The Dangers of Evolution

by Greg Farber

The Benefits of Burning Heretics at the Stake.

by Al Remington

This discussion on burning heretics is still to be found on the Roman Catholic EWTN History Forum:

Burning at the stake — a different perspective
Question from Don on 05-13-2002:

Dr. Carroll,

In considering the treatment of relapsed heretics (most, but not all, heretics were given the chance to recant before being burned alive), it is obviously important to consider the underlining beliefs motivating such behavior on the part of the Catholic secular and religious authorities.

To those watching someone being burned alive, as well as to the person being executed, it is clear that such a death was a vivid depicture of people’s beliefs regarding Hell. In Saint Joan of Arc’s Trial of Condemnation, Hell is not referred to as “hell” but as the “eternal fire”. The same terminology was later used at the Council of Florence, and is also present in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph #1036).

Does it seem logical that heretics were burned alive, with their mental faculties intact, to give them one last chance to repent before being sent into the “eternal fire”? Could it be that burning an individual at the stake was seen as a merciful death, as a means of giving that person one last chance to save his or her soul before final damnation??? I have read that “burning at the stake was believed by some medieval authorities and scholars to liberate the sinner from his or her formerly damned state and offer some hope of salvation to the now ‘cleansed’ soul”.

The unchanging teaching of the Church is that Hell is the “the unquenchable fire” (#1034) and that it is eternal (#1035). Until the 20th-century, heresy was viewed as a terrible sin, something that the Apostle Paul condemns as damnable (#817), stating in Galatians 1:6-9,

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel– not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.” Some translations have “eternally condemned” or “anathema” instead of “accursed”.

Given such an admonition, what should one have expected of the medieval Church? If heretics were (and are) on a “highway to Hell”, does it make sense to mercifully kill a relapsed heretic, so that he or she can “peacefully” pass into the “furnace of fire” (#1034)?

In our time, we have religious freedom, a gift from the deists of the Enlightenment. This is a good thing!! We need religious tolerance. One only need look at the events of September 11 to see that!! Tolerance is good and wonderful! Without it, we would probably be fighting numerous religious and ethnic wars, which would cost millions of lives.

In the end, though, our deep religious tolerance may not be a good thing. In giving people the absolute freedom to decide what they do or do not believe, we may have given them the freedom to “think and feel” their way straight into Hell, forever. In our age of complete relativism where there are no absolute truths, the Church has to operate the best she can, and this means a certain level of conformity to the prevailing social norms — in this case, religious tolerance and ecumenicalism.

The world of medieval Catholic Europe operated under a set of much different circumstances. They did what they felt was right in the eyes of God. They were not “sinners” and did not necessarily use “poor judgment”. Ultimately, Christ will judge all people, including those of the Inquisition. Catholics should not feel “embarrassed” by that outcome. I am not.

This is not to say that burning people alive was justified, even if the individual in question was a genuine heretic who repeatedly refused to recant. I guess that any judgment would need to be made on an individual case. We will all die someday, and I fully and firmly believe that God will judge everyone to ultimately spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell. From the perspective of an obstinate heretic who was taken to the scaffold to be executed but who recanted before dying, the Inquisition may have ultimately been a “good” thing, assuming, of course, that the person went to Heaven who would have otherwise gone to Hell, except for the “grace” of the Inquisition. Of course, only God knows for sure.

If you think that the Inquisition was evil or misguided, just consider the state of those countries today where the Inquisitions were the most active – Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Nearly everyone in those countries is Catholic, and consequently, all three of those nations have the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.

Over the course of six hundred years, the Catholic Inquisitions sent between forty to sixty thousand individuals to the scaffold to be burned by the secular authorities. This is less than half the number of abortions done in the United States every month.

Regards,

Don

Answer by Warren H. Carroll, Ph.D on 05-15-2002:
Well stated. – Dr. Carroll

COPYRIGHT 2002 EWTN

…more questions, here.

John Taylor Gatto – Spinning Globe

by Greg Farber

I love this teacher.

By John Taylor Gatto

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn’t seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren’t interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Boredom is the common condition of schoolteachers, and anyone who has spent time in a teachers’ lounge can vouch for the low energy, the whining, the dispirited attitudes, to be found there. When asked why they feel bored, the teachers tend to blame the kids, as you might expect. Who wouldn’t get bored teaching students who are rude and interested only in grades? If even that. Of course, teachers are themselves products of the same twelve-year compulsory school programs that so thoroughly bore their students, and as school personnel they are trapped inside structures even more rigid than those imposed upon the children. Who, then, is to blame?

We all are. My grandfather taught me that. One afternoon when I was seven I complained to him of boredom, and he batted me hard on the head. He told me that I was never to use that term in his presence again, that if I was bored it was my fault and no one else’s. The obligation to amuse and instruct myself was entirely my own, and people who didn’t know that were childish people, to be avoided if possible. Certainty not to be trusted. That episode cured me of boredom forever, and here and there over the years I was able to pass on the lesson to some remarkable student. For the most part, however, I found it futile to challenge the official notion that boredom and childishness were the natural state of affairs in the classroom. Often I had to defy custom, and even bend the law, to help kids break out of this trap.

The empire struck back, of course; childish adults regularly conflate opposition with disloyalty. I once returned from a medical leave to discover t~at all evidence of my having been granted the leave had been purposely destroyed, that my job had been terminated, and that I no longer possessed even a teaching license. After nine months of tormented effort I was able to retrieve the license when a school secretary testified to witnessing the plot unfold. In the meantime my family suffered more than I care to remember. By the time I finally retired in 1991, 1 had more than enough reason to think of our schools-with their long-term, cell-block-style, forced confinement of both students and teachers-as virtual factories of childishness. Yet I honestly could not see why they had to be that way. My own experience had revealed to me what many other teachers must learn along the way, too, yet keep to themselves for fear of reprisal: if we wanted to we could easily and inexpensively jettison the old, stupid structures and help kids take an education rather than merely receive a schooling. We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness-curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insightsimply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then.

But we don’t do that. And the more I asked why not, and persisted in thinking about the “problem” of schooling as an engineer might, the more I missed the point: What if there is no “problem” with our schools? What if they are the way they are, so expensively flying in the face of common sense and long experience in how children learn things, not because they are doing something wrong but because they are doing something right? Is it possible that George W. Bush accidentally spoke the truth when he said we would “leave no child behind”? Could it be that our schools are designed to make sure not one of them ever really grows up?

Do we really need school? I don’t mean education, just forced schooling: six classes a day, five days a week, nine months a year, for twelve years. Is this deadly routine really necessary? And if so, for what? Don’t hide behind reading, writing, and arithmetic as a rationale, because 2 million happy homeschoolers have surely put that banal justification to rest. Even if they hadn’t, a considerable number of well-known Americans never went through the twelve-year wringer our kids currently go through, and they turned out all right. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln? Someone taught them, to be sure, but they were not products of a school system, and not one of them was ever “graduated” from a secondary school. Throughout most of American history, kids generally didn’t go to high school, yet the unschooled rose to be admirals, like Farragut; inventors, like Edison; captains of industry like Carnegie and Rockefeller; writers, like Melville and Twain and Conrad; and even scholars, like Margaret Mead. In fact, until pretty recently people who reached the age of thirteen weren’t looked upon as children at all. Ariel Durant, who co-wrote an enormous, and very good, multivolume history of the world with her husband, Will, was happily married at fifteen, and who could reasonably claim that Ariel Durant was an uneducated person? Unschooled, perhaps, but not uneducated.

We have been taught (that is, schooled) in this country to think of “success” as synonymous with, or at least dependent upon, “schooling,” but historically that isn’t true in either an intellectual or a financial sense. And plenty of people throughout the world today find a way to educate themselves without resorting to a system of compulsory secondary schools that all too often resemble prisons. Why, then, do Americans confuse education with just such a system? What exactly is the purpose of our public schools?

Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:

1) To make good people. 2) To make good citizens. 3) To make each person his or her personal best. These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. … Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim … is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States… and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German-speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens 11 in order to render the populace “manageable.”

It was from James Bryant Conant-president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century-that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modem schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever re-integrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.
That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

Tre you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, lib, erty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his book Public School Administration: “Our schools are … factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned …. And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a pre-teen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.

John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,”which appeared in the September 2003 issue.

Destroying Protestantism

by Al Remington

Quote:

“We cherish at the bottem of our hearts this principle- that whatever does not unite with us be ANNIHILATED and we hold ourselves ready to make as soon as we shall have the means [the Federal Reserve Bank] an energetic application of these principles.

Protestantism is already wearing out and sinking to decay. Yes we are destined to insult its last agonies, to march over its broken skeleton and scattered bones, O let us hasten this dissolution by our strong and united efforts.

Protestantism is becoming decomposed; it is falling to pieces. We are beginning to gain from it men of note [England's John Newman] and there are, even high personages whom we have succeeded in convincing that if they continue to uphold Protestantism, they are lost.”

Extracts from The Secret Plan by Leone Quoted in; Enc Jon Phelps. 2001, Vatican Assassins. Wounded in the house of my friends Halycom United Services p266.

What’s the Synthesis that the Jesuits want to achieve?

Well the Catholic Church created the order lets ask them.

In 1550 Pope Julius III declared his claim to universal Temporal (political) Power evidenced by a new coin he issued, its motto having read:

“The nation and kingdom that will not serve me shall perish!”

Popery. An Enemy to Civil and Religious Liberty;and Dangerous to Our Republic, W.C. Brownlee, (New York: John S. Taylor, Publisher, 1836) p.159

NOTE: The whole world? Yes, this means the United States of America also.

“…the Pope of Rome, as the Head of the Papal Government, claims absolute

sovereignty and supremacy over all the governments of the earth.”

Romanism as a World Power, Luther S. Kauffman (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The American Publishing Co., 1922) p.31.

“The right of deposing kings is in herent in the supreme sovereignty which the Popes,

As vice-regents of Christ exercise over all Christian nations.”

Cardinal Henry Manning, 1892, Archbishop of Westminister

The Jesuits in History, hector Macpherson, (Springfield, Missouri: Ozark Book Publishers, 1997; org published in 1990) p. 115

NOTE: The goal of the Catholic and Jesuit Order is for the Pope to rule over all Christian nations.

What is the Jesuits agenda?

Quote:

“Its [the Jesuit Order's] objective was,and is still, to destroy the effects of the Reformation and to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire of the Germany Nation…A Greater Germany, in other words, must be made again the center of a revived Holy Roman Empire.”

Leo H. Lehmann, 1942, American Historian

Behind the Dictators, Leo H. Lehmann, (New York: Agora Publishing Co., 1942) p. 26

“The Jesuit Order, therefore, stands before us as the embodiment of a system which aims at temporal political domination through temporal political means, embellished by religion, which assigns to the head of the Catholic religion – the Roman Pope – the role of a temporal overlord, and under shelter of the Pope-King, and using him as an instrument, desires itself to attain the dominion over the whole world.”

Count von Hoensbroech, 1911, German Noble and ex-Jesuit

Fourth Years a Jesuit, Count von Hoensbroech, translated by Alice Zimmern, )New York. Cassell and Company, Ltd., 1911) Vol. II, p. 430.

“At what then do the Jesuits aim? According to them, they only seek the greater glory of God, but if you examine the facts you will find that they aim at universal dominion alone. They have rendered themselves indispensable to the Pope, who, without them, could not exist, because Catholicism is identified with them. They have rendered themselves indispensable to governors and hold revolutions in their hands; and in this way, either under one name or another, it is they who rule the world….”

Popery, Puseyism and Jesuitism, Luigi Desanctis, (London: D. Catt, 1905; translated by Maria Betts from the original Italian edition published as Roma Papale in 1865) p. 139.

“Moreover, the pope has thousands of secret agents worldwide. They include Jesuits, the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, and others. The Vatican’s Intelligence Service and its field resources are second to none..”

Dave Hunt, 1994, Amercan Baptist Historian

A Woman Rides the Beast, Dave Hunt, p. 87
NOTE: The Jesuits want a one world order under the pope.

Jesuit Orders that are bringing America and the world to Rome

Quote:FREEMASONS.

“The truth is, the Jesuits of Rome have perfected Freemasonry to be their most magnificent and effective tool, accomplishing their purposes among Protestants”….

The Grand Design Exposed, John Daniel, (Middleton, Idaho: CHJ Publishing, 1999), p. 302.

NOTE: Why would the Jesuits need to make a Protestant Order? The Bible has revealed that Rome is the Anti-Christ and everybody is looking at them through a magnifying glass. So if persecution does not work, join them. Now Freemasonry is doing the dirty work for the Jesuits and the Jesuits do the work for Rome. The sad thing is that some Freemasons really think that they are working for the true God of Heaven and find out when they receive higher degrees that it is Lucifer worship.

Freemasonry controlled by Jesuits

Quote:

“It is curious to note too that most of the bodies which work these, such as the Ancient and Accepted Scotish Rite, the Rite of Avignon, the Order of the Temple, Fesslor’s Rite, the ‘Grand Council of the Emperors of the East and West Sovereign Prince Masons’, ect., etc., are nearly all offsprings of the sons of Ignatius Loyola. The Baron Hundt, Chevalier Ramsey, Tschoudy, Zinnendorf, and numerous others, who founded the grades in these rites, worked under instructions from the General of the Jesuits….”

Isis Unveiled, H.P.Blavatsky, (Los Angeles, Ca: The Theosohy Company, 1968; org published in 1977). p. 390.

More connections…..

“There are still old ladies, male and female, about the country, who will tell you, with grim gravity that, if you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top, head Mason of the world, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus are one and the same person!”

James Parton, 1855, American Historian

The Black Pope, M.F. Cusack, (London: Marshall, Russell & Co., 1896) p. 76.

The Rite titled “The Holy and Thrice Illustrous Order of the Cross” employe these words:

“….we have confirmed the Induction of the Knights Templar Mason into the Councils of the said Order of Knighthood…and hoping and confiding that he will ever so demean himself as to conduct to the glory of I.H.S the Most Holy and Almighty GOD, and to the honor of his MARK, we recommend…”

Light on Freemasonry, David Bernard, 1858; org published in 1829, p. 195

Remember what I.H.S stands for? Isis….Horus….Seth.

…the Freemasons are in the foreground while the Jesuits and the Knights of Malta are in the background.

Who are the Knights of Malta?

Initial Membership List

Compiled by Eric Samuelson, J.D.

General Allavena

George W. Anderson

James Jesus Angelton

Julian Allason

Roberto Alejos Arzu

Andrew Bertie

Elmer Bobst

Charles Joseph Bonaparte

Prince Valerio Borghese

Dr. Barry Bradley

Nicholas Brady

Monsignor Mario Brini

Pat Buchanan

James Buckley

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Precott Bush, Jr. Frank Capra

William Casey
Gustavo Cisneros

(Cardinal) Terence Cooke

Gerald Coughlin

Cartha DeLoach

Giscard d’Estaing

Bill Donovan

Allen Dulles

Avery Dulles

(Archbishop) Edward Egan

(Count) Franz Egon

John Farrell

Francis D. Flanagan

FlynnJ. Edgar Hoover

Joseph Kennedy

(Senator) Ted Kennedy

Henry Luce

Frank Sinatra

The Messianic Legacy 359-361 (1986); and Eric Jon Pheilps, Vatican Assassins (2001)

The founder of the Knights of Columbus

Father Michael J. McGivney.

What does the Knights of Columbus control?

Quote:

“….on January 1. 1905 a total membership of 127,206 persons…they are now (1912) said to be over 300,000 strong…and adroit feature of this organization, to which Roman Catholics only are eligible, is the initiative service of four degrees…they work in collusion with the Hierarchy, and are heart and soul in politics. This fact is well known to political machines and non-Catholic politicians, whose candidates must receive the approval of ROME and the Knights before they dare nominate them for either dog pound or presidency. The Knights of Columbus’ …principal business is politics, aye, Jesuitical politics…”

Romanism: A Menace to the Nation. Jeremiah J. Crowley. (Aurora, Missouri: The Menace Publishing Co, 1912) p. 154-157

NOTE: So much for voting! Rome is controlling us from all sides….It is time to choose a side, do you want to be controlled by this power or do you want to choose Jesus Christ the only one that can save you?

Skull and Bones

The Order-What it is and how it began

Those on the inside know it as The Order others have known it for more that 150 years as Chapter 322 of a German secret society. More formally, for legal purposes, The Order was incorporated as The Russell Trust in 1856. It was also once known as the “Brotherhood of Death”. Those who make light of it, or want to make fun of it, call it “Skull and Bones”, or just plain “Bones”.

NOTE: The Order was called the “Brotherhood of Death” To the right was their symbol

This symbol was also used to symbolize Jupiter: The God of Death

What does the 322 stand for? Look up, Genesis 3:22, And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to Knowgood and evil:

NOTE: They are exalting themselves to the status of God.

The German Order

Quote:

The American chapter of this German order was founded in 1833 at Yale University by General William Huntington russell and Alphonso Taft who, in 1876, became Secretary of War in the Grant Administration. Alponso Taft was the father of William Howerd Taft, the only man to be both President and Chief Justice of the United States.

The Illuminati had its orgins at the University of Ingolstadt and recruits were from the student-encorpos

“The Order” Had its origin at Yale in 1833, but Skull and Bones is a chapter of a German secret society. The German orgins are denied at Yale, but during the Temple raid in 1876 the entrants found a card on which was written: ” From the German Chapter. Presented by Patriarch D.C. Gilman of D. 50.”

NOTE: What did we read was the agenda of the Jesuits:

Its [the Jesuit Order's] objective was,and is still, to destroy the effects of the Reformation and to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire of the Germany Nation…A Greater Germany, in other words, must be made again the center of a revived Holy Roman Empire.”

Leo H. Lehmann, 1942, American Historian

Behind the Dictators, Leo H. Lehmann, (New York: Agora Publishing Co., 1942) p. 26

The British Order

The British establisment was also founded at a University – Oxford University, and especially All Souls College at Oxford. The British element is called “The Group”.

The Group links to the Jewish equivalent through the Rothschilds in Britain (Lord Rothschild was an original member of Rhodes :inner circle”). The Order in the U.S. links to the Guggenheim, Schiff and Warburg families. There were no Jews at all in The Order until very recently.

NOTE: This society is world wide.

SOURCE:

Shooter Jennings & Hierophant “Summer of Rage” short film

by Greg Farber

Taking a teacher to the woodshed

by GunRights4US From the Neal Boortz Show:

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL TEACHER GETS SCHOOLED!

I love it! And not just any government school teacher .. a unionized government school teacher in New Jersey. Who did she get schooled by? The Governor, Chris Christie. Here's what happened. Governor Christie spoke to a small crowd in a church gymnasium the other day. (No .. .so far as we know the ACLU didn't raise a stink about a representative of government speaking in a building owned by a church.) The subject was budget cuts, property tax caps and other painful necessities that need to be done in order to get New Jersey's fiscal matters back in order.

Then it came time for questions. Unionized government employees don't like budget caps. Unionized government employees don't like caps on property taxes. Sooooo ... up to the mic steps union government school teacher Rita O'Neill-Wilson ... you know how I feel about women with hyphenated names ... make up your mind lady, either you're married or not! Anywaaaay .... Rita stands up and does not ask a question, she proceeds to complain about how much she is making (thanks to the taxpayers) and how she is entitled to more money. She tells the governor that if she were paid $3 an hour for the 30 children in her class, she would be earning $83,000 a year. She says she doesn't earn anywhere near that much (we will get to that claim in a second). Governor Christie interrupts her to remind her that she is earning a lot more if you include the cost of her benefits, which are generous considering her membership in a teachers union. Then Rita O'NeillhyphenWilson says that she has a master's degree and that she isn't being compensated for her education or her experience. Governor Christie's response? "Well, you know then that you don't have to do it." I love it! Christie for President! Remind this unionized government hack that NOBODY is forcing her to be a teacher and that she is perfectly free to sever the government ties and head out there to find another job that will pay her more. As if that response wasn't good enough, Christie slams one final nail in the coffin by reminding Rita O'Neill-Wilson that he would not be in this position of having to impose cuts in education if Rita's precious teachers union had agreed to a one-year salary freeze and a 1.5% increase in employee benefit contributions. Christie addresses Rita: "Your union said that is the greatest assault on public education in the history of the state ... That's why the union has no credibility, stupid statements like that."

If Rita is black this would make Governor Christie a racist. I'm assuming she's a woman, so he most certainly is a sexist.

Now - what about Rita hyphen-hyphen's income? Rita O'Neill-Wilson claims that a $83,000 salary is nowhere near what she earns. Too bad she works for the government and her salary is public record. Turns out that Rita O'Neill-Wilson earns a salary of $86,389 a year. On top of that, health benefits for family coverage in New Jersey can cost up to $22,000 a year. Add that to the cost of employing this woman, and Rita O'Neill-Wilson is costing the taxpayers well over $100,000 a year. On top of that, New Jersey ranks fourth in the entire nation in teacher pay. The average New Jersey teacher earns $63,154 a year, which is $13,000 higher than the per capita income in the state of New Jersey, which is $50,313. The median pay for New Jersey teachers with a master's degree is $66,212, which means that Rita O'Neill-Wilson is earning well above the average based on her education. Apparently that isn't good enough for the New Jersey teachers unions. Maybe they are just jealous of other unionized government workers. Police officers in New Jersey are the highest paid in the country, which an average base salary of $75,400 a year. The average firefighter earns $69,620 a year.

I know that there are many wunnerful government teachers out there. Rita isn't on that list.

Indoctrination is a squared head

by Greg Farber

Their all wearing their Saturn hats, the black square, the mortar boards, aren’t they cute, and they think they are intelligent now, mind control certificates and their ready to go, now you know what being squared means, don’t think outside the box now.. Mortar Board Sheople.. Every once in awhile one of them breaks free.. And uses that brain instead of allowing that brain to be used..

Indoctrination in college.. love Karl Marx, capatalism is evil

by Greg Farber

Go to sleep little children…

Anybody’s Son Will Do

by Greg Farber

The film shows the process by which young men become psychologically engineered to kill or die on command. While the model used is the U.S. Marine Corps, it’s made clear that the modern techniques for creating soldiers are refined, dehumanizing and universal. Arguably the best anti-war film ever made, and tailored for public television, it scared the hell out of the U.S. military machine, which has done its best to “disappear” it. For years it has been nearly impossible to find a copy, but some kind soul has posted it on YouTube where it can be seen in six segments.

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (1 of 6)

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (2 of 6)

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (3 of 6)

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (4 of 6)

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (5 of 6)

War – Part Two: Anybody’s Son Will Do (6 of 6)

Show us your starving waifs

by GunRights4US By Vin Suprynowicz

Here's a teaser. But DO read the whole thing. Liberals will be enraged. All others will be impressed at the truth of it.

Ninety percent of the people in the world would love to be poor in America. America is one of the few places in the world where a quasi-literate woman can decide to raise her children alone without benefit of a wage-earning husband, and be rewarded by her government for this brilliant decision — despite the greatly enhanced risk her sons will grow up to be felons — with a subsidized home that has central heating, indoor plumbing, and a color television, all courtesy of money looted from total strangers by our wise and powerful government. Is America full of starving waifs? In fact, we have an epidemic of childhood obesity.

Next Page »