Raye -

I have been following the conversations of Steve Reed and Banana (1) with the superimposition of a hypothesis of a 'Trinity of Evil' - the Big Three - if you will - that the Big Three MAY be the 'Bosses of Faction 1 & Faction 2' and, in Revelation's parlance - they COULD be symbolizied by the two beasts and a false prophet but I am willing to discuss this. My GUESS is that these three will become visible just prior to the Tribulation - a period of seven years and in a manner similiar to the increased visibility of the Bilderberg this year.

Again, these hypothetical Three MAY wish to direct prophecy for their own agenda. In terms of profiling (i am not an expert profiler), they MAY wish to mimic the Holy Trinity - The Father; the Son and The Holy Ghost as a source of direct confrontation and empowerment - they could be represented by Satan or Lucifer; Son of Satan (Antichrist) and The False Prophet. This caveat COULD make them predictable and identifiable.

So, I am testing a hypothesis past extremism - in other words, the hypothesis that extremists will direct prophecy seems to be supported with actual observations (will collect citations if necessary, however, consider the number of extremists who are currently using Millennium Prophecies as motive) and I am testing a hypothesis past extremism mainly because of "Megiddo" (the prophecy of Armageddon) and the "Mezuzah" (God's warning of the Apocalypse).

I only have a few scant hints that the Antichrist is here and staging Himself:

http://x40.deja.com/~stopthebombing/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=544404881&CONTEXT=943804002.976617494&hitnum=0

'It seems inevitable that, as negotiations proceed over land rights, the issue of the Temple Mount will rise.  It is already rumored that an Arab Parliament Building and neighboring lavish residence are under construction; equidistant with the Israeli Parliment with regard to the Temple Mount (reference available by request). The Third Temple is a Revelation's prophecy and, as long as prophecies exist, there will be men around will who try to direct them.'

It has been inferred by interpretors of Nostradamus that there will be two successors of Pope John Paul II and that the first will be may a tool of Antichrist - an anti-Pope, if you will. This could be the False Prophet. In the article below, Steve Reed warns of Carlo Maria Martini (2):

"It does look as though there are big divisions in the Vatican at the moment, this will be related to succession struggles. The guy to watch is Martini, the Jesuits' man, the questions to ask are who can stop him, and the far more difficult questions, have the Jesuits got a master plan, and if so what on earth is it?"

One those who may be able to stop him are Dionigi Tettamanzi as inferred in the article below (1).

-- Philip

(1) ***Subject: Re: New book: Estermann killing (Vatican); Opus Dei; Cardinal of Naples From: banana Date: 1999/11/27 Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.princess-diana [More Headers]

In article <$JjW8OA3AtP4IAem@lastings.softnet.co.uk>, posted to alt.conspiracy.princess-diana and stamped at '18:23:51' on 'Fri, 26 Nov 1999', Steve Reed writes:

>Arriaga is preaching against Leninists and Globalists. I >assumed he meant Masons too. I hoped you might know something. > >Willan's book "Puppetmasters, the political use of terrorism in Italy" >(Constable, London, 1991) points to WWII collusion between the OSS >(forerunner of the CIA) and the Mafia as the origin of a US/Italian >Secret Service campaign of "defensive terrorism", designed to prevent >the Italian Communist Party from coming to power. Willan says that >Italian Masonic Lodges were involved in this too.

This is established fact, although traditional freemasonry wasn't as powerful as P2. The Mafia controlled New York docks; the US let 'Lucky' Luciano out of prison and were helped considerably by the Mafia when they invaded Sicily from North Africa.

>I think both are possible. Arriaga seems to be referring to Globalist or >supranational Communism which is thought to be the natural next step >from global capitalism, in that the capitalist elite install themselves >(insofar as they have not done so already) as a world government, >controlling all resources in the name of the people.

The capitalist elite already control all resources in the name of the people - their ideology is 'democracy' i.e. 'rule by the people'!

>Willan is >referring to national or Internationalist communism, which opposes the >formation of a corporate world state based on the existing capitalist >elite.

It was not so much the coming to power of the CP that was opposed - it was the sharing of power within the central state with the CP. The CP BTW was owned by a fraction of Italian capital that had among other business interests, interests in trade with the USSR - see the book 'Vodka Cola'. Also one should not forget that the Soviet-owned London bank, the Moscow Narodny ('People's' - that word again), was one of the banks that was helping P2 (although not the most important such bank in the City).

There was a radical movement in Italy that ws crushed at the end of the 1970s by means of a policy of state-sponsored 'terrorism' and mass imprisonment, along with the forcing of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of radicals into exile. The CP [Communist Party?] was an important force in this repression. It ran for example Bologna Council, which supported the preparations for a military repression in 1977, when tanks were put on the street. Also, in the repression of the Autonomists, many of the most vicious scumbags of magistrates were members of the CP.

One could compare this with the Stalinist repression in Spain, where the CP successfully smashed the revolutionary movement but lost the civil war.

Part of the CD-CP division - which was by no means total; controllers of capital practically *always* know how to be united when there is a threat from those they exploit - relates to matters unresolved during the civil war that took place towards the end of WW2 in Italy. One has heard stories of groups of workers in the north who still had weapons, in working order, secreted in the 1940s, sometimes quite heavy weapons. The CP, as a capitalist force, had to deal with the fact that in some areas there was this sort of level of workers' organisation. Nor was there much Maoism, which in certain other European countries has in my view functioned as an asset of Gladio, its main perspective being one of armed nationalistic (not revolutionary) resistance to Soviet invasion.

Willan's book sounds interesting and I haven't read it. Does he suss that it was the anti-Historic Compromise people, focused on P2, and not leftists, who were really behind the capture and killing of Aldo Moro? Also does he admit that Andreotti was the real boss of P2? (Not that I'm suggesting Andreotti was more powerful than Agnelli or Riina, simply that he was the boss of P2).

>In this way the Masons are for communism, as Arriaga defines it, and >against communism, as Willan defines it. They would thus be undermining >the Vatican, on the one hand, AND the Italian Communist Party (PCI) on >the other.

There are doubtless ways in which they threaten both, does it matter whether they are supranationalist or internationalist. Israeli and (IIRC) Jordanian freemasons attended a function together very shortly after the Six Day War - suggesting that international freemasonry is not simply an instrument of one state or another. But it's the sort of sphere - rather like the occult - that attracts agent-handlers and professional manipulators.

It does look as though there are big divisions in the Vatican at the moment, this will be related to succession struggles. The guy to watch is Martini, the Jesuits' man, the questions to ask are who can stop him, and the far more difficult questions, have the Jesuits got a master plan, and if so what on earth is it?

>In opposing the PCI, according to Willan, they are following >the policy, not only of the CIA and the SISDE (Italian internal secret >service) but also of the Vatican itself, of course.

Does he mention SMOM [? - my comment] ? Freemasonry is still banned by the Vatican but undoubtedly has a presence therein. SMOM and Opus Dei are said to be up against it.

>The Vatican is opposed to the PCI and to Globalism - although it does >business with the Globalists (e.g. Jerusalem?)

They have *got* to deals over Jerusalem - they are in no position to say they want it all, although of course they do want it all?

What do you reckon on Macao BTW? It goes back under official Chinese control in a few weeks time, at the end of 1999. It was set up by the Jesuits. It is run by a triad organisation which is friendly with Beijing just as the triads and bankers who run HK [Hong Kong] are friendly with Beijing. If HK is extremely important as an interface between British and Chinese financial influence, I suspect that Macao is important as an interface between Chinese and Vatican/Jesuit influence (of course there are many complications that arise when when puts the words 'Vatican' and 'Jesuit' together like that!). There ain't much in the British press about Macao. Teilhard de Chardin was out in China for years - he was the Jesuit who according to Stephen Jay Gould, the Darwinist ideologue, was involved in the look-how-unprofessional-it-was-compared-to-today's- scientific-scams-that-aren't-admitted Piltdown Man hoax. Why, I don't know. I'm not sure that Gould has speculated on that - he must of course defend the scientific religion, arguing or implying that it was a matter of hoaxers getting under the top scientists' radar, as if science is neutral, but no way was it 'just' a student prank. I believe the Jesuits were also involved in the development as a field of astrophysics. Their high command is in Rome.

>Like the British >Monarchy, the Vatican remains a wild card in the deck. It is following >its own agenda. This makes it anti-Globalist, in the eyes of Globalists >at least, because their view is that anyone who is not for them is >against them - they want it ALL! That would be why a Masonic fifth >column is working to take control of the Vatican.

That's quite a workable hypothesis IMO.

Any lodges in Macao I wonder?!

>The assassination of Diana would be an elaborate plot to discredit >(justifiably or not) that other inconveniently independent entity, the >House of Windsor. > >In case you think I have forgotten "the Jews" suddenly: I haven't >mentioned them specifically because they (I mean those active in Jewish >politics) have split decisively - like the communists - into two camps, >one aligned with the NWO and one with an Israeli nationalist agenda. >The assassination of Rabin was the point of no return, although the >schism had been forming for years before that.

I would be careful with these terms 'decisive' and 'schism'. The diaspora and the US are not about to stop backing Israel, although they are very p*ssed off with Israeli ultra-nationalists. Also the ultra-nationalists only overlap with the supporters of a 'Greater Israel' - they are not the same.

If it were not for Jerusalem, a deal would have been done years ago. Recent press reports have suggested that a deal could be done on everything else (mainly settlements and status; the refugees aren't so much of an issue because - let's face it - the PLO has already sold them down the river) while the Jerusalem question is fudged. This may be so. If it is the only way to avoid a war, it would be a good thing too. But the divisions in Israel and in the Arab region will probably not permit this. In particular I do not think King Fahd will last long if he signs a deal allowing Israel to assert sovereignty (realistically, with police on the ground) over the whole of East Jerusalem. And the fall of the Fahd despotism would affect the whole of the Arab region, the Islamic area, and the Middle East.

Jerusalem is focal and crucial in international politics as I have been saying for ages...

>Barry Chamish, who is an Israeli nationalist, tells me, > My >>people have >>been run by Bolshevik megalomaniacs and now we are being eaten away inch by >>inch by them.

Which isn't true...

>This calls into question the dominant position of Jewish financiers in >the creation of the NWO, AFAIC. Rather the NWO is supranational in every >sense of the word. Its aims may be traced in the notorious Protocols, >and in the (Illuminist?) teachings of Freemasonry, but its protagonists >come from every quarter of the former political spectrum, from every >race and creed and from every walk of life - that's why I say "forget >your leftwing rightwing labels". THEY NO LONGER APPLY. The leading, >public figures of the NWO are social-democrats, like Clinton, Blair, >Schroeder and Jospin, but there are communists (Chevenement)

Chevenement is not CP. Or is he? I am behind if I've missed this.

>and >fascists (Prince Bernhard) and everything in between - including the >"Euro-Tories" - on board. Opposed to them are people who, whatever >their view of state-intervention as an economic tool or egalitarianism >as a desired goal, can only be described, collectively, as Nationalists; >and this includes, for example, the PCI, in Italy, as well as the Front >Nationale in France.

^ sp :-)

>This is how the doyens of the CFR/Trilat Comm/Bilderberg etc have >managed to impose supranational institutions on Europe and the World, >quite without the consent, and largely against the wishes, of the mass >of the population. It is getting to the point now, where their >intentions can no longer be hidden

Are you taking your desires for reality?

>- thousands are dying in their wars, >and their defence procurements are spiralling - but even now we squabble >over whether this anti-NWO group or that is leftwing enough or rightwing >enough to be a worthy ally. The question will be academic soon enough if >we don't stop asking it, and do something together. > >Diana was the canary in the mine. That was more than two years ago, and >fire-damp spreads fast.

I think the CFR/Trilat/Bilderberg are very important but it is necessary not to be conned by the political/ideological sphere/instrument. The form of modern politics (largely a matter of state ideology and intra-state rivalries and reflections of capitalist rivalries tout court) is determined by control over, and use of, the media. 'Citizenship' is hooey. 'Nationality' is hooey. 'Democracy' is hooey. to some extent there is already a world state, and even if it came out into the open there would still be divisions within it as the same time as it is united. A lot of the centralised capitalist organisation of this century we are leaving has not been out in the open. When something comes out into the open, perhaps it is partly because (I emphasise the partly) the controllers want to manipulate a pseudo-opposition to it. The state is only an instrument of capital anyway - that is its nature, that is what it *is*. Whether it's a local state or a world state. In a sense there is only one state. The state gives people passports and citizenship 'rights' (that go along with duties), and people are encouraged to be proud of the nationalistic brands burnt into them. If capitalism gets rid of nationalism, that might be a good thing, assuming of course that it does not start doing by other means, and perhaps achieving more, what it used to do by means of nationalism; and assuming that it did not thereby reach a position where it was able to do other sorts of things too. But... 1) things aren't so simple, and in any case what the capitalist system says about itself and encourages people to *believe* is not (or shouldn't be) the focus of radical critique... 2) nationalism/internationalism/supranationalism is not the central issue for the radical critic, the central issue is world capitalism and how to overthrow it on a world scale. WE ARE NOT SUPPRESSED OR WEAK BECAUSE WE ARE LIED TO; WE ARE SUCCESSFULLY LIED TO BECAUSE WE ARE WEAK. Or in short, down with ideology. 3) Critics need to look at, among other things, the megacorporations, the control over sectors, the interaction and cooperation between megacorps; how control, and what control, is exercised over this or that area of society or this or that aspect of life. For example, the Rockefeller control over medicine and the 'health' sector - I mean, how much of the world value production does this sector account for? Maybe as much as 5% or 10% - a huge amount. Sony control over music publishing. Monsanto and whoever its rivals are. Elsevier is extremely important. I see this as essential, just as (and for the same reason as) looking at the central gatherings/organisations is essential. It's not just Bilderberg, one also has the UN and so on.

Shame that the opposition to the WTO is so dominated by the ideology of anti-imperialism... I guess all nationalists are opposed to free trade to some extent or other, but really nationalism and free trade are aspects of one and the same beast. -- banana

Copyright © 1994-1999 Yahoo! Inc.

(2) *** Carlo Maria Martini

Subject: Re: New book: Estermann killing (Vatican); Opus Dei; Cardinal of Naples From: banana Date: 1999/11/27 Message-ID: Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.princess-diana

excerpt:

"It does look as though there are big divisions in the Vatican at the moment, this will be related to succession struggles. The guy to watch is Martini, the Jesuits' man, the questions to ask are who can stop him, and the far more difficult questions, have the Jesuits got a master plan, and if so what on earth is it?"

Subject: Even RC Priests Agree--NO Enforced Celibacy From: nick cobb Date: 1999/11/19 Message-ID: <3835EBA7.3A1D0281@cris.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox [More Headers]

To be rid of a turbulent priest From JAMES PANICHI in Milan 20nov99

CARDINAL Carlo Maria Martini – Archbishop of Milan, champion of the left, enemy of the Mafia, and pope in waiting – is a man unafraid to express his views, even if they upset the Vatican.

In a BBC radio interview last year, he suggested the celibacy of priests should be re-examined, as it lacked foundation in Catholic teachings.

Then, at last month's synod of European bishops, Martini presented a blueprint of his vision for Catholicism.

He demanded immediate action to counter the church's inability to recruit for the priesthood, he urged bishops to reconsider the Vatican's position on the role of women, he even suggested the Catholic hierarchy reconsider its position on sexuality.

His manifesto left the church establishment – including the Pope – seeing red.

The statements have most Vatican-watchers doubting that Martini – once considered eminently papabile - is still in the running to replace Pope John Paul II.

But it was his remarks on "papal primacy" that prompted the Pontiff to break his silence.

After a tour of Israel last weekend, during which he was received as the likely papal successor, Martini questioned the long-held doctrine of papal primacy. Speaking in a radio broadcast, he called for decentralisation within the church to meet the concerns of Anglican and Orthodox Christians over the "absolute power" of the pontiff.

The Pope's reaction was swift. Addressing a delegation of German bishops in the Vatican last week, he said some senior church figures were giving too many interviews and should "evaluate more carefully on certain occasions whether to place themselves in front of television cameras or radio microphones".

Although the Pope "named no names", the Italian press said there was no doubt he had Martini in mind.

The controversial Martini model of Catholicism, which combines social activism with ideological liberalism, is based on pragmatism rather than ideology, and is linked to the left-wing political realities of Italy's industrialised north.

Martini built his reputation on his leading role in fighting corruption and on his extraordinary relationship with the Red Brigade killers of prime minister Aldo Moro, converting them from their ultra-Left revolutionary ideology.

Martini's intellectual erudition appeals to the prosperous children of Milan's economic miracle, while his crusading social activism has seen him build a following among those the miracle left behind – the culturally diverse residents of the city's sprawling industrial suburbs.

So great is his following that each Saturday morning his bible study class fills the vast Milan cathedral to overflowing.

Martini was born into a middle-class Turin family in 1927. His strong vocation and brilliant academic career saw him ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1944 and, after gaining a doctorate in biblical studies and mastering a dozen modern languages, he returned to Rome to head the prestigious Gregorian University.

In 1980, Pope John Paul II rocked the religious establishment by appointing Martini to lead the world's largest and most complex archdiocese – that of Milan.

Once in Milan, Martini's unusual attitudes added some colour to church life. On his first day, he broke with tradition and chose to walk into town unescorted. He celebrated his first mass in front of a small group of prisoners in the city's overcrowded jail.

But while the archbishop's popularity in Milan remains high, the hostility he arouses may cut his career short. Insiders believe support for Martini within the church has waned to such an extent Rome may take the unprecedented step of finding a replacement for him in Milan.

In a sign of what is to come, Martini's social blueprint was publicly rejected at the end of October's synod by convener Dionigi Tettamanzi, a cardinal close to the Pope.

Although Martini's international support is strong among liberal Catholics in English-speaking countries, his militancy has seen his popularity among conservative Italian bishops plummet.

What's more, the cardinal has explained in several interviews that behind his interest in Jewish culture lies a desire to retire in Jerusalem. "My real dream is to end my days in Jerusalem," he said.

This has led to speculation throughout Italy that Martini may know his days as archbishop of Milan are numbered. Copyright © 1994-1999 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.