Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Napoleon and the Jesuit-led New World Order

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
In Napoleans memoirs he said “The Jesuits are a MILITARY organisation, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuits].

Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…”

To understand Napoleons wars you first need to understand the position of the Jesuit Order in Europe before his rise to power.

The French had kicked out the Jesuits, Louie XIV expelled them (sparked off by a dispute over businesses the jesuits were running), Portugal under Joseph III expelled them in 1759 (for alledgedly plotting to kill the king among many other crimes), Spain expelled them 1767 under Charles III. The most powerful Catholic monarchs in the world expelled them and demanded that the Pope suppress them. So in 1773 Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuits FOREVER with a Papal Bull, and so Maria Teresa, the Hapsburg Queen, expelled them from Austria.

The collusion between the Jesuit Order and Napoleon had to remain a secret. Many sources mention Napoleons masonic membership in the Grand Lodge of Paris (such as Roman Catholic historian Nesta Webster). That secret nexus between the Napoleon and the Jesuits was accomplished by Illumnized Freemasonry. The connection between Jesuit Weishaupt, his Illuminati founded in the Jesuit stronghold of Bavaria, and the French Revolution is a fact of history.

In 1717 the Jesuits revived freemasonry, wrote the first twenty-five degrees of freemasonry in the College of Claremont in Paris. Later when they were protected by Frederick the Great during their suppression in the 1780's they wrote the last eight degrees, set up the supreme council of thirty-third degree and imported the French revolution into France via the Grand Orient Lodge in Paris. The French Revolution, the Jesuits and masonry all are working together.

Frederick the Great, the most powerful freemason on the continent protected the Jesuits. They then import the French Revolution into France. Then the Jesuits organise the killing of Louie XVI and behead him, that is revenge for the Jesuits being thrown out of France by the French monarch. He's the bourbon King, the grandson of Louie XVI. The Jesuits then behead Marie Antoinette, and she's the Hapsburg Queen, the daughter of Maria Theresa. This is revenge for Maria Theresa expelling the Jesuit Order from Austria. They then use Napoleon to drive the Borganases out of Portugal into exile the Bourbons' out of Spain into exile. They imprison the Pope for 5 years, humiliating him. They drive The Knights of Malta off the island because they had expelled the Jesuits in 1768.

His advisor was Jesuit Abbe Sieyes
He was 2nd console on the consulate and he advised Napoleon what to do and where to go. The victories of Napoleon were the Jesuits organizing the victories on his side and the defeat of his enemy, that's why he succeeded until 1812.

After the French revolution the Jesuits were revived by Pope Pious VII in a papal bull and they were reinstituted in the countries from which they had been expelled. From then to the present day the Jesuits control the Vatican, and the Knights of Malta, and the other powerful religious Orders. From the Napoleonic Wars the Jesuits gained control of most of the European governments, and increasing their worldwide powerbase since.

One of the best historians on the Jesuits is Eric Jon Phelps. His book, Vatican AssassinsIII is available on some sites, but it has been banned from amazon, ebay and most bookstores. It is worth reading before it is surpressed entirely. Needless to say Phelps is never interviewed on the MSM

www.vaticanassassins.org

[edit on 6-1-2008 by iezuit]




posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by iezuit
 


Some years later, after the Jesuits had been reinstituted in Europe, the Great German Chancellor Otto Von Bismark rose to power. At that time Prussia was surrounded by Roman Catholic controlled countries. Bismark wished to unite Germany, and as much of Germany was controlled by those Roman Catholic states he had to take them on directly in the battlefields, and won, which marked the decline of the French and Austrian Empires, much to the anger of the Vatican and its ruling Jesuits.

Bismark knew the Jesuit Order were in control of the governments of Europe, so 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. Bismark also enfranchised over half a million jews, giving them the right to vote in Germany

The Jesuit Order would later seize control of Germany again, and this was the true reasons for WWI, the destruction of Protestant/Lutheran Germany. Britain was covertly under the control of the Jesuit Order since no later than 1800, which is why Protestant Britain opposed Germany in WWI, or the Great War. WWI later led to WWII, which saw further destruction of Protestant Germany (organised by the High-level Freemason and Roman Catholic Austrian Hitler whom was a stooge of the Vatican and a traitor to Germany), and Germany went from being predominantly Lutheran/Protestant in Bismarks time to being predominantly Roman Catholic by the end of the wars. 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,his uncle a Jesuit priest who held very high power in Germany. Jesuit Himmlers Nazi SS was really controlled by the Jesuits of Rome.

The insiders of the Church of England are traitors to the Protestant British people and have been for over 200 years. In fact the British Queen is the leader of the British arm of the Knights of Malta which has sworn lifelong oath of allegiance to the Pope. 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 Britain used the British people to destroy "heretic" Protestant Germans in WWI as revenge for Bismarks expulsion of the Jesuits and their turning away from Romes religion . 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.

consult Phelps book for further details.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by iezuit]



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I was initially very interested in the thread but my enthusiasm soon flagged when I realised you were simply regurgitating Eric Phelps. What a shame.

Eric Phelps has an agenda and his work clearly represents that. He makes connections, that anyone with a more developed understanding of European history can clearly see bare very little relation to actual events. The problem is, that the majority of Phelps readers know nothing of European history and accept his version of events without any desire to delve further. His sources are almost entirely composed of anti-Jesuit protestant propaganda - check for yourself - the majority of the so-called suppressed texts that he cites are readily available on-line - he supplies no balance to his arguments.

I say it is a shame because the Jesuits are fascinating, highly influential and indeed militant, though this is entirely different to being 'military'. I suggest you do a little more reading...Phelps on occasion brushes up against the truth but more often than not he makes wild leaps and glaring omissions. If it doesn't fit into his rather narrow world view it is ignored or distorted until it does fit.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:18 AM
link   
napoleon used a metaphor... and that's evidence of some jesuit conspiracy?

have you ever met a jesuit?
i've always wondered if people who parrot the jesuit conspiracies have actually encountered real life, flesh and blood jesuits.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Eric Jon Phelps is merely one author on the subject. His book is the most recent and updated version, much of it is referenced from many other books on the subject that were written previously but have mostly been surpressed. Phelps book has also been surpressed by the mainstream publishers and bookstores, it has been banned from amazon and ebay.

Why do you have a personal grudge against Phelps. It sounds like another terrible case of "shoot the messenger". Most historical books could be accused of being "regurgitations" of previous books. That is a ridiculous arguement to make. The significant questions are, does his book stand up to close inspection, does he use dates, names and references that can be verified to support his arguements, and the answer is Yes he does.

I say it is a shame you hold such a personal grudge against the author of the book and have adopted the "shoot the messenger" policy.

If you don't like Phelps, then why not read some of the many other books that also discuss the subject. Phelps is the most updated which is why I recommend it to anyone.

Which particular events do you say Phelps has exagerated or doesn't hold inspection. I would be confident you are wrong, I have gone through much of the information in his book with a very sceptical view, but after much research and asking many other sources to verification I have had no other option but come to the conclusion that Phelps assertions are quite accurate. In any book of history certain events will be open to interpretation and debate. I have also asked Phelps himself many questions by email, and his depth of knowledge was surprising and I can assure you he ALWAYS replied with a source of reference to support where his particular claim. Phelps has an email address which can be found on his website. If you have any questions for him, then why not contatc him, I am more than sure you will change you opinion of his accuracy, as he changed mine.

But there are many other individuals covering the Jesuit/Knights of Malta/Vatican led New World Order.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Napoleon didn't use a metaphor, he said it plainly about the Jesuits. But that isn't the evidence. The evidence is what he did and who was advising him.

Yes I have met a "Jesuit". What has that got to do with anything.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by iezuit]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by iezuit
Eric Jon Phelps is merely one author on the subject. His book is the most recent and updated version, much of it is referenced from many other books on the subject that were written previously but have mostly been surpressed. Phelps book has also been surpressed by the mainstream publishers and bookstores, it has been banned from amazon and ebay.


No it has not been banned. What Phelps and others do is self-publish, then claim that it has been 'suppressed'. You can buy it via Amazon, you simply have to pay $500.00 to do so - why? not because of suppression but because of limited availability.


Originally posted by iezuit
Why do you have a personal grudge against Phelps. It sounds like another terrible case of "shoot the messenger". Most historical books could be accused of being "regurgitations" of previous books. That is a ridiculous arguement to make.

I have no personal grudge against Phelps, never met the guy, I do though have a problem with anyone who peddles pseudo-history to the uneducated masses. It was you I was pointing the re-gurgitating finger at not Phelps. Your post is based upon one book as opposed to an educated evaluation of the Jesuits. That is, you have read one sensationalistic book and believe all that it says rather than using it as a spring board to research further and formulate an opinion of your own.


Originally posted by iezuit
The significant questions are, does his book stand up to close inspection, does he use dates, names and references that can be verified to support his arguements, and the answer is Yes he does.


No it does not. It passes a cursory examination but it fails on any detailed analysis.


Originally posted by iezuit
If you don't like Phelps, then why not read some of the many other books that also discuss the subject. Phelps is the most updated which is why I recommend it to anyone.


How do you know that it is the most updated? Because he says it is. Which other books have you read?


Originally posted by iezuit
Which particular events do you say Phelps has exagerated or doesn't hold inspection. I would be confident you are wrong, I have gone through much of the information in his book with a very sceptical view, but after much research and asking many other sources to verification I have had no other option but come to the conclusion that Phelps assertions are quite accurate.


One very simple example that obviously passed by your vigorous verification process "The Protestant Church of England". The Church of England is not Protestant. The Anglican Church are Catholics - Anglo-Catholics.


Originally posted by iezuit
In any book of history certain events will be open to interpretation and debate. I have also asked Phelps himself many questions by email, and his depth of knowledge was surprising and I can assure you he ALWAYS replied with a source of reference to support where his particular claim.


Ask him then how on earth he reached the conclusion that the Anglican Church was Protestant and what his source of information for that was.

As I stated before, the so-called "13 rare, historical, out of print documents" that he uses for his reference are nearly all available via the internet, some are still in print. They are almost entirely anti-catholic, protestant pamphlets circulated when anti-Catholicism was at its most fervent in Europe.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Jesuits are and have been fifth-columnists, but then so is Eric Phelps (and Greg Szymanski). You do realise that Phelps is a protestant don't you? He is not an independent source, he is not unbiased. He has shaped history to meet his agenda. You can put any list of events together and find a correlation but that is not the same as reaching a conclusion based upon ALL the available information. It is not so much what Phelps includes as what he doesn't include.

If you wish to debate the issue by all means, present one example from Phelps and how you have confirmed its veracity. Since you claim that I would not be able to counter his/your arguments, prove it. I am more than willing to put in the work necessary to attempt to counter your arguments, I am more than willing to admit, if proven, that I am wrong.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Phelps book used to be offered by amazon and could be bought on ebay at the regular price. The no longer offer the book, they refused to offer his updated book which is $40 new, and they have a few second hand versions of the old book for $500, or you can get the old one for £150 second hand elsewhere also, that is a form of suppression and the new version was banned. So I disagree with you there. The 13 books you are refering to aren't widely available and can really only be bought on the internet, and the internet is only a recent invention, so I think he can rightly claim those books have been surpressed.

Phelps has updated his book with VAIII and it does hold to close inspections. Maybe the refernces points you use to judge it against are inaccurate. I am not going to say Phelps is correct about everything, but there is alot of truth in his books and he has been updating it in reply to various criticisms, new information etc.

I say his is the most updated that I am aware of. If you have other books covering the subject then I would be happy to read it, you are only argueing for the sake of it there. I think the guy has done a good job with his book. And there are others which also discuss the same topic.

Phelps religious affiliations don't interest me. If he is a protestant so what, that is more shoot the messenger stuff. As far as I am aware Phelps isn't affiliated to any mainline Protestant church, but that doesn't interest me. Are you suggesting only a Catholic be allowed write about the Jesuit Order and the Vatican??? Have you ever wondered why people broke from the Roman Catholic church in the first place and why he Jesuit Order was expelled from so many countries.

And by the way, I see you started a "Hitler, Himmler who wanted more Jews dead" thread. You might take into consideration the SS connections to the Jesuit Order, and also Bismarks Germanys handling of Jews and the Jesuits/Vatican v Nazi Germany policy which was the complete reverse. Bismark helped emanicpate the Jews and tried to remove the power of the Vatican in Germany, which was a good thing for the people, only a fool would accept the Pope was Gods representative on earth and his infallible nonsense. The Roman Catholic church has a long murderous history of surpressing both Jews and other religious groups

You have added nothing useful, only attacked the author of one of the books, have made no addition to discuss Napoleon or Bismark, so unless you do have something useful to add then why bother. The motto of this site is "deny ignorance", shooting the messenger and protestants has no useful purpose.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by iezuit]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   
An interesting article giving a very brief summary of the Jesuits before Napoleons rise to power


By the middle of the 1700's (to go back more than a century), the Jesuits had made many powerful enemies, both inside and outside the Roman Catholic Church. There were those who wished them ill because they wished the Rcc ill. But there were also those who honestly believed that their accommodatist tactics were imperilling the soul of the Church. Governments turned against them because it was thought that the political advice they gave was bad advice. And so they were banned in one country after another: Portugal in 1759, France in 1764, Spain and her territories in 1767, followed by the Sicilies and Parma. Next the Pope was pressured to suppress the order altogether. Clement XIII refused. When he died in 1769, anti-Jesuit forces backed a candidate who won and became Clement IV. Four years later, in 1773, he disbanded the order. The superior general was imprisoned in Rome until he died in 1775. Members of the order continued to function as secular priests, and in some places were allowed to continue to teach and to run schools, though not as Jesuits. Ironically, the order survived as an organization in Russia, where the East Orthodox Empress Catherine valued them as schoolmasters, and refused to allow their dissolution. In 1814, after the fall of Napoleon, in the newly conservative political climate, the Pope restored the order.


Of course everyone should wonder why the Jesuits were re-instituted when the previous Popes decided they should be surpressed FOREVER. The re-institution coincided with the end of Napoleons reign, which also coincided with the end of Napoleon punishing all of the Jesuit Orders enemies, thus allowing them to be reinstituted. You can see that Napoleons wars were punishing the enemies of the Jesuit Order, and his moves succeeded in getting the Jesuits reinstituted and were even more powerful than before.
So regardless of whether you awknowledge or accept that Napoleon was working for the Jesuits, it is plain to see that every major move he made was to the benefit of the Jesuit Order.

Of course the role of Jesuit Abbe Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès in the French Revolution and in Napoleons rise clearly indicates the Jesuits influence in both.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by iezuit]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It should be noted that Napoleons Concordat
with the Pope re-established the Catholic Church in France, depsite much protestations at home. Even though Napoleon claimed he didn't even believe Jesus was ever born, we still furthered the future development of the Catholc Church in Europe and still claimed to be a Catholic to some degree.

Napoleon had been under pressure to crush the Vatican, but he reconciled France with the Roman Catholic Church.

Taking this into account, and the subsequent restoration of the Jesuits by the Vatican, Napoleons actions favouring the Jesuit Order becomes very clear. When the Jesuits were reinstituted their influence in society was even stronger in France. And it is widely recognised by Roman Catholics that the Jesuits have controlled the Vatican itself ever since 1814. This article shows the Concordat let the Jesuits back into France in 1801 under Napoleon, even though they were still officially surpressed by the Pope.


The Catholic system was reestablished by the Concordat of 1801 (signed with Pope Pius VII), so that church life returned to normal; the church lands were not restored, but the Jesuits were allowed back in and the bitter fights between the government and Church ended.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by iezuit
reply to post by iezuit
 


The Jesuit Order would later seize control of Germany again, and this was the true reasons for WWI, the destruction of Protestant/Lutheran Germany.

And how you explain that Germany, actually Kaiser pressed up Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia after impossible ultimatum which led to Great War and end of Germany?


I don't buy your [and by many others] story how Vatican 'controls' everything. Sorry, Vatican is powerful, but there are more powerful above them.


Originally posted by iezuit
They then import the French Revolution into France. Then the Jesuits organise the killing of Louie XVI and behead him, that is revenge for the Jesuits being thrown out of France by the French monarch. He's the bourbon King, the grandson of Louie XVI. The Jesuits then behead Marie Antoinette, and she's the Hapsburg Queen, the daughter of Maria Theresa. This is revenge for Maria Theresa expelling the Jesuit Order from Austria.


Originally posted by iezuit
It should be noted that Napoleons Concordat
with the Pope re-established the Catholic Church in France, depsite much protestations at home. Even though Napoleon claimed he didn't even believe Jesus was ever born, we still furthered the future development of the Catholc Church in Europe and still claimed to be a Catholic to some degree.

Napoleon had been under pressure to crush the Vatican, but he reconciled France with the Roman Catholic Church.

Taking this into account, and the subsequent restoration of the Jesuits by the Vatican, Napoleons actions favouring the Jesuit Order becomes very clear. When the Jesuits were reinstituted their influence in society was even stronger in France. And it is widely recognised by Roman Catholics that the Jesuits have controlled the Vatican itself ever since 1814. This article shows the Concordat let the Jesuits back into France in 1801 under Napoleon, even though they were still officially surpressed by the Pope.


The Catholic system was reestablished by the Concordat of 1801 (signed with Pope Pius VII), so that church life returned to normal; the church lands were not restored, but the Jesuits were allowed back in and the bitter fights between the government and Church ended.

So, Jesuits organised French Revolution in which RCC greatly suffered, so, they could through Napoleon bring France under Vatican control.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Greetings Vojvoda. I think you have misunderstood the post. Read through the various posts I made. Napoloen furthered the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in France and his actions were very highly beneficial to the Jesuit Order to say the least. You could take time to study that period of history and the fortunes of the Jesuits themselves and the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't fully understand your question regards Germany, but WWI and WWII set about the destruction of predominantly Lutheran/Protestant Germany and by the end of the wars Germany became predominatly Roman Catholic, thus benefiting the interests of the jesuit-controlled Vatican. Britain declared war on Germany first in WWI. Bismarcks Protestant Germany had regained its power from the Roman Catholic countries that occupied and surrounded it. The two world wars destroyed protestant Germany. Also worth noting that WWI also coincided with the partially western funded Bolshevik Revolution which would see the Jesuits restored in Russia by Lenin.

Bismarck had expelled the Jesuits from the German Empire, you could look into his Kulturkampf laws.

The relations between the countires around WWI was complex, and on the surface the whole war was really all about very little, understanding the Jesuits control of Britain and France and their destruction of Protestant Germany can't be ignored, and also of note that the Jesuits were readmitted in Russia after Lenin gained control, the Bolshevik revolution also signalled the murder of the Czar who was the Protector of the "heretic" Orthodox Church.

Before the Napoleonic wars Britain and France had a long turbulent history of military conflicts, but after Naploeons reign the two countries wouldn't oppose each other again in conflict. Behind the scenes they were both controlled by the same side. During the suppression of the Jesuits in the 1700's Britain gave haven to the Jesuits in Stonyhurst estate.

Who do you think are more powerful than the Vatican? You may be correct, but the most powerful bankers/intel agencies/businesses/Big Pharma all have connections to the Knights of Malta. The Knights of Malta are a Roman Catholic religious/military Order (one of only 2) that have sworn lifelong oath of allegiance to the Vatican.

There very well may be more powerful Orders, but the most powerful that can be openly seen is the Vatican.

Maybe you could elaborate on your post.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by iezuit
The 13 books you are refering to aren't widely available and can really only be bought on the internet, and the internet is only a recent invention, so I think he can rightly claim those books have been surpressed.


A rare, out of print book does not equal suppression. Hundreds of books are published every year, only a few of those will be remembered or go to a second printing. Just because no one wants to promote it, due to the specialist nature of its subject matter does not mean it is suppressed. The majority of his sources are recognised, in some cases famous, items of anti-catholic propaganda from a period when such works were rife.

This is a good essay on one example;

www.english.upenn.edu...

A New York Times article discussing another;

query.nytimes.com...

There is a very good reason that Phelps cannot get a mainstream publisher, it has nothing to do with content and everything to do with delivery - for example;

“We know very well that the adversary, Satan on his throne in the pig pen of the Vatican, was sensing that if God the Holy Spirit were to have continued liberty in England, the Protestants would rule the civilized world. Why? Answer: Even though the Roman Catholic heart is filthy as a sewer, still, there is a longing to be free. Christ makes men free, and Satan knew that his infernal Romanist servants, the Jesuits, could not prevent the most lowly bloodthirsty peasant in Spain from defecting to Jesus Christ if the Gospel ever got free reign in the world.” www.vaticanassassins.org...

There is a limited audience for that kind of thing....


Originally posted by iezuit
Phelps has updated his book with VAIII and it does hold to close inspections. Maybe the refernces points you use to judge it against are inaccurate. I am not going to say Phelps is correct about everything, but there is alot of truth in his books and he has been updating it in reply to various criticisms, new information etc.


Perhaps you are right, I haven't read VAIII so he may have developed his sources somewhat. Why don't you do as I suggested choose one specific example and how you have confirmed the sources. You suggest the SS or Bismarck - I'll discuss both happily with you in detail...however you have yet to confirm how Phelps could make such an overwhelming oversight as to believe that the Church of England was a Protestant body. If he doesn't know that how can he possibly understand the relationship between Britain and Prussia!!!!

Or perhaps you would like to demonstrate how you confirmed the ‘truth’ and sources in this example of the world according to Phelps:

“In 1932 the fascist and secret Freemason Benito Mussolini, advised by Jesuit Pietro Tacchi-Venturi (who was the Secretary of the Society of Jesus), gave military and financial aid to Ibn Saud, the first King of Saudi Arabia. (Indeed, the Order finances what it controls.) In 1937 Mussolini, the man who restored the Temporal Power of the Pope in 1929, was presented the Sword of Islam and hailed as the Defender of Islam by Libya. Later, America’s domestic oil wells would be shut down forcing trillions of our dollars to be spent overseas thereby consolidating massive wealth in Islamic Saudi Arabia while creating a dependence on Middle Eastern oil. This massive wealth in the hands of fanatical, Wahhabi Moslems would provide the basis for Saudi Arabia’s financing of the Black Pope’s International Masonic/Islamic Terrorist Network presently headed by Freemason Osama bin Laden and financed by Saudi Arabia’s Masonic House of Saud. This Masonic/Roman Catholic fascist connection to Masonic/Islam is imperative to understand if we are to come to grips with our present danger under the pro-Patriot Act I and II, Supreme Court appointed and darling of the Jesuit Order’s fascist Fox News Network mogul and Papal Knight of Malta, Rupert Murdock, anti-Bible and slave of Freemason Pope John Paul II, Skull and Bones initiate and Freemason, George W. Bush.”


Originally posted by iezuit
I say his is the most updated that I am aware of. If you have other books covering the subject then I would be happy to read it, you are only argueing for the sake of it there. I think the guy has done a good job with his book. And there are others which also discuss the same topic.


There are countless books on the Jesuits which offer a spectrum of perspectives. A selection of those offered by Amazon;

www.amazon.com...=nb_ss_gw/002-7365956-6587266?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jesuits

I can personally recommend Power and Secret of the Jesuits by Rene Fulop-Miller, but they are detailed in numerous books contemporarious to a variety of historical events, ie if you're reading about the Wars of Succession their role will be discussed and there are also histories which deal with the Jesuits role specifically. A good example (and an excellent read) is Alice Hogge's book "God's Secret Agents"

www.harpercollins.com...


Originally posted by iezuit
Phelps religious affiliations don't interest me. If he is a protestant so what, that is more shoot the messenger stuff. As far as I am aware Phelps isn't affiliated to any mainline Protestant church, but that doesn't interest me. Are you suggesting only a Catholic be allowed write about the Jesuit Order and the Vatican??? Have you ever wondered why people broke from the Roman Catholic church in the first place and why he Jesuit Order was expelled from so many countries.


I have linked to numerous examples of non-Catholics and Catholics writing on the Jesuits, despite what Phelps has led you to believe there is a wealth of information available.

Eric Phelps is not a historian, he is a hate mongerer who uses history to frame his perspective on the world. Phelps relies upon the limited knowledge of his readership and takes advantage of it to peddle hate.


Originally posted by iezuit
And by the way, I see you started a "Hitler, Himmler who wanted more Jews dead" thread. You might take into consideration the SS connections to the Jesuit Order, and also Bismarks Germanys handling of Jews and the Jesuits/Vatican v Nazi Germany policy which was the complete reverse. Bismark helped emanicpate the Jews and tried to remove the power of the Vatican in Germany, which was a good thing for the people, only a fool would accept the Pope was Gods representative on earth and his infallible nonsense. The Roman Catholic church has a long murderous history of surpressing both Jews and other religious groups


Interesting interpretation of my thread title there, I look forward to responding to your comments when you post to my thread...until then perhaps you would like to demonstrate here how you have confirmed Phelps' sources and arguments of Nazi Germany and formed an opinion independent of what Phelps tells you to think.


Originally posted by iezuit
The motto of this site is "deny ignorance", shooting the messenger and protestants has no useful purpose.


I only replied because of my commitment to denying ignorance, most specifically Phelps'. The history of the Jesuits is fascinating - some of it is negative but they have also had a positive influence. Phelps' view is twisted to his own bias and is filled with hate. The Jesuits are very much worth studying, do so, but do not accept Eric Phelps for anything other than the hate mongerer that he is.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Quoting the american mainstream newsmedia to support your attack on Phelps hardly makes any sense. Of course the mainstream media will attack him, the same as they attack anyone who questions the truth about 9/11. Of course the MSM will attack Phelps, he implicates the owners of the various newsmedia as being part of the Cabal that control the worlds politics.

John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, called by his peers, "the dean of his profession," was asked on February 26th, 1936, to give a toast before the New York Press Association. He responded with the following statements:There is no such thing as an independent press in America, unless it is in the country towns. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
"I am paid $150.00 a week for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should permit honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, like Othello, before twenty-four hours, my occupation would be gone.The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."

You openly admit you haven't read Phelps latest book, yet you attack it as strongly as you can. Now in my estimation, attacking a book you have never read really is ignorant. And from your tone I assume you have no intention of ever reading his work, yet you are wuick to label it hate filled and attempt to colour everyone elses view on it also.

Thanks for permitting me to also read other books besides Phelps!!! I have read hundreds of historical books in my lifetime, ey you assumeVatican Assassins III is the only one I have read. How ignorant of you too assume that anyone who has ever read Vatican Assassins doesn't know much about history. You really are playing the role of judge and gatekeeper. It is clear you have a personal grudge against Phelps. I didn't start this thread to discuss Phelps personality or his religious affiliations but you Kilgore"shoot the messenger"Trout hasn't made any contributions whatsoever on the subject of Napoleon and have ranted with prejudiced opinions based on a newspaper article you read in the controlled mainstream newsmedia.

As for Phelps hating the Vatican authorities, do you imagine he is the only one who does. What all the many hundreds of thousands of people who were tortured, persecuted and murdered in the Roman Catholic Inquisitions, do you think those people have a right to feel hatred towards the leadership of their oppressors/murderers. The Inquisitions were instituted by Pope Innocent III in Rome
What is your stance on organised murder on religous grounds!!! Do you condone such actions or do you feel hatred towards it. What do you think of the Vatican approval of Hitlers policies or the policies of the Roman Catholic Ante Pavelic mass murderer of Croatia who killed tens of thousands of non Catholics and was aided and abbeted by the evil convicted mass-murdering nazi Bishop of Zagreb Cardinal Stepinac, who would later be beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1998. Do you feel hatred for religous oppression and mass murder, or do you condone it. The Roman Catholic church has a long blood-thirsty history of suppression, torture and murder. There are VERY strong links to the Roman Catholic Church and the Nazi regimes of europe that murdered so many people. I think Phelps has a right to feel totally disgusted by the history catholic church

[edit on 7-1-2008 by iezuit]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 

As I said, you have attempted to totally derail the topic of conversation based on a grudge based on an article you read in a mainstream newspaper that was designed to attack him for very obvious reasons. Phelps book has been updated, and this thread isn't about him, but about the information. You clearly have nothing useful to add, and asking me what books I have read in such a tone displays a real arrogance on your part..obnoxious would be a better word. Someone who hasn't even read his book claiming to be an authority on it!!! How ignorant is that???



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Would have really liked to read this thread but the Horizontal scroll has made it impossible....



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
An intersting observation is made in Adam Zamoyskis 1812 Napoleon when discussing the reasons for war against Russia. The mood and tensions, alliances etc in Europe must be considered when attempting to make sense of Napoleons War in Russia. As Phelps and others(even Tolstoy wondered why Napoleon sacrificed his army in the snows of Russia) speculate that Napoleons mission in Russia was to burn Moscow, weaken Russia but ultimately he aimed to lose the battle and sacrifice his troops in preparation for the restoration of the Monarchs of Europe that he had displaced, followed by a Restoration of the Jesuit Order in 1814. That is a very wild claim, but Napoloens march on Moscow really made very little sense considering the mood, and France and Russia were united against British interests in the world, and both had designs on Britains India, even uniting forces and attacking India together was in both Napoleons and Czar Alexanders minds, and while on the march on Russia much of the French troops wrote home to France that they were preparing to join up with the russian troops and form an alliance to travel to India together.

If Napoleon wished to succeed against Russia he certainly could have raised far more troops from other nations who were anxious to join forces with him and push Russian interests back out of Europe.
Turkey (who were already at war with russia), Austria, Prussia, Poland and Sweden were all anxious to see Napoleon push Russia back and wanted to join forces with him. However Napoleons dealings with those nations immediately prior to the war astonished everybody and he couldn't have done more to jeopardise the fortunes of his own side.

According to Zamoyski "any gesture of support for Turkey would have yielded real advantages, as Alexander was ready to remove troops from the battle with Turkey in preparation of war with France, however Napoleon did nothing.
Napoleons treatment of Austria was more offhand, he signed a treaty with them which was very vague about Austrian interests and he only signed a very small Austrian force to cover his right flank.
It should also be noted that the leader of Austria was his father-in-law, and Austria were very ready to go to war with him against Russia.
Prussia begged Napoleon to sign an alliance with them to go to war with Russia, Prussia being anxious to push Russia out of europe and hoping for rewards in return. But Napoleon signed a treaty with Prussia allowing them to supply a small number of troops on the most abject terms. This infuriated the Prussians who saw it as a major humiliation and rose anti-french feelings very high (Napoleon had many admirers in Prussia prior to this). It undermined the pro-french party in Berlin and Napoleon even had to divert troops to keep an eye on the country while he went to war.
His treatment of Sweden was even more astonishing. Sweden would gladly have joined France in war against Russia, but Napoleon sent troops to Swedish Pomerania and Sweden were left with little choice but to sign a treaty with Russia.
Finally Napoleon failed to give any kind of positive concrete signal to Poland (who were partly controlled by Russia and were very ready for war with them) who began to mistrust his intentions and soon felt they were better off to sign a treaty with St. Petersburg.

Napoleons treatment of his potential allies before taking on the might of Russia was astonishing and would have to raise suspicions as to the reasons of his going to war with Russia.
Napoleon and Russia had an alliance previously. Russia had nothing that Napoleon wanted, Napoleon let it be known that he had noting to gain politically by attacking Russia and he wanted the alliance with Russia to continue, hoping that they would join forces and break the Brisith empire. We do have to wonder what changed Napoleons decision to pointlessly fight Russia and why he treated his potential allies so offhandedly.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Read Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy if you are interested in the church or almost ANY real conspiracy of the Western world. It is a great book that connects ancient religion (mithra, babylon) with the lineage of the various mainstream religions of today and shows how the Catholic church embraced the teachings of the Art of War into a long term battle to the finish which is still being waged today. Of particular interest was the choice of the location and layout of the city of Washington DC. The author makes a few stretches but nothing approaching Hoaglandyish.

I recommend it highly.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by iezuit
Greetings Vojvoda. I think you have misunderstood the post. Read through the various posts I made. Napoloen furthered the interests of the Roman Catholic Church in France and his actions were very highly beneficial to the Jesuit Order to say the least. You could take time to study that period of history and the fortunes of the Jesuits themselves and the Roman Catholic Church.

Napoleon signed Concordat to finally stop endless civil war and revolution in France which caused havoc among French people and state.


Originally posted by iezuit
I don't fully understand your question regards Germany, but WWI and WWII set about the destruction of predominantly Lutheran/Protestant Germany and by the end of the wars Germany became predominatly Roman Catholic, thus benefiting the interests of the jesuit-controlled Vatican. Britain declared war on Germany first in WWI. Bismarcks Protestant Germany had regained its power from the Roman Catholic countries that occupied and surrounded it. The two world wars destroyed protestant Germany.

Ok, let you explain how Great War began:
1. Austria-Hungary [A-H] DoW [declaring of war] Serbia.
2. Russia DoW A-H (Russia guaranteed independence of Serbia).
3. Germany DoW Russia (as Germany was in alliance with A-H – central powers)
4. France DoW Germany (as ally of Russia – Entente)
Germany attacked France through neutral Belgium and independence of Belgium was guaranteed by UK. Because Germany violated it, UK declared war on Germany as part of Entente. So, Germany provoked UK.
After assassination of Franz Ferdinand Germany pressed up A-H to attack Serbia imposing ultimatum which will Serbia refuse. German Kaiser knew very well it would cause a great war. You know what Bismarck said before he died? “Eines Tages wird der große europäische Krieg wegen irgendeiner Dummheit auf dem Balkan ausbrechen“.
You should read about Pope Pius X (1903-1914). He was a puppet of A-H Emperor Franz Josef. In Pius X’s time, A-H and Vatican policies were the same. The last stronghold of Vatican in Europe was A-H. That’s how Vatican was ‘weak’. But that’s some other story
.
UK and France weren’t under Vatican control. But Vatican had some level of influence among them which in later phase of Great War diminished when became clear that Vatican suggestions are worthless/impossible.


Originally posted by iezuit
The relations between the countires around WWI was complex, and on the surface the whole war was really all about very little, understanding the Jesuits control of Britain and France and their destruction of Protestant Germany can't be ignored, and also of note that the Jesuits were readmitted in Russia after Lenin gained control, the Bolshevik revolution also signalled the murder of the Czar who was the Protector of the "heretic" Orthodox Church.

As I wrote, Vatican had some level of influence among UK and France which in later phase of Great War diminished when became clear that Vatican suggestions are worthless/impossible. Vatican didn’t play any role in Bolshevik revolution, but it is true they welcomed it. Until 1930 Vatican had secret negotiations with Bolsheviks to allow catholicization of Russians. But negotiations failed and 1930 Pope Pius XI heavily criticized bolshevism.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by iezuit
Who do you think are more powerful than the Vatican? You may be correct, but the most powerful bankers/intel agencies/businesses/Big Pharma all have connections to the Knights of Malta. The Knights of Malta are a Roman Catholic religious/military Order (one of only 2) that have sworn lifelong oath of allegiance to the Vatican.

There very well may be more powerful Orders, but the most powerful that can be openly seen is the Vatican.

Maybe you could elaborate on your post.

Well, the pyramid of the power of the ‘rulers from the shadow’ is much more complex. The main problem I see in ATS and many conspiracy theorists is they can’t see larger picture. So called ‘NWO’ is not a monolith as vast majority think. There are several strong groups/cliques and only what they have common is the total control/rule over the world.
For your thread I will add that Vatican is somewhere in the lower middle pyramid of power. The main ‘purpose’ of Vatican is for attacking and crippling Orthodox Churches and states in Balkan and Eastern Europe which was clearly showed many times in history especially in the XX century.

Btw, it’s not Knights of Malta; it was Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.
In 1798 Napoleon, ignoring the Order's internationally guaranteed neutrality vis-à-vis the Christian powers, had his fleet attack Malta on 12 June 1798. The Knights capitulated and their island-state fell to the French. Napoleon seized the treasures of the Order and forced its members to abandon the island. Having lost most of its property during the Napoleonic conquest, in 1834 the Order established its headquarters in Rome, where it has remained ever since, and the present phase in the colorful history of the Order began under name Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by Vojvoda]






top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join