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.

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.


Homosexuality and the Fight for Serbia’s Soul

People always ask me, “What’s so bad about NATO?  Why are you always attacking NATO and the EU?”  Many are now seeing that the neo-conservative and neo-liberal subjugation of Serbia is not a good thing.  I confess–I had always attacked that on the wrong front.  I had always pointed out that attacking Serbia created an Islamic state in the heart of Europe.    That’s true, but that is not the problem.

The problem is more sinister than that.  Whatever the problems of the Milosevic regime, Yugoslavia was an old-school nationalist state that resisted the one-world designs of the EU and the Anglo-American bankers.

But it is darker still.  Serbia has been an American colony for ten years.  The Americans have been quite tolerant of their subjects.  The Serbs are allowed to have their churches and they can even pretend they have Kosovo.  Those are merely words.  America wants Serbia integrated into the Euro-international sphere.

But as heinous as that is, that isn’t even the problem.  NATO/EU/US has one condition:  tolerate homosexuality.  The Overlords are quite gracious, actually.  They are not saying support homosexuality in the public sphere, but merely tolerate it.  Allow a gay-pride march.  Srdja Trifkovic, writing a few days before the October 10 march, notes the issues at stake.

While the march took place under government orders, it appears that the heart of the population was not in it.  Nebosja Malic nicely summarizes what happened.  The average Serb in Belgrade, it seems, fought back against their subjugators.

It appears America actually fired up nationalist sentiments.  Who knew?

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.

Rejecting the Eurabia Thesis

Commentators speculate that by the year 2050 Europe will be largely Muslim. This is seen in Europe’s declining birth rate over against hordes of Middle Eastern immigrants and their high birth rates. Part of this failure is Europe’s vote of “no-confidence” in itself Many like to call the West a “post-Christian society.” In many ways, though, I think it is post-nihilist society.

And, so it’s argued, Europe will continue to die off while Muslims come in.

That appears demographically to be the case, but here is why I reject the Eurabia thesis:

  1. It only works under the assumption that things in 2050 will be identical to the way they are in 2010. But what many conservatives forget is that “things can happen” in a short period of time. In the years between 1918 and 1945 (fewer than 30 years) Europe undid 16 centuries of its heritage. Just because things are bad (or good) today doesn’t mean it will always be that way.
  2. Following above, the reasons why Europe is plagued with immigrants is partly due to its post-colonial heritage (a great evil, I admit). Another part is the humanist mentality of its leaders. The leaders of Europe (and America) honestly believed that all cultures are equal and even though Muslims believe things like Surah 9:5, if we show them the glories of liberal democracy, we can turn all of the jihadists into new Perez Hiltons. “Let’s respect the poor Mussies’ religion. All religions–except ancient Christianity–equal.” Will they keep saying that as Muslims carry out honor killings and begin executing homosexuals?
  3. And a few European countries are waking up. While little will probably come out of the Swiss minaret ban, it does show that sections of Europe are waking up.  Also consider that Italy is deporting North Africans and Sweden’s far right, anti-immigration party has gained a foothold.
  4. War in Iran: if the West/Israel carries out a potentially-nuclear war with Iran, whatever else may come of it, it will definitely change Euro-Muslims relations.
  5. Recognizing the Armenian genocide: As more countries begin to recognize the genocide the Turks carried out on Armenian Christians in the 1910s, relations with Turkey will sour. Turkey might decide that Europhilic politics isn’t worth it and go elsewhere. They might decide to force small confrontations in Kurdish Iraq or they could block shipping/troop transport in central Asia.  Keep in mind that as Turkey turns back to Islam, it is still a NATO member.  This tension will worsen as as the US continues to screw Muslim lands and will utterly crack if NATO declares war on Iran.
  6. The case of Serbia and Kosovo: Don’t really know what will happen here. The Regime (Brussels/London/DC) utterly controls the Serb government. It was NATO’s first example of “nation-building.” However, on the other hand, even liberals in Europe–while they may hate the Serbs–they are beginning to hate the Muslim Kosovars even more. Likewise, Putin’s Russia is not the same country as Yeltsin’s. Russia has played its diplomacy card with great skill. Russia and Serbia are showing the world that Kosovo is not a functional state. When the Kosovars ethnically cleanse the last few Serbs–the people who keep the hospitals and such running–the state will become a complete narco-gangster state. The only reason it will function is due to drug and prostitution money, along with donations by high-ranked Republicans in the United States.
  7. And Europe knows it. NATO is bogged down in Afghanistan. If the Serbs wanted to retake Kosovo, they probably could with Russian help. Russian special forces could air drop into Serbia. While they would need to fly over Romania and Hungary, the Russians might not ask for permission either. And Romania wouldn’t want to force a confrontation with Moscow, either.  It needs to be noted, though, that the current Serb government won’t do anything to retake their homeland.  They are puppets of Washington D. C. and Serbs must wait for new leadership.
  8. Following Samuel Huntingdon’s thesis (cf Clash of Civilizations), states are leaving the “liberal democracy” behind and are moving more towards community and tradition. When George Soros and the CIA staged “color revolutions” across the former Soviet Bloc in the 1990s, many thought that liberal demcracy would finally triumph. Those revolutions are eventually over. Saakashivili has failed in Georgia. The Orange Revolution is dead in Ukraine.
  9. Birth rates can change. As Sublime Oblivion has demonstrated, Russia’s birthrate has gone up–and it went up in during some of the worst economic crisises.

Eurabia is a serious threat. I don’t make light of it. But it can be stopped. And it can be stopped rather easily. Islam isn’t that intellectually powerful. It’s a cultural parasite. After the 1500s Europe demonstrate that it can easily defeat Islam on the intellectual and military levels. And that’s no different today. The real bad is not Islam, but the neo-lib/neo-con politicians in power. Europe enacted a counter-1600 year change in the space of 28 years. It’s quite possible to revert the slide.

Did Black Magic Destroy Serbia?

No, I don’t think Merlin cast a spell to that affect. (While it’s fairly certain that Merlin is a real character, I doubt he would do black magic against Christians).   For a year I’ve been reading and thinking about Joseph Farrell’s corpus.  I’m not entirely sure how much I buy his whole “cosmic war” theory, and whether he is right or wrong about “deep physics,” I do not have the intelligence to judge that situation.

I do know something about economics, though, being schooled (though firmly rejecting) in the Misesian tradition.  I’m currently reading Babylon’s Banksters.  Any reservations I have about the book deal with the chapters on deep physics.  Farrell’s reading of the economic situation, while innovative, appears to be sound.

Farrell summarizes his earlier books in a few pages in this book.  While my problems with the “cosmic war” thesis deal with my inability to harmonize it with the biblical narrative on early man (sorry, I won’t budge on this issue), I do accept that Farrell is on to something very important.

He makes the argument that an international banking cartel has existed for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years.  There is a religious dimension to this cartel, though there endgame is primarily money and power.  The Federal Reserve is only the most recent manifestation of this cartel.

In some circles I’m known as an ardent defender of Serbia, and that’s true enough.   I do grant that Arkan and Milosevic are guilty of war crimes (same as NATO); nor was Serbia as “holy” as many made her out to be.  That said, one can often identify oneself accurately enough by one’s enemies.  While ultimately I ascribe spiritual and theological causes to major events in history, I do realize that the saying “follow the money” is accurate on one level.  What did the Anglo-American establishment stand to gain on removing the social nationalist government of Serbia?

Fr Raphael has given a good summary of the goals of the New World Order on Serbia.  The West knew if it could get a pipeline running from central asia into Europe, it could bypass Russia and be set for its energy needs.  Serbia, sitting in a natural transit route, seemed the best location.  Problem being, Serbia was a Social Nationalist state and for all of Milosevic’s evils, he opposed global capitalism and the New World Order.   Therefore, the NWO had to do several things:  1) secure the oil transit, 2) destroy a strong Social Nationalism regime, and 3) prove to the world that it could bypass international law and depose leaders at will.

While I say that Black Magic destroyed Serbia, I don’t want to overmystify the reality.  Black magic is tied to fiat money, reserve banking, and the creation of wealth from nothing.  I do believe there are sinister religious dimensions to the New World Order; I just don’t want to use that as a hypothesis yet.

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

Review of Great Martyr Tsar-Lazar

A modern exercise in hagiagraphy.  Briefly tells the story of St Tsar Lazar of Serbia, and his heroic sacrifice for the political salvation of Europe against the Muslim horde (financed today by the Anglo-American elites).
Biographies on Tsar Lazar are few in the English language–and this is by no means an adequate biography–but this is a decent start.  Lazar came to the throne of Serbia in a time of increasing political turmoil.  His reign can be compared to that of Great King David, but without the familial and personal sins (Christ have mercy!).
As the Turkish army was on the rise, Lazar knew his options were limited.  In the best case scenario he could fight the Turks to a standstill, giving his people a precarious peace.  Even this goal, however, was in doubt.  (The author gives us specifics of Lazar’s reign–of how he rebuilt churches and gave alms to the poor.)
Ultimately, though, the Turks could not be avoided.  St Lazar knew he must give battle.  There was no human way he could win. Legend has it–and piety and reason see no cause as to why it should be doubted–the Virgin Mary appeared to St Lazar in a dream and offered him a choice–earthly victory tomorrow but nothing else, or sacrifice on the fields–defeat–but entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, preserving the soul of his people.  St Lazar–being the ultimate example of Christian heroism– chose heavenly glory.
He met the Turks on Kosovo Poltje.  His army was crushed and Lazar himself martyred on the field of battle.  Several conclusions may be drawn from his story:
  • True monarchs reign, not “lord it over” their subjects.  A monarch is an icon of heaven.  When we pray “thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven,” we are acknowledging that the earthly rule should mirror the divine rule.  Heaven is a monarchy, not a democracy.
  • While certainty is impossible, one may suppose that had Lazar not given battle to the heathen, the Turks would have hit Vienna full strength–and conquered it.  This would have eventually opened much of the Northern European Plain to the Muslim armies.  Given that 300 years later Europe barely withstood the Muslims, it is doubtful they would have earlier.  Lazar and Serbia likely saved Europe.
  • It makes one wonder why neo-conservatives support NATO’s attack on Serbia, given that it strengthens Islamic terror cells in the Balkans?  Neocons have never given a good answer to that question.

The book ends with several services to Tsar Lazar.

My thoughts on the Russo-Iranian (breaking) relationship

Even secular observers have noted that Russia is not part of the “new European western civilization.”  True, Russia is largely white and Christian, though of a different kind, but it is not the same as “western Civilization.”  Even when Western Europe was Christian, Russia was different.  At the same time, after the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia is not in the same league as the nihilistic West is today (cf Samuel Huntingdon’s The Clash of Civilizations).

From those fairly obvious points, the Eurasian school posits a new geo-political alliance that will counter the EU-NATO alliance.  Russia, China, Iran, Syria, India, etc would form economic ties that would shift the balance of power from Western Europe to Eastern Europe and central Asia.  Among other things this included Russia heavily investing in Iran’s nuclear program and in previously blocking sanctions against Iran.

Recently, however, Russia has appeared to reverse its relationship with Iran.  It has agreed to sanctions against Iran (though not with the same myopia suggested by the United States), refused the sale of S-300 missiles (which would destroy any Israeli plane in Iranian sky), and expressed alarm at Iran’s nuclear program.   So what gives?   I have several following suggestions:

  • As I understand it, the NPT says you can’t build new nuclear weapons.   Russia opposing Iran on this point isn’t that remarkable.  It’s simply upholding international law.  Of course, countries like the USA have never given a damn about international law, but there it is.
  • A strong if mentally-unbalanced Iran on Russia’s southern borders could easily destabilize that area, something Russia does not want to see.  This also explains why Russia, even given the sanctions, still does not want to see a pre-emptive strike on Iran.  That, too, would destabilize the entire region.
  • NATO has surrounded Russia with missile sites and military bases (some suggest that a tangential reason for the “War on Terror” is to surround Russia with American troops; it’s certainly happened that way). Obama’s advisor Zbignew Brereznski and Bush’s adviser Paul Wolfowitz have openly called for the destruction of Russia.  Russia must make all of her decisions with that uncomfortable fact in mind.
  • While I do like the idea of a counter-alliance against NATO-EU, the fact remains that Iran has always been an enemy of European Christians, more particularly Eastern European Christians.

However, some other conclusions on Iran:

  • I follow Stephen Walt’s analysis on Iran:  it really doesn’t make sense for them to acquire nuclear weapons.   The moment they launch one, the West (and Israel, with its illegal arsenal of hundreds of nukes) would immediately bury Tehran in radiation–and Iran knows this.  Iran would be more successful sponsoring groups like Hezbollah than risking it’s existence acquiring nuclear weapons.
  • I don’t buy the propaganda that most of Iran’s populace are secretly wanting to overthrow their regime.  If that isn’t CIA propaganda, nothing is.  Others have already refuted that.
  • That said, I really don’t see a happy way out of this scenario.  It looks like Israel will strike Iran soon.  (Interestingly, while I knew that Georgia and Azeribaijan were Israeli allies, I never counted on Israel using those two countries as bases from which to launch their attack.  I had expected Israel to fly over Iraq, something America would not allow.  This makes perfect sense).

Review of the Struggle for World Power

Knuppfer’s argument is fairly simple: Soviet communism could not exist from the wealthy business class in the West. But it’s more than that. The capitalist bankers in London and New York had two goals: 1) destroy the Tsar and impose a Soviet style system in America (and presumably, other parts of the West). England had long wanted to destroy Tsarist Russia, for the Tsar was the only thing that kept England’s Empire in check (Betrand Russell elsewhere admits that the only reason Russia expanded her terrorities in the East was to keep an eye on England). That’s not too controversial a thesis. The very existence of the Crimean War proves as much. It is Knuppfer’s second thesis that seems contradictory.

Here’s how conventional wisdom goes: Banks are businesses, and businesses can’t function in Communist societies. Therefore, bankers couldn’t have wanted a Soviet style government. That’s partly true. If the operative assumption is a level playing field for all businesses and banks, then no, communism can’t work. But if the goal is to control the money supply by means of state socialism (e.g., today’s America), then there is no tension between Big Money and Communism if Big Money is at top. In fact, if given the opportunity, yea even given capitalist principles, there is no reason why bankers–provided they are the victor–would not want a state apparatus. It allows a certain wealthy elite to control the money supply (and essentially, all of the government) and eliminate all competition (I hope this sounds very familiar–it is the American Regime today).

Therefore, Knuppfer proceeds to argue that there were two anti-Christian forces in the world that seemed to be opposed to each other: the Liberal Totalitarian West and the Communist Totalitarian East. Both are bad news for the average free man. Interestingly, Soviet Russia can be seen as Frankenstein’s monster. The West created the Soviet monster as a way of destroying monarchy and the old order. The West did not expect the military machine ala Stalin (which destroyed 80% of the Nazi army). All of a sudden, Sovietism has become too much and is now the “bad guy.”

But in calling Sovietism the bad guy, it must be noted that America never actually opposed ideological communism. America only opposed Communism whenever Communist states set up rival economic blocs that challenged NATO hegemony and the dollar. Otherwise, America cheerfully supported Marxist states (Tito in Yugoslavia, Ceacescu in Romania, the Marxists in South Africa, and even at times the Soviet Union).

Fortunately, things have changed since Knuppfer wrote his book. While America has become almost totally Marxist, many Eastern European and Asian countries have thrown off the mantle of Communism and are establishing rival trading and military blocs to challenge the D.C./Brussels/London/Tel Aviv Regime.