The Jesuits Charge that
LaRouche Is ‘An Agent of the Vatican’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

2019 Editor’s Note: Although the author changed his views on some particulars during succeeding decades, in its essentials this work exemplifies his worldview for the remainder of his life. This version has been edited.

Fellow-Jesuits of U. S. Secretary Alexander Haig are presently circulating the astonishing accusation that “LaRouche and his publications” are “agents of the Vatican.”

Although the accusation originates with leading Jesuit spokesmen, such as Dr. Stephen Mumford of the International Fertility Research Program, the Jesuits are collaborating closely in this with leading Malthusians such as Kissinger crony Donald Lesh, former head of the U.S. branch of the genocidalist Club of Rome. All, like Haig himself, are supporters in practice of the genocidal “Global 2000” dogma published by the criminal administration of President Jimmy Carter.

Among themselves, Malthusian Jesuits and allies such as Lesh argue that the depth and accuracy of knowledge of Italian and Vatican politics in “LaRouche’s publications” is circumstantial proof that LaRouche is being aided by the Vatican’s intelligence service. Privately, Mumford argues: “These organizations are making real inroads in the thinking of the population on ‘Global 2000’ and the population issue. . . . We don’t have proof of the money, but we can now say that anything LaRouche’s organizations say is Church policy.”

Unlike most of the lies spread against me in various news-media and slander-networks by the international drug-lobby, the “Vatican agent” charge is made sincerely, if wrongly. In a recent interview Mumford stated his accusation openly. He accused EIR of being “the mouthpiece of the Vatican,” and added: “LaRouche has all the issues right. . . . It is as if he is speaking to the Pope. He is my enemy, and I am his.”

Privately, Mumford reveals that his accusation is born of wishful thinking. His object is to create an aura of isolation around the Vatican, as he explains in detail. He views the organizations associated with me as a “secular force” coming to the rescue of that Vatican which the Jesuit order and its Church of England allies are determined to destroy. If it were true that “LaRouche and his publications” were only “agents of the Vatican,” rather than independent allies, this, Mumford insists, would weaken the credibility of “LaRouche and his publications.” Mumford’s wish has become father to what now appears to be a sincere, if mistaken conviction.

Mumford and leading Jesuits are quite correct in insisting that “LaRouche has all the issues right” in explaining the Anglican-Jesuit bloc’s plot to destroy the Roman Catholic Confession world-wide. However, in attempting to adduce from this the conclusion that I am a “Vatican agent,” the Jesuits have been seduced by a mixture of their fanatical narrowness of outlook and wishful thinking. They have perpetrated what economists sometimes term a “fallacy of composition,” or, what the common American idiom describes as “missing the forest for the trees.”

The Jesuits Attack the Papacy

In the Western Hemisphere, the Jesuits are sometimes called the “Society of Judas,” because of their leading complicity in promoting Latin American terrorism and their alliance with the Church of England and Eastern Orthodox patriarchs in the effort to destroy the Roman Catholic Confession world-wide. In the USA, Dr. Stephen Mumford is the above-ground spokesman for this cause, the de facto representative of not only the Jesuit order, but also Notre Dame University’s Father Theodore Hesburgh, and a large, schismatic conspiracy within the ranks of the Church’s USA hierarchy.

Mumford correctly outlined the principal motives for this group of schismatics in an article published in the January-February 1981 edition of the magazine, The Humanist. Mumford insists, accurately, that the immediate motive for the Jesuit attempt to destroy the Catholic Church is the Vatican’s unchangeable hostility toward the policies of genocide advocated by the supporters of the Club of Rome and of President Jimmy Carter’s Global 2000 Report.

Against this evil, Malthusian conspiracy of the Jesuits, and the British and Dutch churches, the Vatican has returned to the attack with the recently issued Papal Encyclical, Laborem Exercens. This Encyclical attacks unequivocally both the “green fascist” doctrines of genocidalist Aurelio Peccei and Global 2000. It attacks also the fascist version of “free trade” austerity-dogma associated with Prof. Milton Friedman, the Thatcher government of Britain, and the British Fabian Society’s Friedrich von Hayek.

The Vatican is to be commended and supported for opposing the (actually) fascist dangers of “environmentalist” and Thatcherite policies. More important is the manner in which Laborem Exercens develops its warning against such fascist dangers.

Apostolic Christianity, like the Judaism of Philo of Alexandria and the Islam of ibn Sina’s (Avicenna’s) Metaphysics, rejects the pagan-cult doctrines of “big bang,” or fixed creation. The arguments of Philo of Alexandria against Aristotle’s evil “fixed creation” doctrine are identical with those of Apostolic Christianity. The universe is an evolving process of lawfully-ordered continuing creation. This principle of continuing creation, as opposed to the pagan dogma of “fixed creation,” is the heart and essence of the Gospel of St. John and of the Nicene doctrine of Christianity.

Man, although born as an irrational, hedonistic beast, is also born with a divine spark of potentiality which distinguishes the human individual from beasts. This potentiality is man’s power to bring his knowledge and practice into ever-more-perfect agreement with the lawful principles of continuing creation: the Logos of the Gospel of St. John and of the Nicene doctrine, or what is known to scientists such as Leibniz, as “sufficient reason.” The Christian doctrine adds to the Judaic doctrine of the Messiah (e.g., Philo) the assertion of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the crucial further principle that the Logos flows from Christ consubstantially as it flows from God the Composer of the Universe. Christ expresses for Christians the living God in the form of man born of woman. Christianity as a body of practice is based, therefore, on the principle of imago vivo Dei, to develop oneself and one’s practice in the image of the living God.

This principle is expressed in Genesis. We cite a part from one of the relevant passages from the Encyclical to this point:

When man, who had been created “in the image of God . . . male and female,” hears the words: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,” even though these words do not refer directly and explicitly to work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an activity for man to carry out in the world [emphasis in the original].

This is the kernel of the point against which the “Society of Judas” and its British, Dutch, and secularist-Malthusian accomplices base their determination to destroy Christianity, beginning with schismatic destruction of the Roman Catholic Confession.

The schismatics propose to replace Christianity with the Gnostic doctrine and the so-called Gnostic Bible, a heathen, pantheistic dogma in which man is instructed to subordinate himself to raw nature, and to live with ethical parity in relations to the beasts. Gnosticism, like Aurelio Peccei, and like Adolf Hitler and Jeremy Bentham before him, like the evil Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Hobbes, degrades man to a mere beast, with the morals of a beast.

Only a man-beast, Albert Speer, could have carried Hjalmar Schacht’s evil austerity doctrine to the slave-death-camp-system form Adolf Hitler demanded. Only men and women degraded morally to the level of feral beasts could support implementation of the doctrines of the Club of Rome or Jimmy Carter’s Global 2000 Report today. Only Gnostics such as Anglicans, theosophists-anthroposophs, or of the “Society of Judas” could provide a pseudo-Christian rationalization for replacing Christianity with the hedonistic bio-ethics of David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill.

So, Laborem Exercens counterattacks against “green fascism” and the criminal doctrines of Global 2000, from the standpoint of the most fundamental positive principles of Apostolic Christianity.

In this, the Vatican enjoys the complete, ecumenical support of “LaRouche and his publications.” The Jesuits, such as Stephen Mumford, have overlooked the actual process by which this specific form of ecumenical alliance with the Vatican developed. “Missing the forest for the trees,” the Jesuits have wishfully dreamed up the false explanation, that “LaRouche and his publications” are “agents of the Vatican.”

Let us therefore, for once and for all, settle the truth of the connection, and brush aside the nonsensical “agents of the Vatican” allegations. By what process did “LaRouche and his publications” come to discover what the Jesuits actually represent?

The ICLC

When Mumford speaks of “LaRouche and his organizations,” he means two overlapping kinds of organizations. He means, most emphatically, an association known as the International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC), in which the term “labor” has exactly the significance it also has in the recent Papal Encyclical, Laborem Exercens. He means also a second group of organizations and publications in which ICLC members participate as influential components of a much-larger association as a whole.

For example. The National Democratic Policy Committee (NDPC) is a multi-candidate political action committee and one of the leading factions of the Democratic Party in the USA, the spearhead of the fight against the Nazi-modeled monetary policies of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker. It is fully supported by the ICLC, although only some of the NDPC’s officials are also ICLC members, and the majority of the NDPC’s thousands of active supporters are not ICLC members.

The international alliance of anti-drug organizations is actively supported and subsidized by ICLC efforts, but only a tiny fraction of the members of these organizations are ICLC members.

The influential scientific association, the Fusion Energy Foundation, has tens of thousands of members in the USA alone, as well as a circulation of approximately 200,000 monthly. The FEF has been chiefly subsidized by or through efforts of the ICLC, and grew most rapidly as a by-product of my own campaign for the 1980 presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Yet, only a tiny fraction of FEF members and collaborators are ICLC members.

The ICLC is involved in such projects because it not only agrees with the purposes and guiding philosophy of such associations, but their importance. Hence, there is a selective consistency in the philosophical outlook of projects which the ICLC supports, and the ICLC’s own philosophical outlook. That noted, we can focus now on the philosophical outlook of the ICLC itself.

The ICLC is presently an international academy movement, consciously modeled in intent and practice upon such precedents as Plato’s Academy at Athens, and tracing its heritage through Philo, Augustinian Christianity, the Arab Renaissance, and the 15th-century Golden Renaissance. Its members are chiefly of variously Protestant, Catholic or Jewish heritage, the USA membership representing a higher percentile of Jewish individuals than one might expect to meet outside a meeting of a B’nai B’rith Freemasonic lodge.

The ICLC has been in existence since 1973-1974, and is based chiefly in the USA, Canada, Latin America, and Western Europe, although it is actively a friend of various nations of Africa and Asia in a manner consistent with the ICLC’s commitment to a community of principle among sovereign nation-state republics. The ICLC is known chiefly for its continuing campaign for creation of a new gold-based world monetary system, designed to promote simultaneously technological progress and prosperity in the industrialized nations and enlarged flows of advanced technology of agriculture, industry and infrastructure into what are called developing nations. The ICLC otherwise focuses on problems of technology, education and statecraft subsumed under the work of such a new, gold-reserve-based world monetary order.

The ICLC grew out of earlier organizational developments of the 1966-1973 period, beginning in New York City in 1966. It is from that vantage-point that one can most quickly and accurately locate the process of development of the ICLC and the role of this writer within that process of development.

The ICLC began very simply back in 1966. This writer began teaching a recurring one-semester course in economic science and scientific method on a number of campuses, over the period 1966-1973. Out of this was assembled, initially, slightly over a dozen gifted graduate students and others, who deployed against the menace of “new leftism” being spread under the rubric of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society). The tactic adopted was to penetrate SDS and to attack anarchoid forms of “new radicalism” from within SDS and its periphery. This work was essentially educational, but also took forms of tactical operations aimed to neutralize what was regarded, beginning the summer of 1968, as a neofascist menace suppurating among the admirers of the Cultural Revolution, Tom Hayden and Herbert Marcuse.

One of these 1968 undertakings was a successful deployment—by approximately 50 associates of this writer—to disrupt a planned race-riot for New York City, by neutralizing the SDS’s ability to deploy in support of an anti-Semitic racialist assault against the New York City United Federation of Teachers. From that time in 1968 to the present day, this writer and his associates have been the objects of bitter hatred among USA “leftists,” from the Communist Party USA through the left-wing socialists gathered around Tom Hayden and California’s Gov. Jerry Brown within the Democratic Party.

In the beginning, the essential orientation of the organization was premised on this writer’s contributions to economic science. The tactical orientation was this writer’s judgment that either a new, high-technology-oriented monetary order would be established or that the world would drift through successive monetary crises, into a fascist order worse than that of the Nazis, beginning with resurrection of the fascist monetarist economics doctrines of Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar Schacht. The “new left” was seen as the new form of the fascist hooligan-force to replace the role of a Mussolini or Hitler in the future crisis.

By attacking the “new left,” the ICLC incurred counterattacks from powerful financier-related forces (e.g., the Ford Foundation) and (1968) some sections of governmental agencies (e.g., the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation) which were acting under orders of controlling agencies behind the deployment of the new leftist rabbles. Principal to these attacks on the ICLC and its predecessor-forms since 1968, has been the international resources of the London Tavistock Institute, especially that Institute’s “Russian Studies Division,” the Bertrand Russell-connected faction of the British Secret Intelligence Service. Later, beginning 1974, the genocidalist Club of Rome entered the attack on the ICLC directly and in a coordinated fashion, in cooperation with elements of the left-wing of the Socialist International. Beginning 1978, the forces of the international drug-lobby deployed massively, especially through defamatory, lying articles published in the news. media of the United States, Canada, and Italy, France, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, as well as West Germany in Europe. Beginning 1973, elements of the Soviet KGB were active, in collaboration with both the Socialist International and the London Tavistock Institute, in dirty operations against the ICLC.

It was in counterintelligence directed to investigation of such curious allies of the “new leftist hooligans” that the ICLC was led to discover, layer by layer, many interesting and important things concerning the way in which present international affairs as well as internal life of individual nations is organized from behind the scenes.

This counterintelligence capability developed chiefly as a by-product of the 1974 founding of an international news service by the ICLC, composed on the same basis as any major international newsweekly, plus an integrated organizational intelligence-counterintelligence function. It was daily, systematic, coordinated newsgathering, and related investigations, internationally, which has done the most to shape the capabilities and outlook of the ICLC.

The Content of ICLC Thinking

The point here is not only the ICLC’s means for discovering the nasty things the Jesuit Malthusians do; the point on which Stephen Mumford registers his specific complaint, is the ICLC’s capability of discovering how these Jesuits actually think—what kind of thinking governs the wickedness the Jesuits do.

The key to this knowledge is also to be found in the content of the one-semester course in economic science this writer began teaching in 1966.

This writer’s central contribution to economic science was to apply the physics of Bernhard Riemann and Georg Cantor, beginning 1952, to the previously unsolved problem of determining the correlation between rates of advancement of productive technology and rates of economic growth. With aid of this, this writer was able to demonstrate “strong” proofs from the standpoint of economic processes respecting the physical ordering of the universe.

There is nothing accidental in such a connection between Riemannian physics and the economic science associated with mercantilists and cameralists such as Leibniz, Carnot, Alexander Hamilton, and Friedrich List. Modern science, from Johannes Kepler onward, developed directly out of cameralism. When progress in economic-scientific thought collapsed after 1815, the close collaboration between Alexander von Humboldt and Lazare Carnot kept the rest of world-wide scientific progress alive in Prussia and among the collaborators of Betti and Brioschi of Cavour’s faction in Italy. The only anomalous feature of my own 1952 linking of Riemann to cameralist economic science, was the fact that such a connection was recognized almost a hundred years after such a discovery should have been made.

This bears directly on the ICLC’s special competence in matters of theology. No wishfully imagined direction from the Vatican is plausible once the true connection is identified.

What is called “modern science” is actually represented by two irreconcilable factions. The one faction, identified by such names as Kepler, Leibniz, Euler, Gauss, and Riemann, is geometric in method. The opposing faction is algebraicist or cabalistic, and is typified by such names as Descartes, Newton, Cauchy and Maxwell.

The latter current, including its British empiricist components, as well as the more directly Jesuitical Viennese-positivist and Marburg neo-Kantian components, are all products of direct Jesuitical supervision, including the case of Jesuit protégé Francis Bacon. It is correct to suspect that these differences within the ranks of science are necessary reflections of the same fundamental differences which separate Gnostics, such as the Jesuits, from Apostolic Christianity.

Modern mathematical science was founded by Johannes Kepler’s proof that the principle of the golden mean was the uniquely determining principle of composition of the orbits of the planets and moons of the solar system. That is the kind of fundamental breakthrough in scientific knowledge known variously as a “crucial experiment,” or in Riemann’s terms of reference, a “unique experiment”: a single experiment which tests one way or the other the fundamental principles of lawful ordering of the entire universe or some distinguishable large domain of that universe.

This discovery of Kepler’s was formally incomplete only on one categorical point, as Kepler himself emphasized.

Kepler proved from astrophysics the need for the development of a differential calculus, and specified the requirements of such a calculus. This challenge was essentially solved by Leibniz in a paper given to his Paris printer for publication in 1676, outlining the differential calculus eleven years before Newton’s defective version in the Principia. Leibniz grasped the fundamental principles of topology with aid of the work on integer-series by B. Pascal, gaining access to the unpublished papers of Pascal in Paris to assist him in formulating that discovery. The development of topology was consolidated by the Bernoullis and L. Euler, and furthered beyond that by the collaborators of G. Monge and L. Carnot in France, and the students of Karl Gauss in Germany. It was the unification of the work of the École Polytechnique with the Leibnizian current of Gauss in Germany, which is the basis for world-wide preeminence of German science during the 19th century. The destruction of the power of modern science is less the result of the Jesuitical philosophy of Descartes and Newton, than direct Jesuit intervention by such protégés of Abbot Moigno as Augustin Cauchy, the man who almost singlehandedly destroyed French science. (There are presently hoaxsters, identified with C. Truesdell’s History of the Exact Sciences, who are falsifying records in attempted defense of Cauchy, but the evidence of deliberate fraud in the articles being published under that sponsorship is massive and conclusive.)

The way of looking at the world typified by the scientific work of Plato, Archimedes, Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz and Riemann, is identical with the world-outlook of Philo of Alexandria and the Nicene Christian doctrine. The way of looking at the world typified by Descartes, Newton, Hegel, Cauchy, Maxwell, and Ernst Mach is not a product of scientific investigations, but of the superimposition upon science of the Gnostic dogmas of Aristotle and the cults of Mithra, Apollo-Lucifer and Isis. Mach’s world-outlook, like Adolf Hitler’s, is congruent with the Lucifer worship of the theosophist-anthroposophist allies of the Jesuits.

Therefore, as the ICLC came into direct conflict with adversaries of technological progress, the ICLC’s economic-scientific method provided an adequate basis for analyzing the governing philosophical world-outlook of the Jesuits and their accomplices.

The Pitiable Knowledge of the ‘Little Man’

The greatest problem quantitatively which the ICLC has confronted over the 1966-1981 period so indicated is not the problem represented by the evil Malthusians and their anarchist storm-troopers. The greatest problem quantitatively, is the “littleness” of spirit and intellect among the majority of the people of various nations, a majority which is otherwise still instinctively decent and moral. One is reminded, especially as “green fascists” and their liberal allies threaten to repeat the crisis of 1929-1933 in today’s Germany, of Hans Fallada’s famous book, Little Man, What Now?

Fascism threatens society not because the fascist minority is so numerous, but because the non-fascist majority of moral, decent people is as “little,” or perhaps “littler,” throughout most of the nations today as it was in Germany during the Weimar Republic. “Little” people are so busy taking care of their careers, their pensions, and the “little” matters of their immediate neighborhood and family circumstances, that their minds are too shrunken to comprehend the reality of processes unfolding on a national scale, let alone a world-scale.

The “little man” is so narrowly preoccupied with predicates of the possessive pronoun that he lacks the moral or intellectual capacity for passion in matters which he wishfully deludes himself do not directly affect his most-narrowly-defined self-interests. For such a “little man,” the world begins with his first memory of childhood consciousness, and extends chiefly to his family and friends, up to the point his last breath ends the existence of the universe for him. In brief, the pathetic “little man,” although otherwise decent and moral, has no efficient comprehension of the breadth of the present and no comprehension of—and less interest in—history.

This is key to the moral superiority of the ICLC over the leaderships of most governments and parties of the world today. We are not “little”; we situate ourselves as efficient instruments of a process of history extending, in our knowledge of history, over a span of approximately 2,500 years of Western civilization, since the period of Solon, Socrates, and Plato. We know that our mortal lives are but ephemeral moments in the breadth and duration of past, present and future, and that the proper meaning of an individual life is to contribute Good which endures beyond the range of one’s short mortal span of stuffing mashed potatoes and ice-cream into one’s maw.

We, and our mortal enemies, as typified by leading Jesuits, are both unlike the foolish “little” people. Not only are we, like our opposite numbers, the Jesuits and “black nobility” oligarchists, committed to the shape of future history over generations yet to come; we are knowledgeable that history does not begin anew with each generation. What one generation is inclined or able to accomplish is shaped over preceding generations. Only relatively smaller forces such as the ICLC and its Jesuit adversaries understand how the world actually functions. Only we, unlike small-minded “little people,” recognize that either one masters history as a history of the shaping of reality by ideas, or one is a pathetically ignorant bungler. The Jesuits, who master history from their vantage-point, and we who master the same history from the opposite standpoint, are both unlike the ignorant fellows carrying Ph.D.s in history from this or that contemporary university of miseducation. We are each working—to opposite purposes—to predetermine the shape of humanity’s future in light of knowledge gained from comprehension of civilization’s past 2,500 years.

For related reasons, so-called “educated people” today are enormously more ignorant that “educated people” of a hundred years earlier. In past times, education was premised on classical education—including the classical Greek of the period from Homer through Plato. That education afforded the student a sense of history—an education which has been virtually outlawed from the modern curriculum, under the present reign of computer-scored, multiple-choice doctoral dissertations.

The news-intelligence and counterintelligence work of the ICLC has been guided to this 2,500-year basis for policy-deliberations by approaching history in the same manner one conducts a contemporary counterintelligence investigation. We have discovered what the Jesuits already knew: that today’s most powerful, opposing factions, the titanic forces shaping world-history from largely behind-the-scenes, are products of a continuing political battle, which can be traced in detail as the secret of European civilization’s history since the fourth century B.C.

The “little man,” the mere head of state, mere legislator, mere leader of a major political party, usually understands nothing of this. He is a mere, shallow pragmatist, who meddles with history without the slightest comprehension of the lawful principles to be adduced from mastery of 2,500 years of that history.

The fact that the ICLC is not a collection of well-meaning, but predominantly ignorant meddlers, as most leading political figures today are, enables the ICLC to accomplish with relatively smaller forces certain important tasks what even governing parties of nations lack the knowledge to accomplish. That is essentially the reason the Jesuits are viewing the ICLC as a special sort of danger today, why they are hoping so intensely that we are nothing more than “agents of the Vatican.” The simple, “little” politician or citizen resents the ICLC’s knowledge. “No, that is too sophisticated. You must act politically only in terms that ordinary, uneducated people can understand.” If we accepted such well-meaning but bad advice, we would be miserable failures, like virtually every leading political party of the transatlantic community of nations today.

Who Are the Jesuits, Really?

Contrary to popularized mythology, the Jesuits are neither a part of nor product of Western Christianity. The order was created at Venice during the 16th century, to be the new secret-intelligence arm of the powerful family funds of Venice. Through Venice’s control over the Hapsburg Emperor, Charles V, the Hapsburgs conquered and looted Rome in 1527 A. D., and made the Vatican virtually a prisoner of Venetian-Hapsburg policy during much of the period, until the Vatican was freed through the successful defeat of the Hapsburgs in 1653 by the successive work of Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin.

Venice and Genoa are not politically, culturally, or religiously products of Western civilization. They were and remain both colonies of the Justinian faction of Byzantium, and have been, more recently together with the Venetian puppet-state of Switzerland, the capital of the Justinian faction of Byzantium ever since the Venetians’ Neoplatonic adversary, the Paleologues, rose to power in Constantinople.

Except for recurring, persisting Neoplatonic insurrections within Byzantium, the Eastern Church’s patriarchate has not been Christian since the Emperor Justinian. The Eastern, Justinian Church was developed as a form of pseudo-Christianity modeled upon the Roman Imperial mystery religions. Roman Imperial paganism and Byzantine pseudo-Christianity share the common generic name of Gnosis-Gnosticism.

Every major evil which Western European civilization has suffered since Charlemagne’s time has been a direct result of subversions of religious and political life mediated through that Venetian-centered collection of Gnostic oligarchical families. These are typified by the “black nobility” of Italy, Austro-Hungary and Russia’s “Black Hundred,” all outgrowths of the Byzantine-Venetian-Genoese deployment to establish powerful families of its faction in various parts of the world—such as the anglophile heathens of New York City’s Anglican Cathedral of St. John the Divine today.

The 15th-century Golden Renaissance enabled the Augustinian Neoplatonic faction to undermine and weaken the corruption which the Venetians and Genoese had established under the auspices of the 13th and 14th centuries’ pro-Aristotle inquisitions. Under this specific circumstance, Venice created a new, more rigidly-designed new order, the Jesuits.

Through the military subjugation of the Papacy in 1527, Venice was situated to impose the Jesuits upon the Vatican as an autonomous power within the Church under its own “Black Pope.” This new order, the Jesuits, was based on Gnostic religious doctrine, and modeled, as a secret-intelligence service of Venice and the Hapsburgs, on the Cult of Apollo at Delphi. Hence, the Jesuits themselves emphasize that their method is the “Delphic method,” the method of sophistry developed by Aristotle’s masters up through the fourth century B.C.

To understand the mind of leading Jesuits, one must focus upon the great struggle of the fourth century B.C.

On one side were aligned forces of republicanism, guided jointly by Plato’s Academy at Athens, and the Cyrenaic Temple of Amon, the two institutions which cosponsored and guided Alexander the Great. On the opposite side were the Magi of Mesopotamia and the cult of Thebes, with the Delphi Temple of Apollo the principal arm of the Magi (Lucifer-worshippers) in Greece and controlling the Latin city of Rome.

The policy of the Magi was known then as the proposal to create what was termed the “Western Division of the Persian Empire.” Philip of Macedon was offered a world-empire to the west of the Euphrates, on condition that he subjugate Greece and cooperate to place the world under a social order called the “Persian Model” and otherwise called the “Oligarchical Model.” The Cult of Apollo, and its agent Aristotle, were key parts of this plot.

The death of Philip, and the Athens Academy’s and Amon’s successful cooperation to bring Alexander to power, and to destroy the Persian Empire, delayed the “Oligarchical” one-world empire effort for almost 300 years, until the rise of Rome to assume the role earlier intended for Philip of Macedon.

We, the forces of Western civilization, have beaten back every effort to resurrect the Roman model of Malthusian one-world order until now. This success is chiefly the result of the work of the Augustinians, of Charlemagne, of the Hohenstaufen, and the Golden Renaissance. The defeat of Britain by the American Revolution was the key event which tilted the balance against 18th-century plans to establish such a new Roman Empire. The force of industrial-capitalist development prevented the Holy Alliance from being consolidated as the kernel of such a new Roman Empire. Now, the damnable “Society of Judas” and the British are back at the same evil effort again, just as the homosexual Pre-Raphaelite cult of Oxford’s John Ruskin and Cambridge’s Benjamin Jowett proposed during the last century.

Either we rise to crush this spawn of the ancient Lucifer-cult today—and not merely in its theosophist-anthroposophist excrescences, or civilization will not survive. Either we defeat the Jesuits and their British allies, or we as a civilization have demonstrated by our unwillingness to do so that we have lost the moral fitness to survive.

The Present Dark Age

The rise of the “post-industrial society” cult over the past 20 years, with its “green fascist” rabble of today, merely signifies that civilization is now approaching the fag-end of a moral and intellectual decay which has been in progress approximately a hundred years, since approximately 1871-1876. If one understands why that conception of the past century’s history is not only correct but necessary for practice, one understands how and why the ICLC functions as it does.

True, there has been significant technological progress over the past hundred years, and some important improvement in the political and material conditions of life of sections of the human population. The institutions of cultural and technological progress set into motion during the period 1653-1871 have continued to function, although with eroding efficiency, up into the early 1960s. It is only during the 1957-1981 period that civilization overall has slipped into a condition of accelerating absolute decay. It is that erosion of institutions on which competent analysis must focus.

The defeat of the Hapsburgs in 1653 unleashed a generally upward development in European civilization, except in Britain and the Netherlands, where the Genoese and Venetian masters consolidated their grip during the 1660-1689 period of the British monarchical restoration. The high point of this upsurge was the successful establishment of the United States under Federalist principles in 1789. The achievements of the American Revolution threatened to ignite a general upsurge of republicanism throughout much of the world.

Apart from such subversive Jacobin collaborators of the British Secret Intelligence Service as Thomas Jefferson, the young United States was a success. The British and Jesuits, together with the Order of Malta, worked mightily to subvert and defeat the influence of the American Revolution, conspiring to destroy the United States at some early time. The British side of this was centered in the person of Lord Shelbourne and the British East India Company—the long, evil ministry of William Pitt the Younger. The allies of Pitt in France and Switzerland were typified by the Duke of Orleans, Jacques Necker, and Necker’s notorious daughter, the Madame de Stael. These combined forces, relying largely upon the Jesuits, created Jacobinism and the Jacobin Terror of Robespierre and British agents Danton and Marat. The decapitation of France by the Jacobin Terror had effects on French civilization which could not be adequately reversed by the noble efforts of Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot. With the defeat of Napoleonic France, the Jesuit agent Cauchy was sent into France under Orleans and British patronage to destroy French science. Cauchy largely succeeded, with agents such as Leopold Kronecker and Richard Dedekind later spreading Cauchy’s mind-destroying poison into Germany.

Except for the brief efforts and contributions associated with Gabriel Hanotaux and the work of Charles de Gaulle, France did not recover from the cultural disaster of the period 1815-1851.

Science, exiled from France, moved to Prussia under the patronage of Alexander von Humboldt. The industrialization of the United States, Germany, northern Italy, Japan and Czar Alexander’s Russia, up through the period 1871-1876, established the cultural, scientific and industrial institutions of modern European civilization.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, by joint efforts of the British Secret Intelligence Service and Georgetown-based Jesuits, enabled the United States to be subverted from within, and the treasonous Specie Resumption Act of 1876-1879 to be enacted and implemented—placing the major component of U. S. credit and debt at the mercy of the City of London and British agents of influence such as Belmont and Morgan. Bismarck secured the unification of Germany by concessions to London and Vienna (Venice-Switzerland); Jesuits, including some in Protestant disguises such as Friedrich Lange and Max Weber, or Kronecker at Berlin, were permitted to run amok in Germany, harassing German science to the point that Felix Klein and his associates maintained progress only by a tiring, rearguard defense against evils typified by Bertrand Russell and the Viennese hoaxster, Ernst Mach. Since World War I, civilization has been rotting away. It has been a eunuch’s culture: the old eunuch has still some of his skills, but not the power to reproduce his kind. As the viable institutions from the past crumble into age and senility, there is no net replacement for what civilization has thus lost.

In this circumstance, well-meaning fellows advise the ICLC to be “less abrasive,” to limit itself to those tried-and-tested rules of political advancement which many have employed over past decades. We reject such well-meaning advice, and rightly so. The fact—the simple fact—is that it is the result of the widespread practice of such tried-and-tested rules which has brought civilization to the present brink of collapse. Either we break with such tried-and-tested rules, or we all go down to Hell together, as the wage we earn for clinging to tried-and-true practices which have led us into this mess.

Get out of the foxholes and hit the enemy on the flank! It is not sufficient to be aggressive. It is necessary to know where and how to strike.

Go back to basics. Go back to those principles which saved humanity from the moral suicide of Roman Imperial law and culture, from the 14th-century Dark Age, from the Jesuit terror which erupted during the 1527-1653 Hapsburg looting of Europe. What are those principles of action which have been proven—over 2,500 years to date—the only efficient modes of action by which mankind can lift itself out of the hell of a new dark age? Only those rules can save us from the nightmare of Friedmanite fascism and its “green fascist” storm-troopers of today.

In the dialogues of Plato, in the Nicene doctrine, in the writings of St. Augustine, in the great works of the Golden Renaissance, there is repeatedly demonstrated that the principles of natural law associated with the conception of imago vivo Dei is the only means by which humanity can escape from the kind of Inferno to which the “Society of Judas” and its accomplices seek to condemn mankind.

It is the principle of reason (Logos) expressed through technological progress in human productive labor, combined with lawful respect for the implicit divinity of the human individual: It is these ideas and related ideas, which alone can enable humanity to survive.

Humanity can not survive if the leadership of the fight against the Gnostics is left to the judgment of those “little men” who dominate governments and parties of most nations today. The ICLC is the mediation for the effective deployment of those ideas and judgments which the “little men” of government lack the moral and intellectual development to originate without ICLC guidance.

The ICLC is the force to lead in “kicking against the pricks,” to force the truth through, even where “little men” find the truth unpleasantly abrasive. For example, you can not tolerate either Alexander Haig or Paul A. Volcker and not be an accomplice of a greater genocide than Adolf Hitler accomplished. That is considered intolerably abrasive in many quarters, but it is the pure and simple truth.

Stephen Mumford is right in one thing: I am his enemy, and he is mine.