In a private correspondence with blogger Gas Mask, I ask him a question and his answer was so extraordinary & illuminating that I wanted to post it. He graciously gave me permission. I am more than honored to know him.
Q: How is it that we let the jews control so much of what we do? Even though we feel like heroes for exposing and fighting them, they are still the controlling factor in deciding what the war is and that makes of us what we have become.
Those are very good questions, miss.
I think that we are in a catch-22 situation. “Bad if you do, bad if you don’t…”
We forgot about ourselves, and let ourselves be controlled by that mongrelized rabble
that we call jews… The control began to be evident in the racial mishmash that we call the Roman Empire… Although the seeds were planted before that, it took the “watering” action of the jews to make them sprout. Remember that Rome was the epicenter of European power in the Ancient World. They ensconced on Roman life and began to plot, as they always did… Their “suckass” servility and reliability, on the other side, made them desirable to the Romans, in some way… Or at least, dependable.
African slaves (from North Africa) weren’t much useful, except for their brute force. The jews, on the other hand, could be more useful to them, due to their organizational abilities… (you pointed it out saying that they stick together, and we don’t. You were right).
The jews are a parasite that has been ensconced on Western/White civilization ever since.
We did wars against other tribes (peoples) and our own tribes. The jews responded to that with their monies and their willingness to make the dirty, un-Aryan work (my wording it’s intentional because Aryan means noble)… Jews were born pimps and slave masters… or at least, they gravitate towards those “jobs” more than any other race/ethnicity…
Hmmmm. We forgot about ourselves and our nobility. Mind you, I don’t mean nobility as in “caste of prancing parasites”… No. Nobility carries obligations, more than anything. It has perks, but also, it has obligations.
Call it as you wish… but following my previous reasonings, I have to concede the following: if we call the jews evil, and also, we call them parasites (and their action it’s indeed of an uncreative parasite), we probably have to admit that we have been serving them too, in some way. Our heroism has been twisted and exploited by them. They exploit our psyche in ways we can’t even fathom… In a way, they know us better than we do. Thus, their success…
Christianity is a mongrel religion that has everything for everyone. Of course, what could produce the ultimate mongrel race in the ultimate mongrel land? A religion (as opposed as a pagan cult) that has something for everyone! That’s their product!!
Thus, it can pit you side to side with a Negro from Nigeria, and a Chinese from… errr, China. It has something for all of them. Something for all of us.
It’s interesting to note that Spanish the word church it’s called iglesia… It comes from the Greek ecclesia, or assembly of citizens.
Since I don’t want to make this message even longer than it already is, I will link to you the Wikipedia (or Judepedia) links that deal with the matter…
I’ve listened to a number of heavy metal songs across the years that literally call the Christian Church (and religions in general) “merchants of faith”… You may not give a damn about the music, but those guys nail it well.
Indeed, the jews have been being merchants of faith for over 2,000 years. The jews are the ultimate peddlers… they even sold to us a faith, a cult.
For even more etymology and semantics, consider the origins of the words “religion” and “paganism”…
(although, it’s noteworthy that the Spanish versions of both pages (specially the latter) are longer and better explained.) I will quote part of the second link from the Spanish version of Meta, with a translation powered by Jewgle Translate and fixed a bit by myself…
There are, in this respect, three different opinions on the étymos of the word religio: the one that unites the voice religio with the étymos religere, which links it with the étymos relegere, and the one that associates it, finally, with the étymos religare. Of these three, only the first two deserve trust and legitimacy, being associated with the realm of Romanity itself; The third, on the other hand, deserves many doubts, since it is not only late in time, but also seems to be an invention that begins with Christianity and seeks to justify the expression religioin the series of ideas that will be associated later to this word.
Religere and relegere are, in our opinion, the legitimate étymos of the word religio. Religere properly means such scruples. It refers, therefore, to an inner disposition “and not to an objective property of certain things or a set of beliefs and practices.” “In classical times,” says Maurice Sachot, “the Roman religio designates first of all an attitude of scrupulous respect for the instituted. That’s why it strengthens institutions and guarantees their duration, through that link, for that attachement of the citizen for respecting the institutions of the city.” This question puts us on the track of something that until now is almost completely ignored – except, of course, among circles of historians, philosophers or specialists – the link between the Religio and the institutions of the city, or that which properly makes a Roman, in the ancient world, be Roman. Religio, in its etymological meaning, refers to the idea of scruples.
But not of any scruple, but, above all, of what it is possible to have in front of what has been instituted in the city, and therefore encompasses a sacred general respect for the city and all that it represents. This idea of Religio already denotes a markedly local, not universal character. This was what led Cicero, the celebrated Roman philosopher, to say ‘SVA CVIQVE CIVITATI RELIGIO’ (each city has its own religion).
Thus we have the three essential aspects of the original concept of religio: scruples (in the sense of being collected, kept, retained by something that is considered sacred), the city, the urbe, Rome (as the object toward which the scrupulousness of the religious is directed and transforms every form of Roman religio into a social activity directed towards public affairs, the res-publics, legal and state affairs, and the local or national character that distinguishes each people according to their own religion, that is, according to the very relationship of scruple (of respect, love, care) that prevails between the individual and the institutions (traditions, cults and customs) of his country.
Of these three original senses of the word religio the first is attested, as we have already seen, by the étymos Religere, the second and third are based on the relegere étymos. This second étymos of religio is still more legitimate, since the word relegere is the one that properly gives rise to the formation of the noun religio – the Latin voice religere forms the noun relictio and the expression religare (famous only because of Christianity) forms the noun religatio (which departs ostensibly from the first two). Relegere thus comes from legere: ‘to read’, but also to ‘gather’ and is intimately associated with the field and harvesting of the harvest, as well as the term ‘pagan’, pagus, paganus: ‘man of the field’ ‘farmer’. Religion thus emerges, from the link of blood and soilstarting from the relegere concept[…] (emphasis and bolds both added by me).