Monday, October 6, 2008

Dialogue 2008 Troy Space with Guy Stair Sainty

From Troy Space:
From: Guy Stair Sainty (guy@sainty.org)
Sent: 14 September 2008 23:52:22
To: troy space

When I read your texts which are largely extreme polemics against the Catholic Church, the Holy See and the Jesuits, I find myself both shocked and incredulous – the former at the extreme terms you employ, which betray the kind of violent anti-Catholicism that I had thought had been replaced in most modern societies with secularist disdain, and the latter because they defy all possible logic. The fact that you are bent on insulting the Church of which I am a member and the Faith to which In subscribe bothers me less; I have come across plenty of religious bigots and they are usually far beyond reason on other matters as well.

The fact that the Catholic Church has repeatedly condemned freemasonry (the “illuminate”) etc, seems to have escaped you entirely along with the fact that its greatest enemies, particularly in the late 18th and 19th centuries, were all freemasons. Whatever one thinks of the Jesuits (and the ones I know personally are uniformly spiritual and devout men with a sincere love of their fellow men – in the generic sense), to tie them into freemasonry and these kind of conspiracies simply betrays an ignorance of the history of the Society. Not least because the Jesuits of the late 20th century are the polar opposite in their understanding of the role of the Papacy and the Church to those of the 19th century; for me their obsession with social justice (not in itself wrong) has clouded their judgment in some other areas.

Again, knowing the Order of Malta and its history as well as I do, I find the idea that it is some kind of secret power simply laughable. The men who run it are largely elderly, they include school teachers (the late grand master and another member of the sovereign council Fra Elie de Comminges), university professors (Fra John Macpherson), lawyers (Anthony Sanchez Correa), a Sotheby’s regional representative (fra Matthew Festing, the present Grand Master), and the like; most of them have little or any interest in politics and very little experience of business. They would be horrified to find a freemason in their midst.

The Order has a particular concern on obtaining wider recognition of its sovereignty because this enables it to carry out its world-wide hospitaller and humanitarian mission more effectively. Hence it must keep on good terms with Italy, in particular, as its extra-territorial palaces are within Italy’s sovereign territory. The very countries which you accuse it of being involved with politically, however; the UK and USA, mst emphatically do not recognise it; indeed the decorations of the Order cannot even be worn in the UK except at ceremonies of the Order and of the British Order of St John. This latter, by the way, has no connections with the pseudo Orders that have freemasonry connections – but it does have some 400,000 volunteers around the world such as the 13,000 of the Sri Lankan St John who were the first and most effective when their island was devastated by the Tsunami.

I am a member of the Order of St Gregory the Great, a knight commander with star, a life member of the British Association of Papal Knights. But having a Papal knighthood is not being part of some secret society – most of the people do not know each other and the UK is one of the few countries which even has an organisation of any kind. The Vatican itself keeps the original file on each recipient, but after getting one’s diploma one may never hear from them again. There are no secret instructions to the “troops”!!!

Guy Sainty


From: troy_space@hotmail.com [mailto:troy_space@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 3:41 AM
To: Guy Stair Sainty


Dear Mr Sainty


Thank you for your very full letter stating your perceptions of my position & that of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

I am willing to take on board any relevant information on the matters that you bring up below & it is interesting to hear your statement on the nature of the RCC hierarchy & the knighthood orders.

In due course I shall be preparing a full statement of my understanding & position, outlining my main sources & pointing out empirical cases that support my contentions. This weekend I have had to attend to some personal matters (& that will take up some of my time tomorrow) & have not been able to devote the time to going over the wealth of material that you have sent me prior to this email. I have however been looking into certain matters discussed in some of the statements that you made in your initial response & will be using some of that info in my full statement.

The fruitful path for seeking the truth lies in combining the so-called scientific processes of observation, experimentation, induction, deduction with appropriate measures of rationalisation & intuition.

“Intuition is a combination of historical (empirical) data, deep and heightened observation and an ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality. Intuition is like a slow motion machine that captures data instantaneously and hits you like a ton of bricks. Intuition is a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding — a gut feeling. Intuition is not pseudo-science.” Abella Arthur

For now I would like to leave you with one undeniable & perfectly illustrative example of the kind that most strongly supports my contentions and assertions:

- Prince Michael of Kent: The Duke of Kent’s brother, Prince Michael is the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Mark Master Masons. His wife, Princess Michael of Kent, has always been a Roman Catholic & is a Dame Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the (Papal-loyal) SMOM, within the Order’s British Association. Princess Michael is also the senior Dame (Dame Grand Cross of Justice) of the British and Irish Delegation of the Franco-Neapolitan branch of the (Papal-loyal) Constantinian Order.

(from: http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/about/ )

So when you state the members of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta "would be horrified to find a freemason in their midst", we can see that this is far from accurate. In fact I will provide a number of examples that show that the connections between Masonry and Royalty, Masonry & the Knighthood Orders & Masonry & the Roman Catholic hierarchy are intimate & long-established.

I will also state that in contrast to your implication above (I say implication, as you apparently refer to the tone of some writings of mine. Even here I would suggest that "violent" is not an appropriate epithet. Firm & resolved? Yes. "Violent"? I would strongly disagree with that. And in terms of physical violence: I do not advocate violence either publicly or in private. I do believe in self-defence however, as did our Lord Jesus Christ, as illustrated perfectly in this article:

http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-sword-of-just-defence/

I have enjoyed this discourse with you & can assure you that it has sharpened my knowledge both directly & indirectly, the latter via some of the follow-up research that I have embarked on.

In the pursuit of truth & awareness -

Troy





From: Guy Stair Sainty (guy@sainty.org)
Sent: 15 September 2008 07:40:20
To: troy space

The duke of Kent inherited the position of grand master of one branch of British Freemason, the first member of the royal family to hold this position was the duke of Sussex, a son of George III and since then there has always been a British royal prince as grand master – a similar position is held in Sweden by the King of Sweden, who gives out the Order of Charles XIII, a kind of official Order for freemasons. But it demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of British (or Swedish) freemasonry to parallel these with the continental variety. The latter was a direct result of, and closely connected to 18th and 19th century anti-clericalism; the British was really a kind of fraternal organisation –silly, but not directly harmful and with only loose ties to the continent (there may be lodges that are close, but not those headed by the duke of Kent). [I contend that the links are via "regular" high-level Masons who are either Vatican agents - Leo Zagami asserts that there are around 50 in the UGLE, including Julian Reese & the Marquess of Northampton - or are members of the "irregular" elite Monte Carlo Lodge or the Masonic Executive Committee, also based in Monte Carlo, that meets twice a year] Prince Michael’s participation in the Masons is a ceremonial one, like many of such positions held by the royal family; but he is not, of course, a Roman Catholic and took on this position relatively recently. [as stated above his wife is a Roman Catholic & a Dame of the Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Order & the SMOM, thus establishing a close Vatican/Royal/Masonic nexus] That is not to say that RCs should become British freemasons, but that in this Prince Michael is following a royal tradition. RCs object to the ceremonial, the reference to a Supreme Being (which denies the Trinity), and the secrecy, which are the principal features of British freemasonry. Of course there is the agenda about helping each other and secret handshakes, etc, but again while it may sometimes lead to unfair advantage, so sometimes is having gone to the same school with someone, etc, and in any case it is hard to prove.

I have no doubt that internationally minded freemasons have some fantasies concerning their powers; certainly they are influential within the power structures of Italy, France and may be Spain and probably Germany. We RCs, however, do not forget that it was [Jesuit-directed] freemasons who brought about the French revolution and the destruction of the Church in France
[after the monarchy upheld the Papal ban on the Jesuits], that freemasons destroyed the old Catholic monarchies of Italy and led the campaign against the Papal states, that it was freemasons who provided the leadership for the Spanish revolution of 1931, the Russian revolution of 1917 and the Portuguese in 1910, all harshly anti-clerical and republican [It was the Russian Orthodox clergy who were among the main targets & victims of the Jesuit-planned Revolution, as were the Romanovs who had broken with the so-called Holy Alliance & the concordat with the Vatican - now under Jesuit control with their ban being lifted by the Papacy. Stalin let the Jesuits back into Russia for the first time in a century in 1922]. I think that today, however, while they are good at conspiracies, it is more difficult to suborn democracies – except perhaps in a country like Italy where there is so much corruption.

But these people are the enemies of the Church, the Papacy and the Catholic Orders not their allies in some great plot. [At the top they meet. Via the P2 Paramasonic setup, the Monte Carlo Lodge & the Grand Lodge Ekklesia in the Vatican, consisting of four lodges: two of the Scottish Rite & two of the York Rite, not to mention those Jesuits & Vatican Cardinals who are also Memphis-Misraim Masonic Illuminati. This Masonic/Jesuit/Vatican has been testified to in depth by whistleblowers, occultists & former occultists, including Alberto Rivera, Malachi Martin, Gerard Bouffard, Leo Zagami, Madame HP Blavatsky & many others]

As for your language in regard to the Church; it is characterised by the same harsh rhetoric as that of most ultra-Protestant sects
[as opposed to Jesuit/Masonic-created & infiltrated ones], and frankly I find these (with their neo-cons, their belief in the conversion of Israel once it is ruled by the Jews, etc [now those are the Jesuit/Masonic-created & infiltrated ones!]) to be more dangerous to peace than freemasons. The rhetoric is similar to the kind of language used by the anti-Semitism of the pre-WWII era, and we know where that led [false & hypocritical considering that the Vatican has been the most anti-semitic force in history, whether including Roman Catholic Jesuit coadjutor Adolf Hitler or not]. This is the language of those who executed tens of thousands of innocent and loyal Catholics during the Protestant Reformation, which forced a Taliban-like regime on existing societies with the suppression of liturgy, the murder of priests, the stripping of altars, the destruction of art and the burning of books [This is a complete inversal of the facts. Protestantism was the natural development against an anti-Bible & anti-Christian Satanic Vatican that was the true architect & implementer of genocide in Europe called the Inquisition. Where are the Cathars & many others now? The Vatican is the greatest creator of evil known to man. Any punishment meted out to Jesuits & other Catholics in Protestant nations was due to their infiltrating & spying in pursuance of the Counter Reformation agenda that would have destroyed those Protestant nations that allowed for exponentially greater freedoms of conscience, speech & the press than had been known under Rome's totalitarian control]. It is most certainly not the language of Love that is central to the message of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you should recall the two greatest commandments. [Jesus also said "as many as I love, I rebuke & chasten: be zealous therefore and repent" (Revelation 3:19) & "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Rome has always sought to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible that suit her from one moment to the next - TS]

Guy Sainty


From: troy space
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 6:05 AM
To: troy space
Subject: 2008 09 15: TROY INTERVIEWS LEO LYON ZAGAMI #13 - 135 MINS. - AMENDED & EXTENDED BLOG


http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/2008-09-15-troy-interviews-leo-lyon-zagami-13-135-mins/

http://leozagami.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/2008-09-15-troy-interviews-leo-lyon-zagami-13-135-mins/

2008 09 15: TROY INTERVIEWS LEO LYON ZAGAMI #13 - 135 MINS.

FIRST NEW LEO ZAGAMI INTERVIEW IN THREE MONTHS:
LEO ZAGAMI - 2008 09 15 - TROY - SKYPE INTERVIEW 13 - TROYSPACE2.WORDPRESS.COM - 135 MINS.mp3

Free download available at:
http://www.mediafire.com/?7bdhbofmyym

I discuss my recent trip to Paris, where among my many adventures I visited the Masonic Grand Orient to see the Museum & mention searching for the Jesuit & SMOM Knights of Malta HQ’s & the proximity of the SMOM’s second Paris base to the Pont de l’Alma underpass where Princess Diana died.
Leo comments that the possibility of Diana having a Muslim child meant that in the Illuminati’s eyes she needed to be murdered.


From: guy@sainty.org
To: troy space
Subject: RE: 2008 09 15: TROY INTERVIEWS LEO LYON ZAGAMI #13 - 135 MINS. - AMENDED & EXTENDED BLOG
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:07:20 +0200

I am sorry but this is quite looney!!! The SMOM French HQ is near the Paris underpass where Princess Diana died??? That, first of all, is simply a lie (it is in the Rue des Volontaires in the 15th, which is beyond the 7th on the left bank of the Seine, the underpass was by the Pont d’Alma on the right bank (I drive past there every day, I knew Diana since she was 13 – why not add me to the list of suspects (oh, no, you can’t, I was living in the US when she died) . Secondly so what? Do you really think the SMOM could have had any interest in or motive for her death? Aside from the fact that the exhaustive inquiries have shown beyond any doubt that it was an accident.

If you are going to come up with these conspiracy theories you really must add some slight thread that cannot be considered completely ridiculous and at least get the facts on which you base them accurate – or is this another conspiracy? Perhaps the SMOM is only pretending to have its HQ in the 15th arrondissement; maybe they are really hiding out in Zouari, the women’s hairdresser (where my wife and – oh horror – the wives of many French politicians go); after all it is just 100 meters from the Pont d’Alma underpass.

Are you also a fan of Dan Brown?



From: troy space
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:19 PM
To: Guy Stair Sainty

Dear Mr Sainty

I had passed the interview on to you in case you were aware of many of the names & connections that Mr Zagami mentions (some of which I provide links & photos including ones with Zagami) in the summary accompanying it.

I do not lie about such easily checkable matters as the SMOM's Parisian HQ's & I stated quite clearly that I was referring to the SMOM's Parisian 2nd base of ops which is on the right hand side at the end of the road that is second on the left as you come out of the tunnel. I actually walked the length of the tunnel to verify whether or not there were any cameras - there weren't, nor were there any along the length of the journey from the Rue de Rivoli to the underpass - which may well have been the reason that the route was chosen.

Zagami himself stated nearly two years ago that the SMOM-controlled French intelligence elements executed the plan for Rome. The enquiries IMO were Masonically controlled & a whitewash. Al Fayed's allegations as to the nature of the operation were quite off the mark & I said so at the time. It would have been much smoother & simpler not bringing in the British elements.

It is my assessment that Dan Brown is an counterintelligence diversion agent.

I hope that you will check out the information below & acknowledge, even if only to yourself, that I was correct regarding the address:

http://www.orderofmalta.org/site/eur_paese.asp?idlingua=5&paese=8


Around the World

Home Europe FRANCE


FRANCE

ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE (1891)

42, rue des Volontaires - 75015 Paris - France

Tél.: +33.(0)1.45.20.9614 et Fax: +33.(0)1.45.20.0013

E-mail: associationfrancaise@ordredemaltefrance.org

Web: www.ordredemaltefrance.org


Association des Œuvres Hospitalières Françaises de l'Ordre de Malte (O.H.F.O.M.)
Association reconnue d’utilité publique en 1928

42, rue des Volontaires - 75015 Paris - France

Tél.: +33.(0)1.45.20.80.20

E-mail: president.oeuvres@ordredemaltefrance.org

Web: www.ordredemaltefrance.org


Fondation des Oeuvres Hospitalières Françaises de l'Ordre de Malte
Fondation reconnue d'utilité publique en 1994

42, rue des Volontaires - 75015 Paris - France

Tél: +33.(0)1.45.20.80.20

E-mail: fondation@ordredemaltefrance.org


REPRESENTATION OFFICIELLE DE L'ORDRE AUPRES DE LA FRANCE

42, rue des Volontaires - 75015 Paris - France

Tél.: +33.(0)1.45.20.9614 et Fax: +33.(0)1.45.20.0013

E-mail: fondation@ordredemaltefrance.org


MISSION PEMANENTE AUPRES DE L'ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L’EDUCATION, LA SCIENCE ET LA CULTURE (UNESCO)

Chancellerie: 8, rue Gaston de Saint-Paul - F 75116 Paris - France

Tél: +331.53.04.30.63 - Fax: +331.53.04.30.61

E-mail: f.dewaresquiel@citadelles-mazenod.com


REPRESENTANT AUPRES DU CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE

Chancellerie: 12, Terrasses De Montaigu - F 54140 Jarville - France

Fax +33 383 57 98 77





RE: 2008 09 15: TROY INTERVIEWS LEO LYON ZAGAMI #13 - 135 MINS. - AMENDED & EXTENDED BLOG‏
From: Guy Stair Sainty (guy@sainty.org)
Sent: 18 September 2008 17:32:28
To: troy space

This is precisely why you make yourself look so foolish. First, this is the office of the Permanent Representative to UNESCO which has been open in this location for less than two years, not the 2nd HQ of the SMOM in France! Until 2006 the Representative, Count Francois de Waresquiel, maintained his office at his own apartment at 18 rue Las Casas, in the 7th, the other side of the river from the Pont d’Alma. Secondly, he was not even in post in 1997, but was appointed in 2001. Furthermore, I know all the senior people and the president of the French Association is Prince Dominique de la Rochefoucauld, a close personal friend whose sole interest is serving the poor and sick. That is what they collect money for, that is what people volunteer for and that is why they are actually scorned by conspiracy theorists who want to believe something else which is the purest fantasy, worthy of Dan Brown. Again your hypothesis is based on a pyramid of nonsense. The French intelligence organisatinos have absolutely no interest in the Order of Malta – if the French wanted to advance the Order’s interests they would accord it full diplomatic recognition, instead of accepting merely an Official Representative. GSS



From: troy space
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 9:30 PM
To: Guy Stair Sainty

Dear Mr Sainty

Thank you for that very precise information. I shall now bear that in mind for the article that I am preparing on my investigations of the tunnel & surrounding area. I have taken a close interest in that tragic event as I was in Paris on the 31st of August, my birthday & my brother phoned his girlfriend from a phone booth beneath the Eiffel Tower (which is still there, amazingly in these days of mobile phones), who told us of the crash. Not knowing where the crash was & not intending to go looking for it, we by chance walked along the side of the tunnel entrance & realized from the crowds, the police & the floral & written tributes to Diana - & Dodi - that that was the spot.

I shall take your word regarding this address only being SMOM-connected since 2006 & will not now be contending otherwise unless I find out any different. I would be interested to know who was using this premises in 1997.

"The French", by which I presume you mean the French government is not fully (or even mostly) equatable with French intelligence. SMOM Knights (& Dames) of Malta, are ultimately sworn to serve the Papacy - which supports the UN & is internationalist. The SMOM's special UN status is reflected in this. They are supra-national in concern. So too are the many French government internationalist socialists (& those of other European countries). As we know, the Maastricht Treaty was pushed by the Jesuits & devout Catholics. The secularism of the EU being a conveniant cover for the Papal agenda.


"Among European leaders who were most influential in furthering the Maastricht agenda were Jacques Delors and Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers (both Jesuit educated) as well as devout Catholics German Chancellor Kohl and Prime Minister Felipe Gonzales of Spain. These four leaders were all products of the Roman Catholic Social Movement, which believes that “there is no nobler task than the unifying of our continent” and views the idea of a united Europe as essentially a Catholic concept."

http://www.the-highway.com/eu_Bennett.html


The international intelligence agencies have many Papal-loyal knights within them & many Jesuit-trained high-level operatives. William Donovan of the OSS, nicknamed the "Father of the CIA" was a Papal Knight of St Sylvester, William Casey was trained at Jesuit Fordham & George Tenet (9/11-era CIA Director) at Jesuit Georgetown, where he has since lectured. William Colby was renknowned as a hardline Roman Catholic & the FBI Director during 9/11 was the Roman Catholic Thomas J. Pickard. The masters that these men served are the Popes & the Jesuit Superior-Generals in Rome.

Not that Popes themselves are safe, if they step out of line then they too will receive a sharp warning at best (for them) or the poison cup of Borgia. Just ask Pope John Paul I - oh we can't he is dead - killed just 33 days into his papacy. I contend that this choice of the 33rd day was occultically chosen as a signature by 33° Scottish Rite P2 Masons. The Jesuit Superior-General using his loyal high-level black lodge Scottish-Rite & Memphis-Misraim Masons (some of whom are also ostensibly Catholic & SMOM), such as those of Propaganda Due & elements within the Monte Carlo Lodge would have these hits carried out if the ends justify the means.

I maintain my contention that this was the chain of command that orchestrated & executed both Diana's murder & the explosives triggered within the Twin Towers & the Pentagon on 9/11, overseen by Vatican servants George "Jesuit temporal coadjutor" Tenet & fellow Papal-alterboy Skull & Bones George W. Bush (brother of Papal servant Knight of Columbus Jeb Bush) & his Masonic partners Cheney overseeing NORAD & Rumsfeld overseeing the DOD & Roman Catholic Giuliani overseeing "Ground Zero".

The loyalties & connections of many of these parties are self-evident below. The Vatican's octopus has many arms.

Thank you -

Troy Space.

All photos below from:

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/



Hitler shaking hands with Catholic Cardinal





Franz von Papen (Front Left) heads Catholic Mass Procession.




Current Pope when he was in Hitler Youth


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, papal nuncio to Germany, with Goebbels

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Goebbels to the right


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The German elite in the Vatican, including Goebbels and General Steinmann.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Jesuit Trained William (Bill) Clinton who is supposed to be Baptist
(maybe he means to say Papist) receives of the heretical 'holy eucharist'.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Jesuit Trained, Liberal democrat, pro-abortion, Skull and Bones member John Forbes Kerry
receives heretical 'holy eucharist' which only devout practicing Catholics may partake of.


Catholic Skull and Bonesmen Bush and Kerry attending Catholic Mass on Ash Wednesday.
(Where a priest makes a mark of a cross in ashes on their foreheads.)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif. greets Pope Benedict XVI, as President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice look on. (AP Photo / April 16, 2008)

Photobucket - Video and Image HostingPhotobucket - Video and Image Hosting


Hugo Chavez said: I am a Catholic and a Christian and a very committed Christian and I was talking to the Pope about the struggle against poverty -I call it Christ's cause. Then he was talking about the first time he had met Fidel Castro. Search Alex Jones' web site. Notice that not one word of Hugo Chavez's call for a NWO is mentioned. Why? Alex is supposed to be covering everything pertaining to a NW



Former President of
Mexico Vincent Fox

George Bush with Cardinal Egan and former Governor of the State of New York Hugh L. Carey

Former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, meeting with Pope Benedict

If Bush is a Christian and says Jesus is his Saviour
then why is he giving the pope an idol of Mary?


Former New Jersey Gov. Brendan Byrne with the Pope and future Pope

spirituallysmart.com







Bush, The Catholic Papal Puppet




Pope John Paul II with the trilateral commission



Montini [a.k.a "pope" Paul VI] pictured giving a speech on October 4, 1965
at the United Nations Montini in his address to the United Nations, called
that godless monstrosity [The UN] "the last, best hope of mankind..."



From: guy@sainty.org
To: troy space
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:01:33 +0200

Again, I take issue with you over what knights of Malta are required to do – their oath is to support the aims of the Order; all Catholics must obey the Pope as head of the Church – your attacks on the Pope and the Church are attacks on every Catholic (which, I conclude, is your motivation here – a stark and uncompromising old-fashioned Protestant anti-Papist theme running through everything you write). I do not think you will find many modern day Catholics taking such an attitude to Protestants, or any other Christians. [Protestantism has been thoroughly infiltrated & neutralised by Jesuits & Papal-agent Masons like Billy Graham & Pat Robertson, to name two of thousands. "Protestants" that don't protest the false Christianity of the Vatican aren't Protestants]

However, where you are quite wrong is what you suppose to be the Holy See’s views about the UN. Of course the Holy See, like any half-way sensible person supports the ideals of the UN, even while it is impossible to avoid recognising that many of its instruments – because of the way committees, etc,. are divided up (such as the Human Rights Committee) are flawed – the representatives of dictatorships are regularly appointed, because of the intention to give positions to states from different regions.

Cardinal Renato Martino, who was for 13 years Permanent Observer to the UN, consistently spoke against many UN actions, particularly those leading to war, that he was the most consistent defender of the rights of minorities, that he was indefatigable in making sure that UN programmes did what they were intended in helping the less fortunate and that he was the most outspoken (and still is) voice against the Iraq war. Just google him and see what he has to say about this. Your entire thesis is without merit and, in my opinion, is motivate solely by hostility to Catholicism.

The Holy See, like Switzerland, has opted not to be a full member of the General Assembly, but in a special and unique Permanent Observer status for states that do not want to participate in UN missions – such as controversial peace keeping missions or sanctions that might hurt the poor. It does not vote in the UN. You do not seem to understand this important difference.

Again you fantasise about the status at the UN. The Order has always been very keen to get its sovereignty recognised, but the USA and the UK, China, India and various major states do not recognise it at all, France, Germany, Belgium, only recognise it in a limited way and do not recognise its sovereignty. Hence they all voted against its acceptance into the UN in the special Permanent Observer status (the secondary category of this form) that is presently accorded only otherwise to the International Committee of the Red Cross. [These are perfect illustrations of the Vatican's duplicity. It operates via many fronts & can utilize agents promoting different agendas for its planned outcome. The Vatican usually presents its open but false policy while ensuring that its secret but true policy is eventually implemented]

The Order of Malta, of course, would like to be elevated to the same category as the Holy See and Switzerland and much of is diplomatic efforts are directed to this end; it does not want to be included in the category of the ICRC. But those states which oppose it do so because they are fundamentally opposed to the idea of recognising as sovereign any body without territory or population. The argument against this is the recognition accorded the Holy See although it had no legal sovereign territory at the time by many states between 1870 and 1929, including from 1914 Great Britain. The US State Department in 1984 argued very clearly and successfully before the US Supreme Court that the sovereignty of the Holy See was sui-generis; in fact the Holy See was the originator of the very concept of international law, since it was the Papacy which developed the original concept of mediation between states. [Indeed. Always for its own totalitarian temporal agenda benefit of course]

What do you suppose the Order of Malta does; in your mind it seems to be some kind of nefarious organisation manipulating strings behind the scenes. I wish you could actually attend its functions and activities – you would then see how laughable this is. The sole subjects anyone talks about in regard to the Order are its hospitaller missions and its religious activities – if the activities of governments come up only when their activities offend Catholic teaching (on abortion, for example, or same sex marriage), or when they help or hinder the Order’s work. [Perhaps at its dinners & functions, as with Masonry, this is likely to be true. In its high-level meetings another agenda entirely is on the plate]

The fact that you find it so hard to believe there are people and organisations whose purpose is to do good and help the less fortunate says more about you than it does about the organisations you attack. Of course, with 12,000 members there are flawed people in the SMOM, there may be people who work for some intelligence agencies but that is not why they are members. It does not matter what religious group you consider you will find people doing things of which you disapprove. But that does not mean the organisation is flawed! Nor does it mean that these people, few in number, have any influence. There is nothing whatsoever in the Order’s raison d’etre that would encourage it to become involved in intelligence, which would be fatal to its attempts to obtain universal recognition of its sovereignty. That is how it has a representative to Cuba and Russia as well as Italy, Spain, Austria and would like to have relations with the USA and UK. [More often than not the power players in these countries are power players because they fall into line with the Vatican's covert (not overt) agenda. That is not to say that there aren't forces less enamoured with the Vatican & that the Vatican always gets its way - or that the Jesuits & Vatican would even consider it efficacious to do so. Clearly there are & so there is some degree of power dynamics that are outside of Rome's Hegelian dialectic strategies. Nevertheless all roads do still lead to Rome]

The fact that some senior OSS people got a Papal award is because they were Catholics – the Papal Orders as such have never ever held under the auspices of the Holy See any meetings ["never ever held under the auspices of the Holy See any meetings": "under the auspices of the Holy See" seems to be a signiciant wording. I maintain that these organisations - whether Masonic or Knighthood Orders - have compartmented inner cells, just like intelligence agencies, that shield their purpose from the Outer Portico & the Profane] and if one ever meets a member of the Papal Orders it is by accident; only a handful of countries have organisations of Papal knights and they do not include any state in the Americas (and these have one Mass a year, at which the deceased members are remembered, and a dinner or reception where people chat, as at any social occasion. Actually Donovan played a major role in defeating the Nazis, which I believe was a good thing. [OSS Director "Father" of the CIA & Papal Knight of St Gregory, William Donovan, who played his jigsaw puzzle part in creating the Big Picture]

So if you go to a Jesuit school you are automatically suspect in you eyes? This is quite deranged. [Suspect? Yes. Guilty? No. It all depends on other circumstances, connections & actions] Clearly you have never attended one or you would know that it is a school like any other and I know many lapsed Catholics who complain it was their school that drove them from the Church because of its strictness. I might have sent my children to a Jesuit school if they were like they used to be, but nowadays the Jesuits are too leftist for my taste.

Georgetown is stuffed with atheists and men and women of all faiths; Bill Clinton went there and he is hardly in the mould you would like to imagine Georgetown graduates. If you walk on to the campus and find one student who believes his school is trying to direct him into some secret conspiracy I will eat my hat. This is crazy. My complaint about Georgetown is that it is far too secularist, and allows many anti-Catholic themes to flourish – I thought you would welcome this! [I am not anti people who happen to have grown up Catholic, although circumstances permitting I will ask them some questions that may make them reflect on their understanding of Christianity. The Vatican is a political-financial-intelligence entity, an octopus that has many long arms though. The Jesuits aren't truly troubled about the flourishing of secularism, this is a mere transitional phase in its occult agenda. Getting rid of Bible-based Christianity is the Jesuits' reason for bring. What it looses with one hand it gains with another: see the illegal immigration situation that the Roman Catholic hierarchy supports to destroy the last vestiges of an America built on Protestant-based freedoms]

It is absolutely clear from what you write is that you do not believe Catholics should hold public office, that graduates of Jesuit schools and colleges should not be employed by governments, and that the Papacy is some kind of evil and malign influence trying to control the world. I find this personally so offensive and bigoted that I would ask you not to bother to send me any more of this nonsense. Your fantasy about John Paul I is such nonsense, his dear friend and secretary and other witnesses have said exactly what happened, but for you, like everything, there is a conspiracy. [Its widely acknowledged that the whole event was suspicious, from the embalming of the body before an autopsy could be done to the ridiculously conflicting stories of who found him, at what time & even what papers were in his hand. JPI had planned drastic changes in Vatican personnel due to his discovery of the money-laundering connections between the Vatican Bank (headed by Archbishop Marcinkus) & the P2 Paramasonic lodge & the Mafia (these being connected via the Jesuit-trained Michele Sindona). He had made a number of very poweful enemies within & without the Vatican] The same nonsense with Princess Diana (why would anyone want her killed, it is so stupid – and what connection does she have with the Twin Towers – I had not realised you also subscribed to the theories that this was not done by planes flying at them. I was in NY, I am a Papal knight and a knight of Malta, maybe I was involved – I also knew Princess Diana ). [Having an intimate relationship with a Muslim is a taboo that European & British royalty are not supposed to break, especially the mother of the future King of England. Four years prior to a pre-planned 9/11 & War OF Terror that relied on fear of Muslims. Rome would have been livid. Plans would have beeen made. I contend that Catholic knighthood order French intelligence elements under instructions from Rome executed the assasination] This is the stuff of the kind of tabloids one picks up at supermarket counters and read by housewives of low intelligence and modest education to explain why they are somehow not themselves given the positions they think they should have – there is a great conspiracy against them. [Diana was no "mere housewive" (not that there's anything wrong with that - different strokes, etc), but she was the target of conspiracy of that I am sure. Again, just like Pope JPI: embalmed before an autopsy could be made - TS]

GSS


From: Guy Stair Sainty (guy@sainty.org)
Sent: 27 September 2008 19:15:14
To: troy space

I have made some grammatical corrections. I would also make some further comments about the outrageous assertions regarding the Nazis.

The idea that Hitler was a RC is incredible! [reference to the implication of three of the photos & the list accompanying them above] He was born into a Catholic family – so by the way were Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and John Knox – but renounced his faith very early and was bent on destroying the Catholic Church as his own documentary testimony and that of many witnesses attests.
[Hitler was never excommunicated & thus by Church Law remained a Catholic until the day he died. Baptised & reared Catholic, an altar boy who aspired to the priesthood, happily signed the 1933 Concordat with the Catholic Church & was friendly with Pope Pius XII, the list goes on, but that's a taster]

The Catholic Church, like any large institution, cannot avoid dealing with governments, even distasteful ones; its first duty is to the Catholics of the world and to protect and help them it is often necessary to deal with governments that persecute them. This is true of any large Christian Church with missions round the world. [Duplicitous defence mechanism] I have no idea to which Church, if any, you belong [One built on faith, not of walls & on on the pronouncements of men drunk on the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus] but I would bet anything that has registered as a 501 (c) iii corporation under US law, and that it functions within the law. If it does so then it is necessarily dealing with the state. [No. I live in London & even if I was in America I would not go near one of those abominable state-corrupted instituations] I suspect you may belong some kind of extremist minority sect which is more concerned with its message of hate than Christ’s message of love, in which case perhaps it has no missions to help the poor. If it did, you can bet it would have to deal with some unsavoury people in unsavoury places. [Wrong again - unless one person constitutes a "minority sect" - although by the Vatican's totalitarian standards, that would always be "extreme". The day that these missions that you refer to start dealing with the creators & causes of global misery I'll happily join forces, until then "band aid" solutions are very much part of the problem, as is ignorance in general. Love at its most efficacious also requires one to rebuke & chastize those that fearfully, selfishly or ignorantly facilitate the transformation of our world into a global hell on Earth. That is also very much part of Jesus' message]

Before WWII the Church had an official mission to Germany; there were 30 million German Catholics and it had signed a concordat to insure that Catholic schools, etc, could function legally. This agreement was quickly broken by the Nazis and by 1939 was a dead letter, but as long as the Nuncio was able to press his case the Church could go on functioning and courageous bishops such as Van Galen could use their influence against the regime. Since the Nuncio was accredited to state, he must perforce attend the state functions and meet with the head of State. Today the Nuncios have to deal with men like [SMOM Knight of Malta] Fidel Castro and his brother, and Hugo Chavez; these are Catholic countries, with large Catholic populations and the Holy See has diplomatic relations with them. [Papal servant Chavez has been photographed kissing the Pope's ring (see above) & even apparently praying to him. Chavez has called for a "new international order" (New World Order), possibly based in an internationalised Jerusalem. He is a feather of the Beast's left wing, as Bush is a feather of its right wing]

Mussolini abandoned his faith as a teenager and wrote numerous texts as a socialist newspaper editor against the Church. What he did was settle the important question regarding the Pope’s status which was welcomed by the entire Catholic world. At that date he was thought to be a potential ally to all the Western Powers. Only later, in the mid 1930s, did he turn to Hitler. [Openly anti-Masonic (as was Hitler), covertly-Masonic, Mussolini was put in & removed from power by Masonic Victor Emmanuel III & advised by Jesuit Pietro Tacchi-Venturi]

Of the list below [this is now found above], the only faithful Catholics were Salazar, Franco and Petain. Tiso was in dispute with the Holy See and the rest were lapsed. [Roman Catholic priest & Slovak President Tiso who sent the Czech Jews & Protestants to Auschwitz] One may as well condemn Judaism because many Jews were communists. [Heretical, anti-Judaism, Masonic & Sabbatean, racial Jews] The Church cannot be responsible for the fact that some of its members are sinners. Stalin had entered a seminary (at the urging of his devout mother, to study as an orthodox priest, but soon left and spent 30 years persecuting the Church. [Among his prime & achieved goals was the wiping out of Russian Orthodox Christians & Jews. It is notable to that in 1922 he readmitted the Jesuits to Russia for the first time in a century, while appearing to be anti-aristocracy by expelling the Knights of Malta five years earlier] Trotsky and many other Bolshevik leaders were Jews. [Heretical, anti-Judaism, Masonic & Sabbatean, racial Jews] The majority of the leading Nazis were born Protestants [Adolf Hitler: Roman Catholic; Joseph Goebbels: Roman Catholic; Heinrich Himmler: Roman Catholic; ...], but no-one but a fool would accuse their Churches of being pro-Nazi as a result. Are all Republicans wrong because one turns to crime, or Democrats because one is an adulterer. Etc etc. This is so idiotic. [No one is accusing all Catholics, knights or Masons of anything] The fact that the Cardinal Archbishop of New York is seen with the Mayor (I think then former Mayor) of New York is a surprise? It is supposed to prove what, exactly? That the head of the largest religious faith in the city communicates with the head of its civil government. How is this shocking or wrong? [Giuliani failed to provide firefighters & rescue workers on 9/11 with working radios, thus leading to their certain death & who pushed for a quick cleanup at the expense of finding remains, has hugely profited from his media-created myth of an image in the wake of 9/11. The intention is to bring to people's attention the fact that he defers to a spiritual hierarchical leadership - which in America is led by SMOM & Franco-Neapolitan Constantinian Knight & Archbishop of New York, Edward Cardinal Egan - that doesn't by its nature believe in the Protestant-created American freedoms of conscience, speech, & the press (all much now in tatters after years of abuse from the Bush Papal servants, Jesuit-trained Clinton, SMOM & Masonic-honoured Reagan & others back through to Red Mass attending Kennedy co-assassin Lyndon B. Johnson. Former high-level Monte Carlo lodge member Leo Zagami has charged Egan, Giuliani & fellow Monte Carlo/P2 lodge member Giorgio Hugo Balestrieri (who is the head on the Rotary Club of New York at the UN), as well as the Bush Crime Team of being key players in the orchestration & execution team that facilitated 9/11 for Rome]
When the US President comes to Rome, is it a surprise that he would want to meet the Pope, when there are more than 40 million US Catholics? And what would be accomplished by being discourteous and refusing? [The fact that is that Bush - ostensibly a Methodist Episcopalian, but really just another false Protestant, crypto-Romanist - has been photographed - see above - bowing to another man, a man who considers himself the spiritual & temporal leader of the world & in the place of Christ (the true meaning of Antichrist). This is treason and he should be charged with that crime. This member of the Bush Crime Family is a genocidal murderer & executes Rome's true policy while the Mystery Babylon entices the people of the world with her false policy]

Some of the Catholic hierarchy were incredibly foolish in the early days of Nazism; they soon learned their lessons, as did many others.

The Pope’s history with the Hitler Youth is well known. He had to join, his father was a staunch anti-Nazi and when he was able he left. This has been examined very closely by other Catholic haters like you and there is not one jot of evidence that the Pope ever in the slightest way compromised his principles. [What principles? Also: His father couldn't have been that staunch. There were resisters & none of that family were among them. Of all the candidates he was the one that was selected as Pope, which as much as anything speaks volumes about the Vatican Cardinals disregard for such matters]

I do not understand anyone, who claiming some religious allegiance as you appear to, is ready to falsify the facts, present mis-leading documents and photos as “evidence” of some invented wrongdoing, all with the intention of stirring up religious hatred. What kind of faith leads people to such a stance? ["Hearest thou not how many things they witness against thee?" - Matthew 27:13]

I do not understand anyone, who purporting to comprehend the international financial and banking systems, denounces [sic] wholly fictitious conspiracies by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, who have had no real influence in either field for decades. By the standards of the great entrepreneurs and financiers of today, they aren’t even rich! [Let's take the Rothschilds here & I'll quote from Nicholas Hagger's "The Syndicate" (2004), Pp. 8-10: "Frederic Morton, author of The Rothschilds, which was commissioned by the family writes, "Today the family gooms the inaudibility and invisibility of its presence." It is concealed behind a network of merchant banks, gold dealings, investments in minerals, and land and property holdings. Under its 2003-formed Netherlands-based holding company Concordia BV, Rothschilds Continuation Holdings AG, a Swiss holding company for the Rothschild merchant banking business, was the parent of scores of industrial, commercial, mining, and tourist corporations, not one of which bears the family name. Many were accumulated during the spread of the British Empire of which they were a driving force. ... An estimate of the Rothschilds' worth? The Richest Men in the World lists generally exclude dynatic families. If they had $6b in 1850 (a low estimate), then, assuming no erosion of the base wealth, it coul have been invested to bring in a conservative range of between 4% and 8% per annum, which gives figures ranging from $1.9 trillion to $491,409 trillion (more than the world's wealth according to our estimate). Take a really conservative figure of arounfd $1 trillion. In comparison Bill Gates' worth was estimated in 2004 as $32 billion. If you consider that a little over $300b would buy every ounce of gold in every bank in the world today, and that the US national debt is currently $7.5 trillion (i.e. $7,500b), the Rothschilds' position in the financial world can be grasped."] As for the Rockefellers being Jewish (in fact they descend from staunchly protestant Dutch settlers in New York state), only a rabid anti-Semite would invent this to “prove” the kind of deranged theories that inspired Hitler, whom you continually profess to denounce. [I have never asserted that the Rockefellers are Jewish & caution those who do]

It seems to me that you are one of that sad group of people who have not really succeeded in life as they had hoped and expected, or perhaps felt entitled. Rather than look at their own failings, they instead try and explain their failure on others – like the business man who fails and blames it on “industrial espionage”. ["Industrial espionage" does happen in the real world, as do conspiracies. What kind of attempt at persuasive reasoning intelligently suggests otherwise? Far-reaching decisions made by influential men behind closed doors are conspiracies & they happen - unfortunately - every day. The standard-issue pseudo-pscychological assessment of those interested in exposing the conspiratorial web & its weavers is transparently thin sop & insubstantial fodder for the Profane] Somehow you have espoused some religious doctrine that indulges the fantasy of victimhood and you then turn to denounce those who you believe are behind this conspiracy. [Roll over Jung & tell Freud the news! ;D] One of the interesting aspects of the minority Protestant Churches is their belief that they alone represent religious orthodoxy and the one and true faith but include only a minute proportion of the World’s Christians and have to face the reality that the overwhelming majority of Christians do not follow their theology (of hate, or whatever), but instead espouse a Religious Faith which requires them to love their neighbour, to forgive their enemy, and to serve the less fortunate, the poor and the sick. [So the Word of God is a theology of hate? Rome does really hate the Bible doesn't it?] This in no way inspires this religious minority however; the less fortunate are like them, and seemingly deserve no help and can starve or suffer without anyone being concerned. [Ah... & the Roman Church, which has never ended the Inquisition, just changed its name & has never excommunicated Hitler, Mussolini or any number of its other mass-murdering (no pun intended) psychopaths has a monopoly on compassion?] Instead their efforts are turned to attacking other Christian Churches and particularly the largest, the very one whose head is the successor to St Peter to whom Our Lord have the keys of his Kingdom. [The Roman church is the head of the Babylon mystery religion, as revealed in Revelation 17 & 18 & conclusively shown by Alexander Hislop in "The Two Babylons", refutations of Jesuit Coadjutors notwithstanding. Peter never went to Rome. This is an unbiblical fiction. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus' use of the word "rock" referred to faith of the kind that Peter exhibited & his promise of "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" were for anyone who had such faith in Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God."]

No, the great challenge is the supposed evil of Catholicism and the Papacy and all who support it (and even, apparently, those who have denounced it and tried to destroy it if they were born Catholics); but of course these obsessive are not even aware, apparently, that the very founders of Protestantism were all born Catholics themselves as were the ancestors of every other Protestant. [Born as slaves into an ungodly beast system that killed all true believers in Jesus Christ that knew that this faith needs no mediation by priests, like the Cathars & the Waldensians (or Vaudois)]

Your comments with these photos are so bizarre; [Not mine. They're from spiritually smart.com] you believe every head of state who visits with the Pope is somehow compromised [Especially if they bow down to him &/or kiss his ring. This is all of them, they defer to him & are thus compromised - Yes], as is the Pope in turn for receiving them. Yet the Pope is charged with the great responsibility of caring for the world’s Catholics who live under these regimes. Chavez, of course, has denounced the Church repeatedly and advocated the return to ancient Indian religions – when it suits him, and when it does not he is suddenly a Catholic again. [This is contrary rhetoric on Chavez's part. He kisses the Pope's ring & calls for a UN-led "new international order". The Pope is the UN's greatest propagandist & he too, like his servants calls for a "new world order"] Catholics believe in Redemption and forgiveness, we believe in Free Will and that we may be tempted to sin but if genuinely penitent, may be forgiven. If anyone – perhaps even you one day – turns to the Church for succour then they should be welcomed as the prodigal son returned. [I have no desire nor need for forgiveness from the Antichrist Church]

The issue of who should receive communion is hugely difficult in political contests – I personally believe, as to many Catholics and most bishops, that Catholics who openly advocate disobedience to the Church’s teachings should be denied communion; but the great difficulty of this is that it is perceived as political partisanship and at election times this is dangerous. The onus is on the communicant to come in humble grace and penitence, and it is on the non-Catholic to come, as President and Mrs Bush, with their arms crossed to receive a blessing and not communion. [A true Christian has no need of a blessing from a man, let alone a Catholic priest. George W. Bush is no Protestant & no Christian] The Priest or Bishop may have a great difficulty in turning away the penitent; but if a Catholic priest gave communion to Clinton it was because he surely believed Clinton was Catholic since it would have demonstrated such a lack of honour for the president to attempt to receive communion otherwise. Of course Clinton’s mercurial character may have led him to this dishonourable path. [A true Baptist would never partake in ritual in a Catholic church from a Catholic priest. Bill Clinton is no Baptist]

But for you, this is the “Heretical” Eucharist [Only codified in 1079] and this shows you up in your true colours. I find it personally extremely distressing when I find people who have such hatred in their hearts, it is incomprehensible that anyone holding such attitudes could believe their views consistent with a belief that they are following Christ. [I have a love of truth. That does not equate with being hateful]

I realise that I am wasting my time, however and am not so vain as to imagine what I write will have the slightest influence on you, on the lies you disseminate and the hatred you preach. [Sincere investigations, honest perceptions & the highlighting of unexposed & underexposed evidence & connections. Remarkably free of the language of hate. False & disingenuous charges] I shall pray for you and your misguided friends. [And I for you & yours - TS]

Enough.

Guy Stair Sainty




Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski: "The Pope is Mad!"

The American Jesuits by Raymond A. Schroth

Pp 129-130

In 1938, as La Farge concluded a fact finding tour of Western Europe, including Germany and Czechoslovakia, Pope Pius XI stunned him by calling him to a secret meeting at Castel Gandolfo. La Farge had sent him a copy of his new book, Interracial Justice; now the pope wanted him, “as if you yourself were the Pope” to write an encyclical on racism and fascism, including anti-Semitism. When LaFarge informed Ledochowski, the general exclaimed, “The Pope is Mad!” afraid that a condemnation of Germany would strengthen Stalin. For three months LaFarge assisted by a German priest-economist, settled in the Paris residence of the Jesuit magazine Etudes and, pushing himself to the point of collapse, wrote he encyclical.

Called Human Generis Unitas, the first 75 pages, written by his coauthor Father Gustav Gundlach, repeated ideas from previous encyclinals on the unity of the human race. La Farge’s 50 pages on totalitarianism, racism, and anti-Semitism were sharper. He condemned Nazism as contrary to natural law, and concerning the United States, condemning lynching and the public distinctions based upon race. Although he said racial segregation caused harm, he backed off from an absolute condemnation, allowing for “social separations” where “brotherly love and prudence” might require it. Anti-Semitism, he said, was “totally at variance with the true spirit of the Catholic Church.” But he worried about “misguided” Jews who were attracted to communism.

On September 20, for personal reasons that are not clear, LaFarge delivered the manuscript not to Pius XI but to Ledochowski, who sat on it for months, in effect suppressing it; and there is no evidence Pius XI even saw it before he died on February 10, 1939. When Pius XII issued Summi Pontificatus (the Unity of Human Society) in October, LaFarge looked in vain for his ideas on racism. The best he cold ger was the greeting to blacks in Sertium Lactitiac.

http://books.google.com/books?id=LOO_AtFbXbkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=Ledochowski+th+Pope+is+Mad&source=web&ots=s3xikTjGE4&sig=zqv4O8yEqG2bP5xjkt_mjrYCehA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA124,M1

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski's Othelloizing Diplomacy

According to Tupper Saussy



http://www.tuppersaussy.com/museum/html/writings/articles/15brienner.html

(excerpt)

Vladimir Ledochowski was a Polish aristocrat who by 1906 had demonstrated such exceptional skills in international diplomacy that Jesuit Superior General Franz Xavier Wernz (under whose tutelage Pacelli had done his postgraduate research in canon law) appointed him Consultor General for Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Poland, as well as Belgium and the Netherlands.

“Consultor General” is the equivalent of a cabinet post. It empowered Ledochowski to lace the future of his nations with alliances that lay buried like so many land-mines. This is not an unusual feat for a Jesuit strategist. Indeed, the Society of Jesus (which is the pope's private CIA and veritable Mother of spies) is renowned for “Othelloizing” nations—setting them up for mutual destruction, as when Othello's trusted but treacherous advisor Iago gloats to the audience, “Now whether he kill Cassio or Cassio him, or each do kill the other, every way makes my gain.”

(It's foolish, in my opinion, not to suspect a covert military strategist of anything he has authority, means, and requirement to do. To ignore him is to be conquered by his strategy, which is usually to foster ignorance of his most decisive operations.)

Triggering World War

Most historians agree that the first World War was triggered by the Serbian Concordat of June 1914. Eugenio Pacelli was the Concordat's acknowledged author, but Vladimir Ledochowski had authority, means, and requirement to ghost it.

The Serbian Concordat promised (a) Vatican support of Serbia's liberation from Roman Catholic Austria-Hungary, while (b) pitting Roman Catholic evangelism against the Serbian state religion, Eastern Orthodoxy, a faith that denies the supremacy of the Roman papacy.

Such a policy was sure to provoke belligerency between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, just as Jesuit military strategy created enmity between America and Great Britain to incite a Revolution that resulted in the world's first republic governable by Roman Catholic laypersons. The underlying purpose of the Serbian Concordat, like the Declaration of Independence, was to restructure the world according to the requirements of Rome. What those requirements were we shall learn presently.

Four days after Eugenio Pacelli signed the Concordat, a Serbian terrorist assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Within weeks, nations with no more reason to make war than the alliances they had signed began outfitting their respective soldiery for what looked like Armageddon.


Reorganization

Death hit the Vatican, too. On August 19, 1914, Jesuit General Wernz died suddenly, followed the next day by Pope Pius X—of heartbreak, it was rumored, over the world's disintegration. To succeed Pius, the college of cardinals chose a professional diplomat, Giacomo della Chiesa, who assumed the name Benedict XV.

It took the Jesuits six months to elect a Superior General to succeed Wernz. There's no more powerful political office on earth than Superior General of the Society of Jesus. It commands absolute, unquestioned obedience. The proposition that Jesus Christ is to be seen in the person of the Superior General is repeated no less than five hundred times in the Society's Constitutions.

Vladimir Ledochowski was chosen General by his Jesuit electors.

The man idolized by Eugenio Pacelli now had full authority to cause America to desire war against Germany. We have heard many reasons why America entered World War I. Statesmen argued that it was “the war to end all wars,” while pacifists charged it was a war to support British imperialism. Actual outcome points to another, less apparent yet more practical reason.
.

The Purpose of World War I

Immediately upon assuming his Generalate, Vladimir Ledochowski fled Rome (Austria, after all, was now at war with Italy) and set up office with two assistants in his mother's castle at Zizers, Switzerland.

In 1917, Ledochowski invited Mathias Erzberger, a deputy from the German Catholic Center party, to Zizers for a secret meeting.

Erzberger later reported to friends that the General had persuaded him to support a strategy of destroying the unified Reich under the Protestant Kaiser Wilhelm II in order to bring the Catholic nations of central and eastern Europe together in a pan-German federation under a charismatic dictator charged with subduing the communist menace from the east.

Dr. Hans Carossa, documenting the deputy's fact patterns after Zizers, observed that “Every political maneuver that Erzberger has engaged in since his discussion with the Jesuit General has only served to advance this Jesuit political strategy.” (Manfred Barthel, The Jesuits, William Morrow, p. 254-5)

Key to this encirclement of Protestant Prussian led Germany were the alliances placing Germany on opposing sides with Russia and Great Britain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II_of_Germany

A typical example of this was his "love-hate" relationship with the United Kingdom and in particular with his British cousins. He returned to England in January 1901 to be at the bedside of his grandmother, Queen Victoria, and was holding her in his arms at the moment of her death.[4] Open armed conflict with Britain was never what Wilhelm had in mind—"a most unimaginable thing", as he once quipped—yet he often gave in to the generally anti-British sentiments within the upper echelons of the German government, conforming as they did to his own prejudices toward Britain which arose from his youth. When war came about in 1914, Wilhelm sincerely believed that he was the victim of a diplomatic conspiracy set up by his late uncle, Edward VII, in which Britain had actively sought to "encircle" Germany through the conclusion of the Entente Cordiale with France in 1904 and a similar arrangement with Russia in 1907. This is indicative of the fact that Wilhelm had a highly unrealistic belief in the importance of "personal diplomacy" between European monarchs, and could not comprehend that the very different constitutional position of his British cousins made this largely irrelevant. A reading of the Entente Cordiale shows that it was actually an attempt to put aside the ancient rivalries between France and Great Britain rather than an "encirclement" of Germany.

Similarly, he believed that his personal relationship with his cousin-in-law Nicholas II of Russia (see The Willy-Nicky Correspondence) was sufficient to prevent war between the two powers. At a private meeting at Björkö in 1905, Wilhelm concluded an agreement with his cousin which amounted to a treaty of alliance, without first consulting with Bülow. A similar situation confronted Czar Nicholas on his return to St. Petersburg, and the treaty was, as a result, a dead letter. But Wilhelm believed that Bülow had betrayed him, and this contributed to the growing sense of dissatisfaction he felt towards the man he hoped would be his foremost servant. In broadly similar terms to the "personal diplomacy" at Björkö, his attempts to avoid war with Russia by an exchange of telegrams with Nicholas II in the last days before the outbreak of the First World War came unstuck due to the reality of European power politics. His attempts to woo Russia were also seriously out of step with existing German commitments to Austria-Hungary. In a chivalrous fidelity to the Austro-Hungarian/German alliance, William informed the Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria in 1889 that "the day of Austro-Hungarian mobilisation, for whatever cause, will be the day of German mobilisation too". Given that Austrian mobilisation for war would most likely be against Russia, a policy of alliance with both powers was obviously impossible.





Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Kaiser Wilhelm II

According to Eric Jon Phelps
http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=1375

Dear Bxxxx,

I have a few other facts that may be of interest.

First, in a private meeting between Kaiser Wilhelm II and Pope Leo XIII (the pope that was poisoned by the Jesuits who was then given an antidote once conforming with the wishes of the Black Pope), Leo stated that Wilhelm was to be "the Sword of the Church." This the Lutheran Kaiser refused to do as recorded in his The Kaiser's Memoirs. Shortly thereafter, the Grand Orient Lodge in Germany determined to overthrow the Hohenzollern Dynasty (as was later revealed to Wilhelm by a German Freemason and also recorded in his Memoirs, which overthrow was accomplished following WWI---the first round of the Jesuits' Second Thirty Years' War against Germany (1914-1918; 1933-1945). Additionally, Bismarck and the Reichstag had emancipated 550,000 German Jews in 1871 and the following year expelled the Society of Jesus---further enraging the Order. The Dynasty was formally on the hit list, not only for these reasons but due to the defeat of the Order's Roman Catholic Austria in 1866 and Jesuit-ruled Roman Catholic France in 1871 at Sedan. Napoleon III fled France and spent the rest of his days under the protection of the Order's most obedient British Monrach, Queen Victoria. Failing to subjugate "heretic" Protestant Prussia, the Sons of Loyola would attempt it again via France in secret league with Tzarist Russia. Meanwhile, the Jesuit-ruled King Edward VII was busy creating the Triple Entente preparing for the Company's attempted war of annihilation against Protestant Prussia---WWI.

Further, the Kaiser sought to undue the secret alliance between France and Russia finalized in 1892. In this he succeeded at a private meeting with Nicholas II on the Tzar's yacht in Finnish waters in 1905, following the Order's destruction of the Russian navy by its "Japanese Sword of the Church." (Yes, the Black Pope has been in total control of Japan since no later than 1868.) There, with tears in his eyes, Nicholas vowed never to go to war with Wilhelm. This act, if enforced by Nicholas, would have prevented the beginning of WWI caused by the mobilization 800,000 Russian troops on the Prussian border. This great treaty was rendered useless by Russian Minister Isvolski according to U.S. Senator Robert Owen in his masterpiece, The Russian-Imperial Conspiracy, 1892-1914.

Further, Kaiser Wilhelm opposed the Boer War, that Jesuit-inspired Crusade against the Protestant Reformed, White South African Boers. English Masons Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milmer and yes, the Prince of Wales---later King Edward VII---conducted this papal crusade and killed tens of thousands of Boers (elderly men, women and children) in concentration camps, delighting the Order's Jesuit-styled "Roundtable" in London. Of course all the gold in the Transvaal became Britain's---and thus was now to be used to finance the Order's agenda for the new Twentieth century---"the century of revenge."

So, the Kaiser was on the Black Pope's hit list: Wilhelm was not a Freemason and was also a hostile enemy of the Pope and his Jesuits. Not good for business or one's personal health.

This brings us to the control of Jerusalem by a nominal Protestant monarch who opposed the Jesuits; who opposed his pro-Jesuit, Masonic uncle Edward VII whom he called "Satan;" who opposed the wicked Jesuit policies of Britain; and who opposed Rome's Masonic Zionist control of Jerusalem. The Lutheran Kaiser knew Britain's Rothschild Zionists---Herzl in particular---were controlled by Rome. Did not Theodore Herzl have a notorious audience with the Pope in 1904? Was not this Zionist traitor to his own people the pawn of the Pope's Rothschilds, streaking to international prominence via the Black Pope's Dreyfus Affair and controlled international press? Thus, to support Britain's Masonic Zionists meant to give control of Jerusalem to the Papacy. This Wilhelm he sought to prevent. He wanted Jerusalem for his Protestant Prussian Empire, and Jerusalem under the Kaiser may well have fared better than Jerusalem under the British, the Order having been formally readmitted into Britain by King Edward VII in 1902. And since Jerusalem must be under Gentile rule until "the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24), would not the anti-Jesuit Protestant German Empire have been a better Gentile master to the Jews than the pro-Jesuit Protestant British Empire?

Therefore, I do not believe that the Kaiser was in Jerusalem in 1898 on behalf of Pope Leo XIII. He was there to thwart the British which included the Masonic Jewish Zionists; he was an enemy of the policies of the Black Pope's international, Masonic "Invisible Empire." The First Reich under Charlamagne was pre-Reformation and thus Roman Catholic---when Jews were severely persecuted (i.e., blamed and mass-murdered for the Black Death). The First Reich was ended in 1806 by the Order's "great avenger" against the anti-Jesuit Papacy and its Holy Roman Empire---Napoleon I. The Second Reich was Protestant and built upon the foundation of military victories against the Jesuit-ruled Hapsburgs (1866) and the Jesuit-ruled Bonapartes (1871), as well as the "accursed" Jewish emancipation (1871) and subsequent suppression of the Jesuits (1872). The Third Reich was completely in the hands of Roman Catholics (Hitler, Himmler, Mueller, Thyssen, etc.) and thus it carried out the policies of that creature of the Jesuit General, Pope Pius XII. The result was the Pope's "Final ]Roman Catholic] Solution to the [Jesuit-agitated] Jewish Question" as championed by the Order's secret emissary and inspiration of both Hitler and Himmler, the Lutheran, Masonic founder of the Order of the New Templars, the openly anti-Jesuit ex-priest, George Lanz. The notorious La Civilta Cattolica---the house organ for the Jesuits in Rome---ceaselessly agitated for the solution to the "Jewish Question" for sixty years (1880-1940).

In conclusion concerning the Kaiser, I believe his good name has been maligned by the Pope's global Press and corrupt historians---Emil Cohen (alias "Ludwig"). Wilhelm was terribly betrayed by General Ludendorff---the first Hitler. Wilhelm has been blamed for igniting WWI which is a bold-faced lie of the Black Pope's Masonically-ruled Press, and now he is blamed for having opposed the Order's Masonic Zionist movement, which very same movement, aided Hitler in the Pope's Holocaust. Like President Nixon, the Kaiser was not killed outright but was humiliated with the loss of his throne, empire, nation and good name now in infamy---a name so accursed by those Blackrobes, the Luciferian Sons of Loyola.

Sincerely in faith,

Brother Eric


QUOTE
Very eye opening. Phelps is a great historian. May the good Kaiser rest in peace, and his descendant house of Hohenzollern follow in his good steps. I'm glad to hear of the Last Emperor of Prussia (United Germany), Kaiser Wilhelm painted in such a good light. This is why the Black Pope & Jesuits had to get him taken out of the way.


Bismarck

According to Eric Jon Phelps


http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=266

Dear Craig,

I wonder what the real purpose of this attack is about? What is my opponent's endgame? Obviously he is a defender of the Jesuit Order, or at least wrecklessly attempts to be such.

I will say this is one of the most erudite attacks in quite a while. It reveals a sharp knowledge of history yet avoids certain irrefutable facts.

I shall reply below.


Im sorry to say it but under closer investigation many of Erics claims
completely fall apart.

Lets have a very quick look:

He claims that Bismarck, alongside protestant Prussia was "anti-popish".

Correct. Bismarck was indeed anti-pope and anti-priest (due to the doctrines of the pope's Temporal Power and Papal Infallibility), not anti-Roman Catholic people. He held the same position that I hold.

Complete bunkum because he doesnt tell you that Bismarck received the
Christusorden (the highest award that the Vatican gives out) from Leo
XIII in 1885 if I remember correctly. Hes the only protestant to ever
get it. He even met the pope himself.

I am totally unfamiliar with these two facts: that Bismarck received that highest papal award, the Order of Christ, and met with Pope Leo XIII---even as that Protestant traitor Kaiser Wilhelm II met with Pope Leo XIII in the early 1890s as I record in VAIII. Thank you sir, and I will check these two assertions out. Yes, he was the first Protestant to receive papal Knighthood into the Order of Christ which was a great compromise on his part as a true Protestant. But this was the pope's gesture of thanks for Bismarck ending the Kulturkampf in 1877, something to which I never would have consented until the revocation of the doctrine of the temporal power and papal infallibility. In this the Prince made a terrible compromise, but he was not pro-pope as the Jesuits and Redemptorists remained expelled from the Protestant Second Reich.

Accepting my opponent's assertion that the above two facts are true (now validated), I believe Bismarck's actions can be explained. We must remember the context of our discussion: the masters of the pope's Counter Reformation, the Jesuits, ruling Pope Pius IX from 1848 onward (after his confinement at Gaeta for his "liberal" action of proposing a Constitution for Italy), sought to destroy Protestant Prussia pursuant to the Order's Council of Trent. This fact is irrefutable.

Thus, the Company of Jesus designed to use the Roman Catholic nations of Austria, Bavaria and France to destroy Protestant Prussia. Once Protestant Prussia would fall, the Continent could then be made pro-Roman Catholic and subject to a revived Holy Roman Empire---the pope's endgame since the Jesuit Order used Napoleon to end Empire in 1806, the Company having been at war with the Vatican from 1773-1814. This cleverly laid, Jesuit conspiracy against Protestant Prussia began in 1866 with the Austrian-Prussian War and ended with the Jesuit-directed American, British, Soviet, and French Allied invasion and subjugation in 1944-45. Prussia, gang-raped and bombed into oblivion, ceased to be a nation by 1946. White Protestant Prussia is now no more. In the light of this history, we now must look to the actions of Freemason Bismarck, both for better or for worse, pertaining to his influence in the preservation of Lutheran Protestant Prussia---and the reversal of some of his policies, to the detriment of Protestant Prussia.

Protestant Lutheran Bismarck was an enemy of the blue-blooded, Knight of Malta-ruled, Roman Catholic Hapsburgs of Austria. He knew their abject hatred for Protestant Prussia and purposed intent to bring about another Thirty Years' War. Remember, the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was ignited by the Jesuit-trained and controlled Ferdinand II, its quest being to destroy the Protestant German people and thus Luther's Reformation of the North---in Prussia. Sweden's great Protestant Lutheran King, Gustavus Adolphus, fully understood the Jesuit design for which reason he brought his Lutheran Swedish troops into Germany to fight for the liberties of Protestant Germany. His dying words on the battlefield of Lutzen in 1632 were, as spoken to his killers:

"I am the King of Sweden, and thus I seal with my blood the religion and liberties of Germany."

Bismarck knew this was to be his fate if he resisted the Jesuit Order in Germany, hence he became "the Iron Chancellor"---and rightfully so.

The Jesuit Order launched its first attack in 1866. Austria declared war on Prussia: within seven weeks the war was over, Protestant Prussia the victor. At this time, Prussia was undergoing a great spiritual awakening due to the Bible-preaching of John Ronge, considered to be the second Martin Luther. It was a bold attempt on the part of the Ignatians: use the pope's Roman Catholic Austrian Empire coupled with the German "Protestant" Hanoverians (including the house of Saxe-Coberg-Gotha) to crush Protestant Prussia. Thank God it failed and Protestant German unity began with the birth of the North German Confederation. German hegemony began with this easy victory thanks to the brilliant military designs of Protestant Von Moltke the Elder, the leadership of the Prince and the courage of Kaiser Wilhelm I.

In that year, 1866, the Order attempted its first assassination of their dredful enemy, the Bible-reading, Lutheran Prince Otto von Bismarck. It failed. The Iron Chancellor got the message, but he kept to his course---the preservation of Protestant Prussia while not aspiring to empire.

The Order's second attempt in subjugating Protestant Prussia to the Temporal Power of the pope (that usurping temporal power created via a forgery in 756 AD and enforced by Pepin "the Great") was the calling of the First Vatican Council (1870). Therein, the damnable Syllabus of Errors set forth by Pope Pius IX in 1864 (whose "penholders were the Jesuits") was incorporated into the doctrines of that Council. One of those "Eighty Errors of Modern Civilization" condemned by Rome was the Protestant liberty of freedom of conscience. Now, no Protestant had the right to choose his own religion. Futher, in 1870, the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope was incorporated into Canon Law, placing the pope over the Kaiser's political affairs. This was regarded as an effrontary to the rightful regal power of Kaiser Wilhelm I, and forshadowed an attempted Roman Catholic alliance against Prussia, that alliance to have included Roman Catholic Bavaria which had expelled the Jesuits in 1848, but later were readmitted. The stage was now set. War against "heretic" Prussia was in the offing. Thus we are not surprised at the words of Bismarck who declared:

"This Pope, this foreigner, this Italian, is more powerful in this country than any other one man, not excepting the King. He would use fire and sword against us if he had the power, and he would confiscate our property, and would not spare our lives." VAIII, p. 664.

Plotting a cunning vengeance against Protestant Prussia due to the Order's gigantic losses in 1866---failing in war and assassination---, Roman Catholic France (remembering her defeat at Waterloo (1815) by the British and the Protestant Prussians) will now be called upon to lead a coalition force to attack and conquer Lutheran Prussia. France's Roman Catholic Napoleon III, surnamed "Napoleon the Little," had a powerful Jesuit for an advisor and his queen, Empress Eugenie, was continually at the feet of the Jesuits. Thus began the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. France attacked Germany, not vice versa. Germany quickly won the war, Napoleon surrendering in 1871 at Sedan, later finalized in Paris at Versailles. This defeat ended the pope's French Second Empire (1852-1871) and Napoleon went into exile in England. Napoleon was protected by the most accomplished of female Jesuitesses, Queen Victoria---who opened dialogue with Rome on her own initiative in 1877.

Of the Danish War (1864), the Austrio-Prussian War (1866), the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71) my 1886 source states in VAIII, p. 775:

"You know that the late war between France and Germany was caused by the Jesuits, and the Empress Eugenie called it her war. The short war of 1866 was the result of a Jesuit intrigue to put down Protestant Prussia, and center the empire of Germany in Catholic Austria, but Prince Bismarck, with a wondeful energy and ability, anticipated and defeated the Jesuit conspiracy. The Danish war of 1864 had exactly the same object, and Bismarck was again too quick for them and the Austrians retired. The Hanoverian court was at the time entirely under the influence of the Jesuits, and in favor of Austria. The people invited Bismarck to save them; and when the Prussians arrived the Hanoverian troops refused to fight." [The Hanoverian royals were in the hands of the Jesuits, but the people they governed were Protestants in the main.]

We must add that had not King Ludwig II of Roman Catholic Bavaria sided with Protestant Prussia in the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia may well have lost the conflict. This decision of Ludwig (who hated the Jesuits) earned him two bullets in the back in 1886; his death by drowning is a terrible lie.

To add insult to injury, Bismarck knew the source of France's attack on Prussia: the dastardly Jesuits. Now the Prince, so it seemed, would serve a final blow against attempted Jesuit hegemony in Prussia. In 1872, with the consent of the Parliament, the King and the Protestant and Roman Catholic peoples, Bismarck expelled the Jesuits from all of the Prussian Empire---including Bavaria! Not only were the Jesuits expelled, but so were the Jesuits' right hand men, the Redemptorists. I cover this very carefully in VAIII with no less than German Theodor Greisinger's historical masterpiece on the Jesuits as my source. In this same year Bismarck began his Kulturkampf, his "war with culture"---Rome's culture of imposing papal political/temporal rule in the Protestant Prussian Reich. He had priests arrested in their pulpits while they were preaching treason to the Reich and the Kaiser---praise God! (Hitler's Jesuit-authored Mein Kampf would be the antithesis to Bismrack's "Kulturkampf" waged from 1872-77.) Further in 1873, Bismarck enfranchised 550,000 Jews, enraging the Order beyond imagination. Therefore we are not surprised to see the second attempted assassination of the Prince in 1874. The Order is formally expelled, the perfidious Jews are free to prosper and the "Struggle" with Rome's temporal power is raging.

I believe at this time Bismarck began to weaken. In 1877 he ends his "Struggle with Rome" and revokes the anti-Catholic Falk Laws. Later, as my opponent mentions, Bismarck accepts a papal knighthood, possibly in 1885, by the wicked Pope Leo XIII. In 1890, that Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Kaiser Wilhelm II expels the Chancellor from office. In 1893, the Redemptorists are readmitted into the Reich and the Kaiser enables the Order to re-enter Rome after being expelled for 22 years. In 1917, the Society of Jesus is legally reamitted into the Reich, just in time to finish off the Protestant Prussian Second Reich---aided and abetted by the traitorous Kaiser. Indeed, Bismrack had a terrible finish though for years he was a great preserver of Prussia's Reformation.


He claims that the Jesuits were kicked out of Germany in 1872.
Thats somewhat misleading as the Jesuits never had to leave the country.
Paragraph 2 of the "Jesuitengesetze" merely claims that certain foreign
Jesuits can be expelled from Germany, and that german Jesuits can be
expelled from certain regions in Germany.
This 2nd paragraph was already completely abolished in 1904 btw.

Disagreed. Answered above. Read John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope, page 81, The anti-Jesuit laws were repealed on April 19, 1917. Cormwall states:

"From that point on, the Society of Jesus was free to enter Germany and found communitites, schools, and colleges, which it did with great energy."

No doubt many Jesuits remained in Germany, but it was in violation of the law. The same holds true for Protestant Great Britain from the years of 1829 to 1902.


He claims that the Kulturkampf went against Rome when in fact it was
during the Kulturkampf that the "Zentrum" party (the catholic party) had
the highest growth rates and grew into the real mass-party it is today
(CDU)

True and clever redirect. The Kulturkampf drove many Roman Catholics into the Zentrum, as that movement was overseen and managed by the Jesuits incognito. The Center Party would then aid the rise of Hitler to his dictatorship in 1933 as proven by Cornwall referenced above. The Jesuits are martial masters of contingency, including the setbacks dealt by Prince Bismarck.

The same is true for the SPD which grew stronger than ever during the
very time it was surpressed.
Typical hegelian dialectic.

The biggest nonsense (except from his infantile racial theories, Im
mixed-raced myself)

"Infantile racial theories," theories that my opponent cannot disprove and which many a brilliant scholar and godly man has propounded in the past. But then again my opponent must be of the radical, Jacobin, socialist-communist school advocating the doctrines of "universal equality" and "universal suffrage" as fully developed on the Jesuit Order's South American Reductions where the Guarani Indians were no more than slaves. The Marxian maxime of "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need" (the consummation of Roman Catholic Sir Thomas More's Utopia) was a financial boon to the Company of Jesus and its international commerce conducted by its "Blackships." There are, in fact, cultural, intellectual and physical differences in the races, which no objective analysis can deny---unless one is promoting a religion devoid of objective reasoning as well as biblical truth.

is the claim that Germany was "punished" by the
order for abolishing it (until 1917) and for being the home of the
Reformation.

Most correct and obvious in accordance with the Order's Council of Trent.

Now lets look at Switzerland for a second shall we?

The Jesuits were banned in Switzerland from 1848 until the 1970's.
In all that time Switzerland was NEVER punished, in fact Count Vlodomir
Ledochowski sought REFUGE in Switzerland (a country that has banned his
order) in 1915 when Italy had declared war on Austria-Hungary.
I highlighted the point "Count" because thats the crucial thing here.
Remember that Ledochowski was raised as a page at the court in Austria.

Well said. The Jesuit Order was formally readmitted into Switzerland in 1973, though it had secretly re-entered the country prior to World War II. Ledochowski was not raised in the royal court but for a time was in the court of the Empress of Austria, Elizabeth, who was murdered by the Order in 1898 for her resistence to its incitation of anti-Jewish fury. The Jesuit-controlled, bastard anarchist stabbed her through the heart with a small file while she was in Geneva---Switzerland. Again, the law was not enforced in Switzerland due to Jesuit intrigue within the Swiss government---as was the case in Britain mentioned below.

So the nation that was crucial in the Reformation (Zwingli, Calvin), the
nation that had abolished the Jesuit Order for around 120 years, (even
in the 70s two Jesuits were expelled from Switzerland when they were
outed)
This nation never was in any way or form attacked.
It stayed a save haven all the way whilst the surrounding countries went
down in ww1 and ww2.
To this day it stays out of the EU, it retains its currency and it isnt
a part of NATO.
Somethings fishy here.
May I add that (protestant) Sweden completely stayed out of trouble
aswell during ww2 when the neighbouring countries were invaded?
(Finland, Norway)

Clearly, the Order caused a revolution in 1847 and was expelled in 1848. Later on, it secretly regained control of the tiny Protestant nation so as to serve as its banking haven in the future. Notice the seal of Geneva incorporates the seal of the Jesuit General. Switzerland was not a nation to be neutralized by military force. That was accomplished secretly as was the case in Britain from the time of the Order's formal expulsion in 1829 to its readmittence in 1902 via the wicked and adulterous Protestant "Bertie," King Edward VII. The same holds true with Communist China, as the Order was expelled in 1949 by Freemasonic Mao Zedong and is expelled to this day. Yet the Black Pope has ruled China since no later than the overthrow of the Manchu Dynasty in 1912. Communist China has been built by Jesuit-controlled Great Britain (via the RIIA) and the Jesuit-ruled American Empire (via the CFR). There are true enemies of the Order and false enemies; there is an open but false policy of the Order and a secret but true policy. As long as Switzerland serves the pope with its financial institutions and as a breeding ground for world revolutionaries (Ben-Gurion, Lenin and Mussolini), it can have an open anti-Jesuit policy for the purpose of political deception. The same was true with apostate Protestant, Freemasonically-ruled Sweden. Sweden facilitated the evacuation of top Nazis after the pope's Second Thirty Years' War (1914-1945). Why overthrow Sweden when it was already conquered with apostasy and treason via her Freemasonic King?

Why is it that Thomas Müntzer was persecuted, hunted, taken prisoner,
tortured and finally killed whilst Luther (who hated him for supporting
the poor people in their revolt) was enjoying a good time teaching at
the university?
An enemy to the establishment will be prosecuted.
Müntzer continued where Luther stopped, he supported the rights of the
highly oppresed peasants (whilst Luther teamed up with the royalty) and
as a conseqence they killed him (and Luther applauded)

God forbid that my opponent should engage in a geopolitical discussion without reverting to one of the Black Pope's favorite addictions: waging a continual and ceaseless attack on learned and godly, Martin Luther, without whom this exchange would be impossible! From the calumny of Luther hating the Jews (as per the Jesuit Order's ghost-written forgery On the Jews and Their Lies---which work of the devil was a total contradiction to both the language and theology of the great Reformer) to the peasant's rebellion. Since my opponent seeks to spar in that arena, then so be it.

To begin with, years of injustice had been imposed on the poor peasants of Germany. The Roman Catholic, priest-led lords of Germany had oppressed these poor souls, robbing them of their labor, property and very lives. That supreme injustice ignited what became to be known as The Peasants Rebellion. The leader of this sanguine and lawless host was Thomas Munzer, a man who, according to Wylie's The History of the Protestant Reformation, vol. 1, pages 512-518, claimed to be a Bible believer, but who

"held it to be unworthy of a Christian to be guided by any objective authority, even the Word of God. He was called to 'liberty,' and the law or limit of that 'liberty' was his own inward light. [Sounds like the popish "Libertines" of Geneva who hated and opposed Calvin as well as nearly destroying the spiritual great awakening in that first free city of the Reformation.] Luther, he affirmed, by instituting ordinances and forms, had established another Popedom; and Munzer disliked the Popedom of Wittenberg even more than he did the Popedom of Rome. The political opinions of Munzer partook of a like freedom with his religious ones. To submit to princes was to serve Belials. We have no superior but God. The Gospel taught that all men were equal; and this he interpreted, or rather misinterperted, into the democratic doctrine of equlaity of rank, and community of goods [i.e., civil anarchy and socialist communism---those most delightful doctrines of the Jesuits aimed at all Protestant peoples and nations]. . . . Such was the man who, girding on 'the sword of Gideon,' put himself at the head of the revolted peasantry. He inoculated them with his own visionary spirit, and taught them to aim at a liberty of which their own judgments or passions were the rule." [This the essence of the Book of Judges, when every man did what was right in his own eyes leading to Israel's repeated defeats at the hand of their enemies.]

This is the hero my opponent seeks to vindicate when Munzer was nothing more than a lawless brigand who used the Bible as a cloak for his looting, rape and murder. His unfettered fanaticism led to the princes of the realm reverting to force to put down the pillage and murder of a gigantic peasant mob numbering in the tens of thousands. Luther sought to reason with the peasants as well as the nobles, but to no avail. In the end under questioning, Munzer openly "acknowledged his errors and crimes" after he had been responsible for the deaths of nearly 100,000 people. This spiritual bastard was then rightly beheaded and went to hell. Much more can be read in the six pages of Wylie's opus, but I will leave my opponent to that sobering fate.


Needless to say that if it hadn't been for the Reformation the Jesuit
Order would have been gone as well.

Indeed, with no Bible-based, Protestant Reformation there would have been no anti-Bible, Counter Reformation led by the Jesuit Order.

Who harboured them when they were surpressed by the pope and every
catholic country in Europe?
Thats right, protestant Prussia under Friedrich the Great and orthodox
Russia under Katharina the Great did.

I cover the suppression and extinction of the Jesuit Order via Pope Clement's Bull (not a Brief) of 1773. Frederick II the Great protected the Order as he was the most powerful Freemason on the continent, and his masters, the Jesuits, were the authors of the Scottish Rite, all thirty three degrees. Surely my opponent must know of the Order's rule over Illuminized Freemasonry! Concerning Catherine II the Great, that whore (and I mean German whore, as her son Paul called her) protected the Jesuits for her own aggrandizement. Poland was partitioned into Russian and Prussian Poland so that the pope's Bull would have no effect in that Roman Catholic nation---the Jesuits saving their lands and holdings in the nation of the pope's coming Eurasian Jewish Holocaust. The Jesuits controlled both Frederick and Catherine though they were both Lutheran, though Catherine was the protector of the "accursed" Orthodox Church, later removed from the Order's hit list after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Coincidence? Guess not.

As the character "V" in V for Vendetta said, "I like God, do not believe in coincidence."

Sincerely in faith,

Brother Eric


Cromwell


Old Ironsides: Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Revolution

By William P. Farley
http://www.ag.org/enrichmentjournal/200402...6_ironsides.cfm

On a cold January day in 1649, King Charles I stepped before a hushed crowd of Londoners. He ascended the scaffold, wished his executioner well, and knelt, thrusting his head forward onto the dry chopping block. The ax fell, severing his head from his neck. Then the executioner lifted the king’s head and cried, "Behold the head of a traitor."1

The unthinkable had happened. A "Christian" nation had put its king to death. Spontaneously, an audible groan pulsed through the anxious throng, "a groan, said an eyewitness, ’as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again’ "2 — one that represented the sentiment of many Englishmen and most contemporary Europeans.

Few recognize history’s great turning points when they occur. The execution of Charles I was no exception. The ideals of the Reformation had reached full expression, affecting even the sphere of politics, and the Puritans were the vehicle in which these ideals had traveled. They terminated in Charles’ execution.

And, no one was more single mindedly devoted to the Bible, and the political implications of its truths than the Puritan, Oliver Cromwell (1599–1659), the man primarily responsible for the king’s beheading. He was England’s greatest 17th-century statesman and a military genius who, although lacking formal military training, was never defeated in battle. To his dismay, he eventually replaced the king, ruling England as Lord Protector. He was offered crown and monarchy but refused it.

To the ideas planted by Cromwell and his Puritan peers, we owe most of our religious and political liberty, the inception of capitalism, the birth of the scientific revolution, and the advent of denominationalism. Cromwell represented the Puritan ideals well.

Puritan Caricatures
Who were the Puritans? They were not a denomination but a spiritual movement of reform scattered throughout England’s churches. During the 1560s the Reformation failed to adequately purify the Church of England. Many clamored to go all the way with the Bible. They were derogatorily labeled "Puritans."

"Throughout western culture the image aroused by the word Puritan is killjoy," notes Jacques Barzun. "In the United States he is the thin-lipped New Englander who passed ’blue laws’ against all innocent pleasures, his only pastime being to hang witches."3

The facts quickly disprove this caricature, promoted by popular literature such as The Scarlet Letter and The Crucible. In fact, the Puritans wore bright clothes, danced, were excellent businessmen, ardently promoted higher education, were the first to allow multiple religious denominations in one country, and knew how to enjoy life. When the good ship Arabella sailed for New England in the 1630s with a cargo bound for the New England Puritans, she carried 10,000 gallons of wine (50,000 fifths), and 42 tons of beer, but only 14 tons of fresh water.4 When the Indian, Squanto, walked into the hut of the first Pilgrim5 settlers at Plymouth Colony they immediately did what all good Puritans do — offered rum and ale.

The spiritual tide that began with the Reformation in 1517 hit its high-water mark with the Puritan movement. The "Puritans shine before us as a kind of beacon light," notes J.I. Packer, "overtopping the stature of the majority of Christians in most eras."6

Now that we know something of the Puritans, let’s further examine the life and times of Oliver Cromwell, one of the great Puritan leaders. The epochal conflict into which he was born does much to explain his life.

The Great Conflict
James I (1566-1625) and his son, Charles I, assumed the Divine Right of Kings. This was the doctrine that the king should be head of the National Church, ruling that church through bishops subordinate to his power. Both James and Charles I believed the King spoke for God and that the King’s word was to be mediated through the bishops of the State church. In other words, since the King spoke for God, James and Charles both believed that their subjects’ consciences should be bound by the King’s command.

However, the Reformation, which began to influence England just before James’ birth, taught the "the priesthood of all believers." This was the idea that every man can, and should, bypass the king and his bishops, hearing from God directly through Scripture. Therefore, they believed it was paramount that the State give men liberty of conscience. Second, the Bible taught equality of all men, that all men are equal before the judgment seat of Christ, and that all, king and commoner, were equally subject to the law of God. These were radical ideas in the 17th century.

Biography
When Oliver was born, in 1599, the Divine Right of Kings had been accepted political theory for hundreds of years. The official State religion was Anglicanism, and no other denominations were allowed. Churches that "separated" or "dissented" were brutally persecuted. Many were hung or tortured for worshiping outside of the Anglican church.

Oliver was born into a middle-class family near Huntingdon, in the vicinity of Cambridge. Little is known of his youth. He studied law at Cambridge, but dropped out before completion.

During Cromwell’s youth, the power of Puritan preaching radically transformed England. These preachers were uniquely gifted and empowered by God. After preaching for 2 hours, Laurence Chaderton tried to quit: "My God sir, don’t stop. Go on! Go on!" urged his congregation — such was the common hunger for God’s Word.7 In fact, the impact of Puritan preaching on England during Cromwell’s youth is one of the phenomenons of Church history.

We know little of Cromwell’s conversion except that sometime in his late twenties he became a victim of this powerful Puritan preaching. From that day forward, his life revolved around the crown rights of King Jesus.

In 1625, James I died, and his son, Charles I, ascended the throne. Three years later the village of Huntingdon elected Oliver to represent them in Parliament. At this time most members of Parliament were middle-class Puritans soaked in the biblical presuppositions mentioned above. The King’s Divine Rights and the Puritan Priesthood of All Believers were coming into increasing conflict. Charles asked parliament and the nation to submit to his governance. Parliament asked Charles, like all men, to submit to the law of God and the law of the land. Although Charles was an honorable man, capitulation to this request was unconscionable.

By 1642 their differences had became irreconcilable. Parliament and the King raised armies and the first English Civil War began. The war was over assumptions. Should biblical or traditional presuppositions about men’s consciences and the role of civil government prevail?

General Cromwell
Although Cromwell’s background was that of a humble farmer and village lawyer, he possessed a gift for military leadership that neither he nor his friends foresaw. In 1642, knowing nothing about the military, he returned home to raise a troop of cavalry. His martial abilities appeared early, giving him a decisive role in the Parliamentary victories of Marston Moor (1644), (where he was nicknamed "Old Ironsides"), and later Naseby (1645).

As his successes mounted, Parliament increased his responsibilities until he soon commanded armies. He recruited young men with deep piety and vibrant faith. Ignoring established custom, he promoted officers on the basis of ability not social class. His troops marched into battle singing Psalms. His army set aside days for repentance and fasting, and devoted themselves to the preaching of their Puritan chaplains. And, everywhere Oliver went, victory followed.

In 1646, Parliament defeated the King’s armies, and the first Civil War ended. King Charles agreed to share power with Parliament, allowing some liberty of conscience, and replacing bishops with a Presbyterian government. However, behind the scenes he deceitfully outmaneuvered Parliament, enlisting the aid of Scotland and Ireland to start a second civil war.

Charles’ Execution
A second Civil War began. It cost thousands of lives and much suffering. While Cromwell’s army quickly defeated the Irish and Scotch, parliament, controlled by the Puritans, felt bound to apply justice without favoritism, even to the King. Charles had broken the law. He had committed treason. Like all men, he must be judged impartially. The King was not above, but under the same law of God as his citizens.

In January 1649 Parliament tried Charles I for treason, found him guilty, and executed him in the fashion of men. Without Cromwell’s leadership and commitment to biblical justice it would not have happened. This event was the genesis of modern liberty, and it arose from the compost of the biblical presuppositions preached by the English Puritans.

The Protectorate
Cromwell and his men replaced the King with Parliament, hoping that godly members of Parliament would cease the reigns of power and initiate a period of peace and justice. But Parliament fell into such bickering and infighting that it proved ineffective and could not rule.

To prevent chaos, Cromwell temporarily ceased the levers of power. Parliament offered him the crown in 1657, but he refused. Reluctantly, he ruled as Lord Protector until his death in 1658. It was a time of great economic prosperity and peace for England.

After Cromwell’s death, England looked back over two civil wars and yearned for peace and stability. Parliament called Charles’ son to return from his exile on the continent and assume the crown his father had lost. Embittered by his father’s death, Charles II persecuted the Puritans and tried to reinstate much of what his father had lost.

In 1688, after the death of Charles II and his son, Parliament passed a group of laws known as the "Glorious Revolution." They institutionalized the principles for which Oliver and the Puritans fought the civil wars.

Cromwell’s Character8
Despite opinions to the contrary, Cromwell was a man of sincerity, tolerance, and godliness. For example, during the first Civil War Parliament raised his pay to 1,600 pounds, an immense sum of money in those days, but Oliver offered to return 1,000 pounds per year to the war effort.9 After he became Lord Protector, he extended religious toleration to Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists — unheard of leniency in his day. In fact, he was the first modern head of state to allow different denominations to freely operate in the same country.

His letters reveal a man of deep piety, sound biblical learning, and unshakable faith. For example, to his daughter-in-law he wrote, "I desire you both to make it above all things your business to seek the Lord: to be frequently calling upon Him, that He would manifest himself to you in His Son."10 This Christ-centered attitude animates his correspondence to family, friends, and statesmen.

Summary
God raised up the Puritans and Oliver Cromwell to "Pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant" (Jeremiah 1:10, NRSV). "Never again," notes Samuel Rawson Gardiner, did there appear in England a persecuting Church supporting itself on royal absolutism; a monarchy resting its claims solely on divine right; a Parliament defying the constituencies by which it had been elected as well as the Government by which it had been summoned."11 For all this we owe a debt to Cromwell and the Puritans for whom he spoke.

Benjamin Hart contends that America owes its political and religious freedoms, not primarily to the Romans and Greeks, but to Cromwell and the Puritans whom our founding fathers fervently admired.12 If this is true, America owes a great debt to brave Oliver and the Puritan saints.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William P. Farley is pastor of Grace Christian Fellowship in Spokane, Washington. He is author of For His Glory, Pinnacle, and Outrageous Mercy, Baker. You can contact him at 509-448-3979.


Endnotes

Antonia Fraser, Cromwell, The Lord Protector (New York: Knopf, 1974), 291.
Ibid.
Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence (New York: Harper Collins, 2000), 261.
George F. Willison, Saints & Strangers (Time Inc., 1945), 140.
The Pilgrims that sailed on the Mayflower were a branch of the greater Puritan movement.
J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990), 11.
Leland Ryken, Worldly Saints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 91.
For more on the depth of Cromwell’s Christianity read D’Aubigne, J.H. Merle, D.D., The Protector(Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle, 1847; reprint, 1983).
Ibid., 81.
Ibid., 98.
Richard E. Boyer, ed., Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan Revolt (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1966), 45.
Benjamin Hart, Faith and Freedom, The Christian Roots of American Freedom (Dallas: Lewis and Stanley, 1988).

QUOTE
Dear Friends,

This is a glimpse of the real Oliver Cromwell as I write of him in VAIII.

To him we Americans owe our Protestant Constitution and Baptist Bill of Rights.

The Puritan Revolution was born out of several terrible injustices to God's Bible reading people. One of this injustices was the Irish Massacre, the Jesuits inciting the fanatical Irish Roman Catholics to murder all the Protestants of Ireland. This lasted for eight long years, from 1641-1649. Approximately 300,000 Protestants, men, women and children were butchered by the papists.

The First Puritan Revolutiuon began in 1642, one year after the Black Pope's Irish Massacre had begun. The Revolution ended in 1646 while the Irish Massacre continued in Ireland. But in 1649 Cromwell and the Puritan government executed King Charles I and then invaded Ireland and with a vengeance. Oliver ended the Massacre with the defeat of Drogheda and Wexford. All Ireland then surrendered. Remember, the fanatical papists had even taught their children to kill the children of the Irish and English Protestants.

Cromwell offered each city to surrender before he began his seige. Neither surrendered and thus the loss of life is entirely the fault of the papists under the direction of the Counter Reformation Jesuits.

May God send us another Oliver Cromwell to Bible believing men who would deserve and follow such a leader.

Sincerely in faith,

Brother Eric

Kiss the Protestants Good Bye



Rare Jack Chick tract, also viewable here.