Protestantism Derailed, America Betrayed: Why the Pope Should Feel Right at Home Here

The Pope is about to open his antichrist mouth in America, about to display his antichrist power in America, against our best interests, in favor of the new world order, in favor of policies that undermine true Christianity, that favor disintegration and chaos.  I've been finding it hard to keep my thoughts organized lately, succumbing to sleepiness, fogginess, difficulty concentrating, losing my train of thought.  Spiritual oppression?  I've wondered.  I've been trying to read up on the history of the Roman Catholic Church, wanting to muster evidence that might convince others that this is our enemy, nothing else, just this, just Romanism, the Vatican, the Pope, their Jesuit army.  All our battles, all evils, spring from this antichrist source.  Too much you say?  Far-fetched?  I would once have thought so too.  I mean, if you're going to go with conspiracies, there's Freemasonry, and the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, even the Skull and Bones Society, and all the other secretive organizations that always get named.  Is it possible they're all just arms of the RCC?

Where is the American Protestant voice?  Where's our Ian Paisley who would stand up in Congress and denounce the Pope as Antichrist?  Paisley objected that the European Parliament, of which he was a member, had invited the Pope to speak without putting it to a vote.  Did Congress get a vote on this upcoming visit by this Pope?  Was there even a ripple of objection to the invitation?  Those among the Republican candidates who are at least nominally Protestant aren't doing any protesting.  They are going to go hear the Pope, going to be polite, disagree of course but politely.  Trump has been sounding off about illegal immigration and so far drawn some Catholic reaction, from the archbishop of my last post, then from Catholic Joe Biden who called it "xenophobia."  Think about such terms that are used against people who care about the rule of law:  we're xenophobics, we're homophobics if the law is God's ordinance defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  The method of attack is truly Jesuitical, ad hominems designed to poison the well and discredit the opposition with character smears, promote emotional reactions and destroy reasoned argument.  See how far you get presenting your well-thought-out case against gay marriage or illegal immigration, when the opposition's whole argument is that you are a "hater" and a "bigot."   Saying anything against the Roman Church also gets those epithets thrown at you:  Catholic hater.  According to JA Wylie's History of Protestantism, slander, or calumny, is historically one of the tools of the Jesuits against Protestants.  It seems to have worked its way into Political Correctness and the left in general. 

The media too have been practicing their usual subliminal partisanship, portraying the Republican candidates in muted tones of ridicule. 

Who is running this country really?  Are you aware of the evidence that it is the Roman Catholic Church?  Are you aware of how many Catholics there are in American government and have been for decades, shaping policy?   The vast majority of Catholics probably have no clue that they are tools of the Vatican against a free America.  There are lots of conservative Catholics who object to some of the policies of this Pope for instance.  But Vatican II told all good Catholics to exert themselves for the promotion of the Church and how can that be a bad thing? 

I started trying to get some of this across with the post "Waking Up Among Wolves."  And I didn't know as much then as I know now about just how vast this wolf pack is.  There is no escape.  And those who should be protesting don't see the wolves for the sheep's clothing.

If I had the resources, wish wish wish, I'd print out as much evidenced information as I could muster to try to convince Protestants and Catholics both of these realities and air-drop them as fliers on the crowds that will be assembling for the Pope's visit.  Not sure where to drop them for the Protestants, maybe have to fly from church to church.  But I can't even muster an evidenced blog post on the subject, just this rambling that even sounds somewhat demented to me.

Some people who are into end times prophecies ask Where is America in the Biblical scenario about the Revived Roman Empire that is to rise up in the last days?   Blink.  Guess what, America has been an arm of the Revived Roman Empire since its founding.   But back up a bit:  where is the Revived Roman Empire at all?  Isn't it just getting some pieces together in the EU, still quite a ways from full development? 

Blink.  

Oh how we have lost our Protestant legacy, lost the voices who could have been keeping us awake and alert to the stealthy workings of evil in this world all along.  The Reformers knew it:  the Revived Roman Empire is the RCC itself and the Antichrist is the PAPACY.  They made the arguments from scripture, they proved it.  But a crafty Jesuit taught us to forget about the proofs that the Pope is Antichrist by interpreting the relevant scriptures as all in the future, and the Protestants have bought it.  (The Jesuits also invented Preterism by the way, for the same reason, to get the Pope off the hook). Even those who have done a lot to expose the errors of Rome have missed the big picture.  They subscribe to futurism while describing the doctrinal errors as if doctrine is our only problem with the RCC, as if it isn't a threat to the entire world with its ambition to put the Pope in the seat of power over the world.  Yeah yeah yeah, ridiculous, right? If anything the RCC has been losing power. Yeah yeah yeah. Well, if I can I'll try to bring out the reasons that's a delusion. So anyway, we've had our eyes forward and haven't been noticing that it's been around for centuries, gradually working out its antichrist mission.

It received a near-deadly wound from the Reformation.  Even John Dowling who wrote a very informative tome on the History of Romanism in 1845 thought the Roman Church could never recover.  But doesn't scripture tell us it recovers?  And if Dowling were living today he might see the recovery gathering steam behind the scenes. 

Romanism, the Roman Church:  I've been using the term for some time because it's necessary to counter its pretensions to being Christian.  It has some Christian stuff tacked on, even enough for some Catholics to have a genuinely Christian outlook, but it's staggering how the institution as a whole has taken over the trappings and thought of the Roman Empire. There's so much more to the term than just that the RCC grew from the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries.  Dowling's History of Romanism chronicles how the RCC early on took over one after another pagan practice into its rituals, such as lighted candles during the day, holy water, incense, and how the statues of roman gods got renamed for Christian saints and installed in their churches.   Awareness of their use of statues doesn't make you aware of their origin from the Roman gods and that derivation was rather startling to me, for one.  Such concepts as The Immaculate Conception as Romanism came to apply it to Mary the mother of Jesus, originated with a Roman goddess.

Why is that obelisk in the piazza of St. Peter's basilica in Rome the Roman Emperor Caligula's obelisk?   What does a Roman Caesar have to do with Christianity?   Then go on to ask why our Capitol building looks like St. Peter's basilica and why Washington's monument looks like the obelisk of Caligula? 

There's plenty more to say to show the essential Roman character of the Roman church, but might as well go on at this point to America.  Besides the architecture just mentioned, why is there a statue of the Roman goddess Persephone at the top of the Capitol dome, renamed "Freedom?"  And why does she look east toward Rome?    And why is there a painting in the interior of that same dome called The Apotheosis of Washington depicting him among the gods and goddesses of Rome?  And why are the portraits of two Popes in that building?  And by the way, the very concept of a "Capitol" originated as the temple of the Roman god Jupiter.   What does any of this have to do with America?

Francis should feel right at home addressing Congress.

Does anybody care?

More later, God willing.

The Plot to bring down Civilization

Here's how I'm getting it from Chris Pinto in a brief outline.  All the trends and influences we Christians and Conservatives decry in modern society can ultimately be traced back through a line of thinkers to certain predictable sources.  Certainly it's all an expression of human fallen nature, the putting of evil for good and good for evil, but apparently it's more than that, not just a random expression of this trend in human nature, but there are actually plots involved, conspiracies, or ultimately one basic plot or conspiracy that has branched out to some extent but is still of the same basic mentality with the same aim.  And although there are many false leads along the track the main source always turns out to be...  Rome.  Specifically, the Jesuits.

He did a radio show recently that stretched me quite a bit with his revelations of facts I'd known nothing about, on (of all things) the story of Frankenstein's monster, Frankenstein and the French Revolution.  Is this common knowledge out there or am I typical in not knowing anything about a connection between this well known horror story and an event in history, The French Revolution?   And not only that particular event, but the philosophical underpinnings of that event that are still shaping the radical movements of our own time?  In a word, Communism and its softer version, Socialism, and all its separate projects for remaking society by its rules.

Sometimes I'm rather overwhelmed with all the information Chris Pinto offers that is brand new to me.  This particular program covers too much to keep in mind.   He sketched out the life of Mary Shelley who wrote "Frankenstein,"  her having been born into a radical family, her father a well known Anarchist, William Godwin, who was in fact denounced by many Brits for his views.   Later, after the death of her husband she began to have second thoughts about some of the radicalism of her friends, specifically decrying the barbarisms of the French Revolution and the philosophies that supported it. 

The monster invented by Dr. Frankenstein in her story is in fact the "new man" the radicals wanted to create, overthrowing all the old traditions in favor of their own conception.  El sueno de la razon produce monstruo --  that's from Ortega y Gasset I think, but that just came to mind because it seems to echo Shelley's point:  the dream of Reason produces monsters.  This dream has produced more monsters than merely the French Revolution, it has also produced the horrors of Communism and other murderous innovations that are destroying the world.

In her book she has Dr. Frankenstein being educated at a Jesuit-run university, the same university where Adam Weishaupt formed the Illuminati.  Did you know the Illuminati were originally called the Perfectabilists?  That is, they wanted to invent a Perfect world and a Perfect man, the "new man" that Shelley's book shows to be a monster.  Weishaupt's close friend believed Weishaupt was a secret Jesuit.  That would of course fit with Pinto's belief that Jesuits can usually be found behind all the radical plots to destroy civilization.

Well, there's a lot to that radio show that I'm not doing justice, so I can only recommend listening to it.

Conspiratorial cabal or not, America is in trouble

Here's a discussion of what the blogger calls a conspiracy theory, but it's not what I mean when I use the term. He calls it The Great Conspiracy but he's simply spelling out some anti-constitutional provisions that are now in place that could threaten American freedoms, and in fact threaten us all bodily, in the near future.

What I mean by conspiracy thinking is wild imaginations that suppose there is an all-powerful human cabal behind all such goings-on, without being able to muster facts in any convincing way to prove it.*

To my mind a governing body that thinks Marxism is a good idea is already as much of a danger to the world as any plotted conspiracy by high-level hidden movers and shakers, and our current administration is Marxist and Fascist both. Who needs the Illuminati?

============================================
*This is the point -- I'm hardly incapable of believing in conspiracies but the fact is that the evidence offered is really NOT convincing. They assume too much, they sling around unsupported accusations. The worst write complete word salad in which it's obvious they think they've been giving evidence but it just isn't there. Springmeier doesn't prove anything, he simply asserts it. Schnoebelen writes novelistically which makes it sound like fiction to begin with and detracts from any truth there may be in his reports. I don't know what to make of all this. We've got conspiracies galore these days, explaining the economic disaster, anticipating a murderous outbreak of flu, well, really the vaccinations against the flu, about well-known American public figures plotting against the well-being and even the lives of Americans, about UFOs and whatnot. There's actually better evidence that there is a government conspiracy to hide knowledge of UFOs from the public (they think they're ETs of course; I know they're demons) than there is for the rest of it. It's not in principle beyond the pale, but there is simply no convincing evidence.

Mark Dice's approach to the Illuminati

I took a look at Mark Dice's book about the Illuminati at Amazon where you can read a few pages of it. He does a good job of introducing the material, showing he understands where the reader is at, as Springmeier does not, but then he begins his introduction to his argument by saying that people wonder how 9/11 could have happened, or how an economic collapse could happen and so on and so forth.

Well, I don't wonder. I figure it's just the usual, human sin, and I also know these things are God's judgment on the nation, and Dice claims to be a Christian so he should know that too. But he thinks there's something strange enough about such events that we need to look behind the scenes to HUMAN manipulators. I think this is faulty reasoning. I see no need to postulate intentional manipulation of events at all. People being people is enough to explain events. Fallen humanity being greedy or negligent or self-absorbed or vindictive on a small scale can accumulate to large disasters. Satan's work in contributing to such human failings to bring about his own plans is a reasonable assumption too, but Satan doesn't need conscious accomplices in his plots. And the overarching explanation that God is in charge of it all and permits such things as judgment pulls it all together.

Satan can pull off amazing things people alone can't, if God wills it, and if God wills it amazing exactness can be seen in some events (the symbolism involved in the 9/11 targets is fascinating to think about), but human beings just don't have the power or precision of planning that is attributed to them in these conspiracy ideas. The Pentagon was only slightly damaged, the White House was missed altogether as the passengers of the plane defeated the hijackers. Human beings are an imperfect lot. The plans of fallen men as often go astray as hit their target. The TRUE conspirators of 9/11 have been identified as far as I'm concerned.

So I feel no need for a conspiracy theory to explain terrible events. Apparently some people do feel such a need. I'm very impatient with all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 myself. I don't expect our intelligence to be as perfect as apparently some people do. I can easily accept that a Muslim plot to attack our institutions got past our radar, because God has lifted His protection of the nation to that extent and no other explanation is necessary. None of the scenarios I've seen cooked up "prove" that human agents on our side of the WTC plotted this attack. I think it's all ridiculous.

Do I need to know anything more than that God is judging the nation? I really don't think so.

Which isn't to insist that conspiracies couldn't possibly exist. The Muslim conspiracy existed after all. Why isn't that one sufficient? Why must there be a HIDDEN conspiracy? I really don't get it. Any that do exist should be exposed and prosecuted. But the usual conspiracy theories are simply not believable.

So to my mind Mark Dice is off to a bad start in even making this claim that events make no sense without a human plot to explain them, or another human plot than the one we know about. That's already conspiracy-thinking. According to the introduction to his book, he's going to focus a lot on 9/11 and I've got to say I've heard enough silly speculation about that to last me six lifetimes so I have no interest whatever in reading his book.

But I would really really like to see someone write a book that would examine all the claims truly objectively some time and really show the part that human beings played.