Are you serious asking me if I’m serious, “my friend”? Well, I actually am. Very much, in fact. And no, I’m not a Jew, so you are not “cattle to me”. Not at all! I am German, you know, and that makes me feel that I must “be bounded to oppose” every kind of blind obedience: “The devil’s admiral, Karl Dönitz, was under the spell of the dictator. His faith in Hitler had almost mystical qualities. ‘The enormous strength radiated by the fuehrer has shown quite clearly that we are all miserable little creatures compared to him. Anyone who thinks he could do better is stupid.’”

“Just because one is a blue blood or extremely wealthy does not mean they are ‘Illuminati’.” Of course, it doesn’t. But a lot of pupils at Jesuit colleges, for instance, came from aristocratic homes and families. The German Wikipedia entry for the new American Loyalty Day reads among others as follows. “1776: The Order of the Illuminati (or simpler: the occult office of Illuminism) was founded as a secret society by Adam Weishaupt together with two students at the University of Ingolstadt with a view to opposing, somehow, the Jesuit supremacy in science and scholarship.” I mean, you don’t need to appeal to me to make differentiations, Jay. Count Hoensbroech was Fourteen Years a Jesuit. I know it’s hellishly complicated, and you never will see me judging by less than “a person’s actions and beliefs”. Maybe a main difference between your thinking and mine could be that I’m focussing my “9/11 electronic distance learning” more on structural phenomena. “You’re sure I won’t accept you as a serious Catholic”? You would be wrong in this case. I’m rather glad you make it possible to maintain a public correspondence, and I never will attack your religious belief system, your spiritual sphere, you know, your intimate worldview, I can promise this to you.
“You know a tree by its fruit.” I think, that’s also applicable to such a dialogue between you as a serious follower of the papacy, and an opponent to Vatican demands for absolutistic world administration like myself (as much serious as you are). I’m here for learning how the most decisive mechanisms of power by mass manipulation of the opinions of less-educated ones really operate, I’m going to expose myself for this purpose from now on, and there is already much to say after just two exchanges of words. And please, don’t get me wrong about the less-educated ones, I’m belonging to them too, of course.

“You know a tree by its fruit.” I believe, that’s also very applicable to the Pyroclastic Flow on September 11, 2001.

I despise the uniformist tendencies as much as you do. But for me, Communism rhymes with Communion. Seriously. If individuals would be just individuals like you say, then they would be individual thinkers, don’t you think so? They aren’t. We aren’t such individual thinkers of our own, though we love to believe so.
It’s simply not the case. We are relying on opinions of experts, and the mightiest of them are those with commonly accepted expertise in the matter of God. Throughout the entire history, we were existentially dependent on leading figures. The letterpress was the first radical liberation wave away from spiritual, intellectual and therefore political wardship. The church needed an army to fight back! The Volksempfänger (television) was the centralistic counter move and the deeper reason for the German backfall in absolute inhuman, unbelievably cruel, medieval barbarianism. Only the internet offers now, for the first time at all, the chance for individual thinkers along a wide front. This is the absolute core subject, far more important than any aspect of conspiracy. It’s complicated, of course it is. It’s much harder to deal with compared to adventurous hunting expeditions for shadowy conspirators through the widths of the cyberspace. But such an effort to find the first outlines of a truly open-minded piety/devoutness theory appears to me what 9/11 Truth is all about.

Allow me a short digression here.
“Who are the men hiding behind the hoods? And why do they venerate the owl? Simple: the owl symbolizes wisdom because it sees things in the dark. Now, this is not the Ku Klux Klan or Mississippi Burning, this is your constitutional government burning. Let’s remove the hoods and see who came to the party. The last two weeks of July of every year, a secret meeting is held in our country in northern California by the world’s most powerful people. Bankers, politicians, industrialists, entertainment luminaries, all over-all figures. This group, directly connected with the European ruling elites, is commonly known as the Bohemian Society. Our now famous Council of Foreign Relations, the government behind the American government, is represented here along with members of the Bilderberger Group of Europe. A meeting held once a year to decide at world-wide scale your future. A shining example of true democracy carried on in the dark. Obviously here your vote doesn’t count. Appropriately the owl was chosen as a symbol for this ilk, for it too is at home in the dark. The name ‘bohemian’ carries a dictionary definition as ‘a community of persons who adopt manners and mores, conspicuously different from those expected or approved of by the majority of society, and who disregard conventional standards of behaviour.’ No wonder they want no input from you.

More specifically American and even darker and equally as insidious is an organization that our own president George Bush belongs to, namely Skull & Bones, rightly understood to be America’s secret establishment. The Bohemian Society, Skull & Bones, CIA, DEA, Mafia, and the IRS are just some other groups that make up the true power behind the throne of America. Like all other kingships, America’s power elite hinges on family blood just as the power structure of the Mafia. To show that the word “bloodline” is not just a figure of speech, let’s take a look at the actual facts. Carefully outlined here are the actual lineages of American presidents and their bloodline connected to European Aristocracies of power. Starting from Edward II & III of England, 28 out of our 42 presidents were connected by blood, including President Bush and Vice President Quayle who also, in fact, related to each other. Most of the 14 not connected by blood were connected by fraternal orders used by the bloodlines with only a few exceptions, notably a disruption: the Kennedys. Thinking to disrupt this dynasty of power in America owing to their vast financial banking and personal intellectual charisma, and much behind the scenes political maneuvering by his father Joe Kennedy, JFK was inserted into the presidency. The idea being to disrupt the status quo by establishing a Kennedy Roman Catholic dynasty, and thereby serving noticed under Freemasonic powers of this world, of their unwillingness to cooperate and play by the unwritten rules. Justifiably feeling threatened, the established bloodlines of power in America removed the Kennedy threat. Official police records show that the John Kennedy assassination was closely proceeded by, and followed by as many as one hundred assassinations all over which were closely connected with the Kennedy family’s rise to power.”

Families control no brotherhoods, bankers control no brotherhoods: bloodlines and bankers are used by brotherhoods like Jews, politicians, scientists, artists and soldiers are used by them. Mafia is a brotherhood, an army. A private army. And not a family. Let’s say it loud and clear: priests, knights and agents are warriors, the Jewish people is not. There is no one pure Jewish power structure at the top of any of the mightiest entities in the world. Brotherhoods use opportunistic Jews through their quasi-military secret and bureaucratic-unhidden hierarchies in a way to serve as still tremendous efficient Täuschkörper, and this has to be one reason why opportunism should occupy a very high priority in a theory-building process about why people actually want to believe what they believe, and why it is they, of all people, whom they trust.
(Webster Tarpley’s) finance oligarchy, (Fritz Springmeier’s) royal bloodlines, (Joseph Goebbels’) Jews, (David Icke’s) hyper-intelligent Velociraptors from outer space, all ideological -isms and religious communities inevitably recede in the face of a testimony such as the following (if it’s true): “Communism was really started by the Catholic church.” Can this possibly help to make you able to know where I’m coming from?

Jordan Maxwell is a God-fearing man. From my viewpoint, he integrates Christianity quite accurately in the flow of history. His semiotics is not a joke for me. Those parallels blatantly exist. Sure, that must not give anybody reason enough to take it for granted. It’s always the interpretations that determine whether something will be regarded as right or wrong. Voltaire’s “bending to the strongest probabilities” gets straight to the heart of it. Jordan generally dissociates himself from secret circles, in opposite of you, because conspiracies are a joke for his God anyway. Secrecy is not of God, you know, we would have “no faith whatsoever”. Terry said it succinctly, and he didn’t mean it differently at this point as soon as you put one and one together.
In my eyes, your pope acts like a pharaoh, like a caesar with godlike status. Seems to me being a matter of taste, if you ask me, but the intellectual power alone within the RCC still happens to be enormous and widely unchallanged to this day. Jesuit universities belong to the best in their countries. So I can understand your admiration for the Catholic brotherhood and therefore your subjection to the church because everyone’s love follows the one that you venerate, doesn’t it.

Thanks a lot for your friendly invitation, brother. Unfortunately, I’m not feeling that much attracted by Adam’s and Jesus’ daddy. I’m really sorry. Fraternalism is full of pitfalls. Why maintaining that Kafkaesque situation when there is no need at all for godly icons that further must be artificially imagined in the first place whilst you’re swimming in what’s commonly known as “god” anyway. But I want to say this: I’m bying every word from your response, which appears to me as being an honest offer for dialogue, and I’m fascinated by your theological background and by interpretations of yours and other “academic readers” on church history as well as actual church policy and on everything else, of course, too. That surely promises some interesting new understandings.
You’re speaking of individuality and of ultra-liberal-thinking Jesuits, and that you “have NOTHING to do with them” … I would say, there is a lot of wishful thinking in it. Aren’t you by definition directly embedded into the Roman church institutions? You have to do what they say, haven’t you? You have to play by their rules, is what I want to make an objection here to this particular interaction of yours of being bounded in one way and not in an other one.

Racist Christian propaganda? Yes. Yes. And once more, yes. Christians are responsible for the Holocaust. Period. Christians let it happen when hell opens in broad daylight. There is a basis for this! And this basis is Christian upbringing. A man is what he is through nurture.
Well, the internet will also change a lot of standards in this regard.
Your arguments, Jay, will be studied, and weighed, and synchronized, and integrated. We need an essentially more precise picture of what I call the Jesuit Shepherd’s Fold, a new model, if you will, which can easily be ratified by every “amateur fact checker (of the most rudimentary sort)”.
“The point is that they don’t have near the power you imagine. The Vatican is not a secret orgainization anymore than the CFR is secret.”
Wrong. And why does everybody do the same mistake? Because no one understands the basement of which that black army of the lovely “Jesuses quasi praesens” has built their world empire step by step.
I can’t go into all of your statements now, but I’d like to do it in the next days. It’s great to hear about well-balanced “Nicene Truth” principles, I appreciate your trying very much.
Here comes a little piece on – one could say – Zionism in the light of Jesuitism, which is not that appropriate as it should be, but let’s say you have opened the debate and this would be a bit of an introduction on my own, okay? So, don’t take it too personally, please.

So, whereas the Catholic brotherhood already holds officially the soul guidance of more than one billion people all over the world in its hand, and the Tetra- resp. Enneagrammaton clerics of the Jesuit Order (Richard Roth as Master of Spiritual Exercises for Bishops & Cardinals, and Franciscans are subject to “Rome’s Jesuses”, the unrivalled champions in soaping themselves and others) who, according to Ian Paisley, are in charge of Vatican-led global ecumenism and therefore about to take over the soul guidance of the whole religious sphere on the planet, do you turn your entire alertness on the Talmud? I mean, isn’t that a bit on the weird side?

I’m not speaking of a “Jesuit World Conspiracy” here! Essentially, it’s meant to describe a monolithic bureaucracy like in the military or other bloodbrotherhoods, as there are secret services like the SS, the Stasi, the BND, the CIA, the NRO, the mafia, the clergy, papal knights’ orders or any other orders of monks or monk-like, uniform-minded, self-declared “ubermenschs” in higher corporate, artistic, political, scientific or scientological, communist and freemasonic as well as related structures, and the company of the “Jesuses on earth” practically occupies the top of this quasi-military pyramid of world power as the ultimate, highest educated, most fanatic, most “ruthless and monolithic” “chief corner stone” resp. “all-seeing eye”: pyramid = pyro a mid = fire in the middle = Ignatius, meaning “the fiery and ardent” = Fire Walk with Me = atomic twin peaks in Japan = “Manhattan Project” Nineeleven, the well-prepared Twin Towers. Ask James Martin SJ why he implicitly wanted to become a Jesuit when being a successful banker! I believe they finally make the rules in a more or less globally uncontested way since Nagasaki. I’m speaking of a (Western) society “of Jesus” that you and me were born in, which is soaked with Jesuitism in all areas. I’m not saying that Romanism, the CC and the JO are bad and evil on all levels and in every regard but I’m insisting on the fact that the Romanist system is exceedingly flexible, extremely sophisticated and generally based on contempt for mankind. Just my opinion. Because at the cyberspace you can drastically feel the common contempt for each other and the easiness of how it is played out.

One’s thinking in terms only of conspiracy rather distracts attention away from the crucial tectonic shifts of power. Thanks for your inspiration.

Appendix-Hoensbroech
“Another method of supervision, not mentioned in the Ratio Studiorum, is connected with the correspondence of the pupils. Even a boy’s letters to and from his parents are read by the Jesuit to whom this duty is assigned, usually the General Prefect or the Rector. Though, of course, complete freedom of correspondence is impossible in an educational institution, supervision of letters to and from parents is a mischievous practice. It leads the children to look down on their parents, since their letters are regarded with suspicion, and just where they should be most natural and original they are subjected to external control, and their tenderest thoughts are exposed to the spying gaze of unsympathetic readers – for how should a Jesuit understand the family!
And this practice, harmful as it always must be, is absolutely insulting in Jesuit establishments. For the parents and families of the pupils are well known to the authorities, and are almost all Catholics in a good position. But Jesuit education, whether for the members of the Order or the other pupils committed to their care, rests largely on mistrust. This is the soil from which spring all those rules and regulations which surround and spy upon the individual and the community with a system of Argus eyes. The principle of Jesuit education is not to give confidence for confidence, but to requite the confidence of pupils and parents with mistrust on the part of the teachers.
Why then do parents submit to this insulting supervision? Because the blind belief of Catholic Ultramontanes in everything done by the Jesuits stifles their individual judgment. Here, as of the Papacy and the Church, it may be said: Everything that proceeds from this source, no matter what its nature, is good.
But the worst type of supervision is characteristically clothed with the garb of religion. The prefects, assistants and counsellors of the Marian congregations are official denunciators, as I shall show presently when dealing with these congregations.”

Appendix-Eberhart
“Their special obedience to the Pope naturally caused the Jesuits to fight against the greatest danger to the Catholic Church, Protestantism. Through this fight, the Jesuits developed political talents which soon made the members of the order the most versatile representatives of the Catholic Church in worldly affairs. In order to achieve this goal, a complicated organization of the utmost rigidity was developed. The Jesuits received the rights both of mendicant orders and of secular priests. They recognized only the superiority of their general and the Pope. This gave them great worldly power. Furthermore, from their inception they devoted much interest to education, and early in their history were appointed to many highly important chairs of theology at the leading universities of Europe.”

Appendix-Szymanski
“Don’t forget the major issues! You must think about these people at the top – who they are, how they were founded – and spend time reading history, because only by doing that you’ll lay a foundation for what you’re doing that gives a credibility. In every aspect of your life this helps. In every aspect, because it changes the way you feel about everything you do.”

So in your eyes, Phelps is practicing “bigotry”, and his hypothesis that those self-declared “Jesuses of the World” under Roman command, the Jesuits, rule the global power structure at the top as the “Chief Corner Stone” “is bunch of bunk”.
From my very own personal viewpoint, medicinal herbs and star constellations have been given the status of persons by the first preachers at all, those first and foremost kings of the hearts and minds of people, daylight and darkness became persons and finally gods while godlikeness of the european royal families’ bloodlines had been garantueed by the catholic clergy and their special forces throughout the Dark Ages, I’m tending to make the conclusion that there’s a pretty high probability for the fact that the high priests of our times did the same with the corporations by personalizing them (@ 9th min). And when did this happen? In the course of the outstandingly successful implementation of the 14th Amendment making the United States of America an American Empire to serve the interests of the Vatican’s nomenclatura now with all its different “fold yards”. And were “the well hidden soldiers of Satan” not the first globalizers, too?

In civil history gods have always been considered only as single fatherly or motherly persons in a man-like fashion whatsoever. The pharaohs were looked as gods on earth representing the sun as the universe’s greatest and most spectacular as well as important mystery back then. Imhotep and Äskulap became gods in their world like Shakespeare, Mozart, Goethe and Marx in ours, and the today’s greatest and most spectacular as well as important mystery, the black hole, finds its spiritual political expression – quite stunningly parallel to the administrative constellation in Old Egypt – in the acting “Christus quasi praesens” resp. in the personal particular of the chief of loyalty, or simply the black pope. Mathilde Ludendorff wrote an extremely focused article about the relationship between the popish “white” president and his “black” superior controlling all agencies by being the secret general of all of them. I had to translate it by now.
It seems a little bit … maybe, I’m totally wrong about this, but it seems that you’re handling the Jesuit issue without the whole catholic and imperialist background of Rome, his all-embracing nature so to speak. “Catholic” means “all-arching”! “Preposterous”? I don’t think so. No more preposterous than the claims of a committed “conspiracy mind” must appear to a plainly mainstream “consumer mind” consuming the Osama story like the Oswald story. And doesn’t the catholic institution be the bureaucratic monster par excellence?

But first of all, you can’t call Eric a deceiver, I think, if you haven’t taken the chance to confront him with your insights. But that kind of condemning tone of your reply let assume that you wouldn’t find it worth doing. When you speak of him with such an arrogant attitude, then which reasons do you have for thinking that these divergences from your research, that you bring on, aren’t inaccuracies but intended lies? I’m thrilled to hear an answer to this question based on profound arguments, and, of course, I’m totally interested which further contradictions you have found. Because if you won’t discuss it with the author of Vatican Assassins, I would try it.

“His little bios have a source at the bottom, but they don’t say what Phelps implies that they say. Phelps is a deceiver.” I can approve this line of thought of yours but I refuse to share it that cheaply, because there’s yet another way to interpret this particular circumstance, and that is that “they” can’t see the correlations that only Phelps is able to see due to his extremely voluminous range of anti-secrecy research with – as result of it – its focus on the “Company of Jesus”. He intentionally takes some artistic licence, you know, and maybe he deceives himself (and others), or maybe he’s a gigantic pioneer in a row with Terence McKenna, for instance, or Kafka and Voltaire, Martin Luther and Bruce Lipton, Jordan Maxwell, William Cooper, Jim Arrabito, Gary Webb, Roberto Rivera, Paul von Hoensbroech, Walter Burien, John Harris and so on and so forth.

Have you really thought the Marx-Mazzini-Connection that you grabbed would be the proof that I meant? Sorry, but this is just a hint that can be disputed. A hint like Hiram Dukes’ “Communism was really started by the Catholic Church. And the Pope himself is a (what?) and a Communist himself. They sent some Jesuits into a little town where they wanted to start Catholicism.” Or another superb hint that comes from Benedict Ratzinger in the flesh in November 2007:
“After the bourgeois revolution of 1789, the time had come for a new, proletarian revolution: progress could not simply continue in small, linear steps. A revolutionary leap was needed. Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and applied his incisive language and intellect to the task of launching this major new and, as he thought, definitive step in history towards salvation – towards what Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God”. Once the truth of the hereafter had been rejected, it would then be a question of establishing the truth of the here and now. The critique of Heaven is transformed into the critique of earth, the critique of theology into the critique of politics. Progress towards the better, towards the definitively good world, no longer comes simply from science but from politics – from a scientifically conceived politics that recognizes the structure of history and society and thus points out the road towards revolution, towards all-encompassing change. With great precision, albeit with a certain onesided bias, Marx described the situation of his time, and with great analytical skill he spelled out the paths leading to revolution – and not only theoretically: by means of the Communist Party that came into being from the Communist Manifesto of 1848, he set it in motion. His promise, owing to the acuteness of his analysis and his clear indication of the means for radical change, was and still remains an endless source of fascination. Real revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia.” Will they even canonize him sometime, what do you think? Phelps then calls the fall of the Russian Reich through Bolshevism the most important historical event since the fall of the Roman Empire, I believe. “The protector of the Orthodox Church was at long last facing the Jesuits of Rome, and without mercy, they blasted the poor, frightened, little family into eternity. The Jesuits had moved so fast, the Central Communist Party wasn’t even aware of the trial or the killing of the Czar and his family until it was all over. It was a tremendous victory for the Vatican.”

Although they’re just hints you can’t jump around with them like Punch and Judy – the “gnomes and leprechauns” bit, you know – because it would immediately become immensely important if Marx would be unmasked as an agent of Rome as a matter of fact. Your peevishness at this point, which will probably grow into one of the absolute key elements of a bill of indictment against the openly and secretly operating Professes SJ, is either perfidious or childish, Mr. Melanson. And, by the way, treating a separated information like an isolated information doesn’t beget a constructive and convincing approach, however, and is furthermore highly inappropriate towards everybody, in my opinion. It isn’t either funny or clever, just boring and unnecessary, thank you. The proof, that you obviously couldn’t find, is spread all over the book, Friendo! Let’s discuss it in the piety theory section, if you want to. Let’s see whether Edmond Ronayne’s “it is very greatly to be feared that forgetting their petty differences for the time being, both Romanism and Freemasonry would make common cause and stand shoulder to shoulder,” and Eric Phelps’ “in that family alone you see the unity of all the most powerful secret societies which further proofs our point that all these secret societies work together, subject to the Jesuit order,” will emerge victorious as being accurate or not.

Marx and Mazzini “antagonistic toward each other” like Bush and Kerry perhaps in 2004?
I can’t specify at the moment what the open side (cult) in this case is and what the hidden side (occult), if there is one, and I’m quite sure that your knowledge base on Freemasonry, Shriners in particular, might be significantly more profound than mine. I respect your objection decidedly friendly, so to speak, because my own research level on this matter is not in-depth enough to be incontestable about, and you could do me a great favor if you’d countersign some of the statements of Walther Veith regarding the membership in secret societies of the following fellows and elitist global players in this video (@ 10th min). Do you know his Reformation Rekindled lectures?

I think, I can understand your doubts on the professionalism of Eric’s book. That’s okay. No, that’s even desired and will be welcomed, because I don’t think about Vatican Assassins as some sort of holy scriptures, some sort of bible or cathedral like the so-called standard works for corporate mainstream students at Jesuitical and other universities. He writes for researchers if you noticed! He is one of us, not a guru, and I’m deeply grateful that he has the balls to mention the probability of a friendship between Marx and Mazzini. Well, of course, that’s just my perspective, but for me his work is fundamental research, a massive basement to build upon, a solid enough new grounding and therefore a truly Major Breakthrough.
“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.”
“Let’s just make it true enough because that’s as true as it can be gotten.”
He cannot do it all alone, he needs our support, he needs our criticism, and he gets it: go for instance to www.vaticanassassins.org, section 9, Order of Constantine.
He even thanked an Ex-Jesuit who has been helped the book with corrections. I call him my 9/11 Truth General, with your permission. But it’s not a Jesuit kind of relationship, if you know what I mean.

Two things at the end:
1. Your current attitude with me – “little fairy tale bio” – resembles very much the one that “Booch”, your catholic opponent at Constance’s blog, preferred to have shown in face of you. Was it that what you also wanted to be capable of? When “there is room for a scholarly look” then why is your behavior unscholarly?
2. We have to think at least as big as they do to get a chance at all for changing the soapy and bloody, “monolithic and ruthless”, Egyptian, Babylonian, Luciferian, Holy, Illuminist, Kafkaesque system from the bottom.
“You have to get in the flow of history.”
Are you solely a fact checker, or do you also try to think about the whole corporate conspiratorial apparatus that I call the Jesuit Shepherd’s Fold from a sociological point of view? Besides the examination of the Illuminates and their connections, do you analyze, for instance, illuminism too, or the concept and social effects of sanctity at all?

The overwhelming majority of self-appointed conspiracy theorists, well-reviled of course by the corporate mainstream on the other hand, does welcome you, you know, as slave or “sheeple” but won’t have anything to do with Rome and its shepherds (Alex Jones style). Therefore, you need long-time in-depth “outlaw” researchers like Maxwell, Phelps, Hoensbroech, Shairfield, Lipton, or McKenna to recognize who you actually really are, and what the world, the society, that you were born in, is made out of. Meanwhile, I think, I can understand your “pointing-the-finger” difficulties and “don’t-fit-in” discomforts with Eric’s chains of proof pretty well, Terry. I’m on your side at this point, but I’m trying to handle it in another way, so to speak, when I said, facts alone cannot create systemic understanding. Don’t get me wrong about it, please, I’m just convinced, we “simply” need a “monolithic” (very coherent), systematic theory about Jesuitism for the monolithic system that we’re embedded in, which monolithic nature you surely will not argue with, won’t you?

Generally spoken, I think it’s time for all conspiracy thinkers to basically differentiate between the aspect of secrecy and the aspect of deception. Nondisclosure by means of death promising blood oaths is just the military resp. the Mafia (Mafiosan? Mafiosi?) side of the medal. Tremendously far more important is the other side, and that’s the ideological question. Who do you think has the biggest experience in making people belief? You’ve read about The Jesuits’ Musical Kingdom in Fülöp-Miller’s book. Do you think, any Mason, any Mormon, or any Mafioso would do what Jesuits have done? Can you disprove what Eric Phelps had stated in Vatican Assassins about Karl Marx (SJ)? Are you aware in any way of men like Heinrich Pesch SJ and Oswald von Nell-Breuning SJ? Who else would say about himself, “I am souvereign. I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and the director of the consciousness of men, [...] I am the sole, last, supreme judge of what is right and wrong.”
“The simplier answer is this: It happens to be the most powerful organization without question for the last thousand years. And if anyone doesn’t believe that, than they really haven’t ever read a history book, ever. So, that shouldn’t ever be a legitimate complaint. They are the most powerful.”
We’re talking about deceit to the largest thinkable extent on an historical and global scale. None citizen, aka “intelligent and otherwise well informed men and women in this land of general education”, thinks in terms of “conspiracy” about conspiratorially laid out ideologies, you know. That happens to be the ugly trick of the whole conspiracy propaganda, and the deepest ground of “9/11″. Let me back this statement up some time!

Going out from a profound, coherent, equilibrated and truly scientific theory about this monolithic system that built capitalist, fascist and communist power blocs, fomented and foments wars, killed the Titanic, Kennedy, the Twin Towers and that much more, which dominates our daily life, embraces our thinking, defines our souls … all will come together, I believe. Eric doesn’t have it, and so does no-one either. But that’s what I henceforth want to set on. More a theory about piety, devoutness, and this kind of stuff, you know, than about “conspiracy”.
“Quoting from conspiracy pamphlets hundreds of years old [...] does not cut it for me anymore.” Sure, they had to lose their weight in your eyes if not being connected to today’s living and diligently spinning intellectuals in a ratifying manner, but isn’t Mr. Phelps also trying to do so passionately? Imagine we could synchronize and integrate all of the already uncovered facts and connections, and by doing so developing not only a greater understanding for the monolithic “Shepherd’s Fold” and its effects but a novel theoretic basis for any -isms that you hate, Terry, as well as any conspiratorial thread that’s whirring around. Don’t you think, it will show in the end, whether “the Jesuits-rule-the-world” theory is “part and parcel of Blavatsky’s shtick”, or the other way around. Bureaucracy itself should be a major subject at this kind of debate.
With greetings from “Saint Dickolas”, think about! Nice site, Jay, I like it.