May 1, 2011

Fabius Maximus and the Cecil Rhodes legacy

tt) Do you know any criticism of "forward thinker" Professor Quigley regarding the public education system?

Richard Grove)
When I first read T&H, I searched the index for all the hallmark words of the world revolution movement, including Jesuits ... to my recollection, Quigley only mentions Jesuits once in the 1300 pages, near the end, in the context of education. Being that a) the Jesuits were here in America (British East India Company), b) the BEIC flag adopted and amended to be the "American Flag", c) John Carroll, Daniel Carroll, Fr. Neil (Georgetown University founders), d) the naming of Georgetown after G. Washington, etc. etc. etc. that Quigley is speaking representing the ruling educational establishment.
That being read, the Jesuits start with Loyola, whose "spiritual exercises" learned in Qabalist Spain etc. are based on the Alumbrados, whose practices and traditions of controlling the masses through mis-education and word magic are ancient ... so while I think all who have done their homework can agree that the Jesuits play a role as a military order and controller of education (providing it to their "forces", denying it to "infidels"), etc. is not indicative of their control in totality ... there are many groups, all specialized, working in concert, under a common ideology (self-worship above god, ego worship, selfishness fulfilled through the destruction and undermining of others).

None of us to my knowledge consider Quigley to be someone other than a) a cog in the Establishment, whose b) artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows. His focus was not on (why we weren't being taught the actual history of the world in our time) but rather, to illustrate that some people were being educated to rule over the rest of us, and doing such so successfully that they can write about it ... and the Establishment hasn't yet felt a ripple of consequence.
Reading these artifacts, left by people within the Establishment are our best source of intelligence into the mindset, modus opporendi, etc. of those who seek to suppress consciousness ... as that is the single thread of warfare and secrecy that has woven the fabric of human history.
For more on the answer to your question above, try F. Tupper Saussy's "Rulers of Evil".


"A leader, like a shepherd, he sends his fastest nimble sheep out front and the others will follow while the shepherd, he walks quietly behind it.
Now, he's got the stick and the cane, he will use it if he has to.
But most times he doesn't have to, he moves the whole herd quietly."
*) 1

"Not indicative of their control in totality" says the one of all who have done their homework, who named his entire publish and research campaign after a bible-esque book of a quasi-Jesuit? "The most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts [...] you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again." *) 2
Hey, let's call it what it is, okay? A Jesuit paradigm. And that has something of a totality in itself, even though you consider your idol now as "a cog in the Establishment" (the British, I guess) and as "someone whose artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows." In August last year, you seemed to still think of him as an author who would "fill in all the blindspots that's provided through our traditional education."

The history that he lays out might not be taught in school, it nevertheless is just another Jesuit version to keep your attention off the one organization that thrones above all others.
I mean, do you think those highest sophisticated plumbers of piety would non-Papists let indoctrinate their "fastest nimble sheeps" like Clinton and Petraeus, or Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer?

No offense, chief navigator, but the homework that I did led me to another conclusion, and I'm afraid that as long as you are under the spell of Mr. Quigley, you probably won't be able to see the monolithic nature of the actual global Sherpherd's Fold, which, in my opinion, is in fact "a tightly knit and highly efficient machine" in the shape of a pyramid of military or militarized (quasi-military) command structure, effectively in charge at least since World War II and Nagasaki. Meaning a world order, world governance, already exists from my point of view.
But maybe I'm wrong. How about we look together for some indicators for this venturous thesis and let's see where it will lead us, alright?

Let's start with subjects you are familiar with.
Two weeks ago, you recommended a video on the Prussian origins of the North American education system and I have asked you what we'd know about the time when Horace Man and other designees from the New World discovered the advantages of a specific German teaching model in connection with the fatherly knights of the Jesuit Order. Well, the Prussian Frederick II and the Russian Catherine II were the two main monarchies in Europe that have been giving shelter to the outlaws of the 1773 terminated Company of Jesus, and you ought to find this information even in some regular textbooks that Frederick wanted the Roman priest professors to become the teaching force in his kingdom. Now, count two and two together and we will end up with the observation that "The Father of American Public Education" was as much as a fan of the Men in Black as Carroll was and probably the vast majority of all Christians are today. Eric Phelps writes in his magnum opus in chapter 13:

"Later in 1754, the Jesuits created Scottish Rite Freemasonry and in 1786 with their protector, Frederick the Great, centralized all Masonic power with the creation of Shriner Freemasonry."

Just as an aside. Because I believe, to be in control of education means a lot more than just providing knowledge selectively: for me, it means to be in control of knowledge on all levels of the pyramid of power as mentioned above.

I also know from episode six (@ 69 min) that you are familiar with the Fabian Strategy and who Fabius Maximus was and how you take the Cecil Rhodes legacy and British Fabianism for the original source of the global Socialist takeover, but have you never heard of highly educated Christian extremists who literally went into the wilderness of the rainforest in South America to build up a Jesus society with native inhabitants from the scratch? They didn't only theorize about Communism they actually did it, experimentally, and Friedrich Nietzsche knew it, like Fyodor Dostoyevsky knew it, that Socialism in all its disguises is a Jesuit invention, nothing else:

"Der moderne Sozialismus will die weltliche Nebenform des Jesuitismus schaffen." *) 3
(Modern Socialism will pull off the secular variant of Jesuitism.)

But maybe he was already too badly mentally deranged in the 90s to recognize Socialism as a British interpretation of a Roman emperor, instead of a Roman, you know – okay, this was almost pure polemic now.
Socialism, Communism, Solidarism and any other considerable modification of so-called Distributism have in my opinion one and the same central intellectual source and are being executed by the Roman Catholic Empire (Vatican City), which the British Empire (City of London) with the United States of America (Washington, D.C.) is part of. I mean, have you ever thought about why the clergy held their Vatican II council directly after it was clear through the erection of the Berlin Wall that the Communist experiment has failed?
I think they did it because they needed a quasi-Protestant mask for their brotherhood then after the collapse of the second most important mainstay (in the course) of the Counter-Reformation. And it works till this day.
Or are you, for instance, aware of what the Jesuits did first with their papal approbation? They reformed the entire church, and that alone through their teachings – I find this remarkable.
That must have been the reason why the Venetian nobility saw themselves forced to found the newest military order for their universal church according to the conspiracy mastermind Mr. Tarpley, right?

We live in a world today that is totally and thoroughly incorporated, with a general superior, an executive officer or secretary general, on top of every single corporation – you don't necessarily need official Communism for that, obviously – including the government, including practically everything, and you really think the overall power structure is not like a corporation?
You really think this completely militarized system that literally looks at us speaking together, existing as corporate beings, corporate entities, doesn't have one global leader at the very top?
Will be interesting to see why you think so: "working in concert, under a common ideology" together, but not in form of a corporation. Along the lines of if you show me my blindspots, I'll show you yours, because that's what the whole piety profiling business is basically about: how to deal with all the blindspots, and a little bit more.
And I think to remember to have promised it to you to at least examine the one big elephant in the room that you don't care about. But only if you want to address this issue with me since I do not lecture, I only correspond.

My personal feeling is that most people actually want to believe what most people (already) do believe.
And piety as a common value is without a doubt underpinning the state more than any other phenomenon, in the same way nobody wants to talk or even think about.
Everybody is sucked into this controlled controversy whether it's a conspiracy or not, as if there was no room beyond that pretty useless, very distracting and all too usual debate. Sure, there are obviously all sorts of conspiratorial elements but do they really make the entirety of societal characteristics, structures, perspectives, tendencies, the whole constitution of civilization or creation of culture, a conspiracy? Or maybe are there certain aspects that could be more important, more influential, more power-breaking than sheer military secrecy?

Of course, Quigley would have criticized the Jesuit college education system if anything only for controversial purposes, not for a better understanding. Think about what you have said yourself:

"The Jesuitical Argument is a) a fallacy, as it tries to deceive, and b) a compilation of several layers of deception. The point is ... Jesuitical Argument is the opposite of teaching, it's the use of words to obscure the truth ... or, to occult the truth."

The "opposite of teaching" practiced from the teachers of all nations – well, if that's not another totality, I don't know. I ask you, who do you think has supposedly the greatest expertise to incorporate, to bureaucratize, to takeover whole continents with brotherhood-like societal structures where the incorporated individual believes that that's exactly what's needed to be free and happy, you know?

One of my slogans is: the conspiracy is us. You can say the same thing about the corporation: it's us! The so-called conspiracy as well as the corporation is how we are, every individual personality as well as certain companionships. I want to start a solution-oriented togetherness-thinking with this kind of idea. And I think we should continue to list such indicators to have another map that could help to gain a better overview on the overall status.
The basic outcome from my online studies of the past seven years condensed is however that Christianity and Freemasonry belong together like Democrats and Republicans, and the so-called Society of Jesus as the one and only true successor of the Knights Templar embodies the bridge between both mystery schools, both business infrastructures.

It looks as it could be that I'd like to address the more complicated questions and deliberations to you directly, boss. Which doesn't mean that I expect you to feel obliged about that. Definitely not.
I simply put it on your desk, that's all. What else?
This for instance: Where do you think the British monarchy would be today without a) a christianized people and b) the occult Masonic apparatus of power? You know, I look at this whole culture cabal how it actually occurs and enfolds in time against the backdrop of the two biggest civilizing shifts of tectonic plates in modern history, which I think are obviously the Christianization 1500-1000 years ago and the Protestant Reformation.
Now, who do you know who elaborates the Christianization? Does it not matter? We are talking here about nothing less than the most fundamental layer of all layers of piety in our culture: Christianization means the ruthless implementation of monolithic collectivism in Europa in the first place, and this basic layer is still ruled by those who had accomplished it then, the Roman priesthood.
And everything, everything goes from there. And it's easy to understand. Nonetheless it remains widely untouched by any social commentator.

To be continued ...

Could you help me with one word, Rich, that Jon Stewart had used at two minutes and fifty seconds into his "we're living in insanity" interview on C-SPAN in October 2004 where he said:
"I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of litotes, puns, syllogisms ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself would have ..."
I just can't "crack the code".

* 1) Hollywood Programming 2007: American Gangster @ 19 min
* 2) Peace Revolution podcast episode six @ 51 min
* 3) Erkme Joseph: "Nietzsche im Zauberberg" (1996) pp. 175 ff.

Richard) Hey Tosco, you seem to have a lot of knowledge to share on the topic of Jesuit influence on education and history overall, so I would like to encourage you to focus your comprehensive knowledge into a series of blogs aimed at transmuting your research into a step-by-step presentation which allows those in the community who are not as aware of such events as you, to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective.
As it stands now, you seem to do a lot of observation, thought, and sharing of what you've learned. But it is not easy for those who are not as familiar to follow your stream of consciousness.
I just thought that it's the next step for you, to begin to focus on explaining it in a way that becomes valuable to more people and more effectively communicates that which you wish to share.

I don't think any of us disagree with you regarding your observations of the Jesuits, and T&H (the book by Quigley) is just a stepping stone for the public to get a grip that a) there's more going on than the general public is aware, b) that there's more to be learned, and c) there's a process for learning it ... which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public ... so we're all on the same page, and from this common ground we can make progress toward further understanding how the Jesuits' influence has shaped the world.
Thanks for all of your hard work!

tt) Since I don't like to lecture, to blog or to even behave in any kind of traditional pc-web-less way, I have to find other methods to develop my own understanding together with others. And I think I'm about to uncover some new possibilities for this right now ... Thanks for your experienced advice though. I think, for instance, we are already "on the same page", even if we are not entirely conscious about it. The new theoretical approach that I'm working on should make that clear more quickly and more thoroughly than specifically and solely focussing on the Jesuit Knights Templar. Because it is not a conspiracy on the whole.

(Rich: "I thought it might help you to use the Brain, to coordinate your research and organize it so as you can lead others through your brain model.
It's free for all the features you need and we'll be starting a brain modeling group and therein we can start to learn more from each other as we improve our individual skills of organization and presentation.")