Pope just wanted to be neutral on Ukraine conflict

Pope Francis claimed that NATO "barking" at Russia’s frontier may be responsible for the ongoing war in Ukraine.

This will have led to rage from many, who believe that the only acceptable position on Ukraine is a one-sided condemnation of Russia.

Pope doesn't respect Western foreign policy

Interestingly, the Pope had previously seemed to align with NATO and Ukraine by kissing a Ukrainian flag. In reality, he was just trying to encourage peace, not giving his blessing to Ukraine's savage interethnic conflict of 2014 to present, to which Russia merely introduced itself as an apparently unwelcome belligerent in 2022.

While it may seem obvious that the Catholic Church is a Western organisation with commitments to a Western-led international order, shared by the supporters of NATO, this is not true. Pope Francis is not the Pope of white people, liberals or Westerners, but of the people in the slums of Argentina, whose views he is more likely to be receptive to.

Vatican staying above the fray

The Pope was trying to be neutral and not be seen as a participant in the conflict, as taking a side could undermine his international standing. We should bear in mind that the majority of practicing Catholics reside in the Southern Hemisphere, in developing countries, outside the exclusive zone of NATO political and military propaganda monopoly. For the Pope to align himself with NATO, against the better judgment of many Catholics, would be potentially damaging to the authority and credibility of the Vatican rather than any help to NATO.

At the same time, the Pope does not want to be seen as allying with Russia, since Russian troop presence in Ukraine is unauthorised by the United Nations. Russia violated the letter of the UN Charter by sending troops into Ukraine, albeit only as seriously as Turkey and the US are violating the Charter in Syria and hardly warranting the disproportionate, Russophobic Western response.

The Pope cannot be seen as an aggressive proponent of one side or the other, in a conflict in which Russia may expand with small territorial acquisitions and NATO is fully loyal to the bloody neoconservative dream of a new American century.

Pope Francis is right

The Pope is correct to accuse NATO of provoking the evil it supposedly wants to deliver us from. NATO is desperate to preserve itself as an organisation, therefore encouraging adversaries to be more aggressive so that people will be scared into believing they need NATO. NATO creates disaster by insensitively ignoring the security concerns of other powers, encroaching on them, declaring them ideological enemies, and declaring any subsequent response to be unprovoked and proof that the target began acting strangely.

NATO is worse than a barking dog. It yearns to create the threats it will shield us from. If neoconservative hawks did not have Russian and Chinese villains to talk about, they would only cook up some other villain. They might restart their so-called war on terror, combing the world again for the next imaginary or fantasy threat we can imagine to be menacing the fragile West.

Read More »

Britain's "scaled back" decline and fall?

The central part of the UK's identity, the constitutional monarchy, may be more beleaguered and unpopular than ever, and now it is willing to cede ground.

In an earlier post, I expressed doubt about whether removing the monarchy is likely or possible, and concluded that the population would not support this. However, they probably would not do much to stop or reverse such a change if it simply happened, either.

The point about our country being a reactionary power is more a comment on the status quo-supporting mindset of people in the UK than a good basis to judge how the future will go. Eventually, things do change. If things have changed by stealth, regardless of what wishes people expressed, Brits tend to support whatever new status quo we are up to.

Bad signs for the Crown

There are signs that the monarchy really is on a slow path into history's dustbin.

The British people would not vote to get rid of the monarchy. However, they may well do nothing about it diminishing and disappearing out of public view. For most people, there would be apathy about this.

The worst wound to the monarchy is the Prince Andrew sexual abuse scandal. Now that that this has ended in an out of court settlement, paid possibly by the Queen using taxpayer money, many see Andrew as certainly guilty. He will not regain his titles.

Rather than plough through popular objections, reassert the Crown with new images of splendour, and spend ever more lavishly on themselves, the monarchy is beginning to yield to common complaints. We see this in the promise of a "scaled back" coronation of Charles and Camilla. This concession, made for cost, is likely unprecedented, considering that each coronation in the past would have been made with increasing fanfare. It is astonishing that Charles does not see the the danger.

Has the monarchy chosen to fade away?

With monarchs, it is all or nothing, at least in the public eye. A frugal monarch who removed the diamonds from the Crown, out of humble submission to the crowd, is nothing much to respect, and the image of that monarch will be greatly diminished in many minds.

One can compare this to the way the Roman Catholic Church has slowly adjusted its doctrine with time, taking no firm stand, to accommodate modern sensibilities. Perhaps the Papacy too will begin to shed its wealth, overwhelmed at last by changing perceptions toward the privileged. In their case, too, there would come a point at which placation became capitulation and the core identity of the Roman Catholic Church was lost.

For these ancient institutions, reform eventually becomes the exit strategy from their own existence. Ironically, budging for the demands of critics and spending less lavishly actually makes it more likely that there will be calls for such institutions to be eliminated completely, as they will start to look shabbier.

Those who would have held on to these institutions for merely the image of splendour would likely be the last to leave. Were the monarchy to find itself in a position where it inhabited dull offices rather than palaces, it would not take long for these offices to be closed as well. In other words, the monarchy may gradually fade so that it is not in the hearts of the next generation or two, such that it just gets abolished and quietly buried without anyone noticing it was ever there to begin with.

Consequences less severe from slow change

The removal of the Crown should be steady rather than abrupt. Sudden abolition could have a destabilising effect in parts of the Commonwealth, creating a number of new republics that may not not know how to forge ahead. It may mean the end of the Commonwealth entirely. The effects will not be contained in the UK.

We also have the movements for independence in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Were the monarchy to diminish or disappear, these movements would grow increasingly strong and the country could dissolve into republics and federations, while Ireland may unite. In such an event, whatever the UK turns into should maintain the Westminster system of government, as the former colonies did, and maintain the palaces in their splendour as the Russians did.

Read More »

Catholics, Muslims similarly oppose cultural liberalism

Although unthinkable from a historical perspective, it is likely that both Catholics and Muslims will become more politically active in Western countries and find common ground.

Inclusivity activists in the West, crusading against all forms of social exclusion or distinction everywhere, have gained more and more influence over government and academia. They are likely to collide, increasingly harshly, with all those who hold tradition dear.

It is only a matter of time before a renewed attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church begins to manifest in Western countries, this time facilitated by inclusivity-focused politics. The proponents will also implicitly demand Islam be destroyed, too, although they may try to defeat the Catholics first and dupe Muslims into helping them attack this first target.

Pope senses the problem

Pope Francis has made a number of denunciations to assert a firmer stance by the Roman Catholic Church against forces that may next seek to destroy its foundation. Calls for inclusivity at the expense of doctrine have been explicitly rejected by the Church. LGBT activists' calls have gone unheard. The Pope even reached out to explicitly condemn the EU for trying to diminish Christmas for the sake of inclusive language, showing the Church's frustration with cultural liberal campaigners and their influence.

The Pope has rejected "cancel culture", perhaps in recognition that the vindictiveness of modern-day cultural liberal reformers who topple statues is likely to result in some assault on the Church in the near future. Branding it as "one-track thinking", he stated, "any historical situation must be interpreted in accordance with a hermeneutics of that particular time." With the sleeping giant of the Roman Catholic Church arising to confront cultural liberalism, we may see an ever firmer stance being taken in many communities against it, as formerly quiet people emerge to defend their traditions.

Abrahamic religions to face massive pressure

Many ideas are central and non-negotiable in the three Arbahamic faiths. Catholics hold that men and women are distinct creations, and that there is no changing from one to another. Muslims hold a similar view at present.

There is no way to square Western cultural liberal views about inclusion with Catholic Christianity or Islam, yet Western campaigners and culture warriors have shown they will tolerate nothing encumbering their goal of inclusivity, including cultural and traditional barriers. The goal to rewrite the meaning of man and woman in the interests of inclusivity everywhere will probably mandate an attack on other languages and cultures beyond the West, because what is really intended is to change a concept itself.

Ultimately there will be attempts to rewrite Catholic and Islamic doctrine for the sake of inclusivity, causing a fundamental corruption. This will be unacceptable to both, prompting them to try to build an unmoving wall of social conservatism among voters in democratic countries to block all such change.

Huge social conservative backlash is inevitable

Muslims, while often apolitical or simply supporting the left, as is the case with the UK's Labour Party, are likely to seek out their own social conservative platforms within Western countries as soon as this controversy begins to take real shape. They are likely to find common ground with Christians, if the latter can set aside the absurdity of their islamophobia.

In countries such as the UK, Muslims may concentrate in a few alternative platforms such as the Workers Party of Britain, which espouses social conservatism alongside a number of typically left-wing positions. They will likely abandon all support for the Labour Party in time, especially if it continues to be driven by the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, who is deaf, dumb and blind to all the concerns of Muslims in the UK.

The gaffes of Labour in its failure to maintain Muslims votes were apparent when Starmer suggested a preference for India over the rights of the people of Kashmir, prompting condemnation by Muslims and frantic backpedalling by him. Muslims are unlikely to forget such betrayals or overlook the possible threat of dubious cultural liberalism to Islamic doctrine and life.

The result of all this is that a significant base is forming, not perhaps for George Galloway's idea of a socialism-infused migrant-friendly party but for a more staunch social conservative party with religious principles embedded in its core ideology. If managed properly, such a platform could not only secure the votes of all Muslims in Britain but even secure enough traditionalist Christian votes to become one of the largest parties in the UK. Of course, this is all speculative, and any number of new political forces and agendas could prevent such ties from ever forming.

What of Jews?

Of course, Judaism should be mentioned, too, although I am less informed to comment on this religion. With it being a much smaller religion with less command over any voter base, it will most likely be spared most of the turbulence caused by cultural liberalism, except in Israel itself, where orthodox Jews will face pressure from Israeli liberals.

Because ultra-orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate, cultural liberal agendas in Israel could be doomed to fail and be reversed simply due to a large number of the population being against such ideas in the future.

Read More »