Monday, December 1, 2014




Before starting our analysis on some aspects of Francis I papacy, it is our desire to clarify that the intent of this article is not to attack, insult or slander the Head of the Catholic Church in any way. This page is not serving the purpose of spreading hatred towards this Pope but to rather divulge awareness through the use of available information in a spirit of peace and for the good of all (according to our discernment and objective examination). Such research is further accompanied by Scriptural references and revelations from The Warning Second Coming which we find to be accurate insofar as we believe.
, this section includes a few facts that could either be 'coincidental' or 'purposely planned'. Therefore, since not all information included on this page is reported as absolutely accurate, we will insert notes.  
This page is meant to also provide some overall information about Lucifer, Satan, Evil and demons without overwhelming amount of information. 
All are welcomed to read the following page: Catholics and non Catholics; believers and non believers. Masons, satanists, luceferians, wizards, witches, occultists, tarot readers, psychics, crystal healers, new age practitioners and magicians of all backgrounds.
Lastly, we would like to insert the long version of the St. Michael the Archangel Prayer in protection of this specific page. If you wish to skip it, please scroll down below it.
God Bless


In this page, we will try our best to put together the many pieces of a very complex puzzle which finds its roots somewhere in ancient history. While it would take thousands more pages to reveal the depth of such vortex, we will limit ourselves to giving a faithful overview of proven facts as well as their deeper spiritual and occultist sub-layers. We understand that the mention of occult, satanic, masonic, pagan or other 'dark' practices can seem conspiratorial and unrealistic; they can even be discarded as amusing by the media or by the average person who only cares about Sienfield's reruns while, in the case of 'cafeteria Catholics', such connections are found to be unjustifiable blasphemies.           


On 25 January, 1959, Pope John XXIII
and 18 Cardinals met for a service at Rome's 'Basilica of Saint Paul Outside The Walls' to conclude the Octave of Prayer for Christian Unity. In a brief address, the Pope announced that he intended to summon an ecumenical council (a council of all the bishops of the Catholic Church), adding at the end a prayer for "a renewed invitation to the faithful of the separated communities that they also may follow us amiably in the search of unity and grace, to which so many souls aspire in all parts of the earth."

The newly elected Pope John XXIII told the 18 Cardinals that he planned to summon a 'global church council'. The horrified cardinals were speechless, which the Pope mischievously chose to interpret as devout assent. In reality, the Vatican bureaucrats known as the Curia, found such intention to be abhorrent. The 77 year old Pope had been elected purely as a caretaker and yet, he was indulging an innovative, unpredictable, dangerous and (above all, they believed) unnecessary notion. In their view, such notion would create ungovernable expectations and lead to changes. And if there were to be changes -always undesirable- then the Curia would manage them without any outside intervention, as they had done for centuries.
Therefore, they regrouped and fought back: if they could not avoid the council, then they would control it. They proposed 10 commissions controlled by Curia members to run the council, which would discuss 70 documents prepared by the Curia themselves.
But the world's bishops, led by a generation of outstanding European theologians, were in no mood to submit and simply sidestepped the careful preparation while arranging their own agendas.

The Curia were right to worry: what Pope John unleashed, now known as Vatican II, was the most momentous religious event since Martin Luther launched the Protestant Reformation 450 years earlier.
''It was a revolution'' says American theologian John Markey. ''It was the most fundamental shift in self-understanding by the church in 1500 years. It is not over yet''.
The goals of the council were explained by the pope, who longed for an aggiornamento (Italian for "bringing up to date') of the Catholic Church. It is reported that Pope John XXIII once described the council's purpose as 'going to the nearest window and opening it to let in some fresh air'.
But it was in Christian unity that the primary aim of the council was to be found by establishing a new Vatican Congregation, the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity charged with bringing the Catholic Church into the ecumenical movement.
In his official opening speech, the Vicar said that the Council was not going to discuss the doctrine, but that questions would be 'studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of the modern thought'. In other words, the Church was going to look at (and express) Christ's Teachings in a renewed way. His most famous remark is: 'The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another'. That fact had not always been obvious to Catholics. 
The subjects that were presented in a different way to suit modern knowledge and understanding were the following:

The Church
The Liturgy
Religious Freedom
Non-Christian religions
The Church and the modern world

The Second Vatican Council, through the Holy See, formally opened under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII on 11 October 1962 and closed under Pope Paul VI on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception in 1965. The council became ideally known for its renewal of Catholic doctrine in a modern timeline and perspective. They met in four sessions from (1962 to 1965) and produced 16 documents: each one was a treatise, a manifesto, setting out the church's thinking and future direction in a specific area.

Several institutional changes resulted from the council, such as:

-The renewal of consecrated life with a revised charism, and -The ecumenical efforts towards dialogue with other religions -The notion of the Catholic Church alone brings through ultimate salvation to mankind
-The expressive participation of laity in various religious activities.
-The widespread use of vernacular language in Holy Mass instead of the Latin language
-The displacement of the Church tabernacle from the central aisle
-The revision of Eucharistic prayers
-The celebration Versus Populum instead of Ad Orientem
-The abbreviation of the liturgical calendar
-The modern aesthetic changes encompassing contemporary Catholic liturgical music and artwork (mostly all which remain divisive and polemic among the Catholic faithful until the present day).
The winds of change proved more like a tornado, leaving almost nothing untouched. It is difficult for us, people of today, to grasp how radical, how wide-ranging and how deep the effects were because we have no memory of the pre-council church defined as 'frozen in a time warp', as Jesuit priest Gerald O'Collins told The Age.

Pope John XXIII intended the church to emerge from behind the battlements, lower the drawbridge and engage with the modern world. The most obvious and visible change for Catholics in the pew was worship in their own language rather than in Latin, with the priest now facing them rather than the altar, the affirmation of the role of laypeople and, thanks to Jesuit priest Joseph Gelineau, the change of liturgical music from the Gregorian Chants to 1960s folk songs. But there were other profound developments such as a willingness to engage with other churches and faiths; a renewed focus on social justice; a decentralised approach to authority in the church.
Today, as religious culture wars between traditionalists and progressives rack the church in the West, Vatican II has become the key battlefield. Both sides want to define and control the council's legacy. Progressives accuse traditionalists, who have had the huge political advantage of having the past two Popes among their number, of trying to wind back the liberalizing reforms by stifling important debates and reimposing a strict top-down control of both practice and belief. Traditionalists counter that progressives want the church to conform to the ever-changing spirit of the times.
On the understanding that Vatican II 'wrecked the faith of a generation', theologian Tracey Rowland says: 'While Catholics were trying desperately to be modern, the rest of the world was becoming bored with modernity and turning postmodern''. Others found the council and its fruits inspirational: for Bob Dixon, a teenager in Ballarat in the late 1960s, it connected his faith with the world. He was a child of the pre-Vatican II church which, with its fixed certainties and emphasis on sin and grace, was now often condemned as a fear-based approach to religion. ''But I suddenly began to see that faith was about life and the world and society and social justice'' says Dixon, now one of the Australian church's most important laypeople in his position as head of the national Pastoral Projects Office. Young Australian priests who were in Rome for some of the sessions, such as George Pell — now Cardinal Pell, Archbishop of Sydney — and Michael Costigan, who began his later career as a journalist by posting home reports, were swept up in the enthusiasm. Catholic confidence was high, Pell recalls. ''It was an enormously exciting time, a time of great intellectual ferment. We were caught up in this great movement of reform, and we were wildly over-optimistic''.


Perfectly coinciding with the beginning and the end of the Second Vatican Council revolution was the world's revolution of the 1960s: the rock' n roll revolution, the feminism revolution, the gay revolution, the sexual revolution, the traditional modes of authority revolution and the drugs revolution. This phenomenon is known as Counterculture, which brought about the birth of further sub-branches which reached us in today's culture. As the result of the Church changes, society's rebellion exploded and found a wide freeway towards immorality: sex, drugs, rock, feminism, homosexuality, materialism and social chaos. Those revolutions have lead to today's hypocritical liberalism used by governments to control the freedom of citizens through the gradual destruction of the nations' constitutions. An example is the boycotting that gay lobbies constantly create on people (and companies) who peacefully express their opinion on homosexuality in concordance with the First Amendment of the American Constitution (which grants the absolute right to freedom of speech and opinion). 
It is no secret that the world revolution and the church revolution were no fruit of mere coincidence: the masonic lobbies penetrating (and reinforcing their positions within) the Catholic Church, the media and the governments worked as a team to achieve the following:

-The erosion of morality by 'freeing' society from the strict laws of the Bible.
-The watering down of Christ's teaching by uniting religious creeds. 
-The brainwashing of every level of society through music, movies, television, radio, magazines, newspapers and other media outlets.  
-The erase of social boundaries achieved through the use of propaganda in the name of human rights and intolerance (in regards to women, homosexuality, women's emancipation and right to vote, divorce and more).
-The rebellion against socio-political and religious authority in the name of anarchy.
-The destruction of society at its root through the promotion of divorce, women emancipation, abortion as women's right, premarital sex and single motherhood.   

By the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the entire world was about to tilt on its axis. The council was planned to come during -and to promote- the huge social changes due to the rise of feminism, the explosion of the sexual revolution, the shifting focus from community to individualism, the different attitude towards authority and the gay liberation movement. It is no conspiracy that the mass media played a huge role into controlling the globe's population; Wikipedia, in fact, states that 'TV, the new mass communication device of the age, along with other media outlets such as radio and magazines, could broadcast information in a matter of seconds to millions of people, while only a few wealthy people would control what millions could watch. Some modern historians have theorized that these media outlets helped to spread new ideas, which were considered radical. The struggles, skirmishes and rhetorical confrontations happening in the course of these movements also became directly visible to ordinary people in a way they would never have been before; the sense of involvement in a social and sexual shift happening in the present could rapidly win new converts and spread discussions afield. The counterculture of the 1960s was becoming well known through radio, newspapers, TV, books, music and other media by the end of the 1960s'. 

This time brought with it the dramatic increase in drug use amongst the youth: according to the US National Library of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, in 1959 there were just 47 known heroin addicts; by 1964 this had risen to 328. More significantly, the population of addicts seemed to be changing: firstly, addicts were younger: in 1964, 40% were below the age of 35 compared with 11% in 1959. Heroin, cocaine, Marijuana and LSD became entwined with a new vision of human sexuality (as a mean to societal and personal freedom) and of new age spiritualism descending from Russian occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Sex and drugs were promoted through music, both directly and indirectly.   Rock revolution - They spoke about drugs and sex, although not always openly. In the nineteen sixties, "Do your own thing" became a common expression. It meant to do whatever you wanted, without feeling guilty - Do what thy wilt. Some people say the Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" was about LSD. Woodstock became a symbol of the young peoples' rebellion against traditional values. Many young people called themselves "hippies." Hippies believed there should be more love and personal freedom in America.

controlling the religious institutions, the banking system and the political organizations were able to bring the New Age to a real birth:
the 'Novus Ordo Seclorum', known also as the New Order of the Ages, the New Order of Paganism or the New World Order (the last one not being a literal translation from Latin). This denomination has been used on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the one-dollar bill since 1935 right below the masonic pyramid generally attributed to the order of the Illuminati. Let's not forget that the pyramid was (and still is) the symbol of slavery: its all seeing eye on top represents Lucifer's control over the masses while the three sides of the triangle (the pyramid) also signifies the satanic trinity

There was a renewed emphasis on social justice as part of the Christian life alongside personal piety, and laypeople were explicitly recognized as having a central role in the mission of the church. Vatican authority was reduced in favor of a greater autonomy for local bishops and a more collegial approach.
''The introduction of ecumenism (openness to other churches) has been a wonderful blessing, even in Australia. Old Catholic-Protestant antagonisms have largely disappeared, and the tension now is between the Judaeo-Christian view and non-religious and occasionally anti-religious views.''

For Gerald O'Collins, back in Melbourne after 32 years teaching at Rome's Gregorian University — where he taught what are effectively a fifth of today's bishops and a third of the cardinals — the most important advances involved other religions and social justice.
''No council until [Vatican II] ever said a nice thing about Jews, Muslims or Buddhists. I can't tell you how much I welcomed the very short document on other religions.
''The Church in the Modern World led to justice and peace commissions around the world, and inspired people. In Rome I taught people who died for justice and peace in Africa and Central America. Maybe they would have done it anyway, but Vatican II gave it a major push. Justice and peace is not something you also do, it's at the heart of the faith.''

The increasing involvement of laypeople may have made the church's leadership uncomfortable, says Sydney theologian Neil Ormerod, but they have had to come to terms with it. Even theological education is increasingly in the hands of laypeople like himself.

''This is a development the hierarchy doesn't know what to do with. Lay theologians aren't under their control in the same way priests are. Nor do lay theologians necessarily have the same depth of spiritual formation and Catholic identity. Here at the Australian Catholic University we'd have about 40 theologians, of whom only three or four are priests.''

Over the half-century since Vatican II, the church hierarchy has wound back many of these radical changes, believing they have gone too far. This has led to the modern culture wars over such issues as authority and democracy, celibacy and married priests, the role of women and issues of sexuality.
A recent example is the introduction of new English texts for worship, reinforcing the Vatican view of what worship should be, an imposition resented by many.

Cardinal Pell, a leading conservative, dismisses the culture wars as all but won. ''There are pockets of idiosyncratic and possibly cranky resistance, and everything is not nailed down even now, but the battle is over. The real challenge now is to hand on the faith to young people and resist the rise of anti-religion.''

Robert Blair Kaiser, who covered the council for Time magazine, suggests that ''rather than whine over what daddy won't let us do'', Catholics should be grateful for what the council did achieve, and build on that themselves. ''It has given us a new view of ourselves. It's made us more free, more human and more at the service of a world that Jesus loved. It has given us a new view of the church. It's our church, not the Pope's church, or the bishops' church, or a priest's church. It has given us a new view of our place in it.
We can think, we can speak, we can act as followers of Jesus in a world that needs us.

The MYSTERY of the
Duncan's Masonic Ritual Monitor by Malcolm C. Duncan:
Master of Second Veil: "Three Most Excellent Masters you must have been, or thus far you could not have come; but farther you cannot go without my words, sign, and word of exhortation. My words are Shem, Japhet, and Adoniram; my sign is this: (thrusting his hand in his bosom); it is in imitation of one given by God to Moses, when He commanded him to thrust his hand into his bosom, and, taking it out, it became as leprous as snow. My word of exhortation is explanatory of this sign, and is found in the writings of Moses, viz., fourth chapter of Exodus:
'And the Lord said unto Moses, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow".

The Royal Arch Degree (the 13th degree of the Scottish Rite or the 7th degree of the York Rite) is also known as the Mason of the Secret. During this Degree, initiates are said to receive great Masonic truths.

Hidden Hand of the Men of Jahbuhlun

Because the higher trinity of man's being must be present before soul-union can take place...the Omnific Royal Arch Word can only be given in groups of three... Their right hands are then raised above their heads or they give at low breath the word: Jah-buh-lun, Je-ho-vah, G-O-D. —C.C. Zain
Ancient Masonry
The greatest, but the most terrible moment in the life of a Mason...The three supreme officials of the Lodge, with three separate keys, unlock the wooden box with the "Secret of Secrets" and give him to read a slip of paper, upon which is written the name of the "God" whose follower he was...JAH-BUL-ON.
-D.C. Yermak

The Axis of Death

Over my many years of exposing the lies and evils of Freemasonry, the Ordo Templi Orientis, the Rosicrucians, and other treacherous cultic secret societies, I have been challenged by many Masons.
Their typical complaint is "How dare you say such things about Masonry! Why, I'll have you know I am a Christian, and there is nothing in the Lodge or its rituals that would not be acceptable to my Christian faith."
Of course, it is super-easy, almost like taking candy from a baby, to disabuse the Masonic whiner and complainer hollering that you or I have slandered the Masons by denying their order's "Christian attributes." After all, there are scores of points to make that blow apart the silly notion that the Masonic Lodge or similar groups are even vaguely "Christian" in nature. But the easiest way to handle such a complaint is to ask the Mason if he has reached the Royal Arch Mason ritual level or equivalent (13th degree in the Scottish Rite). If he answers "yes," then, uh oh, he is in big, big trouble.
What About Jahbuhlun? I then ask him about the name of his sacred God revealed in the Royal Arch degree ritual; that is, I ask him about Jahbuhlun. And usually, I can hear either a long uninterrupted stutter, or else simply a great gasping sound. Generally, that ends the discussion right there. A Mason definitely does not want to publicly discuss that name, Jahbuhlun. Anything but that. Bamm! He's gone. And I can understand why.
Ed Decker, a friend of mine, who is an ex-Mason and ex-Mormon, now heads up a Christian ministry aimed at helping men get out of these cults. In a book that Ed edited, entitled, The Dark Side of Freemasonry, that the Mason is at first denied knowledge of the sacred name of their God and then belatedly finds out that the name of the Mason deity is definitely not Jesus, the name above every other name (Philippians 2:9-11).

The Lost Name of God

The Blue Lodge Masons, encompassing the first three degrees of Masonry, are instructed that they are seeking the Lost Word or the Lost Name of God... It isn't until they reach the level of Royal Arch Masonry (seventh degree, York Rite) that they discover that the Lost Name of God wasn't lost after all. It's at this level that they learn the sacred name of Masonry's God.
They find that the sacred name of (the Masonic) God is composed of three names representing the three identities of God. It is so sacred it takes three Royal Arch Masons to be able to speak it.. Jahbuhlun. The three Masons grip hands high and low and chant, "Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Jah-buh-lun, Je-hov-ah."
The name Jahbuhlun has three syllables representing a composite God made up of three subordinate deities. The Masonic material identifies the three as Yah (or Yahweh), Baal, and Osiris. Logically, the name should be spelled Yah-Baal-On, but Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor admits that over the years the spelling has been "corrupted" by Freemasonry until it reached its current form.1
Decker correctly asserts that "What these men are doing is worshipping a demon God so far removed from the real God that this worship must surely defile the holiness of God and guarantee those who pronounce that name in such a ceremony a swift ride to Hell..."
C.C Zain, a Freemason who is part of a group called "The Brotherhood of Light," is developer and author of an entire course on Ancient Masonry having to do with "The Spiritual Significance of Masonic Rituals, Degrees, and Symbols." Zain points out that the name Jahbuhlun is Masonry's Grand Omnific Word, the name of their omnipotent deity. He further shows the significance of the fact that the name Jahbuhlun has nine letters and is made up of three syllables, Jah, buh, lun. In the ritual for the Royal Arch Degree, since there are three Royal Arch Masons pronouncing the name three times each, altogether, says Zain, twenty-seven syllables are pronounced. This, he explains, represents "the twenty-seven days it takes the moon to pass through the circle of zodiacal signs."

Interestingly, in the ritual drama, the three Masons doing the pronouncing of Jahbuhlun are said to have come from Babylon! So, we have a ritual —the 13th degree in the Scottish Rite and 7th in the York Rite—in which three "Masters" come from Babylon to instruct the candidate on how to build the Royal Arch (symbolically, how to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and thus establish the kingdom of the elite and their devil God on earth).

The Lost Word Found

Moreover, the three messengers from Babylon inform the candidate that the true name of God, the name that had been lost for so long, is not Jesus, but is Jahbuhlun. They conveniently omit mention of the fact that this is, in fact, the name of a monstrous DEVIL God, that the name is an unholy and blasphemous composite of Jahweh, Baal, and Osiris, or On (On is a city in Egypt where the worship of the sun God, Osiris, is alleged to have begun. Somehow, many in Masonry today honor and revere Osiris under the name of On, the name of his city, curiously spelled Un in the name: Jahbuhlun.)
No wonder Masonic authority W.L. Wilmshurst, in his highly thought of (by Masons) The Meaning of Masonry, proclaims this degree so vital to the transformation of the candidate's life. He even suggests that in attaining this Degree, one "exhibits the attainment of a new order of life."4
The Royal Arch Degree, Wilmshurst emphasizes, provides "a supremely high level of thought and instruction" for the Mason attaining it.5

Born Again or Demon-Possessed?

What does Wimshurst mean when he says the adept has attained a "new order of life?" I believe the candidate receives a counterfeit born again experience, receiving the very spirit of Lucifer into his bosom as a result of conforming to the requirements of this degree.
In accepting the devil God Jahbuhlun as the sacred name of God the man rising to this level in Masonry or a similar sect becomes demon possessed, full of the devil, headed for hell, prepared to do the most wicked and foul deeds possible for his hidden deity, Baphomet, aka Lucifer, aka Satan, aka Jahbuhlun.
Now, the fatal (ending in spiritual death) sign that is taught for this degree is the one you will find men giving in the photographs in this chapter. Notably, only higher-level initiates and adepts will typically be seen giving this evil sign stamping them as demon-possessed disciples of Satan. I call this sign the Hidden Hand of the Men of Jahbuhlun.

From Washington to Rothschild

Regrettably, America's first President, George Washington, exhibited this sign, if the painter of one of his most famous portraits is to be believed. Subsequent Presidents, men like Franklin Pierce and Rutherford Hayes, were disciples of Jahbuhlun, as was President Teddy Roosevelt.
We also have communists Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin giving the sign, plus Napoleon, Salomon Rothschild, and many others whose images and pictures you will find in the ensuing pages, as they perform this devilish sign.

Wine From A Human Skull

Many other facets and activities pertaining to this degree's ritual stamp it as pure Luciferian and its holder as a Lucifer worshiper. During the initiation into the seventh degree Royal Arch Mason (York Rite) or 13th degree (Scottish Rite), the candidate drinks wine from a human skull.
By this monstrous act, he reinforces the fact that he has taken an oath swearing to "have his skull struck off and his brains exposed to the scorching rays of a median sun" should he ever divulge Masonic secrets. He goes on to demand that if he does divulge secrets, may all the sins of the dead person whose skull he is drinking from be heaped upon his, the candidate's, head.
So we see that the Mason's newfound "God," Jahbuhlun (Jah-Baal-On), is a rigid taskmaster who does not look kindly on traitors and blabbers. It was the Canaanite God Baal, of course, to whom the backslidden Jews and pagans sacrificed their children in the fire. You'll recall that the prophet Elijah brought the message of God's judgment against those who worshipped bloodthirsty Baal, who, in reality, is merely an idolatrous representation of Satan. Yes, Baal is the devil.
To attempt in vain to combine the name of the true God with that of false Gods like Baal and On is particularly evil and grievous to the true God in heaven. Yet, the Mason does exactly this with Jahbuhlun and then compounds his grave error by adopting as one of his chief logos the sign of the double-headed eagle (symbolizing one body of God, two heads!)

The Triple Tau

Yet another proof of the deviltry of the Jahbuhlun hoax is the symbol of the Triple Tau, which is the most important symbol of the Royal Arch Degree. Made up of three interlinking tau symbols (T), these three are said to represent a triad of sacred, Jewish powers of king, priest, and prophet. In other words, the Mason assumes a trinity of Jewish spiritual powers.7 Actually, this trinity of the Jews is in competition with the true Godhead of the Bible: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Triple Tau is the most significant symbol, or logo, of the Royal Arch Mason. It represents the Mason who has reached either the seventh degree of the York Rite or 13th degree of the Scottish Rite as embodying within the attributes of the Godhead, or Holy Trinity, by blasphemously declaring himself to be the great I Am That I Am, thus identifying himself with Satan's promise in the Garden, "ye shall be as Gods." 
"I AM THAT I AM" the Mason Proclaims
Equally blasphemous is that in the lecture on the seventh, or Royal Arch Degree, of the York Rite, the Mason initiated is asked the question "Are you a Royal Arch Mason?"
His answer is required to be: "I am that I am."
In other words, in this degree's ritual the Mason has not only acknowledged that the devil, in the guise of Jahbuhlun, is his sacred Lord, but he now is declaring that he, himself, a mere man, is the great I am! In other words, he is saying, "I am God!"
Uncovering the Hidden Hand

Now you see why I entitled this chapter, "The Hidden Hand of the Men of Jahbuhlun."
In the early degrees, the Mason is told that the name of God has been lost. He's even told that he should use a substitute name for God, MAHABONE. But later, after he's swallowed whole the rotten fabric of degree ritual after degree ritual, the bamboozled and propagandized fellow is finally told that the one he is to worship goes by the name Jahbuhlun and that he is now ready to declare himself, a man, as the great I AM.
Obviously, the Illuminati's Masonic elite do not want the general public to know these terrible things. After all, incredibly, Freemasonry's public image is that it is some kind of "Christian" group. So, the pretense must be maintained and the secrets buttoned up from the "profane and vulgar" masses (you and me, dear reader).
Therefore, the name of the horrible God whom the Masons worship must stay hidden.
The name and identity of the hidden God must be concealed at all costs, and thus an appropriate hand sign has been devised to represent this grotesque coverup: the Sign of the Hidden Hand.

How to Perform the Sign

Figure 34 shown here is taken directly from Duncan's Masonic Ritual and Monitor (3rd Edition). It pictures the Royal Arch Mason performing the magical Sign of the Master of the Second Veil, which I informally and more informatively call here the Sign of the Hidden Hand of the Men of Jahbuhlun.
According to Duncan's the candidate presents this sign when he is approached by three sojourners from Babylon. Their objective: Rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem and eventually establish a world empire of the Jews.
In his teaching course on Ancient Masonry, C.C. Zain of The Brotherhood of Light explains that the ritual for this degree requires a keen understanding of astrology. But, its performance is said to be derived from a passage in the scriptures. "The sign is made," writes Zain, "by thrusting the hand into the bosom and again drawing it out."9 The official Masonic explanation for this sign—a myth intended to divert the profane from the truth — is that it refers to the fourth chapter of Exodus in the Bible: "And the Lord said unto Moses, put now thine hand into thy bosom; and he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold his hand was leprous as snow."
Leprous, indeed, is the hand of the Mason who vainly seeks to hide and coverup his fides oath of allegiance to Jahbuhlun, his sacred God. But, believe me, there is no relationship of the Mason to Moses, a prophet of God who loyally worshipped the true I AM, the God who reigns for all eternity in heaven.
Still, della Piana didn’t see a connection when read this passage.
“First of all, what Marx and Engels were talking about–what they were saying that its capitalism that dehumanizes and commodifies children and that they speak about the family but in fact children become another commodity and this was the era of child labor,” he said. “The era of arranged marriages and property rights being transacted that way.” He added that “in that framework children are reduced to nothing.” Rather, he believes that Harris-Perry was saying something most Americans could agree with. “It seems to me that she’s sort of reflected the basic idea that the vast majority of people would agree with that society has some collective responsibility for children. That’s something everybody agrees with that’s why we have public education. That’s something the vast majority of people support.” His comrade agreed. “I don’t get what the big deal is,” said Roberta Wood, Secretary Treasurer of CPUSA, adding that she didn’t think Harris-Perry’s comments had anything to do with communism or socialism. “You know it seems like they’re talking about society taking responsibility for all the children and as far as I know that’s the way to look at people to see how human beings should be,” she told Politic365. Even the Democratic Socialists of America didn’t interpret the MSNBC host’s comments the way many conservatives did. 
“The idea that it takes a village to raise a child, essentially that a nurturing community cares about all of it’s children, is certainly not socialist (though we would agree with the sentiment),” wrote DSA National Director Maria Svart in an email to Politic365. “Democratic socialists do believe that socially created wealth (in other words, wealth created through the cooperative, collective endeavor of people working together) should be democratically invested, rather than largely going to the 1% and being used however the 1% sees fit,” she continued. “We believe that when people have a voice in how public resources are invested, they want many of those resources invested in education and other programs that help kids.” Conservatives, however, found Harris-Perry’s comments chilling–and didn’t interpret the MSNBC host’s words as those in the Communist Party of the United States and Democratic Socialists of America did. The most controversial quote in the 30-second spot was where Harris-Perry said “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” That statement to many conservative observers was tantamount to saying kids belong to the state. That is, to the government. Radio host Rush Limbaugh took on the ad on his show on Monday. “What she is saying, Melissa Harris-Perry, what she is saying here is as old as communist genocide,” said Limbaugh. “But, the fact that it is said in America on a cable news channel, and is considered fairly benign is what has changed.” Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin tweeted that the ad was “Unflippingbelieveable.” “Apparently, MSNBC doesn’t think your children belong to you,” she tweeted on Sunday.

Francis says he has met "many Marxists who are good people." But how can they be "good"? "None is good but God alone," Our Blessed Lord says (Lk 18:19); meaning He is the source of all goodness and holiness, and we can only justly be considered "good" inasmuch as we have the Divine Life in us, that is, sanctifying grace. But no one can be a Marxist and be in the state of sanctifying grace, for Marxism is a form of Socialism: "Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist" (Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, par. 120).


Yuri Bezmenov makes so much sense that you might be asking yourself, “Why is this KGB officer allowed to say these things in public?” In 1983-84, why would the KGB not take him away and send him to the gulag or send an assassin to take him out?” The answer to this riddle is: he's still at work. Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and their Masonic offspring are initiated as anti-Catholic, anti-Christ Heretics. So how does Yuri teach subversion, then subvert his American audience in the process? After his eye-opening lecture, he gives the audience his subversive answer to KGB subversion- making God and Jesus Christ separate entities. This Arian Heresy is the exact error of Russia that Our Lady warned the world against in the Fátima Prophecies, the heresy that leads you to Hell. Christ is God, not the son of the Jewish Lord of Israel, a fire. In order to create a Godless New World Order, Freemasonry has to get you to believe in another God, the Babylonian 'Lord Father' of their Bible. Don't fall for it. It's a fire, a burning bush, and if your god is a fire, you sill spend an eternity burning in Hell with that fire you were tricked into believing in.

Jewish Intelligence (and the errors of Russia mentioned by Our Lady) has sought to infiltrate the Catholic priesthood since the early days of the Church, spiritually murdering the offspring of Catholics with the curse of the anathematizing baptism (of water & fire). Most of today's 1 billion Catholics are not Catholic at all. They are baptized as Freemasons, waiting for the Jewish Messiah, completely unable to comprehend what they are doing and how Apocalyptically far it has gone. The weapon of the enemies of the Church and the West is the absence of the Holy Ghost in the Rite, and this is the solution to fight back. This slow, painfully growing curse is what this KGB intelligence officer is referencing, though he doesn't get into specifics in this video. Beware, the deception is so good that the deceivers can actually brag to you that they are misleading you, they can have their Bohemian Grove Rituals, they can even boast about Satan entering the Vatican 'through some crack', but you will probably never know how they are doing it. Well, that all has changed.

The leaders (Lenin, Marx, Engels, Trotsky, etc.) of the 1917 Russian Revolution were not atheists. They were anti-Catholic, Masonic Jews, bound by their oath to Lucifer. This is specifically why also in 1917, Our Lady of Fátima ordered the consecration of the world to avoid the spreading of the “errors of Russia.”

Apocalypse 12:1 - And a great sign appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, & on her head a crown of twelve stars.
Apocalypse 12:2 - And being with child, she cried also traveling, and is in anguish to be delivered.
Apocalypse 12:3 - And there was seen another sign in heaven, and behold a great red dragon having seven heads, & ten horns: and on his heads seven diadems.
Apocalypse 12:4 -
And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered; that when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. Thanks to THE WILD VOICE, VIGILANT CITIZEN,