December 18, 2009

The Vatican Jerusalem Agenda

Barry Chamish recommends Joel Bainerman

Most Israelis have probably never thought very much about what the Roman Catholic Church/The Vatican thinks about "end of days" theology. Jews themselves don't give much thought to what will happen when "Gog and Magog" takes place. Jews don't go in for anything the least bit "next world" but instead are firmly planted in the here and know. That's good.
However it doesn't matter what Jews think, what matters is what The Vatican believes, and why it believes this. Judaism, and modern Jewish thought pretty much just dismisses the basic tenets of Catholicism outright and doesn't even bother addressing the core questions of what is behind "Catholic theological claims."
Instead of taking what they believe seriously, we tend to snicker amongst ourselves when we see those pictures of obscure rituals and ceremonies, and think the whole religion is near pagan-like with the "eating of Holy Wafers" and "sprinkling of Baptism water" on people's heads. That may be true, but that doesn't matter. What matters is what they believe and what they plan to do about making their beliefs become a reality.
The institution of "The Vatican" is not understood by Israelis and Jews. The conventional wisdom you get from the spokespersons in Israeli government ministries and the conventional Israeli media is "both sides have great intentions to do good" and that's about it. When it comes to Israel's bi-lateral affairs, nothing much gets investigated by the Israeli media. Thus a secret deal could be done between the Vatican and the State of Israel and nobody in Israel would ever find out about it.

In fact, that is exactly what happened.

December 10, 2009

We are educating people out of their creativity

Feb '06, Ken Robinson)
Good morning. How are you? It's been great, hasn't it? I've been blown away by the whole thing. In fact, I'm leaving. (Laughter) There have been three themes, haven't there, running through the conference, which are relevant to what I want to talk about. One is the extraordinary evidence of human creativity in all of the presentations that we've had and in all of the people here. Just the variety of it and the range of it. The second is that it's put us in a place where we have no idea what's going to happen, in terms of the future. No idea how this may play out.
I have an interest in education – actually, what I find is everybody has an interest in education. Don't you? I find this very interesting. If you're at a dinner party, and you say you work in education – actually, you're not often at dinner parties, frankly, if you work in education. (Laughter) You're not asked. And you're never asked back, curiously. That's strange to me. But if you are, and you say to somebody, you know, they say, "What do you do?" and you say you work in education, you can see the blood run from their face. They're like, "Oh my God," you know, "Why me? My one night out all week." (Laughter) But if you ask about their education, they pin you to the wall. Because it's one of those things that goes deep with people, am I right? Like religion, and money and other things. I have a big interest in education, and I think we all do. We have a huge vested interest in it, partly because it's education that's meant to take us into this future that we can't grasp. If you think of it, children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue – despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days – what the world will look like in five years' time. And yet we're meant to be educating them for it. So the unpredictability, I think, is extraordinary.
And the third part of this is that we've all agreed, nonetheless, on the really extraordinary capacities that children have – their capacities for innovation. I mean, Sirena last night was a marvel, wasn't she? Just seeing what she could do. And she's exceptional, but I think she's not, so to speak, exceptional in the whole of childhood. What you have there is a person of extraordinary dedication who found a talent. And my contention is, all kids have tremendous talents. And we squander them, pretty ruthlessly. So I want to talk about education and I want to talk about creativity. My contention is that creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status. (Applause) Thank you. That was it, by the way. Thank you very much. (Laughter) So, 15 minutes left. Well, I was born ... no. (Laughter)

I heard a great story recently – I love telling it – of a little girl who was in a drawing lesson. She was six and she was at the back, drawing, and the teacher said this little girl hardly ever paid attention, and in this drawing lesson she did. The teacher was fascinated and she went over to her and she said, "What are you drawing?" And the girl said, "I'm drawing a picture of God." And the teacher said, "But nobody knows what God looks like." And the girl said, "They will in a minute." (Laughter)
When my son was four in England – actually he was four everywhere, to be honest. (Laughter) If we're being strict about it, wherever he went, he was four that year. He was in the Nativity play. Do you remember the story? No, it was big. It was a big story. Mel Gibson did the sequel. You may have seen it: "Nativity II". But James got the part of Joseph, which we were thrilled about. We considered this to be one of the lead parts. We had the place crammed full of agents in T-shirts: "James Robinson IS Joseph!" (Laughter) He didn't have to speak, but you know the bit where the three kings come in. They come in bearing gifts, and they bring gold, frankincense and myrrh. This really happened. We were sitting there and I think they just went out of sequence, because we talked to the little boy afterward and we said, "You're okay with that?" And he said, "Yeah, why? Was that wrong?" They just switched, that was it. Anyway, the three boys came in – four-year-olds with tea towels on their heads – and they put these boxes down, and the first boy said, "I bring you gold." And the second boy said, "I bring you myrrh." And the third boy said, "Frank sent this." (Laughter)
What these things have in common is that kids will take a chance. If they don't know, they'll have a go. Am I right? They're not frightened of being wrong. Now, I don't mean to say that being wrong is the same thing as being creative. What we do know is, if you're not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original. If you're not prepared to be wrong. And by the time they get to be adults, most kids have lost that capacity. They have become frightened of being wrong. And we run our companies like this, by the way. We stigmatize mistakes. And we're now running national education systems where mistakes are the worst thing you can make. And the result is that we are educating people out of their creative capacities. Picasso once said this. He said that all children are born artists. The problem is to remain an artist as we grow up. I believe this passionately, that we don't grow into creativity, we grow out of it. Or rather, we get educated out if it. So why is this?

I lived in Stratford-on-Avon until about five years ago. In fact, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles. So you can imagine what a seamless transition that was. (Laughter) Actually, we lived in a place called Snitterfield, just outside Stratford, which is where Shakespeare's father was born. Are you struck by a new thought? I was. You don't think of Shakespeare having a father, do you? Do you? Because you don't think of Shakespeare being a child, do you? Shakespeare being seven? I never thought of it. I mean, he was seven at some point. He was in somebody's English class, wasn't he? How annoying would that be? (Laughter) "Must try harder." Being sent to bed by his dad, you know, to Shakespeare, "Go to bed, now," to William Shakespeare, "and put the pencil down. And stop speaking like that. It's confusing everybody." (Laughter)
Anyway, we moved from Stratford to Los Angeles, and I just want to say a word about the transition, actually. My son didn't want to come. I've got two kids. He's 21 now; my daughter's 16. He didn't want to come to Los Angeles. He loved it, but he had a girlfriend in England. This was the love of his life, Sarah. He'd known her for a month. Mind you, they'd had their fourth anniversary, because it's a long time when you're 16. Anyway, he was really upset on the plane, and he said, "I'll never find another girl like Sarah." And we were rather pleased about that, frankly, because she was the main reason we were leaving the country. (Laughter)
But something strikes you when you move to America and when you travel around the world: Every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one. Doesn't matter where you go. You'd think it would be otherwise, but it isn't. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on Earth. And in pretty much every system too, there's a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn't an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think math is very important, but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they're allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don't we? Did I miss a meeting? (Laughter) Truthfully, what happens is, as children grow up, we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.

If you were to visit education, as an alien, and say "What's it for, public education?" I think you'd have to conclude – if you look at the output, who really succeeds by this, who does everything that they should, who gets all the brownie points, who are the winners – I think you'd have to conclude the whole purpose of public education throughout the world is to produce university professors. Isn't it? They're the people who come out the top. And I used to be one, so there. (Laughter) And I like university professors, but you know, we shouldn't hold them up as the high-water mark of all human achievement. They're just a form of life, another form of life. But they're rather curious, and I say this out of affection for them. There's something curious about professors in my experience – not all of them, but typically – they live in their heads. They live up there, and slightly to one side. They're disembodied, you know, in a kind of literal way. They look upon their body as a form of transport for their heads, don't they? (Laughter) It's a way of getting their heads to meetings. If you want real evidence of out-of-body experiences, by the way, get yourself along to a residential conference of senior academics, and pop into the discotheque on the final night. (Laughter) And there you will see it – grown men and women writhing uncontrollably, off the beat, waiting until it ends so they can go home and write a paper about it.
Now our education system is predicated on the idea of academic ability. And there's a reason. The whole system was invented – around the world, there were no public systems of education, really, before the 19th century. They all came into being to meet the needs of industrialism. So the hierarchy is rooted on two ideas. Number one, that the most useful subjects for work are at the top. So you were probably steered benignly away from things at school when you were a kid, things you liked, on the grounds that you would never get a job doing that. Is that right? Don't do music, you're not going to be a musician. Don't do art, you won't be an artist. Benign advice – now, profoundly mistaken. The whole world is engulfed in a revolution. And the second is academic ability, which has really come to dominate our view of intelligence, because the universities designed the system in their image. If you think of it, the whole system of public education around the world is a protracted process of university entrance. And the consequence is that many highly talented, brilliant, creative people think they're not, because the thing they were good at at school wasn't valued, or was actually stigmatized. And I think we can't afford to go on that way.

In the next 30 years, according to UNESCO, more people worldwide will be graduating through education than since the beginning of history. More people, and it's the combination of all the things we've talked about: technology and its transformation effect on work, and demography, and the huge explosion in population. Suddenly, degrees aren't worth anything. Isn't that true? When I was a student, if you had a degree, you had a job. If you didn't have a job it's because you didn't want one. And I didn't want one, frankly. (Laughter) But now kids with degrees are often heading home to carry on playing video games, because you need an MA where the previous job required a BA, and now you need a PhD for the other. It's a process of academic inflation. And it indicates the whole structure of education is shifting beneath our feet. We need to radically rethink our view of intelligence.
We know three things about intelligence. One, it's diverse. We think about the world in all the ways that we experience it. We think visually, we think in sound, we think kinesthetically. We think in abstract terms, we think in movement. Secondly, intelligence is dynamic. If you look at the interactions of a human brain, as we heard yesterday from a number of presentations, intelligence is wonderfully interactive. The brain isn't divided into compartments. In fact, creativity – which I define as the process of having original ideas that have value – more often than not comes about through the interaction of different disciplinary ways of seeing things.
The brain is intentionally – by the way, there's a shaft of nerves that joins the two halves of the brain called the corpus callosum. It's thicker in women. Following off from Helen yesterday, I think this is probably why women are better at multi-tasking. Because you are, aren't you? There's a raft of research, but I know it from my personal life. If my wife is cooking a meal at home – which is not often, thankfully. (Laughter) But you know, she's doing – no, she's good at some things – but if she's cooking, you know, she's dealing with people on the phone, she's talking to the kids, she's painting the ceiling, she's doing open-heart surgery over here. If I'm cooking, the door is shut, the kids are out, the phone's on the hook, if she comes in I get annoyed. I say, "Terry, please, I'm trying to fry an egg in here. Give me a break." (Laughter) Actually, you know that old philosophical thing, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, did it happen? Remember that old chestnut? I saw a great t-shirt really recently which said, "If a man speaks his mind in a forest, and no woman hears him, is he still wrong?" (Laughter)

And the third thing about intelligence is, it's distinct. I'm doing a new book at the moment called "Epiphany", which is based on a series of interviews with people about how they discovered their talent. I'm fascinated by how people got to be there. It's really prompted by a conversation I had with a wonderful woman who maybe most people have never heard of, she's called Gillian Lynne, have you heard of her? Some have. She's a choreographer and everybody knows her work. She did "Cats", and "Phantom of the Opera." She's wonderful. I used to be on the board of the Royal Ballet, in England, as you can see. Anyway, Gillian and I had lunch one day and I said, "Gillian, how'd you get to be a dancer?" And she said it was interesting, when she was at school, she was really hopeless. And the school, in the '30s, wrote to her parents and said, "We think Gillian has a learning disorder." She couldn't concentrate, she was fidgeting. I think now they'd say she had ADHD. Wouldn't you? But this was the 1930s, and ADHD hadn't been invented at this point. It wasn't an available condition. (Laughter) People weren't aware they could have that.
Anyway, she went to see this specialist. So, this oak-paneled room, and she was there with her mother, and she was led and sat on a chair at the end, and she sat on her hands for 20 minutes while this man talked to her mother about all the problems Gillian was having at school. And at the end of it – because she was disturbing people, her homework was always late, and so on, a little kid of eight – in the end, the doctor went and sat next to Gillian and said, "Gillian, I've listened to all these things that your mother's told me, and I need to speak to her privately." He said, "Wait here, we'll be back, we won't be very long." And they went and left her. But as they went out the room, he turned on the radio that was sitting on his desk. And when they got out the room, he said to her mother, "Just stand and watch her." And the minute they left the room, she said, she was on her feet, moving to the music. And they watched for a few minutes and he turned to her mother and said, "Mrs. Lynne, Gillian isn't sick, she's a dancer. Take her to a dance school."
I said, "What happened?" She said, "She did. I can't tell you how wonderful it was. We walked in this room and it was full of people like me. People who couldn't sit still. People who had to move to think." Who had to move to think. They did ballet, they did tap, they did jazz, they did modern, they did contemporary. She was eventually auditioned for the Royal Ballet School, she became a soloist, she had a wonderful career at the Royal Ballet. She eventually graduated from the Royal Ballet School and founded her own company – the Gillian Lynne Dance Company – met Andrew Lloyd Weber. She's been responsible for some of the most successful musical theater productions in history, she's given pleasure to millions, and she's a multi-millionaire. Somebody else might have put her on medication and told her to calm down.

Now, I think ... (Applause) What I think it comes to is this: Al Gore spoke the other night about ecology, and the revolution that was triggered by Rachel Carson. I believe our only hope for the future is to adopt a new conception of human ecology, one in which we start to reconstitute our conception of the richness of human capacity. Our education system has mined our minds in the way that we strip-mine the earth: for a particular commodity. And for the future, it won't serve us. We have to rethink the fundamental principles on which we're educating our children. There was a wonderful quote by Jonas Salk, who said, "If all the insects were to disappear from the earth, within 50 years all life on Earth would end. If all human beings disappeared from the earth, within 50 years all forms of life would flourish." And he's right.
What TED celebrates is the gift of the human imagination. We have to be careful now that we use this gift wisely, and that we avert some of the scenarios that we've talked about. And the only way we'll do it is by seeing our creative capacities for the richness they are, and seeing our children for the hope that they are. And our task is to educate their whole being, so they can face this future. By the way - we may not see this future, but they will. And our job is to help them make something of it. Thank you very much.

November 24, 2009

The corporate model has poisened the free market

11/03'09 Kevin Abrams on The Investigative Journal with Greg Szymanski

@30min, Kevin) What we are dealing with is an emergent global corporate collective. It's not socialism per se, but it's all being done on the corporate level. And so, you know, we have legal fiction: everything is being commodified, monetized, corporatized. And as I mentioned last time, no employee, a person that works for a corporation, doesn't own his labor. All corporations consider labor to be a liability and a cost of doing business. And they sit around discussing wage costs on Monday mornings. So even though labor produces wealth, it produces its own capital and has a prior and superior claim upon the fruits of its labor, labor is construed through the alchemy or the corporate interface as being a liability or a cost of doing business and that is transmuted into profit of the other end for the owners of the corporation. That corporate model has poisened the free market. Corporatism destroys capitalism. Capitalism is a free market wherein men have a claim, a prior and superior claim, they have an ownership to their labor which is the most personal form of private property. And this is one of the things that the early colonists were laying claim to, is the right to Life, Liberty and Property. That was the original motto. Not The Pursuit of Happiness. Because without your ownership of your labor there is no guarantee of happiness.
So basically, you're looking at the corporate model. The corporate model reduces human beings into legal fictions, items of inventory in the corporate warehouse. And that's what corporations do: they are continuously trying to decrease wage costs, decrease labor costs, to mechanize. Like, for instance when, they introduced the tobacco harvester in the Southern States, in Kentucky, in Tennessee, they put out almost a half a million workers out of work because they used to hand-pick tobacco before. So when you mechanize and when you introduce technology, you make human beings redundant and you continuously exclude human beings from the economy. So that's the way that the technocracy, the corporate collectivists design increasingly. They are looking at human beings as being redundant and not needed for corporate interests, so that they move more towards technology. So you end up with terms like "useless eaters" and all the way of which a corporation would deal with inventory in the warehouse – that's the way they would deal with a human being, who would they consider to be an employee and a liability.

So, in the free market labor is not a liability, it's an asset. But in the corporate collective labor is always considered as a liability and they always act as if they're doing you a favor by giving you a job. And that's where you end up in economic servitude, is this inversion between wages and labor, where labor ceases to have a prior and superior claim on the fruits of its labor, on the fruits of its productive and creative endevour, and labor becomes a claim on the capital of another. And basically, because labor creates his own wealth. It's not a claim upon the principal capital or wealth of another, it has its own right: Labor owns its own wages. Wages are not a claim upon the wealth of the corporation, but corporations do that.
And so you enter into a situation of economic servitude when you're working for a corporation that uses your wage and your labor as not only a cost of doing business, but as a liability. And that is the corporate model, that is the Roman model. And you get into areas like legal fiction where language becomes important, and that's actually the message of Babylon. Not so much the Tower of Babel when everybody began to speak in different languages, but that people spoke the same language but they didn't understand the meaning of the words that the other person was using to trying communicate. That they were using the same words but they had different meanings, and that's what happens in legal fictions: What does a person mean? What does an individual mean? And so forth. What is income? What is profit? How do you define all those terms and when you are trying to disentangle your relationship with corporate fiction, you have to understand their terms. Because they define certain words to take advantage of them, to define the relationship that they have with human beings or with other entities. And you know that as a student of law that legal terms are very important to the way in which contracts are written.

Greg) You know, Kevin, that's a good point and I like to move forward to Alfred Kinsey, because we don't have much time left and I think, it's a really important topic. Judith Reisman's book it's quite revealing regarding what Kinsey did to this population with the help of the Rockefeller family and the powers that be. Please explain that to us because many of us remember Alfred Kinsey to a recent movie that was just out. So they did a Hollywood production of his life with, I think, Liam Neeson as the actor that portrayed him. Tell us the real story behind Kinsey!
Kevin) Well, Kinsey was a zoologist and he studied gall wasps and, basically, he was an insect scientist. And what he did was, that he extrapolated from his research into insects an attempt to define what human sexuality should be. And what he ended up doing was turning America into the zoo that he had in mind. I mean, he was an insect man! A zoologist. So now he has a human zoo and he basically turned the founding sexual ethos of Western civilization on its head. But Judith Reisman documents how the Rockefeller faction, the Rockefeller Foundation, actually funded Kinsey's research because they liked his numbers.
And I identify Kinsey as "the Balaam" ("Have I now any power at all to say any thing?"). This is a figure in biblical history: Balaam was called upon by the King of Midian, Balak, to curse the Jewish people. And the way that he did it was, that he caused the Israelites to fall in terms of sexuality, to be seduced by the Midianites, more by women, then when it comes to market place and then into acts of idolatry. So sexual corruption and idolatry go hand in hand. And that's basically the connection: If you can corrupt a people sexually, you can destroy their vision as a people, their higher vision, their capacity for abstract thought and objective choices in decision making. So that's what Kinsey was used for.

He was The Black Prophet of America. He was Balak's Balaam, he was Rockefeller's Balaam, he was Rockefeller's black prophet, he was Rockefeller's sexual occultist. And he was the person that opened up the vortex of spiritual energy that descended upon the American people in a way that would destruct more than any standing army could have possibly have achieved. So that's why we call him, well, I refer to him as "The Black Prophet of America", because he was more destructive than any other one single individual in what he did, what he devised. He engineered a scientific pretext based on a falsification of research, a misrepresentation of his research on a corrupt foundation of human sexuality where he defined young babies as sexual pervert, where he said that ten percent of the American population were homosexual, which is been disproven many times. So that the sexual component was a very important part of the social engineering of America. And Rockefeller used that science as a way of getting the bar association, the American legal institut, referred to the new science rather than measuring new laws as in terms of the American penal code and so forth. And Judith Reisman discusses this in her book Crimes and Consequences. The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme. And basically use that, so that court decisions became based on rather than the American Constitution, Common Law and so forth, they defer to Kinsey's science which said that we had to move ahead. And this is where this whole idea of a Living Constitution came from, is somehow we had to move ahead with the time. That we had to adopt the Greek subjective theory, which said that truth was by convention and personal taste and one's flow of perceiving. And that who was to debate, who was to judge, who was to decide, whether one person's truth – I mean, and truth was depicted as your favorite favor of icecream – was any worse or better than the next person's version of truth. So what basically happened was, the Greek subjective theory overturned the objective injunctions and principles of ethical monotheism through the vehicle of science. And that's what Rockefeller saw in Kinsey's research and that's the way that it way utilized. That's what makes it so important, that's why Kinsey was so important and why he was so significant and had such a great impact on the course of American history.

Greg) And what do you think their endgame was? To basically destroy the family unit?
Kevin) Well, absolutely. I mean, the family is the most independent level of government. If you have fully functioning family, you don't need government. Because the families themselves will discipline the children, will rear the children in a dignified and honest way. I mean, the obligation of the parents is to teach their children. And what does that mean? That means to fill a sense of honest weights and measures in your children, so they can make an honest living for themselves and their families. And to fill in them a moral and healthy sexual constitution, so that they can govern themselves in a responsible and dignified fashion sexually. And with those two pillars you can live a life as a dignified human being. And the obligation of the parents is to guard the dignity of their children, thus is that the obligation of the child to guard the dignity of his parents, to honor the parents [...] When you destroy the family, you give more power to the state, because you destroy this small unit of government which is the most basic level of government in human society: the family. And the family has a schematic to it. And the schematic for the family is annunciated and detailed in the Torah, in the first five books of Moses, it's not giving over in the New Testament [...] That's the schematic of the family: the principle of marriage is the complementary union of husband and wife and the consecration of human sexuality for the rearing of the family. This is a principle. It's not a subjective theory, it's not a relativistic type of idea where your taste ... you like chocolate and I like vanilla and we can have any kind of family or situation that we want. It's a principle. [...] There are schematics. [...] We have this objective measurement [...] Basically, when you corrupt human sexuality, you destroy the family and you build the state: you give more power to the state. The state increasingly regulates human affairs and you end up with the direction that we are going. [...]

@46min, Kevin) God created Israel. Israel means to struggle with God. Israel is God's witness. [...] that's basically why the corporate fiction would be at odds with the Jewish mission [...] laying the foundation for the family, laying the foundation for a human society, for a compassionate society, for a just society and so forth. For honest weights and measures, not a corruption of weights and measures. For sexual morality and human dignity. And if you teach your children honest weights and measures, moral and healthy sexual constituion, you can lead a life as a dignified human being, and that's the basic obligation of a parent, again. Corporations couldn't care less! The corporate fiction is only interested in profit and it looks at human beings as resources, as items in a corporate warehouse. And that's one of the biggest differences: what you had in Germany that took over was The Corporation. The IG Farben – the community of like interest. This was a corporate monopoly, a corporate cartel. And that's what that was all about. And what we are seeing in the Western world is this emergent global corporate collective, this global reach of corporate collective. [...]
I regard the founding principles of the American constitutional republic very highly. I think, they are very necessary. And I believe in the separation of powers. I don't believe in a global government because the Lord Acton said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is too important. We can not put the power over the issue currency into the hands of just a few backroom people that are totally unaccountable to the electorial or democratic process. That's much to much power to put into the hands of people who are unaccountable. And that's why the American treasury, that's why the American people need to have their own currency and why that currency can help renew the constitutional republic. I still believe in the Constitution, I think, that is a very powerful document. I think, the rights to Life, Liberty and Property are something that human beings didn't have in the old world. We need to refocus on that. We need to break free of the tyranny of convenience that the corporate fiction has imposed upon us and that we are entangled with right now.

There is a lot of things that need to be done and it's not going to be easy. There is a struggle ahead because the corporate collective is not coined to give away very easily. It has taken us decades to arrive where we are at today. But it can be done, because light fortunately is much more powerful than darkness and it just takes a few and, basically, great things can be achieved. And when we remember that not five percent of the American colonists were involved in the rebellion against Great Britain. And that was the right to representation with taxation, it was a battle over self-government, basically. That the people were self-determinant, that they were sovereign, and that there would be no taxation without representation. And that's what you've got in the U.S. today. You have tremendous taxations. The people don't have any recourse, there is no remedy in the courts because they are commercial courts and, basically, they are courts of equity and they are not courts of law or courts of justice. And that's why people have lost faith and things like President Kennedy's assassination and so forth. There is a monolithic structure in place and he is correct. And this monolithic structure has been growing and insinuating itself quietly over decades and Kinsey is a part of that agenda to bring about the world under a one world global dictatorship where you won't be able to buy yourself anything without having dedicated your thoughts and your deeds to the corporate collective: The Beast in Revelation is a Corporation! It is a legal fiction! A master legal fiction. That's what the beast represents. And the mark in the head and the mark in the hand are metaphoric, they basically are telling you that the corporate collective is going to take your deeds and your thoughts and is going to profit from them – that's what it's describing there. And that none will be able to buy or sell without having dedicated their deeds and their thoughts to the service of the corporate fiction. And that's a system wherein man will not own his own labor, will not be sovereign, will not be free, but will be totally governed from cradle to grave by the state and will be defined in terms of the needs and prerogatives of the state, of the corporate collective.

The Roman Catholic Church will rule the world again.
No message is more important.

November 15, 2009

New World Order Encyclical pt 1

"Caritas in Veritate" or: "All we need is the right major crisis"

07/07'09 The Romish Pharaoh says: "To the bishops, priests and deacons, men and women religious, the lay faithful and all people of good will on integral human development in charity and truth

1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love – caritas – is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, "rejoices in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).

2. Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour. It is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, "God is love" (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.
I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields – the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger – it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the "economy" of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence.

3. Through this close link with truth, charity can be recognized as an authentic expression of humanity and as an element of fundamental importance in human relations, including those of a public nature. Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word "love" is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity and Truth, Love and Word.

4. [...] Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things. Truth opens and unites our minds in the lógos of love: this is the Christian proclamation and testimony of charity. [...] A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance. In other words, there would no longer be any real place for God in the world. Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. [...]

5. Charity is love received and given. It is "grace" (cháris). Its source is the wellspring of the Father's love for the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Love comes down to us from the Son. It is creative love, through which we have our being. It is redemptive love, through which we are recreated. Love is revealed and made present by Christ (cf. Jn 13:1) and "poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit" (Rom 5:5). As the objects of God's love, men and women become subjects of charity, they are called to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to pour forth God's charity and to weave networks of charity.
This dynamic of charity received and given is what gives rise to the Church's social teaching, which is caritas in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ's love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is truth. Truth preserves and expresses charity's power to liberate in the ever-changing events of history. It is at the same time the truth of faith and of reason, both in the distinction and also in the convergence of those two cognitive fields. Development, social well-being, the search for a satisfactory solution to the grave socio-economic problems besetting humanity, all need this truth. What they need even more is that this truth should be loved and demonstrated. Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present.

6. [...] Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to offer what is "mine" to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is "his", what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting. I cannot "give" what is mine to the other, without first giving him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of all we are just towards them. Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable from charity, and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of charity or, in Paul VI's words, "the minimum measure" of it, an integral part of the love "in deed and in truth" (1 Jn 3:18), to which Saint John exhorts us. On the one hand, charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. [...]

7. Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of "all of us", made up of individuals, families and intermediate groups who together constitute society. It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or "city". The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path – we might also call it the political path – of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man's earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family.

8. In 1967, when he issued the Encyclical Populorum Progressio, my venerable predecessor Pope Paul VI illuminated the great theme of the development of peoples with the splendour of truth and the gentle light of Christ's charity. He taught that life in Christ is the first and principal factor of development and he entrusted us with the task of travelling the path of development with all our heart and all our intelligence, that is to say with the ardour of charity and the wisdom of truth. It is the primordial truth of God's love, grace bestowed upon us, that opens our lives to gift and makes it possible to hope for a "development of the whole man and of all men", to hope for progress "from less human conditions to those which are more human", obtained by overcoming the difficulties that are inevitably encountered along the way. [...] deserves to be considered "the Rerum Novarum of the present age", shedding light upon humanity's journey towards unity.

9. [...] The risk for our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and liberties.
The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim "to interfere in any way in the politics of States." She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values – sometimes even the meanings – with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and nations. 

Liebe in Wahrheit

An die Bischöfe, Priester und Diakone. An die Personen gottgeweihten Lebens. An die christgläubigen Laien und an alle Menschen guten Willens über die ganzheitliche Entwicklung des Menschen in der Liebe und in der Wahrheit

1. Caritas in veritate – die Liebe in der Wahrheit, die Jesus Christus mit seinem irdischen Leben und vor allem mit seinem Tod und seiner Auferstehung bezeugt hat, ist der hauptsächliche Antrieb für die wirkliche Entwicklung eines jeden Menschen und der gesamten Menschheit. Die Liebe – "caritas" – ist eine außerordentliche Kraft, welche die Menschen drängt, sich mutig und großherzig auf dem Gebiet der Gerechtigkeit und des Friedens einzusetzen. Es ist eine Kraft, die ihren Ursprung in Gott hat, der die ewige Liebe und die absolute Wahrheit ist. Jeder findet sein Glück, indem er in den Plan einwilligt, den Gott für ihn hat, um ihn vollkommen zu verwirklichen: In diesem Plan findet er nämlich seine Wahrheit, und indem er dieser Wahrheit zustimmt, wird er frei (vgl. Joh. 8:32). Die Wahrheit zu verteidigen, sie demütig und überzeugt vorzubringen und sie im Leben zu bezeugen, sind daher anspruchsvolle und unersetzliche Formen der Liebe. Denn diese "freut sich an der Wahrheit" (1 Kor. 13:6). Alle Menschen spüren den inneren Impuls wahrhaft zu lieben: Liebe und Wahrheit weichen niemals gänzlich von ihnen, denn sie sind die Berufung, die Gott ins Herz und in den Geist eines jeden Menschen gelegt hat. Jesus Christus reinigt und befreit die Suche nach der Liebe und der Wahrheit von unseren menschlichen Armseligkeiten und offenbart uns vollends die Initiative der Liebe und den Plan eines wahren Lebens, das Gott für uns vorbereitet hat. Die Liebe in der Wahrheit wird zum Gesicht Christi, und in Christus wird sie zur Berufung für uns, unsere Mitmenschen in der Wahrheit seines Planes zu lieben. Er selbst ist ja die Wahrheit (vgl. Joh. 14:6).

2. Liebe ist der Hauptweg der Soziallehre der Kirche. Jede von dieser Lehre beschriebene Verantwortung und Verpflichtung geht aus der Liebe hervor, die nach den Worten Jesu die Zusammenfassung des ganzen Gesetzes ist (vgl. Mt. 22:36-40). Sie verleiht der persönlichen Beziehung zu Gott und zum Nächsten einen wahren Gehalt. Sie ist das Prinzip nicht nur der Mikro-Beziehungen – in Freundschaft, Familie und kleinen Gruppen – sondern auch der Makro-Beziehungen – in gesellschaftlichen, wirtschaftlichen und politischen Zusammenhängen. Für die Kirche ist – vom Evangelium her – die Liebe alles, denn, wie uns der heilige Johannes lehrt (vgl. 1 Joh. 4:8,16) und ich in meiner ersten Enzyklika in Erinnerung gerufen habe: "Gott ist Liebe" (Deus caritas est): Aus der Liebe Gottes geht alles hervor, durch sie nimmt alles Gestalt an, und alles strebt ihr zu. Die Liebe ist das größte Geschenk, das Gott den Menschen gemacht hat, sie ist seine Verheißung und unsere Hoffnung.
Ich weiß um die Entstellungen und die Sinnentleerungen, denen die Liebe ausgesetzt war und ist, mit der entsprechenden Gefahr, daß sie mißverstanden, aus der ethischen Lebenspraxis ausgeschlossen und in jedem Fall daran gehindert wird, in rechter Weise zur Geltung zu kommen. Im gesellschaftlichen, rechtlichen, kulturellen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Bereich, also in den Zusammenhängen, die für diese Gefahr am anfälligsten sind, wird die Liebe leicht als unerheblich für die Interpretation und die Orientierung der moralischen Verantwortung erklärt. Daher ist es notwendig, die Liebe und die Wahrheit nicht nur in der vom heiligen Paulus angegebenen Richtung der "veritas in caritate" (Eph. 4:15) miteinander zu verbinden, sondern auch in der entgegengesetzten und komplementären von "caritas in veritate". Die Wahrheit muß in der "Ökonomie" der Liebe gesucht, gefunden und ausgedrückt werden, aber die Liebe muß ihrerseits im Licht der Wahrheit verstanden, bestätigt und praktiziert werden. Auf diese Weise werden wir nicht nur der von der Wahrheit erleuchteten Liebe einen Dienst erweisen, sondern wir werden auch dazu beitragen, daß sich die Wahrheit glaubwürdig erweist, indem wir ihre Authentizität und ihre Überzeugungskraft im konkreten gesellschaftlichen Leben deutlich machen. Das ist heute von nicht geringer Bedeutung in einem sozialen und kulturellen Umfeld, das die Wahrheit relativiert und ihr gegenüber oft gleichgültig und ablehnend eingestellt ist.

3. Wegen dieser engen Verbindung mit der Wahrheit kann die Liebe als authentischer Ausdruck des Menschseins und als ein Element von grundlegender Bedeutung in den menschlichen Beziehungen – auch im öffentlichen Bereich – erkannt werden. Nur in der Wahrheit erstrahlt die Liebe und kann glaubwürdig gelebt werden. Die Wahrheit ist ein Licht, das der Liebe Sinn und Wert verleiht. Es ist das Licht der Vernunft wie auch des Glaubens, durch das der Verstand zur natürlichen und übernatürlichen Wahrheit der Liebe gelangt: er erfaßt ihre Bedeutung als Hingabe, Annahme und Gemeinschaft. Ohne Wahrheit gleitet die Liebe in Sentimentalität ab. Sie wird ein leeres Gehäuse, das man nach Belieben füllen kann. Das ist die verhängnisvolle Gefahr für die Liebe in einer Kultur ohne Wahrheit. Sie wird Opfer der zufälligen Gefühle und Meinungen der einzelnen, ein Wort, das mißbraucht und verzerrt wird, bis es schließlich das Gegenteil bedeutet. Die Wahrheit befreit die Liebe von den Verengungen einer Emotionalisierung, die sie rationaler und sozialer Inhalte beraubt, und eines Fideismus, der ihr die menschliche und universelle Weite nimmt. In der Wahrheit spiegelt die Liebe die persönliche und zugleich öffentliche Dimension des Glaubens an den biblischen Gott wider, der zugleich "Agape" und "Logos" ist: Caritas und Wahrheit, Liebe und Wort.

4. [...] Indem die Wahrheit die Menschen aus den subjektiven Meinungen und Empfindungen herausholt, gibt sie ihnen die Möglichkeit, kulturelle und geschichtliche Festlegungen zu überwinden und in der Beurteilung von Wert und Wesen der Dinge einander zu begegnen. Die Wahrheit öffnet den Verstand der Menschen und vereint ihre Intelligenz im Logos der Liebe: Das ist die Botschaft und das christliche Zeugnis der Liebe. [...] Ein Christentum der Liebe ohne Wahrheit kann leicht mit einem Vorrat an guten, für das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben nützlichen, aber nebensächlichen Gefühlen verwechselt werden. Auf diese Weise gäbe es keinen eigentlichen Platz mehr für Gott in der Welt. Ohne die Wahrheit wird die Liebe in einen begrenzten und privaten Bereich von Beziehungen verbannt. [...]

5. Caritas ist empfangene und geschenkte Liebe. Sie ist "Gnade" (cháris). Ihre Quelle ist die ursprüngliche Liebe des Vaters zum Sohn im Heiligen Geist. Sie ist Liebe, die vom Sohn her zu uns herabfließt. Sie ist schöpferische Liebe, aus der wir unser Sein haben. Sie ist erlösende Liebe, durch die wir wiedergeboren sind. Sie ist von Christus offenbarte und verwirklichte Liebe (vgl. Joh. 13:1), "ausgegossen in unsere Herzen durch den Heiligen Geist" (Röm. 5:5). Als Empfänger der Liebe Gottes sind die Menschen eingesetzt, Träger der Nächstenliebe zu sein, und dazu berufen, selbst Werkzeuge der Gnade zu werden, um die Liebe Gottes zu verbreiten und Netze der Nächstenliebe zu knüpfen.
Auf diese Dynamik der empfangenen und geschenkten Liebe geht die Soziallehre der Kirche ein. Sie ist "caritas in veritate in re sociali": Verkündigung der Wahrheit der Liebe Christi in der Gesellschaft. Diese Lehre ist Dienst der Liebe, aber in der Wahrheit. Die Wahrheit ist Hüterin und Ausdruck der befreienden Kraft der Liebe in den immer neuen Wechselfällen der Geschichte. Sie ist zugleich Wahrheit des Glaubens und der Vernunft, in der Unterscheidung ebenso wie im Zusammenwirken der beiden Erkenntnisbereiche. Für die Entwicklung, den gesellschaftlichen Wohlstand und eine angemessene Lösung der schweren sozioökonomischen Probleme, welche die Menschheit plagen, ist diese Wahrheit notwendig. Und noch notwendiger dafür ist, daß diese Wahrheit geliebt und bezeugt wird. Ohne Wahrheit, ohne Vertrauen und Liebe gegenüber dem Wahren gibt es kein Gewissen und keine soziale Verantwortung: Das soziale Handeln wird ein Spiel privater Interessen und Logiken der Macht, mit zersetzenden Folgen für die Gesellschaft, um so mehr in einer Gesellschaft auf dem Weg zur Globalisierung und in schwierigen Situationen wie der augenblicklichen.

6. [...] Die Liebe geht über die Gerechtigkeit hinaus, denn lieben ist schenken, dem anderen von dem geben, was "mein" ist. Aber sie ist nie ohne die Gerechtigkeit, die mich dazu bewegt, dem anderen das zu geben, was "sein" ist, das, was ihm aufgrund seines Seins und seines Wirkens zukommt. Ich kann dem anderen nicht von dem, was mein ist, "schenken", ohne ihm an erster Stelle das gegeben zu haben, was ihm rechtmäßig zusteht. Wer den anderen mit Nächstenliebe begegnet, ist vor allem gerecht zu ihnen. Die Gerechtigkeit ist der Liebe nicht nur in keiner Weise fremd, sie ist nicht nur kein alternativer oder paralleler Weg zur ihr: Die Gerechtigkeit ist untrennbar mit der Liebe verbunden, sie ist ein ihr innewohnendes Element. Die Gerechtigkeit ist der erste Weg der Liebe oder – wie Paul VI. sagte – ihr "Mindestmaß", ein wesentlicher Bestandteil jener Liebe "in Tat und Wahrheit" (1 Joh. 3:18), zu der der Apostel Johannes aufruft. Zum einen erfordert die Liebe die Gerechtigkeit: die Anerkennung und die Achtung der legitimen Rechte der einzelnen und der Völker. [...]

7. Ferner muß besonderer Wert auf das Gemeinwohl gelegt werden. Jemanden lieben heißt sein Wohl im Auge haben und sich wirkungsvoll dafür einsetzen. Neben dem individuellen Wohl gibt es eines, das an das Leben der Menschen in Gesellschaft gebunden ist: das Gemeinwohl. Es ist das Wohl jenes "Wir alle", das aus einzelnen, Familien und kleineren Gruppen gebildet wird, die sich zu einer sozialen Gemeinschaft zusammenschließen. Es ist nicht ein für sich selbst gesuchtes Wohl, sondern für die Menschen, die zu der sozialen Gemeinschaft gehören und nur in ihr wirklich und wirkungsvoller ihr Wohl erlangen können. Das Gemeinwohl wünschen und sich dafür verwenden ist ein Erfordernis von Gerechtigkeit und Liebe. Sich für das Gemeinwohl einzusetzen bedeutet, die Gesamtheit der Institutionen, die das soziale Leben rechtlich, zivil, politisch und kulturell strukturieren, einerseits zu schützen und andererseits sich ihrer zu bedienen, so daß auf diese Weise die Polis, die Stadt Gestalt gewinnt. Man liebt den Nächsten um so wirkungsvoller, je mehr man sich für ein gemeinsames Gut einsetzt, das auch seinen realen Bedürfnissen entspricht. Jeder Christ ist zu dieser Nächstenliebe aufgerufen, in der Weise seiner Berufung und entsprechend seinen Einflußmöglichkeiten in der Polis. Das ist der institutionelle – wir können auch sagen politische – Weg der Nächstenliebe, der nicht weniger tauglich und wirksam ist als die Liebe, die dem Nächsten unmittelbar, außerhalb der institutionellen Vermittlungen der Polis entgegenkommt. Wenn der Einsatz für das Gemeinwohl von der Liebe beseelt ist, hat er eine höhere Wertigkeit als der nur weltliche, politische. Wie jeder Einsatz für die Gerechtigkeit gehört er zu jenem Zeugnis der göttlichen Liebe, das, während es in der Zeit wirkt, die Ewigkeit vorbereitet. Wenn das Handeln des Menschen auf Erden von der Liebe inspiriert und unterstützt wird, trägt es zum Aufbau jener universellen Stadt Gottes bei, auf die sich die Geschichte der Menschheitsfamilie zubewegt. [...]

8. Durch die Veröffentlichung der Enzyklika Populorum progressio im Jahr 1967 hat mein verehrter Vorgänger Paul VI. das große Thema der Entwicklung der Völker unter dem Glanz der Wahrheit und dem Licht der Liebe Christi beleuchtet. Er hat bekräftigt, daß die Verkündigung Christi der erste und hauptsächliche Entwicklungsfaktor ist, und er hat uns aufgegeben, auf dem Weg der Entwicklung mit unserem Herzen und all unserer Intelligenz voranzugehen, das heißt mit dem Feuer der Liebe und der Weisheit der Wahrheit. Es ist die ursprüngliche Wahrheit der Liebe Gottes, eine uns geschenkte Gnade, die unser Leben für die Gabe öffnet und es möglich macht, eine Entwicklung "des ganzen Menschen und der ganzen Menschheit", einen Übergang "von weniger menschlichen zu menschlicheren Bedingungen" zu erhoffen, der durch die Überwindung der unweigerlich auf dem Weg anzutreffenden Schwierigkeiten erreicht wird. [...] verdient, als "die Rerum novarum unserer Zeit" angesehen zu werden, welche die Schritte der Menschheit auf dem Weg zu einer Einigung erleuchtet.

9. [...] Die Gefahr unserer Zeit besteht darin, daß der tatsächlichen Abhängigkeit der Menschen und der Völker untereinander keine ethische Wechselbeziehung von Gewissen und Verstand der Beteiligten entspricht, aus der eine wirklich menschliche Entwicklung als Ergebnis hervorgehen könnte. Nur mit der vom Licht der Vernunft und des Glaubens erleuchteten Liebe ist es möglich, Entwicklungsziele zu erreichen, die einen menschlicheren und vermenschlichenderen Wert besitzen. Das Teilen der Güter und der Ressourcen, aus dem die echte Entwicklung hervorgeht, wird nicht allein durch technischen Fortschritt und durch bloß vom Kalkül bestimmte Beziehungen gewährleistet, sondern durch das Potential der Liebe, die das Böse durch das Gute besiegt (vgl. Röm. 12:21) und die Menschen dafür öffnet, in ihrem Gewissen und mit ihrer Freiheit aufeinander einzugehen.
Die Kirche hat keine technischen Lösungen anzubieten und beansprucht keineswegs, "sich in die staatlichen Belange einzumischen." Sie hat aber zu allen Zeiten und unter allen Gegebenheiten eine Sendung der Wahrheit zu erfüllen für eine Gesellschaft, die dem Menschen und seiner Würde und Berufung gerecht wird. Ohne Wahrheit verfällt man in eine empiristische und skeptische Lebensauffassung, die unfähig ist, sich über die Praxis zu erheben, weil sie nicht daran interessiert ist, die Werte – und bisweilen sogar die Bedeutungen – zu erfassen, mit denen diese zu beurteilen und nach denen sie auszurichten ist. Die Treue zum Menschen erfordert die Treue zur Wahrheit, die allein Garant der Freiheit (vgl. Joh. 8:32) und der Möglichkeit einer ganzheitlichen menschlichen Entwicklung ist. Darum sucht die Kirche die Wahrheit, verkündet sie unermüdlich und erkennt sie an, wo immer sie sich offenbart. Diese Sendung der Wahrheit ist für die Kirche unverzichtbar. Ihre Soziallehre ist ein besonderer Aspekt dieser Verkündigung: Sie ist Dienst an der Wahrheit, die befreit. Offen für die Wahrheit, gleichgültig aus welcher Wissensrichtung sie kommt, nimmt die Soziallehre der Kirche sie auf, setzt die Bruchstücke, in der sie sie häufig vorfindet, zu einer Einheit zusammen und vermittelt sie in die immer neue Lebenspraxis der Gesellschaft der Menschen und der Völker hinein.

Zugegeben, ein wahres Meisterwerk an Demagogie!
Liest sich schlimmer als die Bibel, Gesetzestexte oder SED-Parteiprogramme.
Staat ist die Fortsetzung von Kirche mit anderen Mitteln.

Stellungnahme der Tempelritter

"Die katholische Kirche versteht sich von ihren Anfängen an als Weltkirche mit einer universalen Botschaft. Sie ist insofern der vielleicht älteste globale Akteur, auch wenn sich dieses Bewusstsein erst im Laufe von Jahrhunderten entfalten konnte. [...] Die Gliederung erschließt sich nicht einfach, da in den einzelnen Teilen sehr unterschiedliche Fragen behandelt werden. Zudem werden Aspekte der Analyse, des Urteilens und möglicher Handlungsansätze nicht klar unterschieden, der Bezug zum klassischen Dreischritt der Katholischen Soziallehre des Sehens, Urteilens und Handelns ist dadurch schwer erkennbar. Auch die Zuordnung der Ebene von persönlicher und struktureller Verantwortung wird nicht immer deutlich, da der Text eine gewisse individualethische Einseitigkeit erweckt. Die ergänzende Bedeutung von unterstützenden Institutionen wird zwar betont, meist aber kaum konkretisiert. [...] Der Klimawandel, der in engem Zusammenhang dazu steht, wird dagegen nur in einem Nebensatz erwähnt, obwohl dieser Problemkreis für die Verbindung von Entwicklung und Gerechtigkeit heute von zentraler Bedeutung ist und die kommenden Jahre die internationale politische Diskussion wesentlich bestimmen wird. [...] Expertentext der Deutschen Bischöfe zum Klimawandel vom September 2006 [...] ist es entwicklungspolitisch von größter Bedeutung, die Rolle von Frauen vor allem durch Bildung und mehr Rechtssicherheit zu stärken, damit sie auf allen gesellschaftlichen Ebenen ebenso wie die Männer Verantwortung übernehmen können. Die Durchsetzung der Rechte von Frauen hat insofern große instrumentelle Bedeutung, sie besitzt zugleich jedoch auch einen hohen Eigenwert." Johannes Müller SJ


October 25, 2009

When Catholicism takes over

10/21'09 Vatican summons Anglicans back into the fold

After 475 years, the Vatican is calling Anglicans back into the fold. In a move that sent shock waves to the very top of the Church of England, the Vatican on Tuesday announced a new structure within the Catholic Church – sort of a church within a church – to make it easier for disaffected Anglicans to convert to Catholicism.
Pope Benedict XVI approved the new structure with little warning to either his own church or the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion, which has been discussing closer ties to Rome. Vatican commentators saw the move as a blow to the Anglican Church. "For people who harbour the vision of Anglican unity, this will be a great disappointment," said Vatican analyst Francis Rocca of the Religion News Service. "But it may also help to let off steam within the Anglican Church. If disaffected traditionalists leave, then they will lower the tensions over issues like gay marriage and women clergy." Caught off guard, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the Anglican spiritual leader, downplayed the move and said it wasn't a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems. "It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole," he said.
The move, however, marks a significant effort to open the doors of the Catholic Church to Anglicans, who split with Rome in 1534. Breakaway conservative Anglicans in Canada, however, showed no interest Tuesday in joining the Pope's new church. "This is not just a matter of wearing different clothes or having a few more rules," Bishop Don Harvey of the Anglican Network in Canada said in a phone interview from his home in St. John's, Nfld. "If you go this route, you cannot say you are Anglican of some sort – because you are not." Rev. Ray David Glenn, who leads a breakaway Anglican parish in Milton, called the move a reflection of disorganization in Anglicanism after years of conflict over same-sex marriage and gay clergy. The Catholic and Anglican churches of Canada did not return requests for comment. Harvey said while conservative Anglicans share many theological beliefs with Catholics – both oppose same-sex marriage and gay clergy, for instance – there are still many differences between the two. Anglicans, he said, would chafe at any notion of the infallibility of the Pope, and do not accept Catholic teachings about Mary's immaculate conception, her assumption body and soul into heaven or the transubstantiation of Christ.
Before breaking formal ties with the Anglican Church of Canada, Harvey's group was for years the unofficial conservative wing of Anglicanism in this country. As such, he said, it has already tried being a separate entity within a larger structure. It didn't work then, he said, and he doubts it will work now. "This would be out of the frying pan and into the fire," he said of joining the new Catholic structure. Under the new plan, existing Catholic churches would be able to set up a church within a church, to be called personal ordinariate, where former Anglicans could worship under former Anglican priests. The priests, in turn, would be allowed to follow any Anglican traditions and teachings that don't clash with Catholic doctrine. Married priests could remain married, but could not become bishops. Harvey said that would make them "second-class priests" in the Catholic Church.
The Vatican's top doctrinal official said the move was made because so many Anglicans seemed to want to become Catholic. "Those Anglicans who have approached the Holy See have made clear their desire for full, visible unity in the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church," Cardinal William Joseph Levada said. "At the same time, they have told us of the importance of their Anglican traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey."
Two years ago, former British prime minister Tony Blair, who appointed the currently liberal Archbishop of Canterbury to his post, made headlines by converting to Catholicism. Although Anglicans split with Rome when King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment, the 16th-century schism was, in fact, part of the Reformation that also saw the evolution of Lutheranism in Germanic countries.

The church within the church

What does it mean? In a move "that has sent shockwaves" around the world, former Hitler Youth member and current head of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI has ordered the Vatican to create "a church within a church" in order to destroy the last remaining obstacle to the planned fascist takeover of the European continent, the Church of England, which had broken Rome's hold over the British people 450 years ago during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Queen Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII, began England's break from the evil machinations of Rome with his granting of the Act of Supremacy in 1534 declaring that he was "the only supreme head on earth of the Church in England", and which was strengthened by Elizabeth I in her granting of another Act of Supremacy in 1559 that made it "a crime to assert the authority of any foreign prince, prelate, or other authority", and was aimed at abolishing the authority of the Pope in England. A third offence against the act was deemed "high treason" and was punishable by death. […]
This latest assault upon the U.K. and the U.S. by Rome follows the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair's sudden resignation from office in June, 2007, whereupon he flew immediately to Rome to convert to Catholicism at the feet of Pope Benedict XVI and is slated to become the first in history President of Europe uniting the continent under the banner of the Vatican and fulfilling Nazi German Leader Adolf Hitler's quest for a United Europe whose "master race" would "rule the World" and which hundreds of thousands of once free British and American soldiers died in defeating last Century during World War II. Equally as worst off as the United Kingdom is the United States, where nearly 30% of their US Congress is comprised of Catholics subservient to Rome, the majority of their Supreme Court Justices are Catholics pledged to Pope Benedict XVI, and their Catholic Jesuit Vice President Joseph Biden now sits but "one heartbeat away" from the Presidency which, beyond all doubt, is the most powerful position of man to be held on our entire earth.
With the Vatican's unrelenting assault upon the West, and the presidents of Europe and the USA slated to be nothing more than Rome's "order takers", the masses of citizens in both the U.K. and U.S. are still believing the centuries old lies about the Jewish peoples that blame them for just about everything, and which according to Catholic Church doctrine, "an essential requirement for Christian salvation is hatred of the Jews." And while the hatred of the Jewish peoples accelerates in these Western Nations, these peoples remain suspiciously quite over the centuries old Roman Catholic assault against normal human behavior by Rome’s continued sanctioning of a priesthood devoted to pedophile depravity and the continued raping of boy children so as to bring back "the days of Noah" which they have long believed will mark the return of their "gods". Even worse for these peoples are "the gods" their new leaders in Rome are about to call forth upon our Earth, and which in their stupid ignorance these people fail to see the evidence of when each week they go into their churches topped by the "steeples of death" which the ancients used to sacrifice children beneath, and end their prayers with the word "Amen" they have forgotten is the ancient invocation to the ancient "gods" of Egypt.

02/19'07 Churches back plan to unite under Pope

Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt. The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches. In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope. The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.
It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church. The 36 primates at the gathering will be aware that the Pope, while still a cardinal, sent a message of support to the orthodox wing of the Episcopal Church of the US as it struggled to cope with the fallout after the ordination of the gay bishop Gene Robinson. Were this week's discussions to lead to a split between liberals and conservatives, many of the former objections in Rome to a reunion with Anglican conservatives would disappear. Many of those Anglicans who object most strongly to gay ordination also oppose the ordination of women priests. Rome has already shown itself willing to be flexible on the subject of celibacy, when it received dozens of married priests from the Church of England into the Catholic priesthood after they left over the issue of women's ordination.
There are about 78 million Anglicans, compared with a billion Roman Catholics, worldwide. In England and Wales, the Catholic Church is set to overtake Anglicanism as the predominant Christian denomination for the first time since the Reformation, thanks to immigration from Catholic countries.

As the Anglicans' squabbles over the fundamentals of Christian doctrine continue – with seven of the conservative primates twice refusing to share Communion with the other Anglican leaders at their meeting in Tanzania – the Church's credibility is being increasingly undermined in a world that is looking for strong witness from its international religious leaders. The Anglicans will attempt to resolve their differences today by publishing a new Anglican Covenant, an attempt to provide a doctrinal statement under which they can unite. But many fear that the divisions have gone too far to be bridged and that, if they cannot even share Communion with each other, there is little hope that they will agree on a statement of common doctrine.
The latest Anglican-Catholic report could hardly come at a more sensitive time. It has been drawn up by the International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission, which is chaired by the Right Rev David Beetge, an Anglican bishop from South Africa, and the Most Rev John Bathersby, the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Australia. The commission was set up in 2000 by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, and Cardinal Edward Cassidy, then head of the Vatican's Council for Christian Unity. Its aim was to find a way of moving towards unity through "common life and mission". The document leaked to The Times is the commission's first statement: Growing Together in Unity and Mission. The report acknowledges the "imperfect communion" between the two churches but says that there is enough common ground to make its "call for action" about the Pope and other issues.

In one significant passage the report notes:

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the ministry of the Bishop of Rome as universal primate is in accordance with Christ's will for the Church and an essential element of maintaining it in unity and truth.

Anglicans rejected the Bishop of Rome as universal primate in the 16th century. Today, however, some Anglicans are beginning to see the potential value of a ministry of universal primacy, which would be exercised by the Bishop of Rome, as a sign and focus of unity within a reunited Church.
In another paragraph the report goes even further:

We urge Anglicans and Roman Catholics to explore together how the ministry of the Bishop of Rome might be offered and received in order to assist our Communions to grow towards full ecclesial communion.

Other recommendations include inviting lay and ordained members of both denominations to attend each other's synodical and collegial gatherings and conferences. Anglican bishops could be invited to accompany Catholic ones on visits to Rome. The report adds that special "protocols" should also be drawn up to handle the movement of clergy from one Church to the other. Other proposals include common teaching resources for children in Sunday schools and attendance at each other's services, pilgrimages and processions.
Anglicans are also urged to begin praying for the Pope during the intercessionary prayers in church services, and Catholics are asked also to pray publicly for the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In today's Anglican Church, it is unlikely that a majority of parishioners would wish to heal the centuries-old rift and return to Rome. However, the stance of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the present dispute dividing his Church gives an indication of how priorities could be changing in light of the gospel imperative towards church unity. Dr Rowan Williams, who as Primate of the Church of England is its "focus for unity", has in the past supported a liberal interpretation of Scripture on the gay issue. But he has made it clear that church unity must come before provincial autonomy. A logical extension of that, once this crisis is overcome either by agreement or schism, would be to seek reunion with the Church of England's own mother church.

Anglikaner und Katholiken – Erste Schritte zur Wiedervereinigung

Eine internationale Kommission aus Vertretern beider Kirchen hat laut der Londoner Times einen Bericht ausgearbeitet, der die Schritte hin zur Einheit der beiden Kirchen unter dem Papst darlegt. Bischöfe beider Glaubensgemeinschaften haben den Vorschlägen demnach zugestimmt. Laut Times soll das 42-seitige Dokument noch in diesem Jahr veröffentlicht werden. Derzeit prüfe der Vatikan die Vorschläge der Kommission und man erarbeite eine förmliche Antwort, heißt es. Die im Jahr 2000 ins Leben gerufene Kommission wird vom konservativen südafrikanischen Erzbischof David Beetge und dem katholischen Erzbischof von Brisbane, John Bathersby, geleitet. Ihr Ziel ist es, einen Weg zur Einheit der beiden Kirchen durch "gemeinsames Leben und eine gemeinsame Mission" aufzuzeichnen. Mit einer Vereinigung der beiden Kirchen ist freilich noch lange nicht zu rechnen.
Bei dem von der Times in Auszügen veröffentlichten Dokument handelt es sich um den ersten Bericht der Kommission. Er räumt ein, dass die Gemeinschaft der beiden Kirchen "mangelhaft" sei, stellt jedoch fest, dass es genügend Gemeinsamkeiten gibt, um bezüglich des Papstes und weiterer Punkte zum Handeln aufzufordern. "Wir halten Anglikaner und Katholiken dazu an, gemeinsam herauszufinden, wie das geistliche Amt des Papstes dazu eingesetzt werden kann, um beide Gemeinschaften dabei zu unterstützen, sich zu einer kirchlichen Gemeinschaft zu entwickeln", heißt es in dem Papier weiter. Der Bericht beinhalte außerdem Vorschläge, wie sich die beiden Kirchen einander annähern könnten. So könnten anglikanische Bischöfe eingeladen werden, ihre katholischen Kollegen bei deren Reisen nach Rom zu begleiten. Spezielle Protokolle sollen darlegen, wie ein Austausch von Geistlichen zwischen beiden Konfessionen aussehen soll. Das Papier regt ferner an, dass die Geistlichen der jeweils anderen Glaubensgemeinschaft in die Gebete eingeschlossen werden sollen.

Seit dem 16. Jahrhundert hat die anglikanische Kirche den Papst als Primas abgelehnt. Im Jahr 1534 brach König Heinrich VIII. mit dem Kirchenoberhaupt, weil dieses sich weigerte, die Ehe des Königs zu annullieren. Heinrich VIII. setzte sich daraufhin selbst als Oberhaupt der neuen Staatskirche ein. Konservative Teile der anglikanischen Kirche befürworten heute eine Anerkennung des Papstes - als Schritt zur Einheit der beiden Kirchen. Im 19. Jahrhundert löste eine Gruppe anglikanischer Geistlicher an der Universität Oxford eine Rückbesinnung auf katholische Elemente aus. Seither stehen sich die eher traditionell-konservative "High Church" und die eher liberal-protestantisch geprägte "Low Church" gegenüber. Das Spannungsverhältnis zwischen den beiden Kirchenzweigen hat sich in den vergangenen Jahren erheblich verschärft.
Nach der römisch-katholischen Kirche und den orthodoxen Glaubensgemeinschaften ist die anglikanische Kirche die drittgrößte christliche Glaubensgemeinschaft.
Außerhalb Großbritanniens gibt es weltweit 26 anglikanische Kirchenprovinzen. Insbesondere die Gemeinschaften in den USA, in Australien und in mehreren afrikanischen Ländern nehmen an Bedeutung zu. Geistliches Oberhaupt der anglikanischen Kirche ist der Erzbischof von Canterbury. Er hat jedoch als "primus inter pares", als Erster unter Gleichen, keine Weisungsbefugnis für die jeweiligen Nationalkirchen. In der Theologie steht die anglikanische Kirche den Protestanten nahe, die Liturgie aber blieb der katholischen Tradition verhaftet.
Die Brisanz des ersten Papiers der bereits seit sieben Jahren tagenden Kommission erwächst vor allem aus den derzeitigen Auseinandersetzungen innerhalb der anglikanischen Kirche. Die Glaubensgemeinschaft droht, an der Frage, ob Homosexuelle zum Priester geweiht werden dürfen, auseinander zu brechen. Die Führer der anglikanischen Kirche treffen sich derzeit in Tansania, um über die kontroversen Themen zu diskutieren. Streitfragen sind die in vielen Nationalkirchen zugelassene Weihe von Frauen, der Umgang mit bekennend homosexuellen Priestern sowie kirchliche Zeremonien für gleichgeschlechtliche Paare. Vor allem die konservativen Kräfte innerhalb der anglikanischen Kirche stehen den Lehren der katholischen Kirche sehr nahe. Bei einer Spaltung der Anglikaner würden sich viele der Vorbehalte der katholischen Kirche gegenüber dem konservativen Flügel erübrigen.

Die Krise in der anglikanischen Kirche begann vor vier Jahren in den USA mit der Weihe eines Bischofs, der sich offen zu seiner Homosexualität bekennt. Im vergangenen Jahr wurde mit Katharine Jefferts Schori eine Frau zur Bischöfin gewählt, was den Protest der konservativen Anglikaner hervorgerufen hat. Während die meisten Anglikaner in den USA dem liberalen Flügel angehören, dominieren in Afrika die Konservativen. Der konservative nigerianische Erzbischof Peter Akinola bezeichnete die Anerkennung homosexueller Beziehungen bei dem Treffen in Tansania als "teuflischen Angriff" auf die Kirche. Um gegen die liberale Einstellung Jefferts Schoris in dieser Sache zu protestieren, weigerte er sich mit sechs weiteren konservativen Bischöfen, gemeinsam mit der Bischöfin die heilige Kommunion zu feiern. Die Bischöfe der anglikanischen Kirche überlegen nun, ein verbindliches Abkommen zu schließen, das Glaubensgrundsätze festlegen und die zerstrittenen Flügel einen soll.

"The Roman Catholic Church will rule the world again."
No message is more important

October 10, 2009

Monolithisches Denk- und Lenkungssystem

F.H. Litell: Atlas zur Geschichte des Christentums
Brockhaus Verlag, 2. Sonderauflage 1989
The MacMillian Atlas History of Christianity by Franklin H. Litell
Macmillian Publishing Co., Inc., New York, Copyright 1976

S. 16) Der Gedanke, dass das Christentum als Bindemittel der römischen Zivilisation dienen könne, kam zehn Generationen nach dem Tod Jesu auf.
Der erste Herrscher, der diesen Gedanken hegte, war Konstantin der Große.
Alle seine Handlungen weisen darauf hin, dass die christliche Religion und ihre heiligen Symbole einfach an die Stelle der alten Stammes- und Ortsgötter treten sollten, weil diese offenbar nicht mehr den Erfolg der römischen Waffen und die Wohlfahrt des römischen Reiches garantieren konnten. Der erste christliche Theologe, der systematisch und einflussreich eine politische Philosophie entwickelte, die den Bedürfnissen sowohl der Kirche wie des Reiches entsprach, war Augustin von Hippo (Bischof von 396-430).
Die Idee einer von christlichen Werten durchdrungenen und von christlichen Institutionen abgestützten Gesellschaft hielt sich bis in die Moderne, auch noch nachdem das Heilige Römische Reich selbst als Fiktion aufgehört hatte zu existieren (1806).
In allen späteren Entwicklungen einer Theorie der Christenheit blieben die Schriften Augustinus gestaltgebend. [...]
Die ersten Christen praktizierten die radikale Güterteilung, in einigen Fällen sogar einen religiösen Kommunismus. Es kam der Tag, da in christlichen Ländern die römischen Gesetze über Eigentum, Erstgeburt und Gehorsam gegen höhere Klassen durchgesetzt wurden. [...]
Von Konstantin bis Karl V. war Europa Missionsgebiet.
Die Geschichte des 4. bis 6. Jh.s ist gekennzeichnet durch die allmähliche Christianisierung und Zivilisierung der Stämme, die im sich auflösenden römischen Reich siedelten. Ideen und Praktiken, die noch lebendig waren, wurden mit neuen Inhalten gefüllt und in die Vorstellung eines christlichen Reiches einbezogen. [...]
Wenige Generationen später war Europa an der Schwelle zu einer globalen Ausbreitung, in deren Rahmen europäische Denkweisen und Lebensstile den entferntesten Völkern aufgedrängt wurden. Das letzte Stadium der geschlossenen Christenheit war die imperialistische Expansion über den Globus. Dieser Ereigniskette stehen wir noch sehr nahe. Die letzte Periode des europäischen Kolonialismus umfasst die Jahre vom Wiener Kongress (1815) bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg (1914-18).
Es ist deshalb schwierig, eine scharfe Grenze zwischen dem Zeitalter einer geschlossenen Christenheit und der dritten Periode – dem Zeitalter persönlicher Entscheidung zu ziehen.

S. 43) Innocenz beherrschte die Politik Europas vollkommen. [...]
Bevor die Albigenser niedergemetzelt und ausgeplündert wurden (1206-1226) hatten sie eine der höchsten Kulturen der Zeit entwickelt. Für die von Innocenz III. geplante einheitliche christliche Gesellschaft waren innere Kreuzzüge gegen "Häretiker" jedoch ebenso wesentlich wie äußere Kreuzzüge gegen Muslims. [...]
Ähnlich grausam waren die Erlasse gegen die Juden.
Die repressive Gesetzgebung des vierten Laterankonzils sah unter anderem vor, dass die Juden in der Öffentlichkeit ein gelbes Abzeichen und den Davidstern tragen mussten – eine Vorschrift, die man aus dem Reich eines islamischen Fürsten übernommen hatte.

S. 49) Das ungebildete, einfache Volk führte die Pest auf geheimnisvolle und unbestimmbare böse Mächte zurück, die es zu exorzieren oder ausfindig zu machen und zu vernichten galt. Es war schlimm, als Hexe oder – ebenso geheimnisumwittert – als Jude bekannt zu sein.
Die christliche Gesellschaft hat die Juden immer ausgeklammert. Während der Kreuzzüge waren sie die ersten Opfer.
Als der schwarze Tod kam und die Städte Europas in der zweiten Hälfte des 14. Jh.s Dutzend mal heimsuchte, wurde ihre Lage besonders schlimm. "Hexen" wurden gefoltert und verbrannt, insgesamt mehrere Hunderttausend. Die andern Opfer, die Juden, waren schon von den Kirchenvätern und von Synoden und Konzilien gebrandmarkt. Sie wurden der Zauberei, Alchemie, Magie, des "bösen Auges", des "Gestanks und Unglaubens", des Gottesmords beschuldigt. Dieser "kulturelle" Antisemitismus, der dem politischen Antisemitismus des 20. Jh.s als Stütze dienen sollte, war fest in der kirchlichen Lehre des Mittelalters verankert.

S. 54) Besonders wichtig waren die Hanse, die Freien Reichsstädte (insgesamt 65), die Städte der lombardischen Liga, Genua und Venedig und ihre jeweiligen Verbündeten.
Obwohl jede Stadt ihre eigene Geschichte hatte, nahm die Entwicklung einer Stadt nördlich der Alpen etwa folgenden Verlauf: angenommen die Stadt lag am Rhein, einer der Hauptverkehrsadern Europas. Zuerst wurde ein gewisses Maß an Unabhängigkeit vom Bischof gewonnen, dessen Hofrecht sowohl das religiöse wie das Zivilrecht umfasst hatte. Dann wurden Präzedenzfälle und Rechtsstreitigkeiten, die in den Gilden und niederen Gerichten gelöst worden waren, Kommunalgesetz. Allmählich entstanden zwei Versammlungen, eine aus Vertretern der Bürger und eine aus Häuptern der alten Patrizierfamilien. Während dieser Veränderung zementierte die Stadt ihr Recht, Zölle zu erheben, Münzen zu prägen, Ordnungshüter und Truppen zu stellen. Spätestens in der Reformationszeit schloss sie Verträge mit Verbündeten ab, sandte diplomatische Vertreter aus und regiert sich durch einen Stadtrat (den "Kleinen Rat" im Unterschied zum "Großen Rat" der Versammlungen).
Die Städte, die sich nach diesem Muster entwickelten, spielten ihr politisches Spiel des Überlebens, manchmal verbündet, manchmal im Krieg mit Bischof und/oder Papst, König und/oder Kaiser, konkurrierenden Handelsstädten. In den meisten Städten waren die Kauf- und Bankleute und die frühen Manufakturbesitzer vorherrschend. Hatte die Stadt eine neue Universität, war diese der stolze Mittelpunkt. [...]
Die modernen Universitäten verdanken ihre Entstehung den Kloster- und Domschulen. Bis heute erinnern an vielen Orten die Dormitorien und Refektorien – und manche Traditionen wie die feierliche Immatrikulation – an den Tag, an dem sich junge Novizen unter den Schutz und die Aufsicht älterer Brüder begaben. [...] Jahrhunderte lang war die Gelehrsamkeit, soweit man sie finden konnte, auf die Klöster beschränkt, und der Bildungsweg zu Ruhm und Ehre führte über die Kirche.

Die neuen Schichten der Kaufleute verlangten und erhielten Bildungsmöglichkeiten für ihre Söhne ohne geistliche Verpflichtungen. Könige und Fürsten erwarteten von den neuen Universitäten Buchhalter und Anwälte. An Theologie nicht interessierte Gelehrte begannen, in den Universitäten einen sie befriedigenden Ersatz für die unsichere Gönnerschaft durch Kirchenfürsten oder Dogen zu finden.
Theologie war die "Königin der Wissenschaften", und die theologische Fakultät führte die feierlichen Umzüge an. Aber die Professoren der theologischen Fakultäten waren von Anfang an im Streit mit ihren Kollegen in den "profanen" Wissenschaften. Sie waren außerdem nicht selten einer Überprüfung seitens kirchlicher Autoritäten ausgesetzt.
Das Ansehen der Universität und ihr Stand als soziale Institution kann daran beurteilt werden, wie die Städte und Fürsten handelten. Als der führende evangelische Fürst, Philipp von Hessen 1526-29 sein Land reformierte, hatte er drei praktische Dinge im Sinn:
erstens die Visitation und Untersuchung der örtlichen Kirchen, Schulen und Klöster,
zweitens das Zustandebringen einer protestantischen Koalition von Zürich bis Dänemark,
drittens die Gründung einer Universität.
Die Universität war die von Marburg (gegründet 1527) die erste protestantische Universität und die erste in Deutschland mit fürstlichen und nicht päpstlichen Privilegien. [...]

S. 76) Die Jesuiten besaßen ein neues Verständnis von Jüngerschaft. Es verband eine weite Schau und weiträumige Planung mit asketischer Selbstverleugnung und unerschütterlichem Gehorsam.
Ein typisches Beispiel für die Selbstlosigkeit und Unterwerfung unter die "Gesellschaft" ist die Ablehnung des Bistums Wien durch Peter Canisius. [...]
Den größten Sieg errang die Gegenreformation in Polen, wo der Protestantismus – lutherischer, calvinistischer, täuferischer und anti-trinitarischer Prägung – bis zum Kommen der Jesuiten und der Inquisition vorherrschte. [...] Mit Sigismund III. (König 1587-1632) kam ein Wasa, der von Jesuiten erzogen worden war, auf den Thron. Seine lange Regierung fügte dem Protestantismus großen Schaden zu, und seine vielen Kriege erschütterten Polen wirtschaftlich. [...]
In vielen Geschichtsbüchern verliert sich die "Spur des Jesuitenordens" im späten 18. Jahrhundert ...

[Seltsam, feiert der Illuminaten-Hokuspokus des bayrischen Adam "Spartakus" Weishaupt – befeuert von der monströsen Einäscherung der New Yorker Zwillingstürme – doch gerade seine elektronische Auferstehung. Und gegen wen führte Spartakus sein Sklavenheer in den Kampf? Gegen Rom.
In den 1770ern war es das Heer der Jesus-quasi-praesens-"Kadaver", das vom Ordensverbot des Papstes in Zusammenarbeit mit den katholischen Königsfamilien Europas in seinen freimaurerischen Untergrund getrieben wurde. Für gerade mal eine "Graf-von-Monte-Christo"-Zeitspanne ...
Danach verbürgerlichte er systematisch die gesamte Welt:
Jesuits, SMOMs, Vatican & Black Nobility
Felix Frankfurter:
"The Order's working and involvement in America is immense. The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes."
John Hylan:
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states and nation."
Thomas Jefferson:
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to accidential opinion of the day but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and persued unalterably through every change of ministers (administrations) plainly proves a deliberate systematic plan of reducing us to slavery. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
George Washington:
"It is not my intention to doubt that the doctrine of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more satisfied of this fact than I am."]

S. 94) Im Verlauf der
Errichtung eines monolithischen und umfassenden Denk- und Lenkungssystems hatte sich das mittelalterliche Christentum einer Anzahl von Lehren über die natürliche Welt verschrieben, die dem Test des Experiments und der sorgfältigen Beobachtung nicht standhalten konnten. [...] Die Sprache der Mathematik begann die Sprache des Mythos zu ersetzen. [...] Blaise Pascal (1623-62) war ein Pionier der Differentialrechnung, der Hydrodynamik und des Antijesuitismus.

S. 102) Nach der Niederlage Napoleons zeigte der Ultramontanismus in Verbindung mit der Reaktion wieder seine Stärke. Selbst unter protestantischen und orthodoxen Herrschern machte sich eine Freundschaft gegenüber Rom bemerkbar, die auf dem Grundsatz beruhte, dass der Bund von Thron und Altar das beste Bollwerk gegen Volksbewegungen ist.
Sofort nach seiner Rückkehr setzte Pius VII. den Jesuitenorden und die Inquisition wieder ein. Der Wiener Kongress stellte den Kirchenstaat wieder her.
Der Papst verurteilte die Carbonari wegen der demokratischen Revolution in Neapel (1821).
Ein System von Konkordaten wurde zwischen dem Papsttum und verschiedenen europäischen Regierungen ausgearbeitet.
Unter Leo XII. (Papst 1823-29) wurde das Konkordatsystem auf Lateinamerika ausgedehnt, wodurch der römisch-katholischen Kirche besondere Vorrechte garantiert wurden. ["The Jesuits are like insects: the Catholic church is everywhere, open up schools to indoctrinate the Indians, to indoctrinate the Mexicans – 8000 Catholic schools in America: 6785 elementaries, 1215 secondaries, 47 new ones – 'Latin America' – that's where it came from is Latin, and Latin is officially only at the Vatican, the only place in the world that has latin as official language of their stake."] Seine Politik war extrem reaktionär: er verurteilte die Bibelgesellschaften, unterdrückte jeglichen Widerspruch und verfolgte die Juden. [...]
Gregor XVI. (Papst 1831-46) war ein Reaktionär, der Gewissens- und Pressefreiheit pauschal verurteilte.
Pius IX. (Papst 1846-76) hatte die längste und in vieler Hinsicht unglücklichste Regierungszeit eines Papstes. Während der Revolution 1848 floh er aus Rom. Nach seiner Rückkehr gab er eine Reihe von Enzykliken heraus, die darauf abzielten, die traditionellen Autoritäten zu stützen.
Die Bulle Ineffabilis Deus, ohne Rückendeckung durch ein Konzil am 8. Dezember 1854 herausgegeben, verkündete das Dogma von der unbefleckten Empfängnis Marias. In der Enzyklika "Quanta cura" mit dem angehängten "Syllabus der Irrtümer" stellte er sich am 8. Dezember 1864 gegen die gesamte moderne Kultur.
Nach einer generellen Verurteilung verschiedener moderner Bewegungen, verwarf er ausdrücklich die Gewissensfreiheit, Gottesdienstfreiheit, Toleranz, allgemeines Stimmrecht und öffentliches Schulwesen. 1869 berief er das erste vatikanische Konzil ein, das am 18. Juli 1870 das Dogma der päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeit verkündete. Selbst das römisch-katholische Österreich annullierte sofort sein Konkordat. In Preußen brach der Kulturkampf aus.

"Closed Christianity,"
"Monolithic, encompassing think and control system,"
"Die ersten Christen praktizierten [...] sogar einen religiösen Kommunismus,"
"Dass die Juden in der Öffentlichkeit ein gelbes Abzeichen und den Davidstern tragen mussten,"
"The Roman Church was always murdering Jewish people"...