Russia’s role in the Divine plan and what she has to gain by the consecration (part I)

We publish speech given by Michal Semin on the conference in Russia. Michal Semin is one of authors of Te Deum magazine in Poland.

Allow me to start my presentation with a brief personal introduction. As you know, I come from a country that was part of the Soviet power bloc [the Eastern Bloc]. Even though the post-1968 era (I was born in 1967) in the former Czechoslovakia was not as brutal as the first two decades of the communist regime in my country, the political framework in which I grew up and spent my childhood and early adulthood was hard-line socialist and repressive.

The Catholic Church was allowed to exist, but all her activities were closely monitored. Anything that was considered subversive of the regime’s official propaganda, was outlawed and punished. As a convert in the mid-1980s, I was obviously unhappy about the space given to [i.e. the constrictions placed upon] the Church and the profession of Faith by the state authorities, so I joined the underground structures of the Church as a layman. I was frequently interrogated by the secret police, briefly jailed, and eventually expelled from my university studies. As this last incident happened only a few days before the November 1989 “Velvet Revolution,” I returned to my alma mater as the leader of the students’ strike.

I was obviously excited about the massive changes in the political and social forum, for (as I discovered later in the secret police archive) I was on the list of people planned to be imprisoned with a long-term sentence. Being young and lacking any experience of living outside of this well-protected cage, I fully embraced the new democratic regime.


Discovering “New Lies for Old” in my own country

As a person who took part in some of the political-processes game in this transition period, I believed we were making history, acting as free citizens, not being used or manipulated by any external forces or interests. I came to believe in the story of the fall – the final demise – of Communism, caused by its inner contradictions and the spontaneous revolt of the oppressed who were inspired by the example of the virtuous nations of the “free West.” How fooled – though perhaps understandably – I was. Today, after many years of personal experience of domestic politics and responsible research, I have no reason to doubt the fact that based on the convergence of the globalist elites from the two nominally-competing Blocs.

The Communist nomenclature was given a free pass to enter the capitalist arena, to trade their former direct political power for access to foreign markets and money. But, believe me, this was not the worst aspect of the political and social transformation after 1989. Worse than letting Communist apparatchiks turn into free market capitalists, was the opening to a gradual process of cultural and moral transfiguration of “liberated” societies, under the command of people like George Soros with his subversive NGO operation. You may not believe it, but the oldstyle Marxists never achieved so much in terms of deconstructing the traditional lifestyles, social norms, and opinions of our people as did the secular liberal and postmodern social engineers who took over our media, schools and culture at large during the last two decades.

Multiculturalism, based on moral and cultural relativism, legally-binding political correctness, “human-rightism” – I believe this term was coined by the Czech president Václav Klaus – aggressive homosexualism and gender ideology in general (i.e. an unnatural vice elevated to the status of being a human right) all put together, represent an even more destructive force than the late Soviet regime. We were taught Communist doctrine in school, but I don’t remember any of us taking it seriously.

Today, the majority of youngsters take the liberal “dogmas” for granted, as something self-evident. You get easily ostracized by the media and other public opinion makers if you publicly defend traditional morality. It’s virtually impossible to achieve success in the political competition arena with a program based on Divine Revelation and natural law, as from inception it’s labeled reactionary, extremist, fascist, non-democratic, etc. This explains why the vastly held opinion that the winner of the Cold War was the so-called “Free World” – led by the allegedly pro-Christian, pro-family forces – is false. The real winner was not the putative Right, but the new, modernized, updated version of Marxism: the radical cultural Left of the Frankfurt School stripe, based on the Gramscian program of the “long march through the institutions.” The neo-Marxist ideologues understood well that the working class – the proletariat – is not, in fact, reliable to take up the role of the vanguard of the Revolution, as its members easily succumb to the old manners of traditional family life and religious trappings. The Revolution can succeed only when a Marxist-oriented intellectual and cultural elite (not the peasants or the workers) takes over the world of media, art, cinema, schools, universities, the Church (I will touch on this later) and uses them as weapons against the remnants of the old regime. One of the clear proofs that Marxism has not been defeated by the West, is the fact that in all the relevant aspects of the contemporary cultural war, the mainstream Left (Social Democrats, Communists) and the mainstream Right (Liberals, Christian Democrats) are standing as true comrades on the same side of the barricade.

We can demonstrate this by comparing the attitude of these two supposed adversaries towards the two most fundamental institutions that Marx, Engels and Lenin wanted to abolish: the natural, hierarchical family based on marriage and open to procreation, and the State defined by its language, nationality, traditions and borders.

Both mainstream Right and Left support a concept of family devoid of any substance. Family, for them, is not defined by a bond between husband and wife, open to the procreation and education of children, but by mere volition: family is whatever you want it to be. Contemporary liberals share with Engels the conviction that “everything is and is not, for everything flows and is in constant change, conceived in constant becoming and disappearing.” (Anti-Dühring). For Engels, the monogamous marriage is seen as the subjugation of the one sex by the other, becoming the first class struggle, where the female sex is oppressed by the male sex. Once this is overcome, we will enter the era of sexual democracy where every possible arrangement could be realized [fulfilled] without shame, or sense of guilt. This Marxist agenda lays the foundation of the whole Sexual and Gender Revolution of the last few decades, accepted to a large degree by the mainstream political class. Even if some public representatives (mainly on the Right) privately criticize, for example, the homosexualist power grab, publicly they don’t dare to effectively oppose it. So-called “anti-discrimination measures,” prescribed quotas for women in both the public and private sectors, feminism in general: these are policies legislated into the public life of Western societies regardless of who runs the government, whether center-Left or center-Right. With very few exceptions, they also have the same permissive view on abortion and other deadly means of population control.

With regard to the institution of the State, it is the Left that traditionally supported the idea that it should eventually be destroyed. The traditional, conservative Right defended the State and Nation, and its particularity, in contrast to the universalist notion of humanity based on abstract rights. Engels foresaw that the State would wither away, and the government would be replaced by a mere administration of things. Engels and Marx welcomed the revolutionary force of international Capitalism – it’s important to remember this paradox – that the Bourgeois Revolution would tear down the national structures, leading to the creation of a World Proletariat.

To be continue