Catholic during the Great Apostasy

The modern world is characterized by the fact that those who speak the most about democracy often violate its principles themselves. Proclaiming equality, they in reality perpetuate inequalities. The same applies to racism, freedom, or fraternity – the louder the declarations, the greater the contradiction in their actions. Slogans on banners, as always, have no reflection in reality. In short – hypocrisy.
We look at the world with eyes that do not see. We listen without hearing. We have become fanatics of our own beliefs. If these were at least our own convictions, the situation wouldn’t be so bad.

Unfortunately, these are views imposed by the media and omnipresent propaganda. The flood of information is so overwhelming that we are unable to process or logically organize it. Our minds stop analyzing. We become uncritical machines, accepting everything that is fed to us. As a result, we sink deeper into fanaticism, especially since most of this content is pure lies.
An ideology based on lies often leads its followers to irrational, fanatical behaviors and makes them susceptible to dictatorship. This dependency stems from several key mechanisms worth considering.
Why does a lie in ideology produce such effects?
Lack of Logical Foundation
An ideology built on false assumptions cannot be effectively defended with rational arguments. When logic fails, its supporters resort to emotions, dogmas, or force to impose its “righteousness.” Criticism or open discussion then becomes a threat that must be suppressed. When the foundation of an ideology is fragile, its adherents often react with aggression or irrational stubbornness to any doubts. Fanaticism becomes a way to drown out questions and defend belief in an idea that cannot be justified. Examples of this mechanism can be seen in both religious movements – such as Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism – and political ones, like Nazism, communism, or modern globalism, which is essentially communism under a different name. In these systems, blind loyalty has always been more important than truth.
Ideologies based on lies require an authority to impose their version of reality and suppress dissent. Dictatorships exploit emotions – fear, anger, hope – to manipulate people and maintain control. Totalitarian systems, such as the USSR or North Korea, promoted fanaticism as a tool of power while suppressing rational thought. History confirms this dynamic: in Nazi Germany, propaganda and the cult of personality upheld a false narrative of racial superiority, and any criticism was brutally eliminated. Similarly, in Stalin’s Soviet Union, lies about a “proletarian paradise” required repression and fanatical faith to conceal the system’s actual failures.
Psychology of Manipulation
Manipulation relies on exploiting human weaknesses, such as the need for belonging or fear of rejection. Robert Cialdini, in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (1984), describes techniques like reciprocity or authority that increase susceptibility to lies. Ideologies and dictatorships use these to gain obedience: promises of reward (e.g., “paradise on earth”) are paired with threats of punishment (e.g., exclusion, repression). Studies on the conformity effect (Solomon Asch, 1951) show that people yield to the pressure of the majority, even when they know it’s wrong – a perfect breeding ground for fanaticism and propaganda.
In summary, an ideology based on lies breeds fanaticism and irrationality, paving the way for dictatorships. Without truth, there is no freedom – lies require manipulation and force to persist. Striving for rationality and truth is therefore crucial to maintaining a free society.
The Connection Between Dictatorships and Religions
Let’s examine how dictatorships relate to religions:
Islam
In both historical and contemporary contexts, authoritarian or dictatorial regimes have often emerged in countries where Islam is the dominant religion. Fanaticism in these societies is evident: in Saudi Arabia, public practice of other religions, such as Christianity, is banned, and apostasy is punishable by death. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws lead to lynchings of Christians and Ahmadis (e.g., the Asia Bibi case in 2018). In Egypt, Coptic Christians regularly fall victim to extremist attacks (e.g., the church bombing in 2021). In nearly every Islamic-dominated state, fanaticism is a hallmark.
Buddhism
In Buddhist societies, such as pre-Chinese-invasion Tibet or historical Southeast Asian kingdoms (e.g., Burma), power was hierarchical and authoritarian, with strong influence from the clergy. A modern example is Myanmar, where the military junta is supported by some Buddhist leaders. Fanaticism manifests in campaigns against minorities: in Myanmar, the 969 Movement and Ma Ba Tha have promoted hatred against Muslims, particularly the Rohingya, since the 2010s, leading to massacres, rapes, and the exodus of over 700,000 people in 2016–2017 – recognized as genocide. In Sri Lanka, Buddhist groups like Bodu Bala Sena incite violence against minorities – in 2018, they attacked mosques and Muslim shops, and in 2019, violence against Christians was reported after the Easter bombings (though those were carried out by Islamists). It’s worth considering how this aligns with the cultivated image of peaceful, even pacifist monks.
Hinduism
In India, where Hinduism dominates, historical monarchies were authoritarian, though not necessarily dictatorial in the modern sense. Contemporary India is a democracy, but some governments are accused of authoritarianism. Hindu nationalism, fueled by organizations like the RSS and the BJP government (since 2014), promotes a vision of “Hindu India.” Extremist groups, such as Bajrang Dal, organize campaigns against “foreign” religions. Muslims and Christians become targets of violence – e.g., the Delhi riots in 2020 (dozens killed, mostly Muslims) or attacks on Christian missionaries. Anti-conversion laws (e.g., in Uttar Pradesh in 2021) restrict religious freedom under the pretext of “protecting Hinduism.” In 2023, church demolitions were reported in Manipur. The scale of persecution intensifies with political support.
Judaism
In Israel, ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups (e.g., West Bank settlers) and radical religious Zionists reject coexistence with other religions on “Israel’s land.” Palestinian Muslims and Christians in the occupied territories face violence from settlers (e.g., mosque arsons in 2022 or church attacks in Jerusalem in 2023). Within Israel itself, such incidents are rarer, but religious tensions are rising.
All these religions, like communists, Nazis, or modern globalists, persecute Christians. Lies hate truth. By their actions, they confirm that truth lies solely in the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Spiritual balance is possible only through truth, while false interpretations preached by various sects, including modernists, do not lead to it.
The most spectacular proof that the Catholic religion, based on Tradition and Scripture, contains one hundred percent truth is the actions of globalists. They ban public Bible readings, while other religions can perform their rituals on the streets. The real confirmation, however, is the ban on prayer – even in thought – near places where unborn children are killed. They know the power of prayer to the True God; it’s a pity we forget it!
Hypocrisy in Fanaticism and Dictatorships
Hypocrisy – the discrepancy between proclaimed principles and actual actions – is an inherent part of fanaticism and dictatorships. This phenomenon has been studied in psychology, sociology, and political science. Leon Festinger, in his cognitive dissonance theory (1957), suggested that people feel discomfort when their actions contradict their beliefs, leading them to justify inconsistencies or pretend. Those declaring love, freedom, or democracy may use these slogans as tools to build an image, but when their interests are threatened (e.g., by opposition), their true intentions – selfishness and a desire for dominance – are revealed.
In political science, this is analyzed in the context of power and ideology. Studies on populism (e.g., John B. Judis, The Populist Explosion, 2016) show that politicians use lofty slogans (“freedom,” “equality”) to mobilize support but undermine these values when it comes to maintaining control. In moral psychology, Daniel Batson (1999) demonstrated that people apply double standards, especially when they feel morally justified – the louder someone proclaims love or fraternity, the more likely it’s a mask for egoism.
Robert Altemeyer, in his work on authoritarianism (The Authoritarians, 2006), noted that individuals with such tendencies glorify communal values (e.g., fraternity) while being intolerant of those who don’t fit their vision. Experiments (e.g., Yale studies on pro-environmental attitudes) confirm that people condemn hypocrisy not for violating principles but for sending false signals – fitting the observation of “attacking values” under the guise of defending them.
Psychological Mechanisms of Hypocrisy 
Self-Deception: Robert Trivers (The Folly of Fools, 2011) suggests that people believe their own declarations (e.g., “I love everyone”), even if their actions contradict them. This isn’t always conscious manipulation but a way to protect the ego. If they believe their own lie, it sounds more authentic. 
Moral Licensing: Studies by Anna Merritt (2010, Moral Self-Licensing) show that after doing something “morally good” (e.g., publicly supporting democracy), people feel exempt from adhering to those principles. This explains why someone proclaiming fraternity might suddenly display hatred.
The European Union as an Ideological-Economic Tyranny
The issues raised in this text find their reflection in the ideological-economic tyranny that is the European Union. Analyzing its actions in recent years reveals mechanisms aligning with the previously described connections between ideology based on lies, fanaticism, susceptibility to dictatorship, and hypocrisy.
Lack of Logical Foundation
An ideology based on false assumptions doesn’t withstand rational critique, leading to reliance on emotions, dogmas, or force. In the EU, this applies to several policies in recent years:
Green Deal and Climate Policy: The EU pushes ambitious CO2 reduction targets (e.g., Fit for 55, climate neutrality by 2050), often criticized for lacking realistic economic and technical foundations for many member states. For instance, shutting down coal plants in Poland or pressuring for the elimination of combustion-engine cars ignores the economic and social realities of less developed countries. Critics note that instead of a logical debate about costs and alternatives, the EU imposes solutions through regulations and financial penalties, sparking resistance (e.g., farmers’ protests in 2023–2024 against green restrictions). 
Migration Policy: The Migration Pact (2020–2024) assumes solidarity in accepting migrants, but the lack of clear data on integration effectiveness or labor market needs in different countries undermines its logic. Criticism from countries like Hungary or Poland is met with sanctions or threats rather than substantive discussion. In both cases, the EU seems to avoid open analysis of costs and consequences, relying on emotional slogans (“saving the planet,” “solidarity”) and institutional authority, fitting the thesis of fragile ideological foundations.
Fanaticism as a Defensive Reaction
When an ideology is threatened, its supporters respond with fanaticism and aggression. In the EU in recent years, such tendencies are observable:
Fighting “Disinformation”: The EU has intensified efforts against so-called disinformation (e.g., EUvsDisinfo, Digital Services Act of 2022), often labeling criticism of its policies as “propaganda” or “lies.” Reports on EU funding of NGOs suggest the creation of networks promoting the official narrative, raising suspicions of suppressing dissenting views. Critics, such as Eurosceptics, are branded “far-right” or “Kremlin agents,” shutting down debate and reinforcing dogmatic defense of the EU’s vision. 
Ideology of “European Values”: Promoting gender equality, LGBT rights, or multiculturalism (e.g., EP resolutions in 2020–2023) is presented as an inviolable dogma. Countries like Poland or Hungary, which resist (e.g., through “LGBT ideology-free zones”), face ostracism, financial sanctions (e.g., withholding Recovery Fund money in 2022), or media campaigns instead of dialogue. Fanaticism manifests in the inflexibility of EU institutions and their supporters, who use moral superiority and pressure rather than arguments to silence doubts.
Need for Strong Authority
Ideologies based on lies require an authority to impose “truth.” In the EU in recent years, there’s a noticeable centralization of power and authoritarian tendencies:
Control Mechanisms: The “rule of law” mechanism (2020) allows the European Commission to withhold funds from countries not meeting its often subjective, politically motivated criteria. For example, Poland and Hungary were penalized for judicial reforms or migration policies, despite a lack of objective evidence of EU law violations. This tool resembles repression of “deviants” in totalitarian systems. 
Crisis Narrative: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) or the war in Ukraine (since 2022), the EU used fear and hope to consolidate power, e.g., through joint debt (NextGenerationEU) or pressure for policy harmonization. Criticism of these actions (e.g., from Eurosceptics) was framed as a threat to “European unity,” echoing the emotional manipulation described earlier. 
Historical Examples: The text mentions the USSR or Nazi Germany – while the EU lacks such extreme repression, the centralization of competences (e.g., in energy or digital policy) and suppression of national dissent suggest authoritarianism. Though not a dictatorship in the classic sense, the EU’s actions indicate a need for a strong center imposing its version of reality, stifling pluralism.
Psychology of Manipulation
Cialdini’s principles of manipulation and Asch’s conformity find application in the EU:
Authority Principle: The Commission and Parliament present themselves as infallible guardians of “European values,” reinforcing obedience. In climate campaigns (“Green Deal”) or pro-LGBT initiatives (“Equality Union” 2020–2025), EU institutions use experts and celebrities to lend credibility to their ideas. 
Conformity: Member states are pressured to yield to the majority – e.g., Nordic and Western countries set the tone in climate or migration policy, and resistance (e.g., from the Visegrad Group) is met with ostracism. Eurobarometer surveys (2020–2023) show most citizens support “EU unity,” even at the expense of national interests – an effect of social pressure. 
Reward and Punishment: Promises of funds (e.g., Recovery Fund) are paired with threats of withholding them, manipulating governments and societies. Poland, for instance, had to concede on judicial issues in 2023 to unlock funds. These mechanisms make citizens and states susceptible to the EU narrative, even when it contradicts their interests.
Dictatorships and Religions in the EU Context
The EU isn’t a religion, but its ideology has quasi-religious traits:
Globalism as a New “Religion”: The text calls globalism “communism under a different name.” The EU, promoting supranational integration, equality, and ecology, creates a dogmatic worldview reminiscent of utopian ideologies. Criticism of the Green Deal or equality policies is treated as heresy. 
Persecution of “Heretics”: States and groups questioning the EU vision (e.g., Poland, Hungary, Eurosceptics) are excluded from debate, financially penalized, or smeared in the media. This resembles the religious persecutions described earlier – though in the EU, it occurs more subtly through soft power. 
Ban on “Prayer”: The text cites bans on prayer near abortion clinics as evidence of globalists’ anti-Catholic stance. In the EU, similar trends are seen in secularization and the push for “worldview neutrality” – e.g., EP resolutions (2021–2023) criticizing Poland for abortion restrictions or pressuring for the laicization of public spaces. The EU doesn’t ban religion outright but favors a secular, progressive ideology, evoking associations with fanaticism.
Hypocrisy as an Inherent Part
Hypocrisy is the gap between declarations and actions. In the EU in recent years, this is evident:
Freedom vs. Centralization: The EU proclaims pluralism and democracy but imposes a uniform vision (e.g., in climate or social policy), ignoring national diversity. Example: withholding funds from Poland and Hungary under the pretext of “rule of law,” despite legal doubts about the mechanism itself. 
Equality vs. Inequality: The EU promotes “solidarity,” but richer Western countries often benefit at the expense of weaker ones – e.g., Germany and France dominate decisions, while Central and Eastern Europe is treated as a market and labor pool. 
Ecology vs. Interests: The Green Deal aims to “save the planet,” yet the EU still supports heavy industry in Germany or imports from high-carbon-footprint China. Farmers’ protests (2023–2024) showed that EU regulations hit small producers, not big corporations. Psychological mechanisms of hypocrisy (self-deception, moral licensing) are reflected in EU rhetoric – elites believe in their moral superiority, justifying contradictory actions.
The European Union in recent years exhibits traits of an ideology built on shaky foundations, leading to fanaticism, power centralization, and hypocrisy. The Green Deal, migration policy, and fight against “disinformation” are examples of actions relying on emotions, dogmas, and pressure rather than rational debate. The EU isn’t a dictatorship in the classic sense, but its absurdly bloated bureaucracy – strictly aligned with one ideology and corrupt – reinforces the image of a system requiring manipulation and force to persist.
Financial and Family Ties in the European Union – Examples and Lack of Consequences
The European Union, as a complex bureaucratic structure, is often accused of lacking transparency and tolerating conflicts of interest among its elites. Below are examples of such ties that spark controversy but rarely lead to serious legal or political consequences:
Ursula von der Leyen – Family and Financial Ties
Family Context: Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission since 2019, comes from an influential German political and business family. Her father, Ernst Albrecht, was a prominent CDU politician and Lower Saxony premier. Her husband, Heiko von der Leyen, is a medical professor and director at the biotech firm Orgenesis, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest in EU health policy. 
Pfizergate Scandal: In 2021, it was revealed that von der Leyen negotiated vaccine purchases from Pfizer directly with CEO Albert Bourla via private SMS messages. The content of these messages was never disclosed, despite demands from the European Ombudsman and investigative reporting by Politico. The contract was worth billions of euros, and the lack of transparency fueled suspicions of nepotism and corruption, especially given Pfizer’s ties to the biotech sector where her husband operates. Consequences? The Commission refused to release details, and the matter faded. 
X Posts: Users on X (e.g., posts from 2023) argue that the lack of reaction to this scandal shows how the EU protects its elites. One commenter wrote: “Von der Leyen secured a 35-billion-euro deal via SMS, and we’re supposed to believe it’s a coincidence?”
Christine Lagarde – Past and Lack of Accountability
Financial Context: Christine Lagarde, current President of the European Central Bank (since 2019), was previously France’s finance minister. In 2016, she was found guilty of negligence in the Tapie affair (a 404-million-euro payout of public funds to businessman Bernard Tapie in 2008) but avoided punishment due to her position. After that scandal, she advanced to the IMF and then the ECB. 
Lack of Consequences: Despite proven negligence, her career in international structures remained unscathed, reinforcing the notion of elite impunity in the EU. At the ECB, Lagarde shapes monetary policy affecting millions of Europeans, yet her past is rarely raised in public debate. 
X: In 2022, X users commented: “Lagarde robbed taxpayers of hundreds of millions and now steers the euro – that’s EU justice.”
Josep Borrell – Nepotism and Family Interests
Context: Josep Borrell, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (since 2019), has been criticized for family ties within the Spanish establishment. His son, Joan Borrell, worked in Spain’s foreign ministry, raising questions about nepotism in accessing EU positions. 
Finance: Borrell was previously implicated in a financial scandal in Spain (the Abengoa affair, 2015), where, as a board member of the energy firm, he had access to confidential information. Despite this, he sailed through the EU nomination process without significant hurdles. 
X: Posts from 2023 express frustration: “Borrell profited from Abengoa’s collapse and now lectures us on morality in foreign policy.”
EU Elites and Corporate Ties
Mario Draghi: Former ECB President (2011–2019) and Italian PM (2021–2022), Draghi previously worked for Goldman Sachs, where he helped conceal Greece’s debt before its eurozone entry. After the 2008 crisis, partly fueled by such practices, he led the ECB – a classic “revolving door” example between private and public sectors in the EU. 
Thierry Breton: Commissioner for the Internal Market (since 2019), Breton was previously CEO of the French firm Atos, which benefited from EU contracts. His nomination raised conflict-of-interest concerns, but it didn’t derail his career. 
X: Users write: “Draghi wrecked Greece with Goldman Sachs, then ‘saved’ the euro – the EU is a club for insiders.”
Bureaucracy and Corruption at Lower Levels
OLAF and Ineffectiveness: The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) regularly uncovers abuses in EU funds (e.g., a 2022 report highlighted 1.2 billion euros in losses), but investigations rarely lead to convictions. For instance, in the Bulgarian agricultural subsidies case (2021), ties between local politicians and EU officials stalled the probe. 
X: “OLAF finds corruption but never the culprits – EU bureaucracy is a money-laundering machine.”
These examples show that financial and family ties exist in the EU, tolerated thanks to its sprawling bureaucracy and lack of effective accountability mechanisms. EU elites often benefit from “revolving doors,” nepotism, and opacity, while criticism of these phenomena is suppressed by narratives of “unity” or “European values.” Scandals surface but rarely result in real consequences, reinforcing the image of the EU as a system protecting its own. The bloated bureaucracy, corrupt ties, and ideological uniformity (e.g., globalism, progressivism) create a system requiring manipulation and force to endure. The lack of consequences for elites only strengthens this picture.
The European Union reveals another, less noticed facet, often silenced out of fear of racism accusations. It involves discrimination against white, heterosexual people and families in favor of ideas opposing this image. Supporters of this communist structure will defend EU laws and rights, but their cries won’t change anything – power will reach them too. Communism has this trait: when it destroys, it spares no one – allies or enemies alike – it just spreads it out over time to suppress any signs of resistance…

Arkadiusz