When the time for the papal election came about, Washington saw in Bergoglio the best man they could back for the position. Not an ideal man, be it noted! But the best man at the time. Politics is the art of the possible. Doubtless Washington would have wished for a better man (from Washington’s point of view) than Bergoglio. But in the absence of anyone better, Washington backed Bergoglio, working on the principle that a doctrinally conservative pope who was pro-Marxist yet hopefully pro-Washington was better than a doctrinally conservative pope who was also politically conservative. At least Bergoglio, as pope, would support Washington’s pro-Marxist stance, even if he was not in agreement on moral issues such as abortion. This was better than nothing.
As noted previously (but it bears repeating here, with added detail), in the 1970s Argentina was ruled by a brutal military dictatorship, backed by Washington. The CIA supported the coup that brought the military to power there in 1976, as did the Illuminati branch known as the Council on Foreign Relations, or CFR, also often called America’s secret government; and it was supported by the Roman Catholic “Church”. The objective in supporting the military coup was to curtail Soviet influence in South America. Large numbers of Jesuits were supporting the Marxist revolutions on that continent, but at the very same time other Jesuits – notably Bergoglio, the highest-ranking Jesuit in Argentina – were backing the government, as shown above. So then, when the papal election rolled around and Washington was looking for a cardinal it could support to become pope, it is not surprising that Bergoglio became the candidate:
“The election of Pope Francis I has broad geopolitical implications for the entire Latin American region. In the 1970s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was supportive of a US sponsored military dictatorship. The Catholic hierarchy in Argentina supported the military government…. The Catholic Church in Latin America is politically influential. It also has a grip on public opinion. This is known and understood by the architects of US foreign policy. In Latin America, where a number of governments are now challenging US hegemony, one would expect – given Bergoglio’s track record – that the new Pontiff Francis I as leader of the Catholic Church, will play de facto, a discrete ‘undercover’ political role on behalf of Washington. With Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I in the Vatican (who faithfully served US interests in the heyday of General Jorge Videla) the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Latin America can once again be effectively manipulated to undermine ‘progressive’ (Leftist) governments, not only in Argentina (in relation to the government of Cristina Kirschner) but throughout the entire region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.”
Imagine the power of a pro-Marxist America backed by a pro-Marxist pope of Rome!
Of course, this perception that Francis is pro-Washington needs to be put within the proper perspective. As a Jesuit whose mind and will is surrendered to the Jesuit general, he carries out the general’s orders. The Jesuits, unlike other priests or religious orders, are not men who act according to their own principles and political persuasions. Whereas a priest from another religious order might be personally pro-Washington or pro-something else, a Jesuit priest is whatever his superior tells him to be, and ultimately whatever the general tells him to be. The Jesuits have long favoured Marxism because it advances their purposes. And whereas Paul VI was pro-Moscow and John Paul II was pro-Washington, a Jesuit pope will be pro- whatever the Jesuit general orders him to be.
This explains, also, Barack Obama’s visit to Francis I in the Vatican. Considering Obama’s track record, taking a decidedly anti-Roman Catholic stance in the US on various matters and even demanding that America’s powerful Roman Catholic hierarchy bow to his will on Obamacare and various other matters, it might be natural to assume that the Obama Administration and the Roman Catholic institution are poles apart. But what one must always understand is that Rome may oppose a particular government on certain matters, and support it to the hilt on other ones, if those other ones are deemed to be of greater importance at the time. And this is how to understand the relationship between the Obama White House and Francis’ Vatican. On pro-Marxist economic policies, on Roman Catholic immigration from South America into the USA, on pro-Marxist global one-world policies, Obama and Francis are far, far closer than many would imagine.
When he was a young activist in Chicago, Barack Obama worked extremely closely with the Roman Catholic institution in its Socialist “social justice” activities amongst the poor working classes. He operated from a desk in a parish in Chicago’s south side. He did not become a Papist, but he was surrounded by radical Socialist/Marxist Papists during this formative period. He “fit seamlessly into a 1980s Catholic cityscape forged by the spirit of Vatican II, the influence of liberation theology and the progressivism of Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin, the archbishop of Chicago”. One of his mentors at the time was Gregory Galluzo, a former Jesuit priest and a disciple of the Marxist Saul Alinsky. Of course, with the Jesuits one can never be 100% certain that a “former” Jesuit really is a “former” Jesuit. Often he is still a Jesuit in good standing, playing a deceptive game.
In this Roman Catholic atmosphere the young Obama thrived and worked, although religiously he gravitated to the black American version of liberation theology preached by Jeremiah Wright (who became his pastor). But liberation theology, both the “Protestant” and the Jesuit versions, helped to shape Obama into who he became.
Obama won the Roman Catholic vote in 2008 – the “Church” of Rome massively supporting him. But during his first term of office he alienated many Roman Catholics with his pro-abortion stance, and fewer Roman Catholics voted for him in 2012. Relations were strained.
When the meeting between Obama and Francis was being planned, a senior Vatican official warned that the meeting would not be like the 1982 meeting between Reagan and John Paul II, which was a clear sign of the Vatican-Washington alliance against pro-Moscow Communism in Eastern Europe. “We’re not in the old days of the great alliance,” the official said. That may be so – but both sides knew there was much to the advantage of both in the meeting. Thus, while the Vatican-Washington alliance of Francis/Obama may not be anywhere near the strength of the Vatican-Washington alliance of John Paul/Reagan, it is still an alliance. Shakier, definitely, but an alliance notwithstanding – at least for now.