Julien Langella’s Catholic and Identitarian

Catholic & Identitarian: From Protest to Reconquest
Julien Langella
Arktos, 2020.

“The absence of anger is a sign of the absence of reason.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas

For better or worse, I’m fairly certain there hasn’t been a Catholic in my family tree since the Reformation, and I remain unsure about a strict definition of “Identitarianism.” It was with an ambivalent but open mind, then, that I recently read Julien Langella’s Catholic & Identitarian, a furious lament on the present condition of France and a firm apologetic for ethnic activism among Christians. Such a text is surely needed. In May 2016 I wrote a scathing essay on Christian attitudes to, and activism on behalf of, mass migration, prompted by the foot-kissing antics of Pope Francis, described in the essay as “the personification of a sick glorification of humility and weakness.” Although I focused for the most part on the Catholic Church, I took aim at all denominations with the demand that “Those who describe themselves as Christian White advocates need to become more vocal in articulating a more ethnocentric or culture-based theology that their co-religionists will find convincing. It is simply not enough to hope that Nationalists can achieve something politically and then come to the rescue of the churches.” Julien Langella, one of the co-founders of Génération Identitaire and whose text first appeared in French in 2017, has provided an admirable response to this problem that will appeal to, and educate, readers of all religious backgrounds and none.

Is this a Catholic book? Yes and no. Religious elements of the text are, thankfully in my opinion, framed as a backdrop to the primary concern: the French are facing the gradual but imminent replacement of their ethnic group in their own homeland. Langella’s central ambition in the book is therefore to explain and condemn this Great Replacement while stressing how Catholicism (and other important facets of the traditional and ancestral life of the French) could and should be used as an underpinning for a resurgent French “Identitarianism.” Langella helpfully avoids some of the clichés of the “TradCath” social media scene by demonstrating an impressive grasp of historical Catholic literature as well as a mature and wide-ranging understanding of many of the contemporary political, ideological, and economic currents that have combined against the European peoples. Most important of all, he is honest in his criticisms of the prevailing attitudes of the Catholic Church on mass migration and ethnicity, devoting one section of the book to a dissection of Pope Francis himself. Unashamedly local in concern, yet avoiding a parochialism that ignores the need for Europeans to unite on some level, Catholic & Identitarian is the most impassioned warning and call to action that I’ve read since Guillaume Faye’s blistering Ethnic Apocalypse (2019).

The book is divided into five chapters, each of which is subdivided into lesser sections. Some of the latter are just a few paragraphs long, which gives the book a sense of fast pacing despite the heavy subject matter often under discussion. The writing style is punchy and straightforward, and mercifully devoid of jargon. The text opens with an interesting Preface from Abbot Guillaume de Tanoüarn, who has previously made headlines in France for resisting the police-enforced demolition of churches. Abbot Guillaume uses his Preface to make the moral and spiritual case for ethnocentrism among Europeans, commenting that “the crisis we face is a moral crisis, and because of its rootedness, because what is at stake is the identity of each of us, one can even say that, deep down, it is also a spiritual crisis.” Individualism is regarded as a cancer, because the common good, or communicatio, of a nation is “not founded on individuals who are magically stuck together, but on families who, in the Christian model of society which prevailed in the West, represent a union of two sexes in “one flesh,” according to the law of love.” Against the organic community, “it has become fashionable in the media to question identity, to stigmatise attachment to soil and traditions. It is almost as if any prior spiritual wealth, anything greater than the Individual, has become suspicious, or has transformed into some new bizarre metaphysical paradigm.” Abbot Guillaume laments the arrival of a perception that individual “freedom encounters no other limit, no other boundary than the liberty of others in a world where neither good nor evil has the slightest meaning.”

Abbot Guillaume dragged from St Rita church, Paris by riot police in 2016

For Abbot Guillaume, “identity is inherited,” and “among the facts that condition individuals, ethnic origin has its place. … There obviously exist different ethnic origins.” He pours scorn on “the ideology of mandatory miscegenation, which includes an infatuation with quotas and the compulsive glorification of diversity on the “American model,” for which one carefully fails to set limits and ignores in particular the violence it often entails,” and endorses the message of Langella that “miscegenation does not enrich; it impoverishes.” The Abbot closes his Preface with the wish that “the ideology of globalism, as all ideologies, will one day explode like a bubble in response to the urgency of natural politics.”

Julien Langella’s brief introductory chapter sets the scene. Catholicism is on the decline in France, and rather than being incremental, “the collapse is brutal.” More than just a lack of faith and adherence, French society has turned radically to open effronteries to the historical faith: “working on Sundays, homosexual parody of marriage, legalisation of euthanasia, consecration of abortion as a fundamental right, trafficking of women’s bodies through surrogate mothers etc.” The religious decline has occurred alongside massive demographic change, with 20% of the French population now of foreign origin. Langella makes the argument that “De-Christianisation and the Great Replacement go hand in hand,” with Western spirituality, if it exists at all, now being replaced by “an obsession with ‘well-being,’ a kind of Westernized Buddhism” (which I have demonstrated elsewhere is heavily Jewish) and “the cult of the god Consumerism.” Against this spiritual and moral decline, Langella proposes a militant Catholicism typified by the statements of Dom Gérard Calvet, founder of the Sainte Madeleine du Barroux abbey in Le Barroux, who declared his violent antipathy to “the globalist heresy” that wants to “simultaneously eradicate the faith and dissolve the people into a consumerist blob.” Langella asserts that “multicultural societies, sinking ever more each into violence, are doomed to perish,” and celebrates the fact that Catholic voters in France are increasingly turning to ethnocentrism, voting for the Front National in higher percentages than the national average. Langella argues that these voters and activists should gather under the banner of “Identitarianism.”

Why Identitarianism? Langella explains that “nationalist” is a tainted word in France that has “never won general support.” While there is “no academic definition” of Identitarianism because “it does not correspond to any specific school of thought or specific doctrine,” it amounts to an “awareness”: “multicultural societies are multi-conflictual societies, and the homogeneity of a nation determines its survival.” He adds, “to be Identitarian is to reject the commercial standardisation of way of life at the global level, immigration through non-European settlement, and the increasing Islamisation of our streets.” All of which can be summed up in Langella’s stark statement: “If the French disappear, then France dies. … Globalism is a culture of death, and the Identitarian struggle is a march for life.” The introduction closes by making the claim that Christian charity and the struggle for identity are not contradictory:

To claim to accommodate all the misery of the world is not charity. At best, it is weakness and laxity. At worst, it is a calculation in favour of the interest of those who profit from servile labour and a cheap market. The foreigner also has a homeland and a right to live well there, a right to rootedness. Therefore, to accept an uncontrolled flow of immigrants into our country is not the solution to the miseries of Africa and the Middle East. On the contrary, it gives a moral guarantee to those who would transform these unfortunate people into urban slaves. Between the false generosity of pro-immigration lobbies and the cynical “compassion” of certain shady employers, there lies a world of hypocrisy.

The book’s first, and most Catholic, chapter, “Catholic and Indentitarian, Universal and Rooted,” is a prolonged argument against those who have asserted that “total open borders is the only possible Christian position on the subject.” Langella describes the “twisting” of scriptures to defend such an agenda as an act of “moral terrorism,” “perverse ideological manipulation,” and “an idolatry of humanity, a new golden calf, rather than faith in the incarnate God.” For Langella, and the many Catholic thinkers he cites, unity in the Church is not equivalent to the “absurd relativism which prides itself in loving everyone, while it despises everything by placing them on the same level under the pretext of equality.” For Dom Gérard Calvet, such an idea is an example of “ancient Christian virtues twisted into foolishness,” while Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, once wrote that “Man absolutely cannot by himself bring about world unity, for division is imposed upon him by the sovereign will of God.” Both were echoing the sentiments of Pope Pius XII, who declared that it was not the position of the Church “to attack or underestimate the particular characteristics that each people, with a jealous piety and an understandable pride, retains and considers as a precious heritage. Her purpose is the supernatural unity in universal love felt and practiced, and not in an exclusively exterior, superficial, and thus debilitating, uniformity.”

Identitarian activist and father-of-three: Julien Langella

While Langella proves himself very capable of selecting some choice Traditionalist quotes, he is equally at pains to admit that “certain clergy — priests, bishops, and even cardinals — are among the first to uphold an unnatural Manicheism that opposes the Gospel to patriotism.” These clerics, spouting “nonsense” and endlessly agitating against the Front National, empty France “of much of her substance, reducing her to a collection of principles, at best “Christian values,” which is to say welcoming migrants, while “remaining more indulgent with the politics supportive of the legalisation of divorce, contraception, and abortion.” Citing Pius XII, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas, Langella makes the argument that Christian charity must always begin at home, in “an order established by God.” In fact, Langella posits that “National preference is a fundamental Christian virtue.” What follows is a brief but interesting historical tour of Catholic mystics and clergy who undertook war against Islamic incursions, with Langella concluding that “defense of the homeland and defense of the Faith are a single entity in the face of the invading Muslim.”

The chapter closes with a survey of the facts demonstrating the reality of race, and the assertion that Catholicism cannot, and should not, deny it. Incorporating everything from Edmund Burke to Pope Pius XI and the findings of modern genetic studies, it’s a powerful apologetic for prejudice, with Langella asserting that “refusing prejudice is a moral blackmail, a weapon of intimidation against Europeans who are disgusted with invasion-migration. … In forbidding us from exercising the virtue of prejudice, the globalists want to force us to consent to our own disappearance under the wave of the Great Replacement.” He closes with a statement from Benedict XVI: “Nations should never accept to witness the disappearance of what made their own identity.”

The text’s second chapter, “The Religion of Miscegenation,” largely departs from spiritual discussion and context, and provides a very interesting exploration of multiculturalism that will provide food for thought for Whites of all religious persuasions —or none. For Langella, “Gender theory and multiculturalism have the same philosophical origin: liberal narcissism. … To fight gender theory and to ignore multiculturalism is totally contradictory.” The chapter moves on to a lengthy exploration of the nature and extent of miscegenation propaganda in France, which includes a national campaign poster promoting breastfeeding featuring blonde women with Black infants pressed to their chests. Langella describes this phenomenon as a “cult of miscegenation” embraced at all levels of society but promoted especially by hostile elites who have ensured that “what was formerly a purely private choice has become a virtue in and of itself.” Langella cites as one example the Jew Bernard-Henri Levy who once wrote: “Everything that’s local, berets, butter, bagpipes, in short anything French, is foreign to us, even repugnant. … I like race-mixing and I hate nationalism.” Langella is blunt in his response: “Miscegenation is a war. By its obsessive nature, it’s even a jihad.” He then describes the links between globalism and the military-industrial complex, arguing that “military imperialism is the enforcement arm for the globalist project, that of a world where the United States and its lackeys can behave like ghetto rats on an international level.” These elites comprise a “nomadic oligarchy” that treats Europeans like sub-humans “and the rest of the world like replacement livestock.”

One of the book’s great strengths is its focus on the role of international finance in advancing globalism and multiculturalism. International money power demands that the peoples of the earth become “an inexhaustible reserve of servile workers and compulsive buyers.” Multiculturalism, “a weapon of mass subversion,” is “indispensable to the good order of a consumer society: without identity, without fixed landmarks, men are empty inside, so they try to fill this void with material goods.” Nations composed of interlinked and rooted families are inferior, in marketing logic, to nations of transient homosexual couples with two incomes and no children. Against the rise of consumerism, Langella calls for a resurgence in activism in areas that are now seen as old-fashioned — like protest against work on Sundays. Pointing to the number of days off work during the Middle Ages (around 190 a year) due to feast days and religious events, Langella argues that reclaiming even one day of the week from consumerism would be a foothold in the struggle that would at least make Catholic activists appear “more credible.” As things stand, Western youth are in chaotic rebellion against all forms of Tradition since “Capitalism encourages young people to rebel against all authority except one: money.” He closes the chapter by remarking:

The arrival of this liquid society, composed of human beings with barely any willpower, is the anthropological sine qua non for the development of the liberal economy. … This is why, everywhere they can, with the complicity of their Left-wing proxies in education and culture, the hyper-nomads propagate the ideology of multiculturalism. And when people like the Serbs try to resist, “humanitarian” bombs rain down upon them. For as a last resort, there always remains armed force to impose through fire and tears what they could not achieve with advertising and moral lessons.

The book’s powerful third chapter, “The Migration Hurricane and the Church,” offers an unflinching look at the Catholic response to the waves of mass migration into Europe that has accelerated since 2015. Langella stresses that we are witnessing an ongoing colonisation of Europe, “for this is indeed an immigration of settlement.” The author posits three main causes of the migration wave: “globalist ideology as a consequence of the Enlightenment and Jacobin Republicanism; the need for a servile labour force, encouraged by the liberal desire to abolish borders; and the dependency promoted by the welfare state.” Faced with this trifecta, and in a pattern witnessed throughout the West, the French “Right” “has always been the first to betray the French people. Large corporate interest in cheap labour and international Marxism go hand in hand to promote a world without borders where the rule of money can extend without limit.” This combined power has been catastrophic, with one ancient village in the Loire region consisting of 188 inhabitants subjected to a dumping of 100 immigrants (in effect, a total destruction of the life of the village) in the name of “population distribution” to areas “without housing shortages.” In “disgusting displays of cynicism,” Big Capital has been propagandizing such new values while crushing native employment, with Uber running campaigns to collect clothing and toys for illegal immigrants while ruining local cab drivers, and Starbucks announcing their intention to employ 10,000 refugees. For Langella,

This is the typical liberal double-game: on one hand, fracture the workers by exacerbating competition among them, and on the other, acquire a brand image in supporting the current humanitarian cause. It’s a win-win for them in terms of profitability and moral reputation.

Following this discussion is a very disturbing exploration of anti-White activity in France, culminating in an exploration of the rape of French women by migrants. Some of the stories are among the most horrific that I’ve encountered, and there’s no benefit in my repeating them here. The predictable result of this endless ethnic crime has been a form of White flight, and the rise of ethnic segregation in France. As Langella puts it, “You can eliminate land borders all you want; ethnic borders will remain. … We are witnessing genuine ethnic division on French territory.” Langella, to his great credit, always retains a grander vision, and is always at pains to avoid degenerating into a Counter-Jihad caricature, which to be honest is something that I, in my ignorance of Langella and his activism, expected prior to actually reading his text. This broader vision is exemplified when the author finally reaches the subject of Islamic terrorism toward the middle of the chapter, where he concludes: “Islamism is the tree that hides the forest: the true cause of the attack in Paris was immigration.” I couldn’t agree more.

From here Langella moves to a discussion of Church attitudes to mass migration. Setting out his case, Langella argues that the Church “does not have a political program, but she offers a moral framework.” The Church’s record in activism on behalf of refugees and migrants is, however, very mixed. In 1914, Pope Benedict XV instituted the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, but this was primarily in response to the Armenian genocide, and was not “a justification of immigration in itself.” A “migrant” in the ecclesiastical language of the time, was always assumed to be fleeing genuine persecution, rather than being an immigrant in a general sense. Over time, argues Abbot Guillaume, the Church has passed from a teaching of duty of charity to the oppressed to the “ideological value of immigration as an absolute.” For Abbot Guillaume and Langella, this is a heresy that essentially posits immigration as “a trampoline for the Second Coming,” and is “profoundly anti-Christian.” Both point to the “universal destination of goods” as “the foundation of the Catholic critique of capitalism.” This idea always posits that social actions must always take place within the context of uplifting the common good. This “Common Good,” argues Langella, should be the compass of political action and is infinitely more important than “diversity.” He cites Pope John Paul II as saying the right to emigrate “should be regulated because applying this right in an uncontrolled way can be dangerous and harmful to the common good of the communities welcoming the migrants.” Pope Benedict XVI, meanwhile, asserted that “States have the right to regulate migratory flows and to defend their borders.”

Langella then moves to a discussion of “the elusive Pope Francis.” Langella is probably correct in stressing that due to media distortions, especially the media’s desire to portray Francis as a Leftist Pope with relaxed attitudes on gays and open arms for migrants, a full picture of the current Pope’s ideological positions is more difficult than usual to discern. That being said, Langella critiques Francis for being intentionally ambiguous, and for “offering to journalists on a platter” an ambiguity that has led to him becoming “the darling of the intellectual Left.” Langella further criticizes the Pope for “improperly appealing to emotion, and more often in favour of illegal immigrants rather than those who pay the price of accepting the migrants, though no one ever asked if the latter wanted to do so.” The author also sees validity in claims that Francis has shown “indifference towards the victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants” and “a certain disdain for Europeans as well as a kind of preference for the migrant.” Langella is clear:

Pope Francis is more than ever a pope of images and gestures. He knows the media impact of a good phrase, a good word. The Pope likes to disarm his interlocutors. Not to detract from his refreshing spontaneity, but we have to recognise that he is a “good customer,” as they say in the trade.

Faced with such a situation, Langella offers common sense to his fellow Catholics: “The Pope is not infallible when he discusses social questions. … We can — with prudence — criticise the political speech of the Pope if it hurts the common good.” Closing the chapter, Langella appeals to the writings of a host of cardinals that support the right to strong borders and oppose the globalist project of mass migration. In the meantime, Langella suggests waiting for a shift in leadership rather than encouraging division in the Church, opining that “the best way to save the position of the Pope is to refrain from commenting on it.” I don’t agree, but then I’m not Catholic and I will concede that Langella may have a better appreciation of the situation.

The fourth, and in my view most interesting, chapter of the book is titled “What To Do?” As you might expect, it’s a program of action. The first step is to attempt to change terminology, or the interpretation of it. Langella stresses that “migrant/refugee” is a piece of terminology designed to inculcate sympathy where it is not deserved. What most of these foreigners want is not safety but “comfort and modernity. What they wanted was superfluous shiny objects.” Europeans must strip themselves of sentimentalism, of a love devoid of truth. For Langella, most Black and Middle Eastern migrants are mere cowards seeking luxury, and this is the vision of these foreigners that he believes must become endemic among Europeans if a genuine sea-change in attitudes is to take place.

The next step is the return to fundamental notions of homeland as “a bridge between God and men, a gateway between Heaven and earth.” This ecological outlook locates Man firmly inside his habitat, in opposition to liberal anthropocentrism which places Man above all, and in opposition also to “Deep Ecology” (see the work of Pentti Linkola) that posits Man as an animal no higher than any other. In Langella’s view of a Christian ecology, Man’s culture and traditions and his age-old links to the soil are as worthy of preservation as the habitat itself, reversing the trend of deranged leftists to campaign on behalf of endangered squirrels while entire villages are handed over to foreign peoples.

The third step is the fostering of genuine European unity based on common ethnic and cultural feeling rather than on strictly economic and military interests. What Langella proposes is a “European policy of rootedness” resembling the Visigrad Group (Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) which together has been described as “the most secure region on the continent.”

The fourth step is a reversal of the endless quest for increased GDP which has contributed to an “evident form of moral underdevelopment.” Langella is opposed to international finance and posits a return to forms of corporate social financial order resembling the medieval guilds based on local self-sufficiency and accountability. Explaining this turn to Localism, Langella explains:

It is not the extreme Left-wing globalists who are inciting migratory flows, it’s not even the No Border types who help illegal immigrants to cross the borders. It’s global industrial capitalism. The sole alternative to global uprooting is localism. We don’t need to make everyone in the world a farmer, but we do need to allow people to have food sovereignty, which is also economic and political sovereignty. In other words, we must give them back their dignity. This is the best antidote to uprooting.

Finally, Langella moves to the ethnically foreign population residing in France. He asserts that assimilation is an unachievable myth, and that France is not merely an “idea” but a biological reality that is under threat. The only real response, he argues, is forceful repatriation. Here there is no room for sentimentality: “Mass immigration is a cancer. … It is a profound injustice. … It’s a collective kidnapping. It’s murder. They’re killing us.” Repatriation should begin with a return to the law of blood and the end of birthright citizenship, along with a moratorium on labor migration and a ban on family reunification. This would be swiftly followed by the non-renewal of residence permits with automatic deportation at the end of their period of validity. All construction of non-Christian places of worship would cease. All Islamists would then be targeted for systematic expulsion “to the country of their family history.” After this, specialist units of the police and army should be employed in the rapid and massive forceful removal of foreign populations: “Without a show of force on our part, a general explosion will be imposed on us at any rate, because multiculturalism carries within it the seeds for war like clouds carry the storm.”

Prior to this sequence of events, Langella advocates the building of networks of the ethnically aware in rural France, where localism can be seeded and where defense zones can be efficiently constructed. This will be necessary because “France has learned well that from now on, the state is its enemy and that, despite our calls for unity, the police will never side with us.” He therefore advocates the attitude of the partisan, described by Carl Schmitt as someone who “defends a piece of land for which he has a native attachment,” and whose primary strength is “his bond with the land, with the native population, and with the geographic configuration of the country, mountains, forests, jungle, or desert.” Langella expects no sudden collapse of the System, and is prepared to play the long game.

I have to admit that the book’s fifth chapter, “Fall and Reconquest,” struck a bum note with me, and it would have been my preference, had I been editor, to have omitted it entirely. The entire chapter is a re-run of the Book of Maccabees, which Langella offers as a blueprint of reconquest for us to follow. It didn’t resonate with me at all, or indeed with the approach of the rest of the book, and its inclusion continues to baffle me. The book closes with a somewhat poetic two-page conclusion, the central message of which is that we must “kill the bourgeois inside us” and engage in a “crusade of an integral and permanent love. An eternal fire in our heart, a feast of every moment and of every day.”

Julien Langella is to be commended for producing an impassioned, and often furious, message from a dying France. Some bum notes and petty criticisms aside, there is much here to enthuse and enrage the committed Catholic, and to educate and inspire the non-Catholic. Of course, I could critique the lack of engagement with Jewish matters, but I think it’s already a minor miracle, given France’s array of harsh speech laws, that he ever managed to publish this remarkable work. I think Julien Langella is a very intelligent and capable activist who needs no reminding of the influence of certain elements in the tragedy unfolding for his nation. My demand for total honesty, in this instance, therefore wavers somewhat at the prison gates that inevitably loom in France for anyone daring to question that which lies behind so many of the labels (globalists, nomadic oligarchs, etc.) employed in this very mature text.

I’d be dishonest if I didn’t mention that the total collapse of Catholic Church credibility, much of it mired in seemingly endless sex abuse scandals, hasn’t contributed in some part to the massive swing to the Left in nations like Ireland. I don’t think it’s the sole cause, of course, and I believe at least some of these scandals have become a kind of media meme for a reason, but I do believe that the Catholic Church has a credibility issue to address before it can in any way become a focal point for the ethnic revival of its faithful. But, to Langella’s credit, he appears to be planning for a Catholic revival somewhat outside the Church. This strikes me as eminently sensible. For the record, my own experiences in France are limited to a couple of trips to Paris, some seven years apart. The first was disappointing, the second utterly heartbreaking, as I witnessed some of the world’s most beautiful sites and streets sunk in the degradation and filth of mass migration. I sincerely wish Julien Langella the very best of luck in his quest to redeem his homeland for his people and indeed his God.

46 replies
  1. kikz
    kikz says:

    i read as far as ‘militant’…………..and stopped. it has been made quite apparent over the last few years to me, on every site which claims to be a proponent of Whites, that catholics will not join forces with protestants, deists or White pagans to save even our own race, they can’t/won’t get over their own demon filled dogma. fine. when the scimitars are flailing, we will not dwell on you nor your fate, we as you.. will give no quarter.

    • Elizabeth Brinsden
      Elizabeth Brinsden says:

      Thank you for the insight into this fabulous book. It seems to be a matter of European culture and identity in it’s death throws. Christopher Daws , the English historian, once said that when a civilization moves away from it’s spitritual roots , it is dying,even though it may not seem to be. Mahummed must have been crazy , that sure 26 verese12-42 can only be the product of a sick mind. If that is what happens here, Germany will long for the good old days of Hitler and Russia, likewise those of Stalin
      God bless you and keep up the good work
      Elizabeth Brinsden

    • fafqw
      fafqw says:

      This could be selection bias, much of the movement is online and the tradcaths ive seen on the internet are the most disagreeable types. It makes sense that their this way since their usually adopting a culture that is extremely foreign (not all of them but many come from protestant heritage) and is totally anti-thetical to the mainstream ideologies (whose adherents will be of course of the more agreeable type). They seem to take dumb minority positions probably due to their personality like having a hate-boner for sedevacantist despite most online tradcaths having so much hatred for the pope but still defend him as the “vicar of christ”.

      I highly doubt Tradcaths in catholic culture areas like Austria, Ireland Poland, France etc are like this. Or people with catholic heritage.

      I knew this guy who converted to Russian orthodoxy and his priest explicitly told him to not interact with online Christians (presumably orthodox & adjacent communities like TradCath) which makes due to the character of these people.

      • Veronica
        Veronica says:

        I am going to have to disagree with you, sir. Are you Muslim? At any rate, we Catholics are, pardon the word, a diverse lot. To use the term tradcath is rather hipsterish. I’m sorry that you are unfamiliar with church history. Is that disagreeable enough for you?

        • Allan Augustus
          Allan Augustus says:

          Brava! Well-said Veronica. We “TradCaths” are oft-slandered as we are often mis-understood. For many like me it is simply a matter of a lost “Christendom” and a God-less exaltation of “diversity” for it’s own sake – at the expense of recognition of European/Western culture and our mores. Christian Europe despite all that the Left may say, brought technology, comfort and an expansive intellectual nourishment to mankind across the entire globe.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Unfortunately, slander is to be expected. Recalling John 15:20 is old advice but, however old, it’s still good.

    • Swan
      Swan says:

      I’ve experienced that bigotry from racially aware catholics as well. But we must be patient. They may realize at some point that they need us.

      • Veronica
        Veronica says:

        Bigotry from racially aware Catholics? Presumably you are a person of the brown rainbow? What do you even mean by claiming that you have experienced bigotry from racially aware Catholics? Please elaborate on this statement.

      • C.Michael
        C.Michael says:

        You’re not needed.
        Intermarriage with Neighboring Peoples

        (Nehemiah 13:23-31)

        1Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. 3And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied. 4Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.

        Ezra’s Prayer of Confession

        5And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God, 6And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. 7Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day. 8And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. 9For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.

        10And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments, 11Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. 12Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. 13And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this; 14Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping? 15O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      kikz – the antagonism from the Catholics to the others might not have been so great if Ireland and not identified Ireland with Catholicism and England with Protestantism, as this made the Catholics view Protestantism as being the enemy just as much as the English are the enemy in their eyes. (However, the Irish, who hate the English and who would never invite one English person over, have no problems with inviting the Africans over to share their lands, as they are ‘not English’, and in fact the Irish are now due to become the first minority white nation of the Western nations).

      This animosity on the part of the Irish is put down to ‘the potato famine’ or to this other historical event or that one, but in fact all these justifications for hostility are not the real reason, just as the real reason the Jews hate the gentiles has nothing to do with events from 2000 years ago. In the cases of the Irish, the Jews, and also those Scots and Welsh who tend to hate the English, and this also applies to the US/English animosity (which is lower but sometimes expressed in this website), all this is due to animal group behaviour instincts and nothing to do with historical events. The hostility exists to start with, then the individuals who find themselves feeling the animosity seek out justifications. The alternative would be to admit that you feel inner hostility for no reason at all, and this will not do, as people like to pretend to themselves that there is always some reason or justification for bad behaviour – even the thug who wants to fight strangers needs to search for some sort of justification or reason even whilst totally drunk, even if it is just ‘what are you looking at?’. No thug says ‘I picked on him for no reason’ and no Jews says ‘I hate gentiles for no reason, and what makes me even more despicable is that they help me and view me as a friend’, and no Irishman says ‘I hate England for no good reason at all and only because my simple group behaviour instinct makes me so, it is all very sad and pathetic.’

      This type of hatred only occurs when the group member views the other group as possibly better than their own group in some way, and no-one feels such hatred for groups that are clearly below them. Similarly, the sports fan ‘hates’ the rival professional team as they see them as possibly better/the same as themselves, but they never hate the local amateur team as they do not view them as a threat. And neither does the local team hate the professional ones as they are not competitors as they are so far apart, and neither did the Indians hate the English colonial rulers and neither did the Africans hate the colonial rulers, or at least not whilst the Indians and Africans still viewed the white man as in a different league. When the English beat the Tibetans in battle, as soon as the battle was over, within half an hour, they were friendly. The English tended to their wounds and they started to employ them immediately as carriers. The Irish soldiers would never volunteer after losing a battle to work for the English!

      A problem with Christianity is that it makes Solomon, King David and Moses the Egyptian-baby killer even into ‘my heroes’ and this leads the same Christian to view the Jews as ‘my friends’ which leads naturally to ‘our greatest ally’.

      • C.Michael
        C.Michael says:

        True Christianity could NEVER lead to Union w/Jevvs in any fashion whatsoever. You obviously have no idea who the people of the book are nor have ever really studied the Bible.Jews are ANTICHRISTS which are NOT to be yoked w/in ANY fashion. Nor are they (or any foreigners) to rule over us. we are A commanded To be separate from the peoples of the lands (most “people who exist today were never created by the creator but are man made worldly creations aka MAMZERS OR MONGREL-African-Americans , Arabs, Latinos, etc etc) The goal of the anti Christ is dilute the holy seed line which if one were to do an intense study of who meets ALL the prophecies, promises, curses, blessings, and tribal markings of Israel ONLY FIT EUROPEAN people.

        video 100 proofs Israelites are white
        Ensign message website

        The problem is not Christoanity it is this relatively new fangled Jewdeo-churchianity (pushed by 501c3 corporations called/disguised as churches & the RCC which is far from Christian itself) which is an oxymoronic term and never seen before Zionist propaganda.

        As for Moses being a hero of whites? Why that is natural as HE WAS WHITE! (Paul speaking to the GREEKS of Corinth)
        1 Corinthians10:
        1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
        Galatians 3:29 paraphrasing those who are in Christ ARE Abraham’s seed. (Nothing mentioned about being “spiritual seed” in fact it was translated from the Greek SPERMA so physical)

        2Corinthians 6:14
        Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

        Jews are ANTICHRISTS and have no place in Any Christian nation . see 1John 2:22-23/2 John 1:7-11 ANTICHRISTS are liars as defined by the Bible.

        Jews admit they are NOT Israelites in both the Jewish Almanac (1980 PG3 titled Identity Crisis)
        And several editions of the Encyclopedia Judaica. And many of their other writings

        You appear to need much more study before commenting w/any relativity or true insight into these matters.

        • Gary
          Gary says:

          (M0d. Note: “Gary”, please tell us: Is this a blog comment or your doctoral thesis? I’ll say it again … keep comments reasonably NOT LONG.)


          This really is a great topic. Thank you! I have been told that when I am speaking about God I should be using his real name. And The Christ Jesus due to there being many The Christs I should really be using his real name as well. But do their real names matter? God: Gold oil drugs? I have been told that it is what is within the heart that counts and their real names do not matter?

          9″I know your suffering and your poverty (but you are rich) and the blasphemy of those who call themselves Jews of the Judeans, when they are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Revelation 2 Aramaic Bible in Plain English

          These are also some interesting reads…At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. As far as he was concerned officially or personally, the inhabitants of Judea were “Judeans” and not so- called “Jews” as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate, there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as “Jews” nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time.

          As I have explained, when the word “Jew” was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century, its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was “Judean”. However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well- financed international “pressure group” created a so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” among the English- speaking peoples of the world. This so-called “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word “Jew”. It is a misrepresentation.

          …The United States Supreme Court has recognized the “secondary meaning” of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that “secondary meanings” can acquire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled “Jews” for three centuries has created a “secondary meaning” for the word “Jew” which has completely “blacked out” the original and correct meaning of the word “Jew”. There can be no doubt about that.

          Tony said (December 4, 2009): Benjamin Freedman was correct in a sense but the whole truth goes beyond what he wrote. Judea was a geographical area named after one of the sons of “Israel.” It was the place where the tribes of Juda and Benjamin settled. It was significant because it contained Jerusalem, where the Israelite religious temple containing their Ark of the Covenant was located. Jesus’ mother and her husband were of “Israelite” stock although the linage of Joseph is never given biblically and that of Mary is a bit obscure in places.

          However, the family lived in Nazareth and were called “Nazarenes,” also a geographic label, such as “American” or “Canadian.” Readers of the New Testament will remember that when Phillip wanted to bring Nathanael to Jesus he told him that Jesus was the son of Joseph of Nazareth, to which Nathanael replied, “From Nazareth can there be any good?” Or, in the King James mis-translation, “Can any good come out of Nazareth?”

          Moreover, the Pharisees and their mob were incensed when Pontius Pilate, who had reluctantly acceded to their demands to crucify Jesus, had a sign erected on his cross, the true English translation of which reads: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Judeans.” They were incensed not because Jesus’ nationality was mislabeled but because it was true; a truth that flew in the face of their arrogance [Jesus was NOT a Jew –Benjamin Freedman https://www.henrymakow.com/jesus_was_not_a_jew_–benjamin.html%5D, [Look how they have labelled Mankind as humankind further below submission].

          …Not to mention, according to prophecy, the return of the Jews to their land will come at the time of Christ’s return and He will usher in world peace: “And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more [https://www.henrymakow.com/lucifer_judaisms_god_reply_to.html].”

          Were those humans possibly mentioned within Revelations above concerned [The Tribe of Menashe: A Lost Tribe of Israel Returns https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutFZ9abLH0%5D that Mr. Gaddafi was truly fulfilling prophecy in bringing home the once Biblical Children of Jacob [We can build United States of Africa, Gaddafi says https://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-summit-gaddafi/we-can-build-united-states-of-africa-gaddafi-says-idUSTRE66Q70620100727%5D?

          Mentioned in Revelations and…In Matthew 13:38-39 Jesus explains, that the field is the world; the `Wheat,` the good seed are the children of Adam but the Tares are the children of Lucifer. One time, when addressing the Pharisees, Jesus says in Matthew 12:34: “O generation of vipers, how can ye being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Since the very beginning, they had borne the characteristics of their `father` Satan, and Jesus knew who they were [http://www.nylonmanden.dk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230%3Awho-rules-the-world-part-three&catid=26&Itemid=101]!

          And…Philip Jones27 July 2009 at 11:07 Michael, Lucifers children, and I do mean children not just followers, through the centuries used a serpent as a symbol or emblem of their ancestor, until they attached a secondary meaning of serpent to the word Nachash. In Genesis 3:1-3 Satan said to Eve, “Is it really true that Yahweh said, You can’t eat of any tree in the garden?” As it reads in the Hebrew, Eve replied to Satan,”And the woman said unto the enchanter, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden.” Now I am going to switch to the King James translation and I will correct it as I go.

          “Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Let’s see what it actually said in the Hebrew. Fruit is the Hebrew word Pirchach, meaning progeny, brood, children or descendants. Do you talk about the children of a walnut tree or an apple tree? Of course you don’t!

          Of the Pirchach, of the descendants of the tree, which is in the midst of the garden, Yahweh has said, “Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it”. That word touch is the Hebrew word Naga, which is a more polite expression meaning, to have sexual intercourse with. Do you need to be warned not to have sexual intercourse with an apple? Of course not, it isn’t that kind of a tree.

          The Hebrew word `Pirchach means `fruit` as in progeny etc. It is used exclusively in the Hebrew Bible. Check this link at Strong’s Hebrew to English dictionary:


          Now I think you owe me an apology my friend and a public one at that. You will find me quite meticulous in my research. 21 years as a Police Officer taught me that lesson well.

          I have to restrain myself from insulting your intellect here. The whole concept of the `fruit` of the tree is vital to the plot. The `fruit` is not an apple, but the fruit of loins.

          Read my article again and refrain from rudeness and arrogance. It will get you nowhere [https://righteousalliance.blogspot.com/2009/07/who-rules-worldthe-origin-of-evil.html], [I first read about Mr. Jones here Flashback: Outspoken NWO Opponent Poisoned https://www.henrymakow.com/philip_jones_believed_he_was_p.html%5D.

          I watched this years ago…White Are you a heretic? Black You tryin’ to put me in the trick bag, Professor. White No I’m not. Are you? Black No more than what a man should be. Even a man with a powerful belief. I ain’t a doubter. But I am a questioner. White What’s the difference? Black Well, I think the questioner wants the truth. The doubter wants to be told there ain’t no such thing. White (Pointing at Bible) You don’t think you have to believe everything in there in order to be saved? Black No. I don’t. I don’t think you even have to read it. I ain’t for sure you even got to know there is such a book. I think whatever truth is wrote in these pages is wrote in the human heart too and it was wrote there a long time ago and will still be wrote there a long time hence. Even if this book is burned every copy of it. What Jesus said? I don’t think he made up a word of it. I think he just told it. This book is a guide for the ignorant and the sick at heart. A whole man wouldn’t need it at all. And of course if you read this book you goin’ to find that they’s a lot more talk in here about the wrong way than they is about the right way. Now why is that [Sunset Limited (Cormac McCarthy) – “Imbalance” – Samuel L. Jackson x Tommy Lee Jones https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wH6nLgjCFM%5D.

          You’ll become a desolation and a proverb, and you’ll be mocked among the people where the LORD will drive you.” Deuteronomy 28:37

          The Navajo Nation Council formally has opposed [MEXICANS & INDIANS ARE ISRAELITES 6:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGOY5nUm4Ns%5D the use of the Washington Redskins name [https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/10766413/navajo-nation-council-opposes-washington-redskins-name]. Geronimo’s Descendants Sue Yale’s Skull And Bones Over Remains [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/18/geronimos-descendants-sue_n_168082.html].

          With all the above it seems that most, as if they today are naturally just greedily entitled, forget how Israel even came to be [Genesis 32:22-32 New King James Version Wrestling with God https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+32%3A22-32&version=NKJV%5D?

          @39:50…having a real problem trying to solve the Israel/ Palestinian problem…playing with the idea of bringing Israel to Arizona you know and taking all the people from Israel and giving everybody a million dollars and setting up Israel in the state of Arizona to end that problem…they’re not controlling that problem [Alex Jones Interviews Aaron Russo (Full Length) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA%5D.

          A bit off topic here, I have also asked so many times on my FB why didn’t the BLM step in the help Mr. Gaddafi…There are also assertions that Chinese mining operations in Africa are staffed with African laborers earning less than one Yuan per day, which is about 14 cents [source: Malone]. The weapons sent to Africa often supply arms that help to fuel the continent’s many civil wars. And in some parts of Africa, Chinese-only communities have gates, and blacks are not allowed to enter [https://people.howstuffworks.com/china-taking-over-world.htm]?

          • Gary
            Gary says:

            I forgot one more submission. So sorry for it being long…Will said (April 4, 2010):

            The reason that khazar jews are so racist and exclusive toward non-jews is because they have secrets. They secretly practice Qabbalistic-Babyloninian-Talmudic witchcraft. Preserving satanic bloodlines is critical in witchcraft in order to pass satanic genetic material to the next generation of satanists/qabbalists.

            I am also ex-jew(ish) khazar myself who is committed to truth. I was also brought up to believe that you are jewish if your mother is jewish. This is a talmudic principle and not a biblical principle and is related to pagan moon/earth/goddess worship.

            Every genealogy in the bible is a list of men e.g. Abraham begat Isaac and Isaac begat Israel and Israel begat Judah et al. etc. The seed travels from father to son via the Y chromosome. Genetically and ethnically you are what your father is. The king is always succeeded by his son; it doesn’t matter who the mother is.

            This is one of the many perversions of the law and of history perpetrated by khazar jewry.
            Biblically, the Children of Israel will be known by the curses upon them found in Deuteronomy 28 which include disease, slavery, and poverty.
            The Most High God knew that there would be those falsely calling themselves the chosen people in addition to family/race-mixing over time, which is why he provided the curses as a sign.

            Sex and Race by J.A. Rogers tracks miscegenation throughout history. Page 91 begins the chaper: “Were the Jews Originally Negroes?” This answer has to be yes based on the Israelites 400 years of habitation among the black negro Egyptians. The Koran and Exodus attest to this in their description of Moses. The Moselm Arabs are still very much aware of the true Jews historical identity.

            The European Jews in Israel today were shipped there before, during and after WWII!

            Today’s khazar Jews protect their usurpation of the identity of the chosen people as their deepest secret.

            Further info: http://www.macquirelatory.com/Physical%20Appearence.htm


            I believe it is only a tiny minority of Jews who engage in the practices you mention,

            h [Memoirs of an Ex – Jew https://www.henrymakow.com/memoirs_of_a_half_jew.html%5D.

      • C.Michael
        C.Michael says:

        True Christianity would never seek to make joos (antkchrists by definition 1John 2:22-23 2John 1:7-11) into our “friends” You are confused due to the modern church (actually 501c3 corporations) being owned and operated by our enemies.
        As for Moses and King David being heroes? Why not? they were WHITE!
        Why believe antichrist propaganda?
        Read the Bible rather than skim through popular culture & secular (((history))) and you would know !
        1Corinthians10 (Paul tells the Greeks they are Israelites)
        Galatians 3:29 those in Christ ARE ABRAHAM’S SEED.
        The Bible was written to ONE people (see every chapter is addressed TO ISRAEL NOT the WORLD) just because satanic churches (like the RCC) HAVE sought to bring in mongrels and Joos that is not Christian, period.
        Joos are mongrels if you had read the Bible you would know mongrels are forbidden to enter the congregation of the lord. (See Deuteronomy 7, Numbers 25, Joshua 23:12-13, Ezra 9-10, Nehemiah13, Deuteronomy 23 etc etc)
        You sound confused like so many others who take specious knowledge and run w/it as ”facts”

        King James Bible
        2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

        Wake up pal you are deceived, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance or continue to live in ignorance.

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          C.Michael – I have never heard the idea that Moses was not Jewish – but whether he was or was not, what matters is that most Christians regard him as the heroic Jew who led the Jews out of Egypt – according to their account they were fleeing and were the oppressed victims, but others have suggested they were evicted.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” The hostility exists to start with,”…

        No doubt . The struggle to survive requires it .

        All animal beings and also humans must relentlessly compete for { Life-Sustaining Rresources } ; and that is the super simplified fundamental scientific explanation for all of the lying , cheating , stealing , and assassinating ( includes wars ) that humanity engages in relentlessly and throughout history .

        Frequently , if not usually , the importance to a person or group of acquiring a { Life-Sustaining Resource } is greater than the importance of avoiding any risk of negative consequences pertaining to the lies/cheats/thefts/assassinations deemed relevant to the acquisition of the resource .

        All animal life and also human life ultimately depends on the ability to successfully compete for and acquire
        { Life-Sustaining Resources } .

        Many pervasive anti-competition themes are deceptions/lies concocted by Frankfurt School marxists/communists to get people to unwittingly surrender themselves as a resource to be acquired , owned , and utilized by the state .

        • pterodactyl
          pterodactyl says:

          moneytalks – I agree that there are animal behaviour side of us shapes our behaviour and we are not as much reasoning beings as we like to think we are. It is the same with other pack animals such as lions – the lion’s allies are other lions, and co-operation leads to plentiful food at times, but at other times the other lions are the enemy, and it will be other lions who will one day turn on him, and not the zebras. So it is amongst other lions that his greatest friends are found and also amongst lions that his greatest enemies are found.

          Humans also assign themselves and other humans to groups, and other humans are viewed as their allies or enemies, and this applies to other humans within the same group, and also, when tribes are formed, the other tribes can be viewed as friends (Christians preach this) , foe (Islam, Jews) or neutral, These alliances can lead to success or downfall, and can involve war. So humans see other humans as their greatest friends sometimes, and their greatest enemies at other times.

          However, perhaps the marxists are a subset within a group that seeks to gain by taking what others have who are within the same group. Some humans in a group will feel the urge to grow their own crops, but others think it is preferable to ‘take from the others’ – to be a parasite, which can sometimes be a successful strategy. Furthermore, It is more than likely that the ones who have stuff to steal from are better/higher/superior than the ones without. (This does not apply to billionaires today who most certainly are not better – they are ruthless takers!) If the ones you parasite on are the better ones, it will help if another of your urges is a hatred of the better, so this ends up a characteristic of those wired to be lefties.

          This hatred of the better, this particular aspect of the lefty’s behaviour, it perhaps manifests as the lefties being wired to hate ANY who they regard as being ‘the better’ ones, and today in white societies this takes the form of white lefties hating their own entire race for being superior. How else can we explain the devotion of the white left to the destruction of white ppl?

          Similarly, the Jews’ hostility to all other tribes could be part of their nature that they are stuck with.

  2. Angelicus
    Angelicus says:

    I always welcome the articles by Andrew Joyce by their clear, realistic appraisal of the terrible situation in which the White race finds itself and his awareness about the role played in it by the Jews. This article proved not to be an exception to the rule.

    Unlike Mr Joyce, I come from a Catholic background (Italian) although my parents never forced upon me any religious education or ideas (bless them!). However, for just one year they sent me to a famous and expensive Catholic private school which was highly recommended by friends. Therefore I was exposed from a very early age (I was 8) to Catholic education (or brainwashing if you prefer). I did not like what I was told and I asked my parents to get me out of there. Thankfully they listened to me and I was set free.

    I was interested in politics from a very early age and I was involved in nationalist groups, most of them of Catholic inspiration. As I was a national-socialist I quickly noticed a chasm between me and most of my mates who disapproved of “Hitler’s ideas” as they had been condemned by the Church. I realized I was wasting my time with such fools and left them. Since then (the late1970s) I found my decision was the right one as the Catholic Church has taken a more and more pro-Jewish and globalist stance which has reached its peak with the loathsome Bergoglio (aka Francis I)

    Langella’s book may be very good but deep down, I don’t care about it or him. I have been immersed in a Catholic society and I had enough. The fact that Langella does not have the guts to publicly condemn and denounce Bergoglio/Francis I as a traitor, as other Catholics have done, says a lot about him. I enclose a link to an excellent blog about this despicable creature who spends most of his time hugging and kissing rabbis.


    Catholics are, by education and temperament, sheep. They even refer to themselves as such (“the flock”). With people like that, we will go nowhere. The fact that 99% of them follow and revere a corrupt and evil leadership that has betrayed them time and again speaks volumes.

    • Lina
      Lina says:

      How Dark Were the Dark Ages?



      The Glory of Catholic Spain and the Black Lies Against Her

      Catholic Empire: The True Story of Spain and the Faith

      Capitalism and Communism are two sides of the same shekel!

      “Both capitalism and socialism are opposite sins against property. Capitalism emphasizes private rights to property without any social responsibility to the common good; socialism emphasizes the social use of property, to the forgetfulness of personal rights. The true solution is one in which the rights to property are personal, but the responsibility is social. A man is free on the inside because he can call his soul his own; he is free on the outside because he can call his property his own.” Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen (Crisis in History 1952)


      Quadragesimo anno (Latin for “In the 40th Year”) is an encyclical issued by Pope Pius XI on 15 May 1931, 40 years after Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum novarum, further developing Catholic social teaching. Unlike Leo XIII, who addressed the condition of workers, Pius XI discusses the ethical implications of the social and economic order. He describes the major dangers for human freedom and dignity arising from unrestrained capitalism, socialism, and totalitarian communism. He also calls for the reconstruction of the social order based on the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.
      Essential contributors to the formulation of the encyclical were the German Jesuits, Roman Catholic theologians and social philosophers Gustav Gundlach and the Königswinter Circle through one of its main authors Oswald von Nell-Breuning.
      Social order
      Industrialization, says Pius XI, resulted in less freedom at the individual and communal level, because numerous free social entities got absorbed by larger ones. A society of individuals became a mass and class society. Today people are much less interdependent than in ancient times and become egoistic or class-conscious in order to recover some freedom for themselves. The pope demands more solidarity, especially between employers and employees through new forms of cooperation and communication. Pius draws a negative view of capitalism, especially of the anonymous international finance markets.[5] He identifies here problems: dangers for small and medium-size enterprises who have insufficient access to capital markets and are squeezed or destroyed by the larger ones. He warns that capital interests can become a danger for states, who would be reduced to be “chained slaves of individual interests”.[6] The encyclical has been an important inspiration to modern distributist thought on seeking greater solidarity and subsidiarity than present capitalism.


      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Capitalism emphasizes private rights to property without any social responsibility to the common good;”

        That is the most notorious and pernicious libel against Entrepreneurial Capitalism ( ie. basicly small businesses and specificly excludes Money Monopoly Capitalism ) .

        It took the RCC literally about one-thousand and five hundred years , from its inception and about two-thousand years since “the jews” started charging it , to conclude that paying interest on money loaned was not unethical and was not immoral ; and that RCC proclamation has been scientificly affirmed/confirmed and remains valid to this day .

        How long will it take top elite opinion makers to reveal to the majority sheeple masses worldwide that entrepreneurial goods/services bought and sold non-coercively in open and “free markets” is first and foremost a “social good” provision of entrepreneurial capitalism ?

        If anyone thinks that a particular “social good” is inadequate , then they should competitively offer a comparable “free market” good/service at a cheaper price instead of advocating for eradicating “free market capitalism” which is the empirically verifiable greatest manufactory of “social good” in the history of the world .

        The issues of excessive consumerism and excessive environmental destructions are unfortunate and unintended by-products of the free market capitalist “social good” manufacturing operations and are primarily in the domain of matters pertaining to appropriate and responsible governmental market regulations . The pernicious marxian libels against entrepreneurial capitalism ( not money monopoly capitalism ) are a surreptitious theft modus operandi in order to accumulate centralized governmental political power and/or ALL resources where the only permissible “social good” is that of a core communist party dictate .

      • Curmudgeon
        Curmudgeon says:

        Unfortunately, like most Americans, Bishop Fulton conflates socialism with communism. The purest form of socialism is anarchy. Generally speaking, the socialists were opposed to finance capitalism, not capitalism per se. Until the craft guilds were dismantled, by bribed politicians and/or corrupt monarchies, the means of production was in the hands of the craftsmen, not financiers. Two hundred years ago, people understood, full well, that property was moveable, and not real property which was land and buildings. “Property is theft” meant that the financiers stole “property” – the fruits of a person’s labour, from the actual producer.
        Co-ops are socialist structures, and they compete like any other business. It is the ownership structure that is different.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Sheeple are normally blind followers of their incarnate deity and thus normally know little or nothing about betrayals . Their blindness makes them especially dangerous to opponents or non-adherents of their theology . Moreover , it is likely that the RCC Papacy is the most powerful religio-political office in the world as many Catholics believe . Accordingly , they are reluctant to abrogate their Pope whom has the power , as they believe , to destroy both their body and soul .

  3. Veronica
    Veronica says:

    I will certainly put this book on my list though I don’t know how I will respond to it. I read and own a copy of Pascal Bruckner’s “The Tyranny of Guilt: Essays on White Masochism,” and recommend it. Though I have no French blood in my veins that I know of, I do respect and appreciate France’s wonderous contributions to the world and feel deep sadness at what has been happening to it via mass Muslim immigration.

  4. catholicandpagan
    catholicandpagan says:

    Yeah you can see why the catholics of old wouldn’t ”JOIN FORCES” with protestants, for obvious reasons, being if the Irish did not fight up to the late 1990’s – We would have been a nigerian dumping ground for the slithery London crown, a LOT SOONER, (While I won’t blame ordinary english, some whom I’ve met and are completely understandably upset with what’s happened to their nation) rather than now, we would have been a dumping ground a century ago or more, they would have packed it with every type and shade of black African to Jamacian , so you can see (at least I can see the reticence) that the traditionalist catholics would have. The IRA were not all rainbow dicks like you see now. So no quarter given to half cocked very anti-catholic posts like yours, henry the 8th died from a venerial disease, is he an example to look up to? LOOK at the city of London and how bent your lot are to the Jews. ”DEMON FILLED DOGMA” – How did protestantheism come about?It was based on a whim, a man who wanted divorce, that was what pushed it, nothing deeper than that or profound. While we can split hairs over this, we can join forces…………………….I do agree……….. Just not with sectarian bias and bullshit comments like yours. No quarter given.

    • Veronica
      Veronica says:

      Please, dear person, we need to stick together as a race. We need to help and love one another and overlook our differences. God does not want us to separate as we have done; God does not want us to extol our individuality as we have done–God wants us to care about each other as white Christian people.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      “How did protestantheism come about?It was based on a whim, a man who wanted divorce, that was what pushed it, nothing deeper than that or profound.”
      Well that is certainly how the Anglican Church came about, but not protestantism. The Pope bestowed the title “Defender of the Faith” on Henry VIII for his criticism of Luther.
      Protestantism had its roots in John Wycliffe more than 150 years before Henry VIII was born, Wycliffe noted that the Church had too much power in the secular matters, and that there were corrupt people within the RC Church taking advantage of that. He had previously stated, when Pope Urban sent a demand for taxes that the RC Church already owned 1/3 of the country and both the King and Pope cannot be rulers of a country, only the King was the ruler. Luther’s objections were about the sale of indulgences and other “man made” manifestations of the RC Church not rooted in the bible, and saw them as corrupt. Both Wycliffe and Luther saw themselves as good Catholics. It was the Church that replied with suppression of their criticism and death threats.
      In Luther’s time, the RC Church, through the Holy Roman Empire, controlled trade. The German Princes supporting Luther saw the Church’s reaction to Luther as an opportunity to gain economic freedom. That is how protestantism came to be. It was a self inflicted wound by arrogant Popes.
      Today, that arrogance is in the form of the current person posing as a Pope, spitting in the faces of Europeans by ass-kissing Jews, Moslems, and any other non-White POS that shows up demanding to be allowed into the country in order to ruin it.
      As for Ireland, the destruction started with their own internal divisions in 1166 that led to Henry II of England invading and in 1171 forcing the Irish Kings to submit. In 1315, the Scots opened a 2nd front in their war against the English, trying to rally the Irish to support them. All of them were Catholics. Like the Scots, the Irish have been their own worst enemies, with many of their own being traitors to the cause of their people.

    • kikz
      kikz says:


      you assume too much. i never stated i was a prot.

      catholics of old…. ? join w/prots? they were too busy torturing/slaughtering them and anyone else around the globe who didn’t profess belief in their dogma, of course, to ‘save their souls’.

      y, demon filled dogma. unless i’m mistaken, there is no other ‘mainline’ xtian religion which conducts exorcisms, nor has ‘clergy’ who specialize in it.

  5. John
    John says:

    The Leftist/Black riots this past summer went largely unchallenged by good Americans, who have become mere onlookers and sheep.

    Similarly with the election fraud of Nov. 3.

    Similarly with the unnecessarily draconian and illegal Covid lockdowns. They are a dry run for the slaughter of us sheep.

    Where’s the pushback by good Americans?

    • Swan
      Swan says:

      Any push back will be met with the full force of the government, with aggressive prosecution, trumped up charges and the book thrown at you. See Charlottesville.

    • Tim Folke
      Tim Folke says:

      There are pushbacks by good Americans, but one will never hear of it on MSM. In the area where I live there are quite a few people who refuse to ‘mask up’, who speak out via letters to the editor and elsewhere, and we have small family businesses open in defiance to our nonessential governor.

      Quite frankly while we believe we will somehow prevail, we do what we do not because we think we will prevail but because it is the right thing to do.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Obviously , good men who do nothing to pushback against major authoritarian abuses are good for nothing men whom are ripe to be slaughtered .

  6. Fr. John+
    Fr. John+ says:

    All of the ‘comments’ are little more than self-absorbed justifications for why you all are in rebellion against Christ and His Church. [ I am NOT an RCC cleric] The reality is, Protestants had a valid ‘beef’ against Rome, but that was five hundred years ago. And, what is worse, you ALL are in rebellion against Orthodox Christianity, which occurred 500 years before that (i.e., 1054 A.D.) Hilaire Belloc said, a hundred years ago, ‘Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe.’ We CANNOT divorce ourselves from Christendom- the White Race IS Christendom. Langella is doing the best he can, but France is the MODEL for apostasy in all of the West, since she did it, first! Franky the Heretic is NOT a valid Pope- just read any of Ann Barnhardt’s columns on him ‘https://www.barnhardt.biz’ The reviewer’s comment is the germane one- there is (((ONE))) great evil in the world today, ORGANIZING/CONTROLLING everything- the Jews. We start the restoration of Christendom just as Ferdinand and Isabella did- by proclaiming DEATH TO THE JEW WORLD ORDER. All else follows from that.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” We start the restoration of Christendom “…

      Christianity is a sheeple-oriented religion of self-enslavement to the chosenhite jewmasterss . Why bother with attempting to restore it ? Preserve whatever goodness it has , such as the benevolent deity JC for one thing among others , and ditch the rest of it ; then proclaim
      and move on toward bigger and better things
      or else rinse and repeat the calamity of Christendom again sometime in the future .

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      What is there to stop Jews from false conversions, as they have done throughout history? the church’s incompetence in screening out child abusers does not inspire confidence that it has any mechanism to prevent Jewish subversion of its ranks. Indeed, many suspect that your current pope is himself a crypto-Jew! I think you have some sorting out to do before you start accusing others.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      I call her Barnyardt. Her filthy writing seems to have been edited by a sailor.

      Pathological narcissism, world’s biggest curse. Those having it don’t think there is anything wrong- blind spot, I believe. The final solution may require much drastic action.

  7. p
    p says:

    “The religious decline has occurred alongside massive demographic change, with 20% of the French population now of foreign origin”

    This is the fault of the white indigenous, and just because the Jews do everything they can to encourage it and finance it, for the French to fall to 80% and still going down, for this to happen the French people themselves must take the blame. In Britain, and I am sure it will be the same in France, the politicians make no secret of their support for diversity and immigration when they appear on TV, so the people cannot plead ignorance, they cannot claim ‘the politicians did this without consulting us’. Every election was the consultation, the veto, and at every election the people of virtually all of the West fully endorse these treacherous politicians, with the French choosing Macron when they could have chosen Le Pen.

    Natural selection can apply to entire populations, and it will not look kindly on the nations/races, such as the French, that actively wish to submit to foreign hostile races, or, at least vote for leaders who do, whilst at the same time bizarrely retaining strong enmity for brother white nations. The French, the Scots, the Irish – all are welcoming the Africans and inviting them over en masse, but would never tolerate the English in the same way or invite them over, or vote for politicians who would do this. Any politician from these white countries named who supported English immigration would certainly be voted out, but politicians favouring African immigration never are (not on the basis of this policy).

    Natural selection never had a chance before modern times to show its disapproval of strange political tendencies, the ones that give a significant and dedicated minority in white populations a strong and obsessive hatred of their own people for being superior, but, certainly, this disapproval from Nature is coming, as also is Nature’s disapproval of those whose genes make them not want to have families or children. The only question is, will the whites who do not want to self-destruct, and who do not hate better/higher races, will they be able to separate geographically from those whites who do, and thus separate out the bad genes?

    “The foreigner also has a homeland and a right to live well there, a right to rootedness.”
    This is a good point – we lure them over here by offers to share our wealth, and in so doing we deprive them of being in their own homelands, where they could be more at ease, instead of ending up feeling resentful and angry.

    • pterodactyl
      pterodactyl says:

      I wrote the post above and used the name P by mistake – just want to add:

      “. … I like race-mixing and I hate nationalism.” Langella is blunt in his response: “Miscegenation is a war. By its obsessive nature, it’s even a jihad.”

      On the individual level it is cruel/unfair to have mixed race children in cases where one parent is black and the other white (white-white is okay), and this is because the child will undeniably feel trauma to a greater or lesser extent by being neither black nor white, and will be unsure of his own identity or where his loyalties lie, and furthermore, even if they choose whichever side they want to be, then as they interact with others of this type, they will often be rejected by the group. The smug white white-haters have no qualms about making TV adverts that promote mixed marriages and in so doing cause many children to be born with such an identity crisis and confusion, whilst these same smug whites do not have to endure this themselves.

  8. Ken
    Ken says:

    We as Christians need to stop all this internecine infighting and get down to business. It is one of the barriers that keeps non-Christians at arms length, because it is such a tremendous turn off.

    The book here is about France. Face it, if a Christian solution exists to these problems, then in France it’s going to be Catholic. The Roman Church has been an intimate part of French culture for so many centuries that it is a piece of what makes Frenchmen. Supplant it with something Protestant? Then you’re not really preserving Frenchmen, are you? But rather creating latter-day Huguenots? Or supplant the French Catholic Church with something humanist and secular? Well that’s been done already. I’d argue that is, in fact, the source of the problem!

    I’m intrigued by this book and resolved to order it. Also, the article mentions favorably Guillaume Faye’s book, Ethnic Apocalypse. Might as well pick that one up too!

    “If the French disappear, then France dies!” <– A statement from Langellas that is obvious, no? Why does it take a radical book athwart the mainstream to say these obvious things?

    Such clear, obvious truths need more and louder proclamation!

    • Archie Mcormack
      Archie Mcormack says:

      Well well, there were French before there was christianity there right.

      So if you take the stahce of ethnic survival and thereby FUTUREm why depend ob a certain direction within Christianity.

      And I’m Christian deeply so, to the highest degree possible where it is a true FACT.

      But the traditional church where I live has went down the route of PC and the like. I still have a sense of belonging to that tradition sure. But my ideas or FACTS or TRUTHS about my religion are very much more based on biblical texts and my TRUE readings of these than what any priest or high priest has to say.

      I think catholicism and protestantism has it’s points. Catholicism has been a bit better at being traditional. Protestantism allows marriage and thus has lesser of pedophile issues as such.

      And the thing where protestants actually has the priests read from the texts in their native language does make sense doesn’t it?

      I also like the grandness of many Catholic Churches and cathedrals swell as I appreciate the minimalism, the sparseness that can come with protestantism. These ways of honoring GOD can complement each other.

      By the way I think the priests in catholicism not marrying is an effect by etno centric jews (mixed ones) that were anti white to corrupt white nations why inserting lies and false statements and interpretations into the Bible. I think like many such texts it has been corrupted and some of it not being JESUS true words and the like. I am thinking of the writing where it sits “it is better to not have kids, to stay closer to GOD or similar”, which is probably a foundation for the priests do not marry thing, Hence I think it’s a fraud. I think there are some things like this in the Bible.

      Hence I think WHITES need a new more true Christianity. Once there is success and etno nations or whatever the older churches could adapt I suppose… I hope certainly…

  9. crank
    crank says:

    A very engaging read as ever from Andrew Joyce. I am more pursuaded by Guyenot’s recent contribution which questions whether the church has any value left as a vehicle for these concerns, although it is obviously encouraging to read of younger Catholic thinkers who are addressing them from the margins.
    I have to admit that I was more interested by spinning off into reading about Jewish crypsis within the Western (particularly American) Buddhist movements. Those articles have a made a LOT of sense of a lot of things in my life.
    Once again I find myself in need of a walk and a think.

  10. Tony W
    Tony W says:

    As a practicing Catholic who follows Church affairs quite closely, I must say that there is nothing particularly “elusive” about Pope Francis. He is possibly even worse than the mainstream media portray him. More inspired by Marx than the Gospel, he willingly and enthusiastically serves the New World Order. It is a difficult thing to say and I do not want to give enemies of the Faith ammunution, but it is the truth.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Just so—except, with respect, that there is no “possibly” about it. Indeed, one needs to be deaf, dumb, and blind or a reflexive hater of Catholicism or both to say with a straight face that there is something insidiously or subversively hidden about the agenda of the former Mr. Bergoglio. On the contrary, he has never concealed that his aim is the permanent destruction of the West, at least insofar as the term has been understood for two and a half millennia.

      Would that even one of our Jewish overlords was half so [ahem] frank in his detestation of whites in general and authentic white Catholics in particular as Humble Frank is!

  11. Gary
    Gary says:

    How important is it to first establish if we are human or are we Mankind?

    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Genesis 1:26

    Canada’s Trudeau corrects woman for using ‘mankind’ at town hall by Ryan Gaydos, Fox News February 6, 2018.

    A Northern Arizona University student had their grade lowered on a paper because they used the word ‘mankind’ instead of the gender-neutral ‘humanity’ [Outrage as college student is marked down on essay for using the ‘sexist’ word mankind By Jordan Gass-Poore for Dailymail.com 1 April 2017].

    Since the Druid version of Noah is “Hu”, essentially Druid Priests are “God Men” because one will notice the bible says “man was made in the image and likeness of God” not Hu-man. Today, we call them “Humanists” because they provide laws absent God. – The Druids by Howard Ratcliffe There Is Nothing New Under The Sun

    Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature…Unite humanity with a living new language.- Georgia Guidestones

    [8:00 also not a human] David de Rothschild says I’m not Reptillian https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPwgOiNOSZs.

    In Canada our Bill of Rights also speaks of free families, institutions and men. Do you know what these Western lawyers did? They really got their massive corruption down to an art. I am helping a friend with a Constitutional Question wherein it has been submitted that the charter of rights and freedoms 1982 is of no effect while then solely relying upon Canada’s Bill of Rights. Guess what the lawyers are doing? Painting my friend as one of those freemen on the land members. Once this was, recently, just before Christmas, stated within the Ontario legal realm [usurped courtroom] I knew that the lawyers knew that eventually those would be looking to the Canadian Bill of Rights to hold the corrupt at bay. So what did the lawyers do? They set up their freemen, who just so happen to also love their pot, and it would seem without any Biblical principals, movement. And here the lawyers are now ready to paint my friend, who is properly relying upon Canada’s Bill of Rights, as one of their earlier legally conditioned for freemen.

    His crowning achievement, Canada’s constitution and Charter of Rights, was welcomed by a generation of lawyers and scholars, but created a “human rights industry” while fuelling judicial activism and putting critical national decisions in the hands of appointed judges [Kelly McParland: Pierre Trudeau’s disastrous record is finally laid out for all to see National Post].

    Preamble The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions;

    Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law;…Canadian Bill of Rights

    But the lawyers also finagled in their secular human aspect which does not make sense within an already society of free families, institutions and men, does it?

    Recently the Canadian supreme court of appointed lawyers ruled…In writing for a majority of the court, justices Russell Brown and Malcolm Rowe said the protective scope of Section 12 is limited to human beings. The dissenting judge from the Quebec Court of Appeal rightly emphasized that the ordinary meaning of the word “cruel” does not allow its application to inanimate objects or legal entities such as corporations, they added [Nov 05, 2020 Protection against cruel punishment doesn’t apply to corporations: Supreme Court By The National Post].

    As in accordance with the already gifted Canadian Bill of Rights how does this legal ruling apply to Mankind?

    The above article also provides for legal entities such as corporations. How would this, as in accordance with the legal statute the Municipal Act, 2001, apply to men and women within Ontario…4 (1) The inhabitants of every municipality are incorporated as a body corporate. […] 9 A municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority under this or any other Act?

    Here is a nice read…Perloff replies: I thank you, Marcos, as I thank all the posters, for adding balance and perspective to this issue. I have read the Bible several times, am very aware of the passage in Samuel, and expected to hear about it. It was not so much a matter of ignorance, as it was limitations on both space and my specific objectives. My main objective was to help offset the antipathy toward monarchies that the Illuminati successfully bred in order to overthrow the powers that stood in their way. Rebellion against authority is VERY unbiblical and emulated Satan’s own rebellion against God.

    After the Tower of Babel, God dispersed the world’s peoples into different languages and nations. Lucifer (the Illuminati) has attempted to reverse the process.and set up a satanic world government, which necessitated destroying nationhood. This in turn required destroying nations’ rulers and nobility, and replacing them with socialism and “democracy,” which are designed to make the people think they hold power–but in fact made them like an army consisting only of privates, or a chess contestant holding nothing but pawns. How well the Illuminati understood these principles, as expressed in the Protocols! In 1798, scholar John Robison published a book entitled Proofs a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. Unfortunately, his prophetic warnings went unheeded.

    In Samuel’s day, monarchy was certainly a step down from Israel’s original theocracy. But I believe it was a step up from today’s delusional democracy, controlled from behind the scenes by the Illuminati. Of course, I do not deny the sins of monarchs (who sometimes deeply compromised with the Illuminati), or the exquisite value of the Bill of Rights, which is now also being targeted for destruction [Why the Illuminati Hated Monarchies for henrymakow.com].

    If you are interested it just so happens Dr. Makow’s articles have also been barred by Facebook.

    Lastly, I read this on Dr. Makow’s site July 20, 20…The “natural person” — as opposed to some contrived invention called a “trans-human” — has a right to be left unmolested by Crime Syndicate psychopaths who are determined to drive them like herds to market and cram an agenda of political domination disguised as scientific “advancements” down their throat [DARPA’s Cocktail Menu of Brave New World Human Control July 20, 2020 By Russ Winter].

Comments are closed.