The Jesuits

by Miles Mathis

First published November 25, 2021

This is by request. I have already touched on the Jesuits many times, and my readers should already
know my overall opinion on the subject, which will not change here. We have already seen Disraeli
admitting the Jesuits were Jews, so I have read that as a simple infiltration, going way back—even
before the Jesuits. We have seen the Papacy already infiltrated before Loyola, by the Medicis, Borgias,
and other Jewish popes. In that light, the Jesuits were just these noble families cementing their hold on
Rome and Europe by establishing their own specialized monks and monasteries.

I often get angry emails from people screaming that the Jesuits are behind the Jews, but of course that
is upside down, I assume on purpose. The Jews have tried to deflect blame onto the Jesuits, but as you
will see, that doesn't fly. The Jews were around and running their projects long before anyone had
heard of the Jesuits. According to my extensive research, no one is crouching behind the Jews, except
maybe the Phoenicians. But since I use the two terms pretty much interchangeably, that also doesn't
deflect blame. It is two names for the same people, so in pointing at the Phoenicians I am not pointing
away from the Jews. The Jews are just neo-Phoenicians.

In researching this latest paper, I ran across a book I didn't previously know about, entitled The Jesuit
Order as a Synagogue of Jews. It was published in 2010 by Robert Aleksander Maryks. At first you
might think this is a bold outing of the Jesuits, but it isn't. Like When Scotland was Jewish, it only
seems to be spilling the beans. Both are actually opposition control, released by the Jews themselves.
We already saw that with the latter book, which was written by two authors who admit they are Jewish.
And it is the same with Robert Maryks. Did he fool you with that name? Try spelling it Marx.
Maryks is an assistant professor at Boston College, so you can be sure he isn't doing anything
revolutionary here. If he did any real research they would fire him immediately. The book was
published under the auspices of The Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, which appears to
be founded, edited, and overseen by Jews. Maryks actually thanks a Borja in his acknowledgments.
We see what they are up to very fast in the long introduction, where they admit what is already known:
the first Jesuits, including Loyola, were conversos or crypto-Jews, from noble and wealthy families.
But then Maryks tries to convince us that although it was OK to be a Jesuit Jew from 1540 to 1593,
after 1593 (see p. 117) the Jesuits were cleansed of Jewish blood from within, by new rules forbidding
it. That isn't believable on the face of it, so we should look closely at Maryks' evidence. Does he prove
it or even indicate it? No, he just says it.

But let's back up. In order to build street cred in the run up to that argument, Maryks admits the first
Jesuits were Jews. Disraeli and many others, including other prominent Jews and rabbis, have already
admitted it, so Maryks isn't telling us anything we don't already know. But as part of building his cred,
he does go into a bit more deeply than others before him, showing a lot of evidence they were Jewish.
So this should interest us, and does. It probably explains why the book—although prepared as
controlled opposition by the Jews themselves—was soon pulled from the shelves. It is almost
impossible to buy, being out of print and going for hundreds of dollars online.

My link above goes to Veteran's Today from 2018, where Gordon Duff is recommending the book.
Also for street cred, I assume. And also to sell you the idea the Jesuits were only Jews before 1593.
So let's look at the first Jesuits. The first one I will look at is very easy, that being Alfonso Salmeron.
You can tell he is Jewish just from the name. Salermon=Salmon=Salomon=Solomon. Also see his
picture, which is easy to read. A preternaturally long hook nose and no cross around his neck. But if
that kind of evidence offends you, I send you to Maryks, who gives you much more. Salmeron was
from Toledo, where his family were known Jews of longstanding and huge wealth. If you search for
him in Maryks' book online, good luck. The important things don't come up either on an internal
search (cntl F) or in the index. So I will just give you the hint: go to the footnote of page 55, where
Maryks admits many Jewish historians have admitted Salermon is Jewish, including Friedman, Gomez-
Menor, and Salvador.

Toledo had been a Jewish stronghold for many centuries, being run by Phoenicians back to Roman
times. Back then they were known as Carpetians, and by the 1 st century AD Toledo already had the
largest Roman circus in Spain. By the third century it was already a favored town of the wealthiest in
that region, due to its use as a trade and banking center (and being on a pretty hill surrounded by
rivers*). We are supposed to believe these people running Toledo in those years were Goths, ie
wildmen of the north, but there is no evidence of that. Like the Vikings, they have been sold as
something they weren't. Most likely they were northern Phoenicians battling with their southern
cousins. If they had been wildmen they couldn't have competed with the Romans. It is admitted that
the Jews were in Toledo from the beginning, but we are supposed to believe they were oppressed by
the Goths and then the Moors and all along by the Christians. The usual story. The usual flip of
history.

The truth seeped through in the 7th century under Archbishop Julian of Toledo, supposedly a Goth ruler
who legislated against the Jews. Except that they admit he was Jewish. Amazing, isn't it, that these
Jew-hating Goths had a Jewish primate? Although the Goths were sold to us as wildmen, they also
admit that Toledo in the 7th century was a center of literacy and writing. Was this writing in the Gothic
language, in the Gothic alphabet? No, again as with the Vikings, you are supposed to believe the Goths
had no written language. They were barbarians you know, and just spoke in grunts and waves of their
hands. Once the Romans arrived the Goths borrowed their alphabet and language. So convenient.

And here's a strange fact, right from Julian's Wiki page: a lost work of this Julian is said to be on the
subject of Jews owning Christian slaves. That's pretty hard to spin, isn't it? Just think about it: if what
we are told about Jews being third class citizens were true, with edicts constantly being passed against
them and so on, how could they ever have Christian slaves? It makes no sense, because slaveowners
are never from a repressed class themselves. You would expect the Jews to be slaves in that time and
place, not to own them, so this story makes no sense. Just to be sure you are getting it, I am not saying
Julian didn't write a book on that. I am saying the Jews weren't repressed. They were the upperclass
there, as they always were and still are.

This early Spanish Renaissance was presided over by Isidore of Seville, the most scholarly man of his
time and the Archbishop of Seville. If you want to know who he really was, they give you clue: he is
always depicted surrounded by bees. See Gerry's papers on the Phoenicians to see what that means.
This indicates that his edicts against Jews were the usual smokescreens. Compare it to the more recent
stories about Jews being kept out of country clubs in the US up until a few decades ago. A joke, since
it isn't true. But it allowed the Jews to hide, because if you saw someone at a country club back then,
you just assumed they had been vetted and weren't Jewish. They looked like that because they were
Syrian or Lebanese or something, I guess. In the same way, Isidore's edicts against the Jews made it
look like something was being done against usury or venality, when nothing was. Just like now.

I pause to point out that on the Wiki page for Toledo, they skip ahead from 1085, when the Castilians
drove the Moors out, to 1525. That's kind of curious, isn't it? Nothing happened in Toledo for over
400 years? Except that they do quickly list the Jewish persecutions of 1368, 1391, 1449, and 1486.
Indicating Jewish authors of this page. Why would we get many paragraphs on the late 600s, but not a
word on the first real “Spanish” period in Spain? We may hit that another time.

But just to give you some idea, Charles V became King of Toledo and Holy Roman Emperor in the
1500s, and he was of course a Habsburg. His father was Philip the Handsome, King of Castile:
Gorgeous, ain't he? Here's his father:

Note the nose and the red hair. Not what you expected I bet.
Before that, Toledo and most of the rest of the peninsula was ruled by Burgundians/Ivreans, and they
came out of the Carolingians. That is, the Phoenicians by yet another name.

Next, as one of the first Jesuits we find Peter Faber. He is supposedly a shepherd who ended up at the
College Saint-Barbe at the University of Paris, which is sort of like the French equivalent of Trinity
College, Cambridge. It would be like being told a bootblack ended up at Oxford or that a little black
boy from the slums of Kenya ended up at Harvard. No wait, we were told that, weren't we? I have
news for you: Faber has always been a Jewish name and still is. See for example the new Jeopardy
guest host David Faber, admitted to be Jewish. Also see Swiss investor and famous racist Marc Faber.
Also alleged Holocaust survivor David Faber. Also slave trader Mary Faber, whose maiden name is
conspicuously scrubbed, probably because it's Cohen or something. Strangely, Peter Faber is not
mentioned once in Maryks' book. Instead he calls him Pierre Favre, I suppose to keep you from
remembering what I just told you. Best guess is Faber was a wealthy Savoyard hand-picked by the
Medicis for this project.

Next we have Francis Xavier, real name Francisco de Jasso y Azpilicueta, which indicates he was from
the Azpilicueta dynasty. Another from this dynasty, Juan Bautista de Orendain y Azpilicueta, 1 st
Marquess, was later Prime Minister under Philip V. He has a page at Wiki, but it also doesn't come up
on a search for that name. Xavier's father was Privy Counsellor and Finance Minister to King John III
of Navarre. So in this case they pretty much admit he was Jewish. Finance ministers have always been
Jewish, since they are bankers. They also admit his mother, Dona Maria Azpilicueta y Aznarez, was of
Navarrese nobility in both lines. Xavier didn't even study theology, getting a Master of Arts and
teaching Aristotle at Beauvais College, Paris. He was recruited last minute to replace Bobadilla, and
went straight from teaching Aristotle at the University of Paris to a meeting with the King of Spain,
Charles I. Up to that time, Xavier's favorite book was De Institutione de bene vivendi (the Institution
of living well) by Croatian humanist Marko Marulic. Could you ask for a bigger clue? Marulic's
mother was of the Albertis, Italian/Jewish nobles. His most famous poem was called Judita. Do I need
to explain that to you?

The fake historians tell us Xavier quit his teaching position at University of Paris in 1534 to study
theology, being ordained three years later, but I don't believe it. If so, why was he a last minute
alternate for Bobadilla? Can you imagine turning your whole life over for this idiot Loyola, getting
ordained, and then not being chosen as one of the first Jesuits? We are supposed to believe that if
Bobadilla hadn't gotten sick at the last minute, Xavier would have been lost to history, all due to some
pledge in a crypt.

As you may know, Xavier was sent to Goa, India, allegedly to set up a mission, but—as with all
prominent missionaries since then—he was actually there for business. We may assume he was there
as an agent of the merchants, and his cousins the Jewish bankers, who were already in India but were
anxious to expand at that time. Their financial successes in Europe gave them extra capital to spend in
expanding their empire in the East, so we can read Xavier's trips as early East India Company
excursions. Remember, this was only 60 years before the official opening of the EIC in England in
1600. Drake had already been to the East Indies by 1579, and one of the places he visited was the
Moluccas (west of New Guinea). Not coincidentally, Xavier also went there, but thirty years earlier.
The Portuguese had already been there for decades, and they had their own East India Company. Do
you really think Xavier was there preaching? They admit that Xavier had always wanted to be an
important society man, so it is pretty difficult to imagine him walking around barefoot in India, tending
to the sick and poor. My guess is he was there sitting on velvet cushions and being fed grapes by half-
naked women.
Which reminds us that Goa is also a strange place to be doing missionary work. It has always been the
richest area of India, though they tell you that is now due to tourism. You have to laugh. It has always
been due to mining. The Portuguese didn't capture it in 1510 for tourism, or for coconuts either. They
have been mining iron and gold from the beginning, though there is no mention of gold mining on the
Wiki page for Goa. However, if you do a search on it, many current active gold mines come up. We
are told Xavier built St. Stephen's Cathedral in Kombutherai in 1542, and they give you a bad picture
of it on Wikipedia. But if you look it up, this comes up:

Does that look like it was built in 1542? It looks like a Hollywood quick-build to me. The interior may
be even worse:
Where did they get those decorations, Dollar Tree?

I love the plastic lawn chairs St. Xavier built in 1542. As I often say, they really think we are stupid.
I will be told the church was recently rebuilt. Obviously. But why don't we have pictures of the
original church? Or the ruins? No one had cameras there until after 2010? No artists ever painted or
drew the old famous church of St. Xavier or its ruins? The very wealthy Roman Catholic Church had
no desire to keep this site up as a holy site, due to its historical significance? We are told the Jesuits
abandoned the cathedral soon after they built it. My guess is they abandoned it even before they built
it: meaning, they didn't build it at all. Xavier is supposed to have built 40 churches in India in just three
years. With just one hammer, his own strong arms, and the light of the Lord, I guess. But that isn't
how the Catholic church worked back then. When they built cathedrals they did it right. They didn't
just throw up a wooden frame like the Amish. They built with stone and took years to do it. And they
certainly wouldn't build a church and then immediately abandon it.

See for example the Cathedral at Chennai, first built in 1523 and visited by Xavier. It is now a huge
awful Neo-Gothic basilica, but the original church existed until 1892, and we have pictures of it.

OK, let's move on to Diego Lainez, whom everyone admits was Jewish. Everyone but Wikipedia, of
course, which skips over his family and early years.

Amazingly, Maryks admits (p. xxvi) that during the converso controversy of the Third General
Congregation, those involved used the word “Spanish” to mean “Jew/converso”. The anti-Jewish
faction was referred to as anti-Spanish. Wow. That tells you how prominent the Jews were in Spain at
that time, though Maryks runs right over it without comment. Lainez was a close friend of Salmeron
from childhood, they having grown up in the same Jewish neighborhood. Maryks admits on p. 57 that
many of Lainez' family had been sentenced for Judaizing. He also admits that Jeronimo Nadal lied
about this, claiming the Lainez were “exemplary Christians”. The Italian Jesuit Benedetto Palmio
stated for the record that Lainez had admitted to being Jewish. Sacchini admits Lainez' Jewishness in
his famous biography, and Maryks puts it this way in a footnote on p. 59:

Modern scholarship has established Laínez’s Jewish genealogy, which had been already been
known to his contemporaries.

Maryks doesn't even bother trying to reprove it, taking it as already proven beyond any doubt. Since
Lainez was the second Superior General of the Jesuits, that pretty much settles the question.

Now, what about Ignatius Loyola himself? See his portrait under title, which settles the question in my
eyes. But, again, if you are offended by that sort of evidence, read Maryks or many other historians,
who admit Loyola was surrounded by Jews from the beginning, socializing with almost no one who
wasn't Jewish during his career. Then we have this on p. 50:

Kevin Ingram has hypothesized in his recent Ph.D. dissertation the converso origins of Íñigo’s
maternal grandfather, Dr. Martín García de Licona, who “was not just a merchant, [but] a
man of letters and a f nancial advisor at court—that is to say his profle is very much that of a
converso merchant professional.” Consequently, Íñigo too would be considered a converso.

Somehow Maryks, like many others, manages to dismiss these piles of evidence as inconclusive. But
there is another clue all of them have missed.

That is the coat of arms of the Onaz y Loyola family, which was then used by the Jesuits. Notice that it
has two wolves eating from two black kettles. That doesn't give you much confidence, does it? Sort of
spooky, no? The Jesuits are wolves stealing from a pot? Doesn't that confirm my reading here?
Compare to the wolf in sheep's clothing on the coat of arms of the Fabians.

Which means that Onaz may be a corruption or Spanishizing of Cohen. Don't believe me? Well, you
may wish to read about the War of the Bands that occurred in the Basque region in the 1400s. It was
between the Onaz and the Gamboinos. Hmmm. Is that like Gambino, the famous Italian crime family?
Yep, same people. We find them still feuding with the same families today, including the Falcones.
There are Falcones in the Jesuit stories of the 1500s. I tripped across them in my research today. And I
remind you that we also find them in the British peerage, with names like Faulkner.

If we research the name Onaz, we find the variations include Onan, Honeen, and Oonan, with strong
ties between Spain and Ireland. So you see we are closing in on Cohen/Coen already. A search on the
genealogy of Loyola pulls up Lorenza de Onaz y Loyola, d. 1575 in Llerena, a great-niece of Ignatius.
Lorenza married Juan de Borja, Conde di Mayalde. One of her daughters married the Conde di Oliva,
also a Borja, and another married Juan Perez de Vivero y Mercado, Conde di Fuensaldana. Conde
means Count. So the Loyolas were closely related to the Borjas, which means Loyola was a close
cousin of the recent Borgia Pope (see below). Since the Borgias were related to the Medicis, Loyola
was also a close cousin of the Medici Popes of those years.

You will say the links were made after the time of Ignatius, but he wasn't that much older than Lorenza.
She married the Borja while he was still alive. You will say that was due to the fame of Ignatius, but
he wasn't yet very famous; and besides, top nobles don't normally marry into the families of monks. So
all this IS proof Ignatius had very high rank.

That is because Lorenza's husband Juan de Borja was also an Aragon, linking us to the Dukes of
Villahermosa. So those Dukes were more close cousins of Loyola. They don't ever tell you that, do
they? Those dukes came from the illegitimate son of King John II, king of Aragon and Sicily. Note
the Sicily, since that is how we link the Gambino mobsters to the Gamboinos of the century before
Loyola. The same families owned both places, you see. John ruled until 1479, and his queen was
Blanche of Navarre. She comes from Castilians, including Juana Manuel. As in Emmanuel. They
come from the Guzman and Ponce de Leon families, as well as from the Kings of Portugal. All
Phoenicians, of course. They also take us back to Henry II of England and the Plantagenets as well as
to the Dukes of Saxony. In the male line of John, they take us back to the Arpads of Hungary and the
Ruriks of Russia. Yaroslav the Wise was a direct ancestor. So is Mieszko of Poland of the Piast
dynasty. Through the Premyslids we can take them back even farther, to the first Dukes of Bohemia in
the 800s. Through the Earls of Wessex they take us back to Vikings. In the Arpad line they go back to
Attila the Hun, who was also not who are told. Not a barbarian.

With more digging, we find where that black kettle comes from in the coat of arms. It refers to the
House of Lara or Larrea, which was the source of the Onaz family back to the 11 th century. The kettle
was the coat of arms of the House of Lara. This house was closely related to the Kings of Leon and
Castile, with one of its early members having children with Queen Urraca. In about 1335 a Lara
married Juan Manuel, Prince of Villena, of the Castilian royal house. Their daughter married Henry II
of Castile. Two of the Lara branches became Grandees of Spain when the Emperor Charles V raised
them to that level in 1520. . . just before the Jesuits came to prominence. So in using the kettle on their
flag, the Jesuits were admitting they came from this noble House of Lara. In the time of Loyola, one of
his cousins Juan de Lara was Viceroy of Catalonia under Charles V.

Anyway, we find all that in the ancestry of Ignatius Loyola, in the lines of many kings. And yet we are
told by the current histories that he was of minor nobility, raised by a blacksmith. You have to laugh.
He moved out of the blacksmith's house to be a page for the Treasurer of the entire kingdom of Castile,
Juan Velazquez de Cuellar. They admit that as a young man Loyola was a womanizer, a fancy dresser,
and a general peacock. We are supposed to believe he changed after having his leg almost blown off
by a cannonball, but that story no longer scans. That happened to him at age 29, and he didn't go into a
monastery. Rather, he soon ended up at the University of Alcala, where he allegedly studied theology
for an entire decade. Ten years lollygagging on campus wasn't enough, so he then went to the
University of Paris for more excitement. By then he was 43, and he didn't settle into cloisters there,
either. Rather, he began gadding about with Francis Xavier and Peter Faber, two young roustabouts
who had no interest in the clergy. This was 1534, and Xavier had already graduated four years earlier.
He was late twenties and was teaching, but as we have seen he was not teaching theology or anything
related to it. So why would he go down into a crypt with Loyola and make a vow of poverty, chastity,
and loyalty to the Pope?

Also pause on the word crypt, which is another clue. There was no reason for these guys to be meeting
in a crypt in Paris, except to drop another marker. Not only does it tie into the crypto-Jewish intrigue
going on here, it is part of the cryptic nature of the entire story.

The Jesuits were founded in 1540 under the papacy of Pope Paul III, a Farnese, related to and groomed
by the Medicis. His predecessor Pope Clement VII was a Medici, and his predecessor, skipping one,
was Leo X, also a Medici. Going back a few more years to 1503, we come to the Borgia Pope
Alexander VI. Well, the third leader of the Jesuits was Francisco de Borja, cousin of Loyola and
grandson of that Borgia Pope. Borgia=Borja. I remind you what the Borgia Pope looked like:
And what did Francisco de Borja, Superior General of the Jesuits, look like?

So, I now think you understand how things were. Same as it ever was. Which is why I know the story
about the Jesuits purging themselves of Jews in 1593 is the usual bollocks. This is what they do and
have always done: they get caught at something and create a fake purge, to make it look like they are
mending their ways. A few scapegoats are rounded up and fed to the pretend wolves, they stage a
couple of fake hangings or beheadings, and go on as before, taking a little more care to hide. Same
thing I think we are about to see to get them out of this current Covid/vaccine mess.

Besides, we have to remember who was controlling the Jesuits in 1593. It wasn't the Pope, since he
was very weak at that time. The Vatican had just been through a dozen since the founding of the
Jesuits 50 years earlier. They were old and kept dying after about a year. So it was Charles V's son
Philip II who was running things in that regard. I remind you he was a Habsburg, so he had no
problem with Jews, being one himself. He would not have put up with any real pogrom against the
Jews, inside the Jesuits or anywhere else. The Jesuits were created with the express purpose of
continuing the infiltration and control of the Vatican by Jewish interests, especially the Medicis and
Habsburgs, so there is no way the Jesuits would really be purging themselves of Jews. It would be like
the ADL doing a Jewish purge. It makes no sense.

I will show you what I mean. Philip II was closely related to Loyola. Philip's paternal grandfather was
Manuel I, King of Portugal. Manuel is a Jewish name, of course. His wife was Maria of Aragon, and
we just saw them closely tied to Loyola through the Borjas. The Kings of Portugal take us directly
back to Philippa of Lancaster and her father John of Gaunt, who we have seen many times. He comes
up like clockwork in my studies. Take that link to see how he comes from the Komnenes of Armenia
through the Byzantine emperors. The Komnenes were Jewish/Phoenician, with that name probably
being the source of the name Kohen. So you see why I say that Philip would not be allowing any real
purging of Jewish Jesuits in 1593. It would go against the entire point of the project.

You will say Maryks provides a lot of evidence for this Jewish purge in his third and last chapter, but I
just showed you why I am not buying it. To be honest, nothing he could say would convince me, since
I know before reading it that it is impossible. No amount of quoting sources can prove the impossible.
I draw your attention to page 117, the first of that chapter, where Maryks admits he will not be trying to
prove the purge. He takes it as given and will only try to show us the reason for it.

Also notice that Maryks tells us on the same page the “Spanish” electors dominated the new
Congregation in 1573, when the tide allegedly began to turn against the Jews. But he previously
admitted that “Spanish” was code for “Jewish”, so he is ignoring his own code here. He also admits
they governed all but one of the Italian provinces, with Salmeron running the province of Naples,
Domenech running the province of Sicily, and Borja's man Miro running the province of Portugal. In
the general congregation they still had Bobadillo and Nadal and Guzman, all Jews. So while he seems
to be implying the non-Jews were coming to the fore, his own lists contradict that. He is just spinning
you to your stupid face, assuming you won't remember that he just showed you Salmeron and the rest
of these people were Jews.

Maryks then expects us to believe Cardinal Henry of Portugal, soon to be King, wrote a letter to the
Congregation demanding the Jesuits not elect another converso as head, at the penalty of dissolution.
Pope Gregory XIII allegedly agreed with this sentiment. But that is not believable given that Cardinal
Henry was the son of Manuel I and Maria of Aragon, who we just saw. Not only were they closely
related to the Jewish Loyola, they came from John of Gaunt and the Komnenes. All these people were
Jewish, including the Pope. So the whole story we are being told is the usual fiction. It was
manufactured expressly to cover up the fact that the Jesuits had been caught being conspicuously led by
Jews. The Society of Jesus being founded and led by a group of Jewish nobles was so outrageous,
these people could see they needed to cover it with an equally outrageous purge.

Besides, this Cardinal Henry was actually a huge fan and supporter of the Jesuits from the first. He is
the very one that brought the Jesuits to Portugal to use in the colonial empire. Other than that, Henry
was a weak fool who failed to have any heirs, letting his early vows of chastity overrule his need for a
son. He didn't even appoint a successor, leading to the Succession Crisis where Portugal had to share
rule with a Habsburg. Portugal didn't get its own kingdom back for 60 years due to Henry's lack of
fortitude, so it is impossible he would be making any demands to this Congregation of Jesuits.

Maryks implies the anti-converso assembly was stronger than the pro, but after listing the pro, fails to
list the anti. We expect him to give a list of those Jesuits strongly opposed to the conversos, or at least
a short list of province leaders who were opposed, but we don't get that. Instead, we are supposed to
believe the Congregation voted for Mercurian simply at the behest of the Pope and Henry, who ordered
it. As I say, that isn't believable.

Maryks then says Mercurian purged the Jesuits of many conversos, but fails to give us any examples.
Instead he starts immediately listing counter-examples, which you have to admit is strange. On page
123 he admits Polanco was not purged, just being sent to lead the Jesuits in Sicily. He implies that was
a big demotion, but it wasn't, Sicily being an important province. Mercurian replaced Polanco as
secretary with Possevino, and Maryks admits he was almost certainly a Jew. The known Jew
Ribadeneyra was sent to Toledo but not purged, and again it is implied that was a big demotion. It
wasn't, since Toledo was the center of the Jewish universe back then. The Jew Ruiz was sent to
Granada, also a paradise for Jews. Borja's protege Vazquez was also not purged, being sent to Spain.
Salmeron was not purged, being sent to Madrid. Maryks then admit that not only were top Jews like
Polanco, Nadal and Ribadeneyra not squashed by Mercurian, they actually flourished, being given time
to write important tracts. So we can see Maryks doing a very poor job of advancing his own thesis.
If you don't believe me, see p. 129, where he now admits the story against the conversos comes from an
unsigned and undated document in the Jesuit Archives in Rome. That's convenient, isn't it? Maryks
uses internal information and handwriting analysis to assign the document to the hand of Benedetto
Palmio, but that doesn't explain why it isn't signed or dated. That fact tends to support my assertion
that Palmio inserted this document into the Archives to make it look like the Jews were finding strong
resistance from within. But Maryks admits Palmio was a protege of the very Jewish Lainez who we
saw above, as well as the Jewish Domenech. He was later a colleague and co-worker with Nadal and
Canisius, again both Jewish. His first major assignment in Lombardy was also due to Lainez. He later
became assistant general under the Jewish Borja. So why would he later write a scathing anti-converso
memorial and insert it into the Archives? I just told you why. It was all another fake. He was on
assignment, and this history of 1573 that Maryks is trying to sell us wasn't written until 1597. In other
words, it was faked and backdated.

I could go through the rest of Maryks' book but as you see it wouldn't be worth it. His argument has
already fallen apart in the opening pages of his last chapter, so there is no reason to see it collapse
further. He just proved my point for me, almost as succinctly as I could have done myself.

*Now polluted and stinking, of course.