David Ray Griffin and the Demonic

The individual most responsible for my high degree of confidence that the official 9/11 story is blatantly false is a most unlikely character for the job — a mild mannered, retired theology professor long ensconced in the pleasant Mediterranean region of Southern California. His name is David Ray Griffin, now 82 years old. For a variety of reasons, Prof. Griffin ended up writing a book called The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004).

Personally, I find it fitting that not just a theology professor, but one who has written extensively on God and His relation to Evil, used his dedication to morality and an extensive background in science to convincingly challenge the official US Government narrative. Further, he also situated the likely 9/11 cover-up and subsequent attack on Iraq in terms of a cosmic encounter with a demonic American empire.

Though Griffin would be horrified to hear it — and almost certainly would deny it — his lifework on theology and 9/11 points to the most pressing existential issue facing the entire world today — and inadvertently names the group that threatens the world.

Let’s get to work exploring that story.

From early in his academic career, Prof. Griffin was drawn to a corner of Christian theology known as process theology, in which a new conception of God and the nature (and limits) of His powers are envisioned. In short, the traditional Christian view that God was omnipotent and could alter the physical world and humans at will was amended in light of ideas that had grown out of the Enlightenment era and the rise of science. In addition, there remained the thorny contradiction that if God is omnipotent and wholly Good, how do we account for the obvious presence of Evil?

The traditional response, as well as the amended response from process theology, was that God created man with free will, and to maintain that free will, man must always have the choice to pick Evil. The traditional Christian dogma, however, maintains that God has greater power than Evil or Satan, so how could we reconcile the presence of so much Evil in history?

Griffin, his predecessors and his colleagues formed a rational though radical response, arguing that “divine power is persuasive, not coercive.” That is a beautiful way of condensing rather sophisticated arguments, the upshot being that “God influences every finite event, but God cannot wholly determine how any event will use its own creativity and thereby its twofold power to exert self-determination and causal influence on others” (Christian Faith, p. 132).

I was initially exposed to such thinking when we studied the philosophy of British intellectual giant Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), who (I’m cribbing from Wikipedia) “argued that reality consists of processes rather than material objects, and that processes are best defined by their relations with other processes, thus rejecting the theory that reality is fundamentally constructed by bits of matter that exist independently of one another.”

Whitehead’s analytic philosophy, however, like that of many other British philosophers, left me cold, so I focused far more on modern Continental thinkers such as Sartre and Camus. In the course of such study, we began to touch on the ideas of French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who — to me at the time — seemed to be working on a parallel path of emerging processes in his thoughts on Darwinian evolution. Further study on Teilhard and Whitehead came to an end for me, though, when I made the choice to downplay study of more abstract philosophy for the concrete field of intellectual history (in the course of which it was impossible to miss the outsize role of Jewish thought in the development of the modern world).

Fast-forward decades, past 9/11, and considering Griffin’s numerous books on that event, and I found myself reading Griffin’s 2006 shortish book Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11. The first half is a revisit to the physical claims about 9/11 and logical flaws in the official story, subjects I was intimately familiar with after reading Griffin’s longer books on these matters. The second half of the book, however, introduced me to a novel side of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as Griffin incorporated his own theology into a deeper understanding of the consequences of purported inside government participation in the implementation of 9/11.

In an approach totally new to me, he situated his views in the second half, called “A Christian Critique of 9/11 and American Imperialism,” in five chapters which are titled:

• Imperial Motives for a “New Pearl Harbor” (familiar to me)
• Jesus and the Roman Empire (new material to me)
• The Divine and the Demonic (blew my mind)
• The American Empire, Demonic Evil, and 9/11 (more shocking ideas)
• A Call to Reflection and Action (what Christians should do)

I won’t rehash the familiar parts of the 9/11 story because I can trust that a healthy majority of readers are already familiar with the evidence, proofs, theories and arguments. Also, most of us know about the work of Richard Perle and many others (heavily Jewish) in imagining what could entice the majority of Americans to exercise global hegemony in a more robust fashion. The events of 9/11 were an absolute boon to this group and (coincidentally, of course) advanced Israeli interests in the Middle East immensely. (A shout-out here for the book edited by Mark Green, Persecution, Privilege, & Power: Reconsidering the Zionist Narrative in American Life (2008), with essays by Kevin MacDonald and James Petras, among many others.)

With Griffin’s chapter “Jesus and the Roman Empire,” however, I was in new territory. Certainly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I’d long heard of the comparison of the United States and Rome as unrivaled imperial powers, but I’d never read Christian theological accounts of either.

With the chapter “The Divine and the Demonic,” I was immediately faced with seminal ideas — and connections — that I’d never anticipated. Griffin was taking the traditional Christian belief in “The Evil One” as seriously as many of us did growing up, hearing it constantly repeated in church every Sunday, in the Bible, etc. By 1970, however, these literal beliefs were quickly falling out of favor even in much of America, as secular humanism was establishing its reign in education and the popular mind with the help of TIME Magazine and countless other outlets. Honestly, who was taking the Devil and his temptations and misdeeds literally anymore (other than comedian Flip Wilson’s with his catchphrase “The devil made me do it.)?

Well, Griffin and those in his circles were. And I had not expected in the twenty-first Century to be one of those who suddenly considered taking the existence of “The Evil One” literally. But by then I’d seen growing evidence that the world was indeed in the presence of and under the growing control of Actual Evil, which is very serious stuff.

Though I was profoundly influenced at the time by this section of Griffin’s book, other priorities took me away, though I always knew I would return to these two chapters of the book. This year became that time because I could now see where Griffin’s discussion on Evil fit in toward a reconciling of Kevin MacDonald’s evolutionary approach to Jews and E. Michael Jones’ traditional (though shocking to modern minds) Catholic critique of Jewish behavior since the crucifixion of Christ over two thousand years ago.

Further, Griffin and his fellow process theologians charge that previous Christian thinkers were guilty of “supporting a doctrine of absolute divine omnipotence, giving Christians an insoluble problem of evil,” and — here’s a critically key point — undermining the New Testament’s conviction “that our world is the scene of a deadly battle between divine and demonic power” (p. 128).

Since reading those lines ten or more years ago, I slowly began to observe the growing evidence that we humans were not going to work our way out of our many metastasizing predicaments through politics, argumentation, social engineering, donating money, and all the other secular human methods of protecting and promoting our interests in this world. At first, more tongue in cheek than seriously, I’d say that “Only God can help us now,” but particularly over the last few years the shape of a literal “deadly battle between divine and demonic power” took form right in front of me. As I more and more began to believe in this battle, I grilled myself: Was I being intellectually lazy? Superstitious? Defeatist as the White world increasingly succumbed to attacks that always achieved their destructive goals?

No, I had to conclude, we were indeed operating in a realm that secular humanism had too long denied and we in fact find ourselves now in the midst of “a deadly battle between divine and demonic power.” This seems to me the most rational conclusion.

In order to keep this argument from Griffin’s work criminally brief, I will again refer to the concept that divine power is not as literally omnipotent as long supposed and that human free will is in fact an indispensable factor in the process of the world unfolding. In short, to quote A. N. Whitehead, “the divine element in the world is to be conceived as a persuasive agency and not as a coercive agency,” a claim that should be considered “one of the greatest intellectual discoveries in the history of religion” (p. 132).

From this segment of Griffin’s chapter onward, his arguments fairly cry out that demonic elements increasingly exercise control over our world, and most importantly indicate who the actors involved in the demonic sphere are. Yet Griffin entirely misses this. Completely. Thus, I would like to offer a speculative account of the reality we could be facing today.

Obviously, serious readers should get a copy of Christian Faith and carefully read the chapters under discussion here. For now, I will pick quotes that make the conclusions Griffin missed far clearer. First, unlike many Christian theologians before him, Griffin accepts the temporal evolution of primates, writing that “the greatest single increase in freedom, however, occurred when one line within the simians gave rise to human beings.” (Note that acceptance of such evolution is common also to MacDonald’s thought.) The second powerful clue claims that “the divine influences upon us … are always calling us to truth, beauty, and goodness.” Historically, this is undeniably true of some races, particularly East Asians and Whites. Yet this is consistently the exact opposite direction toward which one important other group heads.(Note 1)

And because — in this view — God’s creation of beings with free will constitutes a grave risk should powerful enough beings choose Evil, God’s mission could be a failure. In Griffin’s words, “Because of the distinctive capacities of human beings, their emergence meant the rise of creatures who could, over time, come to exercise forms of power that could threaten God’s present purposes for our world” (p. 133). I see the world at that critical inflection point now.

Next, Griffin’s insights increasingly crescendo toward a nearly biblical revelation. “Therefore, demonic power would involve creaturely creativity that is exercised on the basis of hate or indifference and therefore without the intent to promote the welfare of all those affected by it (italics in original, p. 137). “Now that demonic power exists, accordingly, it cannot be unilaterally controlled. The battle between divine and demonic power is therefore a real battle, with the outcome still undecided” (my emphasis, 137).

Griffin continues: “Through this process … demonic power, which the rise of human existence made possible, actually came to dominance on our planet. … Civilization has been significantly shaped by the drive to produce coercive power that would be used with hate or at least indifference” (141).

At this point, I find it informative to note that the same year Christian Faith came out (2006), the indefatigable Griffin also published 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Vol. I, with Canadian Peter Dale Scott, a scholar and diplomat often credited with the term “The Deep State.” And what, if nothing else, is today’s Deep State but an agent of Evil and the very demonic force about which Griffin is writing?

Yet from here onward, Griffin follows the wrong trail completely, arguing on p. 142 that the West (and Whites implicitly) are the authors of all the evils we read about just about everywhere in modern education and media. Whites are morally culpable for “the market economy, European colonization of the globe, the ideologies of Nationalism and Capitalism, the Industrial Revolution, and various late-modern ideologies, such as Social Darwinism.” Griffin entirely misses the role of another distinct group and in fact elsewhere explicitly defends this non-white group when the evidence is overwhelming the opposite.

Finally comes the short passage Griffin wrote that stopped me in my tracks: “I begin with the notion that the demonic involves an objective symbolic structure, which presupposes the idea … that creativity as embodied in humans is capable of becoming demonic in large part because of our linguistic power[!]” [bold] (143, emphasis mine).

Who that has read Kevin MacDonald’s trilogy on a Jewish group evolutionary strategy could not have immediately recognized the import of what Griffin was saying? After all, superior verbal intelligence is an indispensable component of Jewish success and power, a factor absolutely central to MacDonald’s arguments. In the first book, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, MacDonald notes in the Preface that “Judaism has been characterized by assortative mating and by cultural and natural selection for intelligence . … Jewish populations have higher average intelligence than their gentile counterparts” (xi). A result has been that “Jews have been able to compete successfully with gentile members of many societies for positions in which literacy and intelligence are important” (18). This is then developed at length in Ch. 7, “Judaism as an Ecological Strategy: Selection for Phenotypic Traits Related to Intelligence, High-Investment Parenting, and Social Cohesion.”

Beginning on p. 188, MacDonald writes under the subheading “Differences Between Jews and Gentiles in Psychometric Intelligence” that “Given these phenomena [success in intellectual achievement, social status and money, for example], it is expected that Jews will tend to exceed gentiles in intellectual ability and particularly in what psychologists term verbal intelligence. As Levinson notes, traditional Jewish education emphasizes verbal knowledge, verbal concept formation, and ability to understand abstract ideas — exactly the abilities tapped by modern measures of verbal intelligence.” This section examines a wide range of evidence showing that Jewish verbal IQ exceeds that of their gentile neighbors while coming in lower on other segments of IQ.

In Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, MacDonald devotes time to Jewish conceptions of their racial uniqueness, one component of which is their sense of intellectual superiority, such as Freud’s beliefs in this respect (159). This theme often appears in Jewish humor, such as the quip from The Jewish Daily Forward about the Yiddish translation of Shakespeare — “Translated and improved by A. Cahan.” The common use of “goyishe kop” (a dull mind, or one who thinks like a non-Jew) is another example of this.

Finally, in the third book of the trilogy, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, the topic of superior Jewish verbal and intellectual intelligence is so prominent that it has its own index entry as “Intellectual superiority: as characteristic of Jewish-dominated movements,” with multiple pages listed. For instance, MacDonald repeats from A People That Shall Dwell Alone the evidence that “the mean Jewish IQ in the United States is approximately 117 and verbal IQ even higher.” (MacDonald now defers to (Richard Lynn’s estimate of 111).

Of the many results of this higher verbal IQ, a representative one is that “Jews were prominently represented as leaders of the Bolsheviks,” and within the Bolshevik movement, according to historian Albert Lindemann, “citing the absolute numbers of Jews, or their percentage of the whole, fails to recognize certain key if intangible factors: the assertiveness and often dazzling verbal skills of Jewish Bolsheviks.” (95) Needless to say, this dominance worked out terribly for non-Jews caught in that murderous regime, as many of us at The Occidental Quarterly and Occidental Observer have consistently emphasized.

Returning to Griffin, we read that he goes on to note that power, including that emanating from linguistic power, constitute “destructive, enslaving powers that seem to come ‘from beyond all human agency.’” To buttress this claim, Griffin quotes Ephesians 6:11-12:

Put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. (143)

When Griffin goes on to describe “the demonic soul of a culture,” then, we can immediately equate that with the decay of the West from roughly the 1960s, where “the individuals whose souls are formed in that society will tend to be ready servants of demonic evil.” How Griffin can miss the import of this next part is a mystery to me:

…by being warriors they are obeying the will of, and even imitating the behavior of, the deity of the universe; … it will lead them to believe that by dying in the service of this deity, they will be especially rewarded; it will lead them to hate. … it will convince them that they are a chosen people, so that by subjugating others they are actually bringing about divine rule on earth (emphasis added, 145–47).

In the following chapter, “The American Empire, Demonic Evil, and 9/11,” Griffin indicts today’s America in no uncertain terms: “The conclusion that the American empire is evil, and in fact the principal location of demonic power in our time,” follows from its policies related to nuclear weapons, global warming and the events of 9/11. Of course only the latter issue concerns us in the present essay.

Griffin fairly enough points to neoconservatives as the main force in promulgating Middle Eastern policies that (conveniently) benefitted them and their favored foreign state once the events of Sept. 11, 2001 transpired. He then blithely goes on to discuss members of that group, completely ignoring their identities. I now list the names we read beginning on p. 151: Charles Krauthammer, Ben Wattenberg, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Dinesh D’Souza (non-Jewish), Max Boot and Joshua Muravchik.

He can be this blind because sixty pages earlier he had unilaterally absolved Jews from responsibility for any of this, arguing explicitly that “The term ‘neoconservatism’ is, in any case, used here to refer to an ideology, not to any biographical facts about those who hold this ideology” (p. 87). Griffin allows that “many of the prominent neoconservatives have been Jewish” but he fails to pursue that telling pattern at all, which is a pity because his own theology and biographical evidence about neocons strongly supports the central role of Jews as Jews.(Note 2)

This is more than a missed opportunity; it is practically a moral and intellectual crime. And never once in reading books by Griffin have I sensed that he understands the Jewish role but is deliberately coy for practical, career or other reasons. He just seems blind to his own citation of glaring facts. Take, for example, his discussion of executive director Philip Zelikow’s role in what Griffin identifies as deliberate deception in the official 9/11 Commission Report. Never noting that Zelikow is Jewish, Griffin writes that Zelikow had coauthored in 1998 an essay on “catastrophic terrorism,” showing that Zelikow “had been thinking about the World Trade Center and a new Pearl Harbor several years prior to 9/11.”

The quote Griffin uses from Zelikow reads: “Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force.” While we can forgive Griffin for not seeing the future where these things have come to pass in spades (high tech surveillance from “private companies,” deplatforming of government critics, and most of all policies revolving around Covid-19 and its attempts at amelioration), we can only remain stunned that as brilliant and courageous as Griffin is on so many other fronts, he completely drops the ball on this main issue.

Returning to the chapter on Demonic Evil, we reach Griffin’s conclusion: “The attacks of 9/11, understood as a false-flag operation orchestrated by forces within the U.S. government, can be taken, I suggest, as the chief revelation of our time. Not a divine relation, to be sure, but the chief revelation of the demonic — of the extent to which it has taken control of the American government” (180–81).

OK, but since his 2006 book, has Griffin asked “Who DID 9/11?” Nowhere have I seen Griffin consider anything more specific than “forces within the U.S. government” led by neocons to account for 9/11 and its long, long aftermath. But in the current year, two decades after the initial event, we have strongly suggestive evidence, as well as a compelling narrative, about the responsible parties to this portion of our “demonic” history.

So “Who DID 9/11?” The most expedient way to answer this question is to visit and follow The Unz Review, where French writer Laurent Guyénot submitted an 8,500-word article called “9/11 was an Israeli Job,” where the very title gives you Guyénot’s conclusion.(Note 3) Three years later, Jewish American Ron Unz offered a similar conclusion in “American Pravda: Seeking 9/11 Truth After Twenty Years.”

For the best account supporting this thesis of Israel’s guilt (actually, it would more properly be considered as world Jewry’s guilt and complicity), see journalist Christopher Bollyn’s Solving 9-11: The Deception That Changed the World (2012), a version of which is available online.

This explanation of 9/11 alone would constitute demonic Evil, but one must think of the vast, vast litany of other Jewish crimes, genocides and foul deeds rather than just the span of the last twenty or so years. No other group in history remotely approaches this level of Evil, possibly because, as Griffin notes, “America has by far the most extensive empire ever created” (p. 106). And what have writers from TOO and Unz Review shown over those years but that America is effectively ruled by Jews?

We have seen how this empire helped destroy Germany, followed by a steady attack (often through subversion and financial manipulation) on the “victorious” Western nations such as Great Britain and America. The acceleration of this attack since the 1960s has been well documented on TOO, by various writers and by E. Michael Jones, who also sees a cosmic dimension where God’s benevolent will is being contested by the Jews who rejected Christ’s divinity at the foot of the cross and thereby, as told by Jones in his magisterial The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, also rejected the Logos at the core of God’s plan. Jones expanded on his understanding of Logos in Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality (2020), a book which strongly buttresses Griffin’s theological perspective, but one that takes into account the critical conjunction of Jews and Evil.(Note 4)

l hope that by identifying Prof. Griffin’s lacuna in his analysis of Evil in the modern world, I am not at the same time undermining the value of the work he’s done with theology or with 9/11. Rather, I am taking his work and building on it through synthesis and the addition of more current relevant details. Taken together with my last long essay on the work of Kevin MacDonald and E. Michael Jones, I hope I am properly outlining the broadest possible picture of the state of our world at present.

Sadly, the picture I have discovered is an apocalyptic one in that “our world is the scene of a deadly battle between divine and demonic power.” Currently, the forces arrayed on the side of the divine are in indisputable retreat, possibly fatally so. God remains remote and silent, it seems, though E. Michael Jones rallies us with cries of “Reversal is in the air.”

Perhaps — and this is a desperate stretch — Jones is right that traditional Church fathers unravelled the truth that God uses evil to produce good, for that is the conclusion of Jones’ Logos Rising book. Is there anything, however, that we humans, endowed with free will according to the theologians and philosophers Griffin and Jones discuss, can do to prod God to produce good? I’m getting nervous.

TOO writer Thomas Dalton offers advice to the United States that could apply to the entire White world (as currently it is almost exclusively the White race that is under sustained Jewish attack):

Unless and until White America is willing to collectively acknowledge its responsibility for its own well-being, and to acknowledge the fundamental role of Jewish supremacy in the many crises of our nation, our problems will never end. We must use this moment to turn the tide against the Jews, to reclaim our country, and to secure, for the first time in many decades, a vastly brighter future.

In closing, let me say that we need to get very, very serious about the current world situation. As E. Michael Jones writes in his October issue of Culture Wars, the Jewish Question is the main issue facing the world in our day. He is right. So I strongly advise putting away talk of all other topics to focus exclusively on the JQ. The near-term fate of the world hangs in the balance.

1. If there is one abiding topic of discussion about Jews in the modern world, it is how they persistently attack other groups’ concepts of truth and beauty.
Lucian Freud’s portrait, “Benefits Supervisor Sleeping”

This theme has also been addressed by E. Michael Jones in his discussions on Jewish architecture, for example, that of Frank Gehry:

Frank Gehry’s Experience Music Project|Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame, Seattle

2. In contrast to Griffin’s insouciance with respect to the critical presence of Jews in the government working on and around 9/11 issues, fellow liberal scholar James Petras has taken similar Jewish identities and followed them to their logical conclusions to quite dramatic and opposite effect. See, for example, my scholarly Petras review in TOQ, as well as TOO essays here and here.

3. I can confidently assume that if Griffin were also to blame Israel and Jews in America for a false flag attack on Americans on 9/11, along with the subsequent destruction of Iraq based on 9/11, he would find even more evil in such actions and would likely come to a conclusion similar to my own. In addition, in the books noted above, there are references to the Holocaust that show that Griffin and those around him accept the conventional story of the Holocaust and its associated six million murdered Jews. For some decades, however, that number has been under credible attack, as has the entire Holocaust narrative. See, for instance, “Debating the Holocaust: A New Look at Both Sides” (2010) by Thomas Dalton, as well as his recent essay “Jasenovac: The Latest Holocaust Embarrassment” here on TOO. I also endorse the title of his essay “We Must Dismantle Jewish Supremacy: Silence Is Not an Option,” which can be read here. Were Griffin also ever to doubt the Holocaust narrative and find that Jews were responsible for creating and propagating the story, as well as the hideous abuse heaped on Germans defeated after the Second World War, he would possibly conclude that the case for Jewish evil and the demonic is overwhelming.

4. I realize that I am suggesting that Jews across time are intrinsically evil, but in fact I am equivocal about this point. What tempts me to make the general assertion of Jewish evil is the evidence we have going back as far as written history itself that Jews consistently behave in a way considered as evil by the surrounding communities. Further, the expanse of this behavior among Jewry in general also reinforces the point. And while we can often identify Jewish leaders who act in an evil way, it is vanishingly rare that others Jews stand up to not just condemn such behavior but to actually stop it; mere words are somehow not effective.

For example, Israel Shamir, a Jewish convert who in theory could be one who stands up to Jewish evil, shows the extent of the agreement to support group behavior when he writes that blame cannot be ascribed merely to the Jewish elites but to the “quite ordinary Jews who fully identify with their community.” While there may, Shamir notes, be “many Jewish media-lords, even more editors,” it is the ordinary Jews, he argues, who make enforcement of an agreed-upon policy effective. “These willing executioners of our freedom, the foot-soldiers of the media lords, automatically defend ‘the Jews,’ i.e., the organised Jewish community at any price.”

James Petras is even more blunt, as he turns to the Hebrew term “sayanim” to refer the “overseas networks” of the Israeli state. “From the height of the [media] network to the lawyers’ boardrooms, and the doctors’ lounges, the pro-Israel supporters of the network aggressively attack as ‘anti- Semites’ any critical voices. Through local intimidation and malicious intervention in the professions, the zealots defend Israeli policy . . .” (The Power of Israel in the United States [2006], p. 37). These zealots and ordinary Jews in the Diaspora can be of great use to Israel, as Petras explains, as they comprise a “huge worldwide network of Jews in strategic or useful places (real estate, mass media, finance, car dealerships, etc.) who have agreed to help Israeli Mossad activities within their own countries” (p. 141). Others offer help in more informal ways as they can appear to be non-political, innocuous citizens such as professors, doctors, dentists, lawyers, or just car dealers. In short, as Petras writes, “there is no crime, no matter how terrible and perverse, that Israel commits, which will not be supported by the respectable professors, investment bankers, journalists, surgeons, policy advisers, real estate moguls, lawyers, school teachers, and other ordinary folk who make up the activist base of the Major Organizations” (p. 102). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that evil is widely spread in the Jewish community.

Of course the greatest dissent to this belief in the intrinsic evil of Jews comes from the Catholic Church itself and its unwavering mission to convert all Jews to Christianity, in which case they would improve their behavior based on following the precepts of Jesus Christ. This view is firmly grounded in the idea of human free will, which accords Jews the ongoing opportunity to voluntarily change their behavior, a view which clearly denies any intrinsically evil nature.

76 replies
    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Drugged, as advocated by Bert Russell in 1952- “diet, injections [and injunctions] will make it impossible to challenge the powers that be.”

  1. TJ
    TJ says:

    Who Owns the World?
    By Joseph Mercola


    October 30, 2021


    The most important article ever?

    Until recently, it appeared economic competition had been driving the rise and fall of small and large companies across the U.S. Supposedly, PepsiCo is Coca Cola’s competitor, Apple and Android vie for your loyalty and drug companies battle for your health care dollars. However, all of that turns out to be an illusion.

    Since the mid-1970s, two corporations — Vanguard and Blackrock — have gobbled up most companies in the world, effectively destroying the competitive market on which America’s strength has rested, leaving only false appearances behind.

    Indeed, the global economy may be the greatest illusionary trick ever pulled over the eyes of people around the world. To understand what’s really going on, watch Tim Gielen’s hour-long documentary, “MONOPOLY: Who Owns the World?” above.

    Corporate Domination

    As noted by Gielen, who narrates the film, a handful of mega corporations — private investment companies — dominate every aspect of our lives; everything we eat, drink, wear or use in one way or another. These investment firms are so enormous, they control the money flow worldwide. So, how does this scheme work?

    While there appear to be hundreds of competing brands on the market, like Russian nesting dolls, larger parent companies own multiple smaller brands. In reality, all packaged food brands, for example, are owned by a dozen or so larger parent companies.

    Pepsi Co. owns a long list of food, beverage and snack brands, as does Coca-Cola, Nestle, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Unilever, Mars, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez, Danone and Associated British Foods. Together, these parent companies monopolize the packaged food industry, as virtually every food brand available belongs to one of them.

    These companies are publicly traded and are run by boards, where the largest shareholders have power over the decision making. This is where it gets interesting, because when you look up who the largest shareholders are, you find yet another monopoly.

    While the topmost shareholders can change from time to time, based on shares bought and sold, two companies are consistently listed among the top institutional holders of these parent companies: The [[[Vanguard Group Inc.]]] and [[[Blackrock Inc.]]]

    >>>They use fake money, created from nothing, to STEAL everything, while claiming that they are “buying.” Please read to the end. tj

  2. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    Being able to debunk the official narrative is one thing. Being able to debunk it publicly is another. Being able to write a book debunking it publicly is another thing yet again. Each of these stages brings the individual into greater honor. Is his honor lessened for shying away from the JQ in all this? It’s hard to say, given the obscurity and consequent lack of influence and resources into which those of us were consigned for PREDICTING Jewish involvement in a false flag attack around the turn of the millennium.

    But here is a reasonable question:

    What can be expected of a people who accord honor to those that achieve prominence and influence while ignoring the prescient?

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Deregulation sucks, as it can leave a monopoly in place, a monopoly that was state-created in the first place.
      Therefore I favor NO regulation, so State created monopoly cannot exist.

      Anti-trust, so beloved by conservatives, is a creature of big business, as I pointed out here last year.

      • James Bowery
        James Bowery says:

        The social network monopolies are real and they are not created by regulation. They are a consequence of positive network externalities being captured by corporations that control the connections between customers — connections that increase as the square of the number of customers hence become an insurmountable barrier to competition.

        That said, I agree that government “regulation” invites what you call State created monopolies, but your solution is wrong for the reason I stated above. There are a variety of things that could be done short of “anti-trust regulation” but two obvious things are, 1) Use the provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remove de facto Common Carrier status from the network effect monopolies so that they are sued out of existence when they start censoring content going over their networks, or 2) (more radically) Change the tax base from income to liquidation value of net assets so that the monopoly rents that show up on their bottom lines are taxed away.

        • James Bowery
          James Bowery says:

          A little history may provide much-needed perspective on the shift in tax base I proposed. This history is contained in this response to the comment thread linked above:

          The approach of replacing net asset taxation with what amounts to property insurance is a good one and indeed one I’ve suggested as part of an anarcho-capitalist model for government as mutual insurance company (ala Lysander Spooner [google.com]). The basic income then becomes, literally, a dividend to the shareholders in the mutual insurance company — which maintains defense of national territory as the foundation for all other property.

          As for intellectual property, there are genuinely heroic inventions that need to be rewarded because technology development is damn expensive and money needs to be placed in the hands of proven inventors. The problem is patents are the _only_ asset that is de facto taxed by the Federal government — when it should be the only asset that is _exempt_, if any. Moreover, the legal fees of maintaining filings world-wide should be picked up as a natural security measure — as well as defending intellectual property as though it were sovereign territory. Finally, the standard of “non-obviousness” needs to be much more strictly enforced to prohibit patent trolls. For instance, I don’t consider my invention of the massively multiplayer first person shooter 3D game to be particularly heroic or “non-obvious”, which is why I’ve never made a big deal about not receiving much in the way of royalties from the follow-on industry. It was something that was bound to happen one way or another as more people got their hands on computers with graphics and networking capability.

          On the other hand, probably the most pathological example of intellectual property in history is MS-DOS, so you cite it at length for good reason. However, if the property value assessment is, as I have often suggested [blogspot.com], a market-based liquidation value, from virtually the moment that IBM made the decision to distribute MS-DOS with their 4.77MHz 8088 PC, the tax rate on Bill Gates would have been so great that he would have had to very quickly sold MS-DOS to some legal person that had at least as great a vision for the future of operating systems as DRI.

          There were a number of operating systems around at that time but few that would run on the 8086/8088 hardware. One with multitasking was the iRMX86 OSsupplied by Intel with its 8086/8088 chips for real time development. I don’t know how or why they overlooked that. My suspicion is that the real reason they chose MS-DOS was that Bill Gates’s mother had direct contacts with the IBM board of directors.

          If that’s the case, it would make me feel quite a bit better about my decision to abandon development of an 8086/8088 OS — a development that started before the first silicon was shipped while I was at the PLATO project where we modified the CDC Cyber COMPASS assembler to produce the instructions documented on the preliminary datasheets, and execute on an emulator running on the Cyber 6500 during off-hours.

          The reason I initiated that project, with some of the PLATO system programmers (Ray Ozzie was a system programmer at PLATO but was consumed by his work on the Z80 firmware) was that I foresaw the horror of a bad operating system becoming the network-effect atop Moore’s Law, and wanted to head it off. Others, primarily Steve Freyder, agreed and pitched in.

          It was obvious to me that whoever got the critical mass OS for that platform would have a natural monopoly and lock out competition — including superior operating systems.

          I abandoned that project only because Mike Pavloff at Control Data HQ offered me a position at the Arden Hills Operations where I could pursue a mass market version of the PLATO network which would have, using Ozzie’s Z80 firmware, bypassed the personal computer era entirely with a Mac-like UI and built-in 1200bps modem starting in 1981 with a monthly service charge of $40/month including “terminal” rental. We had that system benchmarked out at a scale that could have deployed nation wide late in 1979, but Wall Street analysts smelled blood and were ripping Bill Norris (the Nebraska farm boy that founded CDC with Seymour Cray) limb from limb due to his billion dollar investment in PLATO. CDC middle management mutinied and reneged on their agreement to let me pursue a mass market
          version of PLATO. I fled CDC and tried to revive something similar at Knight-Rider’s joint venture with AT&T, but that is another story [slashdot.org].

          Suffice to say, when I saw MS-DOS I knew a horror had been unleashed and that Gates would become extremely wealthy.

          If Freyder and I had been able to, somehow, beat Gates’s mother and get our OS distributed by IBM, do I think I would have deserved to be the world’s richest man? Hell NO! I consider my foresight to be no more than the ability to identify a bottleneck in the trade routes of Moore’s Law that, if one could occupy, one could extract an enormous revenue stream from; and if my position on net asset taxation hasn’t made it clear that I would not consider such foresight to be a “creative spark”, I don’t know what would.

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” Change the tax base from income to liquidation value of net assets “…

          Please spare us of your rendition of typical governmental establishment criminal nonsense about taxation which has been going on for ages .

          You , as a computer aficionado , surely understand the logic of this concept better than the vast majority ___


          ( same rate for all taxpayers )

          is the one and only “fair tax”

          since it gives each and every taxpayer
          the exact same rate-of-return ( based on remaining after-tax income )
          on their investment ( paid taxes ) in government .

          No other tax of any kind does this . A few conditionals apply to assure the feasibility and fairness of this tax . Why pay for government with any other kind of tax that is ipso facto [ unfair ] ?

          Here is why this tax gets no traction among the taxpaying public ___

          Politicians do not want to be effectively limited on how much they can shakedown from the taxpaying public ; any flat rate tax greater than 50% of income , with no other taxes of any kind , would be proof positive for each and every taxpayer of the malfeasance of government .

          Teachers do not want to teach this tax because they do not want their unions to have to negotiate their benefits with a government constrained by the 50% de facto rule of malfeasance .

          Low income people understandably do not want to pay any tax whether fair or not .

          “The Rich” are not interested in paying their [ fair share ] for government .

          The vast majority of the public are typically anti-rational about human affairs ( that also includes taxation ).

          The chosenhite jewmasterss ( globalist oligarchy ) do not believe their taxpaying slaves ( aka sheeple herds ) have any right whatsoever to fairness of any kind .

          I have posted many dozens of times on other websites for the past ten years on the basic essence of The Flat Rate Income Tax along with the few applicable conditionals and no one has ever challenged the logic nor nonpolitical feasibility of it .

          • James Bowery
            James Bowery says:

            Please spare us of your rendition of typical governmental establishment criminal nonsense about taxation which has been going on for ages .

            Anarcho-capitalism would charge a use fee for the service of protecting property rights, so arguing against replacing taxes on activity (including sales, value added, inheritance, capital gains as well as income) with a “tax” on net assets is rather like the typical “libertarian” demand that no steps be taken toward anarcho-capitalism because it is some sort of compromise with principle.

            But here’s the real problem with your “theory”:

            It’s only going to accelerate the collapse of civilization. For some that’s a feature not a bug — one with which I can sympathize to some extent, but let’s speak plainly if that’s your agenda. We’re among friends here.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Hat tip to TJ for posting Rothbard’s article, which is as instructive now as it was thirty-plus years ago.

            But is anyone especially interested in reading the article in preference, say, to listening to an enlightening* video wherein overweight veterans express their opinion of today’s USA by ceaselessly repeating the familiar profanities starting with f–, m–, and s– in various syntactical contexts until it’s time to walk off camera and have another beer?

            Rothbard might not use enough of these manly terms to suit some folks, but among other things, he does explain precisely what tax collectors and legislators mean when they talk about a loophole, and he explains it in a manner calculated to make the scales fall from a reader’s eyes. If that bit of insight alone isn’t worth more than the momentary satisfaction that some get from shouting a dozen profanities, why bother being a habitué of this site?

    • Ludwig
      Ludwig says:

      I like the categories “pioneers & feudalists” and you’ve aptly named the field of domain in which they operate.

      A look around at the landscape shows the feudalists are well on the way to subduing everything in totality, even the human spirit. Granted, it’s not yet complete. How the pioneers are going to thwart them is hard to see unless something can open the consciousness of ordinary people to perceive the danger at its kernel rather than the plethora of minutia with which they are distracted.
      It was the American thinkers who articulated liberty in such a way that captured the imagination of ordinary people to effect a mass mobilisation to not only rise up against England but to support the American Constitution. For without the ordinary people it could have never have succeeded.

      I’m sceptical this can happen again if I look around at the state of battlefield. However, I must confess something within me believes against despair that humanity can and will win.

      • Michael Fury
        Michael Fury says:

        They willed to stand against the evil deluge

        In accordance with their way and spirit.

        The death blow would not find them unprepared,

        But organized in discipline and sworn

        To God on the sacred rigors borne

        By their forebears’ imperishable faith.

        Their gathering fate was but a wraith

        Still in the West to many, but to more

        Every minute what seemed a nightmare

        Resolved itself in daylight as the end

        Of all they loved or could love. It was then

        Our champions by grace were given fury.

        Not despair, not hopeless misery,

        but destiny’s transfiguration,

        Though all Hell promised annihilation.

    • Aristo Boho
      Aristo Boho says:

      Dear Mister Power,

      As a traditional person and one who is not in accord with our contemporary culture and modern world,
      at the same time, not living an alienated life, and not uncharitable to those around me, I ask of you because I’m all for whatever you might want to culturally-intellectually share with us, that there is not a too long. People today have not the attention span or the psychological disposition to break free from the negatively ensconced comfort their cognitive existence is. One example is their passive acceptance of the official story concerning 9/11: epistemic apathy and complacency. I’m sure that if it’s deemed worthy and not abusive of the author of the above article, Doctor Kevin MacDonald will most surely post it, as he has done with my previous COMMENTS at times of a long length. God Bless, Aristo Boho

  3. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Interesting coincidence coincidence?
    Just today I posted this on another well known site – “… – but I would like to insert an analysis to fill a gap. What we often identify as insanity is actually much worse – pure demonic Satanism! Whadat?
    Yeah, I know – roll DaEyes – done by both churchgoers and non- Churchians. Never confuse Christianity with Churchianity!
    I agree, if you compare both Russia and China to DaUSA today – there is no question that we have lost our marbles – but is that all there is?
    When you read –
    https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/03/in-essenceit-always-wasand-still-isa.html?m=0 – and I mean ALL of it including all the links, you just might discover something you never even considered. I might also add that the success of the demonic influence is primarily caused by their being invisible to public perception – thus our inability to see the source of evil or fight it.
    You cannot win a war if you don’t know your enemy or his weapons of war. They are as old as mankind!
    And BTW – you should not be surprised by who the primary carriers of this Satanism are!

  4. Mike
    Mike says:

    It is not that God cannot oppose and end evil with coercive force, but that He chooses not to. God chooses persuasion over coercion. God’s priorities are not ours. We place too much emphasis on what happens in time. It is not what happens in time that is important, but how we respond to it. God desires to give the evil every opportunity to repent. But ultimately He will judge the evil. Noah was the only righteous man left before the flood. Lot was the only righteous man left in Sodom (if he was righteous). God waits until there is no hope of change in the hearts of men, before He acts.

    The distinction you and Griffin seem to miss is between the two kingdoms. The difference is categorical. The one is ensiform, the other cruciform. The former was on offer to Jesus in the temptations. Bow to the devil and take up the sword. This is the easy path. The righteous path is the path to the cross. The paradox of Christianity is that defeat is victory, death is life. Jesus didn’t say remain faithful until I make you a king, he said remain faithful until they kill you and you will receive a crown of life. You cannot defeat evil with evil. You cannot out Satan, Satan. Jesus has already won the victory over the last enemy, death. To follow Him is to take up your cross, not a sword.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” The righteous path is the path to the cross.”

      Why of course . Go get yourself crucified like a good compliant sheeple person and you will supposedly score a lot of points for God to let you live in heaven on judgement day after you have been dead for at least a few days .

      Christianity cannot defeat Satanism in this world .

      Time to consider a new and vastly improved religion dedicated to the survival of current and future humanity ; that does not necessarily mean acquiescence to the established powers-that-be nor to the establishment status quo whether of God or of Satan .

  5. Tom Briggs
    Tom Briggs says:

    Great article. An earlier example of Jewish intellectual flim-flam was the orchestration of the abstract expressionist movement of the late 1940s in New York City. The movement produced ‘artists’ that could neither draw nor paint. Artists that created garbage that a child could do. The genius of the movement were two Jews Clement Greenburg and Julius Rosenberg. Many of the paintings produced from this movement sell for upwards of 170 million. A Marc Rothko work being just one. The trick was in applying long-winded explanations of the supposed depth and sublime meaning of these visual horrors, erroneously called paintings. This was proof that the creators of the movement could turn all that defined art prior to their ascension, on its ear. It seems to me that this was a sort of testing ground that proved that they could turn objectivity, reason, form, transcendent beauty, and reality itself on its ear as well. Why not an entire culture and its morals and belief system? Of course, the evil of the Satanic kind needs a vacuum in which to thrive. And that vacuum was formed in large measure by those who are Satan’s victims today, namely Whites. Through collective character weakness, brought about by decades of
    TV, fast food, and other indulgences, their will was weakened and made malleable. All the major attacks on them were disguised as helping the negroes. The Whites were too comfortable and lost their vigilance. Personally, I believe it’s all Satanic, and that very possibly those responsible are agents from Hell.

  6. Odessa
    Odessa says:

    My mother use to say to me “You’re too smart for your own good.” I thought in my stupidity that that was some kinda compliment. I would venture to say that the Jewish Clan thinks and feels that they are smart enough. After all the word Israel means to “wrestle with God.” Intelligence without a moral code is easily corrupted by pride. Mark Zuckerbergs new Meta, Google and their various alphabet companies control the publishing of history and information. Big pharma., culture, media, psychology, law, banking, education, porn., are over represented in the USA with Jews. White Europeans are not tribal like the Jews. We make things, we invent, create art, and are we do things that have bettered the rest of the world. We don’t wrestle with God, compete with God. We Christians ask is this right with my soul is this what a loving God wants from me.

  7. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    Things are very dark and depressing today as a result of the plans of an international elite working toward a Great Reset. They reduced the population during the world wars and those behind the wars were evil. Many historical events were evil. What is happening today is nothing new.

    But this doesn’t mean that it is the fulfillment of a Bible written by Jews or that there is a devil. Shouldn’t we stick to reality and what is knowable rather than go off on a religious tangent?

    Being raised in the south and a Southern Baptist I was belittled and attacked by those outside the south and was always the butt of their jokes because among other things I was Christian and believed in Jesus. We were taught to be courageous and to stand up for Jesus no matter what. I no longer believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I don’t believe in blood sacrifices or ancient myth nor the concept of sin.

    The Jews wrote the Bible and now we have people who use the Bible to tell us about evil Jews. It’s time to talk about serious solutions in the realm of reality. Like forcing Jews to live in their own homeland or declaring war on international Jewry. We could start a movement to get them out of our media. There are different things to do which would require action. Perhaps we’ve exhausted writing, reading and discussing and it’s time for action. We need a leader who will create some kind of movement against Jews.

    I never thought I would see the day when northerners and intellectuals would be seriously talking about Jesus and His Heavenly Father and discussing the Devil. Beam me up Scottie.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      We could start a movement to get them out of our media. There are different things to do which would require action. Perhaps we’ve exhausted writing, reading and discussing and it’s time for action. We need a leader who will create some kind of movement against Jews.

      What you are saying is that we need a Central Processor to actuate the “Dumb Terminals”. [Def.: A display monitor that has no processing capabilities. A dumb terminal is simply an output device that accepts data from the CPU. In contrast, a smart terminal is a monitor that has its own processor for special features, such as bold and blinking characters. Dumb terminals are not as fast as smart terminals, and they do not support as many display features, but they are adequate for most applications.]

      I maintain that every person should posses a processor that is capable of thinking, conceptualization, and visualization toward actuation. Your model is the foot soldier paradigm. Clumps of grunts that must be led, held together, periodically motivated and given strict parameters and direction. The WW I trench soldier.

      My model is the special forces, where each individual is self contained, motivated, confident and capable. These are individuals that can operate independently, alone when separated, and are resourceful, inventive, and creative. Obviously they contain a “processor” and “software”.

      • Barbara
        Barbara says:

        An important point regarding good and evil that has not been mentioned. There is no doubt that the Jew is evil and has a sordid history. However, according to the Bible everyone has sinned and come short of the glory of God, as the Bible states it. Therefore no matter what evil depths the Jew has gone to and no matter what evil they are committing right now, the fact is that if any individual has not accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, according to the Bible, you are going to hell. Only the saved will enter Heaven. This is what the Bible says. This puts a different light on good and evil. According to the Bible, perfect love casts out fear. If the writer of this article has accepted Jesus and become a Christian, there is nothing to fear from Jewish evil. But if you have not accepted Jesus than you are in the eyes of God as evil as the Jew. This is what the Bible says along with all of the other things you quoted. The Jew rejected Jesus. Are you saved by His grace?

      • Barbara
        Barbara says:

        I didn’t mean my other comment to be a reply to you but a general comment. But I would like to know what you are doing as an individual to work against the Jew.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” We need a leader who will create some kind of movement against Jews.”

      No doubt . The first leader to stick his head up above ground level will a get a Mossad silver bullet between his eyes . Whitey has not shown any significant capacity to protect their leaders from assassinations ( re : NT / KJV / Ephesians / 6 : 11 – 12 ; …”” For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh,””… — really ? )

  8. todd hupp
    todd hupp says:

    1.It should be noted that the indigenous Jews of Palestine have lower IQs similar to the indigenous Palestinians vs NW Europeans.American Jews are largely European hybrids which explains their higher IQs.

    2.Bin Laden made it very clear -publically -the 9/11 attacks were revenge American Jewish and US Government support for Israel.The Jewish press has suppressed this reality to the American public.The attack was a Saudi project exclusively-not Iraq or other Muslim countries.The Twin Towers were Jewish owned and accommodated the Jewish controlled NY financial establishment.The attack was an anti Jewish/anti Israel event: focused on the pervasive American Jewish influence.
    3 .The only solution for anti American Muslim terrorism will be a fair and equitable two state arrangement in Palestine per the 1948 plan.Jewish aggression and land grab is causing the terrorism.

  9. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4

    and so we find the events surrounding the cannibal Armin Miewes. What a truly unprecedented act of criminality and sadism he committed against his best friend! What stopped me cold however, reading the news is the unbelievable confession of his:

    “I prayed for him, and for myself and then I did it.”

    What you say? He has the presence of mind to “pray” – to say something like this and then proceeds to do the unthinkable?

    What we are faced with here is demon possession pure and simple. This is a demon possessed man giving the middle finger to God. It is a demon or more likely demons mocking God for his saving ways. This victim Miewes was being controlled by demons and the demons used the occasion to stick it to God by getting him to the seat of Christ and perhaps even into heaven as a forgiven cannibal for his sins because he “prayed?” Can you imagine?

    This goes back to the book of Job where Satan mocks God to His face for praising Job’s faithfulness. Satan knows what man is really like that a man would indeed give all he has for his life. That God would therefore bless and or even save human beings for their lives of sin and rebellion / disobedience is such an illogical matter. And indeed in many ways it is when one realizes that before God there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood! And so the crucifixion of Christ. But righteousness even this wasn’t enough to get human beings to live such lives before God and this really gets under Satans skin. It is why he is called the accuser of the brethren. He always attacks us before God which he hopes will result in God giving it authority over man like Job. That all changed when Christ came and removed that authority and placed it back where it belongs with Him and His father. That demons would use cannibalism and such only proves their contempt for God and for man really.

    It’s not genetics its spiritual!!! What we are facing with human beings and human nature really is what the Bible calls Spiritual Warfare. We are indeed in a war with demonic spirits and I know of what I speak of having seen the possessed and have had angelic experiences. The real expert however was Dr. Walter Martin who had first hand encounters with the demon possessed and was involved in hundreds of exorcisms. this is an excellent introduction to the subject:


    HUGO FUERST says:

    Wikispooks “9/11/Israel Did It” is still accessibe online and needs convincing refutation not suspicious suppression.

  11. Manuel Sotil
    Manuel Sotil says:

    The problem in trying to reconcile Christian dogma about the creation of man and the theory of evolution from apes is that there has been no a sudden quantum leap in evolution, a single event that transformed an ape into a human capable of discerning between good and evil, capable of altruism, someone with moral responsibility. If evolution was a steady process of intellectual capacity in tiny steps, at what point did God decide that this here is a man but his parents are still apes? The missing link is that quantum leap from one generation to a generation suddenly imbued with moral responsibility and the ability to discern good from evil.
    As for the intellectual measure of the jewish people, while there are more than a few fashionable jewish writers including a few jewish Nobel Literature laureates, I am yet to find a jewish Shakespeare, Goethe, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens (just to name a few representative names). Same when it comes to music (Beethoven , Bach, Mozart, Brahms -no, Mahler or Mendelsohn are not in that league) and scientific discoveries . Intelligence derived from generations of discussion of abstract or arcane subjects and verbal obfuscation is not synonymous with creative intelligence, in which whites excel.

  12. Loppar
    Loppar says:

    Bros, this isn’t good.

    This morning I wondered why they can’t just leave us alone.

    But it’s because they’re evil. I now understand to group them under this term.

    It really stinks. I think most of us just want to live. It’s really weird that a chunk of humanity wants this for the rest of us.

    They will not win.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      The blind spot of narcissism. They “see” only two states as possible- God, or nothingness. They are God, all others, by logical extension , are nothing. If the nothings were allowed agency [volition] that implies that these Gods are not longer in total control, and that the Gods are now nothings.

      The bad guys “think” that any loss of control equals total loss of control. Therefore total loss of control is for us only, total control reserved for Jews only. Wholes and parts of wholes are confused/conflated… A small loss of control would be life-ruining. Jews DEMAND a monopoly of free will and believe that they deserve it.

      • TJ
        TJ says:

        Every god is a potential nothing, every nothing is a potential god. Mirror images.

        The lord, on the cross, was God and nothing in the same moment.

        As Art Koestler pointed out Demon est deus inversus.

  13. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    Mike, you are quite correct in stating that: “It is not that God cannot oppose and end evil with coercive force, but that He chooses not to.” Dr. David Ray Griffith (I too enjoy much of his dismantling of the 9/11 official myth) and our present author, Dr. Edmund Connelly, also a worthily esteemed commentor in my opinion, are suffering from bad theology. Likewise, I am sorry that commenter, Barbara, was so bruised by her being ill-prepared by her Protestant upbringing that–faced with sophisticated resistance–her Faith collapsed. (This is why great Thomistic scholasticism is so, so important.) As I said, I agree that God merely permits deviant vectors to impinge upon His perfectly desired plans of the movement toward the Telos. The deviations are our sin and our responsibility. Our portion of it will need to be accounted for in this life or the next. What we can trust is that He is acting moment by moment, at the limits of the instances of time if that is even pertinent to His action, to act concursively in correcting the continually Satanically and humanly corrupted Universe to an adequate justice –in the spiritual as well as the earthly accounting system considered together–in order to effect His ends. This does not mean that you will necessarily win every lawsuit so as to be restored in material terms, it does not mean that the righteous will win all wars, it does not me that you will be thanked for your good deeds. God’s plans are so high above ours that we cannot begin to gainsay His decisions. (Okay, if someone doesn’t want to believe this, pour anouth Scotch and relax and at least bear with me—and pour me one too while you are at it, please.) I am a scientist. I do not buy the official 9/11 story. One two-word phrase should be a complete defeater: “Building Seven.” Enough said? I should think so. Any non-acceptance of what is implied in the whole and the entirity of this statement is revealing of a mind that is insufficiently prepared for the necessary discussion needed to get at reality, or it is a perniciously devious one fully intent upon deception and malice. I have been publicly involved in what I think is an important contribution to the unwrapping of the 9/11 story. There is what is purported to be the flight data from the plane that struck the Pentagon (if a plane hit the Pentagon). Yes, we must all, or mostly all, treat everything about this as hypothetical since even if we were at Ground Zero for the event, because we cannot have a full enough record of information that would alone satisfy the question of what really happened on that 11th day in September in 2001. But, given that we grant the status of true evidence to the items that I mentioned, then we should be able to distinguish from the records of feedback corrections of any of the important flight-control surfaces, sufficiently-uniquetime-varying signatures to distinguish between three cases: (1) a skilled pilot flying into the target; (2) an unskilled, presumptive hijacker improbably negotiating the corkscrew descent into the target at near ground level; or (3) an programmable auto pilot that hijacked the plane from the hijackers–or controlled the full-replica drone–into the Pentagon. Dairz implications here—got it? And if that record from the flight data recorder is a fraud, then there just may be a means of detecting that as well. Well, one individual for who I also have tremendous respect for his work, received one of my missives, perhaps passing along something from this site, T.O.O. He nearly went berserk. He demanded an accounting of how I stood on the issue of BLM and that I take some questionnaire that would plot my responses on a Cartesian system to map my political “number.” Wow! It reminded me of the days when I ignorantly just dismissed criticism of the official story of 9/11 as Leftist propaganda. Well, thee were Leftists under that official-9/11 bed. It is just that I am now a 9/11 skeptic, ‘sans’ the Leftism. So, I feel completely free to cafeteria pick what I believe is incontrovertible about 9/11, COVID pseudovaccines, the 2020 elections, The Murrah Building bombing and so on. What I am convinced about is that there are agents who are masters of the limied hangout, that powerful con-man’s trick. While I do believe that China has found the time ripe for flexing its muscle in the vacuum of a crumbling West, I also am sure that we are being deflected from the other historical predators upon the White, European, Christian family, Church, nationalistic institutions and concepts, creativity and enterprise and independence. I talked about predators in the COVID scam and the maliciousness of the mRNA (and DNA) platforms for behavioral manipulation and depopulation. Oh, the possibilities are limitless for what can be done once the bureaucracy and acceptance of the regularly-updated genetic-control system is in place. Why do I think this? Because in 2001, September actually, I embarked on a project that had–at its end–inserting genes to “fix the broken protein receptors in the brain,” especially those involved in emotions. Thank God, I never got there. I was so naive that it did not occur to me that anyone would misuse such methods once developed. Next, back to religion, there is nothing more sophisticated than Aristo-Thomistic, Scholastic philosophy for probining Nature, while maintaining one’s Christian shield. With all due respect for my Protestant heroes also courageously fighting many fights, only a scientifically-literate, Aristo-Thomist is fully equipped for admitting ideas into the dock and safetly examining them, dismantling them, reverse engineering them and salvaging what is useful for the spreading of the Gospel. And while I have the pulpit for one more minute—you can do nothing better than making your best effort at effectively persuading young people in your families or your neighborhoods, ecclesial circles and institutions to marry, to reproduce and to diligently train the children for more effective childrearing and soul saving, Kingdom-building work. Clearly, mine is a Catholic perspective and clearly the Catholic Church is in a misetrable condition. The church was a prime target for infiltration. Okay, fix it. Roll up your sleaves. It will be a mess. Regarding the analysis of flight data for 9/11, will I do it? Probably not now. why? Because many, even here, I suspect have the skills to do so. I have already had a suspicious well-dressed character within the past year walk up to me in a public place and jam a switch blade within inches of my belly, for no explicable reason,smile and walk away. Whether that is a warning with significance connected with these topics, I do not know. But let’s spread the risk. (By the way, I do not believe in suicide, in case the question ever arises.) Barbara, I am praying for you.

  14. Manuel Sotil
    Manuel Sotil says:

    The problem in trying to reconcile Christian dogma about the creation of man and the theory of evolution from apes is that there has been no a sudden quantum leap in evolution, a single event that transformed an ape into a human capable of discerning between good and evil, capable of altruism, someone with moral responsibility. If evolution was a steady process of intellectual capacity in tiny steps, at what point did God decide that this here is a man but his parents are still apes? The missing link is that quantum leap from one generation to a generation suddenly imbued with moral responsibility and the ability to discern good from evil.
    As for the intellectual prowess of the jewish people, while there are more than a few fashionable jewish writers including a few Nobel Literature laureates, I am yet to find a jewish Shakespeare, Goethe, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens (just to name a few representative names). Same when it comes to music (Beethoven , Bach, Mozart, Brahms -no, Mahler or Mendelssohn are not in that league) and scientific discoveries. Intelligence derived from generations of discussion of abstract or the arcane and verbal obfuscation is not synonymous with creative intelligence at which whites excel.

      HUGO FUERST says:

      A few miscellaneous reflections.
      As a numerical minority, Jews have excelled comparatively in areas involving calculation, including in recent decades theoretical physics, plus some culturally-significant medical research. Many violinists and lawyers but no top-notch composers or philosophers.
      On “theology” I dare add Spinoza to Aristotle, Averroes, Aquinas, Leibniz and Heidegger.
      Looking at the variety of life on this planet I personally find the notion of evolution through random mutation difficult to believe, but not as incredible as the book of Genesis. The human problem is not so much a primordial pair of Homo sapiens in some remote past, but the “scriptural” notion that all breathing “creatures”, including all the different races now existing, go back to the occupants of an isolated “ark” a few thousand years ago.
      Three (among many) puzzing questions for God-is-Love Christians are (1) why the Self-existent Being created “from nothing” this particular universe from a presumably infinite possibiities, (2) the existence of this universe in which predation, undeserved pain and species competition are designed for the animal kingdom, and (3) the prolonged delay in history before the Creator (or a third of him) decided to become human (apart from the male gene unherited from a biological father) for a short period, only to be tortured and killed as a “ransom”, &c.
      To return to the main interest of TOO, what about the opinion of Benjamin (“All is race”) D’Israeli that the indestructibility of the Chosen People (“this generation” of Mark 13.30?) is good evidence for a Creator? (Where was God in Auschwitz? – Preparing an Eternal Gas-chamber for all the “unsaved” – Matthew 25.46.)
      The paradox is that a “blind cosmos” evolved brains able to discuss its own existence. Maybe our minds are not yet up to finding answers to the “mystery” of the universe, but if we persist in dysgenic down-breeding we are never likely to get anywhere in that matter.

  15. crank
    crank says:

    What was true of Griffin’s neglect around the questions of “Who actually DID 9/11, and Why ?” is also true of the vast bulk of the 9/11 Truth movement generally. Kevin Ryan had a go, but it merely moved the vague answer of “forces within the US government” to an equally speculative “a private intelligence group”. Personally, it was about a decade of following the unfolding 9/11 evidence before I seriously considered the work of Bollyn and later Guyenot. They offer a coherent answer to those questions and the only response I read to their thesis is one of smear and demonisation (ironically, coming from the very same ‘truthers’ who complained so loudly that nobody would listen to them and consider their evidence).
    I am not surprised that Griffin avoids the JQ. He is a Christian, and the likes of Jones seem to be in a tiny minority in that regard. Christianity is a Jewish construct as far as I can discern : a religion of the book (the book being mainly the Torah).
    I am intrigued as to why more people in this field do not consider the work of mystic and scientist Rudolf Steiner. Put his name and ‘antisemitism’ into a search engine. Obviously, those in the Anthroposophical movement are going to downplay this aspect of his thinking/ writing. He understood racial realism. He also understood that freedom lies ultimately in the individual (NB not the kind of materialist individualism that we live in today).
    Search also for ‘New View’ magazine, for a collection of articles about 9/11, Covid, and the crises of this era as understood from an Anthroposophical perspective. For them, evil forces are indeed making a bid for dominance in these times, although they have a slightly different conception of ‘evil’ to someone like Griffin.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      From the late sixties through the mid-nineties, I worked and effectively lived in New York’s high cultural scene. During these years, I met perhaps thirty to forty people who were devoted disciples of Steiner, whether they were enrolled members of the Anthroposophy Society or informally associated with it. Many of them were classical musicians, and all but two or three of them were Jews.

      I have no way of knowing, of course, whether my experience was typical or anomalous. Nevertheless, whatever Steiner’s expressed views on Jews or racial matters generally might have been, they don’t seem to have posthumously poisoned his attraction for well-positioned members of the Tribe in the American city where their influence dwarfs that of all others.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          A brief o/t comment if I may, Al. Having suffered a catastrophic computer crash on October 17, I am still discovering a lot of what I missed in the subsequent weeks. As of now, I am feeling the greenest envy toward you and Charles Frey for not being able to share in your brief but delightful exchanges with Gerard Menuhin in the thread below Spencer Quinn’s Holocaust® article. What a truly brave and remarkable man he is, the son of an equally remarkable father!

          • Al Ross
            Al Ross says:

            Yes indeed, Pierre . Truth trumps everything for Mr. Menuhin, re the Holocaust .

            Hope your computer problems are resolved soonest.

            I would imagine that GM is the least likely Old Etonian to be invited back to address that illustrious school’s debating society. Boris Johnson is a philosemitic shoo – in though.

    • Nicholas Wood
      Nicholas Wood says:

      The Bible is not “a Book” like the Koran, but a selection of books – made by the Roman Catholic Church centuries after “the Son of God ascended to the right hand of his Father in the heavens”. All the books were apparently written by people of Jewish ancestry, except probably the gospel of Luke. They have many incredible bits, some interesting stories, quotable social advice, some impressive poetry, and not a few jokes. Like it or not, they have made a significant contribution to the Culture of the West, including some remarkable art and music from the Pieta of Michelangelo to the Bach Passion. Christianity is in its closing stages and we can surely agree with the comment of the Russian-Jewish atheist Ayn Rand, “There is tragedy in the spectacle.” The overwhelming priority now is the rescue of white nations from extinction, whether Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims or Chinese “Communists” like it or not.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        The best chance for the unlimited survival of Whites ( EuroMan/Aryan/European/Indo-European/Caucasian/et al ) is to get onboard with the new religion corresponding to

        {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

        to create , to develop , and to employ

        the sciences , the technologies , and the arts

        that are needed now and those that will be needed

        by Humanity to thrive-n-survive beyond

        the inevitable and guaranteed

        DOOM of the OBLIVION of

        {{ The Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }}

        before it is too late .

  16. Gilles
    Gilles says:

    Griffin was interviewed in 2006 by Tucker Carlson then on msnbc on one of his 9-11 books, where Tucker called Griffin’s claims « wrong, sinful and blasphemous». It is still on YouTube.

  17. Servenet
    Servenet says:

    Two remarks – After 11 years of scorning the 9/11 “Truth” narrative, I FINALLY…looked at and listened to what the Truthers were saying. And it was a slam-dunk. Made OJ look innocent by comparison. Second – the “traditional” theology on the absolute sovereignty of God, as per the Book itself – another slam-dunk. I think that Book has a little to say on what the Christian faith asserts on the subject.

  18. Swan
    Swan says:

    The last point of the article is the one thing that we must embrace despite the negative consequences. We know who are responsible for our destruction. Shame on us if we do nothing. We need to do all we can, even if small. I have chosen to speak to anyone who will listen. I don’t know what else I can do. I’m open to suggestions.

    • Bobby
      Bobby says:

      Yes Swan. Keep doing that- I do the same. We all must keep doing this.

      “Undoubtedly they do more and viler things than those which we know and discover.” ~Martin Luther

    • Rebecca
      Rebecca says:

      “Shame on us if we do nothing.” Precisely.

      I don’t understand why stealth violence seems to be off the table for WN’s and intellectuals who know the truth about our enemies. How else can complete evil be eradicated?

      It’s as if we are having a picnic with our essays and books in the jungle, not bothering to shoot the wolves and hyenas circling our tiny spot of beauty. Tragic. Utterly tragic.

  19. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    I really do get sick of the Bible and Christianity in general being used as a way of explaining the universe and spirituality. We know that there are many spiritual beliefs that are far older, we also know that Christianity borrowed much from these, and that the New Testament links itself to Judaism (that alone is a huge problem). On top of this we see hundreds of different groups of different types of Christians. Whilst it might be something that gives structure to spiritual beliefs, it caused nothing but misery, and fear in me. There are also much afterlife research, that for me is more interesting. Having said all that, the ideas offered above are interesting, but not in a sort of Christian context. Just my thoughts.

    • David Schmitt
      David Schmitt says:

      Mr. Penman, I understand. Just know that there is a path out of the angst when you so choose, and–should you follow that path–you will realize that the dignity of your intellect was not only preserved, but enhanced.

  20. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    Apologies, as usual, for my atrocious inability to proofread immediately after writing. And my errors multiply as I drift back toward sleep. To the point: it is time that we Europeans grasp our purpose with regarding both theory and action. Here are some observations born from experience. We must courageously speak up in our spheres of influence. Our neighbors have settled into positions of well-defended, malignant obedience and false politeness. It is words and conversation that are the alternatives to war (I think JFK underscored this idea.). Running away from rational conversation and verbal confrontation only projects us, uncontrolled, toward civil war. False politness is a vice, not a virtue. False politeness muzzles the necessary verbalizations. The intellects and personal virtues of our fellow Europeans have been utterly degraded and undermined through the educational system, captured religious hierarchies, televized and institutional programming and pervasive, interpersonal, peer pressure. It is a race to the bottom. Most individuals are going to have to be abandoned like combative, drowning men. Their folly in accepting the mRNA injection in lieu of better treatments will quite possibly thin their numbers. We need, in the quiet of meditation and prayer, to recalibrate our personal balance of our modes of individualism and cooperativity. Each end of this spectrum, with individualism and cooperativity at polar opposites, has its virtues and vices. We now need each other more than ever as each of us becomes temporarily more geographically isolated. But we can become personally stronger as we taxically reorient and move toward combined action. We need to defend each other even if we differ in opinions regarding little things. We have no time for the latter any longer. We also must try to root out those peeves and opinions that arre not comformable to a common reality. Fear not, there is plenty of room for genuine individuality without attachment to frail, ideological tatoos. Yes, there is a demonic war that is destroying us. Even speaking as an ethologist, I can identify something in scientific terms that I would otherwise need to come up with a term for, sanitized if you will, of religious-sounding language. But why bother? There is a force that every individual animal, or groups of the same if they are social animals, face that is hostile to their continued existence. For humans, with our chaacteristic intellects, this hostile force possesses the corresponding characteristic of intelligence. Thus, it is a predatory and an intellectual force—a Devil. So, like all forms of life, we struggle at the basic level against gravity; inhospitable and destructive energies and physical forces; chaos and Brownian motion; oxidation; infection and parasitism from below and predation from above—but for intelligent beings we also are vulnerable to higher intelligences opposing our being and our communion with others. The ability to do pattern recognition makes it obvious that these diabolical forces exist. These malevolent forces exist in specific events and the way things happen (viz., the spiritual “high places”) as well as influencing actual, material beings. If those material beings are persons, then these beings voluntarily chose to become our enemies. For those among us who envision themselves as aetheists or agnostics, I implore you to reconsider. There is a manner of your grasping and reclaiming the full armor of the Faith and all that it provides as protection for yourself and the necessary fabric of which you are a part. You may be a pattern in the weave of that cloth, but the threads extend into others who are also patterns in that cloth. Here, I can adopt an aspect of the Whiteheadian analysis. We are information and process–spirit–all the way down, as well as all the way up. But this in no way nullifies anything of the commonality of our convention called “matter.” Nor does it nullify anything of the superlative and absolute statements of God’s omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence, not to mention a divine love that exceeds all other.. One should shutter to speak with detraction of His power and goodness—ever. You only isolate and harm oneself in this manner and you only harm the Cause in which you are a part. There is nothing of an ethnic chauvinism in what I am saying. This is not “supremacist” talk. That word is the accusatory tool of our enemies employed to undermine our defenses. Indeed, we are the best defenders of what is best for other ethnicities as well. It is the nature of the diabolical to tempt any and all to do that which is most self-destructive and what is other destructive. Satan hates every human being. And every human being’s interest arrives to a great degree through their familial and ethnic kin, society and nation. Culture is a projection and source of reafferent enforcement and modification for its co-natural, generative nervous systems. We need our homotypic cultures for our individual nervous systems, behaviors and life trajectories to thrive. This is true and necessary for every ethnic peoples. Only when these realities are satisfied can we entertain communication with other ethnicities. These communications are mediated and enhanced through proper interfaces, the prime one being national borders. Borders are means of communication, not barriers to it. Borders provide the channels and transfer functions between transmitters and receivers of different ethnicities and their cultures. Exchanges of ideas, materials and people can then be negotiated.
    Enough for one comment. Thanks.

    • Barbara
      Barbara says:

      Christianity is a part of what made Western civilization. But these are different times. It took long periods of time to make the first advances in human development but now things are happening so fast we are barely able to keep up. I think Christianity must change and adapt if it is to survive.

      Christianity derived as I understand it from ancient myths and pagan gods. According to A History of God by Karen Armstrong, religions evolve and change over time. Christianity replaced what we today consider to be the pagan gods. Jehovah was one of those pagan gods, the god of the Jews.

      I believe in a creator or God, but there is no way that I can know the nature of God unless God reveals that to me. But I also believe that people are a part of nature and somehow humans no longer connect with that nature and fancy humans to be something more important than we are in the grand scheme.

      I have no animosity toward Christians and my family remain Christians and are active in church. I came to form my current beliefs about God through life experience. We are part of nature. And nature does some pretty evil things. I’m a big fan of the Lion Whisperer.

      According to the Bible you have to accept Jesus as your savior or you will be in the same boat as the evil Jew. I haven’t heard anyone tell of their experience of salvation or try to help others become Christian. That’s very important if you are going to talk about the Bible and good and evil.

      I wonder why intellectuals have suddenly found God and we’re being preached to from such unlikely sources. If the goal is to persuade flyover country Christians to turn against the Jew, I would suggest that you need to know the people you are trying to persuade and I think you don’t have the first clue and in this situation you are merely preaching to the choir.

      • David Edward Schmitt
        David Edward Schmitt says:

        Gerry, I tried a couple times. Your comment did not get through to me, to be quite frank with you. No, I do not see the Biblical concept of free will as representing any sort of theoretical problem. I devoted considerable time as sort of an amateur, intellectual hobby–maybe not so amateurish, actually–to understanding the rational acceptibility of a non-deterministic reality. If I said to you–“Excuse me, Sir, might I suggest your considering not stepping off of this curb so carelessly as apparently you are about to do, because there is a rather large bus about to pass this very spot in front of us at a significant rate of speed, a bus that–in fact–you seem not to be aware of since you are looking in a completely opposite direction”–would I be depriving you of free will? How about if I yelled, ‘Stop!’?” And, also, I am curious—who is doing all this presenting that you are referring to?

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        Trying to persuade Christians to seriously oppose Jews is similar to trying to persuade children to disown their parents . It usually does not end well for the children .

        Christianity cannot defeat Judaic Satanism in this world in this life .

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      I utterly hate the niceness of conservatives. I do not view being polite as being moral- it today’s context being nice could be considered to be evil. Supposing the niceness of conservatives is an act? I’ll bet that God knows it is an act. Is using salty language satanic? Swearing in most cases is a sign of distress. IT IS ALSO A SIGN THAT TALK IS OVER, NOW IT IS TIME TO FIGHT. Being nice should NOT be viewed as a primary virtue. The failure to cuss when apropos should be viewed as sinful. . .Some of my relatives are so repressed it beggars description. Remember God knows your real thoughts, even though they are kept from others. AFAIK the more I swear the more rational I become- (((Mr. Spock))) was wrong,- he had a perverted understanding of reason. The fake niceness of conservatives will kill us. . .so will the fake money of Jewry. . .The cursing lamp is now lit. Being nice without reason should be viewed as being irresponsible.

      “with individualism and cooperativity at polar opposites” That is a liberal socialist view
      The essence of a private property society is voluntary contracts. This is cooperation. Shaking hands and all that implies.

      • David Schmitt
        David Schmitt says:

        TJ, I could not agree more with your statement: “I utterly hate the niceness of conservatives. I do not view being polite as being moral- it today’s context being nice could be considered to be evil.” We are in an ethnopsychological war, not or our choosing. Indeed, we have awakened only slowly to it. We could hardly be accused of having willed it, even if one tries to invoke some baloney blather about deep and dark, subconscious explanation. Here is a little anecdotal story for you. Monday was, in the Catholic Church, all Saints Day—a Holy day of obligation when we are required to attend Mass. It is a day to remember loved ones and family members “marked by the sign of Faith” (and by implication, such ancestors and lineage who have gone before). We write their names–those known to us–in a Book of the Dead. If the priests were (good, but almost all are not), they would make the connection to our need to honor familial heritage and, thus, ethnos and nation. So, this cleric begins with the apparently insincere throw-away comment that, “although we have a right to protect our borders,” and then proceeds to rant on with the stock verbiage about not harming the immigrant, even the illegal one. First of all, no one is “harming the immigrant” in the sense which the listener is supposed to take the statement in emotional terms created by Hollywood. There are no midnight attacks on farm camps by “skin-headed” thugs and all that. For myself, I treat everyone well on a personal level. As a college professor, I know that I have had more than a few illegal immigrants or their descendants in my classes—on your dime, by the way. I treated them with all of the diligence that I did any other student. My battle is at the political and cultural level, not the personal one. But this sophist priest’s trick is for the listener to transfer those emotionally “scary” and dark images to policy-level, otherwise sober topic of border enforcement and to them form your political decisions accordingly. Well, when he mentioned that we have a right to defend our borders (knowing from having been well-trained by these priestly charlatans over the decades), I knew what was coming next. So, as is to punctuate and underline his surely insincere prefatory remark, I clapped loudly. This, naturally, drew the ire of the staid, polite gentleman in front of me—who I know from conversations agrees with me. During the “sign of peace,” I say loudly to him, as I firmly grip and shake his hand, “Be brave!” So, I contemplate for much of the Mass how I am to respond with Christian courage to the outrageus, tendentious politicking of this ignorant priest. (He frequently brags how he failed out of college and then went to seminary—the sissified, corrupt bishops love these types because that can be depolyed as mindless repeaters of the handed-down, nefarious agenda). Now, I have tried on more than one occasion to invite this priest for a discussion, evenover dinner or lunch or coffee. Of course, as with all of these despicable weasles misusing their role as priests, he has always refused (too “busy” don’t ya’ know). So as we process out into the vestibule I calmly, but firmly, confronted him publicly (he had his chance for privacy, and he chose to twist an All Saints-Day homily into an implicitly anti-European manipulation as part of the demographic debasement and war. I rebuked him. I told him that his sermon was disgusting and that I rejected the utter evil coming out of his mouth. I stated that I will defend my people–and all my fellow citizens (which includes other ethnicities, as our American system is so constructed) from the corrupt actions of the likes of him. Oh, I might have gotten in something about the bishops—I can’t remeber. I should have if I did not. Of course (and this is my point in connection with your comment), a few of my fellow congregants were appalled, and I, of course, steadfastly rebuked them as well. I spoke audibly, but did not scream. I was truthfully pointed , because time does not allow otherwise in such situations, but I did not use profanity. I judged that things had gone on too far. Our polite compliance is being used against our well-being, both spiritual and temporally practical. The interesting dynamic is the way in which the evermore compliant, congregants–like the public at large–is manipulated to resist the strong and courageous voice, which they secretly agree with, but are trained to reject as being “extremist,” “impolite,” “censurable,” “a bad apple,” and (obviously falsely), “mentally unstable,” “Germanic” and (again falsely) “a potentially violent threat.” Merrick Garland is clearly capitalizing and promoting this lie regarding righteously angry parents at school-board meetings. (What happened to PTAs, by the way? No useful enough as platforms for growing authoritarianism, perhaps?) This tactic of co-opting the bystanders is a classic technique of the organizers of mobbing operations. It is condemnable, not virtuous.
        I try to be impeccably polite in true fashion in all of my dealings. But as with Jesus in the temple with the hucksters, sometimes righteous anger is necessary. By the way, on the way home (about twenty miles away) and alond a deserted country road, flashing lights approached towards me. I pulled over with my turn signal remaining on. The police car stops on the opposite side of the road. Hmmm, that was odd if they had known to what emergency they were responding. Since I had no legal offense or misbehavior on my conscience, I resumed my travel towards home. I noticed in my mirror that the police car made a faint maneuver as if to do a U-turn and pursue me—but he abandoned that and continued in the opposite direction. Be brave people. It is time to peacefully (I consider what I did to be peaceful—in fact, supremely protective of the peace, as well as of righteousness, justice, honor and good citizenship and Christian virtues. Remember, God loves ethnicity: He created it. I am proud of my German ancestry as I expect everyone to be of theirs. I am going to do what I lawfully can to push back HARD against anti-White, anti-European and anti-German evil. You must begin to find more and more opportunities to do the same. Do nothing that would bring shame to our effort, of course. But do not let yourself be degraded into a quivering, compliant, self-denying slave. Push back, speak up, forget what the co-opted mobsters’ tools think of you. This is you one life to expend and with which to lose everything. This is where the reminder of the Cross helps. And, I am told that Christianity is a tool of subjugation, but I have found it to beanother part of my identity. God is on OUR side in the struggle to defend our European, and for some, our German lineage—a particular focal point in the attack on Europeans. My solace in the Faith not only provides psychological benefits (which in the minds of some makes it a dismissable thing as if psychological power needed a crutch), but I am convinced that it has provided supernatural potency: prayers and miracles work. And Faith also is a foundation for building social relationships and, thus, ethnic and civic power. This is not a thing to be despised. We need it more than ever. We need it to separate from those of our kind who are irreparably weak and debased. We need it to provide ourselves with a medium of communication of things that cannot be communicated using merely political or sociological language. Religion, our Christian–and dare I say, Catholic, language frovides that channel for fluid, “impedance-matched” agreement and union with other minds like ours. So, I would encourage you not to abandon your Faith, or discover it anew. Yes, the Catholic Church has been thoroughly captured from top to bottom. But what would you expect Satan to do early on with the most powerful force against him?


        (Mod. Note: WAY too long, and no paragraphs. If you want to get you ideas across, don’t do it this way because few will be able to read without brain-hurt.)

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” The fake niceness of conservatives will kill us.”

        Superb observation .

        USAR VN 68 Tet Offensive veteran Pierre de Craon clearly insinuates ( with his Nov 2 comment of the
        [ Spencer J. Quinn’s “Solzhenitsyn and the Right” ]
        T.O.O. essay ) the vulgar talk expressed in the video was not authentic informal warrior language .

        Craon is either being disingenuous , or he is a troll artist , or perhaps he was a deaf chaplains assistant in an unusually effete military environment at the MACV Hdqtrs. in Saigon .

        I am a VN USAR war veteran from a solid military culture of many generations and nations . Real warriors really do get vulgar . However , it bears repeating that the the historic capital crimes against humanity committed by communists in Russia , in China , in Cambodia , in the USA and elsewhere are many times more atrocious and obscene than the vulgar war talk of that video .

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Your experience seems to be congruent with your character. This is not a phenomenon without precedent.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            Your experience seems to be consistent with those whom have lived very sheltered and pampered lives — even in a war zone .

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            I’m surprised that you failed to boast of your kill count.

            As regards your speculations, surely being sheltered and pampered is more likely to be characteristic of someone who identifies himself in terms of the communicative power of money than of someone whose forbears, although poor and rudimentarily educated for the most part, were decidedly not the sort to link the words “military” and “culture” in a context that they associated with justifiable pride.

  21. David Schmitt
    David Schmitt says:

    Mr. Penman, I understand. Just know that there is a path out of the angst when you so choose, and–should you follow that path–you will realize that the dignity of your intellect was not only preserved, but enhanced.

  22. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    The way ‘free will’ is presented has always seemed odd if not in error to me. From beginning to end the God of the bible has been trying to suppress man’s free will by always warning man of the consequences of his actions in disobedience. God is forever testing man’s faithfulness to Him. Look at Abraham told to sacrifice his son. God didn’t give him a choice in the matter now did He? Rather He tested Abraham one last and final time. Look at Jesus and the things he said and did. “Things that cause people to sin is bound to come but woe to him through whom it comes.” “Woe to you Capernaum if the mighty miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom and Gomarrah they would have repented … etc etc.”

    Further how strange it is today that free will is presented as a choice in whether one believes or not. That didn’t exist in the old world. In the days of the Patriarchs of Israel, the Pharoahs of Egypt, Canaan, etc faith and belief was very much alive. No one in that world would ever have bought into any kind of Darwinism period. Darwin would have been laughed, ridiculed, mocked, and sent packing indeed no one would even have had the courage to even broach the subject that man evolved from apes. The stories of Noah, Sodom and Gomarrah etc wasn’t fables to these people but fact! The problem as I see it is just plain old disobedience because people find sin pleasurable period. No Holy and righteous God stood around saying to himself well I gave them free will so they have the choice to do as they please and yet what passed judgment and had them destroyed accordingly? Are we telling our own children hey you have your own free will to do as you please when it comes to breaking the law of either our own home or the country in which we live. If will is so free to do as ones pleases why do we have laws and imprison people? Further to this Romans 7 where is free will in that chapter? For St. Paul to say what I want to do i can’t do but what i don’t want to do that i end up doing tells me our will is subject to something else entirely? We seem to be harmed in some way both spiritually and physically genetically. This then brings us to Pentecost and how the Christian is supposed to be ruled and controlled by God’s own indwelling Spirit which for God after so much of history gone wrong promised that “it is not by power, or by might but by my spirit says the Lord.” I could go on and on about this but this is really not the place for it now is it. But I can only add Adam and Eve weren’t given the freedom to choose whether to eat of the tree or not. They were simply told not to eat of that blasted tree period and if it wasn’t for Satan tempting Eve with lies things would have been entirely different. After the fall when the knowledge of evil entering their minds and heart viola is that not what produced in them the choice? The world then went to hell and quite literally after that with God being forced to do what? End it with a terrible cataclysm. And heres the real danger having faith in God is one thing, to disobey Him is quite another. Pharoah was the prime example of that for he knew God and yet blatantly disobeyed him and God made an example out of Him for the whole world to see. When Jericho rolled around they were of the character like so many others thumbing their noses not at Israel but to the very Creator our Father literally. And they accordingly paid the price as Capernaum and others did later as Christ said!!!

    “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the [a]miracles that occurred in you had occurred in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in [b]sackcloth and ashes. 22 Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! For if the [c]miracles that occurred in you had occurred in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom on the day of judgment, than for you.”

    ‘Free will’ the way it is presented and argued is difficult? I do feel there is something not entirely correct. Am I making sense?

    • Nicholas Wood
      Nicholas Wood says:

      Free will: when someone makes a decision that is unrestricted by some external circumstance (e.g. handcuffs) or some internal brain damage (e.g. drugs) between one or more conceivable choices, he will follow the strongest motive. Imagine a driver facing a crossroads with two directiions available, he (and even she) will be stumped, unless one is more attractive (better views, shorter distance, gas-station en route), and woudl have “freely” to make an arbitrary or random choice. A normal diner will put pepper in soup rather than custard, unless perhaps strongest motive is to “prove” free “will”. In some individual “moral” situations, the choices can prove difficult – for example, for “compulsive” self-abusers; “the quickest way to end a temptation is to succumb” (Oscar Wilde), but in the end the “strongest motive” at the time will triumph. We do not feel forced because our decisions are based on attraction not coercion. Freedom to choose is not freedom of choice. Modern brain research would seem to corroborate this analysis. However, we should continue to work politically for what seems best for us socially.
      As for the “Bible”, people therein are doomed anyway as wholesale units irrespective of personal actions (e.g. babies in the Deluge, Hebrew genocides, entire towns in Gerry’s quotes and entire nations in Matthew 25). Apart from its cruelties, there are sound reasons for not believing the historical accuracy or philosophical value in much of this collection.
      The European peoples are facing severe problems, but we should not just give up and give in; I would say we still have a chance.

  23. Michael Fury
    Michael Fury says:

    To accelerate this national dilution

    The Enemy used deception and illusion

    As before, his confidence never greater

    In the power of his demonic theater

    Over a degraded population.

    He broadcast live on every station

    The brazen, calculated murders

    Of two thousand souls among the girders

    Of gigantic towers he demolished,

    Then celebrated as his golem rushed…

Comments are closed.