Skip to main content

Some Bacon With Your Eggsperiment?

A missing chapter from Johnny’s upcoming book, The Disciples of Ra!1

Francis Bacon … Viscount Saint Alban … A lawyer, statesman, philosopher, and master of the English tongue, he is remembered in literary terms for the sharp worldly wisdom of a few dozen essays; by students of constitutional history for his power as a speaker in Parliament and in famous trials … and intellectually as a man who claimed all knowledge as his province and, after a magisterial survey, urgently advocated new ways by which man might establish a legitimate command over nature for the relief of his estate. ~ Britannica


New Atlantis is an incomplete utopian novel by Sir Francis Bacon, published posthumously in 1626.  It appeared unheralded and tucked into the back of a longer work of natural history, Sylva sylvarum (forest of materials).  In New Atlantis, Bacon portrayed a vision of the future of human discovery and knowledge, expressing his aspirations and ideals for humankind.  The novel depicts the creation of a utopian land where “generosity and enlightenment, dignity and splendour, piety and public spirit” are the commonly held qualities of the inhabitants of the mythical Bensalem.  The plan and organisation of his ideal college, Salomon’s House (or Solomon’s House), envisioned the modern research university in both applied and pure sciences. ~ Wikipedia

When you seek out who created the Scientific Method, most sources tell you “Francis2 Bacon”.

Bacon was as key a player in history as it gets.

To give perspective, let’s go through a timeline of key, related dates.

282 B.C.: The city-state of Rome wins the Battle of Populonia and becomes the dominate power in Italy.

146 B.C.: Lucius Mummius defeats the Achaean League and sacks Corinth as Rome eclipses Greece.

17 March 45 B.C.: Gaius Julius Caesar wins the Battle of Munda making him dictator of Rome.  A year later he declared himself a god that would rule for the remainder of life.  The god then died a few months afterward when the Roman Senate had him assassinated, 2 days short of the anniversary of his victory; March 15th, 44 B.C.

27 B.C.: Octavian, the nephew of Julius Caesar (more popularly known as “Caesar Augustus”) rides his military power to become the first Emperor of Rome.

September 11th, 3 B.C.: A young woman gives birth to her first son in the town of Bethlehem and calls him “Jesus” which, in the Hebrew (Yeshua) means “Salvation”.

This date for the birth of Jesus Christ has been popularized by Michael S. Heiser who cites Ernest Martin’s The Star That Astonished the World, first published in 1991.

April 6th, 32 A.D.: Jesus of Nazareth rides into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey and is proclaimed “King of the Jews”.

Robert Anderson (1841 – 1918), like his lawyer brother Samuel, made a name for himself spying in Ireland on behalf of the British crown.

This put him on the fast-track to becoming Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police at an important moment in history.

Anderson was the Freemason placed in charge of “Criminal Investigation” at “Scotland Yard” to help cover-up the brutal murders of prostitutes from 1888 to 1891.

The murders have been attributed to the pharisaical myth of “Jack the Ripper” when they were actually messages of dire warning sent to anyone who would unveil the Vatican’s control of the British Crown.

I hope to get into author Stephen Knight’s brilliant exposé regarding “the Ripper” in a future installment of Romans of Mass Destruction.

Though Masonic apologists claim Anderson was not one of theirs (the corruption of London Metro would be an embarrassing thing to explain), Knight “outed” him.3

Unfortunately, Stephen Knight is no-longer accessible for interview as he died in 1985 of cancer at only 33 years of age.

Robert Anderson’s penance for corrupting justice at Scotland Yard on behalf of the handmaids of the Vatican was to disclose the precision of Messianic prophecy found in Daniel Chapter 9 (sometimes called “Daniel’s 70 Weeks”) which he did in his 1894 book The Coming Prince.

If we accept Anderson and Heiser/Martin (and I do), that puts the age of Jesus Christ at exactly 33 years and 7 months when He was executed on the Hebrew Passover (“Pesach”).

Thus begins the Jesuit / Freemasonic / gnostic obsession with “33”, particularly as an age.

18 July 64 A.D.: A fire starts in a run-down section of Rome just outside the Circus Maximus chariot stadium.  The historian Tacitus records that it was aided by looters who doubled as arsonists.  By the time it died down, 6 days later, a section of the city that Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (a.k.a. “Emperor Nero”) had lusted after for his new palace was conveniently cleared.

Just as convenient was who Nero scapegoated: a sect of burgeoning “religious fanatics” known as “Christians”.

This is one of the earliest examples of a “false flag”.

27 October 312 A.D.: Flavius Valerius Constantinus has a vision of the Christian God and is told by a “voice from Heaven”; “In hoc signo vinces” (in this sign shall you conquer).

What was the sign?  Some say a simple Christian cross, others say the “Christogram” of Greek letters chi and rho.4

Constantine placed the symbol upon the shields of his soldiers and beat his rival Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge the next day, becoming the sole Emperor of Rome and her first “overt Christian monarch”.5

February 313 A.D.: Constantine issues the Edict of Milan, decreeing tolerance for all Christians.

27 February 380 A.D.: Emperor Theodosius I dictates the Edict of Thessalonica which mandated Christianity to be the sole religion of the Roman Empire.

4 September 476 A.D.: Roman Emperor Romulus Augustus abdicates his throne to the “barbarian invader” German Goth, Flavius Odoacer signifying the “fall” of military Rome.

March 533 A.D.: Emperor Justinian writes a letter to John, Bishop of Rome, giving him authority as “Bishop of bishops” and “Corrector of Heretics” but the power was left unasserted because Rome was under siege by the Ostrogoths.  The siege was lifted in 538 A.D. and the Bishopric had changed hands 3 times from Silverius to Agapetus to Vigilius.

It is Vigilius whom we should rightly call “the first Pope”.

Thus begins the true “Dark Ages” (especially for Christians) as military Rome transforms into the much more dangerous and powerful religious Rome.

Adventist scholars have an excellent explanation of this being the start point for the “times and times and the dividing of time” prophecy of Daniel 7:25 spanning 1,260 years and culminating in the February 10th, 1798 entrance by Napoleon Bonaparte’s General Louis-Alexandre Berthier into Rome and subsequent imprisoning of Giovanni Braschi, “Pope Pius VI”.

November 1st, 1517 A.D. [“All Saints Day”]: An upstart Augustinian monk posts a scathing rebuke of Medici Pope Leo X and his Dominican zealots like Johann Tetzel for bilking naive peasants out of what little wealth they had to secure spiritual favor via “indulgences”.6  He is reprimanded but digs his heels in.  What starts as an effort to reform his religion soon becomes a devastating revolution, thanks to the advent of the movable-type printing press just a few miles nearby and a few years earlier!

For the first time in history, the Christian Scriptures (strictly forbidden to the masses by Rome on pain of torture and death) flowed out of Guttenberg presses and quickly turn Germany from “Catholic” to “Christian”!

Many other nations follow Germany’s lead such as Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands but none combined the doctrinal turn with dangerous power like Britain.

3 November 1534 A.D.: King of England Henry Tudor (Number 8) is married to devout Catholic Catherine of Aragon, Princess of the Spanish Crown.  As with all loveless, political marriages of the Elite, it shored up the power of both families but there was a problem: Catherine was only able to produce a single female child (Bloody Mary Tudor).  At all costs, Henry believed he could “live on” with a male heir.  He beseeched the Medici Pope7 for a divorce (Kings need permission from Rome to do anything of import) but was denied.  Spain was far too important to risk ire over one king’s selfish obsession.

In response, Henry simply created a miniature Church of Rome and made himself Pope on this date.

Although the “Church of England” mirrors Rome in all its trappings it was, for a time, politically expedient to pretend to be Protestant.  This was the case for Elizabeth I and James I, neither of which were in any way dedicated to Christianity but both saw some advantages in not kissing the Papal ring.

Into this caldron of intrigue was inserted Francis Bacon.

Bacon was “Queen’s Counsel” for Elizabeth I and the first to bear that title.  This was/is the chief legal advisor “to the Crown”.

After Elizabeth, he was Attorney General and Lord High Chancellor for James I.  “Lord High Chancellor” is second only to the Prime Minister in power and that is a close “second”.

Bacon did so by “riding the coat-tails” of Robert Devereux, “2nd Earl of Essex”.8

Bacon soon became acquainted with Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, Queen Elizabeth’s favorite.[20]  By 1591 he acted as the earl’s confidential adviser.[12][20]

In 1592 he was commissioned to write a tract in response to the Jesuit Robert Parson’s anti-government polemic, which he titled Certain observations made upon a libel, identifying England with the ideals of democratic Athens against the belligerence of Spain.[21] ~ Wikipedia

What better way to prove Bacon’s “Protestant credentials” than to have him counter a Jesuit in writing where the stakes are as high as a papercut?

Robert Devereux was known as a “Favourite” of Elizabeth I: someone kept within the Queen’s inner-most circle yet there seems little reason for it.

One of the first nations to fall under Roman control after the city-state’s transformation into a “religious” power was Ireland.  She has been dominated by Catholicism ever since.  Every move to make Ireland independent from Britain has been irrevocably destroyed by the fallacy that the movement was “Catholic” and tragically doomed to failure in the face of “Protestant” Britain.

Although this was the case for the “Nine Years War” (also known as “the Tyrone Rebellion”) the very name betrays the power behind the chaos.  In no way should an Irish “revolt” against Britain have lasted nearly a decade but Robert Devereux’s role further implies Vatican enabling.

Britannica put’s it this way:

The Tyrone Rebellion

The origins of the third rebellion, the O’Neill (Tyrone) war, remain in doubt.  Both Hugh Roe O’Donnell and Hugh O’Neill (younger son of Feardorchadh), for whom the earldom of Tyrone had been revived in 1585 and who had been elected O’Neill on Turlough Luineach’s death in 1595, certainly resented the extension of the royal administration, but the religious issue was probably more important.  For a generation, exiled Roman Catholics had been trained as missionaries in the continental colleges of the Counter-Reformation, and the majority of those who returned to Ireland concluded that Catholicism could survive there only if Elizabeth were defeated.

At the height of the conflict, in 1599, Devereux talked Elizabeth into making him “Lord Lieutenant of Ireland”: the highest-ranking British official there.

Wikipedia states:

Essex led the largest expeditionary force ever sent to Ireland—16,000 troops—with orders to put an end to the rebellion.  He departed London to the cheers of the Queen’s subjects, and it was expected the rebellion would be crushed instantly…

Essex had declared to the Privy Council that he would confront O’Neill in Ulster.  Instead, he led his army into southern Ireland, where he fought a series of inconclusive engagements, wasted his funds, and dispersed his army into garrisons, while the Irish won two important battles in other parts of the country.  Rather than face O’Neill in battle, Essex entered a truce that some considered humiliating to the Crown and to the detriment of English authority.  The Queen herself told Essex that if she had wished to abandon Ireland it would scarcely have been necessary to send him there.

In all of his campaigns Essex secured the loyalty of his officers by conferring knighthoods, an honour the Queen herself dispensed sparingly, and by the end of his time in Ireland more than half the knights in England owed their rank to him.  The rebels were said to have joked that, “he never drew sword but to make knights.”

Devereux appeared to show utter contempt for Elizabeth’s power.  He could easily have been executed for treason but the Queen merely stripped him of his privileges.

In February of 1601, the “Earl of Essex” lead a group of armed men from his “estate, Essex House” towards Whitehall Palace.  The goal was, supposedly, to force the Queen to throw out several of her advisors such as Robert Cecil, an enemy of Devereux.

“Ill-advised” would be too kind an assessment: needless suicide would be more accurate.

All it took were cries of “Treason!” to echo through the streets and Devereux’s army melted away before he got remotely close to the Palace.  He retreated to “Essex House” where he sulked until he was arrested, tried for treason and beheaded.

Perhaps if Devereux had retained a barrister like his understudy, Francis Bacon could’ve argued that “Treason” is a crime against the citizenry, not to be confused with vexing a Royal.

Was Devereux truly that foolish or was something else afoot?

“Remember, Remember…”

Four years later, several conspirators involved in the “Essex Rebellion” would resurface in another suicide strategy of revolt: the Gunpowder Plot.

But this plot wasn’t against “Protestant” Elizabeth I, it was against “Protestant” James I.

It was so fantastic, it had to fail: fill the basement of the House of Lords with gunpowder and, at the right time, blow up James and all of Parliament.

At the last moment, the plot was “discovered” and thwarted.  The culprits were Jesuits.  Eight of the conspirators were tried and executed including the Provincial, Henry Garnet.

When authorities rushed to the basement entrance, they found Guy “Guido” Fawkes guarding the door.  Fawkes was a Vatican mercenary whose parents had raised to defy Henry’s new Protestant religion.  He had honed his skills killing Dutch Protestants on behalf of Catholic Spain in the “Eighty Years War”.

But was this a cunning chess move by the Company of Loyola?

Can “Shakespeare” shed some light?

… as Garry Wills in his book Witches & Jesuits points out, Macbeth is an elaborate condemnation of the Jesuits as satanists, murderers, witches.  Macbeth is one of many of its period’s “powder plays,” a genre in which certain buzz words, well understood by contemporaries, memorialize the guilt and execution of eight Jesuits for having schemed the Gunpowder Plot of November 5, 1605.  The Plot aimed to blow up the entire government of Great Britain, including the royal family, in a single catastrophic explosion under the Houses of Parliament.

How could a play defaming Jesuits be of service to the Jesuit agenda?  As we shall see, warfare in defense of the papacy requires extravagant measures.  In fact, both the Gunpowder Plot, which failed, and the celebration of its detection, which lives on in Macbeth, served Rome abundantly.  King James I, who declared himself the Plot’s divinely-illuminated discoverer, blamed the Plot on “Jesuits and papists.”  But at the same time, James exonerated “less fanatical Catholics.”6  According to Wills, “the Plot gave [James] his best opportunity to separate loyal and moderate Catholics from the mad extremists of the Plot.”  In short, the Plot secured England for “loyal and moderate” Roman Catholicism.  In the reasoning of a Superior General, particularly the General of the Gunpowder Plot and Shakespearian theatre, Claudio Acquaviva, the sacrifice of eight Jesuits was a small tactical price to pay for moving the King of England to express confidence in the Pope’s British subjects, estimated at half the population of the realm. ~ Saussy9

It should be noted that, as “Protestants” both Elizabeth and James were quite happy to put their own to the stake to preserve their power.

Not So Anonymous

            In 2005, a $54 million movie was released titled “V for Vendetta”, based upon a limited DC comic series.

The inspiration for both was the 1605 Gunpowder Plot.

However, in the comicbook and movie, the Jesuit terrorists are the heroes, immortalized by a mask said to depict Guy Fawkes.

The movie was written by Andy and Larry Wachowski who are also credited with the 1999 Science Fiction thriller “The Matrix”.

Oddly, both Andy and Larry have surrendered their genders and are now known as “Lilly” and “Lana”, respectively.

As government tyranny (controlled by the Jesuits) ramps up to insufferable levels around the world, angry citizens are given empty, impotent “resistance movements” to misplace their trust with such as “Anonymous” and “Occupy Wall Street”.  Both movements have adopted the effigy of lay-Jesuit assassin Guy Fawkes as their symbol.

Robert Devereux wasn’t the only Vatican agent standing behind brilliant wordsmith Francis Bacon.

Although I covered this with detail in my book Romans of Mass Destruction, Volume I, a portion is worth citing for you.


The character of “Dracula” has been so ingrained into the human experience that we don’t even realize that weapons of choice against this evil, frightening creature are “holy water” and a crucifix.  We may then deduce that blood-sucking vampires are a metaphor for any enemy of the Catholic

Elementary, John and Mary.

Or did Stoker, rather than shirking the political issue and despite claiming to be a Protestant while he lived a high-profile life in England’s theatre circles, in fact, subtly thematicize it?  Writing the biography of Stoker, David Glover notes: “Indeed, it is essential to see that the anxieties that animate these novels are inextricably bound up with the most deeply rooted dilemmas facing late Victorian culture”(15).  Writing at the time of the Land Acts which stripped the landlords of their power, Stoker was only too aware of the decline of the Anglo-Irish gentry.  Did he cautiously write a novel promoting the proselytization of Protestants to Catholicism in an era when to do so might be dangerous to an Irishman’s health and / or freedom?  One reading of Dracula indeed suggests that its author was a closet Catholic cloaking his dangerous views in a relatively safe literary medium.88

This identical tactic has been attributed to another “legendary classic” author; “William Shakespeare”.

“ — by any other name…”

If there is one writer who is mandatory reading in nearly any school, anywhere, it is “Shakespeare” yet controversy abounds regarding the questions “Did he really exist?”  “Is ‘Shakespeare’ a pen name for someone else?”

If you’ve never heard of this being a controversy, not only is it, it has its own special name: the “Shakespeare Authorship Question”.

Dr. Helen Gordon, Professor of English at Bakersfield, puts it this way:

Actual facts about [the “William Shakspere” of Stratford-on-Avonlvi] are scarce.  During his lifetime (1564-1614) no portraits of him were painted, no biography written about him, and no records kept of his education.  He left no manuscripts in his own hand, no letters, no diary, no memoranda, no notes.  We have only six shaky signatures on legal documents, property deeds, and a few public records unrelated to literature.  The signatures that we do have are variously spelled (Shakspere, Shagspere, Shaxper, Shakspear), but none are spelled as the author’s name was consistently spelled (Shakespeare or Shake-speare).  The pronunciation indicated by the Stratfordian spellings would be SHACK-spur, to differentiate it from the author’s name, pronounced SHAKE-spear.  Shakspere’s last will said nothing about a personal library, scripts, or royalties which his family might have inherited.

Diana Price in her unauthorized biography of Shakespeare[lvii] lists several criteria with which we determine the authenticity of an author such as personal letters, acknowledgement of their literary talent by peers, drafts of manuscripts, records of publication, proof of payments, and so forth.  Of all the writers known to be living in the Elizabethan age, only William Shakespeare draws a complete blank.  This lack of evidence compared to other writers of the time seems to suggest that “William Shakespeare” was a pen name.89

In light of such evidence, the constant reinforcing of a real “Shakespeare” by major media becomes as suspect as their many other propaganda efforts.  The fact that no major or “accepted” source even mentions these concerns in any attempt at balance is almost conclusive in itself.

A 1617 portrait of Francis Bacon by Paul van Somer. Wikimedia Commons)

Notice the supposed lifetime of “William Shakespeare”: (1564-1614).  By this time, the kindling that Martin Luther had lit on November 1st, All Saints’ Day, in 1517 was a full-blown prairie fire.

One of the most “controversial” (and, likewise, plausible) contentions is that the Lord Chancellor of King James I of England (who was also “James VI of Scotland”), Sir Francis Bacon, was secretly “William Shakespeare”.

Sources like “user-edited Wikipedia” display extreme derision towards the idea, calling this theory an “alleged subterfuge[lviii] … [d]espite the academic consensus[lix] that Shakespeare wrote the works bearing his name…”90

Perhaps the reason Bacon as Shakespeare is immediately dismissed is because one of the strongest sources on the issue was Bacon’s best friend, confidant and Confessor, English Jesuit Sir Tobie Matthew who wrote to him in 1623 —

The most prodigious wit, that ever I knew of my nation, and of this side of the sea, is of your Lordship’s name, though he be known by another.91

So close were they, in fact, that when relative Arnold Harris Mathew wrote his ancestor’s biography in 1907 he titled it The Life of Sir Tobie Matthew: Bacon’s Alter Ego.

If Francis Bacon was, indeed, William Shakespeare, then it’s not a stretch to say that, ultimately, so was Jesuit Tobie Matthew.

Official sources on Matthew carefully avoid identifying him as a Jesuit but his proud kinsman was happy to put that to rest and to confirm that Father Tobie Matthew’s hand was ultimately behind Francis “William Shakespeare” Bacon.

Students of seventeenth-century literature may find some new facts recorded in these pages, and admirers of Bacon, and all persons to whom the Bacon-Shakespeare question appeals, will not fail to be interested in the correspondence between the Philosopher and his Alter Ego.

Should this attempt to rescue from oblivion the name of a remarkable personality prove acceptable to the literary world, I shall have no reason to regret the hard work which the undertaking has involved.

That Sir Tobie Matthew was ever a Jesuit has been strenuously denied by some members of the Society.

Nevertheless, it may be considered certain that he was a member of it at an early date after his conversion.

By his will, dated 1614, the year of his ordination by the great Jesuit, Cardinal [Robert] Bellarmine,[lx] he bequeathed the whole of his earthly possessions to the Society.  This fact by itself would not suffice to prove Sir Tobie to have been anything more than a friend and admirer of the Society.

Other facts, however, have come to light.

At the Benedictine Abbey of St. Mary, at Oulton, in Staffordshire, the ancient English Benedictine nuns, who were exiled during the reign of Henry VIII., are now represented.

The community descends from the convent established at Ghent as an offshoot of the community settled at Brussels.

In the library at Oulton Abbey is preserved the original MS. [manuscript] of an unpublished work of Sir Tobie’s, written by him for the nuns at Ghent, and dated “The first of January, 1652.”

The MS. consists of a biography of the Lady Abbess Lucy Knatchbull, O.S.B.[“Ordo Sancti Benedicti”, “Order of Saint Benedict”], of Ghent, and is written in a hand which is not Sir Tobie’s, probably a scrivener’s.

The preface, however, is signed by him, and the MS. is corrected.  The work is entitled: “A Relation of the Holy and Happy Life and Death of the Lady Lucie Knatchbull, Abbess, and of her foundinge the English Monastery of Benedictines at Ghent; together with some notice which is given of her Religious there, concerning both their persons, and particular devotions and Perfections; as also of divers Blessings wherewith they have been enriched from Heaven.  This Relation consists of two Parts.  By SIR TOBIE MATTHEW, KNIGHT, Soc. JES.”92

The “Sir” / “Knight” comes from an English Knighthood bestowed upon Matthew by none other than the commissioner of the “Authorized 1611 Version of the Bible”, “Protestant” King James I. The reason for the Knighthood is even less “Protestant”: Jesuit Father Tobie was James I’s personal ambassador to Spain to arrange for his son Charles to marry “Infantalxi” Maria Anna, the daughter of King Philip III.

In fact, the deal fell through but Father Tobie was Knighted anyway!

“Protestant” King James found a match just as Catholic, Henrietta Maria of France, the daughter of King Henry IV, of the House of Bourbon.

Perhaps you’re now wondering just how “Protestant” the commissioner of the “Authorized Version” really was, especially given that he was raised by hyper-devout Catholic, Mary, Queen of Scots.

By the time Charles was gifted the throne (by right of his “Blood Succession”) many Britons were wondering, as well.  In fact, Charles’ Catholicity and aloof mismanagement of his nation’s affairs precipitated the English Civil war that ended with the offing of his head and the very brief reign of true Protestant Oliver Cromwell.lxii

Father Tobie Matthew, S.J., from his position of power and influence in “Protestant England”, sowed seeds of subversion that bore fruit in America.

In March, 1630, Sir Tobie was in London, sending Court gossip to Sir Henry Vane in Paris.

Later in the same year he was in Staffordshire, acting as a zealous layman, in assisting the Catholic cause.

On August 12th he concluded a visit to Lord Baltimore, who, as Sir George Calvert, had been one of the principal Secretaries of State, from 1619 to 1624; in the latter year he resigned the seals, frankly acknowledging to the King that he had become a Catholic.

Sir Tobie is credited with his conversion.

The King, however, retained Sir George as a Privy Councillor, and in 1625 elevated him to the peerage, under the title of Baron of Baltimore, in Ireland.

The capital of Maryland was named after him.93

The reason why the “capital”lxiii of Mary-land was named after Lord Baltimore is because he was specifically granted a Royal Charter to send Catholics there by the same King who promoted him even after he sheepishly admitted he had convertedlxiv — the son of James I: Charles I.

~ Romans of Mass Destruction, Cirucci10



There are multiple sources which state that Francis Bacon was “William Shakespeare” and credit him with formulating Elizabethan English in specific and the English language in general.

The works of “Shakespeare” have been fed to generations of children for centuries as “immortal classics” because they were an intimate part of Rome’s insurgency against Protestant Britain.

If Bacon was a proxy for the Jesuits, crediting him as “Shakespeare” and creator of the English language becomes even more plausible.

From their inception, the Company of Loyola has toiled to break down the barrier of language to them while weaponizing it against humanity.

With the advent of Johannes Gutenberg’s movable-type printing press around 1450 in Mainz, Germany came a flood of illegal, common-tongue Bibles.  Rome could no-longer suppress the Christian Scriptures by finding and burning precious hand-written copies (along with anyone connected to them).

A new tactic was required and its breadth and complexity is nothing short of Diabolical: alter the understanding of reality while simultaneously altering Scripture so that there is enough of a divergence to cause readers to question and mock it.

The attack on the Christian Bible has been subtle yet insidious.

By the 19th century, Protestant Bibles were losing their potency because of their reliance upon Francis Bacon’s Elizabethan English.  Although the language of “Shakespeare” sounds poetic and “holy” it is confusing, especially for spiritual and educational novices.

This provided a key opportunity for Rome to usher in a flood of modernized, yet inherently flawed translations.

On 11 February 2020, in correspondence to me, one of my research assistants put it this way:


Freemason Manly P. Hall Admits He is an Agent Working for the Jesuits in His 1944 Letter

Setting the groundwork:

One must search long and hard for photographs of Manly Hall not staged with Vaudevillian drama.

In 1844, 33° Freemason & Knight of Malta, Constantin von Tischendorf, met with Jesuit Cardinal Angelo Mai and Pope Gregory XVI at the Vatican — they disclosed to Tischendorf that the Vatican had retrieved a known fake Bible manuscript penned by Constantine Simonides as a gift for Tsar Nicholas I, of Russia, and that they had stored it at the Roman Catholic St. Catherine’s Monastery in Egypt, for him to go gather, stain it to look older, and say he found a “4th century Alexandria Bible MS,” making it the oldest and therefore “the purest.”

This Jesuit Forgery of the Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaiticus, is the base text for all modernized translations such as the ESV, NIV, NASB and NLT.

Yet, it is so corrupted and distorted that it denies Jesus ascending on the third day, and makes Him a sinner, just to name only 2 out of hundreds of errors compared to Textus Receptus translations.

Near the end of Jesuits’ Second Thirty Years’ War [“World Wars” I and II], a famous 33° Illuminized Freemason, Manly Palmer Hall, asserted that there was something wrong with the mankind and that things must change.

In the spring of 1944, exactly 100 years since the Jesuits’ created the Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaiticus forgeries, he made a following statement:

To make things right we will have to undo much that is cherished error.  The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult it is to do this.  For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it.  What’s wanted is the good old King James Version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English.” ~ Manly Hall

Who are “we”?  Let’s take that apart right now.  And while we’re at it, we’ll see what the Sinaiticus might have to do with it.

To make things right we will have to undo much that is cherished error … For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct, but nobody wants it.”

By “we,” it seems that Hall is referring to some very high-up powerful individuals in the Occult and Political world.  That was the focus of his 1944 article, as he goes on furthermore to say:

In the next ten years we will have to rebuild a world civilization.  I hope for some Psychologists and even Philosophers to be among those appointed to administer this problem … We are thinking now of a world Police Force.  We will first perhaps try to make a great world plan … We will sit at a council table and figure how to iron out the troubles on the earth … The way of that conditioning would be the one used in Central Europe to condition Nazi minds.  There the circulation of an ideology began in the public schools, began with the small child; which is where we will have to begin, and educate not only our own people but the peoples of the world … And we will have to have five generations of the consciousness concept of Democratic cooperation before we can create a world capable of mental and emotional tolerance.” ~ Manly Hall

Let’s count the generations after WWII:

1. 1946-64: Baby Boomers

2. 1965-early 80s were: Generation X

3. Mid-1980s-early 2000s: Generation Y/Millennials

4. Mid-2000s-present: Generation Z

            So how are we doing?  The Jesuits, through their control of “education”, have created a generation of revolutionary proxies to push their Luciferian agenda while simultaneously giving them plausible deniability for the resulting enslavement.

MTV asked 1,000 13-14 year-olds; “Which of the proposed names they wanted their generation to be called?”  The majority of them wanted to be called; “The Founder Generation.”  These teenagers, born after 9/11, supposedly; “have a stunningly intuitive sense of the changing times they’ve been born into, and the huge opportunity that lies ahead to make new History.”

Who are “founders”?

—They abandon the old and start something new.

Guided by whom?  Who are their teachers?

This is the Jesuit New One World Order by Manly P. Hall’s own standards.  And we’re only in Generation Four.

But to accomplish this enslavement, Hall and his masters needed to muddy the understanding of anyone reading a Bible in the common tongue.  Once again, they cloaked the Word of God in an ancient language and offered a counterfeit in the common tongue to the unwary masses.

For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct …”

            Occultist Hall wrote these words in what year?  —1944.

What happened 100 years earlier, in 1844?

In 1844, according to text scholar 33° Freemason and Papal Knight of Malta, Constantin Tischendorf, he began to acquire Greek vellum pages that ultimately were named, “Codex Sinaiticus.”  This is the same “manuscript” behind all modern Bibles and their subversive footnotes, including the New King James.

However, are we sure Hall meant the Sinaiticus?

Manly Hall wrote strongly in favor of it.  Here are two powerful quotes.

The Codex Sinaiticus is a manuscript of the 4th Century of about the same date as the Codex Vaticanus … This manuscript is one of the great books of the world … it is sufficiently important to justify considerable revision of our popular conception of the Scriptural writings …” ~ Manly Hall

In other words, presenting modern Bibles with Jesuit-edited errors as an alternative to confusing, antiquated translations.

Furthermore, from Hall’s “Monthly Letter,” published on April Fools’ Day, he writes the following:

Of importance to students of occultism is the fact that the Codex Sinaiticus contains many passages suppressed from the published Gospels.  These passages in many cases greatly alter the significance of the text.” ~ Manly Hall

Hall cunningly pitted himself on the side of “reason” by contrasting the need for modern translations against the minority of misguided Christians who consider the King James translation, itself, “inerrant”.

But what does this mean to the average Bible student?  This enthusiastic jot and tittle worshiper will insist that the words of the King James version are the very words of God Himself.” ~ Manly Hall

Hall’s attacks upon the Textus Receptus, via the King James, were nothing short of Jesuitical: so much so that one wonders if he penned the words himself.

For 400 years the Company of Loyola sought to discredit the Christian Scriptures that had burst off of the Gutenberg presses and with utter frustration did Hall revile the rejection of von Tischendorf’s Jesuit-inspired fraud.

At his time, the “King James Version” was merely the most popular, 300-year-old accepted product of the Textus Receptus and one sealed by the hand of Knighted British Rosicrucian Sir Francis Bacon on behalf of Knighted British Jesuit Sir Tobie Matthew.

… the King James Version of the Holy Bible.  This translation teems with error and is hopelessly unreliable from a Scholastic viewpoint, yet popular acceptance has caused this mis-version of holy writing, to come to be recognized as infallible so that the religious public would now reject a correct translation.  In fact it has already shown its attitude in the matter by refusing a revised edition.  For over 300 years erroneous theological notions have been circulated, deriving their authority from the King James translation of the Bible.” ~ Manly Hall



  1. Okay, it’s “missing” because I yanked it for being a rabbithole that wandered too far from viruses and vaccines and I need every spare page I can get, the way I write.
  2. I have more than just the name Francis to doubt Mr. Bacon’s Protestant credentials.
  3. Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, Stephen Knight, George G. Harrap & Co Ltd, 1976, p. 246
  4. This is important because Pike calls this the “Staff of Osiris” on page 292 of Morals and Dogma; that marks it as an ancient symbol of Luciferian sex “magick” and it is unlikely that “Christians adopted it” as Pike portends.  This leads one to question how “natural” it is to make an acronym or abbreviation of the Greek Χριστός by taking the first letter and layering it over the second.
  5. There are legends that Constantine’s father, Constantius Chlorus, was also a Christian but he persecuted the sect and this may have been a fabrication to bolster Constantine’s ego and credibility.  Similar legends claim Constantine’s mother, Flavia Julia Helena, also converted to Christianity.
  6. It is Catholic propaganda that Luther nailed his 95 Theses on Samhain (31 October) and proof of Rome’s complete control of “Protestantism” that all “Protestant preachers” regurgitate this Jesuit slander.
  7. This is a different Medici Pope from Giovanni deʹMedici (“Leo X”).  This was Giulio deʹMedici (“Clement VII”), the illegitimate result of his father’s infidelity with a black servant.  When Giuliano deʹMedici was murdered in an attempt to oust the bankers from Florence, Giulio was adopted by his Uncle, Lorenzo the Magnificent.
    Odd that, if you ask “Google” who controls from behind the scenes the name “Rothschild” is offered up instead of Farnese, Borgia, Aldobrandini or Medic…unless you know that “Google” was born on the anniversary that a Farnese Pope (“Paul III”) consecrated the Jesuits as a unique order with special privileges.
  8. I’m using a lot of quotations here because the feudal system of “the Divine Right of Kings” — the rationale by which the Elite maintain their caste above us — is utter sophistry.
  9. Rulers Of Evil: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies, Frederick Tupper Saussy, Ospray (1999), pp. 68-69
  10. Romans of Mass Destruction: How the Vatican created and enabled some of history’s most monstrous serial killers. Volume I: 54 A.D. to 1680 A.D., Giovanni Augustino “Johnny” Cirucci, CreateSpace (14 December 2019, fuck you, Lenny), pp. 74-76, 77-80


  • Sceptical believer says:

    Regarding Shakespeare and the Jesuits, I came across this book (haven’t read it yet). This Catholic site claims Shakespeare was Catholic ( and I think someone already wrote a book about that.

    A while back, I read Leo Tolstoy’s very critical essay on Shakespeare in which he called him immoral and inartistic and couldn’t understand why the Western world is so enamored with him. It’s well known Shakespeare didn’t even create his own stories, he borrowed from the existing ones and didn’t even change names much. Well, Tolstoy being a pedant went and read the original story of King Lear and claimed it made much more sense in terms of plot and character development. The Western criticism of Tolstoy’s essay (see Orwell) seems to attack his character (as being too much of a Christian moralist and anarchist) rather than address his points (which probably means they’re valid). Basically, at this point “Shakespeare is the greatest Western playwright” is as much of a dogma as “the Earth revolves around the Sun”. The only two English speaking writers that I know of to have challenged it are George Bernard Shaw and J.R.R.Tolkien.

    Now, I have my suspicions about Count Lev Nikolayevich himself, on account of his misspent youth and how all Russian aristocrats were Free Masons and he actually wrote about the Masonic initiation in War and Peace (maybe that’s why the book is still a required reading in Russian schools). However, it does seem he became more Christian and “anarchist” towards the end of his life, and even was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church.

  • Sceptical believer says:

    Hey Johnny,
    what do you think about this “Inclusive capitalism” thing guided by Vatican?–a-new-all.html
    What if I don’t want to be “included” in this new capitalism? I feel the Medieval serfs had more freedom than we will have under this new technocratic dictatorship.

    • Like everything else they’ve done, it won’t be stopped until we stop it, ourselves.

      • Sceptical believer says:

        They control everything so the only one who can stop them at this point is the Lord Himself. For my part, I can only pray to Him and try to live a healthy life which is getting harder and harder.

  • Brent Brewer says:

    so, is it clear WHO is running the show…the wealthy families of “old Europe” (Farnese, Borgia, Aldobrandini or Medici) that are simply using the Vatican as their tool? Or has the Vatican and the Papa Nero/Jesuit military machinery taken on a life of it’s own and if fully self aware and in command? (and if the latter, how do the wealthy families fit in…in fear of the monster they helped create, possibly?)

    • Sceptical believer says:

      Been wondering about that too. AFAIK the ruling families = wealth and knowledge inheritance but somewhat bound to specific cultures and regions whereas Vatican (and other international orgs) are the building blocks of the new tower of Babel. Maybe they’re like KGB and Politbureau? Of course, there’s also a possibility of someone above them all of whom we know nothing about because they live on some unknown territory in the “Antarctica”. In that case, people like Gates or even the royalty will be the “fall guys” for the ensuing chaos once the “Savior” (aka Antichrist) shows up to save us from them.

      In the movie Harrison Bergeron, the main character is too smart for the “average” society the government had created so he’s offered to join a shadow organization running everything behind the scenes, including selection of the official politicians. They dress in dark clothes, live in austere environment, have to disappear from their families and are not allowed to have kids. Sounds familiar?

Leave a Reply