The Tree of Truth – The Fourth Branch: Catholicism versus Protestantism

new-lens 5



Let’s look at the scenario from an angle other than that of the US Civil War. For example, who is the white man?

It is the only human community that has traveled 15,000 kilometers to conquer another human community, steal their lands, decimate their population, and impose on them its law, its values​ and its religion. However… What values? What religion? When the British overtook Australia, they found it very difficult to provide the “aborigines”, looking with bewilderment at their rifles, with answers to these two questions. What could they say! That the apostolic vicar of God on Earth was an adulterous king who had beheaded the only sensible man in England? That there was in their homeland a lady, descendant of King Arthur, both of them magically invested as monarchs by a sword fallen from the sky or emerged from the waters (for in this respect opinions vary), by which simple ruse they became the absolute owners of the Earth and of the visible as well as of the probable universe?

The aborigines responded laconically: “Go to hell with your vicar and your lady.” The English looked at one another. There was no doubt it was from their point of view the best answer they could have received –the one that served as justification for the subsequent massacre. They decided to spare a few of the laconic natives so that some blank spaces on the pages of the future history could be conveniently filled. They also took into their consideration the future experts –paleontologists, archaeologists, ethnologists… a great business enterprise.

Here some questions do arise: Weren’t they curious in the least to learn those people’s languages; to get to know their beliefs and techniques; their way of measuring the passage of time? Didn’t they pause to think it could be beneficial to trade with them, in which case the trade balance would have been more favourable for the aboriginal side than the British, as was evident. Yet, not the slightest trace of curiosity was exhibited on their jackal faces. This particular absence was a clear omen of the nefarious end that awaited their prey.

The natives of America did not fare much better than their brothers in Sahul –the  name for Australia that appears for the first time on a 17th century Dutch map. Nobody knows its origin because the “wise” westerners are ignorant; do not know languages; have no human or spiritual experience and they reduce everything they come across to their own mediocrity. Sahul or Sahoel is an Arabic term –sahel or sahal– which means “easy” and by extension is used to call a large area of ​​flat land, easy because there are no geographical features that prevent one from traversing it. It is the word that is still used today in many Arab countries –for example in Syria– to describe this type of terrain.

Firstly: Faced with such a shocking and enigmatic name whose origin and meaning they entirely ignored, it was decided to change it to “Australia”.

Secondly: In view of the fact that some aborigines survived, a flood of ambitious young people emerged in the second half of the 20th century with daring studies on the history, customs, languages ​​and religions of the descendants of those massacred by the grandparents of the ambitious young people. They were, and are, graduates in sociology or anthropology from this or that prestigious US university –possibly the most opaque places through which intellect, conscience or spirit find it impossible to pass through, but they are the armed ones.

Thirdly: Given that they enjoy the unconditional support of the international net of publishers and distributors, they successfully launch their interpretations as the definitive version of the facts. They paint disturbing silhouettes and announce that after thorough analysis in situ they have arrived at a conclusion that the religion of the natives is fundamentally based on the fact that this universe has arisen from “the dream” –tjukurpao wapar– according to their own transliteration. Strictly correct –every creation emerges from the dream, from the consciousness. All creation is an awakening and its end is a retraction or return to consciousness –cosmic comings and goings about which the aborigines learned from the prophet Sulayman. The aborigine paintings, the strangest of them all, are representations of the jinn that accompanied the powerful monarch and who diligently worked for him –fliers or divers, they were fast as lightning and strong as Cyclops.


“You must destroy all of their carved statues and idols. You must destroy all of their high places.” (Numbers 24:53)

However, there were differences as regards the fate suffered by the two indigenous communities mentioned, the natives of Sahul and those of America –Cem Anahuac (or Cemanahuac). This is how the people we call Aztecs called the world they lived in, themselves included. Interestingly, it means “land surrounded completely by water”, which clearly refers to the conscience that their land was surrounded by two great oceans, which we call the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Mexican Octavio Paz pointed out the difference we mentioned above, although no one noticed judging by the absolute silence about it in publications, commentaries or articles on his work. The first thing that OP observed was the general practice of extermination that dominated the British and French policies regarding the native population. The second observation was that even when extermination was not put into practice, they did not mix with the natives, except for fornication.

On the other side, that of the Spanish conquistadors, the situation was diametrically different –the Indians were savages insofar as they were unaware of the “most holy trinity.” They had not heard of Mary or Jesus and therefore were condemned to burn in the eternal fire of hell. They had to be saved. And thus the most overwhelming evangelical mission in history began. This difference was further studied in depth by OP and elaborated on in his attentive analysis. He realized that the British community differed radically from the Spanish community in their religious option. The former were Protestants and the latter Catholics. For Protestants success is the proof that they have been chosen or favored by God. The fact that some go into business and thrive, have healthy children, are white and successful in a thousand of other ways is already indicative that they are part of the elite designated by God to govern the world. Being black or Indian, by contrast, is a curse, the mark of the devil –signs  one has been created for slavery. In a sense, one is worse than an animal. No ideology would have dared to provide a more extensive and obliging carte blanche.

Catholics by contrast, OP argued, did not see success as a good omen since this world was in itself a vale of tears to which one comes to suffer and serve the king. Nor did they accept that someone could be born bearing the mark of Satan. Their rejection of Protestant predestination led them to spiritual rather than territorial colonization. We must assume that there was a fair amount of everything –fear, conviction, ignorance, perplexity but the truth is that what the British saw as an Indian whore was seen by the Spaniards as pure virgin walking to the altar with a bouquet of flowers and placing them at Mary’s feet. Such unusual image was to them the irrefutable proof of the divinity of Jesus and of the perfection and universal appeal of Catholicism.

The final result is also very different –the streets of Caracas, Bogota or La Paz are filled with Indians, mulattoes and half-bloods. Yet not a single vestige of them in Sydney, Chicago or San Francisco. That is part of Jewish ideology: “Who sinned, he or his parents?” Let the wind blow the answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s