The guiding principle of Sharikov
A still from the film "Heart of a Dog"
Today, the Ukrainian parliament passed Law 8371, which aims to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
At the same time, none of them may have even considered the historical parallels, because on 20 August 1918, Soviet authorities issued a decree abolishing private property, essentially not only depriving citizens of their right to this property but also declaring the state's right to seize it.
Law 8371 belongs to the same category: the state decided it can seize property – of the Church, monks, believers...
It turns out that Sharikov's words "take it and divide it" remain a guiding principle for most politicians today.
And, perhaps for this reason, "Heart of a Dog" is banned in Ukraine: lawmakers see themselves in Bulgakov's immortal work.
Read also
Portrait of the “сonscience of the nation”
Shevchuk waxes eloquent about the uniqueness of the Ukrainian nation and the value of human life – while supporting the sweeping mobilization that is grinding that very nation down.
OCU in the Lavra: When a recording replaces the choir
Parishioners have been pushed out of the Lavra. The monks are barred from the churches. But there is room for a handful of OCU “monks.”
Sviatohirsk murder no one is allowed to talk about
Logic suggests that Zelensky was informed about the monk’s murder that very day.
Sviatohirsk Lavra tragedy: A confession of faith or not?
The killers came to the monastery and, after hearing the words “Glory to our Lord God” in response, began to kill. What matters is that the victims were given a choice: they could give the “right” answer and escape death.
Have the talking points on the Sviatohirsk murder already been rolled out?
Espreso gives viewers the unmistakable impression that nothing particularly terrible happened – and that no one should feel too sorry for the “Moscow Patriarchate monks.”
Why are a rabbi and an exarch pleading for corruption suspects?
The rabbi and the exarch are both highly intelligent men and cannot fail to understand that their actions are dealing a serious blow to their reputations. Yet they still went to court. Why?