Forwarded from Pax Tube
I’m going to respond to a few points Adam Green made in his debate about whether Christianity is a “Jewish tool” yesterday on the Killstream.
One major claim Green makes is that Christianity was created from the beginning as some kind of Jewish plot to “fulfill their prophecies”. Now I’m all for looking for conspiracies, but this has to take the cake for wackiness. To believe that the Jewish leadership came together to deliberately create a rogue rival religion requires you to believe they had supernatural levels of planning and control. There is simply not evidence for this. Furthermore, Christianity is extremely critical of both the ancient Jews and the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. If the Jewish leadership invented this, why not choose a more Jew-friendly narrative? Christianity went on to seriously challenge Judaism throughout history, to say the least.
Secondly, Christianity is not uniquely pro-Jewish. If anything, it’s one of the more Jew-skeptical religions. The Islamic Ottoman Empire, for example, was very Jew-tolerant at the same time Catholic Spain was doing an Inquisition against Jews. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were some of the leaders in keeping Jews from getting more power in European society than they had. Of the “109 countries” to expel Jews, most were Christian. Even Martin Luther, the forefather of Protestantism, wrote “On The Jews and Their Lies”, to ensure history would record him as an opponent of Jewish power. The actual reason Jews became successful in European societies is because they were able to blend in better appearance-wise, and even then it still took 1,000+ years.
Another clear counter to Green’s worldview is to look at how Jews have used their power the last 100 years against Christianity. They have done nothing but attack, undermine, weaken, and try to eliminate the Christian religion. They have promoted atheism in its place. How does this make any sense if they want Christianity around to “weaken” people? They’re literally doing the opposite of creating a world where Christianity prospers. In Russia, when Jews took power and created the Soviet Union, did they promote Christianity? No, they forced it underground and dismantled the Russian Orthodox Church.
The final point I’ll make is about how Green attributes the creation of Israel to Christianity. This took me aback. After 1,900 years, after the French Revolution, after liberalism and separation of church & state spreading in Europe, after the Pope losing his temporal power, after World War I, we’re really going to blame CHRISTIANITY for the establishment of Israel? You may as well say “Let’s just take everything bad that’s happened in Europe in the last 2,000 years and say Christianity is the cause”. Madness.
Anyway, I think this gives you a pretty good idea of some of the really dumb positions that anti-Christian right wingers take.
One major claim Green makes is that Christianity was created from the beginning as some kind of Jewish plot to “fulfill their prophecies”. Now I’m all for looking for conspiracies, but this has to take the cake for wackiness. To believe that the Jewish leadership came together to deliberately create a rogue rival religion requires you to believe they had supernatural levels of planning and control. There is simply not evidence for this. Furthermore, Christianity is extremely critical of both the ancient Jews and the Pharisees of Jesus’ time. If the Jewish leadership invented this, why not choose a more Jew-friendly narrative? Christianity went on to seriously challenge Judaism throughout history, to say the least.
Secondly, Christianity is not uniquely pro-Jewish. If anything, it’s one of the more Jew-skeptical religions. The Islamic Ottoman Empire, for example, was very Jew-tolerant at the same time Catholic Spain was doing an Inquisition against Jews. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches were some of the leaders in keeping Jews from getting more power in European society than they had. Of the “109 countries” to expel Jews, most were Christian. Even Martin Luther, the forefather of Protestantism, wrote “On The Jews and Their Lies”, to ensure history would record him as an opponent of Jewish power. The actual reason Jews became successful in European societies is because they were able to blend in better appearance-wise, and even then it still took 1,000+ years.
Another clear counter to Green’s worldview is to look at how Jews have used their power the last 100 years against Christianity. They have done nothing but attack, undermine, weaken, and try to eliminate the Christian religion. They have promoted atheism in its place. How does this make any sense if they want Christianity around to “weaken” people? They’re literally doing the opposite of creating a world where Christianity prospers. In Russia, when Jews took power and created the Soviet Union, did they promote Christianity? No, they forced it underground and dismantled the Russian Orthodox Church.
The final point I’ll make is about how Green attributes the creation of Israel to Christianity. This took me aback. After 1,900 years, after the French Revolution, after liberalism and separation of church & state spreading in Europe, after the Pope losing his temporal power, after World War I, we’re really going to blame CHRISTIANITY for the establishment of Israel? You may as well say “Let’s just take everything bad that’s happened in Europe in the last 2,000 years and say Christianity is the cause”. Madness.
Anyway, I think this gives you a pretty good idea of some of the really dumb positions that anti-Christian right wingers take.
Pax Tube
I’m going to respond to a few points Adam Green made in his debate about whether Christianity is a “Jewish tool” yesterday on the Killstream. One major claim Green makes is that Christianity was created from the beginning as some kind of Jewish plot to “fulfill…
Currently watching the debate right now and I can't stress enough how much of a retard you have to be to imply that Christianity is a tool created by the jews. Makes total sense that jews would create a religion 2000 years ago, only for it to turn in their favour in the 1960s. And somehow the jews had the perseverance and fortitude to keep this psyop running for the first 300 years of its creation because the Roman empire were mass killing its members.
Yeah, makes total sense.
Kevin Macdonald made an excellent point in one of his articles regarding this topic saying that if it were the case, why would Christianity show it's true face only in the mid-twentieth century?
Yeah, makes total sense.
Kevin Macdonald made an excellent point in one of his articles regarding this topic saying that if it were the case, why would Christianity show it's true face only in the mid-twentieth century?
Forwarded from Disclose.tv
NEW - U.S. Navy names ship after gay rights leader Harvey Milk and it's christened by a transgender veteran.
@disclosetv
@disclosetv
Australian Christian Fascists
Photo
One thing i found interesting while researching the Russian-Ottoman wars was that if Anglos didnt mingle with Russian affairs, then the Turks would've have been kicked out of European lands by the end of the 19th century.
in 1877 the Russians almost conquered Constantinople before Ottomans surrendered. Anglos however decided to give some land back to the Turks because otherwise it would've given Russia too much power.
"Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on 31 January 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.
"The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano [see pic above]. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, and the autonomy of Bulgaria."
in 1877 the Russians almost conquered Constantinople before Ottomans surrendered. Anglos however decided to give some land back to the Turks because otherwise it would've given Russia too much power.
"Under pressure from the British, Russia accepted the truce offered by the Ottoman Empire on 31 January 1878, but continued to move towards Constantinople.
"The British sent a fleet of battleships to intimidate Russia from entering the city, and Russian forces stopped at San Stefano [see pic above]. Eventually Russia entered into a settlement under the Treaty of San Stefano on 3 March, by which the Ottoman Empire would recognize the independence of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, and the autonomy of Bulgaria."
SSPX posting squad
One thing i found interesting while researching the Russian-Ottoman wars was that if Anglos didnt mingle with Russian affairs, then the Turks would've have been kicked out of European lands by the end of the 19th century. in 1877 the Russians almost conquered…
later that year in the congress of Berlin, the great powers gave back some of that conquered land back to the turks to avoid Russia having too much influence in the region
Forwarded from Thuletide
Brief, simplified history of Marxist ideology from Marx to present:
In 1848, the Communist Manifesto laid out a handful of primary objectives, including:
- Abolition of property
- Destruction of family
- Destruction of nations
- Destruction of traditional culture
- Founding of a monopolistic, centralized banking system
- Centralization of all production, communication, and transport in the hands of "the state" (the ruling elite)
These objectives are shared by 99.99% of modern Leftists and they haven't diverged from these goals in almost 2 centuries.
(Btw the Communist Manifesto is like 20 pages long, I recommend reading it).
Marxism before 1923 aimed to achieve these objectives via a "colorblind" proletarian revolution against the "capitalist overlords" that they called the World Revolution. This strategy had failed miserably because the workers overwhelmingly sided with various nationalist movements (mostly Fascism) because they didn't like the idea of abolishing their families, property, nations, and traditions.
This led to two developmental pathways in Marxism, in the East and the West, both of which converge at the same endpoint.
In the East, Marxism from Lenin onwards shifted focus to the global struggle of the "oppressed races" against the "capitalist imperialists" (White people), while still paying lip service to "proletarian revolution." You'll see Marxists describing some ethnic groups as "proletarian nations of the world" and so on, which is just their obfuscatory way of saying "brown people."
Stalin implemented "socialism in one country", which was not nationalism — the USSR was a multi-racial empire — but the idea that the USSR must serve as a stable base of operations from which Communism could be spread throughout the world. Stalin had Leninist ideals.
Mao developed Marxist "anti-imperialist" ideology further with his Third Worldism, and both the USSR and PRC funded brown Communist insurgencies against White colonial states, e.g. Rhodesia and South Africa.
When people claim that "Marxists were based/trad/patriotic in the past," this is basically only true for the Third World Marxists, who were already serving the globalist agenda simply by revolting against White global hegemony.
Plus, they weren't really based at all. They still preached feminism, sometimes sexual depravity, and so on. But, most importantly, they only preached nationalism from the perspective of:
"brown nationalism = oppressed = good"
"white nationalism = oppressors = evil"
Meanwhile, Marxism in the West developed various strategies of cultural subversion (see: Frankfurt School, New School) that aimed to destroy the nationalistic spirit and traditional cultures of the Western proletariat. This was designed to soften up the masses for full globalist conquest and basically boiled down to:
"freaks = oppressed = good"
"normal people = oppressors = evil"
However, Western Marxists were also inspired by the "anti-imperialist" ideologies of Lenin & friends, which eventually led to the creation of things like Critical Race Theory and "intersectionality," which is the idea that all "oppressed" groups must unite against the "oppressors" (straight White men and, increasingly, White women).
Although much of the Left today does not vocally identify as Marxist, they still advance the primary objectives laid out in the Communist Manifesto.
Furthermore, the Left ideologically dominates the West to such a degree that many Leftists don't identify with any specific ideology at all. They simply declare that their insane political beliefs are "being a good person." Some of the most stringent Leftists around today have never read a single word of Marx, or Lenin, or Mao, or Gramsci, Lukacs, Marcuse, Adorno, but espouse their ideologies almost verbatim.
I've made all of these points before but I can't emphasize this enough. It's vital information for understanding our enemies.
In 1848, the Communist Manifesto laid out a handful of primary objectives, including:
- Abolition of property
- Destruction of family
- Destruction of nations
- Destruction of traditional culture
- Founding of a monopolistic, centralized banking system
- Centralization of all production, communication, and transport in the hands of "the state" (the ruling elite)
These objectives are shared by 99.99% of modern Leftists and they haven't diverged from these goals in almost 2 centuries.
(Btw the Communist Manifesto is like 20 pages long, I recommend reading it).
Marxism before 1923 aimed to achieve these objectives via a "colorblind" proletarian revolution against the "capitalist overlords" that they called the World Revolution. This strategy had failed miserably because the workers overwhelmingly sided with various nationalist movements (mostly Fascism) because they didn't like the idea of abolishing their families, property, nations, and traditions.
This led to two developmental pathways in Marxism, in the East and the West, both of which converge at the same endpoint.
In the East, Marxism from Lenin onwards shifted focus to the global struggle of the "oppressed races" against the "capitalist imperialists" (White people), while still paying lip service to "proletarian revolution." You'll see Marxists describing some ethnic groups as "proletarian nations of the world" and so on, which is just their obfuscatory way of saying "brown people."
Stalin implemented "socialism in one country", which was not nationalism — the USSR was a multi-racial empire — but the idea that the USSR must serve as a stable base of operations from which Communism could be spread throughout the world. Stalin had Leninist ideals.
Mao developed Marxist "anti-imperialist" ideology further with his Third Worldism, and both the USSR and PRC funded brown Communist insurgencies against White colonial states, e.g. Rhodesia and South Africa.
When people claim that "Marxists were based/trad/patriotic in the past," this is basically only true for the Third World Marxists, who were already serving the globalist agenda simply by revolting against White global hegemony.
Plus, they weren't really based at all. They still preached feminism, sometimes sexual depravity, and so on. But, most importantly, they only preached nationalism from the perspective of:
"brown nationalism = oppressed = good"
"white nationalism = oppressors = evil"
Meanwhile, Marxism in the West developed various strategies of cultural subversion (see: Frankfurt School, New School) that aimed to destroy the nationalistic spirit and traditional cultures of the Western proletariat. This was designed to soften up the masses for full globalist conquest and basically boiled down to:
"freaks = oppressed = good"
"normal people = oppressors = evil"
However, Western Marxists were also inspired by the "anti-imperialist" ideologies of Lenin & friends, which eventually led to the creation of things like Critical Race Theory and "intersectionality," which is the idea that all "oppressed" groups must unite against the "oppressors" (straight White men and, increasingly, White women).
Although much of the Left today does not vocally identify as Marxist, they still advance the primary objectives laid out in the Communist Manifesto.
Furthermore, the Left ideologically dominates the West to such a degree that many Leftists don't identify with any specific ideology at all. They simply declare that their insane political beliefs are "being a good person." Some of the most stringent Leftists around today have never read a single word of Marx, or Lenin, or Mao, or Gramsci, Lukacs, Marcuse, Adorno, but espouse their ideologies almost verbatim.
I've made all of these points before but I can't emphasize this enough. It's vital information for understanding our enemies.
Noticed this film on Fatima came out this year, however its directed by Marco Pontecorvo. His surname is "redsea pedestrian" so be wary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_(2020_film)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatima_(2020_film)
Wikipedia
Fatima (2020 film)
2020 film by Marco Pontecorvo
I do not understand the obsession of some people with eugenics in right wing spheres.
There were many of gay activists, feminists and major globalists who were supportive of eugenics. The eugenics movement in the early 20th centuries was basically spearheaded by spooks.
Winston Churchill was a massive supporter of Eugenics.
Havelock Ellis was a Fabian socialist and sexologist, who did extensive research on troons and homosexuality. He served as vice-president to the Eugenics Education Society. He was greatly influenced by the jewish sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld.
Margaret Sanger. Birth control, feminist, abortion rights and eugenics supporter.
John Maynard Keynes. super spook. Director of Bank of England. Creator of Keynesian economics, which is all economic policy in Western industrialized countries post WW2. Also a Fabian socialist and panel member of UN speech
I could go on and on...
There were many of gay activists, feminists and major globalists who were supportive of eugenics. The eugenics movement in the early 20th centuries was basically spearheaded by spooks.
Winston Churchill was a massive supporter of Eugenics.
Havelock Ellis was a Fabian socialist and sexologist, who did extensive research on troons and homosexuality. He served as vice-president to the Eugenics Education Society. He was greatly influenced by the jewish sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld.
Margaret Sanger. Birth control, feminist, abortion rights and eugenics supporter.
John Maynard Keynes. super spook. Director of Bank of England. Creator of Keynesian economics, which is all economic policy in Western industrialized countries post WW2. Also a Fabian socialist and panel member of UN speech
I could go on and on...
SSPX posting squad
I do not understand the obsession of some people with eugenics in right wing spheres. There were many of gay activists, feminists and major globalists who were supportive of eugenics. The eugenics movement in the early 20th centuries was basically spearheaded…
Least I forget Julian Huxley, the first Director of UNESCO and coined the term agnosticism. He was president of the British Eugenics Society (also brother of Aldous Huxley, author of the dystopic novel "Brave new world")