Como provar a um muçulmano que há mais de uma pessoa em Deus?

Um católico deve saber que existe a Revelação Divina. Deus revela aqueles fatos que o homem não pode descobrir sozinho. Alguns destes factos (como a Trindade, a transsubstanciação, a predestinação católica) o homem nem sequer consegue compreender, não só nesta vida, mas mesmo na próxima, porque são mistérios. Além destes, Deus revela alguns fatos que o homem pode entender. Porquê?
Porque os filósofos precisam de uma análise elaborada para fazer isso. Isso também pode produzir muitos erros. Além disso, nem todo mundo é filósofo. Agora, alguns dos mistérios que se podem entender em parte e justificar pelo simples senso comum. Eis, por exemplo, a questão da Santíssima Trindade. Existe um Deus? Se alguém acredita na causalidade, deve haver, porque tudo tem uma causa. Se voltarmos atrás, tem de haver uma causa final. A isto chamamos Deus. Se houvesse vários “deuses”, isso implicaria a existência de várias causas finais. Portanto, deve haver um só Deus, e apenas um. Ora, este Deus é pessoal? Uma pessoa é algo ou alguém com quem se pode comunicar. Então, se alguém pode se comunicar com Deus, Ele é pessoal. No entanto, isso não significa que haja apenas uma pessoa Nele, nem o contrário. Então, como resolver esta questão?
É preciso saber que Deus é infinitamente belo. Esta beleza infinita implica simetria; que a sua misericórdia deve compensar a sua justiça. Caso contrário, se Deus é justo mas não misericordioso ou se é misericordioso mas não justo, onde está esta simetria? Se Ele não é justo, onde está a Sua perfeição? Se ele não é misericordioso, onde está a sua bondade? Mas como ser misericordioso sem ser injusto? Perdoar uma ofensa no sentido islâmico é esquecê-la, sem compensação. Mas esse perdão sem compensação seria injusto. Além disso, sabemos que uma ofensa contra um Deus infinito é infinita. Assim, um ser finito, como nós, não pode compensar uma ofensa infinita. (Isso seria verdade mesmo sem a queda original ou o pecado real, que pioram as coisas. Devido a isso, estamos em uma vala, por assim dizer. Podemos levantar-nos pelos nossos próprios cabelos? Julgo que não.)
Assim, pode-se qualificar o perdão no sentido islâmico como injusto. Mas se uma mera criatura não pode fazer uma satisfação devida, uma Pessoa Divina pode. Mas se houvesse apenas uma Pessoa em Deus, isso significaria que Ele paga a nossa dívida a Si mesmo, para nos salvar de Si mesmo, a Si mesmo, sacrificando-Se por nós. O ateu gritava: salve-me dessa loucura! E tem razão. As saídas possíveis são: 1) Deus não existe, mas nós refutamos isso. 2) Há mais ‘deuses’, mas nós também refutamos isso. 3) Que há pelo menos duas Pessoas em Deus e uma Pessoa Divina dá satisfação à Outra.
Posso citar nossas Escrituras para prová-lo, não apenas do Novo Testamento, mas até mesmo do Antigo. Assim, posso comparar o ensino deles com o nosso. Mas tenha em mente que para um estranho à nossa Fé, especialmente para um muçulmano, isso é inútil. Um muçulmano afirma que nossas Escrituras não são precisas. Posso dar exemplos do Quaran que contradizem a nossa fé. E posso comparar o ensino deles com o nosso, mas isso também é inútil. Devemos, portanto, ater-nos aos argumentos de bom senso, como fiz aqui.

Não posso justificar da mesma forma o mistério da Presença Real. No entanto, posso ilustrá-lo. Imagine um espelho. Vê-se nela. Se quebrarmos o espelho em vários pedaços, podemos ver-nos em cada peça da mesma forma que no espelho original. Da mesma forma, Nosso Senhor está presente numa Hóstia, inteira e inteira. Ele também está presente em cada parte da Hóstia quebrada.

O melhor remédio contra o Islão é refutar o seu principal argumento. Diz que o Corão é de origem divina, já que ninguém pode escrever um capítulo semelhante. Há dois contra-argumentos. A primeira é que esse tipo de semelhança é subjectiva. A segunda é que, se não se pode escrever uma mesma sinfonia que Mozart, isso prova que as suas obras são de origem divina? Ou se não podemos escrever ao estilo de Shakespeare, isso significa que as suas obras são divinas? Assim, pode-se ver como o argumento caiu.

É claro que o Islã tem outros pontos fracos, por exemplo, a origem do Corão. Uttman, o terceiro califa “correctamente guiado” (= sucessor do “profeta”) padronizou-o primeiro. Encomendou quatro exemplares que distribuiu no mundo islâmico. Enviou um para o Cairo, outro para Bagdad, outro para Damasco e ainda outro para Samarcanda. A versão de Samarcanda foi parar em Tasquente, no Uzbequistão. A versão do Cairo manteve seu nome, e uma das outras acabou em Topkapi, Istambul. Os investigadores tiveram acesso a eles recentemente. Encontraram sérias discrepâncias entre eles. Alguns deles nem sequer estão completos. Eles estão em um árabe sem vogais, admitindo então várias leituras. Alguns exemplares apresentavam sinais obvios de alteração. Portanto, a narrativa oficial tem vários problemas. A narrativa oficial é que ninguém pode corromper o dito livro. Assim, é exactamente o mesmo que o original à risca.

Há também várias falhas na historicidade do seu “profeta”. Nenhuma fonte contemporânea atesta a sua existência. Por exemplo, Omar, o segundo califa ‘correctamente guiado’, ocupou Jerusalém em 638. O bispo da cidade naquela época era São Sofrónio, que nada disse de Muhammad Mustafá. Ele e outras fontes contemporâneas chamaram os ocupantes de árabes, hagaritas, ismaelites. Mas nenhuma fonte contemporânea mencionou os termos “muçulmano” ou “islão”. Lembro-me vagamente que o termo apareceu pela primeira vez durante o califado de Abdul Malik em 690. (Isso foi na época da batalha de Karbala, quando os xiitas e sunitas se dividiram. Mas isso é outra história.) A primeira referência a Maomé data desse ano também. Há uma moeda com o seu nome e a sua suposta imagem. (O Islã de hoje proíbe todas as representações de qualquer um dos seus profetas. Além disso, ele segura uma cruz. Os muçulmanos de hoje também não acreditam na cruz.) A sua biografia é obra de Ibn Isaac e data de 150 anos após a sua morte. O autor ceifou as coisas que ouviu, descartando todos os pormenores embaraçosos. O que ele descartou? Não sabemos. E nem sequer temos o seu livro, só a reedição dele cerca de cinquenta anos após. Estes factos levaram alguns (como Mons. Williamson, Irmão Michel da Santíssima Trindade, Robert Spencer, etc.) a duvidar da sua existência. Isto pode-se refutar isso pelo princípio do constrangimento: se ele fosse uma invenção, seria perfeito. No entanto, eles registaram alguns fatos embaraçosos sobre ele, mesmo pelos standars do século VII. Mas discuti-las está fora de contexto.

How to Prove to a Muslim that There is More than One Person in God?

A Catholic should know that there is Divine Revelation. God reveals those facts that man cannot discover on his own. Some of these facts (like Trinity, trans-substantiation, Catholic predestination) man can’t even understand, not only in this life, but even in the next, because they are mysteries.
Besides these, God reveals some facts man can understand. Why? Because philosphers need an elaborate analysis to do that. This also brings a great admixture of error. Also, not everyone is a philosopher.
Now some of the mysteries one can understood in part and justify by plain common sense. Here is, for example, the issue of the Most Holy Trinity.
Is there a God? If one believes in causality, there must be, because everything has a cause. If we go back, there must be a final cause. This we call God. If there were several ‘gods’, this would imply the existance of several final causes.
So there must be one God, and only one. Now is this God personal? A person is something or someone one can comunicate with. So if one can communicaate with God, He is personal. Yet this does not mean there is only one person in Him, nor the contrary.
So how do we sort out this issue? One must know that God is infinitely beautiful. This infinite beauty implies symmetry; that His mercy must compensate His justice. Otherwise, if God is just it but not merciful or if He is merciful but not just, where is this symmetry? If He isn’t just, where is His perfection? If He is not merciful, where is his goodness?
But how to be merciful without being unjust? Forgiving an offense in the Isalamic sense is forgetting about it, without compensation. But this forgivness without compensation would be unjust. Besides, we know that an offense against an infinite God is infinite. Thus, a finite being, as we are, cannot compensate an infinite offense. (This would be true even without the original fall or actual sin, which make things worse. Due to these we are in a ditch, so to say. Can we lift up ourselves by our own hair? I didn’t think so.)
So one can qualify forgiveness in the Islamic sense unjust. But if a mere creature cannot make a due satisfaction, a Divine Person can. But if there were only one Person in God, it would mean that
He pays our debt to Himself, to save us from Himself, to Himself, by sacrificing Himself for us.
The atheist would scream: save me from this madness! And he is right. The possible ways out are: 1) there is no God, but we refuted that. 2) There are more ‘gods’, but we refuted that too. 3) That there are at least two Persons in God and One Divine Person gives satisfaction to the Other.

I can cite our Scriptures to prove it, not only from the New Testament, but even from the Old. Thus I can compare their teaching with ours. But keep in mind that for an outsider to our Faith, especially to a Muslim, this is useless. A Muslim claims that our Scriptures are not accurate. I can give examples from the Quaran that contradict our faith. And I can compare their teaching to ours, but this is useless too. One must stick thus to common sense arguments as I have done here.

I can’t justify in the same way the mystery of the Real Presence. Yet, I can illustratate it. Imagine a mirror. One can see himself in it. If we break the mirror in several pieces, one can see himself in every piece the same way as in the original mirror. Likewise Our Lord is present in a Host, whole and entire. He is likewise present in each part of the broken Host.

The best remedy against Islam is to refute their main argument. It says that the Quaran is of divine origin since nobody can write a similar chapter. In their broken English they say ‘chapter similar’ instead of a similar chapter. But that’s irrelevant. There are two counter-arguments. The first is that this kind of a similarity is subjective. (What I find similar, might be not so similar to someone else.) The second is that if one cannot write a same symphony as Mozart, does it prove that his works are of divine origin? Or if we cannot write in the style of Shakespeare, does it mean that his works are divine? So one can see how their argument falls flat.

Of course, Islam has other weak points, for example, the origin of the Quaran. Uttman, the third ‘rightly guided’ calipf (= successor of the ‘prophet’) standardized it first. He commissioned four copies he distributed in the Islamic world. He sent one to Cairo, another to Bagdad, another to Damascus and yet another to Samarkand. The Samarkand version ended up in Taskent, Uzbekistan. The Cairo version maintained its name, and one of the other ones ended up in Topkapi, Istanbul. Researchers have gained access to them recently. They found serious discrepancies among them. Some of them vere not even complete. They are in an Arabic without vowels, so thy admit various readings. Some copies presented visual proof of tempering. So there are several holes in the narrative. The official narrative is that nobody can corrupt their book. Thus it is exactly the same as the original to the letter.

There is also a glitch in the historicity of their ‘prophet’. No contemporary sources attest to his existance. For example, Umar, the second rightly guided caliph occupied Jerusalem in 638. The bishop of the city at that time was St. Sophronius, who said nothing of Muhammad Mustafa. He and other contemporary sources called the occupiers Arabs, Hagarites, Ismaelites. But no contemporary sources mentioned the terms ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’. I vaguely remember that the term appeared first during the caliphate of Abdul Malik in 690. (That was around the time of the battle of Karbala, when the Shia and the Sunni brenches split. But that’s another story.) The first reference to Muhammad dates to that year too. There is a coin with his name and his supposed image. (Today’s Islam forbids all representations of any of it prophets. Moreover, he holds a cross. Today’s Muslims don’t believe in that either.) His biography is the work of Ibn Isaac and dates 150 years after his death. The author sanitized the things he has heard, discarding everythin embarassing. What did he discard? We don’t know. And we don’t even have his book, only it re-edition some fifty years later. These facts prompted some (Bp. Williamson, Brother Michel of the Holy Trinity, Robert Spencer, etc.) to doubt his existance. One can refute this by the principle of embarrassment: if he were an invention, he would be perfect. Yet they recorded some embarrassing facts about him, even by seventh century standars. But discussing these is outside of our scope.

Podemos justificar a violência contra Bergoglio e a nova ordem?

Alguns sedevacantistas propõem violência contra Bergoglio. Outros sugerem uma guerra armada contra a nova ordem mundial. Vamos ver se isso é a coisa certa a fazer.

Quais são os prós? A nossa Igreja lutou contra os infiéis. Vejam-se as Cruzadas. Ela também estava a queimar hereges, e Bergoglio é pior do que isso. Quais são os contras? A nossa Igreja sempre teve uma visão equilibrada, um meio termo dourado a este respeito. Houve as Cruzadas, mas não consideramos os bombistas suicidas mártires. Havia auto da fés, mas ela sempre condenava actos aleatórios da violência contra os infiéis. O resumo doutrinal no final do artigo justifica estas conclusões, uma vez que já não temos força superior. Seria um jogo perdido e o mau resultado superaria o bom.

Por exemplo, se tivéssemos atacado Bergoglio, isso ajudaria os poderosos e seus asseclas visíveis para demonizar nossa ideologia, para nos chamar de violentos, e dar-lhes mais pretextos para restringir nossas atividades. Ainda por cima tornava Bergoglio num martír. Atacar fisicamente o sistema maligno em nossas circunstâncias é uma missão suicida e nossa Igreja não exige isso.

Se morrermos num tão confronto sem sentido, ela não nos considera mártires. Da mesma forma, se formos a matar médicos a praticar aborto e executados por isso, é um desperdício e não um martírio. Além disso, o acto chamava atenção indevida à nossa ideologia. A única excepção é quando alguém atira no abortista ao entrar na clínica. Isso pode ser considerado uma defesa da vida inocente. No entanto, não se é obrigado a fazê-lo, mas se alguém é executado por isso, pode ser considerado um mártir. De qualquer forma, o mal resultante superaria o bom, então nem vamos pensar nisso.

Aqui está uma breve descrição doutrinária do tema:

A doutrina católica sobre a moralidade da guerra é antiga e venerável; proposto pela primeira vez por Santo Agostinho, foi claramente elaborado por São Tomás de Aquino. Assim, a guerra é moralmente licidade: a) Se for declarado por uma pessoa que detém legalmente o poder supremo no Estado; b) Não se praticam por motivos malignos ou pessoais, como vingança, conquista, ambição, etc.; c) Se for para proteger os direitos de uma nação contra a violação ou, na ausência de uma intenção de reparação, por uma violação por outra nação. O propósito de uma guerra justa é a preservação de justiça e, consequentemente, de paz. A paz não é perturbada pela declaração de guerra, mas através de a violação de direitos na ordem jurídica, o que, na verdade, torna necessária uma declaração de guerra.

Dicionário de Teologia Moral, s.v. “Guerra”, p. 1297

A guerra justifica-se (uma nação guerreia justamente contra outra) nas seguintes condições:
1) É chamado por uma autoridade soberana (É uma nação, não um indivíduo, que o declara).
2) Tem uma justa causa.
3) Os combatentes têm intenções moralmente correctas (não vingança ou lucro). 4.) Condições de qualificação (a partir da teoria do duplo efeito sobre sua justificação de matar em legítima defesa: ST II-II, 64, 7).
5) Não pode pretender acções intrinsecamente más. Uma boa acção, ou pelo menos uma acção moralmente neutra, terá dois efeitos: um bem intencional e um mal, não intencional, mas tolerado.
6) Proporcionalidade: o bem a alcançar supera o mal da guerra. Deve haver uma chance significativa de ganhar.

São Tomás de Aquino – Teoria da Guerra Justa da Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 40.

Is Violence Against Bergoglio and the NWO Justifiable?

Some sedevacantists propose violence against Bergoglio. Others suggest armed war against the new world order. Let’s see whether this is the right thing to do.

What are the pros? Our Church has waged wars against the infidels. See the Crusades. She was also burning heretics, and Bergoglio is worse than that. What are the cons? Our Church has always had a balanced view, a golden middle way in this respect. There were the Crusades, but we don’t consider suicide bombers martyrs. There were auto da fe-s, but she always condemned random acts of violence against the infidels. The doctrinal description I’m giving at the end of the article justifies these conclusions, since we no longer have the upper hand. It would be a losing game and the bad outcome would outweigh the good.

Had we attacked Bergoglio, it would help TPTB and their visible minions to demonize our ideology, to call us violent, and we would give them more pretexts to restrict our activites. Morover, it would make a maryr out of him. Physically attacking the evil system in our circumstances is a suicide mission and our Church does not demand that. If we die in such a senseless confrontation, she does not consider us valid martyrs.

Likewise, if we go around liquidating abortion providers and get executed for it, it’s a waste not martyrdom. Besides, it calls undue attention to our ideology. The only exception is when someone shoots the abortionist while entering the clinic. That could be considered a defense of innocent life. One is not obligated to do that, however, but if he gets executed for that, he can be considered a martyr. Anyway, the resulting bad would outweigh the good, so let’s not even think about that.

Here’s a doctrinal short description of the topic:

Catholic doctrine regarding the morality of war is ancient and venerable; first proposed by St. Augustine, it was clearly elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. Thus war is morally licity: (a) if declared by a person who lawfully possesses supreme power in the State; (b) it is not waged out of evil or personal motives, such as revenge, conquest, ambition, etc.; (c) if it is waged to protect one nation’s rights against violation or, in the absence of an intention to make reparation, for a violation by another nation. The purpose of a just war is the preservation of justice and, consequently, of peace. Peace is not disturbed by the declaration of war but through the violation of rights in the juridical order, which actually makes a declaration of war necessary.

Dictionary of Moral Theology, s.v. “War”, p. 1297

War is justified (one nation wars justly against another) on the following conditions:
1) It is called by a sovereign authority (It is a nation, not an individual, who declare it).
2) It has a just cause.
3) The combatants have morally right intentions (not vengeance or profit).
4) Qualifying Conditions (from the theory of double-effect on his justification of killing in self-defense: ST II-II, 64, 7).
5) Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions. A good action, or at least a morally neutral action, will have two effects: a good intended, and an evil, not intended, but tolerated.
6) Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war. There should be a significant chance for winning.

St. Thomas Aquinas – Just War Theory from Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 40.

More on the Ukraine War: the “Victims” are Clearly in the Wrong

Este artigo será disponibilizado apenas em inglês. Era o desejo do próprio Arai Daniele, o fundador do blogue que publiquemos também em inglês. A maioria dos artigos esté presente em ambos idiomas. Há uns artigos disponibilizados apenas em Português, mas os artigos sobre a guerra serão apenas em inglês porque têm apenas uma importância marginal

In light of the new developments, one has to say that the Ukries are definitely in the wrong. Their diplomacy, if one may call it that, is insulting everybody from left to right. They insult the neighboring countries because they are not supporting them enough. Although Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania are helping Ukrainian refugees (including free housing, which for a mere mortal would be expensive), sending humanitarian aid, and, except for Hungary, even weapons, they still don’t respect their minorities living on Ukrainian territory. One should note that these were the first countries to recognize Ukraine as an independent country, yet they receive no credit for it. Since they refused to import the cheap Ukrainian wheat to protect the price of their own, the Ukries keep insulting them. When the respective countries complained about the treatment of their minorities, one illustrious ambassador, a sorry excuse for a diplomat, stated that their treatment of minorities was not directed against them per se but merely against the Russian minority, the others were merely casualties. Then he quoted Stalin saying that when one is cutting down a forest, chips will be flying. He talked about Russian culture the same way Hitler talked about Jewish culture. In addition, the Ukrainian “diplomacy” has issued statements that Indian and Chinese people (the two most ancient cultures that existed a long time before the Russians or Ukrainians as such) have a lower IQ than the rest.

A historical review would be in order for those who don’t know how Ukraine has acquired its minorities. Russian history says that during the Czars, there was no Ukraine as such, and modern Ukraine was founded by Lenin. Catholic history confirms this, since Saints Cyril and Method founded the first Catholic episcopate of the Russian Empire on the territory of modern Ukraine. This is in the Roman Breviary and was there before Putin ever existed, so it is a lie to impute this statement to Putin. Of course, historical revisionists say otherwise, but that’s immaterial. The territory has fallen into disuse and sometimes belonged to Poland, sometimes to Russia. This is the short version of their history. So, Ukrainians and Russians share the same ethnical, genetic, genealogical roots, not to mention cultural and linguistical ones. They shouldn’t even be fighting. Yet some Ukrainian diplomats talk about the Russian culture as Hitler did about Jews. Shame on them! Even if Russians were the villains in this conflict, should one condemn the whole Russian culture, that produced a Tolstoy, a Dostoevski, a Chaikovski, etc, etc?

Ukraine came into possession of some Polish territories due to the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement that divided Europe between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. (Everybody has heard about the Molotov cocktail, but few know who Molotov was, so some introductions are in order.) Comrade Vyacheslav Mikhaylovich Molotov was Stalin’s minister of external affairs, while Parteigenosse (the Nazi equivalent of comrade) Joachim Ribbentrop was the same for Hitler. The letter received the death penalty at Nürnberg (Norimberga in Latin).

Due to the Tehran agreement between Communist America and the Soviet Union, some territories that originally belonged to Moldova (part of Romania since 1859 when Romania came to existance), more specifically Bucovina and Czernowitz (Czerniowce or Cernăuți) became part of the Soviet Union, more specifically Ukraine. So did Besarabia, but this later became the independent Republic of Moldova. That’s why Ukraine has a significant Romanian minority, whose rights they don’t respect. Due to the same Tehran agreement, Ukraine has acquired some territory that originally belonged to Hungary, then to Slovakia; hence, Ukraine has acquired some Hungarian and Slovak-speaking people. Again, this is the short version. To understand everything, one needs to describe the Versailles peace treaty (especially that of Trianon), but that would be too much for an article. Yet this short description suffices to show how insensitive Communist America is to the rest of the planet. Today’s conflicts have deep historical roots, and the superpowers are totally insensitive. Shifting the borders back to where they used to be would not solve the crisis, but minorities need to receive a fair treatment, and that’s what Ukraine denies them. They are led by an Ashke-Nazi Khazar mafia installed by Uncle Sam, headed by the bastard Volodimir Zelensky, peace and grace be upon Him (pun intended).

Here, one must mention how arbitrary Uncle Sam is. When the Portuguese Empire had to be dismembered, it was under the pretext of the self-determination of the involved ethnicities. The same was the pretext for Trianon, when Hungary was dismembered. But in the case of Ukraine, the minorities can go to hell because Uncle Sam chose to refer to ‘national’ sovereignty instead of self-determination. The same is true in the case of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave, which rightfully belongs to Armenia. So Uncle Sam’s whim is completely arbitrary, inconsistent, insensitive and unjust. Burn in hell, Uncle Sam. But with all due fairness, we must say that the other alternatives to a superpower wouldn’t be much better either. China would be the worst of all.

There are at least three countries not properly financed by the EU: Poland, Slovakia and Hungary. The EU imposes conditions on them because they don’t accept all the leftist baloney, especially the aggressive Muslim immigrants. These immigrants not only don’t assimilate, but they even refuse to minimally adapt. They expect the rest of the country to adapt to them. Yet the EU finances the leftist parties in the opposition in these countries, as does the CIA. It was the Sen. Robert Kennedy who disclosed the info about the CIA. Now nor the CIA nor the EU have the most basic understanding of the roots of the problems in the region, so one can only imagine what the outcome of such an interference could be. This financing will become stronger after the EU has kicked out the Soros empire since they have grossly misbehaved. Alex Soros (who, I bet, can’t even pronounce his own last name correctly save its Americanized version) promised that they will continue their nefarious financing through proxies. On the other hand, the building pressure seems to be forcing Putin to ally with North Korea. The two dictators have met in the past month. He might consider becoming a commie again, as it might get convenient.

After understanding foreign interference in the region, one must also understand what revolutions are today. In 1848 (and maybe in 1917, the time of the bolshevik revolution, and in 1919, the revolution of Camarade Kohn in Hungary) it was more difficult to suppress revolutions than in 1956 (Hungary), 1968 (Prague) 1989 (Romania); because in the latter cases people were used to canalized water and gas plus electricity. Starting from the second half of the twentieth century, it’s enough to cut the electricity, gas and water and the revolution is over. Now it’s even easier: as everybody became dependent of his cellphone, it’s enough to cut the net and the revolution is done for. What does this mean? Since nothing like this happened, one can conclude that, at least starting from the 1980s, revolutions in the world were orchestrated. They were nothing but theatre, so not everything is what it seems. Nowadays, there is always more than it meets the eye.

One should also understand the motive behind an orchestrated revolution. Remember Khadafi? He was left alive until he made clear that he planned to introduce coins of gold and silver to replace the dollar. Saddam Hussein lost his life after he publicly stated that he plans to sell his oil for euro instead of dollars, thus taking the country out under the influence of the almighty dollar. Why did they orchestrate the revolution of 1989? Because the dwarf ‘on the elbow’ of the Carpathian mountain chain paid ‘his’ national debt, so he didn’t have to obey his creditors any more. (What’s the evidence that this particular revolution was a theatre? It’s obvious since the whole thing was televised and nobody has shot the cameraman. Besides, when the next president gave his speeches from a balcony, some ‘terrorists’ kept shooting. They hit the walls around him but not the guy. They were supposedly sharp shooters. The guy was too relaxed, so it looks like he knew that it’s all but a game.) So TPTB eliminates all attempts at shaking them off. They want full control. That’s why they eliminated the Ukrainian Poroshenko and replaced him with the current one that does their bidding, namely provoke Russia because Putin dared to think with his own head instead that of the TPTB. So all of this color revolution is a farce to further the new world order’s agenda. Now Putin stands in their way.

One must also see the double standards of Uncle Sam. While the chief Ambassador of his to Hungary, that sorry excuse for a diplomat, criticizes the Orbán government for maintaining economic relations with Russia, lectures to them, which is completely out of order, he overlooks the fact that his most inglorious Communist country has bought enriched Uranium from the same. So Uncle Sam only understands his own interests. Uncle Sam, thou art truly evil!

There is yet another piece of evidence pointing to the fact that the color revolution is a complete manipulation: the nationalist/chauvinist organizations and their figureheads quietly have disappeared from the scene, especially in some countries neighboring the south of Ukraine. Not that I feel sorry for them, but this is merely another symptom that people are so easily manipulated that they don’t even notice it.

But it’s getting more bizarre. Uncle Sam promises more financial aid to Ukraine, forgetting that, according to some analysts, at least a third of these get stolen, as history proves. How else can Zelensky build those luxury mansions he’s alleged to have in Cairo, Egypt and on the French Riviera? He’s traveling way too much. His well crafted speeches betray some ghost writers or writers obeying his puppet masters. And one would even wonder if Ukraine is even at war with Russia, since it lets the Russian gas pipe to pass through. This makes one wonder whether Putin and Zelensky are neighbors on the Riviera. One would wonder how serious this proxy war is, since Uncle Sam keeps financing the MIR space station belonging to Russia, and they collaborate in this respect. Looks like this war is not so serious, seems but a game of chess.

So what the hell is really going on? It’s obvious from the first glance that one must understand the history, geography and the politics of the region to determine that. Once one passes this stage, it became evident that he needs to consider the whole international context, the general dynamics of revolutions and mass manipulations, conspiracy theories and then the picture becomes really complicated. It looks like this. The visible manipulators of the whole stuff are Uncle Sam, the Soros Empire, the leftist EU (of course, they have their puppet masters, but I don’t want to get into that). They are completely insensitive to the needs of the people involved, as I showed. They orchestrated the war because Putin dares to think with his own head and doesn’t submit to TPTB. (Why is this an issue? Because they want a unified planet. Why is this important for us to know? Because the antichrist needs a unified planet.) They used Ukraine as their useful idiot by orchestrating the color revolution to replace its rightful head. And the stupid Ukrainians walked right into the trap of thinking that Uncle Sam was doing them a favor. (He’s quite a piece of work, to put it mildly, doggone him. He’s nobody’s friend, that’s for sure. I’m puzzled that not everybody sees that.) At this stage, the war is not serious on the level of physical and economical violence. Ukrainian diplomats are anything but because they insult everybody left and right, TPTB merely keeps them because they are obedient. And innocent people are suffering due to this crap. But all for the antichrist.