More on the Love of God in Islam!

 

Since I had posted a couple of blog messages about two months ago regarding the controversy concerning the “love of God” in Islam (see here and here), I have been doing a bit more research into it, and have discovered an excellent resource on the subject which should dispel once for all the popular notion among radical Christian that the God of Islam is not a “God of Love”. It is a book titled, Divine Love: Islamic Literature and the Path to God, by William C. Chittick, who is a very well known and respected scholar of Islam. His website can be seen here, including a list of published books. It is a 520 page book, with a foreword on it written by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who is another very well-known and respected scholar of Islam. Here is a quote from the description found on the Amazon page retailing the book:

“The very heart of the Islamic tradition is love; no other word adequately captures the quest for transformation that lies at this tradition’s center. So argues esteemed professor of medieval Islam William C. Chittick in this survey of the extensive Arabic and Persian literature on topics ranging from the Qur’an up through the twelfth century. Bringing to light extensive foundational Persian sources never before presented, Chittick draws on more than a thousand pages of newly translated material to depict the rich prose literature at the center of Islamic thought.”

I haven’t read the book myself, as I have only just discovered it. But it looks like a good book, and worth a read. The following extracts from the foreword to the book written by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, as well as from the preface to the book written by the author, are obtained from the “Look inside” pages on the Amazon website. The first is a quote from the foreword to the book by Seyyed Hossein Nasr:

“Moreover, since God is the Ultimate Cause of all things, His Love for us precedes and is the cause that allows us to love Him. One of the greatest expositors in Islam of the meaning of love, Ahmad Ghazali, writes in his Sawanih that the distinction of human beings is that God loved them before they could love Him, according to the well-known Qur’anic verse yuhibbuhum wa yuhibbunah, ‘He loves them and [therefore] they love Him.’ The wa in Arabic, which usually means ‘and,’ implies implicitly in this verse ‘therefore.’ The verse does not say that they love God and therefore God loves them, but asserts that Love begins from the Divine side. Of course, from a human point of view we must exert our will to love God. Metaphysically, however, we cannot love God unless He loves us. The person whom God does not love because of his or her rebellion against Him or disobedience to His commands, will not find the love of God in his or her heart, although this love exists in the heart of all human beings by virtue of their being human, even if in many cases it remains hidden and latent, unbeknown to one whose heart has hardened.

“One may wonder why so many Western and modern writings on Islam neglect the central reality of love in Islamic piety and spirituality, and refuse to consider the relation between Islam and the unparalleled richness of Islamic literature devoted to love, not to speak of the role of love in everyday Islamic devotion. There are many reasons for this myopia, including the centuries-old Christian polemic that seeks to present Christianity as the religion based on love, in contrast to Islam, which, according to them, has the concept of the Divine only as the God of judgment and retribution. They speak as if there were no hell or purgatory in Christianity, and no forgiveness, compassion, or love in Islam.

“A thorough discussion of this important issue is not possible in this foreword, but suffice it to say that as a complete religion, Islam of necessity emphasizes also the importance of the fear of God in man’s religious life, in addition to love and knowledge. It was not a Muslim but the Bible that said, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” a saying that is repeated almost word for word in a well-known hadith of the Prophet. To know God, we must love Him, and to love Him, we must fear Him. The fear of God must not be confused with the ordinary meaning of fear as a negative emotive state. As Abu Hamid Muhammad Ghazali said, when a person fears a creature, he runs away from it, but when that person fears the Creator, he runs toward Him. There is something in the soul of man that prevents him from attaining spiritual perfection. That something has to shrivel through fear of the Majesty of God and His Justice so that the higher elements of the soul can be freed to love God. From the human point of view there is the hierarchy of fear, love, and knowledge that the soul marching toward perfection must experience successively.”

The following quote is from the preface to the book written by its author, William C. Chittick:

“Not too long ago I exchanged emails with an old friend, a professor of religious studies who specializes in Hinduism. I happened to mention that I was writing a book on love, and he asked whether I was doing another study of Rumi. Here we have a well-informed scholar who has taught Islam in his survey courses, and guesses that someone writing about the Islamic understanding of love would be talking about Rumi. Those who know little or nothing about Rumi’s historical context, but have been exposed to the popular translations of his poetry, may well be surprised to hear that he was a Muslim. In any case, my point is simply that few people associate love with Islam.

“In contrast, those familiar with the histories and literatures of the Islamic peoples know that love has been the preoccupation of thousands of Muslim scholars and saints. It is so central to the overall ethos of the religion that if any single word can sum up Islamic spirituality—by which I mean the very heart of the Qur’anic message—it should surely be love. I used to think that knowledge deserved this honor, and that the orientalist Franz Rosenthal had it right in the title of his book, Knowledge Triumphant. Now I think that love does a better job of conveying the nature of the quest for God that lies at the [Islamic] tradition’s heart.”

And the following are some comments made by reviewers of the book printed on the back cover:

“This masterpiece is the finest scholarly study of love in Islam ever produced. Chittick’s brilliant theo-philosophical analysis encompasses all the great Islamic thinkers, and offers an urgent message not just for historians of religion, but for all Muslims and for those of every faith tradition.” —Stephen G. Post, Stony Brook University

“Rendering a vast Arabic and Persian repertoire into lucid English allows William Chittick to display how central love is in the Islamic tradition. Persian masters Maybudi and Sam‘ani open worlds of poetic theological reflection, detailing the origin of love, a life of love, and the goal of love.” —David Burrell, University of Notre Dame

“The classic Sufi poets of divine and human love—Rumi, Hafez, Attar and others—are by now familiar figures. William Chittick’s book beautifully introduces the earlier Persian (and Arabic) prose writers on love who provide the background for that love poetry, and whose ‘theology of love’ shaped the popular understanding of Islam through the centuries.” —James W Morris, Boston College

It is a 500 page book which quotes extensively from classical Islamic literature including the Qur’an, dispelling the notion that Islam is not a “religion of love”. Extremists, fanatics, and terrorists at one time or another have existed in every major religion, including Christianity. The Crusaders during the Middle Ages were nothing more than terrorists. They committed acts of terrorism against Muslims (and Jews) far worse than 9/11. When they conquered Jerusalem, they used to pick up little Muslim kids by their heels, and dash them against the walls and kill them. Those of them who were more dexterous, would try to fling them over across the walls of the city, and kill them that way. Stories of crusaders wading through the streets of the city knee deep in blood is no doubt an exaggeration; but it is an exaggeration based on fact. The slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in the city (Jews as well as Muslims) was enormous. Reportedly they burned down one synagogue with 300 Jews who had taken refuge in it. And it was all done in the name of religion. Here are some online resources for the crusades and their crimes:

Jewish Visual Library—The Crusades (1095-1291) What Were the Crusades . . . ? FIRST CRUSADE (1095-1100) Heilbrunn Timeline—The Crusades (1095–1291) Rivers of Blood: An Analysis of . . . Siege of Jerusalem (1099) History of the Jews and the Crusades

During the Middle Ages, for a thousand years Islam established one of the greatest civilizations in world history. Both in science and culture, art and literature, philosophy, theology and morals etc. (and freedom of worship) it excelled that of any other civilization up to that time. Christian Europe was backwards and primitive by comparison. The Muslims were the civilized ones. Christians provided the terrorists—not only against the Muslims, but also against the Jews. Now the Muslims have become the bad guys, and Christians have become the good guys. A religion that needs to constantly berate, disparage, and denigrate other faith traditions in order to ensure its own survival has lost credibility, and is not worth wasting time with. That is not how Jesus preached his gospel. He lived in a world of pagan religions, but he preached his gospel without feeling the need to make disparaging remarks about other faith traditions. He had no worries about disparaging the hypocritical Pharisees, who ended up crucifying him; but he had nothing evil or disparaging to say about the pagan religions of the Greeks and the Romans. His disciples and Apostles likewise did the same. Peter’s verdict was that “God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34-35); and Paul’s verdict was the same, as expressed in Romans 2:6-16.

Who was Melchizedek?

 

An interesting video, attempting to explore the true identity of Melchizedek. He has got some of his analysis right, but not most of it. His first mistake is that he fails to recognize, and give sufficient credit to the greatness of Melchizedek, as the book of Hebrews does. The epistle to the Hebrews gives far more credit and recognition to the greatness of Melchizedek, and to his priesthood, than he does:

Hebrews 7:

1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him [Abraham] that had the promises.

7 And without all contradiction the less [Abraham] is blessed of the better [Melchizedek].

These verses are designed to impress on our minds how great Melchizedek was—even greater than Abraham, the father of the faithful. To an Israelite, Abraham was about as great as you can get—next to God himself. He was so close to God that he was called the “friend of God” (2 Chron. 20:7; James 2:23). Yet we are told in Hebrews that Melchizedek was even greater. He wasn’t just some old Canaanite dude who also just happens to be some kind of a priest and a king, as the video makes him out to be.

The second point that he has overlooked concerns Melchizedek’s priesthood. The question that needs to be answered here is, Was his “priesthood” genuine, or was it some kind of fake, imaginary, or allegorical priesthood? The above verses, as well as the following, indicate that it was a genuine priesthood:

Genesis 14:

18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he [Abraham] gave him tithes of all.

Psalm 110:

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

All of these verses combined suggest that it was a real priesthood, not a fake or imaginary priesthood. He was a real person with a real priesthood. That proves that the concept of the priesthood (a genuine priesthood) in the Old Testament did not begin with Moses and Aaron. It goes back much further than that. Indeed, the quote from Hebrews suggests that Melchizedek’s priesthood was greater than the priesthood with which Aaron, the brother of Moses, was ordained. So how do we make sense of all of that? Those are the relevant questions which he has failed to take into account. They are questions to which an answer cannot be easily obtained from the Bible alone. More revelation and scripture is required to find the right answers to those questions, which Latter-day Saints are indeed lucky enough to have. Here is a quote from the Book of Mormon, which clarifies much of the ambiguities on the subject in the Bible (punctuation revised):

Alma 13:

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained: being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works—in the first place being left to choose good or evil—therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling; yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith; while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts, and blindness of their minds; while if it had not been for this, they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren: thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity according to his foreknowledge of all things.

8 Now they were ordained after this manner: being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order; which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood is without beginning or end—

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

10 Now as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

13 And now my brethren, I would that ye should humble yourselves before God, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, that ye may also enter into that rest.

14 Yea, humble yourselves even as the people in the days of Melchizedek, who was also a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever.

15 And it was this same Melchizedek to whom Abraham paid tithes; yea, even our father Abraham paid tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.

16 Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

17 Now this Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination. Yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness.

18 But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace. For he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father.

19 Now there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore of him they have more particularly made mention.

20 Now I need not rehearse the matter; what I have said may suffice. Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them, it shall be to your own destruction.

And the following additional quotes from the book of Doctrine and Covenants, another great book of modern scripture, give us more insight into the theology of Melchizedek and his priesthood:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:

14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;

16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—

17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.

18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever, with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel, and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

20 Therefore in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.

21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;

24 But they hardened their hearts, and could not endure his presence; therefore the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.

25 Therefore he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:

1 There are in the church two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood, is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day, it was called the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

6 But there are two divisions, or grand heads: one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood.

7 The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

So it was not Melchizedek himself that was “Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life” (which wouldn’t make sense), but it was his priesthood that possessed those attributes. The Aaronic priesthood, including Levitical, as it operated in Israel at the time, was hereditary, it was passed on from father to son. Not so with the Melchizedek priesthood. The text of Hebrews 7:3 is obviously not complete, there is something that has gone missing from it.

Latter-day Saints are very lucky indeed to have all of this divine knowledge and truth revealed to them, which these guys know nothing about. They have all kinds of theological degrees and PhDs, and read thousands of books; but a humble Latter-day Saint who knows his scriptures well has a far better understanding of sound doctrine, correct theology, and gospel truth than they do.

________________

P. S.

And from the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, Genesis 14, we also have the following additional insight into Melchizedek and his priesthood:

JST Genesis 14:

25 And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.

26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.

27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28 It being after the order of the son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.

30 For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power by faith to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

31 To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.

32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

33 And now Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.

34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;

35 And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.

36 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.

37 And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;

38 Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.

39 Wherefore Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.

40 And it came to pass that God blessed Abram; and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.

And likewise the Joseph Smith translation amends Hebrews chapter 7, verse 3, as follows:

JST Hebrews 7:

3 For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order of the Son of God, which order was without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.

Putin on the Rise of Woke Culture in the West!

 

Could he be right? What he says makes sense to me. He appears to be very wise, which is rare among the leaders of the nations of today. I am impressed. The subtitles on the video are a bit hard to follow. I was able to obtain the transcript in English, which is as follows (words in square brackets added):

“The importance of a solid support in the sphere of morals, ethics, and values is increasing dramatically in the modern fragile world. In point of fact, values are a product, a unique product of cultural and historical development of any nation. The mutual interlacing of nations definitely enriches them; openness expands their horizons, and allows them to take a fresh look at their own traditions. But the process must be organic, and it can never be rapid. Any alien elements will be rejected anyway, possibly bluntly. Any attempts to force one’s values on others, with an uncertain and unpredictable outcome, can only further complicate a dramatic situation; and usually produce the opposite reaction, and an opposite from the intended result.

“We look in amazement at the processes underway in the countries which have been traditionally looked at as the standard-bearers of progress. Of course, the social and cultural shocks that are taking place in the United States and Western Europe are none of our business; we are keeping out of this. Some people in the West believe that an aggressive elimination of entire pages from their own history, “reverse discrimination” against the majority in the interests of a minority, and the demand to give up the traditional notions of mother, father, family and even gender, they believe that all of these are the mileposts on the path towards social renewal.

“Listen, I would like to point out once again that they have a right to do this; we are keeping out of this. But we would like to ask them to keep out of our business as well. We have a different viewpoint—at least, the overwhelming majority of Russian society (it would be more correct to put it this way) has a different opinion on this matter. We believe that we must rely on our own spiritual values, our historical tradition, and the culture of our multiethnic nation. The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs, and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality, and the foundations of a healthy society.

“The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones—all this was proclaimed progress; and by the way, was widely supported around the world back then, and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs. This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now.

“Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past—such as Shakespeare—are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward, and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood, memos are distributed about proper storytelling, and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

“Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’—that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences, and refusing to divide people by skin colour. I specifically asked my colleagues to find the following quote from Martin Luther King: “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by [the content of] their character.” This is the true value. However, things are turning out differently there. By the way, the absolute majority of Russian people do not think that the colour of a person’s skin or their gender is an important matter. Each of us is a human being. This is what matters.

“In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go—not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step, and you will be there. Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk,” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender.

“I repeat, this is nothing new. In the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak, believing they were creating a new consciousness, and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times. Not to mention some truly monstrous things, when children are taught from an early age that a boy can easily become a girl, and vice versa. That is, the teachers actually impose on them a choice we all supposedly have. They do so while shutting the parents out of the process, and forcing the child to make decisions that can upend their entire life. They do not even bother to consult with child psychologists—is a child at this age even capable of making a decision of this kind? Calling a spade [not] a spade—this verges on a crime against humanity; and it is being done in the name, and under the banner of progress.

“Well, if someone likes this, let them do it. I have already mentioned that, in shaping our approaches, we will be guided by a healthy conservatism. That was a few years ago, when passions on the international arena were not yet running as high as they are now; although, of course, we can say that clouds were gathering even then. Now, when the world is going through a structural disruption, the importance of reasonable conservatism as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed—precisely because of the multiplying risks and dangers, and the fragility of the reality around us. This conservative approach is not about an ignorant traditionalism, a fear of change, or a restraining game; much less about withdrawing into our own shell. It is primarily about reliance on a time-tested tradition, the preservation and growth of the population, a realistic assessment of oneself and others, a precise alignment of priorities, a correlation of necessity and possibility, a prudent formulation of goals, and a fundamental rejection of extremism as a method.

“And frankly, in the impending period of global reconstruction, which may take quite long, with its final design being uncertain, moderate conservatism is the most reasonable line of conduct, as far as I see it. It will inevitably change at some point; but so far, do no harm—the guiding principle in medicine—seems to be the most rational one. Noli nocere, as they say. Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.”

That was the original video. That was then edited, and lots of extra dramatic footage added to illustrate it by someone else, which is also interesting to watch: