Menorah Manure
August 29, 2009 
38 Comments
An excellent, excellent Holohoax film review from First Word. There can be no pull-quote because all of it is so good.
“The most critically acclaimed film in the history of Polish cinema.” The Jews in the Soviet NKVD really did murder by the millions, and they did it with cheap bullets. This is quite unlike the outlandish stories told about Nazis. Get it from Netflix. I think it’s safe to conclude that Jews are not in control of the Polish movie industry.
This is a very interesting look at why Germany invaded Poland.
In Judaic-Germany, which loves only one law of Hitler’s, it is better to be a Muslim than a Baptist.
Five more Holohoax films are coming in the next few months. Why so many? “The Holocaust has 6 million compelling stories, and Hollywood is always desperate for a good story,” says Jew Meyer Gottlieb. If this were true then WWII would have 60 million compelling stories converted to film, and you would go to prison for questioning any aspect of them. The executive director of the National Center for Jewish Film at Brandeis University remembers “only two feature films about the Armenian genocide, neither one with much impact.” Thus it becomes necessary to explain why, when Equality is forced upon business endeavors of every other kind, the Jews are allowed a free pass for their own tragic history. One author offers this phony explanation: “Hollywood Jews are secular Jews, they are American businessmen who don’t put their race or religion first.”
The new District 9 movie is intended to be some kind of post-apartheid allegory with unintended hints of The Camp of the Saints. Aliens (the extra-terrestrial kind, not the black kind) are herded into a ghetto in South Africa after tolerance for them wears thin. They’re lazy, on welfare, eat trash, destroy property, fight constantly, have no respect for authority, and urinate all over their ramshackle homes. “The prawn doesn’t understand. One has to say, ‘This is our land. Please, will you go?’” Now, if this sounds like Swedish behavior to you, you’re wrong. It sounds very much like a certain race that quickly came to be dominant in South Africa. Of whom does this remind you? “They steal sneakers, then check for the brand.” As this reviewer knows, it’s not possible to make a book or film about inequality, which is based on the true history of white nations, and not come across as “racist.” District 9 subtly casts the real-life white Afrikaaners in a very reasonable light. There are Negroes in the movie (Nigerian mobsters), and here is where a second serving of racism (i.e., reality) is ladled. The Nigerian mercenaries are bloodthirsty, cold-blooded torturers and murderers. No surprise there, but they are also cannibals, and they have a witch doctor who commands them to eat the aliens raw in order to gain their powers, much the same as Africans in real life rape babies to cure themselves of AIDS or eat albinos to make themselves wealthy. Oh, but that’s not all. The female Nigerians prostitute themselves to the aliens before their male counterparts dine on them. And this is supposed to be a lesson against racism? It may just be brilliant in how it depicts alien incursions, with which we are all too familiar, using real aliens. It’s not surprising that Peter Jackson is involved. He comes under a lot of criticism for casting black characters in a negative light. His favorite movie is King Kong, if that tells you anything, and he was true to Tolkien’s “racist” vision for The Lord of the Rings, which in retrospect is unthinkable. Jew Line Cinema gave him $300 million to make that trilogy, and failure would have bankrupted the company. How did that ever happen? We eagerly await his two forthcoming Hobbit films.
Just as is true of “racism” in District 9, Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds can’t help but come across as what yids call “anti-Semitic,” despite its pretensions. Read this excellent review by Trevor Lynch.
Indeed, this is probably the most anti-Semitic movie ever released by Hollywood. Tarantino’s Jewish characters are one-dimensional, inhuman monsters. The Jewish Basterds are all as ugly as Der Sturmer cartoons. They have virtually no lines in the entire movie. All they do is skulk around, waiting for Aldo the Apache’s commands to murder and torture Germans…
Why would Quentin Tarantino make a movie about World War II in which Germans are portrayed as attractive human beings, Americans are portrayed as sadistic buffoons, Englishmen are portrayed as effete wankers, and Jews are portrayed as cold-blooded, inhuman mass murderers?…
In Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino has taken the one truly sacred myth in modern Jew-dominated America—especially in modern Hollywood—namely WW II and the holocaust, and he has desecrated it by inverting all of its core value judgments and reversing its stereotypes. In the process, he has exposed the true anti-white agenda of Hollywood…
The fact that Quentin Tarantino could desecrate the holocaust, expose Hollywood’s agenda, and sell it back to Hollywood’s Jews is a testament to his twisted genius and their shallowness and moral imbecility.
Tarantino’s good friend is a Jew who is a pioneer of something called “torture porn.” He explains his genocidal fantasies in service to his tribe:
It’s almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. My parents are very strong about Holocaust education.
This points to a fact that has been known for a long time, which is that, unlike Christians, Jews have no concept of forgiveness. They have a system in which they are able to “redeem” themselves according to their conventional law. And they obviously care for their own, but as our Lord asked rhetorically in Luke 11, What father will give his child a stone when asked for bread, or a serpent for a fish, or a scorpion for an egg? True graciousness is when we give to those who do not deserve it. Christians have done this with Muslims, for instance, who once enslaved and terrorized them, and would gladly do so again.
It’s hard to find a man more insightful thanYggdrasil. I’ll never forget an enjoyable evening I spent with him and some other friends watching the banned film Africa Addio. In this review of Jew Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, you will find that sometimes it takes a perceptive Jew to hold up a mirror and show whites their own blemishes. Yggdrasil explains the willingness of Jews to pass oppressive tax legislation:
Their acquiescence in the high taxes only made sense if they knew they could evade them, or if they felt that their own incomes were so easily taken from others in the first place that their own tax bills were nothing other than an indirect funneling of other peoples’ money into governmental institutions that they controlled. These people were far too smart to be mistaken about such things.
But how to explain the unexplainable—the willingness of whites to be oppressively taxed? The answer is to be found in the innate white preference for theoretical abstractions over self-interest. No other people on earth but whites would freely open their borders to other races, and especially not when it is painfully clear that it will mean the end of their civilization. Whites do this because the future of their own children is far less important to them than abstractions like capitalism and democracy, even “fairness.” These proclivities are so ingrained in our genes that when we come into close proximity with a foreign race that always puts their own interests first, it is generally beyond our comprehension. Thus, Kubrick places just such a white man in his movie, names him Ripper, and has him set doomsday in motion, because a nameless, faceless entity called Communism is fluoridating his water.
Neither Ripper nor any of the other outer party officers portrayed in the movie ever asks the question, “Who benefits from Communism?” If the program is obviously flawed at delivering economic growth, maybe its objective is something other than economic growth! Indeed, the most obvious beneficiaries are those who acquire power under the system, and when you look at the early politburos, you will see that there wasn’t a Russian anywhere to be found. All were inner party and minority nationalities.
And that tells you Communism probably has a lot more to do with race than with economics.
The movie climaxes with the pseudo-Jews turning into Nazis and finding ten women for every man present (white women, of course) to breed the master race.
Jew Marcuse, following Jew Freud, taught that “Western Culture was founded by a band of sons who wanted to sleep with their mother and kill their oppressive father (patricide). In guilt, the sons reestablished the tyranny of the father and the result was European Man. Marcuse speculated that Western tyranny will be broken through a cathartic event: minorities and women would rebel, crushing Western Culture and ushering in a fuzzy utopia that is liberated from logic and reason.”
“The Jews look forward to world domination. This requires them to maintain their own close-knit identity. If the Jews are given equal legal rights in Russia, but are allowed to keep their ‘State within a State,’ they would be more privileged than the Russians. The consequences of this situation are already clear in Europe.” ~ Fyodor Dostoyevsky
A Jew “ethicist” considers it perfectly acceptable to cheat goyim if they are too “provincial” to learn about anti-Christ “holidays.”
Here’s an Israeli politician who calls Obama’s policies “borderline anti-Semitic.” You may not be aware, but anti-Semitism is defined solely by Jews.
This is an amazing video on Jew Emanuel and his corruption. I don’t know about you, but I find it hard to believe that the son of a terrorist would be accused of corruption. The New York Times, a Jewish operation, has published this article as a “wink, wink” about who is really in charge.
The danger of electing a Judeochristian.
Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.
Former-Jew Robert Novak knew that his sympathetic reporting about the plight of Palestinian Christians was enough to cause Jew-newpapers to drop his syndicated column as being “anti-Israel.” You think other journalists who are not raised as Jews can withstand that kind of pressure?
“Novak talked tough about freedom and liberty. But he didn’t defend mine,” writes Kevin Lamb.
Ann Coulter calls Barry Lynn a Jew in sheep’s clothing. He is most likely what the Spanish call a marrano.
No one ever demands separation of synagogue and state, least of all our worthless preachers.
“The country the founders envisioned was a formal system of white supremacy,” quoth Jew Tim Wise.
“We White Nationalists are lions… The conservatives are dung beetles. After the jews have eaten the wildebeest and pooped out the remains, the Pat Buchanans of ‘It’s Pat’ fame crinkle by on their six little feet and roll up the salubrious balls of dung on which they subsist. Do you want to be a lion or a dung beetle, White man?”
Calling the clans to the sign of the cross.
God bless you my brothers and sisters. May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ grant you peace amidst the storms of our present travail. May He prepare for you a table of feasting in the midst of our enemies. And may you pass to the enemies of our ancestors and our children the bitter cup prepared from time immemorial for the Devil and his Angels.
“Monarchy, clans, blood ties, feudal oaths all seem so unscientific, so unclean to modern, scientific man. Democracy seems so much more up-to-date and independent. A man who no longer bends his knee to God certainly has no need to bend his knee to a king or a clan leader. ‘So, let’s all be democratic and king of ourselves.’ The synthesis of science and democracy has a name; it’s called liberalism.”
Braveheart, the giant of Western nationalist cinema, should not be watched without first watching Seven Samurai, the giant of Eastern nationalist cinema. In the latter, the elites exist to sacrifice themselves for their people. In the former, even the intensely-tribal Scots find that their elites have betrayed them for personal gain.
Never once do they recognize that the only reason the English king is willing to give them lands is that their peasants are rebellious and tribally-minded. Giving the nobles additional lands is far cheaper than fighting the Scots as a unified people. The nobles never ask themselves what would happen to them if their own people were suddenly de-nationalized and rendered meek and obedient. Would not the English King strip them of their lands just as quickly as he granted them?
Braveheart is as far from a libertarian movie as one could imagine:
Wallace clearly is not talking about abolishing obligations of servitude or payment to Scottish nobles or a Scottish king.
Rather, it becomes clear that Wallace is using the term “freedom” in exactly the same way that a modern member of a dissident militia group uses the term. It is a code word meaning independence of the group and control over its evolutionary destiny.
Yet in the beginning, the hero “does not daydream out loud about Scottish nationalism nor wars of independence and secession.” His rebellion is sparked in “the defense of Scottish women.” This is a far cry from the best that can be expected in masculine films today—”the typical Eastwood shoot-em-up, for example, in which the symbol of European strength and resistance exists only as the lone individual adrift in a polyglot world, destined for absorption or displacement…”
Braveheart “is a magnificent flower poking its head up through the layers of concrete in which our dying civilization has been encased by the inner party and its culture of critique.” Notice the detail, which all of us have surely missed, until Yggdrasil comes along to educate us:
Following Wallace’s execution, we see a fictional dramatization of the prelude to the battle of Bannockburn in 1314, a scene in which Robert the Bruce, then King of Scotland, is expected to pledge fealty to the English crown before an English army and is waffling as ever over what to do. Finally he makes up his mind and decides to fight, shouting to his assembled troops, “You bled with Wallace, now bleed with me!”
It is a remarkable scene fraught with ambiguity and indecision. Note that Robert the Bruce does not say, “fight for freedom,” nor “fight for Scotland,” nor “fight for the freedom of Scotland.” Rather, he asks the assembled Scots to fight for him and his crown, implying that the nation and his crown are one and the same thing.
This goes to show what great art can be produced when whites have cast strangers aside and govern their own affairs. In the case of Braveheart, the only Jew involved was a lone film editor. Even if Jews were capable of following the story as written for them, it would never be possible for them to invest it with their souls, as Gibson did. Likewise, Middle Earth could never have been the creation of anyone but a Christian. (And a Christian, mind you, whose art flows reflexively from his racial consciousness, not the Doug Phillips sort of filmmaker who begins by calculating which genres are “biblical,” chooses one as a medium for preaching, and ends with a reel of cheese.)
A Tintin book for children is so “racist” that it is kept behind the steel door of a vault at the Brooklyn library. “It’s not for the public,” says the librarian.
There is now a full court press against Glenn Beck merely for calling Obama a racist. Terrorists always try to kill a man’s livelihood. It’s the coward’s way of killing the man.
Dang! Now Fidel Castro is calling us racists. That hurts.
Newly-minted “racist” words. As your pastor will tell you, you are in sin if these words proceed from your lips, because it’s hate, Hate, HATE. You must never again say “master bedroom” or “black sheep.” And if you want to avoid big trouble, never suggest that the color white signifies purity. In fact, it’s best to stay away from discriminatory words like “purity.”
More things that are racist, as defined by those who define the word: “Pride & Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, Wuthering Heights, etc.” Oh, how are we ever to atone for our wickedness? The Macpherson Report of 1999 defined a “racist” as one who is believed by others to be a racist. But as we all know, the opinions of “racists” don’t count, and so by circular reasoning, they are excluded from the vote. As we also know, circular reasoning has never prevented pastors from approbating racism and other Communist concepts.
Remember, it’s a sin to say the word “nigger” if you’re white, but here are some popular musicians with an album called “White Trash, Two Heebs, and a Bean,” and a song called “Kill All The White Men.” Here are the lyrics, and remember, what you are reading is not a hate crime. It’s what the Jews call art.
Did this black congresswoman really just praise Che Guevara? Oh dear, I’m afraid she did. It was Guevara who said blacks “have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing.”
What on earth was going through the minds of the band Toto when they made the laughable video for their song Africa? In the video, while a white man is absorbed in library books about the dark continent, a spearchucker bursts through the door and kills the black librarian, knocking over an oil lamp in the process and burning the library down. Wait, what? I think there’s a metaphor hidden somewhere beneath the early-eighties low-budget music video crust. I’ve always liked that song. One thing is for certain: there will never be a song written by blacks with such poetic phrases as “Kilimanjaro rising like a leopress above the Serengeti.” Negro poetry is more along the lines of “Bitch, where my money at?”
Here’s a poet in need of a Cobbins-like jury, says the NAACP.
See all the white “bigots” in this indoctrinational film from 1959. The liberals who made such films did a good job of making them as tame as possible, but the message was that “prejudice” in all its forms had to be vanquished. Just two years later, this anti-fag film was made, which by today’s anti-standards would be universally denounced as bigoted and evil. You can see that the two films are coming from the same angle, but the liberals who made them did not realize that lust for Equality must go all the way to be satisfied.
Europeans are every bit as stupid. It’s in our genes to be facilitators. (I’m not sounding very much like a white supremacist, I know, but that’s because I feel under the weather.)
Funny how liberalism is peeled away in prison.
Neo-Americans consider Christianity to be wicked and hateful.
Ossifer Cheeks be all constitooshamalizin’ and whatnot. Y’urr me?
The “walled world” is the white world. The red lines in the picture are supposed to indicate that wealthy whites, Asians, and Jews have walled off their money and resources from the rest of the world. The underlying assumption is that borders are bad.
Our friend at Lee in the Mountains makes the very good point that the Yankee in the “last American” picture we posted recently could just as well have been John C. Calhoun, standing in front of the last Confederate battle flag in Columbia, South Carolina. The picture was published not long after the war, in 1899.
Dr. Philippe Rushton’s work in genetic similarity theory is fascinating. He also wields a mean suitcase. Here’s an article loaded with interesting facts, such as this:
Political scientist Frank Salter calculated that compared to the Danes, any two random English people have a kinship of 1/32 of a cousin. Two English people become the equivalent of 3/8 of a cousin by comparison with people from the Near East, 1/2 cousin by comparison with people from India, half-siblings by comparison with people from China, and like full-siblings compared with people from sub-Saharan Africa.
Thus, the aggregate of genes people share with co-ethnics dwarfs those shared with extended families. Rather than being a poor relation of family nepotism, ethnic nepotism is virtually a proxy for it.
Sadly, Rushton is a Darwinist who believes that altruism is selfish gene propagation, which is another way of saying that love is a virus. Auster’s review of this article is spot-on:
Rushton doesn’t just reference the unquestionable facts of human distinctiveness; he is a full blown Darwinian/Dawkinsian reductionist, subscribing to the notion that the evolutionary “purpose” of the organism is to serve the survival of its individual, “selfish” genes. Does he seriously expect to derive a viable theory of nationhood from this? That’s like expecting to derive a viable model of society from comparing the behavior of men to “alpha” and “beta” animals in packs.
This is precisely correct, and worthy of some thought. I would have said it’s like comparing the behavior of creatures who bear the divine image to ants and bees. But colony societies are more similar to what we see in the East. Pack animals are different, and more closely approximate predatory Negro behavior. How does the Darwinist hope to inspire the mystic chords of nationhood from a theory of selfishness that, in actual practice, would reduce us all to competition for survival of the fittest? And not the fittest race, but the fittest individuals! Look to the street gangs to get an idea of how Darwinism would look if removed beyond the realm of textbooks. Even at its very best, Darwinist racialism tells us nothing more than that we want our race to survive because it benefits us personally. The theory renders purpose meaningless; our actions and ideas as random as the strokes on Rushton’s keyboard; our national destiny an accident, our eternal destiny a fantasy. Christians have quite different explanations for Being.
It should be obvious to anyone and everyone that atheism does not encourage large family formation, without which white nationalism is an academic exercise. As a friend of ours puts it, the only people who have lots of children are the people who want them, and the people who want lots of children are invariably religious. The Ubermensch Boy’s Club rails against obedience and devotion to Jesus Christ but have never demonstrated that the white race can survive without Him. Where are the fecund clans of atheists? Perhaps they are hiding in the forest, teaching the wisdom of Revilo Oliver to their children and riding unicorns and griffins.
I quote my friend:
My basic hypothesis here is not mystical. It’s simply that the more one believes there is a God who gives commands to have children and holds one eternally accountable to those demands, the more one is likely to choose to have children in a post-contraception environment. The pleasures of not having lots of children and the pain of having them in the short-term is too high to overcome except by divine command… Man is an irrational animal at root who will pursue pleasure at all costs (as pleasure has become disconnected from fitness in our world)…
Show me a group of atheists or agnostics anywhere with an above-replacement birth rate, even among the racially-aware. The problem is that hedonism is the inescapable conclusion of atheism for most people (and mental self-stimulation, i.e. intellectualism, is a form of hedonism)…
Kind hearts are more than coronets
And simple faith than Norman blood.
~ Tennyson
Who but white people would ever think to do this?
James asks when McDonald’s will ever write anything like this for white people:
At McDonald’s®, we believe that African-American culture and achievement should be celebrated 365 days a year—not just during Black History Month. That’s the idea behind 365Black.com. It’s a place where you can learn more about education, employment, career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities, and meet real people whose lives have been touched by McDonald’s. Plus, you can also have a chance to win exciting once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. So make sure you visit often—you just might get inspired.
Like the unique African Boabab tree, which nourishes its community with its leaves and fruit, McDonald’s has branched out to the African-American community nourishing it with valuable programs and opportunities?
May I ask a few impertinent questions? Are we allowed to celebrate explicitly white culture and achievements every day of the year? Are we allowed to have corporate-sponsored websites that serve as white networking tools, and which distribute race-based prizes? Are we allowed to have our own tree that nourishes our own community? Or am I once again brandishing the lightsaber of Hate and swinging it at the knobby heads of innocent droids? Oh, how shall I atone for my nativism?!
Nice words from Doug Wilson here:
If an ancient tyrant builds a Taj Mahal on the backs of slaves, he will have no shortage of of modern historical sychophants lamenting the lost glory days. But if there are five centuries of peace, with every Israelite under his own fig tree, minding his own business, there is no ruined grandeur for the modern statist writer to grovel in front of…
The three pillars of “capitalism” are free markets, free labor, and secure property. All of that was there centuries before Adam Smith, developed, nurtured, and defended by a Christian civilization. And they were developed, nurtured, and defended in no other civilization. And then, when modernity did arrive, the modernists waltzed in and seized houses they did not build and wells they did not dig, and said, “Look what we did!” The tragedy is that many Christians believed them.
How cheap is your food, really?
Somewhere in Iowa, a pig is being raised in a confined pen, packed in so tightly with other swine that their curly tails have been chopped off so they won’t bite one another. To prevent him from getting sick in such close quarters, he is dosed with antibiotics. The waste produced by the pig and his thousands of pen mates on the factory farm where they live goes into manure lagoons that blanket neighboring communities with air pollution and a stomach-churning stench. He’s fed on American corn that was grown with the help of government subsidies and millions of tons of chemical fertilizer. When the pig is slaughtered, at about 5 months of age, he’ll become sausage or bacon that will sell cheap, feeding an American addiction to meat that has contributed to an obesity epidemic currently afflicting more than two-thirds of the population. And when the rains come, the excess fertilizer that coaxed so much corn from the ground will be washed into the Mississippi River and down into the Gulf of Mexico, where it will help kill fish for miles and miles around. That’s the state of your bacon—circa 2009.
The Zimdollar is finally dead, if anyone cares. It lasted longer than we thought, but then so has the phony-baloney dollar of the American Empire.
The state just wants to help parents do their job. It looks kindly in your eyes and purrs, “We jes’ wanna hep yooooo.”
After only 40 years, this is what we have to show for all the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the education racket. By “education,” I mean “self-actualization, following one’s joy, social adjustment, or multicultural sensitivity”—anything but knowledge.
The mayor of Detroit says the city could run out of money by October. For a long time now, no major grocery chain has had a store in that forsaken corner of Africa. This means that the local color can’t get produce and keep themselves regular. The solution is obvious: the state will tax whites to subsidize the delivery and sale of fresh fruit. Eureka!
Likewise, it is the duty of “the community” (i.e. white people) to give hundreds of millions of dollars to wets in Texas to improve their “quality of life.” This is imperative, says one consultant, because wets are in the majority. But when whites were the majority race in Texas, back during the good old days of “racism,” they were told that simply because they were the majority, it was their duty to give money to minorities without complaining. We’ll see more of this in the near future. Race hustlers justify quotas and artificial advantages because minorities need to be raised to a level playing field. But when whites are in the minority, as we already are in Texas, California, and two other states, we will receive no such freebies. Instead, we will get the South Africa and Zimbabwe treatment. When that day comes, we Kinists will remember every face of every lying pastor who put us there.
California’s troubles are linked to Reagan’s amnesty program.
Down in Texas, the great names of Houston, Travis, Bowie, and Crockett are being replaced by Cisneros, Huerta, Garcia, and Gonzalez. By the time the new textbooks arrive in 2013, “a majority of the children attending Texas public schools will be Hispanic.” These neo-Texan children “want to see some brown faces,” says State Board of Education member Patricia Hardy, a Republican.
Affirmative action “heroes.” They’re about as useful as affirmative action “scholars.”
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” Jared Taylor’s review of Christopher Caldwell shows his exasperation that someone who can so clearly identify the rot in Europe neglects to describe what is happening here in the same words. As Jared knows, it’s not really that odd. Caldwell simply wants to keep his job and continue to write for Jew publications. This is why he says that Enoch Powell was factually correct, “beyond any shadow of a doubt,” but was nevertheless “morally wrong.” I wish someone could explain that to me.
One of the most interesting of Taylor’s observances is that whites are inherently principled, even if to their own destruction.
When the French decided they couldn’t have Arab girls wearing veils to school, they felt compelled to ban yarmulkes and “large crucifixes” as well. Italians and Germans couldn’t ban veils without taking down classroom crucifixes that may have been up for centuries.
Europeans therefore cannot bring themselves to combat alien practices head-on. When the Danes got sick of Muslims fetching brides from the old country, they had to ban young spouses rather than illiterate Third Worlders. By forbidding the import of marriage partners under the age of 24, the Danes mostly stopped the practice, but they had to pretend they had an underage-spouse problem rather than an immigration problem.
Measures like this bother people who shouldn’t be bothered. If the authorities step up surveillance on fire-breathing imams, they think they have to keep tabs on other people, too. If they cut back on welfare because of immigrant chiselers, they have to change the rules for everyone. Although it came to nothing, one Swedish bureaucrat, shocked to discover female genital mutilation was going on in her country, argued for mandatory checkups for every Swedish girl.
On the tombstone of the West can be engraved these words: “It was a race that died too young, but it was principled to the end.”
Only two centuries to go and the racial achievement gap will finally be closed. We know this is an accurate figure because it comes directly from paid professionals. So if we now spend half a trillion dollars per year on education, it will only cost another hundred trillion dollars, a sum that no one can even envision. But since no politician ever spends less than his predecessor, it’s probably a lowball estimate.
Black “intellectuals” agree that racism has not ended because whites think they have the right to express disagreement with His Lordship.
Humble Queen Michelle has 26 servants.
Latonya, Fayetta, and Seraunna are demanding to know where they free house at! Racism is truly a plague upon our society. Only haters would deny these women a roof over their heads. Their half-sisters, Latrina, Urethra, and Velveeta, are also demanding homes for their litters.
Never call blacks “malcontents.” Always refer to them as a “multicultural tableau.”
Here’s something I’ll bet you’ve never seen before: Michael King as the Terminator being attacked by the scantily-clad ninjas of the KKK. Well, Terminators do try to destroy humanity, so that much of it is accurate.
Air Force One:
This was sent out by a woman at the Canton, Ohio, police department, while on duty. That wasn’t very smart, but she’s right, it is funny. And that’s just terrible. Only racists like to laugh. If you don’t believe me, watch Comedy Central. It should be called Funeral Central. You know what people really laugh about when they’ve had a drink or two.
Look at all the he-girls commanding our ships at sea. “The Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead announced in Annapolis recently that ‘diversity is the number one priority’ at the Naval Academy.” And you thought it was the other d-word, defense.
Lawrence Auster is correct: “a country that puts its women in regular military units (other than in conditions of dire necessity) doesn’t deserve to survive.”
The 1,000 surveillance cameras that have been installed in London have led to one crime being solved. Of course, that’s not really the purpose of the cameras. The cameras exist for the same reason that Jew Emanuel via Obama is reserving unconstitutional control of the Internet. Jews hate free media.
Are there really any differences between Orwell’s and Huxley’s predictions? “Every faction has its Big Brother and its Goldstein.”
Elderly whites are protesting socialized medicine because it could threaten their socialized medicine. Just another day at the honky follies.
The Jew media in Chicago is keeping black crime under wraps out of deference for Obama.
This woman makes a Jew go nuts. Shame of you!
It’s either Jesus or the weiner poopie. Which will it be?
Wow, I never knew that Hottentots grew on trees.
And that video clip of the bicycle acrobatics was really impressive. I think there are some Chinese who would be up to something of a similar or maybe even higher skill level, but it wouldn’t be the same.
It is as easy to love The Brussels Journal as it is to become enraged over Europe’s persecution of Christians, especially homeschoolers, that they write about.
Katyn looks like must viewing.
“The executive director of the National Center for Jewish Film at Brandeis University remembers “only two feature films about the Armenian genocide, neither one with much impact.””
Say! Now there’s progress – a Jew finally admits the reality of the Armenian genocide!
By the way, about those pictures of the tree. . .Is Michelle Obama hiding in there?
Heh, the chain looks like a thong.
For the Western Church of the Universal Kalendar, August 31 marks the Feast of St Raymund Nonnatus (the Unborn – he was taken from the womb of his deceased mother by surgery)
The liturgical calendar is a fascinating excursion through history. In the life of St Raymund we see that in the wake of the wars of Reconquista, many Europeans were taken as slaves to Africa. And what nation do J_w think organized the currency scams of the war and European slave trade in Africa and the Middle East at that time?
St Raymund the Confessor was inspired to the religious order: Our Lady of Ransom founded in Barcelona. This Institute was given the Pontifical mission to go to Africa and rescue the European slaves taken there. Not one to just go and work quietly underground, St Raymund also set about proclaiming the Evangel to the Heathen, the Infidel and the usual disinterested persons. He was taken into custody, had holes drilled through his mouth which were then padlocked. Thus he spent many years in prison in very silent prayer.
The Roman Catholic Church hails St Raymund in his commemoration of August 31: ” O God who did endue thy Blessed Confessor Raymund with wondrous powers for the deliverance from the captivity of the Infidel , grant that by his prayers [to Our Lord] we may be delivered…”
In the Communion of the Saints, I think St Raymund is a patron for our times. In Barcelona, there are some truly excellent icons of St Raymund victoriously sprung from his padlock. When the history of Europe is rediscovered, especially in the immemorial liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, we in our time will have a new and vigorous appreciation of the heroic acts of faith and virtue of our saints.
Fellow bloggers under the Hate Laws – I commend to you St Raymund the Confessor
Garrido’s back yard, which the police never bothered to check in the years since they were told someone was living there:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&q=1554+Walnut+Avenue,+Antioch,+CA,&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=38.008591,-121.771212&spn=0.000515,0.00121&t=h&z=20
Pathetic
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209836/Woman-travelled-Panama-operation-turn-brown-eyes-blue–blinded.html
I took my family out to McDonald’s for lunch. Inside my 3 year old daughters happy meal I found a booklet by the American Girl company. It was about a black girl named Addy in 1864 and her flight to freedom from the oppressive South. I found the author who’s a broad evangelical black woman in Texas and I wrote her a letter for shits n’ giggles. It’s been a few days without a response.
A bit off topic:
Dear Lynda,
Must you constantly advertise Catholicism in your posts?
Here is a site that shares many of your views, admin, and I think you and others who visit here may find interesting.
http://beyondtpale.blogspot.com/
Yes, dear Marlon, I must.
I note your link to Daniel’s blog above. Beyond the Pale exposes “Western Decay”. Well what exactly is Western Decay – if not decay from Civilization to the present post modern chaos and degeneracy with the psychos running every wing the asylum?
And what was the civilization of which Charles Martel (Daniel’s icon) was a member? The Holy Western Empire of Charlemagne in which Church (that would be the Roman Catholic Church) and the State were one. Charles Martel was a warrior of Reconquista – the subject of the post that you find tedious.
The difference between Charles Martel and those who would oppose the current invasions (which Europe has suffered before) is that Charles Martel was convinced of the Holy Faith which built Western Civilization.
So you do see why I am inclined to mention the Church often and in contexts that will (I hope) allow others to see the One Thing needful. There will be no victory over the millenial enemies of the European race which alone (as a race) embraced the Christian faith – without a return to the Holy Faith, the Church which guards that Faith as Sacred Deposit and a temporal Order which protects the Church.
This picture is unclear historically only to those who the most determined Blue Pill addicts.
Lynda, I think Marlon is saying that all of us here are opposed to civilizational decay and all of us (I hope) are in favor of renewing in our people (and yours) true faith in Jesus Christ. But many of us deny that the Roman church is THE church and that the bishop of Rome is THE vicar of Christ, to whom all other ministers on earth must answer. We also reject many of the ideas with which your church has distinguished itself. We deny that victory over the enemies of Christ and our race is only possible if we return to your church. Our American forefathers also denied it. We will not do this in good conscience, because we believe Rome to be rife with biblical error.
Now, don’t get me started on Protestant churches. I could regale you until the cows come home with their faults. The point is simply that this is a Reformed/Protestant blog, and since we’re not going to convince each other to change theological views, let’s focus in the comments here on what can be mutually beneficial. If people want to read about Romanist peculiarities, there are much better places to do that than SWB.
Still, it’s good to know where you’re coming from, which is why I allowed you to make your point. We certainly do thank God for Martel and Charlemagne, and many other great Roman Catholics. If not for Martel, we probably would not exist. We also thank God for Luther, Calvin, Knox, and many others who led us to a better understanding of God’s Word and who gave us a system of government that suits us.
Good letter, Silas. Good links, Marlon and Chris.
Though the Christian Identity subtext of “Beyond the Pale” is beyond the pale, the posts there are very interesting. Aleister Crowley’s poem, Leah Sublime, is the best example I’ve ever seen of a mind gone completely depraved. But at least Crowley was consistent, which is more than I can say for many others. His obsession with human waste shows that fags and perverts love death.
I would not call Martel and Charlemagne “Roman Catholics.” They were part of the holy catholic church, which we are continuing. They were, if you like, early Presbyterians. The modern Roman Catholic fellowship has withered away and been cut off the vine for rejecting the gospel, just like judaism of old. In other words, we need to distinguish between merely formal succession versus full-orbed succession.
I think The Farce of Sodom, or the Quintessence of Debauchery by Charles II’s friend John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, might give Crowley’s Leah Sublime a run for its money in the sheer depravity department . . . but probably nobody can hold a candle to the Marquis de Sade’s writings, which are disgusting far beyond the point of tolerance even in the expurgated versions that are promoted by that man’s modern champions. The most enjoyable thing about studying such men and their works is to learn the inevitable details of how they met their end: insane, disillusioned, diseased, addicted, impotent, lonely, and full of despair in anticipation of eternal judgment. Short of their repentance and finding healing in Jesus Christ, that’s the best outcome one could hope for.
I may be wrong but I think it was Pat Buchanan who first said that a nation that sends its women to fight its wars doesn’t deserve to survive. Maybe Auster is the one who guides Pat’s ‘conservatism’?
Exactly, Chris, and it’s good to point out that these were depraved white men who employed their considerable intellect, skills, and wealth in the service of Satan. Their white heritage could not save them, and of course it was the rejection of their white, Christian heritage that was the problem. (I stress the white part of it because they preyed upon their people.)
I’ve been thinking a lot about these Knoxville murderers, but also this guy Ryan Jenkins, who killed his slutty girlfriend, probably in a jealous rage, and then removed her teeth and fingers to hide her identity. Police finally figured out who she was by the serial numbers on her breast implants. Then, when Jenkins saw that he would be caught, he killed himself.
There are a lot of sick people in the world, like Garrido and Fritzl, and it’s not hard to understand how a lover’s quarrel can turn deadly or how religious fanaticism can lead a person to engage in cultic behavior. But I’m always fascinated by the predators who turn not just on random individuals, but individuals who are far removed from them in kind. Even more fascinating in these cases are the relatives who make excuses and hide information and engage in criminal behavior themselves, all because of blood bonds.
As I say, I’m thinking about all this, but I doubt that I’ll ever understand it.
I probably shouldn’t say that nobody can rival apostate Christians for sheer depravity and nuttiness, because as soon as I do somebody will probably point out a counter-example that never had even the most tenuous of connections with the Living God, but when we look at the depraved people that admin and I have been talking about above, one has to be horrified by the way God can sometimes judge people who were once covenanted to Him but then rejected Him as their one true love. In addition we could also mention all sorts of cults, from the Jews and Muslims to Jim Jones in the Guyana jungle. (And in the case of Jews and Muslims we should use apostasy primarily to describe the origins of those faiths, and secondarily to describe the way they continue to be clung to in the face of true Christian testimony [historically this would be more true of the Jews than of the Muslims, I guess], but at the same time there is also another sense in which we can say that many if not most of the adherents of those religions today should not be considered apostates since they were never personally in a covenantal relationship with the living God to begin with. This distinction is pertinent to evangelism, I believe. Especially for Muslims and to a lesser degree for Jews it can be totally mind-blowing to realize that contrary to what they have been taught, God is both a society of love and also a person with whom we can actually have a living, loving relationship.)
By the way, is it my imagination or are CI groups all over the map? I have not paid much attention to most of them — I think I got turned off by Pete Peters a long time ago, almost as soon as I “discovered” him, and that was pretty much the end of my interest in anything that smacked of CI. But Ted Weiland, who I recently learned of for the first time, doesn’t seem so bad. I have absolutely no intention of going in that direction myself, but I have found at least some of Weiland’s writings to be really good. (Others less so — even though I “qualify” racially I’m unconvinced that the whites of Northern Europe have been specially chosen as God’s people similar to the way ancient Israel was chosen.) Anyway I might listen to more of his talks online if they didn’t require such a major investment of time. The written stuff is better because you can zero in on his more useful insights more quickly and pretty much skip over the dross.
There is a wide range of opinion, some of it agreeable and some of it not.
You can get a sense of some of the differences in this debate:
http://www.missiontoisrael.org/debate.php
I’ve heard Peters and Weiland say many good things, but I’m actually not very familiar with the teachings of either. Too much of what falls under the CI umbrella comes across like this:
http://thecaucasianliteraryreview.blogspot.com/2009/08/double-cross.html
It’s unfortunate. “Jesus didn’t secure Heaven for us,” and so “we must work out our own salvations.” I’m not at all suggesting that Peters and Weiland would agree with what is posted at that link. I’m just saying that these are the sorts of things that will be pulled up in the wide net.
There are always the same warning signs, such as this fellow Roger Hathaway saying that he refuses to follow secondary sources. Closely related to this is another warning sign, which is dissatisfaction not only with secondary sources but with primary sources as well. They don’t like the Bible translations that have been delivered to us by the world’s greatest experts in Hebrew and Greek, and so they write their own horrendous translations.
The very best of these second-rate translations is by Ferrar Fenton, and it also happens to be the very first of the wave of new translations that fill Bible bookstores these days. There are actually a lot of good things about it. For example, it calls the creation days “ages.” It’s based on the W&H manuscript. But there are enough bad parts about it that it’s not surprising that it is no longer published. Fenton wrote in the preface to the 1910 edition, “I contend that I am the only man who has ever applied real mental and literary criticism to the Sacred Scriptures.” This gives you a good idea of what lies in store, but it’s actually not a bad read on balance. The problem, as I see it, is that the CI folks (or British Israelism, if you will) rely on this inferior translation as the Real Deal, in part because it makes it easier for them to involve the British in the events of Scripture. One problem I have with this is that a place “northwest” of Israel does not necessarily refer to Britain. In fact, it’s quite unlikely. It seems very similar to what the Mormons try to do when they involve America in the events of the Bible.
The good news is that I can almost promise you that you’ll derive new insights on the Word from studying these ideas, even if in the end you disagree with the thrust of them.
Heh, “the only man who has ever applied real mental and literary criticism to the Sacred Scriptures.” I guess if I get to be a member of racial Israel then Fenton gets to be very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth . . .
I should clarify a couple of things about my own view of this. Europeans have been the stewards of the gospel, and now many of our kin have fallen away. It may come to pass that Europeans return to the faith and the rest of the world falls away. I don’t believe that it will ever be the reverse. But regardless of what I or someone else may believe, there should be no question of the univocal testimony of Christendom, which is that we have no right to make dogmatic statements about which races and nations should be allowed to hear the gospel. The CI/BI adherent takes the idea that God makes covenant only with Israel, and concludes that Israel can only consist of those who have descended by blood from Israel himself (Jacob); that Israel is primarily a physical entity. They have no idea who these people are today, so they assume Israel to be synonymous with white people.
But here’s the catch. In the fullness of time, we could see that there really is some merit to the argument. But if this were to happen, it would be according to God’s sovereign providence, not by our decision to reserve preaching and teaching for whites only. I don’t know of any learned Christians in history who would hesitate to call the latter a heresy.
Therefore, I think the CI/BIs who use this as an operating principle are killing the opportunity we have to show the world what the Bible teaches, and what our Christian forefathers, throughout the ages, taught about kinship and all the other things that are dear to the hearts of Kinists. And for what? All because they reject out of hand any possibility that communion and covenant are spiritual rather than racial. But it clearly is possible (to say the least). To pin everything on something so uncertain strikes me as being identical to the Ken Ham creationists, who have one – and only one – way of reading Genesis 1, and by God, they’re going to make it the prism through which they view everything else.
Perhaps a better example than Ken Ham would be the point that Tim makes above about succession. Would it not be accurate to view Romanist succession as primarily physical? The pope is said to be Peter’s successor, with the authority of an apostle, regardless of the insane things he does. Like the Pharisees of old, Romanists themselves refuse to even countenance the idea that the pope has cut himself away from the faith, because to them, he is THE Vicar of Christ on earth. (Notice I do not say he has actually done this, only that his followers could not conceive of the possibility.) Therefore, Rome might actually have much in common with Christian Identity. Or maybe I’m just tired and need to go to bed now. Someone set me straight if you think this sounds crazy.
All creaturely progress involves a dialectic, by which the unity/diversity or form/matter motif is exemplified. True succession of church authority includes a formal aspect (ordination) and material (pure gospel). With this, we can understand the mistake made by American evangelicals (gospel is sufficient to establish succession) and Rome (ordination is sufficient to maintain succession). Instead, we see in Luther what happens at disruptive points in history: Luther having ordination and gospel, the pope in excommunicating him excommunicated himself. The negation doubled back to himself. How do the people of God “know,” absent the bare sign? They know. But it is also accompanied by the sign, for the sake of our weakness as Calvin would say.
There is complexity in the individual’s working out of history. As our tribe falls away from the gospel, we must expostulate with them, pray for them, preach, rebuke, as one of them, not as alien, ready to die with them. Negro and Oriental Christians should take the same approach, mutatis mutandis. In this way, the dual form of the individual as instantiated within the genetic (tribe) and the covenantal (faith) works itself out.
So yes, admin, you are exactly right. The CI is making exactly the judaizing mistake, in failing to grasp the dual structure of genus/covenant, and in particular in its new covenant manifestation. Thus, whether they are actually hebes or not is irrelevant to the critique in the first place. If they are actually hebes, it is bad enough. If (as I believe) they are actually sons of Japheth, then it is doubly absurd.
Tim, you’ve written more brilliant things than could be stuffed in a book, but I think this last comment takes the cake.
What Tim said is right on regarding CI, especially that it is a judaizing heresy.
The main logical flaw I see in CI is: first they insist that Adam was the father of the white race only; clearly, as even they must admit, many more tribes and nations descended from Adam than simply Israel; yet they then proceed to make specifically “Israel” coterminous with “the white race.” They must do this, if they want to use Jesus’ statement “I came only to preach to the house Israel” to prove that the Gospel applies strictly to white people. But by insisting that Jesus’ statement was normative for all of time, they cut off all non-Israelite whites from the Gospel. In short, they equivocate between the “Adamic race” and “Israel” in order to suit their exegetical peculiarities, and in so doing create an absurd contradiction (the copious commenter Fr. John does this all the time.)
In addition, the CI doctrine is about as old as Rapturism – that is to say, not very old at all. Not even the whites in the old South held that the Negroes were beyond salvation. Kinism is a different matter, since it is a formalization of principles which can be located in Christian texts from ancient to very modern.
British-Israelism DOES have some more historical support than CI, if by British-Israelism we simply mean the theory that Europeans are actually descendents of Israel. This by itself is not heretodox, but it is absurd anyway. Paul in Romans writes that the Israelites, the fathers of the faith, by and large have been blinded during the Gentile age while the Gentiles are being grafted in. What sense does it then make to say that Europeans, who presided over the only Christian civilization in world history for centuries, are Israelites?
We must be careful to avoid hasty, emotional responses to our racial problems, and CI is pure haste, as evidenced by its exegetical sloppiness. The mature Christian mind must be capable of grasping nuance, of balancing aggression with grace. I see the Negro as a son of Adam. If I see a Christian Negro, who walks according to the new creation (and I have seen some), he is my spiritual brother. But when I see a Negro on the street, I keep my hand near my weapon and bid my mate walk a bit closer to me.
Right, I’m glad you said that about British-Israelism, because I actually think BI could be onto something here, and yet not really. When they speak of Gentiles, they refer to the lost tribes of Israel. It’s certainly possible that the lost tribes migrated to Europe, and when the Holy Spirit steered Paul away from Asia and into Europe in Acts 16, it seems to reinforce Christ’s statement in Matthew 15:24 that He was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. At the very least, this could be an indication that the apostles were first to preach in Israel for 3 1/2 years, which they did, and after the stoning of Stephen, go to the scattered tribes in Europe. But as you say, there’s no indication in Scripture that “Gentile” means ONLY dispersed Israelites. Some people make the opposite error of assuming the word always refers to non-Israelites, but this is not true either. The CI/BI adherent would also argue that the G-E-N in Gentile comes from the same Latin that gives us the words “genetic” and “homogeneous.” Therefore, they would say that the dispersed Gentiles had to be fellow Israelites. But this doesn’t make much sense, because Gentiles could still be separated into distinct but internally homogeneous nations.
Good points above regarding BI/CI. I hope I don’t repeat myself here, but another problem regarding the CI exegetical maneuvers is that Scripture becomes very befuddled regarding the Jew/Gentile distinction. To them, sometimes Israelite means anyone of Israel, whether of the lost tribes or not; but other times Israel means only the non-lost tribes while Gentile means the lost tribes (as it would have to for Romans 9-11 to make sense to a CI); I am aware that Scripture can use different terms in different ways, but the CI must endlessly create his own context for it to make sense. Romans, Galatians, and many parts of Acts become ludicrous within a CI interpretive grid.
And again, I don’t get how the CI can say that salvation is for Adam’s race – by which they mean the white race – but then limit it to Israel – which clearly would only represent a portion of that race. Anyway, the entire premise of CI is based on very much information that is entirely extra-biblical and lacking much external evidence too; I would be uncomfortable embracing any doctrine relying on ethnographic and linguistic speculation.
I’ve been thinking about the issue of the universal nature of gospel and I ran into Deuteronomy 7:1–4. I was raised mormon but now consider myself non-denominational. Can someone explain to me how the old testament, in particular this excerpt applies to White gentiles? This is in the spirit of honest inquiry. There’s a lot of stuff in there about Jews being commanded to rape, pillage, and otherwise help themselves to gentile wealth. The whole Exodus episode seemed to spring from Jews manipulating, abusing, and stealing from Egypt.
“When the Lord your God brings you to the land that you are going to occupy and forces out many nations before you — Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful than you — and he delivers them over to you and you attack them, you must utterly annihilate them. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy! You must not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the Lord will erupt against you and he will quickly destroy you. Instead, this is what you must do to them: You must tear down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars, cut down their sacred Asherah poles, and burn up their idols. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. He has chosen you to be his people, prized above all others on the face of the earth. “
From my essay, entitled, “The Exoneration of Paul, Part 1.”
The False Dichotomy Between Jew and Gentile
Having established the false premise that the Jews are the same people as the Israelites of Scripture, Judaism teaches another falsehood on the heels of that whopper: “Jews are Israelites and Gentiles are non-Israelites.”
Here, the proper derivation of the word ‘Gentile’ is in order.
The word ‘Gentile’ is deceptively used by the rabbis as an antonym of ‘Israelite.” Thus, for them, ‘Gentile’ means “non-Jew.” But this is not at all what this word means. It doesn’t belong in the Bible at all. It is actually a Latin word, that means “kinsman.” The Hebrew ‘goy’ and the Greek ‘ethnos’ both mean “nation.” And the identity of the nation must always be determined from the context of the passage. Consequently, the definition that the Jews employ, namely “non-Jewish,” is a complete fabrication that has no origin in either the Hebrew or the Greek. It is a self-serving definition, which suits the rabbinical deception that the Bible is about the Jewish people.
Thus, the rabbis have established a false dichotomy, between Jews and non-Jews; but the Bible is about the Israelites, not about the Jews. So, the true dichotomy is between the Israelites and the heathen. It is also easily demonstrated that the vast majority of the instances of ‘gentile’ actually refer to the Israelites of the Dispersion, which means the KINSMEN of the Judean Israelites; and this is in accord with the actual definition of the Latin word, ‘gentilis.’
Consider carefully this analysis by a Latin expert:
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.
GENS. This word contains the same element as the Latin genus, and gigno, and as the Greek γένος, γίγνομαι, &c., and it primarily signifies kin. But the word has numerous significations, which have either a very remote connection with this its primary notion, or perhaps none at all.
Gens sometimes signifies a whole political community, as Gens Latinorum, Gens Campanorum, &c. (Juv. Sat. VIII.239, and Heinrich’s note); though it is probable that in this application of the term, the notion of a distinction of race or stock is implied, or at least the notion of a totality of persons distinguished from other totalities by sameness of language, community of law, and increase of their numbers among themselves only. Cicero (pro Balbo, c13) speaks of “Gentes universae in civitatem receptae, ut Sabinorum, Volscorum, Hernicorum.” It is a consequence of such meaning of Gens, rather than an independent meaning, that the word is sometimes used to express a people simply with reference to their territorial limits.
The words Gens and Gentiles have a special meaning in the system of the Roman law and in the Roman constitution. Cicero has preserved a definition of Gentiles which was given by Scaevola, the pontifex, and which, with reference to the time, must be considered complete. Those were Gentiles, according to Scaevola, (1) who bore the same name, (2) who were born of freemen (ingenui), (3) none of whose ancestors had been a slave, and (4) who had suffered no capitis diminutio. This definition contains nothing which shows a common bond of union among gentiles, such the possession of a common name; but those who had a common name were not gentiles, if the three other conditions, contained in this definition, were not applicable to them. There is also a definition of gentilis by Festus:— “That is called Gens Aelia which is composed (conficitur) of many familiae. Gentilis is both one who is of the same stock (genus), and one who is called by the same name (simili nomine),1 as Cincius says, those are my gentiles who are called by my name.”
But the Jews use this same word to mean a people called by some other name!! Are you beginning to understand how the rabbis of Judaism use clever distortions of language to fool the “stupid goyim”? So, from this study, it is quite evident that the word ‘Gentile’ is actually A SYNONYM for Israelite, since it means “kinsmen” or “people of the same race,” or even, “people called by the same name.” The Jewish usage of this word is thus exposed as a fraudulent usage. The rabbis simply made up a self-serving definition and the “Gentile” ministers don’t know any better!!! The devil tells really clever and convincing lies!
Who Are the Modern Jews?
Given this false dichotomy between Jews and non-Jews, it is instructive to find out how modern Jews define their own Jewishness. You will be very much surprised at their answers!!
From a Jewish source, discussing the various definitions of the word, ‘Jew’:
This difference in usage is strikingly illustrated in the Gospels: the Jews are recorded as having referred (mockingly) to Jesus as ‘King of Israel’, whereas the Roman, Pilate, and his soldiers refer to Him — both verbally and in writing — as ‘King of the Jews’ (Mark 15:32, 2, 9, 18, 26). For Christians, the word ‘Judaeus’ was conflated with the name of the villain of the gospel story, Judas Iscariot, who was considered the typical Jew. Judas was linked with the devil (Luke 33:3), and the result was an evil triangle of the devil-Jew-Judas. This relationship helped to establish the pejorative meaning of the word ‘Jew’ in popular usage. The noun could mean ‘extortionate usurer, driver of hard bargains, to overreach.’ [The Jews call it chutzpah. - Eli]
“Many attempts to root out these derogatory meanings by having the dictionary definitions revised have been made in the United States, England, and Europe; but have, however, met with little success, [This statement is incorrect. As we have seen in the evolution of the term “Jew”, they have been very successful in substituting the words “Hebrew” and “Israel” for the term, “Jew”. The false modesty of this statement belies their success. – Eli.] since the problem is not one of ill-will on the part of the lexicographers, but rather of semantics and popular usage. [Here, the Jews actually ADMIT that they are actively changing definitions and usages in order to change popular perceptions about Jews. Their control of the publishing industry, Hollywood and media has given them this editorial power. Is it not verboten these days to even criticize Jews? Pay close attention to the next sentence! – Eli]
“In order to avoid the unwelcome associations and connotations of the word, Jews began in the 19th century to call themselves HEBREWS AND ISRAELITES (e.g., Alliance Israelites Universelle, founded 1860). Nevertheless, these new names quickly took on the same pejorative associations as ‘Jew’, as scores of 19th century novels testify.
[Now, for the obligatory hoaxacaust propaganda:]
“Recently there has been a gradual change in the usage of the word. The brutal murder of a great part of the Jewish people during the Holocaust has limited subsequent degrading usage of the term. Since the conclusion of the war, anti-Semitism is under legal scrutiny in many countries, and this covers the use of ‘Jew’ in the pejorative sense, along with “Yid”, “Sheeny”, “Ikey” and the like. (Y.M.G./Ed.)” – The Encyclopedia Judaica.
They forgot to mention “Kike,” which is a word that Jews use in a derogatory manner of their fellow Jews, who are so obnoxious that not even other Jews can stand them!!! This statement proves, however, that incessant holocaust propaganda has dumped a guilt trip on the entire non-Jewish world, and people today are actually afraid to say the word ‘Jew’ out loud, “for fear of the Jews”! At the same time that the Jews deny having any hidden power to alter your thoughts, they are busy altering your thoughts. Or, maybe it’s a Muslim conspiracy?
William Hollis, in his excellent survey of how the meaning(s) of the word ‘Jew’ have changed down through the centuries, cites a survey taken in New Khazaria (the Israeli State), wherein a large number Jews were inquired of, as to how they define the word, Jew:
In the book, Hebrew Christianity a chapter entitled “A Matter of Definitions”, relates the following:
“As a consequence of the interest aroused by the Shalit case, a public opinion poll was held on the question. Fifteen hundred Jewish families were canvassed with the following results:
“12% declared that a Jew is a person whose father or mother is Jewish or who has a Jewish spouse.
“23% claimed that a Jew is a person who considers himself a Jew.
“19% held that a man born to a Jewish mother or who converts to Judaism is a Jew.
“13% said a Jew is one who lives in Israel or who identifies with the Jewish state.
“13% stated that a Jew is one who observes the Jewish religious practices.
“11% answered that a Jew is one who is raised and educated as a Jew.
“9% said they could not define it.
“These results were recorded in the Jerusalem Post of November 25, 1968. More could be said and other examples could be given to show the confusion in the Jewish world over definitions. But these should suffice to show that there is no uniformity or objective standard for defining Jewishness; virtually all definitions are subjective.”
(Source: http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/blog/?p=95 )
Note that, out of 1,500 Jewish families, not a single Jew defined the word as meaning, “Judah.”!! This shows that, in their own minds, the Jewish people really have no connection to ancient Judah. If the Jews themselves are confused as to how to define the word, “Jew’, how are Christians supposed to be able to do it!!!
Finally, this surprisingly candid admission by a Jew, who has tried, unsuccessfully, to argue against my position, is very revealing:
“To tell the truth, there are some jews that believe the talmud is equal to the torah. It is called the oral law. My personal opinion is that the talmud is just tradition and definitely not divine. Judaism is a religion of opinion and freedom, every jew has his own opinion about the torah, this opinion is expressed in the Talmud.”
There you have it! The traditions of men!!! Need I say more? I won’t reveal the name of this Jew, for the other Jews will try to kill him for telling the truth!!!
Tim P, if I’m not mistaken, I think all the Canaanites and surrounding nations listed in that passage were Hamites. Noah refused to even mention Ham’s name for what his son had done. He said to his three sons:
Cursed be Canaan;
A servant of servants
He shall be to his brethren.
Blessed be the LORD,
The God of Shem,
And may Canaan be his servant.
May God enlarge Japheth,
And may he dwell in the tents of Shem;
And may Canaan be his servant.
So there was the understanding from the beginning that these three megatribes were to have their own distinct inheritances. Japheth, the eldest, would ally with and pay respect to Shem, who was given the greatest honor, and Ham would be diminished but not entirely forgotten. This is how it has actually played out in history, and the CI/BI controversy seems to obfuscate these relationships, as well as the definition of the word Gentile.
I don’t follow you when you say that Israelites stole from Egyptians. If you’ll recall, the Egyptians owed their lives to Joseph. The Israelites were granted vast portions of the wealth of Egypt, and then were expunged from the history books and turned into slaves. The God of the slaves rescued them, and many Egyptians followed them for a short time. The Israelites were laden with riches as tribute paid to their God. If the Israelites had been after wealth, they could have taken all of it. The relatively small amount of gold they had was converted into an idol, resulted in widespread death, and was ultimately the reason why that entire generation did not see the Promised Land.
Later, the absolutely corrupt Canaanites and other Hamites (you have read about what took place at Sodom, I presume) made war constantly on the Israelites, and the Israelites responded in the only way that made long-term sense: by annihilating their irredeemable enemies.
The Phoenicians (Jezebel was one) are also said to be Hamites, but I have trouble believing they actually were in the time of Hiram. It seems very unlikely that there would have been such friendly relations if any Hamites had survived the wars of conquest. This is what we see in the case of Moab as well. Every lying, race-mixing preacher out there calls Ruth a Moabitess, but there are many reasons why she could not have been an ethnic Moabitess.
Admin, thanks. I would not have been able to draw the connection between Ham and the Canaanites. When I refer to the exodus out of Egypt, I once came across George Lincoln Rockwell’s interpretation, which can be read here: http://incogman.wordpress.com/2008/07/27/the-story-of-joseph-the-jew/
In any case I believe I’m much less knowledgeable on Old Testament scripture than most of the regulars here (I’ve preferred to read the New Testament almost exclusively). Therefore any feedback is helpful to me in my quest for making sense of the Old Testament.
Eli James,
I have never encountered a concordance or a biblical languages expert who denied that “Gentile” was synonomous with “nation.” It is a translation of “ethnos” in the original NT which simply means “nation”; in the Septuagint, “ethnos” is routinely used to describe non-Israelite groups, such as the Ishmaelites/Arabs in Genesis 25:2. In Galatians 3:28 the distinction Paul draws is between “Judaean” and “ethnos.” Certainly “ethnos” doesn’t always have to mean “person of non-Israelite descent” since it can refer to any homogeneous group, but the non-Israelites were divided into homogeneous groups as well. The table of nations included in the Babel narrative demonstrates this.
Since the Old Covenant was made with the physical descendents of Abraham, the other nations had little contact with the faith and were characterized by sinfulness, hence “nations” is often used in a derogatory sense in the OT and sometimes in the NT as well. Zechariah 14 describes a scenario in which non-Israelite “nations” attack Jerusalem. Many of them are destroyed for their trouble. But the survivors are left alive to go up to Jerusalem to celebrate the holy festivals. Notice that the Egyptians – who are certainly not the Israelites’ “kinsmen” – are included among those who go up to Jerusalem to celebrate to festivals. The religious celebrations include both Israelites and other “ethnos.” This is in consonance with the statement that Israel was to be a light unto the “ethnos” (Isaiah 42:6). Certainly not a light unto itself, but unto the other nations. The specific referent of this prophecy doesn’t matter; the point is, the OT clearly anticipates, and the NT clearly demonstrates, descendants of Israel AND other nations coming together to worship YHWH, thus debunking the central premise of Christian Identity.
Admin, you mentioned the prophecies that Shem would be given the highest honor, Japheth would be an ally to Shem, and Ham would be cursed. Do you connect Japheth’s blessing with the Christianizing of Europe? The first time I ever encountered such an interpretation was at the ehudwould blog, where I learned many other interpreters held this view as well. I am inclined to agree, since it would explain how rapidly Europe was Christianized, and why Africa is a different state of affairs.
However there could be difficulties with that interpretation; for example, most commentators believe the prophecy had a more immediate relevance to Shem, Ham, and Japheth (given the mention of “tents” and so forth.) Also, we should note that there were some difficulties in the conversion of Europe, including a few hundred years of rampant Arianism.
Sure, I would just caution you to be careful with the sources, as we all should be. There are quite a few men who are so determined to link the ancient Israelites with the Jews of today that they will gladly reject the Word of God if it assists them. David Duke has done this in his books, unfortunately, and there are many others on the Internet who do the same thing.
That piece by Rockwell touches on many of the facts but casts them in the worst possible light for Joseph, dismissing his tenure as a “typical Jewish operation.” To pull just one example out of the hat, he implies that Joseph lied about the attempted rape, not Potiphar’s wife, but it’s easy to see who would have the more plausible motive. Rockwell also omits information that does not fit with his narrative, implying that the genuine miracles worked through Joseph must have been conjurer’s tricks. But it’s clear that a conjurer could no sooner have told the dreams and interpreted them and, with his life on the line, seen it all come true, than Pharaoh’s magicians could have caused every firstborn child of the kingdom to perish.
This is typically what you’ll see from Duke, Strom, Oliver, Pierce, Rockwell, and many others. These men have a lot of good things to say, but if they’re Bible scholars, I’m Simon Cowell’s Bugatti mechanic.
Siegfried, yes, I think Japheth’s blessing has much to do with the Christianizing of Europe, but I really don’t know if the white peoples of Europe are descended from Shem or Japheth. Fortunately, I don’t think it really matters. Love that Ehud!
I see what you mean about the immediate relevance, but there’s no reason why it could not have both short and long-term meanings. And while Europe has had its problems, and we still deal with heresies today, our people came to the faith almost immediately. This is why I leave open the possibility that this was largely driven by the lost tribes of Israel returning to the covenant from which they had been severed. But I don’t really know.
Not that this has anything to do with the above discussion, but if anyone has read either Eli Faber’s Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the record straight (http://books.google.com/books?id=ceC5T4_5e-wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false) or Saul Friedman’s Jews and the American Slave Trade (http://books.google.com/books?id=I0ExEzLaX6YC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false), and cares to comment about either or both books (or point me to a well-done review of either), I’d be grateful. Both books acknowledge that there was indeed Jewish involvement with the slave trade but deny that Jews played a disproportionate or dominant role in the slave trade versus other segments of the population. (The former book got a spate of bad reviews at Amazon but it is obvious that most of the negative reviewers have not read it.)
This is a good recording from the Pete Peters perspective:
mms://media.sfaw.org/mediadownload/sfa/archives/video/05_17_09.wmv
Do tell, if you have critical or supportive comments.
Man bites dog: insofar as the police are describing it as a racially motivated attack by blacks against a white person.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument
The Holocaust Mythology being created and promoted across all media is a new and virulent strain of the anti-semitic mythology that has been a major theme of motion pictures for years.
Western pop Kulture has morphed into this vulture feeding off the carcass of a once vibrant cultural life in the fine arts of the West – once the creation of European peoples across the world. In our own time, the Vulture in all its forms is developing and inculcating ever more bizzare lies and depravities into the popular mind or the common sense, coupled with frenzied and insatiable appetites.
This (in itself) is a clear indication of the national identity of the media owners of the West. Jewry is the nation subsisting within all nations as a state within a state. And Jewry is using all media owned, operated by its own nationals – that is the entire Fourth Estate, to create and inculcate into mass populations a powerful meme that will serve their imperium against once sovereign nations of Western peoples. These are now mere subsidiaries of Jewry’s financial apparatus / banking cartel – to be imploded and restructured into a new world pyramid with the Jewish nation at its apex.
A new mythology is needed to serve as the Crux of new world order; a defining event within time to which all humanity must defer in terms of before and after. This is Holocaust Mythology, a powerful meme intended to shape the thought and observance of all religions, legislation, jurisprudence, social and cultural life of a new empire.
To create and universalize this Mythology as a meme, Jewry is enlisting all the apparatus of the Vulture: the motion pix industry, the star system with its celebrity cult, mainstream reporting, opinion and letters.
I would hope there are many Jewish individuals who would wish to live free of this and oppose it, but they are limited in the same way an American who opposes the Terror War of the American government.
To get a clear idea of how Holocaust Mythology is being created and promoted, it is worth revisiting the anti-semitic mythology in films of previous decades. This was when serious themes that still possessed some authentic relationship to the target Western population could still vie with the Jewish instruction even though they were subverted by it. (This is because, of course, all films are Jewish films).
While this reality, remained covert, what was apparent was this schizoid quality whereby the characters and story line that attracted the unwitting ‘gentile’ to the film would get recontextualized as a vehicle for the Jewish instruction. This dissonance was only able to rise to consciousness as disappointment as one would perceive that the best and most authentic material of the film could not be realized and contemplated within the film itself. Nor was it possible as a viewer of these films to connect with true spiritual, cultural life of the subject matter.
A good example of this Is ‘Chariots of Fire’ (1981). This is a British film. Directed by Hugh Hudson. The Templars of the Shriners (the Academy is an apparatus of the Shriners – Oscar is a Templar Knight) awarded oscars to Chariots of Fire for best picture, best musical score, original screenplay. And it got a swag of BAFTAS as well. So obviously the Powers think congratulations are in order for this work. And there is some material in this film that is truly wonderful, yet it is never permitted within the film to find its own voice and true context.
England and the 1924 Olypics in Paris are the setting of Chariots of Fire. In the true, historical setting: England is a nation which has been a part of the Jewish Empire since the Glorious Revolution and is owned outright by the Crown i.e. the Rothschild financial cartel. The Judaic Imperium and the dictates of Jewry penetrate and organize every aspect of the U.K. This is fact.
In Chariots of Fire, we are treated to an English setting of nostalgia that is depicted in the way the uninitiated must be taught to perceive it – a nation bristling with parochial Christian attitudes, anti-semitism and conservative and traditional rules fundamentally hostile to liberty, equality and fraternity. Yet the England of Chariots of Fire is also a nation that aspires as a matter of national honour to field its most elite to the Olympic Games – that shining beacon of universality and ‘equality’ in the glory of sport.
In truth, the Olympic Movement is organized by the worlds’ governing elites, the same elites who own England in fee simple. The Games of course, have no place for the convictions of the Christian faith.
Two characters enter into contest with this state of affairs: both depicted and actual. One, the Jew Harold Abrahams, enters into pseudo conflict with the depicted reality; the second, the Scotsman, Eric Liddell, enters into true conflict with the powers and lays bare their motives. But the film does not allow us to realize this.
In 1919, the Jew, Harold Abrahams enters Cambridge University. The film would have us believe that in nation that is owned by the Jews, sporting excellence at an institution like Cambridge, is somehow being denied to the Jewish student. He attempts and succeeds in the Trinity Great Court run. Perceiving himself to be a victim of ‘anti-semitism’, he feels vindicated. But when Eric Liddell beats him in a race, he decides that to overcome ‘anti-semitism’ he must at all costs win for the glory of G_d; he must challenge Liddell in the Olympics and he hires a professional coach to train.
Eric Liddell, his antagonist, enters into contest as a true amateur athelete (the criteria for an Olympian). As a Christian, he enters into contest with the world – in the film, the disposing powers of the Olympic Games. And he enters into conflict with Abrahams who seeks to achieve his vindication as an Olympian outside of the sporting tradition held up by England as the standard of amateur competition e.g. the Olympics.
For most Western people this is the true substance of Chariots of Fire. But the film is more about the Abrahams plot in which the Jewish protagonist is vindicated against anti-semitism and the Olympic standard is changed as a result of that ‘vindication.’ This is the pseudo-plotline that dominates and mars the film.
The real interest for the Western viewer is the portrait of Eric Liddell as Scotland’s greatest runner. For Liddell, the contest is summed up in the words of St Paul regarding The Race. The contest is supremely about the Kingdom of God – the Mission. As one who aspires to become a missionary and to take the Evangelium to China, running (a natural good) is only of secondary importance to him. The Contest is about the Kingdom of God. His sport, at which he excels, is a natural good and must assume its proportionate place in his life.
But he loves to run. “I believe God made me for purpose (the Mission), but he also made me fast and when I run, I feel His pleasure.”
This is the true excellence, the arete, the true nobility. Winning is not all. What is all is to the serve the purpose for which he was created – a supernatural purpose. And he believes he has found his vocation in the Divine Purpose. He is a Scotsman of the Church of Scotland (Eaglas na h’Alba). And so he is going to act upon his conviction: he is going to China. And in the meantime he desires to run in the Olympics for the glory of God because he loves to run. His conflict is to render to sport what belongs to sport and to God, what belongs to God. As it turns out, he chooses not to run his race in the Olympics for the glory of God, because the powers of the world have scheduled his race to be on a Sunday. He will not dishonour the Day of the Lord. And in life, also, he finishes his course. He is martyred for his love or our Lord and his gospel in the mission fields of China, laying down his life in hope that the Han Chinese people of dragon kingdom might have faith, baptism, life and resurrection.
What is even more glorious, is the number of those Chinese (millions) who gave their lives for our Lord’s gospel at the time of Mao’s Communist Revolution. How many of these victories a result of Eric Liddell’s missionary work?
The liturgy of the West hails the martyrs of the Lord who have finished their race, with most fitting homage: “The Lord loved him and adorned him; He clothed him with a robe of glory and crowned him at the gates of Paradise.”
Amavit eum Dominus et ornavit eum: stolam gloriae induit eum, et ad portas paradisi coronavit eum.
This is what Chariots of Fire should be about – and why not include the film segment of the repatriation of Liddell’s body to Scotland with national honours.
The reference ‘Chariots of Fire’ comes from Elisha’s prayer (2 King’s 6:1) where the prophet prays that God would open the eyes of his fearful servant to see “the horses and chariots of fire” that surround them in the mortal and spiritual contest in which they were engaged. The poet William Blake aludes to it in his poem Jerusalem:
Bring me my Arrows of desire!
Bring me my Spear!
O clouds unfold
Bring me my chariot of fire!
….
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.
Or in China for that matter – for our Lord is to reign over all nations until all his enemies are under his feet.
But Blake’s poem and the hymn Jerusalem (which is sung in the Kirk during the film) is particularly appropriate. For according to pious legend (not commemorated in the Western liturgy), the child Jesus journeyed with St Joseph of Arimethea to the Celtic lands. The Saint later returned and struck his staff, a rod of the Holy Thorn upon Glastonbury Tor where it took root. Glastonbury together with Iona (in Scotland) was the Christian foundation of Celtic Ynys Prydain when the Island was Celtic. For centuries Glastonbury Abbey was famous for its holy thorn ( a hawthorn ) that would bloom for Christ’s Mass in midwinter. It was in bloom in the 1970’s for Christmas when I was there, flowering in the winter light of the Christmas snows. Glastonbury was razed by Henry VIII who demanded the patrimony of the Church and England’s inheritance for his rule.
With all this background to a story like Eric Liddell’s, why then does the true story of the film have to vie with the story of Harold Abrahams fake contest against anti-semitism? According to the Wiki – “the college masters of Cambridge disapproved of Abrahams because it was a dishonour to the College for an amateur athelete aspiring to represent England in the Olympic Games to be in professional training”. But Abrahams “realizes that this is a cover for their anti-semitism and class entitlement and dismisses their concern.” Uh-huh. And this is how the film intends us to see it.
Well it was a dishonour for an amateur athlete aspiring to represent his College in the Olympics to be in professional training. The Celtic and English amateur sporting traditions are about the native ability, the natural excellence, the love of the game, and play that trains us for the mortal and spiritual contests of life.
Professional training regimes, performance enhancement through drugs, surgery, fear etc., sport as the end all / be all, sport as vincication or for the money – all of this is anathema to the Christian English and Celtic sporting traditions.
But in Chariots of Fire, we have a film that vindicates the subversion of these aristocratic ideals befitting a Christian nation, in the interests of vindicating the Jew who is fundamentally hostile to all of it.
For decades we have had movies that have displaced, subverted or mind warped the subject matter that is of intrinsic interest. Now with Holocaust Mythology, films are going focus on this subject and revise history and art around it.
Further down the Rabbithole. Apparently there would seem to be some Americans (guess which nationality) who are enjoying the freefall.
Heeb Magazine. Yes, the same (of the (in)famous ‘how to cook a goyim cartoon). This tripe (capital T capital RIPE) was a send up of Prof Ariel Toaff’s classic work Blood Passovers, a work which confirmed the long tradition of the Church commemorating the child martyrs of these sacrifices like St Simon of Trent and and St Hugh of Lincoln.
Now Heeb has launched a Fake Holocaust Memoir Competition.
They are calling for Mss from all their readers who want to write a holocaust ‘memoir’
Evidenced based history is desparately important.
And here is a sample of Historical Truth that can be evidenced on this subject:
Many Jews died on the vast killing fields of WW II – (an actual number unknown as opposed to a Cabbalistic number)
German civilian populations were in fact literal holocausts (sacrifice by fire) when the Allies by order of Churchill commenced the terror bombing of civilian populations with incendiaries. Hitler retaliated, but it was clearly the intention of the JudeoMasonic Allied Commanders to ‘holocaust’ the German population in the war that, according to the New York Times, Jewry declared on Germany in 1933.
Then there were the millions (conservatively 40 million white Russians) murdered in the genocides of the Bolshevik Revolution and its governments. This was the work of JudeoMasonry – led by the Revolutionaries of the school for revolution: The Grand Orient Lodge. And the terror apparatus of the revolutionary government was Jewish.
If you are of European ancestry you will spend long years in jail in the EU if you dare to say these things.
The answer of Heeb Magazine to Reality is a Schmolocuast competition.
The rulz must be read to be believed.
See the Sept 18, 09 post at http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com.