Decorated Journalist Seymour Hersh’s speech at Georgetown exposes Jesuit inspired-Knight of Malta connection with the White House and American Foreign Policy Tuesday, Jan 31 2012 

Decorated Journalist Seymour Hersh’s speech at Georgetown exposes Jesuit inspired-Knight of Malta connection with the White House and American Foreign Policy.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/01/22/transcript_the_obamabush_foreign_policies_why_cant_america_change?page=0,0

Romanism A Menace to the Nations; Quote by Archbishop Quigley 1903 Friday, Jan 27 2012 

Michael Sudduth Follows His Monad Back to Vaishnava Vedanta Wednesday, Jan 25 2012 

Recently, previous winner of the The Clark Prize in Apologetics, Michael Sudduth, published a letter stating that he has left Christianity for the Eastern Hindu Tradition. Yesterday, when my friend Stephen Macasil linked the article to me I immediately assumed that his apostasy into Van Tilism and the worship of the Monad was directly linked to this conversion. I turned out to be right. Let’s review Plotinus’ Monad one more time:

In an exposition of Plotinus’ One, which in fundamental to most Eastern Religion and Hinduism Clark says,

“These Ideas, however, this Divine Mind, is still not the highest principle of all. For in this realm duality remains. Since the Ideas are distinct from each other, there is multiplicity. In knowledge there is always a subject and a predicate, a knower and an object known, and hence duality. But duality is secondary to unity. Therefore it still remains to climb the steep ascent of heaven to the source, the One. The climbing of the ascent and the resting of the summit, let it be noted, are not the same thing. The rational process of philosophic dialectic demonstrate the necessary existence of the One. He who has felt the urge to unity can never rest in plurality, and is forced to posit a source superior to all diversity. But if we are to know that source and not just infer it, we must experience the One in mystic trance…the ordinary conditions of consciousness are suspended and, having become oblivious of self and the world, the soul sees the One alone.  The soul no longer knows whether it has a body, and cannot tell whether it is a man, or a living being, or anything real at all.…The vision is a direct contact with the One, a divine illumination.

All knowledge is rather like our sight of sense objects on a cloudy day; in the vision we see the Source of the light which made knowledge possible, and we see it directly in all its brilliance. ..This experience is not abnormal, it is but the exercise of a faculty which all have though few use…The experience  itself cannot be written down, it can only be experienced ”[Truth as Encounter-DS] Clark, Gordon Hellenistic Philosophy (Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York, 1940), pg. 229-230

Once someone believes that truth and God cannot be found in a proposition, but in a psychological state, truth by defintion becomes something subjective and arbitrary. What also needs to be understood is that this thinking is all an extension of the idea that God, or the Ultimate Principle, is a distinction-less monad on a chain of being where simplicity moves one up the chain of being toward the Good and distinction lowers one on the chain of being towards imperfection. This is how Turretin explains God in his Institutes Volume 1. 3rd Topic. Q 7

“Proof that God is perfectly simple. IV. This proved to be a property of God: (1) from his independence, because composition is of the formal reason of a being originated and dependent (since nothing can be composed by itself , but whatever is composed must necessarily be composed by another; now God is the first and independent being, recognizing no other prior to himself) ; (2) from his unity, because he who is absolutely one, is also absolutely simple and therefore can neither be dived nor composed; (3) from his perfection, because composition implies ***********IMPERFECTION*******************

inasmuch as it supposes passive power, dependency and mutability. ” Institutes of Elenctic Theology Volume 1 (P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1992), pg. 191

And Muller in an exposition of Bonaventure, in explaining the Scholastic doctrine of Simplicity says, “there is something prior to every imperfect or composite being.” (Muller Vol. 4, pg. 41)

This fundamental Thomistic Scholasticism is the soil from which Van Til and his cronies have sprung. The passages that moved Sudduth so strongly said,

“He who is rooted in oneness realizes that I am in every being; wherever he goes, he remains in me. (Bhagavad Gita, 6:30-31)”

And again,

“Abandoning all desires,

acting without craving, free

from all thoughts of ‘I’ and ‘Mine’

that man finds utter peace.

his is the divine state,[Abstraction-DS] Arjuna.

Absorbed in it, everywhere, always,

Even at the moment of death,

he vanishes into God’s bliss.

(Bhagavad Gita, 2:71-72)”

Sudduth says,

“And I found God directly present to me in such experiences, but present to me in such a way that I experienced both tremendous awe and reverence for God and a deep intimacy with God through my consciousness of Lord Krishna. And I began to see my former “God conceptions” as limited expressions of a fuller, richer, and more experientially meaningful view of God that was now present in Lord Krishna himself.”

Just like in Plotinus where one feels “the urge to unity can never rest in plurality” Sudduth desires to “Abandon…all desires” and to be  “rooted in oneness “. Just as in Plotinus where “the ordinary conditions of consciousness are suspended and, having become oblivious of self and the world” Sudduth abandons propositional rationality to “find utter peace” and be swallowed up in “the divine state”.  He realizes that his previous understanding of God was a “limited expression ” of what he now believes (The word “believes”  becomes synonymous with experiences) .

A major problem with Scholasticism is the innate desire that all men have to participate directly and ontologically in their God.  We all want that real connection. Sudduth explains,  “I pondered this experience for several minutes, while at the same time continuing to experience a most blissful serenity and feeling of oneness with God”.

The fact is Van Tilism and Scholasticism, its Grandfather, can never give man real and ontological connection because like the fools they were, they tried to take the Ultimate Principle of Plotinus and the Pagans and somehow get a Christian worldview out of it with their theory of Absolute Divine Simplicity. This leaves only a pagan ecstatic trance state for Christian men to seek in their attempts to connect to their creator. Thus Sudduth, was in my opinion, simply following his monad back to its Pagan source. He is being consistent. Sudduth says,  “I had gone so far in my Christian faith, but it was now necessary for me to relate to God as Lord Krishna.” Notice he doesn’t say, “through Lord Krishna” but “as” Lord Krishna. In Plotinus’ construction hierarchies of being emanated from the One which represent levels of composition , and at each hierarchy was an intermediary. In different versions of this metaphysical construction, the gods are intermediaries on this chain of being. As one moves up the chain of being one becomes ontologically identified with the intermediary. Sudduth says, “Since this time I have experienced Krishna’s presence in the air, mountains, ocean, trees, cows, and equally within myself. I experience Him in the outer and inner worlds, and my heart is regularly filled with serenity and bliss.” You see on his view, God is in the state of mind not the proposition.

In conclusion, I commend Sudduth for his logical consistency. When will the rest of the Scholastic Reformed have the courage to do the same? My Scholastic reader, Sudduth is taking Absolute Divine Simplicity to its logical end. I have two options for you.

1. Follow Sudduth

2. Leave Scholastic Neoplatonism for Gordon Clark’s Scripturalism: An absolute Triad: Three ontologically distinct persons; three distinct complex-non-simple eternal divine minds who find their hypostatic origin in the person of the Father.

Drake’s Triadology Stuff Tuesday, Jan 24 2012 

I have recently received a number of requests for information on the issues of Nicene  Trinitarianism and my exchanges with Robert Letham.  Letham refused to allow our dialogue to be public (Hint Hint) so I have prepared this concise summary of articles on the issues of ADS, Triadology and how it affects everything else in Systematic Theology. I have also included the 11 questions I asked of Letham so you can ask your pastor or seminary professors.  I am going to post this as a page on the left hand side of my blog titled: “Drake’s Triadology Stuff”. These are the bare necessities and arranged in order of conceptual priority. That is, each section of articles is necessary to understand the next section. Hopefully this will aid in understanding.

I. Introduction to Neoplatonism and Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS); How it developed through Origen into the Scholastic and Protestant Scholastic Period; The Eastern Alternative in the Essence and Energies Distinction; The Fundamental Difference Between Eastern and Western Conceptions of Simplicity; The Nature-Will Distinction fundamental to Athanasian Trinitarianism and Creation Ex Nihilo

Saving Faith and Truth as Encounter in Plotinus, by Drake
Do You Know What You Believe? Part 3 What is God? Part A
Origen’s Mistake and One of Dr. Clark’s Mistakes
Divine Simplicity 1
Francis Turretin’s Neo-Platonism in Divine Simplicity, by Drake
Do You Know What You Believe Part 4; What is God? Part B The Trump Argument for Scripturalism
The Essence and Energies Distinction in David Bradshaw Refuted
James Anderson’s Mistaken Interpretation of Eastern Triadology
‘Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor’ by Joseph P Farrell Reviewed by Drake Shelton
Debate with Hyper Calvinist on Nature and Will Distinction
Darkness: A Consistent Hyper-Calvinist
Creation Ex Nihilo
Creation Ex Nihilo-Early Clark vs. Later Hyper-Calvinist Clark

II. Problems ADS Resulted In

Another Problem for the Scholastics: Eternal Generation or Simplicity, Take Your Pick; You Cannot Have It Both Ways, by Drake
Augustine on the Unipersonality of God, ed. Drake
Do You Know What You Believe? Part 5; What is God? Part C Procession of the Spirit
My exchange with TFAN on these issues

III. A Vindication of Nicene Triadology Against ADS

A Theological Introduction to the Mystagogy of Saint Photios by Joseph Farrell
Photius’ Mystagogy

IV. Historical Precedent For a Protestant Nicene Triadology

Cyril Lucaris and the Synod of Jerusalem
Cyril Lucaris’ Rejection of the Filioque, by Drake

V. Alternative View to the Western Neoplatonism and the Eastern Neoplatonism in Gordon Clark

Emanation, Eternal Generation and Creation: What’s the Difference? by Drake
Divine Simplicity 2
Scripturalism’s Immediate Knowledge Related to Infant Salvation by Drake
What You See at the Bottom of the Clark-Van Til Rabbit Hole; Scripturalist Christianity vs Neo-Platonism
A Scripturalist Construction of Greek and Nicean Triadology Part 1
A Scripturalist Construction of Greek and Nicean Triadology Part 2 Eternal Generation
A Scripturalist Construction of Greek and Nicean Triadology Part 3; The Procession of the Spirit
The Economical and Ontological Trinity; What is it?, by Drake
Saving Faith

VI. 11 Questions

1. Absolute Divine Simplicity (ADS): Where is it in the Bible?

2. When Turretin says, Volume 1. 3rd Topic. Q 7
“Proof that God is perfectly simple. IV. This proved to be a property of God: (1) from his independence, because composition is of the formal reason of a being originated and
dependent (since nothing can be composed by itself , but whatever is composed must necessarily be composed by another; now God is the first and independent being, recognizing no other prior to himself) ; (2) from his unity, because he who is absolutely one, is also absolutely simple and therefore can neither be dived nor composed; (3) from his perfection, because composition implies
***********IMPERFECTION******************* inasmuch as it supposes
passive power, dependency and mutability. ” Institutes of Elenctic Theology Volume 1 (P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1992), pg. 191

And Muller in an exposition of Bonaventure, in explaining the Scholastic doctrine of Simplicity says, “there is something prior to every imperfect or composite being.” (Muller Vol. 4, pg. 41) Do you admit that both of these authors are operating directly off of Plotinus where this thinking led him back ultimately to an absolute Monad and not a drop of scripture?

3. Do you agree that Augustine was highly influenced by Plotinus?

4. Do you agree that the doctrine of analogy of proportionality (Thomistic view of epistemology) is sourced in ADS? The other big issue is the Western Scholastic dialectic between the infinite and the finite. My pastor as well as other people use this to avoid any real connection between man and God not understanding the Christological implications. The entire problem with this construction (analogy of proportionality) is that it eliminates the possibility of a hypostatic union in Christ. Christianity teaches that humanity and
divinity united metaphysically/really at the level of hypostasis. Aquinas’ construction is exposed as Adoptionism and at best Nestorianism by Jules Grisham. Grisham states in his Felled By “Good Pleasure”. An Examination Of The Condemnation Of The Grammatico Historical Method Of Interpreting Scripture, As It Was Developed In The Exegetical School Of Antioch

“Theodore, then, to his own thinking, was only being consistent when he taught  that the human nature of Jesus was essentially distinct from the divine nature of  the Son-Logos.  Because he understood hypostasis as referring to the concrete instance of a nature (in the sense that a person is a concrete instance, a particular expression, of human nature), and because, according to his fundamental understanding concerning the radical “other-ness” of God, he insisted that the divine and human natures could not be hypostatically joined without corruption of the divine, Theodore held that there is an inhering dualism in
Christ’s person.  Accordingly, he taught that we must think of Christ’s union not as a hypostatic one (that is, of substance) but as a prosopic one (that is, of manifestation and benevolence).  Prosopon means “face,” “role” (referring to drama as well as to social status), or “person,” in the societal-functional sense –i.e., what one does.  And
the concept he used to explain how this prosopic union came to be and
remains intact is “assumption.”(pg. 27)

I wonder how Theodore would take Aquinas’ “extrinsic bond… a third thing to which the signification of a particular belongs primarily”. Upon examination I can find no difference between the two. Theodore’s Prosopon was just that; namely a product of the union of the two natures: a third thing as the common bond between the two natures. This is precisely the opposite of what Scripturalism teaches. We believe in a univocal participation in God and deny that God is totally other as the Van Tillians, the Scholastics and the Neoplatonist Eastern Church teaches. Gordon Clark says in Three Types of Religious Philosophy (Jefferson Maryland, The Trinity Foundation,1989) by Gordon Clark pg. 123 –Dogmatism-Realism

“To be sure, Christian dogmatism does not accept the unaltered World of Platonic Ideas. The Philonic Interpretation is better. [By the way Philo’s construction posited the Ideas in the mind of God. DS] Still better is the replacement of Ideas (minus predicates) by propositions or truths…Christian dogmatism therefore must be realistic. The real object of knowledge is itself present to the mind…There are of course other thoughts, objects, or realities. Every Biblical Proposition is one. These never change nor go out of existence, FOR THEY ARE THECONSTITUENTS OF GOD’S MIND…We know God directly for in him we live and move and have our being.” Clark says again, “The scripture presents the relationship between the mind of God and the mind of man as a much more intimate relationship than is commonly believed. In 1 Corinthians 2:16 the apostle says, ‘we have the mind of Christ’. On this verse Meyer comments, ‘Since Christ is in
them…their nous, too, can be no mental faculty different in kind from the nous Christou, but must, on the contrary, be as ideally one with it, as it is true that Christ himself lives in them.’ See also Philippians 2:5,‘Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ
Jesus.’ Of course these verse do not equate the person of Christ with out person, either pantheistically or existentially. Their meaning is that our mind and Christ’s mind overlap or have a common area or coincidence in certain propositions…Christ’s mind and our mind only overlap: they are not coextensive. Plato may require omniscience but
Christianity uses revelation; and man knows only so much as God has revealed to him. In my publications I have never claimed more than a partial knowledge forman.” (The Philosophy of Gordon Clark, pg. 406-407)

Aquinas’ Nestorianism at this point is again reiterated by FrancisTurretin when he says,

“For the Son of God only is ‘the image of the invisible God’ (Col1:15)-the essential and natural, and no mortal can attain to it because the finite cannot be a partaker of the infinite. And if we are said by grace to be ‘partakers of the divine nature’ (2 Pet 1:4),
this is not to be understood of an essential, formal and instrinsic participation, but an analogical, accidental and extrinsic participation (by reason of the effects analogous to the divine perfections which are produced in us by the Spirit after the image of God).” Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NewJersey: P&R Publishing, 1994), pg. 465

An accidental connection between humanity and divinity? That is Adoptionism and Nestorianism. I posit a direct, univocal and real participation in God. We are made in God’s real image, that is, the logos of our image is uncreated,  and were given language
structures that in category are uncreated.

5. If so, do you agree then that this ADS God could never give a real revelation but only a representational revelation?

6. Do you agree that ADS would by definition eliminate the possibility of 3 absolute hypostases in the Trinity?

7. Do you agree that Aristotle’s Metaphysics where Substance=Subject also commit its adherent to a single subject God with only the possibility that the three persons are three predicates/relations?

8. Do you admit that the ADS Monad of Plotinus was not a mind, specifically because it was simple, but the Nous/Mind was the first production of the Monad? If so, do you admit that anyone who holds to ADS must deny that God has a mind?

9. Do you agree that since the God of the West is based on ADS, which denies three absolute persons, the ontological source in Western Trinitarianism is not the Father but the divine nature? (Yes I’ve read Calvin’s comments on this and his assertion that the Logos is auto-theos is clearly a denial that the Father is the ontological source)

10. Do you agree that Augustine, operated off of ADS to construct Filioque when he asserts that since the Father causes (eternal generation + eternal procession) the Son must cause if he is truly divine (which is a collapsing of personal properties into the Monad)?
[P.S. You already admitted this: Through Western  Eyes,“Plotinus [A major Neo-Plantonist writer] had posited a supreme being, the One, characterized by absolute simplicity (with no internal distinctions or particulars) In virtue of this simplicity, the One’s existence, nature, activity, and will are identical. Augustine saw common ground
between the Christian doctrine of God and the NeoPlatonic idea of divine simplicity. In doing so he made the one essence of God primary. With no internal distinctions, great problems arose as to how to conceive of, and defend, the doctrine of the trinity…it is undeniable that there are crippling weaknesses in the Western doctrine of God
(pg. 231-232)…In the West, the danger of modalism is very real, evident in all Western theology down to Barth and Rahner. If we start with the divine unity, expressed in the idea of absolute divine simplicity, the persons become problematic as real, personal, permanent, irreducible, and eternal ontological distinctions…Indeed. most Western Christians are practical modalists.”(pg. 238) In discussing the relationship between simplicity and the Filioque, you say, “As Ritschl suggests, Augustine’s beginning with the trinity rather than with the Father, as the Cappadocians had done, together with his stress on the divine simplicity, makes the Filioque almost inevitable.” (pg. 229) ]

11. How do you feel about Loraine Boettner, John Murray and Robert Reymond’s denial of the eternal generation of the Son?

Atheist: Will You Accept My Atheist Challenge? Sunday, Jan 22 2012 

I am challenging atheists to a  year long task for their souls. The following is a reading list divided monthly.

January: If you want to know the first attempts that ancient philosophers gave to understand the universe read Gordon Clark’s text Ancient Philosophy giving special attention to the Pre-Socratic era and Gordon Clark’s book The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God where you will learn that all the fundamental ideas involved in contemporary empirical science and philosophy were already thought of and ripped to shreds some 2400 years ago and even some of the leading Scientists and Atheists admitted that all scientific methods are logical fallacies.

February: If you’re still left with resounding respect for the scientific method and Aristotle’s incoherent Metaphysics read Mary Louise Gill’s article “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” in the book Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) where you will learn the impossibility of constructing a language to explain the “material world”.

March-April: Learn how every Philosopher in the last 2500 years has failed to provide a coherent tenable theory of knowledge except for the Christian Augustinian tradition in Gordon Clark’s text Thales to Dewey.

May: Learn how every empirical philosophy of language has failed in Gordon Clark’s book Language and Theology. You now understand that man’s “sensory faculties” are completely incapable of defending or explaining any theory AT ALL!

June: You start to go into denial. You begin to convince yourself that your doubts are simply an aspect of your brain that needs a few million years more evolution in order to push your chemistry completely out of the quagmire of religious sentiment. The religious people around you are deceived and you know it! They are clearly victims of inferior genetics and you refuse to succumb to their paltry sentiments. That is when it is time to read Gordon Clark’s book  Behaviorism and Christianity . He rips to shreds any notion that human behavior is caused by chemistry or genetics.

July: Now that Clark has ripped to shreds your biological reasons for your atheistic ethics, it is now time to tear apart their logic. At this point it is time to read Gordon Clark’s A Christian View of Men and Things‘ chapter on Ethics and Clark’s lengthy essay “Ethics” in his book Essays on Ethics and Politics.

August: Alfred Russell Wallace (Darwin’s colleague) was the founder of the theory of natural selection who later backed away from the theory due to undeniable innate divine sparks in man and explains his exodus from Natural Selection’s inhuman-mutant-racist nonsense in his book My Life. In so doing, follow the logical steps that were taken from Darwin work up through Francis Galton’s Social Darwinism completing Marx’s Jesuit Inspired Communism, Charles Davenport’s Eugenics and through Margaret Sanger and Harry H. Laughlin’s influence on and connection with the Jesuit controlled Nazis which combined with Atheist Richard Wagner’s earlier Aryan Romanticism produced the bloodiest century in human history.

September: Now you’re freaking out. Your paradigm of life has been shattered into a million pieces. You despair of looking outside of yourself and begin to look within for light; and light you find. You begin to emphasize, not a material object of knowledge but the primacy of the intellect and consciousness; the world of Ideas. You start to become a Platonist of sorts. At this point you need to read Gordon Clark’s Selections From Hellenistic Philosophy giving special attention to the Chapter on Plotinus and his Monad. You will begin to see the logical contradiction of Plotinus’ Distinction-less Monad that emanates distinction: the Distinction-less One that is distinction. Then you will remember the Pre-Socratic era and how the Corporeal Monists ran into many of the same problems.  At this point read Augustine’s Confessions on how his Platonism set the stage for his conversion to Christianity.

October: It’s time to read Saint Augustine’s book The Teacher Books 3, 11 and 12. All of the weapons of the Pre-Socratics are out- guns blazing. All of the impossibilities that destroyed your previous atheo-empiricism  are foisted against Augustine. He dodges all of them by denying that knowledge comes through sensations outside of oneself from any created teacher. Then he fires back by asserting that knowledge is an immediate and uncreated light that comes from the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos made man so that man could be like God; this same Logos that had forced the earlier pagan philosophers to abandon their irrational and immoral gods for a disciplined rational life to prepare them for the Messiah of the one true God of Christianity. You are now in possession of the only Philosophy ever to stand up against Zeno and the Pre-Socratic era.

November: Now it is time for a positive construction and a full consideration and defense of it. Lest we be accussed of practicing blind faith I suggest to the reader “Fulfilled Prophecy A Potent Argument For The Bible” by Arno C. Gaebelein. An article found in The Fundamentals, ed. R.A. Torrey Vol. 1, Volume II Chapter VI. Pages 112-143 (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI, Reprinted from the original four-volume edition issued by the Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917. Reprinted in 2003 as a Two Volume Set.) At this point it is time to get The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark: A Festschrift edited by Ronald H. Nash.

December: Understand the Protestant Reformation! We have the same problems with irrational slavish obedience to authority as you do. Read Martin Luther’s To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex. Separation of Church and State, principles of liberty of conscience, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution came out of the Protestant Reformation. Atheism could have never produced these principles and events.  If you are still stuck wondering how this could be, read John Robbins’ essay Christ and Civilization and then read Anti-Christian Lynn White, Jr.’s article The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis.

The Jesuit Roots of Socialism and Communism Wednesday, Jan 18 2012 

In the 17th and 18th centuries the order of the Jesuits began a system of missionary work called “Reductions” in order to catholicize native peoples in Spain, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and America. These were the beginning of communist and socialist ideas of human society that dominated the 20th century and now have our country by the throat.  The following is taken from the book The Footprints of the Jesuits, by R.W. Thompson (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1894) pg. 173-177

“The Government established by them in Paraguay was essentially monarchical. It could not have been otherwise* under the principles of their constitution. Under the false name of a Christian republic, it was, to all intents and purposes, a theocratic State, so constructed as to free it from all European influences except such as emanated from their superior at Rome. All the intercourse they had with the Church and the pope was through him, and whatsoever commands he gave were uninquiringly obeyed by them, without stopping to investigate or concerning themselves in the least to know whether the Church and the pope approved or disapproved them. In order to impress the natives with the idea of their independence and of their superiority over the monastic orders and the Church ecclesiastics, they practiced the most artful means to persuade them to hold no intercourse with either Spaniards or Portuguese, upon the ground that they could not do so without encountering the example of their vices and immoralities. The unsuspecting Indians were easily seduced by acts of kindness, and the result was that, in the course of a brief period, they succeeded in establishing a number of what were called Reductions — or, more properly speaking, villages with multitudes of Indians assembled about them; [The modern day commune-DS] the whole aggregating, in the end, several hundred thousand. These constituted the Jesuit State, and were all, by the mere ceremony of baptism, brought under Jesuit dominion. At each Reduction the natives were allowed to select a secular magistracy, with limited and unimportant powers over such temporal affairs as could be intrusted to them without impairing the theocratic feature of the Government. But in order to provide against the possibility of permitting even these few temporal affairs from being conducted independently of them, they adopted the precaution of providing that, before any important decisions were carried into effect, they should obtain their sanction as ”spiritual shepherds.” There never was anywhere a more thorough and complete blending of Church and State together.

Although this new State was established under the pretense that it was necessary to protect the natives against the bad influences of the Spaniards and the Portuguese, the approval of it by the King of Spain, Philip III, was obtained by the promise that  every adult must pay him the tribute of one dollar” a consideration of chief importance with him.

Philip IV was equally disposed to favor the Jesuits, presumably for the want of proper information; for it would have required but little investigation at that time to have discovered that the only motive of the Jesuits for securing royal approbation in Europe was that they might ultimately acquire power to plot against European royalty itself when it should stand in the way of their ambition. To show how little obedience was paid to the public authorities of either Spain or Portugal, it is only necessary to observe that each Reduction was governed by a Jesuit father, supported by a yicar and a curate as assistants but whose chief duty was espionage.

This governing father was under the orders of a superior, who presided over a diocese of five or six parishes, the supervision and management of the whole being lodged in the hands of a provincial, who ”received his orders direct from the general in Rome.” If, therefore, the kings of Spain and Portugal supposed that the Jesuits in Portugal intended to pay fidelity to them, or to either of them, they were deceived as, in the course of events, they discovered. They obeyed their general in Rome, and him alone.

The praise ought not to be withheld from the Jesuits, that the natives who were thus brought under their influences were better and more kindly treated than those who were compelled to submit to the dominion of Spaniards and Portuguese beyond the limits of Paraguay. They ”par- took of their labors, of their amusements, of their joys, of their sorrows. They visited daily every house in which lay a sick person, whom they served as the kindest nurse, and to whom they seemed to be ministering genii.” By these and other kindnesses they brought the Indians to look upon them with a feeling bordering upon idolatry. But whilst they were friends, they were also sovereigns, and “governed with absolute and unquestioned authority.” This was a necessary and indispensable part of their system of government, which embodied the Jesuit idea of a Christian republic. [The same fascistic type of Republic that flies for Christianity today. Romanism and more specifically Jesuitism is Militant Christianity come into it own-DS] It was in everything pertaining to the management of public affairs an absolute monarchy, with all its powers centered in the general at Rome, whose authority was accepted as equal to that of God, and to whose command obedience was exacted from all.

Apart from this governing authority, universal equality prevailed. The principles of socialism or communism very much as now understood governed all the Reductions.

Everything necessary to the material comfort and prosperity of the Indians was in common. Each family had a portion of land set apart for cultivation. They also learned trades, and many of them, both men and women, became experts.

But the earnings of the whole were deposited in common storehouses at each Reduction, and distributed by the Jesuits in such portions to each individual as necessity required. [Exactly like our Federal Reserve bank through the income tax-DS] ‘Even meat was portioned from the public slaughter-houses in the same way.’ The surplus produce remaining after these distributions was sent to Europe, and sold or exchanged for wares and merchandise, solely at the discretion of the ‘Jesuits. Everything was conducted in obedience to them, and nothing contrary to their orders was tolerated. Rigid rules of conduct and hours of labor were prescribed, and the violators of them were subject to corporal punishment.

Houses of worship, colleges, and palatial residences for the Jesuit fathers, were built by the common labor and at the expense of the common treasury. Suffrage was universal; but the sanction of the Jesuits was necessary to the validity of the election. In fact, says Nicolini, “the Jesuits substituted themselves for the State or community”‘ — a fact which fully establishes the monarchical and theocratic character of the Government.

In order to teach the confiding Indians that obedience to authority was their chiefest duty, they were subjected to rules of conduct and intercourse which were enforced with the strictest severity. They were watched in everything, the searching eyes of the Jesuits being continually upon them. They constituted, in fact, a state of society reaching the Jesuit ideal completely; [Just like our contemporary Police State and the Patriot Act-DS] that is, docile, tractable, submissive, obedient, without the least real semblance of manhood. Having thus completed their subjugation, energetic measures were adopted to render any change in their condition impossible. For this purpose care was taken to exclude all other than Jesuit influences, and to sow the seeds of disaffection towards everything European, the object being to surround them with a high wall of ignorance and superstition, which no European influences could overleap, and within which their authority would be unbounded. They were instructed that the Spaniards and the Portuguese were their enemies, that the ecclesiastics and monkish missionaries sent over by the Church were unworthy of obedience or imitation, and that the only true religion was that which emanated from their society and had their approval. If these simple-minded people were taught anything about the Church, it was with the view of convincing them that the Jesuits represented all its power, authority, and virtue, and that whatsoever did not conform to their teachings was sinful and heretical. If they were told anything about the pope, it was to represent him as inferior to their general, who was to be regarded by them as the only infallible representative of God upon earth. That all other ideas should be excluded from their minds, they were not permitted to hold any intercourse Whatsoever with Europeans; for fear, undoubtedly, they might hear that there was a Church at Rome, and a pope higher than their general. They were not allowed to speak any language but their own, so as to render it impossible to acquire any ideas or opinions except such as could be expressed by means of its limited number of inexpressive words; that is, to

keep them entirely and exclusively under Jesuit influences. To sum up the whole, without further detail, the Indians were regarded as minors under guardianship, and in this condition they remained for one hundred and fifty years, without the possibility of social and national development.”

I suggest to the reader to also study Roman Catholic Sir Thomas More’s Utopia and its influence on Marxist philosophy. Marxist Karl Kautsky argued in his book Thomas More and his Utopia that More’s work was an  early development of socialist ideas. Even the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia admits in its article “Reductions of Paraguay”,

(1) Conditions of Property

The economic basis was a sort of communism…The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques,

who allotted it to the families under them. Agricultural instruments and draught-cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house, called abamba, i.e. “own possession.” The individualefforts of the Indians, owing to their indolence, soon proved to be inadequate, whereupon se

parate plots were set aside as common fields, called Tupamba, i.e. “God’s property” which were cultivated by common labour under the guidance of the Padres. The products of these fields were placed in the common storehouse, and were used partly for the support of the poor, the sick, widowsorphans,Church Indians, etc., partly as seed for the next year, partly as reserve supply for unforeseen contingencies, and also as a medium of exchange for European goods and for taxes (see below). The yield of the private fields and of private effort became the absolute property of the Indians, and was credited to them individually in the common barter transactions, so that each received in exchange the goods he desired. Those abamba plots which gave a smaller yield because of faulty individual management were exchanged from time to time. The herds of livestock were also common property. The caballos del Santo, which were used in processions on festal occasions, were especially reserved. Thus the Reduction Los Santos Apostoles at one time owned 599 of these.”

Reader do you not see the clear foundation of the Jesuit Communism being the inspiration of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto?

I also suggest to the reader, to watch the movie The Mission. It is an account of the South American Jesuit Reductions.

Behind the Dictators; A Factual Analysis of the Relationship of Nazi-Fascism and Roman Catholicism By Leo H. Lehmann Tuesday, Jan 17 2012 

Behind the Dictators A Factual Analysis of the Relationship of Nazi-Fascism and Roman Catholicism By Leo H. Lehmann

“The Jesuit Father Muckermann, in his many works on race hygiene, fully explains this ideology which is at the basis of all the aims and acts of Nazi-Fascism. Mixture of races, he holds, produces “inharmonious” descendants who have difficulty in allowing themselves to be absorbed into a national unity. It is well known that mixture of races brings forth strong individualities; and these in the Jesuit view, would disrupt the static “harmony” they desire among peoples and nations, as well as nullify the gregarious instinct which the Jesuits endeavor to foster. In their view “harmony” is a state where each one places himself humbly and voluntarily in the organic niche appointed for him by the supreme authority without any “diabolic inharmonious” desire to leave it. This is the way the Jesuit Order itself is built up, and this is the ideal Catholic aim for states and groups of states in the political and social order. It is the organic, static, hierarchical, integralist, corporative system of Nazi-Fascist teaching, which is already in effect in many countries of Europe. It is in direct opposition to the disintegralist, dynamic, liberal, free, democratic concept of political and social order.

The Jesuit Order has its “Aryan paragraph” corresponding exactly to that of Hitlerism. Its Constitutions contain six impediments against reception into the Order, the first of which is Jewish descent up to the fourth generation. If Jewish descent is discovered after a candidate’s admission, it prevents his “radiation.” This Aryan paragraph first appeared in the statutes of the Order in 1593, was confirmed in 1608 and is to be found in the latest official edition published in Florence in 1893. General councils of the order have many times proclaimed that Jewish descent must be considered as “an impurity, scandal, dishonor and infamy.” Suarez, noted Jesuit theologican, also states that Jewish descent is an impurity of such indelible character that it is sufficient to prevent admission into the Order.

This identity of interests between Nazi-Fascism and Jesuit Catholicism in the matter of opposition to the mixture of races and religions is something that cannot be denied. And this ideology is the prime cause of the war that is devastating the world at the present time.”

Page 24-25

World War II Predicted By Investigations Into the Roman Catholic Involvement in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln Saturday, Jan 14 2012 

The Suppressed Truth About the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln (1922),

“The next step in the Vatican’s Great Scheme is to make war between this country and Japan after the latter country has been placed under full dominance of the Jesuits. The priests, monks and nuns of the Roman Church have been pouring into Japan from all over the world now for many years, with that purpose in view. The next step in the Vatican’s Great Scheme is to make war between this country and Japan after the latter country has been placed under full dominance of the Jesuits. The priests, monks and nuns of the Roman Church have been pouring into Japan from all over the world now for many years with that purpose in view. The writer was told by a Christian Japanese minister in charge of a Protestant mission in Los Angeles in reply to the question as to why the Jesuits, who had been barred for years from Japan, had now been permitted to enter. He answered that the Roman church had gotten into his country under the guise of Mohammedanism, and that after it was well entrenched threw off its disguise, and his country learned to its astonishment that it was to the Roman Church and its monastic orders it had opened its doors. That the Roman-Catholic-controlled trade unions in California are at the bottom of most of the agitation against the Japanese in that State is a fact; that the Roman Catholic politician, James Phelan, was sent to the United States Senate in 1913 by the solid Roman vote, and has been the prime mover in the anti-Jap agitation, is also a fact. (pg. 17-18)”

Martin Luther and Capitalism; Why Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Are Not Capitalists Saturday, Jan 14 2012 

Pearl Harbor Virtually Predicted by Jeremiah Crowley Almost 30 Years Before the Event Saturday, Jan 14 2012 

Jeremiah Crowley says in The Pope Chief of White Slavers and High Priest of Intrigue (The Menace Publishing Company: Aurora, MO, 1913),

“Americans who bow not before the idols of  popery may well ask — Are our Presidents and Vice-Presidents, our Cabinet officers and the  Judges of the Supreme Court, our Senators and Representatives placed in office to play part so  subservient and so dastardly servile to Rome’s  foulest purposes?Rome is now egging onJapan to annexMexico, seize on thePhilippines, onHawaiiandAlaska, to wipe off theUnited States  of Americafrom the map of the world’s great powers. While our Presidents are attending  mass the Jap and other foreign emissaries in  Americaare busy stealing plans from the Navy Department and studying every weak spot in our National armor, to report thereon promptly and  fully to hostile governments.  Rome, hating a free, popular government like that of America, is ready to coalesce with Jap or any other agency — pagan, atheistical, or professedly Christian — to destroy our Nation. (pg. 117-118)…

What next? Will President Wilson continue  the practice of his predecessors and consult Gibbons, Farley, and O’Connell [Roman Catholic Bishops-DS],Rome’s red princes in America, as to army and navy appointments?  Will America’s army, papalized and foreignized,  be so weakened and emasculated by Romanistic  control as to make it easy prey for perfidious  Jap? The soldiers ofSpainwere once justly  reckoned brave and almost unconquerable. Romish control for centuries has reduced Spain to the level of a fourth or fifth-rate power. The  control, the influence of Romanism, nay, its very  contact, is deadly to every independent endeavor  and to every achievement of bravery.  (pg. 268) ”

 

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: