June 5, 2009

object of uniformity

To avoid entering into too great detail about the Jesuit Petre, I will only quote some extracts from the reports of the Tuscan Ambassador in London, Terriesi, quoted by Taunton […]:
"Writing to the Grand Duke (July 22, 1686) he says: 'Let your Highness prepare to hear continually fresh news of this country both as to its temporal and spiritual affairs. For the King seems determined to push forward in matters of religion as far as he can. And the Jesuit Petre, who governs him, is the man to force him to extremes without a thought as to the consequences. He says plainly that Protestants believe 'that the Jesuits are at present the primum mobile of the government.'" "Writing December 30, 1686, he says:
'The Jesuit Father Petre rules His Majesty's mind more than ever.'
"Writing August 15, 1687, Terriesi says : 'The report they [the people] circulate, ascribing all the trouble to the Jesuits' counsel, by which they say His Majesty is completely governed, is most intolerable to the King. Yet I believe it in a great measure to be a calumny, still, as His Majesty has the Jesuits so constantly with him, it causes suspicions, which will be worse if Father Petre becomes Cardinal, as it is said the King certainly wishes.'"

The Jesuit Petre attained to the height of his political activity on November the 11th, 1687, when James II made him a member of the Privy Council. As Privy Councillor Petre took an oath of allegiance, which would naturally suggest some scruples from a Catholic point of view. But that is where the use of the Jesuit maxim, "the end sanctifies the means," would come in.
Petre accepted his political office by express permission of the Provincial of the English Province, the Jesuit John Keynes, and with the silent consent at any rate of General Gonzalez himself. A letter, dated January 8, 1688, from the General to the English Provincial does certainly express "surprise" that Petre should have been allowed by the Provincial to accept an office "implying interference with matters forbidden by the statutes of the Order", but it does not contain a word of blame, let alone a command to relinquish the office. The letter ends with an assurance that the General would consult his assistants on the matter. As Petre retained his office undisturbed even after this consultation, it may be concluded that it ended in approval of Petre's political office. This conclusion is all the more justified as, if there had been the slightest sign of disapproval, the Jesuit authors would certainly have pointed it out. But they have maintained a profound silence.

Taunton concludes his account of the Jesuit Petre with these trenchant words:
"It is the custom to speak sternly of Petre's foolhardy conduct, and to accuse him of ambition. I think historians have not, as a rule, understood the full position of the case. Petre has been made the scapegoat for others. I do not wish to extenuate his responsibility for the catastrophe, but I do think the chief blame rests on other shoulders. If he were free from ambition, who then were the ambitious men?
Petre, like a good Jesuit, was in the hands of his superiors perinde ac cadaver. It was therefore the superiors of the Society who were the ambitious men. They and they alone are primarily guilty of the fall of the Stuarts. Hitherto they have escaped, while Petre has borne the opprobrium. The General, the Provincial and the Confessor are the real culprits. If, as we know, from a letter dated 3rd March, 1688, the Provincial had, without the leave of the General, allowed Petre to accept the office of Privy Councillor, still the General tolerated it. Considering that they knew all about the man, and yet left him in this position. Considering that they allowed him to take the oath and become a Privy Councillor, who can now say that they were not the ambitious men? The libido dominandi eats into a Society as well as into persons, and more easily where the individual gives up all personal ambition and makes the Society his all in all."

The historians of the Order do not speak of Petre and his political doings unless absolutely obliged to do so. They mostly prefer to ignore the existence of a Jesuit Petre. That is to say, they pass him over in absolute silence. In modern times the Jesuit Duhr is conspicuous for such silence. In his voluminous work of 975 pages, Jesuiten-Fabeln published in a fourth edition in 1904, Petre is only mentioned once in a superficial remark (p. 674), though thirty pages are devoted to the court confessors of the Order and their doings, but Petre does not exist for him.
This silence of Duhr's is all the more striking, considering that eighteen years before (1886-87), in the Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, he attempted the defence of Petre in long articles. And in 1904 not a word of such defence, not even a reference to it. Duhr must have had a feeling that it would be best not to reopen the topic of Petre.

From Duhr's defence of 1886-87 we may report as curiously characteristic that it is almost exclusively restricted to refuting the reproach of Petre's having aspired ambitiously to the dignity of a cardinal. This was impossible, he asserts, since Petre, as a professed member
of the Society of Jesus, had taken a vow not to aspire after such dignities. Duhr ignores almost completely the far more serious reproach of political activity, also forbidden
by the Constitutions of the Order, and seals his very extensive defence of his fellow-Jesuit Petre with this assertion: "There are no facts nor authentic, irrefutable conclusions to
justify the accusation brought against the Jesuit Petre. But if incontestable proof should be brought against Father Petre, there would be absolutely no reason why we should hesitate to recognise it, for it would be no more reasonable to reproach an Order of the Catholic Church for having one wicked member than the company of the Apostles on account of one Judas. In any case, truth must prevail."

That is Duhr all over, or rather the Jesuit spirit. The facts, that for years Petre exercised unlimited political influence, that he officially held a political post involving work contrary to the statutes of the Order, as even the General was obliged to confess, these facts, and authentic, irrefutable conclusions drawn from them, exist. And yet he clamours for facts to justify the accusations. Jesuit and ultramontane authors in general know their public.

The comparison between the Order of the Jesuits and the company of the Apostles, among whom there had also been a Judas, is also characteristic. There we have, first of all, the genuine Jesuit arrogance: The company of the Apostles = the Order of the Jesuits. Well, why not? The Order of the Jesuits is the Society of Jesus. But then there is a suggestion of confession and resignation in the reference to Judas, after all, the Jesuit Petre may possibly have been a Judas. How strange, then, that the Superiors of the Order always gave this Judas the highest praise and entrusted him, even after he had played his political, his "Judas" part in England, up to his death in 1699, with the most important offices, as Duhr himself reports! In this way the likeness to Judas extends really to the Superiors of the Order, and the above-quoted opinion of Taunton is thus confirmed. […]

The Jesuit Viller also speaks some plain words, which throw a strong light on the attitude of the Jesuit Order towards the office of princely confessor. Viller, Father Confessor of Archduke Charles of Styria, was one of the most influential Jesuits of Austria. For many years he filled the most important posts in the Order – those of Rector and Provincial. Because of the great favour he enjoyed at court, he had many envious enemies, who denounced him secretly to the General. He defended himself in several long and outspoken letters. On June 8, 1598, he wrote to the Jesuit Duras, German Assistant to General Acquaviva: "In the early days of our Society we all rejoiced if one of us found favour with a prince, and our efforts were directed towards the end of winning the favour of princes. Now there are some who are angry and envious if any one is in favour and labours with good result. Under the pretence of virtue they show zeal for the discipline of the Society and are filled with envy."

In a letter addressed by the Jesuit Francisco Antonio, Confessor to the Empress Maria, wife of Maximilian II, to the General Mercurian, on April 30, 1576, we read: "There is not a bishop, ambassador, or lord who would not desire to have some Jesuits in attendance. The door [to the princely courts] which is closed by the vows after profession, appears in a fashion to be reopened in this way. For there is no lack of those who seek after such posts with princes, and this leads to many abuses. In the first place they grow accustomed to a certain liberty, which is little in harmony with our rules. […] Finally, there is little spiritual advantage to be gained by it: it leads to ill reports about the Society, as people notice that our members tolerate considerable abuses at the courts or else refuse to see them, only because they desire to enjoy this liberty and honour." […]

The following is from an Italian manuscript preserved in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris: "Instruction to princes as to the manner in which the Jesuits rule": "As among the reports which the Provincials send in, there are also some which deal with the character, inclinations and intentions of the various princes, the General and his Assistants in Rome are placed in a position to survey and judge of the political state of the world and to regulate the attitude of the Order in accordance with its own interests. In particular, the confessions, which a great many of the Catholic nobility and many Catholic princes make to the Jesuits, are a means of procuring for the Order a knowledge of important matters, an object for which princes have to pay large sums to ambassadors and spies, but which now only costs the Jesuits the money for postage. In the same manner they also learn the disposition of the subjects and know which of them are well-disposed to the princes and which are not. […] In Rome the Jesuits constantly swarm around the cardinals, ambassadors and prelates, and inquire about everything that occurs or is about to occur, and try to turn it to their own advantage, so that events of importance often have an entirely different issue from that which the princes desire. The greater part of the business of Christendom passes through their hands. They prevailed on Gregory XIII to order all legates and nuncios to take Jesuits as their companions and confidants. […] Jesuits who are taken into the confidence of a prince seek advice immediately of the General about matters of importance and follow his directions."

Macaulay sums up his judgment in these words: "They glided from one Protestant country to another, under innumerable disguises, as gay Cavaliers, as simple rustics, as Puritan preachers."
Crétineau-Joly, who writes in the pay of the Order, takes up a peculiar position. He cannot deny the enormous influence of the Jesuit Order on the political conditions of Europe. But he discovers a theory of justification. "In the intention of Loyola politics were certainly excluded from his institution, but in the sixteenth century all matters of the court and diplomacy, and even the wars, had a religious basis. […] The Jesuits were, therefore, compelled to intervene in political and social movements."

And feeling that he has thus cleared the way, he boldly bears testimony to the gigantic political power of the Order. "Colbert, Louvois, Seignelai, Pontchartrain, and Croissy, the Ministers of Louis XIV, were encompassed by the counsels of Father Antoine Verjus SJ. The Marshal of Luxemburg and Villars sought his opinion in affairs of importance. The Count of Crecy, the French ambassador at the German Reichstag, did not wish to be the only one deprived of the illumination of the Jesuits. He besought Louis XIV to obtain for him this diplomatic helper from the Superiors of the Order, and accordingly Father Verjus was instructed [by his Superiors] to repair to Germany. There the breadth of his intellect and the moderation of his character soon won for him the regard of Catholic and even Protestant princes. Baron von Schwerin, ambassador of the Elector of Brandenburg, Grote, the Hanoverian ambassador, both zealous Lutherans, were among his best friends. […] The most celebrated parliamentarians [of France] followed the pious counsels of Jean Crasset SJ."

Me) The "libido dominandi" – that's exactly what our entire, all possessive catholicized mainstream culture is mostly driven by for centuries since the institution came into existence: dominating the other, making belief to get obedience. That's what happens on all levels with every single line of thought, always. Everywhere! No democracy at all can breath with an attitude like this. Therefrom also this permanent fever, this stress, this mania to convince somebody, to proselytize the neighbour in one way or another. Catholic souls are trained for this their whole life. Always wanting to be right, always wanting to be the best subject/superior possible, always being well-behaved, pride soldiers of some sort. A life totally after concepts and guidelines ... Rome has successfully turned Jesus into an autocrat, its autocrat. Its absolutist caesar, its pop icon, for the world. So-called christianity produces right now its own pharaoh, the infallible fuehrer. What could be more spectacular than this! How? Through Jesuitical education and Hollywood television first and foremost, through false flag laws, false flag news, false flag money, false flag idols like Francis of Assisi & Shakespeare, Mozart & The Beatles, and false flag market structures. Through the same amount of false flage terror as well as false flag kindness. Amen.
"The Order of the Jesuits is the Society of Jesus."
They feel themselves literally as walking Jesuses on earth with their Roman king over everything, the godlike General Secretary aka "Christus quasi praesens".

"I'm personally convinced of the great power and deep significance of Christianity, and I won't allow any other religion to be promoted. That is why I have turned away from Ludendorff and that is why I reject that book by Rosenberg. It was written by a Protestant. It is not a Party book. It was not written by him as a Party man. The Protestants can be left to argue with him ... As a Catholic I never feel comfortable in the Evangelical Church or its structures. That is why I will have great difficulty if I try to regulate affairs of the Protestant churches. The evangelical people or the Protestants will in any case reject me. But you can be sure: I will protect the rights and freedoms of the churches and not let them be touched, so that you need have no fears about the future of the Church." Hitler

Hitler was also ready to discuss with the Bishop his views on the Jewish question:
"As for the Jews, I am just carrying on with the same policy which the Catholic church has adopted for fifteen hundred years, when it has regarded the Jews as dangerous and pushed them into ghettos etc., because it knew what the Jews were like. I don't put race above religion, but I do see the danger in the representatives of this race for Church and State, and perhaps I am doing Christianity a great service."
J.S. Conway's Nazi Persecution of the Churches

The three big defenders of the Roman Catholic faith were Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. All three had concordats with the Vatican.

The domain of official politics at universities, parties, newspapers and the TV pulpit is only a section of and as well a façade for the real politics that isn't spread around and consists of precise, well-planned steps of inculturation - blessed by some sort of World Central Committee which I believe is in the hand of the "Jesuses alive" - like "9/11", like American Idol, like the "Litvinenko-Bonding", or the Dollar Meltdown." The government didn't have "failed you" - that's simply how agents work: to mislead other's thinking onto false premises so that the game can be dominated.
That's Dick Clarke's and Dick Cheney's job!