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 Ryan Augustine
November 11, 2024 Anno Domini

The time we live in now is one dominated by online sensationalism of the Left vs. the Right. It is a theater of the absurd where the characters engage in the most provocative charade, actors of the lowest order who grab at our base impulses to goad the mind into beliefs and fantasies as farcical as they are defeating.

Agents and actors both Left and Right “debate” their “principles” against each other in diabolical dialects. Both arguing over Left and Right with the ideological flavors of Communism either feminine or masculine, respectively. For the Left, this is to be expected as the Left is the embodiment of all things gay, weak, and evil—formal communism if you like. For the agents of self-proclaimed Right, it is nothing less than treacherous debasement of the lowest order.

They preach things so self defeating and absurd I would never have believed it possible well meaning conservative folk could buy into it, but alas, we live in strange times, and I believe that God permits us to live out the fulness of our bad philosophy so as to prove its error beyond all doubt. Alas there is a spirit of comic irony which permeates the air of our time, so that notorious agents like E. Michael Jones, who call themselves men of the Right, preach to us the virtues of socialism, foreign dominance, and racial dilution. It is the same with anyone of the balloon men inflated above us as the banner we must rally to. Different airheads of diverse colors who all preach the same destruction to be taken on different paths of socialistic principles. They are as vapid as their vacuous reasoning and as organic as McDonalds.

These people, the likes of Trump, Vance, Eugene Jones, Alex Jones, Fuentes, or any and all of the influential so-called conservatives who steal the headlines, all disagree in a cacophony of catfighting, yet the ensemble of characters all work towards a common cause, and it is not conservatism. For it is false to claim these are men of the West, or that these things are Western, for what do men such as these preach whose essence does not come from the utmost East?

Transhumanism, evolution of man, technocracy, universality, utilitarianism, debasement, immorality, New Age mysticism, racial dissolution, and socialism are at the principles of their arguments when the rhetorical layers are stripped away.

Perhaps the allure of the illusory is because we have forgotten what the West is, which raises the question: what does it mean to be Western?

Does to say one is of the West mean only that one lives in a Western country? What does it matter where one lives if they are judged by their conduct? Are you Western if your home is in England yet you do not live by the customs of the English? Is Westernism nothing more than the coalition of our ruling class, and the status quo of our current culture? That would be a transitory and fleeting thing to be the foundation of our social governance. For, what is trendy today is forgotten tomorrow and the time of the powerful is a river which takes us all to the sea. One would be Western today and not Western tomorrow unless he daily changed his behavior, and only a dead fish moves with the current.

Or perhaps to be of the West is something more, something deeper—a philosophy, an esprit de vide, which echoes from the deep past throughout our history and people and whose faint sounds can be heard in the old buildings when one is quiet enough to listen. The wisdom of our forefathers, faintly heard in the old books, told to their sons for thousands of years, guided by the Holy Ghost and shepherded by holy mother church. Whispers of truth and contradiction to the eastern mysticism of kabbalah and Freemasonry, which one can still hear clearly if he silences the chattering and chirping meant to drown it out.

To be Western is to embrace the wisdom of our progenitors: their Christian faith, customs, ethos, language, and culture—the soil they spilled their blood for and the blood of their people entrenched upon it. These things, taken as a whole, are what we call tradition. Yet, the time in which tradition was created and our time now are radically different. Gone are the landed lords, the agrarian economy of the past, the kings, peasants, and gallant heroes of old. In their place are men of high finance, instant communication, and global industry at scale. Like the agora, the manorial community whereby everyone lived and worked with their neighbor is gone and in its place is a planned community of strangers and aliens and transitory sterilized digital labor. Surely, tradition has no place today? We must have a new order for a new man.

Yet, if tradition is both the wisdom of our people and the guidance of God mixed into one, then it is surely foolishness to cast it aside, for who has the experience of a hundred generations? Who is wiser than the Lord? Just as the principles of tradition were adapted to their times, then the principles of tradition must be kept whole and adapted to our times as well. This we call conservatism. True conservatism proper.

“Bad times, hard times, this is what people keep saying, but let us live well, and times will be good. We are the times. Such as we are, such are the times.”  —Saint Augustine

Conservatism is simply the conservation of the principles of the West in changing times. It stands in opposition to the false dialect of Communist principles embodied by the so-called Right and Left. Just as it is opposed to racial dissolution, welfare, and degeneracy, it is likewised opposed to technocracy, digital isolation, and libertarianism—all of which are flavors of the same poison drink.

Conservatism does not believe in the evolution of man, that man by his own power can rise above his nature. For, if man exists naturally, then by what natural thing may he rise above himself? In all the philosophy of the mystical East; whereby, man can become god, who of that tradition has conquered death? Conservatism professes belief in Jesus Christ, who not only conquered death but founded Holy Mother Church to lead souls to everlasting life. Conservatism believes in the morals and dogmas of the Church in contrast to the degeneracies of the thralls of Kabbalah, like Trump and Musk, who for all their proclaimed godhood lead and promote godless lives.

Conservatism does not believe in the atheistic abstractions of the rights of man; it declares that rights come from God as well as their corresponding duties. If man can give man rights, then man may take any so-called right away. For what does a right become then, if it is no longer judged as right by man? If man is evil and calls evil right, then does not man have a right to evil? Yet, if rights come from God, how then can a right be evil? Conservatism believes that rights are given to man to pursue the good; therefore, a right comes with a duty for the good which is proper to the right. For instance, the right to free speech is not the right to lie, for it comes from God. How can God give man the right to lie, which is sin? The right to property, likewise, comes from God, and are we not accountable to him for the use of the things which are given to us? Woe to those who vainly cry: “only God may judge me!” They will have the judgement they ask for, but will it be the one they want?

Conservatism does not profess socialism; whereby, man is stripped of his rights and only his duty to the state is enhanced, nor does it profess libertarianism; whereby, man has no duty. It does not adhere to these twin Jewish philosophies, which inexorably lead to the same thing—control of all property by the money power. Rather, conservatism believes that all things should be directed to their proper ends. It professes that the right to property, which comes from God, is therefore good, and thus, it is meant to be owned by as many as possible so that it can be put to good use by those who own it. Conservatism does not believe in an economic theory, while economic principles and axioms are most certainly true economics, as a science, in the atheistic study of human behavior under conditions of scarcity. Human beings, however, are not governed by theoretical atheistic abstractions but by the moral law. Thus, conservatism believes that an economy and a society cannot be separated. Therefore, it is the moral good which should be pursued. So that as no two people are the same and every man has different gifts and abilities, both a society and an economy should be as free as possible to let every man pursue his God-given abilities with his God-given rights.

These are some of the principles of the Western tradition. There are many others which conservatism seeks to apply in our times. The use of conservatism to maintain and grow our societies and countries is what we call Westernism. Therefore, a Western country is one which is guided by the principles of tradition. A Western elite pursues a culture of beauty and an economy of ownership and freedom. A Western society is one which is moral and pursues goodness; it uses its power to create new and good things; whereby man, who makes up the society, is lifted up, not by himself, but by the calling of supernatural things higher than himself.

When the enemy calls our rulers Western and, therefore, the works of the countries going back to their founding evil, he plays a game of malice. For are our rulers indeed men of the West? Or are they men of the East? Are our countries now de facto Western? Or are they Eastern? When the enemy speaking for the Right eschews our tradition, are they likewise men of the West? Or are they men of the East? Can a man who claims to be Western, Catholic, and traditional profess a hatred for maintaining the race of the West? A love for socialism? A fidelity with Eastern religions? Manipulation of people through digital technocracy? He is a man of the East and is not a man of the West.

To be a Western man is to embrace tradition, to believe in God, and to do good works. It is to take the gifts which God has granted us and use them to a good end. It is courage in the face of danger, humility when praised, fortitude when tried, perseverance in persecution, hope, charity, and love in evil times.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

The legitimacy of Christ mythicist Adam Green’s entire online persona rests on the idea that he is against Jewish supremacism, whatever that is.

If we can uncover what “Jewish supremacism” means to Adam Green, perhaps, then, we can get a clearer understanding of what his objectives truly are. He seems to use his position of fighting “Jewish supremacism” as a cover for everything he says. If anyone critizes what he says, he can just point them back to his “heroic” fight against the “Jewish supremacists”. This is more the tactic of a cult leader than of a truth seeker.

For Catholics, we oppose world Jewry because of their rebellious behaviour directed against Christ our Lord, His Church, and his moral order in the world (to which every man is subject). We know that their world ambition is based entirely in opposition to Jesus Christ. The Church Fathers have warned us of the nefarious nature of Jews and why they must be resisted, their influence in society restricted, and treated with suspicion but ultimately left unharmed (see the Vatican’s Papal Bull Sicut Judaeis Non).

Anti-Zionism, on the other hand, is a modern-day invention of the Soviet system. It is a dialectical anti-thesis to the supposed thesis of British “colonialism”. This Marxist struggle plays the leading role in the KGB operation known as SIG (Zionist government). This struggle pits the world against a so called British-led Zionist conspiracy. Since Zionism is so new and Israel only a Soviet vassal state, it’s difficult to compare its achievements and/or failures with those of the phenomenon of British Colonialism. But we know for a fact that British colonialism has greatly benefited the world, in a way greater than even the Roman Empire benefited its member nations, and it did so without the use of slavery. Therefore, British colonialism and Zionism share little in common, although Marxists would have us believe they are the same thing. Adam Green’s cheap anti-Zionist cover only furthers this Jewish Marxist conflation, which is ironic considering he claims to oppose Jews, or at least “Jewish supremacism”.

But what is Zionism? It’s merely Jewish nationalism. Every race has the right to its own nationalism. The Old Testament supports this nationalism, although to the rightful heirs of the promise to Abraham—those who would become the Body of Christ through His Church. Is it a coincidence that the nations most dedicated to Christ through His church have been blessed with the many benefits that British colonialism has afforded them? (I would argue that American colonialism is an extension of British colonialism).

Where things can get complicated is when Marxist narratives get mixed up with, for example, Catholic anti-Judaism (as mentioned above). While Catholic anti-Judaism is not anti-Zionist per se (Pope Pius X did condemn the Zionist movement in 1904), it might be reluctant to grant a true homeland (not a Soviet-Rothschild-created one) to world Jewry out of fear of Jewish behaviour and how it might exploit such a scenario in order to harm Christ’s Church and the moral order. Well, this is exactly what has happened, except the Jews didn’t need the state of Israel to accomplish this. Their subversion of the Christian-led world order began centuries before 1948. Therefore, I submit that Zionism itself has not been a major factor in the world’s subversion by Christ’s enemies. It has merely played a dialectical role in the current geo-political mess we have today. It could be argued, then, that Green’s position on “Jewish supremacism” is an anti-racist positon, with Marxist undertones. The reader will realize that anti-racism is entirely Marxist.

Back to Green’s so-called opposition to “Jewish supremacism” as his basis for attacking the Church and Holy Scripture. He loosely bases his notion of Jewish supremacism on the Torah merely because it calls for nationalism and the based idea that God commanded groups of deviants like the Amalek to be wiped out. Again, Israel was protecting its national interests, like any nation should do. Would Green call it supremacist if God commanded the Church today to wipe out the increasingly isane  LGBT movement? I think most conservatives, Christian or not, would call this very based and would support it. If you don’t like what God was forced to do in the Torah due to man’s sins, you can’t also oppose things like the death penalty. You see where I am going with this?

As a side but important note, Green misleads his audience about Torah, insinuating that there is only one Torah with which both Jews and Christians revere equally. In reality there are three, which the Jews interchangeably call “Torah” when it suits them. The Torah SheBeal Peh is actually the Babylonian Talmud, while the Torah SheBichtav is the Tankh (Old Testament). Green further deceives his audience, out of ignorance or malice, by not revealing that the Torah SheBeal Peh is Judaism’s most authoritative out of the three Torahs (Torat Ha-adam is the third and is a rabbinical legal treatise), while Christianity reveres only the Tanakh and condemns the Talmud and rabbinical writings.

If Green is against nationalism, he has to be for globalism. If Green is for globalism, his opposition to Jewry is as fake as three-dollar bill and our suspicious must be correct that he is using a cheap form of anti-Zionism to carry out an anti-Christian agenda (all anti-Zionism is cheap, for that matter. It’s just a Marxist means to an end). If Green is against British Colonialism, as any good anti-Zionist should be, then he has bought into Marxism and he is even less trustworthy.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Christ mythicists like Joseph Atwill, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, and Adam Green (none of whom are historians or religious scholars) don’t like to be accused of parallelomania in there agenda to discredit Jesus Christ, so let’s have a little fun and draw our own parallels between the suspicious agenda of these spurious characters and Soviet-era anti-religious propaganda.

Perhaps the reader will come to the same conclusion that I have, that these characters, specifically Green and Bjerknes, are using anti-Zionism as a cover for an anti-Christ agenda—that they are not equally opposed to Abrahamic religions as they claim. Surely, if they were, they would devote as much time to ridiculing and mocking Mohammad and the Jewish god Hashem/Ein Soph/Jews collectively as they do Jesus Christ (using almost entirely Jewish sources, I might add). But they don’t, especially not Adam Green. Why is that?

It’s true that the Soviets were not the first to advance the idea that religion, especially of Jesus Christ, were fraudulent mechanisms for control. It seems the gnostic/Masonic Enlightenment era brought out the very first Christ mythicist parallelomaniacs. The Soviets, being rooted in the Kabbalah, were merely carrying out the same agenda birthed during the Enlightenment—fostered by Judeo-Masonic forces in academia, the media, and in the intelligence apparatuses.

The Soviet propaganda meme above depicts religious leaders and pagans (even a tree) dancing in a ring while Jesus Christ is singled with what appears to be a devil in tow. This is not by chance. Christ seems to be singled out more than any other religious leader/symbol. Much of Soviet propaganda fixates on Christ and the church (specifically the Orthodox in Russia). Adam Green, Bjerknes, and others do the very same thing, in the Soviet/gnostic/masonic tradition. Their covert target rests squarely on our Lord Jesus Christ, because it is against Him, alone, that they conspire. The little that is said about Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc., is merely collateral damage. As you will see, even the Soviets were occasionally allowed to throw their own leaders, the Jews, under the bus, so long as Christianity was discredited in the process. They are allowed to superficially criticize Jews (anti-Zionism), just as long as they don’t drag any real issues into the propaganda.

This all raises the question. Is the international Communist conspiracy directing the Christ mythicist movement today?

In this piece, we see the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam depicted as mechanisms for control, the exact thing Christ mythicists claim.

The piece on the left shows what appears to be a Chassidic Jew using Christianity as bait. Green and Bjerknes claim that Christianity is a Jewish invention used to control the masses.

The Abrahamic religions portrayed as a three-headed beast.

Here, the creepy man’s shadow becomes a cross with ‘religion’ written across it. In his pocket is a Bible. The caption reads: ‘Step across the ominous shadow and join the crowd in the joyful bustle of the day!’

In this mockery of Palm Sunday, Christ is depicted riding into America with Jews in line behind him. Green and Bjerknes rest their entire case on Christianity being a Jewish conspiracy to enslave mankind. Bjerknes, by the way, claims to be anti-Communist.

This appears to show the devil appearing as Christ through the fog of drunkeness. Again, parallels with Green and Bjerknes saying that Jesus or God is Satan.

Here we see the (Jewish) Soviets depicting a Chasidic Jew (their own real world controllers) with some kind of capitalist fat cat in his lap and the Ten commandments above. The idea here, it seems, is to denigrate God’s laws. Notice that the Chabadnik is portrayed as having one (all-seeing) eye, perhaps as some kind of revelation of the method antic.

These anti-Christs never stray from their hatred of Christ for very long. Christ is depicted as trying to hock his wares.

The Abrahamic religions narrative again. The Soviet worker they have boiling the clerics looks like a devil himself.

The Pope is central in this propaganda piece (with a reverse swastika). The Abrahamic religions are portrayed as worshipping money (a capitalist fat cat).

The Commie fist is depicted smashing a capitalist fat cat while the Pope looks on in horror.

The Pope is depicted as a harbinger of death while his lackey Nazi henchmen burn books. The Soviets and Jewry have advanced for decades the idea that the Catholic Church and the Nazis were secretly allied.

Christ, America, and capitalism are portrayed as the cause of oppression of blacks (Black Lives Matter is a Kremlin invention and goes way back. See ‘I trained in Moscow for Black Revolution’—Leonard Patterson  (Video).

“There is no God!” The Soviet astronaut above the symbols of the Abrahamic religions seems to suggest that there is no god, there is only science (materialism).

Christian is portrayed as a scoundrel in contrast to a glowing depiction of Soviet science.

The three Abrahamic religions are depicted in opposition to the Soviet superman. Of course, Christianity is prominent among the three.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 8, 2022 Anno Domini

The “pope” many call a Saint requested that a Soviet artist and prominent Russian Orthodox iconographer create a mosaic for the papal chapel.

If that weren’t bad enough, apparent Soviet subverter Oleg Germanovich Ulyanov placed a heretic alongside the likes of the most revered Saints of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine, an accepted heretic within the walls of the Vatican sitting beside Saint Thomas Aquinas—thanks in large part to “Saint Pope John Paul II” (Karol Wojtyla).

In the 1996 papal mosaic dubbed “the new Sistine Chapel of the 21st century” and dedicated to the Virgin Mary, Cappella Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer) depicts the Virgin and our Lord Jesus as an infant as well as many Saints of the Catholic Church within the walls of New Jerusalem. Not only is the entire chapel’s art in the Byzantine tradition, one can find a depiction of heretic Gregory Palamas, a doctor of the Eastern Orthodox Church, next to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Also in the depiction are other Eastern Orthodox saints not recognized by the Catholic Church as such.

Palamas is known for establishing mystical teaching within Eastern Orthodoxy, specifically “hesychasm”, which seems to bear more resemblance to Yoga and the Kabbalah than anything a Catholic would expect to see of a worshipper of the Almighty God. Palmas is no Saint; should not be revered by lay Catholics, let alone the Vatican; and his teaching and legitimacy is disputed even within Eastern Orthodoxy itself (see Barlaam Seminara).

Given that Ulyanov is considered an Eastern Orthodox iconographer and the entire depiction is in Byzantine tradition, it would seem that the adaptation of Andrei Rublev’s Holy Trinity icon (located at the top, above the Virgin Mary) somehow represents a non-Filioque Trinity, that is, one that strips the Holy Spirit from Christ. What may be an indication of this heretical concept are the blue shoulders depicted only on God the Father and God the Holy Spirit (assuming that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, which would put him at the very left of the icon). Our Lord is not represented with this blue distinction. If true, this is outrageous, blasphemous, and must be remedied immediately by the Vatican. It’s another, if not the most important, reason that the entire mosaic must be destroyed or painted over with a truly Roman Catholic Mosaic, not some Eastern Orthodox schismatic impostor.

The official reason from the John Paul II papacy is that the mosaic is to foster unity between East and West—a typical humanist mask for ongoing Second Vatican Council subversion of the traditional Roman Catholic Church since 1958.

“He (John Paul II) likewise desired that the new chapel include the presence of Oriental tradition, which is of important ecumenical value. Thus it has become a visible sign of communion between the Eastern and Western Churches,” the Vatican states.^[1]

What’s more likely is that the mosaic represents ongoing anti-Christ subversion of God’s Holy Church through the push for one-world syncretic, Noahidic religious rule, and subjugation to the leading church in the world communist conspiracy—the Eastern Orthodox Church, specifically the Moscow Patriarchate or Russian Orthodox Church.

Keep in mind here that John Paul II, originally from Soviet-occupied Poland, is suspected of having been a Communist and/or Freemason and Judaizer, among other anti-Catholic things. If true, his reverence for Russian Orthodox heretics, teaching, and orientalism begins to make more sense. Wojtyla’s reasoning for the Soviet mosaic presumes that the Roman Catholic Church is somehow lacking unity (with the non-Catholic world). But how can light have any part in darkness, as the Bible rhetorically asks? Pope Leo XIII brings clarity in Satis Cognitum: “Jesus did not found a Church that embraces a plurality of communities which are generically similar, but distinct and not bound by ties forming only one Church.”

When we consider the Roman Catholic teaching of the Filioque (the concept that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son—not just from the Father, as is taught in Eastern Orthodoxy), it was the Mother of Russian Orthodoxy, the great kingdom of Byzantium, that fell to the Islamists on the very day of Pentecost (when Christ sent His Spirit out onto the world) in 1453 while Rome stood unmolested and the Catholic faith spread to every corner of the world. It’s difficult to interpret this historical event as mere coincidence. It seems more likely that it was God’s punishment on the heretical Byzantine theocracy, which then relocated its base of operations north to what became Russia and the Soviet Union (this transfer of Eastern Orthodox power seems to have been aided by the Jewish kingdom of Khazaria, but more on that for another article).

The writers of a 1988 EIR special report drew an interesting conclusion on rejection of the Filioque, the Soviet system, and centuries of Russian imperialism:

“Denial of the Filioque leads to the doctrine that Stalin is always right (the Logos proceeding only from the Father), and that all individuals must be directed in all their actions by an omniscient state planning authority like the Gosplan or the Oprichina of Ivan the Terrible. The alternative is the Western system, seen in the Prussian Auftragsprinzip or assignment principle, in which the individual is given a large area of initiative to solve problems that emerge in the course of carrying out overall policies with which the individual politically agrees.

“Thus, the Filioque creates the concept of the individual, who in turn participates in both freedom and necessity, and must accept responsibility for both. This idea of the exercise of individual reason has always excited the hatred of Byzantium and its successors. It is the key to the fight between Western freedom and Soviet totalitarianism today.”^[2]

As we can see, the rejection of the Filioque is no trivial manner and certainly not one that the so called Popes at the Vatican should be embracing for the so called sake of unity with schismatics.

Let’s let a true Saint, Thomas Aquinas, put the controversy to rest.

“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him…. The Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Son, inasmuch as the origin of one is distinguished from the origin of the other; but the difference itself of origin comes from the fact that the Son is only from the Father, whereas the Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; for otherwise the processions would not be distinguished from each other….”^[3]

Notes:

1. The Redemptoris Mater Chapel – Spirituality and Brief History of the Chapel, Vatican – https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/vatican/virtualtour/redemptorismater/index-en.html ↑
2. EIR Task Force, Global Showdown – The Russian Imperial War Plan for 1988, Executive Intelligence Review, July 24, 1985 ↑
3. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, q. 36 Art. 2, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1036.htm#article2 ↑

By NewsRu

Father Gelmino, suspected of sexually harassing teenagers, claims that Jews who hate the Christian church are behind the campaign against him. The priest has connections with the political elite of Italy, so his words served as a pretext for a scandal.

The priest leads a community helping drug addicts. Some time ago, he was accused of sexually harassing teenagers. He categorically denies that such a thing happened, while blaming the Jews.

“Look at the use of scandals with pedophile priests in the U.S. The whole church does not have to pay the price for this. There is a real lobby, a radical Jewish lobby that fights against the church in America to weaken the entire church. Catholic priests are not only pedophiles. such people are everywhere, including among Protestants, “he said, criticizing the decision of the Catholic Church to pay compensation to victims of sexual harassment by priests.

The priest was condemned by both the Jewish community of Italy and Italian politicians. After a flurry of criticism, he had to apologize.

“It escaped by accident. I ask the Jews to forgive me, I respect them very much,” Father Gelmino said.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

In Michael Hoffman’s latest book, he implicates Pope Leo XIII in a centuries-long conspiracy by the papacy to hermeticize the Church through infusion with the Jewish Kabbalah.

Leo XIII, a favourite of traditional Catholics, is guilty because he did not include the Kabbalah in his exposure of Freemasonry in Papal Encyclical Humanum Genus, according to Hoffman in his 2017 book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.

“Both the New Age occultist, the Protestant Fundamentalist, and the ‘conservative’ Catholic believe that the Church of Rome in the Renaissance period under study, was the nemesis of all that Judaism represented, when in truth it was the vessel into which Judaism poured its Talmudic and Kabbalistic sorceries and iniquities,” writes Hoffman. 

“After these had been fully absorbed into the corpus of the Church at the highest levels, only then did  the Renaissance and post-Renaissance pontiffs mount their theatre of ostentious ‘persecution’ of Judaics, which was still so much of a charade that when Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical contra Freemasonry (Humanum Genus, 1884), he scrupulously omitted all mention of the Brotherhood’s most virulent source of inspiration and direction, the rabbinic Kabbalah.”

Hoffman essentially accuses Pope Leo XIII of gatekeeping for the Synagogue of Satan and their gnostic infiltration of the Vatican, which Hoffman pins as beginning sometime in the 15th century, or even before (I will do a full review of Occult Renaissance in the near future).

Speaking further on Humanum Genus, Hoffman writes,

“…the encyclical constitutes a colossal act of misdirection…millions of Catholics have been misdirected away from knowledge of the true root of the masonic order.”

But Hoffman is incorrect that Pope Leo’s pontificate gatekept for the Synagogue’s foundational occult book, the Kabbalah (also, Cabala). Sure, Leo XIII may have omitted the Kabbalah by name from Humanum Genus, but he attacked central themes of Kabbalah via Freemasonry. Furthermore, under Leo XIII, the papal-approved Jesuit periodical La Civilta Cattolica specifically named the Kabbalah six years after Leo XIII issued Humanum Genus.

“Thus, the bonds that unite modern Judaism to Freemasonry are now evident, and ought to put to rest any doubts. The study of the so-called Semitic question, in France, in Germany, in Italy, and elsewhere, once only able to be seen in the light of shadows, inscrutable, has now come out of the shadows. It is now known how the Talmudic Cabala was introduced into the rites, the mysteries, symbols, and allegories of Masonic degrees…everything in Freemasonry is ordained by a Jewish Sanhedrin….” —The Jewish Question in Europe: The Causes, The Effects, The Remedies, La Civila Cattolica, Vol. VII, no. XIV, 1890 (English translation)

Quite emphatic. It seems that any of Humanum Genus’ alleged shortcomings were certainly fulfilled in The Jewish Question.

Now, one may argue that the Jesuit periodical, then edited by Matteo Liberatore, was speaking out of line with the Papacy; however, at the time of this periodical it was generally perceived as being a voice of the Papacy. Speaking of La Civilta Cattolica, Pope Pius XI wrote, “…from the journal’s very beginning, the authors set for themselves that sacred and immutable duty of defending the rights of the Apostolic See and the Catholic faith….”, while historian Richard Webster described the journal as reflecting the views of the Pontiff.

Lastly, Leo XIII had requested an outline of his Rerum Novarum (the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour) from Liberatore, so clearly there was at least a professional relationship between the Pope and La Civilta Cattolica’s editor.

What seems more plausible than Hoffman’s thesis of gatekeeping is that Humanum Genus was placed as a stepping stone to the full truth revealed not only in La Civilta Cattolica’s The Jewish Question in Europe but also in Monsignor George F. Dillon’s The War of AntiChrist with the Church and Christian Civilization, delivered in Edinburg October, 1884, six months following Humanum Genus. It was later translated and renamed Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked As the Secret Power Behind Communism. The work, which was dedicated to Pope Leo XIII, devotes considerable time to exposing the Kabbalah (for example, in chapter VIII. Cabalistic Masonry or Masonic Spiritism).

Was Leo XIII gatekeeping when he had Dillon’s work published in Italian and in Rome at the Pope’s own expense? Hardly not. Pope Leo XIII signed a letter of endorsement for Dillon’s work, granted him the title of Monsignor, and made the him an official member of the Famiglia Pontificia (Pontifical Family).

If that weren’t enough to convince Leo XIII sceptics, consider that this Pope expanded on the Vatican’s book prohibitions (Index Expurgatorius) by going above and beyond Pope Pius IV’s previous prohibition on the Talmud and including with it “Cabalistic and other nefarious books of the Jews….”. Leo XIII’s revised index (Index Leonianus) was issued in 1897.

Hoffman may be correct that some post-Renaissance popes were double agents and/or gatekeepers, but it seems that, if true, Leo XIII was not one of them and was, instead, countering that infiltration of the Papacy, at least regarding Freemasonry, Jewry, and Kabbalah (Hoffman claims Leo XIII also gatekept for the usurers by not sealing up alleged loopholes for usury left by proceeding popes. Click here for my review of Hoffman’s book Usury in Christendom.).

Once again, we see with Michael Hoffman a tendency towards reductionism (see author Jude Duffy’s series on Hoffman) and apparent ongoing attempts to undermine the authority and holiness of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not to dismiss Hoffman’s overall analysis in the book of what he calls Hermetic, neo-platonic infiltration of the Papacy, but we will deal with that in my general review.

By Fronda Quarterly No. 11-12
March 1998 Anno Domini
Translated from the Polish

Question and Answer session with Grzegorz Górny and Putin’s Prophet Aleksandr Dugin (answers in quotations):

Aleksander Dugin: I am waiting for Ivan the Terrible

– Students of the Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, whom I talked to, told me that the reading they were given during the classes, i.e. your book Fundamentals of geopolitics, was the most remembered chapter devoted to sacred geography. In Poland, I have not met anyone who would deal with this issue.Could you please tell us what place Poland occupies in sacred geography?

– I have never dealt specifically with the case of Poland, although its place is very specific. After all, this is the north of Eurasia, an important region of the pre-Christian Slavic region, the Baltic Sea basin. Regarding the archetypes of sacred geography, I would like to point out two things.

First of all, in the Orthodox reality there is a synergy between the pre-Christian and Christian world models, which overlap homologously, without conflicts. Different figures and phenomena from different orders overlap painlessly and even harmoniously. In the case of Poland, there is a much more conflicting relationship between these two models, and this is due to Catholicism, which is a tradition completely different from that of Orthodoxy. René Guenon clearly separates tradition from religion. Tradition is a broader concept than religion. Orthodoxy is a tradition, Catholicism is a religion. Tradition is able to absorb elements of other religious beliefs without conflict. Religion, on the other hand, comes into conflict with other beliefs. It is related to a different historical experience of the Eastern and Western Churches after the Great Schism. For the West was not always purely religious, Catholic, there was a period when it was more traditional, Orthodox. After the great schism, however, Catholicism departed from tradition and narrowed down to religion. This is at least our Byzantine version.

How does this relate to sacred geography? Well, in our understanding, the West, understood as a territory where Catholicism and Protestantism dominate, is in an opposite relationship to religious norms and elements. Of course, there are many elements of other religions in the West, but they conflict with the Catholic religion. Institutions that deal with sacred geography or remnants of pre-Christian traditions in the West, after the Great Schism, were relegated to autonomous spheres – to magic, esotericism, hermetic orders. In Orthodoxy, such a split did not take place.

In this context, Poland is on the border between the Catholic and Orthodox worlds. From my Eurasian point of view, the archetype of Poland’s sacred geography is deeply dualistic: on the one hand, a pre-Christian, pagan, magical, heterodox tradition whose roots remain Slavic; on the other – German-Roman Catholicism. There is a conflict between them. The situation of Poland is a borderline one. She cannot unite with the Eastern world religiously, and with the Western ethnically. In geopolitics, Poland remains part of the sanitary cordon separating the Eurasian continent into two parts, which is very convenient for the Anglo-Saxon anti-traditional forces. Poland cannot fully realize its Eurasian-Slavic essence, because it is hindered by Catholicism, nor by its Western European identity, because its own Slavic character, i.e. language, customs, archetypes, climate of places, etc. Poland is always falling victim to the Third Force, as is today’s mondialism and Atlanteanism. Due to this location on the border between Russia and Germany, the problem of the partitions of Poland between the East and the West will always occur in history. It is the result of this sacral-geographic and geopolitical duality. As Toynbee noted, the attempt to build an independent Polish-Lithuanian civilization between these two forces ended in failure. Central European civilization is too weak to withstand the tension between East and West. The countries of this region have to define themselves: either here or there. Polish-Lithuanian civilization did not want to or could not define itself, therefore it had to disappear. It is indeed a dramatic situation.

• Are there any elements in the Polish tradition that you find attractive?

I am definitely closer to the Slavic-Eurasian sources of Polishness, their ethnic and even pagan elements. I am attracted to certain eastern or oriental elements, the culture of minorities. I think the best thing in Polish history is the Jewish tradition in small towns in eastern Poland. Actually, I am interested in everything that was anti-Catholic in Poland: Polish freemasons and occultists, Jan Potocki and Hoene-Wroński, Mienżyński and Dzerzhinsky … They all chose the Eurasian path.

• You are talking about Poland’s position between the East and the West, that is, between Russia and Germany. Meanwhile, many scholars emphasize the greater similarity of Germany, and especially Prussia, to Russia than to England or Spain. Feliks Koneczny even believed that Prussia, like Russia, belonged to the Byzantine and not Latin civilization.

Koneczny was right. Germany is internally divided. Bavaria tends to the West, Prussia to the East. Prussia is such a small Russia inside Germany.

• We have always seen this as the greatest danger for us: a friendly alliance between Germany and Russia.

That’s our job. Unite with Germany and create a powerful continental bloc.

• What about Poland then?

We, the Russians and Germans, understand in terms of expansion and we will never reason otherwise. We are not simply interested in preserving our own state or nation. We are interested in absorbing, through our pressure, the maximum number of categories that complement us. We are not interested in colonizing like the English, but in drawing our strategic geopolitical boundaries without even special Russification, although there should be some Russification. Russia, in its geopolitical and sacral-geographic development, is not interested in the existence of an independent Polish state in any form. It is also not interested in the existence of Ukraine. Not because we don’t like Poles or Ukrainians, but because these are the laws of sacred geography and geopolitics.

Poland has to choose: either Slavic or Catholic identity. I understand it’s hard to separate one from the other, but it’s inevitable. Hitler also could not fight on two fronts, he had to choose: either with England against Russia or with Russia against England, as Haushofer advised him. But Hitler did not want to choose. “I don’t want to tear myself apart, I want to remain myself,” he said, and started a war on two fronts. It plunged Germany, 20 million Russians, and a good chunk of the world. For what? That McDonalds would now open their bars in Berlin, that the Soviet Union would collapse and that NATO soldiers were stationed everywhere. The identity of Germany was so important to Hitler at the time that he did not want to make a choice. In the same way, Poland has to choose, identity is not important. If Poland insists on keeping its identity, it will turn everyone hostile towards itself and will once again become a zone of conflict.

There are nations that can expand to the size of civilization. They then lose their identity, race, and sometimes even language, but that is a risk that must be taken if you want to be an empire. This is the United States, this is Russia. Poland was unable to create its own civilization and must make a choice. I think there is still a possibility for you to make your normal choice, i.e. Byzantine. It requires a lot of courage, nonconformity, unusual forms of action, some skinheads, anarchists, mystics. Polish chaos against the Polish order.

• In a word, from your point of view, all anti-Catholic activities in Poland are beneficial?

Exactly. You have to break Catholicism from the inside, strengthen Polish Freemasonry, support decaying secular movements, promote heterodox and anti-papal Christianity. Catholicism cannot be absorbed into our tradition unless it is deeply reoriented in a nationalist and anti-papal direction. If there was a lodge in Poland like the Irish Golden Dawn, whose leaders, such as William Butler Yeats or Maud Gonne, on the one hand were Catholics, and on the other – fanatical occultists inspired by Celtic culture, then one can have some hope. Such people could decompose Catholicism from within and reorient it towards a more heterodox, even esoteric. Anyway, my friends in Poland tell me that there are groups with you, related to telemism or the achievements of Alistair Crowley.

• Frankly speaking, the opinion that is more widespread in Poland is that if there are forces decomposing Catholicism in Poland, they are closer to the West than the East.

As I said, you find yourself between two clashing blocks, two civilization concepts: Eurasianism and Atlantism, which wants to create a New World Order, i.e. a civilization devoid of tradition, sacrum, metaphysics.

• If this is how the New World Order is presented in Poland, it is almost always added that only Catholicism can be a salvation from total secularization.

Catholicism cannot be a guarantee of defense against the New World Order, because it is a transition stage to this order. I do not believe in such an evolution and such a mutation of Catholicism that it could acquire a Eurasian character. What can we hide a lot … I am not like Ziuganow, who promises every lame orphan on the road something pleasant. Poland is in a tragic geopolitical situation. Both they (ie the New World Order) and we (Eurasians) want to deprive you of your Catholicism. Our offer is better, however, because with us you will at least be able to develop and realize your Slavic identity. So the less influential the pro-Eastern forces in the anti-Catholic lobby, the more tragic your situation becomes. I do hope, however, that you will have forces leaning towards Eurasianism, maybe there will be some synthesis between the extreme right and the extreme left. It is a pity that communism in Poland has never been esoteric, as in Russia …

• Before the war, there was actually only one significant representative of mystical-Gnostic communism in the KPP, Jan Hempel, the author of the Volkist Piast Sermons.

So maybe more hopes should be attached to your extreme right. If your national current broke away from liberalism and turned towards paganism, it would naturally gravitate towards the East. There was, after all, the phenomenon of the anti-Catholic and pagan “Zadruga” before the war.

• What you say reminds me of what I read recently about Russian Christianity. Some of the historians of religion believe that Russia was never thoroughly Christianized, that Christianity was adopted very superficially, and pagan beliefs and customs were still alive among the majority of the common people.

It all depends on what we call Christianity. Orthodoxy and Christianity are two different things. When you say “Christianity”, you mean Catholicism or something analogous to Catholicism. Meanwhile, Orthodoxy is defined as non-Catholicism. So if Catholicism is Christianity, then Orthodoxy is non-Christian. Conversely, if we are Christians, you are not. I am relying not only on the claims of our fathers after the great schism, but also on the eighth and ninth-century authorities such as Photius. Orthodoxy, which is not a religion but a tradition, is much closer to what we call paganism. It embraces and includes paganism. The teaching of the Cappadocian or Palamite Fathers does not completely conflict with pagan norms, but only transforms pre-Christian archetypes in Orthodox contexts. Orthodoxy is more than a religion, both vertically, because it includes paganism, and horizontally, because it is open to metaphysics, which has completely disappeared in post-school Catholicism. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are two completely separate phenomena, tradition and religion are like a whole and a part. Therefore, it is not possible to unite Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

• Specialists in ecumenical dialogue emphasize that between Catholicism and Protestantism, cultural and civilization differences are minimal, but dogmatically there is a gap between them. The situation is different with Catholicism and Orthodoxy: dogmatic differences are small, while cultural and civilizational differences are huge.

Werner Sombarth, developing the theses of Max Weber, stated that not only Protestantism, but also Catholicism was at the source of capitalism. Catholicism with its filioque and the idea of ​​individual salvation. The idea of ​​individual salvation is not a Christian thought, but a typically Catholic one. There is no such concept in Orthodoxy. There is no concept of a unit at all. In Orthodox anthropology the word individual does not appear. As we know, anthropology is the basis for the construction of the entire social system, the entire civilization model. Sombarth believed that Catholic anthropology assumed a specific development of socio-economic relations because it attached great importance to the concept of individuality. Orthodox anthropology, in turn, always emphasized the supra-individual personality. Man then sees himself as part of a larger whole. Therefore, he does not save himself, but someone saves through him. In Catholicism, a man is an individual, and therefore an indivisible whole, in Orthodoxy, a man is a dividum, an individual, and therefore divisible. In Catholicism, man is a finite being, he is responsible for himself – to God, to people, etc. Protestantism has made this conviction even more holistic. In Orthodoxy, a person is part of the Church, a part of the community organism, just like a leg. So how can a person be responsible for himself? Can the leg be responsible for itself? This is where the idea of ​​the state, the total state, comes from. Therefore, the Russians, because they are Orthodox, can be true fascists, unlike artificial Italian fascists like Gentile or the Hegelians there. The real Hegelianism is Ivan Pereswietow – the man who invented the oprichnina for Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century. It was the real founder of Russian fascism. He formulated the thesis that the state is everything and the individual is nothing. The state is salvation, the state is the Church. It is enough to read the writings of our Orthodox saint, Józef of Wołokołamsk, to see that these two organisms are identical, identical. And now this whole organism for salvation, all strive for salvation without crumbling, like one collective soul, one collective body.

• Indeed, in Orthodoxy you have a certain inclination towards apocatastasis, towards the idea of universal salvation …

This is true. The most important thing is that we have no individuality. The individual dissolves into the collective. This is how the Russian works for salvation.

• Whose salvation?

The salvation of the archetype, the salvation of Adam. Through the state, the Russians are striving to save not themselves, but Adam …

• Adam Kadmon, it sounds cabbalistic.

No, this is a holistic approach. In Orthodoxy, it is about the salvation of the Old Testament Adam through the coming of the new Adam, i.e. Christ, nature, while nature is saved through people. The state, especially the holy state, is the instrument of this salvation. That is why the Russian Tsar is an active participant in the mystery of soteriology. After the fall of Byzantium, he became the last guardian of the catechon, a tradition which Charlemagne turned out to be usurper at the turn of the 8th and 9th centuries. It was the Byzantine emperor who was the true emperor of both East and West.

• I have come across the claim that the real split between East and West took place not in 1054 when the Great Schism occurred, nor in 1204 when the Crusaders ravaged Constantinople, but on Christmas 800 when Pope Leo III he put an imperial crown on the head of Charlemagne.

It was a usurpation. Therefore, the imperial function of the West, whether under the Stauffenbergs or the Habsburgs, was always questionable. Because an ecumen can only have one emperor. One of them must be false. According to all the norms of orthodoxy, such a sacred anointed figure, regardless of any negative personal character traits, was the Byzantine emperor, and after the fall of Constantinople, the Russian Tsar. It can be said that all Western philosophy and culture arose from rejecting and ignoring the Byzantine tradition. In the West, the Orthodox version of Christianity or metaphysics is not taken into account at all, it is treated as if it did not exist.

• I think that if in the last millennium there was a process of increasing separation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it was a bilateral process. Orthodoxy also isolated itself from Catholicism.

That’s right, but the point is, only one side can be right. If Catholicism is right, then neither Russia nor Serbia have any reason to exist, culture should be Americanized and Protestant, because this is the right direction of development. After all, Protestantism is a child of Catholicism, disgusting, I admit, and obnoxious, but legitimate. So if Orthodoxy is wrong, then one should choose the Protestant way and, as in the Church of England, vote that there is no hell. The right, however, is on the side of Orthodoxy, which remains the most perfect form of traditionalism, sacredness and conservatism. In the beginning, there was East and West. East is paradise, fullness, West is exile, nothingness. Eastern empire – legitimate, western – apostatic. These aren’t just archetypes. There is a great struggle going on between Byzantium and Rome, Russia and the West, Eurasianism and Atlanticism, socialism and capitalism, barbarism and civilization. We do not represent civilization, but culture. We all – Russians, Serbs, Tatars, etc. – represent the barbarian element. Barbarism is life, it is the sacred world of tradition. We live in shacks, beat drums, drink vodka, and we are attacked by Daniel Bell, postmodernism, post-Protestant information society, the New World Order. In this great clash of Atlantic civilization and Eurasian culture, all that lies between us – Poland, Ukraine, Central Europe, and, who knows, maybe even Germany – must disappear, be absorbed.

• Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations writes that states that are hybrids of two civilizations have no chance of surviving in the shape they are today; that Bosnia, Ukraine, Turkey and Mexico will eventually have to take sides. Huntington’s comments, however, did not apply to Poland or Germany.

Huntington is right: a clash of civilizations is imminent. There is no room for the countries in the middle. I have already talked about Poland. And Germany? What can Germany do? After all, this is an occupied country. The Germans missed their chance during the war. We had to fight with us against England, turn the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to the West, and then Hitler-Stalin forever. Today, instead of English, Russian and German would be spoken everywhere. The Germans did not go for it and lost. Now there is an American occupation and such “murder” that even your mouth cannot be opened. However, I do hope that Germany will shake off this state of affairs and shed its dependency sooner or later. I am convinced that in the common Eurasian home there will be room for Germans, Poles, French and Italians. We, the Russians, will impose only a barbaric, sacred attitude to life on Eurasia, and how it will be manifested in a particular nation will depend on our own national predispositions. I see Poles, for example, as defenders of Slavic racism. The Slavic element always breaks down the frames of individualism, strives for community.

• You say so much about community, collectivity, but in fact you are an individualist.

How’s that? Why? How do you think so?

• Even here, in the premises of the National-Bolshevik Party, it is enough to look around to see that they all look the same in their black uniforms, they even have a similar facial expression, only the Lord is definitely different from them.

I am just like them. I don’t think about myself, I think about others. I don’t think for myself, I think for others. There are two concepts: personalism and individualism. Individualism is the opposite of community, because the center of the world, a constitutive element of the worldview, becomes the human individual, the individual. There is no place for community or holism here, there is only a rational, logical, relative agreement between individuals. What, in turn, do we propose? We are not against the person, but for understanding them supra-individually. This is, in a sense, the Nietzschean idea. Man is a dynamic phenomenon, constantly overcoming himself. This overcoming means human growth, growth beyond the limits of his individuality. In the vertical dimension, a person then becomes a part of a community, an organ of a certain organism. On the other hand, in the horizontal dimension … someone has to think. Together you cannot think, you can act together. If you mix them all together, then the head of this collective organism that will arise will not be the sum of the individual brains, but one brain, the most enlightened one. There must be a certain gnoseological hierarchy. This communal nature of material unity, the horizontal unity of bodies, contains within itself a hierarchy. Often times, people who fight against individualism are personalists. The spirit of unity, the spirit of community, the spirit of the nation can be manifested in them in a very condensed way. They are not individualists, but separate, discrete incarnations of the all-unity. This is their authority. This is the idea of ​​a monarch, a people’s chief, a Fuhrer. This is the phenomenon of the Russian tsars, but also of Pugachev, Lenin and Stalin. And it’s not that some individualist invents collectivism, because then he would be a fraud, a charlatan, a hypnotist. It is like chemistry: when different substances are mixed together, the lightest ones, the gases, float up the highest. Similarly in society: when different human elements are mixed together, the most subtle ones, i.e. the brains, are at the top. Therefore, for some, this idea of ​​community is concentrated in the brain, in others in the soul, and in others in the legs or hands. Nevertheless, it is the same idea for everyone. In this way, one organism is created – Behemoth (as Carl Schmitt would call him), a Eurasian Tatar-Scythian monster, which includes not only people, but also elements, elements of nature, soil, winds, rivers, mountains. The sublimation of this terrible dark cluster is the Russian monarchs, Stalin … Stalin was not a separate individual, but a collective person, an older brother, a manifestation of Eurasianism in its communist variant.

• You said that Russia’s internal imperative is expansion. But what is the purpose of this expansion, what is the idea behind the postulated ideocracy?

The goal of Russian expansion is total soteriological science. We have felt it for centuries, since the time of Metropolitan Ilarion of Kiev, but it is now more obvious than ever that we are not a nation among many, but that we have a mission to reveal a truth to the world. We want a different end to history than the one proposed by the West. We want a sacred end, not a profane end. We are convinced, and we live it, that we have a certain key to spiritual, eschatological truth. Every Russian knows it. Each.

• What is the essence of this truth?

Our whole thousand-year history is an attempt to reveal this truth, to look for forms of its expression. It is the truth that the West has plunged into its depths, it is the truth about salvation, the transformation of the world, a new pleroma, a new quality of being, resurrection from the dead, the transformation of bodies, the sunlight that should come from the lips of the Great Mother. We Russians, due to our ethnic and religious predispositions, are called to do so. Our whole history, including the last battle of communism against capitalism, are only different attempts to realize the same messianic dream.

• To tell the truth, it is somehow difficult for me to imagine communism as a fight for the sacred in the world. Especially in the times of Stalin, so praised by Lord Stalin, it was a deeply anti-Orthodox movement: churches were demolished and closed, bishops were tortured and murdered, the faithful were imprisoned and sent to Siberia, forced atheization was carried out …

First of all, it was the Orthodoxy that Stalin was destroying that was very incidental – imbued with the spirit of the West, alienated from the nation. Second: the messianic dream I mentioned could live outside Orthodoxy and develop in other forms. Communism was an attempt to liberate this messianism from a purely religious understanding. Perhaps this attempt failed precisely because it was so distant from theology. So I think that in the next expansion we should use all our experiences, both purely sacred and socialist. Socialism is nothing more than a secularized version of Byzantineism, it is Red Byzantium, Orthodoxy in a sectarian, exalted form. It can be said that the people’s monarch, Stalin, with the popular faith, that is, communism, stood against the alienated, lordly, noble, occidental monarchy and the Orthodox Church. I am not such an ardent supporter of the Stalinist system, but I can clearly see the pulsation of our historical existence in communism as well. So if I say my unconditional “yes” to Bolshevism, Lenin and Stalin, it is not because it was an ideal system, but because it was the only solution for us. This time we have not succeeded yet, but the next time we will purify Orthodoxy and communism and we will discard those elements that caused these models to alienate themselves from the nation. Our next stage will be Orthodox communism – Eurasian, missionary, pan-Slavic, philotatar …

• It almost sounds like a postmodern project.

We include a lot, but also exclude a lot. We exclude individualism, the individual, the free market, worldview neutrality, tolerance, and we include barbaric, fanatic and exalted elements. This is not postmodernism, but let’s say postmodern. Postmodern is the objective state in which we live after the victory of the West over us. Moderna is over. Postmodernism is just one answer to the postmodern challenge, the liberal answer. There may also be an anti-liberal response, that is ours – postmodern anti-postmodernism. The reflection of the West breaks down everything into prime factors, while at the same time sterilizing and drying up everything like exhibits in a flowerbed. Our reflection does not deprive us of the aroma of life, even erotic delight with our ideas, it makes us drunk, we are drunk with Eurasia …

• As early as in the 18th century, Nikita Panin described the history of Russia as a polar pulsation of deadness and chaos. Similarly, two centuries later, Yuri Lotman – as jumps in entropy and organization. Today’s journalists often compare the present situation of Russia to the Weimar era in German history …

A very accurate comparison.

• The West is aware of this, therefore it does not want to humiliate Russians, to humiliate their national pride, as it did to Germany after the First World War, when it drew huge contributions from them. The West rather wants to raise Russia’s value, invites it to join the G-7 group, and pumps millions of dollars into the Russian economy. I want to avoid the Weimar scenario …

The West treats Russia very severely. I think that he did not draw conclusions from the Weimar lesson. The more he puts pressure on us, the more he will have to pay for it. It works like a spring: the harder you push, the harder it will hit back. The West is geographic Satan, geographic Antichrist. The West should pay for everything. It would be best to settle it with Chinese, Tatars, Muslims, all this Eurasian nomadism. When I was walking the streets of Paris recently, I suddenly noticed that I was missing something. And I realized it was odorless, sterile, aseptic. The only fragrance in the West is perfume. Earth, air, flowers, trees only started to smell in Poland, and when I returned to Russia, I plunged into the madness of smells. The West is dead land. It will only come back to life when it is settled by Cossacks, Tajiks, and Kazakhs. They will bring life with them, they will bring fragrances.

• You refer to the Orthodox tradition at almost every step. But does Orthodoxy itself admit to your ideas? I talked to many representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow and none of them consider you an orthodox believer, you are considered a rather heretic.

Who said that?

• For example, deacon Andrei Kurayev.

And deacon Alexander Mumrikov said that I was fully Orthodox. And what? One deacon’s sentence against the other’s sentence. Fortunately, we do not have Catholicism, where there is the office of the Pope and everyone must obey him. I, too, can safely say that Deacon Kurayev is not fully Orthodox. At the moment, there are two Orthodoxy: the first – living, full of spirit, and the second – official, formalized, and staff. Deacon Kurajew represents the formal, pro-systemic, I would say even profane branch of Orthodoxy. He writes texts that are spiritually Catholic. For example, he believes that the merit of Christianity was an impulse to the development of exact sciences, which caused the desacralization of the cosmos. The Hesychaists would have hailed him as a heretic at once. Fortunately, Orthodoxy is wider than the Church itself and also includes a branch of the Old Believers. I belong to the Moscow Patriarchate myself, but I am in spirit with the Old Believers. Besides, they consider themselves the only true Orthodox. If there is ever a real revival of Orthodoxy, it will come not from the ossified structures of the official Church, but from the depths of the Russian national spirit, which has been fully preserved among the Old Believers.

• And which branch of the Old Believers is closer to you? Circulars or non-circulars?

This division applies to the Białokrynica hierarchy. On the other hand, I am more interested in another division: popowców and bezopowców. I am closer to the poppers who reject priests as more radical. Among them, however, the closest to me is the faction of non-believers who believe that the kingdom of Antichrist has already come, and that it is the Catholic and Protestant West.

• I see that you have a very closed thought system. But what are the chances that the ideas you are preaching will find resonance in society? Observing the Lord, you can say: some haunted idealist is sitting in the basement, something is raving under his breath, but his fantasies have absolutely no effect on people. Oh, another frustration in our century …

I will try to answer this question in three steps. First, even if I am an idealist who sits in the basement and whose ideas play no role, it does not bother me because all the great ideas started with the idealists who sat in the basement and played no role. The fate of the idea is specific. A man who deals with ideas is immersed in a theurgical atmosphere where what is invisible and inaudible appears to him as visible and audible, even in the form of a text or discourse. And even if I had remained unknown to anyone until my death and left no written word behind, what counts is the mere fact of capturing the main vectors of history, the main ideas of civilization.
Second: I am active in the National-Bolshevik Party. It is not a big party, but it has a clear focus: we especially try to influence young people, especially students, who will be the elite of the young generation in the future. We are, after all, the only party that deals with the thoughts of young people. We teach them to think and live. We are concerned with the indoctrination of the next generation. This is not done by anyone in Russia: neither liberals nor communists …

• Television does it.

That’s right, but she forms average and passive people. We, on the other hand, shape people, as Gumilev called them, passionate, above-average, those whom Pareto called counter-relatives of the future. Other nationalist parties, such as the Barkashists, do not form a counter-past, but defensive troops. Their militant organizations are not elites of any kind. We, on the other hand, focus on those who will set the tone for life in Russia in the future, we prepare them conceptually. We organize seminars for them, publish magazines and books. It can be said that our party is purely intellectual. All these pickets or demonstrations are only an addition to the basic task, which is the intellectual preparation of a generation. We already have hundreds of people formed this way across the country.
Third and finally: my ideas are not confined to the party itself. Since 1987, I have been actively involved in the ideologization of the broadly understood patriotic camp. The two largest parties in the present Duma – the communists of Zyuganov and the nationalists of Zhirinsky – took over from me, especially from my earlier texts, the main ideological and geopolitical ideas. Many politicians, whom I did not even know personally, also referred to the ideas I put forward, for example, General Liebiedź.

• Maybe because one of Liebidzia’s advisers was Heydar Dżemal. In 1991, in your publishing house, you published the book Orientacja: Północ.

Our paths with Dżemal diverged because his traditionalism and Eurasianism is Muslim, and mine – Russian. Returning, however, to the previous thread. It does not matter if I personally know Ruckkoy or Khashbulatov who take over my ideas. I am like Ivan Pereswietov, who came up with an oprycznina for Ivan the Terrible. I’m a thought lab. I don’t think for myself, I think for the state, for the nation, for history. I’m waiting for my Ivan the Terrible. All politicians who will be looking for a real and great idea for Russia will come to me sooner or later. Not because I am a great individual and I personally came up with something myself, but because there is an objective idea of ​​Russia, and I am only its exponent. My latest book, Fundamentals of Geopolitics, is read by all opposition politicians and the more serious officials of the Yeltsin administration. The idea of ​​the Moscow-Berlin-Paris axis, which Yeltsin spoke about recently, is directly taken from my writings. If Tokyo is added to that, it is a classic element of the Eurasian geopolitical concept. In addition, many circles in other former Soviet republics are interested in our ideas of a conservative revolution. For example, in Armenia, the group of Robert Kocharian, who came to power at the moment, the so-called the party of the war are people largely shaped in our writings. So to sum up: with or without me – what I am writing about, it will happen anyway. Who will be the subject, who will put these ideas into practice – I do not know and do not undertake to answer. Perhaps it will be the current government that will change its face, it may be some opposing force, it may happen in many years, but it is an inevitable process. I may disappear, but my geopolitical ideas will not disappear.

• It is often said about your environment that you are the Russian counterpart of the Western European New Right. This orientation, assuming that the battle for the fate of mankind would take place not in the political but in the cultural field, proclaimed a kind of Kulturkamp …

Kulturkampf of the New Right is a wonderful idea, Alain de Benoist is a heroic activist and brilliant thinker, but their fight for thirty years has brought no results. They said that the battlefield would be culture, while the Americanization made its greatest triumphs in culture. Right-wing gramcsism is in a deplorable state, it has never gone beyond the margins. How to explain this? I think that the conceptual model of the New Right is very interesting, but the temperament of its European activists is insufficient to implement such ideas. They are too civilized, too conservative, too cowardly, such warm dumplings. So I don’t like comparing with them, because it’s basically comparing with losers. Over the years of the opposition in Russia, I have done such things that they never dreamed of. I was not concerned with the Kulturkampfem, but with the ideological fertilization of serious political forces. I have worked with living history, not archeology. The only man in the West whose breadth of views shocked me was Jean Thiriart, the author of the idea of ​​a Euro-Soviet empire. Before his death, he even came to Moscow; I hosted him here, I introduced him to Jegor Ligaczow, Ziuganow, Baburin …
Europe today has a choice: Eurasianism or Atlanticism. Either he goes with Russia or with America. If the European New Right chooses us, that is, it chooses the barbarian element, and therefore must adopt our methods of operation. You have to organize attacks, deal with sabotage, set fire to, and blow up bridges. True antimondialism is destruction and terror. What is the New Right doing? She turned into an intellectual sect. Overweight and gray men have been gathering at seminars for thirty years and beating foam. Of course you have to read books, but that’s not enough. You have to create a guerilla. If you are against the New World Order then take a knife, put on a mask, go out in the evening and kill at least one yankie. That is why I am so close to the New Left, the Red Brigades, and the Rote Armee Fraktion. Our task is not limited to culture, our task is to make a real revolution. For this we need ideology and intellectual preparation, but without concrete participation in the action, without frontline experience, without combat baptism – it will remain unattainable for us. I do not know if any of the New Right activists have ever been under artillery fire, but our people not only attend meetings or fight barricades, but also go to real wars, e.g. to Transnistria or Yugoslavia. The New Right is just a project, and we are designers and executors, architects and builders. Our future is.

• Thank you for the conversation.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick

Anyone who has accepted Adam Green’s claim on Twitter recently that Christianity is 99 per cent Zionist doesn’t know much about Christianity.

His lie also shows that Adam Green doesn’t know much about Christianity, and/or he perceives his audience as gullible enough to believe such an agenda-driven absurdity.

In determining whether any one Christian denomination is Zionist, we simply have to look at their eschatology, that is, their view of prophecy and the end times. Generally, it’s only a pre-millennialist view, the idea that the thousand-year reign of Christ is still yet future, that seems to require a pro-Zionist position in order to make it a fully functioning prophetic view.

The largest Christian denomination is the Roman Catholic Church, with just over half of all world Christians. Its eschatology is either amillennial or post-millennial. It holds that the thousand-year reign of Christ has already happened or is a figurative prophecy. Both Roman Catholics and Orthodox generally consider the Church age to be Christ’s reign on Earth, whether it was a literal thousand years or not. Neither is Zionist in any way. In fact, both have led the world’s counter-Jewish movements throughout history.

With just this statistic alone, Adam Green’s lie shatters. But there’s more.

The next largest Christian group is the Protestants (those not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) at 36 per cent of the world’s Christians. Of the Protestants, the non-Zionist Anglicans make up about a quarter of all Protestants and the non-Zionist Lutherans another quarter. The rest are a mixture of Zionist and non-Zionist, so even if you labeled the rest as all Zionist, it would still only be about half of Protestantism and a mere 18 per cent of all world Christians. 18 per cent! Green claims 99.9 per cent. Utter rubish.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are the third largest Christian denomination at just under 12 per cent of all the world’s Christians. They, like the Roman Catholics, are either amillennial or post-millennial. There is not a Zionist bone in their teaching.

There you have it. Another lie by the controlled opposition alternative media debunked. If Green thinks he can ride the anti-Zionist coattails as a Trojan horse to malign Christ and His Church, he’s got another thing coming. His behaviour and promotion of quack historians like Christopher Jon Bjerknes more and more demonstrate that he has some kind of anti-Christian agenda.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Nov. 25, 2020 Anno Domini

The filmmaker who captured Pope Francis’ controversial unofficial endorsement of Sodomite civil unions and has framed the Pontiff’s views as Leftist is a Russian Jew who served in Israel’s IDF.

Evgeny Mikhailovich Afineevsky, the homosexual Israeli filmmaker whose film “Francesco” (released October 2020) has provoked anger from traditional Catholics by catching Pope Francis endorsing homosexual civil unions, was born in the Tatar city of Kazan in the Soviet Union in 1972. He moved to Israel in 1991, at the height of the Perestroika Deception, served in the IDF, and eventually emigrated to the United States, where he became a citizen and filmmaker in the company of Soviet-derived Jews like Menachem Golan (Golan arranged the partnership between Golan-Globus film company and the Soviet state-run Mosfilm after a visit to Moscow in 1987). His film covers the life and teachings of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis), focusing on his Soviet-inspired beliefs, including immigration (as part of the Kalergi Plan), “climate change”, social justice, and ecumenism.

It’ seems the Judeo-masonic-Bolshevist conspirators are holding the Pope’s hand to ensure he follows their script. Whether Francis is a subversive Marxist (as his detractors claim) or not, the Synagogue of Satan is going to see to it that the world perceives him that way, as part of their centuries-long plan to destroy Christ’s Holy Church and blot out Christ’s name and memory forever (as prescribed by the Satanic Babylonian Talmud). One of the key ways the ‘gogue has achieved this is by tarnishing the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church. It appears Francis is helping this plan.

Francis states in Francesco:

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family. They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it…. What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered. I stood up for that.”

Last week, The New American published an article suggesting that former top Vatican cardinal and “homosexual molester” Theodore McCarrick might have been a Soviet operative and that the Soviet Union had placed the Vatican as one of its top targets for subversion.

“In 1960, for instance, the Soviets launched Seat 12, a disinformation operation that targeted the reputation of Pope Pius XII. Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews during World War II, but in 1963, leftist Rolf Hochuth wrote The Deputy, which accused the Holy Father of complicity in the Final Solution. The charge was false, but Seat 12 and its result, The Deputy, worked. Pius was smeared.

“Not until 2007, when Romanian communist defector Ion Pacepa divulged the details of Seat 12, did the truth emerge.”

Pacepa has also revealed that the KGB was behind the creation of liberation theology, a Marxist concept that Pope Francis appears to have fully endorsed.

Once again, we see the hand of Soviet Israel moving against Christ, His Church, and the moral order. The evidence continues to mount that Pope Francis is a Soviet operative.