THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think


Unknown to most Americans, and most Christians, the famous letter written by Francis Pharcellus "Church" to "Virginia" O'Hanlon has a whole lot more history and symbolism behind it than what most are told.  In fact, the "famous letter" marked a turning point in American history toward religious delusion. 

The symbolism of the letter itself was promoted as Masonic Iconography of the "cooperation" between the Masonic order in America and the Vatican, over it's mutual worship of Apollyon as Christ, i.e., "Sun-worship".

The symbolism of the writers name, along with the symbolism of the Child's name, reversing the roles of the Masonic order founded in "Virginia", and the Vatican as the "Church" writing in "the Sun", symbolize the merger between promotion of sun-worship between Masonic lodges in America and the Vatican, as "The Church" of "the Sun".  The actual presentation of "Church's" explanation for why "Santa" is "real", is classic Nicolaitan theological perspective shared by both Vatican Rome and the Masons, inherited in the Masons due to their split with Rome prior to the Protestant Reformation in England.  

The worship of this solar-deity however is condemned in the New Testament with warnings that it is a "delusion" and will lead it's allegedly "Christian" worshipers to the "Lake of Fire" (which it literally is).  A warning both the Masons and the Vatican have turned a deaf ear to for literally centuries, in the face of protests from Rome's own clergy, who first issued the warnings centuries before the final reformation in Europe.  

And whose protests were echoed consistently by virtually every major reformer from the Reformation.  There is nothing "cute" about the deluded logic and theology presented in this letter, and the cruel act of betrayal done against innocent children who simply ask for "the truth" from adults whom they "trust".  

The consequences of "The Sun's" deception, not only brought historical record setting "delusion" in America, but literally led to the very real, very physical deaths of the citizens of New York City, due to the intentional lies it continuously published in its newspaper as "real news".  Deaths not only "the Sun" directly precipitated in inciting, but spiritual ruin and perdition among all those innocent children and naive adults who trusted in the "Church" of "the Sun", as a source of truth.


There's much more to the "symbolism" (& history) of this letter than you have been told.  In 1897 an innocent child asked a New York City newspaper for "the truth". Instead she got told a delusional lie, and this lie has been passed around all over the world as "the truth" there IS a Santa-Clause. It is, after all its fame & fortune, still just a lie. And such is the philosophical "opposite-speak" of a false Christianity called "Nicolaitanism" in the New Testament, described as a "delusion" that leads people to the "Lake of Fire" (2 Thess 2).  The principal persons of this story, have since gone on to be with the "Lake of Fire", they were used to symbolize, but that doesn't mean you have to go there with them.

The core of the story, is about a public newspaper lying to an 8 year old child, who later becomes a deranged adult and wishes to spread that lie to every child in the world, so she can be famous for it.  Which naturally should be seen as despicable, not "celebrated".  

But when you have a culture of deceit, run by religions of deceit, based on endorsing and spreading deceit, and profiteering off of deceit, there naturally is nothing wrong with deceiving, especially when it comes to children you also like to rape, as long as the Church of deceit, endorses the deception for everyone as a "good deceit", as opposed to an "evil deceit", ...and such is the philosophy of Nicolaitanism, which is after all a religion of deceit, that exploits children.


And yes, millions of dollars have been made off of selling this propaganda for deceit, now referred to in "pop culture" as "YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A SANTA CLAUSE", which of course, there isn't.

$  The story of Virginia's inquiry and the The Sun's response was adapted in 1932 into an NBC produced cantata (the only known editorial set to classical music)[10] and an Emmy Award-winning animated television special in 1974, animated by Bill Meléndez (best known for his work on the various Peanuts specials) and featuring the voices of Jim Backus, Susan Silo and Courtney Lemmon, with theme song performed by Jimmy Osmond.


$  In 1991 it was adapted into a made-for-TV movie with Richard Thomas and Charles Bronson.


$  In 1996, the story of Virginia's inquiry and the The Sun's response was adapted into a holiday musical “Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus” by David Kirchenbaum (music and lyrics) and Myles McDonnel (book).


$   In New York City, local television journalist Gabe Pressman has recounted the story each Christmas for the past thirty years.


$  The last two paragraphs of Church's editorial are read by actor Sam Elliot in the 1989 film Prancer, about Jessica Riggs, a little girl who believes the wounded reindeer she is nursing back to health belongs to Santa. Jessica's story inspires the local newspaper editor, as Virginia's letter did to Church, to write an editorial which he titles Yes, Santa, there are still Virginias.


$   On September 21, 1997, the exact 100th anniversary of the original publication of the editorial, The New York Times published an analysis of its enduring appeal.


$   In 2003 "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" was depicted in a mechanical holiday window display at the Lord & Taylor department store on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.


$   In 2009, The Studio School in New York City, honored Virginia's life and legacy. Janet C. Rotter, Head of School, announced the establishment of the Virginia O'Hanlon Scholarship, speaking passionately about their commitment to offering need-based scholarships for students of merit.


$   Macy's, in partnership with the Make-A-Wish Foundation, launched its first Believe campaign in 2008, based on "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus". The 2008 Believe campaign results included Macy's collecting 1.1 million letters from Santa Mail Red Letter boxes located in Macy's stores, that were then mailed to him through the United States Post Office "Operation Santa", and Macy's making a matching $ 1 million US contribution to the Make-A-Wish Foundation for the letters collected by Macy's.


$   The 2008 Macy's Believe holiday commercial featured Jessica Simpson, Donald Trump, Martha Stewart and others quoting various popular lines from "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus."

So quite naturally, nobody wants anyone complaining about all the money they are making off of selling lies to children and the Nicolaitan philosophy of religious deceit to America's Adults.

However, anyone who has ever been in business knows you can "make money" off of selling rocks, literally. The "pet Rock" of course, being the famous prime example.All you have to do is "create a fad" and then sell merchandise "around" that fad. 

No one knows this fact better than Wall Street.  So when certain images are "chosen" and others "rejected" it is not simply because of the object and what it will or will not 'do" in the market place in terms of "sales" ALONE, because "sales" are "generated" through "marketing", but what the object/image they "choose" to "market", "conveys" or "communicates" to the public for mass audience social manipulation. 

"If everyone does it", then "everyone will do it".  If you tell (or perhaps in the case of "Christmas", FORCE) everyone to "do it", then of course, they will.  And so the justification is in reality, a form of "circular logic".

But perhaps the most amazing thing about all of this, is that why is this story really "promoted" and "sold" or perhaps "spoon-fed" to the American public every year, when it is "celebrating" the deception of a child?  Even if it is true, it's not the only time a child ever wrote a newspaper and asked something, not even about "Christmas"? So what's really going on with all this "promotional" work, or perhaps should we say "propagandizing"?  You might be very surprised by the answer.


Revelation 2:6,7

...the deeds of THE NICOLAITANS, which I also hate. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; TO HIM THAT OVERCOMETH (the Nicolaitans) will I GIVE TO EAT OF THE TREE OF LIFE which is in the midst of THE PARADISE OF GOD.

As the story goes, Virginia O'Hanlon's "promotion" of her "letter" began when she was 8 years old, and continued to be promoted by her, throughout her life, as her "15 minutes of fame", before there was such a thing. 

Immediately after the editorial actually ran, her father like any proud father would have done, bought up as many copies of the newspaper that day, and passed them out to all his friends.  

She told her story the rest of her life, and passed out copies of the editorial often as any person does, when they get their name in the newspaper or on TV for something.  But what "really" happened, may not have been so simple, nor as "innocent" and "sweet".

The editorial was no instant sensation. It was not an immediate hit. And the Sun did not reprint the editorial every year at Christmastime, as is commonly believed. Indeed, it took years for the newspaper to embrace “Is There A Santa Claus?” As I noted in The Year That Defined American Journalism, it wasnt until the mid-1920s when the Sun began routinely publishing the essay in its editorial columns at Christmastime.

- Media Myth Alert,, New York Sun

“Most people assume the editorial was an immediate hit when first published in 1897 and that the Sun enthusiastically reprinted it every year at Christmastime until the newspaper folded in 1950. Not true, said W. Joseph Campbell, a journalism professor and an expert on media myths at American University.” ...A painstaking review of the newspapers year-end issues from 1897 to 1949, or just before the Sun went out of business in 1950, shows that  in the ten years from 18981907, Is There A Santa Claus? was reprinted in the Sun at Christmastime only twiceThe first time was in 1902 and on that occasion, the Sun did so with a hint of annoyance, stating: “Since its original publication, the Sun has refrained from reprinting the article on Santa Claus which appeared several years ago, but this year requests for its reproduction have been so numerous that we yield.” The newspaper added a gratuitous swipe: “Scrap books seem to be wearing out.” It next reprinted the editorial in 1906, eight months after the death of the editorials author, Francis P. Church. The Sun then said it was reprinting the editorial at the request of many friends of the Sun, of Santa Claus, of the little Virginias of yesterday and to-day, and of the author of the essay, the late F.P. Church. Not until the early 1920s did the editorial begin appearing without fail in the Sun at Christmastime. 

- Media Myth Alert,, The "Myths" of Yes Virginia There Is A Santa Clause

But "the American public" is given the impression that this little girl wrote the newspaper.  The editorial writer wrote a reply, and ever since then (which happened in 1897) this "wonderful story" has been "reprinted" and "replayed" all over America, as part of the "Christmas Tradition".  Not surprisingly, not so, like everything else about "Christmas", that is too, a lie.  In fact, this article was so insignificant it WASN'T reprinted in the "New York Sun" until the Pre-World War II, NAZI ERA in AMERICA. (In the 1920s!!!)

And naturally, like everything else about the sun-worshiping pedophile Nicolaitan Nazi holy day, this became a perfect "symbol" for Nazis to promote in America, which of course, at that time was so prolific on Wall Street, they literally attempted to over-throw the President of the United States, and replace him with a Nazi dictator in allegiance with Hitler.  So naturally, it would be to THIS period of history, that we would "find the truth" about "YES VIRGINIA", which perhaps might be better entitled, YES VIRGINIA, WE ARE ALL JESUIT NAZIS NOW.

The "media" has created a "charming story" for public consumption, and that is precisely what it is on both counts, "to charm, as in spell", and "story", as in lie.  Not only is the media's "story' about how this letter came about a lie, Virginia O'Hanlon herself, can be credited with being the actual source of some of these lies. In other words, sweet little Virginia O'Hanlon, was actually a very "not-so-sweet" mature Adult graduate of a Jesuit university, who (in keeping with her religious tradition) passed along some of her own lies to embellish the "story".




YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A SANTA CLAUSE, is a reference to an editorial which ran in the September 21, 1897, edition of The (New York) Sun. The editorial, included the famous reply "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus", which was originally titled: Is There A Santa Clause?


Dr. Philip O'Hanlon was a Catholic coronoer's assistant whose family lived on Manhattan's Upper West Side. In 1897, his 8 year old daughter allegedly asked him the question whether or not Santa-Clause was real, reporting that her (non-Catholic) friends at school had told her it was a lie. Dr. O'Hanlon, her father, suggested she write "The New York Sun" to get her answer, reportedly telling her the famous phrase; "If you see it in the Sun, it's so".

The phrase obviously has deep Roman and Masonic over-tones to it, as a not-so-subtle reference to their worship of "the Sun" as "Christ".  As the story is usually told by Roman "Christ-mass" missionaries, the suggestion was made because the New York "Sun" was a prominent New York Newspaper at the time.  But that is not the whole story.

This explanation was from Virginia O'Hanlon. But while Virginia O'Hanlon was busy spreading her "Jesuit lies" like a good zealot, she apparently forgot she had given an "interview" about the editorial, years earlier in 1914.

In a newspaper database of the Library of Congress, I found a long-overlooked interview conducted 97 years ago with Virginia O’Hanlon, who as an 8-year-old in 1897 wrote the letter that prompted the most famous newspaper editorial in American journalism. OHanlon said in the interview on Christmas Eve 1914 that she had sent her letter despite her fathers admonition: A newspaper has no time to waste on a little girl.

- Media Myth Alert,, New York Sun


Instead of "If you see it in the Sun, it is so!"

The truth was...

"A newspaper has no time to waste on a little girl"

It is clear Virginia O'Hanlon  created a story over the years that simply wasn't true. 

You can see the "symbolism" that Virginia O'Hanlon was attempting to "create" in her religious deceit for "God".  If you "SEE IT IN THE SUN, THEN IT'S TRUE"! 

And of course, this idea has been perpetual in Roman Catholic circles where "sun-worship" is equated to, and considered to actually BE the "worship" of "Christ".  Thus it's importance in Roman "mysticism", and it's importance to Hitler's "swastika" as well, which as all know, was an ancient Roman sun symbol even found in Catholic iconography and ancient Cathedrals.  Thus the importance of "forcing the world" to "worship the Sun' on it's "birth" (the Solar-mass).

Bottom line here, is that in the VERY HISTORY OF THIS STORY ITSELF, given by Virginia O'Hanlon herself as a graduate of Jesuit Fordham University, is the open display and documentation of the Jesuit practice of RELIGIOUS DECEIT FOR GOD, and the 2 Thess 2, "Delusion" of damnation that "worshiping the Lake Of Fire" is actually "Christ".

 Something no "Protestant" or "Evangelical" of any kind, with any knowledge of the Scriptures, should ever have anything to do with, even on a bad day, unless you don't mind spending your eternity with that same "ball of fire" you wish to one day "join".

Virginia O'Hanlon's full married name was Laura Virginia O'Hanlon Douglas.[3] She was born on July 20, 1889, in Manhattan, New York. Her marriage to Edward Douglas in the 1910s was brief, and ended with him deserting her shortly before their daughter, Laura, was born. She was listed as divorced in the 1930 United States Census.[1] Virginia received her Bachelor of Arts from Hunter College in 1910; a Master's degree in education from Columbia University in 1912, and a doctorate from Fordham University. She was a school teacher in the New York City ISD. She started her career as an educator in 1912, became a junior principal in 1935, and retired in 1959.[4] Virginia received a steady stream of mail about her letter throughout her life. She would include a copy of the editorial in her replies.[5] ...Virginia died on May 13, 1971, in a nursing home in Valatie, New York.[7] She is buried at the Chatham Rural Cemetery in Chatham, New York.[8]

- Wikipedia, Yes Virginia There is a Santa Clause, 5-17-12

The only thing that is ever said about her "brief marriage" is that it was "brief" and her husband "deserted her" shortly before the birth of their child.  Obviously this was a tragic situation, and what would have been the "cause" for the "desertion" as it is reported is never explained.  In order for a husband to "desert" an expectant wife, he must have either had some very serious issues present when they first got married, or some very dramatic and hostile relations afterwards.  But the point is that Virginia O'Hanlon remained celibate the rest of her life in keeping with Catholic doctrine.  A doctrine, so punitive and strict, most Catholics do even not observe.

Not long after she was married, her husband left her and she was on her own to support and raise my mother. Again, something that was not very common back then. Staying true to her Catholic faith, she never remarried even though she was a very young woman when she was divorced. She dedicated herself to teaching and to serving young children, while caring for my mother. She also continued to further her own education receiving a master’s degree and a doctorate degree, all while working full time and raising her daughter. And she rose in the school system, becoming a principal and a superintendent. All of this would not be easy to do today, but was very unconventional in the early part of the 20th century.

- Studio School, NYC, Virginia Family Reflections

She used the public school system to "work as a missionary", spreading compulsory Nicolatianism where-ever she had the opportunity to work within the Public educational system.  She is shown in the newspaper photograph in 1947, getting the children in her classes to "write Santa".  "All her little friends" who didn't believe in the lie, of course, would now have the joy of having their children in her classes being forced to write letters to her delusional imaginary friend and patron Saint of Nicolaitanism, a "spirit" she called "Santa".

"Here little Jewish Boy, write a letter to my demonic spirit, if you want an "A" in my class!"

As you have seen above, the "push" for religious compulsion concerning the homogeneous observance of Rome's Solar-mass to Apollyon as an "accepted practice' in the public education system, came from the same period of history that saw the rise of two simultaneous fascist Nicolaitan movements in the United States, the rise of the second constitution of the Klu Klux Klan, in the mid-western and southern states, beginning at Stone Mountain, Georgia, and the rise of the American-Nazi movement in the North-eastern United States among "Catholic" Churches and it's theological "ecumenical/empire" affiliates.

The real story of "Virginia O'Hanlon" is not the "letter" she wrote when she was 8 years old in 1897, but her use of her letter, in the 1920s to promote "compulsory" worship and veneration of the "birth of the Sun" in support of compulsory State-sponsored Nicolaitanism in the public school system, in the backdrop of the historical rise of the Klu Klux Klan and Hitler's Nazism, in the United States.

Her "iconographic letter" story is STILL promoted and used by these very same groups today, though today, American's are no longer naive about the malicious intents behind such iconography.


Some people have questioned the veracity of the letter's authorship, expressing doubt that a young girl such as Virginia would refer to children her own age as "my little friends". The original letter, however, appeared and was authenticated in 1998 by Kathleen Guzman, an appraiser on the Antiques Roadshow, at $20,000–$30,000.[2]

- Wikipedia, Yes Virginia There is a Santa Clause, 5-17-12

Literary critics, examining the the story, have uncovered inconsistencies in the presentation of facts, and the claims made by promoters of it's "story". 

One of the primary pieces of "evidence" has come from the "letter" itself.  There a some factual observations which make it's explanation inconsistent with the facts one can physically observe in the letter, which, along with the published editorial, constitute the only 2 pieces of factual documentation involved in the story. 

(Not that anyone actually cares, except perhaps the "collector" who would pay the estimated $20,000 to $30,000 dollars it was "appraised for" by Kathleen Guzman.)

But when  you are dealing with a "Religious Tradition" that believes in perpetual and habitual lying to spread it's "religion", and a New York City newspaper that literally made history by lying so frequently, so blatantly and to such an extreme it is now found in history books on Journalism, it is quite natural to approach their claims with a "grain of salt". Perhaps even a nice sized Salt-boulder.

Factual observations the claims concerning the letter might be false (and that is a reasonable "might be", not "is"), is that the text of the letter itself is not consistent (1) with the known psychological profile, (2) perspective, nor (3) writing skill of an eight year old.  And while "education" in America can be claimed to have been on the decline, it is doubtful that such explanations can account for the psychological "perspective" accidently revealed in the letter itself. 

(1) The first observation is not a major point, but it is worth mentioning.  Especially when combined with the following two observations afterwards, it becomes much more significant. 

An 8 Year old would not have normally written a letter (on their own) to a Newspaper and addressed their correspondence to "Editor".  This reveals a knowledge of the professional organizational chart within a Newspaper.  Most 8 year olds are not even aware there is an "Editor" that works at a Newspaper.

Perhaps an 8 year old who has a "father" that works at a newspaper, might? But such an address from the child of a coroner's assistant would not be knowledgeable about the professional "organizational chart" within a newspaper organization.  (Not at age 8) They typically would use standardized object-generalization.  (Like "Dear Newspaper", or "Dear Sun", etc.)

So the adult and formal address of "Editor" is the first thing that is noticeable in the letter. O'Hanlon claims she had family members writing "the editor" all the time, and that is why she thought of it, but that was before she concocted the other story that her father "told her to write"!  The two opposite claims cast doubt on both stories.

(2)  An 8 year old would display the typical phonetic misspellings found in the language skill set of a typical 8 year old.  None of the words of the text have any phonetic spellings in them. 

Ask your 8 year old to write a 40 word letter, and count the phonetic spellings that normally occur. While the writer's "slant" is found in the letter, which would be indicative of an 8 year old, and certainly of a letter to be made to look like it came from an 8 year old, there are 40 words with no phonetic spellings.  

It could be "explained away" that O'Hanlon had "help" writing her letter (but this is not "the story"). She claims she "wrote the letter" herself, on her own.

It can be reasonably argued she was an extra-ordinary "intelligent" little 8 year old, and "intelligent" 8 year olds have produced letters without phonetic spellings before certainly, so this "by itself" would be no proof of anything.  But the problem is that this fact, is not noticed "by itself".  It is in fact, more probable you would find a phonetic spelling in a letter from an 8 year old, than not.  And here, there are none.

(3)  The third fact is perhaps the most difficult to cover up, and that is the one of "psychological perspective".  An 8 year child, does not think of her "friends" as "my little friends", because to an 8 year old who is THE SAME SIZE, her friends are "not little", they are the same size as the 8 year old.  There is right in the text of the letter, in the words itself, none of which contain any phonetic spellings despite being nearly 40 words long, addressed to "the Editor", a blatant reference to an adult psychological perspective.(in the text itself!)  This technique is used in Crime Lab analysis, Literary and Biblical Criticism.  It has proven to be an accurate observation of subtleties that often slip the consciousness of an author.

Psychological perspective combined with the other two observations above, along with Virginia O'Hanlon's demonstrated tendency to concoct stories that never happened concerning this "letter", it's only rational to suspect things are not as they have been explained to be, to the American public about this "propaganda icon". 

The only 2 pieces of material fact are (1) an editorial that was written in the New York Sun about Santa Clause, and (2) an apparently dated letter with an address on it.  The claims concerning how these 2 things relate, depend on nothing more than the verbal testimony of people who factually demonstrated deceit in how they "explained" that connection, actually even documented as having "changed" their story in midsteam.

There is evidence this story,  maybe just another chapter in the long list of fraudulence, lying and deceit conducted by the "solar-mass" Church to propagate it's condemned religion of Nicolaitanism in America. 

And the questions of veracity doesn't stop with just the letter, either.  When you begin to dig into the claims made by the people promoting this story, strange facts, just as strange as the text of the letter itself, begin to emerge, and point once again to the work of deceit in the guise of Roman and Masonic "Nicolaitanism".


The "symbolism" of "Church" writing the answer, obviously is not missed, and perhaps could have even been created by design, if not simply accidental default.  In this alleged event, you have "Virginia" (the origin of the Masons in America) being told to "believe" (even if it isn't true) if "Church" of "The Sun" says it is so.  (Which actually historically NEVER OCCURRED) But a clear reference to the infamous classical Jesuit "spiritual exercise".  

Francis Church was not identified as the author until after his death in 1906.

- / Virginia O'Hanlon

The person at "The Sun" who allegedly answered the question "IN HIS EDITORIAL REPLY", was only reported as being the person who wrote the response after he was dead!  So obviously no one was around to contradict the claim, if it were not true.  

Church’s authorship disclosed shortly after his death in 1906, in what for the Sun was eloquent and highly unusual homage. “For almost a third of a century, Frank P. Church was a leading editorial writer in the service of this newspaper,” the Sun’s said in an editorial published 12 April 1906, adding: “At this time, with the sense of personal loss strong upon us, we know of no better or briefer way to make the friends of the Sun feel that they too have lost a friend than to violate custom by indicating him as the author of the beautiful and often republished editorial article affirming the existence of Santa Claus, in reply to the question of a little girl.”75 The Sun closed its editorial tribute by publishing the two concluding paragraphs of “Is There A Santa Claus?”

- W. Joseph Campbell, Ph.D., American Journalism, 22, (2) Spring 2005

The "official explanation" of this discrepancy is given that it was "the policy" of the New York Sun not to "reveal" the names of any of it's writers for it's "editorials".  Yet it is clear, they did do precisely that on occasion, one of which was an editorial written concerning Charles Lindbergh;

...the Sun acknowledged the authorship of an unsigned editorial.. in 1927, when Harold M. Anderson was identified as having written “Lindbergh Flies Alone,” a tribute to Charles A. Lindbergh’s solo trans-Atlantic flight.

- W. Joseph Campbell, Ph.D., American Journalism, 22, (2) Spring 2005

His authorship of the editorial rests on the testimony of the newspaper itself, and literally nothing else. There is no other supporting documentation. As there is no reason to deny the claim, it is generally assumed the claim is genuine, although it is still nothing more than an assumption based on the claim of the paper after his death. 

And though Campbell argues all this is due to his "committment to privacy" in the Editorial department writing of the Newspaper and it's "policy", which is clearly understandable and valid certinaly, it doesn't explain why there is a complete absence of personal notation to the editorial, it's reprinting, etc., in his "personal journals, letters, discussions, etc.",  (A complete and TOTAL ABSENCE).  Now of course, you might make whatever excuses you might to argue he didn't like the editorial, he didn't want to talk about it, etc., etc.,  The state of having a complete and TOTAL ABSENCE of reference to it's writing IS EVEN FOUND TO BE THE CASE IN HIS OWN BROTHER'S COLLECTION OF CORRESPONDENCE, ON RECORD AT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!!!

Church died childless and left no known trove of papers or correspondence. The papers of his brother, William Conant Church, at the Library of Congress offer no insights about Francis Church or the timeless editorial he wrote. He and Virginia O’Hanlon never met.

- W. Joseph Campbell, Ph.D., American Journalism, 22, (2) Spring 2005



So in other words, the claim he was actually the author is unsupported by any other documentation than simply the claim.  So taking the word of liars, we will benevolently assumed they here have not lied, and he is in fact the "real author".  So then that leads to the next question. Who was this alleged author, Francis Pharcellus Church? Even here we find an amazing "mystery".

Francis Church was a war correspondent during the American Civil War. He died in 1906. Decades before this editorial ever became a propaganda icon.  His "credit" for writing it, is ambiguously mentioned in passing without detail, as having been reported exclusively after his death in 1906, by the paper itself which gave him the "credit" for it.  His brother was one of the newspaper's founders.(and for whom he "worked")

As can be deduced from the "explanation of logic" for "believing in Santa-Clause" from Francis Pharcellus Church (given the assumption he did write the editorial as claimed), it is a clear statement of Masonic religious philosophy, which not only was in fact prevalent in the Church family, but existed throughout the Newspaper, to virtually all of it's more visible "writers". Francis Church's brother, was also coincidentally the "founder" of the National Rifle Association.  

The Church brothers were from a prominent Masonic New England family, whose Masonic pedigree went all the way back to colonial times, and George Washington himself. 

No, they were not the descendants of George Washington, they were the descendants of America's First Revolutionary War TRAITOR!?! Who, as a FELLOW MASON, with George Washington, was given the Masonic favor of unequal justice, and spared execution though being caught in Traitorous Acts, in what many have claimed to be even WORSE than Benedict Arnold himself!! (What are the odds?)

And certainly once again, we find some amazing "symbolism" in this "letter".  A letter that was used as an icon to betray America's Constitution, and it's First Amendment, written by the descendant of America's "First Traitor", published in the Newspaper of the founder of "The National Rifle Association"!?! (Known it's calls for "protecting the 2nd Amendment", but apparently intentionally ignoring and undermining in historical proportion, THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!)




One of the very strange things that will begin to emerge, when researching the history of Christmas in America, is a very odd connection to a relatively small New England town in Massachusetts, that is "Springfield, Massachusetts", population 153,060, as of 2010.  That's a pretty small sized town.  There are many small towns of this size across America. But there are NONE that have appearantly been the "battleground" of "Christmas" in America like this tiny town in Massachusetts!


The 3 largest Iconic "propaganda symbols" of "Christmas" in America, all have direct connections to this small town of only 153,000 people.  Charles Dickens, The Grinch, and the Yes Virginia Letter... all are directly tied to SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS!!!


How and why did "Springfield, Massachussetts" become "Ground Zero" for the "Apollyon Invasion of America"?

Day was born in Springfield, Massachusetts on April 10, 1810 to Henry Day, a hatter, and Mary Ely. Day started his printing career in 1824, at THE SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN. Day's "Sun" was responsible for the story of Richard Adams Locke published in 1835 in which he wrote a story about life on the moon that was fictional, but was received by the general public as fact.

The publicity of the article was widespread at that time and now is referred to as "The Great Moon Hoax". He is credited with stretching the truth that came to be known as Sensationalism.

Day is also credited for importing to the United States the London Plan, a largely antiquated system today of newspaper distribution in which the paper carriers, buy newspapers in bulk from the publisher, and sell the papers to the reading public for a profit. 

Day sold "the Sun" to his brother-in-law Moses Yale Beach for $40,000 in 1838.[6] Afterwards he started the "True Sun" in 1840, which had but a brief run. In 1842, he created the Brother Jonathan, the first illustrated weekly in the U.S., which he ran for twenty years.


One of the first places Charles Dickens made a performance stop to, during his two trips to America, was the small town of Springfield, Massachusetts.  Charles Dickens read from his acclaimed holiday classic “A Christmas Carol” before a sold-out crowd of 1,300 at the old Haynes Opera House and Music Hall at the corner of Pynchon and Main streets on March 20, 1868.  What is usually absent in the historical accounts of Dicken's trip to Springfield and his "sold out" crowds, was the role the Springfield Amory and the "Catholic Church" played in promoting his "performance".


Despite a heavy, late season snowfall, it is said that demand for tickets was so great, Tickets, priced at $2, were sold by scalpers for as much as $10.  The SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN, owned by BENJAMIN DAY (who would later start THE NEW YORK SUN, the same paper which later promoted the "Yes, Virginia" editorial reprints) promoted Dickens "reading concert" as a "tour-de-force" by the then 56-year-old Victorian writer, who would read from “The Trial from Pickwick” as well as “A Christmas Carol.”


Benjamin Day's paper, THE SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN, wrote; “There walks on to the stage, a gentleman who gives you no time to think about him, and who dazzles you with 20 personalities. He is Scrooge, he is Scrooge’s nephew, he is the Spirit of Christmas Past; and before you have ceased wondering, he is all of the little Cratchits in a bunch, crying in shrill treble and exquisitely funny English accent, ‘Ooray!’,” reported The paper.


In an effort to fend off criticism of his appearance, THE SPRINGFIELD REPUBLICAN described Dickens as being in “plain evening dress, with no signs of the foppishness of which he is accused, save the flowers at his button-hole and a trifle too much jewelry ... His face bears signs of incessant toil and he is slightly bent. In the street, he is not a remarkably noticeable man.” Dickens walked about the streets of Springfield, staying at the Massasoit House, now the site of the Paramount Theater, and spending some of his time checking out the boat houses along the Connecticut River. 


Dickens first came to Springfield on Feb. 7, 1842, when accompanied by his wife, he toured the Springfield Armory before traveling down the Connecticut River to Hartford aboard the steamer “Massachusetts.” Dickens chose to travel by steamer rather than stage because of the poor road conditions during the New England winter. “From Springfield to Hartford is a distance of about five-and twenty miles, but at that time of year the roads were so bad that the journey would have occupied 10 or 12 hours,” Dickens later wrote his journey in his "American Notes".

As has been pointed out other sections of this site, "Christmas" was not just an "accidental assimilation" into American Christianity, it was brought by force, deception and bribery to America, and it would brought into America's evangelical Church through infiltration and supplantation of evangelical "leadership" in America's churches.  These things were done by decades of forethought and planning, and involved the intentional corruption of their theologies to accomplish this essentially political domination.


The story of Springfield Massachusetts is actually another "prime example".  Why was "Springfield" targeted by Masonic and Catholic for sabotage? Obviously, because it was one of the last remaining areas of America, that represented a "strong-hold" of New England protestantism, that still remained "loyal" to it's original American forefathers in rejecting Nicolaitainism, and it's high holy day of "Sun-worship".  Consquently, "Springfield" became a "battle-ground" in the Mason's earliest "War on American Christians" over "Christmas".


It used the "government" Springfield Armory, as the "base" for first observing "Christmas" publicly despite it's local laws.  Basically, using a federal facility to over-ride public ordinances and statutes prohibiting the "government sponsorship" of Christmas displays.  Then it began to use the Armory for "missionary activities" to spread the practices of public compulsion, farther and farther into the local community, despite it's laws.  Since the Armory was a "Federal Institution", the local laws of both Springfield and Massachusetts, were subject to it's juridiction, not vica-versa, and this is how the Masons used the Armory as a "missionary base" to undermine the Christian communities in Massachusetts that had "held out" against incursions of public compulsion, against it's local citizens.


As a result of this localized "culture war", all of the Masonic networks were busy both targeting and undermining this local community, until finally it became it's "opposite" a stronghold FOR State-sponsored Compulsory observances of "Christmas", spread through the Masons using the U.S. Government (and it's tax-payer funded public facilities) as it's "missionary base" to do it.


The "Springfield Amory" TO THIS DAY, "celebrates" it's "victory" over it's original Protestant citiens, in an "annual recration" and propagation of it's "First Christmas".  This is done with long tall tales of how it advanced "religious freedom" (which is nothing more in reality, than Masonic opposite speak) for state-sponsored "religious compulsion", in an intentional and open violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  People were always free to have "Christmas" in their homes, even under Puritan law in Plymouth.  They just were not "free" to use government facilities, funds, and personnel to "force" "everyone else" to do it too.  Until the Masons went to work, which the Masons "changed" using the "Springfield Amory" as their tax-payer funded, government sponsored "missionary base" to do it.  And if you are an American tax-payer, today your money is still going there, to this day, to fund their "celebration" of this despicable abuse of America's Constitutional government, created in part by the same Protestants, they made it their business to "exterminate".




One of the Hallmarks of the religious philosophy of NICOLAITANISM is "mixture" of truth with deceit, God with Satan, Christ with Antichrist, the "Whore of Babylon" with "Bride of Christ" as a "secret wisdom" (which is actually the "Delusion" prophesied in 2 Thess. 2).  Naturally it doesn't care if it is "truth" or a "lie" because to  NICOLAITANISM,  it is all "utilitarian" only.  It makes itself "god" and measures all things in the universe in reference to itself, including say, raping your children, or killing your wife.  This condition of blasphemy leads to spiritual and physical damnation in it's adherents who are never aware of their condition until they are made "one" with what they spent their "life" worshiping (which is the "Lake of Fire", i.e., "The Sun"), and then of course, it is too late.


So it should not be surprising in the grand scheme of things that the same newspaper famous for it's promotion of NICOLAITANISM in America, would also be a newspaper that was likewise a routine source of deceit and delusion for Americans who esteemed it, and wasted their money "buying it".


It is a rare thing to be the publisher of a Newspaper that has made history as one of the biggest liars to ever publish words on a page, and deceptively call them "News".  But that is precisely the case with THE NEW YORK SUN.  Today, we are used to seeing "The National Enquirer" or "The Star" or some other "rag paper" as they are sometimes called, and think nothing about it.  But the development of "Deceit" as "News" has a very old history in America, and it did not start with "the National Enquirer".  Today, the general public is aware of the "mixed content" of deceit and occasional real reporting that takes place at such newspapers.  But in the beginning of the "newspaper business" in America, the "public" was not so well warned.  The publication of "false stories" as REAL NEWS, in a Newspaper allegedly offering REAL NEWS, to simply sensationalize the public and sell more copies, began in large measure in America, at the very same Newspaper that offered it's promotion of Nicolaitanism to America in the form of an "editorial' it began to "reprint" in 1924, during the rise of the Klan and the Nazi movements in America.


But this act of offering delusion to it's readers as "news" was nothing new for the New York Sun, who actually established itself through public deception as a valid "newspaper", by concocting "exclusive stories" that were simply "exclusive lies".  


Part of the deception to precipitate this "industry of public deceit" was made famous through a number of such false stories, some so outrageous and ridiculous, the population insulted itself for being so stupid and gullible as to actually believe them.  

One of these stories was offered by the Masonic/Luciferian Edgar Allen Poe.  Poe had been writing for a newspaper in Charleston.  Moving to New York, and finding himself in need of some quick money, he approached the New York Sun with a schemed work of fiction (i.e., a "hoax") which they would publish as "fact", and in so doing, drive their "sales" up instantaneously.  

Poe crafted his story, which went into great detail about the invention of a high speed air balloon that could cross the entire Atlantic ocean with only 3 days, which is approximately 3,400 miles.  

A trip which normally took several weeks in transatlantic sea-faring boats, would now only take 72 hours, (according the "Yes, Virginia", New York Sun newspaper) which would be a constant average speed of about 50 miles an hour.  

Poe described his success in his own words in the "Columbia Spy": 

"On the morning (Saturday) of its announcement, the whole square surrounding the 'Sun' building was literally besieged, blocked up—ingress and egress being alike impossible, from a period soon after sunrise until about two o'clock P.M.... I never witnessed more intense excitement to get possession of a newspaper. As soon as the few first copies made their way into the streets, they were bought up, at almost any price, from the news-boys, who made a profitable speculation beyond doubt. I saw a half-dollar given, in one instance, for a single paper, and a shilling was a frequent price. I tried, in vain, during the whole day, to get possession of a copy."

- Edgar Allen Poe



Throughout the final week of August 1835, a long article appeared in serial form on the front page of the New York Sun. It bore the headline:

The article started by triumphantly listing a series of stunning astronomical breakthroughs the famous British astronomer, Sir John Herschel, had made "by means of a telescope of vast dimensions and an entirely new principle." Herschel, the article declared, had established a "new theory of cometary phenomena"; he had discovered planets in other solar systems; and he had "solved or corrected nearly every leading problem of mathematical astronomy." Then, almost as if it were an afterthought, the article revealed Herschel's final, stunning achievement. He had discovered life on the moon. 

The article was an elaborate hoax. Herschel hadn't really observed life on the moon, nor had he accomplished any of the other astronomical breakthroughs credited to him in the article. In fact, Herschel wasn't even aware until much later that such discoveries had been attributed to him. However, the announcement caused enormous excitement throughout America and Europe. To this day, the moon hoax is remembered as one of the most sensational media hoaxes of all time. 

- Museum of Hoaxes, The Great Moon Hoax of 1835


The "fraudulent" articles, led many "Christmas-Christian" religious leaders to begin "declaring" their "divine visions" and "prophecies" about "people" who lived on both the Sun and the Moon. Among them were Mormon Leaders Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Oliver B. Huntington.

Huntington felt personally "called" to bring the Mormon gospel to the people of the moon. Of course, "getting there" might have presented a slight problem, not to mention the fact, there was no one there.

Poe was a Monist. He believed the universe was all One, and this One was God. He explains this in his cosmological essay, "Eureka." 

- was Edgar Allan Poe's Religion?

"All is One", sounds nice, but it is basically nothing more than old Roman Catholic "mystery religion". And generally degrades itself into "lying and honesty" are the "same one thing", "Christ" and the "Antichrist", are the same "one thing", or "worshiping" "Satan" and "God" are the "same thing", and giving a "gift to your child" or "raping them" or "shooting them", is the same thing too, just like feeding the poor or exterminating them, is the "same one thing", "it's all ONE".

But usually Luciferian Monists never get around telling you what that means. A Vaccination against small pox which saves your life, and blowing your brains out with a shotgun are "One". Little details like that.  That doesn't sound quite so "romantic". Like a "Vitamin" and an "Arsenic pill" are really "one". (Which might be nice if such twisted people actually started practicing what they preach in such regard to themselves, instead of "practicing it on everyone else")  In reality, it's only "the same", when they get to be the ones handing out the pills.

Because Edgar Allen Poe was Luciferian, raised in an Anglican Church, in Virginia, attending the pre-civil war,  predominately VALLADOLID Virginia University, and whose later social "inner circle" included a group of "Jesuit Priests" he routinely "played cards with", Edgar Allen Poe did not "bemoan" deceit, but rather gloried in it as a means of demonstrating one's superior "intellect". 

Naturally, rather than being embarrassed by the brash deceit offered by the New York Sun as "News" to it's unsuspecting audiences, he gloried in the success of it's deceit, crediting it's deceit to the "success" of the entire "newspaper business", and the "establishment of the daily paper", claiming it "hurt no one".  Unfortunately, his claim of "harmlessness" was also "a lie". His "lies" killed people, as many "lies" often do. They are anything but "harmless". (Such is the "self-delusion" practiced by "Luciferian" liars)

Of course, his demonic and twisted logic, as a VALLADOLID Luciferian, would naturally have him conclude nothing else.  But the fact of the matter is that deceit at the New York Sun was not only dangerous to the public on numerous levels, it had even KILLED PEOPLE

Riots were caused in New York City as a direct result of all the lies that this "newspaper" had published, and in some of these riots, people were killed, as a result. The lives of which Edgar Allen Poe, and his newspaper, found not worthy as so much an apology (which was never issued, ever, to the day it closed it's doors in 1950, or even to this day).  These lives were simply seen as "the cost of doing business", and that "business" was one of deceit.

Given the "history" of the NEW YORK SUN, of creating the "biggest lies" in Americna history, and employing some of it's "biggest liars" (such as Poe), it was truly "remarkable" on every level that the phrase would have been repeated by an "8 year old", "If you see it in THE SUN, it MUST BE TRUE!" (Because that was exactly opposite of what was "true")




When historians analyze cultures from the past, they look to it's artifacts and literature.  If you want to "understand" a culture, one of the exercises that is required is examining it's "ideology", or "religion". Sometimes really stupid ideas can be found in "popular literature", and the only reason that "everyone believed it" was because "everyone believed it".  And sometimes what "everyone believed" was so incredibly stupid it was comical, (as in the case with THE NEW YORK SUN'S reporting on Moon-people), but sometimes, it is "dangerous" and/or "delusional".  Just because "everyone" does it, doesn't mean everyone "should".  And that is the first fact of admission that must be acknowledged by any honest person concerned about a respect for either "truth" or "God", or secular concerns for a "just society".

There are many "ideas" that people have had throughout history, that on reflection later, seem incredibly stupid, they are so disconnected from reality. And upon any honest reflection of the supposed "advice" this freemason at the New York Sun offered in his editorial, one will discover an argument that borders on insanity.  Which might be all and good given it's "subject matter", but people actually cite this editorial as having some "profound underlying philosophical" answer or argument. Really? A lie about Santa-Clause? By a lying Newspaper? Really? 

Yes, really, they really do claim this.  If no one ever claimed this stupidity, there would be no point in addressing it here.  But as a writer expressing the religious and philosophical viewpoint not only of freemasonry, but it's Roman theological "mother", the Roman Catholicism of the Vatican, it's delusional idiocy, represents the view of millions of people. Yes, that would be millions.  And such is the magnitude of the tragedy. 

Delusion is not simply a function which affects one's theology. It affects one's entire culture, it's institutions, it's government, it's education even it's children.  Delusion, no matter how beautifully wrapped, nor how eloquently stated is still in the end, nothing more than delusion, and delusion is all it will ever amount to in reality.  There is no "virtue" in "delusional thinking", not even for the overly religious zealots of our society.  Delusional thinking will aim religious zealotry at the most wicked targets one can imagine, and justify the most inhumane and socially unjust "darkness" that has ever crept out of a slime-pit onto the surface of planet earth as "human".

So to turn delusional religious thinking into some kind of "icon" to adore, venerate, market and popularize, is mistaken for any society, and certainly for any "Christian".  In fact, for a "Christian", who has been commanded to worship God in "spirit and in truth", it is inexcusable. 

The bottom line here is this, if the following matters of "content" are pointed out to anyone espousing this letter, who "claims" to be a "Christian" and "following Christ", they should (after they fully understand the content they are endorsing) be confronted over their claim to be "following Christ", because no such thing is occurring.  And that's just the reality of the situation.


A "Lying Spirit" is not good for children, their parents, their parent's country, nation, state, corporation, school, army, navy, air force, or education. And yet, before 3 words are written, the "lying" begins. That's quite an accomplishment really.  To lie about things, for which there is no reason to even lie, is really considered by many psychologists a form of mental illness or at least certainly a cognitive-behavioral problem, pathological lying, psychotic lying, etc., etc.

But obviously one has to be in a "habit" (i.e., a "habitual liar") to do it without even thinking, and to begin the editorial with 7 words, 3 of which are known lies.

It is known from historical accounts there actually was "no pleasure" in responding to this alleged letter. In fact, quite the opposite has been reported to be the case.  So that means by the 3rd word in the first sentence, it's author, had already started his habitual lying.  This time to an alleged child asking for the truth.

The second lie in the first 7 words, is the word "answer".  Since this child was allegedly asking for "the truth", and not just another "lie" to affirm her presumption there actually was a "Santa-clause", it was also "lie" that she got the "answer".  She did not. Actually the newspaper "avoided" giving her "an answer" (which according to the reported question, was a child's quest for the "truth" about whether or not there really WAS a "Santa-Clause").

The 3rd lie, that occurs in the first 7 words, is "at once".  It is also acknowledged that this alleged letter remained unanswered for a period of months. So it was not at all, "at once" as the 6th and 7th words claim, which now within the space of only 7 words, has accomplished 3 lies. Of course, it "doesn't matter because they are LYING to a CHILD".  Children don't count. They are to be "seen and not heard". And at the time, it was also the believe they were to "work" and not "be paid", other than by such penance spared such insignificant little human creatures.

Of course to "celebrate" this marginalization of children, is somehow seen as "quaint". What's "quaint" about lying to children? What's "quaint" about the "philosophy of child abuse" that "underlies" it "philosophically"? 

7 words, and 3 lies, already.  That's pretty amazing in and of itself. If you attempted to tell 3 lies, in 7 words, you would be hard pressed to do it. Naturally, because Rome's solar-mass to Apollyon IS a Lie, "celebrating" and promoting the "philosophy of lying" by adults who habitually do it (and to children) is to be expected.  But from someone (anyone) who claims to "follow Christ" and be "a Christian"? Ah yes, this is the great deception, they are not "following Christ", they are simply "using his name" as "liars" to do something quite against him. And it begins with only 2 words into this alleged "great editorial", that discusses the "underlying philosophical issues". And perhaps "underlying" should be better spelled "under lying".

The bottom line here is this, if the following matters of "content" are pointed out to anyone espousing this letter, who "claims" to be a "Christian" and "following Christ", they should (after they fully understand the content here they are endorsing) be confronted with the fact, they are either lying to you as well, or themselves. As there is nothing "within them" that is really compatible with the Biblical "Christ", and the "doctrines of devils" (and likewise it's "philosophy of deceit") that is about to emerge in this editorial. 


Obviously, people who "claim" to "follow Christ", cannot really by any stretch of the imagination, honestly expect people to believe their claims, while they simultaneously advance the worship of "Satan".  They might be something "religious", but "Christian" would not be the word for them.  This is the hallmark of Nicolaitanism, it's "worship" of Satan as "Christ".  Synthesizing the two opposites of the "lake of fire" (a/k/a Satan) as "Christ".  In the 8th sentence down, allegedly written by an 8 year old (a strange coincidence) is that Masonic/Jesuit statement; "If you see it in the SUN, it's SO".

Why was the "number 8" chosen for that "particular line"? (In the lines of this letter?) The 8th line of the letter?

The Number 8 is the number for SATURN as in the SATURNALIA

- AstroOccult Number Guide, Number 8

What are the "odds" this would just "randomly", be the case? Concerning the "Saturnalia", it certinaly wasn't a "very nice thing" to be observing.

The Roman pagans introduced into their law December 17-25 as Saturnalia. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the week long celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose “an enemy of the Roman people” to represent the “Lord of Misrule.” Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival’s conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering the innocent man or woman who they chose to represent “the forces of darkness”. 

- Saturnalia, the Real Roots of Christmas, by Truth & Light Ministries


Here the lying New York Sun, tells the young seeker of truth, that her friends who have informed her that "Santa-Clause" is "make-believe" are "wrong".  With the explanation that they are simply "skeptics" who do not "understand" the vast complexities of the universe, and they have "no faith". 

And of course, not a bigger load of horse manure was ever published in a newspaper. Her "little friends" if in fact, she did write the article from an adult psychological perspective at the age of eight, were in all probability NOT "skeptics" as this lying editorial writer charges, but were in fact, probably children OF FAITH, who knew the difference between a Biblical "faith", and a "delusion" of someone's lying propaganda.

Biblical faith is not simply "believing" anything, and thereby making it "true" by virtue of one's "belief".  Biblical faith is reality based precognition.  It is described as "evidence of things unseen".  The "evidence" is the accurate function of intuition in the brain, verified by an accurate outcome. Otherwise it IS delusion.  No "Santa-Clause" is "created" by simply "believing" there is one.  There are objective realities to the universe that no amount of "imagining" will change, as hard as that is to believe to people who think they are "god".

This ideology however is typical of the kind of blasphemy offered by Roman and Masonic occultism that literally teach the "Tower of Babel" spiritual technique, that "whatever they imagined would not be impossible for them", taking it to the extreme even of seeing reality itself as a pliable "substance" to form and wield through their various witchcraft techniques to "make it be" whatever they wish it to be.

The fallacy of this "witchcraft" passed off as "Christian religiosity" to the ignorant and naive, is that it is all apart from God's will.  It is "unholy", meaning "un-whole", apart from "the whole" of life, or the universe.  If you are a Babelist and do not understand this simple principle, here it shall be explained for you.  500 Babelists "imagine" that they will be "millionaires" in California.  They use "will-worship" witchcraft technique (along with a crew of demons)  to "create this reality" for themselves.  Viola, like magic, their modest homes are now worth 1 million dollars.  But so is everyone else's in California, their "adjustable rate mortgage" goes through the roof with the appraised value of the home, and then the housing market collapses. So despite the fact they "manifested a reality in which they were millionaires", they end up "loosing their home", becoming homeless, and the entire economy collapses around them all mechanisms to "create this reality".  Such are the warnings about the "genie in the bottle".

If you watch these people long enough, you will often see, the very thing that they "fear", will in the midst of "their occult reality" which always revolves around personal decadent wealth, also become a "manifested reality", and this is the warning the Bible gave about this kind of witchcraft millenia ago.  That it is a "curse in the earth", a delusion and in the end, will "destroy the souls of humanity", because of it's blasphemy. (Which is precisely what it does)


Here the writer of this editorial begins to emerge into the most "dangerous elements" of Babel's Nimrodian witchcraft (i.e., the "legend of the craft"), that of blasphemy.  Although the direct reference to divinity is only subtle in this part of the text, it's equivocation is still made very clear. 

A Deception which one "imagines" is "equal' to "faith, hope and love".  And while this equation is stated in the affirmative sense of the equation, it also means the opposite is true as well in the negative sense. 

Here, the "reality" of the fact, there really IS NO SANTA-CLAUSE, is simply intentionally ignored as a problem of epistemology, and the idea is asserted that anything you "believe" is 'real" by virtue of your "belief in it". Which sounds like good Nimrodian witchcraft doctrine, but is hardly "philosophically accurate". 

No one has ever stopped a plane from crashing into a ball of fire, by simply "believing it wouldn't". Not once in history.  And the illustrations of this fact, can be reproduced by the thousands if someone had the time to sit down and simply start thinking... which apparently this editorial writer in his delusion never bothered to do.


Here again is another statement which is complete garbage.  Children have been around in the world for millenia, and were all quite happy without ever hearing of the Masonic invention of "Santa-Clause". 

And equating this Masonic mascot for the Antichrist who descends from the "throne of the north" as a hybrid mutant of Rome's first pedophile "Saint Nicholas" and the Masons first "Grand Master, Nimrod" (the archetype of the Antichrist). To even print such a stupid statement in a "public newspaper" is filthy beyond description.(And probably why it WASN'T reprinted until 1924, until after the Nazificaiton of much of America).

Real Christians of earlier times would have shamed him walking down the street. (Which is also probably why the identity of this author was never released until after "Church" was dead and gone, and only then to him, it was attributed)


Now, the truth comes out. The real "delusion" behind advancing religious "delusion". 

Now when this Masonic author is talking about "fairies", he is not talking about cartoon "fairies" or "make-believe fairies", he is talking about "FAIRY" from FATA, it's Latin origin.  He is talking about the "use of fairies" as "spirits".  That is why throughout this article he distinguishes between a visible "thing" called a "fairy" or "Santa-Clause", and a "Spirit".  He is asserting that they EXIST as SPIRITS.  And he is ADVOCATING THEIR USE AS "SPIRITS" in keeping with the occult doctrines of Babylonian Witchcraft (The Legend of the Craft) in Masonry.

And it is rather ironic that the Jesuits would find this such an important propaganda tool during the 1920s, when they denounced their competitors, the Masons, to their own Catholic audiences.  Here in America however, this "mutual ground" of Sun-worship witchcraft was something they could co-promote together around the worship of Apollyon as Christ.


Once again, in this statement, we see this editorial author equating his "Luciferian deceit" with "Biblical faith", as though the two are one and the same. When clearly, they are not.

A lie is still a lie and just because it is "invisible", gives it no "equivocation" to Biblical faith. The distinction between "faith" in what God speaks to someone, and an outright lie, could not be farther apart from one another. But as you see in his :Luciferian" explanation. He makes no such "distinctions". To him, "a lie" is the same as any "truth" which involve things of a "conceptual nature".

Because Nimrodian witchcraft is a "spiritual" based operative system, here the Masonic author argues for the reality of "spiritual things", which sounds a bit generically acceptable to most "Christians", but in the theology of Nicolaitan "Babelism", he is not talking about "spiritual things" in the normal sense of these terms. 

He is arguing based on this premise that "thought-forms" in and of themselves, are realities effective as "spirits" , and "through" these "thought-forms", reality can be made whatever one wishes it to be. 

Once again, this is enticing to the pseudo-intellectual, but the claim is a false one easily disproven by that little word called "reality".  While it is true "reality" can be "influenced" by "Luciferian" witchcraft, as by any form of wtichcraft, it does not "over-ride" the contraints of reality, created by it's highest expression in God, or "ultimate reality" which is a "collective whole", not subjugated by, or to any, of it's individualized "parts". 

This truth can be seen in how living organisms exist.  That is why these "Luciferians", call themselves "Christians" and worship the devil, they often have tragic personal circumstances over which their "witchcraft" and "occultism", bear no fruit other than frustration and personal shame.


Here the Masonic author, describes the Neo-platonic doctrines of separation between the material and spiritual, or the visible versus the invisible. 

Unfortunately for this Masonic author, his ideology was develped a long time ago before there were scientific instruments known as "microscopes" and "telescopes" and "radar" and "radio-spectrometers", etc. 

Today, this "romanticized" Aquinas notion of Neo-platonism is soundly refuted by fact, reality and everyday experience and knowledge. That "insurmountable veil" has been ripped apart a thousand times over by modern science which now consists almost exclusively of the study of "invisible things", and almost all of which, constitute the every day course of "scientific study". 

So this claim is today, an inaccurate regression to a philsophy which was as early as the 1800s when it was even being written, a fallacious error based on emerging science. 

In terms of theology, Hebrew prophets did not share the Greek paradigm of a separation between the physical and the spiritual.  They were seen as integrated wholes, two sides of the same one coin, simply seen from a different place.  To do something physical was also to do it "spiritually". 

That is why Nicolaitans pass around the "delusion" that as long as you think Apollyon is "Christ" it's "o.k." to "worship" because "the only thing that matters is what you BELIEVE".  No it isn't. It also matters WHAT YOU DO.  There is no artificial separation between the "seen and unseen worlds".  In fact, as science demonstrates today, they are quite integrated and do exist as a single whole, not as a bi-polar reality.

So, Virginia got some really antiquated philosophy here, as well as bad personal advice, from this "Luciferian" liar and deceiver, about "believing in her imaginary Masonic friend called Santa". Virginia would have been much better off going back to her Catholic roots in Europe and letting the Pope's demon, called "krampus" come and beat her with a stick, for following all this Masonic pseudo-sophistry.


No actually, it's not "all real". Some things are "real" and some things "aren't".  Demonic "spirits" however can be "conjured up" by anybody over anything, and just about any delusion will suffice apart from God.

 But the "delusion" one uses to "conjure them up" is just that, a delusion. And no, "religious delusions" are not the same thing as "reality" or even "spiritual reality".  They can be easily distinguished by anyone who genuinely wishes to do so, even by children, in fact most easily by children, who are taught to look for (and love) the truth, rather than simply believe anybody's lies that might come along with some bribes, even if the bribes they get for believing it, are called "presents". 

Bribery never made a great scientist discover anything, nor a great humanitarian ever care for anybody but themselves, nor a great spiritual leader do anything other than worship their pile of gold and bless demonic corruption in society.


Santa-Clause will not be around "1000 years from now" much less "ten times ten thousand years from now".  An utterly rediculous statement. At the current rate, humanity will be "lucky" to even be here at all.

And even if and especially so, if by "divine appointment", it will certainly be without "Santa-Clause", whom God himself "hates" (Rev. 2:6,15)
 In fact, "Santa-Clause" will either fade away into the barbaric past, or be made illegal, no matter which "future" unfolds, just as soon as Christ returns, (who will not tolerate it) or the Muslims conquer the world (who will outlaw it), or Communist China demands everyone pay up on their Chinese loans (who will replace it with homages to their emperor). (Whichever comes first)

"Santa-Clause" is a temporary abberation, of European /American Masonry. The day will come, when real "Christians" who "never" venerated it to begin with, will be found to have been on the "right side of history", all along.  That day is a certainty, no matter what "the polls" may show, in the mean time. "Santa-Clause" has no more a "future", than Jeffery Epstien.
The future for "Santa-Clause" no matter the WHAT the "real future" of the earth may be, does not look good for Virginia O'Halnon's Masonic demon "spirit" and "imaginary friend" called "Santa". And,... for a "Christian" who does expect to see a "new world" with a "return of Christ" in it, the Nicolaitan pedophile "Saint Nicholas", or his demonic pedophile spirit, a/k/a Masonic mascot "Santa-Clause", (a memorial to the founder of the "Nicolaitans"), will definitely have no part in. That is a PROMISE penned by the Apostles and Prophets of the New Testament Scriptures, themselves. And that too, is really "not" a "negotiable" REALITY.