Skip to main content


trying to put all the blame on Jews or Israel. But there is yet another more powerful organization which pulls the strings named the Jesuits and the The Society of Jesus.

Q: Who controls Banking / Finance / Insurance exactly?

A: The Sovereign Military Order of Malta “The Great Merchants of the Earth.”


Q: Who are the SMOM subordinate to?

A. The Supreme Pontiff, the Pope. These days they report directly to the Superior General and his Society of Jesus.

The Jews were bought into positions of power within Banking back in 1066 by the Norman Anglo-Saxon Monarchs.
For this they accepted being controlled.

Remember that the Law of Banking is known as International Maritime Admiralty Law.
This Maritime Law was based on VATICAN Canon Law. All the “War Banks” known as Central banks get controlled from SMOM controlled Switzerland. The Federal Reserve pays the Bank of England which finally ends up in the Swiss Bank of International Settlements. All you need to do is study the SMOM and its members then look who's who in Banking.


The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth were puritans seeking to reform their church, English immigrants, led by John Winthrop, called Puritans came to the U.S. in 1630 later and started the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were pilgrims (with that lower - case "p") who moved to a whole new land because of their religious convictions. ,  . What the two groups have most in common is Puritanism.

Puritanism in England was essentially a movement within the established church for the purifying of that church - for ministers godly and able to teach, for a simplifying of ritual, for a return to the virtues of primitive Christianity. There was nothing revolutionary about the main body of its doctrine. Its innovating principle was in the idea that the Bible, rather than any established religious hierarchy, was the final authority. Therefore every man, every individual, had direct access to the word of God. It was the Puritan's aim to reconstruct and purify not only the church, but individual conduct and all the institutions men live by. The Protestant Reformation that had taken place in the sixteenth century in Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere on the European continent.

The English Church was an extension of Government. By the Act of Supremacy in 1534, King Henry VIII had taken control of the Church in his country away from the Pope, but little else had changed. The Church of England was the official and only church in England. Everybody belonged to it, whether they wanted to or not. Every resident of a given community was automatically a member of the parish in that community.

Both Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth perceived themselves as purely English colonies, subject to English law and loyal to the English monarch. But with England an ocean away, the colonists in New England - just as much at Massachusetts as at Plymouth - had to make decisions and devise the systems by which their society and its institutions would operate. Even though the Church of England continued to be the official church in Massachusetts Bay Colony, there were no bishops or other hierarchy present to sustain its bureaucracy.

'Manifest Destiny' is rooted in the Puritan dream of a 'nation under God'.
Our Pilgrims and Puritans also had many similarities and differences
more about Pilgrims of Plymouth from the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay>



8/13/13 Where Did Marxism Come From (or Don't Blame the Jews)? by Mark Stahlman

As a part of my work with Phil Midland on the *spheres*, we have been going over some points of "recent" history and this question has come up -- particularly in the light of a near decade-long effort on the part of the Chinese to deal with their own brush with Marxism.

So, where did Marxism come from?

Clearly not China. Or, Russia. Or, Cuba. Or, North Vietnam.

Marxism came from Germany -- which the Chinese have noted by scrapping the Russian translations (and commentary) and by going back to the original texts (in German.)

But, what does that mean? What was the "context" in Germany in the early/mid 19th century? What was the actual "origin" of all this "atheistic radicalism"?

My conclusion is that the origin of MARXISM, contrary to most of what I can find on the topic, is buried deeply in German "pietism" -- or what would generally be called German "evangelical" Protestantism (aka Puritanism).

Why? Friedrich Engels, that's why.

Which brings us to the Jews. At least since the 1903 publishing of the *false* "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," which is generally recognized as a fabrication by the Russian secret police, it has been fashionable in some circles (including the Nazis) to "blame" the Jews. After all, Karl Marx was the son of a rabbi.

However, what many ignore is that Karl Marx was actually a "hired gun." In fact, he was supported in a relatively luxurious life-style, married to a German "baroness," by Engels most of his life. He was "on assignment," writing the "economic theory" that his employer asked him write.

Engels, who co-write the 1848 "Communist Manifesto" with Marx and wrote/co-wrote dozens of other works (often more influential at the time) and who was far more skillful at radical party organizing then Marx, was hardly a man hiding behind the scenery or playing follow-the-leader. Engels, who was rich enough to support both himself and Marx because he was the son of a German textile manufacturer, was an intellectual with far-ranging research on topics like the "origins of the family" to his credit.

And, Engels, it turns out, was raised as a German Pietist (no, he wasn't Jewish).

Today, few other than experts in German religious history know what that means. Think of it as an "extreme" version of PURITANISM -- with a strong dose of German "mysticism" thrown in. Today's Amish are, in some ways, a "degenerate" version of what was once a major religious movement in Germany.

As in the case of the English Reformation, in which many groups fought each other to become the most "pure" -- producing amusing relics like the Levelers (often cited as early "communists") and the Ranters, as well as the enduring Quakers (and their "quaint" offshoot the Shakers) -- there is a strong relationship between the desire for "purity" and political "radicalism."

Sometimes, that radicalism takes the form of trying to "go back" to something that is imagined to be "before the fall" -- which is what we often call "fundamentalism" (as in today's "jihadists") -- and, at other times, this radicalism takes the form of trying to "innovate" something that never existed before. However, these are just two-sides-of-the-same-coin.

Engels came from a family (which continued to be the source of his wealth, from which he paid for Marx's research) that was "fundamentalist" and, even though he "rejected" religion, all he could do was to *flip* over onto the other side of the same PURITY coin.

So, Marxism (which, in terms of historic facts should probably be called ENGELISM but has been mislabeled since Marx was the one who wrote "Das Capital" on contract to Engels) was German "piety" turned upside-down . . . !!

Which brings us back to the Jews. The notion promoted by the Protocols (and the Nazis et al) is that the Jews promoted "impurity" in the general population, in order to "control the world" based on their own internal adherence to discipline and "lawful" behavior. This is the classic treatment of a fabricated "power elite" by those who are themselves feeling threatened by a changing world.

In fact, the basis of general "impurity" in the modern world is not the product of a "secret cabal" but rather the workings of "economic progress." As Bernard de Mandeville observed in the early 18th century, PRIVATE VICE (i.e. impurity) is the basis of PUBLICK BENEFIT (i.e. economic growth.)

VIRTUOUS behavior -- whether it's refusing to collect interest on the loans required for new businesses (i.e. usury) or refusing to support sex, drugs and rock-'n-roll (i.e. only buying what you need, as opposed to what you want, as "theorized" by Mick Jagger) -- does *not* lead to economic expansion . . . !!

You want to live longer with a higher standard-of-living, air-conditioning, HBO and vacations in the Bahamas? Then, you will have to "put up with" a lot of *vice* in your world. When F. Hayek published his eloquent defense of Mandeville (whose thoughts about economics are behind Adam Smith and his "invisible hand"), he knew precisely what he was talking about.

"Rule Brittania" and "Pax Americana" are not Jewish slogans. The British Empire and its American successor are Protestant. WW I and WW II were conflagrations between the two most powerful Protestant "factions" in the world, the British (and their allies) and the Germans (and their allies) -- with a third emerging as the "winner." Every signer of the Declaration of Independence was a Protestant. And, every US President has been a Protestant -- except for one, who had to "renounce" his religion and then was assassinated (as was his brother.)

No, the Jews were not responsible for CAPITALISM or INDUSTRIALISM (or the past 300 years of economic history) and, contrary to some accounts, they do not "control" either Wall Street or the mass-media. Those responsible for these developments would be, more-or-less, the Protestants. Thus the importance today of the Protestant SPHERE.

So, why did Russia (a country devoted to Orthodox Christianity) and China (a country devoted to Confucian culture) become the leading MARXIST outposts when neither of them were Protestant?

Aside from the fact that *both* the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were results of civil-wars that were themselves results of World Wars (with all the historic-outcome uncertainties that implies), I'd suggest that the answers reside in the ebb-and-flow of PURITANISM in both places, as well as the role that LENINIST (not "Marxist") centralized political organization played in the *industrialization* (aka "modernization") in both places.

PURITY has its appeal in all cultures. Orthodox Christianity (like Protestantism) has long had its versions of "puritanism," as reflected in the history of the "iconoclasts."

As current US Librarian of Congress James Billington recounts in his magnificent 1966 "The Icon and the Axe," Russian culture has repeatedly been overcome by its own versions of "Puritanism" and 20th century Bolshevism really can't be understood outside of this context -- including the specifically deep influence of German Pietism on the development of Russian culture. While French and Swedish influence has also been significant, the "connection" between the Prussians and the Russians was perhaps strongest. Engels, I suspect, "played well" in a Russian context.


Maoism is, as the Western exponents of his "Little Red Book" recount with great sorrow, *not* the basis of Chinese society today. Mao's ruthless control of the Chinese Communist Party, which involved killing most of his major rivals, was, I would argue, a relatively brief period of "Puritanism," China-style. In fact, many of those now in "power" in China are themselves the survivors of Mao's many "purges" -- specifically those who were dispatched to the "countryside" in the Cultural Revolution. Fortunately, Mao did not have the same ability to "purify" that Stalin did with his firing squads.

As I noted at the start of this essay, China has gone beyond "Marxism" and, indeed, even assigned some of its best minds to produce a not-yet-public analysis of what Marxism is/was and, presumably, where it "came from."

Puritanical German Protestantism is my answer. I'm really curious to see what they've come up with.