Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will,
and write on our hearts these words: Use power to help
prayer, President George Bush the Elder, 1989
1 Part 2 Part
3 Part 5
Abiding in Religious War / 4
7. The aim of religious war is always "new
In about 37 B.C., the Roman poet-propagandist Virgil
published lines containing a prophecy from the Sibyl,
a mystical personage who told the fortunes of Rome. According to
ancient tradition, this Sibyl (there were several stationed around
the classical world) was a thousand years old.
Cumaean Sibyl by Michaelangelo
In Virgils Fourth Eclogue, the Cumaean Sibyl
divines that magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo, a
mighty order of ages is born anew. At the birth of this new
order, Justice returns, returns old Saturns reign, with
a new breed of men sent down from heaven. And a virgin gives
birth to a new Apollo who will do away with human wickedness. This
Shall free the earth from never-ceasing
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace.
Who was Virgils (or the Sibyls) messiah?
Since the verses are addressed to the consul Asinius Pollio, many
believed it was the son of Pollio, in whose consulate or presidency
the mighty new order of ages would begin. But this theory proved
wrong when Pollios son was born sickly and died in his infancy.
People then centered on a son that might be born of
Mark Antony and his wife Octavia, but this possibility was excluded
when Mark left Octavia for Cleopatra.
Four centuries later, the Emperor Constantine the
Great presented a paper saying that Virgil had really prophesied
the advent of Jesus and his new breed of men, the Christian, but
had couched his prophecy in disguise to avoid offending Roman priests.
This theory still has adherents today.
The most logical Virgilian messiah, it seems to me,
would be Augustus Caesar. We know Virgils career was subsidized
by the billionaire Caius Maecenas, and that Maecenas had funded
the rise of Julius Caesar. Following Julius bloody sacrifice
by the conspirators in 44 B.C., there ensued a long religious war
for command of the empire. The rivals were Mark Antony, Lepidus,
and Julius grand-nephew and adopted son Octavian Maria.
We know that Maecenas put his money on Octavian. We
also know the Fourth Eclogue was published following the Peace of
Brindisi, which reconciled Antony and Octavian and gave tremendous
hope that Octavian would triumph. We know, too, that Octavians
interests at the Brindisi negotiations were represented by none
other than consul Asinius Pollio, who introduced Virgil to Maecenas.
And we know that the ultimate payoff of Brindisi would be the rise
of Octavian to the supreme position of Pontifex Maximus of Rome
in 28 B.C., with the holy name Augustus Caesar.
We know that Octavian Caesar Augustus claimed to be
the offspring of a union between a virgin the sun-god Apollo. And
finally, we know that Virgils final masterpiece of propaganda
identified Augustus as messianic. In the Aeneid (19 B.C.),
set in a time prior to the founding of Rome, we see in Book 6 (lines
791-94) Anchises, father of the Trojan Aeneas, pointing out to his
son the coming generations of Romans yet to be born and identifying
one in particular: This man, this is he whom you hear more
and more often promised to you, Augustus Caesar, the seed of divinity,
who shall establish golden ages for Latium through the fertile lands
once ruled by Saturn.
Since the publication of Virgils messianic prophecy
coincided with the strategy of a billionaire to place his man at
the head of the universal Roman Church and State, how could the
prophesied messiah have been anyone but Augustus Caesar?
This is important, I think, because the Sibylline
prophecy is part of the American political heritage. In 1782,
Charles Thomson, the Perpetual Secretary of the Continental Congress,
borrowed from the Fourth Eclogue and gave the United States its
national motto Novus Ordo Seclorum. Thomson wrote that the
motto signifies the beginning of the new American Æra,
which commences from .
The American Æra was a new ordering of power
in the world, a new republic that issued in a new kind of worldly
order, which has been colloquialized to new world order.
In credible though indirect testimony cited in Rulers of Evil,
Charles Thomson himself indicates that novus ordo seclorum
might define the United States government as Romes
the Church Militants leading agency for the universal
reordering of temporal or worldly power.
Indeed, worldly power has been ordered anew many times
since the days of Augustus Caesar. New orders are necessary because
evil is evasive and creative. Ruling a planet largely populated
and often disrupted by evildoers requires the cyclical extermination
and rebirth of human-management systems. This is not easily done.
A 65-year-old person has experienced the reordering
of the world by the United States at least three times. Each of
these reorderings, as with that of Maecenas and Octavian in 28 B.C.,
was precipitated by elegant slaughter suggestive of human sacrifice.
With Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki,
World War II established the United Nations and a fundamental international
currency, the US dollar. The Coinage Act of 1965, received uncritically
by an electorate still disoriented from JFK's assassination,
absolved banks and the national treasury of any responsibility to
redeem the fundamental international currency in gold and silver
coin, enabling Congress to create (by borrowing into circulation)
money to pay its debts domestically and globally. President Bush
the Elders Persian Gulf War, punctuated by the Younger's
War on Terrorism, beckoned all nations to marry America at gunpoint
and together bring the whole world under an increasingly dynamic
rulership of the Roman Pontiff. This most recent reordering
the subject of what Im writing here can conveniently
be traced to the elder Bushs first act as President, which
was the uttering of a prayer.
On the day of his inaugural, January 20, 1989, George
H.W. Bush was a virtual Roman Catholic due to his confirmation into
a church the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States
whose first bishop was ordained in 1784 at Aberdeen, Scotland,
by three bishops who notoriously declared allegiance to the Roman
Most of his adult life, G.H.W. Bush had been a member,
and for a while director, of the Central Intelligence Agency, an
organization founded in 1947 by William J. (Wild Bill)
Donovan for the purpose of providing special means to
insure Vatican influence over the secular world and subsidized by
American taxpayers. Donovan was a devout Roman Catholic, decorated
in July 1944 by Pope Pius XII with the Grand Cross of the Order
of St. Sylvester, the Vaticans highest award, for a
lifetime of public and secret service to the [Roman] Catholic Church.
It is said (and I can only speculate) that Mr. Bush
was also a 33rd-degree Freemason, and a member as well of Propaganda
Dùe (P2), the shadowy masonesque society made up of leading
French, German, Italian, and American business, political, and media
leaders dedicated to the Roman Church Militant. (If anyone knows
of an authentic proof or denial to either association, please notify
me. Proving secret memberships is a hard task, since rulers of evil
engage in activities that must of necessity be concealed. I believe
I do my subject no harm by relying on Christs teaching how
to discern: By their fruits ye shall know them. Mr.
Bush bears the fruits many good, many evil of one
secretly associated with powers that work in darkness.)
There is no doubt, however, that on inauguration day
1989, President Bush had amassed a fortune in oil, principally through
his Zapata Offshore Petroleum, a company whose global network of
offices fed information to and from the CIA. One of Zapatas
most prosperous clients was the tiny Muslim emirate of Kuwait.
Qualified by the above, George Bush the Elder began
his presidential inaugural address, and his presidency, with a prayer
in the following words:
Heavenly Father...Make us strong to
do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our
hearts these words: Use power to help people.' For we
are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great
show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power,
and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen.
President Bush then went to the Vatican City to have
an audience with Pope John Paul II. At the conclusion of the audience,
His Holiness cited the Presidents first official act, that
Mr. President, said the Pope, you
made reference to power as existing to help people, to serve people.
This is true at different levels, including power at the political
and economic level.
We see this, too, at the level of each community,
with its power of fraternal love and concern. In all these areas,
an immense challenge opens up before the United States in this third
century of her nationhood. Her mission as a people engaged in good
works and committed to serving others has horizons the length
of your nation and far beyond as far as humanity extends.
Today the interdependence of humanity is being
reaffirmed and recognized through world events. The moral and social
attitudes that must constitute a response to this interdependence
is found in worldwide solidarity.
In treating this question in a recent encyclical,
I have stated that solidarity is not a feeling of vague compassion
or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people both near
and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination
to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good
of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible
for all. Truly, the hour of international interdependence
has struck. What is at stake is the common good of humanity.
Can anyone deny that on May 27, 1989 the Pope was
summoning America to use its power to help people achieve a new
In the 18th century, achieving worldwide solidarity
meant stirring up internal strife to divide English-speaking Protestantism
into British and American factions and creating the right of Catholics
to hold office in the latter. In our present time, achieving worldwide
solidarity means dividing the Muslim nations by internal strife,
conquering them by an alliance of governments led by the United
States, and subjecting them to the Catholic process known as missionary
adaptation. This term is explained by the 1989 Catholic Almanac
(p175) as the adjustment of the mission subject to the cultural
requirements of the mission object so that the Pontiffs
needs will be brought as much as possible in accord with existing
socially shared patterns of thought, evaluation, and action, so
as to avoid unnecessary and serious disorganization. In simpler
terms, the Pope on May 27, 1989 called on Americas secular
might to lead the Middle East into a new culture structured, like
Japan after Nagasaki, on the Roman Catholic invention of debt-instruments
circulating and enforced internationally as money.
September 11th catapulted the world toward achieving
this order. But the momentum began in Kuwait, of which the elder
President Bush was a venerated patron. Do you recall how the
Persian Gulf War started in Kuwait?
During 1989, Kuwait launched an unprovoked economic
aggression against its much larger neighbor, Iraq. Kuwait began
overproducing oil, which drove oil prices downward, a policy that
would ultimately cost Iraq some $14 billion in lost revenues.
At about the same time, for no apparent reason, America's
allies began imposing de facto sanctions on Iraq. Iraqi Deputy Prime
Minister Ramadan would tell the Muhammad Ali Peace Delegation on
November 30, 1990 that by 1990, hundreds of major scientific,
engineering, and food supply contracts between Iraq and western
governments were cancelled.
Finally, on May 28-30, 1990, Iraqi premier Saddam
Hussein formally complained of Kuwaits economic warfare at
a meeting of the brotherhood of Muslim nations known as the League
of Arab States.
Saddam hinted at military action if the situation
was not corrected.
The Emir of Kuwait, whose country is one-tenth the
size of Iraq, ignored Saddam. Students of the Gulf War are generally
agreed that the Emir had received assurances from American officials
that his advantages over Iraq would be protected by American armed
Kuwait further aggravated Iraq. On July 15-17, Saddam
Hussein accused Kuwait of using slant drilling technology to steal
oil from Iraqs Rumaylah oil field. Waging economic war against
and stealing from a brother are both counted sins in Islamic law,
which held correctional procedures.
On August 2, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Photos from Soviet
commercial satellites show that no more than a few thousand troops
were deployed a sufficient number to hold Kuwait City.
Next day, in accord with Islamic law, the council
of ministers of the Arab League resolved to (a) condemn the invasion,
(b) convoke an extraordinary summit to find a Muslim solution to
the crisis, and (c) reject foreign intervention, whether direct
or indirect, in Muslim affairs.
Saddam Hussein made it clear that he was willing to
withdraw if his claims against Kuwait could be satisfied. There
was no reason why Muslim brethren, acting in good faith, could not
settle the matter. In fact, on August 4th Saddam was so confident
of peaceful resolution that Baghdad radio announced that Iraq was
ready to pull out of Kuwait the next day.
But peaceful resolution between Muslim states would
not serve the Roman Pontiffs grand agenda for worldwide
solidarity. For this, political Islam must be divided and
Which exactly occurred when two crucial members of
the summit, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and King Fahd of Saudi
Arabia, turned against Iraq. They did so, according to a study by
Hugh Roberts of the London School of Economics & Political Science,
under pressure from U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.
What then happened, wrote Roberts, was
a massive escalation of the crisis engineered wholly and entirely
by the United States, which split the Arab world down the middle,
destroyed the credibility and influence of the Arab League and scotched
all chance of a peaceful settlement.
On August 7, President Bush despatched aircraft and
4,000 American combat troops to Saudi Arabia. This was not an invasion
of Iraq. The troops were strictly defensive, sent to
protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion.
However, King Hussein of Jordan would inform the New
York Times that American troops were being deployed to Saudi Arabia
long before Saddam moved on Kuwait. [Times, Oct. 16, 1990] Furthermore,
King Hussein would say in the same report that he was told by Saudi
King Fahd that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up
on the Saudi border; and that despite American assertions, there
was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia.
Fahds remark is corroborated by Soviet satellite
photographs taken on August 8 which show light sand drifts over
patches of roads leading from Kuwait City to the Saudi border
and no evidence of an Iraqi buildup.
Seeing that the United States was interceding to prevent
a Muslim solution, Saddam declared the annexation of Kuwait on August
8. This did not mean that Iraq was no longer willing to consider
a withdrawal. On the contrary, writes Hugh Roberts, it was Saddams
way of preserving the issue until the summit could entertain fresh
proposals during its August 9-10 meeting in Cairo.
But when the summit convened, delegates sat down to
find the issue already decided by a draft resolution
presented by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, written in English and translated
into Arabic, and pre-supported by 10 other states, constituting
a majority. (Iraq was not present.)
The resolution condemned the Iraqi decision to annex
Kuwait, called for the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from
Kuwait, affirmed Kuwaiti sovereignty, and agreed to respond positively
to the requests of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to send Muslim
forces to Kuwaits defense. It was made clear, at the insistence
of the Bush administration, that international law was
going to be enforced on Iraq, despite the fact that many previous
acts of aggression by other Muslim states had gone unpunished under
Hugh Roberts writes: The unity which had existed
within the Arab world on August 3 had been shattered by August 10.
The possibility of a peaceful, negotiated, [Muslim] solution to
the Gulf crisis was dead, killed by US pressure.
Saddam Husseins reaction was to submit proposals
on August 12th (and again in December, as reported by Knute Royce
in Newsday) for a comprehensive settlement of all outstanding Islamic
territorial conflicts according to international law. He proposed
that the Muslim states be judged equitably. He was willing to let
Iraqs transgressions be judged by international law if the
Muslim leaders who claimed to be upholding it would let their national
transgressions be judged by the same standard.
Saddams proposal was rejected out of hand by
the United States. From that moment on, states Hugh
Roberts, the Anglo-American and UN position lacked all legal
and moral authority in the eyes of the vast majority of the Arab
and Muslim world.
In my opinion, what the Muslim world did not understand
is that it is lawful for the Church Militant, pursuant to its
building "worldwide solidarity" for better rulership of
evil, to immunize favored subjects from the rigors of equity and
international law. The Gulf War facts bear out the proposition
advanced in Rulers of Evil that God rules by a single standard,
which provides that evildoers persons who deny the deity
and unique saving power of Christ deserve to be ruled by
a double standard. This is the fundamental fact of human life. I
have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore
choose life, that both you and your seed may live. (Deuteronomy
On August 15, 1990, John Paul II announced his Apostolic
Constitution on Catholic Universities. In this decree, the Pope
made Catholic teaching, research and service responsible for administering
the new world order under construction by the United States in the
Middle East. Distinguishing a Catholic university by its free
search for the whole truth about nature, man and God, of which
the present age is in urgent need, His Holiness directed
that the whole Catholic university system, holding fidelity
to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church,
should aim for "a more just sharing in the world's resources,
and a new economic and political order that will better serve the
human community at a national and international level."
Within three weeks, President Bush explained to a
joint session of Congress that he only acted to check Saddams aggression
after 120,000 [Iraqi] troops with 850 [Iraqi] tanks had poured
into Kuwait and moved south to threaten Saudi Arabia. However,
Jean Heller would report several months later in the St. Petersburg
(FL) Times that Soviet satellite photos shot on the very day the
President had addressed Congress failed to back up his claim of
an imminent Iraqi threat. In fact, there was no sign of any massing
along the Kuwait-Saudi border whatsoever.
The Pentagon was claiming some 250,000 Iraqi troops
were occupying Kuwait, yet refused to show evidence that might
contradict the Soviet satellite photos. In these photos, American
forces, encampments, aircraft, camouflaged equipment dumps, staging
areas and tire-tracks across the desert can easily be seen. But
analysts could find nothing like this to indicate an Iraqi presence
anywhere in Kuwait.
Peter Zimmerman, formerly of the U.S. Arms Control
and Disarmament Agency in the Reagan administration, and a former
image specialist for the Defense Intelligence Agency, analyzed the
satellite photos for Hellers article in the St. Petersburg
Times and concluded:
We dont see any tent cities, we dont see
congregations of tanks, we cant see troop concentrations, and
the main Kuwaiti air base appears deserted. Its five weeks after
the invasion, and from what we can see, the Iraqi air force hasnt
flown a single fighter to the most strategic air base in Kuwait. There
is no infrastructure to support large numbers of [soldiers]. They
have to use toilets, or the functional equivalent. They have to have
food. But where is it?
One week later, the Pentagon was issuing reports that
Iraqi forces in Kuwait had grown to 360,000 men and 2,800 tanks
yet the satellite photos of southern Kuwait show no evidence
of such. Nor did the Pentagon ever support its claim with evidence.
Jean Hellers revelations would never be picked
up by the national media. Huda al-Yassiri would report in The Baghdad
Observer for June 8, 1996 that the St. Petersburg Times editors
approached the Associated Press twice about running her story on
the wire, but to no avail. Likewise, the Scripps-Howard news service,
of which the St. Petersburg Times is a member, chose not to distribute
Of course, Iraqi troops eventually appeared at the
Saudi Arabian border. But they were sent there as a response
to U.S. buildup and were not a provocation for Bush's military action,
reported Brian Becker, an investigator with the Commission of Inquiry
for the International War Crimes Tribunal.
On December 17, the U.N. set a January 15, 1991 deadline
for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. President Bush promised to send
Secretary of State James Baker to meet Saddam Hussein before the
deadline, but reneged. Saddam rejected January 15 and offered to
withdraw by February 15. President Bush ordered American planes
to incinerate hundreds of women and children sleeping in the al-Arneriyah
bomb shelter, and two days later rejected Saddams offer of
a February withdrawal.
On the 16th of January 1991, the President launched
what has been called the Gulf Massacre, in which between
85,000 and 100,000 Iraqis were killed because the United States
(a) refused to countenance either a diplomatic or a legal solution
to the Gulf crisis, and (b) acted between August 2 and August 10,
1990 to make both impossible. Concludes Hugh Roberts, The
true number of Iraqis who have been slaughtered in the greatest
act of western folly and murderous arrogance in living memory may
well be very much higher than this, of course.
On February 27th, coalition forces entered Kuwait
City, and President Bush declared Kuwait liberated.
Less than a week later in Rome, on March 4th, some
15 Catholic leaders from the Middle East, North Africa, Europe and
America held a postwar Gulf summit meeting. Pope John
Paul II addressed the opening of the summit saying that the war
had only sharpened tensions in the region and awakened distrust
and rancor inherited from the past. He denied that any religious
war had taken place, yet rebuked Muslim countries that do
not allow Christian communities to take root, celebrate their faith
and live it according to the demands of their confession.
Likewise, the summits final communique rejected all efforts
to cast the war as a conflict between Islam and Christianity.
Indeed, the war was not a conflict; it was an exercise in missionary
adaptation to establish the new solidarity ordered by the Roman
The summits final communique, issued on March
6th, provided Catholic believers, for the first time ever,
with an agenda to work for secure boundaries for Israel, independence
and unity for Lebanon, a homeland and self-determination for the
Palestinians, multilateral demilitarization and economic development
of the region, and the establishment of Jerusalem as the international
holy city of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
David Scott opined in the Washington Report on Middle
East Affairs that the Vatican Summit may one day be recalled
as an historic turning point in the Catholic Churchs involvement
in the Middle East. But we must remember that the turning
point was the Persian Gulf War, an event created by deception and
brute force. Had there been no Gulf War, there would have been no
Vatican Summit. And had the American people heeded Christ's oft-repeated
command "Be not deceived," there would have been no Gulf
Significantly, it was on the Vatican Summits
final day, March 6th, that President Bush delivered a speech before
Congress that sounded more like a reassurance to the papacy than
a report to the representatives of the American people: Now,
we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there
is the very real prospect of a new world order."
8. Human sacrifice is essential in religious war.
Devouring His Child by Francisco Goya
According to Polybius, who lived and died more than
a century before the Christian era, human sacrifice served a valid
political purpose. Lives of human beings were ritualistically taken
by priests to maintain the cohesion of the Roman state,
that is, to hold the common people in check. [See B.
Twyman, The Ancient History Bulletin, 11.1 (1997) 1-11]
But as Roman civilization imbibed Greek moral values,
human sacrifice began offending the Roman sense of decency. The
practice was finally banned by senatorial decree in 97 B.C., and
prohibited among all peoples conquered by Rome.
Human sacrifice became the indicator that distinguished
Roman from barbarian. Livy called human sacrifice a most un-Roman
rite. Yet the form wouldnt quite go away. The people,
encouraged by the priests, regarded gladiatorial deaths as sacrifices
to deified spirits of the dead known as Manes. And Livys contemporary,
the outwardly decent Octavian Maria, upon assuming the title of
Caesar Augustus in 28 B.C., sacrificed three hundred Roman senators
on an altar in Perugia to atone for the assassination of his adoptive
father, Julius Caesar. [A. Del Mar, The Worship of Augustus Caesar,
This most un-Roman rite was just too politically
expedient to give up entirely. Rulers periodically contrived sacrificial
offerings of human flesh because it was the most efficient means
of bending the naturally individualistic human species to the monarchic
Witnessing violent human death can be deeply traumatizing.
The spectacle informs the imagination, where thought begins. In
its own emotional language, human sacrifice brutally and memorably
implies two classes of mankind the all-powerful and the all-helpless.
Watching the all-helpless die creates in the viewer
an emotional debt to the all-powerful. This debt permeates our thinking,
and to stay alive we cannot conceive of disobeying the all-powerful
sacrificer. Remember Polybius: humans were sacrificed to maintain
the cohesion of the Roman state...to hold the common people in check.
September 11th meets the criteria of human sacrifice
except for one important element: the all-powerful sacrificer. If
the sacrificer was the high priest of Muslim suicide, Osama bin
Laden, as President Bush the younger seems to have convinced the
nation and the world he is, who among its viewers is cohering in
Osama's omnipotence? What population is being held in check by the
Al-Qaeda or their god Allah? I know of none.
So, either September 11th was not a classical human
sacrifice or we have mistaken the sacrificers identity. Presuming
human sacrifice, and bearing Polybius in mind, lets approach
it from the other end. Which state has achieved cohesion from September
11th? Which people are being held in check by its results? The answer
to both questions is every nation within Romes sphere of influence,
principally the United States.
If one takes seriously the signs, symbols, and allegories
with which American government publicly identifies its nature, purpose,
and link with antiquity, some startling evidence appears. Of course,
it could be argued that these elements are mere decoration and rather
dated attempts to breathe poetic nobility into the federal enterprise.
But the ROE filter does not presume the framers of American
government were frivolous or irresponsible in communicating vital
information through their official utterances. The ROE filter
presumes competence and proficiency in every official act.
We owe Congress the presumption that it knew what
it was doing when it officially approved a national motto, novus
ordo seclorum, borrowed from a Roman prophecy announcing the
return of Saturn to power Justice returns, returns
old Saturns reign.
If the American Æra (1776-to present) reintroduced
the reign of Saturn, its not surprising that very few would
notice. This is due to the fact that historically the character
of Saturn maintains nearly no profile. His name is synonymous
with secrecy, deriving from the Babylonian word stur (pronounced
satur) meaning hidden.
Stur was the earliest known deity of the Babylonian
church/state. He was the hidden god whom only the initiated
priests of the Babylonian Mysteries could access. Biblical scholar
Alexander Hislop has noted that the letters of the hidden god in
the Hebrew numeric alphabet add up to the number of the Beast in
Sturs relationship to Rome is well established
by Roman authorities. Ovid, Pliny, and Aurelius Victor all tell
us that the city Rome was built upon in the 8th century B.C. was
called Saturnia, city of Saturn. Likewise, before the
founding of Washington, D.C. in 1790-3 the land on which the Capitol
building arose was listed in Maryland property records as Rome.
This is made considerably more interesting by the installation in
1863 of the bronze Freedom atop the Capitol, D.Cs
highest and most honored edifice.
The statue stands exactly 19 feet, six inches in height,
which works out to 6+6+6 feet, 6+6+6 inches. Designed and sculpted
in Rome, it was considered by its creator to represent Persephone,
a virgin goddess celebrated for her immaculate conception. Persephone
is intimately bound to Saturn in pagan theology. She attracted the
attention of Hades, who had been eaten alive by his father Saturn
but saved and reconstituted by the heroic efforts of his brother
Jupiter, and given dominion over the underworld, while Jupiter took
the sky. Hades desired to marry Persephone, and when Jupiter forbade
him, Hades kidnaped the beautiful goddess and made her his queen
of gold, oil, and the rest of earths hidden wealth, including
petroleum and pharmaceuticals. In some mythologies, Hades is identified
with Saturn. And throughout Rome no structure was called capitol
unless it was a temple to Jupiter.
The sum of these facts strongly suggests, to me at
least, that Virgil was prophesying for imperial Romans the same
thing Congress was declaring to the inhabitants of the United States:
a golden-age rulership in the style of ancient Babylon
under a hidden god known only to his initiated priests.
If Hislops calculations are right and Stur
is indeed the Beast of Revelation whose name is the number
of a man, Scripture may be telling us that Saturn began
life as a man. The ancient historic person whose known attributes
most resemble Saturns is, of course, Cain. Scripture describes
both Cain and his parents as hidden. Adam and Eve,
acquiring knowledge of good and evil by sinning, hid
their nakedness from God. Cain prophesied that his punishment
for murdering Abel was to be hid from the face of
However, it was not Adam and Eve but Cain who
established a city, the first historic city, Unuk, as its 19th-century
discoverers spelled the word, named for Cains son Enoch.
To build a city requires a central authority able to (a) maintain
the cohesion of the state and (b) hold the common people in
check which, as we recall from Polybius, are the twin
political justifications for human sacrifice.
That Unuk was founded on human sacrifice is not
an unreasonable supposition, since Cain owed the very existence
of his city to a human sacrifice his own sacrifice of
Abel, which resulted in the vagabondage which sent him to the
land of Nod. (See Rulers of Evil for a discussion of
Abels murder as a sacrificial offering.)
But to achieve the political benefits of human
sacrifice one must be all-powerful, one must be feared as a
god. Can we account for Cains transformation from a wicked
murderer permanently exiled from his homeland to an all-powerful
and hidden God? Scripture holds the key. God
made Cain seven times more powerful than any man who might want
to rid the earth of him, and sealed this unique grant with a
mark. Here are the actual words at Genesis 4:15:
And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever
slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the
LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
The mark was limited strictly to assuring Gods
vengeance against anyone who would threaten Cains life.
When it came to matters of wisdom, correction, and instruction
in righteousness, Cain could seek Gods counsel or, since
he was hidden from the face of God, make up his own. Under no
circumstances was he permitted to attack those who called
upon the name of the Lord. The mark signifies a covenant
of retribution only; nothing else.
And so, early on, Cain encouraged attacks upon
his life so that he might infallibly defend himself. He found
great profit in provoking enemies. The more enemies, the more
spectacular the displays of vengeance. The more vengeance, the
more justice. The more justice, the more power to Cain. A more
powerful Cain could do more excellent public works. Thus, it
became essential to the self-interest of the bearer of the mark
which to this day remains a first principle of ordered
government to provoke and encourage evildoing, particularly
the form that manifests itself in rebellion.
Archaeological discoveries at Unuk validate the
sudden appearance, early in the third millenium B.C., of what
we might expect of a man whose enemies would be divinely avenged
sevenfold, of a man who was also the first child of parents
who had eaten fruit of the tree of divine knowledge of good
and evil. According to the Oxford scholar charged with examining
the ruins of Unuk, Cains city was the seat of a vast empire,
founded on slavery, full of schools and libraries, of
teachers and pupils, and poets and prose writers, and of the
literary works which they had composed.[Sayce, Babylonia
& Syria] The empire was bound together by roads, along
which there was a regular postal service, and you can see in
the Louvre clay postage stamps bearing the name of Cain and
his son Enoch. The library Cain built at Unuk housed the first
collection of astronomical observations and terrestrial omens.
There was incredibly artful metalworking, and Encyclopedia Britannica
adds that transparent glass seems to have been first introduced
in the reign of [Cain].
And it all appeared suddenly. The London Times
Historians History of the World grumbled Surely
such a people as this could not have sprung into existence.
It must have had its history... But Unuk as a social organization
had no previous history except that the parents of its
founder had ingested the fruit of a tree that infused their
DNA, and subsequently ours, with divine intellect at the expense
of eternal life.
Cains religion wrote the name of its god
of heaven in cuneiform. The symbol is pronounced
Annu. This Annu signature may be the
very mark God set upon Cain to seal his authority.
In any case, we find it consistently present in
claims to rulership through its fifty centuries of existence.
We find the Annu signature in the flag of Great Britain and
in the United Nations logotype
We find it in the U.S. Supreme Court Building,
where it forms the central decorative motif. We find it inlaid
in the pavement surrounding the Obelisk of Caligula in St. Peters
Piazza, where the multitudes stand to receive papal edicts and
If you would like to test whether or not an institution
identified with this mark avenges its enemies sevenfold, try
to rid the earth of the Roman Pontiff, or his two delegated
powers, the U.S. and the U.K. or any of the powers under their
protection. You will quickly find that the mark of the hidden
god, Cain or Stur, is quite alive and well, still doing
today what it was doing in the early days of Unuk still
avenging its enemies sevenfold or more; still creating, preserving,
honoring, terrorizing, judging, and punishing evildoers; still
sacrificing its own in order to solidify world order and hold
people in check.
Next: Muslims as villains...
1 Part 2 Part
3 Part 5