Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #2

Abiding in Religious War / 2
by Tupper Saussy

1. Religious war involves subtleties and complexities beyond (or beneath) the discernment of most media-pundit political scientists, textbook historians, and respected public figures. In religious war, a great deal of unverified information is prepared, broadcast and obediently received as factual. Well-disciplined energies are spent establishing possible untruths as articles of faith. The American people, their government, and the world community seem quite comfortable with a theory of 9/11 that is rich in questionable data. For example:

* Why the uninvestigated discrepancy between the stated number of passengers on the deadly jetliners and the passenger lists themselves?

* Why the uninvestigated phenomenon of “an accused hijacker's passport” that reportedly sailed free of the plane’s pulverizing incineration (how many other passports sailed free?) so that officials might recover it two blocks away?

* Why was the miraculous passport bearer’s name withheld when so many other hijacker names, all Arab, were publicized?

* Why the uninvestigated fact that none of the publicized Arab names appear on the airlines' passenger lists?

* Why the uninvestigated possibility that the hijackers might have boarded the jets without tickets?

* Why the uninvestigated fact that British PM Tony Blair’s declaration on October 3 that “I have seen absolutely powerful and incontrovertible evidence of (bin Laden's) links to the events of September 11,” spoken with the force of a verdict of guilt on bin Laden in the court of international opinion, is supported only by a list of hearsay?

* Why the unmentioned fact, in recent announcements that a “brand new” type of unmanned reconnaissance plane, the Global Hawk, was now flying over Afghanistan, that a Boeing 737-sized Global Hawk flew unmanned from California to Australia last May?

* Why the uninvestigated possibility (first articulated by Carol Valentine) that the 9/11 jets might have been implanted with Global Hawk remote guidance systems?

* Why the uninvestigated possibility that the planes might have served as spectacular eye-catchers to divert attention away from secondary explosions in the twin towers designed to destroy evidence? According to terrorism expert Van Romero, Arab terrorists routinely support diversionary explosions with more elaborate secondary bombs.

* Why no interest in the fact that Dr. Romero, who happens to be vice-president for research at New Mexico Tech, one of the government's leading counter-terrorist contractors, (a) candidly told the Albuquerque Journal on 9/11 that the towers’ collapse could only have happened with the help of secondary demolition explosives, and (b) ten days later retracted his statement?

* Why no interest in the fact that the professional debate on the towers’ collapse seems determined to arrive at any suitable explanation short of controlled implosion? Leslie Robertson, WTC’s structural engineer, was asked by a reporter how long, once he’d learned of the crashes, he thought the buildings would stand. Mr. Robertson replied (in the November 19 issue of New Yorker magazine), “I can’t...I think there are times when logic just isn’t the right way to think.” Is that it? Must we look beyond logic – the laws of physics – to explain why the towers collapsed as they did?

* Why the uninvestigated discrepancy between (a) official claims that Osama bin Laden is the mastermind of a type of act that is perfected only when the perpetrator accepts responsibility for it, and (b) Osama bin Laden's denial of responsibility?

* Why the uninvestigated possibility that President Bush might have been speaking truthfully when he told an audience (to cut to the chase, search "Jordan" and scroll down) December 4th that he witnessed on television the morning of September 11 something untelevised to the rest of the world: the first WTC crash? Might this have been a private transmission from a government camera trained expectantly on the target?

* Why haven't commercial media plunged enthusiastically into these issues in search of truth? Who has power to keep them from doing so?

These are just some of the mysteries, but as we apply the ROE filter, most will solve themselves.

2. In religious war there are more combatants than meet the eye. The “attack on America” resulted in an increased American presence in the Arab world. The alleged perpetrators meant to achieve the opposite objective – to run American military out of the Arab world.

* Is such a colossal failure consistent with the brilliance of the attack’s execution?

* Or could bin Laden and his associates be an “Oswald” funded by a combatant so powerful that it can conceal itself from world imagination?

3. In religious war the apparent belligerents are often deceived out of knowing who it is they're really fighting, and why. Consequent to 9/11, American citizens have shackled themselves with steep tax debt by permitting their representatives to make war of indeterminate duration on a worldwide enemy called “terrorism,” whose adherents are “evildoers.”

The intangibility of the enemy permits unlimited interchange of targets, battlefields, and causes. Already information has surfaced that the Phoenix office of the FBI circulates a booklet for local law enforcement personnel that describes as “terrorists” various domestic politically-active organizations, some of them religious in character, who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Many persons associated with these organizations imagined themselves defenders of American institutions, not enemies.

Why no vigorous public discussion as to the possibility that 9/11 was engineered by an unknown beneficiary to secure drastic reduction in safeguards of the rights of citizens to assemble, petition for redress, and speak freely – a reduction Congress could not have achieved in peacetime? Why is that those interested in examining all the evidence are branded enemies of the state?

4. In religious war victory is often gained long before the first battle is joined, and the loser's mind is so boggled that identifying the winner is quite beyond him.

This is because religious war, according to the Bible, is not about flesh and blood but about principalities, powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places.

The pattern of religious war begins with unperceived victory by an unimagined winner over an unwitting loser, followed by an outworking of historico-theatrical war, consisting of organized bloodshed conducted by officials for the people's participation, observation, and commemoration. Thus, 9/11 may have inaugurated the historico-theatrical war following America's earlier, unperceived defeat by a combatant the citizenry cannot imagine. Such a bewildering state of affairs is normal in religious war.

By way of example, take the American Revolution, a religious war if there ever was one.

Some important background. Prior to and during the Revolution, the colonies of New England were split into unequal religious factions, mainly Christian. Christianity itself had been split since at least the fourth century between Biblicists and Romanists. The former held that a loving, eternal relationship with God required intelligent and prayerful reading of the sacred scriptures of Israel, including the gospel of Jesus Christ. The latter held that the same relationship required following these same scriptures, but only as interpreted by the Church of Rome, and pronounced by its Bishop, the Pope. For Romanists, reading scripture was a dangerous pastime that could put one in possibly fatal conflict with the Church.

Gutenberg technology, which made Bibles available to the masses, forced a crisis on the Church of Rome. Catholics reading the Bible for the first time joyously discovered that God spoke directly through printed words, and his message conflicted with the Pope's.

Biblicists soon came to be called Protestants because the Bible led them to protest many of the Church of Rome's most cherished traditions as offensive to the God of scripture. Bible-reading threatened the Church's authority to such an extent that extremities were resorted to. In 1540, Pope Paul II issued the bull Regimini militantis ecclesiae (“On the Supremacy of the Church Militant”). RME ordained a clandestine military priesthood to resume the Crusades that were discontinued in the 13th century. The new order inherited the rich legacy of the Knights Templars (with their elaborate secret network called Freemasonry) to wage religious war on departed believers – to retrieve, occupy, or destroy them, and in any event to defeat Protestantism by deception, manipulation, indoctrination, entertainment, and terror.

Their corporate name was Company (or Society) of Jesus, soon shortened to “Jesuits,” and massive bylaws called “Constitutions” were drawn up by founding father Ignatius Loyola. The Jesuit Constitutions provide for a Superior General elected for life and due unquestioning obedience from his priestly soldiers. In the General’s person, Jesuits are required to see Jesus Christ.

(Pursuant to the Constitutions, Padre Pozzo’s ceiling in the magnificent Jesuit Church of the Gesù in Rome glorifies Ignatius Loyola, the first Jesuit General, in whose central radiance Jesus is still burdened by the cross.)

Working under the maxim taught by their own moralists “If the end is good, the means are legal,” the Jesuits established colleges, universities and masonic lodges that linked budding political and mercantile princes – Catholic and Protestant alike – in learning more from the Aristotelian humanities than the Bible.

By 1622, the Jesuits were openly celebrating their infiltration, occupation, and defeat of Protestantism. Within two centuries of their founding, all western civilization was developing according to Jesuit educational techniques. Three of the Company’s grander successes were modern monetized indebtedness, the modern masonic lodge, and the Age of Enlightenment.

Enough background. Now to the Revolution.

In 1758, Protestant biblicism was the state religion.of both Great Britain and the colonies. Roman Catholicism claimed no more than 1% of the American colonists.

“Catholics in New England,” said John Adams, “are rarer than earthquakes.”

Because Catholicism smacked of treason, with its implicit obedience to the Papal Mitre over the British Crown, most of colonial America denied Catholics the right to vote, to hold public office, to own property, or even to worship in their customary forms. Came the Revolution, it never entered the Protestant majority’s mind to allow their despised co-inhabitants to function politically.

Between 1758 and 1775 the colonists suffered England’s “long train of abuses and usurpations.” Few realized that the many apparently spontaneous acts of tyranny (and decisive reactions thereto) were in fact pages of a rough script written in the mind of Jesuit Superior General Laurence Richey and executed through the Jesuits’ secret masonic bridge into the Protestant ruling classes on both sides of the Atlantic.

Richey’s script called for no less than motivating rebellious colonial energies to divide from England (its Bible, King, Parliament, and Church) and form a new, independent national government which could be legitimately occupied and eventually controlled by Roman Catholic lay-persons.

To distance his army from suspicion of complicity, General Richey made his Jesuits virtually invisible. He did this by arranging for European monarchs under his obedience to persecute and tyrannize his own men during the very years the colonists were suffering their tyranny. It was sublime oriental warfare, memorialized by General Richey's publication in 1772 of Sun-Tzu's Art of War (the first translation of this masterpiece from the original Manchurian into a western language). “When you are strong,”said Sun-Tzu, “make it appear that you are weak.” In 1773 the Pope condemned the Jesuits to perfect weakness, and placed them under perfect cover, by dissolving the Company “for all eternity.” (Since the Pope’s word was to be trusted, no one dreamed that the order would be resurrected in 1814.)

Laurence Richey’s war of Catholic liberation was won when the Continental Congress adopted its Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms in August 1775. English-speaking Protestantism was thus irreparably divided.

The real war was over before it began. All the rest—the battles, the legends, the heroes and the villains, the endless philosophical speculations, the enraging and the moving human interest stories of tragedy and hope and separation and reunion—this was the historico-theatrical production made possible by the fundamental circumstance for the people's participation, observation, empathy, celebration, and commemoration.

Flesh-and-blood combatants, colonists against tyrants, masked the true combatants, non-existent Jesuits against unsuspecting Protestants.

Church Militant’s momentous victory over America was proved with the ratification of Article VI of the Constitution in 1789 – "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The remarkable irony (religious war is invariably ironic) is that Roman Catholicism's most ardent enemies had dedicated their lives, fortunes, and sacred honour to surrendering their political scepter to. . . the Papacy.

Evidence of the success? Georgetown University, the incubator of American governmental policy, domestic and foreign, was founded by one of those non-existent Jesuit priests, John Carroll, who also was made America’s first Roman Catholic Bishop. Georgetown is still owned and operated by the Jesuits.

Consult any comprehensive Congressional directory and you’ll find that the Congressional committees and subcommittees regulating nearly all aspects of American life are chaired by Roman Catholic lay-persons.

Reflect on the United States seals, mottoes, customs, imagery, architecture, and archaeology and you’ll find an intense dedication to eternal Rome. Archaeology?

Example: the land on which the U.S. Capitol is situated was Jesuit real estate that had been known for a hundred years prior to the Revolution as “Rome.” And who chose the property to become the Capitol site? Its owner, Bishop Carroll’s Jesuit-trained brother Daniel, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who also happened to be the Commissioner appointed by President Washington to find a site for the new federal city. (These facts were openly boasted by the Church until the mid-20th century, when they were stricken from the Catholic Encyclopedia and removed from acceptable conversation.)

More evidence? Witness how Jesuit warfare has silenced American Protestantism. Scholarly biblicists describe the way Protestantism has morphed into a lifestyle demonstrably more Babylonian than Christian with the term “post-Christian America.”

5. Religious war is funded not by money but by the love of money. Money in law and Bible is quite different from the money we use. Legal and biblical money (as shall be documented presently) is gold and silver. Beginning in 1913, the Church Militant persuaded Americans to exchange their gold and silver for notes of indebtedness, which were then made to circulate as money. (This is done through “legal tender” laws that permit debts to be settled in something other than gold and silver coin.)

Debt money worked because it was infinitely easier than precious metals to produce, and therefore could be created by the truckload. It played on human narcissism and shot-logic. “Everybody loves money,” as the Danny DeVito character in David Mamet's Heist reasoned. “That’s why they call it money.”

To underwrite war....

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #3 (of 5)