Race riots 2020

tomtud

Pelican
Same deal with nazism and those who had to support communist parties and dictators. BLM is no different. How stupid are the sheep who cannot even see that it’s political in nature and not organic. Financed by a Jew nazi George Soros And run by black lesbians i believe.
those who stood up were shunned by society and sent off to concentration camps or killed.
 

Attachments

durangotang

Pelican
I'm with you. Almost everything the Nazis said about Jews was true and they weren't the bad guys in WW2. That doesn't mean they were good though, there was no good side in that war.

The spiritual foundation of national socialism is Theosophy occultism, which is essentially Kaballah for gentiles.

So basically you have the occult Axis powers, and the Allies which included the Jewish Bolsheviks.

The only winner of WW2 was Zionism and Jewish Bolsheviks

The United States got a decent 20 years or so out of it before the Jewish counterculture of the 60s, which likely had heavy Bolshevik support, accelerated our decline to a rapid speed.
With all due respect, I have heard about Theosophical occultism underpinning the Nazi government for a long time, and I question it's influence on Hitler. This is what guys like Alex Jones or the History Channel like to promote, while ignoring the Jewish question entirely. Alex Jones claims that the new world order is a Germanic death cult, never mentions the Jews, and even says ridiculous stuff like the Saudis did 911 and that the Chinese run Hollywood. He is allowed to syndicate his show on hundreds of radio stations around the country to this day and MasterCard has never de-platformed his operation.

Nazism might as well be called Hitlerism, because that is what it was. He was the dictator. So what did he believe? Hitler viewed nature as supreme, not Lucifer, and wanted to return to a modern form of a pre-Christian Hellenic civilization. He did not hold the view that he had to directly attack or destroy the Church in order to do so, but that science and reason had already delivered a mortal wound to Christianity in the West. He said this at a time when the church still held power, which showed foresight, as the West today has all but abandoned Christianity and we are left with a moral shell in the form of liberalism. Instead of attacking the church directly, he would do things such as schedule the Hitler youth at the same time as church service. His view was that to return to Wotanism or any other archaic form of spiritualism was foolish and that the religious void could be filled by an understanding of science and a pride in one's people - a form of racial materialism and agnosticism as to the mystery of an after life. His opinion was, who could know? He thought that the cosmos could provide enough mystery and that science would light the way. He believed in progress and saw Christianity as a historic obstacle to the truth, to nature, and to progress itself. He held Christianity as responsible for the dark ages. He was an atheist and believed in modernity, while at times also referencing some form of providence.

I am not saying these as an endorsement of his beliefs, but he wasn't an occultist and the aims of the regime weren't Theosophical in nature. That is not to say that Theosophical elements weren't in Germany at the time or that party members weren't embroiled in it. He had problems with certain elements of occultism being in the Nazi party itself, and would occasionally eject party members for things like Astrology, but it wasn't dominant in Hitler's worldview as far as I know. I am not an expert on the subject but to say the underpinnings of Hitler were Theosophical goes against a lot of what I have read. If anything, he tolerated it. Much like at various times there have been Freemason members of a parliament, but they weren't always in control and setting the agenda or the philosophy of the government.

Hitler was opposed to Freemasonry and Jewry, both of whom he correctly associated with Lucifer. Hitler was not a fan of the church or Christianity either. He was anti-Christian and his views were influenced by Nietzsche in this regard, and that truth should be known. Oddly, for being anti-Christian, he wasn't anti-Christ, who he suspected was not Jewish but the son of a Gallic (French) soldier in the Roman outpost of Galilee who rebelled against the Jews at the time. He references the Talmud in this regard as to what Jews themselves believe. The entire significance of Christ in his view was a temporal rebellion against the Jews. He viewed the moral precepts of Christianity as anti-nature, as the first incarnation of Bolshevism the great destroyer, and as the teachings of St. Paul (Saul), a Jew. If he were Christian he might not have tolerated any association with Theosophical elements in Germany at the time. Frankly, If he were Christian, perhaps a lot of things would have gone differently.

It's not my goal to portray him as anything other who he was and the best book that I have found on the subject is Hitler's Table Talk. It is a compilation of his private conversations by his stenographer recorded for the purpose of posterity. They weren't planning on losing the war. After the war the manuscript was sold by Hitler's sister as money for her survival. David Irving vouches for it's authenticity, even from it's Jewish publisher - who directly paid his sister the cash. In any case, this is all that I will write on the subject and the thread can return to it's stated purpose, but I thought this was worth clarifying as so much of our world is dictated by the consequences of the war. We need to have a correct understanding of the third Reich. It was an atheist, scientific, materialist regime, mildly tolerant of the church, which it viewed as failing. If I am wrong then feel free to post, and I would like to know, but I won't be making a rebuttal so as not to derail the thread. I just think as we look at history we need to be as honest as possible, so as to help us make better decisions in the future. We're going to need it.
 
Last edited:

jordypip23

Pelican
Gold Member
Well the BLM are finally hitting heavy ((())) / Wall Street / celebrity / George Soros's backyard territory as they descend upon the Hamptons near the tip of Long Island, NY .... lol. These are the areas I don't mind as much if they annoy as opposed to everyday hard working Americans in the "flyover" Midwest.

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates - NY Post
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
The Nazi Party also had a huge problem with homosexuality within its ranks, not the effeminate type but the type that a long tradition that associates homosexuality with militarism and manliness (e.g., the Spartans). Hitler did not like this aspect of the Nazi Party, and he occasionally ejected those who openly embarrassed the Party with homosexual scandals, but he certainly tolerated it. Ernst Rohm was the highest ranking homosexual, but even after his assassination the Nazi Party's middle management was rife with it.

If you want more information, read "The Pink Swastika," by Scott Lively. I met the author and he is a true Christian warrior. He personally traveled to Germany to view original archive material for the book. He even offers the book for free on the web, because he wants the truth out there.



_______________________

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
 
Last edited:

Max Roscoe

Woodpecker
How much of that was simply due to homosexuality being so pervasive in Weimar Germany?

The US military and Starbucks are the only major employers who will pay for sex change operations, and thus there are a not insignificant number of trannies in the military. Weimar Germany was supposedly rather worse than Current Year America is, so imagine 5 or 10 years forward what the typical person looks / acts like, and then imagine how hard it would be to find good leadership.

The alt right couldn't even find decent leaders, and had a scandal with one fat slob Matthew Heimbach who had sex with his mother in law, and another (((Elliot Klein))), who invented a military background, not to mention an anglo one. Then there was the bizarre Jason Kessler who organized the Unite the Right event despite being a huge leftist just months earlier, and I believe working in the media.

Most people in the modern world are going to be damaged in some way. Homosexuality has always existed, and it was certainly cause for being put in concentration camps if it was deemed damaging to society, but if it was not openly aired, and someone is competent at their job, why not allow them to serve?
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
How much of that was simply due to homosexuality being so pervasive in Weimar Germany?
Practically none. Masculine homosexuals were drawn to the Nazi Party just like effeminate homosexuals are drawn to the Democratic Party today.

The American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker wrote about the homosexual Nazi leader Ernst Röhm: Röhm's "chiefs, men of the rank of Gruppenfuehrer or Obergruppenfuehrer, commanding units of several hundred thousand Storm Troopers, were almost without exception homosexuals. Indeed, unless a Storm Troop officer were homosexual, he had no chance of advancement."
 

Dusty

Peacock
Gold Member
Well the BLM are finally hitting heavy ((())) / Wall Street / celebrity / George Soros's backyard territory as they descend upon the Hamptons near the tip of Long Island, NY .... lol. These are the areas I don't mind as much if they annoy as opposed to everyday hard working Americans in the "flyover" Midwest.

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates - NY Post

“The group also stopped by mansions owned by Blackstone CEO Steven Schwarzman and real estate developer Stephen Ross, and had planned to visit the estate of investor and hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb.“

Man, those names are as Irish as the Blarney Stone. I’m starting to notice some chilling anti-celticism among the BLM movement.
 

Easy_C

Crow
Well the BLM are finally hitting heavy ((())) / Wall Street / celebrity / George Soros's backyard territory as they descend upon the Hamptons near the tip of Long Island, NY .... lol. These are the areas I don't mind as much if they annoy as opposed to everyday hard working Americans in the "flyover" Midwest.

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates - NY Post

*Disclaime. Dean Rico oversimplification below becomes it’s late and I’m tired

I actually don’t have a huge problem with that. The left DOES have some legitimate grievances that we actually agree with them with such as the mutual resentment of bankers and this kind of action is going directly after who is responsible for the grievance.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
It is not Christianity. As soon as I read this remark by the author in the article, I did not need to read much further: "If I were a Christian . . . ." Yes, a non-believer knows more than the sum total of 2,000 years of Christian scholars. Sure.

The Old Testament is the foundation of the New Testament, which cannot exist without its foundation. Jesus himself quoted extensively from the Old Testament. The Old Testament foreshadowed the coming of The Christ on numerous occasions. The New Testament simply cannot exist without the OT.

If the OT was irrelevant (or evil) Jesus would have plainly said as much -- and He certainly would not have quoted extensively from it. The article only mentions Jesus twice. Enough said.
The article is riddled with error but there are some kernels of truth embedded in it. Like a lot of dialogue, it contains matters of interest for people strong with Christ but is poison for the casual reader.

When referring to the OT I am very careful not to use terms like "foundation" due to the implications those terms carry.

Jesus references the OT, but let it be without a single shred doubt, where the teachings of Jesus contradict the teachings of the OT, the OT is in error. It's Christianity. Not Old Testamentianity with a guest appearance from the Son of God.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Jesus references the OT, but let it be without a single shred doubt, where the teachings of Jesus contradict the teachings of the OT, the OT is in error. It's Christianity. Not Old Testamentianity with a guest appearance from the Son of God.
It is not that the OT was ever in error. It is simply that the arrival of the Messiah superseded portions of the OT. Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies and the OT law.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). When God says "all scripture," He truly means all scripture.

For example, in Old Testament times the priests carried out animal sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people. But through His death on the cross, Jesus paid the final price for our sins -- fully and completely. No more sacrifices are required, because He is a final sacrifice for sin. Does this mean we should just ignore those parts of the Old Testament? Not at all, because they teach us just how seriously God takes sin and they also remind us of the price paid to make our salvation possible.
 
Last edited:

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
It is not that the OT was ever in error. It is simply that the arrival of the Messiah superseded portions of the OT. Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies and the OT law.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). When God says "all scripture," He truly means all scripture.

For example, in Old Testament times the priests carried out animal sacrifices to atone for the sins of the people. But through His death on the cross, Jesus paid the final price for our sins -- fully and completely. No more sacrifices are required, because He is a final sacrifice for sin. Does this mean we should just ignore those parts of the Old Testament? Not at all, because they teach us just how seriously God takes sin and they also remind us of the price paid to make our salvation possible.
Sure. That's a completely sensible outlook. Unfortunately though there are folks who will still do the irrelevant stuff "because it's in the OT", and in some cases it's extremely spiritually harmful, not just to them but to the people who even in atheism can see the contradiction and walk away.

There's a reason jews hate Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox far more than they hate fire and brimstone OT preachers. One take lionizes Christ. The other lionizes Jewish history.
 

Tail Gunner

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Sure. That's a completely sensible outlook. Unfortunately though there are folks who will still do the irrelevant stuff "because it's in the OT", and in some cases it's extremely spiritually harmful, not just to them but to the people who even in atheism can see the contradiction and walk away.

There's a reason jews hate Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox far more than they hate fire and brimstone OT preachers. One take lionizes Christ. The other lionizes Jewish history.
They should all emphasize Christ. That is the very essence of Christianity. My pastor once stated: "If you visit a new church and the pastor does not repeatedly mention Jesus, sin, and salvation during the service you should run away screaming. Having said that, the OT is an essential component to learning about the nature of God.

I attended a six-year long bible study (meeting one evening a week) taught by a Catholic professor of literature. His method was to flip back and forth between teaching an OT book and then a NT book. It was very enlightening, because it demonstrated that the Bible is clearly a unified work without error. He also always flipped back to the OT whenever Jesus mentioned OT passages and explained their meaning. It was a brilliant teaching style -- and much better than simply reading and learning the Bible chronologically.
 
Last edited:

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
You can look back at every single conflict of the last 100 years, and the US almost invariably picks the worst side to support. Forgetting the idea of a "just war," can you even name a single conflict where the US picked the side of the good guys? it's to the point where I just hear "anti-Washington regime" and I know who the good guys are.
The communist forces in Korea and Vietnam (+surrounding nations) definitely meet the criteria for being bad guys, even if the oligarchs were doubtless motivated only by non-moral reasons for seeing those battles fought. They were true monsters in every sense of the word.
 
I would suggest that where the OT and NT appear to contradict, there is a misinterpretation occurring. A lot of the OT describes things in physical terms that the Fathers interpreted to be spiritual in nature, and there are four different layers of Biblical interpretation that have been traditionally used. Apparent contradictions, the Fathers would say, result from comparing two passages within the same layer where one may be more literal and the other more allegorical.

For example, the Psalms are full of impreccatory prayers (that sound like violent curses) against one’s enemies. But Christians are called to love and bless our enemies. So how does this match up? The patristic interpretation has long been that King David’s physical enemies are the Christian’s spiritual enemies: Satan and his demons. So we are not praying for people we don’t like to be harmed, we are praying for demons to be crushed - as they are the true enemies of all mankind.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
The communist forces in Korea and Vietnam (+surrounding nations) definitely meet the criteria for being bad guys, even if the oligarchs were doubtless motivated only by non-moral reasons for seeing those battles fought. They were true monsters in every sense of the word.
Were the communists worse than America, though? (and by “America” I mean usury, sexual degeneracy, feminism, etc.).
 

Pooch32

Sparrow
You can look back at every single conflict of the last 100 years, and the US almost invariably picks the worst side to support. Forgetting the idea of a "just war," can you even name a single conflict where the US picked the side of the good guys? it's to the point where I just hear "anti-Washington regime" and I know who the good guys are.
If anyone is familiar with Moldbug, Neireaction, and the Dark Enlightenment, it’s foundational theory is that contrary to what we were taught, America was founded on the wrong (left) side. The British monarchy was on the right (Tories) and the American colonists were members of the left (Whigs), who were the progressives of that time. If you read American literature from the colonial period you’ll see that, interestingly, Americans referred to themselves as Whigs and refer to the crown’s troops as Tories.
 

Max Roscoe

Woodpecker
The communist forces in Korea and Vietnam (+surrounding nations) definitely meet the criteria for being bad guys, even if the oligarchs were doubtless motivated only by non-moral reasons for seeing those battles fought. They were true monsters in every sense of the word.
Ho Chi Minh fought with the allies in WW2 and pled with the Americans to help him after the war ended, but they repeatedly ignored him. Out of desperation, he turned to the largest superpower, the USSR, and then America decided he was an enemy and attacked him. So again, the US was on the wrong side, as it actually turned its ally into its enemy. The Quiet American, the Michael Caine film of Graham Greene's novel delves into this a bit.

As for Korea I know very little about that time period, but I do like the meme North Korea Is Best Korea and in a contrarian view, Korea is one of the only nations on the earth without a central bank, and has absolutely no degeneracy. It was one of Wesley Clark's 7 nations the US wanted to destroy. And between the two, South Korea makes some nice technology but its people are mindless consumers, its women are driven by the desire to make themselves more fake and white, and the men play video games so much they sometimes die from forgetting to eat.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US follows more planks of the communist party than Korea or Vietnam do today, and regardless of their economic systems, their moral and social systems are far less corrupt.

But do keep trying, I really do think there has to be a war the US was on the right side of, if for no other reason than there are just so many military attacks by America. Over 100 since WW2.
 
Top