Jim Caviezel with Mel Gibson
Hollywood is nothing if not vengeful. Jim Caviezel, star of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Christ now claims that he has been blacklisted. He also says that Gibson warned him about what would happen if he took the part:
‘He said, “You’ll never work in this town again.” I told him, “We all have to embrace our crosses”.’
Caviezel, a devout Roman Catholic, seems to possess a rare idealism on behalf of his religious commitments. His decision to star as Jesus doubtless cost him millions.
To this day, the mainstream regards the Hollywood blacklisting of the 1940s and ’50s as an absolute horror:
Jewish media figures who were blacklisted because of Communist affiliations in the 1940s are now heroes, honored by the film industry, praised in newspapers, their work exhibited in museums. For example, an event commemorating the blacklist was held at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in October 1997. Organized by the four guilds, … the event honored the lives and careers of the blacklisted writers and condemned the guilds’ lack of response fifty years earlier. At the same time, the Writers Guild of America has been restoring dozens of credits to movies written by screenwriters who wrote under pseudonyms or used fronts while blacklisted. Movies on the topic paint a picture of innocent Jewish idealists hounded by a ruthless, oppressive government, and critics like Bernheimer (1998, 163-166) clearly approve this assessment. In the same vein, the 1983 movie Daniel, based on a novel by E. L. Doctorow and directed by Sydney Lumet, portrayed the conviction of the Rosenbergs as “a matter of political expediency. The persecution is presented as a nightmarish vision of Jewish victimization, senseless and brutal” (Bernheimer 1998, 178). [See here, p. 39.]
But don’t expect any angst about modern day blacklisting of true idealists like Caviezel carried out by Hollywood with no government pressure at all. Indeed, it is well known that overt Christians and conservatives are blacklisted in Hollywood.
This ability to create real economic consequences for people who have attitudes they don’t like is a huge source of Jewish power. And of course, it’s part of a wider pattern in which people who get off the reservation on a whole range of issues, from immigration to White identity, to criticizing Israel or commenting on Jewish influence in the media or elsewhere, find that their prospects in life suddenly take a very sharp turn for the worse.
Facing the Future as a Minority
It’s too bad Kevin, that the Roman Catholic politicians spend most of their time like Nancy Pelosi, pushing the Jew agenda.
From what I’ve read the Roman Catholic church in California gives Pelosi the pulpit!
I’ve been watching the news about James Schmidlin who is doing time in a federal prison for making a politically charged cel phone call to a former Ohio Italian Roman Catholic Congressman named Boccieri during the height of last years Obamacare debate.
Schmidlin from what I’ve read is a minister from Cleveland, Tennessee with an MA in divinity, a former missionary, and was employed by the State of Tennessee in its child welfare agency.
Schmidlin does not deny making a call to Boccieri’s Congressional office, but, he claims his words were not heard, or misunderstood by the Boccieri staffer who reported Schmidlin’s call as a threat. Schmidlin claims he did not threaten, nor did he have any intent of threatening Boccieri.
The federal prosecution has not made it clear as to which office of Boccieris’ was called by Schmidlin, some reports state Boccieri’s Washington office, other reports that a local Ohio office was called?
The call was not recorded.
Let’s remember this incident is about a 40 some second cel phone call made at the height of the Obamacare debate.
Naturally, being a Christian preacher from hillbilly Tennessee marks Schmidlin as being a radical nutcase who probably has Confederates in his attic, and, deserves to be in jail for having the gall to call an Italian Roman Catholic from Ohio on a controversial political topic like Obamacare.
Btw, the “Church of God” is a large mainstream pentecostal Protestant church which originated in the North Carolina-Tennessee area. It is a big church in the South & Mid-West.
Pelosi is Jeewish. Dad was a Baltimore, MD. tycoon, real estate I believe. She married a Catholic.
DianaBlaze: I think you’re a bit mixed up here. Pelosi may be a willing and even eager servant of Jewish interests, but I know of no evidence whatsoever of her having Jewish blood.
If your point is that she is not truly a Catholic—Catholicism not being a tribal matter but a religious one, and a Catholic being someone who believes what the Church believes, observes its commandments, and practices the faith—you are, however, certainly correct. The fact that the postconciliar Neocatholic NewChurch hasn’t formally excommunicated her makes not a scintilla of difference.
I know nothing of the background of her husband, Paul Pelosi. Do you? Could you have got your Pelosis mixed up? That is, could he be the one with a Tribal past or present?
Vatican has a long history of pushing anti-Islam Zionist agenda. Jews have long infiltrated the Church through marriages and banking. Late Pope John Paul II had a Polish Jewish mother. The current Pope Benedict XVI is a double agent of Zionism. He has shown his hatred toward 1.7 billion -strong Muslim community while refusing to condemn Jewish Zionazi policies in occupied Palestine and around the world.
Professor Dr. Gideon Polya (Australia) in his article at the Countercurrent.Org (April 6, 2010) wrote on the omission of the genocide of Muslim children in Easter Message delivered by the Catholic and the Protestant Churches. “Now if miracles actually occur and by some miracle the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope were to be drawn into a public discussion of the mass murder of Muslim children by the racist Zionist beholden US Alliance, they might plead that apart from (regular) collateral damage from civilian-targeting US bombing, the brave US storm troopers are not actually shoving bayonets into Muslim babies. However, whether a Muslim child in the occupied Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan dies from bombs or bullets or from occupier-imposed deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease, the end result is the same and the moral culpability the same.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/08/easter-message-anti-semitism-and-genocide-of-muslim-children/
Note that Mr. & Mrs. Caviezel have adopted two Chinese infants to raise as their own. So just like Madonna and “Brangelina”, they are promoting cuckoldry as a positive moral value amongst Caucasian peoples. The mind reels.
Absent the inclusion of any supporting evidence to the effect that the Caviezels deliberately chose to adopt Chinese infants when they could have gotten Caucasian ones, what this mind reels at is the rank foolishness of the charge of cuckoldry.
I can’t help wondering, too, what Mr. Erpelding has done for the Occidental cause that begins to compare with what Caviezel has done. What sacrifices of worldly success has he made? How do they compare with Caviezel’s?
To begin with, no one gets any points for portraying any jew in a positive light. And no matter if this man had even accomplished great things for our race, he negated them all by adopting a child of another race. In fact that more than negates any good because it tars us all with the brush of hypocrisy. Toleration of race traitors is one of the main ways we got to the sorry point we are, and we will never improve our position as long as we keep doing it.
From Jewkapedia: “Cuckold is a derogatory term for a man whose wife is or has been unfaithful.”
One would think the term was more well known, perhaps he meant to say “chinkoldry” denoting the act of “allowing one’s wife to adopt an asian baby”.
Caviezel’s promotion of white culture is an independent accomplishment. If you say, “no one gets any points for portraying any jew in a positive light,” then by God, we really are too short-sighted to ever beat the the jews. Have you not noticed how THEY repeated promote whites who are harmful to OUR interests (Marilyn Manson, Elton John, Bill Clinton, Elvis). To say say that there is no benefit to accurately telling the Passion story (whether you believe it, or not) is sign of a jew-addled mind of our age.
As for his adoption of children. Some facts to consider. 1) He is a devout Catholic, so if he doesn’t haven’t biological children, it’s probably b/c he or his wife cannot. 2) The children are both disabled, so it isn’t as if they are going to reproduce in the West. Most of us are here because we love white culture and want to see us thrive and achieve our full potential once-again, not because we hate everyone else and want to see them suffer.
Interesting point. Unfortunately, political correctness vis-a-vis interracial adoptions cannot supersede any historic ‘hostility’ towards Jews. Sorry. No exceptions. Caviezel is damned for eternity.
That’s one hell of an ipse dixit tone you’ve got there, mark green! Was your omission of the cuckoldry charge an oversight or an act of kindheartedness?
Fortunately for everyone, Caviezel not least, damnation and similar decisions are way above your pay grade.
Nancy Pelosi is not Jewish.Her father ws the very Catholic Mayor of Baltimore in the 1950′s.Privately she knows it all.It has been reported that during an abortion debate on the floor of the house in the late 80′s she whispered to a Catholic zany Zionist Republican fool,Congressman that would he really want to seee his daughter carry a black baby to term if she were raped?
I am a bit saddened that Professor MacDonald, who has himself on numerous occasions been the victim of the gutter press’s hate-filled misrepresentations, would write “Jim Caviezel . . . claims that he has been blacklisted” without immediately following those words with an explanation of the context and the circumstances of the actor’s comments and a clarification that Caviezel in fact never even used so loaded and self-regarding a word as blacklisted.
In the linked story, prominently featured in Mail Online, as foul a piece of Tribal trash as I can imagine seeing, the writer’s hostility (hence undoubtedly that of his editors and of the rag’s owners, too) to his subject and his subject’s work history is unconcealed. For most of the article, the scribbler, one Paul Thompson, gives the reader the distinct but false impression that Caviezel made his remarks in the context of an interview. Long before revealing the truth of that matter, however, Thompson shows his hand by spitting on the film in which Caviezel played his most celebrated role and on the film’s director: “Although a box office hit taking [in] more than $400 million worldwide it was condemned as being anti-Semitic. Gibson, the film’s director, was later accused of making anti-Jewish remarks after being arrested for drink [sic] driving.”
Only in paragraph 14 (of 21 all told) does Thompson begin to tease his readers with the suggestion that the context of Caviezel’s remarks was not in fact an interview, exclusive or otherwise. Paragraph 15, however, while claiming to be a direct quote from the actor, attempts to mislead the unwary (i.e., the fools that read this trash regularly) into thinking that Caviezel shares Thompson’s contempt for Gibson by failing to indicate what it requires at least half a brain to see: namely, that the first sentence quoted is a facetious statement.
At last, in paragraph 18, Thompson reveals the venue wherein Caviezel made his remarks: “The actor spoke about the film and its negative effect on his career while at a megachurch in Orlando to promote a new audio book of the Bible.” Whether the quoted remarks were part of Caviezel’s pitch or—as seems far more likely—were contained within responses to questions is never, of course, even hinted at.
Yet it seems rather late in the day for me or anyone else to expect that any media Jews whatsoever would extend the ordinary journalistic courtesies to Gibson, one of their ultimate golem figures, or to anyone associated with him, least of all to an actor who (unlike, say, the repellent Willem Dafoe) played Jesus Christ without appropriate Judaic deconstruction. In this or any similar situation, one can count on Jews to behave in a manner that fully comports with the words of the high priest Caiphas, one of the Tribe’s greatest role models, “What need have we of witnesses!”
I regret that I neglected to add that the sentence that provoked my comment above is literally the only sentence in KM’s blog posting at which any cavil can be directed. In justice, my first words should have been an expression of thanks for his generous and eloquent praise of a fine and wronged actor and an exemplary man. Mea culpa.
It is amazing to me how many white goy Americans are completely ignorant to the fact that Hollywood is anti-white. How can white citizens have a fair future in America when the power structure has been turned against them? For me the only option in regard to fighting the Hollywood inculcation mechanism is to adopt the same policies of activism that empowered the tribe to begin with.
A rather shockingly sincere piece on how the tribe had really felt about the film:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31980-2004Mar4¬Found=true
In other words, the very notion of Christianity and its central tenets are inherently problematic/antisemitic and they have to be ‘rectified’ through Vatican II guidelines in order to become at most tolerable. Apparently something like: “Well, Christ was crucified, unfortunately, but … hey, what can you do, those things used to happen back then. After all, He was resurrected, wasn’t He?…that’s what matters in the end.”
For their ‘insolence’ to differ, Gibson and Caviezel should probably be glad that crucifixion is out of date nowadays.
Charles Krauthammer agues that the blood of the Holocaust is upon Catholic Church and her members. The Holocaust is the crime for all ages and Catholics must atone for it.
However the blood of Christ’s death cannot be upon the Jews and their children. Even though Matthew 27:24-25
24 And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it. 25 And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.
So old Cabbagehammer has actually come out and blamed the Church for the Big H®, has he? Did he do so in precisely those words, or did he allow himself a bit of wiggle room for later deniability?
I am not saying that the charge surprises me. It is merely that, after getting their stooges (John Cornwell being one of note) to say this very thing for the past thirty-five years, for the Jews to allow one of their number—especially a man they have told us for the very same thirty-five years is a model of perspicacity and rationality—to make the same patently false charge about this preposterously hyperexaggerated event is for them to take such a bold, Orwellian step that one is forced to conclude that they no longer have any fear whatsoever that their grandiosity and megalomania can even be exposed, let alone threatened or harmed.
As Jeremias and Isaias insisted and as Christ definitively confirmed, they never listen and they never learn. They either ignored or killed the prophets and sages God sent them, and lied about their actions. As Proverbs—one of the books they haven’t read for centuries—has it, “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
“Charles Krauthammer agues that the blood of the Holocaust is upon Catholic Church and her members. The Holocaust is the crime for all ages and Catholics must atone for it.”
Then the blood of all the innocent Iraqis and Afghanis and American troops killed in wars perpetrated through lies is on the head of Dr. Krauthammer and the other lying neo-cons.
And, if the blood of the “holocaust” is the crime of all ages, like any crime, surely we have the right to speak about it honestly and investigate it objectively? Until we can begin to do that, all Jewish pleas for tolerance and truth remain thin veneers to hide their fundamental dishonesty.
I don’t care who someone prays too.We all have our own spiritual path.But please keep that boring,backward Jewish based Christianity to yourselves.It was the first Bolshivisem.It is not original,ethical,enlightening,or even entertaining.All things great came despites its backward influence.It was the Jewish cancer that injected and divided the West.This Judiac,inspired mythology replaced and suplanted the great Aryan ethical,codes to our ruin,and has the blood of countless people on its hands.Its a cruel hoax that like all con-jobs have a semblence of sense.What would replace it?Read the wonderful myths of the West;and the philosophers of the Greco-Roman world.Look about you and see the wonders of creation.So sublime and superior to the ugly cheap meanderaings of that Sky-Mountain god Yehew and his wife Asura(They wont tll you that)adopted by the filthy Jews to take down Egypt.Than eons later came Jesus to take it to us all,and take they did.I believe in God,but the God of my race,and of alll things natural,beautiful,and uplifting.this is not Christianity.If you believe it.Keep it to yourself and leave us all alone.As we fight the Jews.Christians are not equipted to do that.
The Jews cannot be defeated with a Jewish created anti-racist universal egalitarian religion(Christianity).
Christianity, a Totalitarian Cult
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 10:37
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters – yes, even his own life – he cannot be my disciple.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 14:26
In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 14:33
The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
- Rabbi Jesus, John 12:25
Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 1:7
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist – he denies the Father and the Son.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 2:22
but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
- Rabbi Saul, 1 John 4:3
If anyone does not love the Lord – a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
- Rabbi Saul, 1 Corinthians 16:22
Christianity, a Universal Egalitarian Religion
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
- Rabbi Jesus, Matthew 28:19
And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.
- Rabbi Jesus, Mark 13:10
and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
- Rabbi Jesus, Luke 24:47
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
- Rabbi Paul, Galatians 3:26-29
Black / African Saints
The history of the Church is full of many black / African Catholic saints, who received recognition for great deeds or meritorious conduct. Many lost their lives in defense of the faith. Many were also honored for their contributions to the Church and their community.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/black.php
The Next Christianity
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0018.html
In looking back over the enormous changes wrought by the twentieth century, Western observers may have missed the most dramatic revolution of all. While secular movements like communism, feminism, and environmentalism have gotten the lion’s share of our attention, the explosive southward expansion of Christianity in Africa, Asia, and Latin America has barely registered on Western consciousness. Nor has the globalization of Christianity – and the enormous religious, political, and social consequences it portends – been properly understood.
Rise of Christianity in the Third World
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=5739
Pennsylvania State University Professor Philip Jenkins argues persuasively in “The Next Christendom: The Rise of Global Christianity” that Christianity, more than Islam, will shape the world’s rapidly growing parts. Consider this data:
- Ghana has more Presbyterians than Scotland, Nigeria has more Anglicans than Britain, and China soon will have more Christians than all but six nations.
- By 2025, 67 percent of Christians will live in Africa, Latin America or Asia.
- By 2050, the world will have three Christians for every two Muslims.
- By 2050, a third of Latinos and Asians will come from Christian backgrounds.
Looking at Catholic believers, in particular, Jenkins says that by 2025, 75 percent of all Catholics will live in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The growth of Christianity in the Third World has important political and social implications. For instance, religion, and not the state, could unify Third World residents.
@ Zoggy
Who died and made you Pope? LOL.
Thats the truth ZOG .That is the one of the problems with this sight . There is no strategy for the ignorant. They come and blog and whinge. KD doesn’t seem to have thought out the next step of being a racist and yet going to heaven. The CofE and other miscellaneous Protestants just don’t have a religion until deaths door and then sort of make one up , which is one of the reasons they are so easy for ZOG to get at–their moral belief haven’t been thought through and so they rely entirely on the good opinion of piers & society and THE MEDIA to tell them weather they are worthy human beings.
@ Anti-Surrealist…Wow, talk about coming on a blog and whining, why don’t you follow your own advice.LOL If Christianity is the problem in terms of white activism against Jewish anti-white activism, that would make Hollywood Christianity’s biggest supporter.lol Is China’s state media disseminating anti-communist propaganda ? Also how can one seperate the rise of Western Culture with Christianity? They go hand in hand. Unity=power regardless of the source producing it. What brought the 13 colonies together against the British? Why is human history the death of pagan worship and the rise of the big 3 religions in Christian, Muslim, and Jew? Even from a detached scholarly perspective one cannot negate the relationship between Christianity and European culture or Christianity and the rise of America. So if Christianity is for fools, what would you replace it with and how do you explain its complete takeover and ultimate foundation of what today call a civilized world? What is your superior philosophy that the masses should believe in? The student always finds fault but can rarely find an answer.
Why would you want to defeat the Jews ZOGstein?
This is the insidious domestic terrorism that Americans have come to accept.
I am sure, if Jim Caviezel had bothered to read Hollywood history, he would have learned that “HOLLYWOOD IS JEWISH”.
In 2009 – Hollywood filmmaker, Oliver Stone, in an interview with British daily Sunday Times – in response to why there was “such a focus on the Holocaust”, had replied: “The Jewish domination of the media. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/washington-cannot-say-no-to-jewish-lobby/
If Mel knew that Caviezel was going to get blacklisted for starring in his movie, then he should have done the honorable thing and gave Caviezel points on the movie. At least then Caviezel wouldn’t be left holding the bag for helping Mel create his vision.
In 2004 – The Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson’s movie was like someone had denied the Zionists narrative of the Holocaust. Pro-Israel ADL lead the Zionist Jihad against Mel Gibson. Joey Kurtzman wrote in August 2007:
“The ADL’s jihad against Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ was typical of the organization’s destructive, self-interested efforts. Foxman, as you might remember, fanned fears it would inspire Chmielniki-style pogroms. Yet not a single documented act of violence against Jews resulted from the film, nor even a single verbal assault. A study conducted by Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles indicated some anger among Christians toward Jews—but because of the reaction to the film, rather than its contents. Thanks to the ADL, our strong and self-confident community was made to appear silly and paranoid before the world.
The Passion fiasco was hardly the ADL’s only effort to alienate and insult American Christians. In November 2005, Foxman delivered a widely publicized speech in which he warned that American Christian organizations were engaged in an insidious campaign to “Christianize” America. It’s a shocking allegation: firstly, because Jewish interfaith groups have developed very strong ties with precisely such organizations in the past decade; and secondly, because conservative Jewish groups have been just as aggressive in their efforts to breach the wall between church and state. While Christian groups can’t get the ornaments of Christianity placed in government buildings, Chabad has succeeded in publicly erecting enormous, gaudy menorahs throughout the country”.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/jim-caviezel-the-victim-of-jewish-vengeance/
Contrary to what some believe not everyone thinks that Mel Gibson’s Passion was an effort to Christianize America. The Holy Bible says in Zechariah 11:17 “Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth his flock, the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.” After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane the movie version had him assaulted by one of Caiaphas’ guards and for the rest of the movie Jesus saw out of his left eye only. His right eye was shut from here on. Even more surprisingly is that our enemy the Moslem is also expecting a one eyed “anti-Christ” to turn up and if the curious care to Google the word Dajjal they will find enough to keep them entertained for a while.
Don’t bother withZOGstein. Just zig-zag over his
diatribes.
Yes, it’s easier to do that than to deal with the inherent egalitarian Marxist nature of Christianity.
So was Bismarck mistaken to promote egalitarian policies in the 2nd Reich? Were the Byzantines mistaken in having public hospitals and orphanages?
Marxism is a distortion of Christianity–one that allows atheists like you to manipulate the masses.
“Yes, it’s easier to do that than to deal with the inherent egalitarian Marxist nature of Christianity”
ZOGstein strikes again with his meaningless banter- move on nothing to see here.LOL
@Kirk
“It is no accident Vatican II occurred just two decades after the Holocaust, indeed in its shadow”
Thanks for the link. This quote from the text is the best thing ever written about the disaster called Vatican II. It is significant that the Council’s most prominent theologians were from Germany. German Catholics had not voted Hitler in 1932 (his party gained most votes in the majority protestant/secularised areas of the country). Yet they acted in 1962 as if they had and for that reason decided to disfigure the Catholic faith. By 1971 it hd become unrecognisable.
Jim Caviezel is a Catholic. He is not and has never claimed to be a racialist or white nationalist; he’s not “one of us.” There’s nothing in the Catholic religion which forbids adopting non-white children, and in fact, that sort of thing is encouraged by the Church. The Church needs new adherents and it doesn’t care of what color they are.
I find Caviezel’s story interesting (and useful for our cause) because it once again exposes Hollywood for the jewish monopoly it is.
And while I appreciate the blow that Passion of the Christ dealt to Hollywood, I would hardly call it a great cultural achievement for our race. I went to see it once at the movie theater when it came out and I’ve not once had the desire to view it again, let alone own it on DVD.
My dictionary defines “cuckoldry” as “making a cuckold of a husband” and a “cuckold” as “the husband of an unfaithful wife.” I’m not sure how that relates to a couple which adopts out of its race.
The Catholic church_and increasingly other sects as well_ has gotten so deep into promoting race-mixing I truly can’t understand how anyone concerned about race can still support it. It seems to me the time is fast approaching when one will have to be a racialist or Christian, but not both.
On the subject of negating good works, think: propagandists like nothing better than the proponent of an idea “changing his mind”, or showing himself to be a hypocrite. When that happens it implicitly discredits everyone else holding that position.
We need the largest hard-core group of racialists we can get; people who are totally immoderate and accept nothing outside the bounds. “Moderation” might have an appeal to some, maybe even most, but they’re not going to help us anyway. And it turns off people who might otherwise get involved.
The Catholic Church PROMOTES race-mixing? Pray tell you provide some evidence of that?
These fantasies of an apocalyptic war will get us nowhere. We need DISCIPLINE in our own affairs. TOTAL abstinence from Jewish pop culture and consumer goods, promotion of white intellectual and cultural achievement, and collaboration in business affairs will do more good than constantly expressing vitriol toward those of other races.
Athanasius
I strongly agree we need the discipline, which comes with commitment to the cause, to stop giving our money to jews and to support white business. That also includes avoiding jew and black culture.
I don’t harp against other races but I also think there are very appropriate times to bring out some of their negative qualities. The same applies to religion. I’m sorry you and I so strongly disagree about that; I think we’re both honest and committed to the race. That’s why I’d just rather leave religion out of the discussion most of the time.
As for the church promoting race-mixing I’ll just say listen to the constant harping about “racism” from the popes on down the rank. Not any longer confined just to Catholics either.
Look, I do think that freedom of conscious is important, and I have not desire to measure the orthodoxy of others (unless they want to be religious teachers). But we NEED a moral consensus to function. And it would be very helpful if we had common holidays and traditions and a cultural basis to relate to each other. One problem with Protestantism is that they stripped most of that stuff out, and they left a gap that Jews have stepped in to fill.
As for other races, I do think that its fair to say, e.g., that as a whole, blacks are more prone to violence and sexual aggression and are less intelligent. But for me, that is a rebuttable presumption, and I don’t despise blacks. In fact, I hope the the best for them. But I don’t think it’s best for them, and certainly not for us, if they can attack us and rape our women with impunity, take positions from us (thanks to the magnanimity of the Jews) for which they are unqualified, and promote barbarism (i.e., hip-hop). I don’t think that makes me a bad Christian. And the fact that I’m a Christian and have a Christian understanding of the nature of other people, I don’t think makes me a bad white. In fact, I think that the current multicultural regime oppresses us AND facilitates evil among other races.
Athanasius. Warren H. Carroll, PhD,Chairman of the History department at Christendom College wrote on p77 of The History of Christendom Vol 5. that Maryland was a Catholic colony and in the 1600′s the governor and the Jesuits were concerned about the fate of the Indians so that, “Several Indian chiefs were baptized, and many other Indians married settlers so that the two cultures blended.” Why and how the change of crossing the boundaries that God had set up came in I cannot say. Perhaps these were some of the Welsh speaking Indians that we hear of? What would Phineas think?
Fr. Sandy– I don’t see how the Catholic Church do anything but baptize the Indians. Yes, I suppose that would indirectly encourage intermarriage. But in the 1600′s there were other reasons for intermarriage (population density, imbalanced gender ratio, need for political connections with Indians).
The word “cuckold” is a derivation of cuckoo. Several species are brood parasites. They leave there eggs in another birds nest. Obviously, since traditionally the a woman’s child is always her own, only the man can be a cuckold. Here however, we have people allowing others to be brood parasites, hence they are voluntary cuckolds. This is an example of altruism run amok and deviant behaviour from an evolutionary stand point.
Does anyone notice the irony of a website called The Occidental Observer promoting Judeo-Christianity, being that Judeo-Christianity is an Oriental religion imported to the Occident by a nomadic near-eastern desert tribe, which eventually outlawed all Pagan religions (see Theodosius) and even outlawed the teaching of Greaco-Roman philosophy (see Justinian)? While you’re at it look up the death of Hypatia if you want a sense of what early Christian fanaticism was like. Christianity prior to the Enlightenment was no better than Islam, and in some cases worse. That’s roughly a thousand years of theocratic ignorance thanks to Christianity. Thanks, but no thanks.
Reading the early critics of Christianity is like hearing a contemporary voice of reason. If you are interested in how Christians were perceived by the Romans, read the writings of Emperor Julian, Celsus, Pliny the Younger, Galen, and Porphyry. For example, the philosopher Celsus (whose writings were destroyed by Christians, but are known to us today through copied fragments) had these observation to make in the 2nd century:
“The Jews say, Come to us ye who are sinners, ye who are fools or children, ye who are miserable, and ye shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven: the rogue, the thief, the burglar, the poisoner, the despoiler of temples and tombs, these are their proselytes. Jesus, they say, was sent to save sinners; was he not sent to help those who have kept themselves free from sin? They pretend that God will save the unjust man if he repents and humbles himself. The just man who has held steady from the cradle in the ways of virtue He will not look upon.”
“Above all Christians are disloyal, and every church is an illicit collegium, an insinuation deadly at any time, but especially so under Marcus Aurelius. Why cannot Christians attach themselves to the great philosophic and political authorities of the world?”
“More and more the myths put about by these Christians are better known than the doctrines of the philosophers. Who has not heard the fable of Jesus’ birth from a virgin or the stories of his crucifixion and resurrection? … But the point is this, and the Christians would do well to heed it: One ought first to follow reason as a guide before accepting any since anyone who believes without testing a doctrine is certain to be deceived…. Just as the charlatans of the cults take advantage of the simpleton’s lack of education to lead him around by the nose, so too with the Christian teachers: they do not want to give or receive reasons for what they believe. Their favorite expressions are ‘Do not ask questions, just believe!’ and: ‘Your faith will save you!’ ‘The wisdom of the world,’ they say, ‘is evil; to be simple is to be good.’ If only they would undertake to answer my question — which I do not ask as one who is trying to understand their beliefs (there being little to understand!). But they refuse to answer, and indeed discourage asking questions of any sort.”
“The idea of an Incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dunghill, croaking and squeaking, ‘For our sakes was the world created.’”
Great post, standing. Celsus’ and Porphyry’s critiques of Christianity were devastating, which is why the early church “fathers” went on a rampage and destroyed all the pro-pagan/anti-Christian literature they could find after they gained official recognition and Roman state support under Constantine.
Great argument standing, yet the majority of Christians have been left piously standing after reading your yawn-worthy deconstruction. When are simpletons like yourself going to realize that you can’t argue the faith out of someone? Have you ever stopped to think that people develop faith because pompous Charlatans like yourself FAIL to explain existence at a micro and macro level and thus have FAILED to acquire the true meaning of life. So by your inadequacies have the masses turned to fairytales. Until you can answer the mysteries of life, people will laugh, such as I have, at your critique of Christianity because you fail to take into account the soakingly subjective nature of this world. You can be no more certain that Christianity exists than doesnt exist. What is a fairytale when no one can define reality thus giving life to any and all fairytales? Please enlighten this community oh wise one, what is the meaning of life and what is the philosophy you live your life by so that we can all stand amazed at your God like wisdom and discretion.
Prior to the Enlightenment, we non-Jewish Whites ruled ourselves. We had not yet become debt slaves overseen by government middlemen taxing interest for the Rothschild central banks. Before the so-called “Enlightenment,” our social media had not yet been hijacked to dispense black legends about our heroic past. Christendom still retained the manhood required to defend herself from from Middle Eastern-African subversion and invasion.
Yes like much like contemporary “enlightened” propaganda, your posted fragments utilize blatant falsehoods for emotional appeals to blind pride. Such falsehoods are easily refuted by logic applied to the genuine facts.
The Early Christian system of sacraments and education from baptism to marriage to last rites was far more refined and effective at inculcating life-long virtue than decadent Roman paganism.
LOL. The ancient ECO-piety is indistinguishable from modern liberalism. Elitist tree-huggers are divided against the bulk of sturdy White Christians by Jewish propaganda. There really is nothing new under the sun.
“why should the human race think itself so superior”
I would like to believe in and partake in some of the comforts of a personal God I can pray to who will help me with all problems, but it has always struck me as incredibly convenient for us to come up with a religion that just happens to, in effect, allow us to live forever. Also, life on our entire planet could be erased tomorrow by some random asteroid, but I can pray to God to help relieve a terrible pain in my left big toe. Hard not to see this as human macro-narcissism. Sometimes all this seems to be made possible by the fact that so many people believe these same things that it allows everyone to enable everyone else: “Many millions of intelligent people agree with me on angels, everlasting life and the like–so it MUST be true!”
Getting back to blacklisting, I recently saw about a two-year-old interview with Terry Gilliam, of ‘Monty Python’ fame and later directorial activities. He was talking about growing up in America, and how McCarthyism and the KKK had an absolute stranglehold. And I’m asking myself, “In Medicine Lake, Minnesota?!”
He has been in 10 films since The Passion of the Christ. I would not consider that “blacklisted”.
We’ve been over this before, for heaven’s sake. Caviezel’s been in nothing but independent productions, with low or essentially no distribution—mostly the straight-to-cable sort. (I saw one of them, low-budget Canadian all the way. He and Colm Feore were quite good within the constraints of a Hollywood-quality [i.e., piss-poor] script.) Besides, he never described himself as having been blacklisted.
Why go out of your way to post a comment that makes you sound as if you are getting a check from Abe Foxman for doing the Tribe’s work?
Mr. Murdough: I apologize to you for the ad hominem character of the last sentence of my above reply. Since I hate seeing other commenters make irrelevantly snide digs, the least I can do is practice what I preach. I regret that in this instance I didn’t.
Of course, I stand by the fact-based remainder of my comment, and I respectfully call upon you to reconsider the accuracy of yours.
And yet, Christians and conservatives are the biggest supporters of Jewish power. Go figure.
Yeah, the Democratic Party is a bastion of white identity! And it’s Christians and conservatives who support all the pornographic filth spewed at us in the guise of art, culture, and entertainment.
Not what I said. Obviously neither Democrats nor Republicans are pro-White. But I think it’s hard to dispute that Christians and conservatives are more pro-Jew than secularists and liberals. Look at the intense conservative support for Israel, the (evangelical, at least) Christian view of Jews as “God’s chosen”, conservative infatuation with Joe Lieberman, etc.
Meanwhile critics of “the Israel lobby” (i.e. Jewish power in America) are almost all on the left. Jews view the Tea Party as good for Israel (which it definitely is), but worry about “the new anti-Semitism” from the left.
Anti-Semitism on the left? Please elaborate?
I agree Christians are currently in love with the Israeli’s, but it won’t hold up. I just tell Christians that we are God’s chosen people, because jews reject God’s only son. Plus, why would God let an atheist like Hitler kill 6 million of his chosen people, while sparing the monuments in Paris from bombs?
Have you ever stopped to think that people develop faith because pompous Charlatans like yourself…
A Christian calling someone a “charlatan” is probably one of the funnies things I’ve ever read.
Well, when you’re used to Larry David and Bill Maher…
Z.O.G. remember when your throwing your tantrum,Jesus Loves You.
Yes, Jesus loves me, and he wants to have a “personal relationship” with me.
ZOG passing judgement on anyone is the funniest things I’ve ever read. What a lil whiney baby.
A Christian calling someone a “charlatan” is probably one of the funnies things I’ve ever read.
The traditional social doctrine of the Church – as distinct from the secular-humanism touted by modernists – provided the basis for the high point of Western culture: in particular the guilds, concepts of the just price and opposition to usury. Things fell apart with the Reformation, Cromwell, the French Revolution… the antecedents of bolshevism spawned by the secret societies that the Church until comparatively recently opposed.
Why was Vatican II so important for certain Jewish interests? (See Look Magazine: How the Jews Changed Catholic Thinking). Why is it that Catholicism seems the most ridiculed, especially on Jewish produced sit-coms, which often have both subtle and overt sneers at the Church? An eposide of Larry David for e.g., where he accidentally splashes urine on a wall hanging of Jesus, and the owner thinks it’s a miracle; the image manifestating tears.
Several salient points about Jesus relevent to the present state of our civilization are that he is an archetypical hero against materialism, and the Pharisees.
The USA was founded on a dichotomy of Freemasons and Puritans: equally scabrous. That it why it is – culturally – such a scourge upon the world. I agree with Yockey and with Hillaire Belloc (Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe), that Gothic Christianity was synonymous with the West’s High culture. It has availed us little benefit since ongoing centuries of the Church’s retreat and internal subversion.
Because liberalism and secularism have served our people so well? Don’t make me choke. At least Christianity supported us during the height of our culture while liberalism has supported our declince. You do the math.
Dear Snoozer: Have you perchance posted your reply under the wrong comment? You and K R Bolton sure look to me as if you are on the same page.
The liberal, secularist position—which, clearly, Mr. Bolton deplores as much as you do (and as I do, too)—owes its very existence to Puritans and Freemasons, the latter group, of course, being a notorious stalking-horse for Judaic subversion.
The bottom line, I think, is that we are reaping the harvest of our own history. Our European ancestors—the French and Spanish no less than the English, Dutch, Germans, and Swedes—planted an extraordinary amount of good wheat on this soil, but some among them also sowed tares. That is to say, the tares were there from the very start of the Republic and indeed well before its start. In the fullness of time the tares came to choke the wheat. Working to separate them is what those that write for and comment on this site are doing—or ought to be doing.
If White Christians base the racial defence of our people on the supposed wishes of a god then I’m afraid all is lost.
@Al Ross- So instead of putting our faith in a God figure we’re supposed put our faith in man, I mean ZOG? The creation is supposed to put its faith in another creation, rather than a creator figure? WOW. Until man learns to rule himself and preserve himself, the masses will be forced to worship a God figure. LMAO You should read Machiavelli on putting one’s faith in a Godless man. The founding fathers were by majority Deists who saw the inherent need for Christianity in order to serve, protect and sustain society. But of course you know better than them right? The only outcome of a Godless society is communism, which eventually succumbs to its own harsh rhetoric. The more secular, anti-christian,and liberal Europe has become the more alien white people feel in their own homeland. Europeans have also lost cultural identity and individual freedoms due to Liberalism and secularism. The belief in “nothing,” as evidenced in academia’s addiction to Post-Modern rhetoric, has led to the admittance of a contradictory muslim class which will unify against the fragmented liberal white Europeans. So yea, lets all start believing in redemption via a cult personality, the hallowed path of a Godless man.
Praise Jesus!
@ZOG amen brother!
@ZOG.. Why do you fear Christianity so much? I think someone’s a little jealous. So sorry Christians stand in the way of a communist take-over for you and your tribe-ilk to openly run us as the elite commi-ruling class. Why don’t you be honest with the folks and admit that you hate spirituality as obedience to a God figure means disobedience to the ZION run state. Communism is your religion, why not openly stand for it?
Once again, the only argument that you supposed “pro-White” Christards have against someone who exposes the fraudulent nature of your Jewish mystery cult is to call them a Jew.
Although, I guess I shouldn’t mind. When you resort to calling someone a Jew, it’s basically a tacit admission that you’ve lost the argument and can’t come up with anything relevant to say.
Not much has changed in 1800 years.
I disagree with the argument in the last paragraph, though. It’s obvious human beings have faculties which set us apart from all the other animals on this planet. Frogs didn’t put a frog on the moon.
If human intelligence and self-consciousness aren’t accidental by-products of evolution as the Dawkins crowd alleges, then the only other possibility is some sort of intelligent creator.
Pierre de Craon “I can’t help wondering, too, what Mr. Erpelding has done for the Occidental cause that begins to compare with what Caviezel has done. What sacrifices of worldly success has he made? How do they compare with Caviezel’s?
“what Caviezel has done.”
You are overawed by actors. What actor wouldn’t want to play Jesus Christ in a huge and high-profile film? My expectation would be that the actor did not believe Gibson’s warning, if the story is real. And my guess is that had he believed it, he would not have played the part. He played the part because he saw it as a great career opportunity guaranteed to give him immortality, and highly likely, other parts. He probably was, like most West Coast Gentiles, unaware of the extent of Jewish power or their real attitudes about Christianity. I trust few actors to be heroes.
The fad of adopting children from other races instead of having their own and propagating themselves is indeed deplorable, not to mention disgusting. (Oh, and also outrageous in these times, besides a form of Righteous Grandstanding that will end in their own dissatisfaction with family). Oh, and did I mention it’s cheap, and unholistic.
Yeah, it needed to be said, and I’m glad Mr. Erpelding even if you didn’t dig his word for it. The actor doesn’t have as much sympathy from me, knowing that. (I can even imagine that he was trying desperately to gain points with the Jews. A White actress adopting an African baby guarantees her at least 10 major magazine covers straightaway and for weeks.)
“Absent the inclusion of any supporting evidence to the effect that the Caviezels deliberately chose to adopt Chinese infants when they could have gotten Caucasian ones,”
Please. You actually think race can be a chance outcome in adoptions? (My mind is reeling at your post.)
“…what this mind reels at is the rank foolishness of the charge of cuckoldry.
Mr. Erpelding’s charge is already proved. “Cuckold” refers to the cuckoo’s habit of laying its eggs in other birds’ nests. The word refers, at base, to the mixing of families in an unfortunate or desultory manner. The matter of the eggs, in the words derivation, makes Mr. Erpelding’s use of the term even more fitting than usual, if outside your experience.
Words can be fun. I do think your reaction to his valid point about the Chinese babies, Pierre de Crao, was a rankly overcharged barge.
“One would think the term was more well known, perhaps he meant to say…
The word “cuckoldry” used by the sharp Mr. Erpelding is apt and a canny for describing the Hollywood fashion of adopting children of other races.
“You are overawed by actors.” No, I’m not.
Nothing else you write is worth commenting upon.
In fact, we need words in this war and are often missing them. His use of cuckoldry for the trans-race adoption fetish is a real contribution. Mel Gibson’s movie did not create a revival of Christianity. I heard that the movie was horribly graphic, and I consider that approach to movie-making to be anti-spiritual. Explicitness and extremity usually deaden. My guess is that the whole idea of Christ’s crucifixion lost some heart weight in modern youth because of that movie. (Often what’s unseen weighs heavier on the mind, just as the better moviemakers get a stronger effect from leaving certain things unseen or barely seen.) Maybe Gibson even contributed to the rise of horrific soul-deadening gore in movies?
Maybe, in fact, Mr. Erpelding just did more to save the White peoples by his use of “cuckoldry” (for errant baby-adopting) — than Mel Gibson will ever do.
Side note: I had a daughter who worked as a waitress at a very exclusive Beverly Hills restaurant, run by a Russian. Her first night, she had to pour a drink for Oliver Stone. After that, seeing her casual friendliness and ease, her boss asked her: “Do you know who that is.” She said, wide-eyed, “No.” He put his face in his hand and shook his head. In course of time she had to act properly around Arnold Schwartzenegger and his secret service men (she inappropriately chatted with one), and a great many known Hollywood actors and directors. Her 2nd night on the job, she phone me in tears, saying: “I can’t work here, dad. These people are sleazy!”
(In that particular sentence “these people” stands in for the name of a powerful and well-known director who’s name I won’t say.)
There is little impressive about Hollywood tycoons or Hollywood actors. But it is an impressive work to refer to “Brangelina” as a cuckolded family. And that actor was not Jesus.
Mr. Lee, your kind words are greatly appreciated. I note a troubling tendency in modern society to worship children and their activities. Most modern entertainment seems to revolve around childish pursuits. The actor playing let’s pretend, the sports star playing ball, and the music star making loud repetitive noise have been put on pedestals as role models. In past societies, these people were known to possess low moral character. Role models they were not.
The survival of our people depends on adults doing adult things, not worshiping Narcissists who won’t grow up.
Kindest Regards.
thanks for this article, it’s as me and my wife long suspected. we knew they would blacklist him for this.
The City University of New York (CUNY), has withdrawn its offer of an honorary degree to the award-winning Jewish playwright Tony Kushner by bowing to its Jewish trustee Jeffrey Wiesenfeld’s campaign. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, an investment banker and former Republican Party aide, claims that Kushner had described the removal of Palestinians in order to create Israel as an act of ethnic cleansing and supported a boycott of the state.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/lobby-lectures-turkey-on-hate-and-bigotary/
A worthless Jewish playwright whose contribution to the gaiety of nations consists preeminently in the celebration of faggotry is denied an honorary degree by a tax-funded center of Jewish propaganda and brainwashing through the efforts of a rich Jewish banker of perhaps even less inherent distinction.
This story would rise to the level of news only if CUNY next offered the honorary degree to Kevin MacDonald, Bradley Smith, or Mel Gibson.
For the Record: remarks about Jim Caviezel (above) made using my name (Mark Green) are not my words. Please watch out for subversive impersonators! -Mark Green
Mr. Green: I for one am glad to hear it.
I had thought that this site, like many others, had inbuilt mechanisms to prevent duplication of screen names. Unless Mr. Green’s comment above is false and he is trying to mislead everyone for some Byzantine purpose—I don’t believe for a second that it is anything of the sort—TOO’s moderator and webmaster should consider installing those protective mechanisms.
Nancy Pelosi is a Roman Catholic of italian ancestery. Her maiden name was D’Alessandro. Her Father was a Maryland congressman and mayor of Baltimore. her Father was an honary member of the Klu Klux Klan, because any Maryland politician inthe 1930′s, 40′s and fifties had to be in the Klan if he wanted to be elected.
D’Alessandro was only an honary member of the Klan because he was a Catholic and at the time Catholic and Jews were not allowed to be members of the Klan.
Nancy attended Trinity college, a catholic women’s college in DC where she met her husband who went to Georgetown.
Ms D’Alessandro-Pelosi is like her Father, a politician who will do anything for votes. The Catholic D’ Alessandro joined the KKK when the KKK advocated the expulsion of Catholics from the United States.
Pelosi has done the bidding of black criminal radicals, White Jewish communist radicals, radical gays, radical environmentalists and animal worshippers etc all her political life.
If an anti black-asian-jewish-gay Nazi revival population took over San Francisco Nancy Pelosi would switch with every change in the electorate.
Back in the 1920′s Cecil De Mille produced and directed “King of Kings” a life of Christ movie. The ADL and other Jewish organizations went totally beserk claiming the movie would lead to anti semitism (what doesn’t?)
There was a major attempt to prevent the movie from being made. After the movie made vast amounts of movie and proved to be one of the most popular movies of the era, Jews tried to destroy the careers of everyone involved, including DeMille. It didn’t work.
The jewish entertainment community considers every non-Jew in the entertainment industry to be “anti-semitic”. In other words, Jews want the entertainment industry to be a profitable closed shop for Jews only.
Mari: The only fly in the ointment of your commentary is that DeMille himself was, by Jewish standards, fully Jewish himself. Though his father was a Christian, his mother was 100 percent genetically Jewish. There is no sufficient evidence to support the belief that the Jewish masters of Hollywood could not have effectively marginalized or even destroyed DeMille had they wished to do so.
Thus, the DeMille case precisely parallels, not the persecution of Jim Caviezel or Mel Gibson, but the Kushner/Wiesenfeld tempest in a teapot. It was nothing more than a lovers’ quarrel.
The Board of Directors of Cannes Film Festival have condemned and banned Lars von Trier from the annual European awards festival for making such ‘anti-Semitic’ remarks which Lars von Trier claims were made as a joke. He has released a tepid apology saying he was sorry if he “hurt someone” with his remarks and said he is not anti-Semitic or racially prejudiced and is not, in fact, a Nazi.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/lars-von-trier-and-the-jewish-lobby/
It’s always been my assumption that for an actor to “make it” in Hollywood, he has to be an exceptionally ambitious and amoral person. No different, really, from what it takes to succeed as a politician in a liberal democracy.
It’s no secret that actresses used to have to spread their legs on the casting couch in order to get roles. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same now applies to male actors, seeing how many homosexuals there are in the Hollywood power structure of today.
It’s inconceivable to me that any actor could make it in Hollywood without understanding that Hollywood is jewish.
It makes more sense now that I know the etymology.