Breaking the Rainbow Covenant (Be Fruitful and Multiply, and Fill the Earth)

In the wake of Friday’s Supreme Court decision, purportedly accepting same sex partners to so-called marriage, an onslaught of rainbows have been posted everywhere you look online. Even the White House had rainbow colors projected onto it to make the building look like a rainbow. You’d think we had just survived the greatest flood the world has ever seen. The rainbow, as you recall from childhood religious education, was the sign in the sky seen after the great flood. People seem to reduce the covenant to one facet: that God will not destroy the entire earth again. Actually, the full limitation that God accepted unto Himself:  “I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth.”

That’s not the whole story, though. Picking apart what else God said to Noah, when charging him to rebuild, reveals a whole series of things some have set out to reverse. In the midst of all the rainbows today, we find the mark of Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society, which appears to be a component of the errors of Russia referred to by Our Lady at Fatima.

The Full Covenant Symbolized By the Rainbow

As a quick refresher, the men on earth had become so wicked and full of sin, God comes to Noah with a solution. Tells the Bible in Genesis vi:  “And the earth was corrupted before God, and was filled with iniquity. And when God had seen that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth,) He said to Noe: The end of all flesh is come before me, the earth is filled with iniquity through them, and I will destroy them with the earth.”  We know the rest of the story. God tells Noah to build an ark, the dimensions, and Noah is obedient and does it, even though everyone mocks him, including his own wife. This is the reason that Great Lent readings in the Eastern Churches always begin with the story of Noah. You are going to be reviled for following God. (cf. the end of the beatitudes). The earth is destroyed, and at the end of the ordeal, in Genesis ix, we have the exchange of promises and instruction with God and Noah’s family.

God instructs Noah:

  • be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth
  • do not murder each other
  • eat all animals on earth, except flesh mixed with blood, and they will fear you

Be fruitful and multiply.  It’s pretty obvious that having wiped out the entire earth that they should reproduce, however, God also seems to be making clear to them that whatever they saw of sex before the flood is gone — it was meant to be for making children. God extends this expectation to their children “unto all generations.”  In other words, even each of us reading this are to do the same (here is a place into which I’d like to discuss some misunderstood aspects of Laudato Si, but alas, soon). Contraception and abortion should readily come to mind. God expects us to be fruitful, to fill the earth. Man used contraception to stop that. Abortion, on the other hand, not only prevents being fruitful, but also gets into the next prohibition.

Do not Murder each other.  Recall that God was instructing the earth prior to the decalogue.  He’s giving the basics here for the world He made. Get that last part:  that He made. God is making clear that the mark of Cain no longer applies. Rather, justice shall be exacted now that everyone hears the law. Said God, “For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.” (Gen. ix 5) Pretty clear. You almost get the sense that prior to the flood there was some confusion over this point. When Cain was given to till the land after murdering Abel, there was a mark He placed on Cain and told everyone else to leave Cain alone. Apparently, God needed to remind everyone that He is the Author of Life, not man. Life only ends when God ends it. Continues Our Lord, verse 6, “Whosoever shall shed man’ s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.”

The animals.  After reminding us that we are made in His image, God places fear of man as their dominator into all animals. In addition to giving all animals to man for food, He makes it clear that there is something different about man than all the other animals, “And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand.”  In other words, God makes creation different after the flood by changing the way animals react to man. Interesting! It almost makes you think that people before the flood got that mixed up. Why else would God need to change that?

Only on top of these ideas did God give reference to the rainbow. The rainbow is a reference to the things He told us to do, nature’s new role, and God’s promise to restrain from flooding us again.

In other words, the rainbow is also a reminder that Man is supposed to be fruitful, not murder each other, and act more like we are made in God’s image.

Inverting the Rainbow’s Meaning

Immediately, I hope you see the inversion of the meaning of the rainbow apparent in the idea of a same sex marriage. If the rainbow was given to us as a sign that God wants us to multiply through marriage, and you see the people who decided to fight for sterile marriages (same sex partners are sterile after all) using the rainbow as their symbol, you realize something far more complex than so-called civil rights is involved. This is an affront to the very meaning God gave to the rainbow!

Such a twist is not merely coincidental. Sure, most of the people flaunting rainbows, probably even all those ones you see online, including the white house, are on a bandwagon. But who started this bandwagon? Who would set in motion such a wicked inversion to taunt God? Who would set about to try and train man to be the opposite of what God wants? It cannot be the demons by themselves — by what means have demons organized such a movement among men that it could trick people into taunting God?

The Rainbow Movement was Set in Motion in 1875 by Madame Blavatsky, From the Bowels of Russia

You see, the LGBT or LGBTQ or gender identification movements were not the ones to take the rainbow itself, but appear to be a shill for a much deeper agenda. They, those who run the agenda, want to unravel all effects of Christianity worldwide, but particularly to remove Christian influence anywhere.  These goals were given specifically in Madame Blavatsky’s own words in setting up the Theosophical Society in 1875:

“… to oppose the materialism of science and every form of dogmatic theology, especially the Christian, which the Chiefs of the Society regard as particularly pernicious;
“to make known among among Western nations the long-suppressed facts about Oriental religious philosophies, their ethics, chronology, esoterism [sic], symbolism;
“to counteract, as far as possible, the efforts of missionaries to delude the so-called ‘Heathen’ and ‘Pagans’ as to the real origin and dogmas of Christianity and the practical effects of the latter upon public and private character in so-called Christian countries.”

Golden Book of the Theosophical Society (1925 ed.) p 63-. Do you understand what that means? Her Theosophy society is working to preserve esoteric demonology, paganism, and heathens while unraveling Christianity and its effects on society. If that isn’t clear enough, she makes it crystal clear here:

“Esoteric Philosophy reconciles all nations, strips every one of its outward human garments, and show the root of each to be identical with that of every other great religion. It proves the necessity of a Divine Absolute Principle in Nature [ed. note: they think God is not in the tree, but is the tree]. It denies Deity no more than it does the sun. Esoteric Philosophy has never rejected God in Nature [see previous note, and note this verbiage permits denying the living God in Three Persons], nor Deity as the absolute and abstract Ens.  IT ONLY REFUSES TO ACCEPT ANY OF THE GODS OF THE MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, GODS CREATED BY MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE AND LIKENESS, A BLASPHEMOUS AND SORRY CARICATURE OF THE EVER UNKNOWABLE.”

Id. p 64.

I hesitate to print such error on the internet where is can replicate so easily without placing the editorial brackets therein. I’d also like to comment that Blavatsky channeled demons. Those demons were what she called “Chiefs of the Society” and she passed communication with those Chiefs to Alice Bailey, who later called them the “Secret Chiefs.”

Notice already the inversion of truth. We see above that the rainbow is a sign of God’s reminder that He created man in His image and likeness. These demons coming out of Blavatsky invert that and claim that man created God. Worse, they deny any revelation of God to man.

Blavatsky believed that she travelled the “rainbow bridge” to speak with her “Chiefs” (demons). It was from her that the Theosophical Society set about to cross the rainbow bridge into a new world (one without God, and without men who follow God, obviously). This, they would seek as the new age.

Reminding the reader again as to the packaging of Theosophy as an error of Russia, by the Russian Church itself:

russia anathema service 1902

Theosophy began by merely denying Jesus Christ, but was lumped together with demon worshippers.

So this is pretty deep already and I have barely scratched the surface. The topic is pretty deep and it has been the discussion of many over the past century and a half. Unfortunately, not so much among Catholics, who seem to be busy with a great many other things in the past 50 years.

constance cumbey, hidden dangers of the rainbow cover, pic by manosFor further reading on Blavatsky’s groups and the development of kindred societies, including the Lucifer Trust, renamed the next year into the Lucis Trust, the connection to David Spangler and the new age movements, social organizing, and a host of other things, I recommend finding a copy of Constance Cumbey’s The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. Cumbey is not Catholic, and she took a boat load of criticism for the book, but such criticisms never said she misquoted or did not properly connect the various groups. So, her biblical exegesis may come from an evangelical background, and her view of the eschaton a bit too geared towards the final end time, but her research was reliable and good.

I think it is worth many more posts on the groups and connections of the Theosophical society over time. I believe that the more you trace them out, the more you will agree with me, that this is the root of what Our Blessed Mother referred when she said Russia will spread her errors throughout the world.

Over the Rainbow…  A Theosophical catechism

As a sideline to this post, but illustrative that the Rainbow is the chosen symbol of these evil demon worshippers, we can look to the familiar song from the Wizard of Oz, “Over the Rainbow.”  You’ve heard it. We’ve all seen the movie. It is a brilliant tactical tool of Theosophists. You see, L. Frank Baum, a notable Theosophist, wrote the book The Wizard of Oz in the 1890s. The very short story of it — over the rainbow refers to Blavatsky’s nascent views (later elaborated more fully by Bailey) that the world had to be moved over the rainbow bridge wherein it could be ruled by the Secret Chiefs and their goals be realized. I say that some of the movie is a brilliant tool because of the impressionable drama of it — even the use of color. When I was a child, I thought all the world used to be black and white, and had been made color during my parent’s life. That movie only helped to color that image in my mind. Baum, it seems thought the same:  over the rainbow, our lives will be “illumined” to see that God is an invention of man [anathema!]. You can read a far more detailed account of this on a post from a few years ago at Vigilant Citizen. Baum’s own words of the work:

“It was pure inspiration…It came to me right out of the blue. I think that sometimes the Great Author has a message to get across and He has to use the instrument at hand. I happened to be that medium, and I believe the magic key was given me to open the doors to sympathy and understanding, joy, peace and happiness.”
-L. Frank Baum, cited by Hearn 73

“Inspiration” is likely code for demonically channelled. Willingly going headlong into the inversion of creation, and the denial of God must be sought by those possessed by demons. Right minded people would not seek such ends.

Yes, it should be obvious now why St. Michael, who said to Lucifer “who is like God?”, is such a key player in the Fatima chronicles. But it’s worse, they even invert the relationship of man and animal!

Inverting the Animal’s Relation to Man

While on this diversion, it is worth it to point out Theosophical Society’s own interpretation of Baum’s work. What follows is their explanation of Toto’s role as the force that brings Dorothy to illumination instead of following to the Heavens. Recall that God impressed the animals with fear as a reminder that Man is made in God’s image. Theosophists, seeking to say man is divine (yes, they are connection to neopaganism, and recall we’ve discussed this deformation recently), will obfuscate the role of animals in creation. To them, God is the animal, as is man. So, Toto is given an illuminating purpose in the film, and the theosophical society explains:

“Toto represents the inner, intuitive, instinctual, most animal-like part of us. Throughout the movie, Dorothy has conversations with Toto, or her inner intuitive self. The lesson here is to listen to the Toto within. In this movie, Toto was never wrong. When he barks at the scarecrow, Dorothy tries to ignore him: ‘Don’t be silly, Toto. Scarecrows don’t talk.’ But scarecrows do talk in Oz. Toto also barks at the little man behind the curtain. It is he who realizes the Wizard is a fraud. At the Gale Farm and again at the castle, the Witch tries to put Toto into a basket. What is shadow will try to block or contain the intuitive. In both cases, Toto jumps out of the basket and escapes. Our intuitive voice can be ignored, but not contained.

“In the last scene, Toto chases after a cat, causing Dorothy to chase after him and hence miss her balloon ride. This is what leads to Dorothy’s ultimate transformation, to the discovery of her inner powers. The balloon ride is representative of traditional religion, with a skinny-legged wizard promising a trip to the Divine. Toto was right to force Dorothy out of the balloon, otherwise she might never have found her magic. This is a call for us to listen to our intuition, our gut feelings, those momentary bits of imagination that appear seemingly out of nowhere.”

Again, I only add this here to further illustrate that the use of the Rainbow by the Theosophical Society is not mere coincidence but indicative of their goals:  an entirely dechristianized society. These demon worshippers hate God, and those who follow Him.

The Deeper Agenda Behind the Rainbow Would See LGBT as a Component of Their Goals, but Not Important

For now, we must remember that the rainbow we see emblazoned on the LGBT movement means far more than that. And the agenda that has profited by advancing their cause has far wider goals:  they want to totally eliminate the effect of Jesus Christ and His Church on society. Very similarly to the way the Bolsheviks expended what they called “useful idiots” who were people duped into the movements of social destabilization, I think the poor people who have been duped here are expendable to the rainbow agenda. There would be no convincing anyone tied up in it of that today, that you care for them and they are being deceived, rather, we should do what God told Noah: “be faithful, and do what I tell you.”  Even though we will be scorned for it, sometimes even by our spouse or those closest to us.


It should be obvious that part of using the rainbow this way is to taunt God that He promised not to destroy the earth by flood. There is a problem here, though:  God didn’t promise that He would not use fire! Think of Sodom and Gomorrah, which happened AFTER Noah and the flood. Think also that the angel in the third Secret holds the sword that issued flames headed for Earth. This same vision was given to the nun at Akita. These rainbow cultist Theosophists are the sons of Balaam I mentioned in that post.

We don’t want that, and neither does Our Blessed Mother, who asked us to make reparation to Our Lord, pray, and fast. We should be like Abraham, who asked God if but fifty, no forty…  thirty? twenty…  ten… five good people existed, would He spare destruction. Be one of those good people God can count. Stick with Him as Noah did. Beg Him for mercy as Abraham did…

Abraham as a Sign of Be Fruitful, and Live UNDER the Rainbow

You see, on last Friday, while the Supreme Court was saying that marriage is something other than the union of a man and woman for the creation of children, Catholic churches were reading Genesis 17 to anyone at daily Mass. That is the Chapter where God makes a promise to Abraham and Sara. They will be fruitful, they will multiply, and great kings shall issue from his loins in his union with Sara. It’s almost as if God had a sense of humor, thank God. He certainly was sending a message.

The next day, Saturday after the Supreme Court decision, Genesis 18 was read at daily Mass — that’s where Abraham begged God for mercy for the sake of the good. Lord, have mercy on us!

Reclaim the Rainbow…  Live UNDER THE RAINBOW!



This article, Breaking the Rainbow Covenant (Be Fruitful and Multiply, and Fill the Earth) is a post from The Bellarmine Forum.
Do not repost the entire article without written permission. Reasonable excerpts may be reposted so long as it is linked to this page.

John B. Manos

John B. Manos, Esq. is an attorney and chemical engineer. He has a dog, Fyo, and likes photography, astronomy, and dusty old books published by Benziger Brothers. He is the President of the Bellarmine Forum.
  • Joe Ramsak says:

    Great insight!! Thanks for this!!

    • John B. Manos says:

      Thanks be to God! I’ve been tumbling the idea for some time, but now seemed to be the right time to post it.

  • sue200012 says:

    Wonderful. Thank you so much. I finally understand the errors of Russia.

  • susanna says:

    Yikes, I just read this again, and recalled that when I was volunteering in animal rescue and generally an animal advocate, pets who died were referred to as going over the rainbow bridge. I don’t do that any more.

  • susanna says:

    Yikes, I just read this again, and recalled that when I was volunteering in animal rescue and generally an animal advocate, pets who died were referred to as going over the rainbow bridge. I don’t do that any more.

  • Get VIP Notice

    Have new blog posts delivered right to your inbox!
    Enter your email: