High taxation and preparation for the Communist world state

By Rev. Denis Fahey
Excerpted from Rulers of Russia (1940), pgs. 90-92

There is, moreover, another aspect of the question. The crush­ing burden of taxation due to the payment of interest on debt is utilised as means for the preparation of Communism or of the Semi-Communist State advocated by P.E.P. Let us first hear Arthur Kitson on the burden of debt and then, some Socialist authorities on the end to which taxation is being directed.

The Builders’ Journal (April, 1939) quotes the following pas­ sage from Arthur Kitson’s writings: “Our National Debt on March 31st, 1919, was £7,434,949,429. From 1920 to 1933 inclu­ sive there has been paid towards the redemption of the National Debt £4,104,843,063. During the same period there has been paid in interest charges on the debt £4,288,925,186. . . . In spite of this, our National Debt on December 31st, 1933 (including our debt to the U.S.A.), was £7,947,000,000, being £512,000,000 morethan the original debt of March 31st, 1919! In other words, the nation has paid on account of the debt and itnerest charges the sum of £868,000,000 more than the original debt of March 31st, 1919, without reducing the original debt by one shilling!” Money- lending to nations seems to be even more lucrative than lending to individuals! Mr. Kitson, however, in The Bankers’ Conspir­ acy, shows that matters were still worse than these figures indi­ cate. The Cunliffe Currency Committee’s Report, issued in August, 1918, recommended the restoration of the gold-standard at the pre-War parity “without delay.” In The Bankers’ Con­ spiracy, p. 92, we read: “In advising the restoration of the gold- standard they are advising the Government to increase the Na­ tional Debt and so add to the burden of taxation which the British public will have to bear. At present our National Debt approxi­ mates to £8,000,000,000! But what are these pounds and with what were they subscribed? The Committee must know that the War Loans were subscribed in ‘cheap’ pounds, approximating in value to only one-half of the pre-War pounds. Hence our War debt, expressed in pre-War pounds, would be less than £4,000,000,000! By restoring the gold-standard, the public debt would therefore be doubled and become £8,000,000,000 at pre-war value!Hence every taxpayer would be compelled to pay twice the amount of taxes in his products and services by reason of the Commit­ tee’s recommendations. Very nice for the money-lenders and war- loan subscribers, but rather hard on the wealth producers and taxpayers! . . . The money-lenders’ code of morals—which the Committee apparently endorses—is that, whilst it is very wicked for debtors to defraud their creditors, creditors are quite justified in robbing their debtors. This seems to be the moral basis of the gold-standard.” It may be well to add that Mr. Winston Churchill restored the gold-standard in 1925.

On the other hand, “this high-taxing, high-spending policy is laid down in innumerable Socialist handbooks as an essential pre­ liminary to the imposition of full Socialism. Private enterprise is to be so crushed with burdens of every sort that it is glad to throw in the sponge and quit. . . . Taxation is the chief means/ says Britain’s Socialist Fabian Society in its Tract No. 127, add­ ing that ‘to the Socialist, the best of governments is that which spends the most.’ Similarly emphatic was a leading American exponent of Socialism, the late Morris Hillquit (a Jew whose real name was Misca Hilkowicz), who pointed out in his Socialism Summed Up (1913) that high taxes, shorter hours, and shorter week, freedom to strike, etc., the owners of businesses could be reduced to the point of being glad to be taken over by the State. Another eminent Jewish Socialist, Professor Laski, of the Lon­ don School of Economics, is equally strong on ‘the weapon of taxation’ . . . Mr. George Bernard Shaw, eminent British Social­ ist, puts the bedrock idea of the whole business very bluntly in the British Labour Monthly of October, 1921. He said: ‘Com­ pulsory labour, with death as the final penalty, is the keystone of Socialism.’ . . . In a fully Socialised state, opposition to the ruling clique must from the force of circumstances take the form of underground conspiracy, working secretly until it is strong enough for an open test of strength. Against this danger the ruling clique in turn must protect itself with a gigantic spy serv­ ice. . . . Russia’s gigantic spy service and perpetual ‘liquidations’ of suspected oppositionists are no accidental features. They are inherent in full Socialism. As to how they work out in practice a former Bolshevik Commissar of Justice named Steinberg gave the following description in the New York Times of February 23rd, 1930: ‘On the one side, we have intoxication with power and a realisation that anything done by him who wields power will go unpunished; and, on the other, fear, depression, silent hatred and sycophancy; the rise of two classes, masters and slaves. In

turn the relations among the suspects become themselves per­ verted. In the struggle to win the favour of the authorities, treachery assumes appalling dimensions. All become slaves with respect to the government, and wolves with respect to one another.’ The fatal defect of Socialism is its utter incompatibility with respect for personality. , . . Human freedom is drowned in an ocean of materialism. , . * The Marxian class-war is intended solely to set the Christians at one another’s throats. . , . The whole trend of Socialism is to deprive Christians of their prop­ erty and to reduce them to a sub-human, animal status. It puts them in the position the Talmud says it is their destiny to occupy. Finance-Capitalism began the work. Socialism completes it.”1

Notes:

  1. A. N. Field in Examiner, May. 1939.

The ‘August coup’ hoax that legitimized the fake collapse of communism

Moscow. The 19th of August 1991. Boris Yeltsin addresses people from the top of a tank. Photo TASS / Valentin Kuzmin; Alexander Chumichev (Photo by TASS via Getty Images)

By Anatoliy Golitsyn
June 22, 2019 Anno Domini
Excerpt: The Perestroika Deception, pgs. 137-144 (1998)

THE FAKE ‘AUGUST COUP’ AND ITS CALCULATED FAILURE

A deliberately engineered ‘Break with the Past’

Who called the shots in the USSR before the ‘coup’ and who introduced the ‘reforms’? Gorbachev and his ‘liberals’? NO, the Party and its strategists.

Who is calling the shots now and who proposed the coup to replace Gorbachev? The ‘hardliners’, the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the KGB? NO, the Party and its strategists.

The ‘coup’ was proposed in accordance with the requirements of the Soviet strategy of convergence leading to eventual World Government. This strategy and its moves, like the present Soviet ‘coup’, can only be understood in the light of the theories of one of the principal Soviet agents of influence, namely Sakharov, and his timetable for convergence. According to Sakharov, during the first phase the Leninist realists (i.e. Gorbachev and other ‘liberals’) will expand and strengthen ‘democracy’ and economic reform in the USSR and other socialist countries.

As we know, this has already happened.

According to Sakharov, in the second phase the pressure exerted by the Soviet example and by the internal progressive forces would lead to the victory of the Leftist Reformist Wing (the Soviet term for American liberals) which would begin to implement a programme of collaboration and convergence with the USSR on a worldwide scale, entailing changes in the structure of ownership. According to Sakharov, this phase would include an expanded role for the intelligentsia and an attack on the forces of racism and militarism.

We had reached this phase before the war with Iraq. In the assessment of the Soviet strategists, the US victory over Iraq adversely affected the political balance in the United States. In their view, the victory weakened and demoralised the liberals (or Leftist Reformists) and strengthened the centrist and conservative forces and the US military. This disturbed Soviet plans to carry out their strategy of convergence.

They saw that their main political allies in achieving convergence with the United States had been weakened. Accordingly they engineered this strategic ‘coup’ to reverse and improve the political fortunes of their American allies. Seen in strategic terms, the main purpose of Gorbachev’s ‘dismissal’ is further to confuse American opinion and to alter the political landscape in the United States so as to accelerate the progress of the Soviet strategy and to put it back on the rails.

This strategy is a deliberate and coordinated walk towards ultimate victory by advancing first the left leg of action by ‘liberals’, then the right leg of action by ‘hardliners’ and then once more the left leg of action by ‘liberals’. The ‘dismissal’ of Gorbachev is temporary. In earlier Memoranda I predicted a calculated ‘resignation’ by Gorbachev and his eventual return to power.

The ‘coup’ confirms this prediction. According to my analysis, the ‘coup’ is aimed at intensifying American anxieties over the fate of Gorbachev and the other ‘liberals’ and ‘reformists’ in the USSR like Shevardnadze. When these concerns reach their peak, the Soviet strategists’ next move can be expected. They will return Gor- bachev and other ‘liberals’ to power through a campaign of strikes and demonstra- tions organised by the Party.

As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev’s return and the strengthening of the ‘reformists’ in the USSR will also strengthen the American liberals, revive their fortunes and help them win future elections – leading eventually to the convergence of the United States and the USSR. In short, Gorbachev’s return will be a repetition of the device of the suppression of Solidarity in Poland, followed by its victory.

The main purpose of the ‘coup’ is to reverse an unfavourable situation for potential Soviet allies in the United States and to create favourable conditions for the implementation of the convergence strategy. The second objective is to secure the non-violent creation of the new Soviet Federation of Republics. The third objective is to provide any potential adventurers there may be in the Soviet military with a lesson and thereby to eliminate any possibility of a genuine coup in the future.

Moscow, August 20, 1991. Russian President Boris Yeltsin makes communist first salute and speaks at a rally held in support of “democracy”. (Photo by: Sovfoto/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE SOVIET ‘COUP’

The point has already been made that Gorbachev will be returned to power at the moment when it best serves the Soviet strategy of convergence. Depending on the circumstances prevailing at the appropriate time, he could be returned to power through an election, after a period of other activities .

His alleged removal from power and house arrest are deliberate devices to build up his popularity before such an election. Meanwhile one can expect that the Soviet strategists intend to replace him or to add to his team another ace card, the ‘anti-Communist’ (but, like Gorbachev, protege of Andropov) Boris Yeltsin, leader of the Russian Republic. As the Soviet strategists see it, Gorbachev has exhausted the influence he exerted on their behalf in the West. He was unable to extract more econ- omic aid at the London Summit Meeting and his advice concerning a diplomatic solution to the conflict with Iraq was ignored by President Bush. It is the strategists’ belief that Boris Yeltsin will give greater credibility in the West to Soviet economic and political ‘reform’. He will be in a better position to exploit his influence to extract additional economic aid from the West and, in particular, to obtain from the West a commitment to a new Marshall Plan for Russia.

A Marshall Plan for Russia is one of the primary interim objectives of the Soviet strategists and one that Gorbachev failed to achieve. The strategists expect that Yeltsin will be able to exert greater influence in diplomatic, economic and political relationships and will receive more cooperation in the international arena particularly in the Middle East and at the United Nations. One can expect that the Soviet strategists will come forward with fresh initiatives combined with deliberate provo- cations and crises in order to enhance the role of the United Nations.

They will do this because they regard the United Nations as a stepping stone to a future World Government The Soviet political game and the Soviets’ trickery in ‘manipulating’ politicians like Gorbachev and Y eltsin for W estern public consumption demand more imagination and a better grasp of these machinations from the Bush Administration. For example, to proceed with the appointment of Mr Robert Strauss as the new Ambassador in Moscow is a great mistake because the appointment is being made at a time when the Soviet strategists are deliberately undermining the credit and prestige President Bush gained from his dealings with Gorbachev. They are undercutting the President in favour of their political allies – namely, the American liberals. Nowadays the situation is more serious than it was after the Second World War. President Truman woke up to the nature of Stalin’s mentality, his deeds and his intentions. The Bush Administration, by contrast, has no understanding of Soviet strategy and its ultimate, aggressive, strategic designs against the United States.

Given this situation and the Soviet ‘game plan’, the President, instead of appointing a politician/businessman like Robert Strauss as American Ambassador in Moscow, should consider appointing someone like Richard Helms or General Vernon Walters – that is to say, a professional man and an intelligence expert who might see through the Soviet game plan and help the Administration as General Bedell Smith helped President Truman in 1947.

THE AUTHOR’S ANALYSIS OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALCULATED SOVIET ‘COUP’ AND OF ITS CALCULATED ‘FAILURE’

According to my assessment, the Soviet ‘coup’ and its ‘failure’ constituted a grandiose display of deception – a provocation. The ‘ineptitude’ of the participants in the ‘coup’ and the ‘failure’ of it were skilfully planned and executed. The main argument in support of this assessment is that the Soviet military, the KGB, the Party and leading media figures apparently had neither the skill to launch a successful coup nor the guts to crush resistance to it. This is news indeed!

Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general, giving a speech after the Russian government forces suppressed the fake August Coup – an attempt by supposed hard-line members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) to take control of the country. Moscow, Russia, on August 20, 1991. (Photo by Wojtek Laski/Getty Images)

Facing a real crisis in Hungary in 1956, the same forces displayed exceptional skill, knowhow and determination in crushing a genuine revolt. Knowledge of the Soviet mentality and of Moscow’s record of ruthless action has convinced this analyst that the Soviet military, the Party and the leaders of the media all have the skill, the will and the courage to crush genuine resistance and opposition. They did not display them on this occasion because the abortive ‘coup’ was carried out in accor- dance with Party instructions; and it was the Party and the Komsomol themselves which organised the alleged resistance to it.

The real participants both in the ‘coup’ and in the ‘failure’ were some 20,000 or more chosen Komsomol and Party members in Moscow with two or three tank divisions guided by their political commissars and a handful of dedicated Party offi- cials and generals who sacrificed their prestige in the interests of the Party’s strategy and under the guidance of its strategists. The calculated nature of the ‘coup’ and its timing show that it was staged by the Russian, President Yeltsin, to save the essence of the Union at the time of transition to a new form of federation.

The abortive ‘coup’ and the ‘resistance’ to it were carefully calculated displays intended primarily for the West. This explains why Western media contacts with Moscow were not curtailed. On the contrary, the big guns of the Soviet media like Vitaliy Korotich and representatives of the Arbatov Institute were on hand both in Moscow and in the United States to ‘help’ the Western media with their interpretation of developments in the USSR. The episode shows how well Soviet strategists like Arbatov and his experts on the American media have mastered the art of projecting such displays for consumption by the American media, and throughout the West.

The Soviet strategists sought to underline for the West the dramatic ineptitude of the ‘coup’ and the spectacular courage and resistance displayed by the new ‘Russian democrats’ and their leader Yeltsin in ‘defending’ the Soviet Parliament – their symbolic equivalent of ‘The White House’. The main external objective of the display was to demonstrate to the West that Soviet democratisation is genuine, that it has the support of the people and that it is working. They want to convince the West that Western investment in the USSR will pay dividends.

They expect that the West will now respond with a new Marshall Plan which will bring Western technology flooding in to the Soviet Union, promoting joint ven- tures and stimulating a restructuring of the Soviet economy along the lines of the revival of the German and Japanese economies after the Second World War.

Internally, one objective is to influence the Soviet population towards acceptance of the new Party-controlled ‘democracy’ as a real power and to develop the strength and maturity of the new ‘democratic’ structure and the popularity of its leaders, especially Yeltsin. Another objective is to exploit this staged ‘coup’ in order to reorganise and ‘reform’ the Soviet bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence and counter-intelligence organisations and the diplomatic service, and to give them a new ‘democratic’ image.

The Soviet strategists realise that only with such a new image, implying a ‘Break with the Past’ and severance from Communism, can these organisations be converted into effective weapons for convergence with their counterparts in the United States. A further internal objective is to emphasise the change in the system by means of the spectacular, televised but calculated removal of old Communist symbols like the monuments to Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy, and the red banners.

These changes do not represent a genuine and sincere repudiation of Soviet design and intentions to secure an eventual world victory. Although very spectacular, the changes are cosmetic. They demonstrate only that Arbatov and others know how to manipulate the American and other Western media through the use of powerful symbols such as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the toppling of Lenin and Dzerzhinskiy statues and Yeltsin’s staged ‘defence’ of the Soviet ‘White House’.

If the Soviets were truly moving towards genuine democracy, and were intent on a true ‘Break with the Past’, these symbolic changes would be accompanied by the introduction and implementation of a de-communisation programme, the irrevocable (not cosmetic) prohibition of the Communist Party and Komsomol organisations at all levels throughout the USSR, and the removal of ‘former’ Party and Komsomol members from all the main seats of power including the KGB, the Soviet army and its political commissar administration, the Ministries, especially those for the Interior and Foreign Affairs, and the trade unions.

Yeltsin has allegedly banned the Communist Party in Russia. But the question should be asked: ‘Why did he forget to ban the Komsomol youth organisation?’ [Note: According to ‘The New York Times’ of 29 September 1991, the Komsomol voted to dissolve itself; its regulations were changed ‘to allow subordinate youth leagues in the Soviet Republics to succeed it’ – Author’s emphasis].

To carry conviction, the necessary purge of former Communists would have to be carried out at all levels, as was the intention with the de-nazification programme in Germany after the war. Without any such programme, present changes, however impressive, will remain cosmetic.

There are at present no means of distinguishing reliably between a genuine democrat and a former Communist in Russia. However one important criterion for judging the sincerity of the abrupt and virtually simultaneous conversion of former Communist leaders into true democrats would be a frank official statement from them that the Soviet Party and Government adopted a long-range strategy in the years 1958 to 1960, that ‘perestroika’ is the advanced phase of this strategy, and that it is to be abandoned forthwith in favour of normal, open, civilised relations. There has been no sign whatsoever of any such admission.

Further criteria for judging the sincerity of the abrupt conversion of ‘former’ Communist leaders into believers in true democracy would need to include:

  • An official admission that the ‘dissident movement’ and its leader, Sakharov, were serving the interests of that strategy under KGB control;
  • Public exposure of the main KGB agents among Soviet scientists, priests, writers and theatre and movie personalities who have been playing an active role in the KGB-controlled political ‘opposition’ – especially those like the ‘conservative’ Kochetov and the ‘liberal’ Tvardovskiy who in the 1960s engaged in a Party- and KGB-controlled debate intended to convey the false impression that Soviet society was evolving towards democracy;
  • And finally: a categorical repudiation of any strategic intention on the part of the Soviets of working towards ‘convergence’ with the United States.

The self-evident absence of any of these criteria indicates that the symbolic changes mean no more than that the strategists had reached the conclusion that the old symbols had outlived their usefulness – at least, in the Soviet Union and East- em Europe – and had to be replaced by new, more attractive, popular symbols.

Moreover these cosmetic changes are logical and were predicted earlier by this ana- lyst. The Soviets realised that convergence with the United States cannot be achieved under the old compromised symbols like Lenin, Dzerzhinskiy and others associated in the Western mind with terror, repression, exile and bloodshed. Convergence requires the introduction of new, attractive, national and ‘democratic’ symbols conveying the impression that Soviet ‘democracy’ is approaching the Western model.

No doubt these cosmetic changes, the reorganisation of the Soviet bureau- cracy and the new, more enigmatic status of its leaders like Yeltsin will be seen by the West as a deepening of the process of Soviet’ reform’, offering new opportunities for Western policy. But the West’s main weakness remains unchanged: it cannot grasp the fact that it is facing an acceleration in the unfolding of Soviet convergence strategy which is intended to procure the subservience of the West to Moscow under an ultimate Communist World Government.

The Machiavellian boldness and imagination displayed by the Soviet strategists through their staged ‘coup’ and its preordained defeat are alarming. No doubt these manoeuvres will be followed not only by faked suicides, but also by staged trials of the alleged leaders of the ‘coup’. These leaders may well be sentenced to apparent prison terms. But in fact they will live in comfortable retirement in resort areas like the Crimea and the Caucasus. Russia is a big country and places can be found for them to hide.

The ‘coup’ and its ‘defeat’ show that the Soviets will go to any lengths in pur- suit of their convergence strategy. This reminds me of remarks by Vladimir Zhenikhov, the former KGB Rezident in Finland, and Aleksey Novikov, another KGB officer, at the time the strategy was adopted in 1961.

Both of them had recently returned from home leave in Moscow. When I asked for the latest news from headquarters, both replied using different words but to the same effect: ‘This time the KGB are going to finish with capitalist America once and for all’. I believed them then, and I believe that what is happening now is a bad omen for Western democracy.

The other alarming aspect of the situation is Western euphoria and the uncritical acceptance of present Soviet developments at their face value. This shows how easily the West can be taken in by staged Soviet spectacles, and how justified the strategists are in believing that their ‘era of provocations’ will produce the intended results. Furthermore, Western euphoria and naivete serve only to encourage the Soviet strategists to stage new spectacles more convinced than ever that their strategic designs are realistic.

Russia Insider is a honeypot

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Dec. 12, 2018 Anno Domini

Russia Insider is the rebirth of Russian-Jewish oligarch Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

Both strategically use anti-Jewish narratives in order to honeypot gullible people, at which point the sticky-lipped dupes are either rounded up and imprisoned or simply indoctrinated.

It is the latter in the case of Russia Insider, which is a go-to source for many Westerner alternative media junkies and Russia supporters.

Started in 2014 with the help the Kremlin and its oligarchic mafia (like Duginist Konstantin Malofeev), at the time when the neo-Bolshevik Putin regime was amping up its aggression against Ukraine, Russia Insider is the perfect Soviet double agent within the Western nationalist movement (not the first time the nationalist movement was infiltrated by the Soviets). They say all the right things at the right time, but when push comes to shove, they play the Judas Goat and mislead their audience into a Soviet Trust land of hypernormalized confusion and disinformation. One of Russia Insider’s creators, John Helmer, is alleged to have been recruited by the KGB. Russia Insider editor Charles Bausman has been featured on Kremlin-state media.

Looking at the lead article today at Russia Insider: “CHUTZPAH: CIA/Mossad Instigate Chemical Attack in Syria, Accuse Syria of Doing It”, the Soviet active measure of demoralizing the West is furthered. Instead of being told the truth, that Israel and Russia are the main players destroying Syria with largely Russian-groomed Chechen Jihadists, the clever crypto-Soviets spin it to being the fault of the “evil West”…then throw Israel in the mix as the gambit (notice it puts the CIA first, before Mossad). Peruse the rest of the site and all you will find are “articles” that can’t say enough great things about Putin and the Kremlin.

Russia Insider editor Charles Bausman featured on Kremlin-controlled state media multiple times.

Of course, this is all OK with Israel, because Israel is simply helping big brother Russia execute its long-range goal of demoralizing and destabilizing the West. Israel doesn’t mind being thrown under the bus, so long as it serves the overall goal of destroying the West and bringing it within the grip of its Judeo global governance scheme, with Israel, Russia, and China leading the world into the “Olam ha ba”. And what better cover than for Russia Insider to pretend to be opposed to globalism, a case of the fox guarding the chicken coup.

Almost all of the Western alternative media serves very much the same purpose: blame everything on the West (resulting in divide-and-conquer polarization), vindicate Russia and Arab Soviet satellites (Iran, Syria, etc.). This game is so obvious. Putin is not mystical or that unpredictable. His hypernormalization strategy is now out in the open. He is simply a more sophisticated Soviet leader pursuing the usual active measures against the West, but this time, he has a lot more Western leaders compromised than his predecessors had—take for example Angela Merkel in Soviet satellite Germany. Putin’s Red predecessors only really had Eastern Germany to puppeteer. Now the Kremlin has all of it and its largest economy in the European Union.

A response to Father Michael Ruskin regarding the Russia deception

Anti-Christian Soviet propaganda. Perhaps this rendering has dual meaning. On one hand, the Soviets portray the church as a religious snare, but on the other hand, perhaps they are crytpically telling Russians of the Soviet control of the Patriarchate of Moscow.

The following is in response to comments made by Father Michael Ruskin of Christ the Saviour Antiochian Orthodox Church of New Zealand to my open letter on the Russia deception.

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
July 5, 2018 Anno Domini

Dear Father Michael,

Your sobering reminder about the daily battle within ourselves is without a doubt the most important battle in our day-to-day lives. The Holy Scriptures warn us that the ultimate struggle is not with flesh and blood but with things of the spirit. How correct this is.

But let us realize that communism and its subsidiaries are not merely physical and political constructs with which to enslave humans beings. They are deeply spiritual—so much so that Patriarch Tikhon died to protect his flock from its spiritual perversion, not just its physical oppressiveness. It is not called “Godless communism” without good reason. In hindsight, Tikhon was justified in moving the Church into the catacombs, as the resulting Marxist churches (permitted by Lenin and the Soviets) that sprang up in both East and West (Vatican II) would evolve and attempt to replace the true one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Prior to its Marxist infiltration, the Vatican also issued grave warnings about the communist threat. The Eastern and Western Churches were in complete agreement on this. But where are these warnings in the new Sovietized churches? No where. They don’t exist. Communism/Marxism is no longer a threat, they have us believing.

Is Putin doing anything more than Lenin in permitting the existence of the Sergian church in Russia and its subsidiaries in the West? Where is the rebirth of authentic Orthodoxy in Russia today? Shouldn’t this be reflected in Russia’s statistics, which have sky-high abortion rates, broken families, and essentially the same problems as the “evil” West? How many Russians even know of the Catacomb Church? In truth, both Putin and Lenin are responsible for the rebirth of the orthodox church—a Soviet mongrelized church. Patriarch Kirill follows the Sergian line of illegitimate succession, it seems. And lo and behold, Kirill is “former” FSB. During the Red Terror, the Soviets created schisms within the true Church and even honeypot “anti-Soviet” traditional churches to lure the flock to their deaths. How can we be sure Putin will not (perhaps he already has) do the same? Golitsyn claimed in the 1980s-90s that the crypto-Soviet power would offer concessions to the Church—effectively gambits—as part of its long-range strategy to woo social conservatives. And this is exactly what happened. In the following quote, Golitsyn speaks of the subversion of the Church.

“It fails to understand that greater apparent official tolerance of religion in the Soviet Union is accompanied by a secret drive to increase Party and KGB penetration of the Catholic and other churches and to use agents therein for political and strategic purposes inside and outside the Soviet Union. As part of the programme to destroy religion from within, the KGB, in the late 1950s, started sending dedicated young Communists to ecclesiastical academies and seminaries to train them as future church leaders. These young Communists joined the Church, not at the call of their consciences to serve God, but at the call of the Communist Party in order to serve that Party and to implement its general line in the struggle against religion.” (pg. 116, The Perestroika Deception)

Brother Maurice Pinay spoke in the 1960s of the same phenomenon of subversives entering the Catholic priesthood. It seems the same has happened in the Orthodox Church. Both Kirill and the Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis, are ecumenists who espouse communist views. This only corroborates Golitsyn’s warnings.

Golitsyn narrows down Russia’s false democratisation plot and concludes with,

“It is, however, a false, cosmetic liberalisation. For example, the alleged religious relaxation is a spectacle produced and managed by the KGB and the high priests of the church who are KGB agents assigned to fulfill the strategy…In the present phase, secret agents in the Catholic and other churches are being used to implement Communist strategy. When they achieve their Communist world victory, they will use mass withdrawal of their agents to disrupt and destroy the churches. Never in its history since Nero has Christianity faced such a threat of possible destruction. The dictum of the late Pope Pius XII about the incompatibility of Communism and religion is as correct as ever. The Vatican should reaffirm this dictum and should use its influence and its ‘divisions’ to defend Western values from the new Communist assault. (pgs. 189, 116-117)

Keep in mind that Golitsyn said all of this long before Kirill became patriarch. Can you honestly say to yourself that it’s a mere coincidence that the “tobacco” metropolitan happened to be pulled from communist ranks of the KGB?

The idea that the Russian Federation is the last bastion of Christian orthodox theocracy and, therefore, must defend itself is a wonderful one, but it does not stand under scrutiny. Firstly, many proponents of this perceived Russian-theocratic state point to the number of NATO military bases surrounding Russia as an indication that Russia is not an aggressor but is, instead, only acting defensively. But they can’t seem to explain how this supposedly superior Western-led NATO military occupation couldn’t manage to stop Russia from annexing Crimea, much less retaliate. Aside from a few show sanctions imposed by then U.S. President Obama (a secret communist himself) and other Western nations following the annexation, we didn’t so much as see a budge from a single NATO tank in response. Why? The only two conclusions one can come to is that NATO and the West are not militarily superior to Russia and her allies or, worse yet, the two sides are in on the charade together. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only one time, following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks—provoking a Western-led military campaign in which Russia acted quite passively, even endorsing the U.S. narrative of things. Is NATO really anything more than just a show army designed to trick Westerners into thinking the communist threat is being dealt with while the threat actually becomes stronger? I fear this may be the case, especially seeing as the Soviet plan involves dismantling NATO by subversion, not by guns—the same way the Church is being co-opted.

In the spirit of Lenin and his living student Aleksandr Dugin, defenders of Russia point to the infectious moral decay of the West and how this legitimizes Russia’s social and geopolitical manoeuvrings. While this is true about the West’s moral decay, these defenders don’t seem to be asking themselves what the motive is behind these charges. It’s one thing to point out immorality from a Christian perspective but quite another to point it out for strategic reasons. Is Russia portraying the West as evil because it is truly evil or is it doing so to weaken its morale? I can’t count how many Westerners I have seen cheering on Russian (Soviet) penetration of the West thinking it will destroy globalism. How ironic and twisted. These same also fail to acknowledge the large Soviet hand in furthering the moral decay of the West. Soviet penetration of Western governments is one thing, but when you have Soviet penetration of the education system, it becomes all the more obvious how we got to where we are today. The Western counter-culture revolutions of the 1960s were largely hatched in the Soviet Union. Are we supposed to forgive and forget all of this because the media has shouted from every rooftop that communism has fallen? And why should we trust the media, when it is part of the morally decayed West? Think about how we learned of the fake collapse of communism: from Western media. If the “evil” West truly hated “orthodox” Russia, you would think they would have been a little more prudent in assessing the validity of the purported fall of communism. Why was it immediately accepted without any kind of investigation? The crypto-Soviet empire of Russia is playing a classic globalist dialectic of creating the problem: cultural Marxism in the West, and offering the solution: neo-Bolshevik one worldism led by Russia.

Father Ruskin, you claim that the European Union is collapsing of its own volition, but consider that Europe’s largest economy resides in Germany, whose head Angela Merkel happens to be a “former” Soviet. It’s reasonable to say that Germany sets the tone for the EU. All Russia would have to do to manipulate the EU is have at least one rogue EU state under its control; although, I am sure it’s actually more than just one. Germany fits this hypothesis. It could be said that Merkel is the single biggest saboteur of EU migration norms. With Merkel being a communist in the service of the crypto-Soviet Union, it seems that “Russia” is leading the campaign to de-Europeanize Europe. Yet, we are being told the opposite by Western Russophiles. Is it just a coincidence that Dugin’s Eurasian utopia concept is consistent with Kalergi’s Pan-European utopia?

As for Putin’s so called social conservatism, Russia recently has just had its first legal same-sex marriage. Russia’s decades of strategic corruption of Western mores has finally returned to its master. It’s now only a matter of time. And blaming the West will be invalid, as the Soviet Union was pretty much the birthplace of the sexual revolution. In their occultic vision, the serpent’s head has reached its tail.

Your concluding statement, “It’s drawing a long bow to suggest they resurrected the Church to lull us into a false calmness before deceptively overwhelming us,” describes what Golitsyn explains as failed Western analysis of the Soviet threat. And as the above quotes show, this is exactly the kind of sophisticated enemy with which we are dealing. This is not about fearing the Kremlin and its diabolical plans but about discerning it…in righteousness.

Respectfully yours,

Timothy Fitzpatrick

Kalergi plan archive

The Kalergi plan explained

Europe’s “refugee” crisis and the Kalergi plan for white genocide

Former Shin Bet Chief warned in 2014 that Israel would Islamify Europe if it didn’t protect Jews (it was inevitable no matter what Europe did)

Dugin in 1997: Unleash “Afro-American Racists” on White America

Holocaust Propaganda Aligns Jews and Muslims Against Europeans

The Jewish Origins of Islam

Jews abandon ‘Islamophobia’, embrace Islam as proxy against Christ, again

Series:

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: White Genocide by Design (Part 1)

The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan: White Genocide by Design (Part 2)

Kalergi’s Jewish Plan for European Genocide

The EU/UN Plan – The Genocide Of The Caucasian People Of Europe and Agenda 21

Muslims are Jews’ natural allies in Europe – Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt

United Nations Migration Chief Claims Mass Migration in ‘National Interest’

VIDEO: European/Zionist Plot to Eradicate Race Through Immigration (Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan)

Is the ‘Migrant Crisis’ Part of a Zionist Plot Against White Europeans?

Crypto-Soviet Eurasianist Dugin: “White Racism is Disgusting” + Pro-Cannibalism

Jews over-represented on immigration policy boards of Western nations

‘Islamization of Europe a good thing’, says Israeli rabbi

The Irish military ship ‘Samuel Beckett’ has brought more than 100 illegal invasive African migrants to Messina Sicily

The Barcelona Declaration: the fate of Europe was decided long ago

Islamization of Europe – What you didn’t know

Catholic Bishop- Europe Migrant Crisis ‘Orchestrated’ by International Powers

Italy walks out on UN migration meeting saying national borders are no business of the UN

Most worldwide oppose more migration – both into and out of their countries: Pew Research

UN Compact For Migration—Israel helps create, then withdraws

A Zionist Spy for Soviet Intelligence

By Michael Collins Piper
The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within
American Free Press (2006)
Excerpts: pages 108-109

While the late Rep. Samuel Dickstein (D-N.Y.) is remembered today as one of “the great liberals” and as one of America’s most distinguished Jewish leaders, in the late 1930s—just prior to the advent of U.S. involvement in World War II—he was best known as the first figure in Congress to promote “Nazi-hunting” and “fighting fascism” as one of America’s top priorities. Dickstein crusaded as the ultimate advocate of“Americanism.” In fact, however, he was the ultimate Judas Goat. He was an enemy agent: a spy controlled by the Soviet Union’s secret intelligence service.

Although Dickstein has been memorialized as a “statesman” and “humanitarian” and other such high-sounding tributes in the American Jewish press, other assessments of the congressman—who served 11 terms, beginning in 1923—have not been so friendly. One critic called Dickstein “a smooth infiltrator, corrupt, greedy, and utterly amoral,” an early role model for many of the Judas Goats who populate the ranks of America’s Enemy Within today.

The truth about Dickstein’s role as a Soviet agent came out in the late 1990s in long-secret Soviet intelligence messages and files that are now accessible to American historians. In fact, Stephen Gettinger, an editor of the eminently “mainstream” and thoroughly non-partisan Congressional Quarterly said that the Dickstein affair was probably“the first clear-cut case of congressional spying in history.”

Dickstein

The record shows that Dickstein—who represented a famously “Jewish” congressional district on Manhattan’s Lower East Side—was recruited as a Soviet agent in 1937 by Peter Gutzeit, a gentleman who shared Dickstein’s religion and who also happened to be the New York station chief of the NKVD, the Soviet secret police. For a fee of $1,250 a month, Dickstein stole reams of secret documents from Congress and the War Department which he turned over to his Soviet handlers.

In addition, and perhaps even more importantly, Dickstein served as Moscow’s agent of influence in Washington by loudly attacking the nationalist European powers of Germany and Italy for their resolute opposition to Soviet Communism. Dickstein was perhaps one of the loudest and earliest among those agitating for U.S. pressure on Germany, with the intention of sparking U.S. military intervention in the war in Europe that later became World War II. Dickstein made headlines by accusing Americans who refused to support his war-like intentions of being “un-American”—a charge that, even today, Zionist elements use against good patriotic Americans who refuse to support endless American intervention in the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

And while there were many who simply attributed Dickstein’s hysteria to the fact that he was Jewish, and therefore an obvious foe of Adolf Hitler’s rule in Germany, the fact is, as we have seen, that Dickstein was also a quite greedy paid agent of the Soviet Union.

And what is particularly interesting is that Dickstein was among the early promoters of the establishment of what became known as the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). The New York Times even called Dickstein “the founder of HUAC.” However, when HUAC began its inquiries it soon discovered that the real subversives on American soil were Soviet agents and that many real patriots in America simply saw no need for U.S. intervention in Europe in a war against Germany, Dickstein did an about-face and denounced the very committee that he had helped establish in the first place.

It ultimately turned out that Dickstein’s financial demands on his Soviet handlers were so endless that the NKVD assigned Dickstein the code name “Crook” in their internal memoranda and intelligence traffic. By 1938, Dickstein’s New York-based conduit to the NKVD, Peter Gutzeit, was warning his superiors in a memo that “‘Crook’ is completely justifying his code name. This is an unscrupulous type, greedy for money …a very cunning swindler.”(And this assessment was hardly the kind of favorable commentary about Dickstein that was appearing in the media at the time.)

In any case, by late 1940, Dickstein and his Soviet handlers parted company, but Dickstein had already done an immense amount of quite effective dirty work on behalf of his foreign sponsors. Dickstein left Congress following the 1944 election and became a judge on the New York State Supreme Court, dying in 1954 a very wealthy and honored man.This traitor’s papers—although not the evidence of his treason— are lovingly and respectfully preserved in the American Jewish Archives at the distinguished Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati.

Obviously, Dickstein would have probably been very pro-Soviet and anti-Nazi even without the financial support of his Soviet handlers, but the fact that he was prepared to secretly lend his efforts on behalf of secret Soviet agents—for money—says quite a lot about this so-called “statesman.” In fact, Dickstein is a classic model of one of The Judas Goats—The Enemy Within who have done so much damage to America. And for this, if for no other reason, we must recall his sordid record.

The truth is that there are many more like him in Congress today. The record of politicians “on the take” from the Israeli lobby iis equally sordid but these politicians brag of being on the receiving end of foreign money, whereas Dickstein, of course, kept his treason close to his vest. And that says very much about how far off course America has gone.

Why Soviet Russia helped Trump get elected

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
March 20, 2018 Anno Domini

While the two sides of the Right-vs-Left partisan theatre continue to squabble over the how, when, and where of Russian collusion with the Trump presidency, the most important question—why—is ignored.

Let us consider the reasons why Putin and the “Russian federation” helped bring Trump to the Oval Office, within the context of Soviet defector Anatoliy Golitsyn’s Perestroika deception thesis.

First, let’s assume that Golitsyn is correct that the Soviet Union still exists but with the deceptive mask of capitalism and democracy in order to lull the West to sleep over the communist threat so that Russia can later more easily take over the slumbering Western power. (“Perestroika” is Russian for restructuring. The feigned democratization of the USSR was sold to the West as “Perestroika” of the old Soviet system into a new democratized system. Golitsyn said it was a lie.)

Corroborating Golitsyn’s hundreds of predictions—which goes back to the 1950s and has a better-than-ninety-percent accuracy rate—is the simple fact that the Soviet’s cultural Marxist subversion program has completely taken over the social order in the West. In fact, it’s a completed mission. Pro-Russian conservatives seem to think that the radical Left and its identity politics evolved on its own, perhaps from the hippie movement or something. But it came from the Soviet Union—part of the subversive demoralization phase of what another Soviet defector, Yuri Bezmenov, claimed was part of a four-pronged Soviet strategy of overtaking the West and absorbing it into Lenin’s communistic world government.

With the demoralization phase already complete, we now move on to what Bezmenov described as the destabilization phase. This is where Donald Trump comes in. Here are some basic points to consider when we look at Trump’s usefulness to the crypto-Soviet state of Russia under Putin and it’s long-range goal of weakening America and the West for Soviet takeover:

  • He is more easily kompromat (compromised and controlled than Hillary, due to sexual compromise, financial and economic blackmail, Jewish-Russia mob deals, etc. Golitsyn called it “co-operation blackmail”.)
  • He has caused more social and political division domestically and, perhaps, abroad. (divide and conquer strategy).
  • He has fractured the Right (the destruction of conservatism is top priority for world communism).
  • He has discredited the Right (by shaping it into a strawman and caricature).
  • He has emboldened, strengthened, and galvanized the radical Left (sort of like how the Zionists used Hitler to galvanize all the previously divided Jews worldwide).
  • Trump is bringing America closer to the realization of world government, despite appearances of opposition to globalism (mainly through economic deals and partnerships).

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is a compromised and dirty politician. But so is Donald, and more so. Sexual compromise is the preferred form of blackmail in the political world and has been since the Bavarian Order of the Illuminati systematized the concept. There is no way that Hillary can outmatch Trump in this department. From Russia’s point of view, Donald is the easier to manipulate in this respect. Whether the Russians had access to Mossad’s Jeffrey Epstein’s blackmail sex ring that is likely to have ensnared Trump and/or whether the Russian “pissgate” vice has any validity, the Russians have Trump by his balls. Add to that the financial obligations Trump has to the Russian-Jewish money lenders and business and political obligations he has to the Russia-Jewish mafiya that helped him win the presidency and there is no question how compromised Donald is. The Russians knew they could have no where near the same control with Hillary.

Part of the Soviet destabilization plan, outlined by both Golitsyn and Bezmenov, is to radicalize both sides of social discourse in America and the West. Golitsyn said this in the 1980s, yet we have really only seen it reach a head in the last three years. Was Golitsyn psychic? No, he just knew Soviet strategy and made the simple prediction based on this knowledge. It has now come out that Russian troll farms were promoting extreme points of view from both Right and Left perspectives, especially identity politics, in a provokatsiya (provocation) program, which is an essential part of their massive psychological warfare program. It would be one thing if the troll farms were only promoting right-wing politics, but that they were promoting both corroborates the claims of the two aforementioned Soviet defectors. It shows the real cards of Putin and Russia, who are not out to revitalize conservatism, Christian Orthodoxy, and not out to fight globalism. They are there to destabilize the West so that they can ripen it for the final world government takeover. Trump is also causing political divisions with his seeming protectionist policies, despite brokering scantly publicized partnerships and deals with nations, including and especially China. What’s more, his unfettered support of the illegal state of Israel is causing even more political divisions.

The Trump hysteria has fractured the Right. This is obvious. Perhaps there has never been more in-fighting and internal division in the conservative movement than now. This has been seen even inside of Trump’s own political party, the GOP. The plethora of controlled opposition agents (many Russian sponsored) inside the conservative movement is only amplifying this division, as they are promoting bankrupt forms of conservatism, or neoconservatism, which just further muddies the water. Of course, Trump’s brand of conservatism is fake, too. It’s no more real than a three-dollar bill.

Trump’s over-the-top behaviour and persona makes a convenient caricature out of conservatism. It has provided a rallying point around which Leftists can punch holes in an easily deflatable strawman blow-up clown doll. This is only possible because Trump does not embody genuine conservative values. He is the creature of New York, Jewish yuppy culture and is led by his lust, greed, and narcissism. This caricaturization is being used the same way the Zionists used the caricature of Hitler to galvanize the fractured Jewish community. It lead to to an intense period of cohesion for Hitler’s opponents, while he and the Nazis became more and more discredited. The Hitler caricature also enabled the Jewish money power to inoculate the world against any return to nationalism, which is the natural opponent of communism (and Zionism). The Soviets strive for the same goals, despite pretending to be nationalists themselves. Do you think the world will ever look at conservatism and nationalism with any validity, in the post-Hitler, Post-Trump future?

The fracturing, discrediting, and caricaturization of the Right has only encouraged the Left that their ideologies are correct. They can now push forward implementing their “truth” all over the world—more easily than had caricatures like Trump never been in power. Now there is the convenient pretext to save the world from any more monsters. Just accept their communism. Everything will be fine. We will finally have peace. Bezmenov illustrated that once the demoralization and destabilization phases had passed, a violent economic and political crisis would evolve. It would eventually lead to a normalization period of stability until the following cycle would reach a crisis point (dialectics).

Trump is merely part of a long-range Soviet strategy to take over the West and eventually absorb it into a world communistic system. This has been a long-time goal for world Jewry. It began, in its modern form, during the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia. So far, everything is going according to the Judeo-Soviet script. It’s just taken a little longer to implement than the Jewish revolutionaries had envisioned.