Quote: (04-08-2019 01:53 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 01:44 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

"They," lol. Because we know that Jews living in Philadelphia or London now are just like some Jewish Bolsheviks running around during the Russian Civil War.

Quote: (04-08-2019 12:57 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Occasionally they killed a few dozen US soldiers in a badly done false flag, but what's a few murders among friends, right?

Since by my reading you regard most of the historical events of the last 200 years as "false flags," I don't know if you're talking about the Berlin Disco bombing or Pearl Harbor.

I wouldn't call it "civil war" when it's a bunch of Jews armed with racial hatred and NYC banker's money slaughtering lots of goys in Russia under the guise of capitalist oppression.

Obviously I am not blaming the people as a whole - albeit even Jews admit that part of the mayhem was caused by religiously induced animosity towards goys.

Since the US Army invaded Russia in a half-assed attempt to stop the Bolsheviks, I question your statement about "NYC banker's money" Anyways, NYC bankers at that time were overwhelmingly old-line WASPs. Don't see how they would regard the Bolshies as a good investment, since they would default on loans and nationalize assets.

---------

Quote: (04-08-2019 01:53 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

And I am talking about the USS Liberty - other cases of potential false flags - who knows who has done them really.

But this one is not disputed:

They excused it as a measure out of desparation. I might give them a point in those times, but doing shit with ISIS against Assad? Syria isn't a threat to Israel anymore. They have now a military that could defeat all of the Arab states if they wanted to with the exception of maybe Turkey.

The USS Liberty may very well have been a deliberate attack of the Israeli military, for what reason I don't know. Maybe wanted to blame Egypt, sure.

I've been clear on my dislike for Israeli government actions. They are not the only bad guys in the world, they're not even as bad as Saudi Arabia in their own region.

The Israelis weren't the only ones who objectively helped ISIS. The USA, Qatar, Turkey at a minimum also did so.

As with actions of the German state, the Chinese state, or the Italian state, we don't attribute blame to all those of German, Chinese, or Italian ancestry around the world. Similarly with Israel and Jews.

< Jeez - this is way too much normie-talk - barely a step venturing beyond CNN - and no offense there:



Book by Stanford professor Antony Sutton - well researched. 95% of the Bolshevik leadership and secret services were Jews - including Trotsky and Lenin. There are speeches recorded of Trotsky in Jiddish made in NYC.

Quote: (04-08-2019 01:44 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

"They," lol. Because we know that Jews living in Philadelphia or London now are just like some Jewish Bolsheviks running around during the Russian Civil War.

Most of the funding for the Bolsheviks came from bankers like NYC' Jacob Schiff, so yeah, you were damn close there.

James Perloff (who incidentally is of Jewish descent) documented the fact that Jewish bankers funded the Bolsheviks in an effort to destroy the Russian Orthodox nation:

Quote:Quote:

• Jacob Schiff and Federal Reserve founder Paul Warburg ran Kuhn, Loeb & Co. – the Rothschilds’ New York banking satellite. Schiff supplied $20 million in gold to Trotsky, who sailed from New York with 275 other terrorists on a passport obtained through pressure the bankers put on the Wilson administration.

• In Germany, Warburg’s brother Max helped persuade the government to provide millions to Lenin and allow him to cross Germany with other revolutionaries in a special train. The Germans agreed because the Bolsheviks promised to remove Russia from the raging First World War after taking power.

• The Bolsheviks succeeded because they had what other revolutionaries (e.g., Mensheviks) lacked – limitless cash. By May 1917, Pravda already had a circulation of 300,000.

https://jamesperloff.com/tag/russian-revolution/

This is also very relevant today, because a lot of the anti-Russia policies on both sides of the isle boils down to tribal hatred, which they've harbored since the 1800s pogroms. You have neocons like Victoria Nuland running US foreign policy as well as dozens of MSM journalists spewing tribal hatred towards the one large European country unapolegitically fighting globohomo.

Instead of getting along with Russia and investing a peace dividend into the domestic economy, we have an expansion of forever wars and endless debt for Israel.

Is the consensus here that Jews are NOT white? And if yes, is this "hiding in plain sight" aspect the reason for their dominance over actual white people? I've always thought of Jews as white people since where I'm from they don't look black or brown or yellow. But maybe this was always part of the Jew business plan for success.

Quote: (04-08-2019 02:14 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

< Jeez - this is way too much normie-talk - barely a step venturing beyond CNN - and no offense there:



Book by Stanford professor Antony Sutton - well researched. 95% of the Bolshevik leadership and secret services were Jews - including Trotsky and Lenin. There are speeches recorded of Trotsky in Jiddish made in NYC.

Great, thanks for that! It was easy to find a pdf of it on the internet.

VoltaireNet: Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolsheviks pdf

Have you read it? Because Sutton says this, Appendix II:

Quote:Quote:

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many
Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence.

The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of nonJews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.

It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.

The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes.

So you cite Sutton in support of a Jewish banker conspiracy for the Bolsheviks, but Sutton actually refutes your theory. OK

< This is more a case of Wallstreet and the Bolshevik revolution. And I don't even have to agree on everything. Trotsky was their designated man that should have survived Lenin, but Stalin outsmarted them all and most alternative historians believe that the globalists lost control over Stalinist Russia for a while. Stalin not only persecuted Jews, did a Russification policy everywhere, he also implemented an interest-free monetary policy which many people don't know. Unfortunately their interest-free system was beset within an insane economic policy, so it wasn't as useful as in the examples of Woergl, partly what the Nazis, Lincoln and the Swedish king did in the 18th century.

Of course did they recruit mostly local Jews, the leading guys were Wallstreet financed Jews among the Bolsheviks including Trotsky and Lenin who were groomed and prepared for years before. Plenty of other international true believers or non-Jews followed them. But Jews also led many communist purges in other Eastern Europe countries and it's not even greatly denied. It backfired on them only later in the 1960s with many being expelled even if they had nothing to do with the slaughter of local patriots.

And yeah - Stalin destroyed their plans a bit - something that only returned to "normal" after his death. It's really sad the Stalin was one of the best hopes of opposing the globalists if he weren't such a commie and psychopath.

As for "Jewish conspiracy" - I have my own take on it - I rather think that the upper tier Jewish elite is not even Jewish, but something far more evil. Though the Protocols of Zion are extremely concise, so there is a big cooperation. Though it's not clear-cut as you see Israel beset with a shit-ton of destructive measures like water fluoridation that had to be stopped grass-roots in the 2000s, vaccination to the max with an above average autism and birth defect rate (Jews have more of those issues according to some studies than Whtie goys), LGBTQ in Israel, veganism being super-popular in Israel with all it's negative deteriorating effects etc. For the "chosen people" it seems that they get awfully targeted by many forces. They even had an open borders movement that only flaundered in the 2000s after many terrorist attacks.

My guess is that the real elite uses the Jews for their own goals even if they don't care too much about them either. The upper echelon seems to be beyond that more into Sabbatean Frankist Luciferian crap:



This may be even unpopular as guys want to blame Jewey for everything, but most stuff on the lower levels can be explained by their own preferential tribal nature (while they deny goys theirs) as well as some disruptive influence in media and Hollywood. It's only funny that the Protocols speak about it before the control of said avenues happened, so it's even moot whether it's a real document of the 1890s or a fake one of the 1950s, since it expertly predicts what only happened decades later.

@SS

It seems almost impossible that one tiny group of people could consistently manipulate the world to their own ends for centuries using the same tired strategies over and over.

As unlikely as the explanation is, I agree with you that they are probably just a higher level irritant to the system to keep people divided and weak, and that they are being played in turn by someone higher than they are and that there is a supernatural element to it.

I don't think the Jews control the world; I just think that some of their elites are good manipulators and run a game that is below the conscious level of more salt of the earth straight forward thinking people.

It is the level of success that makes me think their is a higher supernatural force at play and that on some level they are being allowed to do what they do in the same way they allow useful idiots below them to achieve their ends.

Quote: (04-08-2019 04:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

@SS

It seems almost impossible that one tiny group of people could consistently manipulate the world to their own ends for centuries using the same tired strategies over and over.

As unlikely as the explanation is, I agree with you that they are probably just a higher level irritant to the system to keep people divided and weak, and that they are being played in turn by someone higher than they are and that there is a supernatural element to it.

I don't think the Jews control the world; I just think that some of their elites are good manipulators and run a game that is below the conscious level of more salt of the earth straight forward thinking people.

It is the level of success that makes me think their is a higher supernatural force at play and that on some level they are being allowed to do what they do in the same way they allow useful idiots below them to achieve their ends.

Is the whole dang thing a conspiracy or are we just talking about groups of people with aligned interests that act rationally over time to maintain and increase those interests? The Jew is a puzzling fellow, that is for sure. And savvy. Only the smartest of creatures hide in plain sight. But who are the elites?

Quote: (04-08-2019 04:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

@SS

It seems almost impossible that one tiny group of people could consistently manipulate the world to their own ends for centuries using the same tired strategies over and over.

As unlikely as the explanation is, I agree with you that they are probably just a higher level irritant to the system to keep people divided and weak, and that they are being played in turn by someone higher than they are and that there is a supernatural element to it.

I don't think the Jews control the world; I just think that some of their elites are good manipulators and run a game that is below the conscious level of more salt of the earth straight forward thinking people.

It is the level of success that makes me think their is a higher supernatural force at play and that on some level they are being allowed to do what they do in the same way they allow useful idiots below them to achieve their ends.

If you think about it well, then it cannot be simply "the Jews". Not only are so many of them not included automatically in the bonanza - Israel itself displays many of the globalist destructive measures that we see everywhere starting with feminism and ending with other crap.

My take on the world hierarchy is this:

1) Monetary elite with Luciferian tendencies - maybe for kinks, maybe for terror or whatever

2) Scientific elite hired by them - they do most of the plans after the big orders of the top. The top orders are likely simple like: "We want to rule it all, control it all, rule forever, make it work!" Those guys realign the plans constantly and get rewarded for it - sometimes it's intergenerational, but likely not exclusively.

3) Political elite and various other groups - Freemasonry, levels beyond Freemasonry, some parts of the nobility (Belgian royals supposed to be more powerful than they appear), also top-tier Jewry. There was once a nice report of someone who converted in the Netherlands and was included in some meetings at synagogues and they were more akin to business plans of steps to control this or that agenda point. Currently those groups also include many meetings with business leaders, CEOs, owners and supposed owners who are given control for a reason over companies etc.

It's actually quite a neat system - after taking control of the monetary power, all you then needed to do is take control of the legal assassins and spies (secret services of the countries) and then it was all downhill from there. After that you can even hoard advanced technology in some kind of shadow government since you control both money as well as the legalized state assassins, then who is going to oppose you? And how should you do that when you can die at any moment while even seeing your children die before you.

No wonder that Krushchev resigned exactly after another visit of Rockefeller. He simply stepped down when everyone expected him to reign until his death. Some in the alternative field joked that David Rockefeller who had a Moscow office he visited often, that the boss (Rockefeller) came to fire his employee - the supposedly most powerful man in Soviet Union.

Anyway - my personal take is that even their undercover system will flounder some day - Jews being employed more like open known Freemasons for many of the big goals. Of course most don't know about any of the big plans and have their own mental hangups which combined with their tribal nature and taking over of certain key industries give the impression as if they at the very top control the world.

My take is that something will happen this century that will topple their grand plans - either the ethno-centric Chinese will backstab them or oppose their plans or something else is going to give. The bigger tragedies this century will be some Western countries/cultures no longer existing in their original form due to mass migration and maybe later a full-on war against Islam in the form of WWIII. But since that is decades away I am not losing any sleep over it.

We are born. We live. We die. We are born again in a different form. Life goes on. Even if I were born into a top-tier globalist family I couldn't change anything on my own. I could at best stay away from them and not contribute with the negative stuff and supposedly there are some family offshoots of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers who are into organic farming and don't mingle with the Big Boys at all. Ah well....

Most of the knowledge discussed here is at best useful with long-term family fortune planning or at best sometimes to avoid the worst, avoid some propaganda and medical and nutritional globalist "recommendations" that are destructive to you and your family. Aside from that it's irrelevant if they eat babies clad in robes or are more mundane in their plans and behavior. There is way too much evidence to discredit it all, but it's certainly not a "Jews only" endeavor.

Quote: (04-08-2019 03:46 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 02:14 PM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

< Jeez - this is way too much normie-talk - barely a step venturing beyond CNN - and no offense there:



Book by Stanford professor Antony Sutton - well researched. 95% of the Bolshevik leadership and secret services were Jews - including Trotsky and Lenin. There are speeches recorded of Trotsky in Jiddish made in NYC.

Great, thanks for that! It was easy to find a pdf of it on the internet.

VoltaireNet: Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolsheviks pdf

Have you read it? Because Sutton says this, Appendix II:

Quote:Quote:

Moveover, when statements and assertions are not supported by hard evidence and where attempts to unearth hard evidence lead in a circle back to the starting point — particularly when everyone is quoting everyone else — then we must reject the story as spurious. There is no concrete evidence that Jews were involved in the Bolshevik Revolution because they were Jewish. There may indeed have been a higher proportion of Jews involved, but given tsarist treatment of Jews, what else would we expect? There were probably many
Englishmen or persons of English origin in the American Revolution fighting the redcoats. So what? Does that make the American Revolution an English conspiracy? Winston Churchill's statement that Jews had a "very great role" in the Bolshevik Revolution is supported only by distorted evidence.

The list of Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against lists of nonJews involved in the revolution. When this scientific procedure is adopted, the proportion of foreign Jewish Bolsheviks involved falls to less than twenty percent of the total number of revolutionaries — and these Jews were mostly deported, murdered, or sent to Siberia in the following years. Modern Russia has in fact maintained tsarist anti-Semitism.

It is significant that documents in the State Department files confirm that the investment banker Jacob Schiff, often cited as a source of funds for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in fact against support of the Bolshevik regime.5 This position, as we shall see, was in direct contrast to the Morgan-Rockefeller promotion of the Bolsheviks.

The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes.

So you cite Sutton in support of a Jewish banker conspiracy for the Bolsheviks, but Sutton actually refutes your theory. OK

You have to understand the position of Sutton at the time he was publishing these books, works like the one above were atomic truth bombshells, especially coming from the credentials of a Hoover Institute fellow. I think he was covering up a bit in that annex there. This didn't help him though, he was fired and ostracized, his career crushed, and he died a poor man, a lot of his original research was lost.

His collaborator Patrick Wood is still active, he has a good site and recently appeared on Tim Kelly's podcast:







If you want a better picture of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and ensuing Christian genocide (over 60 million killed in 3 decades), Solzhenitsyn is a much better source (200 Years Together),



as is Jüri Lina's "Under the Sign of the Scorpion". Lina was an Estonian dissident who fled to Sweden in the 1970s, did some great research on the Bolshevik genocides and their backing. Much like Ukraine, Estonia was hard hit by the Soviets. This documentary of his, with English subtitles, is hard but essential watch:

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:57 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:39 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 07:55 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

...
That was their original answer to the JQ. The final solution was cooked up later because the stubborn fools wouldnt leave.

Lots of "diverse" people complain endlessly about how horrible white people are but they'll go to extreme lengths to avoid living with their own and pay anything it costs to live among the dreaded racist whites.

I can honestly imagine it.

"Oy vey! You want me to live among nobody but other Jews?"

"Ja. Das ist der gist of it."

"Take me to the camps and get it over with!"

I don't think it's quite that simple, but i understand your point. I have a household income of damn near 700k, I don't want to live with poor people period. I don't care if they are Black like me or White like you. I have no interest in living in an impoverished neighborhood riddled with crime. I have no interest in moving to Ghana to get more for my dollar and to gain and increased solidarity with my "people". I'm an American first before I'm anything.I share nothing in common with my dark brethren short of liking percussion and big booty bitches. This also means I Have no interest in moving to Scandinavia despite it being very safe, having a high quality of life and sharing several commonalities with American culture.

Fact is if my household income was 100k I'd feel the same way. I don't think you'll find well to due Mexicans, Arabs..etc interested in living with the least of their own. That said, we have a nice system here in America where middle class neighborhoods are generally very safe and most folks share a proud sense of community. As a white man if you'd like to take credit for that good on you. I'm not offended by it, but I think it's a bit silly to get an inflated sense of self for contributions you didn't make, your father didn't make and your grandpappy didn't make. Be white and be proud, I'm not arguing that, but your sense of pride should be reasonably capped given you had literally no influence on your own existence. It was completely random that youre white and you're a male. You could have easily never been born or been born a Micronesian female.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is other than to say race/culture/identity,etc. is irrelevant.

That's obviously not the case for you otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned you're black, and troubled your poor soul about what "we're" taking credit for.

Presuming your big baller claim is legit, it's a bit silly to ignore that your (or your wife's?) success happened in an overwhelmingly European country with all the country's institutions (political, economic and otherwise) built by the white man.

If you disagree with that, try making $700k in Ghana. Or actually any African country. You'd be doing well if you kept all your limbs, and had a meal couple times a week.

I'm not delusional my friend nor do I wince at a little PG-13 race related criticism. It isn't unreasonable to take pride in one's race all the while acknowledging that none of the accomplishments associated with said pride are not the result of the person's individual contribution. I enjoy the freedoms and safety associated with modern western countries. The white guys that founded and reinforced it did a hell of a job. Who's arguing that?

Race isn't a meritocracy. Its a birthright. Your birthright is a failed continent. Mine built the modern world.

The fact you reduce your existence and sense of worth to collecting fiat currency is a tragedy though. At least the wakanda crowd is trying.

Is absolute monarchy the Jews kryptonite? That is the first thing they got rid of.

Quote: (04-09-2019 03:47 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Is absolute monarchy the Jews kryptonite? That is the first thing they got rid of.

Absolute monarchy is probably the best form of government for Europeans. Just as many in the god pill thread think that religion is a necessity for mankind, I think having a nobility is important for euros. There will always be an elite. The question is do you want that elite to be hook-nosed financiers or people sharing the same blood and nationalist zeal?

There were plenty of bad hats amongst the European nobility, but as the name suggests most were highly regarded. The euro nations wouldn't have kept their monarchies (at least in ceremonial fashion) if that werent the case.

Having a monarchy prevents outsiders from getting into power, no elections that can be bought,etc. (also eliminates the popularity contest that is U.S elections for example). A good ruler shouldn't necessarily be likeable. A monarch's heir literally grew up learning how to run a nation first hand, and could see all the mistakes his father made. You don't get that kind of experience with elected officials.

Of course Jews still tried to strongarm monarchs via debts, but when that happened there was no "democracy" preventing said monarchs to send them packing.

That cycle played out numerous times. Jews become lenders > get filthy rich off usurious interest rates > nobility gets pissed off >expulsion or genocide.

People talk about anti-semitism gobsmacked like it arose out of an abyss. These people need to pick up a history book. The hate was largely justified.

Quote: (04-08-2019 08:18 PM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:57 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:39 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Lots of "diverse" people complain endlessly about how horrible white people are but they'll go to extreme lengths to avoid living with their own and pay anything it costs to live among the dreaded racist whites.

I can honestly imagine it.

"Oy vey! You want me to live among nobody but other Jews?"

"Ja. Das ist der gist of it."

"Take me to the camps and get it over with!"

I don't think it's quite that simple, but i understand your point. I have a household income of damn near 700k, I don't want to live with poor people period. I don't care if they are Black like me or White like you. I have no interest in living in an impoverished neighborhood riddled with crime. I have no interest in moving to Ghana to get more for my dollar and to gain and increased solidarity with my "people". I'm an American first before I'm anything.I share nothing in common with my dark brethren short of liking percussion and big booty bitches. This also means I Have no interest in moving to Scandinavia despite it being very safe, having a high quality of life and sharing several commonalities with American culture.

Fact is if my household income was 100k I'd feel the same way. I don't think you'll find well to due Mexicans, Arabs..etc interested in living with the least of their own. That said, we have a nice system here in America where middle class neighborhoods are generally very safe and most folks share a proud sense of community. As a white man if you'd like to take credit for that good on you. I'm not offended by it, but I think it's a bit silly to get an inflated sense of self for contributions you didn't make, your father didn't make and your grandpappy didn't make. Be white and be proud, I'm not arguing that, but your sense of pride should be reasonably capped given you had literally no influence on your own existence. It was completely random that youre white and you're a male. You could have easily never been born or been born a Micronesian female.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is other than to say race/culture/identity,etc. is irrelevant.

That's obviously not the case for you otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned you're black, and troubled your poor soul about what "we're" taking credit for.

Presuming your big baller claim is legit, it's a bit silly to ignore that your (or your wife's?) success happened in an overwhelmingly European country with all the country's institutions (political, economic and otherwise) built by the white man.

If you disagree with that, try making $700k in Ghana. Or actually any African country. You'd be doing well if you kept all your limbs, and had a meal couple times a week.

I'm not delusional my friend nor do I wince at a little PG-13 race related criticism. It isn't unreasonable to take pride in one's race all the while acknowledging that none of the accomplishments associated with said pride are not the result of the person's individual contribution. I enjoy the freedoms and safety associated with modern western countries. The white guys that founded and reinforced it did a hell of a job. Who's arguing that?

Race isn't a meritocracy. Its a birthright. Your birthright is a failed continent. Mine built the modern world.

The fact you reduce your existence and sense of worth to collecting fiat currency is a tragedy though. At least the wakanda crowd is trying.

Sorry -- all white people didn't build the modern world. If that's what you are hanging your hat on, I sense a certain lack of accomplishment in your own life. Here are the facts -- white people have killed each other forever. There was and is no white birthright. No unifying force that drives whites together. It's the tribe. A tribe of whites will kill another tribe of whites without worrying about any skin color. Wake up.

That's...kind of accurate because the whole concept of "whites" as a unified race didn't really exist until the American South.


However it misses one major fact. "Christendom" absolutely was a unifying force for Europeans. The Orthodox faith (Catholic doctrine) was the that concept and every individual, lord, and and state owed their loyalty to Christendom as a whole.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/ma...hristendom

In a lot of ways the seeds were planted during the reformation and following eras. That period destroyed the concept of Christendom being a unified civilization and Protestant movements introduced philosophies that denied objective moral truths while also pushing for a greater tolerance of degeneracy. They recognized the conscience as the highest moral authority; therefore if it doesn't feel wrong then it's wrong.

Quote: (04-09-2019 08:54 AM)trickster Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 08:18 PM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:57 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:39 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

I don't think it's quite that simple, but i understand your point. I have a household income of damn near 700k, I don't want to live with poor people period. I don't care if they are Black like me or White like you. I have no interest in living in an impoverished neighborhood riddled with crime. I have no interest in moving to Ghana to get more for my dollar and to gain and increased solidarity with my "people". I'm an American first before I'm anything.I share nothing in common with my dark brethren short of liking percussion and big booty bitches. This also means I Have no interest in moving to Scandinavia despite it being very safe, having a high quality of life and sharing several commonalities with American culture.

Fact is if my household income was 100k I'd feel the same way. I don't think you'll find well to due Mexicans, Arabs..etc interested in living with the least of their own. That said, we have a nice system here in America where middle class neighborhoods are generally very safe and most folks share a proud sense of community. As a white man if you'd like to take credit for that good on you. I'm not offended by it, but I think it's a bit silly to get an inflated sense of self for contributions you didn't make, your father didn't make and your grandpappy didn't make. Be white and be proud, I'm not arguing that, but your sense of pride should be reasonably capped given you had literally no influence on your own existence. It was completely random that youre white and you're a male. You could have easily never been born or been born a Micronesian female.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is other than to say race/culture/identity,etc. is irrelevant.

That's obviously not the case for you otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned you're black, and troubled your poor soul about what "we're" taking credit for.

Presuming your big baller claim is legit, it's a bit silly to ignore that your (or your wife's?) success happened in an overwhelmingly European country with all the country's institutions (political, economic and otherwise) built by the white man.

If you disagree with that, try making $700k in Ghana. Or actually any African country. You'd be doing well if you kept all your limbs, and had a meal couple times a week.

I'm not delusional my friend nor do I wince at a little PG-13 race related criticism. It isn't unreasonable to take pride in one's race all the while acknowledging that none of the accomplishments associated with said pride are not the result of the person's individual contribution. I enjoy the freedoms and safety associated with modern western countries. The white guys that founded and reinforced it did a hell of a job. Who's arguing that?

Race isn't a meritocracy. Its a birthright. Your birthright is a failed continent. Mine built the modern world.

The fact you reduce your existence and sense of worth to collecting fiat currency is a tragedy though. At least the wakanda crowd is trying.

Sorry -- all white people didn't build the modern world. If that's what you are hanging your hat on, I sense a certain lack of accomplishment in your own life. Here are the facts -- white people have killed each other forever. There was and is no white birthright. No unifying force that drives whites together. It's the tribe. A tribe of whites will kill another tribe of whites without worrying about any skin color. Wake up.

The unifying force was we all hailed from the same small and homogeneous (the most actually - genetically speaking) continent, all heirs to the Western civilization which sprung out of ancient Greece and Rome. And then we set out and conquered the entire world. Even tiny Euro nations like Portugal had a massive global empire. The entire modern world and all the technological innovation that entails would not exist if not for Europe.

These are facts. Your envy is amusing but irrelevant.

Quote: (04-09-2019 08:48 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 03:47 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Is absolute monarchy the Jews kryptonite? That is the first thing they got rid of.

Absolute monarchy is probably the best form of government for Europeans. Just as many in the god pill thread think that religion is a necessity for mankind, I think having a nobility is important for euros. There will always be an elite. The question is do you want that elite to be hook-nosed financiers or people sharing the same blood and nationalist zeal?

There were plenty of bad hats amongst the European nobility, but as the name suggests most were highly regarded. The euro nations wouldn't have kept their monarchies (at least in ceremonial fashion) if that werent the case.

Having a monarchy prevents outsiders from getting into power, no elections that can be bought,etc. (also eliminates the popularity contest that is U.S elections for example). A good ruler shouldn't necessarily be likeable. A monarch's heir literally grew up learning how to run a nation first hand, and could see all the mistakes his father made. You don't get that kind of experience with elected officials.

Of course Jews still tried to strongarm monarchs via debts, but when that happened there was no "democracy" preventing said monarchs to send them packing.

That cycle played out numerous times. Jews become lenders > get filthy rich off usurious interest rates > nobility gets pissed off >expulsion or genocide.

People talk about anti-semitism gobsmacked like it arose out of an abyss. These people need to pick up a history book. The hate was largely justified.

Excuse me, but the inept monarchs got all their power taken away from by the bankers. A monarchy is not the best system since a genius ethical king is then followed by his moronic son or insane grandson.

All the European kings had the power to issue currency interest-free and mainly the British kings did it before the Rothschilds deposed them, set up another lineage who did not even speak proper English, called them the Windsors. They did the same thing with everyeone else.

The monarchs of today would sell you out as well - queen Beatrix of Belgium is a great example of that. The power needs to be all-encompassing and you require highly skilled ever-vigilant kings to even stay in power. The current elite do it by staying in the shadows or the people of the world would rise up against them.

A benevolent dictatorship that is similar to a monarchy wouldn't be so bad, but the selection process would have to be refined. Plus - a monarchy has also a wide and broad aristocracy which add multiple layers of insanity to it. The Republic is far more difficult to control even if it does not appear to be so. That is why they absolutely need the total domination of Hollywood and all media outlets - they even have to constantly police it or even get nervous when PewDiPie is more right-leaning. They would prefer him to be de-platformed even if he does not mention anything political ever again - the reason being that they are afraid of his reach if he starts preaching.

Quote: (04-08-2019 08:06 PM)911 Wrote:  

You have to understand the position of Sutton at the time he was publishing these books, works like the one above were atomic truth bombshells, especially coming from the credentials of a Hoover Institute fellow. I think he was covering up a bit in that annex there. This didn't help him though, he was fired and ostracized, his career crushed, and he died a poor man, a lot of his original research was lost.

His collaborator Patrick Wood is still active, he has a good site and recently appeared on Tim Kelly's podcast:

If you want a better picture of the Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and ensuing Christian genocide (over 60 million killed in 3 decades), Solzhenitsyn is a much better source (200 Years Together),



as is Jüri Lina's "Under the Sign of the Scorpion". Lina was an Estonian dissident who fled to Sweden in the 1970s, did some great research on the Bolshevik genocides and their backing. Much like Ukraine, Estonia was hard hit by the Soviets. This documentary of his, with English subtitles, is hard but essential watch:

I think that even the admitted 20% foreign Jewish leadership including almost all of the top brass - among the Soviet Revolution - that this is damning enough. Then you get 50%+ of local Jews who all go out on a genocidal goy-killing-spree. Even the bloody Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris (Jewish and married to a Jewish woman) - they admit that the marxist terror was at least colored by Judaic hatred of goys.

Part of it backfired on them later, but only among some - many others simply adopted Slavic sounding names and continued undercover.

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:04 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

That's...kind of accurate because the whole concept of "whites" as a unified race didn't really exist until the American South.


However it misses one major fact. "Christendom" absolutely was a unifying force for Europeans. The Orthodox faith (Catholic doctrine) was the that concept and every individual, lord, and and state owed their loyalty to Christendom as a whole.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/ma...hristendom

In a lot of ways the seeds were planted during the reformation and following eras. That period destroyed the concept of Christendom being a unified civilization and Protestant movements introduced philosophies that denied objective moral truths while also pushing for a greater tolerance of degeneracy. They recognized the conscience as the highest moral authority; therefore if it doesn't feel wrong then it's wrong.

To be more accurate, the concept of a white race entered European languages in the 16th century - because the empires were obviously encountering a lot of non-whites by that point.

Prior to this, even national identities in Europe had been weak. You had Occitans, Catalans, Swabians and Bavarians,etc. People grew up and died in their village. Other races weren't even a consideration.

So it's really a silly leftist talking point to discount the idea of a European people (whilst regularly acknowledging black, asian,etc. people - who are far more genetically diverse).

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:04 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

That's...kind of accurate because the whole concept of "whites" as a unified race didn't really exist until the American South.


However it misses one major fact. "Christendom" absolutely was a unifying force for Europeans. The Orthodox faith (Catholic doctrine) was the that concept and every individual, lord, and and state owed their loyalty to Christendom as a whole.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/ma...hristendom

In a lot of ways the seeds were planted during the reformation and following eras. That period destroyed the concept of Christendom being a unified civilization and Protestant movements introduced philosophies that denied objective moral truths while also pushing for a greater tolerance of degeneracy. They recognized the conscience as the highest moral authority; therefore if it doesn't feel wrong then it's wrong.

It was more than that. Obviously the local European nations had various conflicts among each other, but they very well knew the even greater difference towards the other races.

They were not some race- and color-blind insane people who viewed other Europeans as identical to Africans or Asians.

And no reason to bring out those Harper's cartoons of Irish being compared to Africans. It was meant as an insult to the Irish while they knew well enough that the Irish were not that far apart from them aside from being poorer and different in mentality.

In addition there was also Christianity and occasionally they did have highly disparate nations working together. Though - as for the warring. It was the competition which made the European nations rise up in terms of technology. If they had been united like China then we would be living in the middle ages still. So be grateful for Europeans killing themselves constantly and being divided - that gives you the freedom now to drive your car, know everything there is on the internet, enjoy fruit or steak year-long and live comfy in our modern homes. Thank God that no one of the Euro-tribes came out on top like in China. Thank God for the constant strife and warfare that kept the nations constantly evolving for fear of being conquered by the next neighbor. War is sometimes good and a tool to move forward as much as I prefer peace. Currently we have economic war going on which is good enough in my book.

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:08 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 08:48 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 03:47 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Is absolute monarchy the Jews kryptonite? That is the first thing they got rid of.

Absolute monarchy is probably the best form of government for Europeans. Just as many in the god pill thread think that religion is a necessity for mankind, I think having a nobility is important for euros. There will always be an elite. The question is do you want that elite to be hook-nosed financiers or people sharing the same blood and nationalist zeal?

There were plenty of bad hats amongst the European nobility, but as the name suggests most were highly regarded. The euro nations wouldn't have kept their monarchies (at least in ceremonial fashion) if that werent the case.

Having a monarchy prevents outsiders from getting into power, no elections that can be bought,etc. (also eliminates the popularity contest that is U.S elections for example). A good ruler shouldn't necessarily be likeable. A monarch's heir literally grew up learning how to run a nation first hand, and could see all the mistakes his father made. You don't get that kind of experience with elected officials.

Of course Jews still tried to strongarm monarchs via debts, but when that happened there was no "democracy" preventing said monarchs to send them packing.

That cycle played out numerous times. Jews become lenders > get filthy rich off usurious interest rates > nobility gets pissed off >expulsion or genocide.

People talk about anti-semitism gobsmacked like it arose out of an abyss. These people need to pick up a history book. The hate was largely justified.

Excuse me, but the inept monarchs got all their power taken away from by the bankers. A monarchy is not the best system since a genius ethical king is then followed by his moronic son or insane grandson.

All the European kings had the power to issue currency interest-free and mainly the British kings did it before the Rothschilds deposed them, set up another lineage who did not even speak proper English, called them the Windsors. They did the same thing with everyeone else.

The monarchs of today would sell you out as well - queen Beatrix of Belgium is a great example of that. The power needs to be all-encompassing and you require highly skilled ever-vigilant kings to even stay in power. The current elite do it by staying in the shadows or the people of the world would rise up against them.

A benevolent dictatorship that is similar to a monarchy wouldn't be so bad, but the selection process would have to be refined. Plus - a monarchy has also a wide and broad aristocracy which add multiple layers of insanity to it. The Republic is far more difficult to control even if it does not appear to be so. That is why they absolutely need the total domination of Hollywood and all media outlets - they even have to constantly police it or even get nervous when PewDiPie is more right-leaning. They would prefer him to be de-platformed even if he does not mention anything political ever again - the reason being that they are afraid of his reach if he starts preaching.

I think we meant here the divine kingship model of the ancient Near East. Michael Hudson pondered this thema deeply:
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-delphic-o...eir-davos/

Frankly, it comes down to one thing: the power to grant AND to enforce a debt jubilee, or a debt amnesty.

I think that people instinctively know that they need a quasi-divine king to protect them, one who can justly rule by fiat of his words only, not necessarily by 'law'....well, one of Trump's nicknames is 'The God-Emperor'.
This surely expresses the desire.

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:04 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  

That's...kind of accurate because the whole concept of "whites" as a unified race didn't really exist until the American South.


However it misses one major fact. "Christendom" absolutely was a unifying force for Europeans. The Orthodox faith (Catholic doctrine) was the that concept and every individual, lord, and and state owed their loyalty to Christendom as a whole.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/ma...hristendom

In a lot of ways the seeds were planted during the reformation and following eras. That period destroyed the concept of Christendom being a unified civilization and Protestant movements introduced philosophies that denied objective moral truths while also pushing for a greater tolerance of degeneracy. They recognized the conscience as the highest moral authority; therefore if it doesn't feel wrong then it's wrong.

Then how do you explain the many wars over the many centuries between white people? At the end of the day, God and Christianity were not enough to prevent war between white people.

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:25 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 09:08 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 08:48 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-09-2019 03:47 AM)Pride male Wrote:  

Is absolute monarchy the Jews kryptonite? That is the first thing they got rid of.

Absolute monarchy is probably the best form of government for Europeans. Just as many in the god pill thread think that religion is a necessity for mankind, I think having a nobility is important for euros. There will always be an elite. The question is do you want that elite to be hook-nosed financiers or people sharing the same blood and nationalist zeal?

There were plenty of bad hats amongst the European nobility, but as the name suggests most were highly regarded. The euro nations wouldn't have kept their monarchies (at least in ceremonial fashion) if that werent the case.

Having a monarchy prevents outsiders from getting into power, no elections that can be bought,etc. (also eliminates the popularity contest that is U.S elections for example). A good ruler shouldn't necessarily be likeable. A monarch's heir literally grew up learning how to run a nation first hand, and could see all the mistakes his father made. You don't get that kind of experience with elected officials.

Of course Jews still tried to strongarm monarchs via debts, but when that happened there was no "democracy" preventing said monarchs to send them packing.

That cycle played out numerous times. Jews become lenders > get filthy rich off usurious interest rates > nobility gets pissed off >expulsion or genocide.

People talk about anti-semitism gobsmacked like it arose out of an abyss. These people need to pick up a history book. The hate was largely justified.

Excuse me, but the inept monarchs got all their power taken away from by the bankers. A monarchy is not the best system since a genius ethical king is then followed by his moronic son or insane grandson.

All the European kings had the power to issue currency interest-free and mainly the British kings did it before the Rothschilds deposed them, set up another lineage who did not even speak proper English, called them the Windsors. They did the same thing with everyeone else.

The monarchs of today would sell you out as well - queen Beatrix of Belgium is a great example of that. The power needs to be all-encompassing and you require highly skilled ever-vigilant kings to even stay in power. The current elite do it by staying in the shadows or the people of the world would rise up against them.

A benevolent dictatorship that is similar to a monarchy wouldn't be so bad, but the selection process would have to be refined. Plus - a monarchy has also a wide and broad aristocracy which add multiple layers of insanity to it. The Republic is far more difficult to control even if it does not appear to be so. That is why they absolutely need the total domination of Hollywood and all media outlets - they even have to constantly police it or even get nervous when PewDiPie is more right-leaning. They would prefer him to be de-platformed even if he does not mention anything political ever again - the reason being that they are afraid of his reach if he starts preaching.

I think we meant here the divine kingship model of the ancient Near East. Michael Hudson pondered this thema deeply:
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-delphic-o...eir-davos/

Frankly, it comes down to one thing: the power to grant AND to enforce a debt jubilee, or a debt amnesty.

I think that people instinctively know that they need a quasi-divine king to protect them, one who can justly rule by fiat of his words only, not necessarily by 'law'....well, one of Trump's nicknames is 'The God-Emperor'.
This surely expresses the desire.

Oh - I agree that a hierarchy is the best ruling system, just that a hereditary broad aristocracy with a hereditary monarch at the top is far inferior to a Republic.

However if you had a system of training an ethical super-skilled ruling class in each generation and then picked the best, strongest, kindest as an accountable ruler among them. And that ruler and his ruling class would reign supreme - all while being accountable without his position being able to be inherited - then yes, this system would be superior, but it has never been implemented successfully so far. Especially a system that weeds out psychopaths and sociopaths is unwelcome since we are ruled by them, so they are not going to push forward a system that gives a smart, strong AND ETHICAL man power over them. As Bush sr. put it - they would be hung up on the next tree.

Quote: (04-08-2019 08:18 PM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:57 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 11:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:39 AM)quaker13 Wrote:  

Quote: (04-08-2019 09:02 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Lots of "diverse" people complain endlessly about how horrible white people are but they'll go to extreme lengths to avoid living with their own and pay anything it costs to live among the dreaded racist whites.

I can honestly imagine it.

"Oy vey! You want me to live among nobody but other Jews?"

"Ja. Das ist der gist of it."

"Take me to the camps and get it over with!"

I don't think it's quite that simple, but i understand your point. I have a household income of damn near 700k, I don't want to live with poor people period. I don't care if they are Black like me or White like you. I have no interest in living in an impoverished neighborhood riddled with crime. I have no interest in moving to Ghana to get more for my dollar and to gain and increased solidarity with my "people". I'm an American first before I'm anything.I share nothing in common with my dark brethren short of liking percussion and big booty bitches. This also means I Have no interest in moving to Scandinavia despite it being very safe, having a high quality of life and sharing several commonalities with American culture.

Fact is if my household income was 100k I'd feel the same way. I don't think you'll find well to due Mexicans, Arabs..etc interested in living with the least of their own. That said, we have a nice system here in America where middle class neighborhoods are generally very safe and most folks share a proud sense of community. As a white man if you'd like to take credit for that good on you. I'm not offended by it, but I think it's a bit silly to get an inflated sense of self for contributions you didn't make, your father didn't make and your grandpappy didn't make. Be white and be proud, I'm not arguing that, but your sense of pride should be reasonably capped given you had literally no influence on your own existence. It was completely random that youre white and you're a male. You could have easily never been born or been born a Micronesian female.

I'm not quite sure what the point of this statement is other than to say race/culture/identity,etc. is irrelevant.

That's obviously not the case for you otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned you're black, and troubled your poor soul about what "we're" taking credit for.

Presuming your big baller claim is legit, it's a bit silly to ignore that your (or your wife's?) success happened in an overwhelmingly European country with all the country's institutions (political, economic and otherwise) built by the white man.

If you disagree with that, try making $700k in Ghana. Or actually any African country. You'd be doing well if you kept all your limbs, and had a meal couple times a week.

I'm not delusional my friend nor do I wince at a little PG-13 race related criticism. It isn't unreasonable to take pride in one's race all the while acknowledging that none of the accomplishments associated with said pride are not the result of the person's individual contribution. I enjoy the freedoms and safety associated with modern western countries. The white guys that founded and reinforced it did a hell of a job. Who's arguing that?

Race isn't a meritocracy. Its a birthright. Your birthright is a failed continent. Mine built the modern world.

The fact you reduce your existence and sense of worth to collecting fiat currency is a tragedy though. At least the wakanda crowd is trying.

This is the last comment all make on this for fear that further discussion will derail the thread. This isn't a matter of afro-centrism but merely fact. When gentlemen like you hang their hat on achievement by their race they predictably point to the current state of Africa as evidence of their superiority. They discount the fact there are literally 2000 genetically different ethnicities within the dark continent(surely pgymies and the massai aren't genetically similar). Then ignore the modern history of corruption, colonization and manipulation. As a final fallacy to their argument they ignore great Kingdoms of Kemet/Nubia and Mali. These Kingdoms weren't drummed up afrocentric bullshit they were legit and any scholar worth his salt would readily corroborate their existence and significance. This isn't a post attacking white folks. I have nothing against white folks. White folks are not the enemy. This is a cursory post simply suggesting you do research past your confirmation bias

At the end of the day I don't really care if Africa is great or shit and whether the many and varied people that inhabit it think that it's great or shit.

I don't care about whether they have pride in it, or their little patch of it, or they despise it or their little patch of it.

I'm proud of my humble house. I didn't build it but I maintain it and I keep it tidy and orderly.
I'm proud of my humble car. I didn't build it but I maintain it and I keep it tidy and orderly.
I'm proud of my humble community. I didn't build it but I maintain it and I keep it tidy and orderly.
I'm proud of my humble state. I didn't found it but to the extent I aid my community I aid my state.

My country is an increasingly schizophrenic multicultural mess, racially, religiously, ethnically and ideologically. There was a time not so long ago when I was proud of it. I didn't build it but I played my part in maintaining it and I keeping it tidy and orderly.

Then the scourge appeared of fuckwits who came along and said "this isn't your country, not really, you were just born here".

Now I draw the line at my state and hope to never have to redraw that line or spill blood over it.

But people will enforce those lines in the sand one day, and not long from now either.

So if you're you're the kind of guy pushing the idea that "this isn't your country, not really, you were just born here" then I hope you're ready to stay on your side of that line in the sand. If not then you're in for rough times.

Jews love to push that "no true claims to the land" crap because they themselves are gypsies, forced eternally to wander because they can never live in harmony with anyone else. So they spread that bullshit far and wide and infect everyone they can with it because they want everyone to be as equally miserable and detached from their homelands as they themselves are.

Anyone that has no roots to the land will never understand those that do. For them a nation will forever be nothing but a set of rules and regulations written under a flag. That is the Jewish way and that is the soul-less misery they want for everyone else on the planet.