Lee Forman Posted October 22, 2006 Author Share Posted October 22, 2006 I don't think Lee or anyone else stated that powerful groups or networks are trying to 'take over the world'. That's an overdramatisation by you. However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests.You are entitled to dismiss it all as crap and say so. I'm entitled to disagree with your observation and I do. There was a time when any suggestion of a conspiracy involving JFK's death was regarded as crap. However, it's now become obvious that a 'powerful group or network' conspired to murder him and succeeded in bluffing the public into believing a story which is patently ridiculous. The mainstream media participated in constructing an 'official history' which they knew was false. Despite the fact that most unbiased observers now realise this, the media continues this charade. This is due to the infloence of 'powerful groups or networks', don't you think? Hi Mark - I agree with your summation. There is a sidenote here, somewhat humorous - no one bothered to comment on the real subject of the thread, which was Kissinger. This was simply a series of Google searches using a keyword, followed by 'Kissinger.' I have a book which someone sent, entitled, 'Henry Kissinger, Soviet Agent.' So far, unfortunately, there hasn't been much worth mentioning here, with the bit I have read. The fact that Kissinger is linked to several of these groups [some clearly is questionable, some is not] is interesting. The internet doesn't seem to view him in a very favorable light, to be sure. I recall having been in a meeting at an upscale hotel in Short Hills. The place was crawling with security, including a K9 unit. One entire floor was sealed off. Ford and Kissinger were there for an American Express Board meeting. http://www.thecorporatelibrary.com/special...ses/cs_axp.html I remember once an oldtime drew an org chart for me. He had a bucnh of smiley faces, and the typical lines denoting a hierarchy and the reporting relationship going up. He said, "Okay, what do you see?" Well, I saw just what I said. He added - "They all look alike - and they're all buddies." - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 Hi Lee, lol--yes, it's a sad fact that these corporate round tables require such high security measures in order to protect the participants from their growing band of admirers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 (edited) I don't think Lee or anyone else stated that powerful groups or networks are trying to 'take over the world'. That's an overdramatisation by you. Actually Jack and JL Allen did and John Gillespie seemed to endorse the idea. That was definitely the drift of Lee's 1st few posts which I guess I missed were meant a bit tongue in cheek but I already acknowledged that. However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests. But I have yet to see any evidence that they actually do influence government policy anywhere. Right or wrong government leaders have the right to seek the council of those who they see fit. The problem is when these "powerful groups or networks" actually unduly influence policy. There are enough actual cases where this is well documented, such as the excellent film "Iraq for Sale". I know little about the real story of 9/11 other than what I've read here on the Forum. However, judging by that I would guess that you are in for a tough battle trying to dissuade researchers from delving into it. You state, somewhat arrogantly, that you would prefer researchers to concentrate on the issues which you feel are important, but what you feel is important may not be the same as what others feel is important. Can't you see that branding those researchers as purveyors of '9/11 revisionism' only serves to place you in the camp of those who strive to jealously preserve 'official history'. No my I seriously doubt my use of the term will stymie debate on the issue, would that I were so influential. I believe in free speech to the extent that I supported the right of Nazis to march trough a city largely populated by Holocaust survivors but I still think the 9/11 crap is counter productive and in most cases quite baseless. My intent in using the phrase is to show my contempt for those who twist and make up facts to fit their preordained theory which like creation "scientists" and Holocaust "revisionists" has no backing from qualified experts. Strange when others on this forum tried to marginalize me by suggesting I'm some sort of government agent you were silent as you were when Sid accused Peter of posting an article about the Anthrax attacks he (Sid) didn't agree with because he (Peter) is Jewish and thus was presumably covering for Israel (despite being outspokenly anti-Israel) smacks of a double standard to me. Ironically Kevin Barrett, one of the most well known 9/11 revisionists, uses the phrase (damn and I though I had coined it): "Gravois repeats insulting term "conspiracy theorist" six times in his article. Labeling people with an insulting term that they themselves strongly reject is problematic to say the least… A responsible journalist would either refer to the group using its own term for itself, or attempt to find a neutral term, such as "9/11 revisionists." " http://www.mujca.com/chronicle.htm "Paul Zarembka writes to raise the issue of a possible academic conference on 9/11 revisionism next September 11th...stay tuned to MUJCA for details." http://www.mujca.com/brave3.htm See also - http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-32%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=revisionist+site%3Awww.mujca.com As does Justin Raimondo another well know 9/11 revisionist http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6923 As do Holocaust revisionists http://www.barnesreview.org/Newsletter/TBR_June_2006_Newsletter.pdf Mark: "p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid."me: I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy's posts and to a lesser extent Jack's, Peter's Sid's and other people's posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I'm abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them. Mark: You've actually gone back and counted? Len, you've got to get out more and watch some of those crappy bands. As for the rest of the paragraph, I'm amazed that someone could be so anally retentive---but in your case, I'm not surprised. Yeah I did a search for all of my posts containing the word 'straw' and then used IE's "Find (on this page)" function the whole procedure only took or minute or two and a few dozen mouse clicks / key strokes. Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged. I leveled the charge that someone was making a straw man in less than 3% of my posts, not excessive if you consider how often people like you use them. I've already suggested a way you could prove your point if it was valid, find cases where I used the phrase inappropriately. How is asking you to prove you point being anal? In any case which is worse being "retentive" or being "full of it"? It's kind of hard to believe that the people who take this kind of crap seriously can actually be functioning human beings. Worse is that some of them like Lee Forman cite racist web sites as sources. He like Jack and John are in violation of the forum rule requiring members to link their bios at the bottom of their posts. No longer in violation on one count anyway. I will most likely continue to be in fault on the 'racist' part for website sources. In 1963 the US had issues with racism, no way in getting away from that. - lee The events the link referred to took place in 2001 Edited October 22, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted October 22, 2006 Share Posted October 22, 2006 I don't think Lee or anyone else stated that powerful groups or networks are trying to 'take over the world'. That's an overdramatisation by you. Actually Jack and JL Allen did and John Gillespie seemed to endorse the idea. That was definitely the drift of Lee's 1st few posts which I guess I missed were meant a bit tongue in cheek but I already acknowledged that. However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests. But I have yet to see any evidence that they actually do influence government policy anywhere. Right or wrong government leaders have the right to seek the council of those who they see fit. The problem is when these "powerful groups or networks" actually unduly influence policy. There are enough actual cases where this is well documented, such as the excellent film "Iraq for Sale". Truly one of your most bizarre statements. You start by stating that you've yet to see evidence that they actually do influence Government policy anywhere, and conclude by stating the opposite--that there are enough actual cases where this is well documented. And you even put some gibberish in the middle! One of your best. I know little about the real story of 9/11 other than what I've read here on the Forum. However, judging by that I would guess that you are in for a tough battle trying to dissuade researchers from delving into it. You state, somewhat arrogantly, that you would prefer researchers to concentrate on the issues which you feel are important, but what you feel is important may not be the same as what others feel is important. Can't you see that branding those researchers as purveyors of '9/11 revisionism' only serves to place you in the camp of those who strive to jealously preserve 'official history'. No my I seriously doubt my use of the term will stymie debate on the issue, would that I were so influential. I believe in free speech to the extent that I supported the right of Nazis to march trough a city largely populated by Holocaust survivors but I still think the 9/11 crap is counter productive and in most cases quite baseless. My intent in using the phrase is to show my contempt for those who twist and make up facts to fit their preordained theory which like creation "scientists" and Holocaust "revisionists" has no backing from qualified experts. Strange when others on this forum tried to marginalize me by suggesting I'm some sort of government agent you were silent as you were when Sid accused Peter of posting an article about the Anthrax attacks he (Sid) didn't agree with because he (Peter) is Jewish and thus was presumably covering for Israel (despite being outspokenly anti-Israel) smacks of a double standard to me. Ironically Kevin Barrett, one of the most well known 9/11 revisionists, uses the phrase (damn and I though I had coined it): [/color] "Gravois repeats insulting term "conspiracy theorist" six times in his article. Labeling people with an insulting term that they themselves strongly reject is problematic to say the least… A responsible journalist would either refer to the group using its own term for itself, or attempt to find a neutral term, such as "9/11 revisionists." " http://www.mujca.com/chronicle.htm "Paul Zarembka writes to raise the issue of a possible academic conference on 9/11 revisionism next September 11th...stay tuned to MUJCA for details." http://www.mujca.com/brave3.htm See also - http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG%2CGGLG%3A2005-32%2CGGLG%3Aen&q=revisionist+site%3Awww.mujca.com As does Justin Raimondo another well know 9/11 revisionist http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6923 As do Holocaust revisionists http://www.barnesreview.org/Newsletter/TBR_June_2006_Newsletter.pdf Mark: "p,s the 'strawman' defence is invalid."me: I used that phrase about 30 times (out of over 1000 posts) especially in response to your and David Healy's posts and to a lesser extent Jack's, Peter's Sid's and other people's posts because the five of you have a tendency to ascribe to others arguments they never made. If you want to show that I'm abusing the phrase do a search for the instances when I used it and show it was inappropriate. To do this you will have to show that I or the person in question actually made the point or argument ascribed to me or them, good luck. Once you stop making straw man arguments I will stop accusing you of making them. Mark: You've actually gone back and counted? Len, you've got to get out more and watch some of those crappy bands. As for the rest of the paragraph, I'm amazed that someone could be so anally retentive---but in your case, I'm not surprised. Yeah I did a search for all of my posts containing the word 'straw' and then used IE's "Find (on this page)" function the whole procedure only took or minute or two and a few dozen mouse clicks / key strokes. Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged. Not really. You managed it OK. I leveled the charge that someone was making a straw man in less than 3% of my posts, not excessive if you consider how often people like you use them. I've already suggested a way you could prove your point if it was valid, find cases where I used the phrase inappropriately. How is asking you to prove you point being anal? In any case which is worse being "retentive" or being "full of it"? It's kind of hard to believe that the people who take this kind of crap seriously can actually be functioning human beings. Worse is that some of them like Lee Forman cite racist web sites as sources. He like Jack and John are in violation of the forum rule requiring members to link their bios at the bottom of their posts. No longer in violation on one count anyway. I will most likely continue to be in fault on the 'racist' part for website sources. In 1963 the US had issues with racism, no way in getting away from that. - lee The events the link referred to took place in 2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 What I would like to understand is the relationship of 'secret societies,' Intelligence, and the Kennedy Assassination. That's all. I believe there is something there - and I don't believe I'm in any way the first to remark upon it. I am hoping to take a closer look at the Vatican and it's relationship with US, German and UK intelligence in the period before, during and after the war, and leading up to the assassination. If there really is a covert organization within the Roman Catholic church, which carries out orders under the Jesuits - THAT would be very interesting - particularly when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. There are several organizations and religious associations that should simply be detailed someplace as well, in order to figure out their possible relationships. Jesuits, Unitarians, Quakers, Abundant Life, Knights of Malta, Shinkshinny Knights, the Brotherhood, YAF, ACCC, YMCA, the Old Catholic Church, etc. I noted by reviewing the index that there is no thread on the Federal Reserve theory also. That needs to be remedied as well. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. lee This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. lee This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? ! It's not clear to me what my background has to do with this. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. lee This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? There is considerable information that the Jesuits have some involvement. Researcher Greg Burnham is a specialist on this. Is it just coincidence that the leading website on JFK is sponsored by a Jesuit university? Most of the content supports the official story. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 [This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? ! It's not clear to me what my background has to do with this. - lee Well Your theory sounds distinctly anti-Catholic. Since there is no evidence that I know of that there was a Catholic plot to murder America''s only Catholic President, I can't help wondering if you have a background as an English Protestant. It is a matter of historical record that English Protestants have hated and persecuted the Irish since the days of Henry the Eighth. I could write a whole book, if I had time, of the number of Irish political leaders assassinated by the British duriing the last few hundred years. The assassination of JFK seems to fit fairly into that pattern, and it is no secret that the CIA learned the tecniques of assassination from the centuries of experience developed by their British Cousins but thanks to Bill Clinton those days are ending. For what its worth, my guess is that almost everyone involved in the JFK ASSASSINATION had a background as an English Protestant, which explains why they were selected as candidates in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 23, 2006 Share Posted October 23, 2006 (edited) However, the existence of powerful groups or networks seeking to influence Governments worldwide could be denied by only the most naive among us, IMO. When the Bilderbergs meet, they would hardly be discussing the latest sporting results, IMO. The fact that this all takes place beyond the reach of public scrutiny only adds to the suspicion. Some may call it a conspiracy, others might simply say that this is how the system works, but 'powerful group or networks' do influence Governments and media to act in their interests. But I have yet to see any evidence that they actually do influence government policy anywhere. Right or wrong government leaders have the right to seek the council of those who they see fit. The problem is when these "powerful groups or networks" actually unduly influence policy. There are enough actual cases where this is well documented, such as the excellent film "Iraq for Sale". Truly one of your most bizarre statements. You start by stating that you've yet to see evidence that they actually do influence Government policy anywhere, and conclude by stating the opposite--that there are enough actual cases where this is well documented. And you even put some gibberish in the middle! One of your best. By 'they' I meant specifically "the Bilderbergs", I though that was clear. Yeah I did a search for all of my posts containing the word 'straw' and then used IE's "Find (on this page)" function the whole procedure only took or minute or two and a few dozen mouse clicks / key strokes. Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for the intellectually challenged. Not really. You managed it OK. You're the one who seemed to think counting the times I accused someone of using a straw man a difficult task, I'll rephrase "Simple, easy and quick but I imagine it could be a complicated, difficult and time consuming task for someone like you." There is considerable information that the Jesuits have some involvement.Researcher Greg Burnham is a specialist on this. Is it just coincidence that the leading website on JFK is sponsored by a Jesuit university? Most of the content supports the official story. Jack I want to Jack to tell us what groups he doesn'tthink were involved it seems like half the world was.Ironic that he of all people would call McAdams site "the leading website on JFK ", I have seen no evidence that Marquette itself is in anyway involved in running the site. They are its host because he is a faculty member there. Perhaps Jack should start a thread speeling out the evidence for Jesuit involvement, jack's standards for what constitues "evidence" are quite low. "Greg Burnham is a specialist on this" 0 google hiys LOL!!! http://www.google.com/search?num=20&hl...amp;btnG=Search Edited October 23, 2006 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted October 23, 2006 Author Share Posted October 23, 2006 [This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? ! It's not clear to me what my background has to do with this. - lee Well Your theory sounds distinctly anti-Catholic. Since there is no evidence that I know of that there was a Catholic plot to murder America''s only Catholic President, I can't help wondering if you have a background as an English Protestant. It is a matter of historical record that English Protestants have hated and persecuted the Irish since the days of Henry the Eighth. I could write a whole book, if I had time, of the number of Irish political leaders assassinated by the British duriing the last few hundred years. The assassination of JFK seems to fit fairly into that pattern, and it is no secret that the CIA learned the tecniques of assassination from the centuries of experience developed by their British Cousins but thanks to Bill Clinton those days are ending. For what its worth, my guess is that almost everyone involved in the JFK ASSASSINATION had a background as an English Protestant, which explains why they were selected as candidates in the first place. Sorry to disappoint J. - it's not a 'theory.' It relates to an large number of individuals considered suspicious or connected in some way [Jack Martin, Earl James, Fred Crisman, David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Kerry Thornley, etc], and their odd connections. I hear what you are saying, but I don't see the 'Protestants' as any unified group - certainly not from a financial perspective. The Vatican was probably the biggest business in the world in 1963 - other than the Federal Reserve? I could be wrong on that. On the Jesuits - I'll continue on the other thread. - lee BTW - Not Protestant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Sorry to disappoint J. - it's not a 'theory.' It relates to an large number of individuals considered suspicious or connected in some way [Jack Martin, Earl James, Fred Crisman, David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Kerry Thornley, etc], and their odd connections. I hear what you are saying, but I don't see the 'Protestants' as any unified group - certainly not from a financial perspective. The Vatican was probably the biggest business in the world in 1963 - other than the Federal Reserve? I could be wrong on that. I'd like to see you document the Jesuit ties of the people you cited. John Simkin doesn't make mention of them.http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...olnet%2eco%2euk That and backing for your belief that "The Vatican was probably the biggest business in the world in 1963 - other than the Federal Reserve?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 Sorry to disappoint J. - it's not a 'theory.' It relates to an large number of individuals considered suspicious or connected in some way [Jack Martin, Earl James, Fred Crisman, David Ferrie, Thomas Beckham, Kerry Thornley, etc], and their odd connections. I hear what you are saying, but I don't see the 'Protestants' as any unified group - certainly not from a financial perspective. The Vatican was probably the biggest business in the world in 1963 - other than the Federal Reserve? I could be wrong on that. I'd like to see you document the Jesuit ties of the people you cited. John Simkin doesn't make mention of them.http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navc...olnet%2eco%2euk That and backing for your belief that "The Vatican was probably the biggest business in the world in 1963 - other than the Federal Reserve?" Len, I don't recall having said that the folks I named were Jesuits? I said that I was interested in creating a thread which detailed some of the Jesuit ties to the assassination. The invididuals I named have already been covered under separate cover in the thread that I just created. I haven't even started getting to the Jesuits stuff yet. http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=7818 I don't believe that the task of determining the net worth of the Vatican is possible - is that your point? That there aren't any documents? Anyway - it's been great chatting with you. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted October 24, 2006 Author Share Posted October 24, 2006 when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. lee This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? There is considerable information that the Jesuits have some involvement. Researcher Greg Burnham is a specialist on this. Is it just coincidence that the leading website on JFK is sponsored by a Jesuit university? Most of the content supports the official story. Jack Thanks Jack - I will look to contact Greg - I am interested in comparing notes. - lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 when we look at the many Jesuit ties to the assassination. But I don't know that this is enough, or all of it anyway. Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first. lee This sounds like a brilliant idea. The Jesuits decided to murder America's only Catholic President. "Separate post on the ties of the Jesuits to follow sometime in the future, unless someone else cares to launch it first." Am I correct in assuming that your background is English Protestant? There is considerable information that the Jesuits have some involvement. Researcher Greg Burnham is a specialist on this. Is it just coincidence that the leading website on JFK is sponsored by a Jesuit university? Most of the content supports the official story. Jack Thanks Jack - I will look to contact Greg - I am interested in comparing notes. - lee The Jesuit order was in charge of the Church's INQUISITION against the protestant movement: QUOTE: The house so called immediately adjoins the Imperial Castle, which from its lofty site looks down on the city, whose Gothic towers, sculptured fronts, and curiously ornamented gables are seen covering both banks of the Pegnitz, which rolls below. The house may have been the guard-room of the castle. It derives its name, the Torture-chamber, not from the fact that the torture was here inflicted, but because into this one chamber has been collected a complete set of the instruments of torture gleaned from the various Inquisitions that formerly existed in Bavaria. A glance suffices to show the whole dreadful apparatus by which the adherents of Rome sought to maintain her dogmas. Placed next to the door, and greeting the sight as one enters, is a collection of hideous masks. These represent creatures monstrous of shape, and malignant and fiendish of nature, It is in beholding them that we begin to perceive how subtle was the genius that devised this system of coercion, and that it took the mind as well as the body of the victim into account. In gazing on them, one feels as if he had suddenly come into polluting and debasing society, and had sunk to the same moral level with the creatures here figured before him. He suffers a conscious abatement of dignity and fortitude. The persecutor had calculated, doubtless, that the effect produced upon the mind of his victim by these dreaded apparitions, would be that he would become morally relaxed, and less able to sustain his cause. Unless of strong mind, indeed, the unfortunate prisoner, on entering such a place, and seeing himself encompassed with such unearthly and hideous shapes, must have felt as if he were the vile heretic which the persecutor styled him, and as if already the infernal den had opened its portals, and sent forth its venomous swarms to bid him welcome. Yourself accursed, with accursed beings are you henceforth to dwell—such was the silent language of these abhorred images. We pass on into the chamber, where more dreadful sights meet our gaze. It is hung round and round with instruments of torture, so numerous that it would take a long while even to name them, and so diverse that it would take a much longer time to describe them. We must take them in groups, for it were hopeless to think of going over them one by one, and particularising the mode in which each operated, and the ingenuity and art with which all of them have been adapted to their horrible end. There were instruments for compressing the fingers till the bones should be squeezed to splinters. There were instruments for probing below the finger-nails till an exquisite pain, like a burning fire, would run along the nerves. There were instruments for tearing out the tongue, for scooping out the eyes, for grubbing-up the ears. There were bunches of iron cords, with a spiked circle at the end of every whip, for tearing the flesh from the back till bone and sinew were laid bare. There were iron cases for the legs, which were tightened upon the limb placed in them by means of a screw, till flesh and bone were reduced to a jelly. There were cradles set full of sharp spikes, in which victims were laid and rolled from side to side, the wretched occupant being pierced at each movement of the machine with innumerable sharp points. There were iron ladles with long handles, for holding molten lead or boiling pitch, to be poured down the throat of the victim, and convert his body into a burning cauldron. There were frames with holes to admit the hands and feet, so contrived that the person put into them had his body bent into unnatural and painful positions, and the agony grew greater and greater by moments, and yet the man did not die. There were chestfuls of small but most ingeniously constructed instruments for pinching, probing, or tearing the more sensitive parts of the body, and continuing the pain up to the very verge where reason or life gives way. On the floor and walls of the apartment were other and larger instruments for the same fearful end—lacerating, mangling, and agonizing living men; but these we shall meet in other dungeons we are yet to visit. The first impression on entering the chamber was one of bewildering horror; a confused procession of mangled, mutilated, agonising men, speechless in their great woe, the flesh peeled from off their livid sinews, the sockets where eyes had been, hollow and empty, seemed to pass before one. The most dreadful scenes which the great genius of Dante has imagined, appeared tame in comparison with the spectral groups which this chamber summoned up. The first impulse was to escape, lest images of pain, memories of tormented men, who were made to die a hundred deaths in one, should take hold of one’s mind, never again to be effaced from it. The things we have been surveying are not the mere models of the instruments made use of in the Holy Office; they are the veritable instruments themselves. We see before us the actual implements by which hundreds and thousands of men and women, many of them saints and confessors of the Lord Jesus, were torn, and mangled, and slain. These terrible realities the men of the sixteenth century had to face and endure, or renounce the hope of the life eternal. Painful they were to flesh and blood—nay, not even endurable by flesh and blood unless sustained by the Spirit of the mighty God. We leave the Torture-chamber to visit the Inquisition proper. We go eastward, about half a mile, keeping close to the northern wall of the city, till we come to an old tower, styled in the common parlance of Nuremberg the Max Tower. We pull the bell, the iron handle and chain of which are seen suspended beside the door-post. The cicerone appears, carrying a bunch of keys, a lantern, and some half-dozen candles. The lantern is to show us our way, and the candles are for the purpose of being lighted and stuck up at the turnings in the dark underground passages which we are about to traverse. Should mischance befall our lantern, these tapers, like beacon-lights in a narrow creek, will pilot us safely back into the day. The cicerone, selecting the largest from the bunch of keys, inserts it in the lock of the massy portal before which we stand, bolt after bolt is turned, and the door, with hoarse heavy groan as it turns on its hinge, opens slowly to us. We begin to descend. We go down one flight of steps; we go down a second flight; we descend yet a third. And now we pause a moment. The darkness is intense, for here never came the faintest glimmer of day; but a gleam thrown forward from the lantern showed us that we were arrived at the entrance of a horizontal, narrow passage. We could see, by the flickering of the light upon its sides and roof, that the corridor we were traversing was hewn out of the rock. We had gone only a few paces when we were brought up before a massy door. As far as the dim light served us, we could see the door, old, powdery with dust, and partly worm-eaten. Passing in, the corridor continued, and we went forward other three paces or so, when we found ourselves before a second door. We opened and shut it behind us as we did the first. Again we began to thread our way: a third door stopped us. We opened and closed it in like manner. Every step was carrying us deeper into the heart of the rock, and multiplying the barriers between us and the upper world. We were shut in with the thick darkness and the awful silence. We began to realize what must have been the feelings of some unhappy disciple of the Gospel, surprised by the familiars of the Holy Office, led through the midnight streets of Nuremberg, conducted to Max Tower, led down flight after flight of stairs, and along this horizontal shaft in the rock, and at every few paces a massy door, with its locks and bolts, closing behind him! He must have felt how utterly he was beyond the reach of human pity and human aid. No cry, however piercing, could reach the ear of man through these roofs of rock. He was entirely in the power of those who had brought him thither. At last we came to a side-door in the narrow passage. We halted, applied the key, and the door, with its ancient mold, creaking harshly as if moving on a hinge long disused, opened to let us in. We found ourselves in a rather roomy chamber, it might be about twelve feet square. This was the Chamber of Question. Along one side of the apartment ran a low platform. There sat of old the inquisitors, three in number—the first a divine, the second a casuist, and the third a civilian. The only occupant of that platform was the crucifix, or image of the Savior on the cross, which still remained. The six candles that usually burned before the "holy Fathers" were, of course, extinguished, but our lantern supplied their place, and showed us the grim furnishings of the apartment. In the middle was the horizontal rack or bed of torture, on which the victim was stretched till bone started from bone, and his dislocated frame became the seat of agony, which was suspended only when it had reached a pitch that threatened death. Leaning against the wall of the chamber was the upright rack, which is simpler, but as an instrument of torture not less effectual, than the horizontal one. There was the iron chain which wound over a pulley, and hauled up the victim to the vaulted roof; and there were the two great stone weights which, tied to his feet, and the iron cord let go, brought him down with a jerk that dislocated his limbs, while the spiky rollers, which he grazed in his descent, cut into and excoriated his back, leaving his body a bloody, dislocated mass.6 Here, too, was the cradle of which we have made mention above, amply garnished within with cruel knobs, on which the sufferer, tied hand and foot, was thrown at every movement of the machine, to be bruised all over, and brought forth discoloured, swollen, bleeding, but still living. All round, ready to hand, were hung the minor instruments of torture. There were screws and thumbkins for the fingers, spiked collars for the neck, iron boots for the legs, gags for the mouth, cloths to cover the face, and permit the slow percolation of water, drop by drop, down the throat of the person undergoing this form of torture. There were rollers set round with spikes, for bruising the arms and back; there were iron scourges, pincers, and tongs for tearing out the tongue, slitting the nose and ears, and otherwise disfiguring and mangling the body till it was horrible and horrifying to look upon it. There were other things of which an expert only could tell the name and the use. Had these instruments a tongue, and could the history of this chamber be written, how awful the tale! We shall suppose that all this has been gone through; that the confessor has been stretched on the bed of torture; has been gashed, broken, mangled, and yet, by power given him from above, has not denied his Savior: he has been "tortured not accepting deliverance:" what further punishment has the Holy Office in reserve for those from whom its torments have failed to extort a recantation? These dreadful dungeons furnish us with the means of answering this question. We return to the narrow passage, and go forward a little way. Every few paces there comes a door, originally strong and massy, and garnished with great iron knobs but now old and moldy, and creaking when opened with a noise painfully loud in the deep stillness. The windings are numerous, but at every turning of the passage a lighted candle is placed, lest peradventure the way should be missed, and the road back to the living world be lost for ever. A few steps are taken downwards, very cautiously, for a lantern can barely show the ground. Here there is a vaulted chamber, entirely dug out of the living rock, except the roof, which is formed of hewn stone. It contains an iron image of the Virgin; and on the opposite wall, suspended by an iron hook, is a lamp, which when lighted shows the goodly proportions of "Our Lady." On the instant of touching a spring the image flings open its arms, which resemble the doors of a cupboard, and which are seen to be stuck full on the inside with poignards, each about a foot in length. Some of these knives are so placed as to enter the eyes of those whom the image enfolded in its embrace, others are set so as to penetrate the ears and brain, others to pierce the breast, and others again to gore the abdomen. The person who had passed through the terrible ordeal of the Question-chamber, but had made no recantation, would be led along the tortuous passage by which we had come, and ushered into this vault, where the first object that would greet his eye, the pale light of the lamp falling on it, would be the iron Virgin. He would be bidden to stand right in front of the image. The spring would be touched by the executioner — the Virgin would fling open her arms, and the wretched victim would straightway be forced within them. Another spring was then touched — the Virgin closed upon her victim; a strong wooden beam, fastened at one end to the wall by a movable joint, the other placed against the doors of the iron image, was worked by a screw, and as the beam was pushed out, the spiky arms of the Virgin slowly but irresistibly closed upon the man, cruelly goring him. When the dreadful business was ended, it needed not that the executioner should put himself to the trouble of making the Virgin unclasp the mangled carcass of her victim; provision had been made for its quick and secret disposal. At the touching of a third spring, the floor of the image would slide aside, and the body of the victim drop down the mouth of a perpendicular shaft in the rock. We look down this pit, and can see, at a great depth, the shimmer of water. A canal had been made to flow underneath the vault where stood the iron Virgin, and when she had done her work upon those who were delivered over to her tender mercies, she let them fall, with quick descent and sullen plunge, into the canal underneath, where they were floated to the Pegnitz, and from the Pegnitz to the Rhine, and by the Rhine to the ocean, there to sleep beside the dust of Huss and Jerome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now