The Vatican and NWO

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Oh no you don't sunshine, I am not as green as I am cabbage looking. Your rhetoric and re-direction are not going to wash this time!!!

For just a moment, imagine that I have read all that I can find on SMOM and still I don't see what you see. I have found the organisations that they are involved in, the Grand Masters and their connections, their position in the hierarchy of the Roman Church, their history, their ethos and their current incarnation. And yet despite all this I still don't see what you are getting at. For my part, I am always willing to accept that I do not know all that there is to know. I accept that I could be missing something, should that be the case I will willingly and openly admit my error.

It is entirely up to you whether you answer my questions, but at some point you need to put your money where your mouth is and explain what it is that led you to this conclusion. If indeed SMOM has the power you attribute to it, then how does it exercise that power and how does the chain of command work? You are quite obviously opposed to it, so why? As I said entirely up to you whether you answer but in my book the balance of proof is in your hands not mine and no amount of rhetoric is going to change my mind on that one.

Fair enough I guess. Actually I laughed when I read that, can't remember when anyone last called me "sunshine".
I didn't really use any rhetoric, just suggested you research it "further". I use the word "further" because I am not sure you have researched it all yet. You said to "imagine" you have researched it. Well depending on how you researched it, it is my opinion that if you had then you most probably wouldn't be asking me how they exercise their power and how their chain of command works......you would know already. So in that case I don't see the problem in suggesting you research it, and it is only my suggestion.
What exactly do you mean by "re-direction"??? (seems to me you even wanted to use the word "mis-direction")
Getting late here, I will attempt to answer your questions if I know that you have done some research on the SMOM.
You told me that you read a book on the Jesuits recently, can I ask who wrote that book? Was it a propaganda book or an "honest" independant work?
You seemed to dismiss Phelps quickly previously, but he has done some research which is worth looking into. Greg Szymanskis articbeacon.com covers some of it, his website isn't great but has some good info. Jordan Maxwell has also covered the Jesuits, as have many others.

Did you actually read what you could find about the SMOM, or are we just "imagining"?

Originally posted by golddragnet

Fair enough I guess. Actually I laughed when I read that, can't remember when anyone last called me "sunshine".

I'm glad you took it in the spirt in which it was intended. I was in no way accusing you of mis-direction, simply of re-directing my question back at me. I want your opinion dammit not references to the opinions of others.

That said I'll play.

I have read excerpts of Eric John Phelps, notably from the Vatican Assassins. Also I have read Greg Symanzki (probable mis-spell there). while they touch on some interesting facts, you can surely admit that they're skewed. I have attempted to find sources and in doing so have found that there is none or that they have misquoted or in fact fabricated they're so called source. I am not going to spend money on a book that has no academic merit, end of story. There are glimmers of truth, and in some ways I agree, but they are too targeted and that sends alarms bells to my ears.

SMOM. The history taken as a whole is interesting and for me, offers insight into how it has adapted and changed. It also demonstrates that it has had less than holy progeny, as can be said of all the so-called pilgrim protectors that originated in the crusades (pull the other one, its got bells on!!). The Vatican in my opinion has and continues to have, elements of corruption within it. The confering of the status of a Knight of Malta is quite obviously and openly a reward for services to the protection and promotion of the Roman Church. In 1927, when an american branch was set up they did so by amending the qualification that prevented anyone without noble blood from being given this award. This policy has been now spread world wide it seems to me. I am unsure yet what this means. SMOM has permanent observer status, though as yet no vote, at the UN, but then so do a number of other bodies.

Eric Phelps mentions a number of recipients of the OKOM and on the basis of the reward system this is a point to ponder. I am not sure that it indicates control so much as a reward for collaboration. I certainly have found direct evidence of collusion between the US intelligence community and the Vatican. It is not hard to find. Dulles and Donovan were both Catholics, Dulles' nephew is a Jesuit. More insightful still is that Gehlen received similar honours.

I know that Ignatious Loyola was attracted to the tales of chivalry that came from this period, the romantic, cleansed version of events if you will and that this is what drew him to service to the church. I also know that he had many conflicts with the Roman Church, although for his part his loyalty did endure despite criticism and persecution. Just as can be said for the Dominicans, Thomas Aquinas, Jansenists etc etc at different points in the church history. For that reason I do not preclude the possibility that the jesuits have adapted and fallen in line with the Vatican, as all others eventually have when accused of heresy.

My chief reference on the Jesuits is The Secret and Power of the Jesuits by Rene Fulop-Miller. Though I cannot attest to its impartiallity, I have been able to cross-check and verify much of its sources, so if nothing else it does use varied and balanced sources of information. Published in 1930, it is also unsullied by more recent events. It is merely a background though and I accept it as such. From this book and others, I got the impression, that knowingly or otherwise the Jesuits were used to 'warm the bed' for the Church. The Jesuits were quickly discarded, persecuted and murdered when they in fact put the welfare of their flock above the needs of state and church. But when it was fortutious to the church they were quick to piggy-back the Jesuits success.

I accept that this may have changed. To me this could have gone two ways, they are now completely under control or they are more agressive in the promotion of their ethos over that of the Vatican. The latter would make them a huge threat to the Vatican, the former a mighty tool.

Where I do agree with Phelps to an extent is his assessment of what a Zionist is. I have some variation, but on the whole I think he is on the right track, I do though think that he misses the most important point of all (which is why I wonder what his motivations are). The state of Israel in many ways since its assertion has served to escalate tension in the Middle East. The Vatican in my opinion, of all concerned, has the most to gain from this, the entire middle-eastern and war on terrorism is to their benefit. No matter what I read, this is the clearest point that comes across.

Your turn?

You have probably heard of the NWO prediction of a WW3 based in the middle east, with approx the western nations taking Israel side, China, Russa and muslim nations on the eastern side (oversimplifying it but you get the picture). Whether there is any truth in that, the world does appear to be going in that direction to a point, and maybe it is relevant to what you say about Israel. If the west were deliberatly trying to provoke tensions in the Middle East they would do exactly what they have been doing in the recent past and present. Anyhow, that is a side issue to some extent.

Phelps, Szymanski (I don't think I would like either of them personally but it is the info that is important) and all the others won't be 100% correct about everything, nobody will be, and I have come across much of their work I am not entirely in agreement with, but they have much work which I consider to be correct, have to use our own judgements and rely on our own research aswell to verify certain things.

There was tensions between the Vatican and the Jesuits through history, and today there are many in the Vatican who despise the Jesuits. You speak of the Jesuits possibly being a threat to the Vatican today, but if the Jesuits have full control of the Vatican then in what sense are they a "threat"!!! In the same way that the NeoCons control the US admin, so the Neocons are a threat to the US people but in what sense exactly are the Neocons a threat to the US admin if they are in control of the US admin. You suggest the Jesuits have fallen in line with the Vatican, but maybe the Vatican has fallen in line with the Jesuits!!!

The SMOM were pretty much a follow on from the Knights Templar. The current system we live in was pretty much designed by the Knights Templar. The UN was created by the CFR which was created by the SMOM.

Have you read anything about Alberto Rivera, he made a documentary with Jim Arrabito, and almost everyone involved in that documentary died suspicously (murdered), which is interesting in itself. Rivera had quite alot to say about the jesuits.

Its late here, need sleep, probably shouldn't post this as I am not concentrating, but I will return to it next time I visit this site.

I haven't got the time to reply in full just yet and I need to mull a few things over. This is helpful though, this is starting to work for me a little better, it is clouded and I need to strip it down though. I have seen the name but it never meant anything to me. I've read a bit today, watched and listened to a few clips. The documentary you mentioned is very interesting, I can see that he is sincere and that he at least believes what he was saying. His facial and body language are very open. This ties in very well with the Bob S (Can't remember his name without looking it up) film mentioned on the other thread.

Cheers.

Okay, I don't really know where to start with this so you will have to bear with me.

As I said before, I never thought we disagreed we were simply looking at things from a different perspective, I am now completely convinced of this. I have trouble with the illuminati world conspiracy thang, but that is not to say there isn't something there. To me the New World Order is symbiotic to the Old World Order as represented by the Roman Church. I don't like faceless organisations or societies I like names and faces.

The Jesuit Republic of Paraguay is worth studying to understand that the order did not start out 'bad'. I am relatively poor so communism doesn't pose any threat to me but obviously it does to others. In Paraguay, the trust of the Indians was gained and corrupting forces excluded. Money corrupts, so no money, only barter. Individuals were encouraged to nurture their natural abilities. The south American Indians, the jesuits found, were highly adept at crafts. They could copy almost anything that they were given. Over time this encouraged trade with outsiders. The traders would be welcomed by the priest and segregated from the indians while trade took place.

For over a century, this system worked well and protected the indians under Jesuit rule from slave traders, however discontent amongst the Europeans towards the Jesuits steadily grew. Rumours about gold being hoarded by the order started to circulate and eventually in 1759, under pressure from the european traders, Portugal banished all Jesuits, Spain followed suit in 1767. The Jesuit Republic became increasingly under attack from human traders, the indians of the republic were highly skilled, civilised and domesticated - therefore highly valued. The Jesuit fathers were imprisoned and the indians taken as slaves. The settlements were ruined and the libraries burned. Obviously there was no gold found.

Through his own spiritual (and psychological) exploration Loyola developed the Exercises. As he acheived higher understanding of himself he amended the exercises which were designed as an aid to achieving grace. Loyola himself, dictated that chastity can only be successfully achieved through the exploration of self, the realisation of free-will and the constant refinement of ones character. Very early on in his teaching he abandoned the notions of self-castigation, such as wearing hair shirts, self-flaggelations and humiliation. Over time he realised that it is intellectual development not physical experience and depravation that humbles us enough to 'recieve god'.

What we see over and over again with the Roman Church is that deviation is only tolerated when it does not interfere with the status quo. So Thomas Aquinas, exulted one minute is tried as a heretic and forced to recant the next. The Dominicans same thing.

The Jesuits proved very useful to the Church at times. There are some interesting instances in their history that indicate how this happened over time. For example, it was noticed quite early on that the Jesuits and their ascetic principles most appealed to women (I myself am proof of that I suppose) and Loyola himself had a very devoted cast of wealthy females who hung on his every word. Part of my belief in Rivera's story is weighed on the fact that his 'handlers' taught him how to appeal to the wives of protestant pastors. This is central to the method of how the jesuits were used to win favour for the church at the courts of resistent kings and rulers.

This is why I know that there is at least some truth in the Rivera story. This is why I cannot deny that the Jesuits could in fact be utilised in a socially destructive manner. The way in which Rivera's education as a priest is described, goes against everything taught by Loyola. I have checked this and it certainly seems to be the case. For obvious reasons I am troubled by the heavy leaning towards protestantism and their adoption of his story to promote their own agenda. I would have been happier if he his story had been presented in amore secular fashion, but that is no cause to shoot the messanger.

It may be helpful to explain my perspective a little I don't want to go into too much detail, but I am sure you are aware of the Survivors movement and how that ties into modern Jesuitism. You may also be aware of the Red Queen hypothese and the way that this ties in with the work of Alfred Kinsey. From this you will see why I have developed an interest in the CIA, Projects Bluebird and the more elusive Project Monarch. When taken in this context, you will see that I cannot refute Rivera and I think it is highly unlikely that this is a hoax. So as promised I openly and willingly admit that I was wrong in my assessment of the Jesuits. Though I am unsure as yet what that means in the greater sheme of things.

Over time I have collected stories that interest me, I have a number of files of news clippings and the like, these reflect my primary interest in abnormal psychology. I came to realise that there was a lack of randomness in certain crimes and behavioural patterns that could not easily be explained as 'normal' deviations. In short I noticed that there seemed to be socio-political design in favour of developing deviancy. I also noticed that certain deviancy studies pre-dated social policy implementations. This is most prevalent and obvious in North America. (You will see now why I was most impressed with the save the males site).

I've got to go now, but hopefully I have clarified to you the sincereity of my inquiries and how much I value these exchanges.

All the best

I can provide you with the names and faces of the key players, they aren't "faceless" organisations as you suggest, well they are faceless to you because you aren't aware of any of this, but if you ask me specific questions I can attempt to answer. Which specific names and faces are you looking for?

The NWO is symbiotic of the Older world order when the Papacy openly ruled before the Reformation. The Vatican had overt control, now they have covert control, and at some stage in the future they wish to have overt control again.
The Vatican is really the continuation of the Holy Roman Empire, which is really a continuation of the Roman Empire with the church added, the Pope replacing Cesar.
The NWO Agenda is a One World Government/religion along with a microchipped enslaved and dumbed down population lacking any freedom just like when the Papacy openly ruled before the Reformation. The Pope will become the Universal Monarch controlling the world under orders of the Superior General.

The Vatican's Sovereign Military of Malta (SMOM) control all Finance & Banking. Banking along with yourself are controlled by International Maritime Admiralty Law which is based on Vatican CANON LAW (did you ever closely read and examine your full birth cert??????), your simply considered a Maritime Admiralty product.
The ancient symbolism of Venus rules over business, the five pointed star. International Banking was created by the Vatican's Knights Templars which later merged with the Knights of Malta headed now by the 78th Grandmaster & Prince, Cardinal Andrew Willoughby Ninian Bertie whos subordinate to the Pope and JESUIT Superior General Kolvenbach. SMOM contains over 10,000 Knights and consists of around 50%+ of the Black "Venetian" Nobility.

I guess you have looked into Freemasonry to some extent and know who are the world leaders of Freemasonry?

I am short on time and sleep of late, will return to the thread when I have more time. If you do have "specific" questions I may attempt to answer, have good evening

[edit on 22-5-2007 by golddragnet]

I really appreciate your offer to answer my questions but it is obvious that I need to give it some more thought, so if you don't mind I'll rain check for now.

I still can't help but feel that you are over simplifying the matter. I can still see opposing powers. This is not necessarily a positive thing, but all the same the Roman Church does have competition for control and in my opinion their power is far from complete. I always err on the side of optimism, I sense that you are a tad more pessimistic. No judgement intended. However, I don't think that you have the time or the patience to debate this with me at present and I can understand that fully.

Don't think I've let you off the hook entirely though, I said rain check. For now though I'll leave you in peace. If I can ever repay the favour, please do not hesitate to ask, I might not be able to help but I'd be happy to try. In the meantime, all the very best and I hope you get some rest soon. I will leave you to enjoy ATS without my interuptions.

I am not over-simplifying it. You must remember I am not trying to convince you of anything and none of this is news to me. I could go into all of this in much greater details if you wish and the controlling the world is a very complex thing and of course there are many, many, many opposing powers, many people wanting to control may different organisations/regions/businesses and so on. I never said it was simple. But I am just detailing the basics of it here. It would take far too long for me to go into details here, I am merely pointing you in a particular area of research, it is for you to decide if you want to bother researching it. But why would I spend many, many hours typing up alot of details and the complexities of it all? Would you even believe it if I did. There is even a possibility that you would say that it is all too complex to be plausable!!!

But whether it is simple or complex, one thing that is quite simple to understand is that in societies there are always heirarchies and power struggles and people wanting to control not only their own "patch" but also wanting to control their neighbouring patches. So, you just got to figure out who is at the top of the heirarchy, who made it to the top!!! Do you imagine there ISN'T a heirarchy? Of course you know there are heirarchies, well who do you think it is? Not GW Bush, well who then? Think about it. Think about worlds history and how everything shaped out. Even think about freemasonry, think about Bilderberg, the UN, Royalty, the Black Nobility, the power of the Media, power of the banks, think about the Vatican, what is the Vatican all about? The inquistion, the Pope being infallible? The Pope claiming to be in place of Christ on this earth and being infallible!!! Who gave him that position, not Jesus, thats for sure. What does anti-christ mean??? It doesn't necessarily mean anti Jesus, it can mean In Place Of. Think about what Hitler said of the Jesuits, think about who engineered WW1 and WW2, think about Israel. Research the SMOM. Think about it all, what is it all about. What is the Book Of Revelations all about? What is the Whore Of Babylon that is mentioned in the Bible (could it be the Vatican?)

You seem to still be of the opinion there isn't a NWO. Well here is G Bush telling you about it. And you should note that Bush is not talking to the public here, he is talking to the other leaders of the NWO.

www.youtube.com...

If you imagine I am oversimplifying it then you don't seem to realise that I am just pointing in a certain direction rather detailing all that I could about the NWO (the NWO is known as the New Atlantis among themselves). Anyhow it is for you to think about it, and you can find those names and faces from other sources I am sure. Good luck researching.

[edit on 23-5-2007 by golddragnet]

Easy Tiger!! Not once have I implied I don't believe that there is a new world order, I said that it confuses me, and I admitted that sometimes I don't know what it is exactly, why is that such a problem? Unlike the Pope I admit my fallibility, I don't mind admitting that I am sometimes wrong, in fact I consider it a strength.

I want to understand and for me whatever the conspiracies, it is about individuals and their motives. I have worked out for myself some of the people that have influence or control over organisations of influence, but I am increasingly aware of what is conspicous by its absence. Everyone's perception is subjective, we are all conditioned to some extent or another, superifcially at least we all see what we want to see and ignore what we don't.

I only felt that you were over simplifying it because you were repeatedly telling me about SMOM and the Jesuits. I did not ask for a question answer session I requested your opinion. I was trying to be gracious, you seemed bored. I apologise if I offended.

Maybe I misunderstood. It is my opinion that you would benefit from further researching the SMOM, Jesuits, Rome and Switzerland, see the connections. The SMOM have alot more power than you might realise. In my opinion the SMOM pretty much controls the world we live in today. The SMOM is controlled by the Vatican and the Vatican is controlled by the Jesuits. Now that is as simple as I can put the basic ideas of it. The actual workings of it is of course complex, but it is definitely worth you researching it further, if in fact you are wishing to learn more about how the world is run and who is running it.

Thanks, I think that we both had the wrong end of the stick.

I am still reading up in general on the vatican et al, it is difficult as everything is either very pro- or very anti-, a lot of propaganda and not much detail. I like detail. I'm getting the jist though. I have also been looking into Switzerland and its history, I was reading about Sion last night. Again, information is highly conspicuous by its absence on the web, so I am tracking books down that might expand on the details.

Anyway, I actually do have a couple of questions that you may be able to help me with. When do you feel the balance of power changed in the Vatican? I was guessing Pius XII, but I wouldn't mind any insight you have. Also, how functional is the Pope, just a figurehead - sort of like a constitutional papacy?) I would presume that since the Jesuits cannot control the election of the Pope itself that they control the administration and the appointment of bishops and archbishops. We can certainly see with the previous pope that he was less than able towards the end. Those directly around him would have most control. A similar comparison would be the relationship between Hitler and Bormann, where everything that Hitler said or did had to be passed by Bormann.

I don't know whether you've seen the Scientology programme that the BBC did recently, I don't think that it was entirely unbiased, the reporter had definate preconceptions and they naturally took offence to this. Either way what interested me was the way in which they dug up dirt on anyone who criticised them. Quite ruthless. Remind you of anyone?

The Jesuits took full control of the Vatican within 1870 when their Doctrines of Infallibility was thrusted upon the Pope. In reality they had the Papacy back in 1814. They came back and got control through their creation of the Illuminati as its spoke about. They were knocked by the Pope in 1773 and the Bavarian Illuminati was created in 1776 by sheep-dipped Jesuit Adam Weishaupt who incidentally helped turn the Pope around (manipulated cunningly of course). Then what happened? The Jesuits took serious revenge.
The film 'Count of Monte Cristo' is really the representation of this story and how the Superior General used his Rothschilds to destroy the Bank and then buy it back for pennies.
The world leader of freemasonry is the Jesuit Superior General Count Peter Hans Kolvenbach (thanks to Adam Weishaupt).

I didn't see the scientology programme, but they are a strange lot. The way they dug dirt on someone who opposes them is a common theme now, used by those in control to keep the sheep in line, and even the sheep themselves use it to keep other sheep inline. Attack the messanger and ignore the message, don't challenge the facts and go for the lowest most mindless reply, Aldous Huxley warned that the world would head in such a direction in his excellent Brave New World. Those in power use the media for such things. When anyone questions the facts of what happened on 9/11 publicly they can often find themselves at the receiveing end of dirt-digging rather than discussing the evidence, it shouldn't surprise.
As for the Jesuits controlling the Pope, you maybe interested in learning who was behind the death of Pope John Paul I, and who was behind the shooting of Pope John Paul II.....the same people who were behind the death of Alberto Rivera, if you stand against the Jesuits they will take measures.
You mentioned opposing sides before, but you should understand that the Jesuits try to controll all sides. Take the US admin for an example, out of the entire US population the last presidential elections we contested between the Republican Bush, a member of the Jesuit created Skull & Bones (formerly known as Broterhood of Death) and the supposedly opposing Democrat Kerry, also a member of the Jesuit created Skull & Bones. They aren't really opposite, someone before coined the phrase Oppo-Same, appearing to be opposite, but both under the same control.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by golddragnet]

How very interesting, i'd be embarassed to tell you how many time I've watched the Count of Monte Cristo (Richard Chamberlain version of course). I'm going to try and see if I can get the extract from the 'Mémoires historiques tirés des archives de la police de Paris' that Dumas used as source (just google'd). Very nice.

I really don't get the infallibility thing. I got this from wikipedia.

"...Thus, it is impossible for any current Church teaching, whether fallible or infallible, to contradict a prior infallible teaching, just as it is impossible for an infallible teaching to be wrong."

Oh really, that clears it up then. I can't put it into words, I see the shape of it but can't quite comprehend it. A bit to alien to my way of thinking I suppose.

have you ever seen this story, supposedly reveals Jesuit secrets

www.reformation.org...

you probably already know Mussolini, Hitler and Franco were all put into power by the Vatican.
Before WW1 The Jesuits worked closely with Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin and Stalin, while they were carefully preparing for the Russian revolution. The Russian revolution succeeded after alot of manipulation (it was going against them until they sabotaged the Whites weapons supply), the Czar was forced to abdicate and his family was put under house arrest. The Royal family was moved to the Urals. A group of Ural Soviets held a quick trial and the Royal family was found guilty, some of these soviets were Jesuits pretending to be communists. The protector of the Russian orthodox church, the Czar, was now facing the Jesuits of Rome, and he and his family were killed.

[edit on 25-5-2007 by golddragnet]

The penny has FINALLY dropped. Not much room for optimism is there?

I’m still ironing out the details in terms of the level and extent of control. I have explained to you why I felt there was order in the way social policy is set. The understanding I now have of the Jesuit’s modus operandi FULLY explains the trends that I spoke of.

It all fell into place when considering Russia and I’ll explain my reasoning as succinctly as I can. Britain and Russia as heads of church and state were the enemy of Rome because they denied the Church’s primacy. For Russia the revolution ended that, Britain for now, retains this freedom. In terms of Russia, the role of the Jesuits can be surmised by their first interactions with Moscow. The papal legate, the Jesuit Possevino had the full authority of Gregory III. This allowed him to bestow any privilege or gift which he deemed necessary to secure alliance and the agreement of Papal primacy.

Ivan the terrible asked the Pope to help negotiate a peace with Stephen Bathory, in exchange Ivan agreed to support a European invasion of the Ottoman Empire. With the peace agreed to everyones satifaction, not an easy task and testament to Possevino’s powers of persuasion, Ivan procrastinated and refused the primacy of the Pope and refused to join Rome in a crusade against the Ottomans (George Bush declared the War on Terrorism as a Crusade and wondered why the middle-east got a bit tetchy. His press office later claimed that the word was not meant to evoke Christian war and that Bush was unaware that the word had this meaning. The word again was used in this context in a letter to the party faithful).

Following Ivan’s death his eldest son, 14 year old Feodor, considered mentally deficient and unfit to rule alone, ruled with a regency council. Feodor’s younger brother died in 1591 alledgedly by supporters of Boris Godunov the leader of the council. Feodor died in 1598. Godunov succeeded him.

In 1603 a Lithuanian prince became acquainted with a ‘pilgrim’ who soon after collapses and claims to be dying. He entrusts some papers to the Prince which the pilgrim claims hold his identity. The Prince has the man taken to his home to be cared for, examines the documents which convince him that the pilgrim is none other than Dimitri. In 1605 he is crowned Tzar. Almost immediately the Jesuits are invited by the Tzar to educate him in the Schisms. It takes a while but the orthodoxy and boyars eventually realise the ‘Tzars’ intention to affirm Romes primacy and he gets the boot.

As long as Russia and England remained allied, the Roman Church had no chance of primacy in either. The revolution and murder of the family (Anastasia myth in homage to Dimitri?) ended free trade and transit between the two empires.

Moving further on, I haven’t quite made up my mind about Lenin. At most I think patsy, but not sure. The convenient elimination of Trotsky from the game, followed by Stalin, another ‘man from the field’ to save Rome. Under Stalin the muslim Tartars, the Jews and the intelligentsia were devastated. Knowledge was destroyed. From Leninism to oppressive tyranny in three easy steps. It is obvious that Stalin was not the organ-grinder initially (as it is with Hitler). I would hazard that Nikolai Yezhov is a distinct possibility for that job, though it is doubtful he would have been alone. He was relieved of his duties on 3 March 1939,indicative in itself. He was replaced of course by Beriya.

In Germany, the Nazis’ double-crossed the Vatican, but I would hazard that Bormann was the insider, again with some help. Similarly obscure background as with Yezhov. Eckhart , Rosenberg and Hess provided moral support. All three were received as guests at the Thule Society, though none were actual members. I have misgivings about who Eckhart was, and certainly whether that was his real name. It seems to me, to be too much of a co-incidence that his name should represent two prominent esoteric teachers of German thought, the Dominican teachers Dietrich and Eckart.

Not wishing to write an essay I’ll leave it there and see how that that sits with your perspective. I needed to be convinced about the Jesuits, my original interpretation was incorrect. They were never perfect, segregationist afterall, but in its pure form it was at least benevolent. Idealism clouded my judgement and I forgot what I already knew about Jesuits and their modern abuses which demonstrate a lack of moral disciplines to say the very least.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
For Russia the revolution ended that, Britain for now, retains this freedom.

Not meaning to shatter any other illusions you had, BUT, The Queen of England is the leader of the British Knights of Malta and is servile to the Vatican. She is also the leader of British Freemasonry and as such is subordinate to the world leader of Freemasonry, the Jesuit Superior General

I mentioned Andrew Bertie earlier in this thread, he is the queens cousin and heads the SMOM. The Queen heads the British division and she is subordinate to her cousin.

You may have read that Blair is a considering converting to Catholicism. Blair is a SMOM Papal Knight.
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2007/05/17/nblair117.xml

[edit on 26-5-2007 by golddragnet]

How did I know that you were going to say that? Notice that I did say for now, I for one can see the changing tide in the UK. Blair of course sold his soul some time ago and I can only take heart that he is taking Lord Levy with him when he goes. It is such a shame, but it does indeed seem to be the case that everyone has their price.

I am in a particularly advantageous position to study freemasonry and am currently tracing their history back as far as I can. I can't really make any conclusions but I can certainly see the implications. Obviously in the 12th to 14th century there were no Jesuits. There were the vestiges of the Knights templar. And again where I live provides me with an excellent vantage point to see the correlation.

Some time ago I mentioned to you the Epistle Dedicatory of the King James bible. I don't know whether you have read it, but the key passages are as follows.

"For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory..."
and
"So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without by the powerful protection of Your Majesty's grace and favour, which will ever give countenance to honest and christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations."

Again, the Freemasons are segregationists. This is not necessarily conducive with the social structure at the time of their first appearance. Women were not at that time excluded from the gilds. The freemasons exclude women for the simple reason that they are evolved from other groups that traditionally exclude or segregate women. The freemasons have a patroness because of their 'chivalrous' origins - the knights of the crusades. The chaste adoration of the knight for his mistress. Sounds romantic, we know it to be otherwise.

The Templars obviously evolved into areas of the British nobility. They pursued their own ambitions. As in Germany with the Teutonic Order they controlled trade. The Weimar Republic ended this balance in Germany, in Britain the same familiy lines endure. We can ask ourselves the significance of Hess's destination when he flew to Britain with his treaty of peace direct from Hitler.

Bohemia Grove proves interesting when you review it from this perspective. I have found a 16th century account of an anti-jesuits pamphlet. It refers though to the jesuits and their 'Molech'...interesting. Hitler, not the bastard grandson of Baron Rothschild, his granfdfather though (on both sides possibly, though this was concealed by his parents due to consanguimity laws), was called Johann Nepomuk. I'm not implying he is a descendant of the saint, but it provides a better explanation of Hitler's nickname of the 'Bohemian' than the official version. Many of the names of the Grove camps are linked to literary colonialism. Colonialism began with piracy - privateer- profiteer. There is no confusion in the etymology.

All circumstantial, but just to confirm that all my bubbles have been burst. I thank you, now I know why you're so grumpy. There is not a lot to smile about. I am curious whether you have come across a book called "The Only Planet of Choice". It is an unusual read, I read it some years ago, it is only now that I am drawing a connection with the vatican's announcements regarding extraterrestrials. There are similarities between the Jesuit ideology and the ideology of "planet of Choice". I find this worrying.












[edit on 27-5-2007 by KilgoreTrout]

Can you tell me about the Rothschild's and how they're connected to the Pope? As in how did Mayer get his big break.

If youlook up Rothschilds up in the Judiac encylopedia you'll see they are the "Keepers of the Vatican Treasury." The Rothschilds were brought into the Jesuit fold thanks to Adam Weishaupt and his Illuminati. The Rothschilds are very powerful, but at the same time they aren't quite as powerful as people make out as theres a few families of Black Nobility Venetian roots far more powerful and wealthy. Rothschild is a loyal Labor Masonic Zionist Court Jew. The Rothschilds are simply given the positions of high power they have within banking by Rome. They were used by the Jesuit to take over not only the Reformation but the Catholic Church itself. 'The count of monte cristo is really a coded movie of the Jesuit Order.' It shows you how the Jesuits tricked the banking of England and then used their Rothschilds to buy it for pennies thus grabbing hold of the financial system of England and thus its future destruction via debt!
The Jesuits always hide behind the shadows whilst letting others be fronts for the blame if the public wake up someday. This is why the Jews are blamed for everything. The Jesuits are happy for the public to imagine the Rothschilds are in control of everything.

Your other post made me smile again, I am not grumpy, maybe my posts give a very different impression of my mood. My wife would describe me as a very cheerful optimist, but I admit I am not always patient. When detailing the power of the NWO it doesn't depress me, I accept it, of course I would love to see a huge change in how the world is run, but I get on with my life without letting those in control affect my mood daily.
If you want to get really mad at the NWO, you should study the depopulation agenda, research chemtrails, gm Foods, the medical mafia cartel (which is under SMOM Papal Knight Rockefellars control (very important for your own wellbeing that you really give your first priority to educating yourself about your own health and how your body works, if I was to give you any 1 single piece of advice it would be to NOT trust the medical industry at all as they have been totally corrupted from everything such as telling blatant lies about treatments for common diseases to how doctors are educated, I would strongly advise you to research alternative medical treatments to every ailment and you should realise medical drugs are toxic to the body and cause damage. For example AIDS and Cancers have been successfully cured mostly through diets and cleansing the inner organs of your body, but the medical mafia cartel coupled with the controlled media don't want us to know. I would advise everyone to put a priority in learning to treat their own bodies. It is a crazy and even very pathetic situation when so many people don't even know the very basics of their own health, and will take any pills their doctor gives them despite the side-effects or how damaging it might be, they don't know anything about the cures which nature gave to all of us, but at the same time they will know everything there is to know about the Manchester United or Chelsea football teams!!! What a crazy list of priorities, the public really have been seriously dumbed-down by the NWO-controlled media. The Mafia-medical cartel are the greatest pushers of death on the planet.

You made some very interesting observations there, which I thought deserved the 4 stars (hmm, are those 5-pointed stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!). You will probably look at all news differently from now, not only current news but worlds history, the textbooks and the news media are so full of lies and spin, but when you understand the heirarchies and what is going on you can see through so much of the BS that is sold to the world. You might even get a little impatient at the "sheeple" too that so readily swallow the lies that we are sold without asking the right questions!!!

[edit on 27-5-2007 by golddragnet]

You are totally right, it is the complicit dependency on state that most wears my patience. Everyone sits around waiting for someone else to stand up and disagree, or the attitude of 'well if they're doing it, why can't I'. Instead of getting on with their own lives they are too concerned with what other people are doing. Dependancy nurtures control.

I agree with you that the best defence lies in awareness of what we put in our bodies and simply by taking responsibility for our own actions. The food chain needs to be radically changed. Instead of treating the symptoms we need to treat the disease - intensive farming. Not good for us, not good for the planet. Water is going to be a big issue in the future, almost without exception the water supplies of the world are held by a few corporations. They are not maintaining the infrastructures. It doesn't take much of a stretch of the imagination to consider the implications of a contaminated water supply. Bolivia and the Philipines are having to deal with this - their water is controlled by the same companies with holdings in the UK and the US.

It amazes me that so many people do not realise that they themselves drive capitalisic exploitation. Their power lies in our pockets. We drive market forces. Our willingness to emerse ourselves in credit, subjecting us to a lifetime of servitude, is mind boggling. When I left University I had two thousand in debt, now the average is eighteen thousand. I find that terrifying. Very few people now have the means to even enter the property market until their thirties. Consumerism is a huge part of the problem. Tell people that Gap, for example, pay their workers 6p an hours and those people have to work 60-80 hours a week, the response... "I know but I love their jeans (or whatever)".

Rant over.

I find the Rothschild's interesting. Obviously there are great rewards to serving the Roman Church as the Frescobaldi, D'Medici and Pazzi families would attest to. Major drawback to defying them too as the stories of the latter two demonstrate. The very idea of operating a no questions asked policy, as the Rothschild's PR boasts, invites evil and immorality. I find the official version of their rise to prominence highly sterile, but it is nigh on impossible to find anything more expansive. I'll keep digging, I have enough pointers for now.

(Cheerful...hmmm...I'll have to trust your wife's superior opinion on that.)

All the best