I came across a curious and anonymous, unabashedly Catholic diatribe, The Union Jack (1970), which proclaims to its purportedly broader ecumenical Christian audience that the British-Israel movement is the primary, if not sole, cause of the modern world’s major problems. British-Israel, now almost forgotten, was the interesting conceit that the British Commonwealth, the Americans, and most of the rest of Europe comprise the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. While one might be tempted to see all this as a rather obscure and dated attack on an equally obscure religious and political phenomenon originating in the 19th century, one might better consider that in the first half of the 20th century almost half of the British ‘global’ population had accepted the tenets of British-Israel across all sectarian boundaries — excepting Roman Catholicism, where it would have been a non-starter, based upon their long standing, well … foundational theological and cultural enmity with respect to Judaism.
The Union Jack presents a fascinating view into economic, political, and religious false dialectics, and how they fuel the engine of Western civilization’s endemic religious and cultural angst, distracting us from what is really important. In my view, what is really important in this regard can be boiled down to one primary dialectic issue, or perhaps the master key if you will. This key has been hidden in plain sight for several hundred years, but is perhaps only a fractal outgrowth of a much older issue as I discussed in my prior post, Peoples of the Flavian Book. Differing here from the anonymous author, I will try to separately identify what that primary false dialectic is and why ‘both’ sides of these bogus distractionary arguments want us to look either right or left, but not directly ahead.
In this regard my task is not too difficult, as the author has done a reasonably good job of explaining how these contrived controversies work; only here I will assert that the author is either being disingenuous or allowing his faith driven confirmation bias to blinker his reasoning. In other words, he is telling a half truth, a half truth that leaves half of the story untold and thus veiling the hidden dialectic, by ‘magically’ distracting us with the half-truth(s).
As such, in the excerpt below that I will be deriving my argument from, the author lists a wealth of artificial political and economic dialectics, or false dichotomies, that the whole world is said to have been burdened with “since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I”. This in the presumed aim of wrestling “the political power and wealth of Catholic States” away to that of the British Empire, which the author advises the reader, if they did not already know, is secretly of a varigated Atheistic Judeo-Communist, Illuminati-Masonic, Materio-Rationalist, Satanic and Pagan nature. Quite a mouthful, however this is simply the illuminated pot calling the illuminated kettle black. This laundry list of heretical aspects, from the Catholic perspective, could be added to – but this would help give the magic game away, as I will do so further on.
So here the anonymous author proclaimed:
British Israel always divides issues between two myths of its own creation — one to represent “bad” and one to represent “good.” Some recognizable examples of this double dealing are materialism versus the kingdom of God; separation of church and state versus the theocratic state; God is dead versus crypto-Christianity; paganism versus Millennialism, Americanism versus communism, Republicanism versus Democracy, communism versus the free world, National Socialism versus Communism, Heathenism versus Western Civilization, superstition versus religion, white Christian versus Negro, paganism versus Christian Civilization, totalitarian Communism versus the world under God’s law and Godless atheism versus Judeo-Christianity. One can change ideologies and still be under the spiritual-political control of British Israel….
To enlarge upon the spiritual aspects of international intrigue we see clearly that the aim of Jew-British Pax Brittanica is the removal of Pax Romanum as a spiritual force in the world. Since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I the British Empire has sought to wrest the political power and wealth of Catholic States through Machiavellian politics. The Empire has extended its control under many names and fronts from National Socialism to Communism to Republicanism and many times it has maneuvered these ideologies against itself and against each other to advance its cause. Its ace front is the “Christian State” and it is the ideology of the kingdom of God which has advanced the spiritual attacks of the Empire upon the Catholic Church both from without and from within. In this context it has been able to permeate its propaganda into the church and infiltrate the leadership almost completely undetected by the vast majority of Catholicism.
(Source: Chapter Five, ‘The Union Jack’)
With respect to the last sentence, fortunately for us there was at least one astute individual in the temporal world of Catholicism. I suspect, however, that there are a few more than one.
More importantly, we are already confronted with the mirrored conceit that “the power and wealth of Catholic States” is anything other than the crass accretion of material wealth by an immoral institution whose deceptive means justify its stated global ambitions. By ‘institution’, I mean the distributed network of the Church’s corporate diocese and the even wider historical network of elite families that have profited by sponsoring it and filling its curious Curia. These families, a faux nobility, have ever enriched themselves by coerced religious tithing of the masses and via undue access to material wealth seized during their earlier appellations as warlords, imperial colonizers, Caesars, Czars, and such.
While I do not question the view that all of the Union Jack dialectics are indeed either ‘myths’ or human contrivances, however it does seem rather unlikely that the British Empire, as the superficially apparent promulgator of the British-Israel concept, is the solitary cause of all of this widespread conflict — or that the always woeful Catholic Church and its adherents are its sole, or real, target. Fortunately, the anonymous author has bravely done us the favor of not hiding his romantic spiritual and political inclinations, if not his name and office. (The Union Jack was distributed by Helen M. Peters, a ‘Christian’ newsletter publisher who could easily have been mistaken for the author, at least by the uninitiated.) We don’t need to do much reading between the lines to detect that the author has the ubiquitous religious flair for one-sided screeds that seem likely to inflame the paranoiac passions of the ‘faithful’, who always trust that they have been provided all the truth they need by ‘respected authority’, even when anonymous. Here, I detect a similarity to the notorious and anonymous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, where the most sophisticated analysis rests authorship upon ‘Machiavellian’ Jesuits. Its brazen title only serves to point out just how dim (or ‘unenlightened’ as those same ever Luciferian Jesuits might say with their knowing smile) the target audience was, at least when it comes to Machiavellian thinking.
Thinking about the diatribe, I realized that a Libertarian construct (originally from David Nolan) could help parse its erroneous analysis. It seems to help explain several reasons for the ‘Communist hot button’ for denizens of the hard right in general, but particularly with Catholic ‘reactionaries’. It also helps explain the dynamics of both the Vatican and Britain vis-a-vis Russia (in all its ‘byzantine’ forms).
The political terms “Left” and “Right” were first coined during the French Revolution, when they represented a stark binary simplicity: the nobility, clergy and other supporters of the King seated on the Right, and their opponents, the revolutionaries, seated ironically on the … uhmm Republican … Left. This original bifurcation was remarkably similar to our Postflavian view: that the most fundamental political and economic struggle is that of the common people against the tiny fraction of society that rule over the rest. This was the case recorded for the Greek oligarchs and plutocrats, and then again with the Roman aristocrats against ‘land reforms’ (whose leaders, the Gracchi brothers were assassinated) going against their interests. And more recently witnessed by the bloody Spanish Civil War (again those revolutionary, leftist Republicans) and brutal repressions of social and land reforms in Latin America. The common element between the Classical Period and the 18th century being the Catholic Church – under which feudalism long reigned. With this example we find the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, and Saint Escriva, the founder of Catholic order Opus Dei, doing God’s Work in coming to the aid of fellow defender of the Faith, Generalissimo Franco, in brutally suppressing the ‘evil’ aspirations of the res publicans and the anarchic peasants who could barely feed themselves under the Spanish ancien regime.
Since 1789, we have seen a long struggle to obfuscate this simple class-based analysis, in conjunction with the elites’ never-ending quest to control the masses, and infiltrate and subvert their emergent leadership, using whatever means necessary. During the 20th century, “Left” largely came to denote a socialist or communist economic viewpoint, whereas “Right” denoted a capitalist or free-market orientation; while the monarchists, nobility & clergy had become merely a ghostly presence, forgotten and ostensibly insignificant. Or at least that’s what they want us to believe. The simple binary division developed into a linear scale, with various political parties arranged according to the intensity of their points of view.
David Nolan’s innovation was a further variation on this one dimensional, Right vs. Left scale of political analysis. He suggested that it would be more descriptive to use a two-dimensional graph, assigning one axis to the standard left-to-right economic scale, but with the second axis and
domain being that of social issues. In this way one could more accurately place people like populists or religious socialists, etc. that could not be placed on the old scale.
Other commentators, looking at the ‘Nolan chart’, realized that the chart can also be used to define a new, circular political spectrum. So if one starts near the top of the circle (which would be the center of the old line), as an economic and social ‘libertarian’ or ‘anarchist’, then going left one eventually gets to gradations of socialism, and going right one becomes increasingly capitalistic. The interesting thing is, when using the circle paradigm, is that continuing on in either direction gets you to the same point.
Also, in terms of the original (French Revolutionary) definition of the Left and Right dichotomy, the old ‘Left’ is generally found towards the top of the Nolan chart, where we find various forms of economic and social liberalism, libertarianism, left anarchism, and right anarchism; while the old ‘Right’ is found at the bottom of the chart, where Communists, Nazis, Fascists and Neocons cluster together with the ghostly presence of the ancient Royalists; and the Republican and Democratic Parties and other hack political creations (forms of populism, usually driven by demagogues like Rudi Guiliani and his putative ancestor, Julius Caesar) take up their inconsistent positions as per the modern convention, where ‘pseudo-left’ and ‘pseudo-right’ parties trade insults, peddle absurdities, and seek to divide the people equally into warring camps of confusion. Dialectics re-coined as ‘wedge issues’. So, the take home lesson is that extreme capitalism and communism are pretty much the same thing, functionally. Practically the only thing that might change is the puppet faces of who are in charge. Here is the big secret that the anonymous author(s) of The Union Jack and the ‘Flavian’ Vatican doesn’t want us to figure out. From understanding this master key to false dialectics we can then unravel the otherwise seeming rat’s nest of motivations for the subordinate false dialectics. By blaming the current Anglo-British system for the invention of Communism, the Union Jack diatribe has gotten too cute by half. For if one wants to describe the roots of the British system as having come out of traditional feudalism, then, Hell Yes, this is indeed Communism — at least, in the sense that the British (and European) feudal system was at the bottom of the circular Nolan chart, (infinitesimally) to the right of the Communists — that is, if Communism is defined as the Soviets did, as a system in which a few elite people are placed in centralized control over the essentially enslaved and immobile masses. After all, that is what the original ‘Church of Christ Caesar’ gave us. But they gave it to us from a ‘Right’ perspective, so thus it is Godly and good. It is from this perspective that such as ‘liberal’ (both Republican and Democratic) Americans, and ‘Americanization’ are apostate and ‘Satanic’ from the traditionalist, ultramontane Catholic perspective, and this includes American Catholics, who are, significantly, mostly of the Jesuit flavor. But at the end of the day, globalized sheep are sheep, no matter What The Flock (WTF). With the rise of, first Mercantilism, and then the Industrial Revolution (and the Enlightenment), the Church elites started to see the possibility of losing their monopoly grip. By default, the serfs were necessarily leaving the estates of the ‘crypto-communist nobility’, and going to work for wages in the new factories of the cities. But because most every profit seeking capitalist seeks to reduce his expenses to the greatest degree possible, so as to maximize his now godly return, he will attempt to drive wages as low as possible. With a seemingly endless supply of available labor this resulted in very low wages for the workers. Thus, in a metaphorical Satanic reaction, came the concepts of labor unions and socialism. Seeing all this nightmare unfolding before their very feudal eyes, the godly decided to fight fire with fire. ‘If they want socialism, let’s give it to them.’ As Wolfang Waldner explained in his online essay “Marx and Engels: who were they really” (source in German, translated with the help of Google Translate): In the 19th century, a fierce resistance to the impoverishment of the masses by the capitalist industrialization developed. Autocrats, government officials, industrialists and bankers were afraid because of strikes and violent resistance to the attacks of the anarchists. But when Marx and Engels took over the communists’ ideological leadership, the revolutionaries became peaceful, with value-form analysis employed instead of dynamite. As further explained in the online introduction to Waldner’s book, “Karl Marx, Prussian government agent”: The famous Socialist theorist was the brother-in-law of the Prussian Minister of the Interior, Ferdinand von Westphalen It was and is no secret to those skilled in the study of political agents: even without the Prussian Minister of the Interior as his brother, Marx’s curriculum vitae would lead to this conclusion at first glance. For a private citizen, Marx had a remarkable number of contacts with important contemporary political figures. Towards his fellow dissidents, Marx displayed a sustained commitment to personal hatred and self-righteousness. From the ruling circles, Marx was praised for his deeply thought-out critique of capitalism. Starting out his spying career as the closest friend of theologian Bruno Bauer, Marx suddenly became the editorial director of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne, funded by the prime minister Ludolf Camphausen, who later promoted him to work in his ministry. Marx’s theories were directed against well-known targets among the early socialists. Marx and his cronies began by infiltrating Weitling’s Confederation of Craftsmen, and later undermined the First International. Spokesmen of the labor movement found his theories useless, and only Bismarck’s adoption of the Socialist Law allowed Marx to win influence over the social democracy. Upon his arrival in England, Karl Marx joined a partnership with David Urquhart, an agent of the British crown, and they became involved in agitation against Russia, which was threatening the global interests of the British. In an analysis of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto, Waldner argues that Marx’s “scientific” socialism is based in the absurd proposition that economic conditions under capitalism would inevitably decline until nearly everyone would become part of the “proletariat”, suffering under starvation wages and terrible working conditions, until finally the workers would rise and rebel. However, as many observers have since pointed out, such a monotonous decline was hardly inevitable; and furthermore, Waldner argues, the insistence on inevitability was a sabotage to any attempts to improve the workers’ conditions in the short run: Imagine if Abraham Lincoln had announced in the US that first the system of slavery would abound more and more, until almost all citizens of the United States had become slaves; until at last sometime the overwhelming number of slaves would overthrow their slave owners and justify a slave state. Until then, no one could do anything, because this development would be historically-materialistic inevitable and scientifically proven. Human intervention in the specified course of history would not be possible or would even hinder progress on its inevitable way. To live according to the teachings of Marx and Engels, was to reject any concrete and practical resistance of the workers and citizens against the interests of big business. As Marx & Engels themselves wrote in the Communist Manifesto: In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed. As Waldner says, “the position is historically complete nonsense”, as the “bourgeoisie” did not spring from the serfs, but rather from a complex mix of commercial tradesmen, banking interests, early educational institutions (largely priestly and monastic in character) and the nobility. Furthermore, all of the “complicated arrangements” described by Marx as relics of an earlier age, were reflected in social structures which were still very much powerfully prevalent in the 19th century, just as they continue today. As to Waldner’s claim that Marx served as a spy for the elite, Richard Wurmbrand’s “Marx and Satan” (p. 33) mentions: The German newspaper Reichsruf (January 9, 1960) published the fact that the Austrian chancellor Raabe donated to Nikita Khrushchev, then director of Soviet Russia, an original letter of Karl Marx. Khrushchev did not enjoy it, because it was proof that Marx had been a paid informer of the Austrian police, spying on revolutionaries. The letter had been found accidentally in a secret archive. It indicated that Marx, as an informer, reported on his comrades during his exile in London. He received $25 for each bit of information he turned up. His notes were about the revolutionary exiles in London, Paris, and Switzerland. Wurmbrand’s book goes on to demonstrate that Marxist-Leninism in the Soviet Union often resorted to Satanist imagery in patriotic songs, poetry and propaganda. As to Marx himself, Satanism may have been only a momentary youthful indiscretion, exhibited in several poems he wrote as a teenager, perhaps in imitation of Goethe’s Faust. Marx’s status as an ethnic Jew is unmistakeable, with many rabbis in his pedigree, and he may be descended through his maternal grandmother from the same Barent-Cohen family that married into the Rothschild clan, thus making Marx a distant cousin of the Rothschild banking family (that is, if David Barent-Cohen and Barend Berman Salomon Zelig Cohen, born in Amersfoort, NL around 1700, were either the same person, or closely related). Marx also had a very close relationship with Moses Hess, a founder of the Labor Zionist movement, and reportedly the source of some of Marx’s pithiest slogans. Yet Marx’s father had become a Lutheran (if only to save his career as an attorney in Prussia), and Marx proclaimed himself an atheist, and wrote a pamphlet “On the Jewish Question” as if from the vantage point of an outsider, indeed characterizing Judaism as the essence of capitalism: What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Remember here, that Marx later stated that he was “not a Marxist”— complaining (cynically perhaps?) that his ideas about historical materialism had been further bowdlerized by his ‘followers’ into a rigid ‘determinism’, if not ‘nihilism’. He was also not a ‘Marxist’ in the sense that ‘Marxism’ came to be synonymous with ‘socialism’; and yet, Marx’s brand of ‘socialism’ was fatally flawed by its insistence on ‘scientific’ central planning and control of the means of production by a few central planners; while earlier forms of socialism were based on worker-owned cooperatives. As with Marx’s obfuscating co-optation, this is the way social reforms, in general, work (or, rather, fail to work .. on purpose). Legitimate reforms are frequently, if not almost always, co-opted by the powerful interests that stand to lose. And in performing a proper co-optation, it is best to steal the name of the original movement, so as to enhance one’s faux legitimacy. A cogent example of such co-optation is with the Libertarian Party, which was early on taken over by the Koch Brothers and the Cato Institute. The former, as American oligarchs, with a supposedly arch-conservative Roman Catholic familial persuasion insinuated themselves into a polity that should otherwise be seen as an heretical anathema to their religious values. How does a political party that embraces individual freedom (for all) and the ‘res publica’ reconcile itself to such an association with supposedly devout members of a religion that actually insists upon the monarchical prerogatives of the ancien regime? Perhaps the Koch brothers are merely contextually ignorant and confused, as so many are, but if not, then what do we make of their penchant for subversive (to American democracy) political activities? The Libertarian Party, itself, promotes such confusion via their mantra of there being no ‘class war’ in America. This would be commendable if this was merely the goal, however, this has never been the American reality (for the majority). Another similar example is the first-hand claim of Otto Strasser in his Hitler and I: that Hitler, a good Austrian Catholic schoolboy, infiltrated the National Socialist Party (the NSDAP); and once having ascended to power, betrayed the workers’ cause in favor of the German oligarchs, as well as all those American and other corporations that helped rebuild the now fascist Germany. Much more can be said on this matter in future posts. This all is epitomized in the cleverly obfuscating diatribe of ‘The Union Jack‘, where we have the inane case of the (Catholic Pol) Pots calling the (British Commie) Kettles Black. The reason that even a hint of ‘socialism’ draws such a strong reaction from conservatives, is that Marx’s controlled opposition formulation of socialism (as Communism) plays upon the central fear and reward (addiction) nerve complexes in the ‘Reactionary’ brain. Because Marx’s formulation integrated his ‘pseudo-scientific’ economics with those of Darwin’s evolution ideas, this became a perfect Church foil to rant against intentionally conflated ‘Godless’ Science and Collectivism, i.e. Communism. Going against God neurologically induces the hysterical fear response (or paralysis) — literally, seeing ‘Red’ and Solomonic Red Shields. When the fear center of the brain activates, it precludes the conscious portion of the brain from engaging in rational thought processes, hence ‘knee jerk’ reactionaries. And all this while simultaneously threatening God’s neurologically based, addictive cocaine reward system of maximal ‘profit’ for the Elect princes and corporate oligarchs of the Church. For both its British and Roman branches … grafted onto the Root of Jesse (Romans 11). There is a lot more that can profitably commented on, in The Union Jack, besides this look at false dialectics of Communism against Capitalism. For one, the 1970 authorship date is interesting in terms of the zeitgeist context of its terminology which in today’s respective mainstream cultural environment might be uncomfortable for some to read. With such as the use of the term ‘Jew’ as in “Jew-Masonic” instead of the slightly less accusatory sounding “Jewish-Masonic” one might get the feeling that the anonymous author was not yet ready to make ecumenically nice by that time, only a few years after Vatican II. And apparently to brazenly demonstrate the British Empire’s “Jew-Masonic” chutzpah bona fides, these British-Israelites are also the ubiquitous authors of the numerous listed “Jew Baiting” screeds and similar practices. No doubt to fool all of us, that they, the British-Israelites, aren’t Jews or their illuminated and duped agents, except the ever alert and ‘all seeing’ Union Jack author(s) that is. This only serves to demonstrate the inanity of the author’s complementary argument, namely that Catholics, in contrast, only engage in sincere ‘Jew’ accusations and not ‘Jew Baiting’ … when they point out that British-Israel is indeed a “Jew-Masonic” conspiracy. This is otherwise known as hoisting oneself on one’s own petard. But this is frequently a problem in the entire Abramic religious milieu, in not being able to recognize one’s own solipsism and hypocrisy. Until very recently, Roman Catholicism has defined itself, in both the canons and by all its major theologians, in stark opposition to the Jews, as the rejecters and killers of the alleged Christ, one who came to fulfill the ‘Law’, whatever that ‘hermeneutically’ was, as Bill Clinton might say. The sardonic, core circular logic here, once again, is that the alleged killing of the alleged Christ is what actually gave us Christianity, ignoring that allegedly Jewish Paul guy, that is. Gee thanks, Paul … and the Christ Killers. So in this regard, perhaps we might ask ourselves if the author has left at least one other, upper level, dialectic off the table for his audience not to consider? In this case, and in the now Union Jack illuminated light of sham oppositions and shields, that perhaps Cardinal Wolsey’s policy of pitting ‘learning against learning’ included a serious bit of contemporaneous Machiavellian thinking of his own in making the entire English Reformation a sham opposition to Pax Romanum? Perhaps this is what the Mother Church is so worried about that it needed to specifically mention on the 12/28/2014 episode (re-aired from 4/10/2011) of 60 Minutes that out of the millions of documents that it has archived, that it had all the love letters of Henry VIII to Ann Boleyn; … and that it had obtained them due to the (wink, wink) efforts of a sly contemporaneous Roman priest. No doubt that Henry, prior to the elaborately staged divorce, having been just recently named Defender of the (Roman Catholic) Faith, for his actions against the other faux and controlled Reformation(s), had confessed his affair (as with all the other paramours including Ann’s sister) to his Jesuit. Sigh, if only God had deigned to give Catherine a surviving boy child. In future posts we will be able to view other instances of Roman and British post-English Reformation collaboration which belie the hypocritical and casuistic (aka Jesuitic) message of The Union Jack. For now, my favorite one is the failed Macnamara Concession of 1846 which promised to divvy up California real estate between the British Empire created Mormons (see Webster Tarpley’s “Just Too Weird”) and the Jesuits’ Irish immigrants. If this plot had been successful and Governor Pio Pico’s insanely generous offer of land had been successfully granted, then the Union may likely have lost the Civil War (from the loss of the California gold shipments, and cogently here, aid from the Russian Tsar) — and the slaves would not have been freed, among other things. Perhaps this, and similar perks of imperium, is leading to what the bravely anonymous Catholic author is really alluding to by what has been lost by the Pax Romanum? And in the specific case of California, what was also lost by Rome’s covert sham opposition, the British Empire. After all, surely the brave, anonymous author is proud of the biblically justified heritage of slavery as reformulated from the utopian serfing paradise of European feudalism run by the combined efforts of the papacy and the aristocratic (landed) nobility and royalty, the first and last all slathered in their rancid holy annointing chrism oil ala le faux Christ. To be fair to the monarchists though, one can find them complaining that under the relative ‘liberalism’ of the new capitalist regimes of the Mercantile and Industrial ages that their serfs had been better clothed and fed that the capitalists were doing. Is this what the Apostle Paul meant when he told Christian slaveowners to be kind to their Christian slaves and for the slave to obey his master? Not to digress, also to be considered is that British-Israel was indeed the ideological, ‘gentile’ framework to justify British and other support for the then nascent drive to restore Zionist ‘Israel’, witnessed by such as the Balfour Declaration. Remarkably, this new state was purposely coined ‘Israel’ and not ‘Judea’. The dark irony here, in terms of the stated ‘Jew-Masonic’ and other related ‘usual suspect’ subtexts, is that according to the OT historical narrative, the members of the alleged Lost Tribes of Israel hated the Judean kings, Solomon and David. It was King Solomon that is recorded as dabbling in the ‘pagan’ esoteric arts, as did the earlier reputed magicians Moses and Aaron. But then, so did the hero of Catholicism, Jesus (of the line of David … and thus Solomon). Or, as the illuminated Jesuits and Masons correctly know him by, Lucifer. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. KJV Rev 22:16 Yes, I am hinting that the magic here, specifically intended to be missed by the readers of the Union Jack, is that the Catholic Church is just as much an Illuminati-Masonic creation as its supposed nemesis. A great place to confirm this is by making a trip to the Vatican and look at all the Masonic related iconography, such as the great pillars of Jachin and Boaz. Jesuits, who understand, like their Masonic dupes, that when Black need be White or vice versa and if it profits the (Virgilian 4th Eclogue) global real estate cause of the Predestined Elect, then so be it. So please don’t tell us, sheepish Catholic apologists, that the Vatican has lately been infiltrated by the Masons and the Illuminati. This happened prior to Constantine when Flavian Christianity was formulated by amalgamating all the then extant mystery cults and the Imperial Cult into one corrupt vessel of mind and body slavery. A further irony is that the Roman Catholic Church has somewhat quietly embraced the claimed rational Science of its own mythic Illuminati since at least the late 19th century, while letting its ‘other’ Useful Idiots, the various hysterical cultic sects of Low Church evangelicals and Pentecostals, maintain its profitable false dialectic. In the cases of the Classic Greeks, the Romans, the creation of European Feudalism, and the creation of Latin American slave colonialism, one can not find a trace of Anglo culpability, but rather it is that “All Roads Lead to Rome.” However, to be fair and balanced, it is with the late 18th century, at least, that one begins to find a tag team collaboration between London, Rome, and … New York City. Is this what might be profitably mined by examining the Catholic and/or Jesuit associations and hidden agendas of Napoleon, Marx, Stalin, Franco, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, etc., etc.? And find that Anglo/American and Vatican veiled elite interests overlap much more than diverge? This is the essence of pure (or occulted) Black Collared Magic.
