Paven skriver i sin nye Encyclical 2020, Fratelli Tutti:
“Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well”.[92] In the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we provide the needy with their basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to them, not to us”.
Men glem ikke at den katolske kirke i mange århundreder har arbejdet intenst og målrettet på at udplyndre og undertrykke nationerne. Se for eksempel dette maleri den mexikanske kunstner Diego Rivera. Titlen er “Glorious Victory.”, men det er ikke folkets sejr, men ondskabens sejr i form af amerikansk imperialisme, CIAs evne til at knuse demokratier og den katolske kirke som fødselshjælper for grusom undertrykkelse. I 1954 knuste CIA Guatemala med den katolske kirkes hjælp. Læg mærke til den katolske præst i højre side af billedet.
Situationen fra Guatemala i 1954 er langt fra enestående; kun et eksempel på den katolske kirkes hykleri. Ofte undslipper kirken og offentligheden er uvidende om sandheden og pavedømmet går fri. Derfor blev maleriet da også forbudt i USA så sandheden kunne skjules.
Diego Rivera: Glorious Victory. Klik på billedet for større opløsning
I midten af maleriet giver den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Foster Dulles hånden til Castillo Armas hånd. Castillo Armas var en grusom, pro-amerikans diktator som CIA fik sat på magten som afløser for den demokratisk indstillede minister, som var elsket af folket. CIA-chef Allen Dulles og den amerikanske ambassadør i Guatemala John Peurifoy giver penge til militærkommandører, mens man ser de indfødte arbejde som slaver og lader United Fruit Company skibe bort med lasten fuld af bananer. Ved ambassadørens fødder ser man en antropomorfiseret bombe med præsident Dwight Eisenhowers smilende ansigt. I baggrunden er ærkebiskop Mariano Rossell y Arellano, der udfører en katolsk messe hen over arbejdernes massakrerede kroppe. Dette maleri blev forbudt i USA og forsvandt helt i de næste halvtreds år. I år 2000 blev det fundet på et lager på Pushkin-museet i Rusland, og siden da er det udlånt og permanent udstillet i Mexico.
The pope has newly issued a so-called encyclical letter to the church and to the world. It describes the plans of the catholic church laid out for the whole world. A glorious plan for the salvation of mankind, and the recipe on HOW it must be done. When you read it, it sounds nice until you dive down in the details. As you know “the devil hides in the detail”:
If you know the history of the catholic church you know that it blood-stained and gruesome and it has downtrodden the nations and kept them in bondage. This encyclical is
this encyclical is a blueprint for a great plan to transform the nations of world into the same condition which ruled during the darkest of darkest times during the middle ages. It is a blueprint for a new world order which can at best be compared with fascism and communism with heavy religious over- and undertones.
An Encyclical is a letter of high papal priority for an issue at a given time. And the time we are in now is according to many world leaders and the pope crucial. We are at the brink of collapse and must act fast, they say.
Let me tell you a gruesome, horrifying story that is relevant for all to know today.
In 1954 the Catholic church worked closely together with the CIA to destroy Guatemala and bring the people into a kind of slavery. The story is very interesting for us today, because it is a modern example of how the catholic church has always through history corporated (openly and secretly) together with political and military entities. This history explains in detail how a powerful catholic priest, Mariano Rossell y Arellano, betrayed the Guatemalan people and brought a catastrophe to all the poor Indians. The CIA installed a pro-American dictator and Guatemala became a completely broken nation. This instance was not unique in history. It is a type of what will come soon globally: The deep state of the United States will implement globally what the Jesuits are whispering in its ears. Everyone who reads history will understand that the catholic church has robbed the world for centuries and been working behind the scenes to create all the poor third world countries in South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Now the pope tries to make the people of the affluent nations believe that WE (the people) have been responsible for it all by a materialistic lifestyle, so now WE have to pay and repair what the first and the second beast in Revelation 13 have created. How many poor migrants do you think live inside that walls of that Vatican in nicely build communes? I guess not one! The popes (not the pope, but all the popes) belong to the group of the greatest liars in human history. They have for centuries betrayed the nations of Europe. The reformation exposed it totally and its power sunk for a while into oblivion. But it arose again, but in another form customized our modern world, but still propagating the exact same principles and deceptions.
Order Out of Chaos: the catholic church has for centuries created chaos in the nations. It is one long history of undermining protestant nations. It creates chaos, division and now when everything is “on the brink” of breaking the church steps forward and pretends to behave a blueprint for saving us all out. How much more disgusting can it be?
Jeg tror at hvis alle mennesker begyndte at leve nu præcis som Gud ønsker vi skal leve, så ville mennesket vise sig ikke længere at være smukt og skønt at se på. Det ville tværtimod vise sig at være grimt, tyndt og knoklet. Hvorfor? Fordi alt det vi opfatter som et skønhedsideal i vor tid er et resultat af kunstigt oppustethed, en fedtklump, en kunstigt oppustet muskelklump. Og uden alle disse kunstige pyntninger på “juletræet” som vi opfatter som et ideal for skønhed, ville det vise sig at vi bare er en vissen stamme med visne grene. Så, ser vi ikke smukke ud. Men en anden årsag til at vi ikke vil se komme til at se smukke ud, selv vi lever 100% korrekt, er fordi vi alle er blevet til som et resultat af mange generationers usunde livsstil. Vi, som lever i dag, er så at sige bygget forkert lige fra fødslen, fordi de byggesten, der har været til rådighed har været for få og for usle og er sat sammen forkert. Vores knoglestruktur er svag, spinkel, og vores symmetri er skæv, vores lemmer er sat lidt forkert på og proportionerne er lidt forkerte, sådan som Gud oprindeligt har ønsket det. Vi har – gennem generationers forkert livsstil – perverteret skaberværket i vores egne legemer. Harmonien er derfor ikke længere som den burde være. Og nu dækker vi over det ved at skabe et ideal som elsker det unaturlige, det pyntede og overdrevne. Alt dette vil afsløre sig hvis vi fjerner “sminken”. Menneskets oprindelige gudgivne, fysiske skønhed, som et ypperligt kunstværk er da næsten borte. Og det s, og hvor perfekt vi lever efter Guds helseregler. Uanset hvad vi gør for at rette op, vil de sunde altid komme til at se uskønne ud (sammenlignet med vor tids ideal), men de vil være sundere end dem som ser sunde ud men ikke er det.
If you dig down some fish heads in your garden and plant some tomato plants on top of them and later it turns out that these fish-tomato-plants give a much bigger yield of tomatoes compared to the other tomato plants with no fish heads, do you then have scientific proof that it is because of the fish heads you had a bigger yield. No.
Okay, then let’s say that you convince some other people to do the same thing and they also experience the what you did, do you then have a scientific proof that is the fish heads that give the bigger yield? Well, it depends. The official scientific community has not approved your experiences, so in their terms, you haven’t proven anything. You can do the same thing over and over again with the same result, but when you try to say to the tomato farmers that fish heads work, they will tell you: “It is not scientifically proven.”
It is the same things we hear again and again from official authorities and scientists and the medical community about alternative health medicine and practices. “This sort of stuff has never been scientifically proven.”
So practically the authorities can keep all kinds of competition out of influence by refusing to study it and setting up scientific experiments. In that way, they can keep all competition away and keep on saying that the claims about fish heads are only anecdotical.
This is very frustrating and leads many people to give up living a healthy lifestyle because whatever the learn in the alternative community is attacked by the mainstream scientific community.
Jeg blev først opmærksom på hvor alvorlig en drejning kønsdebatten har taget da jeg for 3-4 år siden så en video på Youtube med Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson er en canadisk psykiater, som er blevet berømt og berygtet på Youtube, fordi han nægter at rette sig efter den canadiske lov, Bill C-16. Loven går ud på at beskytte mennesker med en anden kønsidentitet end den, de er født med, imod diskrimination og hate-speech. Peterson mener at loven undertrykker en lov som står højt hævet over C-16, nemlig loven om ytringsfrihed. Han mener at C-16 tvinger folk til at bruge ord, der ikke svarer til den objektive virkelighed, hvis de vil undgå retsforfølgelse.
Jordan Peterson har ikke noget imod at tiltale………………………en men en lov som kriminaliserer ham, hvis han udtaler sig i overenstemmelse med sin overbevisning og som svarer til en videnskabeligt funderet virkelighed, så nægter han
Krænkelsen af deres følelser kan blandt andet opstå hvis man
kalder dem med et andet kønsbestemt ord (han, hun) end det de selv
identificerer sig med. Loven påbyder derfor at man skal tiltale mennesker med
de kønsbestemte ord (han, hun, den, det, etc) som folk selv identificerer sig
med uanset om ordene står i kontrast til deres biologiske køn. På den måde kan
man undgå at forskelsbehandle, såre og krænke folk.
Lovforslaget er beregnet til at beskytte enkeltpersoner mod diskrimination
og hate-speech som en konsekvens af deres kønsidentitet eller deres kønsudtryk.
Man mener at det er et udtryk for (ulovlig)
forskelsbehandling hvis personer med en kønsidentitet der afviger fra deres
biologiske køn ikke har mulighed for at blive tiltalt med kønsbestemte ord, som
er i overensstemmelse med det køn, de identificerer sig med.
Loven kommer de personer til hjælp, som har en
kønsidentitet, der afviger fra deres biologiske køn, så de kan opnå en
lovmæssigt funderet ret i samfundet til at blive tiltalt og omtalt med
kønsbestemte ord (han, hun etc), der svarer til det køn, de identificerer sig
med. Problemet er bare at loven da forhindrer
en at beskrive virkeligheden og tale ud fra hvad der er objektivt sandt
(biologisk køn) og i stedet tvinges til, ved lov, at beskrive virkeligheden ud
fra folks individuelle og stærkt subjektive følelser. Det er en alvorlig
glidebane hvis risikoen for at såre folks følelser skal være bestemmende for om
vi har ret til at udtale os i overensstemmelse med den objektive, biologiske
virkelighed.
Men ifølge Jordan Peterson kan kønsbestemmelse aldrig blive
et spørgsmål om personlige følelser. Køn er ikke et psykologisk fænomen eller
en social konstruktion men udelukkende et spørgsmål om biologi. Med andre ord:
Selv om du opfatter dig selv som en hun, så ér du stadig en han, hvis dit
biologiske køn viser det. Og det kan ingen hormonbehandling eller operationer
lave om på.
Men er det ikke rimeligt at man søger at undgå at krænke
folk med en anden kønsidentitet, end den de er født med ved at tiltale dem med
de ord der svarer til deres personlige kønsopfattelse? Her skelner Jordan
Peterson mellem lovgivningen og den personlige relation i konkrete tilfælde. Eksempelvis
vil Peterson gerne tiltale en kvinde med ”han”, hvis hun føler sig som en mand.
Men kun hvis personen selv har bedt ham
om det. Men han vil ikke adlyde en lov, der kræver at han skal gøre det, fordi
der i loven ligger det element at man gradvist opløser hvad der er objektivt
sandt (biologien) til fordel for individuelle følelse og sociale
konstruktioner, som flyder fra den ene generation til den anden.
De ord vi bruger er afgørende for hvordan vi opfatter
verden. Hvis det videnskabelige grundlag – som i århundreder har været et
fundament for hvordan vi beskriver verden omkring os, skrider til fordel for
personlige følelser, så skrider vores verdensbillede. Det må ikke være
personlige følelser – af frygt for at blive stødt eller krænket, der bestemmer
om denne forandringsproces af vores beskrivelse af virkeligheden, sættes i
gang. Vi ved at en hund er en hund selv om vi kalder den ’Beethoven’ eller
’Batman’ eller ulv. Vi ved også at en lille dreng er og bliver en lille dreng
selv om vi kalder ham Tarzan. Men der er noget helt andet på spil i den her
køns-debat. Her handler det ikke om at vi giver kælenavne eller have en leg
kørende. Loven tvinger folk til beskrive den objektive, synlige virkelighed med
de ord der passer korrekt. Man tvinges til at gøre vold på sin overbevisning.
Hensynet til folks muligt sårede følelser kommer til at stå over hvad der er
sandt, når det kommer som lovgivning. Og det er farligt, mener Jordan Peterson.
Men det er ikke farligt hvis en person beder ham kalder ham han, hun, den, det
Så i denne kønsdebat bliver det det u-naturlige og kunstige
pludselig ophøjet til samme niveau af ægthed, som det naturlige (det
biologisk). Men hele sagen er iværksat som en hjælp til folks sårede følelser.
Ikke fordi man har fundet ud af at virkelighedsopfattelsen af køn er
misforstået af videnskaben. Det er selve virkelighedsopfattelsen der skrider.
Det er i orden at folk skal have lov til at tro og mene hvad de vil om sig selv. Hvis en person tror han er Napoleon, så er det hans ret. Men det skal samtidig også være folks ret om de vil tiltale ham som Napoleon. Og det gælder også hvis han føler sig såret derved.
For en del ar siden blev skuespilleren, forfatteren og teaterinstruktøren Claus Beck-Nielsen kendt i medierne på grund af sin kunstneriske og selviscenesatte leg med identitet. Han ”afgik ved døden” og blev til forskellige identiteter. Det begyndte med identiteten Nielsen, så blev det til …… og for tiden er det vidst Madame Nielsen, hvor Claus Beck-Nielen nu optræder i offentligheden som en kvinde (Madame Nielsen). Og medierne leger med på legen. I forskellge interviews hører jeg hvordan journalisterne titulerer Claus med ”Madame Nielsen”. Men det er jo bare Claus, der leger og spiller roller. Men hans projekt passer perfekt ind i tiden. Claus Becks kunstprojekt er blevet indhentet af virkeligheden. Man kan måske se sådan på det at kunstnere ofte mærker en trend i tiden og hopper på en vogn som først senere bliver opfanget i den brede befolkning og forvandles til et eller andet mainstream produkt. Eller man kan se det fra en anden vinkel, hvis man vil, at de store trends siden 1900-tallets begyndelse, aldrig har spiret nedefra (som vi normalt tror) men er hemmeligt er sat i gang af snedige public-relations manipulatorer. Hvis dette er tilfældet så er Claus Beck Nielsens identitets-eksperimenter (og mange andre af samme slags) blot en brik i et større spil hvor han har opsnappet hvad han tror er en trend der er opstået på avantegarde-kunstscenen engang i 90´erne, men i virkeligheden er en topstyret og bevidst fabrikeret trend podet ind i avantgarde-scenen. På akkurat samme måde som kunstscenen var infiltreret af CIA i 1960´erne, da de kontrollerede og hemmeligt promoverede og financierede den nye trend ”abstrakt ekspressionisme”.
om at
Hvis køn ikke længere afgøres ud fra et biologisk skøn men ud
fra personlige følelser, så forhindrer loven folk i at udtale sig i
overensstemmelse med deres overbevisning og i overensstemmelse med biologisk
videnskab – uden samtidig at risikerer at komme på kant med loven.
Han mener at mennesker med en personlig
kønsidentitets-opfattelse som afviger fra deres biologiske køn, har en mental
forstyrrelse og ikke et virkeligt problem med køn.
Peterson mener at loven går imod loven om ytringsfrihed.
Ifølge Jordan Peterson, så er køn ikke noget man selv kan bestemme. Køn er
biologisk bestemt.
Køn er ikke en social konstruktion men biologisk betinget. Det
kan aldrig blive et individs personlige følelser,
som bestemmer hvad køn man har, for kønsbestemmelse handler ikke om følelser
men om biologi og videnskab. Der findes nogle undtagelser fra denne regel som
retter sig imod mennesker hvor kromosomfejl under fosterudviklingen. Men i
langt de fleste tilfælde man ser i dag af den hastigt stigende mængde som har
en afvigende kønsidentitet set i forhold til deres biologiske køn, så handler
det ikke om kromosomfejl eller gener, men om en mental tilstand.
Derfor undertrykker den canadiske lov Bill C-16
ytringsfriheden,
Min konklusion efter at have studeret hvad anti-trinitarianere siger, er dette:
Hvis du tror Jesus er Gud og at Helligånden er en person og at Gud Fader, Gud Søn og Gud Helligånd tilsammen udgør en union af tre ligeværdige, guddommelige personer, så er du bedraget og forført ind i den hedenske form for spiritualitet og gudsopfattelse, hvor du (bevidst eller ubevidst) kommer direkte under indflydelse af Satans ånd. Når du beder Gud om at få Helligånden, så inviterer du Satan ind fordi du har en hedensk opfattelse af at Helligånden er en person. Bevidst eller ubevidst tilbeder du Satan. Du er Baal-tilbeder om du vil det eller ej. Din fejlopfattelse af guddommen er årsagen til dette. Du er fortabt, for du behøver den rette opfattelse af guddommen natur for at kunne få adgang til Jesu transformerende Ånd og kraft til at danne en fuldkommen karakter i harmoni med Guds principper. Du ville ikke kunne danne en karakter som er egnet for evigheden hvis det er Satans ånd du har fået frem for Jesus Ånd (Helligånden).
Titus 3,10: Et kættersk menneske skal du vise bort efter en første og en anden advarsel. Se Walter Veits video om hvad en kætter er:
There is a BIG problem here: Jordan Peterson is off track! Peterson likes to diminish even the spiritual REALITY of the law of God to symbolic imagery that he can tear apart and then knit it to a psychological context where it never belonged. What he is doing exactly what he is warning us not to do: He is TWISTING REALITY!!
He is not telling us that the law of God – the ten commandments – is the literal binding law for all of mankind and that every human being that has ever existed in history shall one day be judged by that law. Ask Peterson: “Is God and God’s law a reality?” And he will reply: “It all depends what you mean by “god””. And then he continues to sidetrack you in a brilliant way. But the ten commandments ARE very real. And God exists. The Bible reveals WHO he is – both his nature and his character, his plans and his love. But Peterson makes it sooooo complicated and intellectual unreal….twisting reality.
And the reason why the New Testament is an inseparable part of the Old Testament is that Jesus is the FULFILLMENT of the Old, and a FULFILLMENT of the principles of God’s law – the ten commandments. Without Jesus, there is absolutely no Old Testament. Jesus lived the law and gave mankind an example to follow. Jordan Peterson twists the reality of God, of Jesus Christ, and of God’s binding law, and he confuses the Old and New Testament. He is completely dismantling reality and its inseparable connection to Jesus Christ and the law of God. So watch out! Don’t follow Peterson…or you “HAVE TO PAY SOONER OR LATER”..as Peterson so boldly says.
You should rater track your life back in memory while at the same time asking God: “Help me to see exactly where I have been breaking your law and help me to correct what I can now do to bring my life in accordance with your law and start afresh?” THEN watch out and see what will happen over a period of time!!! God will wake your slumbering conscience, and if you ACT on the things that are brought into your memory, then a COMPLETELY new life will begin and gradually inspire you to develop new motives, change your plans, your relations and transform your life into the likeness of Jesus Christ. That will be the greatest decision you can ever, ever take in your life. And it has eternal consequences!
Artikel fra The New American som forklarer hvordan Fidel Castro kom til magten gennem den konspiratoriske magt i USA med blandt andet CIA lederen Dulles som en vigtig brik i spillet. Artiklen ser dog ikke linket til jesuitterne.
U.S. Globalists Put Castro in Power and Kept Him There
Written by Frank de Varona and Alex Newman
F
MIAMI, Florida — When the young men of Assault Brigade 2506 landed at Cuba’s Bay of Pigs, many realized that something was not right. Their bravery was astounding. But in their wildest dreams, they could not have imagined the depths of the betrayal that had been engineered in Washington, D.C., by well-placed globalist power brokers. The betrayal had global repercussions that are still being felt today.
First, the establishment — Deep State operatives from the globalist-minded Council on Foreign Relations in key roles at the U.S. State Department and the New York Times — installed a mass-murdering communist dictatorship in their country. Then that same establishment stabbed in the back the brave freedom fighters sent to liberate Cuba. It was an incredible victory for tyranny and a brutal blow to liberty. And it remains a shameful episode in American history that has been largely overlooked — until now.
The plan to invade Cuba, as originally formulated, was brilliant. And it had a very real chance of successfully overthrowing the barbaric regime installed in Cuba by globalist American officials and communist butchers in Moscow. But enough pressure was brought to bear by CFR members and their allies in strategic positions that it was possible to sabotage the entire mission, handing communism an unprecedented morale boost while demoralizing anti-communist forces everywhere.
Preparing the Invasion
In March of 1960, after doing everything possible to bring Castro to power, as this article will show, President Dwight Eisenhower ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to begin planning for regime change in Cuba. The CIA began recruiting anti-communist Cubans in America for the purpose. These men were trained in several places, but mostly in the hills of Guatemala.
One of the writers of this article, Frank de Varona, who fled Cuba after communists stole his family’s cattle ranch, joined what would be later called Assault Brigade 2506 on April 1, 1961. He and about 100 other CIA recruits joined the Brigade just weeks before the assault. The goal: Liberate his homeland. Upon arrival in Guatemala, he met his older brother, Jorge de Varona, and many of his cousins and classmates from Cuba.
The bulk of the soldiers, sailors, and pilots of Assault Brigade 2506 were trained for more than nine months in Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, and even the United States. The trainers were mostly members of the U.S. Armed Forces and CIA personnel. The American military instructors were astounded at the passion and fervor displayed by the “brigadistas,” as they came to be called, and by how quickly they learned military tactics.
The men who joined the effort to liberate Cuba represented a true cross-section of Cuban society: all races and classes, all sorts of professional backgrounds, and all different regions of the nation were among the courageous patriots. Their average age was 23. One boy was just 15; he had to lie about his age to join. Some had been wealthy before communist slavery descended on their homeland; others had been humble working-class people. Most were members of Cuba’s sizable middle class. But all were united for the cause of freedom.
Invading at the Bay of Pigs
The invasion of Cuba began 57 years ago, on April 17, 1961. It took place on the southern coast of the island at the Bay of Pigs near the Zapata swamps. The brave young men who participated in the effort were under the impression that the goal was to destroy the Castro regime that had enslaved their island. But in Washington, D.C., and New York City, globalists and subversives in high places had other plans.
Before the actual invasion started, the Brigade Air Force, made up of B-26s, C-46s, and C-54s, dropped supplies to support the anti-communist guerrillas that were already fighting the regime from Cuba’s Escambray Mountains. The Brigade Navy conducted numerous infiltration operations, sending clandestine teams to deliver weapons and supplies to the underground forces battling Castro’s Soviet- and U.S.-armed military.
Several weeks prior to the invasion, a number of Brigade 2506 infiltration teams were sent to different cities of Cuba to work with the underground anti-communist rebels. Some of these brave soldiers were killed and wounded in the operations. Most of the rest ended up captured and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. A few were able to escape, entering Latin American embassies to obtain political asylum.
The actual invasion of the Bay of Pigs began early in the morning on Monday, April 17, 1961. Assault Brigade 2506’s infantry, numbering some 1,474 soldiers, including paratroopers, made it to shore, and many pilots participated. They engaged the tens of thousands of enemy soldiers in combat during three days of furious battle at Playa Larga, Playa Girón, San Blas, and other combat zones.
Enemy T-33 jets, B-26s, and Sea Fury planes sank two of Brigade 2506’s World War II-era Liberty-class transport ships, which had been designed to haul cargo to Europe in WWII. De Varona, one of the writers of this article, was aboard the Houston as it sank. He swam to shore, but more than two dozen of his brothers-in-arms were killed by enemy planes, drowning, or sharks that fateful morning. Both the Houston and the Rio Escondido, which were carrying military supplies, food, gas and oil for the airplanes, ammunition, and communication equipment, went down that day. The other ships were driven away under heavy fire.
On the fourth day, the outgunned, out-manned, desperately tired survivors of the Fifth Battalion’s sunken Houston fought off communist militia soldiers who arrived in two boats. A couple of CIA officials and some pilots from the Alabama National Guard participated in the battle, too. Grayston Lynch, a CIA officer who was the first to land at the Bay of Pigs, wrote in his book Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs, published in 2000, how the Brigade soldiers “fought like tigers.”
Several C-46s dropped 177 paratroopers from the First Battalion in different places of the Bay of Pigs area. With the exception of the survivors of the sinking of the Houston, the rest of the battalions landed at Playa Larga and Playa Girón. For three days, the abandoned Brigade soldiers at the beaches fought bravely against the overwhelming number of enemy soldiers, estimated in the tens of thousands, and aided by Soviet tanks and planes.
The freedom fighters were outnumbered about 20 to 1, yet they dealt devastating losses to Castro’s forces. Estimates suggest the Brigade inflicted approximately 6,000 casualties on the enemy, despite the handicaps. But after the third day of heavy fighting, the Brigade ran out of ammunition, and no more would be forthcoming. The soldiers retreated into the swamps, where some “brigadistas” continued to fight for several more days until they were all killed or captured.
By the time the Brigade ran out of ammunition, they had lost 104 soldiers and pilots. More than 100 were wounded. And the remaining 1,200 soldiers, out of ammo and practically delirious from the lack of sleep, were captured by Castro’s forces.
Trials, Jail, Terror in Havana
After a year of imprisonment in the Castillo del Príncipe in Havana under the most inhumane conditions imaginable, Brigade soldiers were sentenced in April 1962 to 30 years of hard labor. The other alternative offered by the communist regime: Ransom money, ranging from $25,000 to $500,000 for each prisoner. Their shameful “trial” was in violation of the Geneva Convention, since prisoners of war cannot be subjected to a trial.
While in prison, the brigadistas were relentlessly beaten and tortured. To survive, they drank water with dead rats in it. They suffered from hepatitis, dysentery, and all types of skin diseases, owing to the lack of even the most basic hygiene. One untreated brigadista died of hepatitis. Others lost their minds and never recovered. The prisoners of war were denied medical and dental treatment, in violation of the Geneva Convention.
After the illegal “trial,” 211 Brigade prisoners of war, each of whom had a ransom value of $100,000, and the three leaders of the Brigade, worth $500,000 each, were placed in isolation for seven months in the worst prison in Cuba, located on the infamous Isle of Pines. De Varona, as well as his brother Jorge, suffered immensely alongside the men who were sent to the infamous prison of the Presidio Modelo on the Isle of Pines. Their health never fully recovered.
The more than 200 high-value prisoners were packed into a small room, which had a capacity for 40 people. They were denied soap, toilet paper, toothpaste, and medicine for seven full months. They shared one toilet and two showers. The minuscule, disgusting “food” rations available to the prisoners were often poisoned to make the victims even more sick. It was as close as possible to hell on Earth.
The prisoners were housed like sardines in a can, sleeping on the bare floor. They were often beaten by communist prison guards. The intolerable conditions and abuses perpetrated against the 214 members of the Brigade, as well as the other 5,000 political prisoners on the Isle of Pines, led to a hunger strike that lasted three days. The strike was finally called off when the prison guards cut off the water, and several prisoners, near death, fainted.
After 20 months of inhumane conditions in prison, the United States, under the direction of President John F. Kennedy, ransomed the prisoners by paying $53 million in medicines, food, and cash to the regime. President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy welcomed them on December 29, 1962 at the Orange Bowl in Miami. The president promised to return the flag of Brigade 2506 presented to him to a free Havana. But that never happened. And it turns out that Kennedy’s own minions at the highest levels of government were responsible for betraying the brigadistas in the first place.
What Went Wrong
The official narrative pushed by the establishment surrounding the catastrophe at the Bay of Pigs generally offers a number of excuses for the failure. For instance, a common refrain holds that the plan was flawed from the start. Media outlets often claim that the invasion failed because of the dictatorship’s alleged public support — a ludicrous idea. And finally, there is the demonstrable lie that Brigade fighters, who mostly lacked formal military experience beyond their training, surrendered quickly to communist forces.
The reality is that the Brigade was betrayed by globalist insiders in the Kennedy administration who appear to have wanted them to fail. There were two key elements of the plan that were sabotaged before the invasion that made all the difference. Like a household stool, which needs all of its legs to stand, the original plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA required all of its legs to stand. When two of the legs were cut off a few days before the invasion, obviously, the rest of the stool collapsed as well.
The first problem was a last-minute decision to change the landing site. The original spot selected by the military and CIA planners was in the southern Cuban city of Trinidad — a site with many advantages. For one, it was next to the Escambray Mountains, where anti-communist rebels were already on the ground fighting the Castro regime. The original site also had docks, which were crucial to allow the obsolete Brigade ships to unload gasoline, oil, communications gear, and other critical supplies. Another key benefit of Trinidad was the presence of an airfield for Brigade planes. It had a defensible beachhead and a couple of roads that led to the city of Havana. The local population, numbering about 26,000, was dissatisfied with the regime and was expected to join and help the Brigade. There were also grocery stores with food and hospitals staffed by doctors for the wounded.
Instead, globalist officials in Washington, D.C., decided to change the landing site to the swampy, sparsely inhabited villages of Playa Girón and Playa Larga at the Bay of Pigs — landing spots with no real infrastructure, no docks, no local anti-communist forces to assist, and numerous other disadvantages. Making matters worse were the treacherous reefs at the Bay of Pigs that made the landing even more difficult. And finally, there were no good options for retreat, and no good ways to advance forward. In short, it was perhaps the worst imaginable spot to land. Indeed, changing the landing from Trinidad to the Bay of Pigs is widely viewed as one of the primary reasons for the Brigade’s defeat. President Kennedy told Allen Dulles that he did not approve landing at Trinidad because he didn’t want to interfere with civilian life there.
Possibly even more important to ensuring the invasion’s defeat was the inexcusable order canceling the overwhelming majority of the air sorties by Brigade pilots, intended to neutralize Castro’s air forces, his tanks, and more. When Brigade Air Force Chief Reid Doster heard about the decision from D.C., he was quoted as saying: “What?! Are they nuts?! There goes the whole f***ing war!” The sentiment was widespread among the men. Reports about radio traffic say that U.S. Navy radios were bombarded with calls from the embattled brigadistas imploring them to allow the planes to come. Globalists in D.C. refused.
The original plan was supposed to include five bombing raids using the entire fleet of the Brigade Air Force. The fleet was made up of 16 B-26 bombers, which were supposed to be used to destroy Castro’s Air Force, his heavy Stalin tanks, his trucks, heavy artillery, oil refineries, and other military targets that were crucial to the regime’s ability to defend the island. For the operation to succeed, the original plan needed to be followed completely — especially considering that the communist regime had more than 200,000 soldiers and militiamen armed by the Soviet Union, as well as a significant Air Force. Instead, most of the Brigade’s air sorties were ordered grounded, and the number of planes was cut by 50 percent, ensuring that Castro could muster plenty of planes, tanks, and more to defeat the freedom fighters.
A number of invasion participants have highlighted the significance of the betrayal, and the disaster represented by quashing the airstrikes. CIA officer Gray Lynch, one of two American CIA operatives who went ashore with the Brigade, highlighted the significance of it. Among other key points, Lynch argues that the operation could have succeeded in toppling the Castro regime and liberating Cuba — if not for the decision to cancel more than three-fourths of the planned pre-invasion air sorties intended to take Castro’s air forces out of the game.
Even Donald Trump, who became the first presidential candidate ever to be endorsed by the Bay of Pigs Veterans, had long appeared to recognize the betrayal. “I really admire toughness and courage, and I will tell you that the people of this brigade really have that,” Trump told the Brigade veterans at the Bay of Pigs Museum in Miami in 1999. “You were let down by our country.” And indeed, they were.
Marine Colonel Jack Hawkins, a decorated veteran of World War II and Korea who helped train the Brigade, also viewed the tragedy as a betrayal. “They fought magnificently and were not defeated,” he said. “They were abandoned on the beach without the supplies and support promised by their sponsor, the government of the United States.”
Globalist Players Behind the Betrayal
A number of top officials in the Kennedy administration were to blame for the disaster. And virtually all of them had one thing in common: membership in, or strong ties to, the Council on Foreign Relations, which this magazine has exposed on numerous occasions. The organization, which openly pursues global governance and has historically dominated the Cabinets of presidents from both parties, also had members in the media who played an important role in sabotaging the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Among the key CFR members within the administration were U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk, White House Director of National Security McGeorge “Mac” Bundy, and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Adlai Stevenson. Along with other senior officials, all of these CFR members urged President Kennedy to cancel the Brigade’s airstrikes following the initial sorties. While the second-in-command of the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff pleaded to allow the airstrikes to go forward, Kennedy took the advice of the CFR crowd and ordered them canceled. Kennedy’s decision to cancel the remaining air strikes, lobbied for by Rusk, was made after the Brigade was already en route. The decision was later justified by claiming that allowing the strikes to proceed would have been perceived as too much U.S. “involvement” and might have been bad for world opinion.
At that point, CIA Director Allen Dulles, another CFR operative who served as a leader there and played a key role in sabotaging the invasion, should have called off the whole plan, knowing it could never succeed without air power. Instead, he allowed it to proceed, ensuring its failure — and a powerful victory for communism. On the day of the invasion, Dulles had left for Puerto Rico. Brigade members widely view the decision to proceed without the airstrikes and doom the Brigade to death or capture as an act of criminal negligence, at best.
The globalist pedigree of the Brigade saboteurs is well established. Consider, for example, Secretary of State Rusk, one of the key players. His background, like so many of those responsible for the orchestrated failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion and even Castro’s rise to power, is dominated by links to the globalist establishment. Among other examples, Rusk served as a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation starting in 1950, eventually going on to become president of the globalist operation that the Congressional Reece Committee investigation of tax-exempt foundations had exposed as subversive less than a decade earlier. He was also deeply involved with the CFR.
Outside of government, CFR members and fellow travelers in the establishment media were doing their part to ensure a Castro victory. Prior to the invasion, for example, the New York Times, widely viewed as the megaphone for the CFR and a publication that helped market Castro and his revolution to Americans, wrote articles describing how anti-Castro forces were being trained in Guatemala by U.S. military personnel and CIA operatives, thus alerting Castro that the invasion was imminent. “Castro doesn’t need spies in the United States; all he needs to do is read the New York Times,” a frustrated President Kennedy reportedly told White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger.
Bringing Castro to Power
Many of the same people and organizations responsible for betraying the Bay of Pigs Brigade were also involved in bringing Castro to power. And once again, CFR members were the star players. It began during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Back then, in 1957, before becoming a mass-murdering dictator, Castro was in Cuba’s Sierra Maestra mountain range fighting a guerrilla war against the Cuban government.
Here, the New York Times played a key role, with Times reporter and CFR member Herbert Matthews interviewing the guerrilla leader and portraying him as a heroic freedom fighter struggling against an oppressive regime. The paper even celebrated Castro as the “George Washington” of Cuba while relentlessly demonizing Cuban President Fulgencio Batista. Aside from Matthews, Times Board Chairman Arthur Sulzberger and publisher Orvil Dryfoos were also members of the CFR.
Of course, plenty of people knew better than to dub Castro a freedom fighter. The U.S. ambassador to Cuba at the time, Arthur Gardner, reported to higher-ups in Washington, D.C., that “Fidel Castro talked and acted like a communist, and should not be supported by the United States.” In response, Ambassador Gardner was pressured to resign his position on June 16, 1957. He was prevented from briefing his successor, with CFR member and Times propagandist Matthews being brought in for that purpose. But Gardner’s replacement, U.S. Ambassador Earl Smith, noticed the same thing, and dutifully warned Washington as well.
But despite those warnings, the U.S. government acted to ensure the removal of Batista — and thereby, the success of Castro. On June 13, 1958, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who actually helped found the CFR decades earlier, directed Ambassador Smith to give a message to Batista: “Request his government to disengage from combat activities men who were trained by the U.S. Military Assistance Program (MAP) and not to use weapons, ships, and aircraft supplied by MAP.”
Some 75 percent of Cuban aviators and virtually all of the mechanics, along with the elite of the Cuban army and navy, had been trained by MAP. The outrageous order by Dulles was opposed even by top U.S. military officials such as Admiral Arleigh Burke, who warned that the Cuban government was fighting “elements allied with communism” and that the State Department should not tell a sovereign nation what to do. In the end, the protests fell on deaf ears. It was a devastating blow to a key U.S. ally and a bulwark against communist expansion in the Western Hemisphere.
All the while, Castro was allowed to get all the arms from America and the Soviet Union that he needed to overthrow the increasingly embattled government. In fact, just those actions alone so demoralized and weakened the Cuban military that they have been widely blamed for ensuring that Castro and his “freedom fighters” could seize power in Havana.
It got even worse from there, however. According to the book Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Volume VI (1991), on December 17, 1958, U.S. Ambassador Smith was given another order by the State Department. This time, he was instructed to tell Batista that the U.S. government thought he should step down and flee to Spain. “It is my unpleasant duty to inform the President of the Republic that the United States will no longer support the present government of Cuba,” Smith was quoted as saying.
Understanding the implications of the betrayal, President Batista realized there was nothing more he could do. So on December 31, 1958, he fled from Cuba. Instead of allowing Castro to take the reins of power, the hyper-interventionist U.S. government could have simply asked that Batista allow the democratic opposition, headed by Carlos Marquez Sterling of the Ortodoxo Party, to take power in an election, thereby ensuring a peaceful transition. But the U.S. government, seemingly determined to see Castro in power, refused to do that. Without this betrayal of an anti-communist U.S. ally, the Bay of Pigs invasion would never have even been contemplated.
Lest there be any doubt that the U.S. government — really the CFR operatives within its upper ranks — brought Castro to power, Ambassador Smith wrote a full book about what he observed entitled The Fourth Floor: An Account of the Castro Communist Revolution. He also testified in the U.S. Senate, saying that Castro was in power because of the actions of U.S. authorities. And he wrote a letter to the New York Times several years after publishing his book, stating clearly that the top levels of the State Department were the cause of Castro’s rise.
“Castro could not have seized power in Cuba without the aid of the United States. American government agencies and the United States press played a major role in bringing Castro to power,” Smith wrote, citing his own Senate testimony. “As the United States ambassador to Cuba during the Castro communist revolution of 1957-1959, I had first-hand knowledge of the facts which brought about the rise of Fidel Castro…. The State Department constantly intervened — positively, negatively, and by innuendo — to bring about the downfall of President Fulgencio Batista, thereby making it possible for Fidel Castro to take over the government of Cuba.”
The whole operation that resulted in the enslavement of millions of people was very similar to what happened in China years earlier. There, CFR member and Secretary of State George Marshall and the CFR-controlled media painted mass-murdering butcher Mao Tse-tung as an “agrarian reformer” and nationalist U.S. ally Chiang Kai-shek as a tyrant. The exact same process was used, too. First, propaganda to paint the anti-communist government as evil and the communists as oppressed freedom fighters: then, a U.S. government-enforced arms embargo against the anti-communist U.S. ally, combined with endless weapons and behind-the-scenes machinations aimed at helping communist terrorists rise to power. The parallels between Cuba and China are numerous and extraordinary.
The Great Lie
Supposedly, all of this was some monumental mistake — a miscalculation of epic proportions. The establishment’s narrative would have Americans believe that the U.S. government officials and journalists responsible for bringing Castro to power — almost all of them CFR members or toadies — were simply naive. But that cannot possibly be true. In fact, there should have been no question that Castro was a communist. His own actions proved it. And this was hardly a secret.
For one, at least three U.S. ambassadors, including Smith and before him Gardner, had sent clear warnings to their superiors in Washington. Being in Havana, they would be expected to know. But they were hardly alone. In mid-1958, former Assistant Secretary of State Spruille Braden warned about Castro, too. “Rebel chief Fidel Castro is a pawn in the Kremlin’s international intrigue,” he warned. U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Robert Hill sent similar warnings to Washington, to no avail.
Instead of proclaiming the truth and ceasing all aid to Castro and ending all efforts to remove Batista, Secretary of State Dulles and other CFR members in the Eisenhower administration persisted in supporting Castro. Despite warnings, they also refused to remove pro-communist operatives in the U.S. government such as top State Department official William Wieland and his supervisor, Assistant Secretary of State Rubottom, a key supporter of the arms embargo and communist coup against Batista’s anti-communist government.
They could not claim ignorance. Consider what happened at the 1948 Organization of American States (OAS) meeting in Bogotá, Colombia. On April 9 of that year, communists burst onto the scene to disrupt the meeting in bloody fashion. A 21-year-old Fidel Castro took part in the horror show, seizing a radio station and shouting, “This is a Communist revolution.” Castro and other communists murdered hundreds of innocent people while setting fires and wreaking havoc. He was arrested and charged with murder. But instead of repenting, he boasted, “I did a good work today; I killed a priest.” Colombian authorities deported him.
Beyond the myriad ambassadors sounding the alarm, outside of government, astute analysts were warning about Castro, too. Robert Welch, for instance, who went on to found The John Birch Society, warned about Castro in his magazine American Opinion months before the tyrant-in-waiting succeeded in enslaving Cuba. “Now the evidence from Castro’s whole past that he is a Communist agent carrying out Communist orders and plans is overwhelming,” wrote Welch in September of 1958. In his 1963 book The Politician about Eisenhower, Welch pointed to the March 14, 1958, decision to block weapons shipments to Batista as the beginning of the end for a free Cuba.
Author James Perloff, who has been a leader in exposing the CFR, highlighted this betrayal in his 1988 book The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline. “Perhaps the greatest shame of the Eisenhower administration was allowing Fidel Castro to transform Cuba into the Soviets’ first outpost in the Western Hemisphere,” he wrote. “Despite reasonable evidence, some of the president’s apologists long contended that Castro had not been a communist when he originally took power.”
However, after coming to power, the Cuban dictator gave a speech on December 2, 1961 refuting this claim. “I have always been a Marxist Leninist since the days I was a student at the University of Havana,” he said. Indeed, the evidence of that was clear and overwhelming to anybody willing to look at it.
As if to confirm people’s worst suspicions, after the administration removed both Gardner and Smith from their ambassadorships to Cuba, Eisenhower appointed the pro-Castro Philip Bonsal to that role, a move that was praised by the New York Times. His actions, which speak louder than words, exposed his real agenda. U.S. citizen William Morgan had fought with Castro in the revolution. But when he realized Castro was a communist, he turned against the tyrant and began plotting his removal. Ambassador Bonsal immediately told the Cuban regime, resulting in Morgan being shot dead by firing squad on March 11, 1961.
Aftermath of the Bay of Pigs
The betrayal at the Bay of Pigs by the CFR-dominated Kennedy administration emboldened the international communist conspiracy — and not just in Cuba. In particular, it gave free rein to Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev, who promptly built the Berlin Wall in August 1961 and then put intercontinental ballistic missiles in Cuba in October 1962 aimed at America. During the October Missile Crisis, Kennedy made a pact with Khrushchev to never invade Cuba and dismantled the U.S. ICBMs in Turkey and Italy, as the price for the Soviets to withdraw the missiles from Cuba. Subsequent U.S. presidents have abided by the Kennedy-Khrushchev pact despite the communists rarely obeying agreements.
The betrayal of Cuban freedom fighters to save the tyrannical and oppressive Castro dictatorship also emboldened Castro and his reign of terror. A direct result of that was the mass exodus of Cuban immigrants to the United States, and especially to South Florida. More than 800,000 Cuban-Americans now live in Greater Miami. While they have helped turn Greater Miami into a prosperous international city, the countless tragedies — families separated, horrifying deaths at sea, being driven out of one’s homeland by terror — are a ghastly reminder of the evil unleashed by globalist insiders on their fellow human beings. Castro’s regime would later go on to fund terrorism and revolution across the hemisphere and beyond, even aiding and abetting domestic communist terror groups in the United States such as Bill Ayers’ Weather Underground.
After the Brigade prisoners returned, more than 200 joined the U.S. Armed Forces. Many of them went on to obtain high ranks, including a major general of the National Guard, six colonels, 19 lieutenant colonels, 29 captains, and 64 lieutenants. More than a few fought bravely in the 1965 invasion of the Dominican Republic and during the Vietnam War, where some died and more were wounded in combat. Other Brigade members joined the CIA and worked throughout Latin America. Two Brigade members working for the CIA even assisted the Bolivian army in capturing and executing the Castro regime’s executioner, Ernesto “Che” Guevara.
Other Brigade members became successful entrepreneurs, elected and appointed leaders, professionals in a variety of fields, and highly skilled workers. Several were elected to the House of Representatives and Senate of the Florida Legislature. One is still serving as a Metro-Dade Commissioner. One served as a member of the Miami-Dade County School Board. Another one became a writer, associate superintendent, and interim deputy superintendent of schools in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools.
The Globalist Game Goes On
To this day, the globalist CFR and its members continue to play a key role in propping up the murderous regime in Cuba and aiding its allies worldwide. In 2013, The New American online highlighted the fact that Castro apologist Julia Sweig, who actually thanks convicted terrorists in her book and was close to the late tyrant Castro in Havana for decades, was running the CFR’s Latin American Studies program and serving as the Nelson and David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin America Studies. Some prominent analysts, including a former U.S. military intelligence official whose career was spent tracking Cuban spies, said Sweig was an “agent of influence” for Castro. The implications are enormous.
As this magazine has documented for decades, the CFR is essentially the American headquarters of an international globalist movement seeking to erode national sovereignty and individual liberty worldwide. Basically, they support what many describe in public as a “New World Order,” which top globalists such as former President George H.W. Bush have described as a world in which the vision of the UN’s founders can be implemented by the UN’s military power. Billionaire George Soros said the murderous communist regime enslaving China should “own” this New World Order. If the CFR and its allies at the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, and other organizations in the “Deep State Behind the Deep State” eventually succeed, the fate of Cuba and China will be the fate of all humanity.
It is clear that the U.S. government under President Eisenhower was responsible for facilitating the rise to power of the communist regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. It is clear that the U.S. government under President Kennedy was later responsible for undermining and betraying Brigade 2506. This ensured that they would fail, while consolidating the Castro regime’s power over Cuba for generations. This sad chapter in the history of America and Cuba needs to be explained to Americans and Cubans alike. Not only is it right and just that people should have the truth, it would also help expose the real agenda of the subversive globalists seeking to impose the New World Order on humanity.
Candidate Donald Trump, shown above with Frank de Varona, was endorsed by the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association. And Trump warmly thanked Brigade members, promising to reverse Obama’s shameful unilateral concessions to the Cuban regime. So far, he has taken some positive steps to end U.S. support for and recognition of the gang of terrorists and murderers still enslaving Cuba to this day. But more needs to be done to undo the enormous damage unleashed by America’s previous presidents — and Obama in particular. Exposing the true history of Cuba’s enslavement, the betrayal of the Brigade, and the role of the CFR would go a long way toward waking up the American people.
Frank de Varona invaded Cuba with the Brigade at age 17 and spent almost two years in a Cuban prison. He now lives in Miami and recently became director of press and information for the Bay of Pigs Veterans Association.
HISTORIEN OM IGEN is dedicated to expose the global conspiracy that I have come to believe exists by many years of studying history. The goal is to show you that we have all been deceived, and give you the tools to research and find the truth. But I will only draw a rough sketch of the big picture. It is a view on history seen from a satelite perspective of the key players behind the great, global conspiracy. I am not going to give you many details. When you first have fathomed the big picture you can continue on your own, zooming in on the picture. But I warn you:
You can fill in as many details as you like to transform the rough sketch to a high resolution, full rendered, extremely detailed 3D image. You can dig from now on and until you die and there will still be many, many aspects that you will never know about.
Our view on history is based on interpretation
What we believe about history is based on what we are educated to believe. History is not just a bunch of none debatably facts. History is an interpretation of facts. Historians interpret how and why things happened as they did. So to know about history is to a great degree about believing one interpretation and not another. You have heard the notion that the history books are alway written by the
The thing is that most often you never ever have access to other versions than the ones authorized by the mainstream educations system. And that version is the one we are bombarded with 24-7 through the mainstream media.
So history is to a degree what you choose to BELIEVE.
So why should you believe “my” version of history? You should believe it if you find that the evidence I present for you is compelling in a powerfully irresistible way. So simple.
Let´s start:
I choose to believe the unofficial
I choose to believe the unofficial story of . I choose to believe that the official narrative is a spin, a propadanda lie made up to decieve the whole world – or I should say the West – because the nations and people around the world who United States have destroyed by the clandestine operations of the CIA are not totally blind. They know the CIA have murdered their people, toppled their democratic governments and installed pro-globalist dicators.
The resason why I believe that the unofficial stories are much closer to the truth and the official narrative is a lie is that there exists a third version of history that in my oppinion settels all disputes. In the last 100 years there has been done a great work to cover up and make students of chritianity and the bible totally ignore all about the prophecies in the Bible. They foretell the story of United States and its slowly and reletively unseen emerging into history in a desolate corner of the world, being af refugee for protestants fleeing from catholic persecution in Europe and ending to be the most cruel, and satanic nation ever on the planet, but deciving the world into believing that it is protector of freedom and democracy. The rising of the United States is foretold in the Bible and it is foretold that it will decieve the whole world and destroy countless nations, brutally kill millions and decieve the nations to agree in installing a global, totalitarian system in order to create and maintain world peace.
The prophecy about th United States is the last one of five superpowers foretold to rise to power. The first in the prophecy was Babylon, the second was medio-persian kingdom, the second was the Greek, the fouth was the Roman Empire. Then the prophecy foretold a transformation of the Roman Empire from pagan rulership into a cruel, fallen version of christianity called Roman Catholicism. The prophecy goes on to foretell a 1260 years period of papal rule in Europe, beginning from 538 bc and ending in the year 1978 (which it did!). In the same period – the prophecy tells – a new superpower should emerge gradually in e remote area of the world. The prophecy tells of a nation with the most human and democratic features unseen in the history of the world. Its political power would rest on lamplike features – peaceful, meek, humanistic. But the prophecy foretells that it gradually should transform into i persecuting global superpower that deceives the nations, by making them believe that all its satanic brutality is only for the prevention of freedom and democracy. Do we recognize the features of United States? The prophecy claims that behind the creation of the United States is the Catholic Church.
This video will walk you through the prophecy that is the final nail of truth that totally and ultimately exposes to the world that the Cold War truely was a planned and controlled conflict created by a globalist powerstructure inside the United States in corporation with likeminded people in Europa.
controls the monetary system
the power if the papacy is broken after the 1260 years
Det er almindeligt accepteret blandt mainstream historikere at CIA opererede som en anti-kommunistisk enhed under den kolde krig. Historien lyder blandt andet, at CIA hemmeligt styrede anti-kommunistiske, militære enheder placeret rundt om i alle europæiske lande under hele den kolde krig. Også i Danmark. Enhederne gik under fællesbetegnelsen Operation Gladio. Disse enheder blev først afsløret og offentlig kendt i 1990.
Det siges også at CIA i samarbejde med Vatikanet om sikre Europa imod kommunistisk magtovertagelse. Det er velkendt indenfor CIAs kerne at den katolske kirke driver verdens største spion-netværk, nemlig Jesuiterordenen. Så her har vi altså verdens to største og mest magtfulde spion-netværk, som under den kolde krig påstås at have samarbejdet om at sikre Europas demokratiske nationer imod en verdensomspændende kommunistisk magtovertagelse. Og her kommer det mærkelige: det er et historisk faktum – bevist til fulde af historikeren Antony Sutton – at det kommunistiske regime i Sovejetunionen blev financieret 90-95% fra vesten – især gennem magtfulde industryfyrster og Wall Strees finansfolk USA. Det kommunistiske Sovjetunionen havde ganske enkelt aldrig blevet til noget uden at det var blevet opbygget helt fra begyndelsen af den russiske revolution i 1917 og frem til 1991. Ingen Sovjetisk atomtrussel uden at vestens teknologi var blevet leveret på et sølvfad. Det var ikke ved reverse engeneering eller ved russiske spioners tyveri af vestlig teknologi og know how ar russerne fik muligheden for at lave atommissiler, men ved vestlige organisationers og virkesomheders villge assistance og financielle støtte. Selv Danmark leverede til kommunisterne i den mest ophedede periode af den kolde krig. B&W leverede dieslmotorer til Sovejtunionen. Uden disse motorer kunne russerne aldrig have etableret sig på Cuba som det påståede mest farlige angrebspunkt mod USA. Og hvorfor fik USA aldrig fjernet Cubas diktator, Fidel Castro? Hvordan var det muligt at denne lille-bitte ø kunne fortsætte med at være det mest brandfarlige trussel imod den vestlige verden? Fordi også her spillede CIA og den katolske kirke sammen. Fidel Castro var uddannet katolsk jesuit. Altså her har vi en påstået kommunistisk diktator som i virkeligheden var katolsk jesuit.
Begynder brikkerne at falde på plads for dig? Begynder det at dæmre for dig at vi er blevet ført totalt bag lyset?
Der er noget som ikke stemmer. CIA kunne med lethed have forhindret denne massive opbygning af det russiske imperium. Hvorfor blev det ikke whistle-blowet til offentligheden at USA opbyggede sin egen fjende?
Mit svar er: CIA er ikke den organsation vi tror den er. Og USAs rolle i de europæiske lande var kun tilsyneladende at sikre Europa imod en russisk/kommunistisk invasion. Dens virkelige rolle var at bringe alle Europæiske nationer ind under en samlet magtorganisationer: EU.
EU er et andet parallelløb mellem den katolske kirke og CIA.
The mainstream story about the Cold War CANT possible be true. It is a fact that the whole of Europe was covered with CIA-personal during the whole of cold war (Operation Gladio). Also the United states were saturated with CIA-personal. If this organisations is what official history claims it to be, then WHY on earth didn’t ring the alarm and told the world that ALL – – i mean litterally ALL – – Sovjet equipment right from diesel motors in the cargo ships, to eletronic equipment in the missiles were ALL coming directly from European countries or from United States. The Cuba crisis were simply not possible if it wasn’t for the fact that the West had created the right conditions for their pretended, alleged enemy.
You may say that the CIA didnt discover what was going on. That is simply impossiple. It would be the same as if a wife cant see her own husbond is an alcoholic even though she finds empty bottles hidden all over the house. But more than that: According to Sutton the American government several times were directly involved by approving the assistance, the loans, the equipment given to the Sovejts to build up their own enemy. This was done even at the same time as the media and the government saturated the people all over the West with information of the Communist threat. Do you really believe that this GIGANTIC interprice from the West to build up this GIGANTIT nation (USSR) could have been done by countless nations oprating in secrecy by selling them ships, diesel motors, trucks, eletronics, pressision machines, know-how, building factories of all sorts in gigantic sizes without the CIA knowing it? They knew! The knew! And one more thing. The CIA had all the access to the media to tell the truth. But this story were kept away from media. Think about it: Not a single story in over 50 years in the media about the gigantic interprice to build up the communist enemy.
The only logic conclusion is this:
The american government, the CIA and many european leaders and companies and people inside the financial sector were consciously in concert creating the communist enemy to the West, and induced a totally false, global geopolitical conflict that they controlled on both sides.
The question is now: Why did they do it? To understand the answer you have to know a little bit of true history and not only the mainstream-propaganda versionb of history which is made up to hide the truth.
The CIA is not an intelligence operation unit. It is a secret force to manipulate and undermine countries all over the world by covert operations. The CIA is not what you have pictured in your mind by Hollywood movies. CIA personal is not men in suits and black sunglaces. They are academics, diplamats, editors. The CIA has its personal all over the world. If they were a spy-organisation for the good of the Western world they would have blown the whistle that countless companies in Europa and United States were deliberately financing and helping to establish the communist regime in Russia.
, because the information here given were EASYLY obtained. It was not a secret. Just a few examples: Not a single ship could have been sent off from USSR harbours to Cuba with missiles without the danish dieselmotor company B&W, because nearly all the diesel motors in sovejt ships were provided by them and the rest were made ONLY by help from western companies. The Sovejt missiles were only possible to produce by western technology. The russians needed machines to produce precision ball bearings. Without them no missiles could ever never hit a target but would just fly in all directions. The machines to make them were sold by ________ Grinder _____openly aproved by the american government. Sutton raised the question in a public hearing during that time that it was unmoral to do it. But he was silenced.
WHY is the official history of the cold wart totally
cleansed for this kind of information? Because the official history is a cover
story that has just been repeated over and over again by usefull blinded
mainstream academics who refuses to see that the lie is so big that IF they
should admit it, their whole carrear as accepted historians would lie in ruins –
just like it happend to Antony Sutton.
And this was
En lille sidebemærkning: Hvordan mon noget så enormt omfattende kunne holdes hemmeligt i over 50 år? Jeg stiller spørgsmålet fordi mange mener at det ville have været umuligt at 9/11 var et såkaldt “insider-job”, fordi en eller anden ville have lækket det. Med Gladio taler vi ikke bare om ét lands hemmelige operationer men utallige hemmelige operationer samtidigt i alle europæiske lande på én gang uden at det bliver lækket. Så Gladio er et bevis for at stor-skala hemmelige opeartioner er mulige uden at de bliver lækket. Men tilbage til sagen:
VIGTIGE INFORMATIONER OM CIA´s FORBINDELSE TIL SMOM I DENNE ARTIKEL. Søg “smom”
One day in July 1944, as the Second World War raged throughout Europe, General William “Wild Bill” Donovan was ushered into an ornate chamber in Vatican City for an audience with Pope Pius XII. Donovan bowed his head reverently as the pontiff intoned a ceremonial prayer in Latin and decorated him with the Grand Cross of the Order of Saint Sylvester, the oldest and most prestigious of papal knighthoods. This award has been given to only 100 other men in history, who “by feat of arms, or writings, or outstanding deeds, have spread the Faith, and have safeguarded and championed the Church.”
Although a papal citation of this sort rarely, if ever, states why a person is inducted into the “Golden Militia,” there can be no doubt that Donovan earned his knighthood by virtue of the services he rendered to the Catholic hierarchy in World War II, during which he served as chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the wartime predecessor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In 1941, the year before the OSS was officially constituted, Donovan forged a close alliance with Father Felix Morlion, founder of a European Catholic intelligence service known as Pro Deo. When the Germans overran western Europe, Donovan helped Morlion move his base of operations from Lisbon to New York. From then on, Pro Deo was financed by Donovan, who believed that such an expenditure would result in valuable insight into the secret affairs of the Vatican, then a neutral enclave in the midst of fascist Rome. When the Allies liberated Rome in 1944, Morlion re-established his spy network in the Vatican; from there he helped the OSS obtain confidential reports provided by apostolic delegates in the Far East, which included information about strategic bombing targets in Japan.
Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius’ decoration of Wild Bill Donovan marked the beginning of a long-standing, intimate relationship between the Vatican and U.S. intelligence that continues to the present day. For centuries the Vatican has been a prime target of foreign espionage. One of the world’s greatest repositories of raw intelligence, it is a spy’s gold mine. Ecclesiastical, political and economic information filters in every day from thousands of priests, bishops and papal nuncios, who report regularly from every corner of the globe to the Office of the Papal Secretariat. So rich was this source of data that shortly after the war, the CIA created a special unit in its counterintelligence section to tap it and monitor developments within the Holy See.
But the CIA’s interest in the Catholic church is not limited to intelligence gathering. The Vatican, with its immense wealth and political influence, has in recent years become a key force in global politics, particularly with Catholicism playing such a pivotal role in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Unbeknownst to most Catholics, the Vatican, which carefully maintains an apolitical image, not only has a foreign office and a diplomatic corps, but also has a foreign policy. And with Polish Communists embracing Catholicism and Latin American Catholics embracing communism, the U.S. government and particularly the CIA have recently taken a much greater interest in Vatican foreign policy. A year-long Mother Jones investigation has revealed a number of unlikely channels — both overt and covert — which the agency uses to bring its influence to bear upon that policy.
Since World War II, the CIA has:
subsidized a Catholic lay organization that served as the political slugging arm of the pope and the Vatican throughout the Cold War;
penetrated the American section of one of the wealthiest and most powerful Vatican orders;
passed money to a large number of priests and bishops — some of whom became witting agents in CIA covert operations;
employed undercover operatives to lobby members of the Curia (the Vatican government) and spy on liberal churchmen on the pope’s staff who challenged the political assumptions of the United States;
prepared intelligence briefings that accurately predicted the rise of liberation theology; and
collaborated with right-wing Catholic groups to counter the actions of progressive clerics in Latin America.
It was in this last regard that the CIA supported factions within the Catholic church that were instrumental in promoting and electing the current pope, John Paul II, whose Polish nationalism and anti-Communist credentials, they thought, would make him a perfect vehicle for U.S. foreign policy. John Paul’s recent trip to Nicaragua could not have been matched by any American’s for the contribution it made to President Reagan’s Central American initiative. And hopes are high in Washington, D.C., that the pope’s forth-coming trip to Poland, where 90 percent of the people are Catholic, will respark the anti-Soviet uprising so vital to Reagan’s plans for Eastern Europe.
Dark Knight of the Soul
Every year in late June a bizarre ritual takes place in Rome. Men and women fly in from all over the world to participate in a ceremony that has been performed for centuries. Next year, the assembled might find CIA director William Casey in their midst. And Casey could well be accompanied by former Secretary of State Alexander Haig.
If they make the journey, Casey and Haig will join a gathering of the world’s Catholic elite on St. John’s Day. Dressed in scarlet uniforms and black capes, brandishing swords and waving flags emblazoned with the eight-pointed Maltese cross, these Catholic brothers and sisters will, in an atmosphere of pomp and circumstance befitting a coronation, swear allegiance to the defense of the Holy Mother Church.
Casey and Haig are both members of the Knights of Malta, a legendary Vatican order dating back to the Crusades, when the “warrior monks” served as the military arm of the Catholic church. The knights, in their latter-day incarnation as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM), are a historical anomaly. Although the order has no land mass other than a small headquarters in Rome, this unique papal entity holds the status of nation-state. It mints coins, prints stamps, has its own constitution and issues license plates and passports to an accredited diplomatic corps. The grand master of the order, Fra Angelo de Mojana di Cologna, holds a rank in the church equal to a cardinal and is recognized as a sovereign chief of state by 41 nations with which the SMOM exchanges ambassadors.
But the real power of the order lies with the lay members, who are active on five continents. Nobility forms the backbone of the SMOM; more than 40 percent of its 10,000 constituents are related to Europe’s oldest and most powerful Catholic families. Wealth is a de facto prerequisite for a knightly candidate, and each must pass through a rigorous screening. Protestants, Jews, Muslims and divorced or separated Catholics are ineligible.
“The eight-pointed white cross stands out everywhere as a symbol of charity toward mankind and as a comfort and consolation to the sick and the poor,” says Cyril Toumanoff, official historian of the SMOM. In recent years its members have carried on the Hospitaler tradition of the original knights by supporting international health care and relief efforts. They proudly offer aid to the needy regardless of race, creed or religious affiliation.
But the needy aided by certain SMOM members in the late ’40s were some of the 50,000 Nazi war criminals who, with the assistance of the International Red Cross, were furnished fake Vatican passports and, in some cases, clerical robes, and were smuggled on Bishop Alois Hudal’s “underground railroad” to South America. Among those was Klaus Barbie, the “butcher of Lyons.”
In 1948, the SMOM gave one of its highest awards of honor, the Gran Croci al Merito con Placca, to General Reinhard Gehlen, Adolf Hitler’s chief anti-Soviet spy. (Only three other people received this award.) Gehlen, who was not a Catholic, was touted as a formidable ally in the holy crusade against godless Marxism. After the war he and his well-developed spy apparatus — staffed largely by ex-Nazis — joined the fledgling CIA. Eventually, hundreds more Nazis ended up on the U.S. government’s payroll. Among them was Klaus Barbie.
“The CIA very early on made a decision that Nazis were more valuable as allies and agents than as war criminals,” says Victor Marchetti, an ex-CIA officer who was raised a Catholic. Marchetti is disturbed by the role of the CIA and his church in perpetuating the Nazi outrage. “It gets a little crazy,” he said, “when you let one thing [anticommunism] take over to the extent that you forgive everything else.”
The SMOM had given a different prestigious award in 1946 to another high-level CIA operative, James Jesus Angleton. “It had to do with counterintelligence,” Angleton told Mother Jones, when asked why he was chosen for such a distinction. During World War II, Angleton was head of the Rome station of the OSS. Later, on his return to Washington, he ran what was tantamount to the “Vatican desk” for the CIA. According to Angleton, the agency does not have a Vatican desk. Nor does it have an Israel desk, for that matter, yet Angleton also covered that area. The extreme sensitivity associated with Israel and the Vatican required that work relating to them be buried among Angleton’s counterintelligence staff, which was well-suited for such assignments.
During the early years of the Cold War, Angleton organized an elaborate spy network that enabled the CIA to obtain intelligence reports sent to the Vatican by papal nuncios stationed behind the Iron Curtain and in other “denied” areas. This was, at the time, one of the few means available to the CIA of penetrating the Eastern Bloc.
According to previously classified State Department memoranda, Angleton recommended that the CIA fund Catholic Action, an Italian lay organization headed by Luigi Gedda, a prominent right-wing ideologue who had also been honored by the knights. Gedda was a key operative in an effort undertaken by the CIA and the Vatican to “barricade the Reds” in the 1948 Italian elections. Only weeks before the election, it appeared the Italian Communist party would prevail. The CIA and the Vatican both feared the Communists might win unless drastic measures were taken.
At the behest of Pope Pius XII, Gedda mobilized a huge propaganda machine. More than 18,000 “civic committees” were formed to get out the anti-Communist vote. The Christian Democrats scored a decisive victory. Catholic Action is credited with turning the tables.
Catholic Action continued to be a dominant factor in Italian politics throughout the Cold War. It had great influence on trade unions and youth groups in Italy-groups that were heavily subsidized by the CIA, then under the leadership of Alien Dulles. Christian Democratic politicians and church figures were also among the beneficiaries of the CIA’s largess, which exceeded $20 million per year in the 1950s. The agency provided “project money” to numerous priests and bishops, usually in the form of contributions to their favorite charities. Often, these prelates were unaware of the true source of these funds. “We would consider people of this sort as our allies,” recalls Victor Marchetti, “even though they may not consider themselves in any way allied with us.”
Amazing Grace
The American section of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has about 1,000 members — including 300 “dames.” They represent the vanguard of American Catholicism, the point at which the Vatican and the U.S. ruling elite intersect. “The Knights of Malta comprise what is perhaps the most exclusive club on earth,” Stephen Birmingharn, the social historian, has written. “They are more than the Catholic aristocracy…[they] can pick up a telephone and chat with the pope.”
And who are the American Knights? Mother Jones managed to obtain part of the secret membership list. On it we found some familiar names: Lee lacocca of Chrysler; Spyros Skouras, the shipping magnate; Robert Abplanalp, the aerosol tycoon and Nixon confidant; Barren Hilton of the hotel chain; John Volpe, former U.S. ambassador to Italy; and William Simon, who served as both treasury secretary and energy czar in the 1970s. At least one former envoy to the Vatican, Robert Wagner (the ex-mayor of New York), and the current emissary to the Vatican, William Wilson, are also members of the Knights of Malta. But there is one institution that stands out as the center of the SMOM in the United States — W.R. Grace & Company. J. Peter Grace, the company chairman, is also president of the American section of SMOM. No less than eight knights, including the chancellor of the order, John D.J. Moore (who was ambassador to Ireland under Nixon and Ford), are directors of W.R. Grace.
J. Peter Grace has a long history of involvement with CIA-linked enterprises, such as Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, which was the brainchild of General Rein-hard Gehlen. He is also the board chairman of the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD), which has collaborated with multinational corporations and their client dictatorships in Latin America to squelch independent trade unions. Up to $100 million a year of CIA funds were pumped into “trustworthy” labor organizations such as AIFLD, whose graduates, according to AIFLD executive director William Doherty, were active in covert operations that led to the military coup in Brazil in 1964. During the early 1970s, Francis D. Flanagan, the Grace representative in Washington, D. C., was a member of ITT’s “Ad Hoc Committee on Chile,” which was instrumental in planning the overthrow of Salvador Allende. AIFLD’s National Workers’ Con-federation subsequently served as the chief labor mouthpiece for the Pinochet junta.
There are many other knights with CIA connections. Clare Boothe Luce, for example, the grande dame of American diplomacy, served as a U.S. ambassador to Italy in the 1950s and is now a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which oversees covert operations. William Buckley, Jr., a former CIA operative and the editor of the National Review, is a member, as is his brother James, a former senator from New York and now undersecretary of state for security assistance.
Targeting the Pope
The American section of the SMOM is one of the main channels of communication between the CIA and the Vatican. Of course, neither party will acknowledge this. “The Knights of Malta is an honorific society of Catholics. That’s all it is. … It has no political function,” asserts former CIA director William Colby, who declined an invitation to join the illustrious order. (“I’m a little lower key,” he confessed.)
Technically speaking, Colby is correct; the knights do not have an explicit political function. They would never approach the Vatican with a message from the CIA. Nor would the Vatican ever openly ally itself with the political aims of the CIA. “Obviously, this is a dynamite type of proposition,” explains Victor Marchetti. “I’m sure that in the clandestine area there was real consideration of how to influence the Vatican, but you’ll never find a paper trail within the agency establishing an operational objective. A covert action of this sort is a very complex and sophisticated sort of thing…How much pressure the CIA would dare to exert on the Vatican is debatable. It would have to be done indirectly, on an informal basis.”
This is where the American section of the SMOM fits in. “They all belong to the same club,” says Marchetti. “One happens to be the director of the CIA, and another is a cardinal. When they get together and fraternize on a social basis, they exchange ideas and opinions as private individuals. But how do you separate the private individual from the professional?”
During the 1950s and the early 1960s, relations between the U.S. and the Vatican were conducted largely through Francis Cardinal Spellman, the “Grand Protector and Spiritual Advisor” to the SMOM’s American wing. An ultra-conservative ideologue, Spellman served as the right arm of Pope Pius XII and was a vocal supporter of U. S. military involvement in Vietnam.
But relations have not always been smooth, because Vatican policy has not always pleased American knights. In the early 1960s, Pope John XXIII took major steps to liberalize the church and to open a dialogue with the East. By doing so, he shifted papal policy from the strict anti-Communist line of his predecessor, Pius XII.
John XXIII felt that the Vatican had to adopt a more flexible posture — both socially and politically — if the church was to endure as a relevant institution. His attempts at rapprochement with the Soviet Union caught everybody by surprise and sent Vatican watchers at the CIA into a frenzy. But the agency had to step up its intelligence activity in the Vatican most cautiously, as the Kennedy ad-ministration was bending over backward to avoid any overt association with the Holy See. Kennedy, America’s only Catholic president, was so consumed by the possibility of a Protestant backlash that he rebuffed the pope’s efforts to mediate a thaw in East-West relations. Meanwhile Khrushchev, the supposed atheist, welcomed the pontiffs diplomatic overtures.
In May 1963, John McCone, a member of the SMOM and then director of the CIA, received a memorandum from James Spain, of the agency’s Office of National Estimates, on the ramifications of Pope John’s policies. There is “no doubt,” wrote Spain in the recently declassified 15-page memo, entitled “Change in the Church,” “that vigorous new currents are flowing in virtually every phase of the church’s thinking and activities. . . . [this has] resulted in a new approach toward Italian politics which is permissive rather than positive.”
When Spain visited the Vatican, posing as a scholar on a foreign service grant, he voiced his concerns about major gains made by the Italian Left in the 1963 election. Many felt the Left’s success was attributable to Pope John’s conciliatory attitude toward the Communists. This was the first election in which the Christian Democrats were not officially endorsed by the Italian Bishops’ Conference. The pope had insisted upon maintaining a neutral stance so as not to jeopardize his Soviet initiative.
Speaking with officials of the Curia, Spain discovered a great deal of discontent regarding the direction in which the church was moving. Some even suggested to him that the pope was “politically naive and unduly influenced by a handful of ‘liberal’ clerics.” He heard tales about “the moral and political unreliability of [the pope’s] young collaborators.” Among those who were particularly concerned by Pope John’s policies, according to Spain’s report to McCone, were members of the Roman aristocracy and the papal nobility, who, according to Spain, had lost many of their traditional privileges when Pius XII died.
A Holy Mole
John McCone now took a personal as well as professional interest in the Vatican situation. Thomas Kalamasinas, the station chief in Rome, was instructed to raise the priority of the Vatican spying operation. But the CIA ran into a snag when it learned that some of its best contacts — for example, the conservative prelates who held key posts in the Extraordinary Affairs Section of the Papal Secretariat, which was responsible for the implementation of Vatican foreign policy — were shut out by John XXIII’s tendency to circumvent his own bureaucracy when dealing with the Russians. The pope evidently feared that his diplomatic efforts might be sabotaged by some Machiavellian monsignor. Thus, he pursued his goal outside the normal channels of the Curia. A small group of trusted collaborators served as couriers for the pope, who rarely used the telephone to speak with anyone outside the Vatican for fear that the line might be tapped.
When John XXIII died in 1963, CIA analysts prepared a detailed report predicting that Giovanni Cardinal Montini of Milan would be the next pope. They were right. But more amazing than the prediction is the fact that the agency was later able to confirm the identity of John’s successor in advance of the official announcement. How was the CIA privy to such information, given the excessive secrecy surrounding the College of Cardinals during a papal election? Italian intelligence sources maintained that the CIA bugged the conclave. Time magazine correspondent Roland Flamini speculates in his book Pope, Premier, President that the agency may have developed an informant among the cardinals, who communicated with the CIA through a hidden electronic transmitter.
Giovanni Montini was no stranger to American intelligence. During World War II, he worked in the Office of the Papal Secretariat and passed information to a grateful OSS. Later he had a falling out with Pope Pius XII and was “exiled” to Milan. This news was well-received by Vatican watchers within the CIA, who had pegged Montini as a “liberal”. Nevertheless, he remained an important figure in the church, with extensive religious and political contacts. Every CIA station chief in Italy made a point of getting to know him, and CIA “project money” was donated to various orphanages and charities whose principal benefactor was the archbishop of Milan.
When Montini became pope, taking the name Paul VI, he continued to pursue an open-door policy with the Soviet Union. Leaders from Eastern Europe were received on state visits (Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had seven meetings with Pope Paul), and many Vatican officials traveled to Moscow for talks. Toward the end of his papacy, Paul VI let it be known that he was not averse to a center-left coalition of the Italian Communist party and the Christian Democrats. This infuriated hard-line elements within the CIA. In 1976, the Georgetown University Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative think tank, sponsored a conference on the Communist threat in Italy. Panelists included former CIA director William Colby (who was station chief in Rome during the 1950s); Clare Boothe Luce, who was U.S. ambassador to Rome at the same time; Ray Cline, another ex-CIA official; and John Connally, then a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Their message, which doubtless reached the pope, was unequivocal: Eurocommunism was a threat to U.S. security, and Marxists must never be allowed to participate in the Italian government.
This was not the first time pressures from outside the Vatican were exerted on Pope Paul. In 1967, Paul authored a controversial encyclical, Populorum Progressio, in which he criticized colonial repression and recommended economic and social remedies that were widely interpreted as a denunciation of capitalism. Shortly thereafter, an international group of businessmen asked the Holy Father to “clarify” his economic views. The delegation included George C. Moore, then chairman of Citibank. Pope Paul subsequently issued a statement in which he denied any hostility toward private enterprise.
Liberation Theology
Classified CIA studies prepared throughout the 1960s with titles such as “The Catholic Church Reassesses Its Role in Latin America” depicted a church with a commitment to economic and political reform. The studies foresaw the emergence of “liberation theology,” which would provide the theoretical basis for a “people’s church” that would establish itself in Latin America in the early 1970s. Pope Paul helped fulfill the CIA’s predictions by appointing socially conscious bishops and by encouraging church activists who opposed South American military dictatorships. Paul’s gesture toward the Left was, no doubt, a calculated maneuver directed at the hearts and minds of the Catholic masses. Political reality demanded the promotion of a palatable Christian alternative, lest the brethren put their faith in “Saint” Fidel or Che Guevara. At first, some CIA officials favored Paul’s reformist approach as an effective antidote to communism, but as time went by a consensus developed inside the agency that Paul VI had gone too far, that his strategy would backfire and play into the hands of the Marxist revolutionaries.
As Pope Paul VI grew older, great concern developed within intelligence circles over who would succeed him. Agency analysts drew up profiles on leading papal candidates, identifying those who were likely to be sympathetic to American interests. In 1977, Terence Cardinal Cooke, the current Grand Protector and Spiritual Advisor of the SMOM, traveled to Eastern Europe to discuss the matter of choosing a candidate to succeed Pope Paul. During this sojourn, Cardinal Cooke met personally with Karol Cardinal Wojtyla of Krakow, who was noted for his anti-Communist leanings. Cooke’s coalition-building efforts bore fruit the following year, after Paul’s successor, Pope John Paul I, died, having served scarcely a month. (There were widespread rumors that he had been poisoned.) In October 1978, the Vatican’s Sacred College of Cardinals elected Karol Wojtyla as pontiff.
The New Inquisition
October 1976. Father Patrick Rice is dragged from his prison cell in Buenos Aires by members of the Argentine Anti-Communist Alliance, a paramilitary police agency. He has already been held incommunicado for several days and has been beaten ruthlessly. The routine is about to begin again: electric shock treatment, water torture that makes him feel as if he is drowning. Throughout the ordeal he hears the screams of other prisoners. Eventually he is transferred to police headquarters, in which are passage walls covered with swastikas.
“My Christian faith became very real to me,” remembers the priest, who survived two months of captivity and recovered in a psychiatric ward.
Father Rice is one of the lucky ones. During the past 15 years, 1,500 priests, nuns and bishops have been murdered, imprisoned, tortured or expelled from Latin America. “Any Christian who defends the poor,” says Rice, “can expect to be persecuted and mistreated by the security police.”
Only a generation ago, the persecution of the Catholic clergy would have been unthinkable, for the church had always sided with the reactionary sectors of society — the wealthy landowners and the military. But Pope John XXII’s vision of Catholicism as a community of believers in and of the world sparked major reforms. His policies set the stage for the historic gathering of Latin American bishops that took place during the papacy of Paul VI at Medellin, Colombia, in 1968. It was at this conference that the liberation theology predicted by the CIA earlier in the decade was born. The bishops called upon the church to “defend the rights of the oppressed” and recognize a “preferential option for the poor” in the struggle for social justice.
Liberation theology came to life in the form of thousands of grassroots Christian communities that sprang up throughout Latin America, where nine out of ten people are Catholic, and eight out of ten are destitute. Within these groups, religion became less a ritualistic phenomenon and more an inspiration to clergy and laity attempting to remove the yoke of oppression from the poor. Some priests even began to align themselves with the left-wing guerrillas engaged in armed struggle against U.S.-backed regimes. “The Christian base communities are the greatest threat to military dictatorships throughout Latin America,” said Maryknoll Sister Ita Ford in late 1980, three weeks before she, two other American nuns and Jean Donovan, a lay missionary worker, were brutally murdered in El Salvador.
The CIA was quick to recognize the “subversive” potential of liberation theology and mounted an extensive campaign to undermine the new movement. The agency’s strategy, formulated during the late 1960s and early ’70s, when Richard Helms was director, was to exploit the polarization between the activist clergy and those who still identified with the established order (the holdovers from the Cold War era, when missionaries were routinely employed as agents and informants). Toward this end, as Penny Lernoux documents in her book Cry of the People, the CIA used right-wing Catholic organizations in Latin America to harass outspoken prelates and political reformers. The agency also trained and financed police agencies responsible for the torture and murder of bishops, priests and nuns, some of them U.S. citizens.
In 1975, the Bolivian Interior Ministry — a publicly acknowledged subsidiary of the CIA — drew up a master plan for persecuting progressive clergy. The scheme, dubbed the “Banzer Plan” — after Hugo Banzer, Bolivia’s right-wing dictator (who retained Klaus Barbie as his security advisor) — was adopted by ten Latin American governments. The plan involved compiling dossiers on church activists; censoring and shutting down progressive Catholic media outlets; planting Communist literature on church premises; and arresting or expelling undesirable foreign priests and nuns. The CIA also funded anti-Marxist religious groups that engaged in a wide range of covert operations, from bombing churches to overthrowing constitutionally elected governments. The success of the Banzer Plan was vividly demonstrated in San Salvador in the late 1970s, when an anonymous group distributed a leaflet that read: “Be a Patriot! Kill a Priest!” A series of clerical assassinations followed, culminating in the murder of the progressive and popular Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero.
More recently, the Reagan administration has sharpened its attack on progressive elements of the church, both at home and abroad. The Santa Fe Report, prepared for the Council for Inter-American Security and presented in 1980 to the Republican Platform Committee by a team of ultraconservative advisors, states that “U.S. foreign policy must begin to counter (not react against) liberation theology as it is utilized in Latin America by the ‘liberation theology’ clergy.” In order to garner support for this policy, the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), an interdenominational organization, was established in 1981 with funding from right-wing institutions, including the Smith ‘Richardson and Sarah Scaife foundations, both of which have served as CIA financial conduits. The IRD unleashed a propaganda drive against church activists at the forefront of domestic opposition to U.S. aid to the government of El Salvador and other repressive regimes in Latin America. The IRD campaign has been highly successful, even reaching the pages of Reader’s Digest, from where it was picked up by 60 Minutes.
The Holy Mafia
Under Casey, the CIA has continued its attack on progressive elements within the church. Casey is also a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
Of all the groups that are engaged in the U.S.-sponsored campaign against liberation theology, none has played a more significant role than Opus Dei (“God’s Work”). A fast-growing Catholic lay society whose political activities are shrouded in secrecy, Opus Dei was founded in 1928 by Jose Maria Escriva de Balaguer, a young Spanish priest and lawyer. Escriva espoused complete obedience to church dogma. Today, there are more than 70,000 members of the order in 87 countries. Only a small percentage are priests. The rest are mostly middle- and upper-class businessmen, professionals, military personnel and government officials. Some are university students. The members contribute regularly to the group’s financial coffers and are encouraged to practice “holy shrewdness” and “holy coercion” in an effort to win converts.
Much of what is known about Opus Dei comes from ex-members such as John Roche, a professor at Oxford University in England, who broke his oath of secrecy after leaving the order. According to Roche, self-flagellation with whips and spiked chains is a normal part of the rigid spiritual discipline that Opus Dei imposes on its full-time members, including college-age recruits of both genders. “Personal identity suffers a severe battering: some are reduced to shadows of their former selves, others become severely disturbed,” writes Roche in a paper called “The Inner World of Opus Dei.” “Internally, it is totalitarian and imbued with fascist ideas turned to religious purposes, ideas which were surely drawn from the Spain of its early years. It is virtually a sect or cult in spirit, a law unto itself, totally self-centered, grudgingly accepting Roman authority because it still considers Rome orthodox, and because of the vast pool of recruits accessible to it as a respected Catholic organization.”
In recent years, Opus Dei has emerged internationally as one of the most powerful and politically committed of the Catholic lay groups. Detractors have likened the organization to a “saintly Mafia,” for its members control a large number of banks and financial institutions, including Rumasa, the largest conglomerate in Spain’s private sector. In the latter stages of the Franco regime, ten out of 19 cabinet officers belonged to or were closely allied with Opus Dei. Despite the active political role the order plays wherever it exists, Father Malcolm Kennedy, an American spokesperson for Opus Dei, insists it is “inconceivable…that Opus Dei leaders in any country would try to influence political decisions.”
The tentacles of “Octopus Dei,” as it is sometimes called, stretch all the way to the U.S., where David Kennedy, former chairman of Continental Illinois Bank and treasury secretary under Richard Nixon, is said to be a “conspicuous friend” of the conservative religious order, despite the fact that he is a Mormon. Continental Illinois owns shares of an Opus Dei bank in Barcelona (for more on Kennedy’s links to the church, see box, page 37).
Opus Dei also controls a wide range of media assets (600 newspapers, 52 radio and TV stations, 12 film companies and 38 news agencies) and sponsors educational and social programs in various countries. These efforts have been endorsed by members of the American section of the SMOM such as William Simon (Citicorp) and Francis X. Stankard (Chase Manhattan Bank), who have spoken at Opus Dei seminars and other functions of the group.
“One of the problems that Opus Dei runs into,” says Sargent Shriver, a cooperating (not full-time) member of the order and a former Democratic candidate for vice president, “is that a lot of Catholics join the organization, and they’re doing this, that and the other thing, and Opus Dei becomes tainted because of them.”
This is particularly true in Latin America. In Chile, for example, Opus Dei elicited support from Chilean bishops for the overthrow of President Salvador Allende and worked closely with CIA-funded organizations such as the Fatherland and Liberty goon squads, which subsequently merged with DINA, the dreaded Chilean secret police. In 1971, the CIA began financing the Chilean Institute for General Studies (IGS), which has been described as an Opus Dei think tank. Its members include lawyers, free-market economists and executives from influential publications. One of the leading IGS staffers was Hernan Cubillos, founder of Que Pasa, an Opus Dei magazine, and publisher of El Mercurio, the largest newspaper in Santiago (and one that was subsidized by the CIA). After the coup, a number of IGS technocrats became cabinet members and advisors to the Pinochet junta; Cubillos served as foreign minister.
Opus Dei powerbrokers have gained enormous influence inside the Vatican since they helped install the current pope. The courting of John Paul II began when he was still the archbishop of Krakow. He was asked to speak at Opus Dei colleges and at the group’s international headquarters in Rome. In an effort to enhance Wojtyla’s image as papabile, these speeches were printed by Opus Dei in book form and circulated among members of the Vatican hierarchy. When Karol Wojtyla became pope, he returned the favor by elevating Opus Dei to the unique status of a “personal prelature.” Critics of Opus Dei fear that the pope’s edict will allow its members to elude the authority of local bishops in special circumstances, thereby strengthening the order’s tendency to function as a “church within a church.” This was an important victory for Opus Dei, which had been rebuffed on previous occasions by both Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
The decision to upgrade the status of Opus Dei appears to be part of an over-all strategy to counter the influence of Jesuits and other progressive clerics active in the liberation theology movement. Pope John Paul II’s feud with the Jesuits came to a head in October 1981, when he suspended the order’s constitution and replaced its ailing superior general, Father Pedro Arrupe, with a Jesuit of his own choosing. Many Jesuits have caused turmoil in the ‘Vatican by questioning papal pronouncements on birth control, priestly celibacy, the barring of women from the priesthood and, most significantly, clerical involvement in politics. Because it is predominantly a lay organization, Opus Dei is exempt from these rules. The pope recently asked leaders of Opus Dei, which thus far has kept out of Communist countries, to begin operating in Poland.
It is rather ironic that John Paul II should chastise priests for engaging in political activity when he is by far the most overtly political pope of modern times. A strong patriot, John Paul has even threatened to fight alongside his countrymen should the Soviets try to crush the workers’ rebellion in Poland. And his political activism has not only included well-publicized trips and rhetorical speeches. With his approval, the Vatican quietly funneled $40 million to Solidarity. But despite the pontiff’s support for the Polish union — and the issuing of an encyclical in strong defense of the rights of labor — his sympathies do not extend to the rights of workers in Vatican City: he has opposed demands for decent wages by the Vatican’s low-paid employees, and there have even been rumblings of a possible strike.
The New Strategy
When John Paul II assumed the papacy nearly five years ago. Catholics the world over wondered whether he was the right person to lead their 700 million members (the world’s largest religious denomination). He was a unique choice in many respects: the first non-Italian pope since the 16th century, the first pope from a Communist country and the only modern-day pope (aside from his short-lived predecessor) with no work experience in the Curia.
John Paul II came to the Vatican during troubled times for Catholicism. Political upheavals in Poland and Latin America promised to make the new pope’s job more than that of spiritual leader. Karol Wojtyla knew that, as did the cardinals who elected him. And the CIA, which knew that another John XXIII could spell disaster for U.S. foreign policy, doubtless brought its influence to bear on the election through Opus Dei and the Knights of Malta. Thus far it seems likely that the agency is, on balance, fairly pleased with the pope’s performance.
John Paul II has shown himself to be an aggressive and wily statesman. In 1979, during his first trip to Latin America, he drew enormous and enthusiastic crowds wherever he spoke. Each message was carefully tailored to each audience. At one stop he would stress religious discipline and devotion, seemingly at the expense of social commitment; at the next he would use stronger language than any previous pope defending the rights of the oppressed. Conservative Vatican watchers in the CIA undoubtedly blanched when he told 40,000 Mexican Indians, “You have a right to be respected and not deprived of the little you have, often by methods that amount to plunder. You have a right to throw down the barriers of exploitation.”
Yet the pope’s deeds often do not reflect his words. Earlier this year, he gave the cardinal’s red hat to Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a Colombian sympathizer with Opus Dei and a staunch opponent of liberation theology. Inside the Vatican, Lopez Trujillo is considered the protege of Sebastiano Cardinal Baggio, another Opus Dei ally, who heads the Pontifical Commission for Latin America (the pope’s main source of information on events in that region). One of Lopez Trujillo’s closest aides is Roger Vekemans, a Belgian priest who received as much as $5 million from the CIA during the 1960s, which he in turn gave to anti-Communist organizations in Chile. Vekemans has also written articles and books condemning church activists and liberation theology.
In October 1982, President Reagan sent his roving ambassador, General Vernon Walters, a devout Catholic, to confer with John Paul II. The pope may have wondered why Reagan would select a former deputy director of the CIA, one who had been involved, both before and after he joined the agency, in some of its most notorious coups: Iran, 1953; Brazil, 1964; Chile, 1973.
More recently, Walters has played a key role in organizing CIA-backed Nicaraguan exile groups based in Honduras who are seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government by force. Not surprisingly, the situation in Latin America was one of the main issues that Walters discussed with the pope. He also attempted to convince the Holy Father that the American bishops had erred in drafting their pastoral letter opposing nuclear weapons. Although John Paul II stood fast on the nuclear question, soon after Walters left the pope did demand that five priests with official positions in the Nicaraguan government resign from office.
The Split
Five months later, in March 1983, John Paul II himself visited Nicaragua during an eight-day swing through Central America. Before a large audience in Managua, he attacked the “people’s church” as “absurd and dangerous,” implying that the only role the church had in Nicaragua was to oppose the Sandinistas. Such an outspoken repudiation of liberation theology, delivered in the only Latin American country that can claim a revolution with significant Catholic participation, must have been well-received within the CIA.
The pope’s condemnation of the Nicaraguan revolution coincided with a dramatic increase in border raids from Honduras by CIA-trained exile groups. But perhaps more damaging than the military actions was the psychological impact of the pope’s refusing to pray for the souls of Nicaraguans killed by Somozistas, despite the pleadings of wives and mothers who wept openly before him. And injury was later added to injury when the pope did pray for six “suspected subversives” who had been executed by Guatemala’s Protestant dictator Efrain Rios Montt. Whether or not it was his intention, John Paul II had, in effect, given his blessing to the CIA’s campaign to destabilize the Sandinista government.
Such developments reaffirm the significance of the Catholic church as an intelligence priority, and the CIA undoubtedly will continue to utilize its contacts in the Vatican and in conservative lay orders to bring its influence to bear on the papal chambers. But the agency realizes that much has changed since the days when all good Catholics obediently toed the line of the Vatican hierarchy and Catholic churchmen at all levels cooperated willingly with American intelligence. The Catholic church, once a rock-solid monolith, is now in a state of flux. The new church poses an enormous challenge to the agency. The pontiff is no longer an absolute monarch. The papacy has become a point of convergence for a multiplicity of forces, an arena in which competing ideologies vie for influence. The CIA, accordingly, has gradually revised its strategy from one of using the church to one of splitting the church. By encouraging internecine conflict between progressive and reactionary church elements, it has made a direct assault on John Paul II’s cherished ideal of a unified church that can speak to and for all people.
For his own part, the pope has attempted to walk a fine line, acknowledging the need for social reform while expressing disdain for the grassroots movements that also advocate it. He cannot embrace progressive Catholic organizations, because they threaten to undermine papal authority. The mixed signals John Paul II has been sending his bishops in Latin America (where more than half the world’s Catholics will reside by the year 2000) are evidence of the dilemma he faces. To the extent that he denounces injustice and oppression, he risks the wrath of the CIA. But if he fails to be a sufficient critic of fascist governments that kill priests and nuns, many of his followers will seek other roads to salvation.
And John Paul II’s dilemma promises to get worse before it gets better. Despite the best efforts of the CIA, liberation theology is spreading to countries such as Thailand, South Korea and the Philippines, where activist priests are also being persecuted by U.S.-backed dictatorships.
As liberation theology spreads throughout the East, it seems certain that Asian Catholics will soon be repeating the popular South American aphorism: “When the CIA goes to church, it doesn’t go to pray.”
