An Interesting Dichotomy in Tension With Harmony

It is highly unlikely that such a tribunal as the Leveson Inquiry in the United Kingdom could ever be set up in the United States, especially in the current political climate, and because stealth and propaganda have already brought an alarming proportion of the populace under the overpowering influence of the enemies of democracy and religious liberty.  Revelation 16:13-14 is no longer a prediction of the future, but is being fulfilled under our very eyes; and vast numbers of Christians, including Seventh-day Adventists, have come under the spell of the lying spirits.  Since the Rupert Murdoch media empire is at the heart of the phone-hacking scandal and has 40 per cent of the national newspaper circulation in the UK, father Rupert and son James have been called to testify before the Inquiry.  What has transpired there is highly informative of the manipulative powers infuencing socioeconomic and political policies that are hidden from view in the United States.  For those who can find the time during the week for the study of the secular events that shape the unfolding of prophetic events, the videos and transcripts of Rupert Murdoch's testimony before the Leveson Inquiry in the United Kindgom are highly educational as an aid to putting it all together - "connecting the dots" if you will.


MARGARET THATCHER (Note the linkage between Thatcher, Reagan, and Murdoch.)

10 Q. The three of you, if I can put it in this way, President
11 Elect Reagan, Baroness Thatcher and you were all of
12 course on the same page politically, weren't you?

13 A. I guess that's fair. Yes, this was just before his
14 inauguration.

15 Q. Indeed it was. Was it part of the purpose of this
16 meeting, if one can talk almost psychologically, to
17 demonstrate to Mrs Thatcher how very much you were "one
18 of us"? "One of us" is Baroness Thatcher's term, but
19 was that part of your purpose?
20 A. No. (Morning hearing, Page 11 of Transcript.)

4 Q. According to Roy Greenslade's book "Press Gang",
5 Mr Douglas-Home told Mr Greenslade that you were one of
6 the main powers behind the Thatcher throne.
Do you feel
7 that's right or not?
8 A. Doesn't sound like Mr Douglas-Home to me, he was
9 a pretty modest individual, but I don't know.
10 Q. But were you one of the main powers behind --
11 A. Whether I was?
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. No.
14 Q. Lance Price's book "Where Power Lies" page 254 --
15 A. We were probably -- not the Times. The Sun. If you
16 want to judge my thinking, look at the Sun.
17 Q. I think the point was you personally, not the Sun, the
18 Sunday Times or the Times. You personally were one of
19 the main powers behind the Thatcher throne. Do you
20 think that's right?

21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you consult with her regularly on every important
23 matter of policy?
24 A. Certainly not.
(Morning Hearing, Page 36.)

18 MR JAY: Mr Murdoch, the 1980s, one frankly wouldn't, given
19 your perspective on the world, expect you to have
20 supported Neil Kinnock's Labour Party. Do you regret
21 any of the Sun's constant attacks on him?
22 A. I don't remember them. I remember the famous front page
23 on the day of the election, which I thought was
24 absolutely brilliant. Our problem with the Labour Party
25 then -- I mean, I think we would have supported the
1 Labour Party in that election if it had a different
2 policy, but you remember the famous clause 4, which was
3 the socialisation of everything in the country,
4 nationalisation, all the means of production, et cetera,
5 et cetera. We were certainly against that, and if there
6 were personal attacks on Mr Kinnock I would apologise
7 for that, I don't remember them, but he was the
8 personification of the leadership of the Labour Party
9 and it was fair to attack his policies, and even
10 sometimes the way he expressed himself.

11 Q. Clause 4 had been part of the Labour Party's
12 constitution, I think, since its inception. That would
13 be a reason for never supporting the Labour Party, yet
14 the Sun did until 1979, didn't it?
15 A. That could mean -- yes. There was the failure of the
16 Heath government, there was the support of Mr Harold
17 Wilson. I don't remember whether Mr Callaghan ever
18 stood for election.
19 Q. 1976 he was Prime Minister.
20 A. Hm? He was -- yes, okay.
21 Q. Holding though --
22 A. We had very good relations with him and with Mr Wilson.
23 There was no thought of pursuing clause 4 with them. Or
24 by them.
25 Q. Mr Murdoch, can I take you to polling day on 11 June
1 1987, a dinner you attended at Clifton in the evening,
2 which is reported by Mr Woodrow Wyatt. He says this:
3 "Rupert turned up and sat near to us at one stage.
4 When Ken Livingstone appeared on the screen and put the
5 Labour defeat to the dreadful lies and smears of the
6 media, Rupert cried out, 'That's me', and was
7 delighted."
8 Is that true?
9 A. I remember that party, I mean that I was very late for
10 it, and if I said that, then I'm afraid that was the
11 influence of alcohol.
12 Q. It didn't reflect any part of your thinking then,
13 Mr Murdoch; is that right?
14 A. It was a joke.

15 Q. An external observer might observe that Mrs Thatcher
16 might have won anyway, but let's not go into that.
17 Can I deal with one point --
18 A. I wasn't planning victory. It was just a stupid,
19 light-hearted remark. (Morning Hearing, Pages 45-47.)


20 Q. That's very frank, Mr Murdoch, but the point may be
21 this, that you would not want it to appear that
22 newspapers did have this influence over voters, because
23 that might be said to be anti-democratic. Would you
24 agree with that?
25 A. I think saying anti-democratic is too strong a word, but
1 I just thought it was tasteless and wrong for us. It
2 was wrong in fact. We don't have that sort of power.
3 I think if you -- well, you can't do it now, but if you
4 go after an election and you see a newspaper that's
5 taken a very strong line, particularly the Sun, and ask
6 their readers how did they vote, there would be no
7 unanimity. It may be 60/40 one way. Whatever. I think
8 some papers you can recognise as having very strong
9 Conservative roots and some very strong Labour roots,
10 but you can't say that of the Sun. I think we're
11 perhaps the only independent newspaper in the business.
12 Q. I just want to explore with you a little bit the factors
13 which might go into the decision of the Sun to support
14 certain parties. If one looks at the 1992 election,
15 that was Mr Kinnock's last election, the Labour Party
16 manifesto included a commitment to:
17 "Establish an urgent inquiry by the Monopolies and
18 Mergers Commission into the concentration of media
19 ownership."
20 So, in other words, they were out to get you. Do
21 you follow me?
22 A. Sounds like that.
23 Q. So it's self-evident that had the Labour Party won that
24 election, that would have been heavily disadvantageous
25 to the commercial interests of your company, wouldn't
1 it?
2 A. That's what they say afterwards, yes. That was
3 obviously their intent, or would have been their intent,
4 if they'd carried through. I doubt it, but ...
5 Q. So the support the Sun gave to the Tory Party, not that
6 it was the strongest support, because you, to put it
7 bluntly, weren't that appreciative of Sir John Major --
8 A. Or his government. Well, we were reading in all the
9 papers of cabinet divisions.
10 Q. But part of the reason for supporting the Conservative
11 Party in that election, apart from macro-economic
12 considerations, was that a Labour victory would have
13 been disastrous to your commercial interests in this
14 country, wouldn't it?

15 A. No. If you're -- I didn't know Mr Kinnock had those
16 plans to move against us afterwards. If he ever did,
17 really. You know, people say things in defeat which
18 come to them suddenly, but it was certainly not part of
19 his policy before the election.
20 Q. Well, it was part of his manifesto, and he was extremely
21 angry after the election. I think it was on 13 April
22 1992, he blamed his defeat on you, to put it bluntly.
23 It's reasonable to suppose that, had he got in, he would
24 have been right after you and your company, wouldn't he?
25 A. Well, I hope not.


15 Q. Okay. But did you at least sense that this sort of
16 encounter with Mr Blair and Mr Brown, so they were the
17 two most powerful people in the then Labour Opposition
18 just before a General Election -- that they were very
19 anxious to sound you out and see what your thinking was?
20 Didn't you at least sense that?
21 A. No, I think they probably wanted to convince me that
22 they were the right people to be leading Britain, and
23 I'm sure they were doing that to every other press
24 proprietor.
25 Q. So you didn't feel that they were sizing you up, trying
1 to work out what you were thinking, what was necessary,
2 from their perspective, they had to do to win your
3 support?
4 A. No. I think you must ask them that.

(Morning Hearing, Pages 71-72.)


14 Q. When you refer to "policy" here, Mr Murdoch, did you
15 discuss with Mr Cameron issues such as broadcasting
16 regulation?
17 A. No. Mr Jay, you keep inferring that endorsements were
18 motivated by business motives, and if that had been the
19 case, we would have endorsed the Tory Party in every
20 election. It was always more pro business. I could
21 have been like the Telegraph. I could even have texted
22 him every day. But I didn't. I was interested in
23 issues.
24 Q. But --
25 A. As it says here, we probably discussed Afghanistan.

Afternoon Hearing, Page 3)


On the NEWSCORP SCANDAL page of this website there is acceptance of reports that he was born and is a Roman Catholic.  This appears to be factually incorrect.  It emerged during his testimony before the Leveson Inquiry that he has strong Presbyterian roots, and apparently is still connected to the Presbyterian Church.  However, the picture is more complicated.  His close association with prominent Roman Catholic opinion makers and causes is well documented, as demonstrated by such Newscorp entities as Fox News Channel TEA PARTY UNITED™, FOX News IS The CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY.  There is no denying the identification of Murdoch's media empire with the rightwing political agenda of the Roman Catholic Church in America.

A footnote to an article on the website, NNDB - Tracking the entire world, titled "Rupert Murdoch," subtitled "AKA Keith Rupert Murdoch" quotes an interview with the subject as follows:

Asked if there is any truth to recent press describing his newfound piety, Murdoch replies: "No. They say I'm a born again Christian and a Catholic convert and so on. I'm certainly a practicing Christian, I go to church quite a bit but not every Sunday and I tend to go to Catholic church -- because my wife is Catholic, [since divorced] I have not formally converted. And I get increasingly disenchanted with the C of E or Episcopalians as they call themselves here. But no, I'm not intensely religious as I'm sometimes described." Interviewed in 1992. Nicholas Coleridge, Paper Tigers (1993), p. 487.

Some further insights into the religious influences on Murdoch's thinking are provided on RadioNational Religion and Ethics Report - "Rupert's Religion" as follows:

David McKnight: Well if you study Rupert Murdoch as I’ve done, you soon realise that he has a kind of Calvinist sense of mission. He brings it to everything he does. He’s always been a great believer in newspapers campaigning and really when you look at it, these are political crusades. If you look at what his mass media did around the world after 9/11, they really trumpeted and campaigned and went on a crusade to invade Iraq. There’s been many many crusades in the Murdoch era. I mean probably beginning with a campaign to elect the Whitlam government in Australia in 1972. But then the same style but a different political allegiance, over to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher where his media really did campaign in the most extraordinary way, particularly for Thatcher. . . .

Andrew West: The other thing about Presbyterianism is that running through it is a streak of Puritanism. I mean to what extent is there that in the Murdoch family?

David McKnight: Well if we can mix Puritanism with social conservatism yes there is. I mean Rupert Murdoch has always been an opponent, as far as I can tell, of abortion. And it’s very interesting today his favoured candidate in the nomination for the Republican nomination for President, is Rick Santorum who is on record not only as opposing abortion but also opposing birth control. And Rupert said of him he has a ‘great vision for America.’ . . .

Andrew West: One of the really great apparent contradictions David is that about 10-15 years ago Rupert Murdoch was given a papal knighthood. How did this reward from the Catholic Church come about?

David McKnight: Well of course it’s hard to know. These…there are truths of these kind of things but commentators at the time—and it was 1998—said that he’d been a very generous donor to the Catholic Church. This was almost certainly because of his then wife Anna who was a devout Catholic. I think he gave a considerable amount of money to a cathedral in Chicago and several other things, so I think the knighthood…while Rupert refused knighthoods from the British government he did accept a papal knighthood and I think this was to some degree a quid pro quo.

Whatever the true reason(s) for the knighthood from the Roman Catholic Church, there is more than enough proof that in America at least Murdoch and Rome are soulmates, and his propaganda machine moves in lockstep with the Catholic hierarchy.


It came as a shocking revelation from the Leveson Inquiry for this writer, that Rupert Murdoch and Newscorp are and always have been opposed to the European Union, which is a major path of the Papacy towards world domination.  Nevertheless in his "libertarian" ideology at least, with its emphasis on limited government and as few rules as possible, he serves Rome's purpose even in the United Kingdom.  This is documented in the next section on his identification with "Subsidiarity."


The website SOURCEWATCH makes the following statement in an article titled "K. Rupert Murdoch":

Murdoch told William Shawcross, who authored a biography of Murdoch, that he considers himself a libertarian. "What does libertarian mean? As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. But I'm not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit."

The following observation and a curious comparison is made in a CATHOLICA.COM.AU Editorial Commentary titled "The trouble with Rupert":

So what is Murdoch's great skill?

As argued two paragraphs ago, Murdoch's great skill is not going to be found in his management styles nor his personal sincerity and integrity. We think Murdoch's great skill is in an uncanny ability to "read the mind" of the average citizen. Murdoch understands what is called the "lizard brain" or "reptile brain" cravings of the ordinary person whose main interests in life centre around "eating, roots and leaves". Page 3 "tits and bums" sell newspapers by the tens of millions. The ordinary person is not interested in the lengthy philosophical and theological conversations we have in places like Catholica — their attention span is limited to about the 140 characters allowed in a tweet. They crave entertainment and distraction far more than they crave information and enlightenment. Rupert Murdoch really does understand the mentality of the average Jo and Sally Blo in the suburbs in any of the major countries of the Western world. Rupert understands how to feed their needs for "entertainment and distraction" in ways that attract massive readership numbers, or massive electronic media audiences, and through that, massive advertising revenues. The question is: is that good for the overall health of human civilisation? Is there a question of "balance" involved here?

In many ways it might be compared to the philosophy of Joseph Ratzinger who said back in 1979:

"The Christian believer is a simple person: bishops should protect the faith of these little people against the power of intellectuals." (Allen,130)[1]

Rupert plays the same game in the secular sphere of society. And he has become without peer at doing it. Just as Pope Ratzinger seems to believe that if the "ordinary person" wants miracles, weeping statues and simple devotions and pieties he will deliver it to them; Rupert has worked out if all the average citizen craves in life is celebrity and sporting star gossip, tits and bums titillation, political scandal, and acres of massage parlour and dating advertisements he'll deliver it to them by the truckload and denuded forest. It's a great way to make money.

One cannot help but note that here is an excellent description of the science of propaganda distracting minds from the serious issues of life - Pope Benedict XVI subscribes to it, and Rupert Murdoch practises it.

In the paragraphs immediately preceding the above quotation, the Catholica Editorial Commentary states:

Listening to the evidence last night I couldn't help thinking how much Murdoch's style seems almost to be taken from the very Catholic notion of "subsidiarity" — allowing people to take responsibility at the lowest level as possible in an organisation. Murdoch's management style is very much a "subsidiarity" management style.

While this quotation is applied to Murdoch's management style, it is an undoubted fact that his political ideology as quoted in the SOURCEWATCH article above is precisely in harmony with the Roman Catholic principle of "subsidiarity."  Here may be the greatest affinity between him and the Roman Catholic agenda, and a reason why the Papacy may tolerate the vociferous opposition of the Murdoch empire to the European Union.  After all, Rome has Europe under control both in terms of demographics and the very advanced stage of the Union.  Moreover, the Papacy is inflexible in its relentless drive towards world domination; but there is flexibility in its inflexibility as pointed out in this website's essay titled SUBSIDIARITY - THE PRINCIPLE AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.


This website seeks to draw attention to the danger of entrapment by the religious power of which the Bible states:  "And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered [followed] after the beast" (Rev. 13:3.)
When one surveys the broad range of snares set by Satan in the political as well as the spriritual realm, and the exclusive focus of some Seventh-day Adventists on Sunday legislation - others on the Trinity dogma, while ignoring the climactic, earth-shaking, events occuring in the political realm, these words spoken by Jesus Christ seem to be an appropriate prescription: ". . .these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (Luke 11:42.)  Professing Christians can receive the Mark of the Beast as well by falling prey to the Papacy's political agenda as by willingly submitting to Roman Catholic theology.