PAPAL RESIGNATION

There are some events, information elements in life that put previous events into context. They are the Aaaaahh moments.

For me the resignation of the present pope generated one of those moments.

The information/story that follows is an amalgam of information that other writers have presented. Most of the following came from the Youtube presentations by Benjamin Fulford, a financial journalist, now living in Japan and David Wilcock, author and alternative energies explorer. There may have been other commentators whose names I have forgotten. I have, in effect, put certain dots together in a line and present a personal conclusion.

I have no way of proving the following because I have no evidence. However, the following story resonates in my awareness.

 

Let us begin by going back to November of last year. You will recall that this was the month of the US election. The incumbent president, Barak Obama, was campaigning for re-election. Just before the re-election there was a terrible storm  (Hurricane Sandy) that devastated parts of the west coast of the US. There was much damage and some loss of life.

One of the aforesaid gentlemen claimed that this storm was part of a plot by a cabal of politicians, military and secret service personnel to have the election cancelled. The storm had been deliberately created through the HAARP weather modification system. A plot had been prepared, it was alleged, to overthrow the democratically elected president and replace him with a figurehead front-man of the dictatorial cabal: That man was Mr, formerly General, Petraeus the head of the CIA. It seems, or is claimed, that the plot failed, the election was held and Mr Obama was re-elected. The latter is certainly true.

It is alleged that certain money-men or should I say money-persons switched sides from Mr Obama to the cabal before the election. Allegedly these powerful money-persons were the Pope and the Queen of England. I am surprised that, if true, foreigners to the US should have such an influence over the funding of the election.

With the failure of the plot there was a fall-out of resignations and sackings particularly in the military. It is claimed that the Admiral in charge of the US Far East fleet was recalled to Washington and summarily dismissed. Mr Paetraeus and a top general were exposed publically as having affairs with women who were not there wives and forced to resign. Given the truth of this one wonders how long these affairs were known by potential supporters, in high places, of Mr Obama. Perhaps this information was kept on ice until needed to discredit Mr Petraeus and the general.

Some weeks ago it was announced that Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State, was leaving office. Before Christmas one of the above commentators wrote that she would be leaving. Was Mrs Clinton part of the fall-out of the failed plot or is there some other explanation?

 

OK, let us now return to the pontiff. There had been much criticism of him going back months if not years. Allegedly he was being investigated by Italian authorities accused of complicity in the protection and moving to other duties of priests accused of child abuse. Latterly he was forced to condemn this practice publically. At least this was more that his predecessor who had declined to make any comment on the matter. Certainly the present incumbent did not have the PR skills of his predecessor who was successful in projecting a saintly image. Whether this image was deserved or not I leave to the readers to decide.

It was alleged that forces within the Vatican were working against the present pope. If the majority of the above is true then he was ‘on a sticky wicket’, to use an English culture phrase given the failure of the cabal putsch; too many mistakes and PR failures for the Vatican hierarchy to stomach. This was the background to the resignation. No pope has resigned in six hundred years. At least two of these ancient pontiffs were forced out of office.

So do you believe the PR story put out in the media concerning the retirement/resignation? Is the above explanation true/partly true or is there some other explanation?

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from the above. For me it was interesting to put together.