Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Part 9 of 9: Rulers of Evil...The Mark of Cain...The Two Ministries...

Rulers of Evil; Useful Knowledge 
about Governing Bodies
By F.Tupper Saussy

Image result for images from Rulers of Evil; Useful Knowledge 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
Image result for image of Marduk policing the evildoer Tiamat wit h thunderbolts . .
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. 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. 

images,notes and source
https://ia601008.us.archive.org/35/items/F.TupperSaussyRulersOfEvilUsefulKnowledgeAboutGoverningBodies/F.%20Tupper%20Saussy%20-%20Rulers%20of%20Evil%2C%20Useful%20Knowledge%20About%20Governing%20Bodies.pdf



FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.

No comments:

Part 1 Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL....History as Prologue: End Signs

Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL  by Malachi Martin History as Prologue: End Signs  1957   DIPLOMATS schooled in harsh times and in the tough...