THE FOURTH REICH: Masking The EU “Working Time Directive” – A Pretext To Enforce Global Catholic Religious Observance As the Ancient Issue Of “Sunday Sacredness” Takes Center Stage

Submitted by Terence Blackett

There has never been better slaves, never worst masters – Tacitus

The Pope

For the past [212] years, the deadly socio-political and religious wound inflicted on the Papacy by Napoleon Bonaparte’s General Jean Baptiste Berthier on the 20 February 1798 has now healed to the point where this institution will once again usurp her authority as she did during the 1260 years of the Dark Ages (538 AD -1798).

The entire world still pays obeisance to this earthly religious government. Its power is greater than that of kings. Its might has been wielded for over 3000 years, shape-shifting throughout past ages taking on diverse Satanic forms while masking and masquerading as a “godlike” entity. Time and again it has resurrected itself. In the past, (just like today), it is “the ‘Beast’ that sits on many waters” –

Aptly called “The Fourth Reich” it seeks to bring world powers under its allegiance – culminating in enforced religious “laws” where all the inhabitants of earth will be obliged to adhere to – regardless of geography, religion, ethnic group, class or creed.

Social historians and anthropologists agree that most definitional interpretations of “Reich” is “German State” – but the conceptual place from which this notion originates does not infer a relation to what is today the country of Germany, but rather an ancient allusion to the Germanic Lands occupied by the Goths, Ostrogoths, Franks, Heruli, Bavarians, Alamans, Saxons and other barbarian people. The “Reich” is then best described as a crossbreed between a State and a confederation based on religious grounds – except for the latter, (not being unlike the EU of today).

In “The First Reich” was seen as the evolution of The Holy Roman Empire after the fall of the once mighty political empire called Rome. Within Europe, these geographical and political enclaves was to become a continuity of the once mighty Roman Empire that started in the lands ruled by Charlemagne (Charles the Great) who was crowned Emperor by Pope Leo III in Rome on Christmas Day 800 AD, a date which is normally seen as the founding of the Empire, but sometimes the year of 962 AD is also used, which was when Otto I (Otto the Great) was crowned.

“The Second Reich” is also based on counting the Holy Roman Empire as the first German Empire (just as Nazi ideology insisted that Nazi Germany was “The Third Reich”). “The Second Reich”, ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty, in the areas known as Prussia and Brandenburg, from 1871 to 1919, fell with the ending of World War I. During this “Reich” the “Iron Chancellor” Otto Von Bismarck united Germany, and set the roots for World War I. “The Second Reich” saw the unification of Germany following the Franco-Prussian War (1870 – 1871) and the crowning of Wilhelm I as German Emperor at the Palace of Versailles, with Otto von Bismarck as the first “Reichskanzler”, to the abdication of Wilhelm II in 1919 following the German defeat in the First World War. Then entered a period known as the Weimar Republic, from 1919 to 1933 (called sometimes the pre-3rd Reich). Social historians agree that this weakened Republic was the catalyst for the creation of what was to become “The Third Reich”.

“The Third Reich” (from 1933 to 1945), called Nazi Germany came under the control of Adolf Hitler. The term “Third Reich” was most likely taken from the book “Das Dritte Reich” published by Arthur Möller van den Bruck (1876-1925) in 1923. He called it the “Third Reich” because he thought that under his leadership Germany could reunite the old Holy Roman Empire, bringing Germany back to its glorious days. This “Reich” was terminated with the fall of Germany at the end of World War II.

There is a very interesting question here because most theorists cannot agree why Hitler started World War II and what his objective was?

Of course his delusion… “The Third Reich” was an anglification of the German expression “Das Dritte Reich“, and is used as a synonym for Nazi Germany. The term was introduced by Nazi propaganda, which counted the Holy Roman Empire as the “First Reich”, the 1871 German Empire the “Second”, and its own regime as the “Third”. This was done in order to suggest a return to alleged former German glory after the perceived failure of the 1919 Weimar Republic, but this was not seen as the “Third Reich”, but rather as an Interim “Reich”.

“The Third Reich” was sometimes also referred to as the “Thousand Year Reich” as in the case of the Holy Roman Empire (ref: The Dark Ages). The Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler used the terms “Third Reich” and “Thousand Year Reich” to connect the allegedly glorious past to its supposedly glorious future.

By 1932, influential bankers, industrialists, landowners and politicians conspired to put Hitler into power because of the political and economic weakness of the Weimar Republic. Hitler’s ideological views were suspect but there was an inherent belief that he could restore the Republic back to its former glory and prosperity sanctioned by the will and might of the Catholic Church.

Today, global trends suggest that what is emerging in Catholic Europe is nothing more than “The Fourth Reich” – an assimilation of “dark forces” at work to bring mankind into the long conspired One-World government under the magnetism of a powerful political/religious leader.

Let us be under no illusion, these powers that are at work – existing for just one purpose and that is – global domination.

EU integration has been one such move in the major global paradigmatic synergy in the fulfillment of this process. The forces of globalization are a major catalyst in this process in bringing about world union while removing the barriers to trade liberalization, currency formulations, political unification and finally religious ecumenism.

The work of The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, The United Nations, The World Council of Churches and other global conglomerates are all working feverishly to ratify global change in favour of the working of these subliminal, shadowy forces which are now at work in our world.

The Vatican is preparing Pope Benedict XVI for his first formal visit to the United Kingdom as a “head of state”. There are many who question the logic of why a religious leader, by definition, who do not have any significance or relevance to the majority of British people who are secularists and are frankly void of religious affiliation. But this visit is political in nature, so those arguments are quashed because his sole intention is to first meet with Queen Elizabeth II (to heal an ancient wound), then Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams (to bring back this lost daughter back into the fold) and finally the new PM – David Cameron (who has no problem spending £12 million of British taxpayers money on a Papal visit while public servants lose jobs from austerity measures – to simply hear that Britain must make a firm EU commitment and adopt the maxims of the Church).

For Pope Benedict, the issue to be raised in September is the sacredness of “SUNDAY” as a legislated day of worship ratified by the State as an ACT* of Parliament under the pretext of the – “WRITTEN DECLARATION pursuant to Rule 116 of the Rules of Procedure by Anna Záborská, Martin Kastler, Jean Louis Cottigny, Patrizia Toia and Konrad Szymański on ‘the protection of a work-free Sunday’ as an essential pillar of the European Social Model and a part of the European cultural heritage…”

As stated – The European Parliament having regard to Article 137 of the TEU and to Rule 116 of its Rules of Procedure dictates: -

1. Whereas a work-free Sunday is an essential pillar of the European Social Model and a part of the European cultural heritage;
2. Whereas a EUROFOUND survey shows that the likelihood of sickness and absenteeism in establishments that work on Saturdays and Sundays is 1.3 times greater compared with establishments that do not require staff to work at the weekend;
3. Whereas, according to EU law, Sunday is the weekly rest day for children and adolescents;
4. Whereas the European institutions, bodies and agencies have not worked on Sundays
   since their creation and do not intend to do so in the future, despite the diversity of
   religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds of EU officials and decision-makers;
5. Calls on the Member States and the EU institutions to protect Sunday, as a weekly rest
   day, in forthcoming national and EU working-time legislation in order to enhance the
   protection of workers’ health and the reconciliation of work and family life;
6. Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the
   signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the parliamentary committees for social
   affairs of the national parliaments.

If the European Union succeeds in legislating a specific day – (Sunday) as a “day of rest” – it will be tantamount to the enforcement of a lifestyle change on all peoples within its Diaspora including all Member States as well as the religious “Right” in America (who is also pushing this agenda in Congress) where we will be forced to follow a “state-sanctioned religion” – Catholicism and its enforcement of Sunday worship will be the “Mark” of a powerful Vatican-allied European superpower institution given the wings of globalization to be adopted by every nation, kindred, tongue and people.

The Catholic Church claims that “Sunday” is the “mark of its authority”, and that the other churches of Christendom acknowledge the church’s authority by Sunday observance (Cardinal Gibbons and the Douay Catechism, p. 59).

The Secretariat of COMECE* – the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community – made up of (Bishops delegated by the Catholic Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union and has a permanent Secretariat in Brussels), the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD) and the Church of England – welcome the initiative of several Members of the European Parliament, to ask the House to decide on a Written Declaration “on the protection of a work-free Sunday as an essential pillar of the European Social Model and as part of the European cultural heritage”.

Such a declaration would constitute an important commitment to a “Social Europe” knowing that it is important to find the majority necessary for this cross-party resolution, which has been launched by five parliamentarians – from the political groups of EPP, PSE, ALDE and UEN – on 2 February 2009.

For most of us who are religious liberty watchers; freedom of conscience advocates; and the amalgamation of church & state denouncers and deniers – we see the writing on the wall and the moves being made by the Vatican to break down the last vestige of religious dissension in Europe by toppling Britain and very soon – America.

The Queen – who is the Head of the Church of England – along with Dr. Williams et al will be given a final papal edict to heal the century’s old division between the two faiths. This [478] year old rift is being healed right before our very eyes as we await the outcome of this historic papal visit.

This historical rift began in 1532. King Henry V III wanted Pope Clement V II to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. When Clement refused, Henry retaliated by declaring himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and with this authority persuaded other church leaders to back his call for the annulment of his marriage so he could marry Anne.

Anne became pregnant with Princess Elizabeth who was born in December 1532. Henry married Anne (though not divorced from Catherine until May 23^rd 1533). Anne was the 2^nd of Henry’s 6 wives who he later accused of adultery and had her beheaded on May 19^th 1536 (although some social historians agree that Jane Seymour – his 3^rd wife was the actual cause of Anne’s death).

Pope Paul III excommunicated King Henry for his rebellious and adulterous ways though he remained a faithful Catholic during his reign – the Church of England still mirrored the theology and practices of the Catholic Church with the only noticeable difference that the Pope lived in Rome and the head of the Church of England lived in London.

When Henry died, his son Edward VI came to power and he tried to win the approval of the Protestants by implementing some reforms which included the creation of a Common Prayer Book in 1552. Henry quickly died and was succeeded by Mary I (also known as bloody Mary) as he had no heir. She reversed the reforms of her brother and brought the Church of England back to pure Catholicism. Many were burned at the stake as a result of refusal to embrace the edits of the new Queen.

Mary like her brother died without an heir and so her half-sister Elizabeth came to the throne and is credited with the establishment of the Anglican Church (1558) as we know it today. Her negotiation skills resulted in the church being 80% Catholic and 20% Protestant.

However, a grassroots movement within the church arose (called “rabble” – uneducated) – conservative radicals who wanted a complete break from the Catholic Church. This group given the derogatory name “Puritans” wanted (a) complete separation from the Vatican; (b) the abandonment of Catholic ritual; and (c) complete devotion to perfection and piety. To the ordinary layperson, the Puritan Movement seemed obsessed with anti-Catholic sentiment and a relentless quest for purity and perfection.

King James I succeeded Elizabeth in 1603 and he did not like the Puritans at all. To his credit however, James believed that the common people should be able to read the Bible in English and as the Supreme Head of the Church of England permitted the Bible to be translated. The first version appeared in 1611.

James died and was succeeded by his son Charles I and he too detested the Puritans and wanted the church to return to its Catholic roots and rituals. So he married a Catholic woman – creating outrage amongst the Puritans, escalating tensions and they in turn, repudiated the doctrine of “The Divine Right of Kings” (a political/religious doctrine of absolutism) – resulting in deadly persecution and the exodus of the Puritans to escape death.

Hence the birth of the colonies of New England on the shores of what was to become America and subsequently the United States of America (a land richly occupied by native peoples which a potent cultural heritage).

So the Puritans arrived on the shores of America with a strong resentment against Catholics, a rigid devotion to purity and perfection and an eagerness for freedom to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.

The Puritans established Sunday Laws in their colonies (what we know in America today as (“BLUE LAWS” because of the blue paper they were written on). Obedience to the law was paramount. The laws did vary from colony to colony but the result was the same. Church attendance on the “Lord’s Day” was mandatory. Puritans could not work in the fields, make a bed, cook, sew or even kiss their own child on Sunday. All business activity (e.g. discussing business, buying or selling) and various forms of casual pleasures were rigorously outlawed.

The law enacted by Lord De La Warr, the 1^st governor of Virginia, in 1610 stated:

“Every man and women shall repair in the morning to the divine service and sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to the divine service, and catechizing upon pain for the first fault to lose their provision and the allowance for the whole week following and also be whipped; for the second, to lose the said allowance and also be whipped; and for the third to suffer death.” (C. Gary Hullquist 2004, Emphasis supplied).

The Puritans had escaped to religious freedom – to be the first to enact and enforce similar laws limiting that said freedom for which they sought, hungered and died for.

Will we be facing a similar law of unintended consequences? Will the wall of separation between church and state be finally bulldozed to expose centuries of unheeded warnings? Will Sunday worship become a test of faith; an issue of political and civil disobedience and furthermore, a choice between the commandments of God or the dictates of men?

What we have learnt from history is that those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past are doomed to make the same mistakes in the future.

May God help us!

“There has never been better slaves, never worst masters” – Tacitus