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:


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.


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.”


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.”


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.


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?


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.


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.


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.”


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


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


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


“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


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.


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 photo “Situation Room” – Obama surrounded by Roman Catholic and Jesuit trained advisors

Situation Room is a photograph taken by White House photographer Pete Souza in its namesake, the White House Situation Room, at 4:05 pm on May 1, 2011. The photograph shows President of the United States Barack Obama along with his national security team, receiving live updates from Operation Neptune Spear, which led to the killing of Osama bin Laden, the leader of al-Qaeda.


Here’s a fact about the photo that hardly anyone noticed, let alone understood the significance of:

As a Catholic counter, Graziano misses almost nothing. In the famous war room photograph of White House officials watching Navy SEALs take out Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011, he notes (citing Dario Fabbri’s article “The Roman Factor,” published in Limes), “nine are Catholic or received a Jesuit education.” In Obama’s second term, the second, third, fourth, and fifth positions in the line of succession were held by Catholics: Vice President Joe Biden, Speaker of the House John Boehner, President pro tempore of the Senate Patrick Leahy, and Secretary of State John Kerry. In addition, Catholics comprised “more than one-third of the members of the government, all of the most important military positions, two-thirds of the Supreme Court and 38 percent of US governors.”


On May 1, 2011, the official photographer Pete Souza takes the snapshot symbol of the killing of bin Laden. In a room adjacent to the Situation Room, the top national security officers are apprehensive about the last minutes of the sheikh of terror’s life. Out of thirteen people identified in photo 2 – including Obama and Clinton – nine are Catholic or have received Jesuit education. These are Joe Biden, Denis McDonough, Robert Gates, Mike Mullen, Tom Donilon, William Daley, Audrey Tomason, John Brennan and James Clapper. The distance between the two historical moments appears exorbitant. In just over fifty years the percentage of Catholics out of the total population has remained almost unchanged (around 25%), but their political and cultural influence has largely gone beyond the limits of demography. To the point that Kennedy’s speech, although necessary, now sounds anachronistic. Never have so many Catholics held the highest government, military and judicial offices in the United States simultaneously.
Dario Fabbri

From the Google translation of original Italian article The Roman Factor

Why indeed don’t Americans notice thing like this?

In the words of Georgetown University’s Jacques Berlinerblau, the Bible as a political document “is to clear and coherent political deliberation as sleet, fog, hail and flash floods are to highway safety.” “American Protestants,” agrees historian Gaetano Salvemini, “have their heart in the right place and their head nowhere: they do not even realize the importance of the fact that half of their diplomatic staff (Catholic or not) has passed through schools run by Jesuits.” As late as 1950, Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service — President Bill Clinton’s alma mater — was the only American university offering a course for diplomats.


Here’s the photo with annotations:

Here are the nine Roman Catholic and/or Jesuit trained Obama’s advisors in the photo, out of the 12 that have been identified:

1. Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States. Biden is a Roman Catholic and has received honorary degrees from two Jesuit universities, the University of Scranton (1976) and Saint Joseph’s University (1981). His son Hunter was Jesuit trained at Georgetown University, the Jesuit headquarters and power base in America located in Washington, D.C. After graduating from Georgetown with a BA, he served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, and in 2008 he lobbied for five Jesuit universities, including University of Scranton, which is located in his father’s hometown. Hunter Biden is thus a clear case of a “Jesuit of the short robe”, i.e., not officially a member of the Jesuit order, but a coadjutor and totally in league with them.

2. Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor. McDonough was raised in a devout Irish Catholic family. He graduated with a BA from Saint John’s University, a Benedictine Catholic university, and with a MS from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, which was mentioned in the book review above. In a 2012 White House ceremony for Cath school leaders, he said that the influence of the Sisters of St. Joseph at St. Croix Catholic elementary and Benedictine monks of Saint John’s University enable him to “make well-rounded and just recommendations to the president”. His brother Kevin is a Catholic priest and was the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis for 17 years.

3. Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense. Gates has a PhD from Georgetown University and also received an honorary degree from there in 2014.

4. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mullen is a Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools.

5. Tom Donilon, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. Donilon is a Roman Catholic, attended a Catholic high school, and graduated with a BA from the Catholic University of America. His wife Cathy Russell, a longtime advisor to Joe Biden and his wife Jill Biden, has a BA from Jesuit Boston College, and brother Mike Donilon, also a longtime advisor to Biden, has a BA and JD from Georgetown University.

6. William M. Daley, White House Chief of Staff. Daley graduated from a Jesuit high school and from Jesuit Loyola University Chicago with a BA.

7. Audrey Tomason, Director for Counterterrorism for the National Security Council. Tomason is a Roman Catholic, at least according to Dario Fabbri.

8. John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Brennan graduated from a Catholic high school and has a BA from Fordham University, the Jesuit university in New York City.

9. James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence. Clapper has a MA from St. Mary’s University, a Marianist Catholic university in Texas, and held the position of Georgetown University’s Intelligence and National Security Alliance Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Intelligence for the 2006–2007 academic year.

In addition to that, these two have clear ties to the Jesuits through their spouses:

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. Her equally (in)famous husband Bill Clinton has a BS from Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, and he’s publicly said that Carroll Quigley, his professor there, was a great influence to him.

Tony Blinken, National Security Advisor to the Vice President. Blinken is the only Jewish advisor on the photo, and his wife Evan Ryan, who served as an Assistant Secretary of State and an advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, was Jesuit trained at Boston College.

The last identified advisor was Brigadier General Marshall B. Webb, Assistant Commanding General of the Joint Special Operations Command. He’s the only one who isn’t a Roman Catholic, Jesuit trained, or tied to the Jesuits.

Obama’s own Jesuit connections

Now, most people know that Barack Obama worked extensively in community organizing. But was not so well-known, however, is that this community organizing was done when Obama was hired by a lay Catholic minister, Jerry Kellman, as lead organizer for a Chicago organization called the “Developing Communities Project”, which was funded by Chicago’s south-side Catholic churches. What is also most interesting is that “Obama’s Chicago mentor” Gregory Galluzzo was a Jesuit priest; Obama’s Chief Speechwriter, Jon Favreau, is a Jesuit-trained “ethics” professor; Obama’s Senior Military and Foreign Policy Advisor, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, was Jesuit-trained; and Obama’s Deputy Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, was Jesuit-trained. And he has chosen a Jesuit-controlled Joe Biden as his vice-president! Do you think that all of Mr. Obama’s Jesuit connections are mere coincidences? And have you wondered why the other side ran “a corpse” and a “hockey mum” against him? To ensure his victory!

P. D. Stuart, Codeword Barbelon – Danger in the Vatican: The Sons of Loyola and Their Plans for World Domination… Book 1, p. 183

Jerry Kellman was born Jewish and became a disciple of Saul Alinsky in the early 1970s. In 1983 Kellman converted to Catholicism, and he has a Master of Divinity from Jesuit Loyola University Chicago.

The “corpse” Stuart is referring to, is of course John McCain. McCain and his wife Cindy were friends with Jesuit priest Edward Reese. Two of McCain’s sons attended Brophy College Preparatory, a Jesuit high school in Phoenix, where Reese was then the president.

And about Obama’s other Chicago mentor, Gregory Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest and head of the Gamaliel Foundation:

“Alinsky said, ‘We have to create an organization that allows people to have a voice in the political decisions that affect their lives,’” said Galluzzo, a former Jesuit priest. “If Moses acted like most clergy he would have gone down to the slave camps of Egypt and opened a food pantry. If Moses would have done that we never would have heard of Moses. He understood that the problem was that they were working under oppression.”


Stanley Kurtz in the conservative National Review:

So, yes, as the New York Times claims, Obama was effectively proselytizing for the Catholic church.  But this was part of a larger, far more questionable and controversial deal.  Effectively it was an attempt by Galluzzo, Kellman, and Obama to commandeer local Catholic congregations from within, turning them into political shock troops in their hardball Alinskyite organizing ventures.

In my book Radical-in-Chief, I lay out Galluzzo’s Catholic strategy and show the sort of events he encouraged his new congregational recruits to participate in: trapping a U.S. senator in a ladies room, pushing for a school to be named after anti-American heroes, singling out and intimidating opponents by calling them “enemies of the community,” and besieging them at their homes. Obama worked directly with UNO of Chicago during his organizing days, and funded his Alinskyite friends to run these tactics for years thereafter from his position on the boards of several left-leaning Chicago foundations.


I don’t know if Kurtz just doesn’t realize it or if he knows more about the Jesuits than he lets on, but when you think about it, that actually makes perfect sense. Because the Jesuits are inherently anti-American; they came to America to infiltrate and subvert the originally white protestant nation and turn it from a free constitutional republic to a totalitarian empire. And all things considered, they have obviously succeeded in it quite well.

Galluzzo is not a “rogue Jesuit”, he’s probably just been practicing classic Jesuit casuistry, where the “end justifies the means”, as per Jesuit writers throughout history. Or if he was, why would Obama still have been their man and surrounded himself with dozens of Jesuit coadjutors during his presidency? Obviously the Jesuits liked what Galluzzo and Kellman had been doing and what kind of a politician they had created in Obama.

Jesuits and “social justice”

For the Jesuits, promoting “social justice”, like what Obama’s mentors Chicago mentors Galluzzo and Kellman have been involved with, is just a means to an end; it’s a way to weaken and demoralize the already subverted nation even further, to divide and conquer, to create order out of chaos.

Well, what has the “social justice” movement in America done anyway, other than polarized the nation, pitted women and against men, whites against blacks etc.? And disenfranchised and demoralized the strongest element and maintaining force of the nation, aka white men, traditionally especially white protestant men? Because the whole notion of social injustice implies there’s an oppressor, and in the American “social justice” narrative it’s been the white man, while women and racial minorities, especially black people, have been seen as the oppressed class.

Jesuit priest Richard McSorley (1914-2002), who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. among other things, was a prominent early social justice advocate, and he founded and headed the Georgetown University Center for Peace Studies. He was also a supporter and friend of Georgetown graduate Bill Clinton. McSorley was influenced by another Jesuit priest, John Large Jr., who also marched with King before his death in 1963. LaFarge started pushing the “anti-racist” narrative already in the 1930s, around the same time as European communists popularized the word “racism” as a tool demonize nationalism, and founded the Catholic Interracial Council of New York, which later became a part of the National Catholic Conference on Interracial Justice.

Osama bin Laden a CIA asset and already dead in 2001?

Without going deeper into the subject in this article, it should be noted that 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag, and a staged event. That is, Osama bin Laden had nothing to with it, unless he was a willing patsy. That might also have been the case, because he was allegedly a CIA asset under the name “Tim Osman”.

Economics Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the University of Ottawa has just completed a detailed history of bin Laden’s career detailing his secret funding and logistical support to terrorist organizations beginning from his early CIA-supported roots in the 1980s as a “freedom fighter” through to the present day.

Tim Osman (Ossman) has become better known as Osama Bin Laden. “Tim Osman” was the name assigned to him by the CIA for his tour of the U.S. and U.S. military bases, in search of political support and armaments. […] There is some evidence that Tim Osman … visited the White House. There is certainty that Tim Osman toured some U.S. military bases, even receiving special demonstrations of the latest equipment. Why hasn’t this been reported in the major media?


About bin Laden’s death from the same article:

In his book “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?“, the political analyst and philosopher Professor David Ray Griffin, former emeritus professor at California’s Claremont School of Theology, it is provoking shock waves – for it goes into far more detail about his supposed death and suggests there has been a cover-up by the West.

The book claims that Bin Laden died of kidney failure, or a linked complaint, on December 13, 2001, while living in Afghanistan’s Tora Bora mountains close to the border with Waziristan. His burial took place within 24 hours, in line with religious rules, and in an unmarked grave, which is a Wahhabi custom.

Both Fox News and New York Times also reported bin Laden’s death back then. So did he die then or in May 2011 in Operation Neptune Fear, which the photo Situation Room is related to? Look at the evidence gathered and presented by Michael Rivero and decide for yourself. And more discussion about bin Laden and his death here.

Either way, the Jesuits were obviously controlling the narrative through their agents.

Trilateral Commission, David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, globalism, and the Jesuits

Trilateral Commission, the UN, and globalism

The Trilateral Commission, though less known than the notorious Bilderberg Group, is one of the most prominent and important globalist think tanks. These secretive elite think tanks are working to bring about a “new world order”, which entails undermining the sovereignty of nation states and implementing global government. Global government has of course, to a large extent, already been achieved through the United Nations, especially with the global warming/climate change scam, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) being its massive climate propaganda machine.

Another key tool for furthering the globalist agenda is the mass immigration of people from the third world to Europe and the West, which is an effective way to weaken nation states, because they are, in the end, held together by the sense of national unity. That’s why Peter Sutherland (1946-2018), a leading member of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, and UN Special Representative for International Migration, once said that the EU should undermine national homogeneity of its member states. The UN has also had a plan for “replacement migration”, which basically means mass scale population transfers aka government enabled and sanctioned mass immigration to European and Western countries (and Japan), the pretext being the aging of the population in them. And still leftists say the Great Replacement is a “far right, white supremacist conspiracy theory”. Sutherland also served as a financial adviser to the Vatican, and he was Jesuit trained.

Jesuits and the founding of the Trilateral Commission

But who founded the Trilateral Commission in 1973? It was none other than David Rockefeller (1915-2017), whose right-hand man in organizing the group was Zbigniew Brzezinski (1928-2017). Brzezinski was Jesuit trained at Loyola High School in Montreal and later received an honorary degree from Fordham University, the Jesuit university in New York City, of which alumni include Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo, the current Governor of New York.

As the Trilateral Commission was formed to serve as a liaison between the elites of Japan, North American nations, and Western European nations, there was also a Japanese founding member. The man was Tadashi Yamamoto (1936-2012). Yamamoto enrolled at Sophia University, the Jesuit university in Tokyo, in 1954 with the intention of becoming a Catholic priest. But his career plans changed and he transferred to St. Norbert College, a Catholic college in Wisconsin, in 1958. He studied in the USA from 1958 until 1962, receiving his MBA from Marquette University, a Jesuit university in Milwaukee. I guess we can say Yamamoto was a “Jesuit of the short robe”, like the leading coronavirus expert Anthony Fauci.

Brzezinski, CFR, and the Israel lobby

As an interesting side note, you may remember the controversy over the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2007), which 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 member of the New York based American globalist think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). And so was of course also David Rockefeller, who served as its chairman (1970-1985), and his associate and middleman Brzezinski.

Brzezinski praised the book of his fellow CFR member Mearsheimer, having always also been a prominent critic of Israel’s policies. Not that the influence of the Israel lobby isn’t an issue that should be addressed, but can you see how all this works? A Jesuit trained CFR member and globalist endorsing a book about the Israeli influence by another CFR member, while we should put the CFR itself under great scrutiny, and of course also talk about the vast Jesuit Vatican influence in America. Thus, what we have here with the book and the controversy surrounding it, is a good example of a “limited hangout” on a sociopolitical level.

The book was publicly endorsed also by ex-CIA Michael Scheuer, who used to be a regular guest on CBS News and Fox News and has focused a lot on criticizing Israel and AIPAC, sometimes 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”.

As it happens, Scheuer was Jesuit trained at Canisius College in Buffalo, and he used to be an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Peace and Security Studies. Georgetown University is of course the Jesuit university in Washington, D.C., and the Jesuit headquarters and power base in America.

Jesuit control of the Philadelphia police and government

On one of their regular radio shows, Eric Jon Phelps and his co-host George Widger brought up the control that the Jesuits seem to have over the Philadelphia government, especially its police department. I think this is a good case to use as an enlightening example of how much influence the Jesuits really do have in the USA. Those who say they don’t, either haven’t looked into it properly or are knowingly trying to draw attention away from the Jesuits.

Before looking at the evidence, let’s establish what being Jesuit trained and/or a Jesuit coadjutor basically means (as per Eric Jon Phelps);

Q: I would like to know from you what it means for someone to be Jesuit-trained. Does the Jesuit Order keep (close) contact with its pupil for the entire duration of the pupil’s life? Do the Jesuits openly manipulate their pupils after their education, steering them into certain directions beneficial to the Order on the excuse of merely ‘advising’ them? Or do they perhaps do that more stealthily and cunningly, by subtly providing their pupils with information at which the pupil then decides ostensibly by his or hers own volition the course in life ideally never suspecting that the Order is subtly steering them into their preferred direction? How does it pay off to have a Jesuit education? Are Temporal Coadjutors Jesuit-trained by definition?

A: The Order’s Temporal Coadjutors may or may not be Jesuit trained. Those students who are trained by the Jesuits have the greatest possibility of finding a job after graduation. Their education is first, their placement is second and the reason for which the Order trained them. Their grads are found in every profession and walk of life. It is in these vocations that they become the most dangerous, men like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews of the Order’s CFR-controlled Press. Many coajdutors are Yale and Harvard Grads. The Order has a Jesuit House at Harvard, the alma mater of Coadjutor Bill O’Reilly. If the Order puts you in political office, it expects you to submit to their advisor, men like Jesuit priest John McLaughlin, the man who wrote Nixon’s speeches. If you jettison the Order that put you in office, then you will be punished or killed.


So, what does the Philadelphia Police Department leadership look like?

The Commissioner since December 2019 is Danielle Outlaw (funny name for a police chief, don’t you think…), who had previously served as chief of the Portland Police Bureau (2013-2017). Outlaw attended a Catholic sisterhood sponsored high school in Oakland, California and then graduated with a BA from the University of San Francisco, a Jesuit university.

The Deputy Commissioner of Organizational Services, and the second highest ranking officer in the Philadelphia police, is Christine Coulter, who served as interim Commissioner from 2018 to 2019. Coulter holds a MS in public safety management from Saint Joseph’s University, the Jesuit university in Philadelphia, and is also a faculty member in the graduate Public Safety program at Saint Joseph’s University’s Institute of Criminal Justice and Public Safety Administration.

The Deputy Commissioner of Special Operations, Dennis Wilson, holds a MS in criminal justice from the aforementioned Saint Joseph’s University.

Thus, three of the four highest ranking officers of the Philadelphia police are Jesuit trained. What’s more, Outlaw’s and Coulter’s predecessor Richard Ross Jr., like Wilson, has a MS in criminal justice from the Saint Joseph’s University.

Why are the Jesuits so keen on educating people?

Have you ever wondered why the Society of Jesus, supposedly merely a religious order of priests and monks, are so keen on educating people? Why is it so important for them to groom people to serve in all kinds of governmental and public offices, or have their own made men, such as the leading coronavirus (plandemic) expert Anthony Fauci, who are “dedicated to public service”? Obviously it’s for the reasons outlined by Eric Jon Phelps above, and it’s a great way to gain influence in the country with hardly anyone even noticing it.

The Society of Jesus is a military religious order, and the 27 Jesuit universities and colleges in the USA are not mere places of education, but also “military bases” used in the infiltration and subversion of America, once an overwhelmingly white protestant country.

With that said, the Mayor of Philadelphia, Jim Kenney, is also Jesuit trained. He graduated from St. Joseph’s Preparatory School, the Jesuit high school in Philadelphia, and has a BA from La Salle University, a small Lasallian Catholic university in Philadelphia.

The Casey family and the Jesuits

As Philadelphia is the largest city of Pennsylvania, it’s worth mentioning that the Democrat Senator from Pennsylvania, Bob Casey Jr., is Jesuit trained as well. Casey graduated from the Jesuit Scranton Preparatory School, a Jesuit high school in Pennsylvania, and from the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in Worcester, Massachusetts. His JD he received from the Catholic University of America. Between college and law school, Casey served as a member of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps.

Casey can thus well be called a “Jesuit of the short robe”, i.e., a man who’s not officially a member of the Jesuit order, but its close associate and good friend. His father Bob Casey Sr. was the 42nd Governor of Pennsylvania, and he graduated from the Scranton Preparatory School and the College of the Holy Cross like his senator son. And his father again was a devout Roman Catholic and attended Fordham University, the Jesuit university in New York City.

CDC guidelines for reporting coronavirus deaths are inflating the numbers and contribute to the illusion of a pandemic

Basically, even if the coronavirus is only assumed to have caused or contributed to the death, it will be reported as a “COVID-19 death”, and hence added to the overall statistics;

NCHS is receiving questions about how deaths involving the new coronavirus strain should be reported on death certificates. We are working on formal guidance to certifiers to be published as soon as possible. In the meantime, to address the immediate need, here is some basic information that can be shared in advance of the more formal and detailed guidance. It is important to emphasize that Coronavirus Disease 2019 or COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death. Other terminology, e.g., SARS-CoV-2, can be used as long as it is clear that it indicates the 2019 coronavirus strain, but we would prefer use of WHO’s standard terminology, e.g., COVID-19. Specification of the causal pathway leading to death in Part I of the certificate is also important. For example, in cases when COVID-19 causes pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress, both pneumonia and respiratory distress should be included along with COVID-19 in Part I. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.


And, from the April 3 CDC memo:

An accurate count of the number of deaths due to COVID–19 infection, which depends in part on proper death certification, is critical to ongoing public health surveillance and response. When a death is due to COVID–19, it is likely the UCOD and thus, it should be reported on the lowest line used in Part I of the death certificate. Ideally, testing for COVID–19 should be conducted, but it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate without this confirmation if the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty.


It’s easy to see how all this will inflate the total number of COVID-19 deaths, much like in Italy, where only 12% of the cases that get reported as coronavirus deaths have had the virus as a direct causal factor in the death certificate. I.e., the authorities are artificially boosting the numbers to make things look much worse than they actually are, as many skeptics have suspected all along, and by doing so, perpetuating the illusion of a pandemic. This has raised concern, not only in the social media and among “conspiracy theorists” or bloggers like me, but some politicians have also spoken out about this:

Republican state Sen. Jim Abeler, a prominent lawmaker on health matters in the Legislature, tweeted out his concern Monday. Abeler isn’t pushing the theories about political or financial motives. But he said there should be precision when assigning a cause of death.

“I don’t think the death certificate is a ‘maybe’ document. There shouldn’t be assumptions on there,” Abeler said in a phone interview Tuesday. “It should be the best available information. It should be with the highest degree of certainty. The minute we put assumptions and maybes on the death certificate, we now have a certificate that is meaningless and it’s an opinion document.”

Abeler and others who share his view also say there needs to be a clear distinction between dying from coronavirus and dying with it.


The director of the CDC is Jesuit trained, like coronavirus expert Anthony Fauci

An interesting fact, especially to those who are knowledgeable of the key role the Jesuits play in the advancement of the New World Order agenda, is that the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Robert R. Redfield, is Jesuit educated, with a BS and MD from the Georgetown University, the Jesuit headquarters and power base in America. As is Anthony Fauci, the leading coronavirus expert in America, who attended a Jesuit high school in New York and graduated from the College of the Holy Cross, a Jesuit college in Worcester, Massachusetts.

One of his schools, Regis High School, is a Jesuit school in Manhattan, and Dr. Fauci praises the Jesuitical system of education as being highly intellectual, highly logical and intensely curious.

“The Jesuits have always trained one to have precision of thought and economy of expression. Today, I tell my fellows: ‘Be very precise in what you have to say and say it in a way that’s very clear.’ I think this training helped me in that regard, although I believe I naturally had this ability to be precise and economical. Nevertheless, I think this schooling gave me a real feel for life,” he says.


Are Jesuits controlling the coronavirus narrative? Well, surely not only them, but they do have men in key positions to steer it, as we can see above.

Ted Kennedy in 1965: the ethnic mix of America will not be upset

Senator Ted Kennedy famously asserted during the debates over the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, or the Hart–Celler Act, that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”

However, back then non-Hispanic white people were still 85% of the US population… but now only 60%. So abolishing all national quota based restrictions on immigration has indeed “upset the ethnic mix” of America, the racial makeup of the country has changed dramatically. Yet leftists are still trying to deny the reality of the Great Replacement, as I reported recently.

Here’s a tweet from a Polish nationalist which includes a video illustration of the demographic shift of America:

Incidentally, Ted Kennedy was a Roman Catholic, which is noteworthy and relevant because the Vatican and the American Catholic establishment have been one of the main forces, if not THE main force, behind the “browning of America”, as I’ve extensively documented before.

Jesuit trained John F. Kelly succeeded by yet another Jesuit as the White House Chief of Staff

When Jesuit trained John F. Kelly (MA from Georgetown University, the Washington, D.C. based Jesuit power base in America) replaced Greek American Reince Priebus as the White House Chief of Staff in July 2017, he put Ivanka Trump’s Jewish husband Jared Kushner in his place.

Not long after he became a senior presidential adviser to Donald Trump,Jared Kushner, then 36, described himself to a prominent Republican as “primus inter pares”—the first among equals. Kushner’s vast policy portfolio—so broad it became a punch line—reflected his view that, as family, he and his wife, Ivanka Trump, would not be constrained by traditional lines of authority. Kushner’s vision of his role was largely true during the chaotic tenure of Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. But in the John Kelly era, Jared and Ivanka have both seen their bailiwicks dramatically shrink—and they have not been happy about it.


John F. Kelly previously served as the Secretary of Homeland Security, the infamous agency which was created by the Jesuits as I’ve shown. Also take note that the Patriot Act, which the DHS has utilized, was authored by a Georgetown University professor of law, Viet D. Dinh. Jesuit fingerprints are all over the post-9/11 surveillance state.

Kelly left the White House in January 2019 and was succeeded by Mick Mulvaney. Mulvaney is also… you guessed it, Jesuit trained (BS from Georgetown University). By the way, Mulvaney had called Donald Trump a “horrible human being” in 2016, and now he’s serving as an advisor to Trump. To me, this kind of exemplifies how much politics is just theater, or should I say “Jesuit theater”; a lot of buzz and “scandals” around Trump, the figurehead, and meanwhile behind the scenes the Jesuits install their own men on key positions to quietly further their agenda.

So, Kelly and Mulvaney are both Jesuit trained, and so were these White House Chiefs of Staff under Barack Obama: William M. Daley (2011-2012), Jack Lew (2012-2013), and Denis McDonough (2013-2017). Just a coincidence, right?

Remember Donald Trump is himself Jesuit trained, he attended Fordham University in New York, and he’s sent his children Ivanka, Eric and Tiffany to study at Georgetown University. Eric Trump graduated from Georgetown University and he’s been a member of the Georgetown business school advisory board.

Jesuit agent provocateurs on the congressional hearing on White nationalism [video]

The House Judiciary Committee hearing on “hate crimes” and the “rise of White nationalism was an absolute clown show, that goes without saying. But also take note that the committee chairman Jerry Nadler, while ethnically Jewish, is Jesuit trained (JD from Fordham University), and that the most eager anti-White and anti-American agitator on the hearing was David Cicilline, a Roman Catholic Jesuit trained at Georgetown University, the Jesuit headquarters in America.

Let’s also remind ourselves that the US Supreme Court is under heavy Jesuit Vatican influence like the House Judiciary Committee; the Jesuits have effectively seized control of the US judicial system.

Jesuits running the investigation on the Clinton Foundation headed by Jesuit coadjutor Bill Clinton

As many researchers who are privy to the Jesuit Vatican conspiracy know, Bill Clinton graduated from Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic university in America, one of the 28 Jesuit universities and colleges in the USA, and the Jesuit power base in America. Clinton is known to be a great admirer of his professor at Georgetown University, Carroll Quigley.

In his freshman year in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown, future U.S. President Bill Clinton took Quigley’s course, receiving a ‘B’ as his final grade in both semesters (an excellent grade in a course where nearly half the students received D or lower).

In 1991, Clinton named Quigley as an important influence on his aspirations and political philosophy, when Clinton launched his presidential campaign in a speech at Georgetown. He mentioned Quigley again during his acceptance speech to the 1992 Democratic National Convention, as follows:

“As a teenager, I heard John Kennedy’s summons to citizenship. And then, as a student at Georgetown, I heard that call clarified by a professor named Carroll Quigley, who said to us that America was the greatest Nation in history because our people had always believed in two things–that tomorrow can be better than today and that every one of us has a personal moral responsibility to make it so.”


Clinton is just the type of man who can be called a “Jesuit of the short robe” or a “Jesuit coadjutor”, i.e., he doesn’t actually belong to the Jesuit order but is a great friend of them and likely doing their bidding.

And now that the Clinton Foundation headed by Bill Clinton has been under investigation, it turns out that it’s been led by two other Jesuit alumni, Larry Doyle and John F. Moynihan, both graduates of the College of the Holy Cross. Doyle has also received the Holy Cross Alumni Association’s highest honor, the In Hoc Signo Award.

The Clinton Foundation operated as a foreign agent ‘early in its life’ and ‘throughout it’s existence’ and did not operate as a 501c3 charitable foundation as required, and is not entitled to its status as a nonprofit, alleged two highly qualified forensic investigators, accompanied by three other investigators, said in explosive testimony Thursday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

John Moynihan and Lawerence W. Doyle, both graduates of the Catholic Jesuit College of the Holy Cross and former expert forensic government investigators, gave their shocking testimony before congress based on a nearly two year investigation into the foundation’s work both nationally and internationally. They were assisted by three other highly trained experts in taxation law and financial forensic investigations. The forensic investigators stressed that they obtained all the documentation on the foundation legally and through Freedom of Information Request Acts from the IRS and other agencies.


Devon Stack of the Black Pilled weighs in on the issue:

Yesterday the american people were supposed to hear from special council Huber and finally see if there was any movement on the Clinton Foundation investigation and just like clockwork NOTHING happened! Perhaps that’s being a tad disingenuous, but I don’t feel that bad considering the federal government is nothing but disingenuous along with these hearings, which are painful to watch and really test your ability to manage your rage when you watch them, that said let’s bread it down.

First of all, and this is a bif first of all, Huber, didn’t even show up. That’s right, the big Huber hearing yesterday, had no Huber. There are several possible reasons for that, not all of them bad, but still, no Huber with an epic indictment of the Clinton foundation like many were predicting.

So who did show up? These 2 guys. These 2 guys are forensic accountants who typically get hired to find abuse in non-profits and 501c3s. They also made sure to mention they were Jesuits, which seems odd unless, well, we’ll get into that some other time. They took advantage of a system the IRS has where essentially if you find out about massive tax fraud, like the kind going on at the Clinton Foundation, and you report it and they collect on those funds, you basically get a cut or a commission on what they collect on. So these 2 figured if they spent the time and did what the government was never going to do and just audited the Clinton Foundation themselves they would find enough tax fraud to make this bounty well worth the time. So that’s what they did. And surprise surprise they found enormous fraud going on at the Clinton Foundation.


So, what is going on here? Is this a way for the Jesuits to make themselves look good; “Hey, corruption is rampant in America, but we, the Jesuits, are here to weed it out.”? This is what the Jesuits have always done a lot, it’s one of their usual gimmicks. While at the same time the Jesuits themselves seem to be affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, as several of its recent key people besides Clinton himself have had Jesuit connections, including Bruce Lindsey, Doug Band, and Rolando Gonzalez-Bunster, all graduates of Georgetown University. That is, the Jesuits are once again playing both sides.

Comments on claims that the Black Nobility control the Jesuits

Blogger “Ahuwah Zeus” asserts that the Black Nobility and other old Roman noble families control the Jesuits, and some other researchers have made similar claims. Youtube vlogger and Reddit blogger “Veritas__Aequitas” strongly disagrees, and has made a video debunking the claims:

I made a comment on the video to open a discussion:

I think it might be a bit more complicated than that. I’ve researched and blogged about Jesuits for about ten years, and based on evidence they most certainly are the most powerful secret society in the world. And yes, the Jesuit foot soldiers of course get their orders from their superiors and the Jesuit General. But could it be that many high level Jesuits are closely connected to these elite bloodlines, or sometimes maybe even part of them. There’s no clear proof that any of these bloodlines control the Jesuits per se, but it makes sense that the elite bloodlines, “black nobility”, and the Jesuits would be entangled, and that Jesuits in a way would be working for them.

Think of it this way: Is it plausible that some commoner with no ties to elite bloodlines gets to be the “most powerful man in the world” if he just gets lucky enough the rise to the top of the Jesuit power structure? I don’t think it all works quite like that, and I find the notion that Jesuits control everything merely by becoming Jesuits an oversimplification.

The Jesuits themselves will of course tell us that all Jesuits obey only the Jesuit General, and that they serve the Pope, but who knows what’s going on behind the scenes among the high level Jesuits. There’s a lot of information about Jesuits easily available in books and the internet, but could it be that there’s a lot of crucial information that’s not accessible to outsiders like us internet conspiracy researchers? Because even though there’s a huge amount of evidence that Jesuits have a lot of power, there’s also some holes in the theory that makes you think there are some missing links that have to be found. What I mean is, there’s many powerful organizations which contribute to the new world order agenda but don’t seem to have any significant/apparent Jesuit connections.

  • farnesius

To which he replied:

“The Jesuits themselves will of course tell us that all Jesuits obey only the Jesuit General”

You ignored the argument in the video showing that this was only revealed when the Jesuit constitutions became available through government intervention since the Jesuits refused to show them to any outsider or civil authority. Actually, you ignored my entire video.

  • Veritas__Aequitas

And here’s the exchange that followed our opening comments:

No, I didn’t ignore it. My point is that of course it wouldn’t be mentioned in the official constitutions of the Jesuit order that “we work for the elite bloodlines” even if they did. Some things are not written down, like it’s not written in the official Vatican documents that the Jesuits rule over the Pope.

It’s likely that you have to have connections to elite bloodlines or be part of them to get promoted to the very highest levels of the Jesuit order, or at least have backing from them. Otherwise anyone, even you or me, could theoretically get to be the “most powerful man in the world” by working our way to the top of the Jesuit power structure. Because anyone can become a Jesuit, and if it was just up to your efforts and merits, anyone could indeed become the Jesuit General. But it’s reasonable to assume that it doesn’t work like that, and that the top Jesuits are _selected_, not elected.

In regards to noble blood, Loyola himself was from a noble family; 3rd Jesuit General Francis Borgia was from the powerful Papal House of Borgia; 5th General Claudio Acquaviva was a son of an Italian Duke; and Wlodimir Ledochowski (General from 1915 to 1942) was a son of a Count, and he was a page to the Austro-Hungarian Empress. There’s probably more, but these are good examples because they’re among the most famous/notorious Jesuit Generals.

I acknowledge that you probably don’t think that literally anyone can become the “most powerful man in the world” just by working hard to get to the top of the Jesuit organization, but I’m exaggerating to provoke thought.

To further elaborate where I’m coming from, here’s comments on some citations and statements on your video, so bare with me.

“The institutions and the fundamental object of the company require its members not to acknowledge the civil power, except so far as it useful to the church and the company; for which reason the Jesuits, although residing in all countries, are not citizens of any, and do not consider themselves bound to obey the laws of nations, unless they are compelled by positive force; they have obtained privileges which are singular. It is therefore by no means surprising that their policy and maxims should have alienated from them the sympathies of the public authorities; and this even in the countries most purely Roman Catholic.”

Yes, this means that the Jesuits didn’t/don’t acknowledge the authority of the kings, rulers, and governments of the countries they reside in. But it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re not working for/with some elite families, and the fact that many of the top Jesuits, especially in the early days, were themselves from noble families lends credence to that the Jesuit order is intertwined with them. It should also be noted that the Roman noble families or the Black Nobility are not a monolithic entity; there’s obviously competition between different families and factions. It was the Kings and Emperors that wanted to suppress them back then, and it was obviously about the power struggle between them and the Jesuits. But many competing noble families were probably siding with the Jesuits even during their suppression in the mid to late 1700s. We know for a fact that the protestant King of Prussia Frederick the Great, and the Orthodox Empress of Russia Catherine the Great protected them at that time.

You’re probably right on that the Farnese family didn’t control the Jesuits, but without them the Jesuits wouldn’t have gotten to the where they were by the late 1500s. They needed the recognition from the Pope so they could use the institutions and networks of the Catholic Church for their own purposes. Cardinal Alessandro Farnese also funded and built the Jesuit mother church in Rome, which is why his name is carved on the facade of the building.

And as I said, the 3rd Jesuit General Francis Borgia was from the very powerful House of Borgia, and then there’s this: When the Knights Templar were abolished in 1312 the king of Aragon founded a new order as their continuation (the Order of Montesa), and while Francis Borgia was the Jesuit General his half-brother Pedro Luis Garcerán de Borja was the grand master of the Order of Montesa. Pedro de Borja was actually the last grand master before the office was united with the Spanish Crown.

I’m not saying the Black Nobility or elite bloodlines necessarily control the Jesuits, but I’m asking questions, because it if you think it through it doesn’t really make sense that a group of commoners would rule the world without the backing of some ruling elite families. The Jesuit order is an organization which is basically open to anyone who’s a Roman Catholic and willing to join it, which is not the case with other powerful organizations and secret societies. I think that’s an important clue not to be dismissed.

And what would the Jesuits be without the Catholic Church? Just a group of men, mostly from common backgrounds. The order’s existence as a powerful organization is dependent on the existence of the Catholic Church. Organizations, societies, and orders come and go, but bloodlines withstand time, and rich and powerful noble families can stand on their own. The point is that even though the Jesuits are a seemingly autonomous organization, I don’t believe they’re in the end really a separate entity from the elite bloodlines that had ruled the world for centuries way before the Jesuit order was even founded.

  • farnesius


“I’m not saying the Black Nobility or elite bloodlines necessarily control the Jesuits”

Yes you are. You are denying the prima facie evidence in this video and making arguments from ignorance and ad hoc fallacies to support yourself which you will apologize for within 24 hours or you can enjoy being banned from this channel. Also there is no such thing as Black Nobility since the Lateran Treaty, 1929; and all titles of nobility were done away with in the Constitution of the Italian Republic, 1947.

  • Veritas__Aequitas


I don’t deny the evidence. I acknowledge that the Jesuits don’t recognize the governments of the countries they reside in, of course they don’t. They see themselves being above the law, but so do the elite families, and they do get away with all kinds of things that ordinary people are held accountable for.

Many of the so called “Black Nobility” families still exist, like Colonna, Pallavicini, Borghese, Odescalchi etc., that’s what I mean. And then there are many other noble families of which members are high level members in Roman Catholic orders like the Knights of Malta, Order of the Holy Sepulchre, Constantinian Order or Teutonic Order. They point is the elite bloodlines haven’t gone anywhere and many of them still have a lot of power.

And I’m NOT saying these noble families control the Jesuit order, but that some of them have at least a symbiotic relationship with the Jesuits. Or not just that, but that the noble families, the Vatican, all the Roman Catholic chivalric orders, and the Jesuits are all intertwined. Do you not agree at least with that? They need each other and have common goals, but sometimes have conflicting interests, which leads to feuds like that between Pope John Paul II and the Jesuits, or the recent ousting of the SMOM Grand Master Matthew Festing.

In regards to conspiracies and secret societies, we sometimes have to acknowledge that we don’t have all the information or hard evidence we need, and because of that we also have to speculate and use circumstantial evidence and discernment. Which is what I’m doing. It’s reasonable to question whether a group of commoners (which the Jesuits at least mostly are to my knowledge) could rule the world without backing from the elite bloodlines as monolithically as Eric Jon Phelps, for example, claims.

My view is that there’s a lot of preselection regarding the Jesuits, meaning that it’s not just up to your efforts or merits if you get the to top of the Jesuit power structure, but that your background matters. In the early days it most certainly did; it’s hardly coincidence that Francis Borgia from the House of Borgia was selected as the 3rd Jesuit General, at the same time when his half-brother Pedro de Borja was the Grand Master of the Order of Montesa, the Roman Catholic order founded by the King of Aragon as a continuation of the Knights Templar.

It’s unfortunate if you decide to block me because I have a large amount of knowledge about the Jesuits, secret societies and new world order relates topics. The topic of this video is the noble families and their power or lack thereof over the Jesuits, so I discuss that here and also speculate. In my blog I usually speculate less, and just present evidence and give a lot of citations and links. My main work has been the Finnish blog “maallikkoapuri” exposing the Vatican, Jesuits, secret societies, conspiracies, and new world order. It has gained a decent following and view count in about ten years. My English written WordPress blog “Dominus ac Redemptor 1773” has until recently only had some short articles and videos, but there’s a few in-depth articles now and I’ll post more soon. Links to the blogs are on my channel.

  • farnesius


“I acknowledge that the Jesuits don’t recognize the governments of the countries they reside in”

Then ipso facto you admit they do not obey the laws of nobles and their now-defunct duchies which is exactly an argument I made in the video among several others including how Jesuit formation separates a man from his family for an extended period of years and how the constitutions which were kept secret for so long make very clear that the Jesuits do not obey anyone else besides their superiors.

“And I’m NOT saying these noble families control the Jesuit order”

You already implied the possibility they could which is straight out denying the citations. You have 12 hours left to apologize to me for being a lying douchebag.

  • Veritas__Aequitas


“Then ipso facto you admit they do not obey the laws of nobles”

But the point is that the nobles, or the elite, don’t obey them, either. Like David Rockefeller, who was likely the most prominent and powerful member of the elite in the USA. He wasn’t subject to governmental authority, he was above the government, being the head of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and founder of the Trilateral Commission among other things. Now, Rockefeller is not “nobility” per se, because it’s more of a European thing, but he was an equivalent of a highest level European nobleman. The Jesuits and the elite are both above the law, that is.

“You already implied the possibility they could which is straight out denying the citations.”

Yes, I implied they COULD, but didn’t say they do. At this point my point of view is that it’s probably just not that cut and dry, like that the Jesuits completely control the elite families. Neither do I claim that the Jesuits are under the control of the elite families. My comments are not meant as conclusive proof of anything, or to debunk your point of view. They’re more of discussion openers. Because I don’t know what the exact truth is, and I might even be totally wrong. When I’m confident about my position I don’t speculate and ask questions, but rather just lay out all the facts and evidence.

But I’ll look more into this and see what I’ll find and then write something about it in the blog. One thing that is known, is that the Jesuits and the House of Medici were closely associated and worked together. But that was in the 1500s and 1600s, and the House of Medici doesn’t exist anymore, so that in and of itself doesn’t yet prove that any of the current Roman/European noble families would have a similar relationship with the Jesuits.

  • farnesius


“But the point is that the nobles, or the elite, don’t obey them”

Total Dunning Kruger. I thought you knew about the Jesuits? A cursory history of their Order shows they openly controlled the monarchs of Europe before their suppression. To this day the royalty of Spain send their children to be Jesuit educated.

“Yes, I implied they COULD”

So citations don’t mean anything to you; you believe the truth cannot be known; you hate the human race and you hate rational inquiry and logic; you hate man and his institutions. You are a scourge upon the earth and you curse the name of Elohim who created man in His image with rational faculties to deduce the truth. You now no longer have a change to apologize to me, you can go drink bleach you fucking cunt.

  • Veritas__Aequitas

So he apparently blocked me.

But regarding the first bolded part; he likely didn’t properly read through my comments, because I made a reference to that in one of my comments;

It was the Kings and Emperors that wanted to suppress them back then, and it was obviously about the power struggle between them and the Jesuits.

But I also added;

But many competing noble families were probably siding with the Jesuits even during their suppression in the mid to late 1700s. We know for a fact that the protestant King of Prussia Frederick the Great, and the Orthodox Empress of Russia Catherine the Great protected them at that time.

And like I stated in one comment, the founder of the Jesuit order Ignatius Loyola was himself a nobleman, as were also at least the 3rd Jesuit General Francis Borgia (Duke of Gandia); the 5th Jesuit General Claudio Acquaviva, a son of an Italian Duke; and the notorious Wlodimir Ledochowski (Jesuit General from 1915 to 1942), a son of a Count.

About the suppression of the Jesuits in the latter half of the 1700s:

The suppression of the Jesuits in the Portuguese Empire (1759), France (1764), the Two Sicilies, Malta, Parma, the Spanish Empire (1767) and Austria and Hungary (1782) is a complex topic. Analysis of the reasons is complicated by the political maneuvering in each country which was not carried on in the open but has left some trail of evidence. The papacy reluctantly went along with the demands of the various Catholic kingdoms involved, and advanced no theological reason for the suppression.

The power and wealth of the Society of Jesus with its influential educational system was confronted by adversaries in this time of cultural change in Europe, leading to the revolutions that would follow. Monarchies attempting to centralize and secularize political power viewed the Jesuits as being too international, too strongly allied to the papacy, and too autonomous from the monarchs in whose territory they operated. By the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (21 July 1773) Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus, as a fait accompli and with no reasons given. Russia, Prussia, and the United States allowed the Jesuits to continue their work, and Catherine the Great allowed the founding of a new novitiate in Russia.


Anyway, to the other bolded part; of course citations mean a lot to me, I rely heavily on citations in my articles, and of course the truth can be known. I only indicated that I don’t, at least yet, know the exact truth about this particular subject matter, and I’m sure most people would’ve understood that was what I meant. The more knowledge I’ve gathered, the more humble I’ve become because I now better realize what I DON’T know. And there are limits to what outsiders like bloggers and truth seekers can know just by reading old conspiracy books from the 1800s – which highlight the influence of the Jesuits back then – or internet articles.

I.e., what do we actually know about the extent of their power today. In my view we don’t really yet have a full picture of what’s going on behind the scenes among the elite, the Jesuits, and between them. A lot of the Jesuit world control theory relies on circumstantial evidence, like that this and this person was Jesuit educated. That’s good evidence; it proves that those people are connected to the Jesuits, and when alumni of Jesuit universities and schools are largely overrepresented in positions of power, like they were especially in the Obama administration, it indicates that the Jesuits have huge influence over political appointments. The same applies to the US Supreme Court as I’ve shown. The annual Catholic Al Smith Dinner is another indication of Jesuit influence on American politics;

The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, commonly known as the Al Smith Dinner, is an annual white tie dinner in New York City, United States, for fundraising of Catholic charities supporting “the neediest children of the Archdiocese of New York, regardless of race, creed, or color.” Held at New York City’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on the third Thursday of October, it is hosted by the Archbishop of New York while organized by the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation in honor of Al Smith who grew up in poverty and later became the Governor of New York four times and the first Catholic nominated as the Democratic candidate for the 1928 United States presidential election.

Cardinal Francis Spellman founded and hosted the first dinner in 1945 after Smith’s death the previous year. By 1960 the Al Smith dinner had become a “ritual of American politics”, in the words of Theodore H. White. It is generally the last event at which the two U.S. presidential candidates share a stage before the election.


As many conspiracy researchers acknowledge, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) largely controls the US government and also the American news media. At the moment five of the 36 members of its board are Jesuit educated, which is significant, but hardly conclusive proof of complete Jesuit control. And even a bit surprisingly none of the 14 officers of the CFR are Jesuit educated. In the comments I mentioned David Rockefeller, the head of one of the elite families, and he was a lifelong leading member and honorary chairman of the CFR, as well as the founder of the globalist think tank Trilateral Commission.

There is more of similar evidence of Jesuit influence in the USA, Europe and the world at large, some of which I’ve already documented in this blog (and there’s more to come), but it would be a bit of a stretch to say it all conclusively proves that the Jesuits and them alone completely control everything. That’s why I these days avoid blanket statements like “Jesuits run the world” or “Jesuits control the USA”.

All in all, “Veritas__Aequitas” repeatedly misrepresented my arguments, and hence we ended up talking past each other most of the time. My sense is that he sincerely somewhat misinterpreted what I was trying to say, which was that it’s perhaps not that cut and dry as the theories about the Jesuits completely controlling the world would have us believe. These theories suggest that even all the elite families are under total control of the Jesuits, whereas my point of view at this point is that the relationship between these entities could also be symbiotic, that they could be more like allies who have common goals, with the high level Jesuits likely being the more dominant party. But as I said in my last comment, I’ll look more into this and then make some conclusions from what I’ve got.

As to the latter part of the last comment by “Veritas__Aequitas”, I don’t think I’ve ever received such a tirade of ad hominems even by conspiracy theory debunkers, internet trolls, or those who vehemently claim that the Jews run the world and get triggered when I bring up the Jesuits. So I don’t know what on earth that was about.