning Deal is being created for a type of shoe that comes in multiple colors, you should have at least 65% of the potential variations in stock.
- The product must not be offensive, inappropriate or a restricted product.
- Your product must be Amazon Prime eligible in all regions of the United States, including Puerto Rico. You can use either Fulfilled by Amazon or Seller Fulfilled Prime to meet this requirement.
- All products must be in "New" condition.
- A Lightning Deal cannot run on the same ASIN more than once in a seven-day period.
Fortunately, Amazon makes things easy for its sellers when it comes to determining eligibility. When you open up the Lightning Deals Dashboard, products that are eligible to be sold through Lightning Deals are listed under "Recommendations". Still, it is good to review and understand the rules to make sure that you are compliant with them and to help troubleshoot the issue if one of your products isn't showing up as an option.
How To Create a Lightning Deal
Setting up a Lightning Deal is easy. To access the Lightning Deals Dashboard from your Seller Central account, click on the "Lightning Deals" tab under the Advertising drop-down menu. From here, you can click on "Create a New Lightning Deal" to see your recommended ASINs.
Recommendations are listed with the following information:
- The product name.
- The current price of the product.
- "Schedule" – This is the date range that your Lightning Deal will fall between.
- "Maximum Deal Price" – This is the highest price that you can charge on your product during a Lightning Deal.
- "Minimum Deal Quantity" – This is the lowest number of units that you must have in stock for this Lightning Deal to run.
- "Fee" – This is the flat fee that you will have to pay to run this Lightning Deal
Once you have decided on which product you'd like to submit a Lightning Deal for, you can click the "Edit" button underneath this information. This will allow you to set the deal price and the number of units for your deal, as long as they meet the required maximums and minimums. Upon setting up your parameters, you can click "Submit" to submit your Lightning Deal to Amazon for review.
In some cases your deal will be immediately approved; in others, you will receive a notification after Amazon has had the chance to review the submission. If your deal is suppressed, Amazon will give you details on how to fix it, if possible.
It is recommended that you have your proposed quantity in stock at least seven days before the scheduled date of your Lightning Deal. You must have at least the minimum deal quantity in stock for the Lightning Deal to run, so be sure to stock enough to cover your regular sales while still maintaining the minimum number of units required for your deal.
Pros and Cons to Running a Lightning Deal on Amazon
As is the case with any sales strategy, there are both pros and cons to utilizing Lightning Deals on Amazon. Here are some of the most common arguments for and against running a Lightning Deal for your product.
Exposure for Your Brand and Product – Without question, the biggest benefit to running a Lightning Deal is the exposure that your brand will get from it. Your product will be featured prominently among Amazon's best deals; even shoppers that decide not to purchase your product during the deal's run time are still made aware of it and could decide to purchase it or one of your other products in the future.
Additional Opportunities for Product Reviews – Increased impressions and sales on your product will organically lead to more product reviews on your listing. This benefit can be increased significantly when paired with a FeedbackWhiz email marketing campaign. To maximize the return on investment of your Lightning Deal, be sure to have a great campaign ready to go to secure more product reviews.
Increased Organic Rankings During the Sale – As we mentioned before, products that are currently under a Lightning Deal are labeled as such across Amazon's entire marketplace. So even if a shopper finds your product through searching one of your targeted keywords instead of on the deals page, your listing will stick out on the page with a "limited time offer" badge on it. This will generate even more clicks and sales while your Lightning Deal is active.
Potential Long Term Benefits – Amazon lists one of the pros of Lightning Deals as the "halo effect". The logic being that increased sales, improved bestseller ratings, more product reviews, and increased brand awareness have in some cases led to benefits for sellers that stretch far beyond just the life of the Lightning Deal.
It's an Effective Way to Clear Out Inventory – Whether you have a product that is a seasonal item, one that you are discontinuing or one that you want to get rid of for some other reason, Lightning Deals are an excellent method of doing so. Even if you take a loss on the discounted price, the benefits such as reviews and brand exposure might make Lightning Deals are a more palatable way of eliminating inventory than your other options.
Lightning Deals are Expensive – Typically, a Lightning Deal costs $150 to run, though this fee will vary depending on the category the product is in and the time of year the deal is being run. Add this cost to the decreased ROI that you will receive on your sales since the product is being sold at a discounted price, and you can quickly see that not all products are going to be a great fit for this type of deal.
Inventory Planning Can Be Tricky – In order to make sure that your product is properly stocked for your upcoming Lightning Deal, you may need to have far more inventory on hand than you are usually accustomed to, which could lead to difficulties in logistics depending on your business's situation. Worse yet, there are no guarantees when it comes to Lightning Deals; if your product does not sell at the rate that you anticipated, you will be on the hook for all of this excess inventory.
You Don't Have Much Control Over Your Lightning Deal – Once you have submitted a Lightning Deal proposition to Amazon, you don't have any control over when your deal is run. As a result, your six-hour Lightning Deal window could be scheduled at a time that does not mesh well with your product or its target demographic, and there are no refunds based on performance. You do have the option of canceling your Lightning Deal for a refund up to 24 hours before it is scheduled to run, but this will be after you've already gone through the entire process of setting everything up.
Many Sellers Don't Notice Long Term Benefits – There are success stories of the so-called "halo effect" leading to increased sales across the board for some businesses. But for many others, the short term boost in sales and rankings that comes from a Lightning Deal levels out to previous norms fairly quickly, which may leave some sellers regretting that they ran the promotion in the first place.
Deciding on Whether or Not to Give it a Try
Only you can decide whether or not Lightning Deals are right for you and your brand. These listings can be an extremely powerful tool to drive sales, but they require a good deal of planning and preparation. Before submitting one, make sure that you will be able to meet the quantity and pricing requirements and that doing so will make sense within your sales strategies.
If you are on the fence about trying one, we recommend these two options as potential starting points:
- A product that could benefit long-term from increased exposure and product reviews. At the end of the day, Lightning Deals are just another form of advertisement. If you are willing to reduce your profit margin on a set quantity of your product and pay the fee to run the deal, in return you will receive a huge short term boost in sales and brand recognition. There is no guarantee that this short term boost will result in long term growth, but if you are confident in the quality of the product and its long term selling potential at its regular price, a Lightning Deal could speed up the process considerably.
- Practice makes perfect on running Lightning Deals; the more you run, the better you will understand what to expect and how effective they can be for your product and category. Why not start with an item that you are overstocked on or planning to discontinue anyway? Using a Lightning Deal to get rid of excess or stale inventory is a great way to try out the system and troubleshoot logistics in a low-stakes environment before you run one for more valuable products in the future.
Regardless of what products you decide to use for a Lightning Deal, remember to have an automated FeedbackWhiz email campaign in place first. Above all else, you are paying for increased exposure, and the best way to turn those short term sales into long term ones is by converting as many of those sales into product reviews as possible.


text:
The following email arrived in my inbox with the title The Mysteries of Democracy.
"Greetings Pundita,
My question relates to how we can better understand democracy from the point of view of people who do not have a whole lot of experience with it.
Niels Bohr, one of the giants of 20th century physics, once said that anyone who is not shocked by the implications of quantum mechanics does not understand it. He said this because at its most basic level, reality, according to quantum mechanics, does not behave in a deterministic fashion like Newtonian mechanics. You can only determine the probability of events at the atomic level, such as the position of an electron. Einstein himself had deep reservations about this saying "God does not play dice with the universe."
So my question is can we say the same of democracy, that anyone who is not shocked by its implications does not truly understand it? When I think about it just as a practical matter it does not appear obvious why anyone would use a system for which there is a significant degree of randomness in the choosing of its leaders and crafting of its legislation.
Indeed most of Europe's ruling elite in the days of our Founding Founders assumed it would end in chaos as they hoped our Civil War would prove. How can we better understand this process ourselves and explain to others why and under what conditions democracies succeed?
Greg in Orlando"
Dear Greg:
Ah, but there is not randomness for humans. This was explained to me many moons ago by Guru David after I came across the very same comments by Bohr and Einstein that you mention. I was quite perturbed by the discussion and spent days pondering myself in circles until I recalled why there are gurus.
Guru David handed me a pile of computer printout pages that weighed several pounds and which contained nothing but row upon row of digits. He explained that the printout was the result of a random numbers generator software program. Then he asked me to study the pages to see if I could find any patterns among the randomly generated numbers. At first I saw none but within moments I reported in excitement that was finding all sorts of patterns.
Guru David replied, "The patterns you perceive are supplied by your mind, not the program. If you were a mathematician you could find many more patterns. So even if God is playing dice with the universe, humans can hunker down and study the rolls of the dice and from that find patterns, and from that find order in the universe."
Upon hearing of the Bush Democracy Doctrine, "Brother" Moammar Qaddafi, as he prefers to be called since getting more in touch with his African side, snapped, "Africans don't need democracy. They need food and medicine. Besides, Arabs invented democracy." He went on to say that the word 'democracy' has it roots in an Arab word meaning the people sitting together.
He's probably right because Arabs invented everything else. They had no choice, if you stop and think about it. In the old days, if your caravan got stuck in a sandstorm in the Kalahari you didn't tell an African chief, "Sorry, your shipment of dates has been rendered sandy goo due to circumstances beyond my control."
No. You invented the world's first miracle-ingredient exfoliating scrub, guaranteed to restore the glow of youth to even the most tired complexion.
I interject it's a pity that summary execution no longer accompanies failure to please the customer; this has diverted much human creativity into making excuses instead of inventions.
You are mystified because you're confusing a method of selection with the chore of assigning responsibility. The latter was never much of a problem in the old days because we could blame everything that went wrong on the gods, who were full of foibles and whose IQ was often in the idiot range.
Then came The Trouble, which generally we speak of only in whispers here in Pundita-land, but I will tell you a little about it. The Trouble started over a stolen goat; to be more precise, testimony about a stolen goat.
Incidentally this is where the expression, "Now you've got my goat" came from. And, more darkly, it explains how the mild mannered and frankly addle-brained goat came to be associated with the Devil.
In the old days the primary function of the chief was to be a judge -- to settle disputes that arose in the tribe. The Arabs hadn't gotten around yet to inventing fingerprinting so when it came to making a ruling on criminal matters the chief had to rely on oral testimony and brain sweat to determine guilt or innocence.
This duty wasn't so hard during the really old days because the life of a nomad was short and hard, which kept down the tribe's population. But once humans settled down and farmed our numbers greatly increased. What this meant for the chief is that instead of sitting through the testimony of say, five witnesses, he could hear from hundreds.
Thus, The Trouble started. It came to pass that the only respite chiefs got from ruling on cases from the bench was weddings, funerals, religious holidays and war.
However, there wasn't much war, and war in those days was rarely armed conflict. Instead, disputing tribes would paint themselves to look fierce then hop up and down and make screeching noises at each other. (I note this atavistic custom survives in the quaint ritual that anti-globalists perform outside the IMF and World Bank headquarters each Spring.) Whichever tribe managed to hop the highest and screech the loudest won the war.
Then one day, after weeks spent listening to 871 witnesses give testimony about a stolen goat, a chief turned to his court clerk and said, "Death in battle is preferable to this."
"Why not try adding another religious holiday?" whispered the clerk helpfully.
But as anyone who has visited old parts of the world can intuit, by that era chiefs desperate to get off the bench had already added so many religious holidays to the docket that tribal business moved at a snail's pace.
"No. I will gather the hotheads and travel far distant to fight a war."
This was unheard of. Wars, to the extent they occurred, were with neighbors. What else were neighbors for?
"On what grounds will you declare war on strangers?" asked the perplexed clerk.
"I don't know..." muttered the chief. "Maybe I'll find a strange tribe and call their gods stupid."
"But that is Taboo," gasped the clerk. "It is only allowed to call our own gods stupid!"
"Exactly," replied the chief grimly.
And so it began. All these millennia of bloody war and conquest -- all started by a goat who wandered off on his own accord to munch on some brambles.
This according to the possum member of my foreign policy team, whose accounts of her clan's recollections stretch back even long before the time of humans.
So here we are today. Having reasoned ourselves into a corner via the Bigger Fish Tale method, few are lucky enough to have the IQ of gods to blame for our troubles. The rest have an All Knowing, All Seeing God whose intelligence is so vast as to be immeasurable.
The downside is that we can't blame a know-it-all for any situation we consider to be a mess. No, we must find in the mess a divine plan. This still leaves us with the problem of assigning blame and responsibility for dealing with parts of the divine plan that are not pleasant for humans.
Here we come to another snag: there are now too many of us to allow for blaming a single person or small group for failure to adequately deal with a messy aspect of the divine plan. This means that today more of us must share in the responsibility for managing our societies.
This observation is so self-evident that one wonders why it's ignored in favor of hideously complex arguments for democracy. To understand this part, we would need to jump back a few chapters in history. But in one sentence, trust French philosophers to make something highly complex and abstract out of something childishly simple and concrete.
Thus, there is much mystery about the philosophy of democracy. But democracy is as old as tribes, as simple as people sitting around a fire and deciding between them how to handle problems that arise in their midst. Brother Qaddafi's remarks allude to this.
However, Brother Qaddafi does not take his argument far enough. It is true the Africans need food and medicine. Yet unless more of them take responsibility for governing themselves, the needs will be a bottomless pit while they go on looking for an elite or World Bank project to blame for the lack.
That is how to explain democracy to peoples who swear with their fingers crossed behind their back that they don't understand it. That is explanation, American-style.
Why is it so hard for Americans to come up with American-style explanations? Because American academia and think tanks are so steeped in European views that we don't even have an American lexicon for discussing foreign policy, much less democracy.
The Coen Brothers have made film after film in which they try to plumb the Mystery of America. This is in the attempt to explain how a bunch of farmers, tinkerers and salesmen created history's greatest nation.
Not by democracy alone did we do it. Our founding fathers worked their tails off. They were traders, farmers, accountants, inventors, soldiers; whatever they took from European philosophy, it was filtered through the American work ethic. So Americans arrived at the acceptance of democracy not through abstractions but through a "what works best" approach that was grounded in the experiential.
But Americans ignore their history, their own experiences, when they explain democracy to the rest of the world. Until we develop our own way of articulating things, we will keep finding ourselves sucked into philosophical debates that distract from our experience with democracy.
With regard to your observation about the randomness of choosing politicians in a democracy, I recall a true story about President George W. Bush's meeting with a constituent: When Bush inquired as to what he did for a living, the man replied that he sold compressed air. Bush shot back, "We're in the same business."
The system of American democratic government is not automatic -- it needs tending to -- but the system of checks and balances works well enough over time that individuals who represent the system are not as important as the gestalt.
We look for campaigning politicians to convey that they will give us what we want and be really good at explaining why they can't when they don't. That is an expectation of leaders that is as old as tribes. Thus, the order underlying the seeming randomness of democratic politics.
As for crafting legislation, those who closely follow doings on the Hill can tell you there is nothing random about reciprocity and the art of compromise. If you greatly familiarize yourself with the goals of a presidential administration and with the major congressional players and their pet projects, it is easy to perceive order behind the way legislation turns out.


text:
Project Description
Concours d'Elegance, Pebble Beach.
TTI managed all of the transport services required for the Mercedes Benz display at the infamous Consours d'Elegance event. TTI's decades of event experience has earned them the reputation for defining the highest standards of reliability, responsiveness and professionalism in the transport and trade show services industry.


text:
Now a "stretch and relax" class in the shade just doesn't have the same attraction as a "stretch and relax" class in the sun and I resolved that today would be a keep my face out of the sun day.
Of course I still had to swim and what a brilliant excuse not to have to swim backstroke!
The wind in the new pool was truly blowing a hooly! In the main set wearing a pair of paddles pinched from sports booking it was like having sails as you went up the pool but oh dear coming back into that head wind! and the chop.
I therefore resolved that in between sessions all I was going to do today was to recharge on a sunbed.
Teenage Triathlete went off to do an unfeasible amount of classes which started with Body Combat or something equally as tortuous, ( I'd bailed after 20 minutes in this class on Friday) and ended with an egg throwing competition. (was it a chucky egg?)
Although it did involve her having to catch it as well, things were all white until the distance 16 metres when her team mate bowled a complete yorker (or should that be yoker) with the eggspected results.
After a few hours on the sun bed catching up with the blogging, I made it to the pool for a very leisurely dip. Not very much effort there and a fair bit of garbage yardage, but my 6k today salvaged a green week.
AM Session
1300 warm up
100 free
50 free, 50 back
50 free, 50 breast
100 free
50 single arm left 50 single arm right
100 catch up
100 free
100 catch up
50 single arm left 50 single arm right
100 free
50 free, 50 breast
50 free, 50 back
100 free
5 x 400 @ 7:30 pull with paddles
4 x 50 fly drill with fins @ 75
4 x 50 free kick with fins @ 75
4 x 50 free DPS @ 70 s
300 swim down
4200 metres
PM Session
800 mixed drills warm up
400 breast stroke kick
8 x 50's breaststroke drill
8 x 50's free drills
200 swim down
2200 metres


text:
Charles Bernstein, Donald T. Regan Professor of English and Comparative Literature, and English Ph.D. student Chris Mustazza explore the history of the PennSound archive, the world's largest online archive of recordings of poets reading their own work. With recordings reaching back to Apollinaire's 1913 performance at the Sorbonne through recently recorded audio of contemporary poets, PennSound is dedicated to being free and open to all. In addition to a look at the archive itself, including historical recordings of poets like Robert Frost and Gertrude Stein, Bernstein and Mustazza detail ways in which PennSound is being used for cutting-edge digital research.
Click here to view a video of the entire Knowledge By the Slice event, including the audience Q&A.
Charles Bernstein, Co-founder of PennSound:
Chris Mustazza, Associate Director of PennSound:


text:
If there is such a thing as a bad Eric Church cover, I haven't found it yet.
In fact, quite the opposite.
Back in 2011, Eric recorded phenomenal cover of fellow North Carolina native Sammy Johns' "Chevy Van" for his Caldwell County EP. The song was originally released in 1973, however it was re-released in 1975, where it climbed to number five on the Billboard Hot 100 chart.
The track has been covered countless times by other artists, including Waylon Jennings on his 1987 album Hangin' Tough, as well as Sammy Kershaw in 1996.
Eric later released a live version on his 61 Days In Church album. The cover was recorded live from his Jacksonville, Florida, show on May 5th, 2017.
And because I'm desperate for live music, here's Eric performing it live in Boston during his epic Double Down Tour in 2019.


text:
If you've been following Cochrane Crowd's activities, hold onto your hats! Our latest challenge held in partnership with the Cochrane Associated Centre at Sinaloa's Pediatric Hospital (Mexico) and the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (Mexico) was a roaring success, breaking all previously held challenge records.
Over three days from Dec 5-8, 738 people signed up, 455 participated and 319,643 individual assessments were made equating to 89,692 records being screened. 90 people screened at least 1000 records during the challenge and as a result were invited to become Cochrane members. And finally, almost 10,000 RCTs were identified for Cochrane's CENTRAL register of controlled trials, where they can be accessed by systematic reviewers around the world.
We trust you'll agree this was a hands-down success! Read on for an interview between Emily Steele, Cochrane Crowd's Community Engagement and Partnerships Manager and Giordano Perez-Gaxiola, director of Cochrane Mexico and key challenge organiser. They discuss Giordano's motivation for the challenge, how he worked with the Autonomous University of Sinaloa to engage participation, and why the challenge was so successful.
How did you initially become involved in Cochrane Crowd?
At first, it was just curiosity. I found out about Crowd when it was launched and it caught my attention. I tried it and found it very simple to use.
What motivated you to run a Cochrane Crowd challenge?
I had run a couple of small challenges through Cochrane Classmate with my students in the past year. I thought it was a simple way to motivate them to learn what Cochrane is, what a clinical trial is, and how an easy-to-use platform like Cochrane Crowd could help them learn.
Who did you invite to take part in the challenge?
A couple of months ago I had a meeting with the dean of the medical faculty of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa (Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa, UAS), Dr. Gerardo Alapizco, to discuss how the university and our Cochrane Associated Centre at Sinaloa's Pediatric Hospital (Hospital Pediátrico de Sinaloa, HPS) could collaborate. I proposed setting up a university-wide challenge in order to engage a large number of students. This would introduce them to Cochrane and hopefully pique their interest, potentially leading to further engagement with Cochrane. This proposal was then discussed and approved by the medical faculty's governing committee. We agreed that all students at UAS would be invited to take part.
How did you engage the students?
First we made a general announcement to all students. UAS is a very large public State university. We had a conference with all student group representatives, and also sent invitations via WhatsApp groups. After that we had 12 training sessions with students.
We had a launch event for the start of the Challenge and we set up a large screen so that students could see the number of classifications being done, sort of a telethon set up.
What was your goal for the challenge?
Our goal was to reach 20,000 classifications, just like the goals set in previous screening challenges like the one during the Colloquium in Edinburgh. We reached that goal in 7 hours! The final tally was 319,643 classifications made by 455 participants in the three days of the challenge.
What helped make the challenge a success?
The challenge exceeded our most ambitious expectations.
In my opinion, there are a few reasons for the success of the challenge. First, we had complete support by the dean, Dr. Alapizco, and teachers of the university. Second, we motivated students by explaining the thresholds to gain a certificate (200 classifications) and to become members of Cochrane (1000 classifications). Third, we are giving a first place prize (a sphygmomanometer) to the participant with the most classifications. And last but not least, the university gave them school credits for participation.
Editorial note: read more about the benefits of joining Cochrane Crowd as a student, including certificates and the possibility of Cochrane membership, here.
And finally, what would you say to people who are thinking about running a challenge?
In my opinion, a Cochrane Crowd challenge is a simple way to engage students, to help them learn about Cochrane and about clinical trials. It is very easy to set up (takes about 10 minutes) and easy for the students to participate. It can be a useful teaching tool, too. And if you make it a competition, it can be fun.
Thank you for sharing your experiences here, Giordano. And a huge thank you from the Cochrane Crowd team to Giordano for driving the challenge, to the Autonomous University of Sinaloa and the Cochrane Associated Centre at Sinaloa's Pediatric Hospital for your support of Cochrane Crowd, and of course to all the wonderful students who took part in the challenge.
Has Giordano inspired you to organise a Cochrane Crowd challenge at your workplace or university!? If so, please get in contact and we will support you to get one up and running: firstname.lastname@example.com. You can also sign up to Cochrane Crowd, and take a look at Cochrane Classmate, the software we use to run Cochrane Crowd challenges.
Support for Project Transform was provided by Cochrane and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (APP1114605). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a Participating Institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC.


text:
Biblical Illustrator If the priest buy any soul... and he that is born. Strangers, sojourners, and servants upon hire were not to eat of holy things. It is so in spiritual matters still. But two classes were free at the sacred table — those who were bought with the priest's money, and those who were born into the priest's house.I. BOUGHT. Our great High Priest has bought with a price all those who put their trust in Him. They are His absolute property. Not for what they are in themselves, but for their Owner's sake they are admitted into the same privileges which He Himself enjoys, and they shall "eat of His meat." He has meat to eat which worldlings know not of. "Because ye belong to Christ," therefore shall ye share with your Lord. II. BORN. This is an equally sure way to privilege; if born in the Priest's house we take our place with the rest of the family. Regeneration makes us fellow-heirs, and of the same body; and, therefore, the peace, the joy, the glory, which the Father has given to Christ, Christ has given to us. ( C. H. Spurgeon.) It shall be perfect to be accepted. 1. The ceremonial law, as ordained by the hand of Moses and Aaron, called the worshippers of God to great carefulness before Him. Before their minds that solemn truth was ever made visible, "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God." Nothing might be done thoughtlessly. Of every ceremony it might be said, "It must be perfect to be accepted." God must have the minds and thoughts of men, or He counts that they are no worshippers. We need to think a great deal more about how we come before the Most High; and if we thought more and prayed more, we should become more certain of our inability to do anything as we ought to do it, and we should be driven to a more entire dependence upon the Spirit of God in every act of worship. This in itself would be a great blessing.2. The ceremonial law also engendered in men who did think a great respect for the holiness of God. They could not help seeing that God required everything in His service to be of the very best. They must have felt that sin was not a trifle, but a thing for which there must be life given and blood shed before it could be removed; and that life and blood must be the life and blood of a perfect and unblemished offering. 3. Under the Jewish ceremonial law, one of the most prominent thoughts, next to a great respect for the holiness of God, would be a deep regard for the law of God. Everywhere that the Israelite went he was surrounded by law. If men do not understand the law, they will not feel that they are sinners; and if they are not consciously sinners, they will never value the sin-offering. I. First, then, THE RULE OF OUR TEXT, "IT SHALL BE PERFECT TO BE ACCEPTED," MAY BE USED TO SHUT OUT ALL THOSE FAULTY OFFERINGS WHEREON SO MANY PLACE THEIR CONFIDENCE. 1. It most effectually judges and casts forth all self-righteousness, although this is the great deceit wherewith thousands are buoyed up with false hopes. "It shall be perfect to be accepted; there shall be no blemish therein." If you can come up to this rule you shall be saved by your righteousness; but if you cannot reach you must fail of acceptance. 2. Why, look, ye that hope to be saved by your own doings, your nature at the very first is tainted! There is evil in your heart from the very beginning, so that you are not perfect and are not without blemish. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one. 3. Look again, for I feel sure that there must have been a blemish somewhere as matter of fact. As yet you are not conscious of a blemish; and possibly there is some justification for this unconsciousness. Looking upon you, I feel inclined to love you, as Jesus loved that young man who could say of the commandments, "All these have I kept from my youth up." But I must beg you to answer this question — Has there not been a blemish in your motives? What have you been doing all these good things for? "Why, that I might be saved!" Precisely so. Therefore selfishness has been the motive which has ruled your life. Moreover, it is not only your nature and your motive which are imperfect. You certainly must have erred somewhere or other, in some act of your life. The Scripture also is dead against you when it says, "There is none righteous; no, not one." 4. Methinks if I could read all hearts, there is not one here, however self-righteous he may be, who would not have to confess distinct acts of sin. I know how some of you have lived. You were amiable girls and excellent young women, and have grown up to be careful, loving wives; and therefore you say, "I never did anybody any harm; surely I may be accepted." I wish that there were more like you. I am not condemning you; far from it; but I know that your tendency is to think that because of all this you must in yourselves be accepted of God. Give me your hand, and let me say to you, with tears, "It is not so, my sister; it is not so, my brother. It must be perfect to be accepted; there must be no blemish in it." This is a death-blow for your self-confidence; for there was a time, some day or other in your life, in which you did wrong. What I have you no hasty temper? Have no quick words escaped you which you would wish to recall? What! have you never murmured against God, or complained of His providence? Have you never been slothful when you ought to have been diligent? Can you say that your heart has never desired evil — never imagined impurity? Have you never gone to live in an old house which looked like new? You had fresh paint, and varnish, and paper in superabundance; and you thought yourself dwelling in one of the sweetest of places, till one day it happened that a board was taken up, and you saw under the floor. What a gathering of every foul thing! You could not have lived in that house at peace for a minute had you known what had been covered up. Rottenness had been hidden, decay had been doctored, death had been decorated. That is just like our humanity. When lusts are quiet, they are all there. The best man in this place, who is not a believer in Christ, would go mad if he were to see himself as God sees him. 5. This text makes a clean sweep of all other kinds of human confidences. Some are deceived in this sort: "Well," they say, "I do not trust in my works; but I am a religious person, and I attend the sacrament, and I go to my place of worship pretty regularly. I feel that I must certainly be right. I have faith in Jesus Christ and in myself." In various ways men thus compose an image whose feet are part of iron and part of clay. II. As this rule shuts out all other confidences, so THIS RULE SHUTS US UP TO THE SACRIFICE OF JESUS CHRIST. Oh, if I had the tongues of men and of angels, I could never fitly tell you of Him who offered Himself without spot unto God, for He is absolutely perfect; there is no blemish in Him! 1. He is perfect in His nature as God and man. There was not the possibility of sinning about the Saviour — no tendency that way, no desire that way. Nothing that could be construed into evil ever came upon His character. 2. As He was perfect in His nature, so was He in His motive. What brought Him from above but love to God and man? You can find no trace of ambition in Christ Jesus. In Him there is no thought of self. 3. As His nature was perfect, so was His spirit. He was never sinfully angry, nor harsh, nor untrue, nor idle. The air of His soul was the atmosphere of heaven rather than of earth. 4. Look at His life of obedience, and see how perfect that was. Which commandment did He ever break? Which duty of relationship did He ever forget? He honoured the law of God and loved the souls of men. 5. Look at the perfection of His sacrifice. He gave His body to be tortured, and His mind to be crushed and broken, even unto the death-agony. He gave Himself for us a perfect sacrifice. All that the law could ask was in Him. III. Listen, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that know the Lord! You are saved. You have not, therefore, to bring any sacrifice by way of a sin-offering, but you have to bring SACRIFICES OF THANKSGIVING. It is your reasonable service that you offer your bodies a living sacrifice unto God. If you do this you cannot bring an absolutely perfect sacrifice, but you must labour to let it be perfect in what is often the Biblical sense of perfection. You must take care that what you bring is not blind, for the blind were not to be offered. You must serve God with a single eye to the glory of God. And as it must not be blind, so it must not be broken. Whenever we serve God, we must do it with the whole of our being, for if we try to serve God with a bit of our nature, and leave the rest unconsecrated, we shall not be accepted. Next, they were not to bring a maimed sacrifice: that is, one without its limbs. Some people give grudgingly, that is to say, they come up to the collection-box with a limp. Many serve Christ with a broken arm. The holy work is done, but it is painfully and slowly done. Among the heathen, I believe, they never offered in sacrifice to the gods a calf that had to be carried. The reason was that they considered that the sacrifice ought to be willing to be offered, "and so it must be able to walk up to the altar. Notice in the Old Testament, though there were many creatures, both birds and beasts, that were offered to God, they never offered any fish on the holy altar. The reason probably is that a fish could not come there alive. Its life would be spent before it came to the altar, and therefore it could not render a life unto God. Take care that you bring your bodies a living sacrifice. We must not bring Him the mere chrysalis of a man, out of which the life has gone; but we must bring before Him our living, unmaimed selves if we would be acceptable before Him. It is then added, "or having a wen." It does not look as though it would hurt the sacrifice much to have a wen; yet there must not be a wen, or spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. Above all, avoid that big wen of pride. The sacrifice was not to be scabbed, or to have the scurvy. That is to say, it was to be without any sort of outward fault. I have heard men say, "It is true I did not do that thing well, but my heart was right." That may be, but you must try and make the whole matter as good as it can be. What a deal of scabbed service our Lord gets! Men try to be benevolent to their fellow-creatures with an irritable temper. Certain people try to serve God, and write stinging letters to promote brotherly love, and dogmatical epistles in favour of large-mindedness. Too many render to the Lord hurried, thoughtless worship; and many more give for offerings their smallest coins and such things as they will never miss. God has many a scurvy sheep brought before Him. The best of the best should be given to the Best of the best. Would God that the best of our lives, the best hours of the morning, the best skill of our hands, the best thoughts of our minds, the very cream of our being, were given to our God! ( C. H. Spurgeon.) 1. This law was, then, necessary for the preserving of the honour of the sanctuary and of the God that was there worshipped.
2. This law made all the legal sacrifices the fitter to be types of Christ, the great Sacrifice, from which all those derived their virtue. 3. It is an instruction to us to offer to God the best we have in our spiritual sacrifices. If our devotions be ignorant, and cold, and trifling, and full of distractions, we offer the blind, and the lame, and the sick for sacrifice. But cursed be the deceiver that doth so, for while he thinks to put a cheat upon God, he puts a damning cheat upon his own soul. ( Matthew Henry, D. D..) All religious service is of the nature of sacrifice.
I. Read this requirement of perfect sacrifices, and by it let us test our regard for the SABBATH SERVICES. God has once, at least, read us a very solemn lesson of the manner in which He regards lost Sabbaths. Seventy Sabbatical years the Jews allowed to drop out of their calendar. Seventy years were spent by them in captivity. A fearful presage to us of what might be the national judgment if, as a Church and people, we went on to blot out from amongst us our day of rest. Every one will agree that if the Sabbath be obligatory, then it is assuredly obligatory thus far — 1. That there be regular attendance upon public service. 2. Of the other hours of the day, that a part be spent in private devotional exercises, a part in religious reading; that a higher and more sacred tone of conversation be maintained; that some work of piety and love be performed. II. By this test let us judge our SANCTUARY WORSHIP. Examine ourselves in the house of God. Difficulty of keeping the mind collected and devout results from want of due preparation. 1. Something may be said respecting the posture of body we assume in the sanctuary. Position of body reacts upon the mind. Indolence is associated with, and leads to, irreverence. Kneeling is required equally by the dignity of God and the weakness of our nature. 2. So with the voice. Difficult to overestimate how much is lost — (a) (b) (c) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) III. By this test let us examine our observance of THE SACRAMENT OF THE LORD'S SUPPER. A word in solemn affection to some. You never attend the sacrament to celebrate the Lord's death at all. Others, if at all, so irregularly as almost to turn the attendance into a mockery. 1. Happy for us that we can turn from all our poor "blemished" sacrifices to that pure and perfect sacrifice of Christ, which has been offered "without blemish and without spot" for us. 2. Only let us never forget that he who would safely trust in the power of that "Sacrifice" for his salvation must take the spotlessness of that Sacrifice for his daily pattern. (Anon.) Sharpened Arrows. A pastor went one day to call on a member of his church, who was a farmer. During the conversation the work of Christian benevolences was touched upon, and the farmer proudly alluded to the fact that out of his few acres of ground he always set aside one acre to the Lord's use. The pastor, hoping to here get the material for an illustration in his own work, asked the farmer brother, "Which acre do you set aside?" This was a question that came very unexpectedly, but the farmer was honest enough to tell the truth, and replied, "When it is a dry season, I select one up there," pointing to a field on the hillside; "and when it is a wet season, I choose one down there," pointing to a field of very low land which lay at the foot of the hill. I give this illustration, not on account of its rarity, but because it is a true picture of thousands of professed Christians, who give to God's service that part of their time and means that is left after first satisfying their own personal selfish ends.(Sharpened Arrows.) Christian Age. One cold morning a little ragged, woeful-looking child came in at our back door, begging for food. "Please, ma'am, mend the children most starved. Only a bit o' bread." "Have you no father or mother, child?" askedI. "Yes'm," and a look of shame and despair mantled his hollow cheeks. "Don't they work and earn money?" "Yes'm, little; but they most allus spend it afore they gets home, at the 'Horn o' Plenty.' "Immediately my heart became adamant. The miserable, drunken brutes, thought I, I'll not feed their children. Then I remembered there is a very stale loaf of bread in the cupboard, scarcely fit for toast. I gave that to the child, very glad to dispose of it. He grabbed it eagerly, with a clutch that reminded one of the grasp of the drowning, when they would fain save themselves. Little Gracie, our six-year-old darling, had been a silent spectator; but after the boy departed, she came to me with deep inquiry depicted upon her spiritual countenance, saying, "Mamma, if Jesus Christ had come and said He was starving to death, would you have given Him that awful dry loaf of bread?" "Why, child," said I, "why do you ask such a question ?" "Why, when we give to the poor, ought we not to think that we are really giving to Jesus Himself? I thought He said so when here upon the earth." "Well, Gracie," said I, kissing her sweet, troubled face, "I think you are right, and I will remember your lesson next time. Yes, Gracie, we, whom the Lord hath blessed in our 'granary and our store,' would soon relieve suffering humanity if we gave our alms as if we really were giving to the 'Blessed Redeemer.' We are too prone to forget this truth." "The very best that we have in the house isn't too good for Him, is it, mamma?" asked she. "No, no, my precious child," replied I, clasping her to my heart and thinking, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength and wisdom." (Christian Age.) — A missionary in China, describing in the Sunday at Home, the sacrifices which are offered to Confucius at the usual and autumnal equinoxes, says, "We looked at the victims, and they were diseased, scraggy brutes, worthless offerings. Oh, the mockery and the utter insincerity and indifference of the Chinese mind to all sense of honour I My friend explained the matter to me; he said they were allowed so much by the Treasury for this purpose, and the cheaper they could get the animals the more they could pocket."
(J. Tinling.) I am the Lord. Five motives are strewn on their path to constrain them to close obedience.1. "I am the Lord." This is authority employed. 2. "I will be hallowed among the children of Israel." This is His holiness, and His desire to diffuse awe of His holy name. 3. "I am the Lord which hallow you." Here is an appeal to their privileges as Israelites. Do you not feel that you actually are set apart for Me? 4. "I am the Lord which brought you out of Egypt." Here is His claim as Redeemer, who paid the price and set free the captives. Is there gratitude in your souls? Is there sense of thankfulness for favour done? 5. "Your God" — as well as your Lord: His claim as Father, Shepherd, King, and whatever else there is that is tender in relationship, or beneficial in office, or sweet in character — all is summed up in "your God"! Who is like "our God"? "Who would not fear Thee?" (Jeremiah 10:7). (A. A. Bonar.) I. WHAT JEHOVAH WAS IN ISRAEL. "I am the Lord." II. WHAT JEHOVAH WAS TO ISRAEL. "Your God." III. WHAT JEHOVAH HAD DONE FOR ISRAEL. "That brought you out of the land of Egypt." IV. WHAT JEHOVAH WOULD DO WITH ISRAEL. "I am the Lord which hallow you." Ceremonially and symbolically priests and people were made holy by — 1. The rights they observed. 2. The sacrifices they offered. 3. The manifested presence of the Lord. (F. W. Brown.). The Biblical Illustrator, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2002, 2003, 2006, 2011 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved. Used by permission. BibleSoft.com Bible Hub |


text:
Pierre LeBrun over at EESPN drops the Wild another three spots this week, down to 20th. That's a drop of six spots in two weeks.
His thinking:
Let's be honest, is there a more unpredictable team in the NHL?
No Pierre, there isn't. There also isn't a mosre deserving team to drop in the rankings than the one that showed up this week.


text:
Champaign Car Insurance
Find the right car insurance policy for you.
Located in eastern Illinois, just about 135 miles south of Chicago, this charming city has so much to offer residents. Champaign, IL carries the title as the 10th most populated city in the state. Considering the population, residents can expect heavy traffic and congested roads at times. Whether you are there to visit the University of Illinois campus or enjoy the city's beautiful scenery, make sure you are protected with reliable Champaign car insurance before you get behind the wheel. Our Independent Insurance Agents are always ready to help you through the process of finding affordable options for your car insurance needs.
- National average cost per year: $1,311
- Illinois average cost per year: $1,079
- #39 most expensive auto premium in the U.S.
Drivers can get easily frustrated with this state's high insurance premiums. But don't give up hope yet, because our agents specialize in helping Illinois drivers find the most reliable insurance that also is budget-friendly. They will help you find a policy that protects you against all the common threats you may face as a Champaign driver.
Illinois Car Insurance Requirements
- Body injury liability: required
- Property damage reliability: required
- Personal injury protection (PIP): not required
- Uninsured motorist coverage: required
- Minimum liability limits: 25/50/20
To drive in the state of Illinois, you must have car insurance. Minimum coverage limits are $25,000 for individual injuries, $50,000 for total injuries in an accident and $20,000 for any resulting property damage. Keep in mind that these minimums only cover the most basic accident. They are a great starting point, but you always have the option to buy extra insurance. This is normally a great idea so you aren't in danger of paying anything out of your own pocket.
Number of Uninsured Motorists in Illinois
- Number of uninsured U.S. drivers: 12.6%
- Number of uninsured Illinois drivers: 13.3%
Illinois drivers share the roads with a large number of uninsured drivers. When you are sharing the roads with one uninsured driver out of five drivers, you need to make sure you have the best protection ever. Our agents are experts and can show you how to add uninsured motorist coverage to your comprehensive Champaign auto insurance plan. That way, if you have an accident with an uninsured driver, you are covered even if the other driver isn't.
Number of Auto Thefts in Illinois
- National number of thefts for 1,000 vehicles: 2.94
- Number of thefts for 1,000 vehicles in Illinois: 2.63
Theft is a growing problem in this state, and drivers definitely have a reason to be concerned. As in other states, Illinois drivers depend on their cars to get to work, take their kids to school and do many other important things. If your car is stolen, then life would get very challenging, very quickly. Avoid this unneeded problem by choosing a policy that covers auto theft. That way, if your car is ever stolen, you can simply file a claim and get compensation.
Find a Great Champaign Car Insurance Policy
Drivers in Champaign face many different threats, from car theft all the way to uninsured motorists. Cutting corners on your car insurance would be a bad decision. Don't give up hope yet. Our Independent Insurance Agents can help you find an affordable policy that protects you against any roadway threat you may face. Our friendly agents will find multiple quotes on many different policies and present you with many different options. That way, you can compare the benefits and cost off all the policies.
Contact an agent today to get a free customized quote on Champaign auto insurance.


text:
Certain sectors of politics and journalism have moments of confusion that can turn out to be fun. Some of those moments are caused by the billionaire George Soros.
What Soros did in Hungary occupied by the Nazis
Soros is an American billionaire of Hungarian origin. Son of a Jewish family, he lived the German occupation of Hungary. On his role in it, a digital newspaper of the Jewish community of Mexico, Enlace Juílio, commented in 2015: "He started working his filth early, very young, for a Judenrat and helping the Nazis in the deportation of our brothers from Hungary. ... while purchasing your confiscated assets for his benefit. However, according to a recent television interview, he does not feel remorse, saying that it was «the happiest period of his life»."
What made him jump to fame: the attack on the pound sterling in 1992
This character accumulated a huge fortune through financial speculation. The episode that made him famous happened in 1992, when one through one of his investment funds, the Quantum Fund, he carried out a speculative attack against the pound sterling, knocking it down and pocketing a billion dollars in the operation. You can read more details about it in this article of Gurusblog, a website specializing in economic issues. Maneuvers like this are the ones that started to give Soros a bad name, but they have not been the only ones.
A Jew who sponsors anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups
One of the most well-known facets of Soros today is his status as "philanthropist", a word that many media use to refer to him as a sponsor of various left movements, abortionists and in favor of open borders and mass immigration. But in addition, he has also financed organizations hostile to the State of Israel. Last October, a Jewish American digital newspaper, The Jewish Star, denounced: "While Soros is Jewish, he funds so many anti-Israel and anti-Semitic organizations that it is hard to believe any criticism of him to be based on his Jewish background. In addition to supporting the Woman's March, which is run by anti-Semites, since 2001 the Soros network has given $2,688,561 to Adalah, which has accused Israel of war crimes and contributed charges to the now-disgraced Goldstone Report. Adalah has also called on governments the world over to sever or downgrade diplomatic relations with Israel." The Jewish Star also referred to the sponsorship by Soros of other groups that promote the boycott and isolation against the State of Israel, such as the Palestinian group I'lam and the American organization New Israel Fund (which in turn also sponsors the aforementioned Adalah and other initiatives that have been accused of anti-Semites, such as the BDS).
The allegation of Soros in defense of Hamas, an anti-Semitic and negationist criminal gang
The attitude of the American billionaire towards the Jewish people has left moments as shameful as the article that George Soros wrote on March 18, 2007 in the Financial Times, entitled: "America and Israel must open the door to Hamas." In that article, Soros defended "a political solution with Hamas," even whitening that Islamist organization with the following argument: "Both Israel and the US seem frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking-point is Hamas's unwillingness to recognise the existence of Israel, but that could be made a condition for an eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations." What Soros forgot to say is that Hamas is a terrorist group and radically anti-Semitic; years before that article of Soros, Hamas denied the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of the nazis. Only six days before the publication of that article by the billionaire, Hamas claimed that it sought the destruction of the State of Israel. And they have not limited himself to saying it: the terrorist group has been attacking the Israeli civilian population with rockets and mortars, in order to sow terror among them.
The links between Soros and Iran and the passivity of the EU in this regard
More recently, in September 2018, the Israeli newspaper Arutz Sheva noted that Iran's Foreign Minister, Mohammad Zarif, has acknowledged that the Iranian government has been working closely with the Open Society Foundations (OSF), the organization that Soros uses to sponsor various political causes. Zarif made those statements before the Iranian Parliament. After learning the information, Italian MEP Mario Borghezio asked an official question in the European Parliament addressed to the European Commission, noting that Iran is "a theocratic regime that imprisons political dissidents, prosecutes homosexuals and segregates women is concerning", and that some MEPs "have links to organisations headed by Soros." Borghezio asked: "Does the Commission not believe that such a serious contradiction, between the stated aims of the OSF and the relations it maintains, should prompt a review of the links between EU institutions and organisations belonging to George Soros?"
The answer of the European Commission arrived on November 29. In the style of Pontius Pilate, he said: "The Commission is not in a position to comment on alleged links between Members of the European Parliament and non-governmental organisations. Furthermore, the relations between foreign governments and other entities are solely at the discretion of these governments." It is surprising that the EU should wash its hands like this in the face of the links between Soros and the Iranian regime, which has called the Holocaust a "myth invented by the West" and that threatens to destroy Israel.
The Government of Israel has denounced his activities against the Jewish state
Soros' support for Israel's enemies has been so blatant that in July 2017, the Israeli government called Soros a threat to its country, denouncing that the billionaire "continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected governments" and that he finances organizations "that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself." In December 2017, Israeli parliamentarian Miki Zohar of Likud (Netanyahu's party) proposed a law to block donations to Israeli NGOs by anti-Semitic and anti-Israel organizations, pointing directly to Soros. In February 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Soros of being behind a campaign against the Israeli government for its decision to deport illegal African immigrants.
The manipulations of the media related to Soros to present as anti-Semites those who criticize him
In spite of it, some followers of Soros try to criminalize all criticism to the multimillionaire using all the Jewish people like a shield. It is true that there are anti-Semitic that attack Soros for being Jewish, but that does not mean that all those who criticize Soros do so for that reason, just as criticizing a Christian person does not automatically make you anti-Christian. Obviating the most elementary logic, in November 2018, the Spanish leftist newspaper El Pais accused Trump of instigating the murders of Jews with his criticism of Soros. The accusation sounds like a macabre joke, if we consider that newspaper is one of the Spanish media that show the most hostility against the State of Israel. Yesterday, the head of opinion of the Spanish newspaper El Mundo described criticism of Soros as "the last mutation of the old anti-Semitic virus," together with an image of leaders of a conservative party, Vox, that has openly supported the state of Israel. Once again, the grossest lie and propaganda disguised as journalism. What will be next? Call the Government of Israel "anti-Semitic"?
Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email: Click here to subscribe |


text:
Library's Popular Chef''s Secrets Series Continues to Entice!
Want to learn some Chef's Secrets? Rocky River Public Library presents "Mouth-watering Moussaka" with Chef Taki, owner of Taki's Greek Kitchen, on October 23 at 7:00 p.m. in the auditorium. Find out what makes his restaurant so special and why it won Cleveland Magazine's Silver Spoon award for Best Greek Restaurant. Once this skillful chef teaches you how to make this Greek favorite, you'll be serving it at every opportunity. Come to enjoy flavorful samples and leave with recipe handouts.
Kitty Sommers
Director of Marketing at Rocky River Public Library
Volume 2, Issue 4, Posted 11:39 AM, 10.04.2014