You are here

Who or what is Russia's "Pussy Riot"?

Accurately described as bigots and hooligans, the 3 member musical band known as "Pussy Riot" is now on trial for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." This came after they burst into a church in Moscow, disturbing the peace while mocking the beliefs of practitioners in an attempt to protest against Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

I dare you to last for the length of the above screamfest. Meanwhile Madonna, Sting and the Chili Peppers all speak of the right to "freedom of artistic expression" when it comes to these tools. But then, we all know the stink of media whores by now, don't we:

Had skinheads done something similar in a synagogue in the West, surely they'd have long ago paid steep fines and begun their lengthy jail sentences for "public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity" (and here).

The Guardian's article titled, "Pussy Riot trial 'worse than Soviet era'," opens immediately with overt propaganda, describing the courtroom and Russian flag as "shabby" and a police dog as "in search of blood."

The British paper attempts to portray Russia itself as having a "stark divide" between conservatives and liberals, the latter fighting against the state "with any means it can." 

Already the Guardian runs into trouble ~ by portraying Russia as "divided" it is dismissing recent elections that granted Vladimir Putin and his United Russia party a sound mandate to lead the country. And while it is true that in reality, between voter turnout and Putin's garnering the support of 63% of those that did turn out (in a 5-way race), only about 40% of Russia's total registered voters actually voted for Putin, his mandate is still sounder than that of  US President Barack Obama's 32% in a mere 2-way race, or last year's victory here in Thailand by Yingluck Shinawatra with a tenuous 35%, a victory hailed by the Western media as a "sweeping" mandate.

Image: Screenshot taken from the National Endowment for Democracy website featuring US funding for the NGO "GOLOS." GOLOS allegedly was searching for "election irregularities" in Russia's recent elections" GOLOS and other US-backed NGOs and opposition parties are now attempting to trigger an "Arab Spring" in Russia. (click to enlarge.)

It should also be noted that Russia's recent elections were marred by election monitoring NGO "GOLOS" attempting to call the results fraudulent. It would be later revealed that this NGO, billed as "independent" by the Western press, was in fact funded and directed by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Attempts by Wall Street and London to frame the elections as fraudulent set the groundwork for a wider campaign of political destabilization ~ a campaign "Pussy Riot" has now become a key player in.


The Guardian however is absolutely correct when they call the "Pussy Riot" proceedings a "show trial." However, they are wrong in claiming that the showmanship is the work of the Russian Federation.

Instead, it is showmanship put on by the Western media and the US State Department's vast network of faux-NGOs.

The Guardian's entire article is propaganda written with a literary rather than journalistic tone. The article itself cites the defendant's lawyer whose comments form the very basis of the article's title. And while the Guardian may prey successfully on the emotions of ill-informed, unsuspecting, but well-intentioned readers, it lets slip several telling clues as to who is really behind the showmanship.

According to the Guardian, the defense "tried to call 13 witness, including opposition leader Alexey Navalny." Navalny, of course, is a longtime operative receiving both political and financial support from the West in efforts to undermine the Russian government and bring back the days of Wall Street and London's unhindered plundering that marked the 1990's.





The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition. And despite posing as a champion for "transparency," Navalny is willfully hiding this from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list "youth movements" operating in Russia:



If "Pussy Riot's" defense is calling up a documented agent of Western interests as a "witness," one wonders under what context and to what degree Navalny, and by consequence, the National Endowment for Democracy, is involved with the defendants. admits that he is "acquainted" with one of the band members, but was not actually a "witness," and rather would have testified in order to "defend law and justice."

Clearly then, the defense's attempts to include him in the trial were politically motivated, having nothing to do with either law or justice, and serves simply as a means to link "Pussy Riot" to the US State Department's subversive opposition, many of whose leaders were caught filing into the US Embassy in Moscow earlier this year. 

Also telling, is that Oksana Chelysheva ~ board member of the Finnish-Russian Civic Forum and a steering committee member of  the NED, convicted criminal George Soros Open Society-funded FIDH, Open Society, Ford Foundation, Sigrid Rausing Trust-funded Front Line Defenders, and US State Department-run Amnesty International-affiliated EU-Russia Civil Society Forum ~ is heading "Pussy Riot's" support campaign. 

Images: "Pussy Riot's" support campaign is spearheaded by Oksana Chelysheva of the US State Department-funded "Russian-Chechen Friendship Society," a clearing house for Chechen terrorist propaganda. Along with US State Department-subsidized Alexey Navalny and the West's media outlets on their side, the hooligan anti-establishment "punk rockers" now on trial in Moscow have a decidedly "establishment" backing. (click images to enlarge) ....

Chelysheva was also "Deputy Executive Director" of the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society, fully funded by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy. The "Friendship Society" was essentially a public relations front of Al Qaeda-aligned Chechen terrorists ravaging Russia's Caucasus region - a plot offered new relevance as the US, NATO, and Gulf States openly support similar groups of terrorists now ravaging Syria. The "Friendship Society" served a similar function to the now discredited "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights."

While it is unknown, so far, whether or not the members of "Pussy Riot" were contacted by any of these groups, or by the US State Department or its subsidiaries to carry out their hooliganism, it is clear that these groups and the US State Department itself has turned an otherwise tasteless disturbance of peace and a violation of Church-goers' rights to practice their faith without harassment, into a point of political leverage against Russia.

Helping to push down on this political lever are propaganda outfits like the Guardian, portraying the trial as a case of liberal Russian opposition groups fighting against a judicial throwback to the Soviet Union.

In reality, it is another Wall Street-London production in the same vein as Serbia's US-funded Otpor movement, the Kony 2012 fraud and the US-engineered "Arab Spring."

Source (Land Destroyer Report) via Snippits and Snappits


From my reading of the Russian press, what they are accused of is storming the altar of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, singing a song asking the Bogoroditsa (Mother of God) to take Putin away and accusing Patriarch Kiril of believing more in Putin than in God.  If that is the extent of what they sang, then the most they should be charged with is trespassing. I can find precious little evidence that this little publicity stunt involved "mocking the beliefs of practitioners" and even if it did, I don't believe that blasphemy laws have any place in the statute book for reasons I will make clear later in this comment. 

What this trial has done is given a bunch of talentless yobs what they obviously want but don't deserve - the oxygen of international publicity. It has afforded the international press the opportunity to gloat and not only that, but to distort and exaggerate events at the trial for the purposes of making a political statement about Russia. Miriam Elder's piece in The Guardian is a case in point. If this matter had been treated as a simple case of trespassing, the court case would be long over by now and the defendants would not only be denied the international attention they are receiving, but would also be probably forced to carry out community service.

The problem with correspondents like The Guardian's Miriam is that they usually live in the rarified atmosphere of a city's most expensive districts, in the case of Moscow, that would most likely be not far from the Sadovoye ring road and most likely in the Arbat district. If she was living in the poorer suburbs of Butovo or Vidnoye (and I can guarantee you she is not) she would be far more likely to be in touch with the "real Moscow".

As far as I am concerned, if Patriarch Kiril is upset at the accusations being levelled against him, it is just too bad. What any sensible person would do is to counter them with the facts. Even if (and this is a big if) because I can find no evidence to support it, the Pussy Riot yobs did commit what is common perceived to be "blasphemy", then that is also just too bad. No belief system should be protected from criticism or ridicule.  If a belief system is strong, it will withstand the slings and arrows. If it is weak, it will look for the cover of law.  Also, if you outlaw criticism of one religion, you have to do it for all. That means those who, like me, oppose any religious belief based on supremacism (such as Judaism and Hinduism) will be unable to do so for fear of being hauled into court for blasphemy. It also means those who just believe religion to be a load of superstitious crock will be unable to publicly state that belief.

Given the current "revolutionary" atmosphere, I have no doubt that Pussy Riot are a tool of the Jews.  The invasion and mocking of the church are standard features from earlier revolutionary activity and can hardly be called "criticism." 

The notion that there is some separation between the "international press" the Talmudic bankers in charge seems equally dubious.

As someone pointed out, the youth in Russia have no memory of the Jewish Terror inflicted upon earlier generations.  .

If they want to "criticize" a religion, say one that has identified the Pharisees as the psychotic scum they are, then Pussy Riot and their ilk should write letters to the editor, blog, hold signs on street corners, and the like.  If they want to barge in and blaspheme, then they ought to fear that the public is on to them and that such antics will dealt with very harshly.

Sorry, Fester, where is the mocking of the church? Where is the blasphemy? While I agree that what they did was wrong, so is Patriarch Kiril's endorsement of a political leader. The church and state should be and remain separate. 

Why should such antics be dealt with harshly? Because it happened in a church? They should be dealt with in proportion to the damage done, which was next to zero in this case, unless you count the Patriarch's ego. What they did was to trespass. The punishment for this act of trespassing should not be any more severe than if they had invaded a home or business. Also, who is "the public" that is on to them? You seem to be assuming that the public have some sort of homogeneous outlook on such matters when in fact the reverse is the case. At very most you could claim that a percentage of the public for whom such matters hold a sufficient importance are "on to them".

Cartalucci's observation that if this had been a bunch of skinheads and a synagogue, they would have faced harsh charges is correct. However, it should not be used as an excuse for levelling the same charges against those who upset Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.  If anything, it should be used to roll back the protections that are specific to that one religion and allow it to be subjected to the same degree of scepticism, scrutiny, critique and mockery as any other religion. Religious believers need to grow a backbone and stop using the state to afford their beliefs special protection. The church should not be treated preferentially, not least because it is the thin end of a wedge that leads places that you wouldn't like, Fester.  

This foolish court case has given the accused far more significance in the minds of Russians and foreigners alike than it deserves. It has turned insignificant noise-makers into international stars. 

Thanks, Sullivan.  It's all clear now.  I mistook it for another in a long line of transparently Jewish revolutionary actions. 

But it was really the Church demanding special treatment.  My bad. 

When Sara Silverman shows up and blows the dog in front of your children, you'll chuckle and say, "Aw shucks.  Can't be hiding behind my front door when freedom of expression is at stake."

Let's all show up at the hated church of our choice and "criticize".  The more playful the better.  Let's think of ways to make our points gleefully.  Why not?  It's a win-win: a flowering of "scrutiny and critique" while the faithful of every sect "grows a backbone". 

That patriarch needs to "grow a backbone" unlike the "600 bishops, 40,000 priests, and 120,000 monks and nuns" who got done by the Jewish Bolsheviks last time around.  Endorsing someone who might frustrate the Jews plans in Syria, Iran, and Russia is simply outrageous.

Got it Sully.  Thanks 60-80 million.

Your sarcastic tone does your case no good whatsoever, Fester. Are you saying that the church isn't demanding special treatment? Are you saying that they are not foolishly pursuing a legal action that only puts wind in the sails of these Pussy Riot cretins? I'm sorry if I'm not running to the defence of your church, Fester, but I have no time for it whatsoever, Orthodox or otherwise.

I won't support nonsensical laws against equally nonsensical and highly subjective concepts such blasphemy. If that bothers you, then that is just too bad. If you want your beliefs to be cosseted by the statute book then you can't complain when others seek the same protection and you are even less free to "name the Joo" than you are now.

You take this as one of a long line of Jewish revolutionary actions. I see it as what would have been a pretty lame attempt at publicity for a bunch of mediocre kids, that is if the  the church not helped it along. As you will no doubt understand from the previous sentence, I disagree with your viewpoint. If that bothers you, that is just tough. 

Regarding your list of bishops, priests, monks and nuns who were "done in" by the Jewish Bolsheviks "last time around", I've asked those who have made similar claims before for concrete evidence of the extent of state-sponsored murder in the Soviet Union, to the kind of standards we would like applied to Holocaust claims, but none has been provided. Hearsay, as you well know, doesn't count. Is it okay to question the 6 million but not the 20 million?

As for Kiril endorsing someone who might frustrate the Jews' plans in Syria, Putin may or may not be the person to do this. Kiril's opinion is no more important than that of the man or woman on the streets of Moscow and shouldn't be presented as if it is some sort of gospel. If it wants to stay free of political interference, the church should stay the heck out of politics. The country you live in was founded on the fundamental principle that Church and State should remain separate, and it was done that way for a very good reason.

By the way, don't presume that you know what I would do in the Silverman scenario you described. You don't know me personally, so don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry, Sullivan, didn't mean to put word in your mouth.  When you said that the Orthodox Church should be open to "scepticism, scrutiny, critique and mockery" in the form carried out by Pussy Riot, I assumed you were stating a general principle.

Turns out that it doesn't apply to yourself or your family, just church nonsense.  Got it.

Try this for openers on the Russian Holocaust.  Apparently the earlier list of titles I offered didn't interest you.

As for the Holohoax, we can apply the legal dictum falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.  If you have questions about what lies the Jews have perpetrated, please ask.

Hi, Fester, I have read (don't have the article at hand now) that the decision to execute the Tzar and his family was taken by Trotsky who was Jewish, by the way) not Lenin.

Yes, I was stating a general principle where it comes to collective beliefs. I assumed you would see that, but it appears that I was being just a little optimistic. Your attempt to tie in what applies to the church with what applies to myself and my family is a supreme logical fallacy. Myself and my family operate in the private space. The church, on the other hand, operates in the public space. In those two spaces, different rules can and do apply. I'm sorry if you can't see the distinction, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

As for the list you offered me on the so-called "Russian Holocaust", I've gone through it and I've not seen anything that amounts to tangible, verifiable evidence. Lots of hearsay and eyewitness testimony, but then again we've had that in bucket loads from so-called Nazi Holocaust and the claimed Serbian mass murder of Kosovans. Sorry, Fester, I'm a sceptic. I don't believe something to be true unless I can do so with confidence. I'm not, on the other hand, claiming it to be false. I'm just conscious of the fact that those with agendas can and do make up bullshit to support their agendas, and they don't have to be Jewish to do so.

27 million Russians killed during WWII. Could that be considered a holocaust, or just an 'ecumenical matter'? ;-)

Sully, if you and I and millions of others think we have the right to live in peace behind our front doors, do we not have a "collective belief"?  I thought a good "libertarian" such as yourself, would see that your rights end when you start to shit upon the rights of others. 

I'm not brave enought to attempt to scale Molehill Heights and debate logic with you, but I will try spell out the situation regarding Cunt Riot vs. the Church as I fear another flight off topic.  Forgive me for vulgarizing the band's name,

Here goes: the patriarch and the parishoners have the right to worship peacefully without having foul-mouthed provocateurs barge in and make a mockery of their beliefs and descerate a sacred place.

Whether you think the place is sacred or not and whether you think the beliefs justifiable (applying the "opiate of suburbs" - science) are not the questions.  As a champion of libertarianism, you understand that it is incumbent upon people to find outlets for their "scurtiny, critique" that do not trample upon the rights of others. Yes? No?

And you are free to ignore what the Jews did to Russia.  You are free to remain as skeptical of the Holohoax as your are of the Russian and Ukraine Holocausts perpetrated by international Jewry.

For myself, having spent much time at sites such as this one and having learned how many Holohoax testimonies are certified fraud, how far back the six million fetish goes, how toture was used to extract a couple of testimonies in support of the lie, how crooked the Nuremberg trials were, how the forensic investigations have destroyed the claims of gassings, how the questioning the Big Jew Lie is a criminal offence, how we are propagandized daily by the Jewish media, etc., I am confident that the Jewish claim of a holocaust at the hands of the Germans is false.  I have come to this conclusion over the last 11 years of investigating the 9/11 attack. 

As for the horrors perpetrated on the USSR.  I think Solzenitzyn and other Russians are reliable witnesses.  Solzenitzyn says 60+ million.  I think the Russian Church knows how many churches were destroyed and how many priests, nuns, and monks "disappeared." 

I don't know exactly how many died but I know enough to see that one is clearly false and that in the other many millions clearly were systematically murdered. 

Here's a little more for those who are interested.  The first bit is from the article previously offered. The second is from a Russian historian:





A few other scholars have given significantly higher estimates.35

There is this from S. Melgunoff, author of The Red Terror in Russia:

"We are not making war on individuals," wrote Latsis, one of the chief practical cre­ators of this Red Terror; "we are ex­terminating the bourgeoisie, as a class." ...

There is no possibility of drawing up even approximate statistics of the execu­tions by shooting in the first months of the Extraordinary Commission's activity and that of its organs...All Rus­sia was still in the throes of revolution; besides the official organs of the Govern­ment there arose everywhere all kinds of self-elected "revolutionary committees," whose activities were legalized by the Central Government... I am able categorically to refute the assertion of the official his­torian of the Cheka, Latsis (in his work, Two Years of Struggle on the Inner Front), that in the first six months of existence of the Extraordinary Commission only twenty-two men were shot. How far that is from the truth may be seen from the fact that while I was in Moscow, with op­portunities to obtain only occasional data appearing in print, I had to enter in my card record of bloody statistics some 884 execu­tions by shooting...

The whole country was covered with a network of "Extraordinary Commissions for the Battle Against Counter-Revolution, Sabotage and Speculation," as they were officially designated. There was no city, no volost (administrative division of the uyezd, or county) in which there did not appear a branch of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission...The Cheka was declared to be the organ which stood, as it were, "on guard" over the Revolution. It was not an organ of justice, but an organ functioning outside the courts —an organ for the "pitiless settlement of accounts with our enemies." ... mass "Jacobin" fanati­cism at least was necessary for the realiza­tion on a wide scale of the right of the revolution to execute its enemies. Every sane psychology was undermined in the bloody atmosphere surrounding the Cheka...only a madman could eulogize the Cheka in verse and find no greater "joy" or better music than "the crackling of broken lives and bones," as was done by one of the Cheka officials in Tiflis (Georgia) in a collection of verse called The Smiles of the Cheka*

Even Latsis had to admit the need of constantly changing the personnel of the Cheka, for "no matter how honest a man may be * * * the work of the Cheka, carried on under conditions inevitably acting on the nervous system and blunting the esthetic sensibilities, makes itself felt," ...

He who wishes to find confirmation in concrete facts mayturn to my book, where hundreds of these facts are given, taken from the most varied sources. Life brought up again before us Russians well-known scenes of the history of the French Revolution of the eighteenth century in the period of the JacobinTerror. We encounter here recorded factsof wholesale drownings on ships, of medieval torture-chambers of the most cynical forms, of wholesale shooting, compared with which the bloody battles recorded byhistory grow pale; of the erotic orgies of local kinglets, small despots, who, supported by their "revolutionary conscience," set themselves up as supreme rulers over the lives and destinies of those arrested andheld as hostages. For in the name of ­attaining revolutionary aims and "their own desires," everything was permitted, as the Krasnyi Mech, the organ of the Ukrainian Extraordinary Commission, declared, repeating Lenin's words.

Fester, you still seem to be confused between your rights in your private space, and your rights in a public space. I have a right to expect that nobody may enter my home and insult or assault me. However, once I step out onto the street, I can no longer expect that the right not to be insulted no longer applies. Church buildings are not completely private space, they are open to the public and as such, the rules that apply to private spaces don't apply in the same way.

The Church has a right to eject anyone disturbing the peace inside Church buildings, it may also have the right to have such individuals charged with tresspassing. In my opinion it does not have the right have such individuals charged with the bizarre and antiquated charge of blasphemy or any variation thereon.

Seven years is a ridiculous maximum sentence for what these cretins did and (I repeat) only serves to give them unwarranted publicity. I wonder if they burst into a Muscovite's apartment and did the same thing would the maximum sentence even be one year?  

Are you getting my point yet?

The 20+ millions the Russians usually refer to are those who died fighting against the Nazis in WWII. I have seen many papers after most of the Lubjanka files were published, and in my personal opinion the "repression" figures you mention are by far in excess (I don't know what are your sources exactly, of course). By the way, Shatunovskaja sounds like a Russian-Jewish surname and nearly 99% of the so called dissidents were Jewish too. I reckon they had an agenda of their own in fighting the USSR from within (de facto helping the huge Western propaganda machine to bring down the Soviet state brick by brick) for which reason I wouldn't trust too much any information coming from them.

PS - You yourself write: "There is no possibility of drawing up even approximate statistics of the execu­tions by shooting in the first months of the Extraordinary Commission's activity and that of its organs...". So doesn't it mean that such statistic could be treated +/- either way, depending on the personal political views a (more or less) biased historian might stick to?

Some people say that these girls were 'revolutionary'. Can mockery and marketing be considered revolutionary at any degree? Now that super stars stepped in - Bono, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Peter Gabriel and most of all, Madonna who is making a Russian tour these days (and of whom brilliant Dmitry Rogozin, former Russian representative to NATO and today deputy-prime minister of Russia said: Ageing slots tend to lecture everyone on morality) - we can say with some degree of confidence that the latest Pussy Riots' exploit was a carefully planned trap. The hgher Russian higher Orthodox ranks naively stepped into it, giving these pathetic girls a lot of publicity, an ageing Madonna a new scandal to thrive on and the ravenous Western media more anti-Russian material to write about.

The whole story could just be exhilarating if it wasn't for the general geo-political situation, when two formations, Nato-Israel-EU-Saudi Arabia-Qatar and Iran-Syria-Russia-China are on the brink of war. And war is already on, cold again. For the moment.

Pussy Riot have already set up a number of similar provocations in the past with no legal consequences. I am in Moscow at the moment and can say that most people here (orthodox or atheist, old or young) consider the punishment too harsh, but condemn Pussy Riot's shows as silly, cheap and utterly useless (except for those who maneuvre them from abroad)

My perspective…

As Mr. Cartalucci of the “Land Destroyer” blog indicates in the article above, the Pussy Riot issue is connected with what the Russian government regards as a global web of imperialist intrigue.

Let’s consider the bigger picture…

The CIA funds covert operations around the world through various front organizations (NGOs) that push for imperialist objectives. These organizations are behind the “Arab Spring,” plus the various “color revolutions,” and so on.  Some examples of CIA-backed NGOs are Optor, the Solidarity Center, Freedom House, National Endowment for Democracy, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the Center for International Private Enterprise – the list is very long. CIA fronts include both non-profit NGOs, and for-profit commercial enterprises.

Tony Cartalucci mentions a CIA front known as the “Russian-Chechen Friendship Society,” whose purpose is to maintain friction between Russia and Chechnya.

Hugo Chavez has banned all foreign NGOs that are funded by imperialist nations. Russia has long threatened to do likewise, having grown weary of the “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and so on. In 2006, Russia (under Putin) passed new laws that restricted some of the operations of NGOs.

When Dmitry Medvedev became President on 7 May 2008, he did not make foreign NGOs a priority, but wen Putin reclaimed power on 7 May 2012, he launched a vendetta against foreign-funded political NGOs, which Putin regards as the main source of agitation against him. Therefore on 23 July 2012, two months after Putin reclaimed power, Russia's government announced a new law that will come into effect in November 2012.

All NGOs (which Russia calls “non-commercial organizations”) will be required to register with a specially authorized governmental body before they receive money from foreign sources if they intend to conduct political activities of any kind.

If NGOs fail to register, or if they lie on their applications, then they will be permanently banned from Russia.   

Therefore, my feeling on the Pussy Riot affair is that the Putin regime is making an example of them to send a message to all groups and individuals who use foreign money to agitate against the Russian government. There are 220,000 NGOs and public associations in Russia.

Do the girls of Pussy Riot receive foreign money? The Russian government suspects they do. So does Tony Cartalucci of the Land Destroyer blog, for reasons he explains in his article above.

The three Pussy Riot women have been threatened with a seven-year sentence, but if they are actually sent to jail, then they will probably spend a week or two, and then will be quietly released on probation, meaning they will be monitored with regard to the new law that governs NGOs. They will have to report to a federal probation officer, and explain where they get their day-to-day money. Their bank accounts will be monitored. Their phones will be tapped. If they engage in further agitation, then the Russian government will accuse them of receiving foreign money without registering it. If the women are arrested again, then the jail sentence will be real.

I am not taking Putin’s side in this. I am neutral. On one hand, Putin has held power for so long that he is almost a dictator. But on the other hand, the NATO-Israeli-GCC alliance condemns Putin for his resistance to alliance activities in Syria, Iran, Chechnya, South Ossetia, etc.

And now with the Pussy Riot affair, the imperialists are condemning the “lack of human rights” in Russia, and comparing the trial to a Soviet “show trial.” This is imperialist hyperbole, since the actual show trials sent millions of people to the gulags, or to execution chambers.

Think about it. On 3 March 2012, two women from the band entered Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and started screaming against Putin. The women were there less than a minute before they were arrested. A third female member was arrested on 16 March. Their ages are 22, 24, and 30. They are charged with “hooliganism,” which seems absurd, unless we consider the bigger picture.

Another factor here is the Russian Orthodox Church.  Since the fall of the USSR, the Church has reclaimed power, and now operates like the Catholic Church, always siding with the rich (and with the politically well-connected) against the masses. Russian Patriarch Kirill I of Moscow is a Putin ally, and the Pussy Riot women in their “concert” said that Patriarch Kirill worships Putin, not God. Hence the Russian Orthodox Church is making an example of Pussy Riot. It’s all about power.

Meanwhile Putin is on the warpath against foreign-funded NGOs.

What really annoys me is that --once again -- the IDIOT “PROGRESSIVES” are condemning Russia’s government, just as they call for the destruction of Syria’s government. Without thinking, they latch on to any issue that they can morally whine about. Thus, they are tools in the hands of the One Percent. Their self-righteousness makes them easy to manipulate. If the corporate media calls someone an “evil dictator,” then the “progressives” believe it every time.  And so they condemn Russia’s government because of the Pussy Riot affair, not realizing that they serve the One Percent’s designs. 

Heydrich, thanks.  I had thought that much was obvious from the article.  thought we'd seen the same hands in other situations around the globe.  thought the historical record was replete with the same.

Don't know much about the current patriarch, but Christianity has served as a bulwark against the Synagogue of Satan. 

I'm not sure about Putin but see more to like than dislike.  "Dumbassmockracy" is not protection of any kind against the predations of the Jews.  I'd like to think that the Church is able to make an example of the filthy sluts.  The Church has endured enough at the hands of the Jews and a show of force would be uplifting.  When the fuck is Lady Gaga going to weigh in with her support for Cunt Riot?

What is not certain is whether this situation was created "by the Joo" as you appear to claim or was merely an opporunity handed to them on a plate. I believe that it is the latter. 

I find your notion that Christianity has served as a bulwark against the "Synagogue of Satan" to be utterly laughable and more than a little deluded. When the totality of Christianity is taken into account, only a relatively small proportion of those calling themselves Christians adopt a strong stance against imperialism and particularly the most pertinent form of imperialism, Jewish imperialism.  Large swathes of Christendom are either very much pro-Israel, pro-Zionist or luke warm on the issue.

Your desire to see the Church make an example of "the filthy sluts" is an indicator of your confusion regarding where the boundaries between Church and State lie. Delivering justice is the job of the state, and it should not be in the business of "making an example" of anyone but rather delivering a punishment that befits the crime.  Just because your beloved church was the victim in this instance doesn't make the crime any different, nor should it make any difference to the punishment.

I'm all for Russia's attempts to eliminate foreign NGO interference in the running of its affairs. However, I believe that the perceived slight to the Russian Orthodox Church is being blown out of all proportion. 

Your statement that the Orthodox Church "now operates like the Catholic Church, always siding with the rich (and with the politically well-connected) against the masses" is pretty much correct. It also was the position prior to the October Revolution when the Church sided with the Czar and ignored the excesses of the Russian royalty. No doubt this helped foment the ill-will that resulted in its suppression post-revolution.

Like then, when the equation was something along the lines Czar = Church = Russia, we now have the resurgence of the Church = Russia equation where a perceived slight against one is a perceived slight against both.  Unfortunately, some seem to believe that this equation holds true, no doubt they also believe in other archaic concepts such as the divine right of kings.


Yes. I agree with you. Let me make some general comments about the nexus between church and State, and then tie this nexus into the Pussy Riot affair. Then I wish to go off on a related tangent...

Personnel from large organized religions deal in fantasy and bullshit, and therefore legitimize their power by allying with the rich. This occurs in all major religions. All are political.  In India there are Hindu organizations that correspond to Christian churches in the West (Catholics, Mormons, Baptists, etc). In Saudi Arabia the Sunni religious institutions are allied with the royal family. In Thailand, Buddhist institutions ar eallied with therich. In Myanmar, Buddhist institutions oppose the government, because the government is anti-imperialist (or at least, pro-China).

And so on. It’s all about politics, i.e. the struggle for power. 

The political game occurs at the local, national, and international levels. The Hollywood entertainment industry (TV, movies, and music recording) is almost totally run by Jews. Synagogues have tremendous power. Therefore Goyim in the entertainment industry fight back by joining the Church of Scientology, which is headquartered in Hollywood. Few Scientologists are Jews.

At the national level, religious institutions form a nexus with the rich and powerful. This nexus becomes a target of socialist revolutions. Hence the 1789 French Revolutionaries opposed the nobility, the plutocracy, and the Catholic Church, while the British plutocracy opposed the revolutionaries. In 1910 the Mexican revolutionaries attacked the Catholic Church for its alliance with the rich against the masses.  The Russian Bolsheviks shut down the Orthodox Church for the same reason. (It was not simply "Jews versus Christians.") Imperialists called the Bolsheviks “atheists,” but the issue was always political, not religious. Hitler allowed German churches to continue operating, provided they stayed out of politics. (Indeed, Hitler protected the churches and used them for his own political ends, which is yet another reason why both the “atheist” Bolsheviks and the “godly” imperialists sought to destroy him.)

All true socialists are opposed by religious institutions. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is opposed by both Jews and the Catholic Church alike.

Sometimes the churches fight back. In Mexico the Catholic Church mounted a bloody civil war (the Cristero War). The Church lost, but over time, as the victorious revolutionaries became rich and corrupt, the church allied with them, eventually reclaiming power by forming a nexus with the rich in Mexico. In Russia the Orthodox Church has likewise reclaimed power.

The rich favor this nexus because it helps to keep the peasants in their place. The more the masses are impoverished, the more they cope with their misery by escaping into religious fantasies maintained by churches. Such fantasies keep the masses crippled and enslaved. As Marx wrote in 1843, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature. It is the opium of the masses.”

In rare cases when personnel from the Catholic Church side with the masses (e.g. the “Liberation Theology” of some parts of Latin America) the Vatican frowns on them, and sometimes excommunicates them.

Regarding Pussy Riot, I am neutral about the affair, since I am neutral about Russia’s government. There is no “right” and “wrong.” There is only politics.  

I have visited both Russia and Belarus. Alexander Lukashenko is truly a dictator who has held power for 18 years. Likewise, Putin is also a dictator (in my opinion). Not an “evil dictator,” just a strongman who eliminates all political opposition.

And yet, both Putin and Lukashenko also oppose the imperialist campaign against Syria and Iran. Lukashenko was also a close friend of Saddam Hussein when Hussein defied the imperialists.

So there are good and bad aspects about both regimes (Russian and Belarussian). Hence my neutrality. I would like to see Lukashenko removed, but I know that if he goes, he will be replaced by a pro-imperialist government that will be no better.

Regarding Bashar al-Assad, many Syrians living abroad hate him, because they see Assad as a dictator like Lukashenko. (Although Assad has been far more socialist than Lukashenko, and less heavy-handed.) Syrians abroad do not care that Assad will be replaced by chaos, or at best, a pro-imperialist government that will impoverish the Syrian masses. They simply want Assad gone. Period.

Thus, contrary to appearances, I am neutral about Assad. (I am not neutral about Latin American socialists. I support them. I also support Hezbollah.) And yet, despite my neutrality, I rail against the imperialists because of their hypocrisy. I rail against the terrorists because they bring death, destruction and poverty. I rail against IDIOT “PROGRESSIVES” who self-righteously condemn Assad, thereby serving the interests of the One Percent in the NATO-Israeli-GCC alliance. I rail against LIES, no matter what side they come from. 

When I see stories like the Shiite claim that the terrorists hung that Shiite boy, I think, “Be careful guys. If this story turns out to be false, then you will be discredited. There are plenty of real atrocities for you to spotlight.”

Propaganda and counter-propaganda are part of every war. Each side engages in distortion. In some respects, the reality is not nearly as bad as each side claims. In other respects, the reality is much, much worse. For example, we may wring our hands about something like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam (16 March 1968) in which the US Army gunned down between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians, while we forget that the USA dropped more bombs on neighboring Laos than the USA dropped in all of WW II. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused a horrendous death toll, but this atrocity was dwarfed by the death toll from US firebombing missions.

Like I said, in some respects, the reality is not nearly as bad as each side claims. In other respects, the reality is much, much worse. When Pussy Riot inveighs against Putin, their claims are a mixture of truth and self-serving lies. Our task is to separate fact from distortion. 

(1) Whitney says the corporate media’s wailing about Pussy Riot is part of a general campaign to discredit Putin.

Yes, this is obvious. The point I wanted to make in my previous comment is that those of us who do not live in Russia sometimes over-defend Putin because of his anti-imperialist stance. I myself am neutral about Putin.

(2) Whitney says the corporate media is defending Pussy Riot by quoting jailed former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. That is indeed amusing. Khodorkovsky is one of the gangster oligarchs that seized power and stole a fortune after the USSR fell. When Putin cracked down on the oligarchs, the Jewish gangsters escaped to England and Israel. Some of the half-Jewish gangsters didn’t get out of Russia in time, such as Khodorkovsky, who was caught in Siberia as he fled. 

(3)  Whitney says that if an all-girl punk-rock band stormed into St Patrick’s Cathedral or a major Jewish synagogue in downtown Manhattan, then the police would taser them, pepper spray them, and drag them to jail. True, but in the case of a Jewish synagogue, such women would face charges of terrorism, anti-Semitism, and holo-hoax denial.

(4) Whitney notes the extreme hypocrisy of the West, with secret prisons, Guantanamo, etc. “The media has this whole Pussy story backwards. They should be reporting on the appalling treatment of prisoners in US custody, not casting stones at Putin.”

True, but the corporate media always lies, and twists reality. That is its function. My complaint is about IDIOT “PROGRESSIVES” who jump on the anti-Putin bandwagon, thereby supporting the One Percent in the West. As Whitney writes, “Why do US journalists criticize Moscow’s so called ‘show trial’ when Gitmo inmates get no trial at all?”

(6) Whitney writes, “Did you know that Putin is probably the most popular political leader in the world today? He just won a landslide victory in the presidential election capturing a full 63.6 per cent of vote, more than any American president in recent history.”

Whoa. Whitney is over-romanticizing Putin. Russia may not use electronic voting machines, but elections are nonetheless rigged in Russia, just as they are in the West. Putin has many detractors in Russia that have nothing to do with the West. And the police in Russia are no better than the police in Western countries. YouTube has many videos of Russian police brutality. 

The average Russian sees Putin as some idiot in Moscow, just as Obama is a clown in Washington, David Cameron is a cretin in London, and so on.

My own vote for “the most popular political leader in the world today” is Rafael Correa of Ecuador, who has managed to keep both the elitists and the masses happy. At least, the elitists of Ecuador do not hate Correa as much as the elitists of Venezuela hate Chavez. Mr. Correa has even managed to avoid being constantly vilified by the Western corporate media – although the USA did try to get rid of Correa in the failed coup of 30 Sep 2010. The police forces in Ecuador had long done the bidding of Washington and international corporations because the police had been receiving their salaries directly from Washington. Paychecks came from the US embassy. When President Correa put a stop to this, and said that Ecuador’s own government would pay the police, the USA falsely told the police that their salaries would evaporate. Hence the police staged a failed coup. Correa defeated the coup by keeping the army on his side, and by convincing the police that he was sincere about paying their salaries.

(6) Whitney further romanticizes Putin. “He has raised the standard of living for most Russians. He’s reduced poverty, increased literacy, and cut the number of people living in extreme poverty in half.”

Wait a minute. Putin is not Hugo Chavez. I could cite many reputable articles showing that Russia has  elitists, a bureaucracy, pollution, and economic troubles.  Some parts of Russia are awful. Some cities are totally based on a large steel mill, or mine, or factory. When the central industry closes, everyone falls into poverty. Russia is not a socialist state.

(7) “What Washington really wants is regime change in Russia. They want a Karzai-like stooge to replace Putin so they can get their grubby hands on all that fabulous oil and natural gas. Pussy Riot is just another step along that path.”


OF COURSE Russia is NO LONGER a socialist state! The demolition of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the following collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 were ALL about getting rid of both the socialist state and the very socialist idea all over Europe, so that the turbo-capitalist neocons could implement their plans and do with the world exactly what they are doing now. Yeltsin was 'loved' by the West only because he opened his country to the assault of Western corporations hungry for new markets and set on pillaging the huge Russian wealth (natural resources, infrastructure, etc.) and because he invited Jeoffrey Sachs, a Chicago Boy, as economic advisor and allowed the creation of a Western banking system.

The 90s were years of voracious Western conquest (a 'selling Russia by the Ruble', to say it with the title of a Genesis album) and Russia's economy quickly sank, while a tiny bunch of oligarchs were becoming fabulously rich. For the first time in 70 years people in Russia and other ex-Soviet republics discovered unemployment, poverty, organised criminality. All their benefits came to an end - free education, free medical assistance, free sport, free homing, nearly-free theatre, cinema, books, arts, high scientific research and cultural level, and a simple but safe and relatively carefree life. What they had in exchange were expensive shops full of goods and designers clothes and stuff that only few people could afford (mainly in Moscow).

When Putin took over, it was an unusual form of coup to save the country from the excesses of the Western hordes (and give it to the local ones), so that the Russian wealth could stay in Russia. Yeltsin was forced to step down in exchange for immunity from corruption charges. Under Putin Russia's economy quickly recovered and in the following years he really enjoyed a huge popularity, being loved by the vast majority of the Russians not only for "saving" their country, but also for restoring its dignity.

The situation is changing, Putin is now perceived as part of the Russian capitalist establishment and that impacts on his popularity. The stability he gave the country could not restore any of the past benefits and today a very large number of people experience nostalgia of the Soviet times. Proof is the rise of the Communist Party (especially in the huge Eastern Russian territory, like the Krasnodar region) which, after falling to a mere 13% in the 90s, is now the second biggest party after Putin's party. Russia's other parties, including Yabloko with its newly organised Da! (Yes!) subdivision, also supported by NED like several others (probably the 'useful idiot' Pussy Riots are in their number, too), the nationalist party, Limonov's party, etc. are all numerically almost irrelevant. The latest elections would have been winned by Putin anyway, but the rigging everybody was complaining about was mainly meant to cover up  the evidence of a growing socialist sentiment. Which is, by the way, also widely spread in the Western world, although under different forms and names.

I do not agree with Whitney where he writes that Putin reduced illiteracy. When the Revolution wiped away the Czars in 1917, the statistics of those times recorded an 82% illiteracy in Russia, while the creation of a universal system of free education (including free universities) after only 28 years reduced that figure nearly to nil. The Russians had been among the most and best educated populations in the world up to the 90s. Today's changes to the educational system seem to be working in the opposite direction (the same phenomenon is taking place all over Europe: who needs a highly educated, thinking population at times when new forms of Matrix-like slavery are forcibly implemented everywhere?). Literacy is still high enough in Russia, but the new generations are visibly loosing pace. New rules and especially expensive fees claimed by institutes and universities are working against a widespread literacy policy exactly like everywhere else in the Western world.



What does socialism have to do with anything? Whitney's statements are perfectly accurate. Yes, Russia does have elites and "pollution" (haha) but Putin's done wonders for his country. 

Sullivan, a park is a truly public place, so is a square, so is a street.  A church is not. 

One goes to a church because you are a believer or because you are curious.  Internal debates over doctrinal issues do not take the form of blasphemy or employ vile antics.  If you are a non-believer and a libertarian, you express you disagreements in a form that doesn't trample the rights of others.  Your non belief does not prevent you from understanding the rights of believers to protect their sacred places from desecration (your libertarianism doesn't have unspoken limitations for religious folks, right?). Are you getting the point? 

Anyway, by your logic the Pussy Riot could show up in an elementary school and "scrutinize" and "critique" the educational system with their vile antics.  Fortunately, we have the TV for that purpose.

As for the church being or not being a bulwark against Jewish predations, I'll suggest again that you read E. Michael Jones' The Jewish Revolutionary SpiritPlease do not continue to cite current examples of "Christian Zionists," modern Popes, pedophile priests, or other aberrations as they are examples of the problems and the advancement of the Talmudic world order.  Jones' book is essential reading (as is Evan's book on the destruction of Joseph McCarthy, Blacklisted by History)

The record of murderous abuses of the Orthodox Church in Russia by Jewish Bolsheviks is beyond question.  Forgive and forget???  You're shitting me.  The Church is entitled to deal with scum like Cunt Riot as harshly as possible to send a message. 

The "Arab Spring" is coming to Russia as promised by Zio-whore John McCain.  Putin and the Church know this.  Your notion that reaction from the Russian authorities is "creating" the problem is laughable.  Cancel that Time magazine subscription, will ya?

Finally, the question of religious interference in state issues needs to be addressed. 

a) Was Fr. Coughlin's campaign detrimental to liberty in the US or abroad? 

b) was his focus on the Jewish role in Bolshevism, finance, etc bad for our liberties?

b) would a modern Coughlin with an audience of millions be useful to the 9/11 truth movement?

c) Would we better or worse off if church leaders routinely attacked usury, Jewish domination of governments, corrupt media, the Holohoax, etc.

There's a couple off the top of my head.  Churches used to take open positions on important topics, like Bishop Williamson today.  Were those dark days for liberty? 

Cashell, many thanks for the insights into Russia. 

Sullivan, apologies for my bad language and intemperate spirit. 

Here's a good radio show from Dr. Matthew Johnson:

The Orthodox Nationalist: Metropolitan Ioann (Snychev)  March 1, 2012

Metropolitan Ioann (Snychev) (1927-1995); Russia against the NWO;  Orthodoxy as the last Christians;

The Jews and the NWO;  Capitalism & Socialism 2 sides of the same coin;  Monarchy & nationalism.

Fester, the church is not a purely public space, nor is it a private place. Church buildings are open to the public and as such necessarily forfeit some of the protections that apply to private spaces. 

As for your claim that "one goes to a church because you are a believer or because you are curious", I don't remember seeing that particular rule written down anywhere. While it is generally true, it is not universally true by any means. I've never seen a church building post a notice detailing who is allowed to enter and under what auspices. Have you?


The two fundamental principles of libertarianism, whether right or left, are "do no harm" and "cause no loss". What harm has been done to the Russian Orthodox Church as a result of the Pussy Riot five minutes of publicstupidity? What have they lost?

You are being disingenuous here. I have not once suggested that the church shouldn't have protection against intrusion, but I have said that it should be no more or no less than that afforded to other semi-public spaces such as, for instance, retail businesses. If you agree, then fair enough. If not, then say so and give me some indication as to why the church and its property deserves a higher degree of protection under law. The notion of "desecration" is a highly subjective one - one person's desecration could be another's heckling. 

I'm also wary of conflating the right to protect property with the right to protect beliefs from being mocked. The two are distinct. I can, for instance, endure mockery of what I believe without my beliefs changing one iota. I have lost nothing and I have not been harmed, therefore there is no reason for me to resort to law. Now where that mockery crosses the line harassment and or physical abuse, I could potentially suffer a loss or harm and as such have recourse to law.


What examples should I cite? These examples you don't want me to cite represent the vast majority of Christendom. 


Is their almost incestuous relationship with those with money and power also beyond question? While I don't deny that there was an element of Jewish hatred of Christianity involved in the suppression of the Orthodox Church, the church itself set themselves up for this repression by failing to do as their founder taught and represent the poor and oppressed. Instead they chose to ally themselves with a tyrannical, corrupt, inbred "royal" family and their various well-heeled hangers-on. 


No they are not, no more than the average citzen can "deal with" those who insult or assail them.  As I've said before, the ostensible purpose of the justice system is to deliver a punishment that befits the crime, not to "send a message". 


Well, if it is laughable then counter it.  Let me ask you this, if this happened in a mosque or a Hindu temple, would you be as concerned as you are now? I suspect not. As a Christian you have a "dog in this fight" and are clearly unable to be objective with respect to the nature of the charges levelled against these cretins and the likely sentence on conviction. 

I believe that the Russian administration at the behest of the Russian Orthodox church is handing their critics the baseball bat with which they are now being beaten. That doesn't for one moment mean that I welcome foreign interference in Russia. Indeed, I have already clearly stated that I do not. It also doesn't mean I support the actions of the Pussy Riot cretins, as I do not. 





Individuals in the church are not "the church". What Coughlin preached wasn't supported by the church authorities. His opinions were those of an individual, not an institution. A "modern Coughlin" would be welcome, but it would matter not a jot to me if he had the title Fr. or Revd. before his name. 

(1) @ Cashel23 – You write, “Putin is now perceived as part of the Russian capitalist establishment, and that impacts on his popularity.”

Yes, you seem to understand Putin well. My point is that public opinions of Putin outside Russia are distorted. Foreigners who champion war, imperialism, and Western supremacy regard Putin is a supreme villain. Foreigners who oppose these things regard Putin as a supreme hero. I say both views are exaggerations held by foreigners (that is, held by non-Russians outside Russia).

Also, both views are matters of faith. Foreigners who vilify Putin become angry of you question their views. So do foreigners who praise Putin.

One reader here at WUFYS likes Putin, claiming that Putin has done “wonders” for Russia. The reader includes a link to a newspaper article from 2.5 years ago, whose author repeatedly praises Putin for instituting “free market reforms.”

This article is a strange choice for someone who wants to praise Putin.  “Free market” means that rich people are free to build monopolies, and to manipulate the system on a global scale. “Free market reforms” means mass privatization, and the elimination of all forms of socialism. It means the reduction of society to feudalism, with rich lords and poor peasants. Is this the “wonders” that Putin has done for Russia? Putin got rid of the gangster oligarchs, and replaced them with gangster capitalists.

The author of that article also writes, “While the Soviets repressed all religious faith, Putin happily wears a cross, admits to studying the Bible, and has largely restored the prestige of the Russian Orthodox Church.”

Oh great. Putin uses religious fantasy to justify his power. He rules by “divine right.” He is doing “God’s work.” Likewise, Jews say they are doing “God’s work” as they slaughter Palestinians. The terrorists in Libya and Syria say they are doing “God’s work” as they slaughter entire villages. NATO does “God’s work” in Libya and Afghanistan. Everyone does “God’s work” as they kill each other. Rich people do “God’s work” as they enslave the masses. It’s all bullshit. Religion is mental illness.

Anyway, my main point is that a person’s opinion of Putin depends on whether a person is inside or outside Russia.

Outside Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko is a hero to anti-imperialists, because Lukashenko opposes Western imperialism. (For example, Lukashenko does not support the campaigns against Libya, Syria, and Iran). Inside Belarus, most people regard Lukashenko as a dictator who has ruled for 18 years. I know this because I visited Belarus, and talked to the people there.

(2) FESTER, you defend the Russian Orthodox Church because of what Jews did in the past. That’s fine, but I say that religious clergymen themselves are also oppressive, in that they usually side with the rich against the poor (while pretending to care about the poor). This occurs in all religions. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist – it doesn’t matter.

When a church merges with the State (as the Russian Orthodox Church has merged with Russia’s government) then politicians and rich people rule by “divine right.” Everything they do is “God’s will,” no matter how criminal or murderous.

This phenomenon occurs in all societies, including societies that eliminate churches. In a Communist society, the church becomes the Party. God becomes “the people.” Different names; same bullshit. When Communist bureaucrats want to convict you, they declare you an “enemy of the people” (i.e. a blasphemer). 

My point is that I object to the use of self-righteous fantasy (i.e. “faith”) to justify power and immorality.

I think Sullivan agrees. He lives in what is probably the most Catholic nation in the world. Even more than Italy, Spain, France, or Latin America. So when Pussy Riot holds a demonstration inside a church, then Sullivan and I think, “They trespassed, and they were removed. So what? Big deal. Get over it and move on.” But when the Russian Orthodox Church moans about how deeply it has been “offended,” I roll my eyes and think, “Please. You church clowns are as full of self-righteous bullshit as anyone else.”

Incidentally, you mentioned Father Coughlin. If you are using Coughlin as an example of the value and “sanctity” of churches, I do not agree. Coughlin was a rare aberration, a Catholic clergyman who actually cared about average people.

You write, “Churches used to take open positions on important topics, like Bishop Williamson today.  Were those dark days for liberty?”

Often yes. Churches defended war and slavery. Colonial powers slaughtered and enslaved millions of foreign natives, and stole their land and resources, in order to “bring the heathens to God.” Most Baptists and Mormons adore Israel.

I do not support churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. However, this does not mean that I support Pussy Riot.

For me, Pussy Riot is simply a group of women who crave attention and celebrity-hood.



I agree, but I don't live in the most Catholic nation in the world. Those who profess any religious belief are now in the minority (approx 47%) and even the Catholics amongst that minority disagree with the Catholic Church's long-held doctrines on women priests (77%) and celebacy (90%). I suspect that Poland would now count as the most Catholic nation in the world.

My next comment below is meant for Fester, not Sullivan.

Heydrich, we are not going to agree on the religious issue except perhaps that when innocents are being killed it's not God's work.  The only Church leaders I respect are those who demonstrate that they're not in the tank.  All are fallible and the actions of the corrupted are not the standard by which religious principles are to be judged.

Here are a few of the reasons why I defend the Russian Orthodox Church:

a) the Jews hate it and have attempted to eradicate it and failed.  Knowing the Jews, I know how that bothers them.

b) a Christian society has a better chance of keeping satanic Jews at bay.  The example for that is pre-Refromation Europe.

c) I have concluded after 11 years of 9/11 activism that the average citizen needs to be led.  they do not want to confront unpleasant truths, they do not want to stand up, they do not understand the implications of allowing a criminal cabal to control every aspect of their lives.  Some suggest that if everyone was a just a thoughtful libertarian like themselves, then everything would be ducky.  You want to talk about fantasy?

d) the Jews hate Christ.  Christ called the Jews out and labelled their leadership for what is always has been.


Were people compelled to attend church in pre-Revolutionary Russia?  Were they compelled to tithe to the Church?  Did the Church direct the Tsar in policy making?  Did the Church conspire against the government?  Did the Church systematically corrupt the morals of the nation?  Did the Church bleed the average person and financially enslave them?  I don't know, but I strongly suspect that they did not.

If you have sources on the Orthodox oppression of Russian society, I'd like to see them.  I'm also not aware that the Church has "merged" with the government. 

I'm aware of Sullivan's Irish background and I have ties to Ireland myself.  That doesn't change my contention that non-believers don't have the right to shit on the rights of believers.  If you don't respect the beliefs, stay the fuck out.  I think my home invasion and elementary school examples are fine and are not answerable unless libertarians are going to insist that their beliefs are superior to others'. 

My Coughlin example was NOT meant to prove the "sanctity" of the Catholic Church.  It was an obvious example of a church leader using his pulpit attack serious problems.  Since the Jews have controlled the media in the US since 1914, there really weren't many other ways to connect with large numbers of people until the internet came along. 

The colonial power crime topic is interesting and I think investigation would prove that it was the usual suspects at work, masking things as "foreign policy."  Smedley Butler said it. 

However, back to the point, Coughlin's activism did not endanger liberty.  I can't think of any interference by church leaders in the US in it's history.  The Catholics did try to keep Jewish porn out of the movies.  They were deluded enough to think that soft porn in movies was the thin edge of a movement that would lead to an innudation.  Of course, nothing like that has transpired.

We've had a few people in churches stand up against atrocities, but far too few and far to meekly to move their congregations to demand change.  Coughlin was the last, I believe, to identify the Jewish problem.  Are we better off?


Okay, I’ll go with that, but you are correct in saying that you and I will never agree on the religious issue. We are at polar opposites. I don’t care if Jews don’t like the Russian Orthodox Church. For me, ALL churches, mosques, synagogues, etc collaborate with the rich to oppress the masses. And the masses collaborate in their own enslavement by fantasizing that class wars are religious wars (e.g. Mexico’s Cristero War).  There is no such thing as a religious war. All wars are political. All are for power, or for independence.

During colonial times, the Catholic Church had a monopoly on Native American lands and labor. During Mexico’s war for independence from Spain, the Catholic church supported Spain. During Mexico’s socialist revolution of 1910, the Catholic church supported the rich against the masses. The church and the rich wanted centralization of power.  Mexican federalists wanted a decentralization of power. The church wanted to control all education in Mexico, in order to program its slaves when young. The revolutionaries said that local, state, and federal governments (not the church) should control education.

Jews had nothing to do with this. So I don’t care of Jews don’t like Christian churches. To me they are all scum. Jews, churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues.

But that’s just me.

You say a Christian society has a better chance of keeping satanic Jews at bay.  The example for that is pre-Reformation Europe.

Wow. Here again we are at polar opposites. I do not accept that the Reformation transformed Christian society. Except for rare periods in history, most Christians have always loved Jews. Most of the Christian Bible was written by Jews. Christian England and America fought against Hitler for the Jews. Christians perpetrated the Sabra and Shatilla massacres in collaboration with Jews. Most Christians today LOVE Zionist Jews.

So I have no idea what you are talking about. 

The essence of our disagreement seems to come down to this…you evidently think that Jews cause most or all evil in the world. I say that Jews merely concentrate the evil that exists with or without Jews. Therefore, to defeat the Jew, we must stop being like the Jew. 

One other thing. You write that, “Non-believers don't have the right to shit on the rights of believers.  If you don't respect the beliefs, stay the fuck out.”

Fine, but that works both ways. Believers have no right to shit on non-believers, or on “infidels,” “pagans,” “heathens,” or “savages.” They have no right to go to cemeteries and heckle people during funerals. They have no right to invade medical clinics to scream against abortion. They have no right to dictate what consenting adults do with each other in their own homes.  They have no right to slaughter and enslave millions, as the churches did to natives during colonial times.

For me, religion is a game of “My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.” As children we believe n Santa Clause. As adults we trade Santa for Jesus, or Buddha, Mohammed, the Great Pumpkin -- whatever.

But that’s me.

Other people can believe what they want, so long as they do not try to impose their religious beliefs on me.

I am not defending Pussy Riot. I am indifferent about them.

The preciding comment was meant for Fester, not Sullivan.

Apologies, I need to sort out the way comments are displayed so that it is clearer which comment is being responded to. Thank you for bearing with me on this.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer