Baptism of St. Olga

From World History Connected:

It is a strange historical twist that the first "Russian" woman to be canonized in the Orthodox Church was a Viking warrior princess who spent much of her life as a pagan. Olga earned her sainthood by becoming the first member of the house of Riurik, the dynasty that ruled European Russia and parts of Ukraine and Belorus for more than seven centuries (860s – 1598), to convert to Christianity. But the role of this battle maid in the spread of Christendom to the eastern Slavs is only part of her remarkable contribution to the history of Eastern Europe. 
 
     Olga is the only woman for whom we possess significant biographical details in the written sources for the Kievan Rus period of Russian history (860s – 1240). In contrast with Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire, medieval Russian women did not participate in literary culture aside from the occasional inscription or letter of the type found on birch bark in the excavations of medieval Novgorod. The laws of the period reveal that women enjoyed few legal protections compared with their male peers. Women could inherit property from their parents or husbands, but only in the absence of brothers and sons. If the sons were young, the widow managed the family's estate until the sons reached their majority.

     Olga is in this way typical of the free elite women of Kiev.¹ For nearly two decades (945 to 962) Olga ruled the rapidly expanding kingdom of Kievan Rus,² which received its name from its capital Kiev on the middle Dniepr River, as regent for her young son Sviatoslav. And she did so in stunning fashion despite significant obstacles. Olga assumed power at a time when the realm was shaken by tribal violence and administrative disorder. She bloodily pacified rebellious tribes and replaced tribute taking with a regular system of taxation. Olga's decision to convert to eastern Christianity instead of Catholicism was also a fundamental step in the spiritual and political alliance of Kievan Rus with the Byzantine Orthodox world rather than with Latin Christendom. In short, it took the will and perspicacity of a barbarian widow to begin the transformation of the Rus lands from a loosely knit pagan chieftaincy into a more stable and centralized Christian kingdom. (Read entire post.)

Share

Spanish Euthanasia Case Triggers Worldwide Debate

 From The European Conservative:

The euthanasia of 25-year-old Noelia on Thursday, March 27th in Spain has made headlines around the world. Not because of its legal exceptionalism—it was upheld by all judicial instances—but because of what it represents: the shift of euthanasia from extreme cases of terminal illness into far more shaky territory, such as psychological suffering.

In just a few days, her story has spread across national and international media. Noelia’s life was marked by institutional neglect, episodes of violence and sexual abuse, severe depression, and a fractured family environment. And there is a lingering sense, shared by many, that things should have gone differently.

Noelia’s death  was the result of a series of events that led to grave emotional and physical suffering.  Her parents lost  custody of her and she spent time in state care. According to her own account, it was in that context that she suffered abuse and episodes of violence that were never investigated judicially.

Years later, those traumatic experiences led to a suicide attempt in 2021, leaving her with  partial paraplegia. From that point on, her situation worsened. She was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, underwent multiple psychiatric admissions, and lived with a persistent sense of isolation.

Medical reports—central to the process—concluded that her suffering was “serious, chronic and incapacitating,” and that there was no prospect of improvement. On that basis, the Catalonia Guarantees Commission authorized euthanasia in 2024. Formally, the procedure met all legal requirements. But the case was never as closed as it appeared. (Read more.)

Share

‘National Geographic’ Reclaims Its Legacy

From Mark Judge at Chronicles:

On June 1, the National Geographic Society is opening a new, stunning, multimillion dollar museum. According to its promotional material, the 2026 debut of NatGeo’s “Museum of Exploration,” will feature

a state-of-the-art pavilion entrance, auditorium, iconic photo gallery, exhibition space, immersive walk-through attraction, retail, food and beverage, education center, archives, tours, and exciting new event space. The capstone of the renovation is a one-of-a-kind nighttime experience in the courtyard.

The new museum opens just as the National Geographic Society appears to be reclaiming the grand legacy it lost over several decades in the jungle of wokeness. The spiral has been particularly difficult for me to watch because my father was a writer and editor at National Geographic for the better part of 30 years, from the early 1960s to 1990. This storied organization that was so much a part of my early life and education devolved into a habit of promoting pseudoscience, anti-white racism, and transgenderism. If the new museum, and some recent issues of the magazine, are any indication, National Geographic may be on the path to getting its mojo back.

First, however, a quick journey through NatGeo’s descent into liberal madness. In 2017, the magazine ran a special issue on “The Gender Revolution,” which became the basis for a documentary hosted by left-wing dingbat and TV personality Katie Couric. The magazine issue itself featured a “girl” on the cover—that is to say, a confused and exploited boy—and the section titled “Helping Families Talk about Gender” offered this: “Understand that gender identity and sexual orientation cannot be changed, but the way people identify their gender identity and sexual orientation may change over time as they discover more about themselves.”

As Andrew T. Walker and Denny Burke wrote of it in Public Discourse,

the first half of this sentence asserts the immutability of gender identity, but the second half of the sentence claims that people’s self-awareness of such things can change over time. But is there not a contradiction here once we define our terms? Gender identity is not an objective category but a subjective one. It is how one perceives his or her own sense of maleness or femaleness….If that perception is fixed and immutable (as the first half of the sentence asserts), then it is incoherent to say that one’s self-perception can change over time (as the second half of the sentence asserts).

Another article offers a full-page picture of a shirtless 17-year-old girl who recently underwent a double mastectomy in order to “transition” to being a boy. Walker and Burke ask this probing question that gets to the heart of the matter: “Why do transgender ideologues consider it harmful to attempt to change such a child’s mind but consider it progress to display her bare, mutilated chest for a cover story?”

National Geographic received significant blowback for the issue,  prompting a defense from Editor Susan Goldberg. A key paragraph:

We realized several years ago that beliefs about gender were shifting rapidly and radically. For almost 130 years, National Geographic has explored the world through science, exploration, and storytelling. Gender permeates every part of what it means to be human, and reporting on the changing understandings of a biological and social concept is, put simply, what we do. Our coverage doesn’t come with a political or partisan agenda. We created the gender issue—as we do every issue—with the intent to research, understand, and explain.

So gender is not a reality but “a biological and social concept.” Goldberg also equivocated about hormone blockers, which have since been proven to be dangerous.

As part of the magazine’s April 2018 edition, “The Race Issue,” Goldberg offered this headline: “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.”

Goldberg hired John Edwin Mason, a scholar at the University of Virginia, to dig through the archives to find evidence of white supremacy. Interviewed by Vox, Mason announced that National Geographic “was born at the height of so-called ‘scientific’ racism and imperialism—including American imperialism. This culture of white supremacy shaped the outlook of the magazine’s editors, writers, and photographers, who were always white and almost always men.” Responding to a 2018 cover featuring a cowboy on horseback, Mason argued that “the image of the white cowboy reproduces and romanticizes the mythic iconography of settler colonialism and white supremacy.” (Read more.)

Share

Marie-Antoinette's Gambling Addiction

I have many times been accused of making Marie-Antoinette into a saint. Just because I believe, as most of the evidence indicates, that Marie-Antoinette was faithful to her husband, does not mean I think she was the Little Flower. Endeavoring to observe the sixth commandment is a basic duty which does not mean automatic sanctity. We all know many faithful spouses who are not saints (at least, not yet.) The New Advent article presents a fairly balanced view of Marie-Antoinette:

In her private life, Marie Antoinette may justly be blamed for her prodigality, for having, between 1774 and 1777 -- by certain notorious escapades (sleigh racing, opera balls, hunting in the Bois de Boulogne, gambling) and by her amusements at the Trianon -- given occasion for calumnious reports. But she confessed to Mercy that she indulged in this dissipation to console herself for having no children; and the tales of Besenval, Lauzun, and Soulavie, about the amours of Marie Antoinette, cannot stand against the testimony of the Prince de Ligne: "Her pretended gallantry was never any more than a very deep friendship for one or two individuals, and the ordinary coquetry of a woman, or a queen, trying to please everyone." De Goltz, the Prussian minister, also wrote that though a malicious person might interpret the queen's conduct unfavourably there was nothing in it beyond a desire to please everybody. Besides, the queen continued to give edification by her regular practice of her religious duties....

Her historian, M. de la Rocheterie, says of her: "She was not a guilty woman, neither was she a saint; she was an upright, charming woman, a little frivolous, somewhat impulsive, but always pure; she was a queen, at times ardent in her fancies for her favourites and thoughtless in her policy, but proud and full of energy; a thorough woman in her winsome ways and tenderness of heart, until she became a martyr."

 The "notorious" escapades of sleigh-riding, going incognito to the opera ball, hunting and watching the horse races in the Bois de Boulogne, were fairly innocent past-times for a twenty year old queen. The gambling, however, became a serious addiction. It must be kept in mind, however, that she was not the not the only one. Gambling was an entrenched part of court life from the days of Louis XIV. As scholar Ross Hamilton describes it:

Gambling obsessed all levels of French society during the Enlightenment. Louis XIV held appartements du roi given over to gambling three times a week at Versailles, the queen hosted a nightly game, and courtiers scheduled additional occasions for play. Hosts so frequently acted as bankers for games to entertain their guests that satirists, chroniclers, and moralists complained that compulsive gambling had destroyed other forms of social entertainment. In Paris ten authorized maisons de jeux operated games involving some degree of skill (jeux de commerce) but essentially they served as fronts for more lucrative chance-driven games (jeux de hasard). Gambling also took place at the two great Paris fairs during almost four months of the year, all year long at foreign embassies, and eventually at gambling houses at the Hotel de Gesvres and later at the Hotel de Soissons. In addition to these legal venues, the large number of clandestine Parisian gaming rooms, lighted by tripots, made one visitor comment that "flaming pots set Paris ablaze," and gambling was by no means restricted to Paris. (2) The "Age des Lumieres" was lighted by gambling. Although official prohibitions referred to both religious and sociological dangers from gambling, within the context of the period, risking large sums at play became an analogy for risking one's life in battle. Having the courage to risk and winning or losing with equal equanimity demonstrated indifference to material gain and thus served as a means of displaying hereditary status.

 Author Lisa Hilton in the biography Athenais (Back Bay, 2004) explains how gambling was one of the only "honorable" ways in which the often cash-strapped aristocrats, who were forbidden to engage in trade, could make money. It also replaced the thrill of war. As Hilton says:

Psychologically, gambling can be seen as a rebellion against logic, intelligence, moderation and renunciation, amorally appealing to those who in some way feel their lives constricted, and yet containing its own penance from the guilt it provokes from the losses it entails.

It required a certain amount of discipline to gamble well; one had to have mastery over facial expressions so as not to reveal one's thoughts about winning or losing, or one's strategy. A noble had to be able to lose with grace and promptly pay debts.

Marie-Antoinette had been taught as a child by her own mother to gamble, because the Empress knew that a princess who could not play well would soon be separated from her money. Futhermore, the stakes at the court of Austria were much higher than at the court of France, which made Antoinette an intrepid player. As a teenager, she became inordinately attached to the practice. As she began to have gambling debts, Louis XVI, who was trying to save the government finances and give an example of thrift, forbade her to play anymore games of chance. She begged her husband to let her have one last game. He gave permission, and naughty Antoinette made sure the game went on for three days. Louis was disgusted.

Gambling in France did not disappear with the fall of the monarchy. The revolutionaries who replaced Louis and Antoinette had their own share of gambling debts. According to historian Russell T. Barnhart:

The mania for gambling had been transferred from defunct, monarchical Versailles to the thriving, bourgeois Palais Royal, where the five main gaming clubs throbbed from noon till midnight. During the Revolution, Prince Talleyrand won 30,000 francs at one club, and after Waterloo in 1815, Marshal Blucher lost 1,500,000 francs in one night at another. To bring the situation under control and raise taxes for the state, in 1806 Napoleon legalized the main clubs, which from 1819 to 1837 grossed an enormous 137 million francs.

Gambling took up only a short period of Marie-Antoinette's life, and yet it is something for which she is remembered, even before her numerous charities. In order for the excesses of the Revolution to be justified, the failings of a teenage queen are held up for posterity.

Share

Iran Studied the Wrong War Game

 From Alexander Muse:

There is a particular species of institutional error that only becomes visible in hindsight, and only then at considerable cost. It is not the error of building the wrong weapon. It is the error of discarding the right one because it does not fit the threat you expect to fight. The US Air Force spent the better part of a decade trying to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt II, requesting $57M in its fiscal year 2026 budget submission to decommission the remaining 162 aircraft, two years ahead of its own previously stated schedule. Congress blocked the effort, mandating a minimum fleet of 103 aircraft through September 2026. And then Operation Epic Fury began, the Strait of Hormuz closed, and the aircraft the Air Force wanted to scrap became the one the joint force needed most. The irony is not that the Warthog proved useful. The irony is that the environment where it proved essential was one American planners should have anticipated for decades.

American carrier aviation and Aegis destroyer capabilities were engineered for the open ocean, for blue-water engagements against sophisticated adversaries operating capital ships, cruise missiles, and ballistic anti-ship weapons. That engineering represents the correct solution to the problem it was designed to solve. The Strait of Hormuz presented a categorically different problem. Iranian tactics relied on swarm attacks using fast, low-signature boats, often armed with rockets, mines, and short-range anti-ship missiles. These are targets that are difficult to detect and track using conventional high-altitude strike profiles. The IRGC operated more than 1,500 such craft, composite and fiberglass hulls mostly under 15 tons, running between 50 and 70 knots, each carrying a Naser-1 anti-ship missile with a 35-kilometer range and a terminal speed of Mach 0.9, sufficient to mission-kill a frigate. Their doctrine was swarm, overwhelm, and saturate, forcing the defender to choose which threat to engage while knowing that every defensive weapon fired costs more than every offensive boat it destroys. (Read more.)

Share

An Invitation to Premier 'Dune: Part Three' at the Anti-Communist Film Festival

 From Mark Judge at Hot Air:

At its heart, Dune and its sequels offer a powerful argument against big government, high taxes, and political messiahs who promise to save the world. In fact Dune: Part Three would be a perfect fit for the Anti-Communist Film Festival. Director Villeneuve and star Timothee Chalamet can consider themselves both invited.  

    The world and politics of Dune have been expertly analyzed by Daniel Immerwahr, a professor at Northwestern University. Immerwahr has explored the two sides of Dune author Frank Herbert: The environmentalist who grew up in Washington state, hung out with hippies and did drugs in the 1970s, and whose mentor was an American Indian, and Frank Herbert, the conservative Republican who hated taxes and leaders who promised people everything only to go on a power trip.

    Although raised by socialist parents, Herbert experienced commune living with Native Americans, and it filled him with hostility to the federal government. Herbert rejected  “any kind of public charity system” because he “learned early on that our society’s institutions often weaken people’s self-reliance.” Herbert worked for four Republican candidates, including very conservative Guy Cordon, the US senator from Oregon. Cordon was pro-logging, pro-business, pro-military, anti-labor, anti-regulation, and a supporter of Joseph McCarthy. A book Herbert wrote before Dune calls Soviet agents “the sinister embodiment of everything evil.” (Read more.)

Share

Jewels of Queen Marie-Amélie

 

 Niece of Marie-Antoinette. From The Royal Watcher:

After the July Revolution of 1830, the Duke was made the King of the French, and despite being loyal to the Bourbon Monarchy, the new Queen Marie-Amélie resigned herself to her new role, saying: “Since by God’s will this Crown of Thorns has been placed upon our heads, we must accept it and the duties it entails.” After a subdued reign marked by religious duties and charitable work, when the King was forced to abdicate after the 1848 Revolution, Queen Marie-Amélie said to the presiding minster “Ah Monsieur, you were not worthy of such a good king!”. The family went into exile in England and lived a private life at Claremont House, where the now widowed Queen Marie-Amélie supported her grandson’s reconciliation with the Count of Chambord, the head of the senior Bourbon line, who made him his Heir. When she died in 1866, the Queen asked to be buried as the Duchess of Orléans at the Chapelle Royale de Dreux. As she still supported the senior branch of the House of Bourbon, Queen Marie-Amélie famously refused to wear the French Crown Jewels but had a magnificent personal Jewellery Collection which was documented even in her day! (Read more.)

Share

Sedition? Treason? Where Are We?

 

Share

Shelby and Eli Steele’s New Film

 From Man of Steele:

The director (Eli Steele) shared his philosophy behind the film via his Substack platform.

”White guilt is the most important story no one is telling honestly. Not Marxism. Not woke ideology. Not suicidal empathy. Those are symptoms. White guilt is the disease that allows these other ideologies and behaviors to take hold. It’s the grease that makes all of it possible, and until we name it clearly, we have no chance of reversing it.”

And then Owen Anderson (his recent podcast with me is worth a listen) wrote in The Blaze:

Are you guilty? That depends. Are you white? Then yes, you are guilty. But whiteness is no longer the only offense. Believe in God? Believe Christ saves sinners? Believe in objective morality, the rule of law, or marriage between one man and one woman? Then skin color hardly matters. You are guilty anyway.

Guilty of what? Guilty of the sins of history, the inequities of the present, and whatever new offense the racial racketeers invent tomorrow. At least that is what grifters like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo have spent years selling to America, often for staggering sums underwritten by universities eager to flatter the ideology. Arizona State University, where I teach, has offered classes on the problem of whiteness. ASU’s Barrett Honors College teaches the evils of settler colonialism…

Much of the left’s social justice industry runs on a simple formula: Manufacture guilt, divide people by race, promise absolution, then collect money, influence, and institutional power. Sell moral panic to well-intentioned Americans, then invoice them for redemption.

Want to end racism? Write a check. Sign the DEI pledge. Sit through the seminar. Keep your head down while the consultants explain that your skin makes you complicit and your silence proves your guilt.

(Read more.)

Share