VATICAN GLOBAL CONTROL: JON RAPPOPORT INTERVIEWS RICHARD BELL, FINANCE HISTORIAN & FORMER STOCKS MANIPULATOR‏

VaTiCaN GLoBaL CoNTRoL: JoN RaPPoPoRT iNTeRVieWS RiCHaRD BeLL, FiNaNCe HiSToRiaN & FoRMeR SToCKS MaNiPuLaToR

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7197144/Jon-Rappoport-The-Vatican

A new interview with Richard Bell, historian of money, retired manipulator of stocks.

Q: So, foreign investors are accelerating their withdrawal of money from the US.

A: A significant amount is being shifted to Europe.

Q: So is this current stock market debacle an OP run by the European Union (EU)?

A: That is true, but too simplistic. Dr. Paisley points out that the EU has been a stepoperation.

Q: Meaning?

A: First came the Common Market. Then we had the European Community. Now we have the Europe Union. At each step, people were told, “This is a good and limited concept.” That was all a joke. It was always about creating one giant Euro-super-state, under the control of a few people.

Q: And so?

A: So, the Vatican has been everywhere during this step-operation, urging the parties forward, promoting the idea of UNITY. Which is always a winner. People like that concept. Paisley points out that unity is used as a soft hammer to make people forget who is doing the wrong thing and who is doing the right thing. UNITY as a tool of propaganda means: No one is really bad. Make alliances with everyone. Melt into One. That is a disastrous political policy.

Q: And the Vatican is pushing the mission of the EU because?

A: Because making friends and influencing people and playing nice and urging unity IS the current strategy of the Vatican, in these times. It is using that soft approach to create bigger political structures, over which it can exercise control. People forget that a dedicated Roman Catholic, if he is at the head of a large organization, can easily function as a front for the Vatican. If you have ten men like this, all of them powerful,

all of them who have been helped by the Church into their positions of power, then you are looking at a formidable controlling force—which owes its allegiance to the Vatican.

Q: Name such a man.

A: Jacques Delors, who was president, at one point, of the European Commission. He met with Dr. Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and they spoke of this “shared spirituality” that was needed. But that term, for the Vatican, is code for “the one and only Church.” Its Church. People shrink away from realizing that the Vatican has ALWAYS considered itself the rightful ruler of Earth. I can’t be any plainer than that. And all this footsy-playing with other religions and churches is just drivel, behind which lies the real agenda. Paisley, in his article, quotes a letter from the Pope John Paul II to the Archbishop of Prague—“We cannot simply conceive of Europe as a market of economic exchanges or a place for the circulation of ideas but, above all, it must be a genuine community of nations, which want to unite their future and live like brothers, respecting the cultures and spiritual traditions…” You KNOW this is a fraud, because if there is one thing the Roman Church, behind the scenes, does NOT respect, it is the “various spiritual traditions.” That’s the soft soap. That’s the New Agey stuff, the warm fuzzy. That’s the front behind which the Vatican licks its chops, as it contemplates an EU which is fully organized and ready for further takeover from Above. Above, being the Vatican itself. This is no joke. This is almost two thousand years of plotting and conniving and working toward the goal of Rule. But people reject the idea because they think that the Vatican is weak and lost and can never command billions of people to walk into a Church and fall on their knees. But you see, the Vatican, above all, has patience. The long-term goal has thousands and thousands of steps. I know this from numerous contacts over the years. Near the end of my career on Wall Street, I used to tell my friends—changing a quote I had once read—“The Jews who are not Jews run Wall Street at the pleasure of the British financiers who have an illusory idea about the primacy of England, and they in turn serve at the pleasure of the Vatican, which remains in the shadows.” It’s more or less a straight line, and the top of the line gives you the group which appears to be the weakest. Appears. That’s the operative word. If you read Tupper Saussy’s fine book, Rulers of Evil, you will discover that the first translation of Sun-tzu’s classic treatise, Art of War, into a Western language was made in 1772, in French. By Joseph-Marie Amiot, an astronomer in the court of the Emperor of China. Amiot was a Jesuit priest. The Jesuits know all about appearing weak into order to win, and they are perhaps the world’s greatest appliers of Sun-tzu. And they are in it for the long haul.

Q: Then what function, in this scheme, does the EU play?

A: The shill.

Q: Explain.

A: The shill parks himself near the con man and makes it seem like the game can be won easily. The shill is the man who makes it look easy. I stretch the meaning of the term a little. But a shill is a bright penny that attracts attention. The EU represents UNITY. Unity is the bright penny that exclaims, “Look! We can do it. We can all live in harmony. All we need to do is sit down and talk long enough, and all our divisions and conflicts will be solved.” The shill draws the crowds. The shill makes the crowd think there is something very good here. The shill is the magnet, if you will, that sucks in the customers, the adherents, the loyal ones, the people of hope. It’s the oldest trick in the book. And the people who play this trick on a grand scale are very, very clever. They want total domination, but they carve out a circuitous route, because that is the way to arrive. They set up a front which is the shill, and the shill looks very, very good. I don’t mean to offend anyone by this, but for the Vatican, Jesus is a shill, the ultimate shill. Of course, their version of him is so far from the older concept it isn’t even funny. But I digress.

Q: So you’re saying that the Vatican looks for a group that can appear to be very, let’s say, humanitarian, and it uses that to attract followers.

A: Of course. What do you think they spend their time doing? But in their secret “catechism,” creating groups which appear to do good works is really the creation of shills. That’s half of what the Vatican DOES.

Q: People at large would appear to be quite hypnotized NOT to believe this.

A: That’s why I don’t like to talk about it too often. It’s frustrating. People look at me like I’ve stepped on their precious cat.

Q: Okay. Let’s take this a step further. How about this? “The Vatican, working through certain players in the EU, have been making war on the US stock market.”

A: Now you’re clicking.

Q: And the motive is?

A: To weaken anything powerful that is not completely within the circle of power of the Vatican.

Q: Even if such weakening brings about chaos.

A: Especially if it brings about chaos. The very atmosphere in which the Vatican thrives. Chaos ALWAYS equals new followers who are looking for a way to assuage their fear.

Q: You’re saying this is just a current OP that follows along with a very old strategy.

A: A strategy in which the Vatican is the master.

Q: Now, in your years on Wall Street, did you run into people who knew all this, who saw the larger dimensions of the game?

A: I did. Mostly, they kept their mouths shut. Essentially, you’re asking me, “What does a mid-level or low-level player in an ultimately corrupt game do when he discovers a few of the larger dimensions of that game?”

Q: Well, you could say that question applies, in a sense, to all of us, if you stretch the meaning a little.

A: Exactly. That IS the question, isn’t it? We may not be willing and conscious participants in the direction the game is going, but we are in the game, one way or another. I myself WAS a man who twisted the truth to maneuver money in certain ways. And finally, because I was very bull-headed, because I was very selfish—it took me quite awhile to wake up and get out of my own trap.

Q: Here is another Paisley quote. “Deliberate engineering to create the coming about of the European Union provides an enormous opportunity to develop and extend the influence of the Church of Rome. Remember, it is Roman Catholic laymen who, from the beginning, were behind the formation of, and today continue to push the growth of, the European Union.”

A: And look at something else. What is one of the most important economic wars for market share on the planet?

Q: The one between the US and what is now the EU.

A: Yes.

Q: Part of the reason the EU was formed was to give a Europe a chance to compete with the US in that area.

A: Yes. And, situated above all this, its sights set on weakening that “far too independent nation,” the US, has been the Vatican. And one step in that weakening operation is the current trashing of US corporations and the stock market. Which, covertly, was an OP launched by the EU, behind which firmly stands the Vatican.

Q: Layers of the onion.

A: Right.

Q: There are undoubtedly other forces at work in the weakening of the US trading markets.

A: There are. But the big unnoticed one—that’s what I’m describing.

Q: Let’s get back to the shill. Who stands behind him?

A: In a very mild situation, it’s just a con man. But when you get really nasty, you’re talking about somebody who operates like a demon.

Q: Do you mean that literally?

A: No. But other people would. I’m talking about somebody who OWNS somebody else.

Q: Take a very loyal Roman Catholic businessman of great wealth.

A: Yes. One who owes the Church and its agents all he has—because they engineered a lot of it for him. This is a kind of shill, who attracts people to his side. And behind him is the possession force—the people who own him, who, if they want to, can destroy everything he holds precious. And the businessman knows that. Somewhere inside him, he knows it and is afraid of it. The shill and the demon.

Q: A good title for a book.

A: Yes.

Q: Along this line, here is another quote cited by Paisley. This is from Paul Henri Spaak, who has been called one of the founding fathers of the Euro Common Market, the forerunner to the EU: “We [Europe] do not want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people [of Europe] and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and be he god or the devil we will receive him.”

A: Yes. I read that quote with great interest. It gives off quite a bit of flavor, doesn’t it?

Q: Yes.

A: All sorts of resonance. On one level, it almost seems to be a call for a Satan. On another level, for a fascist dictator waving a wand over Europe.

Q: The Vatican did support Hitler in certain ways and felt it could control him.

A: And that was so. If Hitler had conquered Europe, the Vatican, with its far-flung and very well-placed agents of distinction, would have controlled him sooner or later. Hitler, despite some of his statements, was quite enamored of the Church.

Q: What other resonances do you get from Spaak’s statement?

A: He is asking for someone like a Pope, if a Pope could move out of being a figurehead into real power day to day. I also get the sense that Spaak is willing to roll the dice against any odds because he feels, at that time, that the future of Europe is in a very desperate situation.

Q: So the formation of the EU was really a desperate move, in some ways.

A: At the level of business-people and financiers and bankers in Europe, it was. At the mid-level. And when you are in that frame of mind, you are willing to do anything to regain the kind of power you feel is rightfully yours. Your solution is ALWAYS for a form of fascism, regardless of what face you put on it. You have to remember that.

Q: The EU was a fascist movement.

A: Covertly, yes. Absolutely. Whether you have one man standing on a balcony shouting to crowds, or a bunch of men quietly sitting in a room making all the really important decisions, it is fascism.

Q: Paisley also quotes from—

A: You mean the Sunday Telegraph article?

Q: Yes.

A: I have it here.

Q: Read it.

A: July 21, 1991. The headline was, “Hatching a New Popish Plot.” It reads, “Karol Wojtyla [the Pope] is calmly preparing to assume the mantle which he solemnly believes to be his Divine Right—that of the new Holy Roman Emperor, reigning from the Urals to the Atlantic.”

Q: What do you think of that?

A: If you insert the word “secret” in there, I think they’ve got it right. You see, we live in an age when humanitarianism is the—

Q: Propaganda foundation stone.

A: Right.

Q: Why is that?

A: Because so many popular movements aimed at freedom and justice have filled the landscape. So the strategy of the controllers is to go with that. Just like in judo. You go with the motion of your opponent. You don’t try to lash out at it. Part of the Art of War.

Q: You become the great peacemaker and mediator.

A: That’s right.

Q: That’s the ultimate trump card.

A: And the Vatican has a long history of being able to play that card.

Q: Does there come a time when, even if enough people see through the crap, it’s too late?

A: No. But you do have to do certain things.

Q: Like what?

A: You have to expose the propaganda. That’s number one. You have to do that. Then you have to build alternative structures. All sorts of them. And you have to forget about asking the bad guys for help. The whole idea of being nice to people who will do everything they can to control you never works. And if you understand the real motives and intentions of the enemy, you WON’T make that mistake.

Q: You won’t assume that nicey-nice will turn them around.

A: Correct.

Q: The shill and the demon.

A: The front and the back.

Q: Some stories about demons have them feeding off and enjoying the emotions and pain and troubles and suffering of the people they lock on to.

A: I think that’s a fairly good description of the Vatican down through history. If you add in, bilking the people of their money and possessions.

Q: Then it would seem a little curious to have the Vatican calling demonic stuff the evil that must be opposed and defeated.

A: I think that’s characterized as a Cover Story. You’ll find it in a number of areas. The enemy you prop up or invent to solidify your group is really YOU. It’s pretty clever.

Q: Several writers have suggested the Vatican has fallen into being the epitome of devilishness, within its own walls.

A: I enjoy those stories. Because I think they miss the point that the Vatican has been about deception and control since its beginnings. After all, why bother to build a global organization to dominate a path that is supposed to lead to personal salvation? Why not just mark out the path and let people walk it on their own? If they want to? You can’t force someone to take that path. If you do, you get a false result, a fake result.

Q: So you feel that secret societies are important in the telling of real human history. Since the Vatican is really such a society.

A: Yes, that’s right. I’m a person who’s come to conclude that people really do sit down and meet in rooms, that even if they share common goals—and they do—that’s not enough to mount long-term projects and operations. It’s just common sense. If you fight a land war, don’t you have meetings? Don’t you iron our strategy? Don’t you hide that strategy? Don’t you use many agents in the intelligence field? Don’t those agents pretend to be something other than what they are? Imagine what would happen if the generals just assumed they all had shared objectives and proceeded on their own. It would be a moronic thing from the outset. The Jesuits are the intel arm of the Church, in exactly the same way that the CIA works. They obtain information, and they also do covert OPS. I have met more than a few very, very bright Jesuits who are in the financial field. They certainly know what they’re doing. They certainly keep their real objectives close to the vest.

Q: How low do you think the Dow is going to fall?

A: I think to make a serious estimate of that would be a mistake, if you are a person who is trying to acquire useful knowledge about markets. It’s too up in the air. It’s the

wrong target of knowledge to shoot for. But just to guess, for the hell of it—we could see the Dow go down from 11,000, where it was, to 7500 or even 7000, or 6500. But that’s just a foolish guess.

Q: If it did go that low, what would it mean?

A: (laughs) It would mean it’s going to go back up. But just as a top in the market is a confusing time, the same is true of a bottom. All sorts of false starts that go nowhere. Up, then collapse. Up, then collapse again. And then, it finally begins to move up. But you see, all this is thinking about a fantasy, really. Because we don’t know. We could make a hundred predictions and then say, after one of them turns out right—see, on August 24, I said 7000 and I was right. As a market drops lower, more of the big-time money people grab up what they want. And the lower it gets, the MORE big-time are those who grab up huge numbers of shares in their areas of interest. It’s feeding time for the vultures and vampires and demons. They could be ready to take the market up by next week, or it might be two years from now. When the trinket that is dangling from your wrist is the stock market or the economy of a nation, you can pretty well figure that WHIM and SADISM are prominent motives. And also, what you can get away with, given your goals.

Q: But if the Vatican is a major force behind the current weaken-America OP, when is enough going to be enough?

A: Now you’re talking a lot of different of different factors.

Q: Such as?

A: The most important ones are those around the question, “How many of your own people, who are very loyal, but also not in on the true Game—how long can they hold out and stay loyal and not just go nuts?” You want to keep your structure in place. You want chaos, but you also want your vast network to be able to act. Those are tricky questions for controllers. All sorts of personal feelings can enter in.

Q: In the past, I’ve heard you talk, in relation to investing, about over-focus and under-focus. What do those terms mean?

A: Under-focus would be, I want to predict how far the market is going to fall, and THEN I’ll decide what to buy or sell and when. That doesn’t work. Over-focus would be, at the close of trading on Monday, when everyone is getting in to buy up the stocks that have fallen heavily during the morning, I’m going to get in and pick the heaviest loser of the day and buy it, because it’s going to go back up tomorrow. That’s a complete crap-shoot, too. But you know, these two principles work in all sorts of areas. In personal relationships, an over-focus would be, he scratches his face once in awhile and that bothers me. Under-focus would be, he’s spending all our money but I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. Neither extreme works.

Q: Do you think the world is doomed?

A: What do you mean by doomed?

Q: All 6 billion of us are going to fall under a steel-trap tyranny and we won’t be able to get out.

A: Well, we can always get out. But it has to start from the bottom. To try to change everything from the top is a waste of time. You have to know as much as you can about what’s going on at the top to know what to do at the bottom.

Q: I thought you’d say that my question was asking you to do an under-focus.

A: Very tricky. No, I think the closer you get to an understanding of what’s going on at the top, the better prepared you are to take action.

Q: It occurs to me that your analysis of shills and demons applies to the medical cartel.

A: It certainly does. You have your studies and your testimonials from celebrities and your poster kids for diseases and socialite fund-raisers for research—and they are all shills. Most of them are unknowing shills. The studies are fakes, by the way. But all

the shills are fronting for the same system of medicine that kills so many people. The demons are certain people who really set the agenda, the research agenda for the drug companies. They know they are killing people and making money doing it.

Q: They take pleasure from death?

A: It’s very politically incorrect to suggest that, but it’s true.

Q: Many people would say, how can it be true?

A: You have to realize that there are people in this world who do, in fact, take pleasure from that. That’s the way they are. You can offer all sorts of explanations for how they got that way, but most of that is just to let them off the hook. They don’t deserve that reward. They are evil, and they want to be evil. On a much smaller scale, look at the corrupt broker who enjoys hyping stocks to customers when he knows that he has no idea whether the stock is going to go up or down. He enjoys the weird power in that. He likes it. He likes stealing money and lying and getting away with it. The sooner we come to grips with this, the sooner we’ll be able to get our nations back on the right course. Do you feel how much opposition there is to saying that so-and-so criminal just wanted to commit his crimes? We retreat from that, we try to make it all so complex and nice and we want to restore “harmony” by explaining away the whole thing. But these people do exist. They wear very expensive suits, some of them, and they get their feeling of life from destruction. It’s a kick for them.

Q: Getting back to the Vatican—

A: Yes. Getting back to that, part of the big psychological OP of the second half of the 1900s has been the idea that everyone is good and should be approached that way. This is one of the front ideas of the Roman Church, in its latest fake incarnation of “share and care.” It’s just a ruse, but it certainly screws up whole civilizations.

Q: I think one reason people love soap operas so much is because they give us a smattering of characters who are evil and like being evil. It’s right out there.

A: I’m sure that’s true.

Q: We’ve just seen the $60 billion merger of two drug companies, Pfizer and Pharmacia. This makes Pfizer, which was already the largest drug house in the US, even bigger.

A: There are many reasons for these mergers, but looking at it from the top of the basic control agenda, it’s all about shrinking down the number of people who have any say in what happens to us. In empire building, the people who really sit behind the scenes want larger and larger structures to emerge, because, if they can control THOSE, they can control the whole show. If you have 4 million important power groups on the planet, then controlling the planet is going to be hard. But if you can shrink that number of groups down to a hundred, you can move in and work on the leaders of those hundred groups—the people who aren’t already in your pocket—and you can begin to move them into your orbit. This is a basic fact that many people seem to understand, but they forget it or ignore the mechanics of how it works, and they move on. They shouldn’t move on. That’s IT.

Q: As we talk here, I get the feeling that you have some experience with Vatican recruiting methods—undertaken, of course, through many lower-level cut-outs.

A: You’re right. I do. It’s in the area of making lay-Catholics into agents. I have known several people who were approached. The basic routine went like this. A Catholic businessman in a large city is contacted by the local chapter of one of those Catholic groups. There are scores of them. They have different names. They all seem benign or charitable or merely honorary.

Q: So this businessman goes to a meeting.

A: Sure. A lunch, a meeting. He ends up joining the group. He’s already a successful man. Very energetic and ambitious. Wants to get ahead. So, after a year or so, an opportunity is placed in his path. One of his new friends in the group introduces him to a loan officer at a bank, and before you know it, he gets cash to expand his business. Things are starting to cook. This is a fairly slow process, and at every step the

businessman is vetted. Loosely, because nothing has really happened yet. But after another year or two, he acquires a partner in a new venture. The partner is also a member of this lay-Catholic club. The new venture prospers. The businessman meets the local bishop. He is nominated for some kind of layman of the year award. He doesn’t win, but his profile is raised. After years of not going to church, he now goes. He even receives confession once a month. After three or four years, he is introduced to a “financial expert” who is also from the same local group. The expert is really a Jesuit, but very few people know that. The Jesuit becomes his friend. He takes him on a trip to Rome, and they have an audience with a cardinal. Brief. On and on it goes. The businessman is vetted every step of the way. He buys into a construction company. He is now becoming rich. He doesn’t think much about it, but his new lifestyle is really dependent on his acquired Catholic friends. And all they have done for him. He of course would never want to give up the new lifestyle. And now, on a business trip, he meets a woman in a bar. She is quite pretty and friendly. They sleep together. Every time he goes to that city on business, he meets her. Unknown to him, their meetings are recorded on videotape. The Jesuit friend, one day, manages to bring up the subject of this woman. Because the Jesuit friend knows her. He tells the businessman that she is a prostitute, and even though she may not have charged him any money, well—and so the businessman goes to confession and tells the story to his priest. And so on and so forth. And ten years later this man is really all the way in the pocket of his Jesuit friend. And in the case I’m describing, we eventually get to political office. Running for office. And winning. And down the road, with a lot of money in the bank, and many political favors later, this businessman is offered a post in a federal agency. Has to do with foreign trade. He takes the job, on the strong recommendation of his Jesuit friend. And finally, after several more turns of the wheel which I won’t describe, this businessman becomes an ambassador. And is completely beholden. He takes orders, although he may not think of it that way. And he is an agent. He passes along information to his friend. Lots of information. And he becomes trusted. And now he is told of a larger program. It involves making the Church more prominent in the lives of many people. The expansion of the influence of the Church-because that’s really what it’s all about, isn’t it? And this businessman joins another Catholic group, and is made a knight. The businessman is never considered to be an insider, because he has certain scruples. So he is used as he can be used. And one day, for three minutes, he meets the Pope, as part of a group. It is the culmination of his

adult life. He has passed along a great deal of information to his Jesuit friend, for years.

Q: What kind of information?

A: From diplomatic cables, for example. Some of these cables contained sensitive information. The Church has been interested in various delicate negotiations between the US and a foreign nation.

Q: So you’re saying, multiply this by a factor of a few thousand such agents—

A: Many more than that.

Q: Okay—

A: And you get a tremendous flow of information coming into Vatican intelligence. And this is just information I’m talking about. There are also favors of all kinds. You know, if you read the first few pages of Saussy’s book, Rulers of Evil, you’ll see a list of Roman Catholics in government who have had key positions vis-à-vis US foreign policy. Positions like CIA Director, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, Ambassador-at-Large. And there is also a list of senators who run [or ran] the various sub-committees within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—all Roman Catholics. Biden, Subcommittee on European Affairs. Sarbanes, International Economic Policy. Moynihan, Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Kerry, Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications. Dodd, Western Hemisphere and Peace Corps Affairs.

Q: Yes. I’ve seen the list. And that is just the beginning. Saussy goes on to name “virtually every aspect of secular life in America,” as he puts it, which is run, as a government chairmanship of a committee, by a Roman Catholic Congressional representative. It’s staggering. Here are just a few of those areas: “…insurance, housing, community development, federal loan guarantees, economic stabilization measures…gold and precious metals transactions, agriculture…flood control, minority enterprise…vaccines, drug labelling and packaging, drug and alcohol

abuse…energy…bank regulation…”

A: And people in America still tend to think of Jack Kennedy as the only Catholic who ever really had huge secular political power in the US. Which, when you think about it, is a very under-mentioned piece of fall-out from the JFK assassination. Makes an excellent cover story, doesn’t it? “No more major presence of Roman Catholic power in the secular US government. Jack is dead.”

About these ads

About this entry