KilgoreTrout
posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:07 PM
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....
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."
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...
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.
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.
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.
iezuit
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]
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???
NewWorldOver
Would have really liked to read this thread but the Horizontal scroll has made it impossible....
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.
stikkinikki
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
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.
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.
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.
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]