A Serious Threat to Western Nations

On 21 September 1999 Richard L. Palmer, President of Cachet International, Inc. testified on “the infiltration of the Western financial system by elements of Russian organized crime before the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services….” His full testimony can be read at the Web site for the Committee on Financial Services – Democrats. Palmer’s testimony, like that of many experts, has never been placed in proper context.

Palmer warned the House Committee of “serious threats to Western nations.” He had worked as an Army intelligence officer in Europe, and served 20 years in the Operations Directorate of the CIA. His final assignment was as Chief of Station in the former Soviet Union from 1992 to 1994. For several years he monitored criminal activities related to the Russian mafia. Palmer told the Committee he had direct experience working with former Soviet security and police services, “as well as members of Russian banking, business, Organized Crime and corrupt officials.”

According to Palmer, Russia’s “market mechanism” was being suppressed by organized crime. But this was no ordinary organized crime. It was, in fact, a hybrid of totalitarian officialdom and criminal networks aligned with security and police agencies. Anyone who has debriefed former Soviet police or special services officials knows the story. A KGB colonel may be asked to join a “business”; a GRU general is given an “opportunity”; a Communist Party official is instructed to start a corporation with Party money – all done on orders from the top, from the Central Committee of the Communist Party Soviet Union. “[M]ost informed observers agree that the criminal Mafiya groups account for only about 10 to 15 percent of the makeup of [Russian] Organized Crime,” noted Palmer, “with Russian officials, former officials and their ‘newly created entrepreneurs’ accounting for the other 85 to 90 percent.”

In other words, 85 to 90 percent of Russian organized crime is the work of former Communist officials. Palmer spoke of the possibility, if proven true, that Russian bank officials may have been involved in Western bank scandals. “I would like to note,” said Palmer, “that while examining eleven cases of US and other Western firms defrauded by Russian Organized Crime (ROC) elements, I was able to identify nine cases where US/Western executives clearly had been suborned by ROC groups to assist in looting their employers.”

Palmer went on to say that “Russia is not governed by the ‘rule of law’ but functions under the rule of understandings.” In other words, property rights – and all other rights recognized by law – are not the basis of the Russian system. It would appear that post-Communist Russia operates according to Proudhon’s dictum that “property is theft.” All that occurred with the fall of Communism was a transition from one system of plunder to another. The Communists did not become capitalists, in fact, because they were incapable of embracing the fundamental moral, political and legal concepts underpinning capitalism.

The Communist Party leadership knew what was coming in the 1980s. In preparation for the coming changes in Russia, plans for moving Communist Party money to the West, said Palmer, “were first discussed in 1984 by specific sections of the Soviet Politburo, the top officials of the Communist government.” By 1986 an informal planning committee had acquired the “services of two KGB First Chief Directorate (FCD – foreign espionage) officers who were experienced in moving funds overseas both for the Party Central Committee” and for operational purposes. The Communists took pains to hide any paper trail related to their planning. According to Palmer, “No written records existed of their meetings or proceedings, except one copy to the Chairman of the KGB and one copy to the Central Committee official responsible for the Administrative Organs of the Politburo: Viktor Chebrikov. The Chairman of this planning group was CC [Central Committee] Treasurer Nikolai Kruchina.”

If you study Palmer’s statements in detail – especially where he writes about “the creation of … apparently private, commercial firms” by the KGB – you may miss the forest for the trees. Palmer appears to believe, like most analysts, that he is describing some kind of organic, spontaneous change in the Soviet system which the elite wisely foresaw. Even when he says this change was initiated from the top, and orchestrated by “an informal planning committee,” he avoids any mention of a larger Soviet strategy to deceive the West. But changes initiated from the top, by the Politburo, are anything but organic. Such changes must be understood as implemented in accordance with Soviet strategy.

Of course, writing about Soviet strategy is like wearing a tin foil hat. Western officials and strategists have always denied Soviet deception. The highest level Soviet Bloc official to defect, Jan Sejna, wrote about the West’s denial in the following terms: “One of the basic problems of the West is its frequent failure to recognize the existence of any Soviet ‘grand design’ at all.” When another defector, KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn, wrote about the Soviet long-range plan in a book titled New Lies for Old, he was roundly dismissed by almost everyone. Yet evidence of a plan abounds on every side, from Russia’s continuing support for Communist fronts and parties abroad, to the ongoing modernization of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces.

Richard Palmer believed there was a threat. He fretted about “the return of totalitarian regimes which may not necessarily be Communist.” Of course, labels don’t matter. Criminals are criminals, and a country without rule of law is invariably run by criminals. What we saw in the twentieth century, with the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany, was an explosion of political crime. In the twenty-first century the political criminal has become, also, a financial criminal. Here empires are made and unmade. In this context, ask yourself the following question: Was it wise to allow Russia (and China) access to America’s financial system?

Come now, the answer should be obvious.

Jeffrey Nyquist is the President of the Strategic Crisis Center and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Political Science at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought.

This article was originally published on Financial Sense on April 9, 2012. The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Nobody Has the Authority to License Homosexual Marriage

“Abolition of the family! … The bourgeois family will disappear, in the course [of history] as its supplement [private property] disappears, and both will vanish with the destruction of capital.”

 The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2, Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.

The political battle over homosexual marriage heated up in May of 2012 when President Obama told telling ABC, “I think that same-sex couples should be able to get married” immediately after North Carolina became the 32nd state on Tuesday to vote against same-sex marriage. The public has been given a voice 32 times, and voted it down every time.

MSNBC and the other undereducated, misinformed and politicized news media praised the President and condemned the voters of North Carolina and by inference the majority of voters in 32 states. Of course, this is the same group of fellow travelers and useful idiots who mis-apply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution to the respective States, “”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to deny Christians and soon Jews the freedom of worship, when the clause plainly recognizes the inalienable freedom of worship.

Either of these distortions of real Truth is more of the same Marxist double speak. Neither the President, the Congress, the State governments, nor the voters have the authority to legalize homosexual marriage, whether they are conscious of the Marxist thrust of their illegal actions or just useful idiots in the advance of Marx’s goal to destroy the family.

Pages could be, have been and should be written about the progressive Marxist destruction of the American Constitutional Republic; and, pages could be, have been and should be written about the destructive nature of the homosexualization of the culture. With regard to the President, it is more important to understand clearly that the civil government has no authority in area of the free exercise of religion such as marriage. If it has no authority and tries to exercise power not vested to it, then the government is acting illegally.

So that you don’t buy the lie! This article focuses on the fact that intentionally or not, too many in the press, the mass media, the government, and the education establishment have confused the citizens of America about the institution of marriage.

First of all, as many of our readers already know, there are many forms of government. In our western democracy, there are at least four spheres of government: individual government, family government, ecclesiastical government, and civil government. In the United States of America, the civil government owes its existence to the consent of the governed, not the other way around, in the tradition of the Magna Carte. Furthermore, since the Rev. Samuel Rutherford wrote LEX, REX, which clarified the rule of law posited by the Magna Carte, all of these forms of government have been under God’s Law in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. When king or ruler is above the law, he often acts in imperious and dictatorial ways, for the very nature of power is to corrupt the powerful, unless it is restrained by God’s Law. In essence, God’s Law says to love your neighbor as yourself, and the civil government is subject to that divine law.

Thus, the Declaration of Independence made it clear that King George III acted illegally when he oppressed the American colonies, because he was under the Law of God. Countries that allowed men to rule above the law have produced tyrants such as Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse Tung. Current examples include Mugabwe, Castro and the military junta in Burma, among many others.

It must be emphasized that marriage between one man and one woman is a God ordained, God defined, biblical act. For 1800 years in western countries, marriage was a unique institution, initiated by God when he created the male and female, presided over by Jesus Christ when he blessed the act of marriage and stated that a man and a woman would leave their parents and join together to become one flesh, and sustained by the Holy Spirit who not only holds the marriage together but also produces the offspring that God creates.

The norm in most other religions is not monogamy, although many have borrowed the form of a Christian wedding. Moreover, the state’s involvement in Christian marriage is relatively recent.

In 1837, the Rev. Henry Morris complained that the state had usurped the authority of God in marriage. Norris railed against the passage of a law on marriage by providing a detailed look at the institution of marriage. He painstakingly exegeted the scriptures in establishing his point that marriage is most importantly a religious institution, and therefore it should not be relegated to a strictly civil character:

“They took from the Clergy ‘the solemnizing of Matrimony, and put it into the hands of Justices of the Peace. . . .’ In the former instance of this desecration being ordained, the power to legislate had been seized by those who would be restrained in nothing that they imagined to do; and, in a day specified in their ordinance, ‘no other marriage whatsoever within the Commonwealth,’ but such as should be contracted. . . before a Justice of the Peace, ‘should be held or accounted a marriage according to the law of England.’ But the national principle is not yet sufficiently prostrated to make us again ripe for so arbitrary and irreligious an imposition, and therefore, by the law just come in force, you are left to form your own judgments, whether marriage is a mere civil contract, or a Divine institution ‘whether it shall be celebrated with or without any offices of religion’ whether the Church, the Conventicle, or the Register-office, shall be the place of celebration and whether the Clergyman of the Parish, the Dissenting Teacher, or the superintendent Registrar, shall officiate on the occasion.”

The Rev. Norris adds that the biblical position is that only God ordains marriage. So, in the light of history and God’s Word written, the judges in Massachusetts, California or any other state or federal court have nothing to say about Christian marriage and have no authority to define, ordain or desecrate it.

The Rev. Norris brilliantly continues in his sermon:

“by the “state of matrimony the spiritual marriage that is betwixt Christ and His Church is signified and represented. . . .”

“But that ‘the fruitful vine’. . . is not procurable by a civil contract, it cometh only of the Lord.”

His reasoning is impeccable, but many have forgotten that marriage belongs to the church. In fact, a few are very uncomfortable with that concept because of the abuse of power by some ecclesiastical authorities. Two wrongs don’t make a right, however. And they certainly don’t make a civil right to same-sex “marriage.”

With regard to the abuse of power, it must be noted that civil government is good, although there can be bad presidents, governors, judges, and other authorities. Family government is good, although there can be bad fathers and mothers. Ecclesiastical government is good, though there can be bad clergymen. The rules and the laws of the exception do not make the rule. In other words, a bad father does not give us the license to call for the abolishment of fatherhood, etc. What it does do is to give us the opportunity for checks and balances, which until recently were most perfectly expressed in our constitutional government.

The church has to reclaim marriage as its unique institution. Whatever anyone wants to do outside of the church may be their business, but it is not sanctioned by God’s Law. The state has the right to regulate only what the Constitution allows it to regulate, because there is no liberty for license. But, the state does not have the right to tell the biblical, believing, Trinitarian, Christian church that any couple outside of the faith is married.

We need to stand for God’s Law in the face of the power grab by those in civil authority, who know no restraints.

The increasingly socialized Federal Government does not have the right nor the authority to violate God’s Law, they have also violated their own constitution and the will of the governed. When they do that, they are just like King George. They have abdicated their moral and legal authority and are subject to indictment, trial and just punishment.

Now, all those who freely exercise their inalienable right to religious faith, must stop acting like useful idiots and fellow travelers by going along to get along, and instead stand for your God-given rights by proclaiming loud and clear that these government servants have crossed the line into illegal activity that as no authority and makes them criminals.

Often, the people of faith and values do not stand up because they have been slowly boiled in the brine of socialism and so give the states powers they have no authority to use. Often the state or federal government creates the problem by violating our individual right to property, estates, income, etc through the Marxist device of illicit taxation, and then argues from the problem the state created that the state needs to govern marriage to alleviate the tax burdens the state created so that the state can encourage marriage. Such circular and dishonest reasoning has almost deceived the very electorate.

Now, the people of have and values must throw off the stupor of Marxist double speak and return to the basic principles that made them free to live at peace in the American Republic that recognizes “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do not let it destroy godly marriage and families!


Dr. Ted Baehr is the founder and publisher of MOVIEGUIDE, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, and a well-known movie critic, educator, lecturer and media pundit. He also is the author of several books, including “The Culture-Wise Family” with legendary entertainer Pat Boone, and a Distinguished Senior Fellow for Study of Culture, Media, and Mass Entertainment at the Inter-American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought. For more information, please call 800-899-6684 or go to the MOVIEGUIDE website.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute.

Discreet Influences

When the Swiss painter and poet Frithjof Schuon (1907–1998) returned from the East in the forties, transfigured into the supreme master of one of the most influential Muslim esoteric organizations and announcing that he would Islamize Europe, he gave the clear impression of being completely mad. Today it behooves us to examine with humility his words and the course of his actions, whose overwhelming efficiency contrasts with the total discretion with which they were undertaken.

To begin with, the creation of Schuon’s tariqah (Islamic initiation lodge) in Lausanne was hailed by the esoteric writer René Guénon (1886–1951) as the only promising result of his own efforts of four decades. This clearly shows the meaning of those efforts and, the later rupture between Guénon and Schuon notwithstanding, evinces the perfect continuity of the work of these two esoterists, whose respective disciples nowadays prefer hating one another to celebrating the common victory over a spiritually weakened Europe.

Guénon, the author of masterly analyses of the decay of the European West, had concluded in the 1920s that only three roads offered themselves to this civilization: the fall into barbarism, the restoration of the Catholic Church, or Islamization. On uttering those words about Frithjof Schuon, he had already given up the second alternative. The fiasco of the Second Vatican Council, whose appearances the popes have in vain been trying to save, proved in the end that his diagnosis was, in outline, correct.

The radically de-Christianized Europe is today the stage of an open strife between barbarism and Islamism. There is no third way, apparently (“secular civilization” is a joke). The possibility of rescuing the Christian option depends entirely on the American influence or on the admirable dedication of Eastern and African priests and pastors, who, in a paradoxical turn of history, have come to try to recatechize the people by whom they were Christianized.

The action of such characters as Guénon and Schuon goes unnoticed by the media, political analysts, and “intellectuals” in general, whose eyes are hypnotically fixed upon the garish surface of events. But without it the “occupation from within” by means of immigration would have remained innocuous for lack of the cultural conditions that disarmed the European intellectual and political elite. Guénon and Schuon contributed much to create them, subjugating the uppermost and most circumspect strata of this elite to the intellectual superiority of the East in every decisive area except the natural sciences and technology.

Guénon wrote his first articles under the pseudonym Sphynx, denoting that his readers had no choice but to profit from his lessons intelligently or to let themselves be dominated without ever understanding them. In a single European country those lessons have been meditated with serious intent by independent thinkers: Romania. When I lived in Bucharest, I found there not a single eminent intellectual who did not have a profound and critical understanding of Guénon’s work.

What has been seen in the rest of Europe is the oscillation between obtuse rejection and devout submission, including a significant number of secret conversions to Islam and the regimentation of many intellectuals and leaders—among them the prospective king of England—into the scheme of state protection of Islamic expansionism. It is no coincidence that Romania is one of the rare European countries where the Muslim penetration is negligible.

To give an idea of how powerful the subtle influence of Guénon and Schuon has been, it suffices to inform that the latter interfered directly in producing the crisis between Monsignor Lefèvre and the Vatican in 1976, and until now the Catholic historians—whether progressive or conservative—have not taken the slightest notice of that.

I know that this article of mine is addressed to few readers and that, among these, some of those who can more or less understand it will definitely hate it. But there are things that one must say just in order not to be accused, in the future, of bearing witness only too late.

Olavo de Carvalho is the President of The Inter-American Institute and Distinguished Senior Fellow in Philosophy, Political Science, and the Humanities.

The opinions published here are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by the Institute. This article was originally published in the newspaper Jornal do Brasil on May 8, 2008, and translated from the Portuguese by Alessandro Cota and Bruno Mori.