Bush’s “crusade” – the “war on terror” led by Catholic and Jesuit trained advisors and military officers

President George W. Bush refers to the “war on terror” as a “crusade” a few days after the staged false flag 9/11 terrorists attacks:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4752493/user-clip-bush-war-terror-crusade

Many might think that was a slip or mistake, but I don’t think so. I believe he meant what he said, and that he had most likely been told by his Catholic advisors to use that word.

George W. Bush the “nation’s first Catholic president”

In 2008, during George W. Bush’s presidency, The Washington Post published the op-ed “A Catholic Wind in the White House”, where he was referred to as the “nation’s first Catholic president”;

Shortly after Pope Benedict XVI’s election in 2005, President Bush met with a small circle of advisers in the Oval Office. As some mentioned their own religious backgrounds, the president remarked that he had read one of the new pontiff’s books about faith and culture in Western Europe.

Save for one other soul, Bush was the only non-Catholic in the room. But his interest in the pope’s writings was no surprise to those around him. As the White House prepares to welcome Benedict on Tuesday, many in Bush’s inner circle expect the pontiff to find a kindred spirit in the president. Because if Bill Clinton can be called America’s first black president, some say, then George W. Bush could well be the nation’s first Catholic president.

This isn’t as strange a notion as it sounds. Yes, there was John F. Kennedy. But where Kennedy sought to divorce his religion from his office, Bush has welcomed Roman Catholic doctrine and teachings into the White House and based many important domestic policy decisions on them.

“I don’t think there’s any question about it,” says Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania and a devout Catholic, who was the first to give Bush the “Catholic president” label. “He’s certainly much more Catholic than Kennedy.”

Bush attends an Episcopal church in Washington and belongs to a Methodist church in Texas, and his political base is solidly evangelical. Yet this Protestant president has surrounded himself with Roman Catholic intellectuals, speechwriters, professors, priests, bishops and politicians. These Catholics — and thus Catholic social teaching — have for the past eight years been shaping Bush’s speeches, policies and legacy to a degree perhaps unprecedented in U.S. history.

“I used to say that there are more Catholics on President Bush’s speechwriting team than on any Notre Dame starting lineup in the past half-century,” said former Bush scribe — and Catholic — William McGurn.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/11/AR2008041103327_pf.html

In April 2008, Bush said he sees God in Pope Benedict‘s eyes:

Finally, Arroyo asked him, “You said, famously, when you looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes you saw his soul. […] When you look into Benedict XVI’s eyes what do you see?”

And Bush answered immediately, “God.”

https://zenit.org/articles/bush-says-he-sees-god-in-eyes-of-pope/

Now the crusade reference is starting to make more sense, isn’t it?

In 2004 Bush spoke at the Knights of Columbus (K of C ) convention. The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal order, founded by Michael J. McGivney, a Catholic priest, who had originally wanted to become a Jesuit. Today the order has almost 2 million members around the world. Bush’s brother Jeb, a devout Roman Catholic, is a 4th degree Knight of Columbus.

George W. Bush at the K of C convention

Notice the Roman fasces in the K of C logo. There’s a fasces also on both sides behind the Speaker’s podium in the United States House of Representatives, which is inside the United States Capitol.

(On the outside, the United States Capitol looks a lot like the St. Peter’s Basilica, is located on Capitol Hill, as in the Capitoline Hill in Rome, and what’s more, both these buildings face an obelisk. Do you think they might be trying to tell us something…)

George Bush Sr. spoke at the Knight of Columbus convention in 1984, 1988 and 1992, and he was an honorary Knight of Malta, like Ronald Reagan, who historically established diplomatic relations with the Vatican in 1984. In 1991, George Bush hosted the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta, Andrew Bertie, at the White House.

Andrew Bertie and George Bush at the White House, 1991

George W. Bush has also spoken many times at the Legatus summit. Legatus is a global network of Catholic business leaders, founded by Tom Monaghan, the founder of Domino’s Pizza. Monaghan is a Knight of Malta.

But weren’t the “Jewish” Neocons behind the Iraq War?

It’s true that leading neoconservatives played a major part in the buildup to the Iraq War, and that many of them were Jewish, such as these men who served in key positions in the Bush administration: Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005); Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (2001-2005), Elliot Abrams; Richard Perle; and Bill Kristol, the founder of the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which initiated an open letter to Jesuit trained President Bill Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein already in 1998.

Neocons weren’t all Jewish, though, and among the 25 signatories to the PNAC’s Statement of Principles were these non-Jewish men, for example:

Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida (1999-2007), brother of George W. Bush. He’s a devout Roman Catholic and 4th degree Knight of Columbus.

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States (2001-2009). Cheney was probably the most powerful government official in the Bush admistration, or the de facto president. In the 1980s and 1990s he was a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the New York City based globalist think tank that has enormous influence on the US government.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld attended Georgetown University, the formidable Jesuit university in Washington D.C., which is also the Jesuit headquarters in America. While attending Princeton, he was a friend of future Secretary of Defense under Reagan and Knight of Malta, Frank Carlucci. Carlucci and Rumsfeld were also associates during their political careers, and Carlucci, too, was affiliated with the PNAC.

Frank Gaffney, a national security advisor in the Reagan administration. Gaffney was Jesuit trained at Georgetown University and is a member of the conservative counterpart of the CFR, the Council for National Policy (CNP). (Among CNP members are also Trump’s key advisors Kellyanne Conway and Jesuit trained Steve Bannon.)

William J. Bennett, a conservative pundit. Bennett graduated form a Jesuit high school and served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

Zalmay Khalilzad, United States Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2004), United States Ambassador to Iraq (2005-2007), U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation. Khalilzad has been a CFR member and served as a counselor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the think tank founded at Georgetown University in 1962. (The formal affiliation between CSIS and Georgetown ended in 1987.)

It’s also worth noting that Elliot Abrams has been affiliated with the Georgetown University and taught foreign policy at its Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and that Douglas J. Feith has a JD from Georgetown University and, like Abrams, was later employed by the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, where he taught a course on the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism policy.

My take is that the neocons weren’t behind the staged 9/11 attacks or the ”war on terror”. They played a major part temporarily, but in the grand scheme of things, they’re not that significant a group. While times change, the Jesuit Papacy stays, movements like neoconservatism come and go.

The Jesuits, CIA, and CFR deflecting the blame by pointing at Israel

This news snippet about a 2005 congress mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war is telling:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his “candid answer.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570_pf.html

Ex-CIA Ray McGovern said the same on MSNBC The Situation with Tucker Carlson in May 2006:

I‘ve been using the acronym O.I.L. for many—for two years now:  O for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics, logistics being the permanent—now we say “enduring”—military bases that the U.S. wants to keep in Iraq.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12644626

And, as it happens, McGovern is Jesuit trained. He has a MS from Fordham University, the Jesuit university in New York City. And so is James P. Moran Jr., who has a BA from the Jesuit College of the Holy Cross. Just a coincidence? McGovern also used to be a regular guest of Alex Jones, who’s been outed as a CIA asset and gatekeeper for the Vatican years ago.

Another Jesuit trained ex-CIA, who’s been pointing fingers at Israel, is Michael Scheuer. He attended Jesuit Canisius College in Buffalo and used to be an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies.

(The CIA itself has even been called “Catholics in Action”, because it’s been largely dominated by Roman Catholics, many of them devout mass-goers. The founder himself, William J. Donovan, was a devout Roman Catholic and was awarded the highest possible honor by the Pope, Knight of St. Sylvester. And at least these notable CIA directors have been Knights of Malta: John McCone (1961-1965), William Colby (1973-1976), and William J. Casey (1981-1987). In recent years, most CIA directors have been Jesuit trained, such as George Tenet (1997-2004), Leon Panetta (2009-2011), David Petraues (2011-2012), and John Brennan (2013-2017).)

Scheuer used to be a regular guest on CBS News and Fox News and has focused a lot on criticizing Israel and AIPAC, saying things like “we’re fighting wars for Israel” on TV. In his 2004 book Imperial Hubris, as an anonymous author, he said that one step in stopping the bogus “war on terror”, which was supposedly being fought against al-Qaeda and other jihadists, would be to “end all U.S. aid to Israel” and the “elimination of the Jewish state, and in its stead the creation of an Islamic Palestinian state”. 

Scheuer also praised the New York Times Best Seller book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), which sparked controversy and describes the lobby as a “loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction” and “focuses primarily on the lobby’s influence on U.S. foreign policy and its negative effect on American interests”. 

John Mearsheimer, co-author of the book with Stephen Walt, happens to be a CFR member, as was another prominent endorser of the book, Jesuit trained Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski co-founded the globalist think tank Trilateral Commission with Japanese Jesuit coadjutor Tadashi Yamamoto, was a scholar for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and worked closely with PNAC associate Zalmay Khalilzad on Operation Cyclone to support the mujahideen jihadists, who resisted the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Brzezinski and his protege Khalilzad were instrumental in building up Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan, to be used as a tool of US geopolitics in the Middle East.

An in-depth look into Khalilzad’s dealings in the Middle East here.

Iraq War benefited Iran more than Israel?

Excellent scholarly researcher Francisco Gil-White, who got fired from the University of Pennsylvania for exposing the PLO, and basically being pro-Israel, while his superior, CFR member Ian Lustick was anti-Israel, writes:

Could a Shia-dominated Islamist Iraq under Iran’s influence be what the US ruling elite wants?

Consider something else that Newsweek says:

“Iranian interference continues to haunt future scenarios for an independent, stable Iraq. [US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad, echoing other US officials, said he is hoping for a ‘significant withdrawal’ of US troops from Iraq next year. But the Bush administration worries that a fractured Iraq under weak leadership will be Tehran’s playground.

It appears that Iraq is indeed expected to become “Tehran’s playground.” So the actual effect of the US invasion of Iraq will be to turn it into an Islamist puppet state of Iran.

But the text above bears scrutiny. If Khalilzad is “echoing other US officials” when he says he would like a major troop withdrawal by next year, then which “Bush administration” is it that “worries that a fractured Iraq…will be Tehran’s playground”? Isn’t the Bush administration composed of “US officials”? And isn’t Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, supposed to be mouthing the US’s official policy towards Iraq? And if the growth of Iranian power is not what the US ruling elite wants, then why are Khalilzad and other US officials calling for withdrawing the troops, a policy that will abandon Iraq to Iran?

http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm

Gil-White continues:

The US ruling elite will pull the troops out of Iraq in order to give Iraq to Iran, but will complain publicly about the outcome, giving the appearance of withdrawing the troops under pressure from the US public.

Consistent with this view, consider what the Toronto Star wrote on 24 November 2005, in an article titled “White House sets stage for pullback of troops”:

“Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, also told CNN this week he believed it would be possible to begin a withdrawal of American forces next year. The change in tone appears to be an acknowledgement of the increasing unpopularity of the war, with one national poll this week indicating 65 per cent of Americans would like to see the troops home by the end of 2006.”

The word “also” is appended to Khalilzad’s opinion because he was echoing Pentagon officials and US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, whose identical views were reported in the same article. But perhaps you will notice the contradiction in what the Daily News reported Khalilzad as saying only four days later:

“Bush’s ambassador to Iraq warned yesterday that pulling out of the country early would be disastrous. ‘Terrorists could take over part of this country and expand from here,’ Zalmay Khalilzad told Newsweek. ‘And given the resources of Iraq, given the technical expertise of its people, it will make Afghanistan look like child’s play.’”

Since a withdrawal needs to be planned, and since Zalmay Khalilzad’s preferred date for a major withdrawal — “next year” — is already upon us (this is November), Khalilzad is in fact calling for an immediate troop withdrawal even as he explains that “pulling out…early would be disastrous.” An absurdity? Not under my hypothesis: the US ruling elite wants the “disastrous” result, but knows that the American public will deplore it, so US officials must appear to deplore it also, and to be pulling out of Iraq reluctantly, under pressure from the American public. This is precisely why US government statements about impending withdrawal did not come before the polls began to show a strong US majority for it, as we see above.

And that’s exactly what happened after the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq (2007-2011), that is, Iraq became “Tehran’s playground”.

Roman Catholic and Jesuit trained government officials and military officers leading the “war on terror”

Here’s a list of some of the Roman Catholic and/or Jesuit trained key leaders of the “war on terror”:

Secretary of Defense:

Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006). Attended Georgetown University. Friend and associate of Knight of Malta Frank Carlucci, Secretary of Defense under Reagan.
Robert Gates (2006-2011). PhD and and honorary degree from Georgetown University.
Leon Panetta (2011-2013). BA and JD from Jesuit Santa Clara University.

Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan:

Meghan L. O’Sullivan (2004-2007). Roman Catholic. Graduated from Georgetown University. Member of the board of directors of the CFR and North American Chairman of the Trilateral Commission.
Douglas Lute (2007-2010). Roman Catholic. His wife Jane Holl Lute, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security (2009-2013), has a JD from Georgetown University.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

Peter Pace (2005-2007). A devout Roman Catholic. Georgetown Leadership Seminar alumnus. Awarded President’s Medal by Georgetown University and John Carroll Medal by the John Carroll Society.
Michael Mullen (2007-2011). Roman Catholic.
Martin Dempsey (2011-2015). Roman Catholic.

Commander of the United States Central Command:

John Abizaid (2003-2007). Roman Catholic.
William J. Fallon (2007-2008). Roman Catholic. Graduated from a Catholic university.
– Martin Dempsey (2008). See above.
David Petraeus (2008-2010). Completed a military fellowship at the Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
John R. Allen (2010). Graduated with a MA from Georgetown University.
Jim Mattis (2010-2013). A devout Roman Catholic. Keynote speaker at the 2019 Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

Commander of Multi-National Force – Iraq:

Ricardo Sanchez (2003-2004). Roman Catholic.
George W. Casey Jr. (2004-2007). Graduated from Jesuit Boston College High School and from Georgetown University with a BS.
– David Petraeus (2007-2008). See above.
Raymond T. Odierno (2008-2010). Roman Catholic.

Commander of Multi-National Corps — Iraq:

Peter W. Chiarelli. Roman Catholic. Graduated from Jesuit Seattle University with a BS and from Catholic Salve Regina University with a MA.
– Raymond T. Odierno. See above.

Vatican still wants Jerusalem

Could the underlying reason for the US wars in the Middle East be related to the Vatican’s quest for Jerusalem? It would make a lot of sense, remembering how “crypto-Catholic” George W. Bush talked about these wars being a “crusade”, and noting how they were led mostly by Roman Catholics and Jesuit agents.

Here’s some history of the Vatican’s policy on the status of Jerusalem:

Already during the 19th century, the Holy See was concerned about the control over the holy places in Palestine, especially in Jerusalem. In 1887, Pope Leo XIII issued a motu proprio titled Domini et Salvatoris, in which he called for the establishment of a Catholic fund to maintain the holy places in Jerusalem and the Holy Land.

The early Zionists sought to assure the Vatican of the sanctity of Christian holy places, but the Vatican was not satisfied with these assurances. The Vatican was not invited to attend the 1920 San Remo conference, which decided the fate of Palestine, and had to rely on France and Italy to represent its interests. The San Remo conference set aside a Protectorate of the Holy See. According to Minerbi, the Vatican’s objectives were ultimately undermined by the Zionist Organization’s support for a British Mandate.

But the Vatican did not give up on its objective of direct Catholic control of the Holy Land and the holy places. The Vatican’s idea for an international commission to resolve claims on the holy places had been incorporated in article 95 of the Treaty of Sèvres, and was repeated as articles 13 and 14 of the Mandate. Britain assumed responsibility for the holy places under article 13 of the Mandate. However, Britain never created the International Commission on Holy Places to resolve the other claims in accordance with article 14 of the Mandate.

The Vatican’s official position on the status of Jerusalem was in favour of an internationalization of Jerusalem, in order to keep the holy places away from either Israeli or Arab sovereignty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See–Israel_relations#Jerusalem_and_the_holy_places

Why does the Vatican want Jerusalem?

It can’t be that the Vatican is only interested in “access to their Holy Sites” in Jerusalem. They already have that as well as legal jurisdiction under Israeli law for their institutions and assets in Jerusalem. Also, when these “Holy Sites” were under the jurisdiction of the Jordanians from l948-l967, no Pope demanded the “internationalization of Jerusalem”. 

It is something else, which the Vatican wants. The Roman Catholic Church, need to have certain versions of events be played out for them to stand in front of mankind and proclaim: “our Messiah has returned.” Of course, to the Jews, this Messiah will be as false as the first one was supposed to be. Don’t matter. This is the goal of the Vatican and this is what all Israelis need to worry about. 

[…]

First, you have to realize that for centuries The Vatican has attempted to obtain control of Jerusalem, which started with the Crusades. For them to convince the world that the Messiah they put on the world’s stage is going to be accepted as genuine, they need to perform this play in the Old City. The story of this production is that this “Messiah” will merge the three monotheistic religions, usher in peace and harmony in the world, and solve the Middle East conflict. The location for this “production” will be in none other than the Old City of Jerusalem. 

This so-called “Messiah” that will be proclaimed, will be a false one and it will insist that by having a “world government” (i.e., the United Nations) the world peace and harmony will be ushered in. This will be a lie, and a fraud, but never mind. In our world, reality isn’t important. Public perceptions are. The end result is the stripping of Israel’s sovereignty as an independent nation giving way to a “regional bloc of nations” in the Middle East.

http://www.redmoonrising.com/chamish/vaticanagenda.htm

Vatican agent Shimon Peres

Labor Zionist leader and longtime influencer in Israeli politics, Shimon Peres (1923-2016), actually secretly promised to hand over Jerusalem to the Vatican amidst the Oslo Accords negotiations. He met with the Popes and visited the Vatican often, and it’s quite apparent that he was a Vatican agent. On his now defunct website, investigative journalist Barry Chamish (1952-2016) looked back to how he broke the story:

In 1979, Yitzhak Rabin published his autobiography, within was a one-line offbeat quote. He said that unlike all Jewish children growing up in Poland, Shimon Peres spent his early education at a Jesuit school. It was an odd fact and I took a mental note of it without understanding its significance…

Until I broke my first attention-getting story as a political journalist:

In March 1994, the newspaper Chadashot revealed a most remarkable secret of the Middle East “peace” process. A friend of Shimon Peres, the French intellectual Marek Halter… claimed in an interview that in May 1993, he delivered a letter from Peres to the pope. Within, Peres promised to internationalize Jerusalem, granting the UN political control of the Old City of Jerusalem, and the Vatican hegemony of the holy sites within. The UN would give the PLO a capital within its new territory and East Jerusalem would become a kind of free trade zone of world diplomacy.

Halter’s claim was backed by the Italian newspaper La Stampa which added that Arafat was apprised of the agreement and it was included in the secret clauses of the Declaration Of Principles signed in Washington in September 1993.

In March 1995, the Israeli radio station Arutz Sheva was leaked a cable from the Israeli Embassy in Rome to Peres’s Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem confirming the handover of Jerusalem to the Vatican. This cable was printed on the front page of the radical leftwing Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz two days later. A scandal erupted and numerous rabbis who had invited Peres for Passover services cancelled their invitations in protest of his treachery. Peres reacted by claiming that the cable was real but that someone had whited out the word, “not;” the cable really said that Israel would “not” hand Jerusalem over to the holy pontiff.

Illustrating the sorry political state of Israel’s rabbis, they accepted this cockamamie excuse and re-invited Peres to their tables. However, in the widely distributed minutes of a meeting with Clinton in 1997, Peres reiterated his diplomacy, ending with the words, “as I had previously promised the Holy See.”

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2015/08/barry-chamish-e-mail-august-12-2015.html

Along the way, Peres also publicly expressed his willingness to give the Vatican what he promised;

President Shimon Peres is willing to hand over Israeli sovereignty of key Christian holy sites to the Vatican, a proposition that is reportedly opposed by Interior Minister Eli Yishai and that has ruffled feathers among other senior government officials, Army Radio reported on Monday. Beit Hanassi could not be reached for comment on Monday, as it does not issue statements to the press while the president is abroad. According to the radio report, the president is exerting pressure on the government to give up sovereignty over six sites, including the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, the Coenaculum on Mount Zion, Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, and the Church of the Multiplication on the Kinneret. 
Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2009

https://www.jpost.com/Israel/Peres-wants-to-yield-sites-to-Vatican

Pope Benedict XVI and Shimon Peres

Shimon Peres and Pope Francis in Israel

Around the same time the Vatican’s representatives made many aggressive statements directed at Israel:

Pope Benedict’s point man for justice and peace issues on Wednesday issued the Vatican’s toughest criticism of Israel since the latest Mideast crisis began, calling Gaza a “big concentration camp.” 

Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Vatican’s Council for Justice and Peace, made his comments in an interview in the Italian online newspaper Il Sussidiario.net.
Reuters, January 7, 2009

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-palestinians-vatican-sb/vatican-cardinal-calls-gaza-big-concentration-camp-idUKTRE5066OA20090107

Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify new “settlements” in Jerusalem or territorial claims, a Vatican synod on the Middle East said on Saturday.

Asked about the passage at a news conference, Greek-Melchite Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, said:

“We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people. 

“The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he added. “The justification of Israel’s occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.” 

The synod’s concluding message repeated a Vatican call for Jerusalem to have a special status “which respects its particular character” as a city sacred to the three great monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
ynetnews, October 23, 2010

https://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3973590,00.html

“Peace negotiations in the Middle East must tackle the issue of the status of the holy sites of Jerusalem”, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Vatican’s Council for Interreligious Dialogue, declared several days ago in Rome.

The Vatican’s former foreign minister asked to place some Israeli holy places under Vatican authority, alluding to the Cenacle on Mount Zion and the garden of Gethsemane at the foot of the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem.

The first site also houses what is referred to as King David’s tomb. 

“There will not be peace if the question of the holy sites is not adequately resolved”, Tauran said. “The part of Jerusalem within the walls – with the holy sites of the three religions – is humanity’s heritage. The sacred and unique character of the area must be safeguarded and it can only be done with a special, internationally-guaranteed statute”.

The Israeli government and the Vatican are deadlocked in discussions over the status of the religious sites. Vatican officials are now reiterating their demand for control over the religious sites in the ancient and holy city founded by King David as the capital of ancient Israel and now the capital of the reestablished Jewish state.

Danny Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, declared that Israel might consider giving the Vatican “a greater role” in operating the sites. In the last weeks, the Roman Catholic Church’s authorities increased their political initiatives for Catholic control over some sites in Jerusalem.

The Vatican’s former arcibishop in Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, just promoted an appeal to the European Union and United States to “stop the Hebraization of Jerusalem”.
Giulio Meotti, December 15, 2011

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/150757#.T2kwEI6HlJO

Since Jorge Maria Bergoglio became the new Pope, and the first Jesuit pope, in 2013, things have cooled a bit, though, at least seemingly. In June 2014, there was an ecumenical meeting in the Vatican, where Pope Francis, Israeli president Shimon Peres, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, and Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew prayed together “for peace in the Middle East”. A Jewish rabbi and a Muslim imam were also present.

And Peres called for the establishment of “United Religions”:

“In the past, the majority of wars were motivated by the idea of nationhood. Today, instead, wars are sparked above all with the excuse of religion,” Peres said.

“Now, given the fact that the United Nations has had its day, what is needed is an Organisation of United Religions, a U.N. of religions. It would be the best way to combat these terrorists who kill in the name of faith because the majority of people are not like them …,” he said.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2014/09/05/shimon-peres-floats-idea-of-u-n-style-united-religions-with-pope-francis/

So, think of this: Why are there all of these powerful Catholic chivalric orders? Such as the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta aka Knights of Malta, the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem aka Knights of the Holy Sepulchre, the Order of Brothers of the German House of Saint Mary in Jerusalem aka Teutonic order, and the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. The clue is in their names; many of them they include “Jerusalem”.

The interconnection between the Knights Templar, Freemasonry, Jesuits (and Illuminati)

Both Freemasonry and the Society of Jesus (aka Jesuit order) can be seen as having more or less evolved from the Knights Templar, and the Jesuits most likely also had a hand in the creation of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. We will go through the most relevant historical evidence step by step to prove the interconnection between these fraternal orders.

Who were the Knights Templar?

Let’s begin with a brief look at the the history of the Knights Templar, the legendary Catholic crusader military order:

The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Latin: Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Salomonici), also known as the Order of Solomon’s Temple, the Knights Templar or simply the Templars, were a Catholic military order recognised in 1139 by the papal bull Omne datum optimum. The order was founded in 1119 and was active until about 1312.

The order, which was among the wealthiest and most powerful, became a favoured charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. They were prominent in Christian finance. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. Non-combatant members of the order, who formed as much as 90% of the order’s members, managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, developing innovative financial techniques that were an early form of banking, building its own network of nearly 1,000 commanderies and fortifications across Europe and the Holy Land, and arguably forming the world’s first multinational corporation.

The Templars were closely tied to the Crusades; when the Holy Land was lost, support for the order faded. Rumours about the Templars’ secret initiation ceremony created distrust, and King Philip IV of France – deeply in debt to the order – took advantage of the situation to gain control over them. In 1307, he had many of the order’s members in France arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and burned at the stake. Pope Clement V disbanded the order in 1312 under pressure from King Philip.

The Templar Order, though its members were sworn to individual poverty, was given control of wealth beyond direct donations. A nobleman who was interested in participating in the Crusades might place all his assets under Templar management while he was away. Accumulating wealth in this manner throughout Christendom and the Outremer, the order in 1150 began generating letters of credit for pilgrims journeying to the Holy Land: pilgrims deposited their valuables with a local Templar preceptory before embarking, received a document indicating the value of their deposit, then used that document upon arrival in the Holy Land to retrieve their funds in an amount of treasure of equal value. This innovative arrangement was an early form of banking and may have been the first formal system to support the use of cheques; it improved the safety of pilgrims by making them less attractive targets for thieves, and also contributed to the Templar coffers.

Based on this mix of donations and business dealing, the Templars established financial networks across the whole of Christendom. They acquired large tracts of land, both in Europe and the Middle East; they bought and managed farms and vineyards; they built massive stone cathedrals and castles; they were involved in manufacturing, import and export; they had their own fleet of ships; and at one point they even owned the entire island of Cyprus. The Order of the Knights Templar arguably qualifies as the world’s first multinational corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

The Knights Templar have, in fact, often been called the first “international bankers”, besides being a military religious order.

Jesuits – the revived Knights Templar?

Hughes de Payens himself had not that keen and far-sighted intellect nor that grandeur of purpose which afterward distinguished the military founder of another soldiery that became formidable to kings. The Templars were unintelligent and therefore unsuccessful Jesuits.

  • Albert Pike, 33rd Degree Freemason, Morals and Dogma, 1871, p. 819

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/md31.htm

But how and why would the Jesuit Order be a continuation, or a more sophisticated new version, of the Knights Templar?

The first clue is in the common symbolism of these two orders. The Knights Templar were known for their motto in hoc signo vinces (IHSV), which means “in this sign you will conquer”, and was originally credited to the first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great.

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author (c. 240 – c. 320) who became an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I (and tutor to his son), guiding the Emperor’s religious policy as it developed during his reign. His work De Mortibus Persecutorum has an apologetic character, but has been treated as a work of history by Christian writers. Here Lactantius preserves the story of Constantine’s vision of the Chi Rho before his conversion to Christianity. The full text is found in only one manuscript, which bears the title, Lucii Caecilii liber ad Donatum Confessorem de Mortibus Persecutorum.

The historian bishop Eusebius of Caesaria states that Constantine was marching with his army (Eusebius does not specify the actual location of the event, but it is clearly not in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words “(ἐν) τούτῳ νίκα” (“In this, conquer”), a phrase often rendered into Latin as in hoc signo vinces (“in this sign, you will conquer”).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_hoc_signo_vinces#History

But the Templars also used the IHS monogram, which is today normally associated with the Jesuits, as it’s in the official seal of the Jesuit order. Here we have the IHS monogram in a church built by the Templars:

templar_ihs

Here’s the Templar cross:

Cross_of_the_Knights_Templar.svg

Let’s then look at the IHS symbol right above the entrance of the Church of the Gesu, the mother church of the Jesuits, in Rome:

Church-of-the-Gesu-IHS-Templar-Cross

There we have the Templar cross on top of the H, only in color black as opposed to the usual red.

The Order of Montesa, the Borgia family and the Jesuits

And now for the historical evidence linking the Jesuits to the Knights Templar. From the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), regarding the dissolution of the Templar order, we read:

The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree (Bull of 22 March, 1312). The order having been suppressed, the pope himself was to decide as to the fate of its members and the disposal of its possessions. As to the property, it was turned over to the rival Order of Hospitallers to be applied to its original use, namely the defence of the Holy Places. In Portugal, however, and in Aragon the possessions were vested in two new orders, the Order of Christ in Portugal and the Order of Montesa in Aragon. As to the members, the Templars recognized guiltless were allowed either to join another military order or to return to the secular state. In the latter case, a pension for life, charged to the possessions of the order, was granted them. On the other hand, the Templars who had pleaded guilty before their bishops were to be treated “according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy”.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Knights_Templars

So the Templars’ property was handed over to another Papal crusader order, the Knights Hospitaller, of which continuation today is the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) aka Knights of Malta, which was established in the 19th century after the original order had dispersed in 1798 with the French invasion of Malta led by Napoleon Bonaparte. Except, in Portugal and Aragon, where the possessions of the Templars were given to the newly founded Order of Montesa.

The Order of Montesa (Valencian: Ordre de Montesa, Aragonese and Spanish: Orden de Montesa) is a Christian military order, territorially limited to the old Crown of Aragon. It was named after the castle of Montesa, its headquarters.

The Knights Templar had been received with enthusiasm in Crown of Aragon from their foundation in 1128. King Alfonso I of Aragon, having no direct heir, bequeathed his dominions to be divided among the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller, and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, but this bequest was annulled by his subjects in 1131. The Knights Templar had to be contented with certain castles, the chief of which was Monzón. Although the Aragonese branch of the order was pronounced innocent at the famous trial of the Templars, Pope Clement V‘s Bull of suppression was applied to them in spite of the protests of King James II of Aragon in 1312.

King James II persuaded Pope John XXII to permit him to regroup the Templar properties in Aragon and Valencia, and to create a new military order not essentially differing from that of the Templars, which should be charged with the defence of the frontier against the Moors and the pirates. The new order was dedicated to Our Lady, and based at Montesa. Pope John XXII approved it on 10 June 1317, and gave it the Cistercian rule.

The order derived its title from St. George of Montesa, its principal stronghold. It was affiliated to the Order of Calatrava, from which its first recruits were drawn, and it was maintained in dependence upon that order.

The first of the fourteen grand masters was Guillermo d’Eril. In 1485, Philip of Viana renounced the Archdiocese of Palermo to become grand master. He died fighting the Kingdom of Granada in 1488. The office of grand master was united with the Crown by Philip II in 1587.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Montesa

And who was the last grand master before the office was united with the Spanish Crown? Pedro Luis Garceran de Borja, the half-brother of St. Francis Borgia, the third Superior General of the Jesuit order. They were from the House of Borgia, which produced two Popes.

The House of Borgia (/ˈbɔːrʒə/; Italian: Borgia [ˈbɔrdʒa]; Spanish and Aragonese: Borja [ˈboɾxa]; Valencian: Borja[ˈbɔɾʒa]) was an Italo-Spanish noble family, which rose to prominence during the Italian Renaissance. They were from Aragon, the surname being a toponymic from the town of Borja, then in the Crown of Aragon, in Spain.

The Borgias became prominent in ecclesiastical and political affairs in the 15th and 16th centuries, producing two popes: Alfons de Borja, who ruled as Pope Callixtus III during 1455–1458, and Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia, as Pope Alexander VI, during 1492–1503.

Especially during the reign of Alexander VI, they were suspected of many crimes, including adultery, incest, simony, theft, bribery, and murder (especially murder by arsenic poisoning). Because of their grasping for power, they made enemies of the Medici, the Sforza, and the Dominican friar Savonarola, among others. They were also patrons of the arts who contributed to the Renaissance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia

The original emblem of the Order of Montesa was basically the Templar Cross, as we can see below in the picture of Francisco Crespi de Borja, another Knight of the order from the House of Borgia.

Francisco Crespi de Borja, Order of Montesa

Francisco-Crespi-de-Borja-Order-of-Montesa

The current emblem is an amalgamation of the Templar cross and the emblem of the Order of Calatrava (dissolved in 1838), as the two orders were affiliated.

Badge_of_the_Order_of_Montesa-1.svg

The House of Borgia were a major force behind the Jesuit order in its early days, and even more so were the House of Farnese.

The Farnese family was an influential family in Renaissance Italy. The titles of Duke of Parma and Piacenza and Duke of Castro were held by various members of the family.

Its most important members included Pope Paul III, Alessandro Farnese (a cardinal), Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma (a military commander and Governor of the Spanish Netherlands), and Elisabeth Farnese, who became Queen of Spain and whose legacy was brought to her Bourbon descendants.

A number of important architectural works and antiquities are associated with the Farnese family, either through construction or acquisition. Buildings include the Palazzo Farnese in Rome and the Villa Farnese at Caprarola, and ancient artifacts include the Farnese Marbles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Farnese

Pope Paul III was the one who officially established the Jesuit order in 1540, and his grandson Cardinal Alessandro Farnese was the one who built the Church of the Gesu. Thats why the name of Alessandro Farnese is carved on the facade of the church, above the fore-mentioned IHS emblem with the Templar cross.

Church of the Gesu in the Piazza del Gesu, Rome.

Church_of_the_Gesù,_Rome

The Jesuits and Freemasonry

Was the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry actually created by French Jesuits affiliated with the dethroned and exiled adherents of the Scottish Catholic House of Stuart? Looking at historical sources, it seems plausible it was.

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

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/j.htm

This degree originated thirty years before the French Revolution of 1789, and was active in producing it. The lodge-theory was that of the anarchists of today, that, if institutions or religion, and government were abolished;, human passions, like fluids, would find their level in universal peace and happiness. Communists guillotined their king, and hung their bishops to lampposts; proclaimed “liberty and equality;” and put their religious creed over the gate of their cemetery: “There is no God! Death is an eternal sleep.” The last degree of their system required the candidate to stab his brother, or nearest friend, as a traitor to the lodge, and amid the brother’s groans, and pleadings for his life, they laid the candidate’s gloved hand on the beating heart of a lamb. And, if he stabbed, they removed the blinder, and swore him to vengeance against Church and State. This was “The Royal Secret.” This explains the vengeance sworn in this and other degrees of that day. (See Robison’s Conspiracy, p. 299.) But, in this country, and at this day, this degree is senseless, and worthless. Its bluster about freeing the people, is meaningless, and itself not worth reading.

But how happens this once “Ne plus ultra” degree to be so prolix and stupid as to be scarce worth reading?

The answer is this: when formed by Jacobin Jesuits, in 1754, in the Jesuits’ College of Clermont, Paris, it was “the Military Organization,” as the candidate was told. It then crowned the Rite of Perfection of 25 degrees, which was adopted by “the Council of Emperors,” four years later; that is, in 1758. The Jacobins, like the Chicago anarchists lately hung were then secretly swearing to do what they afterwards did, viz., wage war on the government. Hence this 32nd grade was not called a degree, but an “organization,” as it was. But when adopted by Morin’s Sovereign Inspectors, at Charleston, S. C., in 1801, no war was then contemplated, but by Aaron Burr, and he was soon tried by Jefferson, for his life. The country was then peaceful, and satisfied and pleased with their free constitution, adopted in 1789, only twelve years before. Of course, no fighting was contemplated. True French sympathizers elected Jefferson that year; but the French revolution had reacted, and the Monroe doctrine was soon adopted, to keep the United States free from foreign entanglements. Masonry now did not mean fight, but money and false worship.

What then were Dalcho, Mitchell and Provost to do? They had resolved on an “Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite,” to rule the false worships of Masonry throughout the world. They adopted a scale of thirty-two degrees; and placed this Military degree at the head: because, it had been, as the notes and ritual say: “the Ne Plus Ultra degree,” and it would not do to leave it out. They therefore stretched it, and stuffed it into its present shape, prolix enough. Hence the hotch-potch flummery of a camp of nine sides, with stupid Masonic explanations for every corner.

But the one “mission and object” (Mackey) of Masonry is kept steadily in view; which is the worship of the god of this world, who is Satan, as the “Grand Architect of the Universe;” and to accomplish this by inventing “a religion in which all mankind agree;” and this, by putting all earth’s religions upon a level, and uniting them together in Masonic worship, which is boldly avowed in rituals, lexicons, and philosophical degrees. This is, (in Revelation, 13, 14,) called: the image of the beast, made by “them, that dwell on the earth;” that is, everybody; every creed, and no creed; all who join secret lodges. But this world-religion must have some form and shape, to hold together; and be taxed; hence, it takes the form, or image, of the beast. Lodge despotism is as absolute as Romish despotism, and is the image of it; and it is made, as we have seen, by the lamb-dragon beast, which is Popery; “that great city, (Rome) which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” (Rev, 17, 18.)

The 32nd Degree of the Scottish Rite even has the same motto as the Jesuits – ad majorem Dei gloriam, which means “For the greater glory of God”:

But the key to the importance of this 32nd degree, is its MOTTO: “Ad majorem Dei gloriam.” This is the motto of the Jesuits; who, with the apostate Ramsay, made these French degrees, falsely called Scottish. This motto was adopted by their founder, Ignatius Loyola; and is still the motto of the order which he founded, in an underground chapel of the Holy Martyrs in 1534, seventeen years after Luther nailed his Theses to the church door at Wittenberg, in 1517. The reformation had only fairly begun, and this underground, secret order of Jesuits met the Reformation, and has turned it back. Some principalities in Germany, once Protestant, are now under Popish princes! That order now rules Popedom, though once prohibited by it, as Masonry is now.

A confirmation by a Masonic authority:

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.

Incidentally, the the black solar symbol on the official seal of the Jesuit order also has exactly 32 rays;

240px-Ihs-logo.svg

After the Jesuit order was officially suppressed by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 by the brief Dominus ac Redemptor, the greatest protectors of Jesuits in Europe were Catherine the Great, the Orthodox Empress of Russia, and Frederick the Great, the protestant King of Prussia.

When the Society of Jesus was suppressed, the Pope permitted the rulers of individual countries not to issue the bull of suppression. Catherine of Russia was the most famous of those who did not promulgate the bull, but Frederick II of Prussia was another. On September 13 1773 he informed Pope Clement XIV that the Jesuits would not be suppressed in Prussia.

https://www.manresa-sj.org/stamps/3_Friends_2.htm

King Frederick II of Prussia and Tsarina Catherine II of Russia, apprehensive that the Society’s suppression would antagonise their new Polish subjects through the disruption or destruction of the Jesuit colleges, refused to promulgate and enforce the brief. News of Prussia’s recalcitrance reached Rome first. There were stories of the opening of a novitiate, of the king’s use of Jesuits in public functions, and of Frederick’s soliciting the Sorbonne’s opinion on the legitimacy of the Society’s survival to quell the scruples of some Jesuits who believed their continuation depended solely on a technicality. The Society survived in Prussia until 3 January 1776. But even after that date reports continued to reach Rome about the Prussian king’s fondness for the Society.

  • Thomas McCoog SJ, Jesuit Restoration – Part Three: The Survival of the Jesuits, August 20, 2014

https://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/jesuit-restoration-part-three-survival-jesuits

And, as it happens, Frederick the Great was a Freemason.

Frederick II, King of Prussia, surnamed the Great, was born on January 14, 1712, and died on August 17, 1786, at the age of seventy-four years and a few months. He was initiated as a Freemason, at Brunswick, on the night of August 14, 1738, not quite two years before he ascended the throne… We hear no more of Frederick’s Freemasonry in the printed records until the 16th of July, 1774, when he granted his protection to the National Grand Lodge of Germany, and officially approved of the treaty with the Grand Lodge of England, by which the National Grand Lodge was established. In the year 1777, the Mother Lodge, Royal York of Friendship, at Berlin, celebrated, by a festival, the king’s birthday, on which occasion Frederick wrote the following letter, which, as it is the only printed declaration of his opinion of Freemasonry that is now extant, is well worth copying:

“I cannot but be sensible of the new homage of the Lodge Royal York of Friendship on the occasion of the anniversary of my birth bearing, as it does the evidence of its zeal and attachment for my person. Its orator has well expressed the sentiments which animate all its labors; and a society which employs itself only in sowing the seed and bringing forth the fruit of every kind of virtue in my dominions may always be assured of my protection. It is the glorious task of every good sovereign and I will never cease to fulfill it. And so I pray God to take you and your Lodge under his holy and deserved protection.”

  • Albert G. Mackey, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences

http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/mackeys_encyclopedia/f.htm

The “Piazza del Gesu Freemasons”, Jesuits and Mussolini

In Italy, there’s a Masonic lodge called Gran Loggia d’Italia degli ALAM (Antichi Liberi Accettati Muratori) or “Grand Lodge of Italy of the A.F.& A.M. (Antient Free and Accepted Masons)”. It was formed by a large group of Scottish Rite Freemasons who left the Grand Orient of Italy (GOI) after a schism in 1908. The schism happened because they disagreed with the radical and anticlerical orientation the GOI had taken after electing a new Grand Master. And so, the exiled Masons founded a new more pro-Church lodge, and they were popularly known as the “Piazza del Gesu Freemasons” because their headquarters was originally at the Piazza del Gesu, Rome, practically right next to the mother church of the Jesuits!

On May 19, 1922, the Grand Lodge of Italy was invited to Lausanne for the World Conference of the supreme Scottish rite councils, to the detriment of the Grand Orient of Italy . This new recognition translated into a real triumph for Palermi, who, galvanized by the success achieved in Lausanne, openly showed his support for fascism by applauding the March on Rome, and sending an official telegram with which he wished for the success of the newborn Mussolini Government.

The support of the Masonic communion of Piazza del Gesù at the taking of power by Mussolini was not a mere declaration of courtesy. The American historian Peter Tompkins in the book “Dalle carte segrete del Duce“, (2001), has shown that all four “quadrumvirs” of the March on Rome (Italo Balbo, Michele Bianchi, Cesare Maria De Vecchi and Emilio De Bono) belonged to the Grand Lodge of Italy.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Loggia_d%27Italia_degli_Alam#Il_primo_dopoguerra_e_l’avvento_del_Fascismo

Mussolini-March-on-Rome-Freemasons

On February 11, 1929, Benito Mussoloni, the Fascist dictator of Italy, signed the Lateran Treaty with the Papacy, which led to the creation of the independent Vatican City State:

The Lateran Treaty (Italian: Patti Lateranensi; Latin: Pacta Lateranensia) was one of the Lateran Pacts of 1929 or Lateran Accords, agreements made in 1929 between the Kingdom of Italy and the Holy See, settling the “Roman Question“. They are named after the Lateran Palace, where they were signed on 11 February 1929. The Italian parliament ratified them on 7 June 1929. It recognized Vatican City as an independent state, with the Italian government, at the time led by Benito Mussolini as prime minister, agreeing to give the Roman Catholic Church financial compensation for the loss of the Papal States. In 1947, the Lateran Treaty was recognized in the Constitution of Italy as regulating the relations between the state and the Catholic Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

Jesuit priest Pietro Tacchi Venturi was a middleman between Mussolini and the Papacy:

Pietro Tacchi Venturi (Italian pronunciation: [ˈpjɛtro ˈtakki venˈturi]; 1861—March 18, 1956) was a Jesuit priest and historian who served as the unofficial liaison between Benito Mussolini, the Fascist leader of Italy from 1922 to 1943, and popes Pius XI and Pius XII. He was also one of the architects of the 1929 Lateran Treaty, which ended the “Roman Question” (a dispute over the status of the papacy since the Italian unification), and recognized the sovereignty of Vatican City, which made it an actor of international relations. A claimed attempt to assassinate Venturi with a paper knife (actually the result of a homosexual lover’s quarrel), one year before the treaty’s completion, made headlines around the world. Venturi had begun the process of reconciliation by convincing Mussolini to donate the valuable library of the Palazzo Chigi to the Vatican.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Tacchi_Venturi

The Knights Templar, Vatican and Freemasonry

Now, in regards to Freemasonry, we don’t really even have to look at history to see the obvious connection to the Knights Templar.

There’s an order affiliated with Freemasonry that’s actually called the Knights Templar (full name The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta). The individual orders united within this system are principally the Knights of the Temple (Knights Templar), the Knights of Malta (named after the Papal military order Knights of Malta), the Knights of St Paul, and only within the York Rite, the Knights of the Red Cross.

York Rite Knights Templar regalia

York-Rite-Knights-Templar-regalia

Then there is the Christian fraternal order Red Cross of Constantine, or more formally the Masonic and Military Order of the Red Cross of Constantine and the Appendant Orders of the Holy Sepulchre and of St John the Evangelist, which was inspired by the Roman Catholic dynastic order Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George. The Constantinian Order was of course named after Constantine the Great, and their motto is the same as for Templars, i.e., in hoc signo vinces.

Red Cross of Constantine regalia

Red-Cross-of-Constantine-medals

Cross of the Constantian Order

240px-Croix_constantinien.svg

The Red Cross of Constantine also has an appendant order called the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, named after the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem, a prestigious Papal chivalric order.

Lastly, below is an emblem of the York Right Knights Templar from the 1800s with the IHS monogram inside a Masonic pyramid symbol. Even if it wasn’t intended, one could see it symbolizing the interconnection between the Knights Templar, Freemasons, and the Jesuits.

York-Rite-Knights-Templar-IHS

The Suppression of the Jesuits, Illuminati and the French Revolution

The Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, three years after the suppression of the Jesuits.

Adam Weishaupt was born on 6 February 1748 in Ingolstadt in the Electorate of Bavaria. Weishaupt’s father Johann Georg Weishaupt (1717–1753) died when Adam was five years old. After his father’s death he came under the tutelage of his godfather Johann Adam Freiherr von Ickstatt who, like his father, was a professor of law at the University of Ingolstadt. Ickstatt was a proponent of the philosophy of Christian Wolff and of the Enlightenment, and he influenced the young Weishaupt with his rationalism. Weishaupt began his formal education at age seven at a Jesuit school. He later enrolled at the University of Ingolstadt and graduated in 1768 at age 20 with a doctorate of law. In 1772 he became a professor of law. The following year he married Afra Sausenhofer of Eichstätt.

After Pope Clement XIV’s suppression of the Society of Jesus in 1773, Weishaupt became a professor of canon law, a position that was held exclusively by the Jesuits until that time. In 1775 Weishaupt was introduced to the empirical philosophy of Johann Georg Heinrich Feder of the University of Göttingen. Both Feder and Weishaupt would later become opponents of Kantian idealism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt#Early_life

It is said Weishaupt then became deeply anticlerical, which was his supposed motive to attack the Catholic Church. I’ve even seen claims about Weishaupt having been fervently anti-Jesuit because they supposedly treated him badly while he was a professor at their university. That’s been used as an argument by some who try to debunk the Jesuit conspiracy.

But was he really? Adolph Knigge, a leading member of the Illuminati, actually accused him of being a secret Jesuit before his departure from the order in 1784:

But in 1783 dissensions arose between Knigge and Weishaupt, which resulted in the final withdrawal of the former on 1 July, 1784. Knigge could no longer endure Weishaupt’s pedantic domineering, which frequently assumed offensive forms. He accused Weishaupt of “Jesuitism”, and suspected him of being “a Jesuit in disguise” (Nachtr., I, 129). “And was I”, he adds, “to labour under his banner for mankind, to lead men under the yoke of so stiff-necked a fellow?—Never!”

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Illuminati

So, was Weishaupt fighting against the Catholic Church because he was ideologically anticlerical, or was he in reality a frontman for the Jesuits? And was the Illuminati used as a proxy to get back at the Papacy, which had officially suppressed the Jesuit order in 1773 with the brief Dominus ac Redemptor, and at the Catholic Monarchs that had expelled them?

As most conspiracy researchers know, the Illuminati was allegedly behind the French Revolution of 1789 through having infiltrated Freemasonry. This theory was first presented by John Robison in his Proof of a Conspiracy (1797), and Augustin Barruel in Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism (1799);

Towards the end of his life, he became an enthusiastic conspiracy theorist, publishing Proofs of a Conspiracy … in 1797, alleging clandestine intrigue by the Illuminatiand Freemasons (the work’s full title was Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and Governments of Europe, carried on in the secret meetings of Freemasons, Illuminati and Reading Societies). The secret agent monk, Alexander Horn provided much of the material for Robison’s allegations. French priest Abbé Barruel independently developed similar views that the Illuminati had infiltrated Continental Freemasonry, leading to the excesses of the French Revolution. In 1798, the Reverend G. W. Snyder sent Robison’s book to George Washington for his thoughts on the subject in which he replied to him in a letter:

“It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am. The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of separation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a separation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Robison_(physicist)#The_conspiracy_theorist

Interestingly enough, Barruel used to be a Jesuit priest, so make of that what you will. Anyway, many of the revolutionary leaders were indeed Freemasons:

The Lodge Les Neuf Sœurs was a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France that was particularly influential in organising French support for the American Revolution and later in the intellectual ferment that preceded the French Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a member of this Lodge when he was serving as liaison in Paris.

Some notable French revolutionaries were Freemasons, including Marquis de LafayetteMarquis de Condorcet, Mirabeau, Georges Danton, the Duke of Orléans, and Hébert.

Louis Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, a leader of the Liberal Aristocracy, was the Grand Master of the Grand Orient at the time of the French Revolution. In some parts of France, the Jacobin Clubs were continuances of Masonic lodges from the Ancien Régime, and according to historian Alan Forrest “some early clubs, indeed, took over both the premises and much of the membership of masonic lodges, before rebadging themselves in the new idiom of the revolution.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia alleges that the Masonic book La Franc-Maçonnerie, écrasée in 1746 predicted the program of the French Revolution, and claims to quote documents of the Grand Orient of France where Freemasonry claims credit for the French Revolution. However, the New Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967 says that modern historians see Freemasonry’s role in the French Revolution as exaggerated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Orient_de_France#French_Revolution

Voltaire (1694-1778), who didn’t himself participate but was regarded as a forerunner of the revolution, was a Freemason as well. Voltaire was also Jesuit educated, like Marquis de Condorcet, Marquis de Lafayette, and Maximilien Robespierre who led the Reign of Terror (1793-1794).

Napoleon’s onslaught on Catholic Monarchies, Papacy and the Knights of Malta

Jesuit educated Catholic priest Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes was another key figure in the revolution, but later in 1799 he instigated the coup that brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power.

Before that, as a military general, Napoleon defeated the 1795 pro-Catholic royalist rebellion against the National Convention, which was the first French Revolution government. The defeat of the royalist insurrection extinguished the threat to the Convention and earned Bonaparte sudden fame, wealth and the patronage of the new government, the Directory, and he was then promoted to Commander of the Interior and given command of the Army of Italy, a field army of the French Army stationed on the Italian border and used for operations in Italy itself. It’s best known for its role during the French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

In the first Italian campaign Bonaparte defeated the Catholic Habsburg Monarchy’s Austrian forces, and the Treaty of Campos gave France control over most of northern Italy and Low Countries. Then Bonaparte marched on Venice and forced its surrender, ending 1100 years of independence (697-1797) for the Republic of Venice.

As was already mentioned above, during the French Campaign in Egypt and Syria (1798-1800), General Bonaparte invaded Malta in 1798, then ruled by the Order of St. John aka Knights Hospitaller;

Following the capture of Malta, Napoleon landed at Valletta on 13 June. He stayed on the island for six days, spending the first night at the Banca Giuratale and later staying at Palazzo Parisio, before most of the French fleet embarked for the campaign in Egypt. General Vaubois remained on the island with a garrison in order to maintain control, thereby establishing the French occupation of Malta. During his short stay, Napoleon dictated instructions which radically reformed the Maltese government and society, so as to bring it in line with French Republican ideals.

A few days after the capitulation, the Grand Master and many knights left the island, taking with them few movable possessions including some relics and icons. The Order received shelter from Paul I of Russia, who was eventually proclaimed Grand Master by some knights. The Order gradually evolved into the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, which still exists today and has sovereignty but no territory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Malta#Aftermath

Why is this significant in this context? Because of this:

Malta was at the time a vassal of the Kingdom of Sicily, and Grandmaster Manuel Pinto da Fonseca, himself a Portuguese, followed suit, expelling the Jesuits from the island and seizing their assets. These assets were used in establishing the University of Malta by a decree signed by Pinto on 22 November 1769, with lasting effect on the social and cultural life of Malta. The Church of the Jesuits (in Maltese Knisja tal-Ġiżwiti), one of the oldest churches in Valletta, retains this name up to the present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus#Suppression_in_Malta

So Malta was one of the Catholic-ruled territories where the Jesuit had been suppressed, the others being the Portuguese Empire (1759), France (1764), the Two Sicilies, Parma, the Spanish Empire (1767), and Austria and Hungary (1782). And ever since the Jesuits were restored in 1814, the Knights of Malta have been de facto subordinate to them.

Then with the Napoleonic Wars, the French Empire subjugated most of the Catholic Monarchies that had suppressed and expelled the Jesuits. Here’s a map of the First French Empire in 1812:

450px-First_French_Empire_1812.svg

Napoleon and the Catholic Church

From Wikipedia:

In 1796, French Republican troops under the command of Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Italy, defeated the papal troops and occupied Ancona and Loreto.

Pope Pius VI sued for peace, which was granted at Tolentino on February 19, 1797; but on December 28 of that year, in a riot blamed by Papal forces on Italian and French revolutionaries, the popular brigadier-general Mathurin-Léonard Duphot, who had gone to Rome with Joseph Bonaparte as part of the French embassy, was killed and a new pretext was furnished for invasion. General Berthier marched to Rome, entered it unopposed on February 10, 1798, and, proclaiming a Roman Republic, demanded of the Pope the renunciation of his temporal power.

Upon his refusal he was taken prisoner, and on February 20 was escorted from the Vatican to Siena, and thence to the Certosa near Florence. The French declaration of war against Tuscany led to his removal (he was escorted by the Spaniard Pedro Gómez Labrador, Marquis of Labrador) by way of Parma, Piacenza, Turin and Grenoble to the citadel of Valence, the chief town of Drôme where he died six weeks after his arrival, on August 29, 1799, having then reigned longer than any Pope.

Pius VI’s body was embalmed, but was not buried until January 30, 1800 after Napoleon saw political advantage to burying the deceased Pope in efforts to bring the Catholic Church back into France.

Napoleon realized the importance of religion as a means to increase obedience and his control over the French. It was not until the conclave of Cardinals had gathered to elect a new Pope that Napoleon decided to bury Pope Pius VI who had died several weeks earlier. He gave him a gaudy ceremony in an effort to gain the attention of the Catholic Church. This eventually led to the Concordat of 1801 negotiated by Ercole Consalvi, the Pope’s secretary of state, which re-systemised the linkage between the French church and Rome. However, the Concordat also contained the “Organic Articles” which Consalvi had fiercely denied Napoleon, but which the latter had installed regardless.

The papacy had suffered a major loss of church lands through secularizations in the Holy Roman Empire following the Peace of Lunéville (1801), when a number of German princes were compensated for their losses by the seizure of ecclesiastical property.

The Concordat of 1801 is a reflection of an agreement between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pope Pius VII that reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church as the majority church of France and restored some of its civil status.

While the Concordat restored some ties to the papacy, it was largely in favor of the state; the balance of church-state relations had tilted firmly in Napoleon Bonaparte’s favour. As a part of the Concordat, he presented another set of laws called the Organic Articles.

From the beginning of his papacy to the fall of Napoleon I Bonaparte in 1815, Pius VII was completely involved with France. He and Napoleon were continually in conflict, often involving the French military leader’s wishes for concessions to his demands.

Relations between the Church and Napoleon deteriorated. On February 3, 1808, General Miollis occupied Rome with a division. In the next month, the puppet Kingdom of Italy annexed the papal provinces Ancona, Macerata, Fermo, and Urbino, and diplomatic relations were broken off.

On 17 May 1809, Napoleon issued two decrees from the Schönbrunn Palace near Vienna in which he reproached the popes for the ill use they had made of the donation of Charlemagne, his “august predecessor”, and declared those territories which were still under the direct control of the Papal State were to be annexed to the French empire. The territories were to be organized under Miollis with a council extraordinary to administer them. As compensation the Pope would receive a stipend of 2,000,000 francs per annum. On 10 June Miollis had the Pontifical flag, which still floated over the castle of St. Angelo, lowered.

When Pius VII subsequently excommunicated Napoleon, one of Napoleon’s officers saw an opportunity to gain praise. Although Napoleon had captured Castel Sant’Angelo and intimidated the Pope by pointing cannons at his papal bedroom, he did not instruct one of his most ambitious lieutenants, Lieutenant Radet, to kidnap the Pope. Yet once Pius VII was a prisoner, Napoleon did not offer his release; the Pope was moved throughout Napoleon’s territories, in great sickness at times, though most of his confinement took place at Savona. Napoleon sent several delegations of his supporters to pressure the Pope on various issues: yielding power; and signing a new concordat with France.

The Pope remained in confinement for over six years, and did not return to Rome until May 24, 1814, when the 5th Radetzky Hussars of the Allied forces freed the Pope during a pursuit of Napoleonic forces.

At the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) the Papal States were largely restored. The Jesuits were restored. The Pope offered a refuge in his capital to the members of the Bonaparte family. Princess Letitia, the deposed emperor’s mother, lived there; likewise did his brothers Lucien and Louis and his uncle, Cardinal Fesch.

In February 1821, while exiled at Saint Helena island, Napoleon’s health began to deteriorate rapidly. He reconciled with the Catholic Church. He died on 5 May 1821, after receiving the Sacraments of Confession, Extreme Unction and Viaticum in the presence of Father Ange Vignali.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_and_the_Catholic_Church

Yes, after all this, the Jesuits, having been suppressed by all these Catholic Monarchies in the latter part of the 1700s and by Pope Clement XIV in 1773 with the brief Dominus ac Redemptor, were officially restored by Pope Pius VII, who had been bulldozed by Napoleon throughout his Papacy. And after that the Jesuits soon took over the Vatican, which they have secretly ruled ever since.

It’s interesting that Napoleon then indeed reconciled with the Catholic Church before his death in 1821;

The news the pope had received that Napoleon wanted to be reconciled to the Church was true. The dreary life he led on St. Helena gave him time to turn his mind to God. He once commented to a young doctor who laughed at his growing devotion to religion, “Young man! You are perhaps too clever to believe in God; I am not so advanced as that. Not all can be atheists.” The will he wrote on St. Helena opened with strange words for a man who, most of his life, had called himself a Deist: “I die in the bosom of the Apostolic and Roman Church.” In his will, Napoleon said he wanted to be buried according to the rites of the Catholic Church.

https://www.catholictextbookproject.com/this-day-in-history/this-day-in-history-31/

But what’s even more interesting, is that the founder of the Illuminati Adam Weishaupt, who supposedly was an ardent adversary of the Catholic Church, did the same:

As early as 16 February, 1785, Weishaupt had fled from Ingolstadt, and in 1787 he settled at Gotha. His numerous apologetic writings failed to exonerate either the order or himself. Being now the head of a numerous family, his views on religious and political matters grew more sober. After 1787 he renounced all active connexion with secret societies, and again drew near to the Church, displaying remarkable zeal in the building of the Catholic church at Gotha. He died on 18 November, 1830, “reconciled with the Catholic Church, which, as a youthful professor, he had doomed to death and destruction”—as the chronicle of the Catholic parish in Gotha relates.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Illuminati

This certainly fits in with the theory that Weishaupt had been a secret Jesuit all the time, that he was a frontman for the Jesuits during their suppression in the Catholic kingdoms.

And was it just a coincidence that the French Revolution abolished the French Monarchy, which had dissolved the Jesuit order; that Napoleon lambasted other Catholic Monarchies that had done the same, and the Papacy that had officially suppressed them in 1773; and that after all the turmoil, the Jesuits arguably came out as the biggest winners?