This forum is for polite discussion of political and social topics that may be uncomfortable for inquirers and some members. This includes anything politically charged, conspiracy theories, and/or end-times theories. All Forum Rules apply.
A new mosque on the block? Cancel the controversial speaker? Head coverings and halal meals in the middle school? Criminal penalties for those who insult a prophet?
Some of these issues are already with us, and some of them will be coming soon to a parish, court, or school board in your neighborhood. The success of stealth jihad depends on the willingness of those who decide these issues to take the easy way out—that is, to do the politically correct, non-offensive thing. Let’s hope that the deciders understand that there are larger matters at stake than whether or not someone’s feelings are injured.
I didn't even finish the article, it was such a blatant scare-mongering propaganda piece of demagoguery by the Jesuits.
The article would have been much more useful if there were a few things substituted beginning with the title. Instead of being titled "Jihad in Sheep’s Clothing," it would be better if it was something more akin to "Judaic's in Sheep's Clothing".
If we were to simply substitute a few words, we would end up with a more interesting and thought provoking article:
Suppose you are the pastor of a large suburban parish and suppose further that several members of your parish want to invite a well-known speaker to talk about the threat from militant Islam [Judaism]. You check the Internet and find that the speaker is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as the head of a hate group. Upon further checking, you find that this speaker has had speaking invitations rescinded by four different bishops.
At the same time, you realize that an invitation would probably bring unwelcome pressure from local Muslim [Jewish] groups and unwelcome attention from the local media.
Do you see where I am going with this? The Muslims do not run America, or the world. There was a time when Islam was a dominant force in the world, an evil scourge, and it presented a formidable threat to Christianity. However, that time has passed, and the holy fathers of the Church are explicitly clear that in the very last days, near the consummation of the age, that the Jews would gain the mastery, and become the dominant power.
The Papal church is Judaic, and she is Zionist. What ought we expect but Jewish propaganda coming from this Jesuit publication?
Ah ! Good for you, Cyprian !
I didn't even bother to open the article because the title is so obvious what it is : stupid propaganda which is almost
insanely irrational.
There is NO sense in any of the preponderant Catholic hate for Muslims which suddenly took off after 2001.
But now, Cyprian explained WHY the mainstream Catholics so easily fell in with the Jewish / Zionist agenda to heap hatred on Muslims.
The title even shows how ignorant -- but calculated -- Catholic writers ON THIS SUBJECT really are.
I stopped looking at Catholic Online because there was so much tripe written about Muslims. With a lot of gore to scare all readers. All to get the reader to agree that Muslims are 'your' enemy.
Why is there NO political analysis asking WHY all this is going on and WHO is funding all these so-called "terror groups" who are nothing but agents for Israel trying to scare faint-hearted - and well-indoctrinated by articles such as this over 15 years or so - publics in the Western world.
It's sad that Jesuits would have signed up for this Israeli programme so easily. One believes that they are scholarly, better educated, more deeply aware of history than other Catholic religious orders.
But I hear they became tragically liberal, too, like too many other people everywhere who used to be bulwarks of society.
In his work, It Is Near, at the Doors, Sergei Nilus traces how the devil, in order to prepare the way for the coming of the Antichrist, worked on two fronts, one, the Jewish-Masonic Sanhedrin, and the other, the Order of the Jesuits, headed by the black pope. According to Nilus, both groups, sworn enemies, struggled and vied with each other for the primacy in establishing universal dominion over all the world.
Nilus traces further back to the Knights Templar as a secret force operating on behalf of this Masonic Sanhedrin, seeking to undermine the Roman Holy See. Nilus relates the basic history of what happened, with the arrest of Jacques de Molay, and many other French Templars in 1307, and the pope ordering the arrest of those remaining in Christendom. Those that escaped fled France to Scotland, which is known as the "Land of darkness".
Naturally, the Templars could no longer operate openly under the same name, so the Templars morphed into Freemasons, and according to Nilus, "entered into an alliance with England," promising her "a joint dominion over all the world."
Nilus goes on to say: "To this day the Sanhedrin did not change this union, and England, with its help, has reached the title "Mistress of the Seas" and the world's wealth."
So you see Barbara, contrary to the scoffing jibes that I am somehow beholden to the opinions of one Lyndon LaRouche, this concept that I have expanded and elaborated upon recently, namely, that this Judaeo-Masonic Sanhedrin, operating under the universal veil of Freemasonry, centuries ago entered into a secret union with the Royal House of England, to be the primary vehicle through which will be brought forth the Antichrist, comes from one of the great Orthodox spiritual writers of the 20th century, Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus (+1929), before Lyndon LaRouche was even born!
It is not a coincidence that it is claimed that the oldest Grand Lodge was founded in London in 1717.
It is also not a coincidence that Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, Queen Elizabeth's first cousin, is the Grand Master since 1968. The British Royal Family is not operating as a force of good in the world; rather it is a malignant force of extreme evil.
To cut it short, Nilus says the Vatican was ultimately defeated by Rothschild [Red-Shield] and the Sanhedrin at the end of the 19th century, during the reign of Pope Leo XIII. This article I posted not long ago speaks in a similar vein:
Chicago Tribune 2 June 1867, page 3.
"THE ROTHSCHILDS AND THE POPE.
For fifteen centuries the Jews have been cursed by the Pope, and persecuted by the Roman Church. There is no more revolting chapter of horrors in history than that of the treatment of the Jews at the hands of the Pontiff's. In all lands where the Roman religion is dominant the children of Israel have been treated with barbaric rigor, allowed few privileges, denied all rights, looked upon as a people accursed of God, and set apart by divine ordination to be trampled upon by the church. In Rome, at the present day, the Jews are confined to the Ghetto; they are not allowed to set up a shop in any other part of the city; they cannot leave the city without a permit; they can engage only in certain trades; they are compelled to pay enormous taxes into the Papal treasury; they are subject to a stringent code of laws established by the Pope for their special government; they are imprisoned and fined for the most trivial of offences. They cannot own any real estate in the city; cannot build or tear down or remodel any dwelling or change their place of business, without Papal permission. They are in abject slavery, with no right whatever, and entitled to no privileges, and receive none, except upon the gracious condescension of the Pope. In former times they were unmercifully whipped and compelled to listen once a week to the Christian doctrine of the priests. But time is bringing changes. The Pope is in want of money; and the house of the red shield has money to lend on good security. The house is always ready to accommodate Governments. Italy wants money, so she sells her fine system of railroads to the Rothschilds. The Pope wants money, and he sends his Nuncio to the wealthy house of the despised race, offers them security on the property of the church, the Compagna, and receives ten million dollars to maintain his army and Imperial State. That was in 1865. A year passes, and the Pontificial expenditures are five million more than the income, and the deficit is made up by the Rothschilds, who take a second security at a higher rate of interest. Another year has passed and there is a third great annual vacuum in the Papal treasury of six million, which quite likely will be filled by the same house. The firm can do it with as much ease as your readers can pay their yearly subscription to the weekly Journal. When will the Pope redeem his loan at the rate he is going? Never. Manifestly the day is not far distant when these representatives of the persecuted race will have all the available property of the Church in their possession. Surely time works wonders."
So you see, the Vatican has been soundly defeated, and is wholly subjugated to the Sanhedrin. Every Pope in our lifetime is an agent of, and has been installed at the behest of the Jewish-Masonic Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin has been in league with the Royal House of England and the British Monarchs for centuries, and used Luther and the Protestant Reformation to further attack and weaken their chief rival in the struggle for primacy, the Roman Church.
There is an abundance of evidence testifying to all of this.
Pope John Paul II was the first pope to enter a Jewish synagogue since the time of the holy apostle Peter, nearly two thousand years ago. It took him eight years into his papacy. Benedict followed suit, and went to multiple synagogues in mere months.
As anyone can readily see, the Vatican has ceased to be independent long ago. They must pay tribute to their "beloved elder brothers," the Jews as Pope John Paul II put it.
Have you seen video of the delegation of rabbis which came and "blessed" (cursed) Pope John Paul II?
It's not as if Islam has magically morphed into a benign religion of peace. The adherents of Islam have a long history of violence, barbarism, terror and plunder. It has never been, and never can be, a religion of peace. It's simply a case of the adherents of Islam being unable to resist the powerful nexus formed between Freemasonry and the Vatican, now that it has been subjugated and is subservient to the whims of the Sanhedrin.
If Muslims tire of being falsely accused by the Jewish press of acts of terror for which they did not commit, then they should simply abandon their godless religion, with its bloody history of conquest. Muslims willfully choose to associate themselves with a religion noted for its history of violence, thereby becoming the scapegoats of the New World Order.
They can just as easily choose to disassociate themselves from violent Islam, and convert to Christianity, a genuinely peaceful religion.
As Christians we need to examine ourselves, as to why we have failed to witness properly to the adherents of Islam and successfully convert them to Christianity.
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. (Romans 2:24)
Most Christian women dress like strumpets these days, many people self-identifying as Christian embrace or tolerate aberrant homosexual culture, and murder of the unborn, Evolution and other foolish metaphysical philosophies masquerading as science, and stupid Christians proudly display all these demonic films, TV shows, and satanic music artists as favorites on our social media.
And then we have the audacity to complain that the Muslims are all out to get us. If we weren't such a poor and pathetic witness of Christianity, perhaps some would join with us rather than fight us.
God is chastising us by means of the infidels, both Jewish and Muslim, because of our manifold sins. We have only but ourselves to blame.
No one HERE thought of you in the same vein with lyndon larouche [ sounds like ultra-liberal lyndon johnson + "The Red" -
though I know he is quite far on the so-called "right". Just a bad twang to the name to begin with ]
Has someone said that ?
They have not read your material attentively, or likely, at all.
This is fascinating how you described the rivalry which Sergei Nilus wrote about. The only one of his books of which I have heard is "On the Banks of God's River". Which I don't think is in English, but I know it's a classic. I thought it was a spiritual classic but perhaps Nilus, who wrote that and collected information while living at Optina Pustyn, included some of his political ideas, too ? Or only in the books to which you referred ?
I am so interested that he talked about this topic in such detail !
I don't agree with you about the place of the Muslims. Do you know THEY talk about the exact same things ? They trace back the Masons to the Knights Templar, talk about the Pope of that era shutting them down, with the remnants regrouping and resurfacing later as the Masons. The EXACT SAME IDEAS ! Muslims are NOT stupid, no matter how they have been portrayed by the media AND by Christians who have been drilled by programming to hate them.
If you really ask someone who is so militant against Muslims, "Why ? What is wrong with them ?" hardly anyone has any idea !
Only people are strongly aware of their own Christianity will be able to answer. Otherwise, all one hears is what's known as "word salad". An apt description for the tumbling out of nonsense words.
Few are informed and fewer are strong enough to stand up for the principle of : Truth.
If the Muslims are so frightening and "persecuting" Christians, which huge dramas are only staged for the benefit of those same Illuminati controllers who want every last soul in the Western world to HATE Islam and its adherents, then WHY are Muslims taught exactly the same way that the Russian intellectual Sergei Nilus wrote ? Now the Muslims don't understand
Jesuits particularly. They do not usually mention such detail about specific religious orders as they are taught little about any Western religion growing up. Instead, they center the blame on "The Pope" as an agent of the Zionist bankers.
Naturally, there are many variations one could hear if one interviewed a large cross-section of Muslims from many countries.
But most understand the basic Nilus scenario. They know all about the Queen of England and the British royal family.
Why ? Because a large country, India, and many others, were part of the British Empire up til 1947. Actually, British military bases lingered on in Muslim countries such as Malaysia up until 1971. It was only then that what was termed "East of Aden" was entirely relinquished by the British government. That is SO recent !
Memories are quite long anyway in the Muslim world, unlike here where few youth could tell you what "the Russian Revolution" was. Most kids - and younger to middle-aged adults - would probably think it was a band. That's ALL they know !
However, in the Islamic world, tradition is strong. Children listen to adults speaking about politics because families are close and spend time together, including eating meals together. Therefore, they grow up hearing about "The heinous British".
Everyone HATES the British, while some admire them for their progress at the same time as reviling their political methods of control of their Islamic subjects, who were always regarding as virtual slaves turning out fodder for "THE Empire". The British probably felt there were no other Empires of note -- except for themselves, and the Romans.
So, Muslim kids have HAD to learn about foreign countries, foreign rule of their own, and generally become aware of history and politics in a way that virtually no American children are at this time. Very few, and fewer every year.
Notice how the common Western viewpoint loops all Muslims together as one unit. When they are SO diverse ! Iranians are
more cultured - and civilized - than almost any country in the world, having had an ancient civilization, which unlike that of Egypt, has endured to this day. In Egypt, Arabs predominate, not the original Egyptians, who are thought to be the Copts of today.
Iran was NOT colonized. But was brutalized by the British with their grabbing of Iran's oil. A joint company was formed to explore for oil, called Anglo-Persian. We all know WHO manipulated everything so that proceeds went to Londontown rather than benefiting Iranians. So any Iranian can converse quite knowledgeably about the evils of the British Empire !
I know, for any time a conversation of any depth begins, the subject will turn to British colonial exploitation of Iran, politically as well for over 100 years.
When has Iran persecuted Christians ? Tell me. Yes, you could maybe dredge up some archaic example, but like many Muslims, Iranians are fond of Christians but do not AGREE with their religious precepts.
The pride in their own culture, background, history and religious history has been twisted into some hateful malignancy toward the West ONLY BECAUSE Americans are SO ignorant ! You could tell them anything and they would believe it if it reinforces the idea of THEIR narcissistic superiority over other peoples and nations of the modern world.
The media takes full advantage of the lack of any contact with Iranians to stir up more chimeras like this.
The same is true for almost all Muslim countries. But I have chosen Iran as example because they aren't Arabs.
Why have they not been set aside rather than grouped together with supposed bloodthirsty Arabs up to their usual tricks of preying upon "Christians" for sport ? When in fact most Arabs could not care less whether one is a Christian or a Hindu. They only feel proud of their own religion which came from the desert to them as a people. So they defend it. They would vastly PREFER a Christian, as Christians are, along with Zoroastrians, separated out for RESPECT by the Quran.
The Illuminati- Zionist media makes SURE no one is allowed to know this critical fact.
That means if Arabs were going to REALLY chase after some religious group, it would NEVER be a Christian one !
It would be "kafirs", infidels in the Quranic sense, not in the tone that Cyprian uses above.
They would be out scouting for gurdwaras [Sikhs places of worship] or Temples of Kali, the powerful Hindu goddess of destruction [ means presiding over annihilation of evil ]. Such evidences of polytheism [ shirk ] does enrage a strong follower of certain schools of Islam. Most of them could care less ! But a few, like the Salafis, a small number overall, do get strident about such divergences from the monotheism stressed by the Quran. Nonetheless, they would not go kill the Sikh or Kali-worshipper. But merely try to correct him and bring the polytheist to the bastion of monotheism in the Muslim's eyes.
So think about it ! If anyone is not convinced that all this cowboy-western style attacks on Christians is not totally contrived,
then consider this argument. I believe it's a lurid version of the every-popular Wild West dramas which have been brought back for political motives.
Cyprian and I know well that all such "attacks" blazed all over the TV are staged by Israeli agents. It's easy to see still, despite the laughable earlier attempts being reengineered to look more credible. Surely the Israelis read such forums as ours which tell the truth in order to check for 'what they did wrong'. How their secret was discovered by any observer with a brain. Each cycle of this elaborate game they are playing to brainwash forever Americans - probably that powerful Protestant/Evangelical lobby in Washington is their real goal - gets more believable because the Mosssad errors are not as glaring.
Now, Cyprian, what about Nilus and The Protocols ?
What did this influential intellectual have to do with the Protocols ?
I know that Felix Yusupov claimed to have pulled them off a shelf in the Yusupov palace on the Moika in St Petersburg.
But probably not TOO many people would give that story much credit.
What in fact is the Nilus- Protocols connection ??
I am going to go right to my Helen Kontzevitch articles to reread more about him. It was her aunt who married him.
It seems that there was some slight "skandal" about him rumored to have fathered a child in Europe which marred the early part of their marriage. I am writing from memory : have to recheck it.
At the time, I was following Helen's story and was only peripherally interested in Nilus.
I am SO GLAD you brought this up !
I wish indeed that we could read the political works of Nilus in English !
Also I need to read the section from your post about the Pope and the Rothschilds from the Chicago Tribune of 1867.
I was already feeling for some years, watching Pope Benedict's beeline to the Rome synagogue, that the Vatican was under a huge debt to the Jewish banks. It was said that the appointment was for John Paul II which Benedict had to complete after the non-saint's death.
Either way, though, I can be sure that Benedict was furious. Probably he did not want to go there at all. Nor to the American one he was forced into visiting on his trip to the US. One can see his carefully covered over distaste on his face. Plus I just get that sense. It's probably why he resigned. He didn't want to be the stooge of such evil forces.
