Also see:

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
October 13, 2026 Anno Domini
Pictorial

The purpose of this critique of the Fatima apparition is to illustrate the similarities between the Fatima apparition and UFO apparitions from the standpoint that UFOs are actually demonic manifestations in technological disguise, according to this age. Therefore, the evidence seems to suggest that the Fatima apparition is really a demonic manifestation posing as a being of light (in this case, the Blessed Virgin Mary). For more on skepticism of Fatima officialdom, click here.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
October 8, 2026 Anno Domini

A purported lineage document has surfaced online showing that Putin’s brain Alexander Dugin had a Jewish grandfather, supporting evidence the occultist is secretly advancing Jewish interests.

The document—posted by an apparent Russian Jew living in Tel Aviv, Israel, who runs a Jewish genealogy site—appears to be an archival record from a Moscow synagogue. The right-hand column shows Dugin’s grandfather to be “Akiva Abramovich”.

In January this year, an unrelated post from ssmirnoff of Russian social media platform Live Journal corroborated Dugin’s Jewish lineage by saying Dugin’s father was “a halakhic Jew” (halacha refers to the collective body of Jewish law, which would include the Talmud and Kabbalah) and an “urka” (gangster). Perhaps both his father and grandfather were Jewish.

In an article published by dissident Soviet historian Vladimir Pribylovsky on his site anticompromat.org, the late author claimed Dugin only pretended to be an anti-Semite and that he and Islamic Russian-Azerbaijani philosopher Geydar Dzhemal were expelled from a Russian nationalist organization for being “Jewish Masonic agents and Zionists”. Pribylovsky may have been referring to the National Bolshevik Party which Dugin claims he voluntarily left in 1998. Pribylovsky’s claim was from his memoir about Avrom Shmulevich, a Eurasianist and Russian kabbalist rabbi who admitted that Kabbalah is political and associated with Communism.

”Jewish youth are still very noticeable in all kinds of radical organizations—up to National Bolsheviks and Russian ultra-nationalists,“ Shmulevich admitted in a 2006 article.

One of Dugin’s National Bolsheviks Ruslan Sumkov participated in a Kabbalist convetion in Tel Aviv, Israel. Another member of Dugin’s Nazbols is Jewish agitator Vladimir Linderman. Not only is Dugin’s Nazbol movement affiliated with Jews, so is his “old believers” movement, a schismatic sect from the Russian Orthodox Church. Even the close friends of perennialist philosopher Rene Guenon, Dugin’s role model, “were both Jews and Kabbalists”. With crafting Putin’s conservative image in the halls of St. Petersburg State University, Dugin had help from Jew Mikhail Leontyev.

In 2012, Socialist Stephen Shenfield wrote that Dugin’s Eurasianism was borrowed from early Jewish Eurasianist Yakov Abramovich Bromberg and that Dugin envisioned a dialectical struggle between Eurasianist Jews and Atlanticist Jews. Russian Zionist Avigdor Eskin, also a Eurasianist, hinted that Dugin was Jewish when he spoke of his similarity as a Jewish leader to Soviet Jewish oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.

Perhaps, though, the most convincing evidence that Dugin is Jewish is his ringing endorsement of Jewish Kabbalah:

“The kabbalah tradition is the greatest achievement of the human spirit.”

The wizard also said Jewry, freemasonry, and anti-Catholicism were the best part of Polish history. “Muslims and Jews are not just our partners, but our brothers”. What solves the dilemma of Dugin’s possible Jewishness and his sometimes superficial anti-Semitism is that he is only referring to “Atlanticist” Jews or Western liberal Jews when he speaks negatively of them. Eurasian Jewry is king!

Dugin playing the anti-Semite while actually advancing Jewish interests as a Jew would be nothing new for the Kremlin. It is consistent with the Soviet Operation SIG (Zionist Government), which is still in effect. This operation uses a feigned anti-Semitism to galvanize animosity against the capitalist West using anti-Zionism (that America and Great Britain are Zionist-occupied states).

For more, see this site’s lengthy dossier on Dugin.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Idaho-based agent provocateur David Reilly made several accusations Tuesday that call into question the legitimacy of the persona of famed alt Catholic personality E. Michael Jones.

Reilly’s post on X, which was soon after deleted, alleged that the 78-year-old Jones made millions with his help, was abusive to employees and even his own children, and encouraged his own son to get a divorce. Reilly, who once worked for Jones’s Culture Wars Magazine as a digital media producer and columnist, also alleged Jones had been slandering Reilly.

“I worked with EMJ and made him MILLIONS of dollars, and he has spent years seething and lying about me,” Reilly said in the post.

“I guess it’s fair game to reveal to the world that @EMichaelJones1 (sic) pressured his son Peter to get a divorce from his wife, which he had 10 kids with,” Reilly continued. “He’s also been abusive to both his employees and children.”

The outburst from Reilly, a popular online pro-Kremlin operative, follows an earlier post on X by Nathanael Kapner, another pro-Kremlin alt media personality, in which Kapner announced he would be appearing on a podcast with Jones this Friday to “expose pedo sex crimes of SSPX and David Reilly’s cover up”. It also follows a previous post several months ago where Reilly posted video footage of Jones apparently making the heil Hitler salute, to which Jones countered was merely made in jest and edited to make him look bad.

“This is your big ‘Catholic’ theologian everyone,” Reilly went on to mock Jones in the post.

That Jones might be abusive to those around him is disturbing, especially being a so called Catholic. American Attorney David Wemhoff, who apparently knew Jones, in 2016 described him as a “malignant narcissist”. Reilly has also accused Jones of being a narcissist on more than one occasion. Watching Jones on his videos and listening to his podcasts, it seems that Jones likes to dominate, so perhaps none of these accusations should come as a surprise.

Traditional Catholics tend to perceive Jones as being docile to the reforms made at the controversial Second Vatican Council, so if the accusation is true that Jones encouraged his son to get a divorce, something which is highly discouraged and difficult to obtain from the Church, according to traditional Catholic teaching, perhaps they are correct that Jones is indeed a modernist, or a wishy washy Catholic. Jones’ adherence to Catholic Orthodoxy is already in question due to his associations with occult perennialists like Alexander Dugin, Jones’ outspoken Islamophilia, and Jones’ fixation on the depersonalized and universalist descriptor for Jesus Christ as “Logos”. Jones has also been outspoken in condemning the Latin mass, which is the Church’s original form of the Holy Liturgy and is permitted in the Church even today, although scaled back in most parishes. An interesting anecdote can be found online favourable to Jones and mentions in passing that Jones wears sandals to mass (presumably the Novus Ordo mass). According to Catholic teaching, wearing sandals to mass is considered irreverent and inappropriate attire.

Lastly, the accusation by Reilly that Jones is a millionaire tends to show Jones as a hypocrite. While strongly denouncing capitalism and the West and being promoted by Marxist media outlets, he has no problem making a lucrative living, presumably selling books. There is a growing body of evidence that Jones might be pursuing a Communist agenda and certainly his anti-Western, pro-Eurasian rhetoric is useful to KGB objectives.

This latest controversy is highly ironic considering that all three players involved, Jones, Reilly, and Kapner, all seem to be pursuing the same anti-Western, pro-Kremlin agenda, although through slightly different means. Recently, Kapner claimed to have converted to Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy, to which Jones was very welcoming.

Reilly claimed he has a trove of documents on Jones’ dirty laundry and suggested he would release them, but as of this writing, nothing more has been posted on X by Reilly and his deleted post has not been re-instated.

Jones’ son Peter is not the son married to a Russian national that this author wrote about in 2023.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 26, 2026 Anno Domini

Disclaimer: this is not a personal attack on individual sedevacantists. I have those whom I would call friends that are sedevacantists; however, I do reject sedevacantism even though I might sympathize with the well-intentioned motives of some of its subscribers.

What is an “approved” private revelation if it is not dogma and not part of the magisterium?

The answer to this question cannot seem to be found among the staunchest advocates of the Fatima apparition, yet they blast this term “approved” as if it signifies a Papal Bull or something even greater. Yet, it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything, other than that the local bishop at Fatima found it “worthy of belief”.

Hyperpapalism to the rescue!

“Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself,” writes sedevacantist blogger Introibo Ad Altare Dei in an article about why all Catholics ought to believe in the Fatima apparition. “To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church–i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.”

Just as sedevacantists need to invoke the over-developed and ultimately erroneous concept of hyperpapalism (generally speaking, the idea that anything a legitimate pope says or does can never be wrong) to make the sedevacantist position true, Introibo has found a clever way of elevating Fatima to some level that the Catholic Church does not allow. Divine revelation has the protection of infallibility, but private revelations do not, no matter how spectacular they may be. However, because of the sedevacantist’s disordered understanding of papal infallibility (defined at the First Vatican Council), they don’t seem to differentiate and, instead, just imply that everything coming from the Holy See is infallible, including declarations on private revelations.

Most defenders of the Fatima apparition when faced with skepticism from fellow Catholics will admit that belief in it is not necessary in order to be a Catholic in good standing, but some will resort to some form of shaming (i.e., “he must be a weak Catholic if he can’t see that Fatima is true” or “he is missing out on blessings”). I’ve personally experienced this shaming as a skeptic and rejector of the official Fatima position (I do believe something appeared to the seers but reject its claim of a heavenly source). The shaming is uncharitable but very real and sometimes even seems like a form of virtue signalling.

Introibo warns, “when people start to cast doubt (or worse, aspersions) upon approved private revelations, it only serves to sow doubt in the Church during the Great Apostasy, with no pope to answer inquiries and settle disputes.”

This statement demonstrates Introibo’s desire to make private revelations dogmatic (which they are not and never will be) because it fits the hyperpapalist narrative that a valid pope, specifically Pope Pius XII, can never err, no matter what (is Introibo’s concern really for Fatima or is it about uniformity in his ecclesiology?). But more concerning about this line of thinking, if a Catholic’s faith hinges on the veracity of a private revelation, the sincerity of their faith is in question. Introibo does not address this glaring problem. If someone initially converts to the faith based on the impressiveness of a private revelation that they experienced or heard about but then is poorly catechized, or not catechized at all, is the person’s faith grounded or even valid? Private revelations can never be the core of a true believer’s faith; at most, they can only direct one to the Church, where they will then learn the nuts and bolts of the faith and begin a journey to establish a true and solid faith in God. If someone leaves the Catholic Church because another sowed a seed of doubt about a private revelation they cherished, that person obviously was a lukewarm believer, at best. Our Lord Jesus Christ emphatically rebuked the lukewarm and those who build their houses on sand instead of rock. Introibo’s scare tactic here is baseless. He is defending those with houses built on sand. The faithless who dabble with Catholicism will eventually and naturally select themselves out of the Church.

Introibo goes on to argue his case for Fatima by appealing to the “it’s approved” narrative and that Pius XII could not have erred in any way, yet it’s all irrelevant seeing that private revelations do not have the protection of infallibility. One hundred quotes from popes and theologians will not change this fact. Furthermore, just because it is approved now does not mean it always will be. The Church has changed its position on private revelations before and during the “valid popes era”, so sedevacantists cannot make excuses. With so much error in the Church today and even in the lead up to the Second Vatican Council, can we really expect the Church to effectively appraise the legitimacy of Fatima as a supposed apparition from God? Perhaps in time, yes, as was the case with the Vatican’s recent ruling against the heretical “co-Redemptrix” push by the SSPX and Trad Incorporated. Trad Inc. concluded that the ruling was yet more evidence of the Church’s apostasy, yet the opposite was the case. The rejection of “co-Redemptrix” was the Church’s indefectibility shining through the darkness that has been increasing around the Church. Though the Church is currently ruled by corrupt men, Christ’s promise prevailed despite this and the Church extinguished a threat to the immutable deposit of faith, specifically to Christ’s exclusive role as redeemer, the Holy Trinity in general, and God’s sovereignty. How ironic that Trad Inc. perceives this as the work of the devil but can’t entertain the possibility that Fatima might be the work of the devil.

It’s interesting that even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith and that in evaluating the veracity of private revelations, the Church “cannot accept those which claim to surpass or correct that definitive Revelation which is Christ.” This is exactly what is happening with the Fatima movement today. Instead of seeking the Book of the Apocalypse on future matters, Fatimists are consulting the words spoken by the apparition at Fatima. This suggests the prophetic works spoken by the apparition somehow surpass those of the Book of the Apocalypse. This has led many Catholics to the erroneous idealization of the state of Russia, because according to the Fatima apparition and the writings of Fatima seer Sister Lucia, Russia may lead a revival of Christianity so long as it is consecrated to Mary—something contrary to the Book of the Apocalypse, which allows no conditional prophecy of a future revival but instead warns of unconditional, guaranteed apostasy.

Introibo tries to turn the Catcheism on its head by saying that papal encyclicals are infallible and, therefore, because Fatima has been mentioned positively in encyclicals, that means that Fatima, too, is infallible and the faithful are obligated to accept it as true. Again, sedevacantists fail to recognize the complexity of papal infallibility and reduce it to the carte blanche rule of a Henry VIII-type despot. In reality, papal encyclicals are not infallible of themselves, meaning they have limited infallibility, such as when they are repeating elements of the deposit of faith. Since Fatima is not part of the deposit of faith, Pius XII’s inclusion of Fatima in some of his encyclicals does not fall under the protection of infallibility, even though the rest or parts of those encyclicals might. Furthermore, the statement made by the Bishop at Fatima calling the apparition worthy of belief would also not fall under the protection of infallibility. As well intentioned as his statement might have been, it is not necessarily error free. The Church’s change of stance on other private revelations contradicts Introibo’s insinuation that private revelations are dogmatic or that they ought to be accepted by the faithful.

I’ll save it for another article to debate the technical aspects of Fatima, but Introibo’s use of the “miracle of the sun” as proof of its authenticity is desperate, as the event is one of the more dubious aspects of the Fatima narrative. No world observatories or witnesses outside of the region of Fatima reported any abnormalities with the sun on the day the sun supposedly danced over Fatima. Surely, if it were the sun that danced, there would have been witnesses worldwide and the scientific community would have documented the event with its specialized equipment. So, we can only conclude that it wasn’t the sun but something else…something resembling the sun that the peasant Fatima attendees lacked the vocabulary to describe. For the Catholic authorities not to challenge this fanciful claim is highly suspect (keep in mind that the Vatican 2 orchestrators were already in the Vatican at the time Fatima was being assessed, and the so called traditional, conservative Pius XII had already laid the groundwork for the reforms that were soon to come). Fatimists will often object to logical arguments like mine and dismiss them by saying that God chose for some to see it and others not to. This is how they get around the problem of no witnesses outside of Fatima.

I won’t get into the rest of Introibo’s arguments for the authenticity of Fatima because I want to save it for a general article debunking the main claims of the narrative, but I will talk a bit about one more thing before I end this.

Introibo seems to minimize criticism of the Fatima narrative by reducing it to a mere five objections, even though there are many more theological and logical problems with it. The objections he brings up are: that the apparition was dressed immodestly (which is substantiated by primary source documents; although accounts vary); that Fatima was predicted by occultists; that Lucia made predictions that didn’t come true; and that the Fatima seers were given communion from a chalice (the real objection not addressed by Introibo is that a supposed angel dispensed the Communion). The claim that the apparition was dressed in a higher-than-normal dress/skirt for the fashion of that time is substantiated from the source documents of Fatima. I have read it myself (translated from the Portuguese). I will include this in my future article debunking Fatima. Introibo downplays the fact of occult groups predicting supernatural phenomena on the days that they happened by saying that it’s just demons attempting to co-opt the supposed Holy message of Fatima. Yet, it’s equally possible that the Vatican could have co-opted a demonic manifestation for its own agenda. It wouldn’t be the first time the Church has declared something a miracle but later debunked.

I hope that I have demonstrated here that lurking behind at least some of the Fatima allegiance is not necessarily faith in God but an adherence to a distorted understanding of the Church and papal infallibility—the same misunderstanding at the foundation of the sedevacantist schism. If Catholics would only adhere to the immutable deposit of faith, which is permanently sealed, we wouldn’t have this schism and we would rightfully discern the fraud that is Fatima.

Please see my index of Fatima skepticism for more.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 18, 2026 Anno Domini

Mystics who took out an ad in a Portuguese newspaper predicting the 1917 Fatima apparition signed it using the name of an occult society tied to Aleister Crowley.

Stella Matutina (latin for “morning star”) was the credit given to one of the ads that successfully predicted the first apparition of Fatima on May 13, 1917, an apparition that was sold as an appearance by the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ. It was one of two ads placed by occult groups in Portugal’s Diário de Noticias and Jornal de Noticias, some two months before the event occurred (another mystic group took out ads in other newspapers also predicting the May 13 apparition).

Although the name “morning star” has references to both Jesus and Satan in Christian theology, the occult world uses it to describe enlightenment through a number of different beings or goddesses. Stella Matutina, however, was the name of a Kabbalistic society that succeeded the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1887-1903), to which belonged British occultist Aleister Crowley, who was once deemed the wickedest man alive, and Crowley’s then secretary Israel Regardie, a Jewish kabbalist who published the Stella Matutina rituals.

Stella Matutina believed that cosmic beings relayed messages to them through the devilish use of trance and automatic writing (spirits direct the author’s pen). A medium calling himself Carlos Calderon, who was allegedly head of one of the Lisbon group of mystics who penned their letter as Stella Matutina, claimed to have channeled a message from cosmic beings (or secret chiefs) using automatic writing and sent it to Diário de Noticias, along with the ads (edition of March 10, 1917). It is not clear whether the newspapers published a facsimile of the automatic written letter; however, accompanying editorials were written by newspaper staff mockingly addressing the prognostications contained in the ads, some of which appeared in the newspaper on the very day of the first apparition, May 13.

Stella Matutina’s allegedly automatic written leader reads,

“It is not thy place to be judges. He who is to judge thee would not favor thy prejudice. Have faith and be patient. It is not our custom to predict the future. The archanes of the future are impenetrable, although, on occasions, God does allow the corner of the veil cloaking it to be slightly displaced. Have confidence in our prophecy. The day 13th of May shall be a day of great joy for all the good spirits of the world [emphasis mine]. Have faith and be good. Ego Sum Charitas (I am Charity). Thou shall always have thy friends at thy side, who will guide thee and help thee on thy work. Ego Sum Charitas. The brilliant light of the Morning Star shall light thy way.”

Crowley was also an automatic writer. He wrote an entire book (The Book of the Law) allegedly channelled to him through a being calling itself Aiwass. At first, Crowley called Aiwass his guardian angel but then later admitted that it was Lucifer. Crowley’s description of another channeled entity of his, “Lam”, bears a striking similarity to what UFO researchers call “grey aliens”.

“I was bound to admit that Aiwass had shown a knowledge of the Cabbala immeasurably superior to my own,” Crowley wrote in his Confessions.

The apparition at Fatima was purported by the children (Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco) to be approximately three-feet tall—a height that is commonly described by UFO contactees for the grey aliens they allegedly encounter. Incidentally, what is little talked about by the Roman Catholic Church are the contradictory eyewitness descriptions of the so called “miracle of the sun” as a silvery, shiny disc, according to a priest present at the Fatima apparition (flying saucers, or UFOs/UAPs are often described as shiny and disc like). What’s also little mentioned is that Lucia initially believed the Fatima apparition was the devil and only later accepted it as the virgin Mary after it was suggested to her by Church authorities.

Is it possible that the Stella Matutina taking credit for the accurate predictions of the Fatima apparitions is the same one that succeeded Crowley’s Golden Dawn order? It seems highly unlikely that an occult group would use the Latin name in its Catholic context but more likely in its occult context. If true, it tends to lend credence to the possibility that the apparitions at Fatima were not the Blessed Virgin Mary but were some kind of demonic manifestations. Also, if the apparitions at Fatima really were Mary, why would the occult world, which hates Jesus Christ, want to draw attention to something associated with Him? Could Crowley, the wickedest man alive, have somehow opened a portal that invited demonic spirits into the physical realm that culminated in the Fatima apparitions?

For more, see the Fatima skeptic’s index.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

It’s puzzled me for years what Kremlin perennialist E. Michael Jones’ primary objective is with his Communist racket over there in South Bend, Indiana.

Sure, he’s a shameless Kremlin toadie and advocate of Communism disguised as solidarism and labour-based value. He knows that cheap, superficial anti-Semitism is a tool with which gradually to acclimate Western conservatives to a backdoor acceptance of Communism. Throw in a few Catholic ideas to make it all legitimate looking and, poof! 

If the elderly Jones is an ideological Communist, then these beliefs are expected, so shilling them wouldn’t really be all that difficult for him. But there are plenty of other “alt-media” covert Communists to push this nonsense. Why would the Kremlin waste basic Commie shilling on a brilliant mind like Jones’? Yes, saturation is important in any shilling operation. But Jones has got to be one of the most intelligent Communists I’ve ever heard of. But even the intelligent can be deceived and can deceive themselves into believing nonsense, especially when lust blinds them. If Jones is as intelligent as he seems to be, then maybe he is not an ideological Communist. He seems to be a power guy, so maybe he feels empowered by Communism, by his Soviet backers, and the hold over others his Communist support affords him. 

Jones’ best work easily is Libido Dominandi, which is all about sexual passion. Jones doesn’t seem to struggle at all in the sexual lust department and knows well its power over those who submit to it. So, perhaps its a different kind of lust that plagues Jones. Perhaps it is a kind of lust for power. It has been said by those who know him that he is a narcissist, and we all know that narcissists thrive on power—even if that power seems insignificant to observers. Narcissists just can’t help themselves. Narcissists tend to be highly intelligent and, like the closely related sociopaths, tend to be wordsmiths (see Author describes E. Michael Jones as a prideful “malignant narcissist” who made himself a martyr for fame).

So, what is this seeming powerguy really up to in his work for the devil? The recurring pattern is Islam. Secondarily, it seems to be Russia, although Soviet power lurks behind both. It’s difficult to tell which narrative Jones shills more, Russia or Islam. Is the objective to get his mainly Catholic, conservative audience to warm up to Islam and Russia in the build up to the coming syncretic one-world religious and economic system, which will be headquartered in the East?

Jones just published on his site an excerpt from his article The West Has Failed: Tolkien, Traditionalism and Islamophobia in his rag Culture Wars, which continues the pattern of Russophilia and Islamophilia.

Jones advocates the tired Gaza genocide narrative as a grifter in Operation SIG and claims that Jewish power is dwindling merely because anti-Zionism is growing (contrary to popular belief, Jewry is not dependent on Zionism). Not only is Jewish privilege not dwindling, it’s increasing, at least among elite Jewry, Chabad—something Jones never talks about (see my article, Most powerful Jewish organization in world Chabad completely absent from E. Michael Jones’ writings).

Jones takes a post on X by a Jew rightfully calling out Muslims as murderers of Christians as another example of “Islamophobia”. Jones knows his audience eat up his cheap anti-Semitism and insinuates that because it was a Jew critical of Islam, it is automatically unwarranted and should, therefore, be dismissed.

“Instead of changing their behavior, they try to generate hatred for Muslims, as the neocons did after 9/11, or hatred of Germans as Morgenthau, Nizer, and Kaufmann did after World War II. All of these narratives are failing as the third republic, the American Empire, and Jewish privilege come to an end.”

Jones talks a lot about Jews needing to change their behaviour—with which we whole heartedly agree—but says nothing about Muslims needing to change their behaviour, when the two squabbling Semitic tribes are both of ill repute. You can tell that his comment about hatred of Germans was an afterthought that he threw in to make it look like his main concern was not solely the welfare of Muslims.

Why does an aging hispter reaping the benefits of capitalism while pushing Communism gain from brownnosing into the dirt a bunch of troglodytic Mohemmedans? He’s bridging the gap. Islamists not only serve as foot soldiers (Soviet Islam) for the revolution, they are the bridge to perennialist universalism. They are the key to Noahidism. Christianity and Judaism are irreconcilable, but Islam can be used to merge them, albeit unnaturally, whether directly or through dialectics.

Back to the article, Jones tells us that the threat of Sharia law in the West is all just alarmism perpetuated by “out-of-state” far Right activists pushing anti-Islamic narratives. Congratulations, Jones, you sound no different than CNN or the anti-Zionist Jewish Left. Why would Jones have a problem with Sharia law or droning Islamic prayer calls in Dearborn, Michigan or Minnesota when Jones himself is more than happy to shout “allahu ackbar” and believes Muslims and Christians follow the same God?

It’s highly suspicious that Jones has not talked about Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmitd’s admission on Russia Today a few years ago that Islam is being used by Jewry to clear out Christendom for the arrival of their false messiah. Jones has a lot to say about the Black-Jewish alliance, but when have you ever heard him talk about the Islamo-Jewish alliance? The Jewish dialectic of using Islam was birthed long before Islam was created (see Fallen angel Metatron told 2nd century Kabbalist sage Simon bar Yochai that Islam would be used to eradicate Christendom on behalf of Jewry).

In the article, Jones creates the perception that any criticism of Islam, whether it be from Tommy Robinson, Cam Higby, or an old man at the corner coffee shop is entirely the work of the Jews. The antics of provocateurs like Robinson may indeed by orchestrated, but Western opposition to Islam is absolutely warranted and imperative. His simpleton readers will not be able to see through this, though, because their understanding of the Jewish question is too shallow. They can’t see beyond the facade of Zionism the collaboration between the Jewish and Islamic elite, much less the collaboration between Russia and Jewry. Jones only focuses on the controlled opposition to Islam (Robinson, et al) because it is the easiest strawman. Jones wouldn’t stand a chance against a legitimate opponent of Islam. Someone like Trevor Loudon would tear Jones to pieces, just like Jones has been torn to pieces by race realists debunking his absurd stance on race.

And who is Jones to single out provocateurs like Robinson, Jake Lang, or Higby, when Jones himself has employed a well known Kremlin agent provocateur, David Reilly? Jones has no problem linking these provocateurs to his former employee, I assume because Jones is claiming ignorance of Reilly’s behaviour and background. How was the intelligent hipster not able to discern Reilly before he took him into his publishing house? And for how long  did Reilly continue to work for Jones while it was becoming more and more apparent his suspicious behaviour (alcoholism, entrapment, provocateuring, etc.)

“Missing from Grok’s database is the article which described Reilly’s attempt to take over Culture Wars magazine and clearly identified him as an FBI agent provocateur. During the early months of his employment as Culture Wars’ media guy, Reilly lived with fellow employee Mike Bajiackas in a rural area northwest of South Bend. Guns were part of that culture, and Mike B. introduced Reilly to Indiana gun culture in a way that would later cause serious problems:”

Jones conveniently glosses over all the things he shares in common with Reilly—to this day—like Russia and Alexander Dugin. Jones then goes on a lengthy tirade crafting the image that Reilly, the FBI, and Mossad were all working together to compromise Culture Wars. If the FBI is using provocateurs like Dave Reilly, it’s on a lower level than state actors like the Kremlin or Iran. Jones is twisting things to make himself come out looking clean, when he is actually as deep into the grifting as Reilly is.

Jones’ propping up of the Islamic ascent to the power of city halls in New York (Zohran Mamdani) and Dearborn (Abdullah H. Hammoud) as bulwarks against Jewish hegemony is laughable. Russian Communists have already claimed Mamdani as one of their own. We can only assume the same applies to Hammoud. Again, Jones is doing his best to ignore or obscure the Muslim-Jewish alliance. He’s a gatekeeper for this most crucial alliance against Christ and His Church.

Jones is a much more polished and reliable Kremlin operative than clowns like Dave Reilly. It’s easy to look better than a clown. Again, they have more in common than they don’t have in common. Operatives turn on each other all the time, especially in the Soviet controlled alt media. This is nothing new. Remember the staged Mark Dice-Alex Jones split that was miraculously healed not long after.

A new narrative has appeared from Jones’ bag of Chabadnik phylacteries. “Catholic Islamophoba”. For this, he blames an author for it, J.R.R. Tolkien, of Lord of the Rings fame. Here, Jones endorses the biggest lie of all time, the Soviet Union collapse of 1991, and portrays Catholic Islamophobia as evolving from anti-Communism. At least he (inadvertently?) admits that the two are one. Forget Mohammedan behaviour being the root cause of “Islamophobia”, it’s a children’s author. Jones made some plausible, unique interpretations of pop culture in Monsters of the Id, but as Jones would say, that Tolkien is responsible for a justifiable “phobia” of Muslims is absolutely preposterous!

But never let a good narrative go to waste.

“Tolkien despised Russia and held the Russians ‘more responsible for the present crisis and choice of moment than Hitler,’ writes Jones.

Tolkien is absolutely correct. Jones is absolutely treasonous. Nazism was a Soviet creation. But when has Jones, the great historian, ever talked about that? 

The excerpt ends and Jones concludes by appealing to, like every good kosher anti-Semite does, to the Balfour declaration, which is a Soviet distraction device (see Soviets founded state of Israel and Zionism; Balfour declaration a decoy). I am not sure where Jones goes with his Tolkien narrative and I refuse to pay him to see the entire article, but it seemed as if he was setting up Tolkien to be a pawn the Jews, as is the case with most of villains in Jones’ head.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

The October Revolution of 1917 was the official commencement of Communism, but the ideological movements leading up to this horrible system were decades, perhaps even centuries, in the making.

Communism should not have come as a huge surprise to most people attuned to world events. The writings of Communist architects Karl Marx and Frederic Engels were widely available and the press had been covering the development of socialist movements in Europe during the latter half of the 19^th century. The Roman Catholic Church even weighed in on the raging debate of competing economic theories with Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum in 1891, some 26 years before the bloody revolution of October.

Yet, the apparition known as the Lady of Fatima—believed by many to be the Blessed Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus Christ (even though the apparition never identified itself as Mary but only as “the lady”)—would wait until after Communism had been established before warning the Church and the world.

What good is a warning from “Our Lady of Fatima” about the “errors of Russia” spreading around the world if it wasn’t publicly available until decades after it was allegedly uttered and Communism entrenched in the world? Fatima’s child seer Lucia, who apparently had no experience as an ascetic and whose own mother doubted her claims, didn’t reveal the lady’s warning until after the Second World War—long after Communism had already been well established in Eastern Europe, Asia, and on its way westward. Wouldn’t it have made sense for the warning to come before the advent of Communism or, at the latest, shortly after the October Revolution? At that point, the warning seems to serve only as a reference point to which the prognosticator can boast, “see, I was right”. It doesn’t appear to serve any other purpose. If the Lady’s warning were truly of God, if wouldn’t have been possible for the apparent divine message to have been hindered or delayed by the actions of men, Lucia included. Yet, Lucia did delay this message reaching the world. Does it really matter why? Does it matter if Lucia was possibly replaced by an impostor later in her life? No. None of that matters. The warning became of no use by the time it was revealed. By that time, the trajectory of international Communism was visible to all, especially to those in the West. What a waste of a good apparition to tell the world of something it could already easily predict on its own. Furthermore, Lenin and Stalin had been open about their plans for world Communism. The apparition’s delayed warning was no spoiler.

Another suspicious aspect of the apparition’s warning is its failure to have also called for the consecration of Red China—the second, equally dangerous pillar of Communist power in the world. The apparition called on only Russia to be consecrated in order to bring world peace. Evidently, the apparition would have us believe that with Russia out of the way, Red China, the Fabian socialists in the West, and the socialists of the Middle East would have surrendered their Communism and a Communist-free utopia would have ensued. Of course, this is all assuming that consecrations by men of the Church, the Pope are guaranteed to work. I suppose free will doesn’t come into play at all. The Fatimists would have us believe that consecration is a guarantee, regardless of the consent and intentions of the to-be consecrated. It’s like some magical formula where the participants (Russia) merely serve as instruments of the magic.

The apparition’s warning that the “errors of Russia” would spread unless the nation was consecrated to her is peculiar. Firstly, I want to point out that the Fatima apparition made a conditional prophecy (do what I say and no bad stuff will happen) that is incompatible with Holy Scripture, specifically St. John’s Apocalypse, which warns of an unconditional apostasy (bad stuff inevitable, sorry). Secondly, if we take the apparition’s meaning of “errors” to mean Communism, which I think most accept as the most logical meaning, then why did the apparition follow it up with “of Russia” when Imperial Russia had been enveloped by the Soviet monolith known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR-CCCP)? Fatimists may dismiss this as semantical, but why should we expect inaccuracy from God? Has God not been absolutely accurate through His prophets? For example, God’s prophets warned us of the prerequisites for the coming of the Messiah using the Seventy Weeks prophecy (from the Book of Daniel), which God allotted exactly 490 years with which to rebuild Jerusalem in preparation for the Messiah. I could offer a defense of the apparition’s choice of words by arguing that Imperial Russia had been heavily infiltrated by Freemasonry and the occult and, therefore; Communism was only one in a list of errors dating centuries back in Russia’s thousand-year history. However, officially, Imperial Rome was a Christian nation, although of the Eastern Orthodox strain. One could respond that Eastern Orthodoxy was yet another one of these Russian “errors”, but Eastern Orthodoxy was not exclusive to Russia. The official seat of Eastern Orthodoxy has been in Constantinople and remains there to this day. Eastern Orthodoxy did not originate in Russia and cannot be labelled a Russia error. What are we to make of the apparition’s choice of words? Is Lucia’s recollection of the lady’s words even accurate? Memory tends to fade over time and Jactina died as a child, so she is not available to corroborate Lucia’s testimony, and Jacinta’s brother (who also died as a young child) couldn’t even hear the apparition but only see it.

Fatimists will defend their position by arguing that the only reason the lady of Fatima has not brought in her era of peace (a narrative with millenarianist tendencies) is because no pope has yet consecrated Russia to the lady’s immaculate heart. But this is false. Four popes—Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and most recently, Francis—have all consecrated Russia to Mary in some form or another. Yet, “Russia’s errors” have not abated and Communism is taking over more and more of the globe day by day. Fatimists will then move the goalposts and argue that those popes weren’t specific enough in their consecrations, and that’s why Communism hasn’t been stopped. I guess Pius XII’s, “we consecrate all the peoples of Russia to the same Immaculate Heart” is not specific enough for them. When that excuse fails, Fatimists will often appeal to a form of sedevacantism (the belief that the Catholic Church has been or is currently without a valid pope) to explain why the popes’ consecrations were invalid or why the current self-professed pope won’t consecrate Russia. It’s an anti-pope plot, they say, to hinder “our Lady”. Many of these Fatimists are not sedevacantists technically speaking (although most actual sedevacantists seem to be ardent proponents of Fatima), but the Fatimists will temporarily endorse it merely to defend the Fatima narrative. The reason Fatimists move the goalposts and abandon their own ecclesiology is because their objective isn’t truth. Their objective is to defend the Fatima narrative, truth be damned. Most sedevacantists agree that Pius XII was a valid pope, so the Fatimist rejection of his consecration of Russia doesn’t really hold water. They are forced to admit that the consecrations did nothing to stop Communism and the lady of Fatima is a false prophetess (obviously not the Blessed Virgin Mary).

There are some Fatimists, yet, who believe that Pope John Paul II legitimately consecrated Russia or at least came close to, and they credit him for the (fake) collapse of Communism in 1991 (some even seem to credit Pius XII’s consecration for the death of Stalin). This is probably the most dangerous position, because this kind of Fatimist is under the delusion that Soviet Communism fell and that, consequently, Russia is about to convert to Catholicism and is evinced by its so called turn to Christianity and national conservatism (neither of which is actually true). If Russia is to lead the world into the anti-Christ, one-world Communist system, like it appears they will do, without God’s grace, these Fatimists will be duped.

]]> https://fitzinfo.net/2025/12/05/fatima-apparitions-errors-of-russia-narrative-full-of-holes/feed/ 4 20521 https://fitzinfo.net/2025/01/21/race-realism-within-a-catholic-context-pt-ii/ https://fitzinfo.net/2025/01/21/race-realism-within-a-catholic-context-pt-ii/#comments Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:54:28 +0000 https://fitzinfo.net/?p=18797 Part I | Part II

The following research and infographics were done by American Reform. Race realism from the Catholic Church in its own words. The arguments from race deniers like E. Michael Jones can be put to rest once and for all.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
December 23, 2023

While many believe that the Soviets were behind the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, insights by Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn indicate that they were not behind it but they did use it to their advantage.

Golitsyn provides several reasons why the Soviets, contrary to popular belief, did not orchestrate the assassination attempt on Polish-born Karol Józef Wojtyła (“Saint” Pope John Paul II) on May 13, 1981. Golitsyn’s theory makes sense. It seems even more plausible when we interpret this assassination attempt under the belief that a). John Paul II was a Communist agent seeking to undermine the Church from within, and b). Poland’s break with the Soviet Union and path to independence was a farce as part of Soviet long-range deception.

Aside from Pope Francis, many believe Wojtyła was one of the worst or even most heretical popes in the Church’s 2,000+ year history. If it is true that John Paul II’s papacy was in line with the Communist agenda, then it would make no sense for the Soviets to assassinate him and would make perfect sense to portray him as an anti-Communist in order to hide his true role as a Soviet subverter.

Here are Golitsyn’s points on the matter, taken from his first book New Lies For Old (1984), pgs. 352-354, published a mere two years after the assassination attempt: