I. The Polished Denial: Antisemitism Condemned, Restoration Emptied
Bishop Barron, Bishop Donald Sanborn, and Bishop Strickland may differ on fine points of ecclesiastical fashion, but on this one they sing in a harmonious chorus: deny antisemitism in theory, then strip Jewish restoration of its theological force in practice. They will tell you, solemnly and with clerical polish, that hatred of Jews could be a sin. But then comes the knife: the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land must not be allowed to mean too much. It must not look prophetic. It must not look covenantal. It must not look like the God of Israel still remembers His oath. The Jew may be tolerated as memory, symbol, relic, or moral lesson, but not as a people actually restored by the hand of God in history.

That is the truly blasphemous core of their position. It is not sobriety. It is a theological sin.

II. The Covenant in God’s Own Words: Everlasting Means Everlasting
Because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not speak of Israel in the language of cancellation. He spoke in the language of permanence: “I will establish My covenant… for an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7), “all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8), “to thy seed for ever” (Genesis 13:15). In Hebrew the words are brutal in their clarity: ברית עולם — everlasting covenant; אחזת עולם — everlasting possession; עד עולם — forever. Not “until revised.” Not “until spiritualized.” Not “until bishops discover a metaphor.”

Genesis 17:7 — וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי… לִבְרִית עוֹלָם
“I will establish My covenant… for an everlasting covenant.”

Genesis 17:8 — אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם
“An everlasting possession.”

Genesis 13:15 — לְזַרְעֲךָ עַד־עוֹלָם
“To thy seed for ever.”

This is not the vocabulary of a temporary lease. It is not the vocabulary of a promise with a hidden expiration date. It is the vocabulary of divine permanence.

III. Exile Is Chastisement, Not Cancellation
And when Israel sins, God does not say, “I am done with them.” He says they will be judged, scattered, chastened—and then restored. “I will not cast them away… to break My covenant with them” (Leviticus 26:44–45). “The Lord thy God will… gather thee from all the nations… and bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed” (Deuteronomy 30:3–5). The prophets say the same thing with a hammer in each hand.

Leviticus 26:44–45 — לֹא־מְאַסְתִּים… לְהָפֵר בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם
“I will not cast them away… to break My covenant with them.”

Deuteronomy 30:3–5
God will gather Israel and bring them back into the land.
So let no bishop, however polished, pretend that exile means cancellation. The Torah already closed that loophole.

And if anyone wishes to suggest that perhaps God later revised His position, softened the promise, spiritualized the oath, or quietly transferred the covenant to a different people, then the Torah answers that evasion as well: “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent” (Numbers 23:19).

Numbers 23:19 — לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב וּבֶן־אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם
“God is not a man, that He should lie.”

In plain English: God does not speak like a politician and then walk back His words. He does not swear “everlasting” and later mean “conditional until superseded.” He does not say “forever” and secretly mean “until the Church arrives.”

IV. The Theft by Allegory: How Supersessionism Dissolves the Text
The prophets hammer the point so hard that only theological prejudice can miss it. Jeremiah declares that the restoration from exile will be so great that it will stand beside the Exodus itself: “The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land” (Jeremiah 23:7–8). He then goes further still: only if the fixed order of sun, moon, and stars departs will Israel cease from being a nation before God forever (Jeremiah 31:35–37). Ezekiel says: “I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land” (Ezekiel 36:24), and again: “They shall dwell in the land… they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever”; “and I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant” (Ezekiel 37:25–26). Amos ends with a blowtorch: “I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them” (Amos 9:15).

Jeremiah 31:35–37 — גַּם זֶרַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁבְּתוּ מִהְיוֹת גּוֹי לְפָנַי כָּל־הַיָּמִים
“Then shall the seed of Israel cease from being a nation before Me forever.”

Ezekiel 37:25–26 — עַד־עוֹלָם … בְּרִית עוֹלָם
“Forever… an everlasting covenant.”

Amos 9:15 — עָתַעְתִּים עַל־אַדְמָתָם וְלֹא יִנָּתְשׁוּ עוֹד מֵעַל אַדְמָתָם אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָהֶם, אָמַר ה’ אֱלֹהֶיךָ.
“They shall no more be pulled up out of their land.”
No more. Not “perhaps.” Not “figuratively.” Not “until reinterpreted by later theologians.”

This is exactly where the old replacement instinct reveals itself. It cannot bear the plain force of these words, so it begins the work of dilution. “Israel” becomes a symbol. “Land” becomes a metaphor. “Forever” becomes an ecclesiastical euphemism. “Everlasting” becomes temporary, “nation” becomes abstraction, and “gathering” becomes a spiritual trope. That is not exegesis. That is theological confiscation. It is the old supersessionist maneuver in refined dress: take what was sworn to Israel, run it through the machinery of abstraction, and hand it to someone else.

V. The New Testament Against Replacement Theology
But the New Testament does not rescue that maneuver; it destroys it. Mary blesses God because “He hath holpen his servant Israel… as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever” (Luke 1:54–55). Zechariah blesses God for “remembering his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham” (Luke 1:72–73). Jesus speaks of “the twelve tribes of Israel” as an eschatological reality, not an obsolete category (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). In Acts, the disciples ask, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” and Christ corrects their knowledge of the timing, not the legitimacy of the expectation (Acts 1:6–7).

Luke 1:54–55
God helps His servant Israel and remembers Abraham’s seed forever.

Luke 1:72–73
God remembers His holy covenant, the oath sworn to Abraham.

Matthew 19:28/Luke 22:30
The twelve tribes of Israel remain an eschatological reality.

Acts 1:6–7
Christ corrects the timing of Israel’s restoration, not the expectation.
The New Testament does not erase Israel. It speaks in continuity with Israel.

VI. Romans 11 and the Ruin of the Replacement Scheme
Then Paul says what should have buried replacement theology forever: “Hath God cast away his people? God forbid” (Romans 11:1–2). Not “perhaps.” Not “in a redefined sense.” God forbid.

Paul is even more devastating when he explains how Gentiles relate to Israel. He does not say the Church uproots Israel and takes her place. He says Gentiles are wild branches grafted in among the natural branches (Romans 11:17–24). Grafting is participation, not replacement. Addition, not confiscation. The root remains. The tree remains. The nations are brought into what God already planted.

Then Paul closes the trap: “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Romans 11:28–29). In modern wording: irrevocable. Irrevocable does not mean transferred. It does not mean spiritualized away. It does not mean “honored in rhetoric, canceled in substance.” It means what it says.

Romans 11:1–2
“Has God cast away His people? God forbid.”

Romans 11:17–24
Gentiles are grafted in, not enthroned as replacements.

Romans 11:28–29
Israel remains beloved for the fathers’ sake, for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.
And that is why the doctrine that the Church has simply replaced Israel is false from top to bottom.

VII. The Real Question: Can Jewish Restoration Be Theologically Empty?
Jeremiah’s New Covenant is made “with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah” — אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה (Jeremiah 31:31). Paul says Gentiles were once “strangers from the covenants of promise” but are now brought near (Ephesians 2:12–13). Brought near to what? To the covenants first sworn to Israel. Fellowship is not dispossession. Inclusion is not erasure. The Church does not abolish Abraham’s seed; the nations are blessed through Abraham’s seed. The Messiah of the Church is the Messiah of Israel, not the undertaker of Israel.

So when Barron, Strickland, Sanborn, or any other ecclesiastical voice speaks as though Jewish restoration must be denied prophetic depth, denied covenantal force, or treated as spiritually empty, that is not biblical sobriety. It is biblical evasion. It is a refusal to let the words everlasting, forever, nation, land, gather, restore, and beloved mean what they plainly mean.

No serious Christian is required to say that every policy of the modern State of Israel is righteous or immune from criticism. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land after centuries of dispersion, degradation, expulsions, pogroms, and genocide can be treated as a theologically empty accident. It cannot. Not if words mean anything. Not if covenants mean anything. Not if prophecy means anything. Not if Paul means anything.

VIII. Open Rebuke: God Remembered, and That Is the Offense
Barron, Strickland, and Sanborn, each in his own register, recoil from the same thing: not merely the modern State of Israel, but the intolerable possibility that God really did keep His word in public view.

That is why their position deserves not polite disagreement but open rebuke. It is a theology that praises the Jew as symbol and resists the Jew as restored people. It condemns antisemitism with one hand while draining Jewish restoration of covenantal meaning with the other. It is the old doctrine of diminishment wearing fresh vestments. Scripture is harder than that, cleaner than that, and more stubborn than that.

Israel is not discarded. Israel is not replaced. Israel is not erased by the Church. Israel is disciplined, but not disowned; scattered, but not abandoned; judged, but not canceled; beloved for the fathers’ sake, because “the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29). The Church does not sit atop Israel’s grave. The Church is brought near through Israel’s Messiah into promises God first swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

And any bishop who cannot stomach that should stop hiding behind thin patina of formulas and admit their real grievance: not that Israel exists, but that God kept His promise.

IX. Catholics for Catholics (CfC): A Catholic Banner Draped Over a Russian Subversive Machine

Warning to the Reader:The following section contains graphic sexual material, including pornographic imagery and videos involving some of the principals discussed. These materials are included not for shock or titillation, but to document public hypocrisy, degeneracy, complete moral rot, and the nature of the organization and individuals being presented as religious, moral, and authoritative. What follows is explicit because these are the very people lecturing Jews and Christians about virtue, order, and obedience. Their depravity and debauchery are not incidental to the argument; they are part of the proof.

CfC is not some innocent apostolate that accidentally wandered into politics. It was born political, branded militant, and built to weaponize Catholic identity. By its own description, it was founded in 2022 as a “militant organization” devoted to “public prayer, powerful media, and strategic political action.” It is a 501(c)(4), not a diocese, not a parish, not a religious order, not a catechetical institute.

The deeper rot is that CfC captures Catholic symbolism while operating outside normal Catholic accountability. It trades on the word Catholic while functioning as a foreign lobbying and influence vehicle, even as canon-law experts have warned that political groups may be exploiting a “blind spot” by using the Church’s name without being actual Church entities. At the same time, it constructs a parallel authority structure: General Michael Flynn is presented by the group as its “Current Senior Advisor”; Joseph Strickland remains one of its validation figures even after Rome removed him from the pastoral governance of Tyler; and National Catholic Reporter tied the group’s early orbit to General Flynn and Steve Bannon (Jeffery Epstein’s PR advisor). This is how counterfeit magisteria are built: not through apostolic succession, but through grievance, branding, and celebrity pimping.

 

Its public lineup tells you exactly what it is doing. Mar-a-Lago featured Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and Jack Posobiec. The later Washington gala featured Flynn again, with Eduardo Verástegui, Candace Owens, Carrie Prejean, Joe Kent, Matt Walsh, and others. These are not accidental bookings. This is not random. This is stagecraft. The organization is building a Catholic-branded theater in which operatives, provocateurs, scandal-marked personalities, and ideological performers are dressed up as guardians of orthodoxy and national renewal. It is not renewing Catholic witness; it is hijacking Catholic imagery for a hardened political project.

And when the subject turns to Israel and the Jews, the mask slips even further. CfC published “The Catholic View on Zionism and the 1948-State of Israel.” After Carrie Prejean’s anti-semitic confrontation exploded into scandal, the group did not distance itself. It canonized her performance, turned her into a cause, and announced a “Catholic Champion Award” for her “defense of the Catholic faith.” At the very moment antisemitism was being scrutinized, CfC chose to turn anti-Zionist agitation into a badge of sanctified courage. That is how a breeding ground for virulent antisemitism is built: not always by beginning with the old crude slurs, but by creating a permission structure in which obsessive hostility to Jewish self-determination is laundered as conscience, fidelity, and bravery. Bishop Barron himself called Prejean’s persecution narrative “absurd,” but CfC doubled down and made martyr theater out of it.

This is why the organization sets off every alarm. It is new. It is grievance-soaked. It is siege-framed. It is emotionally manipulative. It captures a religious identity community, tells that community its institutions have failed, then offers a substitute tribunal composed of celebrities, exiles, demagogues, and professional antagonists. That is not ordinary political advocacy. That is the social architecture of foreign subversion.

X. The Men and Women CfC Put on the Stage
Look at the cast CfC keeps choosing. General Michael Flynn is not merely a conservative with strong views. He is a central figure in the post-2020 election-denial movement, and the company he keeps is part of the story. Stanley McChrystal was not some distant name from Flynn’s military past. Flynn, a registered Democrat, and his brother are longtime friends of McChrystal, and Flynn registered Flynn Intel Group from a townhouse owned by McChrystal in Alexandria. McChrystal advised Defeat Disinfo, a Democratic-aligned PAC that used artificial intelligence and network analysis to counter Trump’s messaging online. So when CfC presents Flynn as a simple patriot-sage, it is scrubbing away a far more tangled network of anti-Trump and conservative relationships, access, and influence.

Patrick Byrne and Maria Butina, his Russian spy girlfriend, are not some incidental fellow travelers either. Flynn and Byrne co-founded The America Project, which financed litigation aimed at overturning the 2020 election, backed election deniers, and sponsored a multi-state illegal effort to gather technical information on voting systems. After the 2020 election, Flynn and Byrne managed to get into the White House using Garret Ziegler (another disinformation artist) to press President Trump to use the military to seize voting machines. That is not fringe-adjacent behavior. That is a well-funded, wide-scale, sophisticated operational involvement.

The nefarious character of the Flynn-Byrne alliance comes into sharp focus in the Tina Peters/Mesa County election-system breach. During the May 2021 “trusted build” on Mesa County’s Dominion equipment, Colorado election officials had already made clear that only Dominion personnel, the Secretary of State’s office, and actual county employees were allowed in the room, and that the process was supposed to be under camera security. Investigators later discovered that Gerald Wood’s (an IT worker) identity was stolen and used to create the appearance of a legitimate county staffer, even though Wood never actually worked for the county. According to the arrest-affidavit record, Conan Hayes was then brought in under Wood’s identity, the surveillance setup was tampered with, and digital images were made of the Dominion hard drive. Those copied materials, including system data and passwords, later surfaced online at Mike Lindell’s symposium. The same affidavit also places outside election-conspiracy figures around the planning phase, including Sheronna Bishop and Douglas Frank, with Bishop later tied to Hayes’s hotel booking. Peters was ultimately convicted on multiple counts tied to the breach and, in October 2024, was sentenced to nine years in prison. Interestingly, Conan Hays, the man who actually committed the crimes, was never charged.

So the point is bigger than the fact that Flynn’s orbit merely brushed up against disreputable people. What the Peters case shows is an ecosystem in which outside activists, conspiracy entrepreneurs, and political operators did not just talk about election fraud; they moved toward covert access, impersonation, the disabling of safeguards, the copying of protected election data, and the laundering of all of it as patriotic “investigation.” That is the real significance of the Flynn-Byrne nexus. It is not simply that Flynn worked with dubious or even criminal characters. It is that the Flynn-Byrne world repeatedly intersects with operators like Stephanie Lambert, Josh Merritt, David Clements, Patrick Colbeck, Seth Keshel, Shawn Smith, Doug Logan, Sidney Powell, Mary Fanning, Dennis Montgomery, Russell Ramsland, Kevin Moncla, and Phil Waldron, as well as with the logistics, money, operatives, and pressure campaigns built around election-conspiracy narratives and unauthorized access to voting infrastructure. CfC does not treat that record as disqualifying. It treats it as a credential. That is not prudence. It is a declaration of method.

Roger Stone is no better. CfC put him on its Mar-a-Lago stage. The Justice Department says Stone was found guilty of obstruction, five counts of false statements to Congress, and witness tampering in a case tied to the congressional investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. At the same time, Stone has long cultivated a sexual-pervert persona in public: He admitted participation in the swingers orgies and called himself “a trysexual-I’ve tried everything.” Stone himself said that Kristin Davis, the “Manhattan Madam,” and Tucker Carlson’s employee had worked on and off for him for ten years and that he was the godfather to her son. So the question is not whether Stone is a sexual pervert. The question is why a movement preaching moral order and Catholic seriousness keeps putting men like this on the dais as if they were catechists. The answer is obvious: because this is not about holiness. It is about using notorious operators as instruments.

Candace Owens and Carrie Prejean fit the same mold in a different register. Owens has publicly admitted to having casual sex. She also left The Daily Wire amid escalating accusations of antisemitism connected to her rhetoric about Jews and Israel. She was also  sued for defamation over her false claim that France’s first lady was born male (a known Russian Active Measure). Prejean, for her part, produced and starred in at least eight hardcore porn videos, but CfC still chose to place her at the center of its Zionism controversy and award her for it. Again: the issue is not prudery. The issue is that compromised, scandal-marked, or inflammatory figures are repeatedly given Catholic cover and then unleashed as moral lecturers.

Jack Murphy, whose real name is John Goldman, is not relevant because the internet is full of lurid garbage about his private life. He is relevant because he served as a connective tissue figure inside the same ecosystem of manosphere grift, pseudo-Christian performance, Russianized disinformation culture, and political radicalization that overlaps with the CfC orbit. That Goldman was chosen to interview J.D. Vance was not incidental. It was a signal. Goldman belonged to the same broader reactionary milieu as Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Joe Kent, and similar operators. He was not an isolated pervert in a sealed chamber. He was a connector moving between the manosphere, the New Right, Claremont-adjacent circles, and the grievance economy that keeps leaking into Catholic-branded politics. The Vance interview proves the larger point: these worlds are intertwined. They share personnel, reinforce each other’s narratives, and launder the same toxins through different costumes.

And the hypocrisy is not peripheral. While Murphy and his fiancée did pay per view cam porn at home and produced a collection of videos of him masturbating in public and sticking a dildo up his A$$. He built a brand out of masculine seriousness, moral order, family values, and civilizational discipline while the public scandal around him pointed in the exact opposite direction: sex-for-pay content, kink, humiliation, and spectacle. That is not a footnote to the CfC brand. That is a demolition charge planted under it. The man was selling stoic virtue with one hand while the other was using a dildo on himself. He did not merely stumble. He built his entire persona on moral gravity.

Again, the point is not prudishness. The point is a degenerate and debauched personality so total it becomes theatrical. And it gets worse, because this was not some anonymous degenerate in a dark corner of the internet. He moved in the same high political society ecosystem as Posobiec and Cernovich, climbed the influence ladder, and wound up interviewing the vice president. J.D. Vance himself. Vance may/may not have known who Goldman was, but it would have been trivial to find out. And the fact that Tucker, who is his Vance’s media adviser, and Buckley, who is his press secretary, allowed it to happen makes the whole thing even more damning. That is the indictment: not just sleaze, but sleaze scrubbed, rebranded, and dressed up as moral leadership.

Mike Cernovich (who wrote about the fine experience of sex with a tranny) and Jack Posobiec matter here as well for the same reason: they are not random adjacent names. They are part of the same operational culture. Cernovich was one of the key amplifiers of the MacronLeaks dump, and Posobiec was one of the primary activists credited with initially sharing the hacked Macron emails on Twitter; SPLC later described him as central to spreading the fruits of an apparent Russian intelligence-led MacronLeaks operation. So when Goldman/Murphy appears in the same social-media, podcast, and event world as Posobiec and Cernovich, that is not guilt by random association. It is a visible network: manosphere grift, disinformation politics, anti-institutional agitation, and moral fraud all feeding each other.

That is precisely why Goldman belongs in this analysis of CfC. He is not an outlier. He is a prime specimen. The issue is not merely that CfC keeps putting scandal-soaked figures on stage. It is that CfC recruits from a wider ecosystem of compromised operators and theatrical moral frauds whose currency is grievance, spectacle, paranoia, and ideological radicalization, perverted sexuality. Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, Jack Posobiec, Candace Owens, Carrie Prejean, Joe Kent, Tucker Carlson, and, in the adjoining lane, Murphy/Goldman and Cernovich, are not random names. They are recurring expressions of the same cancerous pathology. Some bring conspiracy. Some bring a sexual scandal. Some bring propaganda. Some bring anti-Zionist agitation. Some bring naked political manipulation. Together, they form a recognizable Russian influence apparatus: a machine built to poison judgment, fracture MAGA, and hollow out Christianity from the inside while pretending to defend both.

And then there is the Russian ideological echo chamber circling this same set of names. Aleksandr Dugin, AKA Rasputin II, explicitly named Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Judge Napolitano, Larry Johnson, Jackson Hinkle, and Kim Dotcom as “useful” ideological friends inside MAGA space. Dugin also publicly praised Joe Kent while complaining about “excessive Israel influence.” That does not, by itself, prove command-and-control from Moscow. It does prove something uglier and more than enough for indictment: the Russian information sphere keeps recognizing, favoring, and ideologically embracing the same anti-institutional, grievance-heavy, anti-Zionist personalities that CfC keeps platforming. Whether the orders come directly or the alignment is opportunistic, the pattern is the same. The machine is calibrated and operates on the same frequencies.

So no, this is not a movement of sober Christian teachers who happen to care about politics. It is a movement of scandal-marked operators, Jew haters, blood merchants, degenerate sinners beyond salvation, conspiratorial performers, grievance merchants, and moral impostors who borrow Catholic language and imagery to sanctify themselves while instructing the faithful on purity, order, and obedience.

XI. For the sake of our Christian brethren
This must be written plainly for the sake of our Christian brethren, because many of them are being led to slaughter. They are being told that this is courage. It is not courage. It is manipulation. They are being told that this is fidelity. It is not fidelity. It is capture. They are being told that this is a defense of Christian civilization. In every case, it is the opposite: the hollowing out of Christian conscience and the replacement of the Gospel with grievance, theater, paranoia, and political obedience. And we have no right to watch it happen and stand idle. Scripture forbids that cowardice. We are commanded to rebuke our brother, to warn him, and not to stand by while he is led into sin, delusion, and destruction beneath a Christian banner.

CfC is leading the faithful in the guise of shepherds, but inwardly, they are ravenous wolves. They are being handed operatives and told they are defenders of truth. They are being handed scandal-marked personalities, conspiracy peddlers, anti-Jewish agitators, and moral wreckage, and told to kneel, listen, and follow.

That is why this must be said without lace, without euphemism, and without clerical throat-clearing. CfC is not restoring Catholic witness. It is colonizing Catholic identity. It is turning devotion into a delivery system for foreign agitation. It is laundering corruption through piety, and training ordinary Christians to mistake ideological frenzy for religious faithfulness.

And if Christians do not wake up, they will be marched not into renewal but into destruction, taught to despise the very disciplines that once made them stable, discerning, and hard to manipulate. They will be stripped of a moral foundation, stuffed with slogans, and sent into battle for demons like Alexander Dugan and Tucker Carslon who do not deserve their trust, their loyalty, or their souls.

That is the warning. That is the point. And that is why this fight has to be joined now, while there is still something left to defend.

XII. The Red Flags and Why I Assess This as Bearing the Hallmarks of a Foreign Influence Operation
I am not making an argument from one stray coincidence, one awkward speaker, or one inflammatory event. I am describing a pattern — a cluster of red flags — and patterns are how professional assess influence operations. One red flag may mean little. A dozen moving in the same direction mean a lot. Here the pattern is obvious: a relatively new vehicle, fast-scaling under a militant banner, grievance-based, emotionally manipulative, deeply political, hostile to institutional accountability, saturated with conspiratorial personalities, rewarding anti-Zionist escalation, and increasingly aligned with figures who draw praise from the Russian ideological sphere. That is not normal apostolic life.

That is a structure ripe for subversion.

1. Catholic for Catholics is a new vehicle (formed in 2022) that scaled quickly under a militant political identity. CfC presents itself not as a parish, not as a diocese, not as a monastery, not as a catechetical work rooted in the ordinary life of the Church, but as a Catholic-patriotic 501(c)(4) built around public prayer, media, and strategic political action. New, fast-growing, identity-based, and explicitly political: that alone should put any serious Christian on guard. Healthy religious institutions are ordinarily slow-grown, disciplined, accountable, and sacramental. Influence platforms are often the opposite: rapidly assembled, highly branded, emotionally urgent, and mission-focused on mobilization.
2. Second red flag: it is a political apparatus wearing sacred vestments. When a group says that one candidate is the “ONLY option for Catholics of good conscience,” stages candidate-centered rallies under explicitly Catholic branding, and wraps electoral mobilization in saints, prayer, and liturgical aesthetics, it is no longer merely “engaged in politics.” It is using religion as delivery infrastructure. It is draping a partisan machine in sacramental cloth. That is not pastoral leadership. That is emotional capture.
3. Third red flag: it captures Catholic identity while operating outside normal Church accountability. It trades on the name Catholic while functioning as a political influence vehicle rather than a recognized Church body. That matters. Real Catholic authority is not self-created by branding, event posters, and celebrity endorsements. It is tethered to real ecclesial structures, sacramental life, doctrinal discipline, and legitimate oversight. A movement that borrows the Church’s name while bypassing the Church’s accountability is not merely irregular. It is building a counterfeit authority space in which the faithful can be addressed, directed, inflamed, and recruited without the normal brakes.
4. Fourth red flag: it builds a parallel authority structure around figures outside ordinary ecclesial discipline. When a movement sidelines ordinary bishops, diocesan authority, and the actual structures of the Church while elevating removed, rebellious, scandal-marked, or politically useful personalities as the “real” voices of Catholic seriousness, that is not renewal. That is insurgency. It is teaching the faithful to trust celebrity, grievance, and charisma over office, order, and discipline. That is one of the classic signs that something parasitic is being built inside a religious community.
5. Fifth red flag: its ecosystem overlaps heavily with conspiracy entrepreneurs and anti-democratic narratives. A healthy apostolate does not keep finding itself surrounded by people whose public careers are tied to QAnon, Pizzagate, election-fraud mythology, democratic delegitimization, viral propaganda, and disinformation spectacle. At some point, one must stop pretending these are random accidents. When the same names keep showing up, the same styles of agitation keep surfacing, and the same conspiratorial energy keeps getting platformed, then conspiracy is not a side effect. It is part of the movement’s operating environment.
6. Sixth red flag: it platforms convicted dirty-trick operators as Catholic tribunes. That is not merely an optics problem. It is a moral and strategic one. A movement that claims to be restoring Christian order while repeatedly elevating men publicly associated with deception, manipulation, and political sabotage is telling you what it values. It values operators. It values utility. It values shock, provocation, and influence over integrity. It is not trying to form consciences. It is trying to deploy them.
7. Seventh red flag: it rewards anti-Zionist escalation with martyr language and honorifics. This is where the anti-Jewish vector becomes most obvious. A movement that turns anti-Zionist confrontation into a badge of sanctified courage, that hands out awards for such performances, and that casts public backlash as persecution for righteousness is not merely taking a policy position. It is building a moral permission structure. It is teaching followers that obsessive hostility toward Jewish self-determination can be recoded as bravery, orthodoxy, and heroic witness. That is exactly how virulent antisemitism grows inside a religious movement without always beginning with the old vulgar slogans.
8. Eighth red flag: its message environment is grievance-heavy, siege-framed, and emotionally manipulative. “Fight.” “Hold the line.” “Reclaim.” “Warriors.” “Your action is key.” This is not the language of catechesis, prayer, or sober discernment. It is the language of mobilization under siege conditions. It is designed to fuse identity, fear, urgency, and obedience until followers can no longer distinguish between faithfulness to Christ and loyalty to the movement. That is manipulation, not discipleship.
9. Ninth red flag: it attracts praise from a Russian geopolitical ideologue. That does not prove foreign command and control. It does something else: it shows narrative compatibility. When a figure like Dugin publicly praises or boosts personalities in the same orbit, that is not meaningless. It means the messaging, instincts, enemies, and strategic effects of the movement are legible and useful to a hostile ideological sphere. Serious people do not ignore that. They log it as a warning.
10. Tenth red flag: some of the movement’s moral lecturers are scandal-marked and reputationally vulnerable. Publicly compromised, morally unstable, or scandal-shadowed personalities are not just hypocritical choices for a movement preaching moral order. They are vulnerability markers. They reveal a culture more interested in spectacle and notoriety than holiness, sobriety, or trustworthiness. A movement full of such figures is not merely unserious. It is structurally weak, manipulable, and open to exploitation.
11. Eleventh red flag: it is openly an election machine, not merely a teaching apostolate. Once a movement defines itself around electoral outcomes, vote-chasing, candidate promotion, and political conquest, the claim that it is simply “helping Catholics engage public life” becomes a joke. It is an operational political machine using Catholic identity as a mobilization pool. That means the faith is no longer the master. It is the instrument.
12. Twelfth red flag: the full pattern matches official hallmarks of an influence ecosystem, even without proving foreign control. Identity capture. Grievance activation. Institutional delegitimization. Narrative radicalization. Conspiratorial surrogates. Foreign-ideologue praise. Morally compromised messengers. Emotional siege language. Politicized religious symbolism. These are not random defects. They are the sort of features one sees in modern influence platforms built to divide, destabilize, radicalize, and redirect. That is why I assess CfC as bearing the hallmarks of a foreign influence operation. Not because I possess a signed Kremlin memo. Because the structure, rhetoric, personnel, vulnerabilities, and narrative outputs line up too closely with the playbook for any honest observer to dismiss the resemblance.

No one needs a declassified intelligence file to see the danger here. When a movement looks this new, this manipulative, this grievance-soaked, this conspiratorial, this anti-institutional, this morally compromised, and this narratively aligned with hostile foreign themes, the burden is not on the skeptic to pretend nothing is wrong. The burden is on the movement to explain why it looks so much like subversion.

 

The Everlasting Covenant
God said to Abraham, “Count the stars,
Your children will shine like heaven’s sparks.”
My covenant stands, the land is thine,
Not for a few years, but for all time.

To Isaac, then the word was passed,
To Jacob, too, a bond to last.
No hidden clause, no end in sight,
No fading oath by day or night.

At Sinai, God sealed Israel’s name,
The eternal sign, the covenant claim.
Though dawn turns dusk and seasons turn,
He guards His beloved till they return.

Though exiled far and tempest-tossed,
The Lord declared they were not lost.
Jeremiah pointed to the moon and sun:
“As long as these shine, Israel is the one.”

Ezekiel sang of cleansing grace,
Isaiah swore seed keeps its place.
“Everlasting” rings once more,
How many times must Heaven swear?

Malachi said, “I do not change,
So Jacob’s sons are not estranged.
Hosea said, “Though cast away,
The Lord will call them back one day.”

Then came some wolves in sheep’s clothes,
“The promise changed,” the new doctrine goes.
They marked the page and grinned with pride:
“Forever meant, until we decide.”

Another school said, “This is new,
The old bond is dissolved passed through.”
As though the Lord of Hosts might bend,
And change His word to suit a trend.

And others said, Islam! “Submit instead,
Your Torah is old, corrupt, and dead.”
They stacked false claims on every shelf,
As if God was wrong and needed help Himself.

So tell me, friend, what troubles you?
Which word confounds you? What is untrue?
Is “everlasting covenant” hard to hear?
Isn’t “eternal” plain and clear?

Is “my treasured people” ambiguous or dim?
Too bright a light, too stern a hymn?
Or is it your rebellious will?
For God’s covenant stands unbroken still.

Let blasphemers howl, let councils rage,
Preach lies and false claims on every page.
God’s covenant will outlive all men,
What God has sworn forever stands. Amen!

Bless Israel, Lord, with peace and bread,
With joy in heart and divine light ahead.
Send David’s Branch, the righteous one,
What God has promised shall not be undone.Johnson 302