Saturday, September 22, 2007

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski: Father of Germany's CDU political party

From Boris:

"I can only highlight that the Kreisauer Circle was very oecumenic, Count von Moltke explicitly names the oecumenic component and that the Jesuit General Ledochowsky in a conspirative fashion was called "our General" by the members of the Kreisauer Circle."
From The Un-Hived Mind:

Dear friends,

The plot thickens even more - Is Ledochowskis work still having influence on German politics today?

As I don't have much time right now please excuse that this is just my unfinished theory.

For that reason I'd like the input of all of you to establish if this is worth further persuing.

I might be running in the wrong direction - but if it holds true we are unwillingly on our way crushing Germanys most highlighted resistance movement during WWII.

How did I get this lead? Ok - now this gets odd!

It is about the CDU (Christlich Demokratische Union/Christian Democratic Union) - one of Germany's most influential political parties to this day.

In the official CDU forum someone posted about the inception of the CDU party and it's Jesuit connection.

They are telling us that Ledochowski when he died in 1942 already had a "network" for a new political direction in place. This was headed by his Provincial Augustin Rösch SJ with the help of Count J. von Moltke, the Kreisauer Circle and Pius XII.

In the last weeks of the war out of this emerged structures later to be the CDU.

"I can only highlight that the Kreisauer Circle was very oecumenic, Count von Moltke explicitly names the oecumenic component and that the Jesuit General Ledochowsky in a conspirative fashion was called "our General" by the members of the Kreisauer Circle."


I would have granted them the right to be an opposition with having only been infiltrated at the top by Rösch and maybe 1-2 more people.

But by saying "our General", having a Provincial in the midst and most of them being catholic or even SMOM/SJ they have to know of the influence the church has had in that game. By not telling they are the WWII version of Alex Jones - firing peoples emotions and resistance up while still holding back on truth.

Now who were all those praised fighters of nazi doctrine and how do they fit in our picture of Jesuit/Catholics steering WWII?

Kreisau Circle

"But the circle's main focus was to plan and propose a peacetime government for Germany; they do not ever appear to have made any plans to overthrow the Nazi state."

"[T]hey wrote a plan for a constitution that included subjects like economy, foreign policy, justice, religious, culture, education and even the trails against the nazi war criminals."

Wasn't this Pope Pius XI encyclical?

"He issued the encyclical Quas Primas establishing the feast of Christ the King, and took as his papal motto "Christ's peace in Christ's kingdom." This indicates the central idea of his pontificate: that the Catholic religion must permeate all areas of human living: the home, the city, politics, economics, art etc. Rather than allowing religious belief to be reduced to a merely private matter, or withdrawing the Church from involvement in the outer world, Pius XI thought Catholics must work to create a truly Catholic society: Christ must be King over every aspect of life."

This is a contingency plan and would explain the Jesuit involvement/interest in all of this.

Fake resistances like today - people will think someone allready acts on it so I don't have to.

A little bit about members of the Kreisauer Circle:

Augustin Rösch, SJ

user posted image
Rösch was questioned 1017 times during the nazi reign.

Either there is something to question him for or not. And if you suspect something you don't let him go 1017 times.

I mean over which timespan? 10 years? That would still be every 3rd or 4th day!
Sounds more like a cover to get him to give the new intel - or brief him…

Do you really think if he was a real rebel the Superior General would have let him stay Provincial?

Also why do they grab Delp and hang him if they had that much intel on Rösch?
Following the Jesuit oath Delp was the one of their own who was dispensable.

Alfred Delp

user posted image

Eric Jon Phelps on page 620 in Vatican Assassins III quotes Hoensbroech and shortly the Jesuit Alfred Delp is mentioned - I had a closer look at him and think Delp was just a patsy to justify what they already had in store - because Delp, like Augustin Bea (who also was admired for what he did to this day) was directly commissioned by Ledochowskis Provincial Augustin Rösch SJ!
This was not only to have a "fake" resistance but it actually seams the Nobility and the Provincial worked hand in hand to create the successor political party for the Superior General.

Helmut James Count von Moltke

user posted image

Look at who runs in his family:

Peter Yorck von Wartenburg

user posted image

Wartenburg was born and lived in a castle that was in Templar/Order of Malta hand


user posted image

"a devout Catholic who had received the Magistral Grand Cross personally from SMOM Grand Master Prince Chigi"
Germans first chancellor Konrad Adenauer (SMOM) in 1906 had joined von Papens (SMOM) and Leibers (SJ) Center Party.

His political opponent of the SPD, Carlo Schmid later said: "[He] was the first man of the state to be created, while it still wasn't in existence."

[Udo Kempf, Hans-Georg Merz: Kanzler und Minister 1949–1998. Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden 2001, S. 82]

Hoensbroech, Fourteen Years a Jesuit., Volume II, page 165, second paragraph:

"Ever since the establishment of the Centre Party in Germany it has always been closely connected with the Jesuit Order. Theologians of the German Province were often consulted by parliamentary members of the Center. The leader of the Centre, Leiber, was a frequent guest in the German Jesuit Colleges on the Dutch frontier (Exaeten, Wynandsrade, Blyenbeck)."

All this would also imply that possibly Scientology Tom Cruse playing Stauffenberg (connected to the Kreisau Circle) is Jesuit propaganda to lead the American people into violent revolution against Bush to further their plan the same way! As seen today at least in the media the pope denies a meeting to Rice. (

Remember: The von Stauffenberg family is one of the oldest and most distinguished aristocratic Roman Catholic families of southern Germany and had a strong Bamberg connection. Look up Erics VAIII to see the importance of the city of Bamberg.

So after the end of the deliberate war not just the people who were in (or got to) power in Germany were roman catholics (SMOM or SJ) they also as we allready know created the new industrial infrastructure, central banking, secret services and now we see they are responsible for the "new" political party system.

Now remember that our Bush and Brown friendly German chancellor Angela Merkel is of the CDU party.

While having a look at this one can come to the conclusion that Germany, as it is since 1945, is an artificial creation for Vatican deeds.

Looking forward to your feedback.

About Germany's CDU - Christian Democratic Union, from Wikipedia:


The party's roots go back to the Centre Party, founded in 1870 to promote the interests of German Catholics. The party played an important role and participated in most national governments from the last years of the German Empire and during the Weimar Republic, but was dissolved in 1933.

CDU was founded after the war with many members of the former Centre Party, but with the goal to include not only Catholics, but also Protestants, in a common confessional and conservative party. Its first leader and West Germany’s first chancellor was Konrad Adenauer. The CDU was the dominant party with Konrad Adenauer as its leader from 1949 to 1963. Then in 1963, Ludwig Erhard of the CDU succeeded Adenauer, preceding a recession in 1966. This caused the CDU to wane in power and consequently form a coalition with the SPD. Kurt Georg Kiesinger (CDU) then took power as chancellor of West Germany.

And about its predecessor, the Centre Party, from Wikipedia:
The German Centre Party (Deutsche Zentrumspartei or merely Zentrum), often called the Catholic Centre Party, was a Catholic political party in Germany during the Kaiserreich and the Weimar Republic. The party dissolved itself on July 6, 1933, shortly before the conclusion of a Concordat between the Holy See and Germany. After World War II, the party was refounded, but could not rise again to its former importance, as most of its members joined the new Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

The Soest programme and the founding of the "Centre Party"

Growing anti-Catholic sentiment and policies, including plans for dissolving all monasteries in Prussia, made it clear that 'group' reorganization was urgently needed in order to protect Catholic minority rights, enshrined in the 1850 constitution, and to bring them over to the emerging nation state.

In June 1870 Peter Reichersberger called on Catholics to unite and, in October, priests, representatives of Catholic federations and Catholic gentry met at Soest and drew up an election programme. The main points were:

  • Preservation of the Church's autonomy and rights, as accepted by the constitution. Defense against any attack on the independence of Church bodies, on the development of religious life and on the practice of Christian charity.
  • Effectual implementation of parity for recognized denominations.
  • Rejection of any attempt to de-christianize marriage.
  • Preservation or founding of denominational schools.

There were also more general demands such as for a more federal, decentralized state, a limitation of state expenditure, a just distribution of taxes, the financial strengthening of the middle classes and the legal "removal of such evil states, that threaten the worker with moral or bodily ruin".

With such a manifesto, the number of Catholic representatives in the Prussian Diet rose considerably and in December 1870 they formed a new "Centre" faction, also called the "Constitution Party" to emphasize its adherence to constitutional liberties.

Three months later, early in 1871, the Catholic representatives to the new national parliament, the Reichstag, also formed a "Centre" faction. The party not only defended the Church's liberties, but also supported representative government and minority rights in general, in particular those of German Poles, Alsatians and Hannoverians. The Centre's main leader was the Hannoverian advocate Ludwig Windthorst and other major figures included Karl Friedrich von Savigny, Hermann von Mallinckrodt, Burghard Freiherr von Schorlemer-Alst, the brothers August and Peter Reichensperger, and Georg Count Hertling.

Also in other German states Catholic parties were formed, cooperating with the Prussian Centre Party in the Reichstag:

  • in Bavaria, the "Bavarian Patriotic Party", with a particularistic-conservative bent, since 1887 called the "Bavarian Centre".
  • in Baden, the "Catholic People's Party", since 1881 formally linked to the national "Centre Party" and since 1888 adopting the name "Centre Party".


In the age of nationalism, Protestant Germans, whether Conservative (like Otto von Bismarck) or Liberal, accused the Centre of Ultramontanism or having a greater loyality towards the Pope than to their own nation. After the First Vatican Council, Bismarck launched the Kulturkampf, or "cultural struggle" against the Catholic Church, but this neither crippled the Church permanently nor did it hurt the Centre party, which gained greater support from the Catholic population. Following Bismarck's 1878 turn from free trade to protectionism and from the National Liberal party to the Conservative parties, he also abandoned the unsuccessful Kulturkampf. Some laws however, for example Civil marriage, the Pulpit paragraph, and the anti-Jesuit laws remained in force.

The Centre party remained a party of opposition to Bismarck, but after his resignation in 1890, it frequently supported the following administrations' policies in the Reichstag, particularly in the field of social security.

The party became known for its pragmatism - the party was willing to support a wide variety of policies so long as the interests of German Catholics and of the Catholic Church itself were advanced. The party was also notable for the mixture of class interests it represented, ranging from Catholic trade unions to aristocrats.

"Out of the tower!"

The Kulturkampf had reinforced the Catholic character of the Centre Party, but even during it Ludwig Windthorst had defended the party against Bismarck's accusation of being a "denominational party" in describing the Centre as "a political party with a comprehensive political programme and open to anyone, who accepts it." However, only a few Protestants took up this offer and the Centre remained -by the composition of its members, politicians and voters, a Catholic party.

Loyal to the Pope in church matters, the Centre party steered a course independent of the Holy See on secular matters. This became apparent in the "septennat dispute" of 1886. Since the Centre Party rejected Bismarck's military budget, the Chancellor negotiated with the Holy See and promised to abolish some Kulturkampf laws and to support the Pope in the Roman question, if the Vatican persuaded the Centre Party to accept his bill. Despite this agreement, the Centre Party rejected the Budget and Bismarck called new elections. He also published the letters with the Vatican, intending to drive a wedge between Catholic voters loyal to the Pope and the Centre Party with the slogan: "The Pope against the Centre!" Windhorst managed to avert this by reaffirming the Party's autonomy, which the Pope had accepted, and by interpreting the published letters as expression of papal confidence in the party.

As was said on TV in decades past, stay tuned to this channel.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Vatican Bank Claims: Vatican Turns Blind Eye While Their Minions Gouged Out Eyes

Vatican Turns Blind Eye While Aiding And Abetting in 1940's Croatian Genocide

"These innocent Serbs have been impaled, fire has been lit on their bare chests, they have been roasted alive, burned in their homes and churches while still living, covered with boiling water and then their skin peeled off..."
By Greg Szymanski, JD
Sept. 19, 2007

In a federal court case filed in San Francisco, the Vatican has admitted
to taking part and helping to organize The 1940's genocide in Croatia,
killing more than 800,000 innocents including woman and children.

In Alperin v. Vatican Bank, the pope's attorney admitted to the Vatican's
involvement in the genocide but said it was justified under international

This motion was made in Nov. 2006 but the judge in the case still has not
made his ruling.

Besides admitting to its involvement in the Croatian massacre, the Vatican has never condemned the actions of the political leaders involved in the genocide. Further, testimony has shown that Dominican priests, including high-level bishops, were directly involved in the physical torture and killing.

Although the Croatian genocide has never been fully reported to the
American people, the extent of the violence in which the Vatican has
admitted complicity is graphically shown through a letter written by
Croatian politician, Prvolsav Grizogono, on February 8, 1942 to
Archbishop Dr. Alojzije Stepinac. As it turned out, Stepinac actually
aided the perpetrators of the genocide.

Here is a portion of the letter and Americans beware this could happen to you if you do not question stop the Vatican and Jesuit Order's assault on U.S. freedoms:

"I am writing to you as a man to a man, as a Christian to a Christian. I
have been meaning to do this for months hoping that the dreadful news
from Croatia would cease so that I could collect my thoughts and write to
you in peace.

"For the last ten months Serbs have been killed and destroyed in Croatia
in the most ruthless manner and milliards of their property is being
destroyed. The blushes of shame and anger cover the faces of every honest Croat.

"The slaughter of Serbs began from the very first day of the establishment of the Independent State of Croatia (Gospic, Gudovac, Bosanska Krajina, etc) and has continued relentlessly to this very day. The horror is not only in the killing. The killing includes everybody, old men, women, and children. With accompanying barbarian torture.

"These innocent Serbs have been impaled, fire has been lit on their bare
chests, they have been roasted alive, burned in their homes and churches while still living, covered with boiling water and then their skin peeled off and salt poured into their wounds, their eyes have been pulled out, their ears, noses and tongues cut off, the priests have had their beards and moustaches raised together with their skulls, their sex organs severed and put into their mouth, they have been tied to trucks and then dragged along the ground, nails have been pressed into their heads, their heads nailed to the floor, they have been thrown alive into wells and abysses and bombs thrown to them, iron nails have broken their heads, children thrown into flames, into boiling water, into lime klilns, their legs thorn from them, their heads smashed against walls, broken backs against rocks and tree stumps and many other horrible torture was perpetrated, such as normal people can hardly imagine.

"The rivers Sava, Drava, the Danube and their tributaries have carried
thousands and thousands of their corpses. Dead bodies have been found with the inscription: 'direction Belgrade - traveling to king Peter'. In a boat which was found on the Sava river there was a heap of children's heads with the head of a woman (who could have been a head of one of the mothers of the children) with the inscription: 'Meat for the Jovanova Market in Belgrade'.

"Horrifying is the case of Mileva Bozinic from Stabandza whose child was removed from her womb. There was also the case of the roasted heads in Bosnia, the vessels full of Serbian blood, the cases of Serbs being forced to drink the warm blood of their slaughter kin.

"Countless women, girls and children, mothers in front of their children
and children in front of their mothers were raped or else sent off to
Ustashi camps to serve the Ustashi, rapes even took place on the altars
of Orthodox churches. In the Petrinja county a son was forced to rape his own mother.

"The slaughter of the Serbs in the Glina Orthodox church and the murder of Serbs on the altar of the Kladusa church is without precedent in history.

"There are detailed and original accounts of all these horrors. Even the
Germans and the Italians were astounded by these crimes. They photographed a huge number of cases of such slaughter.

"The Germans are saying that the Croatians did this also during the
30-years War and that is why there has been a saying in Germany since then: God save us from the plague, hunger and the Croats.

"The Germans despise us because of this and behave in a more human
fashion with the Serbs.

"The Italians photographed a vessel with 3.5 kilograms of Serbian eyes as well as a Croat who wore a necklace strung with Serbian eyes and another one who came to Dubrovnik with a belt on which cut Serbian tongues were hanging."
Vatican Bank Claim News

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #1

Useful Knowledge About the Attack On America

by F. Tupper Saussy

Rulers of Evil was published by Harper Collins just weeks before September 11, 2001.

None of the big papers reviewed it. I'm told this is because I look at history a little too eccentrically.

Well, okay. The standard approach is to regard history as so many persons in control of themselves doing what they think is the right thing.

My approach is to look at history as so many persons under religious oath doing, whether right or wrong, what their superiors are divinely authorized to command them to do.

The different approaches yield different pictures. Many readers believe that mine, call it “the ROE filter,” yields the true one.

The ROE filter screens out emotionalism and bigotry. It grinds no axes. Nor does it judge or condemn. It builds peace, security, and confidence on a foundation of complicated forces understood.

The ROE filter reveals what individuals are authorized to do. If a woman is authorized by a legitimate power in pursuit of justice to conspire or assassinate or steal or deceive, the ROE filter presumes she does her job well. If a man has taken an oath to suspend his own values in order to obey those of a legitimate superior in pursuit of justice, the ROE filter credits him with fidelity.

Writing about September 11, Andrew Sullivan declared in the New York Times “This Is A Religious War.” Bravo, Andrew!

And how’s this for religious war as policy? “NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim Friday, September 14, 2001, as a National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001. I ask that the people of the United States and places of worship mark this National Day of Prayer and Remembrance with noontime memorial services, the ringing of bells at that hour, and evening candlelight remembrance vigils.”

The President has repeatedly termed government’s response to 9/11 “a Crusade.”

The ROE filter credits the President with correctly understanding that the term “Crusade” defines religious war undertaken by the Roman Papacy in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims. Bravo, Mr. President!

Every oathbound official deserves the presumption that he means what he says. The President deserves no less. Therefore, how can I but conclude that the American people are funding a Roman Catholic military venture?

If this strikes you as odd, then perhaps you can make use of the following pages.

They may help you abide the next few years of crusade...

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #2 (of 5)

Wlodimir Ledochowski's Goals Via Goals
Wlodimir Ledochowski's Goal Predicted by Maximilian Kolbe in 1938?
Wlodimir Ledochowski's Plausible Counter Reformation Strategy
Wlodimir Ledochowski's Mission, Motivation, Geopolitical Chessboard

Wlodimir Ledochowski's Spooky Obscurity

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)

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #3

Abiding in Religious War / 3
by Tupper Saussy

To underwrite war was as easy as designing a menace that existing resources could not overcome, which necessitated borrowing. Borrowing created indebtedness, but the indebtedness was dignified with circulation as currency, so who complained over a greater abundance of currency? Abundance of currency might results in stratospheric prices, but not if enough could be “sunk,” that is, retired from circulation through the instrument of income taxation. Income tax laws also influenced spending habits in ways most beneficial to the money creators.

The money deception should not have buffaloed the biblicists, but it did. The Bible quite unsophisticatedly calls debt money that masquerades as gold and silver “a false balance” (Proverbs 11:1). Dollars of indebtedness marketed as Dollars of money are clearly “divers weights, and divers measures”condemned in Proverbs 20:10, which goes on to say “both of them are alike abomination to the Lord.” Too, every time we endorse a check, every time we accept Federal Reserve cash, we make ourselves surety for the amout of debt represented. We guarantee the debt will be paid. Although it feels great receiving debt money, it's a form of addiction that—like smoking or recreational drugs—can lead to terrible consequences. The Bible strenuously warns against it: “He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.” (Proverbs 11:15)

The phenomenon by which Congress placed America, and by domino effect the world, on the abomination of a divers-weight-divers-measures monetary system happened in three steps over some 55 years.

* Step 1. In 1913, Congress established the Federal Reserve system and authorized it to create an expanding currency, along with a bureau of internal revenue to regulate its volume. The currency was redeemable in gold and silver, pursuant to the Bible (“The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.”– Haggai 2:8), and Article I Section 10 of the Constitution (“No State shall make any Thing but Gold and Silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts”).

* Step 2. In 1933, with Article I Section 10 still in effect, a presidential executive order from Franklin D. Roosevelt prohibited redemption of Federal Reserve currency in promised gold. This meant there was now a note called Dollar and a weight of gold called Dollar, and the two were not freely exchangeable both ways.

* Step 3. Finally, with Article I Section10 still in effect, Congress passed the Coinage Act of 1965, which enforced acceptance of Dollar paper, Dollar monetized Federal Reserve debt, and cheap copper Dollar tokens as payment of debts contracted in Dollar silver. During 1967, promises of redemption in Dollar silver engraved on Dollar currency ceased to be honored in banks or the United States Treasury, and new currency was printed with no Dollar promises at all.

It had taken 55 years, but the American people had made themselves surety for their government's unchecked indebtedness to the Federal Reserve. This meant that the tithes paid to and received by all Christian churches, not to mention Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques, were making those institutions surety for governmental borrowing. Worse, the tithes consisted of a substance declared an abomination by Yahweh and Allah alike, since Islamic Law does not permit the use of a promise of payment as a medium of exchange.

Under the holy monetary system, since gold and silver can only be earned into irculation, money is a reward for labor. Under the “abomination standard,” money is created and regulated by licensed dignitaries to reward, first, their chosen projects and afterward the labor of all who buy and sell using the abomination.

Divers weights and measures is the system that sustains an autocracy which creates the money to pay for its invisibility while it regulates the value of all property, liberty, and life by expanding and contracting the money supply—which happens when the Federal Reserve Chairman lowers or raises the interest rates on indebtedness.

This cannot easily be done with constitutional and biblical gold and silver. It is doable only with the people's love of a false balance and their disregard for the biblical admonitions on suretiship. Debt money is the ideal medium for an evil-tending society, funding war as well as anti-war, drug addiction as well as rehabilitation, and criminal activity as well as its prosecution. The scriptures do not lie when they say “Love of money is the root of all evil.”

While American money was disintegrating and the unperceived autocracy increasing its hold, devout Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims might have united in a firm stand on Proverbs 11:15 —"He that hateth suretiship is sure," and Deuteronomy 25:15 — "Thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." They might have made provisions to coin God's own property themselves, gold and silver, as money for use among members and acceptable as tithes. There is no law prohibiting this, the people of God have a right to do this, and it might even have pressured Congress into restoring constitutional money.

In fact, the only religious minister I know of who dared talk about the nature of debt-based money was a Roman Catholic priest named Charles Coughlin. Reaching millions during the 1930s via costly NBC and CBS radio broadcasts supported by enthusiastic grassroots contributors, Father Coughlin rudely exposed the Roosevelt administration’s subtle war on constitutional monetary value.

The Vatican supported Roosevelt. Coughlin’s popularity was a concern. His monetary preaching had become an obstacle to the president’s 1940 re-election campaign. In 1939, Jesuit Superior General Vladimir Ledochowsk sent Vatican Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli to New York with secret orders for Father Coughlin. His Eminence, soon to become Pius XII (ordained “Hitler’s Pope” by Catholic historian John Cornwell), told Coughlin personally to shut up lest Roosevelt lose the election. Coughlin obeyed, closed his show, and spent the remaining 39 years of his life off the airwaves.

American Jesuits, who are famous for their secular politico-economic activism, have never lifted a finger to urge the states to obey Article I Section 10 of the Constitution and make no thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.

(Imagine the stabilizing political and economic impact of a papal encyclical authorizing American bishops to provide a biblical coinage to (a) purify the tithes of 50,000,000 Catholics and (b) preserve the value of their trades!)

Most people, even the captains of the money business, really don't know the first thing about American money. When you have the time, set aside a few days to study A Caveat Against Injustice, the classic treatise by the framer of Article 1 Section 10, Roger Sherman.

Iinfluential Protestant evangelicals (not to mention their counterparts among the Jews and Muslims) have ignored the money as well. Clearly, the Church of Rome and its captive faiths have no desire to encourage Americans to know the biblical mandate for a perfect and just monetary system. One of religious war's chief objectives is to keep populations heavily indebted. Religious war cannot survive without it.

I don’t use the term “captive faiths” unadvisedly. According to Church doctrine, and this is essential to understanding religious war, all faiths are subject to the Roman Pontiff.

6. The ultimate authority in religious war is the Roman Church Militant.

The Church Militant still enforces the declaration made in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII that "To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation." If you disagree with this proposition, you are subject to conversion or annihilation— unless your disagreement is expressed in a form useful to the Church, such as influencing others to disagree with the proposition, or downplaying the Bible. If you agree, you are required to live in obedience to the law of the Church. These would seem to be the only available choices.

But there is a third, one that agrees with the proposition yet excludes you from obedience to Church law. The third choice hinges on an objective determination of who is in need of salvation.

One cannot need salvation unless one is lost or endangered. Therefore, human creatures for whom salvation is necessary are those who are lost, or otherwise at peril. The Bible and the Roman Pontiff agree that all mankind is lost, in that we all fall short of the perfection required by God's justice to avoid the horrible consequences of sin, first brought to flesh by Adam's disobedience.

The Bible and the Roman Pontiff also agree that any who desire to be spared these consequences have only to immerse themselves in the safeguard, the salvific process, established by God before the foundation of the world. The process involves admitting one's sinful nature and seeking and receiving forgiveness and perennial guidance from the spirit of Jesus Christ. Until saved, according to the Bible and the Roman Pontiff, human creatures are lost from God, in great peril, terribly endangered.

All ways of life but the Christian deny the necessity of salvation. Ironically, their mere denial places them in the sphere of the Roman Pontiff. In the eyes of both Bible and Roman Pontiff, denying the necessity of salvation constitutes an admission of the need to be saved, which the Roman Pontiff correctly sees as a grant of jurisdiction by operation of law.

Thus, the adherents of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Freemasonry, Gnosticism, Deism, LDS, Astrology, Agnosticism, Pantheism, Atheism and all other spiritual disciplines, by their denial that Christ saves or that salvation is necessary, make themselves subject to – and can be legislated, judged, and executed upon by – the Roman Catholic Church. That this condition is widely unperceived is owed, in my opinion, to the extraordinary military skills of the Jesuits.

Once a person is saved, of course, it would seem salvation is no longer needed, and that the Roman jurisdiction would atrophy. A truly saved person is no longer lost, imperiled, endangered. His body is now the habitation of Christ's holy, self-ruling spirit with its fruit of “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance – against which there is no law” (Galatians 5:22).

This is so with many saved people, but not within the Church Militant.

The Roman Pontiff sustains general jurisdiction over Catholics by asserting that the salvific process can only be completed by pious works that must be performed throughout one's lifetime and beyond. This, despite the Bible's affirmation that salvation is completed only by Christ himself, and that pious works are merely evidence that one has been saved. With its doctrine of relative or incomplete salvation, the Church Militant keeps its congregations absolutely in need of salvation.

The Roman Pontiff and his administrative hierarchy openly display the seals, titles, and ceremonial sacraments authorizing them to rule every unsaved human creature. These are not paraphernalia of ancient Christianity but of ancient Babylon. (For example, the papal distinction Pontifex maximus – “sovereign bridge-builder”– is a Babylonian term bequeathed to the Roman caesars and never contemporaneously applied to any disciple or apostle of Jesus.) In fact, abundant evidence suggests that this Babylonian link originates in the mark God placed upon Cain. This mark gave Cain, and apparently his spiritual descendants, immunity from, and sevenfold vengeance against, assailants — an obviously practical reason for Jesus to command his followers to love their enemies.

In concert with their delegates in the secular political sphere, the hierarchy of Church Militant do indeed function in “the way of Cain” for the preservation of order and justice in an evil world. The attack on America appears to have been a disciplinary action meant to recruit the dedication of more human creatures, more human resources, in this task

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #4 (of 5)

Tupper Saussy: Abiding Religious War #4

Abiding in Religious War / 4
by Tupper Saussy

7. The aim of religious war is always "new world order."

In about 37 B.C., the Roman poet-propagandist Virgil published lines containing a rophecy from the “Sibyl,” a mystical personage who told the fortunes of Rome.

According to ancient tradition, this Sibyl (there were several stationed around the classical world) was a thousand years old.

In Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, the Cumaean Sibyl divines that magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo, “a mighty order of ages is born anew.” At the birth of this new order, “Justice returns, returns old Saturn’s reign, with a new breed of men sent down from heaven.” And a virgin gives birth to a new Apollo who will do away with human wickedness. This messia

Shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.

He shall receive the life of gods, and see

Heroes with gods commingling, and himself

Be seen of them, and with his father's worth

Reign o'er a world at peace.

Who was Virgil’s (or the Sibyl’s) messiah? Since the verses are addressed to the consul Asinius Pollio, many believed it was the son of Pollio, in whose consulate or presidency the mighty new order of ages would begin. But this theory proved wrong when Pollio’s son was born sickly and died in his infancy.

People then centered on a son that might be born of Mark Antony and his wife Octavia, but this possibility was excluded when Mark left Octavia for Cleopatra.

Four centuries later, the Emperor Constantine the Great presented a paper saying that Virgil had really prophesied the advent of Jesus and his new breed of men, the Christian, but had couched his prophecy in disguise to avoid offending Roman priests.

This theory still has adherents today.

The most logical Virgilian messiah, it seems to me, would be Augustus Caesar. We know Virgil’s career was subsidized by the billionaire Caius Maecenas, and that Maecenas had funded the rise of Julius Caesar. Following Julius’ bloody sacrifice by the conspirators in 44 B.C., there ensued a long religious war for command of the empire.

The rivals were Mark Antony, Lepidus, and Julius’ grand-nephew and adopted son Octavian Maria.

We know that Maecenas put his money on Octavian. We also know the Fourth Eclogue was published following the Peace of Brindisi, which reconciled Antony and Octavian and gave tremendous hope that Octavian would triumph. We know, too, that Octavian’s interests at the Brindisi negotiations were represented by none other than consul Asinius Pollio, who introduced Virgil to Maecenas. And we know that the ultimate payoff of Brindisi would be the rise of Octavian to the supreme position of Pontifex Maximus of Rome in 28 B.C., with the holy name Augustus Caesar.

We know that Octavian Caesar Augustus claimed to be the offspring of a union between a virgin the sun-god Apollo. And finally, we know that Virgil’s final masterpiece of propaganda identified Augustus as messianic. In the Aeneid (19 B.C.), set in a time prior to the founding of Rome, we see in Book 6 (lines 791-94) Anchises, father of the Trojan Aeneas, pointing out to his son the coming generations of Romans yet to be born and identifying one in particular: “This man, this is he whom you hear more and more often promised to you, Augustus Caesar, the seed of divinity, who shall establish golden ages for Latium through the fertile lands once ruled by Saturn.”

Since the publication of Virgil’s messianic prophecy coincided with the strategy of a billionaire to place his man at the head of the universal Roman Church and State, how could the prophesied messiah have been anyone but Augustus Caesar?

This is important, I think, because the Sibylline prophecy is part of the American political heritage. In 1782, Charles Thomson, the Perpetual Secretary of the Continental Congrss, borrowed from the Fourth Eclogue and gave the United States its national motto Novus Ordo Seclorum. Thomson wrote that the motto signifies “the beginning of the new American Æra, which commences from [1776].”

The American Æra was a new ordering of power in the world, a new republic that issued in a new kind of worldly order, which has been colloquialized to “new world order.”

In credible though indirect testimony cited in Rulers of Evil, Charles Thomson himself indicates that novus ordo seclorum might define the United States government as Rome’s – the Church Militant’s – leading agency for the universal reordering of temporal or worldly power.

Indeed, worldly power has been ordered anew many times since the days of Augustus Caesar. New orders are necessary because evil is evasive and creative. Ruling a planet largely populated and often disrupted by evildoers requires the cyclical extermination and rebirth of human-management systems. This is not easily done.

A 65-year-old person has experienced the reordering of the world by the United States at least three times. Each of these reorderings, as with that of Maecenas and Octavian in 28 B.C., was precipitated by elegant slaughter suggestive of human sacrifice.

With Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, World War II established the United Nations and a fundamental international currency, the US dollar. The Coinage Act of 1965, received uncritically by an electorate still disoriented from JFK's assassination, absolved banks and the national treasury of any responsibility to redeem the fundamental international currency in gold and silver coin, enabling

Congress to create (by borrowing into circulation) money to pay its debts domestically and globally. President Bush the Elder’s Persian Gulf War, punctuated by the Younger's War on Terrorism, beckoned all nations to marry America at gunpoint and together bring the whole world under an increasingly dynamic rulership of the Roman Pontiff. This most recent reordering – the subject of what I’m writing here – can conveniently be traced to the elder Bush’s first act as President, which was the uttering of a prayer.

On the day of his inaugural, January 20, 1989, George H.W. Bush was a virtual Roman Catholic due to his confirmation into a church – the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States – whose first bishop was ordained in 1784 at Aberdeen, Scotland, by three bishops who notoriously declared allegiance to the Roman Pontiff.

Most of his adult life, G.H.W. Bush had been a member, and for a while director, of the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization founded in 1947 by William J. (“Wild Bill”) Donovan for the purpose of providing “special means” to insure Vatican influence over the secular world and subsidized by American taxpayers. Donovan was a devout Roman Catholic, decorated in July 1944 by Pope Pius XII with the Grand Cross of the Order of St. Sylvester, “the Vatican’s highest award, for a lifetime of public and secret service to the [Roman] Catholic Church.”

It is said (and I can only speculate) that Mr. Bush was also a 33rd-degree Freemason, and a member as well of Propaganda Dùe (P2), the shadowy masonesque society made up of leading French, German, Italian, and American business, political, and media leaders dedicated to the Roman Church Militant. (If anyone knows of an authentic proof or denial to either association, please notify me. Proving secret memberships is a hard task, since rulers of evil engage in activities that must of necessity be concealed. I believe I do my subject no harm by relying on Christ’s teaching how to discern: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Mr. Bush bears the fruits – many good, many evil – of one secretly associated with powers that work in darkness.)

There is no doubt, however, that on inauguration day 1989, President Bush had amassed a fortune in oil, principally through his Zapata Offshore Petroleum, a company whose global network of offices fed information to and from the CIA. One of Zapata’s most prosperous clients was the tiny Muslim emirate of Kuwait.

Qualified by the above, George Bush the Elder began his presidential inaugural address, and his presidency, with a prayer in the following words:

Heavenly Father...Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: ‘Use power to help people.' For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen.

President Bush then went to the Vatican City to have an audience with Pope John Paul II. At the conclusion of the audience, His Holiness cited the President’s first official act, that inaugural prayer.

“Mr. President,” said the Pope, “you made reference to power as existing to help people, to serve people. This is true at different levels, including power at the political and economic level.

We see this, too, at the level of each community, with its power of fraternal love and concern. In all these areas, an immense challenge opens up before the United States in this third century of her nationhood. Her mission as a people engaged in good works and committed to serving others has horizons the length of your nation and far beyond – as far as humanity extends.

Today the interdependence of humanity is being reaffirmed and recognized through world events. The moral and social attitudes that must constitute a response to this interdependence is found in worldwide solidarity.

In treating this question in a recent encyclical, I have stated that solidarity is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all. Truly, the hour of international interdependence has struck. What is at stake is the common good of humanity.

Can anyone deny that on May 27, 1989 the Pope was summoning America to use its power to help people achieve a new worldwide solidarity?

In the 18th century, achieving worldwide solidarity meant stirring up internal strife to divide English-speaking Protestantism into British and American factions and creating the right of Catholics to hold office in the latter. In our present time, achieving worldwide solidarity means dividing the Muslim nations by internal strife, conquering them by an alliance of governments led by the United States, and subjecting them to the Catholic process known as “missionary adaptation.” This term is explained by the 1989 Catholic Almanac (p175) as “the adjustment of the mission subject to the cultural requirements of the mission object” so that the Pontiff’s needs will be brought “as much as possible in accord with existing socially shared patterns of thought, evaluation, and action, so as to avoid unnecessary and serious disorganization.” In simpler terms, the Pope on May 27, 1989 called on America’s secular might to lead the Middle East into a new culture structured, like Japan after Nagasaki, on the Roman Catholic invention of debt-instruments circulating and enforced internationally as money.

September 11th catapulted the world toward achieving this order. But the momentum began in Kuwait, of which the elder President Bush was a venerated patron. Do you recall how the Persian Gulf War started in Kuwait?

During 1989, Kuwait launched an unprovoked economic aggression against its much larger neighbor, Iraq. Kuwait began overproducing oil, which drove oil prices downward, a policy that would ultimately cost Iraq some $14 billion in lost revenues.

At about the same time, for no apparent reason, America's allies began imposing de facto sanctions on Iraq. Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Ramadan would tell the Muhammad Ali Peace Delegation on November 30, 1990 that “by 1990, hundreds of major scientific, engineering, and food supply contracts between Iraq and western governments were cancelled.”

Finally, on May 28-30, 1990, Iraqi premier Saddam Hussein formally complained of Kuwait’s economic warfare at a meeting of the brotherhood of Muslim nations known as the League of Arab States.

Saddam hinted at military action if the situation was not corrected.

The Emir of Kuwait, whose country is one-tenth the size of Iraq, ignored Saddam.

Students of the Gulf War are generally agreed that the Emir had received assurances from American officials that his advantages over Iraq would be protected by American armed forces.

Kuwait further aggravated Iraq. On July 15-17, Saddam Hussein accused Kuwait of using

slant drilling technology to steal oil from Iraq’s Rumaylah oil field. Waging economic war against and stealing from a brother are both counted sins in Islamic law, which held correctional procedures.

On August 2, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Photos from Soviet commercial satellites show that no more than a few thousand troops were deployed – a sufficient number to hold Kuwait City.

Next day, in accord with Islamic law, the council of ministers of the Arab League resolved to (a) condemn the invasion, (b) convoke an extraordinary summit to find a

Muslim solution to the crisis, and (c) reject foreign intervention, whether direct or indirect, in Muslim affairs.

Saddam Hussein made it clear that he was willing to withdraw if his claims against Kuwait could be satisfied. There was no reason why Muslim brethren, acting in good

faith, could not settle the matter. In fact, on August 4th Saddam was so confident of peaceful resolution that Baghdad radio announced that Iraq was ready to pull out of Kuwait the next day.

But peaceful resolution between Muslim states would not serve the Roman Pontiff’s grand agenda for “worldwide solidarity.” For this, political Islam must be divided and conquered.

Which exactly occurred when two crucial members of the summit, Egyptian President osni Mubarak and King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, turned against Iraq. They did so, according to a study by Hugh Roberts of the London School of Economics & Political Science, under pressure from U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

“What then happened,” wrote Roberts, “was a massive escalation of the crisis engineered wholly and entirely by the United States, which split the Arab world down the middle, destroyed the credibility and influence of the Arab League and scotched all chance of a peaceful settlement.”

On August 7, President Bush despatched aircraft and 4,000 American combat troops to Saudi Arabia. This was not an invasion of Iraq. The troops were “strictly defensive,” sent to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion.

However, King Hussein of Jordan would inform the New York Times that American troops were being deployed to Saudi Arabia long before Saddam moved on Kuwait. [Times, Oct. 16, 1990] Furthermore, King Hussein would say in the same report that he was told by Saudi King Fahd that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border; and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia.

Fahd’s remark is corroborated by Soviet satellite photographs taken on August 8 which show light sand drifts over patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border – and no evidence of an Iraqi buildup.

Seeing that the United States was interceding to prevent a Muslim solution, Saddam declared the annexation of Kuwait on August 8. This did not mean that Iraq was no longer willing to consider a withdrawal. On the contrary, writes Hugh Roberts, it was

Saddam’s way of preserving the issue until the summit could entertain fresh proposals during its August 9-10 meeting in Cairo.

But when the summit convened, delegates sat down to find the issue already decided by a “draft resolution” presented by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, written in English and translated into Arabic, and pre-supported by 10 other states, constituting a majority. (Iraq was not present.)

The resolution condemned the Iraqi decision to annex Kuwait, called for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, affirmed Kuwaiti sovereignty, and agreed to respond positively to the requests of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to send Muslim forces to Kuwait’s defense. It was made clear, at the insistence of the Bush administration, that “international law” was going to be enforced on Iraq, despite the fact that many previous acts of aggression by other Muslim states had gone unpunished under international law.

Hugh Roberts writes: “The unity which had existed within the Arab world on August 3 had been shattered by August 10. The possibility of a peaceful, negotiated, [Muslim] solution to the Gulf crisis was dead, killed by US pressure.”

Saddam Hussein’s reaction was to submit proposals on August 12th (and again in December, as reported by Knute Royce in Newsday) for a comprehensive settlement of all outstanding Islamic territorial conflicts according to international law. He proposed that the Muslim states be judged equitably. He was willing to let Iraq’s transgressions be judged by international law if the Muslim leaders who claimed to be upholding it would let their national transgressions be judged by the same standard.

Saddam’s proposal was rejected out of hand by the United States. “From that moment on,” states Hugh Roberts, “the Anglo-American and UN position lacked all legal and moral authority in the eyes of the vast majority of the Arab and Muslim world.”

In my opinion, what the Muslim world did not understand is that it is lawful for the Church Militant, pursuant to its building "worldwide solidarity" for better rulership

of evil, to immunize favored subjects from the rigors of equity and international law. The Gulf War facts bear out the proposition advanced in Rulers of Evil that God rules by a single standard, which provides that evildoers – persons who deny the deity and unique saving power of Christ – deserve to be ruled by a double standard.

This is the fundamental fact of human life. “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19)

On August 15, 1990, John Paul II announced his Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities. In this decree, the Pope made Catholic teaching, research and service

responsible for administering the new world order under construction by the United States in the Middle East. Distinguishing a Catholic university “by its free search for the whole truth about nature, man and God,” of which “the present age is in urgent need,” His Holiness directed that the whole Catholic university system, holding “fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church,” should aim for "a more just sharing in the world's resources, and a new economic and political order that will better serve the human community at a national and international level."

Within three weeks, President Bush explained to a joint session of Congress that he only acted to check Saddams aggression after “120,000 [Iraqi] troops with 850 [Iraqi] tanks had poured into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia.” However, Jean Heller would report several months later in the St. Petersburg (FL) Times that Soviet

satellite photos shot on the very day the President had addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of any massing along the Kuwait-Saudi border whatsoever.

The Pentagon was claiming some 250,000 Iraqi troops were occupying Kuwait, yet refused to show evidence that might contradict the Soviet satellite photos. In these photos, American forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging

areas and tire-tracks across the desert can easily be seen. But analysts could find nothing like this to indicate an Iraqi presence anywhere in Kuwait.

Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan administration, and a former image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, analyzed the satellite photos for Heller’s article in the St. Petersburg Times and concluded:

We don’t see any tent cities, we don’t see congregations of tanks, we can’t see troop concentrations, and the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. It’s five weeks after the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasn’t flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There is no infrastructure to support large numbers of [soldiers]. They have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have food. But where is it?

One week later, the Pentagon was issuing reports that Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks – yet the satellite photos of southern Kuwait show no evidence of such. Nor did the Pentagon ever support its claim with evidence. Jean Heller’s revelations would never be picked up by the national media. Huda al-Yassiri would report in The Baghdad Observer for June 8, 1996 that “the St.Petersburg Times editors approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service, of which the St. Petersburg Times is a member, chose not to distribute the story.”

Of course, Iraqi troops eventually appeared at the Saudi Arabian border. But “they were sent there as a response to U.S. buildup and were not a provocation for Bush's military action,” reported Brian Becker, an investigator with the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

On December 17, the U.N. set a January 15, 1991 deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. President Bush promised to send Secretary of State James Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the deadline, but reneged. Saddam rejected January 15 and offered to withdraw by February 15. President Bush ordered American planes to incinerate hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah bomb shelter, and two days later rejected Saddam’s offer of a February withdrawal.

On the 16th of January 1991, the President launched what has been called “the Gulf Massacre,” in which between 85,000 and 100,000 Iraqis were killed because the United States (a) refused to countenance either a diplomatic or a legal solution to the Gulf crisis, and (b) acted between August 2 and August 10, 1990 to make both impossible.

Concludes Hugh Roberts, “The true number of Iraqis who have been slaughtered in the greatest act of western folly and murderous arrogance in living memory may well be very much higher than this, of course.”

On February 27th, coalition forces entered Kuwait City, and President Bush declared Kuwait liberated.

Less than a week later in Rome, on March 4th, some 15 Catholic leaders from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and America held a “postwar Gulf summit meeting.”

Pope John Paul II addressed the opening of the summit saying that the war had only sharpened tensions in the region and “awakened distrust and rancor inherited from the past.” He denied that any religious war had taken place, yet rebuked Muslim countries that “do not allow Christian communities to take root, celebrate their faith and live it according to the demands of their confession.” Likewise, the summit’s final communique rejected all efforts to cast the war as “a conflict between Islam and Christianity.” Indeed, the war was not a conflict; it was an exercise in missionary adaptation to establish the new solidarity ordered by the Roman Pontiff.

The summit’s final communique, issued on March 6th, provided Catholic believers, for the first time ever, with an agenda to work for secure boundaries for Israel, independence and unity for Lebanon, a homeland and self-determination for the Palestinians, multilateral demilitarization and economic development of the region, and the establishment of Jerusalem as the international “holy city” of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

David Scott opined in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that the Vatican Summit “may one day be recalled as an historic turning point in the Catholic Church’s involvement in the Middle East.” But we must remember that the turning point was the Persian Gulf War, an event created by deception and brute force. Had there been no Gulf War, there would have been no Vatican Summit. And had the American people heeded Christ's oft-repeated command "Be not deceived," there would have been no Gulf War.

Significantly, it was on the Vatican Summit’s final day, March 6th, that President Bush delivered a speech before Congress that sounded more like a reassurance to the papacy than a report to the representatives of the American people: “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order."

8. Human sacrifice is essential in religious war.

Saturn Devouring His Child by Francisco Goya

According to Polybius, who lived and died more than a century before the Christian era, human sacrifice served a valid political purpose. Lives of human beings were ritualistically taken by priests “to maintain the cohesion of the Roman state,”– that is, “to hold the common people in check.” [See B. Twyman, The Ancient History Bulletin, 11.1 (1997) 1-11]

But as Roman civilization imbibed Greek moral values, human sacrifice began offending the Roman sense of decency. The practice was finally banned by senatorial decree in 97 B.C., and prohibited among all peoples conquered by Rome.

Human sacrifice became the indicator that distinguished Roman from barbarian. Livy called human sacrifice “a most un-Roman rite.” Yet the form wouldn’t quite go away. The people, encouraged by the priests, regarded gladiatorial deaths as sacrifices to deified spirits of the dead known as Manes. And Livy’s contemporary, the outwardly decent Octavian Maria, upon assuming the title of Caesar Augustus in 28 B.C., sacrificed three hundred Roman senators on an altar in Perugia to atone for the assassination of his adoptive father, Julius Caesar. [A. Del Mar, The Worship of Augustus Caesar, p 318]

This “most un-Roman rite” was just too politically expedient to give up entirely. Rulers periodically contrived sacrificial offerings of human flesh because it was the most efficient means of bending the naturally individualistic human species to the monarchic will.

Witnessing violent human death can be deeply traumatizing. The spectacle informs the imagination, where thought begins. In its own emotional language, human sacrifice brutally and memorably implies two classes of mankind – the all-powerful and the all-helpless.

Watching the all-helpless die creates in the viewer an emotional debt to the all-powerful. This debt permeates our thinking, and to stay alive we cannot conceive of disobeying the all-powerful sacrificer. Remember Polybius: humans were sacrificed “to maintain the cohesion of the Roman hold the common people in check.”

September 11th meets the criteria of human sacrifice except for one important element: the all-powerful sacrificer. If the sacrificer was the high priest of Muslim suicide, Osama bin Laden, as President Bush the younger seems to have convinced the nation and the world he is, who among its viewers is cohering in Osama's omnipotence? What population is being held in check by the Al-Qaeda or their god Allah? I know of none.

So, either September 11th was not a classical human sacrifice or we have mistaken the sacrificer’s identity. Presuming human sacrifice, and bearing Polybius in mind, let’s approach it from the other end. Which state has achieved cohesion from September 11th? Which people are being held in check by its results? The answer to both questions is every nation within Rome’s sphere of influence, principally the United States.

If one takes seriously the signs, symbols, and allegories with which American government publicly identifies its nature, purpose, and link with antiquity, some startling evidence appears. Of course, it could be argued that these elements are mere decoration and rather dated attempts to breathe poetic nobility into the federal enterprise. But the ROE filter does not presume the framers of American government were frivolous or irresponsible in communicating vital information through their official utterances. The ROE filter presumes competence and proficiency in every official act.

We owe Congress the presumption that it knew what it was doing when it officially approved a national motto, novus ordo seclorum, borrowed from a Roman prophecy announcing the return of Saturn to power – “Justice returns, returns old Saturn’s reign.”

If the American Æra (1776-to present) reintroduced the reign of Saturn, it’s not surprising that very few would notice. This is due to the fact that historically the character of Saturn maintains nearly no profile. His name is synonymous with secrecy, deriving from the Babylonian word stur (pronounced “satur”) meaning “hidden.”

Stur was the earliest known deity of the Babylonian church/state. He was the “hidden god” whom only the initiated priests of the Babylonian Mysteries could access. Biblical scholar Alexander Hislop has noted that the letters of the hidden god in the Hebrew numeric alphabet add up to the number of the Beast in Revelation 13:18:







Stur’s relationship to Rome is well established by Roman authorities. Ovid, Pliny, and Aurelius Victor all tell us that the city Rome was built upon in the 8th century B.C. was called Saturnia, “city of Saturn.” Likewise, before the founding of Washington, D.C. in 1790-3 the land on which the Capitol building arose was listed in Maryland property records as “Rome.” This is made considerably more interesting by the installation in 1863 of the bronze “Freedom” atop the Capitol, D.C’s highest and most honored edifice.

The statue stands exactly 19 feet, six inches in height, which works out to 6+6+6 feet, 6+6+6 inches. Designed and sculpted in Rome, it was considered by its creator to represent Persephone, a virgin goddess celebrated for her immaculate conception. Persephone is intimately bound to Saturn in pagan theology. She attracted the attention of Hades, who had been eaten alive by his father Saturn but saved and reconstituted by the heroic efforts of his brother Jupiter, and given dominion over the underworld, while Jupiter took the sky. Hades desired to marry Persephone, and when Jupiter forbade him, Hades kidnapped the beautiful goddess and made her his queen of gold, oil, and the rest of earth’s hidden wealth, including petroleum and pharmaceuticals. In some mythologies, Hades is identified with Saturn. And throughout Rome no structure was called “capitol” unless it was a temple to Jupiter.

The sum of these facts strongly suggests, to me at least, that Virgil was prophesying for imperial Romans the same thing Congress was declaring to the inhabitants of the United States: a “golden-age” rulership in the style of ancient Babylon under a hidden god known only to his initiated priests.

If Hislop’s calculations are right and Stur is indeed the Beast of Revelation whose name is “the number of a man,” Scripture may be telling us that Saturn began life as a man. The ancient historic person whose known attributes most resemble Saturn’s is, of course, Cain. Scripture describes both Cain and his parents as “hidden.” Adam and Eve, acquiring knowledge of good and evil by sinning, “hid” their nakedness from God. Cain prophesied that his punishment for murdering Abel was to be “hid” from the face of God.

However, it was not Adam and Eve but Cain who established a city, the first historic city, Unuk, as its 19th-century discoverers spelled the word, named for Cain’s son Enoch. To build a city requires a central authority able to (a) maintain the cohesion of the state and (b) hold the common people in check – which, as we recall from Polybius, are the twin political justifications for human sacrifice.

That Unuk was founded on human sacrifice is not an unreasonable supposition, since Cain owed the very existence of his city to a human sacrifice – his own sacrifice of Abel, which resulted in the vagabondage which sent him to the land of Nod. (See Rulers of Evil for a discussion of Abel’s murder as a sacrificial offering.)

But to achieve the political benefits of human sacrifice one must be all-powerful, one must be feared as a god. Can we account for Cain’s transformation from a wicked murderer permanently exiled from his homeland to an all-powerful and “hidden God”? Scripture holds the key. God made Cain seven times more powerful than any man who might want to rid the earth of him, and sealed this unique grant with a mark. Here are the actual words at Genesis 4:15:

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

The mark was limited strictly to assuring God’s vengeance against anyone who would threaten Cain’s life. When it came to matters of wisdom, correction, and instruction in righteousness, Cain could seek God’s counsel or, since he was hidden from the face of God, make up his own. Under no circumstances was he permitted to attack those who “called upon the name of the Lord.” The mark signifies a covenant of retribution only; nothing else.

And so, early on, Cain encouraged attacks upon his life so that he might infallibly defend himself. He found great profit in provoking enemies. The more enemies, the more spectacular the displays of vengeance. The more vengeance, the more justice. The more justice, the more power to Cain. A more powerful Cain could do more excellent public works. Thus, it became essential to the self-interest of the bearer of the mark – which to this day remains a first principle of ordered government – to provoke and encourage evildoing, particularly the form that manifests itself in rebellion.

Archaeological discoveries at Unuk validate the sudden appearance, early in the third millennium B.C., of what we might expect of a man whose enemies would be divinely avenged sevenfold, of a man who was also the first child of parents who had eaten fruit of the tree of divine knowledge of good and evil. According to the Oxford scholar charged with examining the ruins of Unuk, Cain’s city was the seat of a vast empire, founded on slavery, “full of schools and libraries, of teachers and pupils, and poets and prose writers, and of the literary works which they had composed.”[Sayce, Babylonia & Syria] The empire was bound together by roads, along which there was a regular postal service, and you can see in the Louvre clay postage stamps bearing the name of Cain and his son Enoch. The library Cain built at Unuk housed the first collection of astronomical observations and terrestrial omens. There was incredibly artful metalworking, and Encyclopedia Britannica adds that “transparent glass seems to have been first introduced in the reign of [Cain].”

And it all appeared suddenly. The London Times’ Historians’ History of the World grumbled “Surely such a people as this could not have sprung into existence. It must have had its history...” But Unuk as a social organization had no previous history – except that the parents of its founder had ingested the fruit of a tree that infused their DNA, and subsequently ours, with divine intellect at the expense of eternal life.

Cain’s religion wrote the name of its “god of heaven” in cuneiform. The symbol is pronounced “Annu.” This “Annu signature” may be the very mark God set upon Cain to seal his authority.

In any case, we find it consistently present in claims to rulership through its fifty centuries of existence. We find the Annu signature in the flag of Great Britain and in the United Nations logotype.

We find it in the U.S. Supreme Court Building, where it forms the central decorative motif. We find it inlaid in the pavement surrounding the Obelisk of Caligula in St. Peter’s Piazza, where the multitudes stand to receive papal edicts and blessings.

If you would like to test whether or not an institution identified with this mark avenges its enemies sevenfold, try to rid the earth of the Roman Pontiff, or his two delegated powers, the U.S. and the U.K. or any of the powers under their protection. You will quickly find that the mark of the hidden god, Cain or Stur, is quite alive and well, still doing today what it was doing in the early days of Unuk – still avenging its enemies sevenfold or more; still creating, preserving, honoring, terrorizing, judging, and punishing evildoers; still sacrificing its own in order to solidify world order and hold people in check.

Next: Muslims as villains...

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