If the Israelis are “God’s chosen people,” as they say, then God will protect them and doesn’t need the United States to, but their Golden Calf has Grown up to be a hollow Bronze Bull . . . No amount of theft from the U.S. Treasury by their bought and paid for Shabbos Goy politicians will save Ukraine or Israel, no matter who is president of the United States.
Two or three groups of assholes calling each other fascists and nazis would be a hysterically hilarious spectacle for a European national socialist, if it wasn’t for the idea that they all wish to draw generations of Europeans into a devastating worldwide military conflict, and the fact that they are all invasive, racially hostile foreign ideologies.
The Goy Grovel: Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Boris Johnson betraying Whites and serving Jews . . .
. . . As Kenneth Vinther pointed out in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020) at Counter Currents, transgenderism is a thoroughly kosher campaign: “at the top of the [transgender] pyramid rests a series of charming Jewish billionaires like George Soros, Paul Singer, Dan Loeb, Seth Klarman, Jennifer Pritzker, David Gelbaum, Andrew Shechtel, Sheldon Adelson, Loren Schecter, Martine Rothblatt, David T. Rubin, and Mark Hyman, to name a few.”
WhenAlexander Dugin and his daughter, Darya, civilians, were deliberately targeted with a car bomb by the Jewish terrorist regime in Ukraine, headed by Israeli operative Volodymyr Zelensky; we were supposed to believe Ukraine is a democratic country, whose popular president was elected, in a free and fair election, and Ukraine was completely justified committing terrorist attacks targeting Russian civilians becauseRussians have been deemed to be fascist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, antisemitic, holocaust deniers by Jewish terrorists and the kike-sucking Zionist ass-whores of the North Atlantic Transgender Organization.
“Their heart's most ardent sighing and yearning and hoping is set on the day on which they can deal with us Gentiles as they did with the Gentiles in Persia at the time of Esther. Oh, how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope. The sun has never shone on a more bloodthirsty and vengeful people than they are who imagine that they are God's people who have been commissioned and commanded to murder and to slay the Gentiles. In fact, the most important thing that they expect of their Messiah is that he will murder and kill the entire world with their sword.”
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are death cults originating in the Middle East and totally alien to Europeans, Africans, Asians, Americans, and their peoples . . .
Judeo-messianism has been spreading its poisonous message among us for nearly two thousand years. Democratic and communist universalisms are more recent, but they have only reinforced the old Jewish narrative. They are the same ideals.
The transnational, transracial, transsexual, transcultural ideals that these ideologies preach to us (beyond peoples, races, cultures) and which are the daily sustenance of our schools, in our media, in our popular culture, at our universities, and on our streets, have ended up reducing our bio-symbolic identity and ethnic pride to their minimal expression.
One sometimes wonders why the European left gets along so well with Muslims. Why does an often overtly anti-religious movement take the side of a fierce religiosity that seems to oppose almost everything the left has always claimed to stand for? Part of the explanation lies in the fact that Islam and Marxism have a common ideological root: Judaism.
The evangelical, conservative, alt-right, erstwhile Christian nationalists, and RINOs who like to portray themselves as such, are just as clueless and narcissistic in their pathetic postmortems of the U.S. election as these retarded commie lib chameleons they claim to oppose . . .
[1] CICERO maketh honourable mention of one of the Cassii, a severe judge amongst the Romans, for a custom he had in criminal causes, when the testimony of the witnesses was not sufficient, to ask the accusers, cui bono; that is to say, what profit, honour, or other contentment the accused obtained or expected by the fact. For amongst presumptions, there is none that so evidently declareth the author as doth the benefit of the action. By the same rule I intend in this place to examine who they may be that have possessed the people so long in this part of Christendom with these doctrines contrary to the peaceable societies of mankind.
[2] And first, to this error that the present Church, now militant on earth, is the kingdom of God (that is, the kingdom of glory, or the land of promise; not the kingdom of grace, which is but a promise of the land), are annexed these worldly benefits: first, that the pastors and teachers of the Church are entitled thereby, as God's public ministers, to a right of governing the Church; and consequently, because the Church and Commonwealth are the same persons, to be rectors and governors of the Commonwealth. By this title it is that the Pope prevailed with the subjects of all Christian princes to believe that to disobey him was to disobey Christ himself; and in all differences between him and other princes (charmed with the word power spiritual) to abandon their lawful sovereigns; which is in effect a universal monarchy over all Christendom. For though they were first invested in the right of being supreme teachers of Christian doctrine, by and under Christian emperors within the limits of the Roman Empire (as is acknowledged by themselves), by the title of Pontifex Maximus, who was an officer subject to the civil state; yet after the Empire was divided and dissolved, it was not hard to obtrude upon the people already subject to them, another title, namely, the right of St. Peter; not only to save entire their pretended power, but also to extend the same over the same Christian provinces, though no more united in the Empire of Rome. This benefit of a universal monarchy, considering the desire of men to bear rule, is a sufficient presumption that the Popes that pretended to it, and for a long time enjoyed it, were the authors of the doctrine by which it was obtained; namely, that the Church now on earth is the kingdom of Christ. For that granted, it must be understood that Christ hath some lieutenant amongst us by whom we are to be told what are his commandments.
[3] After that certain Churches had renounced this universal power of the Pope, one would expect, in reason, that the civil sovereigns in all those Churches should have recovered so much of it as (before they had unadvisedly let it go) was their own right and in their own hands. And in England it was so in effect; saving that they by whom the kings administered the government of religion, by maintaining their employment to be in God's right, seemed to usurp, if not a supremacy, yet an independency on the civil power: and they but seemed to usurp it, inasmuch as they acknowledged a right in the king to deprive them of the exercise of their functions at his pleasure.
[4] But in those places where the presbytery took that office, though many other doctrines of the Church of Rome were forbidden to be taught; yet this doctrine, that the kingdom of Christ is already come, and that it began at the resurrection of our Saviour, was still retained. But cui bono? What profit did they expect from it? The same which the popes expected: to have a sovereign power over the people. For what is it for men to excommunicate their lawful king, but to keep him from all places of God's public service in his own kingdom; and with force to resist him when he with force endeavoureth to correct them? Or what is it, without authority from the civil sovereign, to excommunicate any person, but to take from him his lawful liberty, that is, to usurp an unlawful power over their brethren? The authors therefore of this darkness in religion are the Roman and the Presbyterian clergy.
[5] To this head, I refer also all those doctrines that serve them to keep the possession of this spiritual sovereignty after it is gotten. As first, that the Pope, in his public capacity, cannot err. For who is there that, believing this to be true, will not readily obey him in whatsoever he commands?
[6] Secondly, that all other bishops, in what Commonwealth soever, have not their right, neither immediately from God, nor mediately from their civil sovereigns, but from the Pope, is a doctrine by which there comes to be in every Christian Commonwealth many potent men (for so are Bishops) that have their dependence on the Pope, owe obedience to him, though he be a foreign prince; by which means he is able, as he hath done many times, to raise a civil war against the state that submits not itself to be governed according to his pleasure and interest.
[7] Thirdly, the exemption of these and of all other priests, and of all monks and friars, from the power of the civil laws. For by this means, there is a great part of every Commonwealth that enjoy the benefit of the laws and are protected by the power of the civil state, which nevertheless pay no part of the public expense; nor are liable to the penalties, as other subjects, due to their crimes; and, consequently, stand not in fear of any man, but the Pope; and adhere to him only, to uphold his universal monarchy.
[8] Fourthly, the giving to their priests (which is no more in the New Testament but presbyters, that is, elders) the name of sacerdotes, that is, sacrificers, which was the title of the civil sovereign, and his public ministers, amongst the Jews, whilst God was their king. Also, the making the Lord's Supper a sacrifice serveth to make the people believe the Pope hath the same power over all Christians that Moses and Aaron had over the Jews; that is to say, all power, both civil and ecclesiastical, as the high priest then had.
[9] Fifthly, the teaching that matrimony is a sacrament giveth to the clergy the judging of the lawfulness of marriages; and thereby, of what children are legitimate; and consequently, of the right of succession to hereditary kingdoms.
[10] Sixthly, the denial of marriage to priests serveth to assure this power of the Pope over kings. For if a king be a priest, he cannot marry and transmit his kingdom to his posterity; if he be not a priest, then the Pope pretendeth this authority ecclesiastical over him, and over his people.
[11] Seventhly, from auricular confession they obtain, for the assurance of their power, better intelligence of the designs of princes and great persons in the civil state than these can have of the designs of the state ecclesiastical.
[12] Eighthly, by the canonization of saints, and declaring who are martyrs, they assure their power in that they induce simple men into an obstinacy against the laws and commands of their civil sovereigns, even to death, if by the Pope's excommunication they be declared heretics or enemies to the Church; that is, as they interpret it, to the Pope.
[13] Ninthly, they assure the same, by the power they ascribe to every priest of making Christ; and by the power of ordaining penance, and of remitting and retaining of sins.
[14] Tenthly, by the doctrine of purgatory, of justification by external works, and of indulgences, the clergy is enriched.
[15] Eleventhly, by their demonology, and the use of exorcism, and other things appertaining thereto, they keep, or think they keep, the people more in awe of their power.
[16] Lastly, the metaphysics, ethics, and politics of Aristotle, the frivolous distinctions, barbarous terms, and obscure language of the Schoolmen, taught in the universities (which have been all erected and regulated by the Pope's authority), serve them to keep these errors from being detected, and to make men mistake the ignis fatuus of vain philosophy for the light of the Gospel.
[17] To these, if they sufficed not, might be added other of their dark doctrines, the profit whereof redoundeth manifestly to the setting up of an unlawful power over the lawful sovereigns of Christian people; or for the sustaining of the same when it is set up; or to the worldly riches, honour, and authority of those that sustain it. And therefore by the aforesaid rule of cui bono, we may justly pronounce for the authors of all this spiritual darkness, the Pope, and Roman clergy, and all those besides that endeavour to settle in the minds of men this erroneous doctrine, that the Church now on earth is that kingdom of God mentioned in the Old and New Testament.
[18] But the emperors, and other Christian sovereigns, under whose government these errors and the like encroachments of ecclesiastics upon their office at first crept in, to the disturbance of their possessions and of the tranquillity of their subjects, though they suffered the same for want of foresight of the sequel, and of insight into the designs of their teachers, may nevertheless be esteemed accessaries to their own and the public damage. For without their authority there could at first no seditious doctrine have been publicly preached. I say they might have hindered the same in the beginning: but when the people were once possessed by those spiritual men, there was no human remedy to be applied that any man could invent. And for the remedies that God should provide, who never faileth in His good time to destroy all the machinations of men against the truth, we are to attend His good pleasure that suffereth many times the prosperity of His enemies, together with their ambition, to grow to such a height as the violence thereof openeth the eyes, which the wariness of their predecessors had before sealed up, and makes men by too much grasping let go all, as Peter's net was broken by the struggling of too great a multitude of fishes; whereas the impatience of those that strive to resist such encroachment, before their subjects' eyes were opened, did but increase the power they resisted. I do not therefore blame the Emperor Frederick for holding the stirrup to our countryman Pope Adrian; for such was the disposition of his subjects then, as if he had not done it, he was not likely to have succeeded in the empire. But I blame those that, in the beginning, when their power was entire, by suffering such doctrines to be forged in the universities of their own dominions, have held the stirrup to all the succeeding popes, whilst they mounted into the thrones of all Christian sovereigns, to ride and tire both them and their people, at their pleasure.
[19] But as the inventions of men are woven, so also are they ravelled out; the way is the same, but the order is inverted. The web begins at the first elements of power, which are wisdom, humility, sincerity, and other virtues of the Apostles, whom the people, converted, obeyed out of reverence, not by obligation. Their consciences were free, and their words and actions subject to none but the civil power. Afterwards the presbyters, as the flocks of Christ increased, assembling to consider what they should teach, and thereby obliging themselves to teach nothing against the decrees of their assemblies, made it to be thought the people were thereby obliged to follow their doctrine, and, when they refused, refused to keep them company (that was then called excommunication), not as being infidels, but as being disobedient: and this was the first knot upon their liberty. And the number of presbyters increasing, the presbyters of the chief city or province got themselves an authority over the parochial presbyters, and appropriated to themselves the names of bishops: and this was a second knot on Christian liberty. Lastly, the bishop of Rome, in regard of the Imperial City, took upon him an authority (partly by the wills of the emperors themselves, and by the title of Pontifex Maximus, and at last when the emperors were grown weak, by the privileges of St. Peter) over all other bishops of the Empire: which was the third and last knot, and the whole synthesis and construction of the pontifical power.
[20] And therefore the analysis or resolution is by the same way, but beginneth with the knot that was last tied; as we may see in the dissolution of the preterpolitical Church government in England. First, the power of the popes was dissolved totally by Queen Elizabeth; and the bishops, who before exercised their functions in right of the Pope, did afterwards exercise the same in right of the Queen and her successors; though by retaining the phrase of jure divino they were thought to demand it by immediate right from God: and so was untied the first knot. After this, the Presbyterians lately in England obtained the putting down of Episcopacy: and so was the second knot dissolved. And almost at the same time, the power was taken also from the Presbyterians: and so we are reduced to the independency of the primitive Christians to follow Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos, every man as he liketh best: which if it be without contention, and without measuring the doctrine of Christ by our affection to the person of his minister (the fault which the Apostle reprehended in the Corinthians), is perhaps the best: first, because there ought to be no power over the consciences of men, but of the word itself, working faith in every one, not always according to the purpose of them that plant and water, but of God Himself, that giveth the increase. And secondly, because it is unreasonable in them, who teach there is such danger in every little error, to require of a man endued with reason of his own to follow the reason of any other man, or of the most voices of many other men, which is little better than to venture his salvation at cross and pile. Nor ought those teachers to be displeased with this loss of their ancient authority: for there is none should know better than they that power is preserved by the same virtues by which it is acquired; that is to say, by wisdom, humility, clearness of doctrine, and sincerity of conversation; and not by suppression of the natural sciences, and of the morality of natural reason; nor by obscure language; nor by arrogating to themselves more knowledge than they make appear; nor by pious frauds; nor by such other faults as in the pastors of God's Church are not only faults, but also scandals, apt to make men stumble one time or other upon the suppression of their authority.
[21] But after this doctrine, that the Church now militant is the kingdom of God spoken of in the Old and New Testament, was received in the world, the ambition and canvassing for the offices that belong thereunto, and especially for that great office of being Christ's lieutenant, and the pomp of them that obtained therein the principal public charges, became by degrees so evident that they lost the inward reverence due to the pastoral function: insomuch as the wisest men of them that had any power in the civil state needed nothing but the authority of their princes to deny them any further obedience. For, from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy, or kingdom of darkness, may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies; that is, to the old wives' fables in England concerning ghosts and spirits, and the feats they play in the night. And if a man consider the original of this great ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof: for so did the papacy start up on a sudden out of the ruins of that heathen power.
[22] The language also which they use, both in the churches and in their public acts, being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?
[23] The fairies in what nation soever they converse have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.
[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies are spirits and ghosts. Fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine, in monasteries, churches, and churchyards.
[25] The ecclesiastics have their cathedral churches, which, in what town soever they be erected, by virtue of holy water, and certain charms called exorcisms, have the power to make those towns, cities, that is to say, seats of empire. The fairies also have their enchanted castles, and certain gigantic ghosts, that domineer over the regions round about them.
[26] The fairies are not to be seized on, and brought to answer for the hurt they do. So also the ecclesiastics vanish away from the tribunals of civil justice.
[27] The ecclesiastics take from young men the use of reason, by certain charms compounded of metaphysics, and miracles, and traditions, and abused Scripture, whereby they are good for nothing else but to execute what they command them. The fairies likewise are said to take young children out of their cradles, and to change them into natural fools, which common people do therefore call elves, and are apt to mischief.
[28] In what shop or operatory the fairies make their enchantment, the old wives have not determined. But the operatories of the clergy are well enough known to be the universities, that received their discipline from authority pontifical.
[29] When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.
[30] The fairies marry not; but there be amongst them incubi that have copulation with flesh and blood. The priests also marry not.
[31] The ecclesiastics take the cream of the land, by donations of ignorant men that stand in awe of them, and by tithes: so also it is in the fable of fairies, that they enter into the dairies, and feast upon the cream, which they skim from the milk.
[32] What kind of money is current in the kingdom of fairies is not recorded in the story. But the ecclesiastics in their receipts accept of the same money that we do; though when they are to make any payment, it is in canonizations, indulgences, and masses.
[33] To this and such like resemblances between the papacy and the kingdom of fairies may be added this, that as the fairies have no existence but in the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the traditions of old wives or old poets: so the spiritual power of the Pope (without the bounds of his own civil dominion) consisteth only in the fear that seduced people stand in of their excommunications, upon hearing of false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of the Scripture.
[34] It was not therefore a very difficult matter for Henry the Eighth by his exorcism; nor for Queen Elizabeth by hers, to cast them out. But who knows that this spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by missions through the dry places of China, Japan, and the Indies, that yield him little fruit, may not return; or rather, an assembly of spirits worse than he enter and inhabit this clean-swept house, and make the end thereof worse than the beginning? For it is not the Roman clergy only that pretends the kingdom of God to be of this world, and thereby to have a power therein, distinct from that of the civil state. And this is all I had a design to say, concerning the doctrine of the POLITICS. Which, when I have reviewed, I shall willingly expose it to the censure of my country.
“If the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them out as traitors.”
— Abraham Lincoln
I retort, you deride . . . Pope Diddy?
Palestinians are the same ethnic group as the Israelites, they behave in the same way, it's in their DNA . . . If the Palestinians had attacked Israeli military targets on Oct. 7, 2023 and took their land back, which, I do agree was stolen from them, instead of squandering their opportunity with trivial sexual assaults on women, murdering children, petty theft, and vandalism, we might have a different outcome than what we have now.
Chapter xxxviii. Of the Signification in Scripture of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, the World to Come, and Redemption
[12] And first for the tormenters, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the enemy, or Satan; the Accuser, or Diabolus; the Destroyer, or Abaddon. Which significant names, Satan, Devil, Abaddon, set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names use to do, but only an office or quality; and are therefore appellatives; which ought not to have been left untranslated, as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles, because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons; and men are more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses and of Christ.
[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God; therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God’s kingdom was in Palestine; and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.
Hamas was either totally incompetent and squandered their opportunity, or they were complicit; the six-hour delay in a response to the Oct. 7 attack by the Israeli government, on the surface, also shows incompetence . . . but it was the Israeli government who helped create Hamas as a buffer against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the first place.
No country is running its own race in this invasion because it is a UN-led political agenda driven by the Jews and their puppets (politicians). Most people just don't know or understand that this is a political agenda. However, some manage to understand that politicians are deliberately working to import Muslims and replace people, but that's it, they are like a computer that can't work because the program doesn't allow it.
Ukraine as the great reset laboratory of the global tech elite . . .
“. . . the WEF isn’t alone in the interest of Ukraine. The globalist Atlantic Council, for example, recognized the potential for “innovation” shortly after Zelensky’s inauguration and mentioned an app that can operate door intercom systems by cell phone, as well as the blockchain company Bitfury. The Atlantic Council praised the developments as positive and mentioned a number of other IT companies in Ukraine. At a networking meeting, Schwab’s “young world leaders,” Justin Trudeau and Zelenski, discussed how to deepen such “innovations further.” Davos also has its own “Ukraine House,” which is regularly available for “networking” during WEF meetings.”
A Turing machine is a mathematical model of computation describing an abstract machine that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a table of rules. Despite the model's simplicity, it is capable of implementing any computer algorithm, it is an idealized model of a central processing unit (CPU) that controls all data manipulation done by a computer, with the canonical machine using sequential memory to store data. Typically, the sequential memory is represented as a tape of infinite length on which the machine can perform read and write operations . . .
If you have ever noticed when shopping, at the grocer, the gym, the restaurant, or in the common areas of the workplace etc., there is a universal presence of music or television . . . This is because most people are terrified to be alone with their own thoughts and actually afraid of some greater enlightenment and actually desire their memory being programmed as with the aforementioned Turing Machine.
My mathematical theorem that history NEVER repeats itself is contrary to the popular delusions and clichéd commentaries about our reality and often provokes rather fanatical, illogical and esoteric responses resulting from the constant exposure to the sonic radiation we call the media, or more properly, neurolinguistic programming.
History NEVER repeats itself . . . Time is linear, a circle is a line, we use a circular clock to measure time, we used a circular sundial that measures the rotation of the earth before we had the learned machinations of springs and gears, because the earth is not flat . . .
. . . If you draw a circle with x=cos(t) and y=sin(t) and pull it evenly in z-direction, you get a spatial spiral called a cylindrical spiral or helix.
The idea that history repeats is in itself wholly illogical, but it serves a propaganda purpose to its users . . . meaning . . . you can’t go back to older cultural ways of doing things because that makes you a sinner, a nazi, or some kind of pagan devil . . .
“HELL — Upon watching Hamas parade the bodies of murdered babies in celebration, Satan came away unsettled by the grotesque show of pure evil.
The Prince of Darkness, who took time away from torturing the damned to watch the procession, reportedly felt sick to his stomach.”
Gaslighting kikesuckers like Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee and the grift-right Zionist ass-whore Paula Bolyard from PJ Media just cannot help themselves and make Candace Owens’ point for her . . .
The full of shit ADL (Anti-Defecation League) accused Owens of “vitriolic antisemitism,” and according to Zionist ass-whores at The Christian Post, Owens and The Daily Wire publicly parted ways supposedly because Owens had accused Israel of genocide for its response to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attack.
“We're doing the exact same thing again with antisemitism, and it's so weird because you have people that are supposed to be brilliant who should work through that this isn't going to work socially,” said Owens.
I’m thinking the Owens video on France’s Tranny Granny Brigitte Macron, is what actually got her booted from The Daily Wire . . .
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came running to the rescue when senile Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the presidential race. In a speech before a joint session of Congress on July 25, 2024, Netanyahu stated:
“President Biden and I have known each other for over forty years. I want to thank him for half a century of friendship to Israel and for being, as he says, a proud Zionist.” ― Benjamin Netanyahu
Monogamy is an unnatural order created by Zionist churchmen to attach vicarious liabilities in the secular law, to control monarchial successions, as well as to establish ecclesiastic control over white female procreativity and individual white male posterity . . . All men are born of a woman, married or not, evolution is heterosexual.
Kinder, Küche, Kirche – Children, Kitchen, Church . . . was a slogan delineating the proper role of women in the National Socialist State . . . Adolf Hitler said National Socialism was a male movement . . . Lebensborn, or “Fountain of Life,” was an ϟϟ organization founded by Heinrich Himmler to increase the birth rate of Aryans and it provided unmarried mothers shelter in nursing homes so that they would not seek abortions, which were illegal in the Third Reich.
Heinrich Himmler on How Bolshevik Christianity Spreads Homosexuality and Hatred of Women . . .
Does this not sound like the “dissident right” and all the assorted “Ortho bros” of today? They shout about how Christ is King, women are the worst, and Soviet Russia and Communist China are based.
I recognized the speech, and remembered publishing it on Renegade Tribunea while ago, which is good because I could not find it in full anywhere else via a Google search. I extracted the following excerpt for your consideration:
❝There is no danger among us, however, that the chivalry of the man be overplayed and exploited by the other side, since the women in Germany by habit and education are not inclined to do that. In any case we must educate our young always to be chivalrous men, men (Menschen) who stand up for women.
I recently said to a Hitler Youth leader: “You are usually so un-Christian, but your attitude toward women is the purest Christianity that is at all possible.”
150 years ago someone at a Catholic university wrote a doctoral thesis with the title: “Does a woman have a soul?” From this the whole tendency of Christianity emerges: it is directed at the absolute destruction of women and at emphasizing the inferiority of women. The entire substance of the priesthood and of the whole of Christianity is, I am firmly convinced, an erotic union of men (Männerbund) for the erection and maintenance of this 2,000-year old Bolshevism. I reach that conclusion because I know very well the history of Christianity in Rome. I am of the conviction that the Roman emperors, who eradicated (ausrotteten) the first Christians, did exactly the same thing that we are doing with the communists. These Christians were then the worst yeast which the great city contained, the worst Jewish people, the worst Bolsheviks that there were.
The Bolshevism of that time had now the power to become great on the carcass of the dying Rome. The priesthood of the Christian church which later subjugated the Aryan church in unending conflicts goes on, since the 4th or 5th Century, to long for the celibacy of priests. It relies on Paul and the very first apostles who derogate the woman as something sinful and permit or recommend marriage as merely a legal way out of prostitution — that is in the Bible — and derogate the procreation of children as a necessary evil. This priesthood continues along in this way for several centuries until in 1139 the celibacy of priests is fully implemented.
I am furthermore convinced that the way out for the few who do not want to yield to this homosexuality, especially for the country parsons, the majority of whom — more than 50% — I estimate not to be gay, is to procure for themselves in confession the necessary married and single women; I assume that in the monasteries the homosexuality ranges from 90 or 95 to 100%.
If today the trials that concern homosexuality among priests went on again and if we would treat the priests as [we do] any citizen in Germany, then I would undertake to guarantee for the next three to four years 200 or more such trials. The realization of the trials fails to take place not because there is a lack of cases, but because we just do not have as many officials and judges as we would need to employ. Within the next four years very conclusive evidence will be produced — I hope — that the Church organization in its leadership, its priesthood, is for the most part a homosexual erotic men-union (Männerbund) that on this basis has been terrorizing humanity for the past 1,800 years, demands from it the greatest blood sacrifice, and has been sadistically perverse in its utterances in the past. I need only to recall the witch and heretic trials.
The attitude about the inferiority of women is a typical Christian attitude, and we also who have been national socialists up to this day — many even who are strict heathens — have unwittingly adopted this set of ideas. I know even today very many party members who believe they have to prove the special firmness of their worldview (Weltanschauung) and their own special masculinity through very rowdy and truculent behaviour toward women.
I recognize furthermore a certain tendency in our ranks to exclude women from all events and celebrations. These same people complain then about the fact that women cling here and there to the church, or are not absolutely 100 percent won over for National Socialism. They however ought not to complain since they treat women as second class citizens and keep them from all our inner life. No one needs be surprised then if they are not fully won over for this inner life.
We must be clear about that: the movement, the Weltanschauung has lasting stability if it is supported by the woman, for men comprehend all things with the mind, while the woman comprehends all things with feeling. The German woman, not the man, has borne the greater sacrifice of blood in the witch and heretic trials. The priests knew exactly why they burned 5,000-6,000 women: exactly because they emotionally held fast to the old knowledge and the old doctrine and emotionally and instinctively could not be dissuaded from them, while the man had already converted by logic and thought…❞
An interesting take on the origins of antisemitism written by a Jewish-American immigrant named Marcus Eli Ravage. Published in 1928 in Century Magazine, this article explains that Christianity is basically Judaism 2.0 and that the Christianization of Europe essentially amounted to an erasure and replacement of the European people’s native pagan cultures with the national religion of Israel. It is an interesting read– draw your own conclusions . . .
Funding Both Sides: How Jewish Money Controls British Politics . . .
It’s very easy to criticize Boris Johnson, the current prime minister of Britain and leader of the so-called Conservative party. Johnson is dishonest, devious and a dedicated shabbos goy. He serves Jews rather than Whites and Israel rather than Britain.
MP Portraits Project in The Reasons Room…
Sir Keir Starmer, Creature of the Swamp
But there is one pit of depravity that Johnson has never plumbed and one crime against decency that has never besmirched his soul. He’s not now and never has been a lawyer. His dishonesty is natural, not nurtured, and he did at least try to reform Britain’s lawyer-and-humanities-graduate-infested government bureaucracy. He’s surrendered now and appointed a Jewish swamp-creature called Dan Rosenfeld as his Chief of Staff. But he did try. Keir Starmer, the current Labour leader, will never surrender because he’ll never fight. He sides automatically with government bureaucracy and slithered easily to the top of it during the previous Labour government.
Toasting the President of Israel
Starmer became head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Britain’s very politically correct overseers of the law, under Tony Blair. In other words, he is a lawyer. And that’s a very bad sign for working-class Whites whom the Labour party was explicitly founded to defend. Like the lawyer Tony Blair and the lawyer Barack Obama before him, Starmer heads a party that supposedly champions the downtrodden workers against the greedy bosses. But the Labour and Democratic parties long ago abandoned the workers to side with the bosses. And that means that they side with Jews against Whites. Blair and Obama both rose to power on a tide of Jewish money and media support. Starmer hopes to do the same. He’s married to a Jewish woman and has performed the goy grovel enthusiastically at the Jewish Chronicle:
Labour leadership frontrunner Sir Keir Starmer has revealed he participates in Friday-night dinners with his family, at which his proudly Jewish father-in-law says prayers. Speaking to the JC [Jewish Chronicle], the Holborn and St Pancras MP said he felt comfortable attending family and communal “barmitzvahs, weddings, and funerals”.
The married father of two children also said he had “no issue” with standing for the traditional toast to the president of the state of Israel at Jewish weddings. He told the JC: “I don’t have any issue with that — or with any of the traditions.” (Sir Keir Starmer opens up about his family’s Friday night dinners, The Jewish Chronicle, 5th March 2020)
Note that Starmer has a knighthood, which is a sure sign that the hostile elite sees him as no threat. When he spoke to the Jewish Chronicle, he was campaigning to replace Jeremy Corbyn, a politician who will never receive a knighthood because he isn’t interested in Jewish money and has never followed Jewish orders. Indeed, in a well-regulated world Corbyn would never have become Labour leader, because he had little support in the party’s pro-Jewish senior ranks. But he was put on the leadership ballot to make it look more diverse and won an easy but unexpected victory, because he was very popular with ordinary Labour members.
The Unwatched Web: how rich Jewish organizations control British politics
When he became Labour leader, Corbyn didn’t end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly against the interests of Whites. But he did end the party’s tradition of working tirelessly for the interests of Jews. And that’s why he was demonized as an “anti-Semite” and finally driven from office. Starmer isn’t going to make Corbyn’s mistakes. Not only is he married to a Jew, he has happily accepted money from at least one very rich Jewish businessman. In April 2020, the Jewish Chroniclereported that Starmer “had been targeted by hard-left activists after it emerged that Sir Trevor Chinn, a Jewish philanthropist, had donated £50,000 to his leadership campaign.” The activists were making the horrific allegation that Starmer would somehow be influenced by the Zionist Chinn simply because Chinn had given him large sums of money and helped him become Labour leader.
As all decent people know, that isn’t how rich Jews operate. They give money to politicians out of pure goodness of heart and with absolutely no expectation of return. Who but a vile anti-Semite would think that Chinn was trying to control or influence Starmer in any way? As the Jewish Chroniclepointed out, Chinn is a “philanthropist.” He works for the greater good of humanity, just like the Jewish “property developers” Zak Gertler and Richard Desmond, who have given large sums to the Conservative government. It’s pure coincidence that Tories “accepted a donation from Richard Desmond shortly after Jenrick approved plans for a £1bn housing development by the property developer.” In his previous incarnation as a pornographer, Desmond also donated large sums to Tony Blair’s Labour government.
Buying both sides
Desmond’s donations to both Conservatives and Labour are further proof that rich Jews are impartial philanthropists — Desmond obviously ignores politics and gives for the love of giving. Of course, no-one accused Jeremy Corbyn of being influenced by Jewish money because he didn’t accept any. But that’s precisely why he had to be demonized and driven out of the Labour leadership. Unless Jewish millionaires like Chinn, Gertler and Desmond are funding both sides of British politics, how can people be made to understand that Jewish money comes with no strings attached?
During the previous Labour government, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were ardent Zionists because they accepted the justice of Israel’s cause, not because Labour’s chief fund-raisers were first the Jew Michael Levy and then the Jew Jonathan Mendelsohn (both are now members of the House of Lords). And during the current Conservative government, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson have been ardent Zionists because they too accept the justice of Israel’s cause, not because the Conservatives’ chief fund-raisers have been first the Jew Sir Mick Davis and then the Jew Sir Ehud Sheleg.
“Israel first, Britain second!” — Tory Party Treasurer Sir Ehud Sheleg
Despite the importance of his role as Conservative Party Treasurer, the Jewish millionaire Ehud Sheleg is almost unknown to the general public. Few people would even recognize his name. Even fewer know that he is an Israeli citizen, born in Tel Aviv, and has openly stated that Britain takes second place in his affections: “I was brought up, albeit in Israel, with the sentiment of very strong ties to Britain. In the family of nations, this has to be my favourite one. Second to my homeland, of course.” But why should anyone be interested in such biographical trivia? Only a vile anti-Semite would suggest that Sheleg might seek to influence government policy for the benefit of Jews and Israel, rather than for the benefit of Whites and Britain.
Keir Starmer certainly isn’t going to raise any uncomfortable questions about Sheleg’s role in the Conservative government. He would be denounced as an anti-Semite if he did, of course, but that doesn’t explain Starmer’s silence. He’s silent because he doesn’t see anything wrong in Israel-firsters like Sheleg and Chinn being in control of British politics. Starmer has a Jewish wife and is funded by Jewish millionaires. Like Boris Johnson and Tony Blair, he’s a wholly owned subsidiary of Zionism Inc. I don’t think he will ever become British prime minister, but if he does, we will hear a familiar refrain: “Meet the new boss — same as the old boss!” Britain’s anti-White and pro-Jewish politics will proceed as before. Gold guides goyim and Jewish money controls British politics. See above.
