Rulers of Evil Chapter 25 THE TWO MINISTRIES

It was called to my attention the final chapter of this book, chapter 25 was not visable on my original post Rulers of Evil by F. Tupper Saussy in HTML Web Format The actual text was hidden for some reason. I am posting it here:

“The years pass so quickly – where do they go? – so quickly, and then we get old. We never knew what any of it was about.”
—WOODY ALLEN, RADIO DAYS

WHAT, TO ME, makes the Bible such an inviting resource is the vigor with which the rulers of evil have suppressed its unlicensed reading. It’s been my experience that as predictably as such rulers play with truth, the Bible forthrightly tells it.

The previous chapters have been written in the presumption that ruling institutions are what they say they are (under the Cain covenant they must truthfully identify their origins, which they do with cabalah). It’s only fair, then, that I write this chapter in the presumption that the Bible really is what it says it is. It claims to be the unique, revealed Word of God,1 and the veritable literary embodiment of Jesus Christ.2 If we disbelieve that claim, we must disbelieve all the mottoes, insignia, bulls, encyclicals, laws, acts, ordinations, constitutions, oaths, and decrees of the rulers of evil.

According to God (as given in Scripture), the purpose of law is to regulate evildoers. Hear the apostle Paul:

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers – and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God.³

In other words, any behavior not conforming to “the glorious gospel” of God belongs to the law, which, obviously from its subject matter, is a jurisdiction foreign to Jesus Christ.

Scripture teaches us that the glorious gospel commands (1) repenting of sinful lifestyles,⁴ (2) loving neighbor as oneself,5 (3) loving and blessing one’s enemies,6 (4) giving freely without thought of reward,7 (5) forgiving debts and injuries,8 and (6) preaching that whoever believes the evidence of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection enters the royal family of God for all eternity.9 Not every personality is drawn to the glorious gospel,1 0 although Scripture tells us that everyone is asked (in some way) to know it.1 1 For the protection of those drawn to the glorious gospel, and for the management of those foreign to it, there exists the “rule of law.” Rule of law is the system by which authorities bearing Cain’s “powers and insignia of kingship” rule the World. Very briefly, it compares with the glorious gospel in the following ways:

The following table shows how readily the Roman Catholic Church-State organism conforms to the rule of law:

The rule of law is what Scripture calls a “ministration of condemnation.” 1 2 The “strength” of the rule of law is sin.1 3 This is observable in how law is at its most vibrant when ferreting out, prosecuting, and punishing crime. Officials of the rule of law are called “ministers of righteousness, whose end shall be according to their works.”1 4 (I take this to mean “Good works, good end; bad works, bad end.”) As might be expected of a ministry appointed to Cain, who Scripture tells us was “of that wicked one,”1 3 the ministration of condemnation – the rule of law – belongs to Satan. It is a shocking thing to realize that, according to Scripture, world law is Satan’s province. But surprisingly, Scripture also teaches that a certain degree of cordiality exists between God and Satan.

We learn from the book of Job that Satan is welcome in God’s heavenly throne room,¹⁶ even though he has led a rebellion in Heaven for which one third of the angelic population were cast out.¹⁷ His business consists of “going to and fro in the earth, walking up and down in it.”¹⁸ Since he is an angel, and therefore incapable of a bodily existence, Satan can only affect human affairs by (i) providing spiritual direction to human beings who consent to him as “the god of this world,”¹⁹ and (2) manipulating the forces of nature as “prince of the power of the air.”²⁰ To secure popular consent to his spiritual direction, he employs his supernatural abilities to make himself irresistibly attractive. He’s an angel of light,²¹ the author of the humanist extravaganza – pomp and circumstance, breathtaking visual experience, disorienting emotionalism, architecture that overwhelms. He means to convince us (1) that he wields the power of God Almighty on earth, and (2) that we are therefore bound to follow his moral guidance.²² Jesus Christ agreed with the first proposition (and in so doing affirmed, in my opinion, the covenant between God and Cain), but admonished Satan that only the written word of God is fit to guide mankind and Trickster alike.²³ Quite apart from its infallible moral guidance, the written word of God appears to be the only truthful disclosure of Satan’s origin, scope, and purpose. Its potential for damaging his appeal is why the highest rulers of law have traditionally prohibited, or at least not diligently encouraged, Bible reading. THE earliest Christians well understood Rome’s indispensable satanic role in human affairs. In the legal process which Christ established for members of his Church, the harshest sentence an offender could receive was abandonment to Caesarean authority:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.²⁴

Writing about “Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme,”2 5 the apostle Paul was not talking about committing unruly churchmen to some satanic cult. Nor did he mean by the following counsel that the church at Corinth should engage in demonic incantations:

When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.²⁶

In both cases, Paul was heeding Christ’s commandment concerning brethren who rejected both the glorious gospel and the rule of law: turn them over to the Caesarean criminal justice system for their own good and for the good of the church. Thus, the earliest Christians were keenly aware that Rome’s purpose, as the spiritual heir of Cain and the incarnation of the satanic spirit, was (1) to teach the people of God not to blaspheme, (2) to destroy the sinful nature, thereby (3) to save man’s spirit from eternal damnation on judgment day. This violent good-working spirit is characterized at Psalm 2:9 and again at Revelation 2:27 as a “rod of iron” with which Christ rules nations and dashes them to pieces. The Judaean political leaders, anticipating a Messiah who would overthrow Caesar, didn’t understand that Rome was Christ’s rod of iron. Because He would not dash Rome to pieces, they declared Him an impostor, demanded His crucifixion, and gloated when He failed to come off the cross. They could not fathom His consenting to suffer under the violent justice of His own rod. Nor could they foresee that He would use this same rod on September 8, 70 AD in the person of the Roman general Vespasianus Titus, who captured their rebellious city, Jerusalem, and dashed it to pieces.

Paul, whom his non-believing Israelite brethren continually mugged, persecuted, jailed, tortured, and hounded throughout his Mediterranean and Aegean ministry, understood the rod of iron. It was in his letter to the Romans that we find perhaps the most eloquent statement on the New World Order ever written (I cite from the New International Version):

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist [“powers that be” in the King James Version] have been established by God.

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.

Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.²⁷

Since the epoch of Emperor Constantine, the Roman papacy has fostered the concept that the ruler who terrorizes wrongdoers is necessarily a Christian. Pope Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome who supposedly converted Constantine to Christianity, saw nothing strange in a warrior coming to faith in a crucified Christ by slaughtering his enemies.”2 8 This thinking pervaded Sylvester’s successors, as well as the Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, European nationalism, the American Revolution, the War of Southern Secession, and the wars of the twentieth century. Indeed, perhaps the black papacy’s most admirable psychological conquest is that Protestants generally agree that armed rulership is an authority instituted by God for Christians to exercise. Since there is no scriptural authority for a member of the Body of Christ to bear any kind of armament whatsoever other than the figurative weaponry of God’s Word, agreeing to such a principle signifies prima facie adherence to the moral guidance of him who bears the power of Almighty God on earth, the person who legitimately bears the mark of Cain in a long succession begun with Peter. Yes, the popes can truthfully declare that “Peter” is their foundation by holding in mental reservation that the Hebrew DJr, pronounced “payter,” means… firstling,²⁹ which of course is Cain’s primary attribute as firstborn of Eve.

Supporters of the argument favoring lethal-force Christian rulership usually stand on a single scriptural passage. It’s that verse in Luke 22 wherein, as the betrayal nears, Christ admonishes his disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”³⁰ I have often heard Christian militiamen (some of whom I am not ashamed to call my friends) use this to justify arming themselves against the minions of unjust rulers. But Jesus explained otherwise in the very next verse: “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’ [see Isaiah 53:12]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.” In order to fulfill prophecy, Christ had to be numbered among lawbreakers, which bearing swords would certainly make of the disciples of any true Prince of Peace. As soon as the disciples produced two swords – the minimum number constituting the plural “transgressors” – prophecy was fulfilled. Christ then told them “It is enough.” From then on, no more cloaks were sold, no more swords bought.

ROMAN Christianity’s success at avenging evil has resulted in a world that severely mistrusts the Christian gospel. It’s to Rome’s advantage that the Christian gospel be mistrusted, for any soul that mistrusts Christ is Rome’s lawful prey. It’s to Rome’s advantage that governing bodies be rebelled against as tyrannical, for rebellion against tyrants is disobedience to the glorious gospel. Much as I despaired over the vicious taking of innocent life in the Waco massacre, I had no choice but to see it as a rather standard Church-Militant inquisitorial procedure against perceived rebelliousness. ATF Special Agent Davy Aguilera’s affidavit,³¹ which resulted in the warrant under which governing bodies invaded the Davidian compound, dutifully listed the scriptural errors of David Koresh. According to the affidavit, Vernon Howell adopted the name David Koresh because he “believed that the name helped designate him as the messiah or the anointed one of God” (p2). Yet one group member stated that Koresh’s teaching “did not always coincide with the Bible” (p11). This allegation is supported by Aguilera’s finding that the “anointed one of God” and his followers had spent at least $44,000 on guns and explosives during 1992 alone, including hand grenades and rifle grenades, gunpowder and potassium nitrate (p6). Where in Scripture are the anointed ones of Christ told to stock up on destructive weaponry? According to Aguilera’s inquisition, “David Koresh stated that the Bible gave him the right to bear arms” (p15). Where in the glorious gospel is an anointed one of God given the right to bear arms? Koresh prophesied the immanent end of the world, “that it would be a ‘military type operation’ and that all the ‘non-believers’ would have to suffer” (p9). Where in Scripture are Christians commanded to make war against non-believers?

From the Inquisition’s standpoint, the Davidians paid lip-service to Jesus Christ but demonstrated a substantive infidelity to Him by infringing upon the ancient Cain franchise – the mark – which flows through the United States government from the black papacy. Against Christ’s commandment, even while professing scriptural knowledge, the Davidians chose to brandish deadly weapons – weapons that Cain could envision pointed at himself someday. How could any mark-bearing ruler resist mobilizing sevenfold vengeance in self-defense? How could Cain resist holding these professed Christians responsible under Christ’s warning at Revelation 13:10: “He that killeth by the sword must be killed by the sword”? Is it any wonder that government regards memories of Waco as little more than annoyances to be stonewalled?

YET one can live intelligently, freely, and safely in a World legitimately governed by the Trickster. The secret is revealed in the resource which the Trickster has labored so tirelessly to marginalize: the Holy Bible. I cite again that remarkable verse in Habakkuk (2:4), in which God tells us that although governing bodies have the wrong desires, we can live safely in their faith that God will not punish them for annihilating their mortal enemies.

Scripture reduces all human interaction to two great ministries: the ministry of Condemnation”3 2 and the ministry of Reconciliation. ³³ Condemnation is the rulership of evil by law; it judges and does justice. Since its subject is the criminal mind (“the strength of the law is sin”), Condemnation requires the brilliance of the firstling, Cain, along with the deviousness of Jesuitry and Sun-Tzu. Condemnation enforces its authority with deadly force – it “does not bear the sword for nothing.”

The ministry of Reconciliation teaches and administers the glorious gospel of Christ. Reconciliation does not judge executably or do justice. Rather, it judges spiritually, it loves, nurtures, suffers patiently, forgives, and rejoices in the truth. Reconciliation never fails because its strength is not sin but the power of God.

The ministry of Condemnation operates “out from the presence of the Lord.” Its only proof of divine association is an inert substance, a seal, a pallium, a miter, a collar, a badge, the mark of Cain, the insignia of its authority to terrorize evildoers. The ministry of Reconciliation is directly animated by the Lord operating within. It proves divine association by everything it does: its mere existence is its seal.

There are exceptions, of course: Condemnors who Reconcile and Reconcilers who Condemn. Many loving Roman Catholic priests dedicate their lives to a form of reconciliation, Confession and Absolution. But aren’t these sacraments really a process of Condemnation in which the confessant pleads guilty and is sentenced on the spot by the priestly judge to certain penitential acts which pardon the guilt? Reconciliation according to Scripture forgives the sin free of charge and directs the confessant’s energies not to punishments but toward a repentant, constructive life within the mind of Christ. I suspect there are lots of Catholic priests who do true Reconciliation, even though it’s technically heretical. My elderly British Jesuit friend stationed at the Gesu was a Reconciler of sorts: he took confession every weekday afternoon by the clock in Italian, a language he didn’t understand.

My father was a good lawyer who denied himself many a handsome legal fee by trying to reconcile marriages out of divorce court. He was a minister of Condemnation by trade, yet the word of God written on his heart made a Reconciler out of him almost in spite of himself. This, I believe, is what Scripture calls “every knee bow[ing] at the name of Jesus Christ, in heaven and on earth, and under the earth.”³⁴ It’s proof of the great power of Reconciliation that the World highly esteems Condemnors who Reconcile, Condemnors for whom the name of Jesus Christ may not be important or even credible. (My private opinion is that many who find Christ uninteresting have been sold an inferior gospel by hypocritical preaching. I tend to agree with G.K. Chesterton’s remark, “It’s not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, but that it’s hardly been tried at all.”)

Despite crossovers, Condemnation and Reconciliation work together as opposites, like male and female, sea and land, night and day, yin and yang. Condemnation punishes us for alienating God; Reconciliation lovingly brings us together with God. Condemnation cannot bring us to God, but it can drive us to Him. Reconciliation cannot punish us for alienating God, but it can release us to Condemnation, which walks to and fro in search of corrupt Reconcilers to persecute along with the usual suspects. Release is a conciliatory operation. The spiritual judgments of Reconciliation are executed in release, while the natural judgments of Condemnation are executed by the opposite of release: restriction – restriction of body, comfort, freedom, property, options, life.

Restriction is the flexure of Condemnation’s muscle, and this is good for Reconciliation. It provides God a captive audience. I saw it in a dozen jail cells in Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, Mississippi, and California. Condemnation can so restrict that its subject cries out for Reconciliation. In jail, God is not a philosophical proposition to be deliberated at leisure. He’s a vivid benefit grasped as though He were a key to the jailhouse lock. I have seen it so often, under so many circumstances, that I have to regard it as a principle: The More Restriction, the Closer to God.³⁵ So even though the ministry of Condemnation is directed by Satan to do justice among evildoers (and what could be more just than for Satan to rule evil?), the ultimate beneficiary is He who ordained the whole system in the first place.

For, just as Paul says, Satan is an angel of light and his ministers are ministers of righteousness whose end shall be according to their works. Scripture is a catalog of satanic ministers who were absolutely necessary for Christ to perform His finished work: the Serpent, Cain and Enoch, Ham, Nimrod, Esau, Pharaoh, the Amalekites, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Ahasueras, Haman, Judas, and many, many others. Some were deplorably wicked, other surprisingly moral – it was Judas’ sense of guilt that drove him to suicide. The Jesuit priest who inaugurated my prosecution on the Feast Day of St. Ignatius was a satanic minister, and he was absolutely necessary for my maturity as a Christian. He sent me on a fifteen-year journey that has brought me to this page.

ONCE I understood the two ministries, hard questions answered themselves. What can a responsible citizen do to restore moral, fair, constitutional government? First, realize that no judgment that government is immoral, unfair, or unconstitutional can be executed unless by an authorized person. Only Condemnation has authority to alter government’s patterns of conduct. To change government by conventional means, I must become a Condemnor. (Can anyone name a true Reconciler who is great in the World?) To gain influence among Condemnors, I must master the arts of Sun-Tzu and the Trickster. Little good this will do, for as my investigation has tended to show, always the preponderance of Condemnation’s resources go into keeping the system evil. If I build forces capable of meaningfully altering the system, the masters will terminate me because they are authorized by God to avenge sevenfold those who would slay Cain. In short, the potential for improvement within the system of Condemnation appears to be limited to cyclical periods of pretty good times, pretty bad times. Isn’t this obvious from history and the news?

Of course, God could change government by a simple miracle, and Revelation says He will, on the “last day,” the fearful day of cosmic shakedown when unrepentant evildoers will burn with their beast and only the perfect will remain. Scripture is silent as to when that day will come. In the meantime, Reconcilers are told that improving human rulership is their responsibility. Not by taking control of the system, and not by sealing themselves off in well-fortified communes, either. Reconcilers improve the system by making themselves… available. Reconcilers are attractive to Condemnation because they don’t judge or attempt to do justice. They don’t put down, attach blame, or pin guilt. Consequently, Reconcilers are not perceived as a threat. They are wise as serpents and harmless as doves.³⁶

This is not to say that Reconcilers condone evil. Their posture toward sin is this: People know right from wrong. People don’t need to be told they’re sinful. People know. God’s law written on their hearts continually reminds them. What the World needs is the friendship of someone who is God-minded (if not well-versed in the Word of God), someone confident in the Love of God who can patiently and non-judgmentally hold the most evil of souls in friendship while helping it work through repentance to healthier values at its own pace.

Many years in Condemnation have driven me into the ministry of Reconciliation, and the heart of Reconciliation is love. I now appreciate the simple wisdom in Felix Mendelssohn’s question, “Why should any man offend the people in power?” Offending people in power – offending anyone – is no longer attractive to me. I do good, or at least try to with our Lord’s help. The most reliable instruction I’ve yet found for this purpose is the Bible with its glorious gospel, and the Bible tells me that if I do good (not good as I see it, but good as the gospel defines it: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind; love your neighbor as yourself), the rulers of evil will commend me.

And so I freely subject myself to Condemnation for examination of my conscience. Who knows? I might just interest the examiner in the joys of Reconciliation. Taxes? I continue to pay every tax for which I am liable, and none for which I’m not.

Finally, I anticipate that some may disagree with certain of the conclusions in this and other chapters. I welcome disagreement. Disagreement is the mother of this book. Nobody is paying me to market any particular doctrine. I’m not the kind of person who has to be right. I let the evidence lead me. The evidence shaped my conclusions. The evidence wrote this book. To anyone who knows of countervailing evidence, evidence that might point me in a different direction, this is my request to see it. I’m not above repenting again, nor would I shrink from printing retractions. I want Reconciliation, and I want Truth.

If St. Francis Xavier can say “I would not even believe in the Gospels were the Holy Church to forbid it,” with no less commitment I can say that I would not believe even the Bible were Truth to forbid it.

(NOTE from the webmaster: I certainly don’t agree with the last paragraph! I can hardly believe Tupper Saussy would write that! The statement is totally illogical for a Christian to say. I can understand why Francis Xavier would say what he said because as a Catholic he values what the Pope and his church has to say more than what the Bible has to say. But for Christian to say he would not believe the Bible if the truth were to forbid it makes no sense because our ONLY source of truth in this evil world IS the Bible!!!)

THE END!

To read the notes, please see the PDF file.