Orthodox Reflections

Article Summary

This lecture examines the League of Nations from the perspective of Orthodox Christian moral and political thought during the interwar period. Saintly Martyr Ionel Moța argues that while the League’s stated ideals of international peace and cooperation are admirable, it is fundamentally weakened by moral inconsistency, competing national interests, and the absence of a shared Christian foundation.

The lecture contends that lasting peace cannot be achieved through political institutions alone but must be rooted in spiritual renewal, justice, and adherence to Christian truth. Moța warns that international organizations lacking a common moral framework risk becoming instruments of powerful states rather than guardians of peace. He also cautions against political universalism that diminishes the legitimate role of nations, cultures, and religious identity.

Written in 1929, the lecture offers a historical Orthodox critique of international governance, emphasizing that durable peace depends not merely on diplomacy or legal agreements, but on the moral transformation of individuals and societies under Christian principles.

---

OR Staff Note: Because the United States refused to join the League of Nations after WWI, most Americans (even the well-informed ones) tend to focus on the scourge of Globalism only as it emerged from WWII. As this lecture makes clear, the effort to erect a global governing structure goes back much further in time. The primary driver of Globalism in the world today is not the United Nations, nor even the European Union. Those are merely tools. The primary Globalist entity is the American Empire. When the lecture below talks about the arbitrariness of globalist power, compare those observations with the application of America’s so-called “rules-based order.” Hypocrisy is fundamental to the Globalist system. 

Introduction

The text of the lecture, delivered 97 years ago, remains a landmark text for understanding the international and domestic situation in which we, the people of today, live. Of course, the League of Nations has since changed its name to the United Nations, UN—and, just as certainly, the leaders of this supranational body (the same ones from the society’s founding to the present) have created a superficial framework of legality and taken significant steps toward achieving their goal.

What strikes us, however, as particularly important is the fact that Ionel Moța’s text has retained its relevance—their goal has remained the same from its inception to the present day; it is the goal stated with great clarity in the present text. Furthermore, I believe it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that this conference is fundamental to understanding the mechanisms driving today’s international movements, and that it explains and clarifies the motive and purpose for which the European Union was created and within which it operates.

In the texts of Judeo-Freemasonry it appears under the name United States of Europe, because that is how it was spoken of and written in the internal documents of occult societies, referring to this pseudo-construct that dissolves the nations entering into collaboration, or rather, entering into the slavery of this supra-state Judeo-Freemasonic political organization. The analysis offered by one of the heroes of Majadahonda—the man who, together with lawyer Vasile Marin, gave his life for Christ on the front lines of the Spanish Civil War—is irrefutable: What is it? And what does the League of Nations claim to be, without actually being so? Why is it not what it claims to be? What is its purpose, and who is behind this organization? And what must be done now?—this refers both to the “now” of December 15, 1929, and to the “now” of the moment in which we read the lines below; these are the questions to which the lecturer responds. The clarity and objectivity with which Dr. Ionel Moța, a lawyer, argues leave no room for comment: the League of Nations is presented and analyzed from both a principled and a legal standpoint; it has proven to be nothing more than a specter, a new deception of a system that initiates and sustains the struggle against the Church of Christ and prepares for the establishment of the world state, over which the Antichrist will reign.

 Another point that we find particularly important to note is that the spiritual and intellectual paralysis—which Ionel Moța discusses in reference to his own era—fully characterizes our own era as well, today, 97 years later.

From another perspective, this text is striking in how it shatters the linear temporal relationship—to which we have become accustomed—between us and those who came before us: it seems as though Ionel Moța gave this lecture yesterday, for us, for those of us who do not place our own comfort or “balance”—whatever that may be—above Christ.

January 13 marks the 90th anniversary of the passing of the two heroes — Ionel Moța and Vasile Marin — from the front in Spain, where the Legionary Movement saw fit to send its finest Romanians to their sacrifice—thus washing away the shame and the stain of blood that other “Romanians” fighting against Christ had brought upon us.

May God rest their souls!

Mugur Vasiliu

ION MOȚA’S LECTURE

Ladies and Gentlemen,

At the risk of sounding exaggerated, I will begin by making a clear and unequivocal statement—or rather, by repeating a statement made before me by others more competent than I, such as Vasile Conta—namely: our nation is headed for ruin if we do not stop following the path we are on today. I said that it is very likely that such words will seem exaggerated to you, given the reality that lies before our eyes every day. For I am thinking of a psychological truth to which the miraculous Indian Christian preacher Sadhu Sundar Singh drew our attention, we European Christians, when he characterized us by saying that we strike him as lepers. Indeed, he says, it is common knowledge that the leper, though afflicted by the most terrible misfortune and seeing his hideous body covered in sores and slowly rotting away, year after year, nevertheless does not realize the horror of reality, and his condition, through trivialization, seems to him almost normal and, in any case, bearable. And we Christians, says the novice Indian missionary, likewise give the impression that we are not overly moved or disturbed by the moral ruin of materialism, of the domination of the sovereign flesh, into which we have fallen. It seems to us that this is normal, that this is how man should be, and we are very harsh toward the exaggerations of the “fanatics of an outdated Christian morality.” The same psychology characterizes man in his relationship with national sentiment, with the reality of national life. It is true that in all the cities of the new Romania, we are systematically and progressively being replaced by foreigners, especially Jews, who have come to control almost the entirety of commerce, industry, and banking, to dominate the press and indirectly politics, and through their large numbers in universities to constitute a real danger to our culture.

It is undeniable that these foreigners are our enemies and that the situation is getting worse; yet we do not like anyone to upset our little personal balances, our relative tranquility and peace, by telling us such alarming things and drawing such depressing conclusions, while highlighting certain sacrifices of this present balance for the sake of saving tomorrow. We don’t like such talk; we prefer to be left to our own little problems, which, after all, may not be quite as hideous as they seem, and that is why we easily calm ourselves, dismissing statements like the one I just made as exaggerations, even if they come from a mind like Conta’s.

Yet the reality is this: we will perish. We will perish, obviously, if we do not take the necessary measures to save ourselves, which we see nowhere today. And it is not even accurate to say that “we will perish,” but rather: we are already perishing, and increasingly so. For a nation does not perish in a single moment, with a final breath, like a human being, but decays slowly, through a death that can last for centuries. Thus, today the Romanian nation in northern Bukovina, in Maramureș, in many cities, and in so many parts of the country is almost irretrievably lost. In these regions, Romanian identity must be revived and reestablished, for it has nearly vanished. This extremely grave process continues, and if we allow it to proceed unchecked, well, let us acknowledge—though we would prefer not to state it too bluntly or forcefully—that we will perish completely, having first endured a period of servitude to foreigners, however long or short it may be. Do we need more examples, when the example is right at our doorstep, at every step of our mundane daily life? Read in a work by Dr. Nicolae Paulescu the names of the Romanian merchants on Lipscani Street in Bucharest in 1880, when all the businesses, except for two or three, were Romanian, and see what it is like today. Look at what it is like today even in the once-proud cities of spirited Oltenia, and you will see, I believe, this time without calling it an exaggeration, the mortal danger in which we find ourselves.

And, upon examining more closely this vast and multifaceted calamity into which we have fallen—examining it systematically—we will see that the very existence of our nation is so threatened and compromised because an immense, apocalyptic conspiracy has been hatched against the entire world, against all nations, especially Christian ones. It aims to attack the two foundations of a nation’s existence: nationality and religious, Christian spirituality. And the conspirators are, obviously, those who profit, those who take control in our place, above us: the Jews, aided by Freemasonry.

Before I dig in to discuss my topic in detail—the League of Nations—I must place this subject within the broader context of the aforementioned conspiracy. I will do so briefly. Thus, by attacking a nation’s nationality and Christian spiritual discipline, you disarm it, enslave it, and destroy it.

For, ladies and gentlemen, nationality is a social phenomenon just as “natural” and independent of human life as all phenomena of nature. This does not mean that the phenomenon of humanity’s division into isolated, national groups is a current natural reality that we cannot ignore or abolish through an act of will. These human groups, distinguished by racial lineage, language, customs, shared aspirations, and above all by a selfish and exclusive solidarity that tends to strengthen an ethnic collective—regardless of but rather sometimes manifesting themselves, as in the case of the Jews, against others—these groups—the nations—are a reality: they exist. It is a truism, a fact that seems to require no further proof: the existence of nations as isolated, distinct entities that seek to develop themselves exclusively and, very often, to the detriment of others. This is the case with the Hungarians, who have always tended, tend, and will likely continue to tend to serve their own nationality, wronging us Romanians and other neighbors. This is the case with the Russians, the Bulgarians, others, and above all, the Jews. Nationality thus appears as the only force capable of resisting these opposing national groups: preserving nationality as a center of strength, of cohesion, of solidarity, and of resistance is the condition of our existence as an independent nation. Without the strength of nationality, we disintegrate, we crumble, only to fall prey to vigorous and well-preserved nations.

On the other hand, while in the realm of temporal life nationality is the backbone of existence, this life of the nation is neither possible nor assured without a healthy spiritual order, without the moralization and spiritualization of the individuals within the nation. Religious discipline, specifically Christian, is a second indispensable element of life. Nationality and moral, Christian spirituality complement and intertwine, bringing balance to human life and the power to sustain it.

Well, for several decades now, as I said, we have been witnessing the unfolding of a vast conspiracy that extends to nearly all nations and seeks to weaken, compromise, and undermine—to the point of abolition—national identity and Christianity. To limit ourselves to what is happening in our own country, we observe a whole series of initiatives and organizations, more or less triangular in nature, placed under the patronage—alas, often of such lofty institutions—of various youth education associations and so-called Christian societies, into which, however, many foreigners enter and even lead (such as the Y.M.C.A., the “Blue Triangle,” “Conscious Romanian Youth,” etc., and even the Scouting movement and others, including the “Romanian Social Institute”) —all these organizations exert a powerful educational influence on Romanians, educating them in every direction: sports, philanthropy, noble sentiments, from which, however, any education in national sentiment and any glorification of Jesus is very suspiciously and systematically absent. There is a tendency to demonstrate the possibility of a spirituality outside of Christianity and a life outside of—and even against—nationality. Let us also recall Freemasonry, our press written by Jews, which feeds us day by day and shapes our souls? Then certain literature, art, and all other manifestations of human activity? It is enough to take an honest look within each of us to see how much Christian light still reigns within us, how much chastity, and to confess that our soul is nearly empty of these sentiments of which it is ashamed (who among us today dares to affirm the value of Jesus’ word and, above all, to follow it?)—is this enough to see the enormous effects, the terrible spiritual victories of these anti-Christian attacks? It is enough, then, to observe (as we did just now) how the ruin of our existence as a nation is unfolding in the temporal, material realm—without those who lead the Romanian State taking the necessary measures dictated by the instinct and conscience of national preservation—to realize the disintegration of this force, which is our nationality, as a result of Judeo-Masonic attacks.

The League of Nations is just one of these many forms of anti-national and anti-Christian conspiracy, which tends to be the supreme means of crowning and finalizing the results already achieved by Judeo-Masonry throughout the world to date. This, which I know is not enough to simply state, we will now strive to prove.

Let us see, then, what the “League of Nations” is? Something quite simple: it is the dictatorial government of the world, the master of nations. At least legally, this is what it is. In fact, however, it has not yet dared to exercise all these rights. But what is essential is what the League of Nations is legally and can therefore become in practice at any time (if the nations honor their commitment to the League). Therefore, today we can say without any exaggeration that there is a world state whose leadership and public authority are entrusted to the “League of Nations.” The member states of this world state have largely lost their sovereignty for the benefit of this supra-state.

 Here is what the “League of Nations” is (a name better suited to the French “Society of Nations,” since a society is an entity, a unity in which the constituent parts disappear, whereas a league is merely a gathering of disparate units—which is not the case with the “League of Nations”).

What is the purpose, the ideal of this “League”? This purpose is closely linked to the postwar mentality, and it is quite understandable that everywhere, the day after the 1918 armistice, a hatred arose against war, against carnage, against human savagery. This psychological substrate was utilized by the true creators of the League of Nations (and we will see at the end who they are) to launch and create this institution, giving it an apparent purpose (we will also see the true but hidden purpose at the end): the elimination of arbitrariness, of the warlord’s whim, of brute force from the life of nations. This apparent purpose of the League is not necessarily the eradication of war, since it itself admits that there are cases of just, necessary wars—but the purpose is for unjust war, the arbitrariness of international life, to disappear.

There would be nothing to object to regarding this goal, if we consider it in and of itself, independent of the possibilities of its realization. It is indeed something very noble, particularly appealing to the superior spirit of the Aryan, of the Christian who loves ideals and spiritual refinement.

But as soon as we examine the theoretical problems of implementation, and then the practical system through which this goal has actually been pursued, we find an endless series of flaws.

These flaws prove to us that it is not enough for a goal to be noble when it enters the realm of implementation; it must also be achievable, because otherwise the system of implementation will turn exactly against the goal, instead of serving it. And we will prove that this is precisely the case with the League of Nations.

Indeed, we must acknowledge that in human society, arbitrariness has never been able to be eliminated except through a single means of dissolving it: through the rule of law, the legalization of social life, that is, by placing the activities of its members within legal boundaries. Without a legal systematization of life, the elimination of arbitrariness is impossible. For indeed, what is the rule of law, the legal norm? It is an objective, prior, and unique regulation of the various social relationships and phenomena. It thus establishes, for cases not yet arisen, what the position of public authority will be in the various relationships and conflicts between people. By virtue of this very quality of prior regulation of future situations, the legal rule is impartial and objective, rather than a circumstantial, subjective, and personal solution. And through its capacity to apply the force of its content in the same manner in all similar cases to which it applies, the rule of law even more radically excludes the arbitrary discretion of the agent of the State’s public authority. For example, the legal rule that defines and punishes the crime of theft provides that whenever anyone, under certain conditions, appropriates another’s property, they will be punished in a specific manner. Arbitrariness among people is thus excluded by the power granted to them to appeal to the intervention of public force in resolving the conflict. Likewise, judicial arbitrariness is excluded, since the judge—the one who exercises public force—is bound by the legal rules of the law and the code. It suffices to consider what a state would be like in which, on the one hand, one could not appeal to the intervention of public force to resolve a conflict, and on the other hand, the organs and authorities of the State’s power—judges and administrators, executive agents, etc.—were not governed and limited in the exercise of their power by laws, to realize that only the rule of law can eliminate arbitrariness.

We thus come to the conclusion that the League of Nations will not be able to achieve its goal of combating arbitrariness in the international life of nations—unless it is an institution grounded in a body of legal principles and rules, one that limits its immense power to govern as a sovereign over nations, as an organ of humanity’s public authority. Thus, the question arises as to whether or not the League of Nations is a legal institution, an institution that exercises its function as the world’s governing body (endowed with immense public power) on the basis of legal rules that limit and regulate its powers, preventing arbitrariness from influencing its decisions?

Well, the answer is no: the League of Nations is not and cannot be an institution based on a legal foundation, but is a mere political institution, and therefore arbitrary. This we shall prove: first in principle, then in fact.

In principle, I say, even in principle, the League of Nations cannot have a legal structure. Why? For the very simple reason that, when it comes to regulating relations between nations, the rule of law has not been able to take hold at all. That branch of law which deals with these relations between States, that is, so-called Public International Law, is a fledgling and highly incomplete legal discipline, limited exclusively to the legal regulation of minor matters in international life, such as legal rules in diplomatic and consular affairs, or to the enumeration of provisions in treaties—almost exclusively rules of international procedure. You will find no provision in Public International Law regarding the major issues of relations between States, such as a nation’s right to a territory, a nation’s right to independence, cases of just and unjust war (international criminal law norms), etc. None of these exist in positive law. But, more seriously, there are no such legal systematizations either in legal doctrine or, consequently, in natural law. Why is that? Obviously, not because of the laziness of legal scholars, but because today, at least—if not always—relations between nations are not, in their most important aspects, amenable to legal classification. For what characterizes a rule of law, like any rule or scientific law, is the fact that it is the expression, the formulation of a constant solution, applicable to a series of identical, recurring phenomena. Whenever a body is allowed to fall, under certain conditions—as established by the scientific law of gravity—it will fall in a certain way. Whenever a person commits murder under certain conditions, as established by the rule of criminal law, they commit a specific crime; thus, the very essence of the scientific rule lies in its applicability to a series of identical situations that are likely to recur, with the same law—a rule previously established for future situations and therefore objective and non-arbitrary—being applied in each case.

However, it has not been possible to identify and establish legal rules governing relations between nations, because major national interests (such as territorial disputes) are not phenomena likely to recur under identical conditions and thus cannot be regulated in advance by a legal system. Take, for example, a nation’s claim to a territory (an almost constant source of wars). Some will rightly invoke historical right, or the will of the majority of the population (the case of Transylvania for us). Others will invoke, perhaps just as rightly, only historical right, regardless of the current plebiscite of an intruding, colonized population (the case of Northern Bukovina, etc.). Equally legitimate is the claim of a peaceful nation to a territory, to secure a strategic border, to defend itself against a warlike nation (the case of our Quadrilateral), or the right to natural borders, the right to a security zone for a capital (the case of Belgrade). We see, therefore, that here, in this very important matter of international relations, rights are so varied, based on such multiple historical, geographical, military, and ethnic foundations, that the creation of scientific laws of law is at least as difficult as finding the so-called historical laws. There are no fixed, recurring situations composed of the same elements to which the same pre-established solution could be applied. It would be in vain to create a vast code, for new phenomena and new conflicts cannot be framed within any text.

We arrive at the same conclusion when it comes to another source of international conflict: the right of nations to independence. When does this right arise, since it is not universal—for it is undeniable that keeping certain “savage” peoples of Africa under European rule is permissible, just, and beneficial? Where is the line drawn? Why would a heroic people like Abd-el-Krim’s Rifians, or the Boers, be any less deserving of independence than a European people? What could be the legal criterion for independence? Did not the Germans (and the Hungarians as well) claim that, by virtue of their alleged status as a Kulturvolk, they had the right to dominate—in order to civilize— many European nations, if not all, including us Romanians? And here, the issue is just as unstable and scientifically indefinable in permanent rules as it is in the question of territory. And so on. The life of nations is intertwined with history, and so far attempts to establish historical laws (as in the case of the German historians Knies, Hildebrand, and Roscher) have failed. All the more so are detailed legal laws impossible here.

Here, then, is why not only is Public International Law virtually nonexistent, but we also find that, in principle, it cannot come into being. Thus, even in principle, we arrive at the condemnation of the League of Nations for its fatal flaw: since it cannot be based on a system of legal rules that would guarantee its powers will be exercised objectively and impartially, it is inevitable that it will exercise these powers subjectively and arbitrarily, becoming a mere tool of political conspiracy, all the more dangerous the more powerful it is.

But the possibility of eliminating international arbitrariness through the creation of the League of Nations is ruled out not only in principle—but also in practice.

We will now demonstrate, with a few examples, that, as was inevitable and unavoidable, the League of Nations is in fact the only thing it could have been: an arbitrary political institution. We will cite four examples:

1) Let us first examine how the League of Nations was actually organized, to see to what extent its very structure and organization are steeped in political arbitrariness. The League has two principal bodies: the Council and the General Assembly. One might initially think that these are two bodies, one executive—the Council—and the other a deliberative legislative body, the true holder of power—the General Assembly; that is, two bodies analogous to the government and parliament of a state. For that is how it should, in fact, be: the Council should be completely limited and subordinate to the Assembly, since it is composed only of a portion of the States of the League of Nations, while the General Assembly encompasses them all. Well, the situation is exactly the opposite: the Council is the all-powerful factor in the League of Nations, while the General Assembly plays a wholly secondary and almost purely formal role. The General Assembly has no right to oversee the Council’s activities, and the Council’s powers are subject only to its own discretion, without any oversight by the General Assembly. The powers of these two completely independent bodies fall into three categories: those that are specific and exclusive to the Council (which are the most important and numerous), then those that are specific and exclusive to the General Assembly (almost entirely insignificant), and a few minor powers shared by the Council and the General Assembly. To illustrate this omnipotence of the Council, we list these powers here:

1) Powers exclusive to the Council:

a) Regarding the admission of a new permanent or non-permanent member to the Council.

b) Regarding the change of the League of Nations’ headquarters.

c) Regarding the disarmament of States.

d) Regarding the prevention and authorization of wars.

e) Regarding sanctions to be applied in matters of arbitration.

f) Regarding the organization of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

g) Regarding the application of sanctions through economic blockade and collective armed intervention against a recalcitrant State.

h) Regarding the expulsion of a State from the League of Nations.

i) Regarding the enforcement of mandates over colonies.

j) Regarding the application of treaties for the protection of minorities and the authorization of the respective States to amend their Constitutions with respect to this protection regime.

l) Regarding certain special powers related to the past world war (e.g., the issue of the protection of the city of Danzig, the Saar territory, the Austrian “Anschluss,” etc.)

2) Powers exclusive to the General Assembly:

a) Regarding the admission of a new State.

b) Regarding the revision of peace treaties.

c) Regarding the adoption of the budget.

3) Powers shared by the Council and the Assembly

a) Revision of the Pact.

b) Conciliation.

c) The election of judges to the Permanent Court.

Thus, it is clear that the most crucial powers (such as the prevention and authorization of wars, sanctions—even military ones—against recalcitrant states, disarmament provisions, and the establishment of minority regimes, etc.) fall exclusively within the Council’s jurisdiction, with the General Assembly having no right of oversight, instruction, or any interference. And what happens? Given that this Council is composed solely of permanent members of the major powers —England, France, Italy, Japan, Germany—and a few temporary members, also elected by the permanent members for a few years, this means that all the power of the League of Nations, for the sake of which we have relinquished our national sovereignty, is in the hands of a Council of which we are not even a part. Our fate and that of the other dozens of smaller states, the right to wage war, to arm ourselves, to organize internally with regard to minorities, all of this depends on the whims of Messrs. Chamberlain, Briand, and some Japanese and Brazilian members of the Council, against whom we remain powerless, forced to submit to their arbitrary and unlawful tutelage, without even having a say in the matter.

If the organization of the League of Nations were not arbitrary and political, then at least the norms of Constitutional Law of States would have been followed, and omnipotence would have been placed in the hands of the General Assembly, the Council being a mere executive body of the Assembly-Parliament. But here both democracy and the legal spirit of the West come to an end, to make way for the most suspect and arbitrary dictatorship: that of a Council composed of 5–10 powerful states, all-powerful over the fate of the entire globe, which has destroyed its national sovereignty for the benefit of this admirable Areopagus.

2) We now turn to the second example of the arbitrariness that, in fact, characterizes the structure of the League of Nations, namely the League’s procedure—a purely political rather than legal one—regarding the admission or refusal of admission into the League of certain petitioning states. This example shows us not only that arbitrariness prevails in this League, but also that even when legal rules exist for certain situations, they are violated by the League of Nations itself, which established these rules. Namely: although the Treaty of the League of Nations stipulates that any State may be admitted to the League upon its request (thus an impersonal, objective rule of law), the League nevertheless refused to admit the States of Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine, evidently for purely political reasons, even though they met all the legal conditions necessary for admission to the League. In contrast, Ireland and the British Dominions were admitted, even though their status as independent states is far more debatable than that of the aforementioned rejected states. Thus, arbitrariness and political interest once again prevail in the League of Nations, even when it already has precise, clear, and legal rules of conduct in place. One might ask how objective and free from arbitrariness the decisions of this Council will be when it is not bound by any rule of law (e.g., regarding the authorization of a war or the classification of a war as just or unjust).

3) A third example of de facto arbitrariness is found in the very important Article 12 of the Treaty, concerning the authorization of wars and the sanctions to be imposed on a State that does not comply with the Council’s orders. This article provides that any such decision of the Council is not binding on the State to which it refers, unless the Council’s decision is taken by a unanimous vote. If the decision is taken by a simple majority, it is no longer binding; the belligerent is free to do as it pleases, without being subject to the rigors of armed or economic repression by the League. This provision, which is not justified by any legal argument, is intended merely to promote the arbitrariness of the great powers, permanent members of the Council, who will never be exposed to being constrained by the League on this enormously important matter of wars, since it is sufficient for the interested great power, a member of the Council, to hold a different opinion, for unanimity—and thus binding force—to cease to exist. And when we consider that the almost exclusive purpose of founding the League was precisely to introduce discipline, a supreme authority in matters of war, we see how, through this Article 12, the League loses all power and capacity to discipline the great powers, remaining only the dictatorial tyrant of the small states, enslaved to this League. Is there here an impartial legal concern at the root, or a simple and arbitrary maneuver by the great powers to dominate the small ones?

4) We believe that one final example will sufficiently illustrate the arbitrary power exercised by the League of Nations in this matter. Namely, the so-called “Minority Pact.” This “pact,” comprising a series of obligations incumbent upon the State that harbors ethnic minorities within its borders, should have been imposed on all States with minorities, had serene legal objectivity prevailed within the structure of the League of Nations. All those falling under this provision—States with large minorities—should have been placed under the control of this pact; that would have been just, and a sign of the objective, legal organization of this “Society.” But no! The regime for the protection of minorities, which, as we have seen, is subject to the exclusive oversight of the Council, was not imposed on all states with minorities. It was not imposed on France, which has several million Italian, Jewish, Spanish, and German minorities, not to mention those in the colonies. It was not imposed on England, which (after the establishment of this “minority pact”) so graciously protected the Irish minority; it was not imposed on Germany or Italy, all states with numerous minorities. But the dreaded “pact” was imposed on Romania, Poland, and other smaller states, and in the most outrageous form: with the obligation that the provisions of the “Minority Pact” be incorporated into the Constitution, a Constitution that can no longer be amended—as far as this minority regime is concerned—not even by the Constituent Assemblies, but only after prior authorization from the Council of the League of Nations. Neither the royal will nor the national will, through its Constituent Parliament, has the possibility of changing this minority regime, if we are to honor our signature on the League of Nations pact. This is a classic case of the complete alienation of our national sovereignty for the benefit of the Council in Geneva (which has as its secretary-general, its factotum, the Jew Sir Eric Drummond). If the League of Nations were founded on a concern to eliminate arbitrariness from international life through legal discipline, such monstrous abuses and personal favoritism would not be possible.

Thus, through these four examples, ladies and gentlemen, we believe we have sufficiently demonstrated that, in fact and in reality, the League of Nations is nothing more than an instrument of arbitrariness, just as we have previously sought to demonstrate that, in principle, it is doomed to be.

It is time to draw conclusions, pointing out, if further proof is needed, the dangers threatening our country from the flaws evident in the organization of this supranational authority.

This conclusion, we believe, has emerged of its own accord in the course of our exposition, and we need only repeat it, clarifying it: created to spare humanity the terrible consequences, recently witnessed and felt in 1914–1918, of the reign of injustice and the unchecked appetites of greedy and powerful nations—consequences that could only be avoided by destroying the arbitrariness of international life, through its legal discipline and the framing of this life within objective, impersonal, legal limits – The League of Nations, impossible to achieve even in principle, is nothing but a new instrument for promoting arbitrariness, a promotion all the more dangerous in that, in the face of its political intrigues, the States, stripped of sovereignty, stand powerless and defenseless. The autocracy of the Kaisers and Tsars has been replaced by that of a Council composed of other Kaisers and Tsars. Only the schemers have changed, but arbitrariness remains all-powerful in the life of nations.

Thus, the League of Nations appears, on the one hand, as a form of attack against nations, and in its claims to intellectual and cultural activity, it proves to be a force of attack against the Christian spirit and culture, through the dissolution of national cultures, in order to replace them with a spirit of “humanitarian” internationalism that is free-thinking and individualistic.

But we would be incomplete if we did not point out here that behind this façade lies the same dark hand, the same conspiracy against nations and Christianity, which we mentioned at the beginning of our exposition, namely: Jewish Freemasonry.

With the aim of abolishing the sovereignty of states, to replace it with a super-government that would in fact be in the hands of global Judaism, this League of Nations was initiated and created as a bridge toward that United States of Europe of Jewish capitalism, a United States so highly touted by all Freemasons. And we will prove our assertion regarding the Masonic and Jewish origins of the League of Nations with several highly valuable documents.

In Monsignor Jouin’s admirable journal, Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes, published in Paris with the specific aim of combating Freemasonry, a well-documented study (No. 47 of November 24, 1929) how the League of Nations was conceived in Masonic lodges, and how they launched the idea. We quote a few passages:

“On January 14 and 15, 1917, a conference of Freemasons from the Allied countries took place in Paris, which decided to convene a Congress of Freemasons from the Allied and neutral nations, to seek the means to establish the League of Nations, so that humanity might in the future be freed from the disasters that paralyze the progress of civilization. At this Congress, Brothers Corneau and Peigné outlined the Congress’s objectives in these terms: “Let the United States of Europe be prepared; let a supranational authority be created, whose purpose will be to resolve disputes between nations; Freemasonry will be the agent of propaganda for this concept.” Then, at the meeting on June 28, 1917 (nearly two years before the founding of the League and while the war was still ongoing), General Peigné, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of France, drafted a Statute for this “League of Nations,” a draft that closely resembles the Treaty of the League of Nations. The French Masonic journal “Convent de la Grande Loge de France,” in its 1922 issue, pp. 235–236, states, among other things: “The main purpose of the League of Nations must be to foster patriotism for the League of Nations; in short, the formation of the United States of Europe and, above all, the federalization of the entire world. Let the isolated states be disarmed and, in their place, let the Federation of Associated States be armed. These are the two phases of the same process.”

In fact, this Masonic conception of a supranational government, ruling over the entire world (and led, of course, by Jewish Freemasonry), did not appear only in 1917. It is ancient. It suffices to quote from Dr. Paulescu’s study on this matter (The Anti-Jewish-Masonic Bulletin of January 1, 1930, p. 22) the following passage from an article published as early as 1864 by the Jew Lewy Bing in “Les archives israélites”: “Is it not natural and necessary to soon see a Supreme Tribunal, charged with resolving disputes between nations, ruling in the final instance, and whose word will be binding on the whole world?”

Then, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” state as early as 1901: “We will wear down the Christians to such an extent that we will force them to grant us an International Power (…) in which we will incorporate all the States of the world, and it will form a Super-Government. In place of the current governments, we will put up a scarecrow, which will be called the League of Nations.”

So here we see even the term “League of Nations” found in these Jewish Freemason documents, from 30 to 50 years ago.

If we consider how stupid and incomprehensible it is that, even though it is well known what such a “League of Nations” might be, for states to seriously undermine their sovereignty for its sake, we must conclude that this stupid and incomprehensible blindness of the political world cannot be a mere mistake but the fruit of the occult will of Freemasonry, which created the monstrosity of the League of Nations in Geneva, into whose noose we have willingly stuck our heads.

The creation of this League of Nations—so ridiculous in principle and unworkable, despite all the talk of its noble ideals—and the establishment of this arbitrary authority that we have imposed upon ourselves, that is, the commission of such an immense and collective error by all the nations of the world, can only be the result of a conspiracy. For, while a single statesman might have been blinded at a given moment, all the statesmen of the world could not have been blinded without realizing their mistake and correcting it in time. And yet, if the League of Nations was established to the detriment of national sovereignties, it is because Freemason agents in all nations were complicit, consciously or unconsciously, in undermining the future of their homelands. Only the United States of America is an exception and refused the tutelage from Geneva (even though Wilson played such an important formal role in the founding of the League of Nations).

What is to be done? It is very simple. This “Society” must be disregarded and abolished, and national sovereignty restored to the fullness of its rights. The vast global conspiracy, of which I have spoken, will thereby receive a fatal blow, as one of its most precious weapons is destroyed.

And, in conclusion, allow me to express a conviction: I believe that the Romanian people will have the opportunity in this immense struggle to demonstrate their qualities of common sense, wisdom, and valiant resolve, taking a leading role in initiating and seeing the struggle through to the end.

The entire Christian civilization is threatened by the global Freemason-Jewish conspiracy. We stand on the threshold of this global domination (there is so much talk about the United States of Europe). Well, the aging West, which has contributed enough to civilization and is now in decline, this leading West will shift to the East! The center of saving ideas, of victorious vital forces, must or can be this Latin East of Europe. We can say that here, more than in any other country, the health of feeling and thought has been preserved in the face of the encroaching Masonic tide. And, in this country, there are springs of energy and of redemptive sacrifice, which know and believe without wavering that they will overflow tomorrow, inaugurating this great era of the Romanian nation’s ascent toward the pinnacle of global guidance and splendor. The Masonic demon will face its first brutal clash and blow on this land of Dacia, and after that, its end will not be far off.

I feel this in the pulse of Romanian youth, in the hearts of the majority of Romanians, in our warm blood that craves life and brilliance, honor and freedom. And I know it will be so, for I know the resolve, the spirit of sacrifice, and the transcendental idealism of the predestined camp, which tomorrow, marching joyfully in the thick of battle, the threshold of eternity to leave us, those of this world, will open the gates to the torrents of ancestral vitality, which stand ready to surge forth for the salvation of a doomed world.

IONEL MOȚA

(Lecture delivered at the Study Circle of the Bucharest Student Center December 15, 1929)

Martyr Ion Moța

Source: https://ortodoxinfo.ro/2019/01/13/liga-natiunilor-idealul-viciile-si-primejdia-ei-conferinta-tinuta-de-ionel-mota-1929/