ITWASSOOTED: September 2015

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

transhumanism revolution

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The End of the World Has Come… and Gone!

By Tom Dennen

What is the definition of permanent change? Hegel’s Dialectical Materialism? Thesis, antithesis, thesis? Equal and opposite forces? Tidal ebb and flow? Yin and Yang? What was the world that has gone – or certainly going – called?

Debt, stupid!

Debt first influenced society in Babylon six thousand years ago when it was discovered that farmers worked harder when in debt. Nothing has changed except the mortgage burden. The debt / slave paradigm is so embedded in our language, “debt slaves, wage slaves, slaves to the system” that we do not question it.
Let’s examine the world that has just ended or is in its last phases of winding down, much to the recent and current chagrin of European nations along with the rest of the west: A current example of the changes going on is the fact that shell-abandons-alaska-as-industry-sheds-100-000-jobs
Two thousand years ago the Roman historian and journalist Tacitus wrote a wonderful description of the eviction of money merchants (really debt merchants) from Italy in A.D. 27 by the Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar (it was not Jesus, BTW; that story was I believe embedded in the bible assembled at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 300 because the Word of the Son of God would carry more weight against the Ancient Curse of Usury than that of a rather obscure Roman Emperor.

By the time Tiberius took over, the Roman Empire was in an economic shambles and the Romans had had enough of compound interest with its massive rates, bankruptcies and multiple foreclosures forced by private money merchants that robbed them of their properties, just like today.
At that time, according to Tacitus, “… a powerful host of accusers fell with sudden fury on the class which systematically increased its wealth by usury in defiance of a law passed by Caesar defining the terms of lending money and of holding estates in Italy, a law long obsolete because the public good is sacrificed to private interest” – The Annals of Rome, A.D. 29.
”Hence followed a scarcity of money, a great shock being given to all credit, the current coin too, in consequence of the conviction of so many persons and the sale of their property being locked up in the imperial treasury or the public exchequer. “To meet this, the Senate had directed that every creditor should have two-thirds his capital secured on estates in Italy. “Creditors however were suing for payment in full, and it was not respectable for persons when sued to break faith. So, at first, there were clamorous meetings and importunate entreaties; then noisy applications to the praetor’s court, and the very device intended as a remedy – the sale and purchase of estates – proved the contrary, as the usurers had hoarded up all their gold for buying land.
[What do you think banks are doing with their borrowing facilities now that the interest rate on the dollar has been left alone by Ms Yellen?]
“The facilities for selling were followed by a fall of prices, and the deeper a man was in debt, the more reluctantly did he part with his property, and many were utterly ruined. “The destruction of private wealth precipitated the fall of rank and reputation, till at last the emperor interposed his aid by distributing throughout the banks [which were not at that time in the hands of money merchants] a hundred million sesterces, and allowing freedom to borrow without interest for three years, provided the borrower gave security to the State in land to double the amount.
“Credit was thus restored, and gradually private lenders were found. The purchase too of estates was not carried out according to the letter of the Senate’s decree, rigor at the outset, as usual with such matters, becoming negligence in the end.” Roman money was a solid gold sesterce that would be valued today at $16, half the $32 an ounce up until the gold standard was abandoned, so the bailout then could be valued in today’s money at around $1.6 billion in a country with less than million adult people. Churchill’s terse account of Edward the First’s doing the same thing to the United Kingdom’s money merchants thirteen hundred years later for the same reasons as Tiberius does not lend much weight to the argument against usury, but then Churchill was a warrior not an economist and both classes seem to avoid Tiberius and Edward as well as the Biblical angry Jesus throwing money merchants about.
During the next few paragraphs, a great “Anti-Semite” outcry will be heard, the ubiquitous red herring thrown onto the usury trail, so far successfully; let us then leave conspiracy theories behind and call it fiction. But I still think it’s a good, plausible and verifiable story confirmed at the very least by Wikipedia, if not History itself.
The record of the Jews in England goes back to the first written one of Jewish settlement in 1070. The Jewish presence continued until King Edward the First’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290 “over matters of usury.”
“After the expulsion, there was no Jewish community, apart from individuals who practiced Judaism secretly, until the rule of Oliver Cromwell. While Cromwell never officially readmitted Jews to Britain, a small colony of Sephardic Jews living in London was identified in 1656 and allowed to remain. “The Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753, an attempt to legalize the Jewish presence in England, remained in force for only a few months. Historians commonly date Jewish Emancipation to either 1829 or 1858 when Jews were finally allowed to sit in Parliament, though Benjamin Disraeli, born Jewish, had been a Member of Parliament long before this, and even Prime Minister. At the insistence of Irish leader Daniel O’Connell, in 1846, the British law “De Judaismo”, which prescribed a special dress for Jews, was repealed.
Due to the lack of anti-Jewish violence in Britain in the 19th century, it acquired a reputation for religious tolerance and attracted significant immigration from Eastern Europe. In the 1930s and 1940s, some European Jews fled to England to escape the Nazis. “Jews faced anti-Semitism and stereotyping in Britain and anti-Semitism ‘in most cases went along with Germanophobia’ to the extent that Jews were equated with Germans in the early 20th century.
This led many Jewish families to Anglicize their often German-sounding names. “Jews in Britain now number 300,000, and England contains the second largest Jewish population in Europe and the fifth largest Jewish community worldwide.” – Wikipedia. Edward discovered that the Babylonian / Roman Curse had been in effect in the United Kingdom for almost two hundred years before his reign and threw the money merchants out in 1270 for the same reasons as Tiberius: because of disputes over “matters of Usury”, basically the theft of massive sections of the nobility’s property through compounded interest rates leading to bankruptcy and foreclosure.
We need to examine at this point a very possible and plausible explanation of the economic forces behind the expansion of the usury method of money extraction to gambling – The key lies in the Tulip Mania phenomenon in Holland some 300 years after Edward’s usurers were thrown out of the United Kingdom. My assumptions that carry this theory of Tulip Mania may bring that enigma to where it can be considered as a “Pivotal Point” in economic history, the true beginning of Capitalism and the foundation upon which money merchants ended their 2000-year role as persona non grata throughout the world and became part of the innermost circles of political power and finally, rulers of the global economy, today’s prime example being Timothy Geithner, moving from Chairman of Goldman Sachs to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not what laws it makes.” Amschel Mayer Rothschild Control of the Capitalist boom / bust money system began with the very first demonstration of a stock market ‘pump and dump’ manipulation using tulip bulbs.
This was, I believe, a practical demonstration put on for the crowned heads of Europe who I accuse then of finally accepting money merchants into the mainstream of government so the rulers could share the wealth derived from Boom-Bust (pump and dump) Capitalism: credit-driven boom times followed by equity market busts which harvest all future boom time debt-wealth signed over by borrowers and mortgagees in exchange for their commitment to future work and pledges of existing collateral if the work is not done or the debt not paid because the markets collapsed. ​
This system of Capitalist boom / bust manipulation between 1720 and the Great Depression until now was reduced to economic and mathematical detail in a book called ‘The Reckoning’ by journalist James Dale Davidson and Lord Reese-Mogg, Sidgewick & Jackson, 1996, which I believe was nothing less than a guide for the wealthy through the bust brought about by the Japanese property market collapse in 1978. So Tulip Mania was really a demonstration of the simple mechanics of boom-bust Capitalism and definitely a Pivotal Event.
Just a theory?
There are no historical records kept by “money Lenders” (does the Mafia have an internal written history? Ask any one of them…) Extant are only descriptions by contemporary historians of what they did to society, how it was done and what rid society of this parasitical practice.
Where were these merchants of money between Tacitus and Edward, between Edward and the Dutch stock markets; where did they go and what did they do? Taken from the records available, from around 27 A.D. to around 1070 (almost a thousand years) they went unrecorded.
Between Edward’s Eviction in 1270 to the creation of the first Stock Exchange in Amsterdam less than three hundred years later, where were these history-less people, what were they doing and were they the same people Tacitus threw out and Edward evicted?
Assuming that they were, I also assume that they were by their third attempt to gain economic control over the dominant empire of the time, fed up with prejudice and hatred, removals and evictions every time they insinuated themselves into society and eroded the tax base, and I think those decisions were made to keep this from happening again: From these decisions, the pious, prestigious, upmarket, socially acceptable casinos called stock exchanges, or commodity markets were invented. Tulip bulbs were then and still are a relatively worthless commodity.
For over a hundred years, stock markets – commodity exchanges – appeared in the cities of Europe, innocence itself. And nothing like gambling on a sure thing, even though underneath the insouciance lay the knowledge that the house always wins: the market trader takes a commission on a sell and another on a buy. Securitization and fraudulent Default Swap Options came sometime later, but the basics were in.
And therein we had the stolid Dutch middle-class burgher investing his money sensibly in the future prices of wheat, corn, sorghum, pork belly, your basic trading stuff, commodities, much dependent on weather and other variables, but still sensible. Except for the tulips. And so here we are again today, but without a Tiberius and without a Henry: on the one hand, most people and nations are under an unsustainable and growing mountain of debt overhanging their economies, bankrupt economies around the world with their GDP – traditionally used for services to the people – diverted to pay interest on that debt aka ‘Economic Globalization’.

On the other hand, a growing number of individuals and communities around the world have formed an antithesis to this globalism by localizing their economies, creating, harvesting and growing their own local goods and services, a natural, creative, innovative and human response to the globalization of economies, which has been nothing but the massing of resources for the wealthy for centuries. The permanent solution lies of course, in a Permaculture of community gardens: The Beginning of the World as We Will Know It?

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Sunday, September 27, 2015


if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0


if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Sunday, September 20, 2015

US Army to be run by THe GAYS!!!

 Gays to run your army!!!

President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Eric K. Fanning to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.
The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.
“Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role,” the President said in a statement. “I am grateful for his commitment to our men and women in uniform, and I am confident he will help lead America’s Soldiers with distinction.”
This historic move is one of many steps the Obama administration has taken to advance the rights of the LGBT community in the armed forces.

Fanning has served as acting under secretary of the Army since June, and before that, served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Fanning also served as under secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of the Navy.
In a statement, Carter called Fanning an “excellent choice” to lead the Army.

The American Military Partner Association, a support group for the families of LGBT service members, also praised Obama’s decision.
“We are thrilled to see Eric Fanning nominated to lead the world’s greatest Army,” AMPA President Ashley Broadway-Mack said in a statement. “History continues to be written and equality marches forward with the nomination of an openly gay man to serve in this significantly important role. Fanning’s expertise and knowledge within the defense community together with his sensitivity to issues faced by LGBT service members and their families is why we urge the Senate to move quickly to confirm his appointment.”
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

taking out whitey! christains should unite against the satanistas.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Destruction of Europe: Migrant Crisis (Cucking Edition)

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Friday, September 18, 2015

emotional blackmail

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Race hatred is a Zionist, not a Christian, strategy.

The Zionist-Created
Scofield 'Bible'
The Source Of The Problem In The Mideast - Part 2
Why Judeo-Christians Support War

By C. E. Carlson
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy in America when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century. In ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of morality... even with the abundant church attendances he observed in America. De Tocqueville wrote in French and is credited with this familiar quote: AMERICA IS GREAT BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, AND IF AMERICA EVER CEASES TO BE GOOD, SHE WILL CEASE TO BE GREAT.
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he could not have known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed at its churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred the powerful young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America was to commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of an attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author Gordon Ginn calls "The final Apostasy," began with a small very wealthy and determined European political movement. It had a dream, and the American churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called themselves, had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even though most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home. Not any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that American Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists read "Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that Jerusalem was not theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews, they were, according to the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ and most of his early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion. America's traditional churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield. A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher--The Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity. Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters, and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield, a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible, and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling "bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist, but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root around the turn of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment over what it considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches. Some of these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists, most of whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies. His mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical trips to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism." It is from Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist theology, which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible. It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism was shared by Oxford University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford University. A History of The Plymouth Brethren By William Blair Neatby, M.A.
The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield Reference Bible" from the beginning, as indicated by its copyright, and Scofield stated he received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's advertisers and promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Judeo-Christian churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has been published in at least four editions since its introduction in 1908 and remains one of the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is all but worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with the first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their theory, to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in some cases recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World Zionism's crowning achievement. Our report on Southern Baptist Zionism, entitled "The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame.
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product of Darby and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of the KJE becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of readers, students become increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes.
Scofield's notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments together as though all were written at the same time by the same people. This is a favorite device of modern dispensationalists who essentially weigh all scripture against the unspoken and preposterous theory that the older it is, the more authoritative. In many cases the Oxford references prove to be puzzling rabbit trails leading nowhere, simply diversions. Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under the labels and definitions that have evolved into common usage today--"pre-millennialism," "dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity," and most recently the highly political movement openly called "Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much of the questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available. It reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a political animal with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a Bill Clinton. Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a deserted wife, a wrecked family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly the sort of man the World Zionists might hire to bend Christian thought--a controllable man and one capable of carrying the secret to his grave. (See The Incredible Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology and exposed his original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian views. Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics, Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD, England
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers. Our own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction, focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to Scofield Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations have further radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would have dreamed of. This un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and 54 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other American church leaders. We thank God for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th Edition deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did not even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a million or more people who have perished would be alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism in a scheme to control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves that were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words tell us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to misguide Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew or cared much about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became involved in a close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the unbreakable thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a password and a common watering hole--and it appears that Untermeyer may have been the one who provided the money that Scofield himself lacked. Scofield's success as an international bible editor without portfolio and his lavish living in Europe could only have been accomplished with financial aid and international influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not for the work of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered clues to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it would still be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant that Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield's death, Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death of its original author and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone through several editions. Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's most significant notes from the original editions were removed where they apparently failed to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition retains the title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible, Editor C.I. Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology has made an enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants in genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand that wrote the Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the content of the notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them. These notes are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967, at the time of the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new footnotes to the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to the Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and outrageous of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM BRINGS INEVITABLE JUDGMENT." (page 19-20, footnote (3) to Genesis 12:3.) (our emphasis added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon, or the Chief Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern Zionism. But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967 Edition of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers and students and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching and teaching.
There is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament, nor is it found among the Ten Commandments. "Sin," this writer was taught, is a personal concept. It is something done by individuals in conflict with God's words, not by "nations." Even Sodom did not sin--its people did. The word "judgment" in the Bible always refers to God's action. In the Christian New Testament, Jesus promises both judgment and salvation for believing individuals, not for "nations."
There was also no "State of Israel" when Scofield wrote his original notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908. All references to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel was granted statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make antipathy toward the "State of Israel" a "sin." Israel is made a god to be worshiped, not merely a "state." David Ben-Gurion could not have written it better. Perhaps he did write it!
The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:
This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never occurs in the Bible itself:
None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID NOT EXIST in 1945, and according to the best dictionaries of the time, the word "Israel" only referred to a particular man and an ancient tribe, which is consistent with the Bible text. See "Israel," Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.
All of this language, including the prophecy about the future being really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects and furthers the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated goal of creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered "anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate crime" punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have written this footnote.
The State of Israel's legal claims to Arab lands are based on the United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave the Jews only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force. But when this author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they got the right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the effect that "God gave it to us." This interpretation of Hebrew scripture stems from the book of Genesis and is called the "Abrahamic Covenant". It is repeated several times and begins with God's promise to a man called Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called "Israel:"
It is upon this promise to a single person that modern Israeli Zionists base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East. Its logic is roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir to the John Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter to someone's cousin seven times removed containing the salutation "wishing you my very best." In "Sherry's War," We Hold These Truths provides a common sense discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant and how millions of Christians are taught to misunderstand it.
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show readers the lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers of Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various Bible references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But we will resist the temptation to do this, because others have already done it quite well, and more importantly because it leads us off our course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past as Canfield has done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable pathological liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is not in Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The words in these 1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked onto the text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except to support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the Palestinians and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose, Zionism has completely succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more recently labeled "Christian Zionists," have remained mute during wars upon Israel's enemies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is past time to stop the spilling of more blood, some of it Christian blood.
Now, for evidence of the intent of the Zionist deception of Christians, let us examine some Scofield's notes THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED OR REMOVED by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote in 1908:
Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the 1967 Edition:
"8:37 ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM, BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 6-14" (Note (1) P1136, Oxford 1967 Edition, note to Jn 8:37.)
How, pray tell, can "all Jews" be "natural descendants of Abraham," a Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago? Persons of all races are Jews and new Jews are being converted every day from every race. One might as well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants of Martin Luther; or that all Baptists come from the loins of John the Baptist. This note could only have been written by an Israeli patriot, for no one else would have a vested interest in promoting this genetic nonsense. Shame on those who accept this racism; it is apostate Christianity.
The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional Christianity in 1908 and should have been treated as heresy then. Yet Scofield had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield clearly recognized what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of Ishmael are co-heirs to Abraham's ancient promise. Did not Scofield say "the Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people are...the natural posterity of Abraham"? The Oxford Press simply waited for Scofield to die and changed it as they wished.
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy the Zionists who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars consider Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of Isaac, whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many Arabs believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's promise, and they correctly believe that present-day Israelis have no Biblical right to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also speaks of Ishmael, so the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter how Christians viewed the two half brothers in order to prevent Christians from siding with the Arabs over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless footnote in the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect, substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish people and Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it. The Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the Zionists want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright right now! Read it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not necessarily his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford bible. On the same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly note referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften, wherein Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish leaders of his day, and to no one else:
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted to dilute what Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967, but they inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James sacred text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but they do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers in order to try to solve this problem:
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers in a speech about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that Jesus was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical Christian Zionist diversion.
To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the rest of John 8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44 is only one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name and in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers." Oxford simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture that have shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them, or the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe themselves. Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the predisposition of the peoples, who are no more warlike than any human tribes. Without the pandering to Jewish and Zionist interests that is carried out by this subculture--the most vocal being the celebrity Christian evangelists--there would be no such wars, for there is not enough support for war outside of organized Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church,Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD, England is perhaps the most dedicated new scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by watching Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny; his name is Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist spouting inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn was speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the American Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star Telegram religious reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing, "We are on God's side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is not a war between Jews and Arabs.. It is a war between God and the Devil." Lest there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a blood war in which the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are "the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian Zionists who have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join in unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from his knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from whom he seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian Zionists--do not shrink at his words, because they have been conditioned to accept them, just as Roman citizens learned to accept Christian persecution, even burning alive, under Nero. Several evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement with Hinn - "the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference between good and evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement with the fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not as shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention who occupy the highest positions in the area of conservative religious thought. Land may have stopped short of branding all Muslims as devils, but he attacked their leader and Prophet and stated that, according to Baptist Bible interpretation, the Palestinian people have no legal rights to property in Palestine. See our discussion of Southern Baptists entitled "The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame."
The more politically conservative and libertarian the speaker expressing hatred for Islam, the more shocking the statement sounds. One example is Samuel Blumenfeld, a veteran textbook author and advocate of home education. His attack on Islam in a story entitled "Religion and Satanism" in the April 2002 conservative, Calvinist Chalcedon Report leaves little room for civil liberties and freedom of thought. He writes, "Islam is a religion ruled by Satan," and asks, "Can anyone under the influence of Satan be trusted?" Blumenfeld shows poor judgment and a lack of morality when he allows phrases such as "willing agents of Satan," "another manifestation of Satanism" and "the willingness of Muslims to believe blatant lies," to spill from his pen.
How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, Blumenfeld, and yes, our own President, as anything less than race hatred? Who would make such generalized and transparently false statements against any other minority except Muslims?
About 100 million American Christians need to recover their true faith in Christ Jesus, who never denounced any individual on account of his group. Jesus even tried to save the Pharisees, and only denounced them when they showed themselves to be deceivers. There is not a word in the New Testament that urges any follower of Jesus to murder one child in Iraq or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred is a Zionist, not a Christian, strategy.
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy in the entire history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its leaders: they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent people down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Here’s another fun bit of recent enrichment, in the once non-vibrant land of Switzerland.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

a steady dose of mainstream media hysteria to ignite the unholy bonfire of the egalitarians.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Why We Must Stop the Refugee Invasion

Lifeboat Ethics: Why We Must Stop the Refugee Invasion

Gerry T. Neal
Council of European Canadians
September 15, 2015
What Western countries need is a break from immigration, but instead our politicians are inundating us with waves of “refugees”. We are doomed if we continue to base our response to the migrant crisis on sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason.
African boat people on their way to send Europe down to the bottom
African boat people on their way to send Europe down to the bottom
Imagine that you are on an ocean liner crossing the Atlantic. Your pilot is a historical re-enactment fanatic who, in a moment of drunken insanity, decides that the time is ripe for re-creating the sinking of the Titanic and rams the ship into an iceberg. Like everyone else on board you head to the lifeboats. You wait in line, they put you on board a lifeboat, and when it is full lower it onto the sea.
From the safety of your lifeboat you watch the ship go down and realize, to your horror, that something has gone wrong with the evacuation process. A panic has broken out and in the irrational frenzy of that panic several of the remaining lifeboats have been damaged and rendered useless. There are no longer sufficient lifeboats to carry everyone on the ship and people are jumping into the ocean and desperately swimming towards the ones already afloat, including yours.
You are now faced with a dilemma. You know that your lifeboat has a limited carrying capacity. If you let more people onto the lifeboat you risk running out of the lifeboat’s resources before being rescued or, worse, capsizing the lifeboat. If that happens, you will have not only have failed to save the people you pulled from the ocean, but will have needlessly killed yourselves in the process.
American biologist and ecologist Garrett Hardin first posed this dilemma in an article for the September 1974 edition of Psychology Today entitled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, the awful subtitle of which, added by the editor without the author’s approval, misses the point completely. Wealthy countries, Hardin argued, like lifeboats have limited carrying capacities and therefore taking in masses of immigrants from poorer countries will not solve the problems of poor countries but will only sink our lifeboats, metaphorically speaking.
Hardin’s article is timelier today than when it was first published forty-one years ago. For weeks now the most important international news item has been the horde of migrants evacuating Syria and flooding into Europe claiming to be refugees from the war that has ravaged that country and from the terrorism and tyranny of ISIS. The better informed among us know that this is only part of a much larger wave of migration from Africa and the Middle East into Europe that has been accelerating over the last year or so. The television and newspaper media have manipulated this story in such a way as to make us feel that Western countries are morally obliged to take in these refugees and they have been aided and abetted in this by irresponsible clergymen like the present Pope and by most of our politicians who seem to be competing with each other as to who will sink their country’s lifeboat the fastest. It is as if they were all acting out roles in a script written for them by Jean Raspail forty-two years ago.
The Camp of the Saints
The Camp of the Saints (1973)
In Raspail’s apocalyptic novel, The Camp of the Saints, an armada of one hundred ships carrying a cargo of a million of India’s poorest and most wretched, sets sail from Calcutta en route to the French Riviera. While many in France, including her president, can see the handwriting on the wall and know that if their country and civilization are to survive they must turn these invaders, armed only with their own plight, away, they lack the moral courage to do it, being paralysed by guilt induced by decades of liberalism. With the exception of a small handful of heroes in which the spirit of the old West lingers on, France succumbs to an invasion that is cheered on by her own media, politicians, and church.1
When Hardin first used the lifeboat metaphor his concern was a country’s limited supply of material resources. What Raspail’s novel illustrates is that there are more important things at stake in keeping our lifeboats afloat. Our customs, way of life, beliefs, laws, traditions, history, and our very identity are all more important than physical resources. Indeed, it is these things which make possible the conditions that are attracting all of these migrants from other parts of the world.
Laws which protect and secure our persons and property, a respect for personal liberty that allows us to thrive and prosper balanced with a sense of fairness and justice that demands that we collectively look after the weaker and less successful among us, with recognized, established, and, for the most part respected, civil rights do not just come about on their own. Whether these things draw immigrants for their own sake or for the sake of the abundance of material goods that these make widely available in our countries, we tend to think of them as being based upon universal, abstract, principles available through reason to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This liberal assumption, however, does not bear the scrutiny of history in which these things developed slowly within the context of national cultures that claimed the heritage of classical Greco-Roman antiquity and of Christendom as their own. Should those cultures go down with our lifeboats, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that these things would survive, and there is plenty of evidence that they will not do so in the failed states that were once thriving colonies of European empires.
Make no mistake — the sinking of our national lifeboats, and our entire civilization along with them, is the doom that we choose for ourselves if we continue to base our response to the refugee crisis on sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason. It is not as if the refugees were pouring into a healthy Europe of countries confident in their traditions and identities. They are pouring into a Europe which has experienced decades of low fertility in which governments have relied upon large scale immigration to keep their population levels up, a pattern encouraged by the European Union that has developed over the same period of time. While a healthy country can take in and absorb a certain number of immigrants without harm to itself, for a country to rely upon large numbers of immigrants to make up for low fertility as a long-term policy is to adopt a policy of population replacement over reproduction which is to embrace its own death as a nation.
After several decades of this, what Western countries need is a break from immigration, but what our politicians are offering us instead is to inundate us yet further with thousands of migrants who claim to be refugees but are clearly behaving more like a mob of invaders. The British government has offered to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020, with the opposition party and its supporters complaining that this is not enough. The governments of Germany and Austria have opened their borders wide to any and all claiming asylum. Even here in Canada, an ocean and half a world removed from the Middle East, each of the two largest opposition parties are vying to outdo the other in accusing the present government of culpability in the death of the three year old boy whom the media have been dishonestly presenting as a victim of Western heartlessness and in the tens of thousands of refugees they are promising to resettle should they win the upcoming election.
Pushing the right buttons with the West's pathological altruists: Border-breaching migrant shoving his child against Macedonian police cordon
Pushing the right buttons with the West’s pathological altruists: Border-breaching migrant shoving his child against Macedonian police cordon
There are those, of course, who will insist that to think about preserving our national identities, cultures, and ways of life while other people are fleeing persecution and war is to show a lack of perspective and wrong priorities. They might further insist that the idea that we should not think only of ourselves but of others as well is the highest ethical principle of the faith at the heart of our traditional cultures and that to abandon that principle is also, in a sense, to lose who we are. While these objections should not be lightly dismissed, we must distinguish between moral principles themselves and the sentimental way in which some would apply them.
The Golden Rule tells us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” but as none of us in our right mind would want another country to take us in if it did so in such numbers that it lost everything that made us want to move there in the first place, this clearly does not contradict the logic of lifeboat ethics, whatever the current pretender to St. Peter’s throne has to say about it. Christianity calls upon us to follow the example of Christ, and that example is one of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, but a cross is something that can only be taken up individually, not collectively. It is one thing to throw yourself in front of a bullet to save another person. It is quite another thing to put your child in the way of the bullet and then later try to claim the laurels of a hero. To insist that out of humanitarianism and compassion we resettle this growing flood of migrants in Western countries is to be like the latter person, not the former.
Worse, as is the whole point of the lifeboat metaphor, it is to be like the man who credits himself for heroism for sacrificing his child but failing to stop the bullet.

[1] English translation of The Camp of the Saints (PDF), free to download
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

ISIS Boasted 500,000-Strong Invasion Force

UN Confirms 72% of Nonwhite Invaders are Men; ISIS Boasted 500,000-Strong Invasion Force

The New Observer
September 15, 2015
Official figures from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have shown that at the end of August, 72% of the nonwhite invasion force registered by that office were men—an eerie echo of the claim ISIS made in February that they would infiltrate “500,000” soldiers into Europe to wage war on the continent.
According to the UN figures—which they openly admit are an underestimate—women make up 15% of the invasion, and children of both sexes 13%.  Nonetheless, the controlled media insists on showing mainly women and children as “refugees” instead of the overwhelming mass of young males, in an effort to disguise the true nature of the invasion and to engender sympathy from misguided Europeans.
The admission that the vast majority of the invasion force are men—the first official concession in this regard—was predicted back in February 2015, when ISIS spokesmen were quoted in the media as claiming that jihadists were going to use the European Union’s acceptance of refugees as a “gateway.”
It was reported that jihadists hoped to flood Libya “with militiamen from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing as migrants on people trafficking vessels.”
The quoted document was written by an Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) propagandist Abu Arhim al-Libim who works as an online recruiter for the ISIS groups in Libya, where security has collapsed in the wake of the EU’s destruction of the Gaddafi regime in 2011.
The Isil document pointed out that Libya was “awash with weapons from the Libyan civil war,” as the EU-caused collapse of Gadaffi turned over the state’s weapons’ caches to the “rebels”—who all turned out to be Islamist fanatics, just like the US-backed “rebels” in Syria.
Libim added that Libya is less than 300 miles from parts of the nearest European mainland, saying that “It has a long coast and looks upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by even a rudimentary boat.
“The number of trips known as ‘illegal immigration’ from this coast, which are huge in number … if this was even partially exploited and developed strategically, pandemonium could be wrought in the southern European states and it is even possible that there could be a closure of shipping lines and targeting of Crusader ships and tankers.”
The nonwhite invasion of Europe across the Mediterranean has not slacked off during the renewed land assault through southern Europe from Turkey. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), 115,000 have arrived this year so far in Italy, another 2,100 in Spain, and 230,000 in Greece. The IOM points out that their figures do not include those who got in undetected.
The IOM has confirmed the UN’s figures of the invasion force being overwhelmingly adult males. In one country alone, Macedonia, the IOM reported that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s Ministry of Interior, between June 19 and September 7, 2015, a total of 64,522 invaders were registered, out of which 43,671 or 68% were men; and only 8,857 women; 10,386 were children accompanied by a family member, and 1,608 unaccompanied minors.
The IOM added that the “current average arrival rate at the southern border [of Macedonia] is estimated at more than 3,000 per day.”
* The UNHCR report also revealed that only half of the “war refugees” are coming from actual war zones. According to the UN figures, 50% of registered “Mediterranean sea arrivals” come from Syria, 13% from Afghanistan, 8% from Eritrea, 4% from Nigeria, 3% from Somalia, 3% from Pakistan, 3% from Iraq, 2% from Sudan, 1% from Gambia, and 1% from Bangladesh.
It is clear therefore, even according to UNHCR figures, that the vast majority of this nonwhite invasion force do not qualify in any way as “refugees” or asylum seekers—as defined by the UN’s own rules.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Monday, September 14, 2015

Budapest Invasion Scenes: Crowd Chants "Allahu Akbkar"

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Thursday, September 03, 2015

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

“ […] He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” – George Orwell, 1984
The powers that be are interested in control, not in freedom. That much is understood.

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Taylor Swift, Avatar of European Imperialism

James Kirkpatrick
September 3, 2015
It’s like the Middle Passage all over again
It’s like the Middle Passage all over again
Poor Tay-Tay. She just can’t win.
Taylor Swift has been trying her best to appeal to more “vibrant” consumers as of late, but it never seems to do her any good. She’s learning the hard way that any kind of engagement with black culture or Africa is automatically racist.
After a blowup a few months ago with escaped laboratory experiment Nicki Minaj, Swift went on to win “Best Video of the Year” at the 2015 Video Music Awards last weekend. Alas, even in triumph, she made a fatal misstep when she premiered her new video, Wildest Love.
This was a crucial mistake because cisgendered White people need to understand that they can’t talk about Africa without being racist. If you portray Africa as a Third World hellhole, you are a racist. But if you portray it in a positive way, as Swift does here, you are also being racist.
The racial rent seekers were quick to pounce.
NPR’s Viviane Rutabingwa, who has an African heritage [editor’s note – and is evidently basing a career on it] said: ‘We are shocked to think that in 2015, Taylor Swift, her record label and her video production group would think it was OK to film a video that presents a glamorous version of the white colonial fantasy of Africa.’
She added: ‘Swift’s music is entertaining for many. She should absolutely be able to use any location as a backdrop. But she packages our continent as the backdrop for her romantic songs devoid of any African person or storyline, and she sets the video in a time when the people depicted by Swift and her co-stars killed, dehumanized and traumatized millions of Africans.
‘That is beyond problematic.’
The Daily Dot’s Nico Lang wrote: ‘An homage to a love triangle about white colonialists is going to present some, uh, challenges to an artist who just wants to make a three-minute music video to put on her VEVO page – and Taylor Swift found that out the hard way.
‘Even the most casual observer would have noticed that – for a clip that’s set in Africa – it’s about as white as a Sunday morning farmer’s market.
‘The video wants to have its old-school Hollywood romance but ends up eating some old-school Hollywood racism, too.’
Isn’t that comment about “white as a Sunday morning farmer’s market” kind of racist? Sort of like saying “black as a Section 8 housing lottery.” That’s a terrible generalization to make.
Notice also how simply stating the current year (“we are shocked to think that in 2015…) is used as an argument in itself.
In any event, now that Africa is free of the hated white imperialists that created a huge population boom and provided the Dark Continent with much of its infrastructure, Africans are desperately trying to flee their liberated homelands in order to live under White supremacy. Colonialism is inevitable it seems, in one form or another.
But Swift is in trouble for channeling a “romantic” image of European colonialism. It is indeed startling to remember that there was a time when vast swathes of African territory were well governed, orderly, and prosperous. The dystopian hellhole now known as Zimbabwe was once Rhodesia, the breadbasket of Africa, before being handed over to Communist thugs at the West’s insistence. It’s not surprising that the best thing to do is just not bring up these kinds of “problematic” comparisons between past and present.
The fact is, you can’t use Africa as any kind of a backdrop without getting in trouble. During the World Cup in South Africa, Shakira made a video entitled “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)” which was so sentimental and syrupy sweet, I thought it was a parody. (One was reminded of the character of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho trying to make up a plausible Broadway musical, and coming up with “Oh Africa, Brave Africa,” which he describes as a “laugh riot.”) And yet Shakira was also accused of various forms of cultural exploitation and appropriation. [Undermining African Intellectual and Aristic Rights: Shakira, Zangalewa & the World Cup Anthemby Dibussi Tande, Scribbles from the Den, May 23, 2010].
So why bother thinking about Africa at all? If you start thinking about it, you might start noticing things, and if you start noticing things, your career is likely to come to an abrupt halt.
But if you really want to watch a video on Youtube about Africa and colonialism, I’ve got a suggestion.  It’s called Africa Addio, and you can watch it on Youtube.
Lost in all the controversy is the fact that Swift’s video was supposed to help animals in Africa, which was something we were all supposed to care about (remember Cecil the Lion?) But as you’ll see above, that kind of care for the environment is another one of those things that you only get under Western rule.
As for Taylor, she’s got enough money and fans that she’ll be okay. But go the full Trump, Taylor! Have your next video be a love story set at the Voortrekker Monument. Now that would be a Twitter blowup on social media worth seeing.
if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

The Left Is a Paper Tiger...

if you don't comment no angel will gets its wings... 0

Constititution of the United States: 1st Amendment, Bill of Rights : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

eXTReMe Tracker