Before the birth of Antichrist there is to be called an Eighth Universal Council of all the Churches under the One Head, Christ, and the one Protecting Veil of the Mother of God (according to St. Nilus the Myrrh-Giver: ‘A last and Eighth Universal Council to deal with the disputes of heretics and separate the wheat from the chaff’). Its aim will be to unite and reunite all the holy Churches of Christ against increasing anti-Christian ways, under the single Head, Christ the Life-Giver, and the single Protecting Veil of His Most Pure Mother, and to deliver the final anathema against the whole of masonry and all the groups like it (by whatever name they call themselves), the leaders of whom have one common aim: on the pretext of complete egalitarian earthly prosperity, and with the aid of people who have been made fanatical by them, to create anarchy in all states and destroy Christianity throughout the world, and, finally, by the power of gold concentrated in their hands, to subjugate the whole world to anti-Christianity in the person of a single, tyrannical Ruler, who fights against God – one Ruler over the whole world.
Prophecy of St Seraphim of Sarov
One of the mysteries of the Western elite is whereas it hates the Georgian Stalin and Stalinism (that such a murderous monster is hated is not surprising), it adores Lenin and Trotsky. After all, Lenin and Trotsky both lived for years in England, Switzerland and the US under government protection and patronage and the then governments of Germany and Canada respectively made sure that Lenin and Trotsky returned safely to Russia in 1917. Given that both of them in their very short reigns were far more murderous proportionately than Stalin, why this love for them?
First of all, we should understand something vital: neither Lenin nor Trotsky was Russian. The well-off father of Lenin (real name Ulyanov), was an Asian-Russian (as his facial features suggest) and his mother was German-Swedish and Jewish. An intellectual snob, the Bolshevik leader believed that other European countries, especially Germany, were culturally superior to Russia. From his youth he had wanted Russia to become more culturally Western. On the other hand, the family of Trotsky (real name Bronstein), came from a non-practising family of wealthy Jewish farmers in the Ukraine. He had no Russian blood at all and was a Russophobe just like Lenin, whereas the Georgian Stalin declared himself to be ‘Russian of Georgian origin’.
In other words, both Lenin and Stalin were Anti-Russian Zionists. Not Zionists in the Jewish sense, of course (Lenin probably never even knew that he was a quarter Jewish and Trotsky probably never even set foot in a synagogue), but in the modern sense of the word that they were globalists. Now we know why the Western elite loves these criminal monsters who killed millions in just a few short years: unlike Stalin, they were not nationalistic ‘Socialism in one country’ followers, but globalists, the modern code-word for Zionists. What difference between them and the Russophobic Western neocon elite, which like them also creates anarchy and bloodshed wherever it can?
(Slightly edited with permission from a US reader’s blog).
The loudest Liberal Globalist haters of Russia are also haters of America under President Trump, a post-Brexit Britain and Europeans. These people hate Russia because under Putin they are thwarted from having complete domination of Eurasia over which they seek to impose the European Union (EU) and NATO, which they view as “stepping stones” to total global control. Putin stands in their way of this, and an independent Britain does the same, and any other “-exits.”
Trump has pledged to put American interests first, over those of these “Liberal” Globalists who seek the submergence of every European country and America with unending Third World and, especially in the case of the former, Muslim, immigration. Their hatred of Trump for seeking a thawing of relations with Putin makes sense in that both men are enemies to their dreams of their Global Empire, and these Globalists, through their ownership and control of the large corporate (i.e. “mainstream”) news media, are able to unendingly demonize both Putin and Trump. I believe that they will go, and indeed are going, so far as to promote civil wars in America and Europe and even world war with Russia. They are not thinking rationally or humanely, or prudently, in order to further their goals.
The fact that there are Conservatives who act as their objective allies under the guise of being “Never Trump” and Neo-Conservative is worse, for these people know better about the Globalists, yet, for their variously ideological reasons, personal embitterment, and perhaps, self-righteousness, are willing to surrender their country to Globalists in order to seek confrontation with Russia abroad and bring down a President whom they irrationally hate. Past, and present, American interference in the relations of other countries’ elections is never talked about, including that of Ukraine, whose pro-Russian, democratically elected government the Obama administration helped overthrow, right on Russia’s border, containing sizeable numbers of pro-Moscow Russians in eastern territories, and pro-Western Ukrainians in its far western territories (formerly Poland), has been the largest and most dangerous “bone of contention” between Western-based Globalists and Russia. Whatever one thinks about Ukraine’s proper borders, their borders are irrelevant to the question of America’s and the West’s survival. To put them, now especially, at the very apex of American and European interests is, in a sense, to adopt Ukrainian nationalism as one’s chief loyalty, or at least as being more useful to advancing Globalist objectives of expansion, while rejecting American or British or German nationalism as a retardant on Globalist objectives.
The EU, NATO, and Globalists and Republican NeoCons like Graham and McCain have SEMANTICALLY substituted obedience to their plans for Global control as being “loyalty to America and the West.” American patriots should recognize that the Globalists have made the hatred of Russia under Putin MORE important than actually having pro-American foreign AND domestic policies, and in fact their other policies, i.e. like immigration, actually harm Americans; they have made this rash foreign policy of confrontation with a country that does not threaten us their test of loyalty and treason, while actually sacrificing, willingly and in a calculated manner, the very defense and survival of America and the nations of Europe, while demonizing those seeking “detente,” or better, peaceful relations with Russia, whose public philosophy in morals is far closer than those of “our” godless, Globalist Establishments in the West.
The Globalists, it cannot be overstressed, hate Christianity and White people, what the historic West was, and both of which they seek to destroy, and in so doing really are the epitome of treason, but, through their control of the media, they have reapplied the names of “treason” and “traitor” to patriots like Trump and his supporters, who have the pragmatic desire for a more multipolar world, one that also will keep the Globalists from achieving their goals of world domination and keeping us out of needless wars. It is the Globalists and their Vichy Conservative allies who are the traitors, the former by principle and the latter by their spite, are cooperating with them. To the extent that American and European patriots are “pro-Russian,” it is because they see Russia as a bulwark, as allies, against the Western-based, but thoroughly anti-Western in substance, Globalists.
The Big Question of who and what is a traitor today revolves around the question of who is the biggest threat to the actual West: The Globalists inside the West whose goal is the destruction of the West and its peoples, and their lapdog “Conservative” allies whom the Globalists will reward with the sinecures of a castrated, “loyal opposition,” free to expound academic doctrines of purity in political economy in unread “position papers”, academic articles, and political “platforms” that double as tissue paper, or the national patriots who seek to end the Globalists’ domination and get out from under their wars of empire, and who see Putin as an ally in their patriotic struggle?
For American and European patriots to see support in Russia is not unlike the rebellious Protestant American colonists who sought an alliance with Catholic, Monarchical France in their struggle to break away from the British Empire in 1776. I can imagine that they were accused of being “pro French” and “pro Catholic” by some of their Loyalist neighbors, or at least “anti-British” in seeking this alliance, but their motives were to make American independent of Britain, not making America dependent on or even resembling France in religion and government. In a hierarchy of values, loyalty to nation and culture is the far truer test of who is a patriot and who is a traitor than seeking peaceful relations with foreign states which do not threaten us. The Globalists’ efforts to invert this priority, in order to subvert what is primary, is both cynical and dangerous, and if they persist in it, may do irreparable harm to America, the West, and indeed, the whole world.
Limassol, 1 June 2017
The website Agionoros.ru. reports that in Cyprus on 28 May, in front of a large audience, an evening meeting was organized by the local Metropolia to coincide with the anniversary of the fall of Constantinople, ‘the Acropolis of Orthodoxy’, on 28 May 1453.
The local Metropolitan Isaiah said that the new Franks (modern Western Europeans) were trying with new laws and the spread of heretical teachings to uproot ‘all that is holy from the souls of contemporary Greeks and to deprive Greece of Christ’. He added: ‘However much the occupiers try, we will not surrender and accept the plans and memoranda of the international creditors and the anti-Christian, immoral and neo-liberal instructions from Europe’.
Western Europe was saved from its suicidal folly by the United States of America twice, in 1917 and again a generation later in 1942, thus ending both insane European Wars. This is why, until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the word globalization was little used and people called spades spades and spoke of Americanization. This Americanization, only now known by the codeword globalization, has produced a threefold backlash – from Sunni Muslim, Indian and Chinese nationalism.
Chinese nationalism (known as Communism, which is another word for Chinese State Capitalism) is now rich enough to arm itself, long ago took over Tibet and is now taking over the South China Sea, eyeing the mineral resources of Black Africa and Australia. Indian, or Hindu, nationalism, will expand wherever it can, but is above all strong inside Hindustan/India. As for Sunni Muslim nationalism, funded by immensely wealthy and, ironically, Western-backed, Wahhabite Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is intensely fanatical and violent. Notably, it has financed and equipped the murderous invasion of secular-governed Syria by tens of thousands of foreign ISIS terrorists.
None of these nationalist movements is, however, equipped to oppose globalization, for their interests are only local and do not extend outside their areas of national and nationalist interest. None has any global reach or moral force. In reality, there is one only set of values that is universal and express moral values and so are equipped to oppose globalization. We are now seeing intense opposition to that set of values by those who are attacking President Trump. By attacking Trump I refer to the present power struggle in Washington between the neocon appointees of the atheist Clinton/Bush/Obama faction, called by some ‘The Deep State’, and ‘America First’ nationalists like Trump.
For the neocons anything that Trump does is directly dictated to him by Russia. The absurdity of this and all their associated slanders is apparent to all, except to the neocon faction and its media like The New York Times, The Washington Post and puppet neocon TV channels. However, it is still significant that the neocon faction has picked on Russia as the origin of Trump’s values and policies. Since the Soviet Union and its failed Western materialist values disappeared into history a generation ago, why do they choose Russia as the origin of anti-neocon values? It is for the simple reason that post-Soviet Russia, which has gradually been returning to its roots, is now more and more being guided by Christian values, which are so detested by the neocons.
The neocons do not want Christian spirituality and morality, they do not want normality: they want the anarchic permissiveness of social liberalism and law of the jungle economic globalism. If social and family life decays into amorality and depravity, it matters little to them, because they are making money from the misfortunes of others and, as they live in their ghettoes for the individualistic rich, ‘there is no such thing as society’ anyway. And if American workers lose their jobs to China and turn to depravity, drugs and alcohol, it matters little to them, because they are the ones who are getting massive profits from China and from the trade in depravity, drugs and alcohol.
They hate Christian values because these values contradict their way of life which is based on Mammon, capital, money, monetarism, not on God. The Gospel itself opposes God and mammon. The fact that Trump, even if weakly or hypocritically, appears to be backing a set of incarnational Christian values, Faith, Nation and Family, utterly opposed to theirs, means that they automatically see contemporary Russia as the source of these values. This is not because Trump has been directly inspired by Russia, but because he simply reflects a set of normal values which have their origins in the same source as contemporary Russian Orthodox values: the Gospel of Christ. And that is the connection between Trump and Russia, not a direct one, but an indirect one.
In recent days anti-democratic EU bureaucrats and others in Brussels and Berlin have declared war on the UK, even interfering in the UK elections. They are angered by the UK people’s choice to leave their customs and political union. In their crass words, they have declared that Brexit UK owes it 100 billion euros. In the UK, many consider that the EU owes it 400 billion euros, the sum overpaid to the EU during the years when UK governments treacherously signed away our sovereignty to the EU for its mess of pottage without popular support. They arrogantly refused to consult the people – until Cameron, who at last allowed a referendum, but only because he was so blinded by arrogance and out of contact that he thought he could easily win it.
Now the EU is openly and treasonously trying to destroy the UK by prising away Northern Ireland and Scotland. In the UK there are those who consider that it is time for Ireland to be reunited and for Scotland and Wales to receive independence, but that the four countries should then immediately form a Confederation outside the EU, perhaps with a new Parliament building on the Isle of Man, from where all four countries of the Isles are visible. The old Victorian Parliament buildings in London, now falling down, could then become tourist sights. In an electronic age there is no need for a multinational Parliament to be in the English commercial capital of London.
The EU itself is bitterly divided and in chaos. The euro has been a disaster. Many of its countries, like Austria, the Baltics, Poland, the Czech Lands, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary, are disobeying Brussels as regards immigration controls. Greece is bankrupt. Cyprus is almost. Catalonia wants its independence by a clear majority. Hungary rejects EU meddling. Eastern Europe has in general been ravaged by German economic imperialism, its factories closed and its young people forced to emigrate to Western Europe. Many in France want to leave the EU. As Marine Le Pen correctly said last week, the next President of France will be a woman: either herself, or else Mrs Merkel. It will certainly be no-one else in this Fourth Reich world.
The EU has declared war. It is thus achieving the opposite of what it wants, as it is uniting the British people and ensuring a landslide victory in the UK elections for the Conservative Party. This is now seen as the only Patriotic Party and the only Party with a strong leader, now fortified by the return of UKIP voters, most of whom had left the Conservative Party disillusioned with its takeover by modernists. People always unite around a strong leader in times of war, even though they would otherwise never vote Conservative. The Opposition to the Conservatives is laughable, but also treasonous.
Thus, on the western and eastern edges of the EU are two countries which should be uniting in this time of war against the EU: the UK and the Russian Federation. An unlikely couple: after all such New Cold War NATO British warmongers as Johnson and Fallon are sending British troops and arms to Estonia, controlled by its US puppet regime, in order to threaten Russia. These clowns are even overflying Russian territory in the Baltics, giving war equipment to the EU-sponsored and CIA-run anti-Ukrainian junta in Kiev, sending a British destroyer to patrol off the Russian coast in the Black Sea.
Not natural allies? True. And yet despite this and the imperialist British invasion of Russia in 1854-56, 210 years ago, 100 years ago and 75 years ago Great Britain and Russia fought together side by side against Continental Western European tyrants, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, the forerunners of today’s EU leaders. Today, again, there is a common enemy. Not to unite today and not to give up ridiculous, Russophobic Cold War rhetoric, would be a missed opportunity for the UK. Perhaps Non-EU Norway and Iceland would join us? And the rest of Scandinavia too? All could sign a friendship pact of mutual non-aggression and thus, we would form a geographical, political and economic bloc towering over the isolated and divided EU.
The UK and Russia are both pro-European countries and want to free the oppressed peoples of Europe from the EU monster. In this centenary year of the British-orchestrated elitist conspiracy that overthrew the greatest European leader of all, Tsar Nicholas II, founder of the Hague International Court of Justice, speaker of five European languages and builder of 18 Russian churches in Western Europe, it would be an act of repentance on the part of Britain to proclaim a new alliance with the Russian Federation.
An Anglo-Russian alliance? Most probably not, but a friend in need is a friend indeed…
With the US elite and the elites of its vassal states (‘the G7’), representing a mere 10% of the world, unable to agree on further war crimes against Syria and attacks on Russia (though every day for the last week the roads in the East of England have been full of military traffic and the skies full of military planes, all heading for the Russian border in Estonia), the world breathes a little easier. As for the warmongering British Foreign Secretary, he has not yet understood that Britain has not been a Great Power for 100 years, but is merely the poodle of Washington. That self-evident truth is clearly not taught at Eton. The temporary victory of the Trotskyite neocons in Washington may however be shortlived:
Where is the Declaration of War from Congress? This is a blatantly unconstitutional act by the President, whom I voted for. Not to mention where is the proof that the poison gas attack was not a false flag attack to trigger U.S. intervention? And since when is dying by poison gas worse than getting napalmed or firebombed to death? Where is the President’s campaign rhetoric about “America First” and staying out of foreign wars? Syria is NOT a vital interest of the United States. Period. This reeks of Israeli, NeoCon, and Military-Industrial Complex subversion of this Presidency.
From an American Correspondent
Sadly, the probable provocation of chemical weapons (‘Made in Turkey’ according to various sources) in Syria has further ruined US relations with the rest of the world. The affair reeks of the infamous, fabricated American War against Spain in 1898 or the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, which both gave the US military industrial complex the excuse to start Wars which led to invasions, occupations and the slaughter of over 2 million innocent people. (However and whyever would the Syrian government (‘regime’ in propgandaspeak) launch a chemical weapons attack, when it has no chemical weapons? Meanwhile the same complex slaughters hundreds of women, children and ‘beautiful babies’ in Mosul, while maiming and killing British bombs take Yemen back to the Stone Age. Such is the abhorrent hypocrisy of the Western Powers.
The question now is what is the future of the bitterly divided USA? The unprovoked US attack on a sovereign country many thousands of miles away, without any mandate whatsoever, merely reinforces the trigger-happy, cowboy image of the US around the world. The USA is more and more seen as a terrorist state, with its propaganda inventions of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and foundation by the CIA in the 1980s of Al-Qaeda. It was after all the US neocons who created Islamic Sate through their maniacal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Carried out largely for domestic reasons in order to reassert a tottering presidency, this attack could have consequences that could be very serious internationally. Syria, quite literally, borders on Armageddon. Is that really what the American people want?
As the Western world kills thousands in the Yemen (10,000 in the last year beneath a rain of British bombs), in the Ukraine (10,000 Ukrainian citizens in the last two years), in Syria (by ‘moderate’ terrorists with Western arms) in Mosul (over 300 civilians murdered and many more maimed in March alone by US warplanes), and aggressively builds up its forces in Estonia to threaten Russia, the silence of the United Nations in New York astounds. Here are the views of an American Republican, Pat Buchanan:
Thursday – March 30, 2017 at 8:35 pm
This post was viewed 16,003 times.
Votes: 4.66 Stars!
Share Pat’s Columns!
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time.
“On the world stage, who could vie with him?”
So asks Chris Caldwell of the Weekly Standard in a remarkable essay in Hillsdale College’s March issue of its magazine, Imprimis.
What elevates Putin above all other 21st-century leaders?
“When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.
“In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.”
Putin’s approval rating (at 85%), after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?
Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization.
What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.
And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.
Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
The U.S. establishment loathes Putin because, they say, he is an aggressor, a tyrant, a “killer.” …Yet…what has Putin done to his domestic enemies to rival what our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has done to the Muslim Brotherhood he overthrew in a military coup in Egypt?
What has Putin done to rival what our NATO ally President Erdogan has done in Turkey, jailing 40,000 people since last July’s coup — or our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte, who has presided over the extrajudicial killing of thousands of drug dealers?
Does anyone think President Xi Jinping would have handled mass demonstrations against his regime in Tiananmen Square more gingerly than did President Putin this last week in Moscow?
Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.
He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.
In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.
There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.
Putin has read the new century better than his rivals. While the 20th century saw the world divided between a Communist East and a free and democratic West, new and different struggles define the 21st.
The new dividing lines are between social conservatism and self-indulgent secularism, between tribalism and transnationalism, between the nation-state and the New World Order.
On the new dividing lines, Putin is on the side of the insurgents. Those who envision de Gaulle’s Europe of Nations replacing the vision of One Europe, toward which the EU is heading, see Putin as an ally.
So the old question arises: Who owns the future?
In the new struggles of the new century, it is not impossible that Russia — as was America in the Cold War — may be on the winning side. Secessionist parties across Europe already look to Moscow rather than across the Atlantic.
“Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism,” writes Caldwell. “That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that’s true even here.”