Originally posted early 2000
Dialogue Vol. I, No. 1
Reflection and amplification on RULERS OF EVIL through correspondence between ROEders and the author
THOMAS WROTE:
I do hope that www.TupperSaussy.com will be updated frequently with some sort of e-newsletter that will contain your thoughts about the present state of affairs in light of the revelations in RULERS OF EVIL.
I’ve read the book. I’m now on my second reading. The history is exceedingly interesting, but the most fascinating portion is your analysis of the “Mark of Cain,” especially your conclusion that Cain sacrificed Abel.
Question: What theological writings would you recommend? Especially from the reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) in regards to their thoughts on Rome and the Jesuits.
Question: I am still a bit flustered after reading your book. What are we, as Christians, to do? Being informed is one thing, but knowledge without action is unfaithfulness. Do you suggest that we just go along with the ride? Knowing when to act and how to act has always been troubling to me.
TUPPER WROTE:
Be warned that my hypothesis on the mark of Cain is pretty eccentric. It usually creates blank faces among scholarly theologians. I don’t know why. There seems to be a rule that novel inferences from Scripture border on heresy. It’s a pretty good rule I must say, as so many novel inferences really are heretical schemes designed to serve a ministry’s agenda.
I’ve just returned from three weeks of photographing temples in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. The influence of Cain was very powerful there. The high Buddhist monks occupy a throne which, in many temples, is marked with the Annu signature in gold. Gold is the color the Bible associates with Babylon, the first state. Tradition associates gold and yellow with Cain, the first statesman. Abraham Slender in Shakespeare’s Merry Wives of Windsor has “a yellow beard, a Cain-coloured beard.”
Every
Buddhist temple in Laos is guarded by naga, the serpent with the
mouth of a dog. In ancient Babylonian icons, the dog often was a metaphor
for Cain, from whose name is derived from the Latin canis, "dog."
Nagas seem to say that the serpent's brilliant wisdom is preached
through Cain's mouth, a notion corroborated by the Bible.
Another persistent image in southeast Asian buddhism is the golden serpent, a pair or more of which guard every temple. Wouldn’t Cain have deified the serpent for providing the divine knowledge of good and evil which enabled him to command slaves to mine the earth’s gold for him?
I would love someday to brainstorm the historicity of Cain and the Mark with reasonable theologians who are trained in the deceptions normally employed by secular political power.
Sadly, such persons are hard to find. Back in the mid-eighties former president Nixon’s chief counsel Charles Colson stated that, of all visitors to the White House, by far the most politically naive were the Christian pastors. Alas! so many still are, and their flocks as well. I sense that it’s our task to educate as many as are willing to confess —as you and I have done— that they’ve been deceived.
Detail
from the throne of a Laotian Buddhist temple. The golden double-cross
in Babylonian means “heaven,” and is the name of Annu. Annu
is the chief god who empowered the lesser god Marduk to rule evildoers,
in the same way Yahweh empowered Cain to move among peoples of the earth
with impunity. As ROEders know, the name of Annu forms the vast
pavement of St. Peter's Piazza, the epicenter being occupied by the Obelisk
of Caligula.
So few Christians are aware that not to be deceived is an explicit commandment from Christ: “Be not deceived”( I Corinthians 6:9, and two other places, emphasizing the principle). Christ even suggests that the inner desire not to be deceived is a strong indication that one truly is an elect of God (Matthew 24:24).
Pastoral Business wants to hold a symposium someday and share our discoveries and insights with all who seek undeception. You seem inclined to research. You certainly can write. Stay in touch with us.
I’m not aware of any well-formed writings of Luther and Calvin on the Jesuits. Luther died in 1546, just 6 years after the Society of Jesus was ordained and Calvin died in 1564.
More interesting to me than the Protestants are Christians who simply kept to the Scriptures without protesting Rome, without even recognizing Rome as a member of the Body of Christ. They loved neighbor as self, honored the king no matter how corrupt, agreed with their adversaries without doing evil, governed themselves and their families keenly and prosperously with Christ their Sovereign Lord. They were apparently all over the place, as they are today, and I want to be in touch with them.
Another resource I’ve found immensely valuable in understanding the Roman Catholic Church is The Berean Call, written by Dave Hunt and Tom McMahon. These fine scholars are doing extraordinary work in undeception.
Also Biblical Discernment Ministries appears to pull no punches coming from a solid foundation in Scripture.
CHARLES WROTE:
Not trying to be the heavy, but during the 60’s I spent all of my spare time studying the state of our government and its activities to bring us to the brink of WWIII (which seemed to me to be on-going without us realizing it was happening).
Watching the destruction of Joe McCarthy was painful, I thought then from available evidence that he was right. Now, over 40 years later, we can finally see that he was right, that our government was responsible for the tyrannies imposed on most of the free world after WWII.
It is frustrating to me to have to wait so long for the truth to out, when anyone who cared could have seen the truth while it was happening. I was one of the few who tried my best to alert those around me to what was going on, but was drowned out by the overwhelming attacks by the popular media and their puppets in law, journalism and Hollywood.
Enough, I just wanted to share this most interesting story with you in case you didn't see it otherwise.
TUPPER REPLIED:
McCarthy did his entire star turn within seven years, start to finish. He was not only a Roman Catholic—as devout as they come—but also he was trained by the Jesuits of Marquette University. We shall never know the mouth-to-ear communications between him and his Jesuit superiors, but the sudden rise of anti-communistic rhetoric attending his career, curtailed by its perplexingly sudden suppression, suggests the application of controls beyond the normal popular ability to perceive.
I strongly suspect that the Jesuits made communist polity an issue beginning with the generalate of Vladimir Ledòchowski, who had both the authority and the claim on resources to direct the Bolshevik Revolution from his castle in Zizers, Switzerland.
Of course, there is a record of Jesuits being anti-communist (they had to be in order to support Hitler as faithfully as Ledòchowski commanded them to), and when people argue that to me, I say that the Society must then be anti-Jesuit, since it has practiced pure communism since 1540. No Jesuit can own property, he must obey the will of superiors in every case, and all his earnings go directly to the Society for distribution according to common need, etc.
We need the energy of young scholars to search out the connection between McCarthy and his Jesuit mentors before, during, and after Marquette. How else could he, uniquely, obtain the intelligence to speak with such certainty about communist ties? Why would anyone bandy such allegations about unless he was assured that resources would become available in the near future to mature the allegations into lawful prosecutions? And once it was discovered that such resources were being curtailed, for whatever reason, who but someone aware of the futility of arguing with the Black Papacy would saturate himself with alcohol in hopes of making the situation sufferable?
McCarthy took his place among the many thousands of doomed Jesuits who had outlived their usefulness to the Society. (You might wish to review, in ROE, Lorenzo Ricci’s degradation of the European missions in preparation of the American Revolution.) The Society’s agenda, we can see now with our hindsight, was to educate the public in the ugly ways of communism using even uglier teachers— “Have you no decency, Senator?”— the public expressing their dislike for the teachers by embracing what the teachers opposed.
Your being “drowned out by the overwhelming attacks by the popular media and their puppets in law, journalism and Hollywood” may have been the calculated, Sun-Tzuan result of Joe McCarthy’s having been chosen by the Society to be the stereotypical ugly teacher.
The reason I call your attention to this is that these same processes are at work today. Aware of this fact, those of us who care about the truth can perhaps go about our business more discreetly and more effectively than we used to.
MARK WROTE:
How connected are the “jews” to the Jesuits? I have heard rather closely, but maybe you can comment.
TUPPER REPLIED:
As for Jesuits and Jews (I use the proper noun to err on the side of political correctness), the main principle is that neither subscribes to the Jesus of Scripture, and both are subservient to Rome. The declaration “We have no king but Caesar” is observably as binding today as it was when the priests and the pharisees uttered it during Christ’s trial.
To those who insist that Jews run the world, I say okay, but only by the permission and appointment of Rome.
According to Manfred Barthel, whose book on the Jesuits was submitted to several Jesuits for approval, “the Order has always had a reputation as a refuge for Jewish converts.” The second General of the Order, Diego Laynez, made clear in his autobiography that his family were prominent “New Christians,” as Jewish converts in Spain and Portugal were called.
By the end of the 17th century, the Jesuits were suffering accusations of defiling Christian doctrine and morality with their “rabbinical-pharisaical mentality” and “subtle Talmudic incantations.”
In 1814, however, the Jesuits turned anti-semitic. I believe this was in order to mask their collusion with the money power operated by the House of Rothschild, “guardian of the Vatican Treasury.”
Still, behind the convenient facade of antisemitism, as Bismarck wrote (quoting Kaiser Wilhelm I), “the Jews and the Jesuits always flock together.” I think after reading RULERS OF EVIL you’ll understand how the Jesuits can simultaneously embrace, discredit, frame, and annihilate the Jews.
The Jesuits are, after all, an army run by a General who can do anything to anyone under Rome’s jurisdiction in order to preserve the Roman State, which is evidently the New World Order. (February 11, 2000)
EDWARD WROTE:
I was browsing through a big Portuguese dictionary today, writing a fax to a close Portuguese friend who is not comfortable in English or French, and ran across a word I had never heard before.
The word is Jesuitofóbia, and means “hatred of Jesuits.”
The corresponding personal noun is Jesuitófobo, meaning “a hater of Jesuits.”
I thought this might be of interest to you in your ongoing fascination with the Jesuits. I checked my best French dictionaries afterwards, and found no corresponding words in French. [The Portuguese monarchy expelled the Jesuits from the country in 1759, when the country was being run by the Marquis de Pombal. This expulsion, and Pombal’s influence on neighboring countries, led to the expulsion of the sect from France (in 1764), from Spain (in 1767), and to the (temporary) dissolution of the order in 1773.]
TUPPER REPLIED:
Many thanks for Jesuitofóbia! I guess many of the Portuguese had reason to fear them.
I’m familiar with Pombal’s attack on the Society. ROE considers it in some detail. I theorize that Pombal, who was a Freemason, was unwittingly acting upon instructions from Superior General Lorenzo Ricci, whom I posit at the top of the masonic heap.
Interestingly, when thousands of Jesuits were brought by ships to the shores of the Papal States, the Pope—having consulted with General Ricci —refused to receive them.
Indeed, I theorize that Ricci orchestrated the entire demise of the Order so that Protestant colonists in America might not see that the Revolution they were about to fight was a Catholic affair. Radical? Wild? Paranoid? Maybe, but the facts are extraordinarily interesting when viewed in this possibility. Again, thanks for the new word. (February 11, 2000)
RICHARD WROTE:
Thought I’d better pass this on to you so you can deal with it. Mr. J is a frequent contributor to the FreeRepublic web site and may in fact be one of the operations people there.
Richard: I have read the entire website about Tupper Saussy and I’d have to be a bit less enthusiastic. He relates a tale in great detail about the placing of the Goddess of Freedom (Persephone) atop the Capital Bldg. Much of the information in this tale is made up of whole cloth and I have an ancestor whose handwritten daily journal I have transcribed and he describes the “new” statue just placed on the Capital Bldg. (the same one in Saussy’s tale) but this was about 20 years before the date attributed to it by Saussy. I’d be a bit circumspect, I think.
TUPPER REPLIED:
Richard, if Mr. J’s ancestor saw the statue on the Capitol 20 years before the date I attributed to it, he was indeed a visionary. My “story” is not whole cloth, but is based on official publications, the Congressional Record, and unpublished documents personally inspected by me in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.
If Mr. J discovers my dates are right, I wonder if he would be a bit more enthusiastic about my book.
MR. J WROTE:
Hello, all. I’m incorrect. My ancestor referred in an entry in his journal to the beauty of the capitol building and the new colossal Goddess statue he had just seen (this was Dec. 21, 1834). By going back to the transcription of his journal and scavenging through other sections of it, I can now see that he was most probably referring to the statue “Goddess of Peace” which at that time was in the rotunda of the building along with the statue of Mars.
My error was misconstruing his description of the capital building as having viewed the Freedom statue which is colossal I would say. I apologize for my error of incorrect inference, and indeed here is a link with a bit more interesting background (in case you haven’t seen it) on the statue in question and its sculptor: http://viva.lib.virginia.edu/etext/fourmill/statue.html
Certainly I did not mean to cause any anxious moments to anyone, though I’m sure Tupper had done sufficient research to not feel at all concerned. Thank you for bringing the correct “sequence of statues” to my attention. There was no intention to impinge any research anyone may have done but as I think we all know there are some real charlatans running around (some in elective office, to boot) and when I spot something I think is an error, I have an automatic protection mechanism that goes into operation.
TUPPER REPLIED:
Thank you for the self-correction, Mr. J. The only concern I felt, since we’re not acquainted, was that another patriot type was trying to lead truth-seekers astray with information I knew to be false.
That always concerns me. I’m happy you cleared that up. Yes, the site http://viva.lib.virginia.edu/etext/fourmill/statue.html contains some interesting information on Freedom. But ROE contains all that plus very much more.
For example, Virginia.edu does not integrate the statue’s development with dates, causes, personages, and events in the War of Southern Secession, as my book does. Now that you know that ROE is not in error —at least on this point —I hope you’ll consult a copy in your quest for more details. And please don’t neglect to bring anything in it you suspect of being in error to my attention. Like you, I only want truth. (February 12, 2000)
RICHARD WROTE:
I’ve been asked to speak for Alan Keyes’ position on the 2nd Amendment at a rally here down at the Varsity parking deck in March. If you’ve heard Keyes speak on that subject, you KNOW what I’m going to say.
About the only thing that bothers me about Keyes is that he IS a Roman Catholic. Tupper, any thoughts here?
TUPPER REPLIED:
The fact that Keyes is a Catholic wouldn’t bother me—even if I were a voter. The system is Catholic, so it would probably function a lot better with more Catholics operating it.
We can’t say “So and So is Catholic, we can’t put him in office.” It doesn’t work that way.
Catholicism is divided into liberals and conservatives, just like every other human institution. There are liberal and conservative Jesuits. Pat Buchanan is a conservative Jesuit and by far the most attractive presidential candidate I ever saw.
I wouldn’t worry about who’s part of a Jesuit cabal. When you get down to it, American Government is a Jesuit cabal.
No matter how freely the people participate in it through the elective franchise, the will of one autocratic person, the Bishop of Rome’s Clandestine General, is going to be done.
And the bottom line on his will is the survival of the Church of Rome as God’s rulers of evil. (February 13, 2000)
KEN WROTE:
On page 212, you say that the term “Queen of Heaven” is mentioned 5 times in Jeremiah 44. I can only find 4 mentions. Am I missing something?
TUPPER REPLIED:
I wrote “The term ‘Queen of Heaven’ appears nowhere else in the Old and New Testaments but at Jeremiah 44, and there exactly five times.”
I should have written “The term ‘Queen of Heaven’ appears nowhere else in the Old and New Testaments but in the book of Jeremiah, and there exactly five times (once in chapter 7, four times in chapter 44).”
Thank you for spotting the error, and please consider this a standing invitation to do so elsewhere in the book. [This error has been corrected in the HarperCollins first edition.]
THOMAS WROTE:
Having read through your book a THIRD time, I now am (respectfully, of course) demanding a sequel.
What was the Jesuit influence on the writing of the United States Constitution? What was the Jesuit influence pertaining to the War of 1812? Was there major Jesuit influence in America during the late 1800s (I know there was major flux of immigrants who were Roman Catholic and the start of the Catholic School System). Was there major influence of Jesuit control during the crucial years of 1913-1920? What role (if any)did the Eastern Orthodox Church play? Did they have a Jesuit equivilant?
Tupper, there are two books that have had a major effect upon my thinking and you are the author of both of them. (The Bible has a continuous influence upon my thinking as opposed to a challenge to my thinking.) The Miracle On Main Street inspired me to read the Constitution (Federal and State), learn more about the money system, analyse financial patterns and more.
Now, ROE has me tracing the history of Secret Societies. My previous belief was that Secret Societies infiltrated the Roman Catholic church. It now appears that in actuality it is all in reverse! It is Rome, via the Jesuits, that is controlling the Masons, the Skull & Bones, the Knights of Malta, the Grotto, etc.
I am now in continuous research using ROE as a foundation...
TUPPER REPLIED:
I’m glad ROE has broadened your concerns about where worldly power lies. The Constitution had to protect Bible-reading Christians from Rome— that’s the condition God placed on the Mark of Cain.
Cain has to identify himself, can rule anyone who submits to his moral guidance, and can only use force against those who want to trash him. He’s free to deceive souls into his jurisdiction, but that’s okay because Jesus always shepherds His flock in other directions, and rescues the lost ones.
The Constitution is a plan of government that perfectly follows the confines of the Mark: it rules those who submit to Cain’s (Rome’s) moral guidance, and meets its enemies with force. It leaves alone Bible-following Christians who neither seek its moral guidance nor offend its dignity. The Constitution is essentially Roman, which creates the presumption of at least indirect Jesuit guidance in its development, since the Jesuits are authorized to infuse any and all constitutions with Roman Catholic doctrine.
Jesuit influence on the War of 1812? Remember, the Society was “abolished” in 1773 and not resurrected until 1814. I haven’t looked into the 1812 War, so why don’t you?
Yes, there was a major Jesuit influence in America during the late 1800s. Check the “Oxford Movement” in England at about this time, which greatly Romanized the Anglican Church. I know that during Clement Clark Moore’s tenure as Professor of Greek and Hebrew literature at New York’s General Theological Seminary (1821-1850), the Seminary, basically Episcopalian, openly professed “a growing sympathy for the Roman Catholic Church, with the result that there was soon a considerable number of converts from among the seminary students.” [Sidney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, p 627]
Clement C. Moore is famous for having institutionalized the Santa Claus idol with his Visit from Saint Nick, which begins “‘Twas the night before Christmas...” The poem, which went far toward removing the Bible from a Christian appreciation of the “holiday season,” was written during Moore’s second year at General.
The Jesuits were very busy between the crucial years (as you call them) 1913-1920. I think a better framing would be between 1915-1942. These were the years of the Generalate of Vladimir Ledòchowski, whom I’m tempted to regard as the single most important man of the 20th century. Check him out in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.
His obituary in the NY Times in December 1942 said he did “many great and important things” which future historians would write about. Yet, I can’t find any book by any historian about any great and important things he did. I think he was a power behind radio and film, and we have evidence that he funded Adolf Hitler to unite Germany under a Catholic dictator. [See 15 Brienner Strasse for more details.]
Ledòchowski’s career needs to be carefully studied. Remember, though, that you’re tracking a man who covers his tracks. It won’t be easy. On contacting like-minded Christians—I’m working on trying to hold some kind of Symposium wherein several hundred of us can all visit for a long weekend, probably in California, with speakers on issues of interest to us all.
THOMAS WROTE:
You say the Constitution must protect Bible-reading Christians from Rome. Then why (in your opinion) were you prosecuted? You were following Constitutional and Biblical law. The money issue, whether Article I, Section 10 or Biblical law or unequal weights and measures, is legitimate. You did not challenge Cain, you demanded that Cain follow its own rules.
TUPPER REPLIED:
I wasn’t prosecuted for challenging Cain on Article I Section 10, although my position there definitely encouraged him to prosecute me.
I was prosecuted for 26 USC 7203, “willful failure to file tax returns” for the years 1977, 78, and 79. At the threshold of the trial, the judge said “It is presumed that all parties to this action know their rights and responsibilities under the law.” Alas! I didn’t know my rights and responsibilites then.
I should have rebutted that presumption on the spot. I should have asked the court to compel the IRS agent who witnessed against me to cite exactly what statute required me, a U.S.citizen having income derived from sources within the United States, to file an income tax return. But I held my peace, and so the presumption stood.
All I did was defend against the charge of willfulness, and the jury found that I had not been willful in 1978 or 79, but in the first year, 1977, I had been willful. Interestingly, I put into evidence attorney letters for 78 and 79 that advised me I could rightfully take the 5th on a tax return, but the 77 letter I could not find. (The attorney found it lodged in another client’s file a week after the verdict, but we did nothing about it because we were confident we’d win the appeal on a dozen other issues—which never happened.)
Okay, the bottom line is that Cain considered me an unruly subject. He was right, because I was objecting to the income tax in a scripturally unapproved way. Read Matthew 17, Jesus at Capernaum, and you’ll see that the whole theory of Christian tax submission has to do with inoffensiveness. “Lest we offend them,” Jesus told Peter, we pay the tax if Caesar demands it.
My filing status in 77, 78, and 79 was such that I had volunteered myself into compliance and here I was offensively trying to obstruct my own self-assessment. I deserved prosecution because I was offending. We now know how to disestablish from IRS without offending Cain, but I think it took all that suffering to arrive at this point—for me, at least.
THOMAS WROTE:
But if the kings of the earth are Cain then would not the “sons” be children of Cain and the strangers be the children of God? I had always understood this passage to teach that citizens living and working within the United States are not liable for the tax.
TUPPER REPLIED:
If the children of God were strangers in the U.S., they would be required by law to file and pay a tax on incomes derived from sources within the United States.
However, the tax code makes no provision for U.S. citizens to file and pay on domestically-derived income. So the children of God cannot be strangers in the United States. Which means that the king of the United States is the Lord Jesus Christ. This is a powerful fact acknowledged by the authors and legislators of the internal revenue statutes.
THOMAS WROTE:
Again, how should we go about our lives without giving offense? You have convinced me it’s a much deeper issue than I have previously believed.
TUPPER REPLIED:
I find myself re-reading Chapter 25 a lot.
I try to deal with every adversary from a position of love. It’s counterproductive to put people down, even if they’re wrong.
There are ways of marking the right position on any point without giving offense. By saying something like “[The position you hold] is very difficult for me to deal with,” you’re putting yourself down without giving in.
The adversary knows exactly where you stand and if he wants to sustain the relationship, he must lessen the difficulty you’re having in dealing with his position. You’ve given him, in love, an opportunity to mend his ways...