Sunday, 30 December 2007

The Benevolent British Empire

Charity starts at home as they say, and as a little extension of this it might be interesting to look at the relationship of the British political and intellectual aristocracies to her next door neighours Ireland during the height of said empire, and from there to possibly get an idea of the ruling ideas of that empire, and to hypothetically extend such attitides to areas of dominion further afield. British Prime Minister Disraeli:

"The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain & superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alteration of clannish broils & coarse idolaty(Catholicism). Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry(!) and blood."


Historian Charles Kingsley on seeing the devastation during the Famine in the mid-nineteenth century:

"I am daunted by the human chimpanzees I saw along the hundred miles of horrible country. I don't believe they are our fault( that people were forbidden education, destitute and starving to death while foodstuffs were being removed to Britain). I believe that there are not only many more of them than of old, but that they are happier, better & more comfortably fed & lodged under our rule than they ever were. But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful; if they were black, one would not feel it so much, but their skins, except where tanned by exposure, are as white as ours."

One sympathises greatly with this man having to look at such white chimpanzees starving to death. To mention a line in the light of this from the esteemed Roger Scruton: "Unlike Islamic culture, western culture has gone out to the stranger, has tried to understand, to sympathise, to learn, in every arena where learning is available."

As an afterthought to add a little information on Charles "White Chimpanzee" Kingsley:
In 1859, Kingsley was made chaplain to Queen Victoria. From 1860 to 1869 he was professor of modern history at Cambridge and in 1873 was appointed canon of Westminster. His book The Water Babies is a story for children written to inspire love and reverence of Nature.

. . .  And just to add the obvious if necessary addendum: the philosophy of superior and inferior races most virulently perhaps espoused and acted upon by the Nazis is merely the essentially seamless continuation of the inner thoughts that were driving the British Empire, and presumably all empires, though now within the Germany and Europe of the 20s and 30s embedded within very extreme social condtions and as an overt ideological position rather than as a kind of unnoticed but more all-pervasive ambient background as was the case in Britain. The Nazis are attempting to act consciously on the logical implications of the ideology, and so the viciousness of its inner truth is revealed, whereas in Britain where there is no need to espouse the ideology,  it being soaked wholly into the fabric of State, and this truth can go on on its merry and superficially even benign way in the arena of history, an obvious manifestation of the inner ideology of empire being the notion that the inferior colonised should be grateful to the superior coloniser for helping to raise it a step or two towards the level of itself. And of course a failure of the colonised to be grateful to their colonising masters can then be dismissed as a manifestation of their very inferiority; thus Disraeil's indignation with the Irish "lack of sympathy with the English character". Their failure to accept the English colonisers as ubermenschen a symptom of their being untermenschen, to transfer a little terminology.

49 comments:

elberry said...

Yes, i think any account of Englishness has to take the Ireland thing into account; we treated you lot with a blind savagery and cruelty more commonly associated with the Nazis.

It seems incomprehensible now, given that the Irish are genetically & culturally similar to the English, to regard them as subhuman; perhaps our very likeness fuelled the hatred, as sects often seem to hate each other more than they do an outright enemy, a wholly different religion. Racism often seems motivated by a desire to reject any kinship with the hated, a way of saying "I'm not like you at all!". So signs of humanity in the blacks or Indians or Irish, rather than softening the racist heart, enrage it further.

Andrew K said...

Andrew K said...
I might give a more thoughtful response when I've a bit more time later, but where I differ, and perhaps tend to differ from some kind of norm, is I don't see it in terms of "we treated you lot..." as I don't indentify ordinary English people with the actions of ruling elites...one could point to ordinary English people's degradation in similar times, though ordinary people may become infected with the vile ideas percolated from above shown in the post.

Andrew K said...

Though I think I'll add another piece in the subject & to maybe preempt that here a bit, but I think the Irish issue is much more than a detail that has to be taken into account when loking at the Empire. Instead I'd see the virulent bigotry as the very essence of Empire, & if one seeks to intellectually justify empire building you're probably inevitably led in the direction of bigotry, though this might take the apparent form of benevolence: gifting the lesser beings you are subjugating with the boon of your civilising presence.
So a person like Kingsley might bear all the hallmarks of a decent person & from checking he's celebrated as a compassionate enlightened Victorian pursuing social causes at home, & indeed this may not be a true aspect of his character. However the ruling idea of the Empire was to them the self-evident innate superiority of themselves. And so Disraeli's "The Irish hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain & superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character". The Irish were damned by not appreciating being raped by the British rulers.
White chimpanzees though is so out there as to be almost more damning an indictment of the British attitude than I could have conceived of.

Anonymous said...

Disraeli was speaking to stir up national flag-wavers to support their oppression and justifying its empire, I don't imagine Disraeli believed what he said. And what does he mean "our religion"? Disraeli was a jew, "our religion" in UK meant Church of England. Disraeli was baptized an anglican at 13, because this was necessary to get places in Britain at the time, but it was a token jesture and he was a jew and wrote books glorifying jews. Jews weren't legally permitted to parliament until 1859 which cleared the way for Disraeli to run for PM.

Disraeli and Gladstone were fierce rivals who hated each other very deeply. Much of what they did and said as politicains was motivated by a desire to have an attack on the other. Gladstone was pro-Irish reform to a certain extent, thus Disraeli was deeply opposed to it. Not surprising, the monarch of the day was also opposed to any kind of reform which would appear to weaken the empire, and Disraeli and Queen Victoria had a warm friendship, and they were united in their hatred of the liberal Gladstone. The Queen made Disraeli an Earl.

Interestingly, Disraeli also pinpointed the Jesuit Superior General as the real power behind the governments of the world (particularly interesting baring in mind his own position of power within the worlds most powerful empire of the day, and his friendship with the British Queen).

Many nations suffered when attacked and oppressed by other nations. Ireland was no exception. The people in power are scum, and care nothing for the people of other nations, and they hold the same disregard for their own "foot soldiers and cannon fodder" who fight their wars for them. Just look at the situation in Iraq or Afganistan today, does anyone imagine Blair and Bush care anything for the Iraqi people (whom they were supposed to be inspired to liberate!) and their own soldiers sent out to fight the war.

Andrew K said...

Thanks Anon. Just to mention I meant when writing:

So a person like Kingsley might bear all the hallmarks of a decent person & from checking he's celebrated as a compassionate enlightened Victorian pursuing social causes at home, & indeed this may not be a true aspect of his character.

to read

& indeed this may be a true aspect of his character.

The power of the standard Empire attitude of 'the lesser subjugated peoples' managing to override his natural humanity. How people identify themselves with actios of their political rulers, & an intellectual world or philosophy comes to justify those actions, and how powerful such thought can become.

January 1, 2008 11:27 PM

Andrew K said...

Disraeli made some very revealing comments all right, Anon. Such as:
"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
I think he also pointed towards the Rothschilds as a centre-piece of immense power greater than governments of the time.
I dunno if he fully believed his Ireland comments or used them simply in the sense you describe, but either way it shows a huge strain of empire ideology.

Anonymous said...

It was Queen Victoria who was behind the Irish famine, sending eight freighters a day from Ireland loaded with meats and vegetables---to foreign ports.

Disraelie would have known that the Rothschilds were in fact agents of the Jesuit Order. The "jewish" Rothschilds are members of the Order of Malta who have sworn lifelong oath of allegiance to the Vatican, which is fully controlled by the Jesuit Order since 1870, actually they had some controlled the Vatican since 1814 but 1870 marked their total control.

Both the Queen and Disraeli (and the supposed opposition) were controlled by the Jesuit Order.

Jonathan said...

Alas I haven't meant Bush or Blair, or subjected them to a truth drug, so I dont know what they think or want, except on the basis of what is given to me by the media.

I can imagine its possible, yes, that Bush and Blair do want, or did want, good for the people of Iraq, as they understand good in any case.

Perhaps this was a similar kind of good to the good that was wanted by those elements of the Iraqi population itself that wanted an external intervention against Saddam, and whi ch was annoyed that the allies had not helped them futher in their uprising in 1991.

But as usual wanting good and producing good need not always equate.

It would be good to know how much of English hostility to Irishmen has been directly connected to the religious (Catholic/Protestant) factor; and how much related to other issues (e.g secifically economic exploitation, incompetence).

Would we have treated Ireland very differently (if so, how differently?) if it hadn't been Roman Catholic, for example. This is not attempt at all to justify our treatment of course on those grounds. But we were somewhat shit scared of Rome for along time it seems, were we not (by we I mean the English of course..I realise you are Irish).

Anonymous said...

Jonathon must be gullible in the very farthest extreme if he imagines Bush and Blair were working in the interests of the average Iraqi people. They have made billions of dollars out of so many contracts there that it shouldn't be necessary to go into it here, and I thought there were only very few english-speaking people left who were stupid enough to believe the official propaganda about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Obviously you all know it had nothing to do with WMD's or 9/11. Do a research on Depleted Uranium being used in Iraq and you will learn how disgusting and evil the "allied" invasion there is, and research the large billion dollar contracts from oil, security, weapons and so on, and you will see that the Bush admin has made billions of dollars out of the war.

Britains oppression of Ireland wasn't religiously motivated. The rule of Ireland by Britian goes back 800 years, it was some time later before Britain changed religous affiliations. Much of Cromwells murderous campaigns in Ireland were religously motivated, but the creation of Empires and oppressing other nations was all about greed rather than religous ideals.

Andrew K said...

The issue of using vast amounts of depleted uranium in Iraq should be in truth enough to tell all there is needed to be known about the ideology in Iraq, Jonathon. It takes an incredibly warped sense of truth to imagine one is benefiting a people by radioactively poisoning them, which is the known inevitbale result of using such toxic substances. I'm talking about the political minds behind such vile abuse being warped rather than assuming you know of the use of depleted uranium there. If you look into the issue it is a far from pleasant one, with only one simple conclusion regarding the attitude to hepling Iraqis. The same as dropping vast qusntities of Agent Orange chemmicals over Vietnam was a very strange sign of one's benevolent attitudes to the people there.

Anonymous said...

Dognooz, I love this guy, a cultural icon of our times???? Ok maybe not, but I find him very amusing, this isn't one of his best but he is worth checking out. Jonathon may find it interesting and it will defo dispel any delusions you had that Bush, Blair were trying to do some kind of "good" in Iraq

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8023720118494413101&q=dognooz+uranium&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

elberry said...

A murky issue though only a cretin could believe Bush et al mean anything approaching good for the Iraqi people.

With the Micks, it may be that the hatred came after the realisation that Ireland is an agriculturally rich country ripe for the picking; that is, the English justified their looting by hating the Paddies, saying 'they're just chimpanzees'. A lot easier on the old conscience than saying 'we're stealing from people no different to us'.

Anonymous said...

The people in power at the top don't see the people of the world in terms of nationalistic boundaries. They hold their own "working classes" and common people in the same disregard with which they hold the people of other nations. Much of the talk of "human chimpanzees", "killing indian races", hating the Irish, hating the French, hating the Germans, hating the commies and in more recent times, hating muslims, is all an effort by those at the top manipulate the public to support their wars which built their fortunes, brainwash the public behind nationalistic flag-waving. By and large the public of their own nations were enslaved to the elites, working for a pittance to keep the industries of the elites in businesses. And to shore up support for their wars and hostilities on foreign soils, they had to justify it and sell it to their own "common people" who were going to be the ones who were actually sent out to do the murders and were prepared to die "for their country", which really meant they were willing to die so that their aristocrats at home could get richer, the armies of the world were in fact the private armies of the elite who controlled each particular empire.

Just take a look at the close relationships between the monarchies of Europe thoughout history. Their "commoners" fought wars on their behalf, the "commoners" were the ones dying and killing, all for the benefit of the elites, and yet at the same time, the elites enjoyed close relations with each other, even while their countries were at war, so what on earth did they imagine they were fighting for???

And it has been very easy for the elites to stir up the national flagwavers to support the wars by insulting the opposition, and it still works to this day. There are still millions of flag-waving brainwashed americans who support the american war on Iraq and believe it is justified as revenge for 9/11??? Iraq having no connection to 9/11 isn't even relevant, Bush's regime has stirred distrust and even hatred of nations like Iraq, Palestine, Iran and so on, despite those nations being very far from USA and most americans will never even meet an Iraqi, let alone have enough cause to actually hate one!

Hitler once said that it was fortunate for the governments of the world that their people don't think...and he was right.

Andrew K said...

I think you're looking at it too much in the way of particulars, Elberry, rather than the philosophical nature of imperialism. The other piece concentrated on India shows an identical bigotry, with the same famines, destroying of native culture, imposed destitution, etc as basically a kind of blueprint. You need a supremacist philosophy to justify imperialism, & this also probably appears in something like its own accord also, as a natrual psychological effect of such actions. It's in the nature of the imperialist dynamic.

Jonathan said...

I didnt say I knew they wanted to do good in Iraq, which I suppose stops me being a cretin in Elberry's eyes. The Americans were always more open about whating to remove saddam becasue of who he was, and underplayed the 9/11 or WMD conenction far more than did Blair. Some iraqis also wanted Saddam to go. You're right i don't know much about the depleted uranium issue.

Generally, having opinions about people i havent met is not something i encourage in myself.

I knew the English went into ireland before the reformation; I was wondering about English behaviour and attitides towards the Irish after the reformation, and how religion shaped those.

Anonymous said...

The Bush-led american administration went into Iraq because they wanted control of Iraq and wanted to make billions of dollars out of a war somewhere, Iraq being an easy sell to the gullible american morons who support GW Bush and feel it is somehow patriotic to support GW Bush sending american men armed to the teeth into Iraq to drop bombs on them, rape them, shoot them, maime them, poison them with urainium and steal their nations wealth. The war is funded by the american tax payer, but the US army is a private army by and for the elites who control corporate american, and all the large profits of the war go to GW Bush and his cronies.

And if you study Saddam Husseins history you will learn that the americans put him there in the first place. American involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with wanting to aid the average Iraqi citizen. The same as murdering the democratically elected leader of Iran, some years earlier, had nothing to do with aiding the average Iranian and had everything to do with the interests of the individuals who control corporate america and the military industrial complex.

The leaders of the British Empire, or any other Empire don't see people in terms of religious divisions. They use religion as a form of brainwashing to control the public. Disraeli was mentioned earlier, when he was PM he supported the Turks when they were mass-murdering the Christian Bulgarians, you see they only use religous divisions when it profits them. They don't see people in terms of Irish, English, French etc. They stir up the easily manipulated public to see the world that way. That permits them to shore up support for their evil empires. It is justified in the eyes of the public as their leaders sell it as an "us against them" situation.

GW Bush illustrated this before going into Iraq, with his bullshit coalition of the willing. He stated very clearly "You are either with us or you are with the terrorists". Long ago they divided people religously, or nationally, but the elites themselves don't think that way.

The Queen of England is German? In WWI when they were fighting "For King and Country", did any of them think, what the fuck, our King is German, and we are British fighting Germany (also they could have wondered why millions of them were forcibly made to fight a war in trenches in France, alongside French people (whom they were supposed to hate until very recently, long history of wars between Britain, France, also divided religously) in French and Belgian fields, against Germans (whom they had a much warmer history with and they shared closer religious affiliations as well as their royalty being German) all because some Austrian Archduke was shot be a Serbian??? Now what in Gods name had those events got anything to do with the average British person supposedly hating Germans. And it was the usual suspects who benefited from the war. Wars, religion, patriotic fervor, is all manipulated by the elites, always has been. And the elites themselves don't see the same divisions that they sell to the public.

The people who ruled the British Empire didn't care what religion the Irish were, they didn't care if they were Irish, they just wanted to control the land the Irish live on, that happens to be called Ireland.

Everyone should study Depleted Uranium use by the american military (and Israeli military). And especially if you are a British of American taxpayer you should know where your tax-dollars are being spent, and what atrocities are being commited in the name of Britain and America. In fact I would go so far as to say that every single tax-payer in those countries involved in the war on Iraq are partly responsible, their hard-earned tax-dollars are funding murder and radioactive pollution in Iraq, and unless you are actually opposing it strongly, then surely everyone who has contributed to the war effort (however small), will be judged for their part. Iraqi children are born with disfigured craniums, suffering cancers and other ailments as a result of the war which was funded by the British and American Taxpayer. The magnamity of the public in those countries towards the suffering Iraqis is a great shame to those nations. Inactivity to make a meaningful opposition to your tax-dollars funding murder will inevitably be construed as support for the aggression, particularly in the eyes of the victims.

Over the Christams period I watched Dickens Christmas Carol. When Scrooge was asked to make a small charitable donation to help the poor, homeless at Christmas he asked that the poor and homeless be sent to workhouses, prisons etc. Later one of the Spirits repeated those words to Scrooge and informed him that his life (and the life of all the wealthy merchants) could be alot more insignificant and wretched in the eyes of God, than the lives of any of the less-well-off.

I am sure God could just as easily hold the same view about all the British and American taxpayers V the average unfortunate oppressed Iraqi citizens whom they western people have held in so little regard, over a million dead so far since the evil US/UK led invasion.

Jesus has told us that we will be judged for our actions on this earth.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book] of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

We can only wonder how the people who have instigated/supported war on the peoples of Iraq (and Afganistan) will be judged.

Jonathan said...

Well Jesus also spoke quite alot about forgiveness too - especially regarding those who are not themselves judges.

Ok so the 'war' in Iraq is a disaster and shouldnt have happened. Ok so the UK, USA and Israel are Satan's flaming swords (presuming by way of argument that they are) So what now? What can be done. What is to be done? What is the way forward? What the vision?

If we could run the world, or exert significant influence at least (as the USA,UK and Israel do) what would we do? How much of this which we would do would be benign and nurturing and loving - and how would we achieve that...and how prevent the opposite from arising?

How would we ourselves not be corrupted by power and the temptations arising from the consequences of exerting Governance?

Anonymous said...

Well Jesus also spoke quite alot about forgiveness too - especially regarding those who are not themselves judges.

Ok so the 'war' in Iraq is a disaster and shouldnt have happened. Ok so the UK, USA and Israel are Satan's flaming swords (presuming by way of argument that they are) So what now? What can be done. What is to be done? What is the way forward? What the vision?

If we could run the world, or exert significant influence at least (as the USA,UK and Israel do) what would we do? How much of this which we would do would be benign and nurturing and loving - and how would we achieve that...and how prevent the opposite from arising?

How would we ourselves not be corrupted by power and the temptations arising from the consequences of exerting Governance?

It would be hypocritical in the extreme for the people of UK/US involved in the war to expect forgiveness from the Iraqi people without first asking for forgiveness, without admitting how wrong the war was and without leaving the area first. How can they ask for forgiveness for a war that they are still participating in? To seek forgiveness isn't merely to mention a few words, you have heard the phrase "actions speak louder than words".

And as of yet there is no evidence that Bush/Blair or their cronies, or the american or british people as a whole are going to offer any sort of meaningful apology to the people of Iraq for fucking up their lives and their country and polluting the lands thus ensuring future generations will be plagued with all sorts of abnormalities and diseases.

Your words about forgiveness are meaningless.

What did you put apostrophes around the word 'war', as if to suggest you don't think it is a war. Granted the war is totally one-sided and completely biased in favour of the evil invading forces, but the occupation of Iraq by foreign military forces can only be seen as an act of war. Yes the war in Iraq is a disaster, especially those for those whose lives have been ruined, murdered raped etc. It was all to be expected, using depleted uranium, blowing up towns and cities could have no other outcome.

UK/US are the forces of Lucifer, in that you are correct. They are certainly not the armies belonging to the people of Britian and USA, even though their taxes fund them. They are the private army of the elite who control the administrations of both countries.

Your post would suggest that you feel the status quo is ok and you have a "murdering Iraqis is a little regretable, but so what" kind of attitude. Of course the people of every country should demand accountability of their governments, and challenge corruption and evil when they see it. Changes can be made when the public demand it. For example the American Revolution waged by American Englishmen who demanded their ancient rights of English freemen as secured under Magna Charta led to a free Constitutional Republic of federated sovereign nation/states with a limited federal government. The Bill of Rights has been under attack by the elites of Europe ever since, and it has never been so much under threat as it is now from the Bush admin.

To remove the corruption of the various governments the people would first have to understand who are the real powers behind the Presidents and Prime Ministers. There is little point replacing one puppet with another.

The corruption of USA by the elites really goes back to the late 1800's or so, this is when it really started to go downhill. Incidentally the Order who were behind Lincolns murder were also behind JFK's murder and they were also behind the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars (I made a few posts on it on The Count post on this blog). Incidentally Bismark knew the Jesuit Order were in control of the governments of europe, Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm I and the Reichstag expelled the Jesuits from the Empire in 1872, Germany's allegiance to the Pope's Holy Alliance/Congress of Vienna ceased and progress and liberty was truly enjoyed by the German people for over 40 years. Protestant Germany rose to be the pioneer in the arts and sciences during this time.
The Jesuit Order would later seize control of Germany again, and this was the true reasons for WWI, the destruction of Germany. Britain was overtly under the control of the Jesuit Order since no later than 1800, which is why Protestant Britain opposed Germany. WWi later led to WWII, which saw further destruction of Germany, and Germany went from being predominantly Lutheran/Protestant in Bismarks time to being predominantly Roman Catholic by the end of the wars. Incidentally that is also why the Jews were sent to the concentration camps, they were non-Roman Catholics. WWI and WWII also saw the re-establishing of the Roman Catholic Poland. And Hitler was Roman Catholic and Himmler was a Jesuit, and his uncle was a Jesuit priest who held very high power in Germany and the German SS was really a Jesuit army. Just as the British SIS and CIA are today. You mentioned Israel, you might even be amused to know the man who trained Israeli's MOSSAD was a German Nazi by the name of Reinhard Gehlen, you might see the hypocrisy of it. But the entire major wars of the last 200 years have all been manipulated by the Jesuit Order and they control the British and American Governments to this day.

The first step for a country to work towards real freedom is to break this subordination to the Vatican, just as Bismark did, and the early americans did. Study Bismarks Germany and early america and you will see that the people had more freedoms and weren't tied to a constitution that is based on Vatican Canon Law. Britain enjoyed freedom of the Vatican for a period, but since 1800 they are under the control of the Vatican.

This answer could run into many different tangents, but I will leave it there for now, there is enough info there for anyone to do there own research on who really controls the world, and this isn't my blog and has somewhat strayed off the original topic. I posted some info on the Count post that covers same subject.

elberry said...

Hola Anon, you sound like a crazy man but experience has taught me that crazy-sounding people are often deeply rational and informed, so this is interesting, as i'd hypothetically speculated that the reason for the Kennedy assassinations (JFK and Robert, and i think there were others?) was that they were Roman Catholics and while fully militaristic and gung-ho, weren't part of some Skull & Bones type Proddy fraternity.

So if this wasn't the case, i'd be interested if you could link to any sites or blogs on the matter.

Anonymous said...

JFK was indeed a Catholic, but he wasn't a Jesuit and he openly refused to further the agenda of the Vatican in USA. JFK threatened to destroy the Vaticans CIA (the CIA betrayed him at the Bay of Pigs fiasco). JFK also threatened to destory the Jesuits Federal Reserve. JFK infuriated the Vatican, and it wasn't until Reagan (Knight of Malta) came to power that USA signed an alliance with the Vatican. Reagan also chose ex-CIA leader Bush as his vice president. Bush was also Bohemian Grove member, and a member of the Jesuit-Skull and Bones club (formerly known as the Brotherhood of Death).

I certainly am not crazy, the fools who are easily stirred up into patriotic flag-waving fervor and fight and finance the wars for the rich are the crazy ones. How many hours does the average person spend watching total SHIT on tv??? How fucking crazy is that. Everything I have said is correct and a little research will verify it for you.

By the way, Castro is also a 4th Vow Jesuit, there are photos of him meeting the Pope, I can't post them here on this blog. Anyway what the Bay of Pigs was really about was destroying Castro's enemies, and old trick, and it was used to similar affect by Napoleon and Hitler. Napoleons army and Hitlers army were both deliberately sacrificed in the snows of Russia, to make it easier for the tyranny that followed, as all most of the true patriots had been wiped out. The CIA worked with Castro and they scored a duble hit of making JFK look real bad. The Cuban Patriots were rallied together and when they invaded they were supposed to get support from the US air forces. At the last moments the CIA called off the air force and Castro could then very easily round up the "revolutionaries". Is anyone really stupid enough to imagine the CIA couldn't take out Castro if they wanted. They were able to take out the leaders of Iran and Iraq who are on the other side of the world and control large nations, yet Castor on their doorstep was too much for them!!!!

In fact what is crazy, just go through everything I posted, think about it and you will see it makes ALOT more sense than the Bullshit version of history we are sold by the media.

The murder of JFK was also a strong message to every other world leader of how powerful they were.

Oh yes, I mentioned the CIA and British SIS being the intelligence of the Vatican. If that is news to any of you, then research the connections of the leaders of those groups and their memberships of Knights of Malta and Freemasonry, both of which are contolled by the Jesuit Superior General. The world leader of Freemasonry is the Duke of Kent, the Queens cousin, and he is also a Knight of Malta, which makes him subordinate to the Pope, who in turn is subordinate to the Jesuit Superior General. The leader of the Knights of Malta is another cousin of the British Queen, Andrew Willoughby Bertie. Between them they are the most powerful people on earth.

elberry said...

Thanks, Anon. As for craziness, i think it's fair to say the standard banal & utterly transparent view of the world is a little too neat to be more than a cover story.

Anonymous said...

the modern "culture" is indeed intentionally "dumbed-down". Study the CIA's project Mockingbird for an illustration.

The CIA killed both the Kennedy's The CIA's MK Ultra Project will assist you in learning how they killed RFK.

The owners of the worlds media are indeed controlled by the same megalomaniacs who control the governments of the world. Murdoch for example, is Knight of Malta. It is often mistakingly claimed that Jews or Zionists control the media, but the Murdoch is Roman Catholic. It is also claimed that Zionists control USA, but if you look closer at it you will learn that the highest level Zionists are also subordinate to the Vatican. Kissinger is the most powerful Zionist in USA today, he is a Knight of Malta. Shimon Peres was educated in a Jesuit school, he is a real traitor to the jewish people, research how he signed over much of Jerusalem to the Vatican in 1993. Incidentally if you want to know why Israel is such a huge news story for so many decades, understanding the Vaticans intention for Jerusalem will help understand the picture better. It has always been a long held ambition of the Vatican to move its HQ to Jerusalem. In fact they attempted this before, and you heard of the crusades and so on. Well in about 20 years or so the Vatican plan to move there, and by that time they hope to have united all major world religions under their umbrella and Jerusalem will become the Capital city of the world. This is their ambition, and the Uniting of the world governments is all a major part of that plan, which is why you see the EU, the NAFTA plans, South American countries are uniting and there are already even talks of uniting the EU and USA. Engineering wars is part of those plans. For example WWII ushered in the UN and later lead to the formation of the EU.

Very important to note who created the UN. It was the CFR (council of foreign Relations). Now the CFR is made up of many Zionists, which is the reason why you often hear that Zionists rule the America. The Jesuits have done this intentionally, they always want to be in the shadows (recall the Abbe who was instructing Napoleon) and are happy to have others such as Rothschilds, Rockefellars, Bush et al in the frontline view. If you take a close look at the CFR you will realise the most powerful figures on it aren't the zionists, but are in fact the Roman Catholics. And who created the CFR????? The all powerful Knights of Malta, and the Knights of Malta (SMOM) have PERMANENT observer status on the UN.

Research the Knights of Malta, Freemasonry, CFR, Jesuit Order and you will begin to see who is running the world.

Blair is Knight of Malta as is Bush snr.
The Knights of Malta control the worlds banking,examples being Rothschilds (SMOM)
SMOM also control the worlds medical Cartel through David Rockefellar (which is the reason why so much beneficial health news is surpressed in favour of BigPharma). Rockefellars are also Knights of Malta.
They control the worlds illegal drugs industry through British SIS and CIA (Bush for example). Incidentally the British SIS are the most powerful intel agency in the world and the CIA are subordinate to them, not vice-versa as most people imagine. MOSSAD is also under British SIS control, via the CIA. Blackwater group have been in the news recently due to murders they have commited in Iraq, amazingly Blackwater are beyond the law in both Iraq and USA. Blackwater are actually a front for British SIS in America.

I could elaborate further but this could go off in many directions, so I will end it there.

There have been very many books written on the secret power of the Jesuits and most of them have been totally surpressed and only a very few remain in print today. Probably the most updated book at present is Eric Jon Phelps "Vatican Assassins", it is actually 4 books in one, about 1500 pages and can be purchased from biblio.com I recommend everybody to get a copy of it. And it likely won't be available for much longer. The book has recently been banned from amazon.com and from almost every other source. The Knights of Malta control all the major printing companies and even the major bookstores in the world, which is how they have managed to surpress the 2000 or so books on the Jesuits. There are a few other books on the History of the Jesuits still in print, Phelps book is really a detailed summary of all the other books and has included updated information, so is probably your best purchase.

Anonymous said...

a clip of a former Jesuit Priest briefly saying why JFK was killed. Incidentally the man in the clip was later murdered himself by the Jesuit Order, poisoned.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509480895291745429&q=alberto+rivera+jfk&total=14&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

maybe the best coverage of the JFK assassination and the role of the CIA, with Bush snr getting good coverage

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187&q=jfkII&total=35&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

JFKjnr was also murdered. I will copy something I recently posted elsewhere:

An interesting point in relation to JFK Jr's death, and how it had benefits for the odious Clintons

"JFK Jr. had announced to close friends he was planning to enter politics and run for the Senate from New York but he had not made this public. This, of course, would have placed him head to head against Hillary Clinton, who just announced she was going to run for the New York Senate seat. Since, Hillary was the first American First Lady to attend the secretive Bilderberg meetings, she obvious was the choice of the New World Order gang. Against this backdrop we learn that JFK Jr, by all accounts an excellent pilot who had always flown with an instructor in previous flights, sudden flew alone that night, got lost and dove into the sea. However, an early Coast Guard press release stated the FAA had last heard from him when he was 13 miles out on approach to the airport. This means he was not lost and was descending for a landing. Moments later, his plane dropped off the radar screen and was not recovered for two days despite the fact that the type of aircraft he was flying had an emergency transponder. Something caused his plane to lose altitude very rapidly. And according to the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation report, the fuel switch on his plane was in the “off” position. Was he assassinated? The evidence indicates… most assuredly. How remains a mystery."

also:
This is what happened to opponents of Clinton:

1 - James McDougal - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of

an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a

key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.

2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July

1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder

happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual

harassment in the White House.

3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of

Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot

wound to the head, ruled a suicide.

4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman.
Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist

close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top

of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his

death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his

willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the

Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in

July 1992.

6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director

found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992...

Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor."

7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep

in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide.

Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill

Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey

was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in

Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection

outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was building a

dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information.
After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.

9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported

that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of

influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent

hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson,

was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to

her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several

packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny

Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula

Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating

witness for Paula Jones.

12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy

Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found

dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the

grave site of his fiancee.

13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died

by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client

was a convicted drug distributor.

14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was
related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He

died of three gunshot wounds.

15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when

he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the

back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her

death.

16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from

1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car

accident.

17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena

Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his

wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.

18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport
with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on

a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had

delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.

19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust
Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment

balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee

scandal.

20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely

with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died

November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in

her office at the Department of Commerce.

21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave

John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a

small plane crash.

22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health

Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a

small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's

advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and

brother.

23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was

no accident.

24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill

Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found

dead after his car had hit a utility pole.

25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death

was a purported suicide and his report was never released.

26- Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1,
1994 when his plane exploded.

27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track"

case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena

Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial

report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later

reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on

the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony

could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE
IVES/HENRY CASE:

28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back

of a truck, July 1988.

29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988

30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.

31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a

trash dump in April 1989.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORM75G-Jby4

Anonymous said...

the assassination of JFK jnr

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7812914246389554441&q=assassination+of+JFK+jr&total=36&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

Anonymous said...

Former Jesuit Priest detailing Jesuit inflitration of american society and politics through Opus Dei and so on

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5509480895291745429&q=alberto+rivera+jfk&total=14&start

Jonathan said...

I wasnt saying that people could expect forgiveness from anyone, though its nice when it arrives of course. That the world is full of people who do not forgive each other is evident to me, in my personal life and in that presented to me through virtual and abstract media.

I wasn't saying the US/UK/israel were lucifer's agents, I was just imagining that they were in order to move the discussion on to what we could do of a constructive nature presuming they were not in power and we were..or you were. Of course, you may be right that they are lucifers agents..or, alternatively maybe lucifer doesnt exist..(or God) how should i know..I just have opinions...which are usually related ultimately to how i want to view reality. Same as for others I would have thought.

I put war in inverted commas for etymological reasons. I dont think its right to talk, except in the case of 'civil war', of war as involving other than sovereign states. The Iraqi Government, representing the Iraqi state, has not been at war with the US or the other invading nations since 2003.
I also resent this talk of a 'war on terror' for simialr reasons, though this use of 'war' is even worse.

I dont think the status quo of the world is 'ok'. Nor do I think it has ever been, nor do I think it will become so without a spiritual revolution affecting human consciousness and the human heart. Yes, I'd of course accept that the governments of the world are mired in evil. But so are ordinary people as well. So I dont see the answer in terms of just blaming the powerful. If the unpowerful became powerful, how would they be different? But I could be wrong, you could be right.

That said Im interested in what you say about The Vatican, an organisation to which, as a protestant Ive never been hugely partial, since i so utterly disagree in so many ways with how it presents Jesus-related salvation. Its an interesting perspective. I do still wonder sometimes if Rome does still covet the world. But id also say that the vatican, like all bodies, organisations and agencies, as well as individuals, are mired in the same disatrous will to power dynamics that affect and plague everything, so are not therefore participating in a darkness all of their own, though i can accept they might be behind some or alot of what happens in the world. Alas i do not have the ear of the pope to ask him about this.

Anonymous said...

The Iraqi government is a puppet of the americans and is at war with the people of Iraq. If you don't realise that you are simply unaware of the horrors in Iraq, the military presence of foreign troops in Iraq committing atrocities should be a clue, added to the fact that the CIA-owned Al Qaeda are playing their part to keep the war alive.

The administrations in UK/US/Israel are completely under the despotic control of the Vatican, which in turn is totally under the control of the Jesuit Order. The high-level insiders of the Jesuit Order are Luciferians, just as high-level Freemasons are also Luciferians. So it follows that UK/US/Israeli governments being completely under the Jesuits control, are agents of Lucifer.

I am assuming you are a British Protestant. The insiders of the Church of England are traitors to the Protestant British people and have been for over 200 years. You are probably aware of talks of merging the 2 churches again, and you will no doubt be aware of Blairs recent conversion to Catholicism. It has always been known that Blair is a Catholic in reality, just as the British Queen is a secret Catholic. If you go find any old photos of the Queen meeting the Pope you will notice that she wears black as a mark of her servility to the Pope, her body language will also indicate that she is servile to the Pope, despite the fact that she is supposed to be the leader of the opposing Protestant Church (she usually wears bright colours), in those circles black is the colour of servility. There are also photo's available of the Queen wearing her Knights of Malta regalia with the Maltese cross clearly visible. ALL Knights of Malta have sworn life-long oath of allegiance to the Vatican. In fact the British Queen is the leader of the British arm of the Knights of Malta. Queen Victoria opened up the British Knights of Malta in 1885. The Protestant Church of England is totally corrupted and completely under the control of Rome. The Protestant churches in the National Council and World Council of Churches are all serving the Pope.

The leaders of Protestant Britain brought about the destruction of Protestantism from within, and were murderous traitors. In fact the leaders of Britain used the British people to destroy "heretic" Protestant Germany. The misled British soldiers thought they were fighting the Great War for "King & Country" but they were really fighting for the Vatican. Even very ironic to think that the protestant British people willingly entered a war on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, all with the full knowledge of the "Protestant" leaders of Britain, whom were actually loyal to Rome. This is further to my point earlier that they "elites" don't see nationalistic boundaries the same as the ordinary public do. Nationalistic flag-waving fervor is all used to manipulate the public to fight their wars.

The Bible that is used by the Protestant church is also not true to the original teachings (just as the Catholic bible was corrupted by Constantine). For anyone wishing to read an uncorrupted Bible I recommend that you purchase an Authorised King James Bible-Oxford Edition (not an updated bastardised version) and read the gospel of John. When finished then read the book of Romans following John.

Anyone wishing to learn more of the secret history of the Jesuits should purchase "Vatican Assassins III", and I think "History of the Jesuits" by Edmond Paris is still in print also.

Jonathan said...

Do you ever think sometimes you might be mistaken in some of the things you think? Or are you totally certain you are right in all things..

What does a 'Luciferian' mean? Do people choose to be Luciferians or are they one of these without knowing it.

I'm not saying you are wrong or right in all or anything, its just that I get the impression you are pretty certain of the shape and details of the universe. In a way I envy your certainty, but alas mine is a watery, sceptical life.

Re me bring a 'Protestant' I suppose yes I am, insofar as I 'protest' against the supremacist claims of the Papacy. On the other hand the Anglican church has always considered itself part of the 'Catholic Church', and has never denied rights of memebership in that to the Church of the Bishop of Rome (aka the pope)..a generosity of inclusiveness not reciprocated by the Vatican, alas.

When you say the Queen is a 'secret Catholic' (by 'Catholic here you mean Roman Catholic I am presuming) I wonder if you take this on her authority. Has she told you this? I think there may be considerable disagreement in usage regarding the meaning of the word 'Catholic'

Are you a German Protestant? If sdo, your English is commendable, sir.

Andrew K said...

Haven't looked in in a few days. Plenty material there anyway. Whatever about the particular details of who runs the world and who has secret allegiance to whom, I don't think we need to be on intimate terms with ruling elites to know what they are about. "A tree shall be known by its fruit", and "By their actions shall ye knwo them." Given the filmed footage of Skull & Bones alone, I think it's fair to say, Jonathon, that the ruling elites of the US are involved in extremely bizarre occult activities. Bohemian Grove footage, while a little easier to try and argue around( just go to Youtube & you'll find some clips), is also suggestive. There's been a lot of clips in this topic but one that is extremely damning about outright evil practiced by people very high up the political, business ladder is the following documentary made by Yorkshire Television in the early 90s but never shown. The allegations by the key figure, Paul Bonacci, were later verified in a civil case by photographic evidence & Bonacci awarded a million dollars comensation.

Here.

This misses the last few minutes for some reason which can be got from Google Video but at a little less quality resolution.

Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the New Testament should realise that Jesus was very unequivocal about the existence of evil as a spiritual force and of people knowingly in this power.

Anonymous said...

Luciferian has numerous meanings, some asociate it with Satanism

http://www.ordo-luciferi.org/files/Luciferian_Prayer.pdf

The insiders of the Vatican and freemasonry are willingly Luciferian, or Satanic. They get indoctrinated into it as they rise up through the ranks. I will assume many of them don't even see it is happening in the same way as an outsider would view it. Many low-level freemasons would be Luciferians without realising it until they reach the higher degrees, by which time they have been brainwashed. I am sure many of the higher members of Governments, Intel agencies and Media whom are working for the Jesuits in effect become agents of Lucifer, but they mightn't even realise it. But they have willingly entered those various organisations and the certainly know they aren’t doing any good for mankind as a whole.

No, I don’t have any doubts about the Jesuits being in control of the corrupted governments of the world. The evidence speaks for itself. The Jesuit Order control most of the governments of the world, through various organisations, such as Knights of Malta, Freemasonry, CFR, CIA, the mainstream news media etc etc. I have outlined some of it already. I suggest you read Vatican Assassins before it is removed altogether, it was banned from ebay last year and copies will get increasingly difficult later. If anyone has suspected all is not correct in how the world is run and they wish to learn who is controlling from behind the scenes they will be met with all sorts of nonsense, speculation, crazy conspiracy theories etc, making it very difficult to know where the truth is.


The Queen doesn't have to actually tell me that she is a Roman Catholic for me to know. Blair didn't tell me he was a Roman Catholic, yet I informed people of his Catholicism long before he made it public. I have already outlined why the British Crown has been subordinate to the Vatican ever since King George III (who actually signed himself as Prince Elector of the New Holy Roman Empire). Victoria opened the British arm of the Knights of Malta. By the way the real power capital of British politics is Stonyhurst Estate which was given to the Jesuits during George III reign when they were surpressed from western Europe. (St. Petersburg became another haven for them, getting protection from Catherine the Great, this is why Napoleon attacked Moscow even though St. Petersburg was the capital, incidentally it is also where the Knights of Malta went when Napoleon threw them off Malta and was when the SMOM formed their alliance with the Jesuits). Queen Elizabeth II visits Stonyhurst and is willingly subordinate to them.
Queen Elizabeth II is the current leader of the British arm of the Knights of Malta, which is one of only two Roman Catholic religious organisations which also holds a MILITARY status (the other being the Constantine Order which is full of the Black Nobility of Europe and was highly involved in funding Hitler, check out Constantine Order, on their website they openly boast that one of their missions is to destroy "the infidels in the east", (war in Iraq, Palestine, Iran???)).

To learn the truth I recommend Vatican Assassins III. At $40 it is inexpensive considering the scale and details of the book. Eric Phelps has included evidence, names, dates and references to support what he is detailing, showing the trails of money and links to the Order and her network. It answers many questions you might have.

I am not German, I am Irish having grown up in a predominantly active Roman Catholic community

Regards

Andrew K said...

Well, 'Vatican Assassins' is certainly being blacklisted by the major stores, and since this would certainly have had a reasonably large interested audience that in itself says a fair bit. I'd come across it mentioned quite a bit before now, and Phelps has a site below
Vatican Assassins

Andrew K said...

Though I should have said the Bohemian Grove is much more than suggestive. Human sacrifice rituals in front of giant owls isn't quite what we'd t4end to expect the rulers of politics, business & media to be getting up to in all-male hangouts in the California woodlands.
Here

Anonymous said...

I have contact with Phelps through email, and his depth of knowledge of worlds history is very impressive, as is his knowledge of the network that controls the world today. His book should be a best-sellar, but it has been blacklisted and Phelps is never interviewed by the mainstream newsmedia.

Jonathan said...

'Anyone who is somewhat familiar with the New Testament should realise that Jesus was very unequivocal about the existence of evil as a spiritual force and of people knowingly in this power.'

Well, I know what you mean, and yes this does intrigue and trouble me. My attachment to Jesus has always had to run the gauntlet of my difficulties with some of his pronouncements in the New Testament, especially those to do with hell, though also, though to a lesser extent, those to do with what might be characterised as 'conscious, intentional evil'...which I can only imagine would be sadistic destructiveness for its own sake without any undergirding ulterior explanation. Sadism in the pure light of unmotivated day.

I do not, however, take scripture as an unerring authority since its just a book. I know this is how the Roman Church argues (in the context of its assertion re the rights of 'Tradition'but I am not a Roman Catholic either (though perhaps you will think I am, against my own knowledge?).

I am, unsurprisingly myself.

Gicven the rise and influence of dualistic zoroastrian influences from the sixth century BC, in contrast to a less dualistic perspective that preceded this and which I prefer, I am, it must be said, sceptical about the truth basis of the notions regarding a truly existing cosmic struggle between 'good' and 'evil'

I cant get past the idea, you see, that God created Lucifer and so, like any parent re a child, is responsible for him and that therefore, ultimately, God is responsible for the evil in the world.

Anyway, maybe Im wrong and you're right and the cosmos is intrinsically martial.

Well, in this case I'd still say teh way to tackle evil is through trasnformative love, and not by hateful accusation.

You will note that I am not denying the allegations you make regarding Jesuitical influence in world affairs. I am sure the Jesuits are very clear in their own mind (or some of it) that its a shame the reformation happened and that the Roman Church acquired a new challenge. I am sure that the Vatican covets our asses and our minds.

It was ever the way with Rome, and that long before the Vatican.

And yet other power bases also struggle for dominion. And so all the world is war. well, we knew this anyway, didn't we?

As Tears for Fears (It was them wasn't it?) knew 'Everybody Wants to rule the World'

How can Love your enemies not also equate with love Lucifer?

Though I realise of course that love does not equal approval or allegiance, that love has two very different meanings, one of devotion, the other of service.

Who, after all, must suffer more than Lucifer?

His evil to me is the outworking of his zealous urge for revenge against a merely imagined oppressor.

In my opinion.

Andrew K said...

I think you're a little hung up on the idea that describing evil as evil amounts to hateful condemnation, Jonathon. That is your own mind filling in perceived blanks and coming to that conclusion, rather than it being contained within that simple intellectual act of calling a spade a spade. Evil as intentional evil exists without any doubt, and it seems to me it is an intellectual formula that you are trying to maintain attachment to, rather than appreciate that pure evil more or less does exist, such as raping, torturing and murdering children for personal pleasure, as happened in the Paul Bonacci Yorkshire Television documentary. I think this is a level of absolute personal defilement that is intimately related to spiritual defilement- Satanism, or Luciferianism, etc and the intensity of which you underestimate when you talk of loving these people, as if it is Jesus' duty to save these people. Jesus does say Love your enemies and says Judge not that ye be not judged, but he is rightly unequivocal about these workers of iniquity. They are cast into a hell of their own ultimate making. Such evil is way beyond a kind of ignorance of one's best interests or an indifference, as how sick would one have to be to imagine torturing and murdering children is reasonable behaviour? I believe that to deny evil is itself rather than elevating humanity, an infantilising of ourselves as simple misled people rather than free-agents with moral choice. If one is genuine in one's love for these lost souls that is a great, but if people or a Lucifer is lost in a world of hatred, then it is their choice to be that way. If they could be simply saved by another spiritual being, that would also be a denigration of our condition, as what would be the point.
As for the existence of evil, I think that is an immense mystery, but I think the rationalising mind is so far out of its spiritual depth that it is probably not a question that does it any good to ponder or receive an answer for. It is something which could only be understood in very profound, and perhaps personally dangerous existential spiritual experience. The mind that is dependent on language attemting to understand such immense issues is like a child armed with a few basic words trying to understand Hamlet, and can only produce intellectual falsities.
Or perhaps to use a better analogy, one attempting to experience a magnificent piece of music with a verbal description of it, as opposed to hearing it.

Andrew K said...

That is probably the source of all kinds of inadequate legalistic interpretations of ultimate reality: from the outside, over-emphasising words.

Anonymous said...

Jonathon, I can see where you are coming from, and admire your style of expression to some extent. But don't forget that Jesus didn't hesitate to throw the corrupt merchants out of the Temple. Those Merchants were given free-will the same as everyone else and they made their own choices, they chose a corrupt path knowing full well that it wasn't the right choice.

Jonathan said...

That's interesting Andrew, though with respect is the pot calling the kettle black, somewhat:)

Is it only me but you've always struck me as the more 'rationalist' one.

I have never denied that such sadistic people exist though i enquire into the ultimate bases and causation of it all, and also wonder about the extent to which these people are the points of manifestation of a shared collective evil which is more universal, but which is breaking through in them. Though im no beeding heart, i do see evil people who grow up as weeds in our garden becasue we are bad gardeners, and in answer to Cain, yes we are our brothers keeper.

I have, to be fair, never spoken to prisoners who have raped and tortured children and who might want to express to me their delight in doing so, so its hard for me to comment on the depth of the authenticity of selfhood that I would discern behind their bearing.

I've always had a problem with the christian defence of 'free will'. I think much of the time people are not in control of what they think or do, but have just been programmed to believe that they are, so that society's systems of reward and punishment, which it considers to be so crucial, and which indeed centrally depend upon free will, will not be put in question.

On the other hand its true in a superficial, immediate sense in consciousness that we may appear to be choosing between x and y. But how do we choose to be the kind of person who chooses in this way. Do we, in other words, choose to choose the way we choose?

This is highly complex. Gurdjieff believed we are just machines, controlled by our automatic reactions to stimuli. I have alot of sympathy for this. He believed genuine fee will was more of a potential attainment for those who could develop 'soul', which I suppose could also be called 'presence'.

Thanks, Anon, for the comliment.

As I see it, Jesus behaved that way in the temple, I believe, because standards had dropped way below what he a had felt appropriate regarding standards of spiritual authenticity in the temple area, which had made it out that God and money can coalesce. Presumably cultural drift had led the consensus belief to maintain that trading in the temple was acceptable. Who sets these standards? Each indivdual trader, or the collective consensus? The collective consensus no doubt, presumably decided upon by the Sadducees, as far as I can guess, who had set themselves up as authorities in the time honoured way.

Traders want and need to earn a living and if other traders are also trading in a given place, and,moreover, it has the sanction of those who preside over what is right and wrong in the temple area, namely the authorities, it would be natural for them to trade there also. Not to do so might mean they'd miss out on sales, after all. Thats a logic we are familair with i think:(

While indeed it might be wondered that they should have known better and not traded there anyway ( some like the essenes decamped to the desert out of their hatred for Herods temple altogether) not all I think can be expected to be so religiously enthusiastic as to oppose established religious authorities. Why should they be?

Im just trying to bring things down to earth. Im not saying the temple trading was right, nor that jesus was wrong for doing what he did, but that people were really i think 'choosing evil' in the way you allege by setting up their stalls there seems a bit extreme.

Anyway i dont suppose you were embracing a 'moral equivalence' between temple trading and sadistic torture...

But then there always is that barmy Christian teaching that says that all sins are equally black, all equally deserving of the fire.

As usual in Jesus I suspect his main anger was against the religious authorities not at those who don't claim to speak for God, especially a cruel and judgemental God.

Anonymous said...

Jonathon, traders want and need to earn a living?????

So if I want to trade heroin to pregnant women who want a fix is that ok??? I need to earn a living. Or what if I traded guns to a bunch of maniacs who wanted to kill? Or maybe it is ok for USA to trade nuclear weapons technology to Israel and othe nations. Or what about Israel actually trading weapons to both Iraq and Iran for the purpose of killing people when they were at war, that was just good business right, Jesus would have no right to object. As Scrroge said to Jacob Marley "You were a good man of business Marley" and Scrooge couldn't understand why Marley was condemned, afterall business comes first, right?
The merchants who sold Land-mines for a living were disgusted by Diana's campaign to have them banned. So what if kids get their legs blown off regularly during "war" and many years after "war" has ended, business is business, never let emotion get in the way of earning a sale, the depleted uranium traders are having a field day with the Iraq war, everything has a dollar value (or euro value considering the way the dollar is going now)

Andrew K said...

I don't think I'm calling any kettles black, Jonathon. I believe in using reason within its limits, but I think the existential nature of ultimate reality is far beyond such a limit, and can only be experienced as firsthand reality, not discussed from an ignorant outside: 'ignorant' in the true sense as there is no firsthand experience, simply theorising about things way beyond the theoriser.
To a degree I agree we are all responsible for the life we live in, but a horrible torturous death was inflicted even upon a Jesus figure preaching absolute love. We also have to allow for people's capacity for choice, and there is no ordinary reality that can be seen as any kind of reason to torture, rape & murder children for fun. Again look at the Conspiracy of Silence case, or John deCamp's book online here. These were perpetrated by very wealthy, powerful people within the Establishment and whom the Estdt did everything to protect.
However free or not we may be, we all normally have consciences which we have to absolutely trample underfoot to willingly inflict such evil upon innocent others. And the perpetrators in the sense that they obviously enjoy such acts, recordingthem for posterity, have not suffered half enough for their actions as they continue to commit them. Perhaps they can ultimately be redeemed and
the most dreadful spiritual hell experience is necessary for this to occur, as their existential state obviously isn't enough for them to return to reality

Andrew said...

Also, those children were in no way responsible for the horrible inner & outer pain inflicted upon themselves, at least not within hte confines of reality being concentrated within this single incarnation, whatever about an issue of past lives.
I cannot but agree with Jesus' line, "It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones."

Anonymous said...

in truth, much of the information that came out from "Conspiracy of Silence" and John De Camps book was part of a "damage control" by the powers that be, to prevent exposure of a much wider pedophile ring in USA, which involved those named in the documentary, but also would have included much more and would have exposed that they ring was controlled by the Roman Catholic church in USA.

Also I could add that Pope John Paul I wanted to break the extensive pedophile ring in USA (around the same timeline as that story), a move which brought him certain very powerful enemies and the Jesuits murdered him for it.

Jonathan said...

Anon,

I wasnt saying that is was good or ok for the traders to have traded in the Temple. Personally, I feel appalled at having to pay money to get into some of our cathedrals in the UK. I think Jesus did a good thing in clearing them out. I was mainly blaming the Sadducees or whoever had authority to permit the traders to trade there, since they established what was permitted.

Certainly there is a clear difference, and so NO moral equivalence, between murder and the other things you mention and such trading in the temple (though maybe a traditional levite might disagree).

Have you 'flown off the handle' with me, as it is said...? He asked wonderingly.

Still, its ok, I am familiar with the human practice of the knee jerk, usually distemperate, imputation of unintended implication behind words. There's alot of it about.

Obviously all trading in weapons in evil and wrong. But worse than selling weapons is buying them, and using them, I think??

Anwyay, its not only the Anglo-saxon-Jewish states who do this. Should not the other arms traders be mentioned as well?

Its always been clear to me that Jesus held out no hatred or judgement but only love towards his persecutors and murderers. he also says in the Gospels "Forgive them father, they know not what they do."

Probably the Roman guards who mocked him did not believe he was any kind of embodiment of absolute love but just a silly, deluded Jew who insanely, in their eyes, thought he was special. Quite comical to them, probably.

As for the Jews who wanted him dead, Im sure they did so mainly because he was a threat to their authority and power on account of his iconoclastic success and appeal; though also perhaps also because he genuinely was perceived to be a blasphemer, as well as someone who might destablisise the delicate status quo with Rome..which secured them a certain conditional autonomy.

I need to meet more genuinely sadistic people to get a grip on the nature of their attachment and relationship to their deeds until I can comment further.

'there is no ordinary reality that can be seen as any kind of reason to torture, rape & murder children for fun.'

Well said. I never disagreed with this Andrew. I never denied Child abusers are crazy, dangerous people who should be restrained, and against whom children must be protected.

This is actually to the benefit of the abuser too, in the long run. If that is 'patronising of me', then fine.

I dont want anyone to suffer for anything, whatever they have done.

All I want is for evil and suffering to stop. As well, of course, as the accusation of it, which centrally fuels its dark regime, in my opinion.

To me, the Gospel is clear that Jesus came to destroy evil and suffering...or 'sin' as it were.

Lucifer set the ball of evil rolling when he accused God of being a tyrant and then, by means, by process of that very accusation, became the first and archetypal tyrant. To me the origin of evil is ultimately traceable to a primordial misunderstanding in the mind of Lucifer. Though much darkness grew out of this misunderstanding. Of course I could be wrong.

I am a universalist, in terms of salvation and redemption, and believe that Jesus will destroy this evil and suffering everywhere, out of his self-sacrificing love for what God created. As indeed he already is doing..but these things take time, evidently.

Is it cold in Ireland?

Have a good Thursday. Its Islamic New year today here in Kuwait, so a day off.

Anonymous said...

Jonathon, if you feel I "flew of the handle" with you, I will ask that you pardon me as it certainly wasn't my approach, I was merely illustrating the point.

As for hoping that Jesus will "destroy this evil", well maybe he will maybe he won't (if we are to believe the original bible and speak as Christians, then lets accept he will), we can be sure that Jesus doesn't merely want the rest of us to sit around waiting for him to do all the work. We were all given free-will and a soul and a body, and we can recall the parable of the "Good Samaritan". The point of his Good Samaritan parable wasn't that the rest of humanity just sat back as said "Jesus will sort it later", he was illustrating that we should be active in practicing his word, not passively waiting for "divine intervention". Just like Jesus booted out the Merchants trading in the Temple, I am sure he would want humanity to boot out the evil corrupt cabal that control the governments and oppress our fellow men.

I named the governments that I did because those are the ones in power that we are most familiar with. I could go through much of the other regimes in the world(including the Kuwait) and illustrate their corrupt subordination to the evil power-pyramid that controls the world (Jesuit Order), all to support their own personal greed.

In the west (we are mostly westerners on these blogs) the governments of the west have deluded their own people into somehow imagining they are GOOD and people such as Saddam Hussein, Russia etc are EVIL. The american people are stupid enough to imagine that american foreign policy is in the best interests of all mankind and are securing all our freedoms everywhere??? And you will hear non-americans as well as americans say this all the time, that america is the greatest protector of freedom in the world, despite clear open evidence that USA is has become on of the most corrupt regimes in the world (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, 9/11 etc)??? WWII being given as the chief reason to believe such a falsehood that USA is there to protect our freedoms. The fact that regimes in USA, Britain, Germany and Russia all worked together in WWII is not understood by the vast majority of the people, even though the evidence is easy to find. Such clearly visible see-through actions such as Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraq War, Afganistan War etc obiously had very self-serving interests and were evil acts is ignored by the average brainwashed individual as he waves his flag and supports "our boys" as they commit atrocities, rape and spread radioactive contamination on an unfortunate people who had very little in the first place and were no threat whatsoever to USA.

If you want we could also highlight how the Sunni Muslim leaders of the world are working with the same evil individuals who control the Power-Pyramid in the west (with a purpose of destroying Shia Muslims among other things), but I am relatively new to posting on these blogs and can only type so much at a time and all this info is available for anyone to research elsewhere anyhow. I could also go into how Communist China are also completely under the control of the Jesuits, as is Japan, the Buddhist leaders, African leaders and Austrailia. But I can only devote so much time to here, and to illustrate certain points it isn't really necessary to name all corruption elsewhere. And it is probably most significant for western people to highlight the corruption that exists that is most deeply connected to their own governments and their own tax systems.

Jonathan said...

And what would you replace the governments of this evil world with, and how would you ensure justice and righteousness would be done as at present they are not (with that i can agree).

Also regarding the motivation of the 'cabal'..you write:

'all to support their own personal greed.'

But arent most people motivated by greed...the poor as well as the rich? How do you know you'd not be any different if you had power?

Greed is an inteersting and pitiful condition. I feel sorry for those subject to it.

Of course I succumb to it also, though usually in the context of food.

I look forward to find out how you think the world should be run better, to read your manifesto for change and improvement.

btw, I agree that yes Christians shouldnt be passive.

Anonymous said...

Jonathon I already touched on the subject of what to replace the present regime with, even on this same page, if you read back through all my posts here. Of course the issue is very debatable, but I would point to the early american constitution and Bismarcks Germany as examples of how a country should be run better (obviously both systems could be improved and no reason why we wouldn't imporve them).

I disagree that everyone is greedy, not in the context that we are discussing anyhow where some people (particular those in powerful positions) are willing to commit blatantly evil acts to satisfy their greed. For example most people wouldn't really start war in Iraq for Oil, security contracts, military contracts etc, at least I never would and most people I know wouldn't let greed destroy their souls to that extent. I remember reading a report before on crime statistics in USA, the crime capital of the world, and the report suggested that less than 3% of the population could be considered criminal or evil, how they compiled that last I couldn't say, but I think it is very valid to say that less than 3% of people would willingly do something evil for more money. When it comes to it most people are good and caring, warm-hearted and so on. Various influences can corrupt people living in whatever circumstances, but on the whole, people are good inside. The people who are in the powerful positions of politics, big-business etc fall in the 3% of nasty bastards

Jonathan said...

I can certainly agree that many of the types of people who want and strive and are determined to be succesful and pre-eminent in politics and big business would tend to be drawn from the nastier part of the human race. I think many of those who want power actually might want a kind of revenge against the world for whatever perceived slight they felt had been inflicted upon them; and that they would often though not always therefore be misanthropes. I think that the greed itself is an epiphenonemon, not what's essentially going on.

Though this predominance of the dark-hearted need not be the case, surely. It is the responsibility of those who do have a genuine devotion to the good to: a) compete with such inferior people for positions of influence and b) not be corrupted by the allure of the razzmatazz of these positions once they attain them and c) put in place procedures and systems whereby inadequately constituted souls are barred from office in the future.

For example various moral tests could be standard whereby anyone who has a record in their life, going back to their childhood days, of cruelty and/or miserly selfishness would necessarily be sidetracked elsewhere than towards the levers of influence and power.

Thats just an idea but there is evidence, surely, of a systemic, wide ranging lunacy in humanity given that aggressiveness, competitiveness, ambition and self-promotion, through whatever device of rhetorical flourish or crafty dissimluation are so widely acclaimed by large tracts of humanity as virtues to aspire to, and worthy of financial reward.

Crime is just one aspect of the problem. The deviousness and corruption of the heart is profound. Criminals can be relatively good people, or even very good people, on occasions, while the criminally innocent can be mosters.

Yes, I like the US constitution too. Not sure I know too much about Bismarck.

It seems the old face-off between Rousseau and Hobbes is lurking somewhere beneath all this talk of the Government versus the people.

Ultimately, why have the state at all, for example?

Have a good week.

Anonymous said...

Well, of course the points you raise all are matters that could be addressed and arguements can be made for so many things, and why have a state at all? Well, that is a question that not enough people really think about. I don't mean in terms of abolishing the state, but what should the functionings and objectives of the state be. I think the early US Constitution was quite a good example, until the private big businesses and bankers really got hold of it, and it has turned into the system it is now.

There should obviously be safeguards against allowing a situation where the most successful, or wealthiest in society can simply buy out the government, as is the case now.

The system we have needs to be changed, but it shouldn't take a whole lot to improve what he have, the real difficulty lies in having the right individuals to make it happen, to take the governments out of the hands of the private bankers, make serious and real efforts to fight governmental corruption. Sad thing is it really would take a major revolution of some sort to wrest the government back from the individuals who control it. The wealth of those who are in control is staggering, and their network is so extensive than any real efforts to improve things for the better will be easily surpressed, unless that was a real will from the people to demand such change. There are some efforts in USA to push for change, particularly with the forthcoming elections, but those efforts will likely not succeed, due to the brainwashing the average american has been subjected to all his life (many of them even thought GW Bush was a good idea for a second term???).

Bismarck had an outstanding career and is worth reading up on. Sadly when his time finished things went really downhill for Germany. JFK attempted to make some real changes for the better in USA, he wanted to dismantle the CIA into small groups, as he could see the power they had and the danger they possessed (he also knew the CIA was ruled by the Vaticans Knights of Malta, JFK's father was "one of them" and is the reason JFK got where he was in the first place). JFK also wanted to remove the monetary power from the Federal Reserve, but he didn't get a chance to implement the law before his death. JFK had a clear idea of keeping the Vatican outside of state matters, which he voiced openly (and won him powerful enemies as he turned on those who put him into office). JFK is an example of what happens when someone in a high position does actually attempt to change things.

But the knowledge that the system is corrupt shouldn't prevent society in general from putting forward ideas to improve it.

Have a good day

Jonathan said...

'But the knowledge that the system is corrupt shouldn't prevent society in general from putting forward ideas to improve it.'

Well, I'd certainly agree with that.

To me the true goal, though, is to so transfigure or tranmsmute human nature that people do not need to be regulated or controlled at all; thus undermining the need for governance altogether.

This happens when God the transcendednt, uncreated light takes up permanent residence in the hearts of alll people, and so regulates and brings order to his creation from within, obviously with the full consent of all out of whom he shines.

The path to this eventuality is the inculcation of love in the heart for all of the the creation