Rulers of Evil; Useful Knowledge
about Governing Bodies
By F.Tupper Saussy
about Governing Bodies
By F.Tupper Saussy
Chapter 24
THE MARK OF CAIN
“The mark of Cain is stamped upon our foreheads.
Across the centuries, our brother Abel has lain in blood
which we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy
love.”
—Pope John XXIII,
A Prayer (1960),
cited
in VICARS OF CHRIST
WE LIVE IN THE New World Order, just as people under
Augustus Caesar did. Not a future thing to be feared or
avoided, the New World Order is a present reality to be
identified, understood, and dealt with in a way most pleasing to
God.
It was God, after all, who established the New World Order.
We can read about it in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is the only
record we have that publicly and truthfully sets forth the essentials
of the Order’s origins and development through time.
The Bible records the great decisive events in the progress of
human life up to the close of the first century AD. Creation of earth
and the fullness thereof, creation of man and woman, their turning away from God, the first conception, the first birth, the first
sacrifice, the first murder, the first insignia, the first city, the first
and only great flood, the surviving family and its peculiar relationship through time with God, all of this momentous data is given
in the Bible with a stark truthfulness that is invariably supported, often to the surprise of many, by the results of scientific inquiry.
The writers of the Bible, Israelite prophets inspired by their God
Yahweh, held no monopoly on reporting these events. Priests of
other nations reported them, too. But in doing so, they cunningly
adapted them to fit prevailing administrative needs. The result of
their adaptations is what we call mythology.
One very persistent myth, based on a crucial event accounted
for in the Bible, explained to people under Babylonian ruler-ship
the divine origin of their government. This was the myth of Marduk. 1
The myth of Marduk begins
with Annu, “the head deity of
Babylonian mythology,” 2
looking down upon earth in dismay.
The land is in chaos, overrun
by flood-waters and monstrous
serpents. Annu senses that
bringing order to such chaos is
a job for Marduk, the first-born
son of the moon goddess Ea. So
Annu summons Marduk and
asks him to organize the earth.
Marduk agrees to the task, but
“only on the condition that he
be made first among the gods
and that his word shall have
the force of the decree of
Annu.” 3
Annu accepts Marduk’s terms and vests him with “the powers and insignia of kingship – and Marduk’s word was declared to have the authority of
Annu.” Armed with divine power, Marduk goes to earth and separates dry land from sea. He polices the monsters, and any evildoer
foolish enough to oppose him receives the wrath of God.
The result of Marduk’s ordination was depicted in the Stele of
Naram-Sin, now in the Louvre. In this very ancient Babylonian
monument, Annu is shown imbuing Naram-Sin (Enoch to the Hebrews) with power over a mass of other beings. Annu’s name, seen in the tip of the stele, is the cuneiform symbol for “heaven, ” the double-cross, or ✲
The Naram-Sin [Enoch] Stele, with
Annu’s name over the mountain-top. Marduk policing the evildoer Tiamat with thunderbolts From a bas-relief on
the wall s of the palace of the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal (9th century bc at
Calah, now in the British Museum). Note the repeated Annu signature in the
sacred hem of Marduk’s garment. An d the scythe under his left arm: is the artist
subtly revealing that Marduk was once a farmer?
Marduk wears the Annu signature like a cop with his badge. It
makes him a god. In fact, the ordination-of-power iconography of
ancient Babylonian nations was never without it. Even today (see
Appendix: “Fifty Centuries of the Annu Signature”), we find it in
the flag of Great Britain, said to be the union of St. Andrew’ s Scottish cross and St. George’ s English cross. We find it prominently
displayed in the decor of government buildings, especially courtrooms. It forms the motif for much of the decorative architecture
of the U.S. Supreme Court Building, interior and exterior. The
pavement surrounding the Obelisk of Caligula in St. Peter’s Piazza, where the multitudes stand to receive papal edicts and blessings, is inlaid with a gigantic Annu signature.
No doubt about it: a
very ancient symbol has remained consistently identified with the
presence of ruler-ship. Could it be that a symbol of so much power is based on a myth? Or is it based on the fact from which the myth
sprang?
THE sensitive Bible-reader immediately sees in the myth of Marduk a missionary adaptation of the biblical account of Cain .
The two protagonists are remarkably similar. Both Cain and Marduk were firstborn sons of mothers bearing almost the same name:
Marduk, son of Ea; Cain, son of Eve. Both firstborns were appointed to rule over evil, albeit for different reasons: Marduk because of
his heroism, Cain because of his own wickedness. 4 So that they
might move effectively among evildoers, both were given protective seals of immunity by the God of Heaven. God said to Cain,
Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken
on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any
finding him should kill him. 5
In Marduk’s case, the evildoers were chaotic beings ruining
Annu’ s earth. Cain’ s evildoers were persons who might slay him
because he had become a homeless trespasser. The Bible details
exactly why Cain became homeless. His farm refused to yield harvests because he had defiled the soil with the blood of his brother.
Cain “rose up against Abel his brother and slew him. ” We’re not
told why. It may have been jealous rage, and it may not. Nothing
in Scripture indicates that Cain hated Abel. The most we know of
their relationship is that “Cain talked with his brother,” and afterward, in a field, murdered him. 6
Nor are we given details of the
murder, except that it was bloody. 7
The blood is an important clue
as to motive.
We know that Cain was first crestfallen then angry at God for
preferring Abel’s sacrifice to his own. 8
Abel, the shepherd, sacrificed lambs from his flock. 9
Cain, the farmer, apparently thinking
sacrifice was about returning the best of his productivity to God,
sacrificed the best of his harvest. God found Cain’s sacrifice offensive and Abel’ s pleasing. 10
Elsewhere in Scripture we learn why. It
involves a principle that is very difficult for many of us to comprehend. The principle is this: without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.11 Abel pleased God because he shed blood, the
blood of sacrificial animals.
The great teaching of the Bible is that the death sentence
mankind has inherited from the original breaking of God’s Law by
Cain’s parents (“Thou shalt not eat of the fruit...”) is pardonable
only by death, by the extreme act of shedding blood fatally.
This
teaching is the bedrock of the Old Testament and the whole point
of the New. In the Old Testament, the people of God were pardoned the sinfulness inherited from Adam by shedding the blood
of animals, as Abel had dutifully done. In the New, the people of
God were pardoned this same sinfulness by doing exactly as Cain
had done, shedding the blood of a man.
To this day, according to the
Scriptures, all who believe that Jesus Christ’s blood has power to
remit sins are imputed sinless by God. 12
Imputed sinless, their sentence of eternal separation from God is commuted, and they are
given eternal life in Heaven. 13
Now, Scripture does not tell us that God ever explained the
purpose of blood sacrifice to Cain. 14
But we know that God is the
greatest of all teachers.
And we know he wants the best for
mankind. It’s unthinkable , then, that He would want Cain ignorant of the life-saving effect of blood sacrifice. He must have
taught Cain as thoroughly as he taught Abel. And Cain must have
listened attentively, for we know he was anxious to please God otherwise, why would he have been angry and crestfallen at learning of God’ s dissatisfaction with his sacrifice?
But Cain was more
creative than obedient. It’s entirely consistent with his character
for him to have decided
Okay, if it’s blood sacrifice He wants, I’ll give Him the sacrifice He deserves, a better sacrifice than lambs: I’ll give Him the
blood of an innocent man!
Cain’s intent was evil only in that he sought to improve on
what God had commanded, in the way Saul improved on God’ s
commandment to annihilate the Amalekites by sparing their king
and certain valuable livestock. 15
Cain knew the logic of God, he
was, after all, the first human being born with the knowledge of good and evil. And we know from what happened to Jesus that
God’s logic calls for the sacrifice of the only One whose perfect
innocence overcame death. In his obsession to please God, wouldn’t Cain have regarded spilling Abel’s blood as the ultimate godliness?
What I am suggesting is that, in Cain’s mind, Abel was not so
much murdered as sacrificed, nailed to Annu’ s very name—
✲
— hanged upon a cross! Wouldn’t this explain why Scripture shows
no evidence that Cain sensed any guilt? Wouldn’t it also explain
the hundreds of ancient, pre-Christian myths of young shepherds
(such as Tammuz, Bacchus, Attis , Mithras) who were slain in cold
blood by various villains only to rise from the dead, their shed
blood having supposedly propitiated original sin and resurrected
them to eternal life? The myths, obviously based on the fact of
Abel’s crucifixion, all pointed to a universally anticipated event foretold by the Israelite prophets : Messiah’s death and resurrection,
which would pardon the sins of mankind and restore eternal life.
Thus emerges the possibility that the “lamb slain from the
foundation of the world” mentioned at Revelation 13: 8 might
have indeed been Abel, God’s first obedient servant. For it is a fact
that “the World” – by which the New Testament writers meant the
ordering of human institutional systems which God admitted into
existence – did actually begin, as we are about to see, in the immediate aftermath of Abel’ s death.
If this is the case, then mankind
owes a strange debt to Cain. No Cain, no death of Abel. No death
of Abel , no World. No World, no incarnation of God as only
begotten Son. No Son of God, no true death and resurrection. No
true death and resurrection, no hope of mankind for eternal intimacy with God.
IT was the complaint of an earth outraged by Abel’s spilled blood
that moved God to banish Cain from his accustomed habitat forever. Just as Marduk demanded protection from the monsters he
had been asked to control, Cain demanded protection from possible assailants in his exile.
God graciously accommodated Cain by
“setting a mark” upon him which made Cain seven times more
powerful than any mortal competitor. The mark served as the very
“powers and insignia of kingship” Annu had granted Marduk. It
empowered Cain to rule all human beings likely to challenge his
protective mark, beings unafraid of Yahweh’ s name, 16
beings who
shared Cain’s environs “out from the presence of the Lord.” 17
Armed with his mark, Cain began the rulership of evil. The
Bible accounts for Cain’s movements after his ordination. He took
a wife and sired a son. Then , he built a city and named it after his
son, “Enoch.” 18 Centuries later, Enoch disappeared under the silt
of Noah’ s flood. It passed from memory to mystery to oblivion,
until the 1840s, when archaeologists following the Bible’s descriptions of Babylonia began excavating in present-day Iraq. Along
the Euphrates River, near Al Khidr, they discovered numerous
strata of ancient settlements. The deepest stratum, beneath which
there was nothing but bedrock, had called itself Unuk.
“Unuk was
founded on the oldest bricks,” declared one of the leading archaeologists, a renowned classical linguist from Queens College, Oxford, named Archibald Sayce.
Having deciphered and evaluated large numbers of clay tablets
from the site, Professor Sayce issued the opinion in 1887 that
Unuk was indeed biblical Enoch, the city built by Cain and his
son. 19
Lecturing at Oxford, Sayce also pointed out that one of
Cain’s mythological names was Marduk 20 an important contribution to the Marduk-equals-Cain hypothesis.
Unuk’s dominant
temple bore the title “house of Annu,” further enhancing the
probability that Marduk’s myth was spun from Cain’s murder of
Abel. As ruler of Unuk , Cain was known as Sargon – or, as other
translators have rendered the spelling, Shargani, Sarru Kinu, Sargoni, etc. 21
These variations of Sargon are composites of the Babylonian shar, meaning “king” and gani, kinu, or goni, meaning
“Cain.” 22
It would be hard to say Sargon means anything other
than “King Cain.”
Unuk had been no primitive village. Encyclopedia Britannica
noted that “transparent glass seems to have been first introduced
in the reign of Sargon.” 23
Sargon built a metropolis of enormous
complexity. But what astonished the archaeologists most was the
city’s miraculous historical suddenness. Unuk seemed to have
materialized from out of nowhere:
We have found, in short, abundant remains of a bronze culture, but no traces of preceding ages of development such as
meet us on early Egyptian sites.24
The suddenness factor severely challenged those scholars who
viewed history through Darwinian anti-biblicalism, which had
become the fashion in Jesuit-influenced academic circles. To fit
evolutionary theory, Unuk should have evidenced development
from a much older civilization. As a contributor to the London
Times’ prestigious Historians’ History of the World grumbled,
Surely such a people as this could not have sprung into existence as a Deus ex Machina [a person or thing introduced or
appearing unexpectedly so as to provide an artificial or contrived
solution to an otherwise insoluble problem]. It must have had its
history – a history which presupposes development of several
centuries more. 25
But Unuk as a social organization had no previous history. This
maddening circumstance drove the British Museum’s H.R. Hall
to rationalize that its “ready-made” culture must have been
“brought into Mesopotamia from abroad.” 26
Modern anti-biblicists
find it easier to accept that Unuk’ s sudden complexity came from
other galaxies than from something as simple as... acquiring divine intelligence from biting into a piece of forbidden fruit. Of
course, eating the fruit of disobedience is how the Bible explains
the suddenness factor.
Cain had extraordinary powers because he
inherited from his parents the knowledge of good and evil which
the Trickster had encouraged them to obtain at the price of eternal life. 27
In Mrs. Bristowe’s words: “Cain was born and bred in the atmosphere of the miraculous; his parents were possessed of supernatural knowledge , some of which must have been imparted to
their children.” 28
King Cain was no primitive chieftain. On one of his many
autobiographical inscriptions, he boasted that “in multitudes of
bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands ... I governed the upper
countries,” and “three times to the sea I have advanced.” 29
A brilliant, well-organized military emperor – the prototypical Caesar, Cain controlled a “vast empire.” The Cambridge History tells us
he divided his imperium
from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, from the rising
to the setting of the sun into districts of five double hours march
each, over which he placed the ‘sons of his palace.’ By these delegates of his authority he ruled the hosts of the lands together. 30
Cain’s empire was founded on slavery 31, the inevitable result
of one man’s retributive power exceeding all others sevenfold. For
the most part, however, it appears that Cain exercised his advantage in the public interest. Professor Sayce tells us that his empire
was “full of schools and libraries, of teachers and pupils, and poets
and prose writers, and of the literary works which they had composed.” Furthermore,
the empire was bound together by roads, along which there was
a regular postal service, and clay seals which took the place of
stamps, are now in the Louvre bearing the name of Sargon and
his son....
It is probable that the first collection of astronomical
observations and terrestrial omens was made for a library established by Sargon.32
The insignia of power and kingship did not vanish with Cain’s
death. That Cain built the original city with his son implies that
the mark was intended to be an hereditary entitlement. The son’s
name implies that he received the power of the mark from his father. “Enoch” in Hebrew means “the initiated” – to be inducted by
special rites, to be instructed in the rudiments or principles of something.
Scripture implies that Enoch and perhaps Cain in
turn initiated other deputies and successors. Four generations after
Cain’s birth, we find Enoch’s great-great grandson Lamech still exercising, in fact augmenting, the prerogative of divine vengeance:
Lamech said to his wives “Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven
times, then Lamech seventy-seven times.” 34
Receiving authority to govern requires taking an oath which
binds the initiate to a code of rights and responsibilities. Interestingly, our word “oath” is cognate with the Hebrew WFA (pronounced “oath”), which is the word translated “mark” at Genesis
4:15 , “the Lord set a mark upon Cain. ” Knowing this, we may accurately say “the Lord put Cain under oath,” an oath visibly represented by the various insignia government's display. The mark,
then, stands for a covenant between God and Cain. It is not the
all-encompassing sort of covenant which God struck with the
humbly obedient Abraham "
“And I will establish my covenant
between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations
for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed
after thee.” 35
Cain’ s unwillingness to obey the letter of Yahweh’ s
commandments made him unfit for intimacy with the divine. In
Cain’ s own words, “from thy face shall I be hid.” 36
The exile
covenant was strictly limited to assuring God’s vengeance against
anyone who would threaten Cain’s life. In matters of wisdom, correction, instruction in righteousness, Cain was on his own. He was
on his own, also, if he should try to attack the peaceful. The mark
was a covenant of retribution only.
Early on, Cain saw there was great profit in provoking assailants. The more enemies, the more spectacular the displays of
vengeance. The more vengeance, the more justice; the more justice, the more power to Cain; a more powerful Cain could do more
excellent public works. Thus, it became essential to the self-interest of the bearer of the mark – which remains to this day a first principle of ordered government – to provoke and encourage evildoing, particularly the form that manifests itself in rebellion.
Cain terrorized evil with awesome dependability. His faith that
God would avenge his enemies made him a highly reliable public
protector. Down through the ages, righteous people could live
secure in the knowledge that the mark-bearer would stop at nothing to persecute evildoers. This fact is marvelously declared in
Scripture. In the seventh century BC, the mark-bearing Babylonians were appointed by God to capture the wayward Israelites and
show them some harsh discipline. Israel couldn’t understand why
God would put a vain, evil Babylonian king over His own chosen
people. God explained saying: “See, he is puffed up, and his desires
are not upright, but the righteous shall live by his faith.”
37
How has the mark managed to remain vibrant for nearly six
thousand years? Grand Commander Albert Pike, in his influential Morals and Dogma, threw valuable light on the subject. He
declared that “from the earliest time,” Freemasonry has been the
“custodian and depository” of the “symbols, emblems , and allegories ... erected by Enoch.”38
The Commander was careful to say
he meant not Cain’s son Enoch, but the Bible’s other Enoch,
Enoch-2 , the good Enoch, the Enoch “who walked with God.” 39
However , his attempt to dissociate his institution from Cain puts
the Commander at variance with Masonic and biblical chronology. For if a biblical Enoch erected the earliest imagery of Freemasonry, it could not possibly have been Enoch-2 . It had to have
been Enoch-1. Let’s examine the chronology.
Enoch-2 was descended from Seth, whom Eve conceived after
the death of Abel – “for God , said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.” 40
When Eve conceived
Seth, Adam was 130 years old. 41
According to the scripturally
faithful computations of the Archbishop of Armagh, James Ussher
(1581–1656) , Adam was created in 4004 BC. Thus, Seth was born
in 3874 BC . Genesis 5:6–20 gives us an exact toll of the years
between Seth and his great-great-great-great grandson Enoch-2:
Father Son Age of father at son’s birth
Seth Enos 105
Enos Cainan 90
Cainan Mahaleel 70
Mahaleel Jared 65
Tared Enoch-2 162
Total years 492
According to the Bible, Enoch- 2 was born 492 years after the
birth of Seth, or in 3382 BC. NOW, Commander Pike’s book, Morals
and Dogma, reckons its date of publication in both Christian (1871
A D ) and Masonic (5680 AM ) chronology. To find out the beginning
of Masonic history – that “earliest time” in which Enoch erected
his “symbols, emblems , and allegories” – in terms of Christian
chronology, we subtract the given Christian year from its Masonic
equivalent (1871 from 5680). This gives us a first Masonic year of
3809 BC. 42
But the figures show that Enoch- 2 was not born until
3382, some 427 years after Freemasonry’s “earliest time”! Enoch-2
could not possibly have erected the prototypical symbolic devices
of which Freemasonry has ever been custodian and depository.
However, Cain’s son, Enoch-1 , very well could have!
Cain began his wandering after Abel’ s death, which the Bible
marks with Seth’s conception and Adam’ s age, 130 years, in about
3876 BC. If we give Cain ten years to find a wife, settle down, and
sire a child, Enoch- 1 would have been born in 3866 BC. This
would make him a 55-year-old man in the first Masonic year, 3809.
At that age, Enoch- 1 would have been fully equipped to erect symbols and allegories memorializing his father’s divine appointment
to rule populations “out from the presence of the Lord.” 43
Incidentally, Professor Sayce placed Cain in Masonry’s early
years against his previous determinations. Sayce admitted to being
compelled by the scholarly diligence of a latter-day Babylonian
king to accept the evidence that Sargon lived as early as four thousand years before Christ:
The last king of Babylonia, Nabonidus, had antiquarian tastes, and busied himself not only with the restoration of the
old temples of his country, but also with the disinterment of the
memorial cylinders which their builders and restorers had buried
beneath their foundation. It was known that the great temple of
the Sun-god at Sippara ... had originally been erected by
Naram-Sin [Enoch], the son of Sargon, and attempts had been
already made to find the records which, it was assumed, he had
entombed under its angles. With true antiquarian zeal, Nabonidus continued the search until he had lighted upon ‘the
foundation stone’ of Naram-Sin himself. This ‘foundation-stone’
he tells us had been seen by none of his predecessors for 3200
years. In the opinion, accordingly, of Nabonidus, a king who was
curious about the past history of his country, and whose royal
position gave him the best possible opportunities for learning all
that could be known about it, Naram-Sin and his father Sargon
lived 3200 years before his own time, or 3750 BC.
What we see in the Bible’s account of how Unuk came about
is nothing less than the foundation of the world’s legal system. That
God would ordain an evil man to administer the law makes sublime sense to me.
In our final chapter , I shall ask your indulgence in a few personal reflections of my own as to how a system designed to process
evil can do as much good as it does.
Chapter 25
THE TWO MINISTRIES
“The years pass so quickly – where do they go? – so
quickly, and then we get old. We never knew what
any of it was about. ”
—WOODY ALLEN, RADIO DAYS
WHAT, TO ME, makes the Bible such an inviting resource is
the vigor with which the rulers of evil have suppressed
its unlicensed reading. It’s been my experience that as
predictably as such rulers play with truth, the Bible forthrightly
tells it.
The previous chapters have been written in the presumption
that ruling institutions are what they say they are (under the Cain
covenant they must truthfully identify their origins, which they do
with cabalah). It’s only fair, then, that I write this chapter in the
presumption that the Bible really is what it says it is. It claims to
be the unique, revealed Word of God, 1
and the veritable literary
embodiment of Jesus Christ. 2
If we disbelieve that claim, we must
disbelieve all the mottoes , insignia, bulls, encyclicals, laws, acts,
ordinations, constitutions, oaths, and decrees of the rulers of evil.
According to God (as given in Scripture), the purpose of law
is to regulate evildoers. Hear the apostle Paul:
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for
lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and
irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and
perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. 3
In other words, any behavior not conforming to “the glorious
gospel” of God belongs to the law, which, obviously from its subject matter, is a jurisdiction foreign to Jesus Christ.
Scripture teaches us that the glorious gospel commands
(1) repenting of sinful lifestyles, 4
(2) loving neighbor as oneself, 5
(3) loving and blessing one’s enemies, 6
(4) giving freely without thought
of reward, 7
(5) forgiving debts and injuries, 8
and
(6) preaching that
whoever believes the evidence of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection enters the royal family of God for all eternity. 9
Not every personality is drawn to the glorious gospel, 10
although Scripture tells
us that everyone is asked (in some way) to know it. 11
For the protection of those drawn to the glorious gospel, and for the management of those foreign to it, there exists the “rule of law.” Rule of
law is the system by which authorities bearing Cain’s “powers and
insignia of kingship” rule the World. Very briefly, it compares with
the glorious gospel in the following ways:
Glorious gospel - Rule of law
Repent of sinful lifestyle
Manage sinful lifestyle
Love neighbor as oneself
Achieve advantage over neighbor
Love and bless one’s enemies
Conquer one’s enemies by legal means
Give freely without thought of reward
Give requiring reward
Forgive debts and injuries
Enforce payment of debts and injuries
with interest
Preach that whoever believes the evidence of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection enters the royal
family of God for all eternity
Preach the absentee, impersonal God
of Cain, Deism, and other faiths
The following table shows how readily the Roman Catholic
Church-State organism conforms to the rule of law:
Secular Roman
Rule of law -Government -Catholicism
Manage sinful lifestyle
Legislation, police , criminal justice, philanthropy,media.
Pontification, Inquisition the Holy Sacraments ,
media
Competition : Achieve advantage over neighbor
Self-interested political action,
competition, partisanism, nationalism
Self-interested political action in
the guise of ecimenis m (e.g., Trent)
Conquer one’ s enemies by legal means
War and emergency powers,
Darwinian survivalism,patriotism
“End justifies the means”, rationale of
the Church Militant (Regimini militantis ecclesiae)
Give, requiring reward
Profit-based trade and commerce
Salvation earned by good works ;
the selling of
indulgences
Enforce payment of debts
and injuries with interest
Judiciary, police
Forgiveness of sins in exchange
for payments
and penances
Preach the absentee, impersonal God of
Cain ,Deism, and other faiths
Preaching “In God We Trust ” while
prohibiting Bibles in schools
Praying to saints for intercession with
an absentee , impersonal
Saviour
The rule of law is what Scripture calls a “ministration of condemnation.” 12
The “strength” of the rule of law is sin. 13
This is
observable in how law is at its most vibrant when ferreting out,
prosecuting, and punishing crime. Officials of the rule of law are
called “ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to
their works.” 14
(I take this to mean “Good works , good end; bad
works, bad end.”) As might be expected of a ministry appointed to
Cain, who Scripture tells us was “of that wicked one,” 15 the ministration of condemnation – the rule of law – belongs to Satan. It is
a shocking thing to realize that, according to Scripture, world law
is Satan’s province. But surprisingly, Scripture also teaches that a
certain degree of cordiality exists between God and Satan.
We learn from the book of Job that Satan is welcome in God’s
heavenly throne room, 16
even though he has led a rebellion in
Heaven for which one third of the angelic population were cast
out. 17
His business consists of “going to and fro in the earth, walking up and down in it.” 18
Since he is an angel, and therefore incapable of a bodily existence, Satan can only affect human affairs by
(1) providing spiritual direction to human beings who consent to
him as “the god of this world,” 19
and (2 ) manipulating the forces
of nature as “prince of the power of the air.” 20
To secure popular
consent to his spiritual direction, he employs his supernatural abilities to make himself irresistibly attractive. He’s an angel of light, 21
the author of the humanist extravaganza – pomp and circumstance, breathtaking visual experience, disorienting emotionalism,
architecture that overwhelms. He means to convince us (1 ) that
he wields the power of God Almighty on earth, and (2 ) that we
are therefore bound to follow his moral guidance. 22
Jesus Christ
agreed with the first proposition (and in so doing affirmed, in my
opinion, the covenant between God and Cain), but admonished
Satan that only the written word of God is fit to guide mankind and
Trickster alike. 23
Quite apart from its infallible moral guidance, the
written word of God appears to be the only truthful disclosure of
Satan’s origin, scope, and purpose. Its potential for damaging his
appeal is why the highest rulers of law have traditionally prohibited, or at least not diligently encouraged, Bible reading.
THE earliest Christians well understood Rome’s indispensable
satanic role in human affairs. In the legal process which Christ
established for members of his Church, the harshest sentence an
offender could receive was abandonment to Caesarean authority:
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault,
just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won
your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them,
tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the
church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 24
Writing about “Hymenaeus and Alexander , whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme,” 25
the apostle Paul
was not talking about committing unruly churchmen to some
satanic cult. Nor did he mean by the following counsel that the
church at Corinth should engage in demonic incantations:
When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and
I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be
destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 26
In both cases, Paul was heeding Christ’s commandment concerning brethren who rejected both the glorious gospel and the
rule of law: turn them over to the Caesarean criminal justice system for their own good and for the good of the church. Thus , the earliest Christians were keenly aware that Rome’ s purpose, as the
spiritual heir of Cain and the incarnation of the satanic spirit, was
(1) to teach the people of Go d not to blaspheme, (2) to destroy
the sinful nature, thereby (3) to save man’s spirit from eternal
damnation on judgment day.
This violent good-working spirit is
characterized at Psalm 2:9 and again at Revelation 2:27 as a “rod
of iron” with which Christ rules nations and dashes them to pieces.
The Judaean political leaders, anticipating a Messiah who would
overthrow Caesar, didn’t understand that Rome was Christ’s rod of
iron. Because He would not dash Rome to pieces, they declared
Him an impostor, demanded His crucifixion, and gloated when He
failed to come off the cross. They could not fathom His consenting to suffer under the violent justice of His own rod. Nor could
they foresee that He would use this same rod on September 8, 70
in the person of the Roman general Vespasianus Titus, who captured their rebellious city, Jerusalem, and dashed it to pieces.
Paul, whom his non-believing Israelite brethren continually
mugged, persecuted, jailed, tortured, and hounded throughout his
Mediterranean and Aegean ministry, understood the rod of iron.
It was in his letter to the Romans that we find perhaps the most
eloquent statement on the New World Order ever written (I cite
from the New International Version):
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist [“powers that be” in the King James
Version] have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is
rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so
will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those
who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in
authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong,
be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s
servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not
only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s
servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay
taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor,
then honor.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt
to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled
the law.27
Since the epoch of Emperor Constantine , the Roman papacy
has fostered the concept that the ruler who terrorizes wrongdoers
is necessarily a Christian. Pope Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome who
supposedly converted Constantine to Christianity, saw nothing
strange in a warrior coming to faith in a crucified Christ by slaughtering his enemies.” 28
This thinking pervaded Sylvester’s successors, as well as the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, European
nationalism, the American Revolution, the War of Southern Secession, and the wars of the twentieth century.
Indeed, perhaps the
black papacy’s most admirable psychological conquest is that
Protestants generally agree that armed rulership is an authority instituted by God for Christians to exercise. Since there is no scriptural authority for a member of the Body of Christ to bear any kind
of armament whatsoever other than the figurative weaponry of
God’s Word, agreeing to such a principle signifies prima facie adherence to the moral guidance of him who bears the power of
Almighty God on earth, the person who legitimately bears the
mark of Cain in a long succession begun with Peter. Yes, the popes
can truthfully declare that “Peter” is their foundation by holding
in mental reservation that the Hebrew ..., pronounced “payter,” means... firstling,29 which of course is Cain’s primary attribute
as firstborn of Eve.
Supporters of the argument favoring lethal-force Christian
rulership usually stand on a single scriptural passage. It’s that verse
in Luke 22 wherein, as the betrayal nears, Christ admonishes his
disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” 30
I have often heard Christian militiamen (some of whom I am not
ashamed to call my friends) use this to justify arming themselves
against the minions of unjust rulers.
But Jesus explained otherwise
in the very next verse: “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with
the transgressors’ [see Isaiah 53:12] ; and I tell you that this must
be fulfilled in me.” In order to fulfill prophecy, Christ had to be
numbered among lawbreakers, which bearing swords would certainly make of the disciples of any true Prince of Peace. As soon as
the disciples produced two swords – the minimum number constituting the plural “transgressors” – prophecy was fulfilled. Chris t
then told them “It is enough. ” From then on, no more cloaks were
sold, no more swords bought.
ROMAN Christianity’s success at avenging evil has resulted in a
world that severely mistrusts the Christian gospel.
It’s to
Rome’s advantage that the Christian gospel be mistrusted, for any
soul that mistrusts Christ is Rome’s lawful prey. It’s to Rome’s advantage that governing bodies be rebelled against as tyrannical, for
rebellion against tyrants is disobedience to the glorious gospel.
Much as I despaired over the vicious taking of innocent life in the
Waco massacre, I had no choice but to see it as a rather standard
Church-Militant inquisitorial procedure against perceived rebelliousness.
ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera’s affidavit, 31
which resulted in the warrant under which governing bodies invaded the
Davidian compound, dutifully listed the scriptural errors of David Koresh. According to the affidavit, Vernon Howell adopted the name
David Koresh because he “believed that the name helped designate him as the messiah or the anointed one of God ” (p2). Yet one
group member stated that Koresh’s teaching “did not always coincide with the Bible” (p11). This allegation is supported by Aguilera’s finding that the “anointed one of God ” and his followers had
spent at least $44,000 on guns and explosives during 1992 alone,
including hand grenades and rifle grenades, gunpowder and potassium nitrate (p6) .
Where in Scripture are the anointed ones of
Christ told to stock up on destructive weaponry? According to
Aguilera’s inquisition, “David Koresh stated that the Bible gave
him the right to bear arms” (p15). Where in the glorious gospel is
an anointed one of God given the right to bear arms? Koresh
prophesied the immanent end of the world, “that it would be a
‘military type operation’ and that all the ‘non-believers’ would
have to suffer” (p9). Where in Scripture are Christians commanded to make war against non-believers?
From the Inquisition’s standpoint, the Davidians paid lip-service to Jesus Christ but demonstrated a substantive infidelity to
Him by infringing upon the ancient Cain franchise the mark –
which flows through the United States government from the black
papacy.
Against Christ’s commandment, even while professing
scriptural knowledge , the Davidians chose to brandish deadly
weapons – weapons that Cain could envision pointed at himself
someday. How could any mark-bearing ruler resist mobilizing sevenfold vengeance in self-defense? How could Cain resist holding
these professed Christians responsible under Christ’s warning at
Revelation 13:10 : “He that killeth by the sword must be killed by
the sword”? Is it any wonder that government regards memories of
Waco as little more than annoyances to be stonewalled?
YET one can live intelligently, freely, and safely in a World legitimately governed by the Trickster. The secret is revealed in the resource which the Trickster has labored so tirelessly to marginalize: the Holy Bible. I cite again that remarkable verse in Habakkuk
(2:4) , in which God tells us that although governing bodies have
the wrong desires, we can live safely in their faith that God will not
punish them for annihilating their mortal enemies.
Scripture reduces all human interaction to two great ministries: the ministry of Condemnation 32
and the ministry of Reconciliation. 33
Condemnation is the rulership of evil by law; it
judges and does justice. Since its subject is the criminal mind (“the
strength of the law is sin”), Condemnation requires the brilliance
of the firstling, Cain, along with the deviousness of Jesuitry and
Sun-Tzu. Condemnation enforces its authority with deadly force –
it “does not bear the sword for nothing.”
The ministry of Reconciliation teaches and administers the
glorious gospel of Christ. Reconciliation does not judge executable or do justice. Rather, it judges spiritually, it loves, nurtures, suffers
patiently, forgives, and rejoices in the truth. Reconciliation never
fails because its strength is not sin but the power of God.
The ministry of Condemnation operates “out from the presence of the Lord.” Its only proof of divine association is an inert
substance, a seal, a pallium, a miter, a collar, a badge, the mark of
Cain, the insignia of its authority to terrorize evildoers. The ministry of Reconciliation is directly animated by the Lord operating
within. It proves divine association by everything it does: its mere
existence is its seal.
There are exceptions , of course: Condemners who Reconcile
and Reconcilers who Condemn. Many loving Roman Catholic
priests dedicate their lives to a form of reconciliation, Confession
and Absolution. But aren’t these sacraments really a process of
Condemnation in which the confessant pleads guilty and is sentenced on the spot by the priestly judge to certain penitential acts
which pardon the guilt? Reconciliation according to Scripture forgives the sin free of charge and directs the confessant’s energies not
to punishments but toward a repentant, constructive life within
the mind of Christ. I suspect there are lots of Catholic priests who
do true Reconciliation, even though it’s technically heretical. My elderly British Jesuit friend stationed at the Gesu was a Reconciler
of sorts: he took confession every weekday afternoon by the clock
in Italian, a language he didn’t understand.
My father was a good lawyer who denied himself many a handsome legal fee by trying to reconcile marriages out of divorce court.
He was a minister of Condemnation by trade, yet the word of God
written on his heart made a Reconciler out of him almost in spite
of himself. This , I believe , is what Scripture calls “every knee
bowing at the name of Jesus Christ, in heaven and on earth, and
under the earth.” 34
It’s proof of the great power of Reconciliation
that the World highly esteems Condemners who Reconcile, Condemners for whom the name of Jesus Christ may not be important
or even credible. (My private opinion is that many who find Christ
uninteresting have been sold an inferior gospel by hypocritical
preaching. I tend to agree with G.K. Chesterton’s remark, “It’s not
that Christianity has been tried and found wanting , but that it’s
hardly been tried at all.”)
Despite crossovers, Condemnation and Reconciliation work
together as opposites, like male and female, sea and land, night
and day, yin and yang. Condemnation punishes us for alienating
God; Reconciliation lovingly brings us together with God. Condemnation cannot bring us to God, but it can drive us to Him.
Reconciliation cannot punish us for alienating God, but it can
release us to Condemnation, which walks to and fro in search of
corrupt Reconcilers to persecute along with the usual suspects.
Release is a conciliatory operation. The spiritual judgments of
Reconciliation are executed in release, while the natural judgments of Condemnation are executed by the opposite of release:
restriction – restriction of body, comfort, freedom, property,
options, life.
Restriction is the flexure of Condemnation’ s muscle, and this
is good for Reconciliation. It provides God a captive audience. I
saw it in a dozen jail cells in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi, and California. Condemnation can so restrict that its subject cries out for Reconciliation. In jail, God is not a philosophical
proposition to be deliberated at leisure. He’s a vivid benefit grasped as though He were a key to the jailhouse lock. I have seen it so
often, under so many circumstances , that I have to regard it as a
principle: The More Restriction, the Closer to God. 35
So even
though the ministry of Condemnation is directed by Satan to do
justice among evildoers (and what could be more just than for
Satan to rule evil?), the ultimate beneficiary is He who ordained
the whole system in the first place.
For, just as Paul says, Satan is an angel of light and his ministers are ministers of righteousness whose end shall be according to
their works . Scripture is a catalog of satanic ministers who were
absolutely necessary for Christ to perform His finished work: the
Serpent, Cain and Enoch, Ham, Nimrod, Esau, Pharaoh, the
Amalekites, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Ahasuerus,
Haman, Judas, and many, many others . Some were deplorably
wicked, other surprisingly moral – it was Judas’ sense of guilt that
drove him to suicide. The Jesuit priest who inaugurated my prosecution on the Feast Day of St. Ignatius was a satanic minister, and
he was absolutely necessary for my maturity as a Christian. He sent
me on a fifteen-year journey that has brought me to this page.
ONCE I understood the two ministries, hard questions answered
themselves. What can a responsible citizen do to restore
moral, fair, constitutional government? First, realize that no judgment that government is immoral, unfair, or unconstitutional can
be executed unless by an authorized person. Only Condemnation
has authority to alter government’s patterns of conduct. To change
government by conventional means, I must become a Condemner.
(Can anyone name a true Reconciler who is great in the World?)
To gain influence among Condemners, I must master the arts of
Sun-Tzu and the Trickster. Little good this will do, for as my investigation has tended to show, always the preponderance of Condemnation’s resources go into keeping the system evil. If I build
forces capable of meaningfully altering the system, the masters will
terminate me because they are authorized by God to avenge sevenfold those who would slay Cain. In short, the potential for
improvement within the system of Condemnation appears to be limited to cyclical periods of pretty good times, pretty bad times.
Isn’t this obvious from history and the news?
Of course, God could change government by a simple miracle,
and Revelation says He will, on the “last day,” the fearful day of
cosmic shakedown when unrepentant evildoers will burn with
their beast and only the perfect will remain. Scripture is silent as
to when that day will come. In the meantime, Reconcilers are told
that improving human rulership is their responsibility. Not by taking control of the system, and not by sealing themselves off in
well-fortified communes , either. Reconcilers improve the system
by making themselves... available. Reconcilers are attractive to
Condemnation because they don’t judge or attempt to do justice.
They don’t put down, attach blame, or pin guilt. Consequently,
Reconcilers are not perceived as a threat. They are wise as serpents
and harmless as doves. 36
This is not to say that Reconcilers condone evil. Their posture
toward sin is this: People know right from wrong. People don’t
need to be told they’re sinful. People know. God’s law written on
their hearts continually reminds them. What the World needs is
the friendship of someone who is God-minded (if not well-versed
in the Word of God), someone confident in the Love of God who
can patiently and non-judgmentally hold the most evil of souls in
friendship while helping it work through repentance to healthier
values at its own pace.
Many years in Condemnation have driven me into the ministry of Reconciliation, and the heart of Reconciliation is love. I
now appreciate the simple wisdom in Felix Mendelssohn’ s question, “Why should any man offend the people in power?” Offending people in power – offending anyone – is no longer attractive
to me. I do good, or at least try to with our Lord’s help. The most
reliable instruction I’ve yet found for this purpose is the Bible with
its glorious gospel, and the Bible tells me that if I do good (not
good as I see it, but good as the gospel defines it: Love God with all
your heart, soul, and mind; love your neighbor as yourself), the rulers
of evil will commend me.
And so I freely subject myself to Condemnation for examination of my conscience. Who knows? I might just interest the examiner in the joys of Reconciliation. Taxes? I continue to pay every
tax for which I am liable, and none for which I’m not.
Finally, I anticipate that some may disagree with certain of the
conclusions in this and other chapters. I welcome disagreement.
Disagreement is the mother of this book. Nobody is paying me to
market any particular doctrine. I’m not the kind of person who has
to be right. I let the evidence lead me. The evidence shaped my
conclusions. The evidence wrote this book. To anyone who knows
of countervailing evidence, evidence that might point me in a different direction, this is my request to see it. I’m not above repenting again, nor would I shrink from printing retractions. I want
Reconciliation, and I want Truth.
If St. Francis Xavier can say “I would not even believe in the
Gospels were the Holy Church to forbid it,” with no less commitment I can say that I would not believe even the Bible were Truth
to forbid it.
No comments:
Post a Comment