Critics often question my use of terms like “Anglo-Judeo-Evangelical” and “Euro-Satanists,” seeing them as provocative.

My purpose is descriptive: these terms refer to power structures, guided by critical geopolitics and sociopolitical analysis. Scholars such as Gearóid Ó Tuathail demonstrate that language shapes geopolitical reality. John Agnew’s concept of the “geopolitics of place” highlights how identities and alliances arise from specific contexts. My terminology aims to define the alliances, ideologies, and institutions shaping current Western dynamics.

For example, “Anglo-Judeo-Evangelical” indicates a specific convergence of Anglo-American, pro-Zionist, and Evangelical Christian influences. This convergence is evident within the transatlantic leadership. It is apparent in policy decisions and public rhetoric.

Likewise, “Euro-Satanists” acts as a polemical shorthand. It denotes European leaders whose policies, in my analysis, reflect the abandonment of autonomous European agency. These policies align with external, often American-led, imperatives.

Belgian MEP Marc Botenga’s address on March 11, 2026, illustrates how these labels reflect current geopolitical dynamics.

1. The Core: The Anglo-Judeo-Evangelical Axis

The “Universalist” (Globalists) core is a concept I frequently mention. It refers to the power center currently driving the war in the Global East. Botenga explicitly identifies this axis as the Trump-Netanyahu alliance.

• The Action: This core utilises US Tomahawk missiles to strike civilian infrastructure, such as the elementary school in Iran, where a 7-year-old girl and 167 others were killed. This specific incident was widely reported in international outlets, including the Associated Press (AP, March 2026) and Amnesty International’s regional conflict reports, which documented the attack and provided verified casualty counts. These sources enable critical readers to assess the veracity and context of such claims, strengthening the analytic basis of my argument.
• Their intent is dominance, justifying attacks in the name of a “Rules-Based Order.” I use “Euro-Satanists” as shorthand. It refers to parts of the European political class. In my argument, they have subordinated civilizational independence to outside forces. My critique targets institutional choices and political patterns, not inherent traits. By clarifying this, I focus on leadership groups’ actions and alliances, not people’s nature or worth.
• I recognise such terms can be misread as dehumanising. My purpose is not to insult but to provoke discussion about leadership decisions. I focus criticism on policy and conduct—never on people’s identity, religion, or humanity. Engage with the analysis, not just the labels.

2. The “Euro-Satanist”

The “Euro-Satanist” label refers to European politicians. I argue they are surrendering sovereignty to serve these dominant interests. Botenga’s speech illustrates this point.

Betrayal: European leaders claim to “stand with the people” while simultaneously offering European bases to US killing machines.

• They allow Western bombs to erase historic sites like Golestan and Chehel Sotoun. This action undermines the very history I study in Fruška Gora.
• Fruit of the System: As Botenga notes, the efforts in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Iraq have spanned decades. These efforts aimed at “bringing democracy.” However, the results have been chaotic. Instead of peace, only chaos, death, and destruction have been delivered.

3. The “Unbearable Silence”

In the Ethiopian prophecies, the “Final Age” is marked by the “Great Silence”—a moment when the human heart grows cold. Botenga captures this perfectly when he speaks of the “unbearable silence of children who will never come home”. A system that prioritises “comfort and killing machines” over the lives of children has moved beyond politics. It has entered the realm of the anti-human. Such a system abandons the preservation of history.

My terms highlight the impact of divisions like the 1054 Schism, which split the Christian world into East and West. These old divides now shape modern policies and conflicts, as seen in today’s alliances and actions.