My Blog List

And when all the evil has come to pass, but the faithful of Christ have not apostatized from Him, then will come the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with His angels and reward the just with eternal life and condemn the wicked to hell forevermore.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Communista Internationale Sixth: The Justice of God: TheTruthseeker: Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

Communista Internationale Sixth: The Justice of God: TheTruthseeker: Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

The Justice of God: TheTruthseeker: Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie





"The United Nations is nothing but a trap-door to the Red World's immense concentration camp. We pretty much control the U.N." ~ Harold Wallace Rosenthal

By Tony Cartalucci

November 28, 2011

Wall Street and London's media machine eagerly churned out headlines like BBC's "
Syria security forces 'commit crimes against humanity'" announcing the conclusions of a recent UN Human Rights Council report regarding the ongoing violence in Syria.

However, even upon reading the BBC article it is soon discovered that, "the investigation team members say they were denied entry into Syria itself," and that the entirety of their "evidence" is garnered solely from interviews with "223 victims, witnesses and also army defectors to investigate alleged human rights violations."

BBC's article raises immediate suspicion over the veracity of the report, as "victims, witnesses, and defectors," interviewed outside of Syria is not evidence,
but rather more hearsay by groups of people with a vested interest in painting the Syrian government in the worst light possible.

However, upon actually reading the full text of the UN Human Rights Council report, we see just exactly "how" the report was compiled. Under a section titled, "Methods of Work" we find a shocking admission of the utter lack of substance and immense conflict of interest behind the UN's predetermined conclusion, that Syria is guilty of "crimes against humanity" and that the UN Security Council must act.

The report states (emphasis added):
"First-hand information was collected through interviews with victims and witnesses of events in the Syrian Arab Republic. The interviewing process began in Geneva on 26 September 2011. Overall, 223 victims and/or witnesses, including personnel who defected from the military and the security forces, were interviewed.

A public call was made to all interested persons and organizations to submit relevant information and documentation that would help the commission implement its mandate. It held meetings with Member States from all regional groups, regional organizations, including the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, non-governmental organizations, human rights defenders, journalists and experts. Reports, scholarly analyses and media accounts, as well as audio and visual material, were also duly considered.

The information collected is stored in a secure database governed by United Nations rules on confidentiality."
Quite obviously this is not an investigation, nor is the information provided within the report "evidence" by any stretch of the imagination.

The report would go on to admit that it received no cooperation from the Syrian government meaning that this publication by the UN is but a one-sided exercise to provide the worst possible image of the Syrian government as told by opposition groups now on record fully armed, foreign-backed, and trying to seize power by force.

The inclusion of "non-governmental organizations"
(NGOs) should also raise immediate concerns.

While the report is entirely negligent in listing any of these contributing NGOs, it is more than likely they include the US government and corporate-funded army of sedition emanating out of the National Endowment for Democracy, Geroge Soros' Open Society Institute, and their myriad of subsidiaries.

It has been these very NGOs supplying a steady stream of similarly baseless "witness accounts" since the unrest began earlier this year, as they've done in Libya, Belarus, Tunisia, Thailand, and beyond.
"Alleged" is used throughout the report in various forms further illustrating the tenuous nature of the UN Human Rights Council's "evidence" while all of the testimony, those who gave it, and apparently the NGOs involved in compiling the UN report are conveniently kept "confidential."
This may be because the United Nations believes that its reputation coupled with global faith in its work is all that is necessary to lend their report the legitimacy it needs to bring Syria one step closer to NATO inflicted genocide.
However, considering Iraq and more recently Libya, and the UN's complicit role in facilitating genocide in both nations based on similarly tenuous "human rights" reports, a clear pattern emerges.

Human rights activists,
and the disingenuous UN
are merely dressing up with humanitarian concerns
an otherwise naked campaign of military conquest.

Video: Part 1 & 2 of "Lies behind the "Humanitarian War" in Libya." The outrageous, confirmed, confessed "humanitarian-based" lies used with UN complicity to justify NATO's invasion by proxy of Libya. Libya is now run by a corporate-backed proxy Abdurrahim el-Keib, formally of the British Petroleum (BP), Shell, France's Total, Japan Oil Development Company, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company-sponsored Petroleum Institute.
It has been pointed out in April's "Globalists Coming Full Circle," and more recently in Salon's "Wes Clark and the neocon dream" that the unrest unhinging the Middle East, North Africa, and slowly creeping toward Moscow and Beijing, is part of a plan 20 years in the making.
Those behind it just so happen to populate the boards of the faux-humanitarian front, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), have affiliations with the so-called "liberal" George Soros and his Open Society Institute, and have signed their names to Hitlerian declarations of world conquest within the notorious "Project for a New American Century."
You're not expected to read the report,
let alone research the authors.

Without a doubt, the UN has compiled a tenuous and transparent fabrication of such little substance, those involved in writing it, Paulo Pinheiro, Yakin Ertürk, and Karen Koning AbuZayd, are clearly conspiring to justify an otherwise unjustifiable escalation in Syria's current unrest.

If they did indeed have evidence of Syrian brutality, they surely would have included it in their report and the voices at the BBC, on CNN, in Reuters and beyond would ceaselessly air it.
Instead, the impact of the report solely depends on people trusting the legitimacy of the UN and not bothering to even objectively read it.
It equally depends on members of the media, including the disingenuous hand-wringing "humanitarians" amongst NED's vast global network to keep their heads down and not expose this willful duplicity.
The impact of the UN's report
also depends on people
not bothering to research the associations
of those who compiled it.

Should they conduct such research, they will find that Karen Koning AbuZayd is concurrently a member of the Washington D.C. based Middle East Policy Council, alongside current and former associates of Exxon, the US military, the CIA, the Saudi Binladin Group, the US-Qatari Business Council and both former and current members of the US government.

It is more than just a coincidence that the UN Human Rights Council report has given the US exactly what it wanted to hear regarding Syria, and one of those compiling the report just so happens to sit amongst an organization full of corporate-financier interests clamoring to despoil the Middle Eastern republic.
Clearly, claims that the UN is merely a tool of corporate fascists on Wall Street and within the City of London represents a truth that confronts anyone who researches any of the claims coming out of the UN.

Image: Just some of the corporate members of the US-Qatar Business Council, whose president just so happens to sit on the same board of directors of the Middle East Policy Center as Karen AbuZayd, co-author of the conveniently timed UN Human Rights Council report on Syria.
Indeed with this tissue of lies and the associations of the liars peddling them, the UN is truly a disingenuous tool of the world's elite, used to strip the freedom and humanity of its enemies while simultaneously claiming to uphold such values in the process.

The Syrian people are facing a criminal conspiracy of vast proportions in a world increasingly devoid of empathy, intelligence, or courage.

Like the Libyans who fought for the better part of a year against the militant aggression of global corporate fascism, the Syrians will soon be fighting too.

For those indeed repulsed by what has transpired in Libya and what is facing Syria at the hands of the global elite, it should be obvious that the corporations, banks, and institutions involved
need to beexposed, boycotted, and promptly replaced.

It was Libya yesterday,
Syria today,
and inevitably you tomorrow.

Collectively after World War II
we said, "never again,"
regarding fascism
and the rise of Adolf Hitler's Germany,
yet here we are.... again.

Go to this link to see and read of specific lies made by Al Jazeera to the world about the current ituation in Syria. They have already been busted several time for using footage incongruous with events.

Sunday, November 27, 2011

The First Amendment: Documents on U.S. History in the Age of the World Wars (1914-1945)

The First Amendment: Documents on U.S. History in the Age of the World Wars (1914-1945)

What is here is a history of the period in which American sovereignty was eroded from within; while the New York Jews attacked Russia.

The Permanent Mission of Russia to NATO

I am really serious - give peace a chance.

The Permanent Mission of Russia to NATO:

Global security and propaganda dogmas
July 1, 2008

With the demise of Communism, reasons for the West and Russia to be in confrontation vanished. Russia entered on the path of European democracy.

In many areas, cooperation between Russia and NATO has yielded positive results. This is true in Russia's support for the transit of cargo by the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. We are also gaining momentum in civil emergency planning, and our scientists are successfully collaborating on equipment to fight terrorism.

Such successes, however, are largely overshadowed by contradictions in another issue - NATO enlargement and the admission of Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. As the official representative of Russia to NATO I have to deal with what NATO representatives give as arguments, which are in fact fusty propaganda rhetoric of the Cold War. These dogmas threaten both progress in Russia-NATO relations and the prospects for global security, and even the process of cementing democracy in Russia.

Dogma No. 1: NATO is a union of democratic states, and democratic states do not fight other democracies.

This is totally meaningless. NATO is not a union of democracies; it is a union of militaries. When the NATO secretary general criticizes parliamentary elections in my country, he oversteps his mandate. Combining his evaluation of Russian democracy with the thesis that NATO does not fight democracies - and conversely does fight non-democracies - his words could be interpreted as a threat to Russia.

The second dogma - "Russia and NATO are not enemies but partners" - resonates with irrelevance.

The final document of the NATO summit in Bucharest in April promises that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO. This is an obvious affront to any vision of a partnership or democracy.

Neither Georgia nor Ukraine have full domestic support for the accession of their countries to NATO. In Georgia, residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia did not take part in the referendum on the accession to NATO. And as far as Ukraine is concerned, only a fifth of its population, concentrated mainly in Western provinces, embraces the idea of joining NATO. Despite that, the "alliance of democracies" is trying to drag the rest of the country into its barracks, establishing new lines of division not only within Europe but between nations that have more than a thousand years of common history.

Dogma No. 3: Countries that joined NATO have improved their relations with Russia.

The reality is the opposite. Once they get hold of a club card, NATO neophytes press for globalizing their relations with Russia. When Poland entered European structures, it drew its new partners into its "meat war" with Russia. This scandalous marketing was unsuccessful and had no impact on Russia-EU relations, but it did attract a good deal of attention.

Estonia, obviously counting on the protection of NATO partners, blasphemously ravaged a communal grave of soldiers who died liberating Tallinn from Nazis and dismantled a monument to soldiers who fought fascism. Lack of a definite stand among Western countries was sobering even for the most pro-Western of politicians in Russia.

Dogma No. 4 also resembles propaganda: NATO pursues an "open-door policy."

Russia cannot enter these doors - unlike, for example, Albania or Croatia. That means the enlargement of NATO diminishes the political weight of old European democracies in favor of the United States and to the prejudice of a security environment in Europe that could address real threats.

On the issue of the American plans to deploy elements of strategic missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic: We are reassured again and again: "Russia is not our enemy"; "The missile defense is an umbrella to protect us against bad guys from Iran who threaten the good guys in America and Israel."

In fact, nothing consolidates and compromises opposition better than an outside enemy. As one who lived a significant part of his life under the Soviet regime, let me tell you that if it had not been for the Cold War, democratization would have begun in the USSR decades earlier.

Secondly, plans to intercept Iranian missiles over the Czech Republic and Poland is a joke. Even if we assume Iran is ready to produce these missiles, wouldn't it be more logical to deploy defenses in Turkey, Bulgaria or Iraq? Yet Washington persists in reiterating its arguments, which gives us grounds to believe we are not being told the whole truth.

Then there are the references to the famous Munich speech made by President Vladimir Putin and other claims that Russia is getting more aggressive.

What, did Putin reveal some dark secret? The secret that NATO is enlarging, opening new military bases and establishing division lines in Europe? Is it a secret that NATO has been challenging the UN and ignoring international law?

It's just that Putin said these things in an open and honest manner, as befits a leader meeting with foreign colleagues, urging them to share his concern.

We also have a hard time understanding what drives the USA in partitioning Serbia and creating a criminal state under the de-facto control of a drug mafia. According to UN experts, Kosovo smuggles up to 75 percent of the heroin consumed in Europe.
[bold emphasis mine - Ed.]

So where is the alleged Russian aggressiveness? Is it in trying to convince partners not to make fatal errors? Is it that we state openly that the "deterrence of Russia" concept is senseless, and that the enlargement of NATO does not solve the problems of European security but on the contrary creates an illusion of security, rendering Europe vulnerable to new threats, such as terrorism, religious extremism and illegal migration?

New threats necessitate a new vision of the Russia-NATO partnership, which President Dmitry Medvedev has defined as the "unity of the whole Euro-Atlantic space, from Vancouver to Vladivostok."

Russia's relations with NATO constitute the basis of global security. Today this is the only prerequisite for the development of our relations. Both Russia and Europe have a common past, common values and common culture. Our future too will be common if we fill it with the spirit of trust and true partnership.

As for the propaganda skeletons, they should be stacked in the closet of the Cold War.

Dmitry Rogozin is Russia's ambassador to NATO.

The International Herald Tribune

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Israel is the Nation of the Antichrist

Salaam al-Maseeh alaykum, assalaamu alaykum, algmi akhuani wa akhawati

Salaam al-Maseeh,

In the 19th century, the Triad was a Zio-Marxist-Communist network between Jews in three cities for the purpose of invading Palestine and bringing forth the evil reign of their ‘ha maschiach’ in total opposition to the true Messiah professed by both Christians and Muslims who is Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those cities were Moscow (Tsarist Russia), New York City (Freemasonic America) and Tel Aviv (Ottoman Palestine). This network brought forth Communism in Russia (financed by New York Jewry at the time of the beginning of the mythic 6,000,000). At the same time the Federal Reserve and the Jews’ Tax system was started in the United States to collectivize America under their thumb and give them the power to control politics in the United States, particularly to get the United States to act as their Bully Boy in three (sic) World Wars and many conflicts in between. The third has just begun in 2001 at the infamous beginning of 911. The Triad was morphed by the Jews into the United States, Russia and Red China during the cold war which was between WWII and the current WWIII.

Current events and the near future:

The Triad is Russia, China and the United States until Israel replaces the United States, then it is Russia, China and Israel – then there were two, Russia and Israel and then there was one: ISRAEL THE HOME OF THE DAJJAL, ANTICHRIST – that last move is the real reason that Yamantau exists

Beware and all of us get the word out to warn God’s faithful.

Baarakul laahu fiik,

Ma’ assalaamah

The Zionists must be stopped for Israel is the Nation of the Antichrist = Dajjal: Israel is the Nation of the Antichrist

The Justice of God: TheTruthseeker: Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

The Justice of God: TheTruthseeker: Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

Juri Lina – In the Shadow of Hermes FULL Movie

The Catholic Creed: The Pact of Metz

The Catholic Creed: The Pact of Metz

Metz is the vile traitorous apostasy from God on the part of the Apostate evil Vatican.

The Pact With the Devil they will NEVER recover from.

Consequences of Vatican II

Tradition In Action

The Pact of Metz

Atila Sinke Guimarães

Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.

Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.

Another player:
Cardinal Tisserant

One player at Metz:
metrolitan Nikodin

One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.

This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.

What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1).
1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81.
And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?

Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2).
2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15.
This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..

A half secret act

Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts.
“The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.

“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’

“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3).
3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66.
Thus the Counci, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism.. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations

This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:
“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4).
4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.
The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:
“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5).
5. Ibid. p. 57
In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism:
“When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6).
6. 30 Dias October 1989, p. 55.
Since the time of Stalin

Facts from such indisputable sources permit no doubt about the effectiveness of the Pact of Metz. They also lend credibility to the information presented in the ‘novel’ entitled The Jesuits, by the late Fr. Malachi Martin, a quite well-informed ex-Jesuit who offers similar details about what happened before, during, and after the Pact of Metz.

In Martin’s work, the Cardinal Secretary of State, under the pseudonym of Stato, tells about the understanding made by the Holy See with the Kremlin from 1942 to our days:
Stato reminded his Venerable Colleagues that he had been with the present Holy Father at His Holiness’s two meetings with the Soviet negotiator, Anatoly Adamshin, the most recent of which had been earlier this very year of 1981. His Holiness had given the Soviets a guarantee that no word or action, either by His Holiness or the Polish Hierarchy or Solidarity’s leaders, would violate the Moscow-Vatican Pact of 1962.

Stato did not need to explain to his listeners that in the late spring of 1962, a certain Eugène Cardinal Tisserant had been dispatched by Pope John XXIII to meet with a Russian prelate, one metropolitan Nikodim, representing the Soviet Politburo of Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Pope John ardently desired to know if the Soviet Government would allow two members of the Russian Orthodox church to attend the Second Vatican Council set to open the following October. The meeting between Tisserant and Nikodim took place in the official residence of Paul Joseph Schmitt, then the Bishop of Metz, France. There, Nikodim gave the Soviet answer. His government would agree, provided the Pope would guarantee two things: that his forthcoming Council would issue no condemnation of Soviet Communism or of Marxism, and that the Holy See would make it a rule for the future to abstain from all such official condemnations.

“Nikodin got his guarantees. Matters were orchestrated after that for Pope John by Jesuit Cardinal Augustine Bea until the final agreement was concluded in Moscow, and was carried out in Rome, in that Vatican Council as well as in the policies of the Holy See for nearly two decades since” (7).
7. Malachi Martin, The Jesuits - The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987; pp. 85-86.
Further on, Malachi Martin “relates” that this Vatican-Moscow pact of 1962 was “merely a renewal of an earlier agreement between the Holy See and Moscow” on the occasion of conversations that took place in 1942 in the pontificate of Pius XII.
“It was in that year,” he writes, “that Vatican Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, who himself later succeeded to the Papacy as Paul VI, talked directly with Joseph Stalin’s representative. Those talks were aimed at dimming Pius XII’s constant fulminations against the Soviet dictator and Marxism. Stato himself had been privy to those talks. He had also been privy to the conversations between Montini and the Italian Communist Party leader, Palmiro Togliatti, in 1944 .... “Stato offered to supply reports from the Allied Office of Strategic Services about the matter, beginning, as he recalled, with OSS Report JR-1022 of August 28, 1944” (8).
8. Ibid., pp. 91-92.
Such, then, are the official documents as well as the extra-official information about the Pact of Metz, which explains the incredible omission at the Ecumenical Second Vatican Council.

Some facts that we need to consider
1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.

2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.

3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.

4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear.
The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader.




Now that I am learning more about the China/Russia/Israel connection that is so brazenly ignored by the American media, the obscenities of American politics and media lies appear to be so vile and misleading that I have a real desire to vomit.

The things Greenwald speaks of below are just so misleading and all I see is that the people of America are being set up for major destruction and a downfall that they will never see coming. All the better to break their spirit even further and speed up their enslavement if things go on track as they seem to be.

The fact that the media pundits know about these things to a certain degree and do not expose the lies puts their crimes beyond the pale.

As someone said, America frizzles about chasing Afghani goatherders when there are real issues to be dealt with. What a painful reckoning lies ahead!

By Glenn Greenwald
November 23, 2011

Anonymous U.S. officials this morning are announcing in The Washington Post that they have effectively defeated what they call “the organization that brought us 9/11″ ~ Al Qaeda ~ by rendering it “operationally ineffective.”

Specifically, “the leadership ranks of the main al-Qaeda terrorist network have been reduced to just two figures whose demise would mean the group’s defeat, U.S. counterterrorism and intelligence officials said.”

And: “asked what exists of al-Qaeda’s leadership group beyond the top two positions, the official said: ‘Not very much’.”

You might think this means that the vastly expanded National Security and Surveillance States justified in the name of 9/11, as well as the slew of wars and other aggressive deployments which it spawned, can now be reversed and wound down.

After all, the stated purpose of the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) which provided legal cover to all of this was expressed in the very first line: “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”

The purpose of this authorized force was equally clear and limited: “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”

Now, the group which the U.S. government has always said was the one that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001″ is, according to this same government, “operationally ineffective.” So what does that mean in terms of policy?


U.S. officials stressed that al-Qaeda’s influence extends far beyond its operational reach, meaning that the terrorist group will remain a major security threat for years.

Not just a threat ~ but a major security threat ~ “for years” to come. In fact, it turns out that the version of Al Qaeda that the U.S. just spent the last decade “defeating” on the ground that it perpetrated 9/11 does not even really matter:
“U.S. counterterrorism officials now assess al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen as asignificantly greater threat.”
Even in Pakistan, where the “effectively inoperable” group is based, the CIA refuses even to reduce its activities: “letting up now could allow them to regenerate,” an anonymous official decreed.

And if that’s not enough to keep your fear levels sufficiently high to support (or at least acquiesce to) more militarism, there is always this:
“The arrest this week of an alleged al-Qaeda sympathizer in New York underscored the group’s ability to inspire ‘lone wolf’ attacks.”
That last bit about the “lone wolf” refers to the scary Terrorist Super-Villain, Jose Pimental, caught and unveiled at a dramatic Press Conference this week by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg: a Terrorist even more hapless and inept than the failed Texan used car salesman whose chronic inability to find his keys didn’t prevent him from being recruited as a dastardly Terrorist Mastermind by Iran’s elite Quds Force.

This latest frightening lone wolf menace, according to The New York Times, “had little money to speak of, was unable to pay his cellphone bill and scrounged for money to buy the drill bits that court papers said he required to make his pipe bombs” and, furthermore, “had trouble drilling the small holes that needed to be made in the metal tubes.”

Also, he “lived with his uncle in the Hamilton Heights neighborhood after his mother threw him out recently, appears to be unstable, according to several of the people briefed on the case, three of whom said he had tried to circumcise himself.”
Even the FBI ~ which specializes in converting hapless Muslim youth into Terrorists and then providing the planning, funding and training for the attacks, so they can jump in at the last minute and heroically disrupt the plots they themselves created ~ refused to get involved in this case out of “concern that the informer might have played too active a role in helping Mr. Pimentel.”
In other words, even the Supreme Entrapers known as the FBI “were concerned that the case raised some entrapment questions” and “wondered whether Mr. Pimentel had the even small amount of money or technical know-how necessary to produce a pipe bomb on his own, had he not received help from the informer.”

They’re worried because many of Pimental’s recorded statements were made as he smoked marijuana with the NYPD’s informer as he guided Pimental to attack and instructed him how to do it.
I’m sure we can all agree that we must endure years more of civil liberties assaults, endless war, bulging military budgets, suffocating government secrecy, a sprawling surveillance regime, and the slaughter of countless more Muslim children in order to save ourselves from this existential Lone Wolf threat.

And that’s to say nothing of the fact that endless war, drone attacks, occupying countries, and engineering regime change is precisely what causes and fuels these threats in the first place.

Indeed, NYPD’s Police Commission Raymond Kelly claimed that “Pimentel’s talk did not ‘turn to action’ until recently” when he “clearly ‘jacked up his speed after the elimination’ of the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by an American drone strike in September.”
In other words, what little Terrorism does exist is caused directly by our own actions ~ the very actions justified in the name of stopping Terrorism.
But this is the defining mentality of Endless War.
Enemies are never defeated; even when they are “operationally ineffective,” they “will remain a major security threat for years.” If their capacity to frighten fades, they just get seamlessly replaced by new Villains (“U.S. counterterrorism officials now assess al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen as a significantly greater threat”).
When that doesn’t work, you just manufacture the Terrorists yourself: by converting, directing and funding them and/or doing exactly that which you know will ensure they continue to emerge.

And when all else fails, you just find a brand new war that ensures the process repeats itself in an endless loop: the establishment bellwether Washington Post today expressly demanded “regime change” in Iran (“by now it should be obvious that only regime change will stop the Iranian nuclear program”).

The key trick of Endless War is to permanently maintain two contradictory official premises:
(1) We’re on the verge of Victory; and

(2) The threat is grave and we cannot let up.
Without both of those premises, the citizenry will wonder why endless war is necessary or wise.
That’s been the dual-track propaganda that has sustained the Drug War for four decades and counting (yes, we’ve been waging this war for 40 years, but we’re making real progress, but the threat is still so severe that the war must continue into the foreseeable future), and it has been and continues to be the core propaganda that fuels the Terror War.

(1) We have made Al Qaeda “operationally ineffective” and

(2) They “will remain a major security threat for years.”
* * * * *
The GOP foreign policy debate last night was really quite a spectacle, not because of what was said ~ all the candidates other than Ron Paul and, to a lesser extent, Jon Huntsman, did what they always do: created a long list of countries the U.S. should bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise subvert ~ but because of the cast of characters CNN dragged out as “foreign policy experts” to pose the questions.

It was like a carnival of war criminals, warmongers, torturers, and petty tyrants:
Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, best known for his 1980s war on pornography, was dredged up to demand that the government be vested with more Patriot Act powers (because he’s a believer in individual liberty and small government);

There was long-time supporter of Ahmad Chalabi and a war on Iran, Danielle Pletka;

Iraq War propagandist and torture regime architect Paul Wolfowitz; and Fred Kagan of the mighty Kagan warrior family.
But remember:
as the supremely “objective” CBS‘ Bob Schieffer made clear in his snickering, scornful interview on Face the Nation this weekend, it is Ron Paul who is crazy and bizarre for suggesting that U.S. aggression played a role in motivating 9/11 and for being worried that bellicose actions against Iran are making things worse and may lead to war.

There are four articles from yesterday relating to Endless War that I highly recommend:
(1) This, from The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf, about progressives who praise President Obama “as if his civil liberties abuses and executive power excesses never happened”;

(2) This, from Eric Lewis in The New York Times, on the various ways Obama has shielded torture crimes from all accountability and the consequences of his doing so;

(3) this, from The Guardian, on the latest emerging Obama foreign policy “success” to be soon celebrated by Democrats: his efforts to overturn the global ban on cluster bombs (which I wrote about a couple weeks ago here); and

(4) this, from Rolling Stone‘s Matt Taibbi, linking Endless War and the mentality it spawns to the UC-Davis pepper-spraying incident, eloquently elaborating on a similar point I made over the weekend.