Let's open with this screenshot, which I took from Merriam-Webster:
This is not just some weird quirk. Here's Jesuit on Dictionary.com: a crafty, intriguing, or equivocating person.
What could cause the dictionary definition of Jesuit to include one given to intrigue and equivocation?
The Society of Jesus, known as the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church, was founded in 1539 by Iñigo of Loyola, who later went by Ignatius. He was an aristocrat, youngest of 13 children, who enjoyed the perks of aristocracy in his youth:
He joined the army at seventeen, and according to one biographer, he strutted about "with his cape flying open to reveal his tight-fitting hose and boots; a sword and dagger at his waist". According to another he was "a fancy dresser, an expert dancer, a womanizer, sensitive to insult, and a rough punkish swordsman who used his privileged status to escape prosecution for violent crimes committed with his priest brother at carnival time."
He spent his twenties in the military, laying siege to castles and so forth, until age 29, when:
he was gravely injured when a French-Navarrese expedition force stormed the fortress of Pamplona, and a cannonball ricocheting off a nearby wall, shattered his right leg. Iñigo was returned to his father's castle in Loyola, where, in an era before anesthetics, he underwent several surgical operations to repair the leg, with his bones set and rebroken. In the end, the operations left his right leg shorter than the other. He would limp for the rest of his life, with his military career over.
He experienced visions and inspiration which turned him to a spiritual life. He spent a few years traveling and exploring poverty. From age ~33 to ~43, he studied theology in Spain, then moved to France, which was in the midst of anti-Protestant turmoil. Studying at the University of Paris, Iñigo met six like-minded companions. In 1534, they took solemn vows as a group. In 1539, they formed the Society of Jesus. In 1540, the Society was approved by Pope Paul III.
The Council of Trent was a series of meetings held by the Catholic Church from 1545 to 1563 to determine the Church's response to the Protestant Reformation. Over the years, the Council became strongly influenced by Jesuits and concluded in more or less unconditional condemnation of Protestantism and its tenets.
Jesuits played a major role in the ensuing Counter-Reformation:
The Jesuits were the most effective of the new Catholic orders. An heir to the devotional, observantine, and legalist traditions, the Jesuits organized along military lines. The worldliness of the Renaissance Church had no part in their new order. [...] The Jesuits became preachers, confessors to monarchs and princes, and humanist educators.
Jesuits participated in the expansion of the Church in the Americas and Asia, by their missionary activity. [...] Taking the Pope as an absolute leader, the Jesuits contributed to the Counter-Reformation Church along a line harmonized with Rome.
The conflict between Protestants and Catholics led to the Thirty Years' War, which affected most of Europe and killed 4.5 - 8 million people when the entire world population was estimated under 600 million. In some areas of Germany, the war may have killed up to 60% of the population. Consequences were felt across the world:
In 1647, Massachusetts passed a law prohibiting any Jesuit Roman Catholic priests from entering territory under Puritan jurisdiction. Any suspected person who could not clear himself was to be banished from the colony; a second offense carried a death penalty.
Closely associated with Jesuits is a take on ethics called casuistry. This is moral reasoning where you first decide what you want to do, and then argue why it's justified. Whereas a person with ethical principles might say, "Yes, I want to achieve my ends, but I will not cheat, steal or murder," a person practicing casuistry might hold that the ends justify the means; therefore cheating, stealing, and murder is okay.
[The French mathematician and philosopher] Blaise Pascal vigorously attacked the moral laxism of Jesuits who used casuistic reasoning in confession to placate wealthy Church donors, while punishing poor penitents. Pascal charged that aristocratic penitents could confess their sins one day, re-commit the sin the next day, generously donate the following day, then return to re-confess their sins and only receive the lightest punishment; Pascal's criticisms darkened casuistry's reputation.
A British encyclopedia of 1900 claimed that [casuistry] was "popularly regarded as an attempt to achieve holy ends by unholy means."
Along the lines of "the ends justify the means", casuistry is similar to utilitarianism. Therefore, Jesuits have much in common with transhumanists. Utilitarianism follows the maxim shut up and multiply. The ethics of an action are not evaluated on principles, but by eyeballing some numbers on each side of an equation. If the numbers say killing is good, then killing is good; never mind that even the same person might come up with different numbers at different times.
Expulsions and papal suppression
As an order with military-styled organization and a strong focus opposing Protestantism, Societas Iesu has always leaned more political than religious. In the words of Filippo Neri, a contemporary of Ignatius, later canonized on the same day:
If I have a real problem, I contemplate what Ignatius would do ... and then I do the exact opposite.
As early as 1606 - 1657, the Jesuit order was banned from territories of the Venetian Republic. By the mid-18th century, the Society had "acquired a reputation in Europe for political maneuvering and economic success." This came to a head by 1759 - 1782, when the order was expelled from the Portuguese Empire, France, the various kingdoms of Italy, the Spanish Empire, and from Austria and Hungary:
Analysis of the reasons is complicated by the political maneuvering in each country which, although not transparent, has left some trail of evidence. The papacy reluctantly went along with the demands of the various Catholic kingdoms involved, but produced no theological reasoning for the suppression.
In 1773, the Jesuit order was abolished and "forever extinguished" by Pope Clement XIV. This may have adversely affected his life expectancy: previously in good health, he died the following year, allegedly from a "languishing sickness", certainly not caused by poisoning.
Despite abolition, the order continued to operate in Belgium, Prussia, Russia, and North America. Pope Clement XIV was succeeded by Pius VI, who died in 1799. The next Pope, Pius VII, promptly restored the Jesuits in 1801. Following the Napoleonic Wars, the order was re-established nation by nation.
The United States
The principles of the Jesuit order stood, and continue to stand, in opposition to the principles of the United States' founding. Initially, conflicting principles included:
Representative democracy. The Jesuit order saw itself as the Pope's army, and the Pope as the rightful king of kings. This king of kings is ineffective in a country that does not recognize kings.
Religious freedom. The Jesuit order was founded and grew strong in opposition to Protestantism. A proliferation of various versions of Christianity in the US is then, to them, a plague of heresy.
We may be lucky that the Jesuit order was suppressed when the US was founded, otherwise they may have worked their magic in various ways.
John Adams, in an 1816 letter to Thomas Jefferson:
The Work [History of the Jesuits] is anonymous; because, as I Suppose, the Author was afraid as all the Monarks of Europe were at that time of Jesuitical Assassination. The Author however Supports his Facts by authentic Records and known Authorities which the Publick may consult.
This Society has been a greater Calamity to Man kind than the French Revolution or Napoleons Despotism or Idiology. It has obstructed the Progres of Reformation and the Improvement of the human Mind in Society much longer and more fatally.
After their restoration, the Jesuits continued their magic. Charles Chiniquy, a former Catholic priest, published a book in 1884 in which he claims Abraham Lincoln said the following in personal meetings around the Civil War:
This war would have never been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to Popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. [...] I pity the priests, the bishops and the monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed [sic] in this war; the later the more terrible will the retribution be. I conceal what I know, on that subject, from the knowledge of the nation; for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would, at once, take a tenfold more savage and bloody character, it would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides. The Protestants of both the North and the South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, if they could hear what Professor Morse has said to me of the plots made in the very city of Rome to destroy this Republic, and if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion, instructing the people in their schools, taking care of the sick in the hospitals, are nothing else but the emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon [III], and the other despots of Europe, to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free, etc.
Ascent of Marxism
Malachi Martin was a former Jesuit priest and professor at the Vatican, until he asked to be released in 1965. In his 1987 book The Jesuits, he describes how the order was usurped by Marxists as early as the 1960s. The book was a New York Times bestseller (which does not mean a whole lot – the New York Times is famous, but it has always misled).
Since the Jesuit office of Superior General is for life; and since it is selected in a similar way as the Pope; when the leaders embrace an ideology, it becomes enduring. The ideology embraced by Jesuits over the past 60 years is Liberation Theology. This "Liberation Theology" is notable by how it is entirely political; has little to do with spirituality; and is Marxism in religious clothing.
Liberation Theology hypothesizes that there's someone who's oppressed. When people experience suffering, it's not because of their choices, but because there is a system rigged against them. The calling of Jesuits, then, is not to bring people to God, or to help people make better choices, but to change the system to stop oppression.
The system that needs to be changed entails the principles on which the United States were founded. The principles of personal property, free speech, and individual freedom are what needs to be dismantled so that oppression is subverted and a new and better era can arise.
Liberation Theology has not only a theory, but also a praxis. The praxis goes to the extent of training Central American guerrillas, joining them, and taking up guns in armed conflict against the Honduran army. This is what at least one Jesuit priest did – tacitly endorsed by superiors in the order, all in the name of fighting for the poor.
Liberation Theology has a dog whistle phrase: preferential option for the poor. This means Marxism.
Barack Obama's pastor in Chicago, Jeremiah Wright, is a priest in the Protestant tradition. He is known for supporting Black Liberation Theology. This is Marxist like Critical Race Theory, which uses race instead of class to stoke conflict.
In 1987, Martin described a Jesuit order at war with the papacy. Today, the Jesuits have won. In 2013, Pope Benedict XVI resigned, no doubt for personal reasons unrelated to power struggles within the Church.
Pope Francis is now the first Jesuit pope. He marks a departure from the past by being first of his name. In explaining how he chose the name Francis:
He explained that, as it was becoming clear during the conclave voting that he would be elected the new bishop of Rome, the Brazilian Cardinal Cláudio Hummes had embraced him and whispered, "Don't forget the poor", which had made Bergoglio think of [St. Francis].
On its face, this sounds cute. It's actually a reminder and a warning. "Remember who appointed you, and what for."
Bergoglio, the now-Pope, is no stranger to political intrigue. When he was a cardinal in Argentina, he acted to stop then-President Kirchner:
In 2006, Bergoglio helped the fellow Jesuit Joaquín Piña to win the elections in the Misiones Province and prevent an amendment of the local constitution that would allow indefinite re-elections. Kirchner intended to use that project to start similar amendments at other provinces, and eventually to the national constitution. Kirchner considered Bergoglio as a political rival to the day he died in October 2010.
Arturo Sosa – leader of Jesuits, communist
In 2016, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus became Arturo Sosa, from Venezuela:
Between 1996 and 2004, Sosa was Provincial Superior of the Jesuits in Venezuela. [...] In Venezuela, he was strongly committed to left-wing politics, and was critical of the country's representative democracy in the 1990s. He supported the two coups d'état of Hugo Chavez, though he later distanced himself from Chavez following human rights violations.
We obviously only support communists until they violate human rights. After they do, we distance ourselves and say that's not real communism. We then move on to support the next communist. The idea is good – the problem is the people.
Behold – the Church now joins hands with the world's largest corporations, spearheaded by Lynn Forester de Rothschild, to dismantle systems of oppression, to solve problems that exist outside, to introduce global Marxism:
Lynn Forester de Rothschild is a friend of Hillary Clinton. She is also an organizer of the Civic Alliance. This is a collection of hundreds of the world's well-known corporations, gaslighting you that 2020 US election fraud did not occur, that the US voting process must be as loose as possible, and that requiring an ID to vote in the US is racist. Voter ID is taken for granted in every other country. 75% of Americans support it – including 60% of Democrats and 69% of blacks.
Why do these companies gaslight you that we must have insecure elections, fraught with holes?
The list you see is cropped at "E", but it continues until "Z".
What sort of person is Lynn Forester de Rothschild, to be able to recruit so many of the world's largest corporations, to support at least two separate political goals, on demand?