I rarely reblog stuff, but this was too good too pass up.
I am thankful to Jay Dyer for the following research. One of the more interesting fellows in conspiracy research is Alexandr Dugin. On the surface he is anti-postmodern, anti-New World Order, and appears to be a committed Russian Orthodox Christian. Many convertskii–though certainly not all, to be fair–have become quite taken up with him. He makes bold statements and appears well-read philosophically. I was interested in his ideas for about two weeks, and then a few things tipped me off that this is headed in a bad direction.
- Dugin’s anti-New World Order statements quickly became anti-anything “West” statements. Imagine a harder version of the anti-Western bigotry we see on some Orthodox forums. There are many demonic things in the secular West, I don’t doubt, but these blanket statements are worse than useless.
- Roots in National Bolshevism: National Bolshevism is a form of communitarian fascism that is open to Christianity and presents a strong national front against globalism. Unfortunately, many adherents are openly atheistic and a house cannot have two masters. Even worse, the symbol of National Bolshevism is still the hammer and sickle. Most people really don’t know what that means, aside from some vague reference to Soviet Russia. The Kabbalists who toppled the Tsar, though, knew exactly what the symbol meant. It was a reference to the Demiurgos using a scythe to sever the connection between heaven and earth. It is literally a Satanic form of atheism. To be fair, Dugin distanced himself from the earlier elements of National Bolshevism, but the separation seemed to be over leadership, not doctrine.
- Chaos symbol: This is where Jay’s analysis is very helpful. Dugin essentially argues that his Eurasian Union is to use the West’s power against the West. Chaos theory.
- Protecting the “Tradition?” I’ve come to be suspicious of the Tradition element inherited and passed along by guys like Guenon. Much of it is quite interesting, but if these guys are positing an ancient tradition that is tied with Egypt, India, and Babylon, then I have to really disagree. To be fair, Dugin isn’t advocating allying with Babylonian magic. However, consider his movement’s flag:
Compare with below:
Chaos magic symbol above
Unfortunately, it’s not a coincidence, given Dugin’s advocating using the West weapons against the West. That is chaos theory.
Many convertskii–those who have converted to Orthodoxy from Protestant sections–are promoting Dugin. Let’s think about this for a moment. These convertskii rightly see that the current US order is corrupted and fatally flawed. They want a consistent, communitarian alternative. Dugin’s model provides that. I have to ask if they are aware of the consequences.
The following essay has several aims: to respond to the current excitement concerning General Mladic’s arrest, the nature of Western interventionism, not only in Serbia, but wherever they choose in the world, and to partially review John Norris’s Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo (I didn’t get a chance to read the entire book. It was on loan from the library but that doesn’t matter. It is pure CNN propoganda. If you watched any of the news concerning the Balkans in the past ten years, or read an issue of Time on some such matter, you can predict, almost word-for-word (since the media operates via sloganeering) what Norris will say.
Mladic, Srebenica, and War Crimes
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) 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.
What is Nationalism?
Christian conservatives in America, weary of the war-mongering of the past few generations, and rightly suspicious that many grass-roots Americans are identifying God and Country, decry this as “nationalism.” I maintain nothing is the sort. Nationalism springs from the ethnos and is an organic development of the community. Nationalism is certainly not this American phenomenon for several reasons: 1) America has no identifiabl “ethnos” (aside, perhaps, from the vague “white” and “black” races, but even then that is highly disputable), and 2) what these conservative Christians are rightly decrying is the neo-con/neo-lib projection of late 20th century market values over other communal and religious traditions. Therefore, nationalism is not what these conservatives fear, for what they fear is actually trying to destroy nationalism! (for the ultimate proof of this, consider how the media, whether right-wing or left-wing, condemns any kind of “bad guy” as an “ultra-nationalist).
Kosovo: The Coming Russian Confrontation
Norris, John. Collision Course: Nato, Russia, and Kosovo. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005.
This book is essentially a manifesto for neo-liberal interventionism. It makes little attempt at objectivity. The leaders of the Slavic world can do nothing correctly, except as they agree to Western dictums. The book itself is quite valuable, if not necessarily for the reasons the author and publisher think: it documents the inevitable failure of a country (e.g., empire) trying to impose outside values upon traditional and regional communities.
In many ways the book summarizes the lead-up to the war, the nature of the Allied coalition, and the political consequences throughout and following the war. This review will largely avoid those issues as they are thoroughly covered elsewhere. Rather, the reviewing will focus on insights from Norris’ experiences and thoughts resulting from those insights.
The book begins on a painful note. The author of the foreword, Strobe Talbott, is acting like a Clintonian cheerleader. He is guilty of “loaded language” and bias. His particular argument asks, quite rightly, what should be the conditions for empire, I mean, intervention. He notes that military force should only be used when diplomatic means are exhausted, that it guarantees safety to both the “victims” of the aggression and the regular citizenry, and that it ensures stability in the region. Talbott claims it gloriously met all of those goals. The truth, though, is that NATO failed in all of the above: It was the Russians, not NATO bombers, that brought Milosevic to the table; the United States rejected numerous diplomatic proposals from the Bosnian Serbs and actually urged Izetbegovic to reject peace and go to war[i] (!), and Serbs living in Bosnia and Kosovo today are facing a genuine ethnic cleansing on the level of which Milosevic was accused.
Reading Between the Lines
While NATO was technically victorious, it nearly lost the war and created several far greater disasters. Many of the Allies did not even want to proceed with air strikes, and the more traditional and Christian members like Italy and Greece, nearly withdraw when NATO insisted on bombing Orthodox Christians during Pascha. Another point of contention was Russia. When Russia advised Serbia in this war, Russia was weak, bankrupt, and internally divided. That said, Russian special forces nearly captured several key airports in Kosovo. They actually could have done this quite easily, but Yeltsin was not committed. Had Russia proceeded, and American brass admits it could not have stopped Russia, then a combined Russian-Serbian movement would have easily won the war.[ii] Think about it for a second: if a poorly equipped, disillusioned Russian force under Yeltsin could have accomplished this, imagine what a modern Russian army under Putin could have done?[iii]
Had several Allies withdrawn from the campaign (which even US State officials expected them to do), combined with Russian forces seizing key Kosovar airports, along with NATO’s inability to decide on air strikes or sending ground troops, and with the general instability of the region (Norris, 30), NATO—or more precisely, the Anglo-Americans—would have lost this war. While sending ground troops would have ended the conflict quickly, the costs would have been enormous. The Serbs, holed up in the mountains, have a history of breaking empires. It would have been Afghanistan/Iraq to the nth power.
Presuppositions Determine Evidence
Despite the flaws and biases of this book, CNN, and the Clinton Administration, Serbophiles have to face up to the fact of genocide and war crimes. Did Milosevic carry out ethnic cleansing against the Albanians? Given the fact that the Hague could never decisively prove this at the ICC (along with Milosevic’s mysterious death), the answer has to be “no.” Were Serbs guilty of violence against the Albanians? Probably, but this was no different from the Allied treatment of German civilians during WWII (Dresden, anyone?).
As other CIA analysts (Schindler) have noted, Muslim forces have long used “safe havens” as staging points for attacks on Serb forces; therefore, when the Serbs retaliate, it seems like they are attacking civilians.
Despite the “CNN-idolizing” feel of the book, the author has correctly identified Kosovo has a symbolic defining point between East and West.[iv] In other words, the actions in Kosovo will determine not only Russia-America relations, but also how the “international community” can respond to situations within national borders.
The most obvious reason leading to American bombing is the alleged ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians by Milosevic. I say “alleged” because the charges against Milosevic were never proven at The Hague. (There is a reason Milosevic died under mysterious circumstances). In fact, one cannot escape the impression that the West orchestrated this war. The West routinely rejected halts to the bombing and rejected several overtures at peace, overtures largely favorable to NATO and brokered by Russia (p. 19-21).[v] As other analysts have made clear, NATO needed Kosovo as an oil transit.[vi] Accordingly, peace was unacceptable as long as Kosovo remained in Serb hands.
One other point of contention: The CIA had already identified the Kosovo Liberation Army as a terrorist group. Given that, how come Norris never discussed the criminal (and violently anti-American) actions of the KLA? The fact he doesn’t mention this shows how much this book is pure propaganda. (Milosevic pointed this out to Albright, which Albright derisively dismissed. One thinks the reason is obvious).
Given that this book is written by an “Establishment man,” and to a large degree, the author’s protests notwithstanding, this book unofficially represents the Western Establishment on interventionism. Given that high pedigree, high standards are required of the book. Unfortunately, this book fails on a scholarly level. I do not fault the author for citing sources—much of the information can be found elsewhere, and the author does give a thorough bibliography and an extensive index. Rather, the author uses loaded language on every page. I think if one looks beneath this language one sees a “quiet desperation.” The Clinton Administration must justify its position continually. Kosovo today is a failure by anyone’s reckoning. The administration knows it has broken international law in intervening, and the record since then is a poor one. In other words, the Regime (rightly) suspects its authority and dignity is now illegitimate and it lacks moral force for any of its actions. Clinton, Talbott, and Norris are right to be nervous. The international community and nationalists elsewhere are calling their bluff.
[i] Cf. John Schindler, Unholy Terror: Bosnia, Al Qai’ida, and the Rise of Global Jihad. St. Paul: MN, Zenith Press, 2007.
[ii] And likely started a nuclear WWIII.
[iii] This is a very real question. The Kosovo question is still under discussion and NATO’s sabre-rattling towards Russia has not helped.
[iv] For more on the “East vs. West” conflict, see Samuel Huntingdon’s rightly famous The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 1996.
[v] One cannot help but see just how sick and evil Madeline Albright truly is. She refused peace at any price—refusing to even tell Milosevic how he could stop the war aside from the vague refrain “stop the killing.” Milosevic’s response to Albright was cold, brutal, and perfect: “Who is killing the Albanians when the bombs are falling?”
[vi] Cf. F. William Engdahl, Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order, Baton Rouge, LA: Third Millennium Press, 2009.
The true New World Order began when Christ stepped out of the tomb.
One has to be careful with “conspiritorial” views of history. It’s not that they are wrong-headed, but that given the nature of the case there is so much information that “just can’t be known.” Theologians who stand in traditionalist schools of thought (some Catholics, some Orthodox, maybe one or two Evangelicals) usually have a better angle on conspiracy history than the average “pop news” watcher. These theologians have some training in writing, have read and interacted with numerous footnoted and scholarly peer-reviewed books, and given the nature of their reading, and reading in general, they don’t have time to watch TV (which means they miss out or ignore what Fox News says).
Yes, the above title is a reference to the Lord of the Rings, particularly the movie version of the Fellowship…The Ring didn’t expect to be found by a Hobbit, or something. The title represents another problem with conspiracy views–the unexpected often happens, and when this does, it shatters paradigms.
While it’s a controversial thesis, it seriously cannot be gainsaid that the Anglo-American bankers, particularly the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, have orchestrated European politics for over 100 years. The Rothschilds–with their Jewish agents in Thessaloniki– were behind the Armenian genocide of 1915. Some scholarship has been done on the connection between London/New York bankers and the rise of the Bolshevieks. Unfortunately, when the Bolsheviks became too powerful, the Regime needed a counter-weight, and they found one in the person of Adolf Hitler.
Unfortunately…well, the rest is history. The West became entangled in one huge dialectic–it was social engineering at its finest. When the Nazis were able to place key individuals in the “freedom-loving West,” essentially turning America into a military-industrial complex, the only entity powerful enough to stop them was Soviet Russia. Not really a happy array of choices. This is social dialectic at its starkest.
The bankers themselves weren’t too bothered. They were able to heavily invest in Soviet infrastructure.
I suppose even the most ardent socialist saw the coming demise of the USSR. However, given that Marxism and capitalism share the same root presuppositions, and that these economic forces control the Western countries (if you doubt that, google which entity contributed both to McCain and Obama’s campaign. When you are done, get back to me…), the fall of socialism presented no real problem to these elites. In fact, given there was no strong leadership in Russia, it was now possible to siphon trillions of dollars of Russian capital back to the West via Harvard university, the Carnegie Institutes, and others. Given that Yeltsin was a dying alcoholic, and that the Russo-Jewish mafia controlled Russia, the game went on as before.
But something happened which the ring did not expect. One of Yeltsin’s last moves to was appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor. Putin was not Yeltsin. Putin had his training in the security services. Long story short, Putin marginalized the Jewish Mafia in Russia, rebuilt the military, and was able to capitalize on Russia’s nigh-infinite oil reserves. In short, he brought Russia from a Third World Country to a First World Country in fewer than ten years.
Unfortunately for the Regime, Putin is a nationalist. While his Orthodoxy is not always perfect, and he has compromised on some issues, Russia has began a slow revival under Putin (and the Moscow Patriarchate). Putin’s moves have blocked the Regime in countless ways. The most obvious is when Putin prevented an Israeli-trained Georgian army from ethnically cleansing Russian citizens in South Ossetia.
Few realize just how major this was. For the first time in ten years, NATO-inspired military interests were stopped cold. America was clearly not in a position to react. Secondly, after the debacle in Kosovo in 1999 the Russian army demonstrated it could respond to highly sophisticated threats. For Americans, this meant that the Regime would wait a little longer before sending American boys to die in Iran (some suggest that Putin’s moves in Ossetia delayed a Zionist war against Iran).
I know there are some in the extreme “white nationalist” camp who think that Putin is a Zionist stooge and Putin supporters like Daniel Estulin are simply Zionists front-men. Besides questioning their IQ, I don’t know really what to say. If Putin were really a Zionist front-man, why has he been consistently thwarting Zionist designs? Further, for those who still think Putin is a front-man for the New World Order, why did the Bilderbergers try to kill him?
One should retitle this book “A popular version of some of Joseph Farrell’s conclusions without the rigor and discipline of Joseph Farrell’s scholarship.” Jim Marrs’ thesis is sound and not new: an elite group has controlled Western politics and economics for the past 100 years. This group is connected to or synonymous with the Anglo-American banking establishment. Their modus operandi consists in playing different political and national factions against one another.
(note: These are not all my thoughts on this book. There are a lot of other musings about Marrs I have, but I won’t say them here because I am tired and the book isn’t that good and you should read Joseph Farrell instead.)
Strengths of the Book
Marrs has a very good section on the rise of Hitler and what happened behind the scenes in WWII. Marrs relies heavily on Joseph Farrell’s research, and this part of the book is strong because of that (the second half is notoriously weak). Marrs makes the interesting suggestion that the Nazis actually detonated an atomic bomb in Russia (and he gives the reasons why the Allies and Stalin would have covered this up. I agree with him ). Marrs highlights the various banking clans that funded and aided the Nazis both before the war and after the war. Marrs has an intriguing chapter on Otto Scorzeny and the lost Cathar treasure.
Criticisms of the Book
Did Marrs’ thesis shift? (I am open to correction on this one.) Marrs’ main thesis is that the Nazi elite weren’t eradicated in WWII and/or Nuremberg, but rather made it to South America via the Vatican “ratline” (and Marrs is to be commended for pointing that out). Further, he points out that these same elites eventually influenced American society and policy, and I suppose there is some truth in that. On the other hand, it seemed that his earlier thesis is that an international cabal in London/New York financed first Lenin, and then when the Russians got too dangerous, financed Hitler to fight the Commies off. Fair enough; I buy that. What I don’t get is the connection between the international elite who created Hitler and the international elite’s relationship to present-day America. Hitler’s crew is bad, to be sure, but it seems the more nefarious power is the group that made Hitler possible. Marrs seems to forget about that.
The scholarship and research methods are about as bad as one can get. Note: I am not contesting the majority of Marrs’ facts. I think for the most part he is correct on what he reports. The problem is he does not cite his sources! At all. Yes, he does have a “sources” page at the back, including page numbers of books, but I don’t know to which arguments in what chapter he is referring. True, I could double-check and make some intuitions, but the burden should not be on the reader for that. That’s just simple clicking “insert endnote” in MS Word. This is a half-assed junior high bibliography. Even the joke of a research method known as APA is more respectable than this.
His New Age Conspiracies Get the Best of him.
While I am intrigued by the possibility that the Cathar’ treasure was taken from the Temple of Solomon, and that this treasure represented in some way an advanced form of “paleo-physics” (again, I am fairly open-minded here), Marrs did not elaborate on what was probably the most interesting point of his book. Had he used real scholarship and evaluated the sources in a detailed, logical fashion, he could have shed much light on a fairly unresearched topic. Instead, he mentioned it in passing and the book he “referenced” in the back was one of the New Age Gnostic pamphlets on Jesus being one of the dragon children ala David Icke! I officially stopped taking Marrs seriously at this point.
He offers no real plan of action. Towards the end of the book Marrs (rightly) points out that all political candidates are funded by the same people and eventually advance some form of the same cause. There is really no way to stop them. He makes vague appeals to the Constitution and has an interesting idea to “vote with your shopping cart” (buy local), but no detailed plan of action on how to stop the Fourth Reich. To be fair, I won’t fault him too much on this point because given the structure of today’s republican government, there is no way to stop the moneyed elite. America is down for the count (though resurrections are certainly possible).
The Second half of the book doesn’t say anything new. I enjoyed the first part of the book. The second part, unfortunately, felt like a collation of all the various rightwing and leftwing blogs attacking the government. I agreed with most of the points, but it did not tell me anything new.
Marrs’ Logical Fallacies. Marrs seemed to make the argument: The Nazis did x. George W. Bush’s administration does x. Ergo, Bush is a Nazi. He may well be a Nazi, and his grandfather certainly funded the Nazi party, but the above argument is an example of the fallacy “correlation equals causation.”
Misses other possible conclusions. On one hand, it is not fair to criticize an author for not saying one’s own personal conclusion or hobby-horse, so this really is not a fault of Marrs’. It is fairly obvious that Jews own most of the media, the lobbies, and the banks. (Btw, that is not anti-semitic. That is simply looking at the last names of the CEOs!). Since that is the case, how does that square with Marrs’ claim (which I also believe to be correct) that the Nazis also control much of the media and banks? Both claims are fairly true, but most people don’t accuse Nazis and Jews of being on the same side!
Don’t get the book. Marrs has several radio interviews where he explains this in better detail (and the radio interviews are worth downloading. Marrs is a gifted and enjoyable speaker. He has a unique way of connecting to his audience). If one wants to pursue further research in this area, read Joseph Farrell’s The Nazi International, Daniel Estulin’s The Story of the Bilderbergers, and Farrell’s Babylon’s Banksters. Farrell is a gifted writer and employs easily-followable footnotes and is an actual scholar. Estulin has a more focused look on the Bilderbergers and doesn’t get distracted from his thesis.
These are a collection of podcasts on the topics of Eurasia, Russia, geopolitics, and oil from the last few years. They are done by various artists. I think it is relevant since Eurasia is able to posit a number of alliances (Moscow, Yerevan, Tehran, Damascus) that can block the anglo-American banking elites.
Bill Engdahl’s site. Decent interviews on how oil and banking elites have managed finance and war in America for the last century.
Seeds of Destruction. I usually hesitate when people talk about modern medicine, genetic manipulation, and all that. Too many kooks out there. That said, when David Rockefeller openly states he wants to modify/wipe out certain segments of the population, and granting that he has the grants, funds, and connections to influence food producers to do that, well you have to take him seriously (btw, he did that).
Russia’s Direction. It took me a while to like Jeff Rense, but this podcasts discusses how Russia battled the New World Order, Khordorovsky, and the Oligarchs.
Armenian History II (discusses Armenian history and the Jewish/Rothschild connections to the Armenian Genocide).
Armenian History I (discusses Armenian church and society).
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.”
- 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.
Does that mean one should abandon the Church altogether? This is one of the consequences of globalism: one reads of theology and the Church (usually on the internet) and wants to join this church, but there is isn’t one around for hundreds of miles. What do you do? This is becoming more and more a reality.
To make the problem even worse, what if you want to join this church but find out the Bishop is either Novus Ordo, communing with Freemasons, or participates in the World Council of Churches? If you are not aware of that–particularly freemasonry or ecumenism–it’s not so big a deal. But if you are aware of that, it is tough to knowingly commune with those who are communing with Masons.
I say all of this to acknowledge the painful reality of my Talmudic acquaintance’s problem. It’s not fun to “be the only one left in Israel who has not bowed the knee” and then to drive several hundred miles on a Sunday. He has a point which should not be casually dismissed. The logical structure of his arguments he has given on this point are not very impressive, to be sure, but he has touched on something that has kept me awake for many nights.
Turning to the Fathers
I am not entirely certain I am comfortable with the True Orthodox Church. I agree with their arguments on the Old Calendar (and for what it’s worth, courtesy of St Herman’s Press, I use an Old Calendar). That said, I think they are correct on Ecumenism, freemasonry (which as a former Southern Baptist, I fought that battle even then), and modernism. Their inability to communicate the gospel with love and gentleness, as a general rule, will likely keep more from joining their ranks.
In any case I asked a True Orthodox priest what I should do. He said keep the church cycle as best one could and make pilgrimages to a Church on feast days, citing Blessed Seraphim Rose as an example.
Interestingly, St Basil, in a slightly different context, sheds some light on this point. In times of persecution, it is doubtful there will be any churches around, good or not. And as America is moving more and more to this situation per FEMA and the PATRIOT ACT, this will be a very real problem. How should we commune, then?
St Basil writes (p. 179 in the NPNF II series, volume 8):
It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long as custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion at his own house, and participates in it when he likes.
I am definitely not saying one should do house communion or even worse, house church like the Reconstructionists do! Heaven forbid! I am pointing out that the Holy Fathers didn’t get hung up on this point. They realized the fact of unusual situations, and recognizing that these situations are not normative, nor will they become normative in the future, they allowed them. The point is there are ways to keep the faith, resist modernism, and resist freemasonry without saying all the churches are hereby defunct.
the best book on this is by a German guy (i didn’t forget his name but I forgot how to spell it) titled *Full Scale Dominance.* The thesis is this: in the 1800s Harold Mackinder (sp?), a British scholar, argued that for Britain (or America) to control the world they must control the Eurasian heartland. Unfortunately, Russia stood in the way of Britian running the world.
American thinkers like Zbignew Brzereznki, Obama’s chief adviser and a leaader in the Council on Foreign Relations, have picked up MacKinder’s thesis and formulated in in an American context. While America cannot simply annex Georgia or Kygyzstan, it can do the next best thing: establish puppet governments.
The reason is this: he who controls the oil wins the game. That is why America spent all this money on Sakaashvili. They needed a cooperative Georgia for the oil pipelines from the Caspian. They also needed a cooperative Ukraine to destabilize Russia, which they gained in 2004 in the “Orange Revolution.” What most Americans don’t realize is that the 2010 Ukraine elections went back to pro-Russian candidates. This set back the New World Order’s plans 10 years.
Still, on neocon/neolib terms, Russia and China must be neutralized. American leaders have differing thoughts on it. Jew Paul Wolfowitz (Bush’s chief adviser) said to simply nuke about 20 Russian and Chinese cities. Other American leaders are not so sure that’s a good idea. Most are pushing for a prolongation of the War on Terror. If you look at where American bases are in teh War on Terror, they are surrounding Russia. That’s why America is so intent on missile shields in these bases: they can easily be converted to launching pads against Russia.
Here are some other good links:
http://www.danielestulin.com/en/ (scroll down to Khodorovsky part two for a fine summary).