Comments on: Philo-Protestant lies about usury; paedophilic hypocrisy

By: Mary Louise

Mary Louise — Fri, 20 May 2016 10:14:59 +0000

In reply to Northsider. That last observation of yours is so true, Northsider. My Dad loathes Tony Bliar. He knows what an evil, despicable schmuck he is. However, when I suggested that he might have been behind the 7/7 bombings, he laughed, and said he wouldn't go that far.

By: Northsider

Northsider — Thu, 19 May 2016 11:26:24 +0000

I listened to David Duke’s radio show the day before yesterday, in which he condemned Francis for endorsing mass migration to Europe. Needless to say much of what he said was true, but unfortunately it was accompanied by the by now standard “alt right” disavowal of any “conspiracy theory” belief – as in “I don’t believe Pope Francis is part of a conspiracy – I don’t believe he’s an agent.” Well I’m afraid I DO believe he’s an agent. In fact I think it’s far more far-fetched to believe that Benedict just happened to resign after months of open threats from Shillary, the Zio-BBC etc. , and he just happened to be ostensibly replaced by the avidly pro-immigration Bergoglio, just at the time the Tribe just happened to be planning to unleash huge waves of migration on Europe – than it is to believe that he was installed in an organised crime style “you have 48 hours to leave town” takedown. In any case the conspirators themselves have openly boasted of their plot.
It’s extraordinary to me how so many alt-rightists, Catholic trads, and so on, manage to hold what seem to me to be two mutually contradictory beliefs at the same time. On the one hand they say, “Oh the establishment are corrupt from top to bottom: they support abortion, ssm, men in girls washrooms, genital dismemberment for teenagers, genocidal wars, and on and on.” But then when someone says, “yes and they also engage in false flag terrorism, entrapment and blackmail of churchmen and politicians, star-whacking, political assassination etc.” the same folks in effect say, “Oh dear me know, they would never do any of that – that’s just wild-eyed conspiracy theory!”

By: Timothy Fitzpatrick

Timothy Fitzpatrick — Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:50 +0000

In reply to Northsider. Well rounded insights. Thanks.

By: Northsider

Northsider — Sat, 07 May 2016 18:11:19 +0000

Tim, I think a key question that’s rarely asked is why do Jewish activists use the term “anti-Semitism” rather than “anti-Jewish” as their bogey word. I think it’s because they seek to conflate several very different things – (a) hatred of Jews on account of their biological race; (b) hatred of the Jewish religion, and (c) disagreement with Jewish political ideologies such as Zionism – all under the deliberately vague label “anti-Semitism”. I’ve even seem some Jewish writers say anti-communism is a form of anti-Semitism – on the grounds that Jews have usually dominated the Communist movement. Thus the likes of Fr Denis Fahey is routinely called an “anti-Semite” even though he condemned biological hatred of the Jews and stated that many Jews had excellent natural virtues.
One thing the white nats are right about is that nobody ever says “China needs more diversity” or “Japan needs more diversity” or “Nigeria needs more diversity”. And even left-wing pro-Palestinian activists don’t talk much about the explicitly racist nature of the Israeli state and the explicitly racist religion of the Talmud. So I’d agree with you that diversity, as that term is now used, doesn’t work. It doesn’t even work for its supposed beneficiaries. I read an interview with the black movie actor Eddie Murphy in the leftwing British newspaper The Observer, many years ago, in which, believe it or not, he said the whole American Civil Rights Movement had been a plot to destroy black communities – that prior to the Civil Rights Act blacks had a great deal of economic independence – their own shops, restaurants, cinemas and so on, and that afterward all this went kaput.
That’s why I think Duke was on to something when he tried to make common cause with anti-Zios of other races, and why I think he’s making a big mistake allowing himself to be influenced back in an openly racist direction by dodgy characters like Anglin. The racial hatred these guys come out with may expand the boundaries of what’s acceptable to say – but it also makes sworn enemies of many folk who could otherwise be allies. I suspect Duke, like many older guys, is a bit seduced by young people making common cause with him – especially when they appear to be making his cause “cool”. But even if these “new racists” are for real (and I have strong doubts in many cases) their abusive and violent language will end up making the white nat movement despised (or more despised than it is already) – if only because the macho threats of violent retribution and the outrageous insults tend to stay on the internet. There’s no sign, for example, that many of the folk who follow Anglin on the net are willing to put their money where their mouths are and go toe to toe with Soros SJWs on the streets. The Daily Stormer may get loads of internet hits, but if I’m not mistaken the numbers at white nat rallies in the US and elsewhere are still pitifully small.
Plus, hatred based on race is a sin – no question – though contrary to what the modern clerics would have you believe, it’s no more of a sin than hatred based on someone’s height or weight or hair colour, or tone of voice etc. On the other hand wanting to preserve the heritage, physical and cultural, of one’s own race is not a sin at all – in fact it’s a virtue.
I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever endorsed this diversity idea – quite the reverse – it has always favoured subsidiarity – i.e allowing nations, cities and even villages decide for themselves how much or how little they wish to mingle with outsiders. But like so many other ideas the true meaning of diversity has been turned on its head.

By: Northsider

Northsider — Sat, 07 May 2016 17:00:28 +0000

Tim, my own historical theory is that after the Reformation and post-Reformation religious conflicts the Catholic Church suffered a sort of psychological exhaustion, and became very disenchanted with the idea of physically fighting her corner – a disenchantment that persists to this day. It’s hard to believe now that once upon a time in Ireland – during the 17th century – the Papal Nuncio saw it as his task to unite the fighting factions against the Protestant British invaders. A few centuries later the Vatican had become so timid that it felt the need to ask the Masonic Protestant British regime for permission to canonise Joan of Arc. You see this timidity replicated over and over again – as in the Church’s ralliement to the rabidly anti-clerical Masonic regime in France, in her call to the heroic Cristeros to surrender in Mexico, in the ban on Action Francaise – at the behest of French Masonry – and on an on and on.
This was all justified on the basis of the scriptural injunction to respect legitimate authority, but in truth various pontiffs often displayed a very pick and mix approach to this principle. For example Pius XI showed scant respect for the “legitimate authority” of Adolf Hitler when he snubbed the German Fuehrer, during his visit to Rome. Needless to say I’m no fan of AH, but was he really (this was pre-WW II remember) so much more reprehensible a character than the Freemasonic leaders who inflicted the carnage of the First World War on Europe?
Likewise Paul VI more or less openly sided with anti-Franco leftists in Spain and their ideological counterparts in Latin America. So it’s clear that due respect for authority was often not the issue at all – but was rather a convenient cover for buckling under to Judaeo-masonry.
Having said that, even Pius XII (much more liberal than folk on either side in the Church like to admit) absolutely insisted on the right of countries to protect the integrity of their ethnic make-up, and the Church only began really embracing this whole multi-culti psychological brainwashing after Vatican II. In fact I have a very strong hunch that Bergoglio was parachuted in as “Pope” precisely because he could be relied upon to back the Soros/Rotchshcild/Goldman Sachs sponsored invasion of Europe to the hilt. I suspect even John Paul and Benedict, for all their flaws, would have had serious qualms about endorsing this.

By: Timothy Fitzpatrick

Timothy Fitzpatrick — Fri, 06 May 2016 22:22:39 +0000

In reply to Northsider. I can tell you from my experience in Orthodoxy that it is very ethnically based, which is probably the reason for a lot of its strength—as you point out, ethnic Greeks and Russians. The only ethnically based group in Catholicism I would compare it do would be a group like Filipinos. They seem to be one of the few remaining legitimately conservative factions within Catholicism—also probably due to their ethnic cohesion. The current mess is making me rethink the whole thing. Diversity, even within the Church, does not seem to work. It's an ideal notion that it should, but it just doesn't seem to work, ever.

By: Timothy Fitzpatrick

Timothy Fitzpatrick — Fri, 06 May 2016 22:04:58 +0000

In reply to Northsider.

It’s comments like these that make me wonder.

What I’m referring to is the racist and ungraceful tendency of “tradcats” I’m not denigrating traditional Catholics, but the people who take it to the legalist extreme, often it looks as if they are in love with the aesthetics of the religion and the rules, but not the love and grace. They like the history because they try to interpret it as the world they want to live in.
It’s kind of hard to describe, but I think many Catholics can see the differents between a “TradCat” and a “Traditional Catholic”.
I have several very “traditional” Orthodox people following my blog and I have no idea why. When I see their own blogs I see hatred, misogyny, and racism interspersed with Orthodox aesthetics and wonder what drew them to Orthodoxy anyways when we explicitly teach against such things

The context of this comment was in response to a hit piece on Brother Nathanael Kapner. He is an “anti-Semite” even though he is probably Semitic himself, and a racist, according to these PC Orthodox members. I am sure there are racists that use Traditional Catholicism and Orthodxy as a crutch; however, a lot of it is warranted reaction to the current multi-cultural mess we are in—a mess to which the Church has a duty to respond, just like it has a duty to respond to the Jewish problem, freemasonry, and false-flag terrorism.

By: Northsider

Northsider — Fri, 06 May 2016 21:10:19 +0000

Tim, that’s interesting. I must confess I know very little about Orthodoxy – apart from reading a couple of Archbishop Bloom’s books, who seemed to me to be quite a profound spiritual thinker. I wonder would this anti-traditionalism be an Orthodox version of the Bella Dodd syndrome ,i.e., organised infiltration of the type that Dodd admitted to being involved in vis a vis the Catholic Church. Just as I don’t believe that even Catholic Traditionalism has been left untouched by the infiltrators, it would be very surprising if Orthodoxy, alone of all the Christian denominations, has not been the victim of entryism.
It always dismays me the way traditionalist and conservative Christians have no problem acknowledging that communist regimes used clergymen as agents in the Soviet bloc, but dismiss as tinfoilery any suggestion that western clergy and laity may have served a similar function for various entities – ranging from communists to the Mossad, AJC, ADL, Mi6, CIA, the Freemasons etc. Everyone knows that a lot of Orthodox clergy worked for commie regimes in various countries, and I’ve even seen it suggested that John Paul’s apparent freedom to travel abroad indicated that he had some sort of “relationship” with the Polish Communist Party. The apparent outing of Lech Walesa as a communist shill lends a certain weight to that theory.
Needless to say there’s a multiplier effect with such infiltration – in that it has the potential to compromise many members of a church, clerical and lay, who would otherwise be exemplars of sound doctrine. Also, the networks of corruption and subversion thus formed are very difficult to dismantle – especially when no one even wants to even acknowledge their existence.
In some respects at least Orthodox countries seem to be holding out more successfully against the wilder excesses of cultural Marxism than others. I suspect that may be partly because in countries like Russia and Greece the association between Orthodoxy and national identity is now a lot stronger than the association between Catholicism and the nation is in modern formerly Catholic countries. Also I don’t think they’ve had quite as much “psychic driving” propaganda directed at them as countries like Ireland and Spain have. Many Irish people in their fifties have been brainwashed into believing that the country they grew up in the 1970s and 1980s was totally dominated by the Church, when in reality Anglo-American trash culture – what John Lennon called “an extension of the Jewish religion”, i.e. Showbusiness – ruled the roost. My impression is that Russians, Romanians etc., aren’t nearly as shamefaced about their religious heritage as the Irish or the Spaniards have become thanks to the dominance of their countries by the rabidly anti-Catholic Zio-Masonic nexus. (apologies for the long post!)

By: Timothy Fitzpatrick

Timothy Fitzpatrick — Thu, 05 May 2016 22:58:51 +0000

In reply to Northsider. Northsider, one thing I am starting to learn is that there exists in Orthodoxy, just like in Catholicism, overwhelming anti-traditional sentiment. But the amazing thing is, Orthodoxy doesn't have the excuse of a Second Vatican Council on which to blame their modernization!

By: abey

abey — Tue, 08 Mar 2016 04:31:20 +0000

The Protestant DOMINION theory , following the Zionists, comes out of the corruption through misinterpreting the words of Jesus Protestantism that go by the Zionists theory of DOMINION brought about through corruption in misinterpreting the words of Jesus ‘Ever since John, the kingdom suffers & the violent take if by force’ & the result is seen all over by the beast through destruction & death especially in the latter times in the middle East. Does the lord of hosts require man to take kingdoms for him. Lo Zionism through Protestantism in abstract beliefs deceives many