Jesuits! Jesuits! We're covered in Jesuits!

To get right down to brass tacks, if the presence of so many "Jesuits" in the hallowed halls of government is indicative of a Jesuit conspiracy, what then of the "Jesuits" who have such prominence in the "Roman Origins Theory of Christianity"?

Also, is it possible to change this thread title? It seems a little sensationalist and possibly inflammatory upon further reflection
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I was thinking maybe it wasn't inflammatory enough?

I know that Joe Atwill and Ken Atchity had Jesuit educations. Anybody else?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
To get right down to brass tacks, if the presence of so many "Jesuits" in the hallowed halls of government is indicative of a Jesuit conspiracy, what then of the "Jesuits" who have such prominence in the "Roman Origins Theory of Christianity"?
Jesus said he would be with us until the "end of the age", correct? What could he have meant by the "age"? Of course, the orthodox Christian, and even the Jehovah's Witness's insist that this has no relation to the end of the zodiacal age or millennialism.

But that is what he said, and the Book of Revelation is replete with millennialism. At this time, a new savior is born from his heavenly mother to eventually (upon his maturity) kick the ass of Satan and his degenerates, namely those who have aligned themselves with the beasts, the first appearing strongly to be Agent Orange.

The Book doesn't seem to tell us that the new savior's name will once again be Jesus of Nazareth, and if this is correct then the Jesus mythos can be put to bed. Doing so will feed the rancor of many of the cultural nationalists, such as those who worry about the pagan holiday of Christmas, with its pagan Christmas tree. These cultural and religious nationalists will then be inclined to take the mark of the beast, and mark themselves for destruction, being undesirable for the new song of the new age. We'll have a new Christ revealed to us, but his Earth name might be Glorp for all I know.

I explained this to Joe one day, but his reaction was ..... The Sound of Silence.

Many of the Jews today are positioned such that they can accept the new savior, as they have expected, while ironically the Xian Zealots will reject the new messiah and thus be destroyed, as the Good Book says.

And the Jesu will merely change their name to the Society of Glorp, or the Glu for short. That is, if Glorp is indeed the new name.
 
I know that Joe Atwill and Ken Atchity had Jesuit educations. Anybody else?
If Joe is the foremost proponent of the Flavian theory, and Ken is the foremost proponent of the Augustan theory, how many more would you need?

If one cares to separate out the Julian theory, didn't Prof. Carotta have a Jesuit priest with him in his documentary?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
If one cares to separate out the Julian theory, didn't Prof. Carotta have a Jesuit priest with him in his documentary?
That priest was also one who helped translate Carotta's book from the original German(?) into Spanish(?). However, I don't remember if it was stated what order he belonged to.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I guess we can't wriggle out of this. Guilty as charged.

It all makes perfect sense, though. If the Jesuits want to replace Jesus with Glorp, then they have to discredit Jesus first.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Well, there are yet other possibilities. One dark one is that these Jesuit 'exposures' are meant as honey traps for skeptics like us. They're takin' names to find out who's naughty or nice.

If the plan is really to coherently build atop the edifice of the previous two Covenants, then those two must remain, just like the Book of Mormon retains both the Old and New Testaments.

However, the New Covenant does invert the Mosaic Law back into cultural norms suitable for the goy pagans. So here, maybe some form of Space 'Jesus' may indeed be apropos.
 
If you will excuse this chimpig for flinging a monkey wrench into the works...

From my way of thinking, Christianity is the most widely practiced faith tradition, particularly in the west. And the largest denomination of Christianity, as well as possibly the oldest/largest/richest organization on the planet is the Roman church. And the central figure in the Roman church's narrative is Jesus. And the order of the Roman church devoted to this central figure of Jesus is the order of the Jesuits. I think these are facts almost no one would dispute.

Therefore, I think finding a disproportionately high number of Jesuits and/or Jesuit-connected individuals in places of power is to be expected. And this is without even mentioning the strenuous education standards for which Jesuits and their institutions are known.

To take this idea one step further, what would cause me suspicion is if Jesuits were less than disproportionately overrepresented in positions of (explicit) power. That's when I would start to wonder where they were - if they had retreated into some shadow government. For them to hold positions of power and influence out in the open is exactly as I would expect. Similar conclusions can be drawn for "the Jewish conspiracy" as well
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But in the USA, recent figures indicate that no more than 22% of Americans are Catholic. And, we are seeing a trend towards increasing representation of Jesuits in the government. And, I'm not sure how the argument with respect to Jesuits can be extended to the prevalence of Jewish people in government and the media as well. But nevertheless, I agree that the facts are as you say.

Are you trying to say that your review of basic facts proves that there is no conspiracy? Or, merely that there is nothing surprising about this Jesuit and/or Jewish conspiracy?

Getting back to your original question about Atwill and Atchity: they both claim to be ex-Jesuits, as one might expect based on their discoveries about Jesus. I am inclined to accept that explanation, and accordingly I doubt that they are currently part of the "Jesuit conspiracy". I claim that they've fallen off the gravy train at this point, and they are just skeptics like the rest of us here. Whereas Richard is not so sure. Do you have an opinion about that?
 
But in the USA, recent figures indicate that no more than 22% of Americans are Catholic. And, we are seeing a trend towards increasing representation of Jesuits in the government.
Is there evidence beyond the several anecdotal examples that this trend is statistically verified? If it is, then this would certainly indicate a disproportionate over-representation of Jesuit-connected individuals in positions of power... which is what I'm saying I would expect to see

And, I'm not sure how the argument with respect to Jesuits can be extended to the prevalence of Jewish people in government and the media as well.
Yes, I did not make this very explicit. My point is that whatever veneration is given to Christianity and to Jesus must then, by extension, be given to their source. Most people understand this to be Judaism. As with the Jesuits, however, Judaism is also known for stressing rigorous education

Are you trying to say that your review of basic facts proves that there is no conspiracy? Or, merely that there is nothing surprising about this Jesuit and/or Jewish conspiracy?
If you will excuse me for sounding flip, what's the difference? Do the patricians conspire to remain the patricians, or is conspiring to remain patricians make them what they are?

Michels argues that democratic attempts to hold leadership positions accountable are prone to fail, since with power comes the ability to reward loyalty, the ability to control information about the organization, and the ability to control what procedures the organization follows when making decisions. All of these mechanisms can be used to strongly influence the outcome of any decisions made 'democratically' by members.

Michels stated that the official goal of representative democracy of eliminating elite rule was impossible, that representative democracy is a façade legitimizing the rule of a particular elite, and that elite rule, which he refers to as oligarchy, is inevitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

I claim that they've fallen off the gravy train at this point, and they are just skeptics like the rest of us here. Whereas Richard is not so sure. Do you have an opinion about that?
If the Jesuits are conspiring and our own AT-AT's have fallen from that grace, then we would expect them to be exposing the conspiracy. This condition is not met, therefore logic dictates that they are still under the control of whatever conspiracy is at work.

The image, however, of our AT-AT's meeting with other members of the Jesuit cabal in their black robes and carnival masks at the foot of the Moloch statue in the middle of the Bohemian Grove in order to discuss how to thwart the awesome power of the People's Front of Postflaviana is ridiculous on face value.

Therefore, as unsatisfying as an answer as I imagine you may find this to be, I must find that while your own proposition is more reasonable, Richard's is more logically consistent
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Therefore, I think finding a disproportionately high number of Jesuits and/or Jesuit-connected individuals in places of power is to be expected. And this is without even mentioning the strenuous education standards for which Jesuits and their institutions are known.
As I have stated elsewhere, and will be re-iterating, once again (besides right now), the facade [sic] of political power in the USA since the time of the first colonies till only a few decades ago was STRICTLY WASP (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (male) or perhaps VESPA to the Black Pope ;)). And by Protestant, I mean denominational Protestant.

As such, under that paradigm we would expect ZERO overt Jesuits, or most any other Catholics from holding significant political power, except in certain specific voting areas, like say the Catholic state of Mary-land. Prior to the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, Catholics were held in the next to lowest regard that any self-respecting WASP could think of. The one significant exception to this that I can think of is the Catholic Dulles brothers, in their role with the OSS, the CIA, and in helping Nazis to escape Europe using the Vatican "Rat Lines".

We have almost no overt atheists and agnostics in significant political power in this country, which is a vast under-representation of their numbers. This is because they are held in a similarly low opinion by the voting majority, especially from the largest religious block, which is Catholic, both the pious and borderline pious, and from the Xian Taliban -- extremists and the not so extremist.

Jerry was surprised to learn that in the first third of the 20th century that the KKK had over 3 million members in its Second Coming. This included many in the northern states. I'm guessing in the north these were mostly WASP men, albeit the KKK certainly appealed to the Taliban variety of Low Church Xian more typical of the South. They were all united in their abject cultural and blood hatred for not only blacks and Jews, but against Catholics. Let's don't complicate matters with the Irish here.

But now that the messianic Kennedys were sacrificed (or at least appeared to have been) and the Vatican II intermarriage program and 'cultural degradation' several generations hence, the focus of White Panic has been effectively steered onto the targets' du jour: Islam, Latinos, cultural non-conformists and/or Secularists. But apparently not space aliens. :rolleyes:

My point is that, even before the shock and awe blitzkrieg of the Sardonic Deviant in Chief, is that we have witnessed a slow motion political coup d'etat of extreme proportions, where BTW it is sickly humorous to watch the kvetching and bleating of ignorant White Americans about how they got screwed over by Their Government. I feel sorry for them in that, one failing of our school systems, public or not, has been to downplay the historical significance of these key religious matters. Understanding the schema laid out by such as Tupper Saussy, in helping to reveal that ALL of this is orchestrated manipulation, does not always make it easier to digest, but it helps significantly. In this regard, I absolutely expect the Jesuits to be in psuedo-overt charge today, but I do not like the fact that the entirety of my life has indeed been as if living in Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard of Oz.

The Jesuits are in charge, but they have employed the Trumps as their ultimate Trojan wHorse, thus deceiving the electorate that something entirely else was going on. Everyone, especially the pious looked the other way and pinched their noses from the stench of their gold laced BS. As I have stated before, one of the sick functions of Xianity is to make us all complicit in such sin, which gets easily forgiven on Earth and in that cynical abstract swamp they call Heaven.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Is there evidence beyond the several anecdotal examples that this trend is statistically verified? If it is, then this would certainly indicate a disproportionate over-representation of Jesuit-connected individuals in positions of power... which is what I'm saying I would expect to see
Catholics are almost 50% over-represented in Congress, where Catholics Ryan and Pelosi are the leaders. The Senate is proportionally Catholic with a Baptist (McConnell) and a Jew (Schumer) in charge. Until the death of Scalia there were 5 Catholic Supremes and two Jews. The WH, especially with czar Trump is more telling in terms of Catholics, particularly with elite Jesuit affiliations. The MSM talking heads are mostly Catholic, especially the most radical. Breitbart's Bannon was Jesuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/congress-religious-affiliation_n_6417074.html

Most people understand this to be Judaism. As with the Jesuits, however, Judaism is also known for stressing rigorous education
Meaning what?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Just happened across the following September 2015 article, written for the popes's visit:

...
In the late nineteenth century, political cartoonist Thomas Nast regularly lambasted Irish Catholic immigrants as drunkards and barbarians unfit for citizenship; signs that read, “No Irish Need Apply,” lined shop windows in Boston and New York and dotted the classified pages in many of the country’s leading papers; statesmen warned about the dangers of admitting Catholics from Southern and Eastern Europe onto American shores, for fear that they were something less than civilized (and less than white). It wasn’t unusual for respectable politicians to wonder aloud whether Catholics could be loyal to their adoptive country and to the Pope.

What a difference a few decades can make. Today, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of these Catholic immigrants occupy the halls of Congress, governors’ mansions and state legislatures. One of them currently resides in the Naval Observatory. And when the head of the Catholic Church comes to visit, he will be warmly welcomed and hailed by politicians of all parties and all faiths.


Indeed, America has traveled a long road since the days when many native-born Americans regarded Catholic immigrants as an ideological and racial threat. ...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/pope-francis-visit-catholic-history-213177
 
Richard, it seems to me you are aggregating the lumpencatholic in with the bourgeouiscatholique. The RCC is larger than all of protestantism, and the internal class divisions are no less than between those kneeling in the front pews of Westminster Abbey and those standing at the back of a storefront independent baptist church in the sticks.

Yes, Upper America was colonized by Anglicans with help from their fellow Upper European Lutherans, Calvinists, and others. The Lower America was left for the Lower European Catholics.

However, it was hardly the nobility who came to negotiate terms with the former ruling class Upper Americans, instead sending in upstart peon-eers without so much to lose. And as upstarts are prone to do with their start-ups, they no sooner get some success than they start getting too big for their britches and decide to give their former masters the finger. Well that's gratitude for ya!!

The Roman Catholic Church is still the catholic church, and Rome still conquered the Britons long before the British defeated Mussolini

What is an AT-AT?
I'm just taking note of another odd coincidence in the naming of Roman Origins Theorists (ROT). Unless we're talking about the Star Wars universe, in which case...


Meaning what?
I mean that there is a practical explanation for the rise of any culture that stresses the importance of education, aside from whatever political or psychological forces may be at play.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard, it seems to me you are aggregating the lumpencatholic in with the bourgeouiscatholique. The RCC is larger than all of protestantism, and the internal class divisions are no less than between those kneeling in the front pews of Westminster Abbey and those standing at the back of a storefront independent baptist church in the sticks.
Your 'seeming' is not incorrect, it is supremely incorrect. I am fully aware that the Catholic world is not monolithic. Else I would not distinguish between so many different varieties of them would I? Why would I expend energy mentioning Traditionalist Catholics from the implication that there is an opposite variety, namely most of the American Catholic polity. Except that is, for people like Bannon, and Opus Dei, and ....

I'm not even sure that the pope is Catholic. How's that?

And for good measure, we are using the term 'Jesuit' a little too loosely. Attending an American Catholic church means you are more likely to have a Jesuit pastor, but this does not technically make you a Jesuit. Attending a Jesuit University doesn't make one a Jesuit, unless one wants to claim so more loosely, as by operating on their agenda. Or, in the case of one like President Bannon, making overt religious statements. Technically, I would characterize the Jesuits as Sheepdogs within the Postflavian SSSM model.

Bannon was supposedly born a prole, but I have seen plenty of such people (Catholic or otherwise) adopt the mantle of (m)aterialistic success and/or aspirations to become as if a royal swan. And then they begin to eat their own kind.

However, it was hardly the nobility who came to negotiate terms with the former ruling class Upper Americans, instead sending in upstart peon-eers without so much to lose. And as upstarts are prone to do with their start-ups, they no sooner get some success than they start getting too big for their britches and decide to give their former masters the finger. Well that's gratitude for ya!!
That's a nice commoner's way to view it. Unfortunately it doesn't comport with reality. The New World was claimed in the name of the respective royalties and they put their respective loyalists in charge and rewarded them well. After the 'revolutions' the Loyalists were not put on boats back to their mother countries for the most part, but rather they became the spine of the American Establishment. The Catholic south are still, for the most part, run by the descendants neocolonialist elites. When they got in trouble they frequently had those Norte Americanos come to their aid to suppress the little people.

Sardonically, those southern little people flee to the north, but the white serfers got angry and supposedly elected an elite douche hero (ill Duchero) to build them a wall.

The Roman Catholic Church is still the catholic church, and Rome still conquered the Britons long before the British defeated Mussolini
What does this mean?

I mean that there is a practical explanation for the rise of any culture that stresses the importance of education, aside from whatever political or psychological forces may be at play.
As I discussed in the OT analysis series, both of those also have a master playbook that emphasizes deceit first, while the lumpenprole to the bourgeouis ponders how wonderful and loving their God is. The God whom they have explicitly state that he is the author of all that is evil (using the correct translation).

And so the Protestants' Ivy League was/is second rate by comparison?

I don't understand why you are raising these points. I have addressed these elementary matters elsewhere, but you are, once again, making me rehash all this. One day you state that you get it, then the next you try to prove that you don't.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
In the late nineteenth century, political cartoonist Thomas Nast regularly lambasted Irish Catholic immigrants as drunkards and barbarians unfit for citizenship; signs that read, “No Irish Need Apply,” lined shop windows in Boston and New York and dotted the classified pages in many of the country’s leading papers; statesmen warned about the dangers of admitting Catholics from Southern and Eastern Europe onto American shores, for fear that they were something less than civilized (and less than white). It wasn’t unusual for respectable politicians to wonder aloud whether Catholics could be loyal to their adoptive country and to the Pope.
Such remarks don't play any better today than any other bigoted racist or ethnic rant. But, at a certain level it's true, that these immigrant Catholics were less than fully civilized. We have a progressive assumption that integration into American culture, and passage through the public education system, can take any human raw material and create a homogenized, safe and integrated result. That is: whether our heritage is black or white, Protestant or Catholic, Jewish or Jesuit, we're all supposed to be able to abandon primitive aspects of our roots and join into the modern, democratic, technocratic society. And regardless of our background or allegiances, all of us reasonable people fear primitive throwbacks to fundamentalist or racist fanaticism.

To get back to the Jesuits, is it possible to imagine two major sects within the Jesuits today?

I am imagining that some Jesuits are fully able to read the results of form criticism of the Bible, and realize (just as Tom Paine did) that the ancient texts cannot be venerated as specially inspired by God. Furthermore, as humanists, such Jesuits fully respect equal rights and opportunities for people of all races and creeds, and they want to participate in modern democracy on an equal basis. Those Jesuits would see the Pope as a quaint remnant of an ancient tradition, but not intrinsically any more significant than the Queen of England in parliamentary British democracy. Indeed, it is not surprising that Jesuit-educated scholars would be at the forefront of pioneering theories such as the Roman Origins view.

On the other hand, there certainly are some Jesuits who are very seriously dedicated to the magical qualities of Jesus, the Catholic hierarchical organization, and the austere fundamentalist writings of Ignatius Loyola. In view of modern discoveries, their ideas are so counter-factual that this can only be seen as a form of madness. But it can be a very lucrative type of madness, because it plays into the interests of the Catholic hierarchy.

When we speak of a Jesuit conspiracy here, I am imagining a conspiracy of unreformed Jesuits who seek to overthrow the American democratic system (as well as European counterparts) and replace it with a feudal royalist system. If they get their way, heretics such as Muslims, atheists and liberal Protestants are going to be burned at the stake.

The problem with liberal Jesuits is that by their ongoing participation in the institutions and traditions, they give legitimacy and respect to their crazed fundamentalist counterparts.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
To get back to the Jesuits, is it possible to imagine two major sects within the Jesuits today?
Yes, this is possible. I am aware of some who claim to be conversant with actual Jesuits that many are literally atheists. From having spent much time thinking in depth about their religion's inane concepts.

But, one might also postulate that such was the case when John of Patmos wrote about his secret society of celibate males. It gets to the point of just what is the real underlying mission, furthering some ridiculous narrative or achieving their sponsors' globalist goals? All the while utilizing the various disparate competing flocks of sheep as distractionary veils.

Consistent with Saussy's claim, one can include the various Freemason's as covertly collaborative sheepdogs.
 
Attending an American Catholic church means you are more likely to have a Jesuit pastor, but this does not technically make you a Jesuit. Attending a Jesuit University doesn't make one a Jesuit, unless one wants to claim so more loosely, as by operating on their agenda.
What defines "a Jesuit" that makes her or him a conspirator in the framework of your theory? What is the shibboleth that separates those in the know from us dupes?
 
Top