He is risen !

N° 237 – October-November 2022

Director : Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

Geopolitics and Catholic Orthodromy

The Failure of the Hegemonic
Ambition of the United States (1898-2021)

FATHER Georges de Nantes never made a comprehensive historical analysis of the United States as he did of France, Russia and Poland, but his many remarks about this country in his articles and current events lectures will enlighten us very opportunely on more than one point. “It is a country,” he said, “that will never occupy anything but a minor role in history.” While it is true that the United States occupies the news on a daily basis, this does not mean that this country has a role to play in the divine plan, nor does it deserve this idolisation that the world devotes to it.

Let us add a minor fact that will orient our study. An American, Martin F. Armstrong, had a conversation with Sister Lucy on May 14, 1953, in her Carmel’s parlour. He wanted to know if Our Lady had delivered a “special message” for his country, which everyone rightly considered the world leader at that time. This made the Mother Prioress and even, it seems, Sister Lucy laugh. “No,” Sister Lucy said, “Our Lady did not give me a special message for the people of the United States. She never mentioned the name of your country.”

Seeing Mr. Armstrong’s astonishment and disappointment, Sister Lucy thought for a moment and said, “I have nothing to say that is extraordinary or sensational. And what I do have to say will not be considered very clever or popular, I’m afraid. One of the things Our Lady particularly asked for was modesty in dress. It seems to me that there is not much modesty in the lives of women in your country. But modesty would be a good sacrifice to offer to Our Lady. If the Catholics of your country could form a league to spread modesty in dress, it would greatly please Our Lady.”

We will keep this extremely balanced and enlightening answer of the seer of Fatima in mind concerning the United States: in Our Lady’s orthodromic§ plan, the United States has no role to play as a nation, as a people. However, God wishes the salvation of every American, and this salvation comes through the practice of virtue, as the Church has always taught, without the need to promote grand plans, revolutionary ideals, or pipe dreams, in other words, anti-gospel values such as religious freedom, democracy and human dignity.

By immersing ourselves in the history of this country, we will come to better understand why Heaven did not turn to this people. The religious and ideological foundations of this country, the way in which the Americans imposed their hegemony on the whole world during the 20th and 21th centuries, their geopolitical action in Europe, Russia and China during the last few years will allow us to grasp the profoundly anti-Christian and immoral identity of the United States and the reasons for the failure of its hegemony.


The entire manifestation of the power of the United States stems from an ideal pursued since the genesis of this country, which is that of “a new world, different from the old Europe and embodying the hope of the human race, in short, the advent of a ‘democratic messianism’ ”. What was this new world?

In 1585, there was a first attempt at British settlement on the island of Roanoke that was a complete failure. Despite countless difficulties, a second attempt, however, made in Virginia (see map below) at Christmas 1606, succeeded thanks to the determination of a young mythomaniac adventurer, Captain John Smith. The aim of this private expedition, administered by the London Company, under the control of the King, was not colonisation, but trade and profit. It was a question of being cost-effective, not of working to extend civilisation, let alone of saving souls. The hope was to find gold deposits and a passage to India. Eventually, slaves were brought in and tobacco, silk and ship masts were produced. In 1624, the Company went bankrupt and Virginia became the property of the British Crown.

Concurrently, a new type of British colonisation appeared further north that would have great influence. At that time, in Great Britain, three sects were fighting for souls: the Anglicans, who accepted hierarchies of divine right, bishops and monarchs; the Presbyterians, pure Calvinists, who wanted a Church that would guarantee religious, political and social stability, but based on a system of representatives with elected elders gathered in synods who had authority over the other members of the sect; and the independents or separatists or Congregationalists or Brownists, dissident Calvinists who defined the Church as a congregation of converted saints, united to each other by mutual consent. These independents, behind their founder Brown, recognising no hierarchy, not even a representative one, between God and men, supposedly drew their inspiration from the Early Christian communities: they wanted small, autonomous, federated communities or congregations, not subject to an authority. They considered any ecclesiastical institution, including that of their Presbyterian cousins, as an emanation of Satan.

On the other hand, inspired by Pelagius, Socinius and Arminius, they corrected Luther and Calvin by affirming the greatness and sovereignty of human reason, whereas Luther and Calvin insisted on human degradation and put all their trust in faith alone, grace alone.

These views on Church and society would forever shape the spirit and institutions of the United States.

Rightly suppressed by London for their anti-social and anti-institutional ideas, these independents fled by negotiating with the Virginia Company for a concession in the New World.

One hundred and two pilgrims embarked on the Mayflower in September 1620, but after a terrible journey, they got lost and found themselves not in Virginia as they had planned, but on Cape Cod, in south-eastern Massachusetts, where they had no authorisation to establish a concession. They settled there regardless.

Before disembarking and founding what was first called the Plymouth Colony, the forty-one adult men on the ship signed a religious pact, the Mayflower Compact, by which they swore to stay together and obey only the rules that came from their common will.

These signatories are called the Pilgrim Fathers, pilgrims because they were fanaticised by their religion, and fathers because modern America sees them as the founders of the religious, political and social model of the United States. Indeed, in the logic of their religious error, they formed, through their pact which was a sort of social contract in the manner of Jean-Jacques Rousseau a hundred years before its time, a congregation which was like a small civil society that owed nothing to anyone. No more institutional Church, no more eternal dogmas, no more unchanging society, no more fixed social strata, but a contract, several contracts, many contracts. Contracts mean reason, freely given consent. It was the inauguration of a new human society, directed by Brownist principles, whereby man and his reason were at the centre of the city. He could chose a constitution and laws for himself without any authority existing for him, whether from the Church or the King. This was the beginning of a more radical democracy than the one that emerged from Calvinism, which still granted a certain authority to institutions.

In 1691, this Plymouth colony joined the neighbouring Massachusetts Bay colony, founded by Puritans around 1630. These belonged to a completely different social class than the poor Mayflower pilgrims. These immigrants were landed gentry and prosperous merchants. They were led by a famous lawyer, John Winthrop. Because they were dissenters, the English government had granted them a charter to get rid of them. They were theocratic, illuminist, messianist Calvinists, and therefore opposed in principle to the idea of democracy. Each of them considered that he was a new Moses. Convinced that their vocation was to show the way of salvation to the whole of humanity, “to represent the chosen people, the redemptive people, entrusted by God with a sacred mission,” to be duty bound to conquer the world by their exemplary nature, to provoke a “new beginning” in the history of humanity, they saw their crossing as a new and long march towards the Promised Land. “They wanted to build a new Jerusalem, prefiguring the future kingdom of God on Earth, a ‘City shining on the hill’ whose radiance would reveal the majesty of the Almighty.”

This conviction of embodying an experience that is both unique and universal led them to adopt two seemingly contradictory attitudes towards outsiders that would be found throughout the history of American relations: isolationism and conquest. The “man of God” must isolate himself from the impure world, Calvin taught, for he must “abstain from all contact with the depraved” in order to maintain his exemplarity, his purity. He must also conquer all that is “profane,” for the impure must be “overcome, conquered, and destroyed.”

As good Calvinists, they believed that the Promised Land is not only one where God’s will can be established, but also one where anyone who works hard can hope to prosper. Thus, the settlements were organised as businesses, because “if for the Puritans true wealth is in the heavenly realm, God’s will is also for men to pursue material success and secure control of the earthly world. In other words, becoming wealthy is a sign of divine election and this blessing legitimises the expansionist impulses of the successful.” Therefore, “from the outset, in the adventure that was beginning, religious messianism and economic prosperity are inextricably linked.”

Let us add a final word on the New England colonies. In an issue of the Catholic Renaissance (No. 142, November 2006), Brother Pierre described the beginnings of the Catholic colony of Maryland. Lord Baltimore, former Secretary of State to King James I of England, who converted to Catholicism in 1625, wanted to found a model colony where Catholics and Protestants would live together in perfect egalitarian harmony. He died a few days before the first colonists set sail, but his sons continued the enterprise. In 1632, two hundred families, most of them Catholic, took possession of what is now Maryland.

The utopia of a land of tolerance thriving in the midst of other colonies given over to the fanaticism of Protestant sects did not last more than ten years. When religious passions were aroused on the Protestant side, Lord Baltimore’s heir thought he would quell emotions by appointing one of their supporters as governor and by having the Assembly pass the famous Toleration Act of 1649, “the oldest text on freedom of worship in the territory of the United States” (Brother Pierre). This illusory freedom, however, only benefited the Puritans and the Episcopalians, who ended up taking power and repealing the Toleration Act! After the “Glorious” Revolution of 1688 in England, the Catholic Church was no longer allowed to perform public ceremonies in the country, and in 1713 the third Lord Baltimore apostatised. A fine result that was!

We cannot discuss each of the thirteen colonies, but from those we have seen, let us bear in mind that the principles that inspired them still constitute the current matrix of the United States: trade and profit, contract and the force of human reason, absolute freedom of the individual and rejection of all authority, religious freedom and universal messianism. Freemasonry, which emerged in 1733 in this cauldron of subversive political ideas and fanatical religious dogmas steeping in lucre, had everything it needed to prosper.

These principles would later spread throughout the world, particularly in France and Russia. The lineage is there, originating with Calvin and Brown. “This revolutionary farrago was thought to have come from Geneva, from the seething, sick mind of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Starting from Wittenberg and Geneva, then from London where they were armed by Judaeo-masonry, the Principles of Universal Revolution in reality pass through Washington and Yorktown, returning to us via Franklin, Jefferson and that great booby, La Fayette.” Then, through Napoleon, this revolutionary virus sought to reach Russia, which at first resisted victoriously. The Germans, however, who had caught it finally transmitted it to the Russians seventy years later in its most deadly form, that of atheistic Marxism-Leninism.

The twelve American colonies, thirteen from 1732 onwards, entered into a great economic dynamism between 1670 and 1720, that is, around 1689, the date of Louis XIV’s refusal to obey the Sacred Heart.

This dynamism convinced more and more Protestant landlords that they were indebted to God’s blessings and that the United States was to be the model for the world. Having been worked on by the Freemasons such as Benjamin Franklin for decades, the colonies decided in the 1760s to unite against England’s imposition of new taxes, and in 1776, under the influence of Thomas Jefferson, a slave-owning planter from Virginia, the Revolution for independence broke out against the King of England.

Jefferson was a supporter of Congregationalist ideas. For him, reason is sovereign, power resides in the people, and therefore the nation must be a federation of communes, provinces, States, not an authoritarian power. The fundamental institution is the Republic.

In religious matters, he did not want an established Church. He wanted the separation of Church and State and the establishment of secularism. This must not be understood in the sense that the term has in France, where religion is called to disappear from the public sphere. On the contrary, religion should have full freedom of expression because Jefferson agreed with all the Freemasons of his time (Benjamin Franklin, George Washington), that it should serve to control citizens.

This whole ideal was enshrined by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which begins thus: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Therein lies the spirit of the first colonists: Masonic universalism, Protestant messianism, egalitarianism, republicanism, rejection of all authority and, icing on the cake, for every man the right to happiness, a pretext that would be used over and over again for future economic and territorial conquests. This subversive constitution truly opens a “revolutionary era.”


From that moment on, over the next two hundred years, the United States extended its hegemony over the world. This progression can be divided into four periods. For each of these periods, we will note that American prosperity is based on an anti-civilising logic which is, in our opinion, the fundamental economic reason for the failure of its hegemony: conquest of new frontiers, exploitation of resources through free trade, decrease in profits, crisis.

During the first period, from 1789, the beginning of the mandate of the first President George Washington, to the end of the 19th century, the country grew in power as a result of the conquest of territories that allowed it to achieve an exceptional industrial expansion. The conquest of the immense reservoir of land and natural resources in the West was achieved by exterminating the Amerindians and dispossessing them of their lands – they acted likewise when these belonged to France, Spain or Great Britain –, by armed force and diplomatic pressure. Louisiana was bought from Napoleon for the paltry sum of fifteen million dollars in 1803, which doubled their surface area, while reducing the Francophone presence in America. From 1810 to 1842, the Americans took Florida from the Spanish and negotiated with the British the border with Canada. In 1845, they fought a three-year war with Mexico, and thus added to Texas, California, a part of Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.

All these annexations found their justification in a principle that the Democratic journalist John O’Sullivan summarised in two words: ‘Manifest Destiny’. Everything is permitted to the American people, because their destiny, their God-given mission, is clearly to “occupy the continent entrusted to us by Providence for the free development of our growing multitude.”

For Italian history professor Federico Romero: “From its birth (...), the United States has built its relationship to the world around the idea of mission: a universal mission of freedom and civilisation, contained entirely in the words of Thomas Paine [one of the American Founding Fathers] on the eve of the Declaration of Independence: ‘We have it in our power to begin the world over again.’ ”

After the American Civil War (1861-1865), which was in fact a conquest of the South to indissolubly link the Confederate States to the Union, there was an economic golden age during which, as a result of reconstruction, the exploitation of land and the creation of immense industrial and financial schemes, the industrial production index grew by 5 % per year. At the same time, the population increased from 32 to 76 million. The USA thus became the undisputed leading industrial power.

This also involved immoral methods: the exploitation of migrants, blacks, children, etc. Americans, however, justified them by a theory supposedly inspired by capitalism and Christianity, “social Darwinism,” which John Rockefeller summarised as follows: “the growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest, the working out of a law of nature and a law of God.” Thus, and this is the great economic principle that will motivate the United States in the years to come, the State must do nothing to impede the creativity of business, and conversely, do nothing to help it.

However, the conquest of the West was coming to an end. In 1893, this caused a huge economic crisis that threatened to destroy the model of society that America intended to embody.



To solve the crisis, the Americans decided to find new outlets by conquering new territories and using the doctrine formulated by President Monroe in 1823 as a pretext. It consisted of reserving the American continent for themselves and driving out the European colonising powers. For the first time, the United States went abroad. It was the beginning of our misfortunes! This period was very short, about ten years, but it had a considerable impact on the future conduct of the United States.

In order to remain faithful to the image of the Fathers of the Revolution who were opposed to all colonisation, they hypocritically did not speak of imperialism or colonisation, but of the duty to expand. They justified this by their messianism and by a thesis widely shared by the Anglo-American elites: the Darwinian thesis. Darwin one again! The Protestant pastor Josiah Strong had developed it in his best-seller Our Country, published in 1885. Taking up the idea of a messianic destiny of his country in the world, he added that, in this “final competition of races,” the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon “race” was indisputable, since it was the one that best personified the principles that should sustain humanity, namely democracy, Protestantism and free enterprise, and that, in addition, it had an incomparable talent for “making money.” Its duty was therefore to take up arms.

In order to implement this expansionist policy that had been decided upon in 1895, the United States supported several independence insurrections materially and financially, particularly on the Spanish island of Cuba and in the Philippines, and refused any arrangement proposed by Madrid. On February 15, 1898, the very timely explosion of the American battleship U.S.S. Maine at anchor in the Havana harbour, caused 266 deaths. The American press denounced this as a casus belli and blamed Spain. It was not until 1911 that an American enquiry recognised that the internal explosion of the battleship’s boiler was an accident! Father of Nantes corrected: an accident that had been “provoked”.

The case is extraordinary in the history of the world; Heaven took sides in this modern war and made its Will known to Blessed Mother Mary of the Divine Heart, superior of the Good Shepherd Convent in Porto, Portugal: Our Lord promised the victory of Catholic Spain in view of its holy extension from east to west, through the consecration of the world to the Sacred Heart by the Pope. At the beginning of April 1898, during Holy Week, Jesus asked the Superior to write to the Pope to this effect.

On April 24, war was declared. Mother Mary suffered greatly, sometimes to the point of agony. This spouse of the Sacred Heart offered them as a proof and a sign of the divine order received. The letter reached its august addressee [Leo XIII] in June. From then on, the intrepid superior followed the military operations in the newspaper and on the atlas with great interest. Every evening, she gathered her community in the chapel to pray for Spain. However, the days passed and no answer came from Rome, nor would it. Why? Because divine policy interfered with the options of Leo XIII, who from the start of the conflict had opted for a compromise solution in keeping with the diplomacy of complacency he had practised for twenty years with the Masonic and liberal governments of all countries.

The result was that in four months the Spanish fleet was destroyed and Spain was brought to the negotiating table in Paris, where the Americans demanded, among other things, the recognition of Cuba’s independence and their annexation of the Philippines and Puerto Rico. The treaty, signed on December 10, 1898, gave the United States control over almost the entire Caribbean and placed them at the head of an empire in the Pacific.

They would soon realise, however, that colonisation was difficult and unprofitable. The Filipino independence fighters, whom the Americans had promised to support against Spain, realised that they had been duped and turned against their former allies. The fight for independence lasted until 1902. More than one and a half million Filipinos, or 15 % of the population, lost their lives in this insurrection during which the Americans resorted to massacres and provoked famines. It was a carnage and a complete failure! In 1916, the US finally announced that it would withdraw from the Philippines as soon as a stable and democratic government was established, which came about in 1946.


In the wake of these failures, the Americans put in place the tools that would allow them to dominate North and South America and later to conquer the world. Abandoning the too costly doctrine of the duty to expand, they adopted the open door policy. It consists in demanding the non-discriminatory opening of markets within the zones of influence that the great powers had carved out for themselves and in demanding that these powers respect the sovereignty of the territories they occupy. These are the two pillars, economic and political, that the Americans intended to use to establish their new world order. It was extremely beneficial to them. It allowed them to make money while preserving their moral prestige, since they renounced all territorial expansion.

As always, enlightened by their Protestantism, they elevated this new doctrine to the level of a divine commandment. Senator Albert Beveridge explained to a packed Senate that America’s march “towards commercial supremacy” was inseparable from the fulfilment of “purposes set forth by Heaven.” God “has appointed us as his chosen people, who must therefore take the lead in the regeneration of the world.” William Stead, a British journalist, conceded that America has taken the lead in the ‘providential mission’ with which the English-speaking race has been entrusted, and that it can carry it out peacefully through its economic dominance.

The Americans admitted, however, that they might sometimes be forced, “however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing and impotence, to the exercise an international police power.” This tyrannical principle, known as the corollary of the Monroe Doctrine, was formulated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1904 and abusively imposed on the world. It would allow them to ‘justify’ all their foreign military interventions, which they carried out about twenty times between 1898 and 1920 in Central America and the Caribbean.

At the same time, an important ‘clerical’ shift took place, explains Mélandri. Previously, it had been up to the pastors to guide the country towards its bright future, while at the same time mixing religion and economics in their speeches, in accordance with their Calvinist doctrine. In the new holy city that was emerging, where large trusts were replacing small family businesses and setting the pace, this mission now belonged to managers, engineers and the wealthy. “They are the great vicars of a new religion: that of business, which sustained growth legitimises” and through which it is hoped to obtain “a sort of Pax Corporata under the aegis of America

Make no mistake about it! The managers of large companies and the owners of great fortunes are Freemasons. This “anti-clergy” knows exactly what it wants. The objective is no longer to make Protestantism triumph, but to establish the universal Republic. The fortunes it amasses allows it to multiply its capacity to cause harm. The occult forces that motivate it give it the energy and determination to accomplish this.

With the outbreak of the First World War, some Americans, such as the idealistic President Wilson (1913-1921) and his Freemason advisor Colonel House, became aware of America’s prominent place in the world and wanted to take advantage of it to establish the much desired new world order that would lead to universal peace. The United States should no longer only serve as an example, but project itself worldwide. How could this be done? By using the open door policy and its two principles, democracy and entrepreneurial liberalism. Henceforth, this became the country’s Manifest Destiny: to lead the world to salvation, explains Mélandri, by spreading ‘American principles,’ namely ‘democracy, self-determination, the open door policy, globalisation, collective security and faith in a progressive history leading to a better world.’ These Masonic principles, which are non-negotiable because, as the President explained to the Senate in 1917, they “are the principles of humanity,” were imposed on the world unilaterally at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles in the form of Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They made it possible to destroy Austria-Hungary, the last Christian Empire in Europe. However, their application was impeded by the American Senate, which rejected them as being too restrictive for its country.

There followed a whole economic manoeuvre intended to obtain the opening of markets throughout the world, including in Germany, even if it meant encouraging their rearmament against France. The leader of this manoeuvre was Herbert Hoover. As Secretary of Commerce, he made his Department one of the most powerful agencies in his country. In his view, this was the “only sure way forward for humanity.” He was convinced that the USA would dominate the world and impose peace through economics, via business coalitions, provided they be allowed to develop as they saw fit in the favourable climate of free trade.


The facts seemed to prove him right. In the 1920s, American production was multiplied thanks to new energy sources (electricity, oil) and new production methods (Fordism and Taylorism). This had an immediate effect on the wages of American workers and on the price of products, which made it possible to conquer a new domestic market, the working classes, who could now consume goods to which only the rich had access. It was the opening of the era of mass consumption. All this seemed to confirm that the mainspring of democracy, modernity and happiness was the American economic model.

With advertising, consumerism, the development of sports and entertainment, cinema and radio, people wanted to buy and enjoy immediately. The Protestant vision of society exploded, the Puritan spirit that taught people to save and invest receded and gave way to a new capitalism based on the spectacular development of credit: people no longer wanted to deprive themselves, so they borrowed. This abundance that had not been discharged gave a new ‘artificial’ boost to the economy and ensured a certain social peace. It was like a new conquest of the West. It was believed that the promise of America had been fulfilled. Millions of Americans owned a fridge, a telephone, a car! It seemed that capitalism and democracy were a perfect match, and that they were much more in keeping with the socialist ideal – food, shelter and clothing for all – than Marxism itself. President Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) did not hesitate to make the system sacred by saying that “the man who builds a factory builds a temple°[…]. The man who works there worships there.”

We in America today,” Herbert Hoover proclaimed during the 1928 presidential campaign, “are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land.” The economic success was such that Herbert Hoover was naturally elected President of the United States.

A year later, however, in October 1929, it was the day of reckoning. The Great Depression broke out, followed by serious worldwide political unrest. The whole American system was called into question.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt arrived, ready to take up the challenge of making his country the model for humanity. Roosevelt, however, was naive and had no idea how to go about it. “The main thing is to try,” he repeated constantly. His New Deal policy was an often disorderly succession of improvisations, expedients and experiments.

One thing is certain. Roosevelt had to go against the sacrosanct rule of free trade and against the Constitution by strengthening the role of the federal State, because the crisis belied the American dogma that certified that the logic of the market enables crises to be resolved on their own. The State was forced to intervene in the country’s economy. Despite everything, at the end of the 1930s, the economic and social results of the New Deal were very mixed.


The war opportunely pulled the United States out of the doldrums and put it back on track towards its messianic destiny. This third period, from 1945 to 1989, truly established the United States as a “giant of the earth” (President Truman). The time had come to realise Wilson’s dream of making the whole Earth America’s New Frontier, to create an international economy, to develop a new global moral order that would prove to the world that “a society of self-governing men,” as Truman said in 1945, “is more powerful, more enduring, more creative than any other kind of society.” This seemed all the more attainable to them as they emerged from the war with overwhelming economic, financial and military superiority. Moscow was opposed to this, but America was intent on imposing its model.

They still believed that whatever is good for the American economy is good for the world, and what would be very good for America is that the whole world become a vast market without customs barriers or trade discrimination. New territories were being conquered by forcing old empires to give up their colonies, by creating the European Community and, from the 1970s onwards, by trying to break into the Chinese market. The perfect new economic formula, derived from the New Deal, was applied: a free trade capitalist system with countervailing powers exercised by the federal government, through its soft power, its financial and military power and the major international institutions (un, imf, wto, etc.) set up after the war. Thus, through consumerism, which always replaces ideas, religion and civilisation in the USA, this ultimate communion of humanity, this Pax Corporata that the preachers of the American dream had often evoked, was to be achieved.

Alongside this dream, the major danger of Communist expansion obliged the better part of Americans to concentrate all their efforts on the defence of their country and of civilisation. A diplomatic-military section was deployed to support the reconstruction of the allied countries and to send troops to various theatres of operation.

Thus, the United States was torn between two opposing forces: an absolute rejection of Communism, shared by the real country and by great figures such as General MacArthur, and a mercantile and revolutionary spirit, supported by a large part of the political and business world, which was infiltrated by Freemasonry. Unfortunately, the second current often won out, which obstructed the fight against the ussr when the profits to be made were not sufficient.

The American professor Eliot Cohen puts it shamelessly,” writes Mircovic: “ ‘These States (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) were mortal threats not because of their pernicious ideas, but because of their ambition to conquer and absorb other States, especially the productive heart of Europe, one of the great engines of the world economy.’ This is what encouraged Washington to enter the Second World War to fight against Germany, and it is what will encourage it to do everything to prevent Western Europe from becoming Communist. It is not primarily an ideological struggle, but an economic one, and to this end all means are good.”

The analysis of Father de Nantes in January 1979 was equally severe:

On the military level: the irresolution, not to say the American cowardice in Korea, the deliberate deterioration of the Indochina War which was intended to lead on ‘moral’ grounds to the ousting of the French colonialists, made it clear that containment would hold nothing back. And since at the same time the West, for the sake of profit, was supplying the adversary and wanted to help in its technological development, with the lofty intention of “moralising” and softening it, the threatened peoples knew on which side was the implacable force and on which side the negligence, the weakness, the abandonment. It was a game of dominoes. You make the first [country] fall, it drags the second down with it and, one by one, the whole row collapses. This is what American geopolitics and strategy were, as summed up by the leaders themselves.”

In its anti-Marxism, America was our shield, but in its subversive liberalism, it was our death. So we had to compose skilfully. This had been the very wise position of Marshal Pétain who had won over the American consul in Vichy and Algiers, Robert Murphy, and the American ambassador, Admiral Leahy. It was the position of General Franco who came to an agreement with the American ambassador James Dunn in the 1950s.

This was the approach advocated by Father de Nantes in the 1970s and 1980s. “The United States, however, is neither a present or potential enemy. It is our principal ally, although intermittent and dubious. Eager to lift us up when we have fallen, it is capable of letting us down or even bringing us down when we recover our greatness and that age-old world role which it has definitively commandeered for itself and will never give back to us.” To fall into dyed-in-the-wool anti-Americanism like de Gaulle, who did everything to cut himself off from them, was to play into the hands of the Communists.


In February 1965, de Gaulle (out of anti-Americanism?) demanded the exchange of his dollars for gold in accordance with the Bretton Woods agreements. The British followed suit. Germany, Italy and Japan were tempted to do the same. Having printed five times as many dollars as they had gold on deposit, a ripple of panic ran through the United States, which incited it to steal.

To get out of this situation, President Nixon announced on August 15, 1971, to the surprise of all, that he was abandoning the convertibility of the dollar into gold and the fixed rate regime established at Bretton Woods in 1944. Washington unilaterally changed the agreements of the contract, because it was no longer able to honour them.

The official reason given was to buy time to establish a new parity of the dollar with gold, a parity that is still pending. In reality, the US is carrying out nothing less than a misappropriation of funds! The first consequence of this American manoeuvre is to hold its own allies captive and to increase the power of the large private banks, which are partly replacing the central banks that used to manage the Bretton Woods system. “Henceforth, the value of the dollar was determined by the market,” Mirkovic explains. “The US would officially acquire the world’s strongest monetary weapon: the ability to print as many dollars as it wants while granting its currency the status of world reserve currency without this currency being backed by any real standard.”

To top it all, there was another takeover bid. A secret treaty, set up by US Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, an ex-Salomon Brothers trader, and his Assistant Gerry Parsky, was signed in complete secrecy between Riyadh and Washington ensuring that oil sales could only be made in US dollars. Thus, America killed two birds with one stone: it neutralised oil as a destabilising factor and had its deficit financed by oil powers that did not know what to do with their money. In 1975, all opec countries finally agreed to be paid in dollars only. From then on, all countries in the world were obliged to buy oil in dollars. The result of this and other related manoeuvres, such as the extraterritoriality of US law, was that the dollar continued to prevail despite the abolition of the gold standard. Thus, the death knell of the American Empire has not yet sounded and it is imposing its monetary rules on the world.

Despite this, American interventionist capitalism came up against insurmountable difficulties such as the trade deficit, the double devaluation of the dollar and the double oil shock. Americans felt that they were losing control of their destiny. “One wonders,” said Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, “whether America has not reached the point where the seemingly infinite possibilities of youth are suddenly dwindling.”

Meanwhile, the free world was neglecting to defend itself, was signing disarmament agreements, participating in pacifist conferences, transferring technology, giving credit to the ussr, while refusing to realise that it was over-arming. In 1980, twenty Soviet divisions were massed on the European front, i.e. 600,000 men, 50,000 tanks, 5,000 planes. “Faced with this policy of aggression, which their Freemason globalism prevents them from understanding, and which their mercantilism does not want to see,” Father de Nantes observed with alarm, “the United States has adopted a policy of détente which is more like waiting for the worst, or delaying the catastrophe.” Thus, the more lucid, largely echoed by Father de Nantes, predicted a Soviet invasion of Western Europe by 1983.

Fortunately, America reacted and elected Ronald Reagan, 1980-1988, who launched America into an arms race to restore the balance of power with the East.

Father de Nantes wrote in April 1981: “The Reagan-Haig team dared to proclaim that human rights were a morality stitched together for the benefit of the Soviets, a sort of KGB morality for external use...” As soon as he took office, General Alexander Haig, Secretary of State, Mac Arthur’s son-in-law, former confidant of President Nixon and a practising Catholic, declared: “The fight against international terrorism will take priority over human rights.”

Our Father§ had our friends pray much for Heaven to spare us the punishment of an invasion. However, in November 1982, there began a catalogue of disasters for the ussr, which saw the death of three successive presidents – Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko – and two ministers of Defence, while several appalling disasters ravaged its stocks of missiles and arms complexes, particularly on May 13, 1984, at Severomorsk on the Kola peninsula.

In addition to the financial cost of this policy of national salvation and the catastrophic economic consequences of abandoning the convertibility of the dollar into gold that have never been resolved, the USA deliberately went into debt to allow the population, whose income was beginning to stagnate, to continue consuming. Reagan chose to internationalise the financial markets, which led to a succession of banking and stock market upheavals: the Mexican bankruptcy in 1982, the Wall Street mini-crash in 1987, the collapse of the savings banks at the end of the 1980s, accelerated by the Gulf War in the early 1990s, etc. In 1987, the United States lost the status of net foreign creditor that it had held since 1917.

Nevertheless, a major geopolitical event occurred that gave the US hope of hitting the jackpot.


After the Reagan years, the Americans returned to their demons. In the aftermath of the collapse of the ussr, the fourth period, Bush father and son, Clinton, and Obama believe in the definitive victory of Western democracy as the ultimate form of governance of humanity. “The greatest democracy in the world,” Clinton prophesied, “will take the lead of a world where only democracies will exist.” At long last! The US dream of world domination seemed to be coming true.

As the cowboys once did in their conquest of the West, new frontiers remained to be conquered: the former ussr, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The aim was to ensure that no competitor would emerge and that all trade routes, especially those for hydrocarbons, would be controlled to their profit, especially as the needs of countries like China and India were constantly increasing.

The United States was the undisputed world champion in the 1990s, but it still had difficulty asserting itself. People detested its imperial politics, they lost confidence in its economy and loathed its exactions and lies. Russia would remember them.

The logic of financial deregulation of the world economy provoked new crises, and not the least: the Asian crisis in 1997-1998, the IT bubble burst in 2000 and, of course, the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007-2008. The Federal Bank worsened the phenomenon by pouring in astronomical amounts of liquidity. In doing so, however, it forced America to live more and more on credit and to import ever increasing volumes of oil and products. The deficits of the balance of trade and budget soared.

At the same time, the internationalisation of production encouraged the rise of new nations that are challenging the supremacy of the United States. The BRICS – Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa – seem destined to play an increasingly important role in the new global economy. In 2012, China took over as the world’s leading trading power, reshuffling the geopolitical deck.

In foreign policy, US interventions to impose democracy in the world have been bitter failures: in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan from 2001 onwards, Iraq in 2003, and in the countries where the ‘colour revolutions’ were sparked off, notably in Ukraine. The absence of intervention, as in Hong Kong, made it clear that the USA is no more than a power of the past. America’s hegemony is still very real, but it can be resisted. So, as the US has always done, the solution would be to conquer New Frontiers to restart a cycle. Russia was a choice victim, but they failed to take into consideration Vladimir Putin’s skilfulness.


In the light of this retrospective, let us try to shed some light on the current US diplomatic game in Europe, Russia and China.

According to Halford Mackinder (1861-1947), the founder of British geopolitics, the theories of which were reworked by the American geopolitician Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), if the world’s maritime powers, first Britain and then the United States, want to dominate the world, they must necessarily master the Heartland, Eurasia, the three main centres of which are the Germanic countries, China and above all Russia, the centre of Eurasia and an immense reservoir of natural resources. “Whoever controls Eurasia, controls the destiny of the world.” (Spykman)

To achieve this, London and then Washington must absolutely concentrate their efforts on the edge of the world, the Rimland, the coastal belt that circumscribes the Heartland. This has a double advantage: the control of the seas and the maintenance of pressure on the Heartland by preventing the powers that constitute it from forming a sphere of influence with their near abroad and keeping them divided among themselves, i.e. preventing a Germano-Russian or a Russian-Chinese rapprochement.

Analysts explain that these theories were adopted by the US administration at the end of the Second World War and that they were applied by two great names in American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brezinski.

However, the importance of this Heartland theory in the minds of American strategists must be placed in proper perspective and confronted with the reality of the situation. Indeed, as we have seen above, the Americans let the Soviets act freely, whereas the application of this principle logically impelled them to attack them.

The Heartland theory does not therefore seem to have always been the absolute principle of American conduct. Is there one? Is it simply, as our Father wrote, the wickedness of people “corrupted by money and pleasure” that guides this country? Not only that, our Father gave an even deeper reason.

Let us quote Mirkovic first: “American power circles do not work alone, but are surrounded by think tanks and lobbies that defend their own interests before those of the country.”

Then he adds this reflection of an American author, Michael Parenti: “Highly placed government agencies such as the NSA, FBI, CIA, and National Security Council (NSC) are complemented [sometimes even infiltrated and overseen] by [Masonic] commissions such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, the Bohemian Grove, and other formal and informal elitist groups (…). The Americans who are members of them are the individuals who populate the upper echelons of the circles of American power, who become the Secretaries of State, Defence, Treasury, Commerce, and the directors of the CIA and the NSC, in the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street.”

These groups, most of them Masonic, did not work for the fall of Communism yesterday any more than they work for the good of their country today. They are only interested in “the submergence of US sovereignty and national independence in an all-powerful world government,” as former CFR member Chester Ward testified. So the Heartland theory is only applied if it serves their interests.

In their frenzy,” wrote Father de Nantes, “these occult powers of business maintain the monstrous design of ruining all civilisation of evangelical poverty, all true religion, all independent political power, so that their absolute plutocracy may reign throughout the world.

Misled by gold and closed to the sufferings of men as to the law of God, they count on communism to serve their purposes, to ruin competitors, to overthrow frontiers, to open up immense markets on the mass graves of Christendom. And for this, among themselves, they need no mask. The religion of Mammon is enough for them.”

Without mentioning that they are Masonic, Nikola Mirkovic describes the mode of action of these organisations: “Their ideal world is a world composed of forlorn individuals without social ties who are unable to resist their hegemony. This is why many of these organisations see nations, intermediary bodies, unions, religions and even the traditional family as obstacles to their expansion.”

Solve et coagula is the Masonic motto!

The author adds these lines written in 2003 by Michael Ledeen, the neoconservative and senior adviser on international affairs to Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s Deputy Chief of Staff: “Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence – our existence, not our politics – threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

David Rockefeller, one of the most prominent members of these secret organisations, also confessed in Memoirs, his autobiography published in 2002:

For more than a century, extremist ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum have seized on high-profile incidents such as my meeting with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the undue influence they believe we exert on American political and economic institutions. Some even believe that we are part of a secret cabal working against the higher interests of the United States, and describe my family and myself as internationalists who are plotting with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I am guilty, and I am proud of it.”


After the war and until the 2000s, Western Europe was considered by the Americans as the key to the Eurasian chessboard. Hence their desire to keep us under their leadership. Brezinski described Europe as the main part of the world power zone upon which the maintenance of the United States as a superpower is contingent, because it is a huge and rich market and because it is necessary at all costs that it does not come to an understanding with the ussr in the past, with Russia today.

Thus, throughout the 20th century, American policies sought to break up, step by step, any European country that might be able to compete with them by using mastery of the sea, dollar diplomacy, armed force, financial power, technology and culture.

The most effective weapon for subjugating Western Europe, however, was to engage it in the process of European Union, in the constitution of a European entity, “in accordance with their interests, with their own intellectual references, relying on Europeans who admire the American political and economic system […]” The best representative of these Europeans was Jean Monnet himself, who participated with Roosevelt in the American administration’s reflections on the abolition of customs duties and quotas (defensive measures that limit entrepreneurial freedom), on the common market and above all on the need to prevent “inter-European alliances” that the USA would be unable to control, because the Americans, explains Chauprade, did not want to see the European project deviate from a project that would not be piloted by the USA.

Our Father said: “What is stopping us, the European peoples of Old Christendom, from erecting a rampart to protect ourselves? The fact is that nothing is stopping us but our cowardice and ill will. We, the Christian peoples of the West, both old and young Christendom, have become so bad, so wicked, that we admire and help what is evil.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disappearance of the ussr, Washington, no longer in danger of seeing its European allies turn to the Kremlin, was no longer afraid of being too brutal. From the beginning of the 1990s, the Americans stepped up their plans for intervention in Europe in order to gain control and impose their views by neutralising a possible Germano-Russian agreement, by reinforcing the European Union’s ties and making it more subject to nato, and by bringing the Eastern European States into the European Union, even to the point of wanting to integrate the Ukraine. The war in Yugoslavia was an American operation to bring the Europeans under its control and to quash, through its technological show of force, any desire of autonomy. Annihilated, the European institutions continue today to adopt an ideology of integration and depoliticisation of state relations, always with the aim of neutralising us and creating a large transatlantic market.


At the end of the Cold War, America believed that its victory over the ussr it would give legitimacy to its model and it would reap “peace dividends” through international institutions such as the IMF, by opening up borders, deregulating markets and privatising companies. Under Yeltsin, a powerful oligarchy, corrupting the decision-makers and backed by American support, took advantage of the 1992 privatisations to buy up the most promising monopolies, such as oil, gas, aluminium, nickel, banking, etc., for a pittance. These measures were a scourge for Russia and were causing an economic catastrophe to the extent that the majority of Russians clearly identified the liberal “shock therapy” with a plot by the West and the US against their country.

In May 2000, Putin became president and put an end to the plundering. He imposed an economic recovery policy based on the use of energy as a lever of power. He was ready to work with any State, but demanded Russia’s independence.

Thus, America, by losing the freedom to exploit Russian resources, to impose a free trade regime and turn Russia into a consumer market for its own benefit, lost the possibility of submitting Russia through economic leverage.

To dominate the Heartland in spite of everything, which is America’s intent, it is now applying a political lever by trying to deprive Russia of its “near abroad” (Chechnya, Baltic countries, Ukraine) as well as of its Western European partners.


It was in this perspective of controlling the Heartland and isolating the ussr that Henry Kissinger, adviser to Presidents Nixon and Ford in the 1970s, worked to bring the US closer to Maoist China by proposing sustained aid for China’s economic take-off. Kissinger thought he would kill three birds with one stone: he was breaking up the Soviet-Chinese Communist bloc, he was opening up the huge Chinese market to American companies and, through trade, he was converting China to American values.

Kissinger made his first secret trip in July 1971, which was followed by Nixon’s official trip in February 1972. This seemed like a great deal for the Americans, as the Chinese were intelligent enough to accept all the aid offered. Except that the Americans had betrayed their principles and their allies. Taiwan, which had been supported since 1949, was dropped in 1971 when it was asked to give up its permanent seat on the Security Council to Communist China.

In reality, it was the duty of the US to let China collapse economically and humanly. Mao and his successors, by applying hard-line Leninism, were destroying their country. It is estimated that Mao’s Great Leap Forward resulted in the deaths of fifteen to fifty million people. Instead of letting this country die from its Marxism, it was given all the economic principles that allowed it to rebound, to get richer and today to dominate us, while conserving its deadly doctrine.

Today the US is realising that it has made a monumental mistake. This does not surprise us, because they have always acted in the same way. They support dissidents in countries they want to conquer and then afterwards think about the consequences: Cuba and the Philippines in 1898, all the wars of decolonisation after the World War II, the Taliban in Afghanistan in 1978, Daesh against Bashar’s Syria, etc. Their immediate goal is to win markets and dominate the opposing powers; it is the open door policy. This is not diplomacy, but short-sighted opportunism that often leads to misfortune.

Kissinger later wondered whether he had not given birth to a monster. What lucidity! A monster called Marxist-Leninist China, which encompasses 20 % of the world’s population and which can no longer be dominated.

At present, Xi Jinping is seeking to achieve two strategic objectives: to lay his hands on the island of Taiwan and to turn the South China Sea into a Chinese sea. This would allow him to keep the Americans away from his maritime borders, to give himself space for his submarines to navigate and be sent undetected on missions, and to control the commercial naval transport that passes through Singapore and the China Sea.

China, however, has two major weaknesses that could carry considerable weight in the Sino-US duel. While the US population is growing, China’s is aging. According to official UN forecasts, people over the age of sixty-five will account for almost 24% of the 1.4 billion population by 2050. This phenomenon is aggravated by the birth rate (7.52 births per 1,000 inhabitants), which is at its lowest level in over forty years. After decades of applying the one-child per family policy, the government’s backtracking, allowing the Chinese people in 2016 to have two children, then three from 2020, came far too late.

China also has an abysmal debt burden. While China’s external debt remains moderate, estimated at 15% of GDP, the total domestic debt of the non-financial sector is over 250% of GDP (BNP Paribas figures, May 2022). The recent contraction of activity in the country constitutes a new shock that further reduces the income of companies and households.


We are witnessing the failure of American hegemony, because since the 1960s the United States has entered a deep crisis that has only worsened since. Drawing on its history, it seems that the only solution would be for it to conquer New Frontiers: China, Russia... but they have no intention of giving in. The only solution would be to resort to a nationalist, populist policy, as under Reagan. This is what Donald Trump was proposing... with all the false principles that it brings and all the ambiguities of his character.

Finally, why does the United States have no role to play in the world’s plan of salvation?

Father de Nantes explained in his Total Apologetics (1985) that if Catholic orthodromy really cannot be demonstrated, that is, if we cannot see that the Catholic Church is the work of Christ, then we would have to find another Church, heresy or schism, another Christian community claiming to be Christ’s, which has done better and succeeded in doing what the Church has not.

The history we have just skimmed over of the failure of the world’s greatest power proves that the USA, contrary to its claims, is not the central axis of human history. There is no doubt that it is still a great world power, but it will never take the place occupied by the Catholic Church. It seems that we should rather apply to them the words of Our Lord: “What is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” (Lk 16:15) The geopolitics of men is not that of God. Tomorrow, China and the United States will disappear in their turn, if they do not convert, just as the Babylonian kingdom, the Egyptian Empire and the Roman Empire were destroyed.

If the American project of hegemony has failed, it is precisely because all its principles – economic, political and religious – are false.

Its economic principles are false. To believe that the world will be changed by opulence and consumerism, by comfort and the satisfaction of pleasures, is to disregard the fact that people have souls and minds and to reduce them to the level of animals. As Father de Nantes rightly wrote: “The American way of life is a cheap ethic that does not fool any American. It preaches happiness on earth through the increasing abundance of material goods and the freedom for all to greedily help themselves and without causing inconvenience to anyone. It is an instrument of propaganda and good conscience sufficient for the conquest of the world market” and nothing more. A lasting civilisation cannot be built on wealth.

Its political ideas are false. Democracy and human rights are imposed to “deprive millions of men of the means of their humble and wise tranquillity: our holy Catholic religion, good governments, their time-honoured customs.

Its religion is false, therefore its messianism is false and the justification for its politics and its pretension of dominating the world because that is the will of God is false. God never intended Americans to dominate the world and lead us to “the shining City on the hill.”

This faith in Man, this defence of his rights and first of all of his freedom, and in the first place of his religious freedom, then of his political, economic and family freedom; this commitment to regulate all human questions, all relationships, all social exchanges, starting from the individual man and his right, his rights, is a first principle, it is a faith, a feeling, a will absolutely new in the world and in the universal tradition, a revolution without precedent. It is so profound, so radical, so at odds with our religion, our customs, our thousand-year-old culture, that one must wonder what Spirit inspired this cult of Man!

There is only one religion that can realise the heavenly Jerusalem, and that is the Catholic Church. There is already a nation that has been chosen as a model to follow, without being called upon to dominate the world, and that is Catholic, monarchical, community-based France, the eldest daughter of the Church. That is why Our Lady of Fatima had no particular message for America, and that is even why She could not have one.

Brother Michael of the Triumphant Immaculate and the Divine Heart.

Brother Francis, Sister Lucy, Confidant of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (French edition only), Catholic Counter-Reformation Publishing House, p. 348. French edition only.

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 444

Pr. Mariès, Le calvinisme et les origines américaines de la démocratie, unpublished lecture, 1982, Catholic Counter-Reformation Archives

Anne Dunan-Page, Conversion et  expérience  chez les protestants anglais du XVIIe siècle : un récit et sa pratique, 2016, archives-ouvertes. fr

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 448

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 457 ff.

In a note added to a past article published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, David Boyce, the English translator of the bulletin until his death in January 2000, explained that rather than being ‘Glorious’ the Revolution of 1688 was in fact detrimental to the English speaking world:

In throwing off the yoke of the Roman See, the English people established the national character of their religion, and in getting rid of the Stuarts they laid the foundations of that parliamentary and social democracy which is flourishing today, both in the British Commonwealth and in the United States. That England is Deist and Pelagian England which has its origin with the Glorious Revolution’ (1688) of William and Mary, the Revolution whose philosopher was John Locke (1632-1704) and whose true progenitor was William of Ockham. It has to be distinguished from the England which is so beloved of God: the England of the Elizabethan martyrs for the Catholic faith – surely one of the glories of Christendom! – for whose sake alone we can look forward to the return of England and all the English to full participation in the life of all Christendom, then to be no longer Deist but fully Theist and no longer Pelagian but fully Augustinian.

That was also the theme of our intervention at the Catholic Counter-Reformation gathering in Paris on November 22, 1975, printed in the May 1976 issue of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, No. 74: “All our ancient, national institutions have been torn away from the Church and over the years, nationalism in England has taken on a profoundly anti-Catholic character. This usurpation is cloaked in venerability […]. The Reformation was imposed on the Crown and on the institutional framework of the Church, though not on her reality, which was saved by our martyrs. Later the Empire spread the revolt against Rome to the ends of the earth. A loyal Catholic Englishman had to suffer the pain of seeing the crown, the National Church and the Empire firmly opposed to the Catholic Church.

Russia Before and After 1983, Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 153, December 1982-January 1983 p. 9.

Nikola Mirkovic, L’Amérique empire, éditions Temporis, 2021, p. 19

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 954

Sister Muriel of the Divine Heart, The Secret of Blessed Mary of the Divine Heart, (French edition only) Catholic Counter-Reformation Publishing House, chapter 25

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 120 ff.

Pierre Mélandri, ‘Le siècle américain, une histoire, Perrin Publishing House, 2016, ebook, location 89 ff.

Nikola Mirkovic, L’Amérique empire, éditions Temporis, 2021, p. 103

Masquerade for a massacre. The celebration of human rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6

Against the war. General public meeting, Paris, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 129, December 1979, p. 11

Nikola Mirkovic, L’Amérique empire, éditions Temporis, 2021, p. 150

East-West Polish Pope against American General, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 164, December 1981, p. 1

Brother Guy of the Mercy, The Century in which the Errors of Russia Triumphed (1917-1991), He Is Risen no. 232, May 2022, in French only

Nikola Mirkovic, L’Amérique empire, éditions Temporis, 2021, p. 209

Masquerade for a massacre. The celebration of human rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6

Nikola Mirkovic, L’Amérique empire, éditions Temporis, 2021, p. 210

Christophe Réveillard, Revue française de géopolitique, n° 3, ellipses, 2005, p. 251

Dominique Barjot, Revue française de géopolitique, p. 254

Masquerade for a Massacre. The Celebration of Human Rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6

Masquerade for a massacre. The celebration of human rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6

Masquerade for a massacre. The celebration of human rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6

Masquerade for a massacre. The celebration of human rights, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 106, January 1979, p. 1-6