Daily News


March 4, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

I am having to pre-schedule a rather significant segment of blogs, so by the time this one appears, it may already have been overtaken by events.

Last month, the world was stunned by the announcement of Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) that he was stepping down as pope. This provoked a frenzy of speculation, as most people thought that there was something lurking behind the scenes motivating - or compelling - his decision. Indeed, I indulged in speculation on this website.

The speculations ranged the whole spectrum, from continuing criminality and "murkiness" in the Vatican Bank, to Ratzinger's alleged role in suppressing the church's sex scandal, to blackmail on one or both counts, and even to speculations that the shadowy Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) might have "persuaded" Benedict to step down. I pointed out that Ratzinger was one of many conciliar periti at the Vatican II who led the campaign for reform, a reform that led, not to a vernacular translation of the old mass, but to a wholly new, ugly, and pedestrian ritual. Vatican Two Burlap became the norm for some of the most garishly ugly church vestments in history. Many call it contemporary. Indeed. It's the liturgical version of Jackson Pollock or Pablo Picasso, a cubist cacaphony of "points of view" all dribbled together in one supreme act of liturgical ugliness. In the wake of The Big Change, a book - The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - detailed how a group of liberally minded clergy and bishops, the "Rhine Group," literally hijacked the council, diverted it from the original schemata, and substituted its own agendas. Reform quickly approached the hue of revolution, and some - I among them - would argue that it had become a revolution.

Ratzinger was of this group.

In my musings about the papal resignation, I also mentioned the so-called prophesies of Malachy, and how there might be an attempt as "self-fulfillment" for the purposes of staging wider "clash of civilizations" apocalypse scenarios. In that prohecy, supposedly, the last pope would be proceeded by a gloria olivae pope, a pope, it was thought, to have some connection to the Benedictine order... Benedictines.... Benedict.... Ratzinger obligingly helped "fulfill" the "prophecy" by choosing Benedict for his papal name.  The last pope, so the prophecy runs, would be Petrus Romanus, Peter the Roman, who, we are told, would feed his flock amid Great Tribulation(a wonderful phrase to have around for all the dispensationalists out there, as it allows them to indulge in their own masturbatory apocalyptic prognostications).

Well, now it seems that even The Daily Bell is getting in on the bandwagon, as the conclave meets (or, as the case may be, has already met and elected its next pope):

Fulfilling Prophecy, Church Considers Peter the Roman as Next Pope

Now consider these statements:

"We can see a Peter is being seriously considered. This brings up another issue, which is whether Church officials are actively mimicking papal prophecy on purpose. In other words, certain elements of the Church may WANT to fulfill certain "prophecies" for certain reasons.

"This fits with our theory that Majick Arts and certain prophecies generally are part of a larger dominant social theme used by the elites to propagate superstition and awe. People are willing to ascribe all sorts of ghastly things to those in charge behind the scenes, and we figure some of these belief structures may be cultivated by the powers-that-be.

"We can surely see this in the so-called Illuminati symbolism that is increasingly rife in Western culture. There are various theories as to why the top elites encourage this sort of Masonic imagery but our suspicion has always been that it simply suits the top elites to propagate this sort of occult signage.

"But at the very top, we don't think the elites believe much of anything. They seem to be master manipulators and are apt to USE modern or Biblical prophecy to their advantage.

"While we won't speculate as to how various prophecies came into being, we do think the power elite is not averse to taking advantage of them to help push forward its cause of global governance. We think, for instance, that the powers-that-be want to make Jerusalem an independent holy city with its own laws and power base – just as the City of London is. If mimicking or accommodating Biblical prophecy can help in this quest, then so be it.

"We also tend to believe in the possibility of a so-called Black Church. Like any other organization in this day and age, the Catholic Church, a tremendously powerful and wealthy organization, is surely penetrated by those promoting globalism. Again, these individuals are surely not averse to using the fulfillment of prophecy to incite superstition and awe that accommodates its goals and encourages their fulfillment."

Is the church penetrated by a globalist-occult group? Well, yes... but that's a whole other story. Is the goal of the elite to make Jerusalem a kind of independent holy city as the Daily Bell avers? Yes, I tend to think so, and anyone with half an acquaintance with big-oil sponsored American dispensationalism of the pre-tribulational Rapture variety, or even pre-millenial variety, could tell you why. It could be neatly made into a fulfillment. But, as I've said here before, the whole dispensationalist system is a massive deception to begin with.

It's easy to fulfill prophecy when you invent the prophecy, and control its interpretation.

And is all of it being done in a kind of global magickal operation of staged fulfillments of carefully popularized and cultivated versions of prophecy(stop and think about it: most people in the world, even if they are not Christian or or any faith, think the whole Rapture-Pretribulation complex is actually historic Christian doctrine. That is not accidental, and would have required quiet elite backing all along the way, and as Dr. de Hart and I attempted to show in Yahweh the Two-Faced God, that's exactly what they did).

So regardless of what happens in the current papal conclave, it's best to remember two things. The papal claims are themselves spurious, and for those of certain theological sensibilities, blasphemous and, for the Eastern Orthodox Catholic, heretical. This is, after all, an institution claiming infallibility that once roasted people alive for disagreeing with it. Its claims remain absolute, and, funny that, that was the only thing at Vatican Two that remained unchanged, and was expressed in "good old fashioned Vatican One terms." The second thing we'd best remember is precisely that "other half" of Christendom, the Orthodox half, the "Orthodox civilization" as Samuel Huntington called it in his Clash of Civilizations. That half, when true to itself, gives papal conclaves a big "ho-hum," it's more apocalypse theater by an institution claiming an authority that, by Orthodox lights, is not genuinely catholic at all, and indeed, as one 19th century Russian theologian - Alexey Khomiakov put it - "the pope is the first Protestant."

If a "Peter" is elected, or, has been elected by the time this blog appears, and the west's oligarchy marches glibly on to ever more staged fulfillments, then my reaction is to remember that, whatever miseries it might invoke, it is, in the final analysis, deception. These people are no less capable of manipulating the papacy as they are the symbols and doctrines of (any) religion for their own purposes.

See you on the flip side.