Huge Scandal in United Kingdom Highlights
Political Power and Influence of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp Provides Glimpse Into Roman Catholic Church's
Religio-Political Propaganda Disguised as Balanced News
SOME ESSENTIAL HISTORY
In his book titled Facts of Faith, published in 1943,
Christian Edwardson documented the following historical facts:
A letter from Rome, dated October 14, 1894, says:
The United States
of America, it can be said without exaggeration, are the chief thought of Leo
XIII....A few days ago, on receiving an eminent American, Leo XIII said to him:
'But the United States are the future; we think of them incessantly.'...That
is why Leo XIII turns all his soul, full of ideality, to what is improperly
called his American policy. It should be called his Catholic universal policy."
- "Catholic Standard and Times" (Philadelphia), Nov. 3,
1894; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Oct., 1913, p. 441.
The report of "the third Washington conference" says:
"Our purpose is to make America dominantly Catholic."
- "The Mission Movement in America," issued from the Catholic University,
Washington, D.C., June, 1909.
"It seems to me that the main support of
Protestantism comes from the United States and England....If we put an end to
this effort in England and the United States by making these nations
predominantly Catholic, we will have removed the chief obstacle to the
conversion of the world to the true faith....A vigorous effort in the United
States at this time will reduce the opposition to an insignificant
condition....In the course of another century, the [Protestant] sects will be a
study for the historian and antiquarian along with Arianism." - Extract
from a letter in "The Missionary" (Roman Catholic), Washington, D.C.: May,
1910; quoted in "Protestant Magazine," Vol. II, p. 22.
This Catholic movement has already made such progress in
England, that, with a little careful manipulation, its leaders anticipate very
little opposition in the future. (See "History of the Romeward Movement in the
Church of England," London: 1900, and "The Secret History of the Oxford
Movement," London: 1899, both by Walter Walsh; and "The Oxford Movement in
America," by Rev. C. E. Walworth, New York: 1895; also "The Jesuits and the
British Press," by Michael J. F. McCarthy."
Now the "Catholic Action" is focused on America, not
in an antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically
organized, and well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor
among Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. And, remarkable as it
may sound, Protestant leaders and people are totally asleep on the Catholic
question, even more so than the Huguenots were in France before the St.
Bartholomew's Massacre.
Dr. E. Boyd Barrett, for many years a Jesuit, and still a
Roman Catholic, as far as the author knows, has the following to say about the
plans of his church:
"In theory, Catholic Action is the work and service of lay
Catholics in the cause of religion, under the guidance of the bishops.
In practice it is the Catholic group fighting their way to control America."
- "Rome Stoops to Conquer," p. 15. New York. 1935.
"The effort, the fight, may be drawn out. It may last for
five or ten years. Even if it last for twenty - what is twenty years in the life
of Rome? The fight must be fought to a finish - opposition must be worn
down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome.
That destiny overshadows the land. "And in the fight, as she has ever fought
when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and
silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer." - Id., pp. 266, 267.
In a communication from Vatican City,
published in the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Nov. 4, 1936, we read:
"Pope Pius feels that the United States is the ideal
base for Catholicism's great drive....
"The Catholic Movement, Rome's militant organization
numbering millions all over the world, will be marshaled direct from Rome by
Monsignor Pizzardo - next to Pacelli the Holy See's shrewdest diplomat and
politician - instead of by the local bishops as before. The priest's education
is to be thoroughly revised and modernized - with special attention to modern
propaganda methods. In addition there will be established in each country a
central bureau, responsible only to Rome, to combat red agitation with every
political weapon available....The church must fight, and at once.
"Coughlin has shown us the way
of getting at the modern man. He has embarrassed us by showing and using the
political power of the church so openly....We know how to tackle America today, and that is our most important
problem at the moment.
"Pacelli is contacting the American
cardinals and leading Catholic personalities,...to
explain the Vatican's plan for the new crusade....The Catholic political
organizations in the large cities, like Tammany
Hall, will give the church a good lever. Those contacts are also being carefully inspected by the pope's minister.
"The Vatican itself resembles a general
staff headquarters preparing plans and arms for a
big offensive. Since the time of the Counter-Reformation, churchmen say,
no such extensive reorganization of personnel and propaganda methods has been
undertaken. The whole world-wide net of
Catholic organizations and sub-organizations is being contacted directly from Rome and cleared for action. The
church is to be adjusted to modern political,
social, and cultural conditions." - p. 10, col. 3, 4, used by permission.
This article speaks of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, then papal
secretary of state, coming from the Vatican to effect the above mentioned
reorganization. He toured the United States "in a chartered airplane."
Christian Science Monitor says: "The visit of a high Roman prelate to the
United States on the eve of an election is as unprecedented as it is delicate."
- Oct. 2, 1926.
This Catholic plan of conquest was well
understood years ago. An illustration in Harper's Weekly of October 1,
1870, pictured the pope pointing to America as "The Promised Land." (Pp. 240-242, bold emphasis added)
Note Christian Edwardson's statement above:
Now the "Catholic Action" is focused on America, not in an
antagonistic way, but quietly, in wisely planned, systematically organized, and
well directed efforts along numerous lines, so as to gain favor among
Protestants, and not to be suspected as propaganda. And, remarkable as it may
sound, Protestant leaders and people are totally asleep on the Catholic
question, even more so than the Huguenots were in France before the St.
Bartholomew's Massacre.
Thus, initially Rome trod softly with
seductive words and actions. The Protestant world
sleepwalked into her deadly embrace. Now the prediction that "In the course of
another century, the [Protestant] sects will be a
study for the historian and antiquarian along with
Arianism" is substantially realized in the major churches that are "Protestant"
in name only. Concurrently, Rome's propaganda
organs strike fear into the hearts of national and
international leaders with hard demands and threats of retribution against those
who resist. The reference to Coughlin is
significant ("Coughlin has shown us the way of
getting at the modern man,"
quoted above):
Father Charles Coughlin occupied both a strange and a
familiar place in American politics in the 1930s. Politically radical, a
passionate democrat, he nevertheless was a bigot who freely vented angry,
irrational charges and assertions. A Catholic priest, he broadcast weekly radio
sermons that by 1930 drew as many as forty-five million listeners. Strongly
egalitarian, deeply suspicious of elites, a champion of what he saw as the
ordinary person’s rights, Coughlin frequently and vigorously attacked
capitalism, communism, socialism, and dictatorship By the mid-1930s, his talks
took on a nasty edge as he combined harsh attacks on Roosevelt as the tool of
international Jewish bankers with praise for the fascist leaders Benito
Mussolini and Adolph Hitler. The “Radio Priest’s” relentless anti-elitism pushed
Roosevelt to sharpen his own critiques of elites, and in that sense Coughlin had
a powerful impact on American politics beyond his immediate radio audience.
“Somebody Must be Blamed”: Father
Coughlin Speaks to the Nation
Rome did not disapprove of the content
of Father Coughlin's sermons. They were only concerned that "He has
embarrassed us by showing and using the political power of the church so
openly." This gives us an understanding of the reckless and irresponsible
lying propaganda that is being spewed out in all types of "news" media.
This is "steel, and gold, and silvery lies" much of the lies no longer
"silvery;" but harsh and unrelenting.
THE POWER AND INFLUENCE
There is this news organization that
first established itself in the United Kingdom, then moved into the United
States: ("It seems to me that the main support of Protestantism comes from the United States and England....If we put an
end to this effort in England and the United States
by making these nations predominantly Catholic, we will have removed the chief obstacle to the conversion of the world
to the true faith....A vigorous effort in the United States at this time will
reduce the opposition to an insignificant
condition..." [Quoted above from Facts of Faith.]) Consider the power wielded openly by this
organization in the United Kingdom, and more insidiously in the United States:
At long last, Rupert Murdoch and his News International
empire is feeling the heat over the News of the World phone hacking scandal.
I hope this spells the beginning of the end for Murdoch's
near suffocating hold over much of the Western media. Over the last two decades
or more, the most powerful media owner ever to emerge has built up a huge empire
that includes numerous newspaper titles, television and radio stations around
the world (including in New Zealand and his native Australia). Murdoch's company
owns some of the best known publications in the world including the UK
newspapers The Times and The Sun. One of his most famous television mouthpieces
is the neoconservative Fox News channel in the US.
Through controlling a vast number of media outlets, Murdoch
has been able to influence political debate and decisionmaking, particularly in
the UK and increasingly in the US. British prime ministers such as Margaret
Thatcher, John Major and Gordon Brown have been built up and then torn down at
his mere whim. It was reported this week, for example, that former prime
minister Tony Blair regularly phoned Murdoch and, in particular, he conversed
with the Aussie media mogul just days before the Iraq War in 2003. The Murdoch
empire backed the Iraq War to the hilt.' (The
News Of The World Scandal: Murdoch And News International In The Dock)
'In a press conference minutes before Mr Coulson, the paper’s
former editor, was arrested by police, the Prime Minister repeatedly stressed
that the appointment was “his responsibility” but declined to apologise or
acknowledge a mistake had been made.
He admitted that the relationship between politicians and the
media had become too close. . .The Prime Minister described the News of the
World scandal as a “wake-up call”, adding: “Over the decades, on the watch of
both Labour leaders and Conservative leaders, politicians and the press have
spent time courting support, not confronting the problems.' (News
of the World phone hacking scandal hits No. 10)
The scandal that has rocked News Corp. has brought to the
fore the singular role played by its controlling owner, Rupert Murdoch. The
media mogul's influence is exerted for a single-minded purpose in the U.K.
The past five prime ministers have courted Murdoch
assiduously in gaining and holding onto office — none more so than Labour's Tony
Blair. In plotting his path to 10 Downing St. in the mid-1990s, Blair once flew
to an island off the coast of Murdoch's native Australia to address an annual
meeting of News Corp. That impressed Murdoch, who threw his support behind
Blair's New Labour movement.
Labour MP Paul Farrelly questions how many votes Murdoch's
publications can really deliver.
"There are two reasons for Rupert Murdoch's clout in the U.K.
One has been a perception that his newspapers have influenced the outcomes of
elections. That's doubtful. What Rupert Murdoch does is before elections: He
backs winners or political parties he thinks are going to win," Farrelly says.
Murdoch controls two of the most prestigious papers in the
country, as well as the two most widely read, both tabloids. Despite his
conservative leanings, Murdoch and his papers have swung to leaders of both
major political parties, so his patronage constantly appears to be in play.
Farrelly says there's a second, more sinister reason for
politicians to curry favor.
"There is the threat of intrusion, the sword hanging over
people if they take powerful vested interests in the press on," he says. "And
that's a fact of life."' (The
Bottom Line: Murdoch's Influence In The U.K.)
[NPR Interview]:
KELLY: So let's tick through our list here. We just heard
some of the Murdoch empire's holdings. But when you're talking about the empire,
you were talking about a dozen film studios, all the Fox TV channels, the book
publisher HarperCollins, of course lots of newspapers, and I'm sure I'm leaving
a lot out.
Mr. AULETTA: You are. You're also leaving out not only Fox
Television Network and Fox News but cable networks they own. They own sports
networks. They own 150 newspapers. They own outdoor billboards, satellite TV
that covers much of Europe and much of Asia. They are a colossus. . . .
Mr. AULETTA: In the U.S. he has enormous influence. I mean
just think of the Fox Network, which has more viewers in the evening than CNN
and MSNBC, its two competitors, combined. So if you think about the impact of
Fox News on elevating the Tea Party and its profile in the United States, it had
enormous impact. So presidential candidates, senatorial candidates and
gubernatorial candidates court Rupert Murdoch. And they court him not just
because they want his editorial support but because they don't want him to
oppose them. He's a very powerful foe. (Will
News Corp.'s Scandal Spread To The U.S.?)
Added July 20,2011
. . .What the scandal really
teaches us is the dangers that inevitably arise when any single company
or individual exercises excessive influence in media circles. Why?
Because a healthy democracy depends on a
well-informed citizenry, and media oligarchs can use excessive influence
to skew what the public knows or believes in order to advance their own
political objectives. If the Murdoch scandal doesn't convince
you, just look at how Silvio Berlusconi used his media empire to drive
his political career and look where Italy is today.
Furthermore,
politicians are likely to accommodate powerful
media organizations that are willing to play hardball, punishing
politicians they didn't like and rewarding officials who played along.
The NewsCorp was a master at this, and it is no wonder David
Cameron and even Scotland Yard became compliant.
The media sector is a critical
part of any society, and keeping ownership divided as much as possible
is essential for a healthy democracy. If ever there were a part of our
society where aggressive anti-trust policy is essential, it is right
here. Having a "free press" means little when a handful of voices
predominate, and healthy democracy requires a political diverse ecology
of editors, reporters, and commentators.
One could argue that the
digital revolution is creating a far more heterogeneous information
ecosystem, and gradually reducing the power of old-style media barons
like Murdoch. There may be some truth in that, but the power of major
news organizations like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Economist, etc., remains formidable and some of them are bound to emerge
as major players in the digital media world over time. Notice that this
blog isn't my own operation: Foreign Policy is itself a subsidiary of
the Washington Post Corporation. And a lot of other blogs I read operate
under the umbrella of larger organizations like the Daily
Beast/Newsweek, the New Yorker, or the Atlantic.
I hope the scandal keeps widening, and that the
NewsCorp eventually breaks into lots of tiny little pieces. Moving
forward, I hope that government officials and the public will learn from
this sorry episode and take a more assertive approach to regulating
media conglomerates in the future. But based on what I think I know
about politics and human nature, I'm not betting my retirement account
on it. (Emphasis added;
What the NewsCorp scandal really means (and why you should hope it
implodes))
Tony Blair urged Gordon Brown
to persuade the Labour MP who led the campaign to expose the
phone-hacking scandal to fall silent, according to a report
yesterday.
The Mail on Sunday stated that "well-placed" sources
said Mr Blair had sought to encourage Mr Brown to ask his supporter Tom
Watson to back off. A "friend of Mr Brown" was quoted as saying: "There
is no doubt about it, Tony wanted Gordon to intervene."
Mr Watson, who claimed last week that News
International had entered "the criminal underworld", was reported to
have been told that Rebekah Brooks, News International's chief
executive, "will pursue you for the rest of your life".
Earlier this year, another
Labour MP, Chris Bryant, said in a Commons speech that
a senior figure allied to Mr Murdoch had warned
his friends that speaking out about the scandal would not be forgotten.
Members of the Commons Culture, Media and Sport
Select Committee claim they were warned off calling Ms Brooks to give
evidence to them in the committee's inquiry about phone hacking.
News International last night
made no comment in response to the claims about Ms Brooks' alleged
attempt to put pressure on Mr Watson to back off.
A spokesman for Mr Blair, who enjoyed a cordial
relationship with News International's proprietor Rupert Murdoch, denied
the claim by the Mail on Sunday. The spokesman said: "The allegation is
categorically untrue." Mr Brown's office declined
to comment.
Before proceeding to the Roman Catholic Connection, here is a
startling and blatant example of the power and influence of the hierarchy, which
may or may not have been exercised with the aid of the Murdoch publishing
empire:
September 30, 2003
The Roman Catholic Church launched an unprecedented attack on
the BBC yesterday, accusing it of bias and hostility.
The Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols,
said sections of the corporation, particularly in news and current affairs, were
pursuing an anti-Catholic agenda. . . .
The Archbishop demanded an urgent meeting with senior
executives, including Greg Dyke, the director-general. He said the BBC should be
forced to justify its funding through the licence fee.
He said Catholics were "fed up with seeing a public service
broadcaster using the licence fee to pay unscrupulous reporters trying to
re-circulate old news and to broadcast programmes that are so biased and
hostile. Enough is enough." (BBC
is biased against Roman Catholics, claims Archbishop)
February 18, 2010
Secular groups have reacted angrily to news that the
director-general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, is lobbying the Vatican in an effort
to persuade the Pope to deliver the Thought for the Day religious slot on Radio
4's Today programme. The corporation hopes that a broadcast can be recorded to
coincide with the Papal visit to Britain, which is set to take place in
September.
Mr Thompson, who is a devout Roman Catholic and was educated
by Jesuits, is leading the negotiations himself. He recently went to Rome to
attend the Pope's weekly audience, where he was a special guest in the front
row. He spoke with the pontiff and during his visit is understood to have
discussed with Vatican officials the possibility of him recording a message for
the BBC. (Don't
let Pope present Thought for the Day, say secularists)
Beginning with one newspaper in
Adelaide, Murdoch acquired and started other publications in his
native Australia before expanding News Corp into the United Kingdom,
United States and Asian media markets. Although it was in Australia
in the late 1950s that he first dabbled in television, he later sold
these assets, and News Corp's Australian current media interests
(still mainly in print) are restricted by cross-media ownership
rules. Murdoch's first permanent foray into TV was in the USA, where
he created
Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. In the 2000s, he became a
leading investor in satellite television, the film industry and the
Internet, and purchased a respected business newspaper,
The Wall Street Journal.
Rupert Murdoch was listed three times in the
Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He
is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes'The World's Most Powerful People list.[3]
With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest
person in the world.[4]
[July 16, 2011 -
Rupert Murdoch was
bookmarked during the past week, because Murdoch's religion was
listed in the right column as Roman Catholic. That has now
been edited out of the page; nevertheless, this excerpt provides
valuable information about the scope of his publishing empire and
his contacts with world leaders.]
Later some Jews took the name "Green (e)" but it's highly
unlikely and is not proven that Rupert's mother was Jewish
or that Raskob's wife was Jewish.
Interesting point, The powerful and controversial Roman
Catholic,
José
María Aznar is President of the
Board of
Directors of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation
This is a little video blog I did talking
about Rupert Murdoch and some other things.
Dame Elisabeth Murdoch and Gerard Vaughan with the National
Gallery of Victoria's latest acquisition, Madonna and Child
by Agnolo Gaddi. Picture: Michael Clayton-Jones
Public philanthropy is something Melbourne is good at and
the old town excelled itself last night.
More than 700 people each paid $1220 to see Dame Elisabeth
Murdoch unveil the latest masterpiece to join the National
Gallery of Victoria's collection at a lavish dinner in the
Great Hall.
Some, including Paula Fox (wife of trucking magnate
Lindsay), Lady Reid and her daughters, Margaret Ross and
Jean Hadges, donated more.
But the most significant contributor to the painting's $2
million purchase price remains anonymous.
The gold-ground painting on a wooden panel, Madonna and
Child, is by the late-14th-century Florentine painter Agnolo
Gaddi, who worked at the beginning of the Renaissance.
Last night's dinner was part of the week-long celebrations
leading up to tomorrow's opening of the $168 million
renovation of the NGV's St Kilda Road headquarters. Special
guests included the director of the Louvre in Paris, Henri
Loyrette, Tate Britain director Stephen Deuchar, Musee de
l'Orangerie head Pierre Georgel, and former NGV director
Timothy Potts.
Local benefactors included Loti and Victor Smorgon, James
Fairfax and representatives of the Myer and Besen families.
Gallery director Gerard Vaughan said the Gaddi was the most
significant purchase since Picasso's Weeping Woman nearly 20
years ago. "It provides us with another icon work that we
have long sought," he said.
An anonymous benefactor, who gave the gallery a pair of 16th
century Russian icons for the reopening, offered to donate
money to get a Florentine painting.
"But when the Gaddi came on the market in London in almost
mint condition it just knocked our socks off," Dr Vaughan
said.
"The only problem was it cost twice as much as we originally
planned to spend."
He proposed a fund-raising dinner, with the benefactor
agreeing to match the $750,000 it will raise. But the
gallery still needed to find about $500,000.
Mrs Fox and Lady Reid and her daughters offered to provide
what was needed.
"This is the same story behind the gallery's magnificent
collection," Dr Vaughan said.
"All the masterpieces that we have on display have come to
us through the community's generosity."
04/03/08 Murdoch defends News Corp The Georgetown Voice
- Washington,DC,USA by John Cooke Rupert Murdoch’s News
Corporation is just like the Jesuits, he
told a mostly-full Gaston Hall yesterday, “except we don’t
insist on vows of ...
Here's good tidbit of
information. Viet Dihn, main architect of the U.S. Patriot
Act is also on the board of directors of the powerful News
Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch.
And the powerful Roman catholic,
Fascist, former president of Spain, and personal friend of
King Juan Carlos of Spain, José María Aznar is current
President (of the board of directors). He is the one Hugo
Chavez called a Fascist and King Juan Carlos told Hugo to
"shut up".
(Mr. Aznar has been a
Distinguished Scholar at the Edmund A. Walsh School of
Georgetown University since 2004
~Link
Aznar's government, along with
the Bush administration, openly backed the April 2002 military coup against
Chavez (Which probably had several
psychological functions on the nations involved because
Hugo Chavez is one of them as far as I know. See pics on
this page.)
Roman Catholic Fascist Bill O'Reilly -Early life/Education:
O'Reilly was born in
New York City to parents William and Angela O'Reilly,
from
Brooklyn,
New York and
Bergen County,
New Jersey. His father was an accountant for the oil
company Caltex. After graduating from
Chaminade High School, a private Catholic boys high
school in
Mineola in 1967, O'Reilly attended
Marist College. While at Marist, O'Reilly played punter
in the National Club
Football Association,[5]
and was also a writer for the school's newspaper, The
Circle. An honors student, he majored in history. He
spent his junior year of college abroad, attending
Queen Mary College at the
University of London.
From 2002 to 2004, Morris worked as a
theological advisor in the making of
Mel Gibson's motion picture The Passion of the
Christ.
The foregoing
SpirituallySmart.com web page is provided for
research purposes only, and does not constitute an endorsement of any ideology,
doctrine, theology, or political perspective promoted on it or its hyperlinked
web pages, some, although not all, of which promote theology in conflict with
that of Adventist Laymen's Foundation. The interlocking associations are
highly informative; and note the award by the Roman Catholic Church to Rupert
Murdoch of the Papal Knighthood of St. Gregory.
Seventh-day Adventist Fans of Fox News - Beware!
"TEA PARTY UNITED™"
PRESENTS:
FOX NEWS!
FOX NEWS "IS" CATHOLIC NEWS!
The vast majority of FOX NEWS Hosts and Analysts are Devout
Catholics:
Bill O'Reilly, Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham,
Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly, Juan Williams, Ann Coulter, . . .and MANY MORE! Rick
Santorum (Temporarily not under contract by presidential bid) . . .
A poll conducted by Public Policy Polling recently found Fox
News to be the only US television news network to receive a positive rating by
the public for trustworthiness.[41]
[SOURCE: Fox Most Trusted Name in News? Public Policy
Polling, 2010].
The successful leader, Roger Ailes - although not a Catholic,
Ailes attends weekly Mass with his Catholic wife. He says he has a good
relationship with the priest and bishop and supports the Church.
Are these Tea Party People gloating Roman Catholics, or
misguided Evangelical fans? - It seems most likely that they are the former.
There are amongst Seventh-day Adventists who sit in the pews of the local
churches, attitudes ranging from indifference to actual hostility against
recognizing Rome's role in the great controversy between Christ and Satan. This is
probably a reflection of the re-education that has been in progress before and
since 1974, when the following statement was made in a Court Brief filed on
behalf of the highest officials of the Seventh-day Adventist Church:
"Although it is true that there was a period in the life of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly
anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term "hierarchy" was used in a pejorative
sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the
church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread anti-popery
among conservative Protestant denominations in the early part of this century
and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the
historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned."
From EEOC vs. PPPA (1975 Reply Brief for SDA Defendants in Support of Motion for
Summary Judgment)
Even with the tolerant attitude towards the Papacy that has
been fostered in the Seventh-day Adventist Church for decades, it is still
inexplicable that there is widespread acceptance by many, many, members of the
most patently false and rabid propaganda which is being spewed out on Fox News
and other Religious Right dominated media. It is propaganda that is most
unchristian in tone - and right in line with what Rome herself has stated she
will do in order to gain domination of the United States and the world.
(Cf. Rev. 16:13-14. - On which side of "the battle of that great day of God
Almighty" will the reader of this page be?)
This kind of propaganda should be like an illuminated red sign flashing:
"Deadly Danger, this is a Mark of the Beast." ('The fight must
be fought to a finish - opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away.
Rome's immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land.
"And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in
the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies."' Quoted above
from Facts of Faith.) It is reasonable to conclude that
believing the printed propaganda, and acquiescing in the lies being spewed on
television, radio, and the Internet, all with the aim of destroying the American
Constitution's guarantee of freedom of worship and bringing the Nation under the
domination of Rome, is one way to receive the Mark of the Beast. ("In theory, Catholic Action is the work and service of lay
Catholics in the cause of religion, under the guidance of the bishops.
In practice it is the Catholic group fighting their way to control America."
- "Rome Stoops to Conquer," p. 15. New York. 1935, quoted
above from Facts of Faith.)
There is a further aspect of the power and
influence exercised by Rome through the news media, that requires attention.
It is Rome's antagonism towards Liberalism:
It may have been a long time coming, but the collective
uprising of Britain's MPs had dramatic, immediate effect, with News Corp backing
down hours before the three parties could vote on Wednesday night to demand it
drop its bid for BSkyB. If, as some suggest, the phone-hacking scandal does mark
a fresh beginning for our politics, shorn of fear and favour, what will that new
era look like? Will there be a new liberal dawn across all areas of policy, but
particularly in the area all recent governments have been at their most abject
towards the tabloids – criminal justice and civil liberties?
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown believed that Britain was both a
Conservative and conservative country. They were pessimistic, fatalistic
perhaps, about their ability to change society. As I wrote in a pamphlet
entitled Lost Labours before the last election, in which I decried
Labour's timidity: "Blair turned what he saw as electoral necessity into burning
rhetoric. He assumed from early on that he would achieve little if he did not
acquiesce to the tastes of the majority view as represented to him by pollsters
and selected newspaper magnates and editors."
It was Robin Cook, my political lodestar, who summed up the
malaise: "Blair's dominant political style is concessionary. He spots where the
next attack on the left is going to come from and pre-empts it by making it
himself." Cook made these comments in 2004, a year after resigning from the
cabinet over Iraq, and shortly before his untimely death. "You cannot argue with
two landslide victories and a tenure in office without precedent in Labour's
history. But as a means of shifting the political values of society, it is
hopeless." (One
battle won. Now will MPs fight for their liberal values?)
We may not agree with all aspects of the liberal priorities
expressed in this article, but it is essential to understand why the Roman
Catholic Church has been driving society in a far rightward direction. The
Papacy is very definitely anti-liberal, and the reason has been revealed:
[In] a Catholic schoolbook, "Manual of Christian
Doctrine, by a Seminary Professor," printed by J. J. McVey, Philadelphia,
1915, and carrying the sanction of the Catholic Censor and the seal of the
Church [the following is stated]:
"What name is given to the doctrine that the
state has neither the right nor the duty to be united to
the Church to protect it?
"This doctrine is called Liberalism.
It is founded principally on the fact that modern society rests on liberty of
conscience and of worship, on liberty of speech and of the press.
"Why is Liberalism to be condemned?
"Because it denies all subordination
of the state to the Church." - pp. 131-133. (Facts of Faith, p.
260, emphasis added)
An essay in the issue of the Wanderer Newspaper online, dated March 6, 2002, by Arthur M. Hippler, director
of the Office of Justice and Peace in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis., was titled
"Lucifer, The First Liberal." Here are the opening and closing paragraphs:
In his encyclical on The Nature of True Liberty (Libertas
Praestantissimum), Leo XIII makes the remarkable
claim that liberalism is diabolic in its origins. "But many there are who
follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, I
will not serve; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and
most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely
spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style
themselves liberals" (Libertas Praestantissimum, n.14).
Although the Holy Father’s comparison may seem hyperbolic, nonetheless the
principles of liberalism mirror the Devil’s original revolt. . . .
While many understand liberalism as a freedom for certain
political equality and civil rights, more fundamentally
liberalism is a freedom from the moral law and the teaching authority of the
Church. One cannot speak of "Catholic liberals" without contradiction, or
at the very least, equivocation. Liberalism, like socialism and Communism, has
been condemned by Pope after Pope in the social encyclicals. If we are tempted
to minimize the evils of this error, we would do well to remind ourselves that
Pope Leo XIII presents Lucifer to us as the original liberal. (Emphasis
added; note the date of the essay!) (Lucifer, The First Liberal)
(Cf.
Liberalism.) The Roman Catholic view of Liberalism turns Truth upside
down; and this is not surprising, because the "power behind the throne" is
Satan (Rev. 13:2.) Jesus Christ said to the Jews who sought to kill Him,
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He
was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is
no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a
liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44.) ('The fight must be fought to a
finish - opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome's
immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land. "And
in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the
past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery
lies."' Quoted above from Facts of Faith;
emphasis added.)
An Interesting Dichotomy in Tension Within 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 (Leveson Inquiry
Web Pages) in the United Kindgom are highly educational as an aid to
putting it all together - "connecting the dots," if you will.
RUPERT MURDOCH AND BRITISH POLITICAL LEADERS
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.)
JOHN MAJOR & NEIL KINNOCK
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.
TONY BLAIR & GORDON BROWN
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.)
DAVID CAMERON
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)
RUPERT MURDOCH AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM
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.
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.
RUPERT MURDOCH AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
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."
RUPERT MURDOCH AND 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 this is an excellent description
of a science of propaganda which distracts 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.
CONCLUSION
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.) It is worthy of careful consideration
that professing Christians may 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.
US$7.6
billion (2011)
