Curfew for Anniversary of Odessa Massacre That Sparked Rebellion

Consortium News

Odessa has imposed a two-day curfew on the anniversary of the burning alive of anti-Maidan protestors on May 2, 2014, reports Joe Lauria. 

By Joe Lauria

Authorities in the Ukrainian port city of Odessa have set a 24-hour curfew from May 1-3 to prevent protests commemorating the burning alive on May 2, 2014 of 48 people who had rejected the U.S.-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year.

The city, which is  “(under the control of Ukrainian troops) announced the introduction of a ‘curfew’ in the city from 22-00 on May 1 to 5-00 on May 3. For the duration of the ‘curfew’ Odessans are not allowed to leave their homes,” said the group Repression of the Left and Dissenters in Ukraine in a Telegram post. “Obviously, this decision of the authorities is due to the fact that May 2 is a very important date for the inhabitants of Odessa.”

On that day eight years ago hooligans and far-right groups deliberately set fire to a labor union building where protestors against the coup had taken refuge.  Police did not intervene. Video footage shows at least one police officer and others firing their guns into the building. The crowd is cheering as many of the people trapped inside jumped to their deaths.

The events of that day “have not yet been investigated by law enforcement agencies of Ukraine,” the group said. Pleas at the time from the United Nations and the European Union for Ukraine to investigate were ignored. Three Ukrainian local government probes were stymied by the withholding of secret documents.

report on the incident from the European Council (EC) at the time makes clear it did not conduct its own investigation but relied on local probes, especially by the Verkhovna Rada’s Temporary Investigation Commission. The EC complains in its reports that it too was barred from viewing classified information. Relying on the local inquiries, the EC reports that  pro-Russian, or pro-federalist, protestors attacked a pro-unity march in the afternoon, prompting street battles. Then:

“At around 6.50 p.m. pro-federalists broke down the door [of the trade union building] and brought inside various materials, including boxes containing Molotov cocktails and the products needed to make them. Using wooden pallets which had supported tents in the square, they blocked the entrances to the building from the inside and erected barricades. When they arrived at the square at around 7.20 p.m., the pro-unity protesters destroyed and set fire to the tents of the Anti-Maidan camp. The remaining pro-federalism protesters entered the Trade Union Building, from where they exchanged shots and Molotov cocktails with their opponents outside. …

At about 7.45 p.m. a fire broke out in the Trade Union Building. Forensic examinations subsequently indicated that the fire had started in five places, namely the lobby, on the staircases to the left and right of the building between the ground and first floors, in a room on the first floor and on the landing between the second and third floors. Other than the fire in the lobby, the fires could only have been started by the acts of those inside the building. The forensic reports did not find any evidence to suggest that the fire had been preplanned. The closed doors and the chimney effect caused by the stairwell resulted in the fire’s rapid spread to the upper floors and a fast and extreme rise in the temperature inside the building.”

The local investigation thus blamed the anti-Maidan protestors for starting the fire throughout the building. But this video, which shows events on that day leading to the fire, depicts the main blaze in the lobby. It shows Right Sector extremists lobbing Molotov cocktails into the building and a policeman firing his gun at it. It does not show any cocktails thrown from the building. It doesn’t show clashes earlier in the day, though one pro-unity protestor says they were attacked at Cathedral Square and they’ve come to burn the anti-Maidan protestors in the building for revenge:


The New York Times buried the first news of the massacre in a May 2, 2014 story, saying “dozens of people died in a fire related to clashes that broke out between protesters holding a march for Ukrainian unity and pro-Russian activists.”

The Times then published a video report that said dozens were killed in a fire, “and others were shot dead when fighting between pro- and anti-Russian groups broke out on the streets of Odessa.” The video narrator says “crowds did their best to save lives.” It quotes Ukrainian police saying a “pro-Kiev march was ambushed … petrol bombs were thrown” and gun battles erupted on the streets.

The late Robert Parry, who founded Consortium Newsreported on Aug. 10, 2014:

“The brutality of these neo-Nazis surfaced again on May 2 when right-wing toughs in Odessa attacked an encampment of ethnic Russian protesters driving them into a trade union building which was then set on fire with Molotov cocktails. As the building was engulfed in flames, some people who tried to flee were chased and beaten, while those trapped inside heard the Ukrainian nationalists liken them to black-and-red-striped potato beetles called Colorados, because those colors are used in pro-Russian ribbons.

‘Burn, Colorado, burn’ went the chant.

As the fire worsened, those dying inside were serenaded with the taunting singing of the Ukrainian national anthem. The building also was spray-painted with Swastika-like symbols and graffiti reading ‘Galician SS,’ a reference to the Ukrainian nationalist army that fought alongside the German Nazi SS in World War II, killing Russians on the eastern front.”

“Every year on May 2, residents of Odessa come to the House of Trade Unions, where the tragedy occurred, to honor the memory of the victims,” the Ukrainian leftist group said. “But also every year on this day they are attacked by representatives of ultra-right groups with the inaction of the police.”

“This year,” the group said, “the authorities decided to prevent any gathering on May 2nd. Everyone who leaves their home on May 2 will be detained under the terms of the ‘curfew.’”

Sparked Donbass Rebellion

“This event became the trigger for the uprising in the Donbass,” Repression of the Left and Dissenters in Ukraine said. Eight days after the Odessa massacre, coup resisters in the far eastern provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, bordering on Russia, voted in a referendum to become independent from Ukraine.

The U.S.-backed coup government then launched a military attack against the breakaway provinces, which continued for nearly eight years, killing thousands of people before prompting Russian intervention in the civil conflict.  Russia says it has proof that the Ukrainian military, which had amassed 60,000 of its troops at the line of contact, were on the verge of an offensive to retake the provinces. OSCE maps showed a dramatic increase of shelling from the government side into the rebel areas in the last week of February.

On Feb. 24 Russia invaded Ukraine with the stated purpose of “de-Nazifying” and “de-militarizing” Ukraine to protect Russian-speakers and the people of Donbass. In a televised address three days before the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin mentioned the events of May 2, 2014 in Odessa.

“One shudders at the memories of the terrible tragedy in Odessa, where peaceful protesters were brutally murdered, burned alive in the House of Trade Unions,” he said. “The criminals who committed that atrocity have never been punished, and no one is even looking for them. But we know their names and we will do everything to punish them, find them and bring them to justice.”

The demonstrators in Odessa that day were protesting the violent overthrow on Feb. 21, 2014 of the democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych. U.S. involvement in the coup is revealed in a leaked telephone conversation between Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the time.

‘Think Of The Mystical Death’

The Letters Of St. Paul Of The Cross:

Think of the mystical death. He who is mystically dead does not think of anything other than to live a deified life….and to await without anxiety all that God arranges for him, cutting off all that is of the outside, so as not to impede the divine work that is realized within the intimate chamber…., where the same powers are attentive to the divine work and to that the divine nativity that is celebrated at every moment and him who has a fortune to be dead mystically. ((The Mysticism of the Passion in St Paul of the Cross,  Ignatius Press, p. 253-254)

 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.  For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does.

John 5:19-20

To die mystically is to die to all that is not Christ in our lives. This process happens as we say no to our natural and fleshly desires and decide to live for Christ and not ourselves. We must be consistent in our NO to ourselves and our YES to Him. But this action of ours cannot fully bring us to this mystical death spoken of by St Paul of the Cross. Only the Lord Himself can bring about this mystical death which is the final blow to our flesh… the work of the Cross in us… and the manifestation of the “mystical birthing” of Christ in us.

We cannot get to this holy place of a “deified life” on our own. We pursue Him, but it is His pursuit of us that will take us to the place in Christ that we cannot get to in and of ourselves.  Our pursuit is what He looks for, our YES, with sacrifice, and when He sees that, He is quick to help us to go further than we ever could go on our own.  For who can truly love his enemy? Only Christ manifesting His life in us and through us can be and do what He has called of us.  Only He can do what He calls us to do.  We must be His empty vessel: emptied completely of ourselves in order that He can fill us completely with Himself.

What is truly astonishing about this is that Jesus Himself emptied Himself to show us the way.

Who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death,
even death on a cross.

Philippians 2: 6-8

This interior work of the soul is so special that once the soul realizes the manifestation of Christ on the inside, then the soul desires to be ever attentive to the Hand and Voice that is at work. The soul desires that nothing would impede this holy work on the inside and in order to not miss anything the soul must put aside things that are a distraction. One such thing is idle conversation and also listening to things whether it be music or otherwise.  Even ‘Christian’ sermons or worship can impede the Holy Voice within and therefore, everything must be considered before the Divine Interior One before letting anything in.

Silence becomes the most precious treasure in order to be particularly attentive.

Suffering becomes a grace that is treasured because of the bonding to the Suffering Servant.

Humility becomes the happy place of the soul and the soul wants no notoriety because only One deserves to be noticed.

Worry, stress, anxiety is non-existent to the soul in this place because the soul is always waiting upon God for the next instruction and claims no ownership over itself anymore whatsoever. This soul is a completely dead soul to itself and completely alive in Christ.

“Almost All Western Governments Finance Lawful Islamism”

Translations of this item:

Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

See how an ancient manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls supports the Christian view of Jesus as the Messiah.

There I was, reading a translation of the Melchizedek Document—that is, manuscript 11Q13, a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls. And my mouth was hanging open in awe.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a group of mostly Hebrew manuscripts found in the mid-twentieth century that date back to the period between the third century B.C. and the first century A.D. They are a significant resource for understanding the first-century Jewish context of the New Testament.

As for the Melchizedek Document, it details the person of the coming Messiah . . . in terms that read as if they had been copied directly from the New Testament! And this at least a hundred years before Christ was born!

In this article, I’d like to explore some of the details this manuscript relays about the Messiah, and how they corroborate the New Testament’s understanding of Jesus. This will help demonstrate that the New Testament’s claims about the Messiah are legitimately situated within the historical context of Old Covenant interpretations of Scripture.

Revolt Against Reality by Gary Michuta

Many will recall the mysterious figure of Melchizedek, a biblical priest and king of Jerusalem, referenced in the books of Genesis, Psalms, and Hebrews. It is this figure from whom Jesus takes his priesthood, as he is called “a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20).

Some modern readers of the New Testament have the impression that the average Jewish reader in the first century would have found a reference to the Melchizedekian priesthood in relation to the Messiah puzzling. After all, Jewish priests in the first century were not kings and were known to be priests according to the order of Aaron, not Melchizedek.

But the author of the Melchizedek Document has no trouble identifying the Messiah of Israel as Melchizedek himself. In fact, as Michael Wise lays out in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, the author takes Isaiah 52:7—which tells of “the one who publishes salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns”—and connects it to the figure who is called the “Anointed [that is, the Messiah] of the Spirit.” What is even more incredible is that St. Paul, writing in Romans 10:9-10, applies Isaiah 52:7 to the preaching of the gospel of Jesus, which show that the New Testament corroborates this verse as a messianic prophecy. All of this demonstrates that the New Testament was not unusual in connecting the figure of the Messiah to the Melchizedekian priesthood.

Some maintain that the New Testament’s doctrine of the Messiah’s divinity is an entirely novel teaching that clashes with its Old Testament roots. For instance, Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest that the teaching is a fourth-century product of the emperor Constantine and the First Council of Nicaea. Similarly, many Muslim apologists claim that the Old Testament and the New Testament are silent on the divinity of the Messiah and that this Christian doctrine was added much later.

Yet the portrayal of the Messiah as divine is not as foreign to the Old Covenant as some may think. The writer of the Melchizedek Document not only calls the Messiah “divine” (Wise 593), but even replaces God’s divine name (Yahweh) in Isaiah 61:2 with the name of Melchizedek, whom the author already characterized as the Messiah. In other words, the author sees the coming Messiah as Yahweh himself! This connection between Yahweh and the Messiah is also corroborated by Jesus, who applies the divine name “I am” (Exod. 3:14) to himself in John 8:58. Consequently, the New Testament’s portrayal of the Messiah as a divine being is not entirely foreign to Jewish tradition.

One of the most troubling stumbling blocks Jews have with the message of the New Testament is that the Messiah was crucified. For them, the Messiah is to rule the nations as a conqueror, not to die at the hands of his enemies. Though Christians believe that this victorious aspect of the Messiah will be fulfilled in his second coming, some biblical scholars have noted that the prophecy in Daniel 9:20-27, which speaks of the Messiah being “put to death,” includes a timetable that coincides with the life of Jesus. (See Bergsma and Pitre, A Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament.) This means there must be two phases to the Messiah: one where he is killed and one where he is victorious.

Interestingly, the author of the Melchizedek Document applies Daniel’s prophecy to the figure of the Messiah, who he also says will release the people of Israel from their sins (Wise, 592). He then connects this figure to the one predicted in Isaiah 61:2, who Jesus claimed to be in Luke 4:16-21. This means that the author believes that the Messiah would be killed, and that his death would atone for the sins of Israel.

Jesus also corroborates the messianic nature of the figure in these texts. Thus, the concept that the Messiah would be killed and atone for the sins of Israel is a notion native to Old Covenant believers. This is stunning, considering that Jewish apologists ardently maintain that the Old Testament nowhere indicates that the Messiah would die, in spite of the suffering servant described in Isaiah 52-53, which they interpret to be the corporate body of Israel, not the Messiah.

For many years, the Dead Sea Scrolls remained largely untranslated and inaccessible to most people. Some speculated that this was because they contradicted Christianity, so Christian translators weren’t overeager to expose a devastating historical counterpoint to their worldview. Conspiracies over what the scrolls actually said abounded—perhaps they showed that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity was heretical, or they confirmed the message of Islam. These conspiracies amassed until there was a breakthrough, and the documents were translated in their entirely. And as it turns out, the Dead Sea Scrolls don’t contradict the Christian message—and, moreover, they actually provide a precedent for parts of the New Testament that some critics of Christianity claim clash with the prophecies and narratives of the Old.

I submit that the Melchizedek document further strengthens this thesis by connecting the Messiah to the figure of Melchizedek, equating the Messiah to Yahweh, and relating the Messiah to the one who is killed for the atonement of Israel.

Two of the pope’s astrophysicists discover a new technique to study the Big Bang



The scientists say that this “new perspective” could provide a better understanding of the beginnings of the Universe.

Two astrophysicists from the Vatican Observatory claim to have discovered a “radically new mathematical approach to the initial moment of the Big Bang,” the Holy See Press Office announced in a statement on April 29, 2022.

Fathers Gabriele Gionti and Matteo Galaverni are questioning the reliability of the mathematical approach to gravity known as the “Brans-Dicke gravitational theory” and propose a “very promising new technique for understanding the behavior of gravity in the very first moments of the universe.”

In an article published on April 15 in the prestigious journal Physical Review D, the two Italian priests envisage the existence of a new “framework” for apprehending gravity in which “the gravitational force extends to infinity while that the speed of light approaches zero.” This “new perspective” could both provide a better understanding of the beginnings of the Universe, the theories on its “rapid initial expansion,” in particular that of the Russian Alexei Starobinsky, and the search for a “more general quantum theory of seriousness,” say its authors.

These two priests place themselves, through their work, in the prestigious line of Catholic scientists who have advanced physical science. They recall the contributions of Fathers Giovanni Battista Riccioli and Francesco Maria Grimaldi on gravity in the 17th century (who discovered the phenomenon of acceleration due to gravity) and Georges Lemaître, inventor of the theory known today as of “Big Bang theory” at the beginning of the 20th century.

Created in 1891 by Leo XIII, the Vatican Observatory, based in Castel Gandolfo, aims to “show the world that the Church supports good science.” Today, it mainly operates from Tucson in Arizona (USA) where a high-tech telescope has been installed to take full advantage of the starry sky.