Investigative Journal comments 1

11/12'09 Were Washington and Papist John Carroll good buddies?
"Their blood flowed as freely to cement the fabric of independence as that of any of their fellow-citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body of men in recommending and promoting that government from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good order, and civil and religious liberty."

State is the continuation of Church by other means.

What would if Georg could hear us?

Catholics don't care about freedom.
Not.
A.
Bit.
Like Communists.
They both are like the Ancient Egyptians. They want to be shephered.

They wouldn't dare to think of being not less smart than their cute asexual Jesus-like brotherhood. They wouldn't dare to think they possibly could know slightly better than what they get preached from their priests all the time. So all you need to do as the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution of Inquisition is to restage the Reichstag fire in front of their eyes, combined with elements of Pearl Harbor ("coincidentally" also the summer blockbuster of 2001) and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the Catholic Columns, the holy "angelic hosts" of Catholic lay people, marche more or less all by themselves, quasi automatically, in the acquired direction against the assumed archenemy, the Jews, from whom they've gotten their book anyway. With one single beat of the drum you mobilize an army of millions of bloggers who are passionately confusing the new communication sphere with "outrageous conspiracy theories", thus providing a tremendously successful remake of the Hitleresque "Jewish World Conspiracy", now with digital means, so-called "Data Highways".

"That thing that could not happen has, indeed, happened in America. [...] something else showed up in America for the first time – something very ugly."

Former Finnish Minister of Health speaks out on Swine Flu scandal and about "The Elite"

"The patriotic part which Papists took ..."
As always, Greg, magnificent investigative work. Thank's a lot for both articles around the corporation's president's presumable Jesuitism!
Bishop Carroll is extremely important for an appropriate understanding of the whole situation.
"He loved republicanism. [...] There was an irresistible charm and elegance indeed in his conversations."
The two main Roman "weapons of piety" I found out so far are the "balsam of words" and the fabrication of holy heros. Because piety is the key.

"You have to know as much as you can about what's going on at the top to know what to do at the bottom." Richard Bell

A concordat with the Vatican is like dancing with the devil

03/25'09 In the words of Richard Bennett:

The Pope authorized the invasion of Ireland and sent the King a Ring of Investiture as Lord of Ireland.
Ireland was conquered for Papal profit:
The fact is that many Irish Catholics find it hard to accept that the Church of Rome, as a temporal and feudal institution, was not a friend to the Irish nation. It is hard to accept that there was something other to the Church of Rome than its professed "spirituality". The Popes regarded themselves as temporal princes, with more feudal power than most emperors, and they often led their own armies into battle to assert that power and reap tribute from those they subjected. [...]
So it is quite clear that when Ireland became just another province of the Angevin Empire, with its High King having accepted Henry II as his feudal lord – that is Dominus Hiberniae (Lord of Ireland) – Ireland had, in fact, constitutionally become a Papal fiefdom. The Bishops of Rome, as temporal feudal princes, had conspired in the conquest of Ireland, asserting themselves as feudal lords of all the lands of Europe. In this position, they were able to give Ireland into the charge of Henry II in return for payment. [...]
Ireland continued to be a Papal fiefdom, at the whim and gift of the Bishops of Rome, but with the English kings as middlemen. The Irish kings and princes were instructed, on pain of excommunication, to obey the authority of the English kings. It was in 1534 that Henry VIII broke with Rome. Yet the important year for Ireland was 1541 when Henry VIII, rejecting the title of "Lord of Ireland", styled himself King of Ireland (Rex Hiberniae) becoming the first English King to do so and making Ireland a separate realm from his kingdom of England.
To achieve this, Henry VIII determined to pursue a policy which abolished all the Irish titles and styles of the kings, princes and nobility. The Irish aristocracy were forced to surrender their titles and, in turn, accept English titles, methods of land holding, English law, the English language and, of course, the Reformed Faith with Henry VIII as head of the new church. If they did not do so, they were be eliminated or forced to flee into exile.

So while today the Roman Empire incorporates all of its further provinces with treaties called concordats, the Papacy has been enthroned its new provincials throughout the Middle Ages with the Ring of Investiture making kings with rings to lords "by the grace of god". And while Alexandre Dumas portrayed his "Count of Monte Cristo" after the Superior General being confronted with the Papal suppression order, couldn't therefore the Pope himself as the "King of the Kings" not been considered as a "Lord of the Rings"?

From Jerome Corsi's C-Span interview on "05/10'07 ...
"This comes on the heels, this was done on May 9, it was signed on April 30, 2007: President Bush – again without congressional approval – signed an agreement with the European Union in which he created a transatlantic economic council, a new cabinet level office. Again, no congressional approval of the office being created with the idea to economically integrate us with the European Union. And it was co-signed [...]"
I'm afraid this signature set extensive centralization procedures in motion although my search for more thorough informations on this agreement and the announced "economic council" hasn't had any success yet.
Putting aside the fact that Bush officials have denied Congressman Peter DeFazio from his duty to review classified White House documents that describe how the Administration plans to conduct the US government if martial law is declared, the thing that was much more critical from my point of view was what else happened on April 30, 2007:

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day". This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation. Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

Yes, "Illuminati Day"! With greetings from the "righteous" brotherhood of Loyola …
"26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government"

The Inquisition was a model of agreement between the Church and the State
Let's hear some interesting and concordat-related thoughts on the state and church issue from a member of the notorious Society of St. Pius X which doggedly refuses to call the Dark Ages dark:

In effect, the black legend of the Inquisition is the product of Protestant propaganda, which was passed down to the 18th century by the philosophy of the "enlightenment", to the 19th century by Masonic anticlericalism, and to the 20th by "Christian-democracy".
Nevertheless, the most serious historical studies have henceforth recognized that the Inquisition was an honest tribunal, which sought to convert heretics more than to punish them, which condemned relatively few people to the flames, and which only employed torture in exceptional cases. However, the anti-inquisitorial myth still circulates in public opinion. [...]
The doctrine of the Syllabus, which recognized for the Church and for the State a power of constraint in religious matters, was in accord with Catholic tradition. Pope Leo X (1513-1521) specifically condemned Martin Luther's proposition which affirmed that the Church did not have the right to burn heretics.
Bellarmine and Suarez also defended the right of the Church to impose the death penalty, on condition that the sentence be executed by the secular power, that is to say by the State. St. Thomas Aquinas supported the use of constraint, even physical, to combat heresy. St. Augustine appealed to the Imperial [Roman] authority to suppress the Donatist schism by force. The Old Testament punished by death idolaters and blasphemers.
The power of constraint in religious matters rests upon the principle of the duties of the State toward the true religion. The divine law does not apply only to individuals, it must include all social life. [...] In the true Gospel there is nothing to be seen of that moral and doctrinal laxity which the modernists qualify as "tolerance" or as "liberty of conscience". Christ was patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but He never recognized any right of error and He exposed obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord. [...]

The anti-inquisitorial argument rests also upon a confusion between freedom of conscience and religious liberty. The act of faith must be freely consented to, since it constitutes definitively an act of love toward God. A forced love cannot be a true love. That is why the Church has always been opposed to forced conversions. Epinal's famous image of the Spanish monk who is presenting a crucifix to an Indian while the conquistador threatens him with his sword, is yet another fruit of Protestant propaganda. If a few princes had occasionally forced the baptism of conquered peoples, as, for example, Charlemagne did in Saxony (ca. 780), this was done against the will of the Church.
But if the Church recognizes the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the Church respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines. [...]
Nevertheless, while the Church denies in principle the right of public expression of false religions, she may not necessarily persecute them in practice. To avoid a greater evil, such as a civil war, the Church can tolerate the sects. This is what Henry IV did in promulgating the Edict of Nantes (1598) which granted a certain amount of liberty to the Protestants of France. But this tolerance does not constitute a right. When political circumstances permit it, the State must re-establish the exclusive rights of Catholicism, as Louis XIV did when he revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Moreover, the pope congratulated the "Sun King" for taking this action.
Naturally, the traditional doctrine of the Church on religious intolerance is only applicable in those countries where the State is officially Catholic. The harmony between priesthood and empire is the normal order of things in societies. In this regard, the Inquisition was a model of agreement between the Church and the State, since the tribunal exercised a mixed jurisdiction, both religious and civil. [...]

The central idea which justifies the Inquisition is that heresy professed publicly is a crime similar to any other crime against the common law. Religion being the foundation of morality, and morality being the foundation of the social order, it follows that a falsification of the faith leads, ultimately, to an offense against the social order. St. Thomas compared heretics to counterfeiters, who, during the Middle Ages, were condemned to the flames. Thus the State, as guardian of the public order, had the duty to combat heresy. But in its role of temporal power, it was not competent to distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy. For this, it had to rely upon an ecclesiastical tribunal. [...]
As in all wars, the Albigensian Crusade was the occasion of excesses. The taking of Béziers (1209) was a veritable massacre. It was impossible to distinguish the Cathari from the Catholics among the population of the city. The papal legate, Arnold de Citeaux, was to have said, "Kill them all. God will recognize his own." The words are probably apocryphal and can be filed under the panoply of anticlerical commonplaces. But they reflect all the same an undoubted fact: the Cathari, who had, for a long time, been drawing down the hatred of the people upon themselves because of their immorality and their practicing of usury, ran the risk of a general lynching.
But the Inquisition prevented this massacre by distinguishing between the heretics and the orthodox, and between the leaders and the followers, and by applying proportionate punishments to the diverse degrees of heresy.
Finally, the Inquisition was a humanitarian work. In severely punishing the leaders, she spared the mass of the Cathari, who were more victim of than responsible for the heresy. In ferreting out the heretics who had gone underground, she prevented the renaissance of Catharism and of all the social and moral disorders that this doctrine provoked. [...]

The inquisitorial procedure varied according to the country and the times, but a basic outline becomes clear. In a general manner, one can say that the Inquisition left the heretic every chance to extricate himself, and only severely punished the "irreducibles," those who were pertinacious in their rejection of the Faith. The Inquisition sought to educate as much as to restrain. Its action sometimes was more of a work of eradicating popular superstitions than of battling against subversion. The judicial procedure was always accompanied by solemn preachings. [...] The Inquisition did not have at its command a secret police or a network of spies. It counted upon the collaboration of the Catholic people, acting in this way more as a guardian of the social consensus than as an oppressive apparatus of the State. [...] The Inquisition was not concerned with the conscience of the heretics, but only with their exterior action.
The Pope confided the Medieval Inquisition to the Dominicans and the Franciscans. These two newly founded orders gave serious guarantees of probity and sanctity. The theological and canonical knowledge of the inquisitors was remarkable. In fact, the Inquisition was entrusted to the finest flowers of the clergy of the era. [...]
The Inquisitor did not render his judgment alone. He was assisted by some assessors (assistant judges), selected from the local clergy. The Inquisition was, in a way, the beginning of the institution of the jury system. In addition, the bishop audited the sentences and the accused could appeal to the Pope. Thus the inquisitorial procedure was suitable, even by the standards of our modern criteria of justice. [...] The number of heretics burned by the Inquisition has been greatly exaggerated. [...] Jean Dumont speaks of about 400 executions during the 24 years of the reign of Isabella the Catholic. That's few indeed in comparison to the 100,000 victims of the purge of "collaborators" in France from 1944-45, or the tens of millions killed by the Communists in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

The State's primary duty of charity is to protect the public order, to defend the physical and spiritual well-being of its subjects. If capital punishment is necessary to assure public security, the State or the Church can have recourse to it. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (chap. 33, §1) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by John Paul II (art. 2266) recognize the legitimacy of the death penalty.
St. Thomas Aquinas justified the execution of criminals in noting that the fear of death often facilitated their conversion. Indeed, prison chaplains can bear witness to the fact that during the era that hanging still existed as a punishment in Canada, it was rare to see one of the condemned mount the scaffold without being confessed by a priest. Thus, the temporal punishment of death allowed the criminal to avoid the eternal death penalty which is hell. In this way, the State was practicing true charity. To restore him to freedom, as is done today on the pretense of forgiveness, is to give the criminal the occasion of relapsing back into sin and losing his soul. [...] At any rate, the death penalty constituted less than 1% of the sentences pronounced by the Inquisition. [...]
The Inquisition was not charged with protecting persons and property from the various aggressions they might undergo. It was created to prohibit a belief and a cult. Now we are at the heart of the matter. [...]
After all, the only thing that the liberals can still reproach the Inquisition for is having fought against the false religions. That is normal enough, since the liberals do not believe that the Catholic Church is the one way to salvation. They cannot comprehend the supernatural finality of the Inquisition. [...] Recall that a third of the German population perished during the numerous religious wars which took place between 1520 and 1648. If the burning of a few hundred heretics had enabled Spain to avoid such a conflict, one must conclude that the Holy Office performed a humanitarian act. [...]
But if there is not occasion to restore the Inquisition, one must certainly rehabilitate it in the eyes of history. With all due deference to those who love to see the Church disparage itself, Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in the past work of this holy tribunal.

"The harmony between priesthood and empire is the normal order of things in societies …"
This seems to me a more likely face of the Roman clergy in general. And while "the German Pope is trying desperately to rewrite history", outfoxed anchorpeople are still believing they would do themselves a tremendous favor with what they're doing every day.

Obama's Jesuit connections surface

03/21'09 Investigative dynamite!
Many thanks for sharing your research mailbox and for the corresponding January 8's Beacon Broadcast with EJP about the Jesuit surroundings of the Obama presidency which begins with: "You have to remember that the Pope has his International Intelligence Community which is the modern day Holy Office of Inquisition, and that International Intelligence Community begun to be put together in WWII and was perfected during the Cold War. And that Intelligence Community today is really overseen by the CIA in conjunction with the Britisch secret intelligence service. [...] The Vatican controls Hamas, it controls Hisbollah through the CIA and the Vatican controls the Mossad through the CIA. So, the Vatican controls both sides and the purpose for this neverending ceaseless warfare is to ultimately bring the Pope to world power in Jerusalem [...] This war has been financed and armed on both sides from the Pope's Intelligence Community overseen by the CIA, and thus we see the Israeli and the US government – both controlled by the Vatican – had provided all the necessary weapons to launch this war."
This amount of mismatch to the Corporate Mainstream as well as to the Conspiracy Mainstream is therefore the one we're dealing with here.

Why does the majority of academics deny to look into the "9/11" abyss? They all know perhaps Faust's pact with the devil and found out that Goethe was introduced into the Bavarian brotherhood from which Jesuit illuminism then emanated into European and international freemasonry capturing and controlling the new upcoming scientific and economic elites.
Aren't we all to nearly full extend mentally embedded in the fascicled intelligence of the highest ranks of the Jesuit Shepherd’s Fold? Isn't the whole fatherly attitude of any of their pseudo-religious business brotherhoods (Freemasonry, Mormons, Scientology and what not) till this day the ideational core of social loyalty at all? Don't we all unwittingly posess their corporate identity, that artificial legal business personality, as some existential sort of social compagnon and supervisory staff?
Which manager, bureaucrat or officer has and shows any interest in deep clarification of the murderous psycho attack in the early days of the new century? That ignorance has reasons behind it that are part of the truth about "9/11" too and far more important as all technical details of the crime itself! The aspect of conspiracy is of second rank in my eyes. For what we are confronted with first and foremost should be called devoutness or something. Television devoutness, politics devoutness, democracy devoutness, science devoutness and so on, church and agency devoutness.
Walter Burien calls the CAFRs the bible of the corporate system that nobody else than the adepts and insiders should see. Isn't the trick not exactly the same the Catholic church played with its believers throughout the whole mediaeval times?

The majestic-dignity of interpretation delivers the central key to power whatsoever, and that’s probably one of the most important secrets of the mysterious Jesuit supremacy, I think. What's the difference, let's say, between freedom as "the insight into necessity" (Friedrich Engels, the high-level Freemason) and the famous letter Loyola wrote – "de virtute obedientiae" – on March 26, 1553, where he defined the three degrees of "Manchurian Candidate" obedience towards the next superior brother? Hoensbroech translated its main passages into German, the last sentence goes like: "I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [...] bestir you to subjugate (expugnare) and subdue (subicere) the most highbred and difficult part of your mind: reason and judgement."

Jesuit motivated Internet propaganda deceives millions

03/20'09 "I am the best you can get!"
The self-appointed "T-Rex of Political Talk" in his own words.
"The tip of the spear. [...] the ultimate resistance." I know how it hurts.
After all, he's the most efficient gatekeeper of the Roman N.W.O., that damn fricking Jones joker!
Good article and nice try, Tom. I call him the big instantaneous water heater: lots of hue and information with very little useful coherence.
Do you know what happend on May 14, 2008 on his show? The videos of the interview with David J. Smith that I downloaded from Youtube months ago have been unfortunately deleted, meanwhile.
I think he acts like a Lewis Prothero but in a sneaky twisted kind of inverted way introducing the Jesuit "prison planet" by negative advertisement, in a manner of speaking, while concurrently sustaining the Corporate Mainstream the tried and tested dialectical way. Together with Tarpley and a formidable row of generally accepted "truth heros", Alex became the strongest public relations anchor of that type of future he reputedly fights against. His role had to be custom-made for the goals that are being pursued with the "9/11" project, and that's the ultimate question from my point of view: for what exact reason was that psycho tsunami absolutely unevitable?

May 15, 2007 Eric Jon Phelps with Lenny Bloom
Eric) Alex Jones is the topic: He refuses to deal with the Jesuit order.
Lenny) They don't want the truth to get out. They are hiding the truth.
Right. But the deception here is his great credibility on most every other topic: on "9/11", the demolition of the WTC, Oklahoma City, you know, the whole nine yards, the destruction of Waco – he is absolutely credible on all those other topics. And that's what suck the people into following him away from Vatican control.
Lenny) That's a half-truth. That's how he gets people. Create a half-truth, hook them in!
Eric) So this is typical Jesuit casuistry at its best, and we always have to watch out for this and be aware that there is always somebody trying to seduce the listener away from realizing that Rome is the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth: Rome is that great city which rules all the kings on the earth.
So, and I would welcome a debate with Alex Jones. I'll welcome any confrontation with him, if he seeks to refute me about this or correct me for final analysis. All I ask is that he deals with the Jesuit order. It doesn't have to be me, I'm nothing. But that subject is everything, and he must deal with it if he use to maintain his credibility.
Lenny) Well, he has to stay in the shadows. He can't afford to let the light shine on and has to stay under his rock. And the thing is this, he will not enter into any neutral debate with you. He'll have to have his finger on the button at his radio station. He is too frightened and he doesn't have the debating expertise or intelligence or lateral thinking enough to move into that area of expertise and go one on one with you. But he can buster and fuel people with cleverly devised fables. Alex Jones is a Jesuit coadjutor, a fake.
Eric) That's absolutely right.