Parallel Between History of Arians and NWO “Church”

“Parallels between History of the Arians and the New World Order Church”


I do not intend the following to be strictly theology.  Further I am aware that I run the danger of “correlation = causation;” that is, simply because two situations are similar, it is not the case that one caused the other or that one is simply a new manifestation of the other.  That is true.   On the other hand, given the fact that theological issues are often at the roots of political and social decisions,[1] one is at least somewhat justified in using theological material, particularly the heroic struggles of the saints and martyrs, as “templates” in articulating a modern witness against prevalent evil.  If one does this carefully and with an eye to ancient sources, one can note real similarities.   Further, if the ancient sources suggest something like this can happen, one is on more solid ground.   At the end of the essay I will explore Serbia as a test case.

Before I begin I should note with caution a few remarks concerning “apocalyptic theology.”  The section of Christian theology that deals with the end times is called “eschatology.”   Specifically it deals with the return of Christ.  The Church has always confessed that Christ will bodily return at the end of history.   What the church has not confessed as been a specific aberration of this teaching known as “dispensationalism.”  Among its distinctives is that history is divided into at least seven epochs, or “dispensations,” and history will regress cumulatively with regard to morality and culture, and at the final moment of history, Christ will return to earth and secretly “rapture” his church to heaven.  With the Church gone God can then get back to his original plan regarding the nation-state of Israel.

The short theology lesson was necessary to ward off any misunderstanding.  The historical Church has always rejected this teaching.  However, many of the holy fathers did suggest that history will darken and at times the world will get worse.[2]  Therefore, any similarities between what I say and what some dispensationalists might says is purely accidental.


St. Athanasios documents the recent history of the Arian attacks on the Orthodox Church.   He notes how Arian leaders poisoned the mind of Emperor Constantius, who then carried out an intense, though ultimately brief persecution of the Orthodox Church.   The attacks on Athanasios go from slander and libel to outright physical threat (and eventual exile).  God eventually vindicates St. Athanasios in the end.

One should note that Arianism, while a cancerous heresy, did not become particularly dangerous until it was backed by the State.   (This raises the problem of church-state relations, which is beyond the scope of this paper.  Suffice to say the writer rejects the narrative of the Enlightenment, which advocates a complete divorce of church and state, practically leaving the state autonomous and immune to moral and theological critique.   On the other hand, the church (by definition) is separate from the state because it is not the state.)


The interesting thing about biblical and ancient sources on the antichrist figure is that they say relatively little about it.   The later Russian fathers will expound in detail on what we should expect concerning antichrist.[3]  St. Athanasios, though, in a manner similar to a skilled novelist, does not mention much concerning the reign and nature of antichrist.

He does not several indications of antichrist’s coming.  He notes the Arian attacks on the church and writes, “It was an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way.[4]”  One can note a warning in St. Athanasios’ text—and echoed by other fathers—that would normally go unnoticed:  the danger is not so much having to live during Antichrist’s reign, but to miss the warning signs of the times.   The Christian struggler is called to be watchful, sober, and not to be caught sleeping (or unaware, or perhaps living in some unrepentant sin).


Unfortunately, it is even difficult to speak about ecumenicism.  The word has different connotations (and sometimes denotations) to different people.[6]  I am using the word to denote the view that all traditions are faulty, no tradition has the truth, and the only way to know the truth is to gather at ecumenical meetings and find some “lowest-common denominator” upon which all can agree.

I expect many Protestant readers would agree that the above view is wrong (and epistemologically flawed).  In order for the above view to work it must negate the teaching of Scripture that says “to contend for the faith once delivered to all the saints” (Jude 3).  St Jude says there was a deposit of faith that was truly passed down to the church.  Further, this faith is recognizable, which means it has boundaries.  However else one interprets this passage, and regardless of whether one believes the Roman Catholic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Coptic Church, or the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church is the true inheritor of the deposit, it cannot be denied that there was a deposit.[7]


If that were all the ecumenical church were about, one should not worry too much.  Most ecumenical bodies are liberal, and liberal churches, especially in the West, are losing members at an alarming (or encouraging, depending on one’s perspective!) rate.   In other words, left to itself, the ecumenical church would die out in a generation.   Unfortunately, after World War II the ecumenical church often found itself arm and arm with supranational bodies.   Given the administrative, economic, and military power of these bodies (e.g., the European Union, the United Nations, NATO, the World Council of Churches, the International Criminal Court, etc.), the ecumenical church has become quite powerful in one sense (obviously it lacks the power of godliness in another sense).

Of course, the ecumenical church is not strictly synonymous with the World Council of Churches (WCC).  The former is a broad umbrella of mainstream Christian groups while the latter is a specific manifestation of this mentality in institutional form.  The WCC’s nefarious origins are well-known and will not be repeated in great detail, suffice to say it was in part a brain-child of globalist John Rockefeller.[8]


One is not presently arguing that the situations in St. Athanasios’ time and our time are necessarily the same.  Nor is one arguing that today’s ecumenical church is the antichrist (or its modern forerunner) that Athanasios predicted.[9] What one can argue, though, is that Athanasios’ time provides a template of witness and resistance for our own time.  While examples can be multiplied, a ready one is found for us in the disaster happening in present-day Serbia.

In the mid- to late 1990s Serbia found itself under the increasingly watchful eye of the Western bankers.   Under the aegis of “stopping a genocide” (and implicitly allowing another one), the “West” (a collective name for most Western European countries and America, including a cabal of central banks, corporations, and globalists) had to find a way to access and exploit Serbia’s resources and key geopolitical location, something a nationalist like Slobodan Milosevic would not allow.[10]

Since then Serbia has degenerated into chaos.  Her rulers openly hate their people, and want nothing more than to cater to the latest demands from Washington and Brussels. If it were simply political chaos and attacks on ethnic identity, there would be little to merit attention to this fact, since this is the norm in Europe.   However, the attacks upon the nation are simultaneously attacks upon the faith of the people of that nation.   Since the division of Kosovo from Serbia is a specifically postmodern question concerning identity[11], and ultimately, one’s commitments to “democracy” and the New World Order, one’s stance on Kosovo determines one’s stance on the New World Order.[12]  Therefore, clergy who take hard stands on Kosovo are clergy that resist the New World Order[13].   Since this is an obstacle to the globalists in Belgrade and Brussels, such clergy must be removed.

Against the Nation, Against the Church

While it is chic to decry the nation-state, such attacks unwittingly (or knowingly) presuppose a globalist alternative—a globalism with acknowledged anti-Christian goals.  Secondly, at least from the time of the Clinton Administration, Western governments have seen ethno-nationalist identities and religions claiming absolute truth as two wings of the same bird.[14]  Logically, one cannot attack one without attacking the other.  Christians may protest that the claims of Christ transcend that of the nation, and that is true, but such protests are irrelevant to those who deem what is and is not acceptable behavior.  As the most vocal opponents of the New World Order are clergy, and since Byzantine times the clergy have been the pulse of the nation, the Regime saw that it must clamp down on the clergy.   An obvious example is Bishop Arimije’s resistance to the Tadic regime.[15]

Lest this be seen as pro-Serb hagiography, the Media Elite agree with the assessment, but with obvious difference in how to solve the problem.  Following the arrest of General Ratko Mladic, Geoffrey Robertson urges a hard crack-down on the Serbian clergy.  He writes,

“Clean out the Serb orthodox church, whose priests blessed the death squads at Srebrenica. Without their blessing, I believe that some soldiers would have disobeyed their orders to shoot defenceless, hog-tied, men and boys. It is widely known that the church has harboured Hague fugitives in its monasteries and has been deeply implicit with the murderous aspects of Serb nationalism… They should remember … the fact that the wheels of international justice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly small.

As Trifkovic noted, this sounds like it is from a Soviet jurist in 1937.[16]  Obviously, these facts are highly contested, not merely by Serb and Russian nationalists, but also by CIA analysts.[17]  Further, Trifkovic notes elswhere concerning Bishop Artimije

chorus of condemnation and indignant disgust against Metropolitan Amfilohije came simultaneously from the usual standard-bearers of “all progressive humanity”—Helsinki human-rights groups, sociology professors, foreign-sponsored “independent analysts,” Soros-financed media outlets—and all had a common accusation: By daring to mention Sodom and Gomorrah, Metropolitan Amfilohije is “objectively” condoning violence and promoting discrimination. Ergo he is guilty of practicing violence and discrimination, of inspiring “far-right groups and all other extremists”: “Their goal is to force the Church into internal exile, just like under communism. This goal is the raison d’etre of many NGOs in Serbia. They always react swiftly and indignantly when the Church adopts a position, treating it as something inherently illegitimate. The Metropolitan’s scriptural reference threw them into rage, as witnessed by the media conglomerate B92, which has assumed the role of ideological prosecutors and star chamber. His reminder that ‘the tree that bears no fruit is cut down’ was twisted in the best tradition of the French Revolution and Bolshevism.”

Possible Conclusions

Above anything else, I do not want to “predict” what is going to happen next.  I simply do not know.   I will suggest what one can expect to happen, and upon these suggestions, make some tentative conclusions.  If Tadic continues his anti-Serbian rule, dividing the country even more[18], he will drive the moderates in Serbia to increasingly pro-Russian positions, even to the extremes of several parties arguing for the merger of Russia and Serbia as one country.[19]   As the economic situation worsens in Europe, and few see it getting better[20], moderate Serbs are likely to say “hell with the EU.  They will never let us in, and even if they do, we will end up like Greece or Portugal.”   As NATO is bogged down in various wars across the globe, and most NATO members are growing weary of the project, NATO will cease to be a viable option to Serbs.   The latter two realities will cement Russia as the only real alternative to the West.

The religious question remains an interesting question.   Serbia, as some have noted, was highly secular at the end of the Cold War.  (The sad irony is it was closer to Hillary Clinton’s vision of an open-society before she started bombing).  There are signs of hope, though.   The funeral for Patriarch Pavle revealed something in the spiritual psyche that even secularism was unable to remove.  Another moment is when Serb nationalists protested the gay pride march in Belgrade.  The Regime mandated that Belgrade demonstrate their obeisance to “Europe” and “human rights” by having a gay pride march, something anathema in all Orthodox countries.  The response was classic.[21] (Follow the link, but one should really watch the YouTube video.)

The struggle is not over.  As C. S. Lewis said, “If the game can be played, it can be lost.”   But it can also be won.

[1] Cf. Joseph P. Farrell, “Prolegomena to God, History, and Dialectic:  The Theological Foundations of the Two Europes.”  3 April 2011

[2] Cf. Fr Seraphim Rose, Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future,  Platina, CA:  St. Herman’s Press, 1997.  One will note that I spend relatively little time discussing “the return of Christ.”   I do not have much to add that is not found in 1 Thessalonians 4.  Christians usually go astray when the speak beyond the limits of Scripture and Tradition.

[3] Vladimir Moss, “Has the Reign of Antichrist Begun?” Orthodox Christian Books. 3 April 2011

[4] St. Athanasios, “History of the Arians,” Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (series II), vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 287.

[5] Despite the title of this paper, I don’t intend to speak too much about antichrist’s reign, of which Scripture says little.   Rather, I speak on coming of antichrist, and of signs that precede his coming.   I am relying on the testimony both of Scripture and the holy fathers, the latter as the vehicle of Scripture’s truth today.

[6] Something similar can be said for the word “Protestant.”  While both evangelical Protestants and the liberal unbelieving bishop in New Jersey are both outside the Orthodox Church (with which they would agree by definition), one must admit that there is a substantial difference between the two groups.

[7] While I am dancing through exegetical minefields, I will add another premise to the argument.  If one takes seriously Christ’s words to Peter in Matthew 16, then one must draw the further conclusion that this church (and deposit) is still present today!

[8] “The Founding of the Theological Education Fund—1958: Ghana Assembly International Missionary Council,” Ministerial Formation  Ecumenical Theological Education, Ecumenical Institute/WCC Geneva 110 (April 2008), 13.

[9] That is a valid position, though one I am not ready to defend.  Today’s ecumenical churches are by and large Arian in terms of liturgy and theology.

[10] For the larger story, see William Engdhal’s Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Baton Rouge, LA: ), 2009.

[11] Srjda Trifkovic, “Kosovo as a Symbol of Anti-Postmodernism.”  Chronicles Magazine Online. 22 June 2011

[12] Obviously, few people are ultimately consistent with their presuppositions.  Some may support the division of Kosovo yet still resist the globalists.   They are inconsistent.

[13] “Bishop ARTEMIJE of Kosovo Protests Bush Meeting with ‘Terrorist, War Criminal, and Racketeer’ Hashim Thaci.”  American Council for Kosovo. 22 June 2011.

[14] Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen identified religious absolutism with extreme nationalism and that both must be stopped (or bombed).  He mentioned this in an address to Naval graduates.  I currently cannot locate this address online.

[15] “Bishop Artimije Returns to Kosovo and Metohija.”  American Council for Kosovo. 19 November 2010.

[16] Srdja Trifkovic, “General Mladic: The Facts.”  Chronicles Magazine Online.  1 June 2011.

[17] John Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al Qa’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. ( St Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2007).  Also see Thomas E. Woods, 33 Questions About American History You are Not Supposed to Ask (New York: Crown Forum, 2007), pp. 38-44; 252-259.

[18] James George Jatras, “Vladimir Putin Visits a Serbia on the Edge of Collapse.”  Modern Tokyo Times.  22 June 2011. .

[19] “New Party in Serbia Supports Merging With Russia.”  Russia Today.  31 August 2010.  When this first came out, few seriously entertained the notion.  As the current Belgrade regime continues to support cultural and national suicide, the merger with Russia is becoming more and more understandable.

[20] Stephen Walt, “Can Anything Save Greece?”  Foreign Policy.   21 June 2011.

[21] Nebojsa Malic, “Clinton Does the Balkans” The Gray Falcon.   12 October 2010.

Putin’s Response to the New World Order

I think the New World Order primarily connotes a global economic market led by Anglo-American bankers.  I know some want to “mystify” it with connections of Cabbalism, Zionism, and Freemasonry.  Certainly, the last three should be resisted, and certainly they factor into the New World Order, but I think the primary goal and end-game is a single global market.  This market will relativise traditional communities, religions, and national identity.   I suspect there is a religious dimension to the New World Order, but I don’t want to say too much on it because there is so much that cannot be known right now.

We are all KGB agents now

I’ve mentioned before that American conservatives and evangelicals justify their distrust (or more often, outright hostility) to Putin and Russia claiming that Putin is a KGB agent (still) and the majority of Russian elites in the FSB are actually old KGB agents.   (There is supposedly to be a book arguing this point which I plan to acquire in the future).   I’ve rebutted this claim several times, but I will try to bring all the threads together.

While it’s not often stated, I think the main reason people bring up Putin’s KGB-connections is because of the nefarious connotations the phrase “KGB” has.   We think of jack-booted Nazis (?!?) storming into grandma’s prayer meeting and throwing her into the GULAG.  Certainly, that happened, but I will argue that it is hypocritical and immoral for American conservatives and capitalists (particularly when the two are synonymous) to use that line of argumentation.  American capitalists consistently bankrolled the Soviet Union knowing about the camps.

However, that wasn’t the essence of the KGB in the later years.  In Michael Stuermer’s biography of Putin, he makes clear that Putin (and others like him) joined the KGB not to hunt for grandma’s prayer meetings, but to protect Russia against external threats.    Let’s pursue this line of thought for a second.  Towards the end of the Cold War, it was becoming apparent that the ideological differences between Western Europe/America and USSR were not as sharp.    The true opposition was between two economic empires competing for global supremacy.  Therefore, I suggest it is in this context that Putin’s “KGB” moves be interpreted.

At this point we should acknowledge that Patriarch ALEXEY II (of blessed memory) was a KGB agent.   Doesn’t this mean the Russian church is implicitly flawed?  Perhaps, but there is something else going on.   As the Gerrards’ biography of Alexey makes clear, Alexey was considered one of the brightest KGB agents out there.   Again, doesn’t this seem to implicate Alexey?  Well, it might, but something unexpected happened.  Alexey decided to deconstruct the Soviet system from within and rebuilt the church.   It seems odd that a mindless KGB agent decides to internally destroy the Soviets for the sake of the church.    Therefore, (I will skip to my conclusion) any claim that Russia today is KGB (as is its church) and its FSB are simply biding their time for the “time to strike” is nonsensical.”

To summarize:

  • Boris Yeltsin purged the KGB several times in the 1990s.  Most of the hardliners were either arrested or pensioned off.   The FSB is simply not the same as the KGB.
  • How come no one brings up, to reverse the charge, that GHW Bush was head of the CIA?  The CIA is just as nasty as the KGB, if not more so (Monarch, Mind-control, remote viewing, prostitution as a form of torture, etc).
  • The brightest KGB agent actually worked to subvert the KGB.
  • Times change:  even if the men were truly old-school KGB agents, it really doesn’t change my primary argument today.  Even the older, more evil KGB was committed to a Eurasian dominance.   Now, it’s different enemies and different fronts (this last point probably deserves a post in itself).

In case any True Orthodox are reading this, I am not necessarily saying Alexey II was a good guy, nor am I white-washing KGB and Communist crimes.   I am simply evaluating *some* sources on the matter and working them in a larger framework.  Truth be told, I do not have the skill to fully navigate that area.

Review of Russia and the Arabs

Primakov, Yevgeny.  Russia and the Arabs:  Behind the Scenes in the Middle East from the Cold War to the Present.  New York: Basic Books, 2009.

Yevgeny Primakov, formerly head of Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, and former Prime Minister of Russia, has written his own memoirs.  The book reflects 30 years of diplomatic service from one of the world’s most respected statesman.  Always serene and mature in his analysis, Primakov has correctly diagnosed the problems in Middle Eastern and American diplomatic policies..

Many neo-conservatives and American patriots think that the Soviet Union simply desired to export (and force down) its own version of socialist revolution upon unwilling countries.  While this was true in Eastern and Central Europe, nothing of the sort happened in the Middle East, at least not for the long term.   The United States and the Soviet Union found the post-World War II Middle East rife with young nationalist movements.  At first the Middle Eastern governments were committed to a form of Arab socialism.  However, this form of Arab socialism had little in common with the socialism of the USSR, and while some Communist parties in the Middle East held tenaciously to power, the Arab mindset was not given to international socialism.   Therefore, and this is a key point Primakov makes, the USSR did not force Communism onto the Middle East.  Primakov writes, “The Soviet Union understood that it was impossible to bring about sociopolitical change in another country via an imported revolution.  It had to happen from within, when the time was ripe” (92).

The United States’ original objective was to draw the Arab nations into an anti-Moscow alliance.  This meant allying itself with radical Arab groups (the fateful foreshadowing should not be missed).   In any case, neither the Soviet Union nor Soviet America was able to accomplish its primary goal.

It would be simplistic to say that the USSR threw all of its support behind Arab states and America supported Israel.   True, the USSR had good relations with most Arab states and Tel Aviv called the shots on American foreign policy.  But Moscow let Arab states know they could not act with impunity and keep expecting Russian military expertise and arms shipments (Sadaam Hussein never learned this lesson).

Nevertheless, both the USA and the USSR  did act accordingly to one objective:  prevent the Middle East from flaring up, with the larger geographic instability ensuing.   Moscow (and less often America) would take a hard line with her allies if they threatened Middle Eastern peace.   This is political realism.

Many will fault Primakov’s narrative at this point.  Primakov tells the story that the USSR did all that it could to foster Middle Eastern peace  while Israel did all it could to hinder it.   Perhaps he is myopic on this point, but Israel’s actions have been coming under more scrutiny.   Primakov has a very revealing chapter documenting Israel’s illegal nuclear arms ambitions.

There are also moving chapters giving insight into the lives of Yasser Arafat and others.

Criticisms of the Book

Many will probably fault Primakov of stacking the deck.   The Soviet Union’s Middle Eastern policy can do no wrong while the US keeps bungling it.   While the latter is certainly true, many in the West will blanche at this rosy picture of the USSR.   While perhaps flawed on some points, Primakov does highlight an important issue:  for twenty years Americans have been cheering themselves as the sacred guardians of the free world and anyone who questions that narrative is a liberal, communist, hates the troops, or an Islamomeanie.    The dialectical irony is Americans have done the same thing with ideology that the Soviets did.  In fact, it’s worse.  Trotsky was rejected on this point.   The D.C. Establishment has surpassed even Stalin on this point!  There is a reason that neo-conservatives are said to be the heirs of Trotksy:   Trotksy wanted to import revolution to all countries, whether they were ready for it or not (with the subsequent goal of destroying national boundaries and traditional cultures); neo-conservatives want to spread neocon ideology to all countries (e.g., globalism, the dominance of Western corporations and markets, “democracy,” relativising  traditional society). The dialectic has come full-circle.   The D.C. Regime is the new Soviet Union.

Primakov has a provocative, if at times flawed chapter on Islam.   Careful thinking is required here, and I think Primakov rushed his thinking.   Primakov identifies Samuel Huntingdon’s thesis (to which the current reviewer subscribes) positing an ultimate clash between Western civilization and Islamic civilization. At this point, instead of engaging Huntingdon’s thesis, Primakov ridicules those provincial people who think all Arabs are Muslims are terrorists.   Presumably, these people think that the coming clash should be an armed clash and the sooner the better.   But is this what Huntingdon really believes?  Even more, is Primakov’s own views of Islam that different?

Perhaps Huntingdon can be faulted with an ambiguous use of the term “clash.”  More importantly, why did Huntingdon posit there would be a clash?  He said this because Islam’s values are inherently at odds with the post-Christian West’s secular values.   Ironically, Primakov, too, identifies democracy as incompatible with Islam (or consistent Judaism or Christianity).   Indeed, this is the key to Primakov’s critique of the US importing Western democracy on Iraq!


The book is an interesting glimpse inside the life of a key player for peace in a troubled area.  The book is written in a memoir-like style and occasionally suffers from those defects.   But that also makes it the readable and interesting book that it is.  Primakov tells a story that is different from the Official Narrative of the Ministry of Truth.


Review of Unholy Terror

Schindler, John.  Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qai’da, and the Rise of Global Jihad.  St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2007.


Schindler’s argument is simple:  If Western intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s created the modern mujahidin, Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s globalized it (Schindler, 316).   While it is logically impossible to be a consistent Muslim and a consistent secularist (The Koran, Surah 9:5), post-Communist Bosnia was something close to it.[1] The Western Anglo-American elite wanted to believe that an Islamic Bosnia would be a beacon of multi-cultural European values:  democracy, women’s rights, and tolerance.    While the regime under Alija Izetbegovic never achieved anything similar to that, the tragic irony is that if left alone, Bosnia would have remained nominally Islam and relatively secular:  something the Western elites wanted.

In the following essay I will advance several theses:  1) The Clinton Administration (hereafter known as the “Clintonistas”) facilitated the rise of al-Qai’da as a global network; 2) The Clintonistas established a radically Islamic state in the heart of Europe; and 3) the tragedy of the Serbo-Croat-Bosnian war demonstrates a fundamental (and ultimately fatal) dialectic within the heart of the Western mind, whether “conservative” or “liberal.”

Other authors have documented the US’s facilitating the mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the 1980s.   It is becoming clear that such a move proved not only disastrous but also unnecessary (Primakov, Russia and the Arabs), as the Soviet Union had already fallen economically and would soon fall politically.   Granted, hindsight is 20-20 and one cannot fault the Carter Administration too much for not knowing what radical Muslims would do with advanced NATO weaponry.   Unfortunately, Carter’s mistake was repeated with glee by the Clintonistas, with the ultimate effects seen in the falling of the twin towers.

Schindler gives a brief, but fine overview of recent Balkan history from the 19th century until the post-World War 2 era.  He sheds helpful light on an area few Westerners understand.   To understand the problems in the Balkans, one must realize that religion and nationality are never far apart, contra recent works (Glenny, The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers: 1804-1999).[2] In short, Croatia is Roman Catholic and has political affiliations with Germany.   Serbia is Eastern Orthodox and looks to Russia for protection.    Bosnia and Albania are Muslim and look to the Middle East for culture and religion.   This much could be found in any encyclopedia.    Schindler points out the obvious elephant in the room:  the reason that Bosnia is Muslim is because the Ottoman Empire enslaved the Balkans and implicitly pressured many Slavs to convert.

Schindler notes that during World War 2 Croatia and parts of Bosnia joined sides with the Nazis while the Serbs (divided between the Chetniks and Tito’s Partisans) fought alongside the Allies.   While he only notes it briefly, one must point out that Churchill and Co., abandoned the Chetnik monarchists to the Communists, whom the Communists subsequently executed (with Allied complicity).


Alija Itzebegovic’s Goal

Izetbegovic pulled one of the more incredible stunts in modern political history.  He was able to tell Western media outlets and governments that he stood for democracy and pluralism while simultaneously ethnically-cleansing Christians, Jews, and secular Muslims from Bosnia.   This makes one wonder whether the West was hypocritical or simply stupid (obviously, the answer is “both”).  The result is that Western media outlets would report Serb atrocities but deliberately look the other way at Bosniak atrocities.


The U.S.-Iranian Connection


For reasons that defy common sense, the U.S. government facilitated not only the arrival of jihadist mujahidin into Bosnia, but also Iranian arms, intel networks, and soldiers into Bosnia.   While other European forces had no love for the Serbs, the French and Germans were increasingly worried about the U.S. allowing armed Iranians into the heart of Europe.  Indeed, as many Europeans noted, the numerous C-130s landing in Bosnia (violating the UN arms embargo) could only have been US planes or US-allowed planes.


The Srebenica “Massacre”

The one area of the war that always gets mentioned is the final Serb assault on the town of Srebenica, with the alleged slaughter of 7,000 Muslim men and boys.   Several things must be noted:  1) it is acknowledged that 7,000 men of the Bosnian Muslim infantry were executed in military fashion; 2) Muslims recruit boys to fight for them;[3] 3) the town was not surrounded by the Serbs, thus allowing noncombatants to leave the city; 4) given that the city was controlled by Muslims gang leaders, many Muslims actually deserted to the Serb camp—this fact alone demonstrates how untenable the Hague narrative is:  if the Serbs simply wanted to ethnically-cleanse the entire town, they would have done a better job of surrounding it and killing those leaving the city; 5) Alija Izetbegovic knew that he could never defeat the Serbian army alone and had to find a way to enlist outside help.   The Clintonistas knew they couldn’t actually start attacking the Serbs without provocation.  A deal was made:  Izetbegovic would abandon his own people to be slaughtered, provoking international outcry and response.


The Dialectic Breaks Down Neo-Liberalism


Part of my thesis is that the Bosnian war of 1993-1995 (and the Kosovar War of 1999) destroys the way the Beltway Regime (along with the media puppets) views the world.    The Clintonistas wanted to see a multi-cultural, tolerant but largely Islamic center in the heart of Europe.  The problem is that Izetbegovic acted just like a good, Koranic Muslim.  He promised tolerance to the West and marginalized those inside his country who did not share his Islamic vision.  Therefore, the neo-liberals are presented with a dilemma: on one hand there is dynamic of multi-cultural, yet fully Koranic Islam (which has been demonstrated to collapse simply into radical Islam) and nationalism on the other hand (e.g., by nationalism I mean local and ethnically geographic communities deciding their own fates).   Yet, both of these options are unacceptable for the neo-liberals.  The only way the neo-liberal paradigm can function is by forcibly asserting its own narrative.  Therefore, the neo-liberal paradigm is reduced to violence.


The Dialectic Breaks Down Neo-Conservatism


The contrasts are more stark in this case.  Neocons do not want to identify with neo-liberal paradigms, yet I maintain they ultimately do.  Neo-conservatives hate Islam (or only when Islam threatens Israel), thus it seems counter-intuitive that neo-conservatives would back radically Islamic leaders like Hashim Thaci and Alija Izetbegovic, men whose regimes openly state their enemies are Jews and Christians, and who openly state they will kill Jews and Christians.   But the problem is deeper for neocons: they cannot oppose Islam in this case because identifying with the Serbs would identify them with a non-communist, yet fully nationalist Russia (Huntingdon, Clash of Civilizations).


Therefore, the neo-conservative paradigm is forced to choose between radical Islam on one hand and a Serbo-Russian identification on the other hand.  Both choices are anathema to the neo-conservatives, but given that foreign interventionism is in the essence of the neo-conservative paradigm, a choice has to be made.  But any choice that is made will contradict (and ultimately deconstruct) one of the (stated) tenets of neo-conservatism (anti-Islamic, anti-Russian).  Therefore, the neo-conservative must choose between the deconstruction of his paradigm or opt out for the violence option.   Of course, it goes without saying that neo-conservatism is reduced to violence.  The only way the neo-conservative can escape the dialectic is to acknowledge another premise:  as evil as radical Islam is, Russia is worse.  The American involvement in the Balkans, therefore, must be seen as a miniature war against Russia (Norris, Collision Course: Nato, Russia, and Kosovo).[4]


Final Thoughts on the Book


Schindler’s book deserves widest possible dissemination.  He openly exposes the Clintonistas as criminals who are in cohorts with the most odious criminals in the world.  There are a few lapses in Schindler’s reading, though.  He mentions that Slobodan Milosevic wanted to create a “Greater Serbia.”  Perhaps Milosevic stated as much, but even as Schindler’s own reading demonstrates, Milosevic did a poor job of creating a “Greater Serbia.”  Indeed, if such were his goal would he not have aided Karadvic and Mladic more?   It’s irrelevant that the two leaders were at odds with Belgrade.  Both sides would have certainly realized that a combined effort would have easily and quickly won the war—yet this effort never came.

Schindler’s proposal for defeating radical Islam is commendable, but ultimately flawed.  It is simply a continuation of the “War on Terror.”   To be fair to Schindler, it’s different from the neo-con/neo-lib definition of the War on Terror.  Schindler identifies the enemy as a consistently Koranic Islam.  However, Schindler’s proposal for “more intel, more arms” against the Muslims will not work.  Until the West regains its Christian moral vision, and decides to not cast another vote of “no-confidence” in itself, arms will never defeat Islam.

Practically, this means recognizing that Europe’s cultural and moral roots can never be divorced from the Christian vision (Trifkovic, Defeating Jihad).   Europe is faced with two practical options: Nihilism or the Nazarene. Corollaries to this vision:  recognize Russia and Serbia as fighting the same enemy (and obviously, to stop funding jihadists in the Balkans, Cyprus, and Chechnya), put a moratorium on immigration from the Middle East, and place the leaders of the Hague on trial for treason against the European and American people.

Sadly, Americans paid the price for the Clinton error, also.   By assistinig al-Qai’da in Bosnia, the Clintonistas provided bin-Laden with a competent network from which he would later launch his strikes against the United States.


Works Cited


F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press, 2009.


Demons, The Koran, Jihadist Press.


<span>Glenny, Misha. The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers: 1804-1999.  New York: Penguin Books, 1999.


Huntingdon, Samuel.  The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.  New York: Simon & Schuster Papebacks, 1996.


Norris, John.  Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo.  Westport, CT.  Praeger Publishers, 2005


Primakov, Yevgeny. Russia and the Arabs: Behind the Scenes in the Middle East From the Cold War to the Present. New York: Basic Books, 2009.


Schindler, John.  Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al-Qai’da, and the Rise of Global Jihad.  St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2007.


Trifkovic, Serge.  Defeating Jihad: How the War on Terror May be Won in Spite of Ourselves.  Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2006



[1] Of course this means they were bad Muslims.

[2] Misha Glenny’s work provides a valuable overview of recent Balkan history, and Glenny is one of the rare Balkan correspondents who do not simply parrot what CNN tells them to.  Glenny’s thesis is that the real tragedies in the Balkans stem from the Great Powers (England, France, German, and Russia) interfering with smaller Balkan countries as opposed to reducing all of the problems to “religion” and “nationalism.”  Glenny is to be commended for providing valuable insight into this area, but he does not seem to realize how extensive religion and nationalism are in this area.

[3] Executing boys is inexcusable, but one wonders why the Muslims were not seen as guilty for conscripting young boys into battle.  Perhaps Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic should be tried as war criminals, but they should be tried by an impartial court.  The Hague is both jury and prosecuting attourney.

[4] Of course, the true geo-political reason the U.S. went to such great lengths against Russia was to take control of key Central Asian pipelines running from the Caspian Sea to southern Europe.  See William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy and the New World Order (Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press), 2009.


My (obligatory) post on Cablegate

I have nothing new to add to the phenomenon, save that it makes the news more interesting now, having usurped Lindsey Lohan’s battle with rehab as the top of the MSM’s priorities.   Still, a few words.

For the longest time I (and others) have been accusing the DC government as run by oligarchies, in cahoots with international banking cartels, openly subverts traditional societies, and in general guilty of all-around miscreant behavior.    And no doubt to some, I sounded like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

With others, I doubt wikileaks will change anything important in terms of foreign policy.  Even the US’s European allies don’t really like us, thinking we think we have the right to play God all over the world.   Wikileaks won’t be a surprise to Putin or Berlusconi.

However, it does confirm everything I have ever said about the New World Order and the Oligarchs.  When I said the US and Israel were arming and financing Georgia to kill Ossetians for the sake of oil, I am now proven right.

I (and others) have said the US instigated internal revolutions in traditionally Orthodox Slavic countries for the sake of weakening Russia–I am correct.

Interestingly, it notes a close connection between Putin and Berlusconi.

I really don’t have anything to add that Anatoly hasn’t already admirably summarized.

Wikileaks is a mirror to the Western political soul.

EDIT:  The Regime becomes more explicit about the Putin-Berlusconi political alliance.   Every time a major leader threatens the Regime in any way, he risks major political dangers.    I quoted from the German newspapers Spiegel, but I don’t think the link is permanent, so I will quote major excerpts below.

This Russian-Italian axis does not suit the Americans at all. Because Berlusconi has negotiated generous conditions for the Italian oil and energy giant Eni with the Russian firm Gazprom, and because he generally supports Russian energy projects rather than those of Western countries, the Americans see their energy interests endangered.

US diplomats believe Berlusconi is immune to political influence. He generally makes decisions relating to Russia by himself, and Italian diplomats are seldom allowed to get involved…

But Washington appears interested in at least investigating the rumors. In January, the US State Department asked the US embassies in Rome and Moscow to assemble “any information on the personal relationship” between Putin and Berlusconi as well as information about “personal investments” that could influence their political policies. It was signed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


Politics Past the Putin-Era

I have gone on record as a strong defender of Vladimir Putin.  Seen as an alternative to both Yeltsin-Clinton Capitalism on one hand and Sovietism on the other, Putin’s record is impressive.  It’s hard to put into words just how important Putin was to Russia and even to international order in general.  Putin delegitimized the oligarchs inside Russia while sounding a warning to unipolar imperialism on the outside.

He is not perfect.  I am not entirely pleased with a number of his recent decisions.  I do wonder if he and Medvedev are leaving Iran out to dry, so to speak.  He’s a politician, though, and often has to act like one.

It is very tempting to come close to “man-worship” regarding Vladimir Putin.  This is especially the case when you compare Putin to other world leaders:  Bush, Obama, Tony Blair, Sarkozy.   Indeed, postmodernity defines itself as the rejection of the hero.   Therefore, the best way to reject postmodernity is to find heroes!

But human heroes should never be ultimate.  They point beyond themselves to the transcendent–to God.  In Putin’s case they point somewhere else, too.  They point beyond the next ruler of Russia.  A lot of media outlets are curious over the next Russian leader–Putin, Medvedev, or some other guy.  On one hand it doesn’t matter.  Given United Russia’s hegemony the next leader of Russia will fall in the mold of the previous two.

Some people, though, are looking beyond the Parliamentary system to the Tsarist system.  In some ways, I am one of those persons.  I do believe, along with a section of the Russian Orthodox Church, that there will be a Tsar in Russia who will focus the believing world around himself as a resistance to antichrist.   To be honest, though, I do not believe Putin is this Tsarist figure.  I also believe that monarchists should play this scene very carefully.  Much of the world is militantly opposed to both Orthodoxy and Russia and is doing everything they can to destroy both.  Putin has done a fine job in staying their hands.  Could a Tsar do better?  Possibly.  Should a Tsar lead today’s Russia?  I can think of worse alternatives.  Is that time now?  That is the question of the hour.  Let’s hope wise heads prevail.

Full Spectrum Dominance

This book by William Engdahl succinctly explains the neo-conservative, neo-liberal paranoia.  The thesis is simple and derives from Zbignew Brerezinski’s The Grand Chessboard.  Zbignew had taken this idea from British strategist Halford Mackinder.  Mackinder argued (quite rightly, if with somewhat devilish conclusions) that whoever controlled the Eurasian landmass would control the world’s pivot-point.  Zbigniew updated the thesis:  America should seek such dominance in Eurasia as to make Russia her vassal.  The unspoken conclusion (actually, Paul Wolfowitz was quite outspoken on this point):  if Russia does not wish to be a vassal, use a nuclear first-strike against her.

With those cheerful thoughts in mind, Engdahl offers us a very helpful hermeneutical grid per US geopolitics:  anytime America acts in Europe or Asia, she is doing so in order to 1) control key oil transits; 2) weaken China; and 3) weaken Russia.  In order to do this the Anglo-Americans must employ a number of strategies against ornery states like Russia, China, Serbia, Myanmar, and Iran.

The most successful of American strategies has been the “Color Revolutions.”  Drawing off of the psychology of both terrorism and rock concerts, CIA operatives were able to finance and delegitimize social nationalist regimes.  This worked in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia.

Understandably, this will not work with larger states.  In that case, just accuse them of human rights violations.  This is the primary goal with China.  W.E. does a good job explaining the geopolitical importance of Tibet (the Tibetan plateau is the source of the seven major rivers the give water to most of Asia), Myanmar (50% of Chinese oil imports pass through the Straits of Malacca).  Obviously, if America can sever Tibet from China and/or control Myanmar, it can deliver a crushing choke-hold on China from which it will likely not recover.  With the removal of China, American control over Eurasia is guaranteed.

W.E. then gives a disturbing analysis of American nuclear capabilities.  The technological specifics aside, keeping in line with the Zbigniew-Halford thesis, the goal of American nuclear capabilities is to maintain American dominance in the world.  We need to be very clear about the Wolfowitz doctrine:  America should pre-emptively destroy any country that could pose a threat to American political interests. This is the equivalent of killing some random guy on the street just so he can’t kill you some day.  I’m not making this up.  This is the morality and logic of the people in charge.

There are some limitations to this book, though the overall thrust is accurate.  W.E. is only focusing on the American infrastructure.  He doesn’t do the same kind of work as Joseph Farrell or Jim Marrs.

Things look bad, and W.E. doesn’t pull any punches.  But not all is lost.  The following is my own reflections and not necessarily those of W.E.

  1. If the Motivilov Prophecies are true, Russia will survive an American nuclear holocaust.
  2. Even the strongest armies can do little with a collapsed economy and infrastructure.  Contrary to popular opinion, the Red Army at the end of Afghanistan was super-elite, yet the USSR was broken.

The Centrality of Eurasian Geopolitics

Most people realize that he who controls energy resources controls how the game will be played.  Few, however, take the analysis beyond that insight.  When I’m looking at geopolitics, I keep asking the question “Cui bono?”  Ultimately, I believe these decisions reduce to theological and conceptual starting points, but at the penultimate level the phrase “follow the money” can explain much in terms of modern politics.

I’m leaving aside the question of whether Putin’s Russia is a good guy or no (I’ve argued that sufficiently elsewhere).  I’m merely examining the reasons why the neoconservative/neoliberal establishment does what it does.

Few doubt the American economy is fragile.  While I think “peak oil” predictions are exaggerated, there is some truth behind the frantic shrieks: oil is scarce and expensive and he who controls the oil, controls the game.

After Saudi Arabia, Russia is the leading exporter of oil and natural gas (I believe Russia has actually surpassed Saudi Arabia on that point, but I’m not sure).  While I think NATO has the military edge over Russia, such a confrontation would be disastrous and the costs outweigh any benefits–so NATO does the next best thing:  control the proxy states.  William Engdahl writes,

The unspoken agenda of Washington’s agressive Central Asia policies after teh collapse of the Soviet Union could be summed up in a single phrase:  control of energy.  So long as Russia was able to use its strategic trump card–its vast oil and gas reserves–to win economic allies in Western Europe, China and elsewhere, it could not be politically isolated.  The location of the carious Color Revolutions was aimed directly at encircling Russia and cutting off, at any time, her export pipelines.  With more than sixty percent of Russia’s dollar export earnings coming from oil and gas exports, such an encirclment would amount to an economic chokehold on Russia by US-led NATO

(Full Spectrum Dominance, 46).

With that perspective, one can better appreciate many of Putin’s tactical moves:  the arrest of Mikhail Khodorovsky and the reversal of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.  With the former he kept British Petroleum from dominating Russia’s energy decisions, and with the latter he ensured a more reliable energy transit to Western Europe–negating the Anglo-American establishment at both points.  In fact, no doubt by the grace of God, Putin has been able to achieve several crucial victories without firing a shot (the other necessary victory, obviously, was defeating Georgia in 2008).

Small Countries will Control the Game

Geographically small countries like Armenia and Georgia will be the pivot in this Eurasian struggle.  These are mountainous countries through which pass major oil routes.  With the exception of US adventurism, the days of empire are over.  Instead of colonizing Georgia and Armenia, the US and Russia (respectively) use them as satellites.

Engdahl explains,

A close look at the map of Eurasia began to suggest what was at stake for Washington in Eurasia.  The goal was not only the strategic encirclement of Russia through a series of NATO bases ranging from Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo, to Poland, to the Czech Republic, and possibly Georgia, and possibly Ukraine.  All of this had the overarching goal of enabling NATO to control energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.

The Washington strategy of “democratic” coups–color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine–were designed strategically to cut China off from access to vital oil and gas reserves of the Caspian Sea, including Kazakhstan and, ultimately, Russia (51).

Engdahl’s analysis, while clear and helpfully succinct, is nothing new.  Forerunner of Antichrist Zbignew Brzezinski has routinely said the same thing (Brzezinski, interestingly enough, is one of the few globalists who does NOT want a war with Iran, seeing that one could play off Iran against Russia).  Fr Raphael has made similar comments on the Eurasian scene.  Here are others:

The Eurasian Corridor

Armenia and Israel’s Mossad