What if Alexsander Nevsky hadn't stopped the Crusades of Sweden, Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights against the Golden Horde, in Russia?

If you really want to understand Russia, you have to understand Alexander Nevsky, and the deal with the Devil he made some three quarters of a millennium ago. Nevsky's father, Yaroslav II, Grand Prince of Vladimir, was the first great Russian leader to render homage, and submit to the Mongolian Golden Horde, and its leader, the Great Khan Batu, grandson of Genghis Khan. However, Yaroslav apparently didn't submit quite enthusiastically enough, because he was personally poisoned by the wife of the Great Kahn on his next visit. This was a mistake that his son Alexander was determined never to make, himself, of course. Alexander always made it clear to the great Kahn that he was his personal slave and vassal. Indeed, Alexander Nevsky essentially reduced himself and the Russian people to the status of the Christian Janissaries who served the Ottoman Turks -- slaves abducted in childhood to serve the Ottoman Emperor as mercenaries. Their territory was Mongol territory, to be used as the Mongols saw fit. They sent tribute in men and material to the Great Khan, submitted to his taxes and censuses, and even tolerated the occasional violent pogrom against Russians with good humor. If you've ever seen Sergei Eisenstein's beautiful, classic 1938 film "Alexander Nevsky", stunningly orchestrated by classical music genius Sergei Prokofiev, you would have the impression that Nevsky was an independently minded Russian King, whose people were being violently threatened by the predations of the mad Christian monks and fanatical cross bearing Crusaders to the West, as they placidly plowed their fields in their atheistic, socialist paradise on earth. The film, made under Stalin's rule, of course doesn't mention the fact that the Russians under Nevsky were just as devoutly Christian as their neighbors to the West, and that Alexander Nevsky himself was made a Saint of the Russian Orthodox Church after his death. The fact is, the pantheistic Mongols couldn't have cared less what religion their subjects practised, they didn't give a damn about any afterlife, as long as they ran the show in the present life. The film doesn't mention the Mongols at all, of course. In reality, Sweden, Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights were actually trying to liberate the Russians from Mongol rule, and would have been perfectly happy to clasp the hand of Alexander Nevsky in friendship to join with him to do this. Theirs was, truly, a Crusade in Justice, sponsored by the Holy See and the Pope, at the Vatican in Rome. Nevsky's response -- "Go to Hell, we like being slaves!" Now, why did he do this you ask? Well, first of all, even if Alexander had joined with his traditional enemies to the West to rid himself of the Mongol Yoke, it's not by any means clear they would have been entirely successful. If the Golden Horde had been determined to do so, they certainly could have crushed the lot of them. There's also the point that the Mongols rendered Nevsky's southern and eastern borders secure, and provided structure and discipline to his rule. Without the Mongols, Russia might have been taken apart from all sides, rather like Poland was in the eighteenth century. The fact is, Nevsky had created the formula for the Russian State that not only persisted for the next two centuries of Mongol Rule, but, indeed, to the present day. Russians, all Russians, are slaves to their own state, and see this formula as the optimal one to ensure their own survival, and the survival of the Russian State.

What if, throughout history, women hadn't been used as captives in exchange for peace with rival nation-states?

Here is the first episode in a rather good Russian series of many episodes about the relations between the Russians and the Mongolian Golden Horde in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcO65BfO1SU It's in Russian, for Russians, and there are no subtitles. I just know a bit of Russian, but that's sufficient to follow the action pretty well. The Russians and the Mongols got along rather well, of course. So well, that some people might argue that the Russian Empire was, and is, simply an extension of the Mongol Empire. What was the basis of this good relationship between these two rival empires? How did they manage to integrate their skills, religions, ambitions and world views so well, and live in a highly productive and peaceful relationship for centuries? This Russian series provides a rather interesting and innovative perspective on this question. Apparently, the primary basis for trade, mutual self-interest and common ground between these distinct, rival cultures was quite simple, and quite specific. They just loved raping each other's women! While there's no nudity or graphic sexuality represented, it's quite clear what's going on. Both the Mongol and Russian women are running in terror from the men in the opposite culture, and the men are having a terrific time running them down, kidnapping them, and having their way with them. Sometimes these are organized actions by the leaders of both cultures, formally trading and exchanging their women, and sometimes it's just a spur of the moment abduction by private individuals, on their own initiative. In either case, these actions help to keep everyone very busy indeed, far too busy to make war. "Make love, not war!" appears to have have been, quite literally, the underlying motto of the relationship between the Russians and the Mongols. Now, it seems to me, that this brings up a rather broader question, of the extent to which this principle has applied throughout human history. King Solomon, of Israel, had 700 wives, and 300 concubines. Presumably, he didn't really need this many simply to do his housekeeping. These were, effectively, female hostages used to seal peace between Israel and the various rival, Arab tribes in the region. In Medieval Europe, it was standard procedure to use arranged marriages of Nobles as a means of establishing strong relationships between rival nation states. Effectively, women throughout history have been used, and have acquiesced to being used, as a means of establishing, through their own submission to broader social interests, better relations between rivals. War and conflicts are eased by the passive kindness of women to all and sundry. And, indeed, when women fail to perform this function, and become active participants in conflicts, the opposite pattern occurs. Joan of Arc and Boadicea show the power and danger socially when women choose to fight. Conflicts become massively escalated. More recently, we see this pattern in the Soviet resistance to the Nazis, and the Vietnamese resistance to the Americans. Because women chose to fight, the invader was destroyed, and integration and conquest failed miserably. So, what if historically, women had not acquiesced to serve the role as captives in exchanges for peace? Thoughts?

The wages of Sin, is Death

I was very saddened to hear of the death a few days ago of Roger , who had been a good friend of mine for several years. We would debate politics and history with great gusto for hours at a time. What was particularly disturbing was that such a kind, good man should be deprived of enjoying any retirement at all, after a life of such hard work, to earn the money to enjoy it. He talked of retiring shortly, and of all the things he was looking forward to doing during his retirement. Why on earth would God deprive him of what he so richly deserved? Where is the justice in this? And then, I got to thinking about Roger's profession a bit. He was a medical malpractice specialist. He defended doctors who were being sued for malpractice. He earned his living, and, presumably, a very good living, defending incompetent physicians. He referred to them as his "colleagues", and was probably vacationing with them a few days ago, at the time of his death in Europe. Obviously, they hadn't the slightest idea he was in any danger, and he died despite their "expertise". So, is it all possible that their is a certain divine justice in this, after all? Roger was a good man, he had a good life, and he had an easy, quick death. Fair enough. But, is it at all possible, that God was saying, "Hey, Roger, you earn your retirement money defending quacks, you don't GET a retirement! Got it buddy! Sorry about that, but, you asked for it!". It is said that 'Man plans, God laughs!'. It is also said that God loves practical jokes. Is it at all possible that we have a perfect example of this right here? I'm doubtful you'll want to include these points in his eulogy at his funeral, but, possibly this perspective might just make some people feel better about his sudden, premature death. It also isn't a bad proof of the existence of God! I just love theology!

What if the Roman Catholic Church had never required priests to be celibate?

Since the twelfth century at least, the Roman Catholic Church has, at least officially, required all its priests to be celibate. What if it hadn't? How would priests having families have affected the power of the Vatican -- who's a married priest going to be more concerned about, the Pope, or his wife and children? And how would a diminished Vatican authority have affected European and world history? Thoughts?

A perspective on the sudden, unexpected death of J. Roger Hurt, your longtime parishioner at the New Hope United Methodist Church, OKC

https://www.piercecouch.com/john-roger-hurt I was very saddened to hear of the death a few days ago of J.Roger Hurt, who had been a good friend of mine for several years. I'm just an old homeless man who knew him from your monthly outreach in downtown OKC, but, he was always very kind to me, would bring me books regularly, and we would debate politics and history with great gusto for hours at a time. What was particularly disturbing was that such a kind, good man should be deprived of enjoying any retirement at all, after a life of such hard work, to earn the money to enjoy it. He talked of retiring shortly, and of all the things he was looking forward to doing during his retirement. Why on earth would God deprive him of what he so richly deserved? Where is the justice in this? And then, I got to thinking about Roger's profession a bit. He was a medical malpractice specialist. He defended doctors who were being sued for malpractice. He earned his living, and, presumably, a very good living, defending incompetent physicians. He referred to them as his "colleagues", and was probably vacationing with them a few days ago, at the time of his death in Europe. Obviously, they hadn't the slightest idea he was in any danger, and he died despite their "expertise". So, is it all possible that their is a certain divine justice in this, after all? Roger was a good man, he had a good life, and he had an easy, quick death. Fair enough. But, is it at all possible, that God was saying, "Hey, Roger, you earn your retirement money defending quacks, you don't GET a retirement! Got it buddy! Sorry about that, but, you asked for it!". It is said that "Man plans, God laughs!'. It is also said that God loves practical jokes. Is it at all possible that we have a perfect example of this right here? I'm doubtful you'll want to include these points in his eulogy at his funeral, but, possibly this perspective might just make some people feel better about his sudden, premature death. It also isn't a bad proof of the existence of God! Jerry Kraus P.S. I just love theology!

What China really means by the "Invisible Hand" in Ukraine

Recently, the Chinese government has suggested that events in Ukraine are guided by an "invisible hand", a geopolitical force that is propelling the world toward escalating conflict and war. This choice of term is extremely well calculated and has a very precise meaning, that is not being fully explicated by the Western media, for obvious reasons. The "invisible hand" is precisely the term coined by economist/philosopher Adam Smith, in his classic Bible of Capitalism "The Wealth of Nations". It refers to the process by which Capitalism motivates and compels individuals to act as they do in a Capitalist system and world environment. The "invisible hand" is the metaphor Capitalists generally refer to when they want to explain the underlying processes by which Capitalism really functions. So, effectively, the Communist government of China is, quite clearly, blaming the Ukraine conflict on Capitalist greed, and Capitalist corruption. This is certainly debatable, of course, but, the implication is quite unambiguous, although the Chinese government is clearly choosing to let the world figure that out, for itself. The communist Chinese government is making a truly damning, oracular prophecy about Capitalism in general, that is perfectly consistent with Marxist theory. Whether you agree with it or not, you should probably think about its implications, and bear it in mind.

What if Mao Zedong had lived to see the 1979 Chinese invasion of Vietnam?

What exactly did Pol Pot have in mind, in committing genocide against his own people, and in provoking much larger and more powerful Vietnam to invade his country, and drive him from power? Was he merely insane, or was there any conceivable rationale to his apparently self-destructive actions? I think there might have been. Suppose that Mao Zedong, undoubtedly Pol Pot's idol and role model, had just lived a few more years. Clearly, the pragmatic and non-ideological Deng Xiaoping, was not going to risk massive Chinese casualties and a possible war with the Soviet Union in a long, full scale war of conquest against Vietnam, with the possibility of an endless guerrilla war of the type that had just nearly brought the U.S. to its knees. However, Mao Zedong might well have been another kettle of fish. While we can carp at Pol Pot's two million killed, we must remember that four million Vietnamese had just died in America's pointless adventure in Vietnam, almost entirely as a direct result of America's actions there. Indeed, America has more recently successfully eliminated the two million Christians in Iraq, in an effort at "nation building" of a largely Shiite Iraq. Genocide is, unfortunately, a rather common element of "nation building". Having "rebuilt" Cambodia through his genocide, Pol Pot was undoubtedly aware that Vietnam would seek to control him through invasion. However, if Mao Zedong had still been alive, might he not have seen this event as a golden opportunity to retake much or all of Indochina as once more a part of China, as it has been in the past? And, might this not have been exactly what Pol Pot, ultimately, had in mind? Mao Zedong was not known for backing down. Once he had invaded Vietnam, wouldn't he have, almost certainly, finished the job?