The CIA has been so obviously dominated by Catholics that it’s even been called “Catholics in Action” by some. This subject was also brought up in a recent Catholic newspaper article pondering “why Catholics thrive in the CIA”:
The CIA is the best known of the 17 agencies that comprise the American intelligence community. It has earned itself nicknames like “Catholic Intelligence Agency” and “Catholics In Action”. It’s worth exploring why.
No official statistics exist on Catholics in the CIA or any other American intelligence agency. But one interesting clue is the relatively high number of Catholics who have served as director of the agency… three out of the last five CIA directors have been Catholic: Michael Hayden, Leon Panetta, and the current director, John Brennan. Looking back, a number of Catholics led the agency in critical periods during the Cold War. (There were no Catholic directors in the 1990s.)
Some of the most influential directors in CIA history have been Catholic – men such as Walter Bedell Smith, John McCone, William Colby and William Casey. They were not just casual Catholics. They were devout Mass-goers – in many cases, members of groups like the Knights of Malta. The conspiracy theorists usually start there, with nefarious plots about the Vatican steering world affairs. Of course, they never ask why an all-powerful Vatican can’t engineer more Catholic presidents.
Martin A. Lee’s article from 1983 on the CIA, the Vatican, and the Knights of Malta:
The FBI, on the other hand, hasn’t been dominated by Catholics, at least not overtly. James Comey (head of the FBI 2013-2017), is from an Irish Roman Catholic family, and Louis Freeh (head of the FBI 1993-2001) is a devout Roman Catholic:
Freeh is a devout Roman Catholic. Contrary to rumors, he is not a member of the Opus Dei prelature. According to The Bureau and the Mole, a book by David A. Vise, one of Freeh’s sons was enrolled at The Heights School in Potomac, Maryland, which Vise describes as “an Opus Dei academy”. Several of his sons graduated from Archmere Academy, a Catholic school in Claymont, Delaware. One of his sons attended Georgetown University, a Catholic university in Washington, D.C.
Other than that, most of the Directors of the FBI have apparently been non-Catholic white men. But the very famous J. Edgar Hoover, the Director from 1924 up until his death in 1972, though nominally a protestant, was on extremely good terms with the Catholic Church, as we learn from Steve Rosswurm’s book The FBI and the Catholic Church, 1935-1962. From the book’s description:
During his long tenure as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover made no secret of his high regard for the Catholic faith. Though himself a Protestant, he shared with Catholicism a set of values and a vision of the world, grounded in certain assumptions about the way things ought to be in a well-ordered society. The Church reciprocated Hoover’s admiration, establishing the basis for a working alliance between two powerful and influential American institutions.
And from the introduction:
There “is no group,” the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s Catholic Review argued in 1942, that held J. Edgar Hoover (1895–1972), director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in “higher esteem” than U.S. Catholics. Six years later, Novena Notes, the publication of the enormously popular Our Sorrowful Mother devotion, noted that Hoover was so respected by Catholics that he might as well have been a “Catholic priest or bishop.” In 1952 Anne Tansey, in Our Catholic Messenger, wrote that it was quite understandable that many believed Hoover was a Catholic.
- Steve Rosswurm, The FBI and the Catholic Church, 1935-1962
We learn more from a review of the book:
During the FBI’s early years, Hoover focused his recruiting efforts on white Protestant males from the small towns of the Midwest and the South. But beginning in the 1940s, he expanded his efforts to Catholic colleges and universities in the Mid-Atlantic region and beyond. He met a positive reception. Fordham University President Robert I. Gannon, S.J., commented that “the FBI and Fordham have the same ideas.” Like the FBI, the Jesuits, known as “the Pope’s Marines,” believed in forming disciplined men dedicated to preserving the moral order. The University of Notre Dame, according to its president (and future cardinal) John F. O’Hara, C.S.C., was a “man’s school” that promoted “Red-blooded Americanism.” Both schools would provide a large number of FBI personnel through the years.
Hoover considered the Catholic Church “the greatest protective influence in our nation today.” For both the Protestant director and his Catholic associates, Rosswurm notes, “Secularism… was the key to understanding all of America’s problems.” Hoover gave due attention to Catholic leaders, who reciprocated in kind. Although he did not cultivate close personal private relationships with any particular bishop (with the possible exception of Baltimore’s Archbishop Michael J. Curley), he cultivated a close association with them in regard to their shared public concerns.
On the other side, the admiration occasionally devolved into hero worship. In 1953, for example, Archbishop Richard J. Cushing of Boston equated Hoover with quoting the pope. Catholic periodicals contributed to the cult of personality surrounding Hoover. Our Sunday Visitor, one of the most conservative American Catholic periodicals, regularly reprinted his speeches, as did The Brooklyn Tablet. In time, some Catholic spokespersons would equate anti-FBI sentiments or expressions with anti-Catholicism. In other words, if Hoover wasn’t actually Catholic, he should have been.
Jesuits and communism
One obvious reason for that was that these Catholics perceived Hoover as some kind of a great warrior against communism. Yet, as we’ll see, he was associated with the Jesuits, and honored by them, and Jesuits have covertly promulgated communism for a long time. They even implemented communism in the Jesuit reductions of South America from the 16th to 18th century, in a way realizing the Catholic saint Thomas More’s visions laid out in his book Utopia (1516).
The economic basis was a sort of communism, which, however differed materially from the modern system which bears the same name, and was essentially theocratic. “The Jesuits”, writes Gelpi y Ferro, “realized in their Christian commonwealth all that is good and nothing that is bad in the plans of modern Socialists and Communists.” The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques, who allotted it to the families under them. Agricultural instruments and draught-cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house, called abamba, i.e. “own possession.”
J. Edgar Hoover – a great friend of the Jesuits
In addition to his law degrees from the George Washington University, Hoover received many honorary degrees, including from: the George Washington University; Pennsylvania Military College; New York University; Kalamazoo College; Westminster College; Oklahoma Baptist University; Georgetown University; Drake University; University of the South; University of Notre Dame; St. John’s University Law School; Rutgers University; University of Arkansas; Holy Cross College; Seton Hall College; Marquette University; Pace College; Morris Harvey College; and the Catholic University of America.
Georgetown University is the Jesuit power base in America from where the order is heavily influencing government policies. The Patriot Act, for example, was authored by Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University professor of law. And as I’ve pointed out before, Homeland Security, a realization of the police state legislation, was quite obviously a Jesuit creation.
J. Edgar Hoover receiving his honors from Georgetown University
What’s more, the Jesuit Loyola University Chicago gave Hoover the prestigious Sword of Loyola award:
The Sword of Loyola is given to an individual who exhibits exceptional dedication and humanitarian service in fields other than medicine. The Sword of Loyola award was conceived by Loyola alumnus Norton F. O’Meara in 1964, and is awarded each year at the Annual Awards Dinner held by the Stritch School of Medicine. The first recipient of the award was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, J. Edgar Hoover (1964). Throughout the years recipients of this prestigious award have included Muppets creator Jim Henson (1982), Loyola alumnus Bob Newhart (1975), director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra Arthur Fielder (1976), and Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, Archbishop of Chicago (1989). The sword is a replica of St. Ignatius Loyola’s sword, which the founder of the Society of Jesus offered as a symbol of becoming a spiritual soldier of Christ. The sword symbolizes the distinctive spiritual qualities associated with St. Ignatius of Loyola – courage, dedication, and service.
Freemason Hoover and the Jesuit connection to Freemasonry
It’s widely known that Hoover was a 33rd degree Freemason.
So was J. Edgar Hoover a Freemason?
He most certainly was, and all of his Masonic affiliations were in Washington, D.C. Brother J. Edgar Hoover was a member of Federal Lodge No. 1, Washington D.C. He was a charter member of Justice Lodge No. 46 in Washington, D.C. He was both a York Rite Mason, and a 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Mason. He was also a Shriner–a member of Almas Shrine.
What’s the connection between the Jesuits and Freemasonry:
In the eighteenth century the Jesuits were charged with having an intimate connection with Freemasonry, and the invention of the Degree of Kadosh was even attributed to those members of the Society who constituted the College of Clermont. This theory of a Jesuitical Freemasonry seems to have originated with the Illuminati, who were probably governed in its promulgation by a desire to depreciate the character of all other Masonic systems in comparison with their own, where no such priestly interference was permitted. Barruel scoffs at the idea of such a connection, and cans it (Histoire de Jacobinisme iv, page 287) “la fable de la Franc-Maçonnerie Jésuitique” meaning an invention of false or Jesuitical Freemasonry. For once he is right. Like oil and water the tolerance of Freemasonry and the intolerance of the “Society of Jesus” cannot commingle. Yet it cannot be denied that, while the Jesuits have had no part in the construction of pure Freemasonry, there are reasons for believing that they took an interest in the invention of some Degrees and systems which were intended to advance their own interests. But wherever they touched the Institution they left the trail of the serpent.
They sought to convert its pure philanthropy and toleration into political intrigue and religious bigotry. Hence it is believed that they had something to do with the invention of those Degrees, which were intended to aid the exiled house of Stuart in its efforts to regain the English throne, because they believed that would secure the restoration in England of the Roman Catholic religion. Almost a library of books has been written on both sides of this subject in Germany and in France.
- Albert G. Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences
Chevalier de Bonneville formed a chapter of twenty-five Degrees of the so called High-Degrees in the College of Jesuits of Clermont, in Paris in 1754. The adherents of the House of Stuarts had made the college of Clermont their asylum, they being mostly Scotchmen. One of these Degrees being the ”Scottish Master”, new body organized in Charleston, S.C., in 1801, gave the name Scottish Rite to these Degrees, which name ever since that time has characterized the Rite all over the world. The name previously given to these Degrees was the ”Rite of Perfection”, or the Ancient and Accepted Rite; while some authorities have a different version, Mackey is usually the most reliable.
- William O. Peterson, Masonic Quiz Book, 1949, p. 194-195
Field blue; on it is a golden lion, holding in his mouth a key of gold, and a gold collar around his neck, with the figures 525 on the collar. Motto at the base, “Custos Areani,” and in some rituals, “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” – the latter is the motto of the Jesuits. Around this standard are stationed the Knights of the Sun, the Commanders of the Temple, and the Princes of Mercy, 28th, 27th, and 26th degrees. Standard Bearer, Aholiab.
- Charles T. McClenachan, The Book of the Ancient and accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, 1914, p. 473
The founder of the FBI – a great-nephew of Napoleon
What’s also very interesting, is that the founder of the FBI was none other than Charles Joseph Bonaparte, the grandson of Napoleon’s youngest brother. Bonaparte was a devout Roman Catholic, and a trustee of the Catholic University of America.
Or, if not created, the word “racism” was at least popularized by communists in the 1930s. Russian Jewish communist leader Leon Trotsky used it in his treatise on national socialism:
In order to raise it above history, the nation is given the support of the race. History is viewed as the emanation of the race. The qualities of the race are construed without relation to changing social conditions. Rejecting “economic thought” as base, National Socialism descends a stage lower: from economic materialism it appeals to zoologic materialism.
The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. In order to create the religion of pure German blood, Hitler was obliged to borrow at second hand the ideas of racism from a Frenchman, Count Gobineau , a diplomat and a literary dilettante. Hitler found the political methodology ready-made in Italy, where Mussolini had borrowed largely from the Marxist theory of the class struggle. Marxism itself is the fruit of union among German philosophy, French history, and British economics. To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.
The immense poverty of National Socialist philosophy did not, of course, hinder the academic sciences from entering Hitler’s wake with all sails unfurled, once his victory was sufficiently plain. For the majority of the professorial rabble, the years of the Weimar regime were periods of riot and alarm. Historians, economists, jurists, and philosophers were lost in guesswork as to which of the contending criteria of truth was right that is, which of the camps would turn out in the end the master of the situation. The fascist dictatorship eliminates the doubts of the Fausts and the vacillations of the Hamlets of the university rostrums. Coming out of the twilight of parliamentary relativity, knowledge once again enters into the kingdom of absolutes. Einstein has been obliged to pitch his tent outside the boundaries of Germany.
On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race. Worthy of attention is the fact that the leaders of National Socialism are not native Germans but interlopers from Austria, like Hitler himself, from the former Baltic provinces of the Czar’s empire, like Rosenberg; and from colonial countries, like Hess, who is Hitler’s present alternate for the party leadership.  A barbarous din of nationalisms on the frontiers of civilization was required in order to instill into its “leaders” those ideas which later found response in the hearts of the most barbarous classes in Germany.
Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.
- Leon Trotsky, 1933
Clearly, the proletarian internationalist Trotsky was trying to demonize all nationalism, especially in Europe, by equating it to German national socialism (and fascism). That’s what the label “racist” is for, has always been, and always will. To corroborate this I quote Samuel Francis, who reviews the book titled “Racism” by another communist from the 1930s, German Jewish Magnus Hirschfeld:
As a serious critique of the view that socially significant natural differences between the races exist, Hirschfeld’s book is a failure, and even as a polemic against some of the more politicized and unverified claims about race made a century or more ago, it is weak. The importance of the book is not so much its content, however, as what it tells us about the word “racism” and how the enemies of white racial consciousness have developed and deployed it for their own purposes.
Hirschfeld describes his own political ideals as “Pan-Humanism,” a version of political, cultural, and racial universalism. The Pauls themselves write, “we think that the readers of Racism will detect a very definite orientation to the Left. . . . [Hirschfeld] was one who fully realized that sexual reform is impossible without a preliminary economic and political revolution.”
In Racism, Hirschfeld offers what is essentially a definition of “Pan-Humanism:” “The individual, however close the ties of neighborhood, companionship, family, a common lot, language, education, and the environment of nation and country, can find only one dependable unity within which to seek a permanent spiritual kinship–that of humanity-at-large, that of the whole human race.” With one exception, he is unsparing in his denunciations of the ethnocentric loyalties of nations, races, and cultures: “Always and everywhere, except in Soviet Russia, xenophobia, xenophobia, xenophobia.” Later, he informs us, “It may be too early to speak, but perhaps the problem of nationalities and races has already been solved on one-sixth of the land-surface of the globe [i.e., Stalin’s Russia].”
“Racism,” therefore, is a term originating on the left, and has been so defined and loaded with meanings the left wants it to have that it cannot now be used by the supporters of white racial consciousness for any constructive purpose. Anyone who uses the term to describe himself or his own views has already allowed himself to be maneuvered onto his opponents’ ground and has already lost the debate. He may try to define the word differently, but he will need to spend most of his time explaining that he does not mean by it what everyone else means. As a term useful for communicating ideas that the serious supporters of white racial consciousness wish to communicate, the term is useless, and it was intended by those who developed it that it be useless for that purpose.
But understanding the origins of the word “racism” in Hirschfeld’s polemic also makes clear the uselessness of the word for any other purpose. No one seems ever to have used the word to describe his own ideas or ideas with which he agrees; its only application has been by the enemies of the ideas it purports to describe, and hence it has no objective meaning apart from its polemical usage. If no one calls his own ideas “racism” and its only application is to a body of ideas considered to be untrue and evil, then it has no use other than as a kind of fancy curse word, the purpose of which is simply to demonize anyone who expresses the ideas it is supposed to describe.
- Samuel Francis, 1999
What is labeled as “racism” is in reality, in most cases and for all intents and purposes, in-group favoritism, which is completely natural for all races. It’s a survival strategy based on biology:
In a meta-analysis and review of the effect of oxytocin on social behavior done by Carsten De Dreu, the research reviewed shows that oxytocin enables the development of trust, specifically towards individuals with similar characteristics – categorised as ‘in-group’ members – promoting cooperation with and favoritism towards such individuals. This bias of oxytocin-induced goodwill towards those with features and characteristics perceived to be similar may have evolved as a biological basis for sustaining in-group cooperation and protection, fitting with the Darwinian insight that acts of self-sacrifice and cooperation contribute to the functioning of the group and hence improve the odd of survival for members of said group.
Race can be used as an example of in-group and out-group tendencies because society often categorizes individuals into groups based on race (Caucasian, African American, Latino, etc.). One study that examined race and empathy found that participants receiving nasally administered oxytocin had stronger reactions to pictures of in-group members making pained faces than to pictures of out-group members with the same expression. This shows that oxytocin may be implicated in our ability to empathize with individuals of different races, with individuals of one race potentially biased towards helping individuals of the same race than individuals of another race when they are experiencing pain.
Oxytocin has also been implicated in lying when lying would prove beneficial to other in-group members. In a study where such a relationship was examined, it was found that when individuals were administered oxytocin, rates of dishonesty in the participants’ responses increased for their in-group members when a beneficial outcome for their group was expected. Both of these examples show the tendency to act in ways that benefit people with which one feels is part of their social group, or in-group.