Is the Apocalyptic Xian Right the New Nazis?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
These rulers supposedly have a protocol demanding that this sort of information be published in limited quantities, so that the truth was in plain sight for all to see who really cared, just as Adolf Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf" for all to see his intentions.
In other words, the "fine print on the contract"?

What this secretive organization is doing should have everyone up in arms, demanding that heads roll, literally or otherwise. But there is too much smoke swirling in the air. As such, I wonder if more mainstream interviews on The Family with such as Rachel Maddow speak to this "fine print" aspect?

This answers the question of why such a massive degenerate as Trump is lionized by the 'Evangelical' Right. Trump speaks to a totally different interpretation of the Christ concept, an imperial Christ - which also allows their religio-political biases to not cause themselves much cognitive dissonance. Thus, they can allow themselves to considered themselves upstanding true-believers, even while deciding for themselves what dubious acts of malfeasance to undertake. Their 'prayer cells' serve to minimize or eliminate personal responsibility, as God has clearly spoken through the cell to provide them guidance.

This is the most extreme (and intended) consequence of the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination of the Elect (whether exoteric Calvinist or esoteric Catholic). With fiends like this, who needs the Freemasons? This is consistent with the ontological construction of having a god who asserts that he is indeed the author of not only all Good but all Evil. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV) More of the "fine print".
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
Found it, excerpts from
The New Imperial Roman Empire
Preston James, Ph.D
June 22, 2017

Tupper Saussy had been contacted by a high ranking representative of the New Roman Empire and given highly sensitive, very secret materials that disclosed and explained the hidden history of the New Roman Empire and America’s part in it.
I talked with him on the phone before his death, and he told me that he believed that the New Roman System was an extension of the old Canaanite or Cain System, also known as the Babylonian System.
It was his belief that this system was fully authorized by God Almighty to be deployed by the Superior General and the New Roman Empire to rule the world under the power of the Mark of Cain – and that this system of evil ruling over evil would continue until the very end, that is, the return of the real Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah, and not the false messiah, the final Antichrist.
Tupper Saussy believed that there were Rules of Play involved; and that one rule was that all the future plans to be exercised by this Cain System had to be disclosed to the masses, either in writing or in stone before they were attained.
I first saw Tupper Saussy’s book at a large bookstore, and there was a big stack of copies. I bought two and went back for more a couple weeks later, and they were all gone. I tried to order more, but was told that the book was out of print. This seemed confusing because it was selling like wildfire.
When I called Tupper Saussy to find out why, he told me that he felt that, apparently, when the secret group supplying him with the previously hidden information for the book felt adequate notice was given to the masses, no more was required of them.
Tupper Saussy was then offered the rest at one dollar each, and no more would ever be published. If allowed to be continued being published, this book would have been a top seller.
I also asked Tupper Saussy why his photo was inserted inside the Mark of Cain on the inside back cover of the book, and he said he felt it was to provide protection for him as author, when normally anyone publishing such information would be stopped.
Tupper Saussy was placed under the protection of the Mark of Cain system while he disclosed the top secrets of this system of Evil ruling over Evil.

Soumis par Aggregation le mer, 09/13/2017 - 15:56
The Jesuits and Tupper Saussy By Jon Rappoport My late friend, Tupper Saussy, wrote a shocking book titled, Rulers of Evil. It was published in 2001. It’s about the Jesuits. It’s about their influence on the founding of the United States. Tupper was a brilliant researcher, among his other talents. While making his case in the book, he lets the reader know when the points of reference are circumstantial. Tupper was a man who knew how to assess degrees of evidence. One of most shocking facts about the highly controversial book was its publication by HarperCollins, a major house. That feat was somehow accomplished by agent Peter Fleming. Peter did what no other agent could have done. He pulled off a magic trick for the ages. I’m sure, once the book was in print, the people at Harper looked at each other and said, “What did we just do? How did this happen? Peter Fleming must have hypnotized us!”

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following is a long excerpt of an article written by Michelle Goldberg, who has written a lot about The Family, and a book about the Christian Right called Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. I watched a discussion she was in where it was mentioned that Ron Paul (and apparently Rand) have deep connections to the radical Christian Reconstructionist Movement. Gary North is mentioned, a fellow Reconstructionist and he is a fellow of the Austrian Economic School's Ludwig von Mises Institute. North had come to my attention, back in the day, as he wrote a popular newsletter guiding people on how to navigate the financial turmoils of the day.

Back in the day we all thought the libertarian movement was almost completely secular. The following is more than enough to warm the hearts of the crypto-monarchists of the Mont Pelerin Society. "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do, or who they do it for."

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian. That’s why it wasn’t surprising when the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Phil Kayser, a Nebraska pastor with an Iowa following who calls for the execution of homosexuals. Nor was it shocking to learn that Mike Heath, Paul’s Iowa state director, is a former board chairman of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality,” which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group. Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.
To understand Paul’s religious-right support, it’s necessary to wade a bit into the theological weeds. Most American evangelicals are premillennial dispensationalists. They believe that God has a special plan for the nation of Israel, which will play a key role in the end of days and the return of Christ. A smaller segment of evangelicals hews to what’s called reformed or covenant theology, which, as Deace explains, “tends to teach that in this day the church is what Israel was in the Old Testament.” In other words, Christians are the new chosen people. Covenant theologians aren’t necessarily anti-Israel, but they don’t give it any special religious significance.
Covenant theologians, it’s important to stress, aren’t more liberal than mainstream evangelicals. In fact, they’re often much further to the right. While dispensationalists believe that Christ will return imminently and establish a biblical reign on earth, covenant theologians tend to believe its man’s job to create Christ’s kingdom before he comes back. The most radical faction of covenant theology is called Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R. J. Rushdoony that seeks to turn the book of Leviticus into law, imposing the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, unchaste women, and myriad other sinners.
Mainstream figures in the religious right have typically recoiled from Reconstructionists, even as they’ve incorporated ideas that originated in the movement. In 1981, for example, Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law and a key theorist of Christian Reconstructionism, wrote of the need to “smooth the transition to Christian political leadership … Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure, and they must begin to infiltrate the existing political order.” That’s exactly what Ralph Reed did when he set out to capture the Republican Party for the Christian Coalition. Nevertheless, writing in his 1996 book, Active Faith, Reed denounced Reconstructionism as “an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society.”
Ron Paul has long been a favorite politician of Christian Reconstructionists. North was a Paul staffer during the Texas congressman’s first term and has called him the “mahatma of self-government.” As Adele Stan reported on Alternet, in 2008, Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist who founded the Constitution Party, was the keynote speaker at the rally Paul convened in the shadow of the Republican convention. (That year, Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate for president over John McCain.) “The people who I know who are big Ron Paul guys are old school Reconstructionists,” says Paul supporter Brian D. Nolder, the pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Pella, Iowa.
It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law.
“One of the things we forget is that when the Constitution was passed, even though the Bill of Rights said there was going to be no federal religions, every state in the union had basically a state religion and the Constitution was not designed to overturn that,” says Nolder. Among Reconstructionists, he says, “there’s a desire for a theocracy, but it has to be one from the bottom up, not from the top down.” ...

It is true that every American colony was essentially uniquely theocratic in nature (as separate cults), as the colonies were established by Crown (also the head of the Church of England) permission to be this way. For instance, Mary-land was the Catholic colony.