Site icon Fitzpatrick Informer

A response to Father Michael Ruskin regarding the Russia deception

Anti-Christian Soviet propaganda. Perhaps this rendering has dual meaning. On one hand, the Soviets portray the church as a religious snare, but on the other hand, perhaps they are crytpically telling Russians of the Soviet control of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

*The following is in response to comments made by Father Michael Ruskin of Christ the Saviour Antiochian Orthodox Church of New Zealand to my open letter on the Russia deception.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 5, 2018 Anno Domini

Dear Father Michael,

Your sobering reminder about the daily battle within ourselves is without a doubt the most important battle in our day-to-day lives. The Holy Scriptures warn us that the ultimate struggle is not with flesh and blood but with things of the spirit. How correct this is.

But let us realize that communism and its subsidiaries are not merely physical and political constructs with which to enslave humans beings. They are deeply spiritual—so much so that Patriarch Tikhon died to protect his flock from its spiritual perversion, not just its physical oppressiveness. It is not called “Godless communism” without good reason. In hindsight, Tikhon was justified in moving the Church into the catacombs, as the resulting Marxist churches (permitted by Lenin and the Soviets) that sprang up in both East and West (Vatican II) would evolve and attempt to replace the true one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Prior to its Marxist infiltration, the Vatican also issued grave warnings about the communist threat. The Eastern and Western Churches were in complete agreement on this. But where are these warnings in the new Sovietized churches? No where. They don’t exist. Communism/Marxism is no longer a threat, they have us believing.

Is Putin doing anything more than Lenin in permitting the existence of the Sergian church in Russia and its subsidiaries in the West? Where is the rebirth of authentic Orthodoxy in Russia today? Shouldn’t this be reflected in Russia’s statistics, which have sky-high abortion rates, broken families, and essentially the same problems as the “evil” West? How many Russians even know of the Catacomb Church? In truth, both Putin and Lenin are responsible for the rebirth of the orthodox church—a Soviet mongrelized church. Patriarch Kirill follows the Sergian line of illegitimate succession, it seems. And lo and behold, Kirill is “former” FSB. During the Red Terror, the Soviets created schisms within the true Church and even honeypot “anti-Soviet” traditional churches to lure the flock to their deaths. How can we be sure Putin will not (perhaps he already has) do the same? Golitsyn claimed in the 1980s-90s that the crypto-Soviet power would offer concessions to the Church—effectively gambits—as part of its long-range strategy to woo social conservatives. And this is exactly what happened. In the following quote, Golitsyn speaks of the subversion of the Church.

“It fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion.” (pg. 116, The Perestroika Deception)
Brother Maurice Pinay spoke in the 1960s of the same phenomenon of subversives entering the Catholic priesthood. It seems the same has happened in the Orthodox Church. Both Kirill and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, are ecumenists who espouse communist views. This only corroborates Golitsyn’s warnings.

Golitsyn narrows down Russia’s false democratisation plot and concludes with,

“It is, however, a false, cosmetic liberalisation. For example, the alleged religious relaxation is a spectacle produced and managed by the KGB and the high priests of the church who are KGB agents assigned to fulfill the strategy…In the present phase, secret agents in the Catholic and other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy. When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of their agents to disrupt and destroy the churches. Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction. The dictum of the late Pope Pius XII about the incompatibility of Communism and religion is as correct as ever. The Vatican should reaffirm this dictum and should use its influence and its ‘divisions’ to defend Western values from the new Communist assault. (pgs. 189, 116-117)

Keep in mind that Golitsyn said all of this long before Kirill became patriarch. Can you honestly say to yourself that it’s a mere coincidence that the “tobacco” metropolitan happened to be pulled from communist ranks of the KGB?
The idea that the Russian Federation is the last bastion of Christian orthodox theocracy and, therefore, must defend itself is a wonderful one, but it does not stand under scrutiny. Firstly, many proponents of this perceived Russian-theocratic state point to the number of NATO military bases surrounding Russia as an indication that Russia is not an aggressor but is, instead, only acting defensively. But they can’t seem to explain how this supposedly superior Western-led NATO military occupation couldn’t manage to stop Russia from annexing Crimea, much less retaliate. Aside from a few show sanctions imposed by then U.S. President Obama (a secret communist himself) and other Western nations following the annexation, we didn’t so much as see a budge from a single NATO tank in response. Why? The only two conclusions one can come to is that NATO and the West are not militarily superior to Russia and her allies or, worse yet, the two sides are in on the charade together. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only one time, following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks—provoking a Western-led military campaign in which Russia acted quite passively, even endorsing the U.S. narrative of things. Is NATO really anything more than just a show army designed to trick Westerners into thinking the communist threat is being dealt with while the threat actually becomes stronger? I fear this may be the case, especially seeing as the Soviet plan involves dismantling NATO by subversion, not by guns—the same way the Church is being co-opted.

In the spirit of Lenin and his living student Aleksandr Dugin, defenders of Russia point to the infectious moral decay of the West and how this legitimizes Russia’s social and geopolitical manoeuvrings. While this is true about the West’s moral decay, these defenders don’t seem to be asking themselves what the motive is behind these charges. It’s one thing to point out immorality from a Christian perspective but quite another to point it out for strategic reasons. Is Russia portraying the West as evil because it is truly evil or is it doing so to weaken its morale? I can’t count how many Westerners I have seen cheering on Russian (Soviet) penetration of the West thinking it will destroy globalism. How ironic and twisted. These same also fail to acknowledge the large Soviet hand in furthering the moral decay of the West. Soviet penetration of Western governments is one thing, but when you have Soviet penetration of the education system, it becomes all the more obvious how we got to where we are today. The Western counter-culture revolutions of the 1960s were largely hatched in the Soviet Union. Are we supposed to forgive and forget all of this because the media has shouted from every rooftop that communism has fallen? And why should we trust the media, when it is part of the morally decayed West? Think about how we learned of the fake collapse of communism: from Western media. If the “evil” West truly hated “orthodox” Russia, you would think they would have been a little more prudent in assessing the validity of the purported fall of communism. Why was it immediately accepted without any kind of investigation? The crypto-Soviet empire of Russia is playing a classic globalist dialectic of creating the problem: cultural Marxism in the West, and offering the solution: neo-Bolshevik one worldism led by Russia.

Father Ruskin, you claim that the European Union is collapsing of its own volition, but consider that Europe’s largest economy resides in Germany, whose head Angela Merkel happens to be a “former” Soviet. It’s reasonable to say that Germany sets the tone for the EU. All Russia would have to do to manipulate the EU is have at least one rogue EU state under its control; although, I am sure it’s actually more than just one. Germany fits this hypothesis.
It could be said that Merkel is the single biggest saboteur of EU migration norms. With Merkel being a communist in the service of the crypto-Soviet Union, it seems that “Russia” is leading the campaign to de-Europeanize Europe. Yet, we are being told the opposite by Western Russophiles. Is it just a coincidence that Dugin’s Eurasian utopia concept is consistent with Kalergi’s Pan-European utopia?

As for Putin’s so called social conservatism, Russia recently has just had its first legal same-sex marriage. Russia’s decades of strategic corruption of Western mores has finally returned to its master. It’s now only a matter of time.
And blaming the West will be invalid, as the Soviet Union was pretty much the birthplace of the sexual revolution. In their occultic vision, the serpent’s head has reached its tail.

Your concluding statement, “It’s drawing a long bow to suggest they resurrected the Church to lull us into a false calmness before deceptively overwhelming us,” describes what Golitsyn explains as failed Western analysis of the Soviet threat. And as the above quotes show, this is exactly the kind of sophisticated enemy with which we are dealing. This is not about fearing the Kremlin and its diabolical plans but about discerning it…in righteousness.

Respectfully yours,
Timothy Fitzpatrick

Exit mobile version