The Protestant American

Hussein For President

2008-08-16T20:07:00.010-04:00

Several days ago, the AP picked up a press release by the Census Bureau predicting imminent white dispossession. The Census Bureau likes to release these projections to the media from time to time, to draw attention to itself. (P.C. Conventional Wisdom says that we ought to stop taking racial statistics. But it is quite telling that those are, by far, the most popular statistics collected and projected. That AP story was ranked #1 in total number of views on the day it was released).

The long story short is that, in about 25 years' time, U.S. residents under 50 years of age will be majority-nonwhite. The basic Germanic-Protestant core population is already outnumbered in most regions of North America, of course. And the integrity of that core population is under direct attack by miscegenation. This is a tragedy and an outrage, of course. But it is also inevitable when basically-hostile forces control the government, educational system, media, and "entertainment industry".

A previous posting on this website lashed out at John McCain, for his vigorous support for white-dispossession. But his opponent is even worse.

A nonwhite named Barack Hussein Obama. This man, who admits to being drawn to radical antiwhite personas and messages, is of Muslim East African paternal origin, and whose mother was--to be very polite--a "slightly less than virtuous" radical leftist white woman who was, at 17, impregnated with little Barack by the married, 23-year-old Barack Hussein Obama Sr.

Hussein-Obama is, of course, the very posterchild for the message of white-dispossession, that the AP spread far and wide this past week.

The author does not even recognize Hussein-Obama as an American, and it is likely that most other Americans share this view. The election of this man would be the ultimate ignominious disgrace and humiliation for this country. Fortunately, his chances of actually being elected are slim.

He wants "Change", capital-C and all. What is that Change? He never quite says. It's not particularly hard to see that the "Change" is a smashing of the old implicit white-Germanic-Protestant domination of the USA [akin to Japanese "domination" of Japan], and the rise of a pathetic globalized Babel, where every white woman behaves like Obama's mother, and every man is either a nonwhite or loves nonwhites.

This dangerous radical, Barack Hussein Obama, wants to destroy the American People. But so does John McCain.

What makes John 'At Least He's White' McCain preferable, is the following: It is probable, nay, near certain, that when McCain wins, he will see that he has a clear mandate to defend white interests, as white-backlash will have put him into the White House. Thus, it is unlikely that he would be bold enough to actually pursue the "dispossessionist" agenda. But what would stop him?

Pope to parade through American capital

2008-04-13T08:28:00.004-04:00

Roman "Pope" Ratzinger will shortly "visit" the USA. He will meet with Catholic-puppet George Bush, and will parade through the American Capital as if on a victory parade through a conquered city. The pro-Catholic media is predictably slobbering all over him, and falling over themselves to say what a great event this is and how great the Pope is. No other foreign leader on Earth gets such treatment if he/she visits.

Question: Why does the generally-secularist mainstream media treat the Pope so reverently? Friend, figure that one out and take the answer to heart. Then you will understand much about modern American sociopolitics.

Also note that the "evangelicals" are silent and offer no words of protest to the Pope playing the part of conqueror and spitting in all our faces by parading through our capital. Pathetic. There was a time not long ago when there would have been bloody riots if the Pope had tried such an aggressive move.

Anti-Islam film released - A patriotic critique

2008-03-29T04:36:00.033-04:00

Dutch politician Wilders released his long-awaited film against Islam, called "Fitna" (Arabic for "strife"). View it here:

If you are comfortable and have time to spare, turn up your speakers and watch the film [It is very good and 15 minutes in length]. Then click "Continue Reading" below, scroll down, and you can read a brief critique from a patriotic perspective. (But watch the film first).

COMMENT: A powerful film, and effective towards its intended goal. However, there are some issues with it. I will briefly outline what can be called the Patriotic Critique to the film.

What sums up the movie is the dumb slogan that crawls across the screen at the end: "In 1945 we defeated the Nazis, in 1989 we defeated Communism, today we must defeat Islam".

"We" in the above, clearly means Liberal-Capitalist-Democracy. Not any Nation, People, or Civilization... but a socioeconomic and political ideology and worldview. This, then, implies that it genuinely doesn't matter if future Netherlands is brown (or even liberal-Islamic, in theory), as long as they tolerate gays and love corporations indefinitely into the future. (That would seem to be Wilders' idea of Endsieg!).

One other somewhat-related issue, is the disproportionate focus on Jews in the film. The message shining through in the film is implicitly this: "Those millions of Muslims in Europe are a threat, but mainly because of terrorism and anti-Semitism"!. The film can thus be said to have Jewish Nationalist sympathies undercurrent, yet at the same time it is--in places--passively hostile to European nationalism. Strange? Certainly.

In short, what this film is ultimately not, is a fiery call for salvation of white-christians in Europe from being swamped by nonwhite Muslims. Rather, it is more of a vigorous and aggressive defense of the Ruling Ideology of Europe. That decadent, corporate, universalist ideology that endorses drug use, homosexuality, and pornography, and is anathema to blood-and-honor patriotism. It is "Hawkish liberalism", to turn a phrase. I.e., this propaganda-film promotes essentially all the same values that a cultural leftist liberaldemocrat would, but is just more bellicose and aggressive in so doing.

...What is needed are more genuine patriotic voices, which call for national revival(s) of the People(s) of Europe against the Islamic threat. Fighting the fight that this film calls for is not going to work. It is akin to a group of men at sea bailing water out of the small-hole-riddled inflatable rubber lifeboat. They're lucky to stay afloat. And the western cultural backdrop of today? It is akin to these same men play darts with a makeshift dartboard pinned to the wall of their rubber lifeboat!

Catholics for McCain

2008-03-15T01:46:00.011-04:00

Pro-Catholic imperialist and immigration-enthusiast John McCain has been actively and openly seeking "Catholic votes" around the country, and has just recently boasted of his swelling support from Catholics nationwide. He has been helped in this by the "Catholics for McCain" group he set up in 2007. Last week, McCain even publicly condemned "anti-Catholicism" [See news story "McCain rejects anti-Catholic views"].

The keen observer will note that a few short generations ago in this country, the opposite of the preceding would've been the order of the day. A candidate would be pressured to distance himself from any pro-Catholic views that had been attributed to his machine, and seek out protestant votes! In polls conducted in the 1930s, over 60% of U.S. Protestants said they would not support a Catholic for president.

What has changed? Protestants have lost relative power to say the least. And though there are still 130 million or so white-protestants in the country, they no longer control this country. Some of them have turned to the heavily-media-promoted bizarre postmodern perversion of Christianity known as dispensationalist "evangelicalism". [This movement can be explained by Protestant loss of cultural confidence in the 20th century. As they witnessed their people lose power, they decided to latch on to those groups perceived to be on the upswing. Which explains why they are so strongly in favor of Judaism (a poisonously anti-Christian religion peopled by strange-looking Middle Easterners who work against American interests and have tendencies for promoting cultural degeneracy), why they are generally pro-Catholic, and why they do not oppose alien immigration in any serious way.]

McCain's friends
Speaking of "Evangelicals", the odious 'Pastor' Hagee (a Christian in name only), has endorsed McCain. Both Hagee and McCain are loved by Jewish ethnic-activists for their history of magnanimous cooperation therewith. John McCain is also a big favorite of leftists and Hispanics, for various reasons.

John McCain: A man driven by the desire to make his country less white-protestant and launch foreign wars to spread our empire; A man who is loved by Catholics, Jews, communists, nonwhites, and George Bush. "Only in America"?

Pair of pro-Catholic stooges embrace one another

Yes, his good friend and ideological doppelganger George Bush also recently endorsed him.

And as for that 'National Catholics for McCain' group mentioned earlier?

A coalition of Catholic leaders from across America today announced their support for John McCain for president. U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and former Governor Frank Keating (R-OK) will serve as the National Co-Chairs of Catholics for McCain.

“As Catholics, we are proud to announce our support for John McCain, a genuine American hero with a conservative record who has what it takes to lead this country,” said U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain.

Former Governor Frank Keating (R-OK), also National Co-Chair of Catholics for McCain said, “John McCain can uniquely appeal to Catholics with his strong, 24-year pro-life record, his stand for traditional values and school choice, his proven leadership in defending America, and his demonstrated ability to appeal to independent-minded voters. These are exactly the type of qualities that Catholic voters will be looking for in 2008.”

Note that the group was formed in 2007, back when six or more candidates were still in the race, and McCain was running third or fourth in polls. So, these are not bandwagon-jumpers. Note further Brownback's words: "As Catholics, we support McCain." Not as Americans, Republicans, old white men, baseball fans, or Congressmen. As Catholics. McCain's values and ideology are something that genuinely get Catholic politicos particularly excited, "as Catholics". Why is that, we might ask? Could it be his fanatical support for amnestying as many [mainly Roman Catholic] illegal immigrants as possible and his plans to increase immigration? His "conservatism" [a Catholic movement for the past several decades]? His opposition to American nationalism?

Yes, it seems The Maverick(tm) dances to the piping of many different flutes, and seems to particularly like the tune emanating from Rome.

Pope endorses global warming

2008-01-10T19:53:00.001-05:00

In a bizarre development, the Pope has come out in favor of global warming. The powerful Roman leader delivered a pro-global-warming New Year's speech, wherein he vociferously condemned and mocked those working to address the problem.

Why would a "man of God", as the Pope likes to claim himself, come out in support of the degradation and destruction of the planet? ... The obvious answer: A man of God would not. ... Yes indeed, the senselessness of Pope Ratzinger's “surprise attack on climate change 'prophets of doom'”, and his ridiculous claim that the near-unanimous warnings from countless scientists and experts are “nothing more than scare-mongering”, show that, as usual, the Pope has less than pure motives.

Though a man of God would not, a crooked man looking to bolster and expand his organization's own sociopolitical power in any possible way, would do such a thing. This incident represents a brazen attempt by Rome to win friends with Big Business, thus ensuring the Pope powerful future allies. Big Business is frightened by the anti-global-warming movement because of the inevitable effect that ever more stringent environmental regulations would have on their profits.

The Pope and Big Business- Working together to pollute your clean air, cut down your sacred forests, and poison your noble mind.

Catholic imperialism in Iraq

2007-11-25T20:13:00.000-05:00

The ever-imperial-minded Roman Church has launched an aggressive new venture against another a group of Christians-- This time in far-away Iraq. In the Vatican's crosshairs this time: A group of old-stock "oriental orthodox" Christians, little known to Westerners, who call themselves Chaldeans. Considering their small numbers and their weakened hand in the politics of post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq, these unfortunate Christians were essentially powerless to resist Rome's advances, and have now been de-facto taken over by Roman Catholicism and the Vatican. Rome's attempts to consolidate its power over this proud people and church will come in the ensuing years, and it is possible that within a generation this Iraqi church will be destroyed, weakened from within by pressure from Islam, while being concurrently dechristianized and thoroughly romanized by pressure from the Vatican.

Rome's swift and clever move to subjugate this honest, ancient christian community was to announce the "elevation" of the head of Chaldean Christians in Iraq to the position of "cardinal" within the Roman Catholic religion. This was an offer that this nervous and shaky christian community could not refuse, as here was a powerful international Political Power offering it ostensible protection to them, om a country full of hostile, angry Muslims. Iraqi Christians would be tied in to the "rest of the Christian World", as Rome arrogantly claims itself to be, and that those outside Rome's ever-outward-moving black shadow, are simply irrelevant heretics. Not to mention that refusal would result in gaining an enemy in the Vatican, which no sane person wants.

(left: Iraqi Mohammedans protest Roman Catholic aggression by burning a crude effigy of The Pope.
Comment: Though they may be wrong about the false prophet Mohammed, they are right about the false prophet "Benedict XVI", who, like Mohammed, is self-declared to be God's intercessor on Earth)

This anti-Iraqi-Christian move by Rome is just another example of how the Pope's fanatical millennium-long war against Eastern Christians has never ended and still continues in full force today, in different forms than before. (The same for its perfidious 'Counter-Reformation'). Rome is not interested in being friends with Christians, only in conquering them. (Foolish Protestant-ecumenists beware!) Rome's fanatical endgame is to poison the entire world with its religion, and seize the reins of power, via direct political power and via social/cultural 'influences', over all peoples across the globe.

If only someone had warned the hapless Chaldean Christians of Iraq:
Beware of Romans bearing gifts.

Neocon Puppet Giuliani or Patriot Ron Paul?

2007-11-20T21:15:00.000-05:00

Rudolph Giuliani, the neoconservative former mayor of New York, illegal-immigration-enthusiast, practicing Roman Catholic, and chronic adulterer, is currently leading in the polls to become the Republican nominee for President.

This is bad news for the American nation for the simple fact that this man owes his loyalty to several different alien ideologies, notably Romanism, Corporatism, and Zionism. He is a fanatical devotee of the Bush/Clinton doctrine of waging wars and ordering bombing campaigns for no reason against artificial enemies pulled out of thin air, and of expanding the American Empire. During his political career he has been a strong advocate of the immigration of his co-religionists into our fair land, especially when it is illegal in nature. He supports the status quo of bloated-Federal-Leviathan and would expand it so that it can press down with its boot all the harder on our collective necks. Essentially all of his positions are at odds with true American interests in one way or another.

We would be much better to put an American patriot like Ron Paul (a churchgoing Protestant-Christian, opponent of federal leviathan, and opponent of Empire) into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not a hawk-on-behalf-of-alien-ideologies like Mr Giuliani. Patriots have been rallying around Dr Ron Paul by the tens of thousands, and if God has mercy on this nation today, American patriot Ron Paul might just win and put all the Giulianis out there in their place-- which is far, far away from the reins of power of a free nation.

Bibles Banned at 2008 Beijing Olympics

2007-11-10T13:38:00.000-05:00

[CBN reports:] Organizers for the 2008 Olympics in China have released their list of items banned from the Olympic village where the athletes will stay. Among the "prohibited objects" -- Bibles. The committee behind the Beijing games cited "security reasons" for the ban.

If the hive-minded atheistic spirit of China spreads, the entire world is doomed. The ame goes for the post-Religious death-spirit casting its bleak shadow over Europe today. Though if things keep going the way they're going that will likely be replaced by an Islamic spirit in three generations, and European Christianity relegated to the mists of history.

Orthodox Church issues warning to Rome

2007-08-29T23:11:00.000-04:00

There was a time when Americans had similarly patriotic attitudes towards the expansionist-minded hostile Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately those millions of patriotic men of previous generations, who opposed the Papal Serpent and warned the people about the dangers and poisons of the alien ideology known as Roman Catholicism, they are gone for the most part. In their place we have wildly-pro-Catholic clowns like George Bush running the show, and as a result the country on its way to a Papist Majority.

Orthodox Church Tells Catholics to Give Up Russia Missions
The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexiy II, told an Italian newspaper that a first meeting with Pope Benedict would only make sense if the Vatican gave up any missionary ambition to spread Catholicism in his country.

Posted: Wednesday, August 29, 2007, 14:42

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexiy II, told an Italian paper that a first meeting with Pope Benedict would only make sense if the Vatican gave up any missionary ambition to spread Catholicism in his country.

The Russian Patriarch, in comments to Il Giornale published on Wednesday, laid out clear conditions for a meeting between the leaders of the eastern and western branches of Christianity, which split in the Great Schism of 1054.

"The meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow must be well prepared and must run absolutely no risk of being reduced to an opportunity to take a few photographs or appear together before television cameras," he said.

"It must be an encounter that really helps to consolidate relations between our two churches."

The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought increased tension between the Vatican and the Russian Orthodox Church, with clerics in Moscow worried about new opportunities for so-called "soul-poaching" by western Catholics.

Senior Catholic cardinals now say a first ever meeting between a Pope and a Russian Patriarch is increasingly likely. Popes have in the past met Ecumenical Patriarchs, the spiritual leaders of the worldwide Orthodox church based in Istanbul.

But centuries of rivalry cannot be forgotten easily.

"Still today some Catholic bishops and missionaries consider Russia as missionary terrain," the Patriarch said.

"But Russia, holy Russia, is already illuminated by a faith that is centuries old and that, thank God, has been preserved and handed on by the Orthodox Church," Alexiy told Il Giornale after greeting some Italian Catholic bishops in Moscow.

"This is the first point of the problems that need to be clarified and smoothed over regarding a meeting with the Pope."

Another concern, he said, was the spread of "eastern rite" Catholicism throughout former Soviet states. Eastern Catholics have the same Mass as Orthodox churches but, unlike them, have been in full union with the Vatican since the 17th century.

Alexiy said the eastern rite was now spreading to "areas where it never used to exist, such as eastern Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia itself".

Banned in 1946 by dictator Josef Stalin and its property handed over to the more compliant Orthodox church, the eastern rite was permitted again the dying days of Soviet rule.

"When these problems are confronted and resolved then the meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow will be possible. Then it will have real significance," said Alexiy.

Link to Article

God should be called 'Allah', says Roman Catholic bishop in Netherlands

2007-08-21T16:21:00.001-04:00

A powerful Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands has suggested that Dutch people should call God "Allah". Dutch protestant leaders were to quick to condemn this blasphemy, and the story made the international press.

The Dutch have over a million Muslims occupying their soil, and that number is on the rise. It is a serious problem. For the Catholic Church to come out in favor of Dutch people beginning to slowly abandon Christianity and embrace some sort of future fusion of Mohammedanism and Papistry, is disloyalty to the Dutch state and to the Dutch people in the extreme. But disloyalty to non-Catholic institutions is nothing out of the ordinary for the Roman Catholic Church. It is their centuries-old game.

Firstly, it must be stated for those living in a cave or on Mars, that underlying this incident is Christian-Western-Europe's present existential Crisis--the prospect of being swamped in the upcoming two to three generations by foreigners, especially followers of the false prophet Mohammed. Mohammedans are predicted to become absolute majority populations in many West European countries the latter part of this century. This powerful Catholic bishop declaring that Dutch people should call God "Allah" is obviously doing so in an attempt to "win friends with the Muslims". Why would a supposedly-trinitarian Papist wish to win friends with the unitarian, Pope-denying, Christ-denying Muslims? As is usual with the Church of Rome, the answer lies more in politics than in theology. Rome sees which way the demographic winds are apparently blowing. Muslims in Europe are increasing in number and power and influence by the day, while the native populations of Europe are getting older and fatter. Many countries in Europe see more citizen-deaths than citizen-births per year nowadays. The native populations of Europe today are mostly non-religious and steeped in degenerate, amoral culture. They are in stagnation or outright decline in many ways. Meanwhile the enemies of Christ from the south and east are marching under the banner of their crescent moon into Europe. In olden times, kings of lavishly-rich but rather soft city-states and petty kingdoms used to pay "tribute" to marauding groups of fierce warriors, to accommodate the outsiders and keep their grip on power. Apply the same logic to the present situation, and this otherwise-inexplicable proclamation by the Roman Catholic Church in the Netherlands makes more sense.

This brings up the issue of Catholic (dis)loyalty to non-Catholic institutions. Can Catholics really be relied on to be loyal to a non-Catholic State? (The Netherlands is by law officially protestant, the Queen is the head of the Dutch Church, as in England). Can Catholics be relied upon to be loyal a non-Catholic people amongst whom they live? (Think Guy Fawkes, an Englishman through and through, but as disloyal as they come to the English people--his own people-- as he tried to murder the King and the entire government of England). There is only one inevitable answer to this question, and its repercussions for America should be worrying to any patriot.

This Bishop of Rome is a Dutch man by kith and kin, presumably going back countless generations. He is in a prestiged position of power. Yet he freely and openly displays a rather shocking disloyalty to his own people. But he *is* being loyal to the Catholic religion. In this case, the Catholic Institution in Dutch-speaking territory is simply manifesting its centuries-long and ongoing disloyalty to the Dutch Protestant state, which first gained independence thanks to Protestant revolutionaries in the 16th century, and fought long and hard against the forces of The Pope to maintain that freedom. The Catholic Insitution in any country is loyal first and foremost to itself, and "to hell with the 'heretics'".

The long story short is that this incident was NOT an irrelevant, isolated incident in which some eccentric Bishop made a bizarre statement. It represents and crystalizes an important religio-political point with regards the Catholic Church's relationship to and loyalty to non-Catholic governments and peoples.

Original AP news story transcribed here:
--------------------
THE HAGUE, Netherlands—A Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent AIDS has made headlines again, this time by saying God should be called Allah.
"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?" Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. "God doesn't care what we call him."
In this nation where religious tolerance has been eroded in recent years by a rise in radical Islam, the comments drew little support.
Muskens, bishop of the southern Diocese of Breda, previously created a stir by suggesting the hungry could steal bread to feed themselves. He also supported the use of condoms as a way of reining in the spread of AIDS and suggested popes have term limits of 10-15 years and an age limit of 85.
In an interview broadcast on Monday's edition of current affairs show "Netwerk," Muskens said he had worked in Indonesia where God is referred to as Allah in Christian services.
But a spokesman for one of the capital's leading mosques said he was not happy with the statement.
"We didn't ask for this, a spokesman for the Moroccan Mosque in Amsterdam told De Telegraaf. "Now it is as if we have a problem between Muslims and Christians."
Gerrit de Fijter, chairman of the General Synod of the Dutch Protestant Church, also rejected Muskens' suggestion.
"I applaud every attempt to encourage dialogue with Muslims, but I doubt the sense of this maneuver," De Fijter told De Telegraaf.
Neither De Fijter nor Muslim community leaders returned calls seeking comment Wednesday.
Speaking to a local television network Wednesday, Muskens said he was pleased his comments had sparked debate.
"That they are interested in how to get along with God, that is a positive result," he told Omroep Brabant.
[link to Yahoo-news]

Pope declares self to be God..again

2007-07-21T08:59:00.000-04:00

News item: Pope: Other Christians not true churches

Well, the noisy little patriarch of Rome is at it again. He recently declared to the world what many who sat upon the same throne have in the past. A few days ago, he proclaimed that he is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and that no man comes unto the Father but by him ('Pope' Ratzinger) and his "church". The rat-like, would-be despot in question--who also happens to be the richest man on the planet--further declares that those people who do not worship at the altar of Romanism but rather are loyal to Christ, are irretrievably lost.

The astute observer will have noticed that the Pope has, once again, attempted to usurp the position of Christ on Earth. (See what Jesus proclaims in John 14:6).

Catholic-led Attack on U.S. stopped by Senate

2007-06-17T12:14:00.000-04:00

To the delight of American patriots from Sea to shining Sea, and to the utmost distress of the Vatican and its tentacles in the U.S., the latest Catholic-sponsored illegal-immigrant "amnesty" push has been stopped by the Senate.

Fifth-Columnists
The proposed amnesty bill--and more broadly-speaking, illegal immigration in general--is backed by a ramshackle coalition of fifth-columnists--including Big Business interests, Hispanic-"American" ethnic activists, neoconservative imperialists, Jewish activists, a strange group of what can be called "post-American Americans", and naturally the Roman Catholic Church and its pawns.

Big Business Interests-- Big Business is interested in illegal immigration for its cheap labor supply, as has been said to death by now. Less attention is paid to another subtler but still important need for Capital: Markets. Business needs markets--that is to say, people to buy their products--just as a movie theater needs movie-goers. To go with the theater analogy, what are some a good ways for a movie-theater-owner to increase his profits? Well, if there were more people in his city, and if they all had broadly common taste in movies, that's more potential movie-goers and a wider swathe of the public he can appeal to. Larger markets and common markets mean more profits. Now, take a mass of deracinated consumer-drones who identify with nothing of significance. This is the ideal market for Big Business; a population of this nature really "oils the wheels" of the Consumer-Society-Machine. So it is further clear that Big Business also has a vested interest in seeing that identity erode. Identity is bad for business! This interest includes (but is certainly not limited to) seeing that radically alien people brought in by the millions and permanently resettled here. What better way to erode the identity of the population? In this New America, all these people, new and old, can be blended into a new 'race' of bleary-eyed, apathetic, identityless consumers. Now that's good for business. Real patriotism is bad for business, so 'those evil patriots who oppose giving this country away must be stopped.'

Hispanic-"American" ethnic activists-- This group is concerned with getting as many of their co-ethnics (Latin American Roman Catholics) into the country as possible, and in seeing that those of their co-ethnics here illegally are allowed to permanently stay. It is purely ethnic self-interest for them. Their disdain, and even hatred, for the white-protestant people of this country is well-known. Their ultimate anti-American goal is to colonize the USA with “la Raza” and turn it into a Hispanic country.

Neoconservative Imperialists-- As unfortunate as this is for the USA, there has now developed class of people in the upper levels of U.S. society and government who are unabashed and unrepentant imperialists. Their reasons for wanting amnesty and so on, are roughly similiar to those of Big Money interests (and this is surely not the only place on which these two classes of people "overlap"). These people are more interested in promoting "U.S." World Supremacy than they are in domestic affairs. They are far more interested in Empire than in the Nation. And empires are always multicultural. 'No room for tribalism, the tent has to be as big as possible for the American Empire to succeed!'

Jewish ethnic activists-- Jews have a neurotic paranoia about the rise of any majority-group nationalism in any society in which they live (excepting Israel, of course)--not without merit considering history. Thus their overwhelming support for foreign immigration/permanent-integration-of-foreigners into the USA--home to six or seven million Jews but twenty-five times that number white-protestants. This also largely explains their endless promotion of minority-group nationalisms and "alternate lifestyles" like homosexuality, while denigrating Christianity and basic social values of traditional American society. All this is designed to suppress majority-group nationalism, and it has been rather effective towards that end. It is always possible that propaganda efforts may not work, though, and as long as there still exists a large majority-population, the possibility of a rise of majority-group nationalism, something akin to the 1920s-era national Klan (they fear this would be anti-Semitic) remains. So, demographic displacement of white-protestants is viewed as necessary by Jews to protect themselves. Thus the Jewish promotion of the importation of millions of unassimilable foreigners into the country and the permanent-settling here thereof. (But none of that for Israel, where even millions of natives, who have lived on that soil for generations, are denied citizenship [Palestinian Moslems]. Needless to say, unassimilable immigration would be majorly detrimental to Jewish interests in the case of Israel! But America is a different story...).

"Post-American Americans"-- This is an interesting group of people, almost exclusively white, who are characterized by what might be deemed an "active nihilism" with regards to the National Question. They no longer care about the fabric of society as such, not necessarily out of vested ethnic self-interest--like the two aforementioned groups--or any other self-interest, but rather they have simply surrendered to those forces, and believe in nothing. They have lost the will to live beyond their own existence. It is not their fault, this is largely a product of (post-)modern society. But what is interesting is that theirs is not a 'passive' belief-in-nothing, for they now attempt to universalize their nihilistic dogma and promote deconstructionist absurdities about the American nation. Clowns like George Bush Jr. can be said to fit into this group (Bush's strong pro-Catholic sympathies and his family connections to the Church of Rome, his neoconservative handlers, his Big Business proclivities, his self-declared great affinity for Mexico and Hispanic people, all suggest that he is a puppet dancing on many different strings. He is a puppet because he is post-American; he is an obnoxious drug-addled "dry"-drunk who believs in nothing of substance, thus is easily manipulable). Thankfully, this group of people is rather small in most corners of the United States, and looked down upon if not despised in most quarters of U.S. society. This as opposed to Europe, where "post-European Europeans" are much larger in numbers and in strength, and actually essentially control the reins of power there!

Rome-- One of Rome's longtime strategies in its crusade to weaken and subvert the USA while concurrently advancing its own power at our expense, is to promote the two-pronged attack of "immigration"/"integration" of massive numbers of foreign Catholics and other alien people into U.S. society. ('Integration' in this case meaning getting the millions of aliens to stay here permanently, amnestying, and forcibly redefining America into a nation that's "just as Hispanic-Catholic as it is Germanic-Protestant"). So they mobilize their vast propaganda machine and work around the clock and on many fronts to promote, agitate in favor of, and lobby for "immigration" by foreign Catholics and others into the USA. So they use their influence in the halls of government and in the media to argue against borders and loudly yell in favor of the "need" for amnesty for millions of illegals and the further "need" for millions more foreign papists. All this in the name of some lofty set of vague humanitarian ideals. But naturally this is just another Roman Catholic smokescreen, and in actuality their motivation is selfish and evil. Rip off the mask and we can see the dark, ugly face of Rome: A greedy, fanatical monster hell-bent on attacking and subverting us and on attempting to seize power in America for itself.

The Hand of Rome
As with all previous such efforts, this latest anti-American "amnesty" initiative in Congress was orchestrated by-, and promoted primarily by- Roman Catholics. The bill's sponsor is Ted Kennedy (D-Catholic). This the same Ted Kennedy who helped author the infamous 1965 Immigration Bill, which was the biggest single piece of legislation opening the way for the demographic changes that have engulfed this Nation since that time. (Forty-five years ago, America was two-thirds white-protestant, today it is just under half white-protestant, thanks to immigration of alien people by the millions since that time. Rome couldn't be more pleased with its progress!).

Quickly after this proposal was shoved onto the table by Rome and her allies, they went into full swing to try to get the bill passed into law. They used a variety of tactics including massive emotion-based propaganda campaigns in the media and dishonest "inside the beltway" political wheelings-and-dealings. In other news, Dog Bites Man. Yes, this scenario is the classic modus operendi of the Roman Church in America.

The bill, "S. 1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007", proposes legalizing all illegal "immigrants" currently residing in the USA. But besides "just" legalizing millions upon millions of foreign Roman Catholics and lesser numbers of other racial- and religious-aliens who are already in this country illegally, it will spur millions more to enter the US in the coming years, confident that they too can expect their own "amnesty". (Brought to them by that most perfidious Enemy of the United States, the Roman Catholic Church? You can bet the Roman Political Machine would try.) But make no mistake about it, this is precisely the aim of the people who concocted this bill. The don't care about the poor "undocumented workers" or about border control. To appease patriots, these liars have been making noise about actual border-enforcement which would supposedly to follow this "one-time amnesty". This has all happened before, before the 1986 Amnesty. Same lie, largely the same liars.

Rome's Aim
Why is the Roman Catholic Church so interested in doing something so harmful, so deleterious, to the American Nation?

Firstly, this "immigration"/"amnesty" business must be understood in its proper context as a Roman Catholic plot (with various hangers-on and fellow anti-American travellers jumping on board) to get millions of new Catholics and their descendents permanently included in the population of the USA. From Rome's perspective, all must be done to assure that as many foreign Romanists as possible are brought in, and likewise from Rome's perspective, all must be done to assure that these foreign Catholics "are here to stay". "America must fall and be Catholicized", is their mantra. It must be understood today that Rome's interests absolutely are not Our interests, and are, in fact, diametrically opposed to our interests. As a wise man once said, "Rome is the implacable Enemy of the United States."

Since most foreign immigration today into America is from Roman Catholic countries, the major incentive for Rome to promote "immigration" should be obvious. It swells the ranks of the 'Church' of Rome in America, fills its financial coffers, and in so doing swells the political and cultural power wielded by the Catholic Power Structure over American society. Hence the Vatican's immense amount of pro-"immigration" agitation, legal defense of illegal-aliens, use of its vast wealth to bribe politicians, its tireless work in favor of "amnesties", and so forth. Hence it is usually papal agents like Ted Kennedy who author and sponsor these pro-Immigration bills, and disproportionately Catholic writers in newspapers and other publications who propagandize for it. This is not to say that all or most, or even one-in-twenty, lay Catholics are "in on the conspiracy" of the Priests, the Bishops, the Jesuits, the Pope and his cronies plotting and scheming in the bowels of the Vatican, and other powerful Catholics, the world over. Rather, most of these lay Catholics are simply following "orders"--that is to say, they are following the agenda set for them from above.

Now, it is true that not all of the "illegal immigrants" are Roman Catholic by religion. Why would Rome want to promote the immigration/integration of, say, Ali the Moslem or Chen the Chinese? The easy and quick answer is that promoting, defending, and agitating for amnesty for all illegal immigrants allows Rome to cover its tracks. This way they can claim that they are not acting to further their own anti-American agenda and to advance their own power at the expense of the American nation, but rather that they are concerned with lofty human rights concerns for 'all' those poor souls "living in the shadows", and so on. The deeper answer is that, being ostensibly in favor of amnesty for all aliens is not just a cover, and that Rome does indeed want immigration/integration into U.S. society of foreign non-Catholics as well (as long as they are not white-protestant). This may seem illogical, but is not. It simply has to do with a strong desire to weaken the prospects for American nationalism, which is white-protestant in basis. Nationalism can only exist if there is an identifiable Nation around which to base it. A messy and confused hodge-podge of races, religions, cultures, "lifestyles", and so on-- in which none is close to a majority, either in 'mind', 'body', or 'spirit'-- does not allow for nationalism. It might allow for tribalism(s), but not nationalism. Rome fears American nationalism for various reasons, that should be fairly obvious (broadly similar to the fears of the Jews mentioned above). And destroying the white-protestant core Nation around which the greater USA is built, can allow Rome to replace that system with itself, slowly. If not totally, then at least in a major way. An America crippled by radical multiculturalism in theory (poisoning of the mind) and in simple on-the-street reality (poisoning of the body), is an America that cannot assert itself. Thus American nationalism is "pre-emptively" stamped out, so to speak. And Rome is left to pick up the pieces.

Rome's goal is the weakening of White-Protestant America--in demographic terms, in cultural terms, in terms of monetary power, political power, and in terms of simple numbers. And where we are weakened, they are strengthened: Rome's use of "immigration" and "amnesty" is an attempt to strengthen Catholicism in America by bringing in millions of new Catholics and inviting millions more. The current "amnesty" nonsense is the latest strategic offensive-maneuver by Rome in its ongoing war against America.

In one sentence, this amnesty-for-illegal-aliens Bill can be said to be a poisoned-arrow thrown at Uncle Sam by the Pope personally!

"ROME IS A VIPER. VERY SOON THAT VIPER WILL BITE TO DEATH AND KILL THIS REPUBLIC." --Charles Chiniquy.

Protestants Say No
The Catholic-backed amnesty bill was stopped. For now. The unprecedented wave of opposition from the general public (primarily from normal white-protestants out in the vast expanses of the American landscape) seems to have inspired and whipped up some good old-fashioned patriotism among the protestant members of the U.S. Senate. The patriots in that chamber were not ready to allow Rome and its anti-American allies to dictate policy to America just yet, especially a policy which would essentially abolish the United States As We Knew It. On June 7th, the majority of voting Senators loudly said "No!" as they smashed the chalice filled with poison-liquid that the devious Priest of Rome was attempting to force-feed to a skeptical Uncle Sam.

Although there are some unimportant procedural minutiae as to exactly what happened, the bottom line for the layman is this: 50 Senators voted against the bill, 45 Voted for it. (Click link to see how every Senator voted.) Of the 50 who voted against, a disproportionate majority were Protestant. The great majority of the "In Favor" votes came from the old Catholic-Jewish bloc.
Noted protestants who betrayed America by voting for the bill: McCain (AZ). Lincoln (AR). Carper (DE). Nelson (FL). Lugar (IN). Bayh (IN). Stabenow (MI). Klobuchar (MN). Hagel (NE). Nelson (NE). Clinton (NY). COnrad (ND). Brown (OH). Whithouse (RI). Graham (SC).

A Glorious Sight
The unexpected defeat of the bill has left us with a glorious sight to behold out there on the proverbial field of battle: Legions of protestant volunteer-militiamen waving their weapons to the heavens and cheering, as they watch from the hilltops as Rome's mighty slave armies fall into full retreat in disarray, the Roman field commanders flummoxed and confused at this turn of events in favor of their enemy.

Down but not out! Take warning, all American patriots. Rome's "amnesty" scheme and similar anti-American initiatives will return, as before. Perhaps sooner than expected. In the medium-term, the best that patriots can do is to get our own house in order. "Clean house", so to speak. We already know that the Catholic religion and certain other alien ideologies are hostile, but this knowledge is not enough: We must also force the traitors from our own ranks (primarily the anti-American, corporatist, slave-to-big-business Republican party), and reassert a proud American patriotism. Otherwise the Pope and other hostile foreign Powers will simply continue to trample all over us. We will be free only when we are once again able to walk up on a mountain in the middle of the sky, stand tall, and proclaim to the heavens that "this is land is Our land, this people is Our people, this God is Our God, and this we shall defend!"

CNN's Wolf Blitzer condemned as a "Jewish extremist" on the air by politician

2006-12-15T22:15:00.000-05:00

Two days ago pro-American politician, author, and European-American-rights spokesman David Duke was interviewed on CNN by Jewish journalist Wolf Blitzer.

The interview consisted of eight minutes of intense back-and-forth that got started with a bang right away. (See and hear for yourself by clicking above!) Duke threw caution to the wind and said what others dare only think. He called Wolf Blitzer a "Jewish supremacist", "an agent of Israel", "a Jewish extremist" and similar things.

You can view the (almost-)entire video here:
David Duke and Wolf Blitzer 'duke it out' on CNN, Dec. 13

"The Conference"
The occasion for Duke being brought on was the Iranian Holocaust Conference, at which Duke and many other persons from around the world, of all religions and ethnicities, including a good number of Jews, were in attendance.

The purpose of this conference was simple: "What is the truth about the fate of European Jews in Europe 1941-1945, and what is the remnant of war-time and immediate-post-war myths/distortions/black-propaganda? Was there or was there not in fact a plan by the German government under Hitler to exterminate the Jews? How many Jews actually died and how? Were millions of Jews killed in extermination gas chambers?" The conference was one which championed freedom of inquiry into this great Story, which some scholars in the past decades have cast doubt upon. It was a conference of open debate, and the event itself took no official position. If the Holocaust story is an indisputable historical fact with overwhelming evidence of all types, as is claimed, then it should stand up to public scrutiny and 'open debate', that is to say, it should be very easily verifiable. Open debate on the Holocaust is something that has long been feared by many in power, for reasons which should be obvious to those have studied this subject beyond seeing a Steven Spielberg movie.

The last sentence in the previous paragraph is key to understanding the Duke-vs.-Blitzer video clip and this entire phenomenon. The "story behind the story" here is this: A major international Holocaust conference is occuring, and it cannot be ignored, so the powers that be do some damage control. Media reports in the "West" are not going to report hard news on this subject, but rather opinion-masked-as-news. And in so doing, the powers that be will attempt to mold opinion in accordance with their own agenda.

"The Agenda"
The Holocaust is a bludgeon used both by "International Jewry" (to justify the existence of their stolen ethno-state of Israel, or "IsntReal", to give themselves carte-blanche in the world, and to suppress their enemies) and certain other elements in power to weaken and keep genuine patriotic voices across the Western world down. Holocaust indoctrination is a large part of why Europe and North America are facing the problems that we are.

(Note that there are non-Jewish elements at play here in promoting this...It is not just about "The Jews". It is a grievous mistake to blame Jews alone, and imply that they alone "control" all media and government and that they alone are the source of all problems. This is simply false and detracts from other issues and other problems [see the last paragraph of this posting]. At the same time, Organized Jewry is a problem which should not be ignored. They act in accord with their own interests at our expense, and their interests are counter to our interests).

Predictably, Blitzer introduces Duke in the most demeaning terms, as a former KKK-leader and so forth (Another Jewish extremist, David Horowitz, is never, never introduced as "former Communist operative David Horowitz"). Blitzer then opens the interview with his snidely-delivered first question: "What do you say to those who charge, and there are many, that you are there in Tehran at this Holocaust conference simply because you hate Jews??" The idea here is very clear for those who would see-- Blitzer and co. want to equate not only dissenting Holocaust scholarship with the "evil" Ahmadinejad, but to also paint genuinely-pro-American individuals as crazed terrorist-supporters motivated solely by hatred of Jews, or somesuch nonsense.

So, the m.o. is nothing unfamiliar then. The people who have a vested interest in keeping patriotic-populism down in Europe and America, aim to discredit and demonize real patriots because it is in their interest to do so.

David Duke's comments on the interview are here: http://www.davidduke.com/?p=1544
You may also view the interview from the original CNN arhive: Duke 'blitzes' Blitzer

Dog Bites Man: The Vatican condemns Iran Holocaust conference
And now for something which should not surprise anyone. A story from Catholic World News explains how the Catholic Church has condemned the Conference in the most vocal terms, for 'daring' to discuss an historical event. The Roman Catholic Church is part of this same aforementioned anti-patriotic, anti-nationalist Power looking to keep Lies reigning supreme and true patriotism down, for their own ends. Recall that the Catholics have made themselves quite busy in the past decades falsifying history and conning people into believing that the Holocaust also "targetted Catholics" and that hundreds of thousands of Catholics were 'exterminated' by the Nazis who hated Catholics (never mind that Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, and co. were all Catholics and that the Roman Church was an ally of Nazi Germany). With these lies--which many dupes seem to believe--and with a wink and a nod, Rome has blamed Protestants for the Holocaust, and has come off claiming saintly victimhood for itself. (Never mind a real holocaust of the second millennium, in which Catholicism put to death at least 50 million souls for 'heresy'--the infernal Roman Inquisition). Remember also that, to the Catholic Church, you are a Catholic first and a citizen of a country second. The Vatican's political, social, cultural, and economic power is threatened by many things, and patriotism that is not specifically through the Catholic Church, is one of them.

Republicans set to lose big in Nov 7 elections: Why white-protestants will benefit

2006-11-04T00:02:00.000-05:00

Tuesday November 7th, Americans will go to the ballot box and are expected to oust Republicans from control of the House of Representatives and probably the Senate too. A victory for America, as the lackeys for soulless plutocratic capitalism and the selling out of Protestant America will be turned back, at least for now.

The Democratic party is worse, you say? It might appear to be, but the Democratic party is a populist party, and just because that populism is now enmeshed in pro-Catholic, pro-"minority", anti-white populism, it can very easily swing back, thus is the nature of populism. The Republican party on the other hand, are slaves to their plutocratic capitalistic overlords (who do not care about Protestant-America, just keep that oil flowing, those goods moving, and those profit margins wide, nothing else matters). If there is an opposite of 'populist', the Republican party is it. Because of this fact, it would be very hard for the Republicans to swing in favor of genuine white-Protestant interests except in the most superficial ways. Thus a defeat for Republicans is a victory for Protestant America.

But more important than political party is religion. Will Rome, the implacable irreconcilable enemy of the US, gain or lose in this election? Even if Republicans lose big, which will certainly be a victory, it will be replacing one evil with a much greater evil if the Democrats who replace them are heavily Roman Catholic.

We are happy to report that all signs point to not only the Catholic agenda being set for defeat (in the form of the Republican party, who were full supporters of the anti-American Roman Catholic agenda--what have they done to stop it while they've controlled Congress these past 12 years? Nothing, in fact it has increased), but many Catholics running for re-election are set for defeat as well. Many will also win, but signs do not point to a flood of Roman Catholics entering Congress, thankfully. There are currently 25 Catholic Senators (out of 100) and 130 Catholic members of the House of Representatives (30% of total!). According to polls, 2 Catholic Senators (Santorum, DeWine) will definitely lose their seats on Tuesday, another two are in tight races and might lose.

Catholic/Jewish/African bloc
Of the 533 current members of the outgoing 109th Congress:
Catholics control 131 seats in the House, 25 in the Senate.
Jews control 26 seats in the House, 11 in the Senate.
Blacks control 42 in the House, 1 in the Senate.

The "Catholic/Jewish/African bloc", to coin a term. This voting bloc consists of those who are basically guaranteed to vote against white-Protestant interests, those who overwhelmingly favor the "abolition" of white-protestant-America. This coalition includes Catholic ethnoreligious activists (not just 'minorities'), black racial activists, Jewish ethnic activists, those not necessarily pushing ethnoreligious interests but frightened by or apathetic to white-protestant nationalism, and then the so-called "new abolitionists" as Noel Ignatiev calls them [This Jewish fellow's crackpot "movement" is merely an outgrowth of the zeitgeist of today, that worldview has infected far wider than the handful of followers Ignatiev himself has] and their fellow-travellers. This coalition is not "liberal", but rather is full of racial/ethnoreligious activsts who have a vested interest in taking down Protestant-America, in weakening us while propping up their own. They are a wide-ranging group and have various goals, but generally can be said to favor the remaking of America into a more-Catholic, less-Protestant, less-northern-european, multiracial/multireligious "nation" with no ethnoreligious identity. In other words, in a sense they favor the abolition of the white-protestant people of America by means of destroying our identity while concurrently importing millions of racial and religious aliens. (Sadly, the same is happening in Europe [abolish their identities, import racial and religious aliens], in a slightly different situation). This voting bloc currently controls more than 44% of seats in the U.S. Congress (236 seats). It is very difficult to overcome a voting bloc that strong, who will, without fail, vote 10 to 1 against you.

Here is the bottom line: Although we certainly benefit from the political misfortunes of the Republican Party, we can gauge how well this election goes in the following manner: If the aforementioned 236-member anti-white-protestant bloc increases in number, we lose. If it decreases, we benefit. Which political party ends up controlling what and by how much is significantly less relevant than this golden two-hundred-thirty-six figure.

Gay FL Congressman admits he is a Roman Catholic

2006-10-05T21:22:00.000-04:00

Representative Mark Foley of Florida, the now infamous homosexual who sent lurid messages to young boys, has come out of the closet: He is a Roman Catholic.

Foley resigned last week after his disgusting behavior was exposed, and it is now clear that he is in fact a homosexual and an alcoholic. Another revelation, which has not made the news quite as much, is that several days ago he admitted that he is a Roman Catholic, and that he was abused by a priest as a boy.

None of this should come as any surprise.

As far as his resignation goes, we can't say we are disappointed to see a Catholic Congressman resign in shame. Unfortunately for America though, his opponent in November, who seems certain to win the race now that Foley has resigned, is also a papist, named Mahoney. So make no mistake, America loses either way.

Truly, it will matter little which party picks up seats this November. The far more important thing will be which religious group picks up seats, whether the anti-American, anti-white-protestant, pro-immigration Catholic/Jewish bloc, or real Americans, white-Protestants, who favor stopping the Roman Catholic plot to drown America in a sea of brown Catholics and other alien people, and who favor stopping the descent of North America into the clutches of Rome. See the posting on this site entitled "Catholics vote to abolish America" for a detailed explanation of why religion matters more than party. In the Senate vote on Amnesty for Catholic illegal aliens, religion was a better predictor of which way a Senator would vote than Party.

Anyway, back to the despicable behavior of the Roman Catholic Foley. The revelation that he is a Catholic is not surprising, as Catholics--being of an alien religious group--are less likely to care about moral decency in this society than Protestants. It is also not surprising that he was abused by a priest. "Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils". Doctrine of devils is right. That's Roman Catholicism for you!

Phony Pope-Muslim controversey exposed

2006-09-19T21:22:00.000-04:00

The Pope is in the news again, this time for comments he made against Islam, after which the muslims predictably launched into angry protests and death threats against him. This "controversy" has lingered in the news for over a week now. But the truth is, it is a phony controversy. It is nothing but a powerplay and political maneuver by the Vatican. And the true target is not Islam or the Muslims at all (they are stooges, a means to an end), but Protestants and non-Catholics in general in areas that the Vatican is attempting to Catholicize and conquer, i.e. the Protestant world, especially the USA.

Allow me to blow the smoke away from this Roman Catholic smokescreen to reveal the true Catholic agenda. The Catholics, ever concerned with their own power, hold a stratgey meeting deep inside the Vatican, as they often do. Although their attempted immigration-conquests of the US and other non-Catholic nations are going well, although their plans to unify Europe under a single Catholic superstate (European Union) march on, and although their ever-present subversions of non-Catholic countries in Europe/US are going well, they feel that the Protestant and other non-Catholic people of these countries are not pro-Catholic enough, and something needs to be done to change this. If they were more pro-Catholic, it will be much easier to subvert them and take over. (This line of thinking has prevailed deep in the bowels of Mystery Babylon recently, as can be seen by their choosing a German Pope. They want to reconquer Germany to Catholicism, most of Germany having left the Catholic "Church" in the 16th century in the most glorious event of the past thousand years, the Reformation. By choosing a German, suddenly all Germans rally around this clown, be they Catholic or not--only three-in-ten real Germans are papists. Thus Popery becomes "mainstreamed" in Germany, even though it is a totally alien religion to most of the country, and an enemy of Protestant Germany [As detailed in another post on this site, the Vatican smiled thw widest grin it possibly could during/after WWII, because the biggest loser by far in WWII was Protestant-Germany. German Catholicism was actually bolstered by the war/outcome].)

So, they come up with a sinister plan to exploit the current Islam-vs.-"The West" conflicts in the world. They plan to manufacture a fake controversy allowing them to grab the banners of "The West", assert Catholic authority, and con millions of non-Catholics in the US/Europe into believing the Catholic Church is "on their side in the 'clash of civilizations'" and other obvious lies. (The truth is of course, that the Catholic Church was nothing but a lead weight dragging down and suffocating "The West" for a milennia or more, until October 31, 1517! After that date, Europe and later Protestant America advanced dramatically in all fields and became the leader of the world. In other words, the success of "The West" in the past 500 years is due almost totally to the Reformation and Protestant success in the wars of religion). A controversy would dramatically increase papist power and standing in "The West". The Catholic fatcats knew full well that the mohammedan clowns would react violently to news of the Pope issuing an "anti-muslim sermon", just as sure as the sun rises every morning. So they set in motion a scheme to create a false controversy, by having the Pope publicly read an anti-muslim text from centuries ago. Once the story became intenrational news over the period of many days, the lines would be drawn, and those favoring "The West" would be forced into the camp of the Pope. A very clever scheme indeed. Another very despicable thing I have seen is the near constant implied and/or outright references to the Pope as "the leader of Christianity", this being another effect of the fake Catholic-created controversy. This is a very clear and direct attack on Protestants and other non-papist Christians (i.e., real Christians), by Catholic newspaper writers and Catholic-stooges.

What has the past week brought? By use of this smokescreen, this phony controversy, The Catholic Church has increased its power and influence more than if they had raised 100 divisions of soldiers, and they have gained a very strong foothold over Protestants and other non-Catholics in "The West" (I use quotes on "The West" because I do not like that term. West of what?). Suddenly the Pope has become "one of us" and our friend and ally against muslims, when in fact he is far and away our most dangerous enemy.

Be do not be deceived by the lies and trickery of the Pope! Know that the Pope is not your friend or ally at all, but your enemy. 1,000x worse than Bin Laden. Know the truth that the Roman Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church is the foremost enemy of the United States, 1,000x worse than Islam.

"I know that the Pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." -M.L.

A group of terrorists founded this country

2006-08-25T19:48:00.000-04:00

This was a letter to the editor published in the Green Bay Press-Gazette yesterday:

Observing the developments in the Middle East and this latest little war the United States has funded, startling thoughts rang through my head.
A little over 200 years ago, there was a group of terrorists in America. They torched government buildings, demolished administration goods and shot and killed regime officials from secure locations.
Refusing to use conventional warfare, these terrorists developed a strategy to fight and defeat the greatest empire in the world.
Hamas and Hezbollah stand to gain independence from political, financial and social oppression placed on them by the United States' pawn, Israel.
Israel's arrest and detention of Hamas' elected officials without due cause or trial started this war.
How are those for democratic values? I just hope that President Bush realizes that this country was founded by a bunch of terrorists with names like George Washington, Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin and John Adams.

Simeon Johnson
[link]

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

This person was certainly not the first to draw these parallels. Here are two brilliant satirical articles 'condemning' the 'terrorists' of 1775 while juxtaposing the same with Iraq 2003-present:
Freedom Fighters, 'Terrorists' or Revolutionary War Heroes?
Colonial Terrorists Beat Back Redcoats

We recall even more 'terrorists' in 16th and 17th century Europe who stood up against an alien & despotic & tyrannical and evil power that sought to dominate and control them. Go back a milennium and a half before that, and you will see another 'terrorist', a Germanic chieftan by the name of Arminius who used 'terrorist' tactics to annihilate three entire Roman legions, who were in the process of trying to conquer, subdue, and ultimately dominate and control Germania. Fanatics like those at JihadWatch.org and LittleGreenFootballs.com, had they been around in AD 9 and living in the Roman Empire, no doubt would've condemned this Germanic hero who fought successfully to free his people from foreign domination as a 'terrorist'. On the other side of the coin, mohammedan fanatics no doubt would describe El Cid or Richard the Lionhearted as 'terrorists'.

The point of this posting is certainly not to voice support for or propagandize in favor of Lebanon or Hezbollah or Hamas or any other foreign group. (Neither was that the intent of the letter to editor I reprinted above, as far as I can tell.) Recall John W. Robbins' words: "Because Christianity is neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam, there is no need for the United States, a historically, if not currently, Christian nation, to be involved" in these disputes. Don't let yourself be duped by empty propaganda terms like "terrorist" by those who want to manipulate you, the Protestant, into hating their tribal, religious, or political enemies. Don't let yourself be manipulated by agents or partisans of the Vatican or Israel, both of whom "see the United States as their proxy in this religious war" that we find ourselves in. If we use the term "terrorist" as haphazardly as these clowns do, then the Sons of Liberty in the 1760s-1770s were all terrorists, as was Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, and all the other Revolutionary-era American heroes mentioned by Mr Johnson in his letter, and all the rest of what we today call the Founding Fathers.

The Religious Wars of the 21st Century

2006-08-18T05:11:00.001-04:00

"The Religious Wars of the Twenty-First Century" is the title of a very informative and prescient essay that has recently come to my attention. It was written by John Robbins, the editor and operator of Christian website Trinityfoundation.org. I will provide here two excerpts, but there's much more great commentary, analsysis, and insight into the state of things in the essay, so I urge you to read the whole thing (below) for yourself (or if you dont want to spend the 15 minutes to read it all, at least read the first few paragraphs and the section entitled "the twenty-first century"). Here we pick up with the prospects for religious war in the 21st century:

Barring dramatic divine intervention, such as a new Reformation, or the second coming of Christ, the wars of the twenty-first century will be religious wars. They will be worse than the secular wars of the twentieth century. The three principal protagonists will be the three medieval religions (Romanism, Judaism, and Islam) that have warred with each other for centuries. Already the battles have begun.

It is important to realize that the Christian has no dog in this fight. Neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam is Christianity, yet many who profess to be Christians support either Judaism or Romanism. The so-called Christian Right in the United States, influenced by Romanism, Dispensationalism, and Reconstructionism, has been a supporter of Israel, Judaism, and Rome for decades. The principal figures in the American conservative movement have been Romanist, though their source of funds has largely been Protestant. The principal figures of the so-called Neo-conservatives (Neo-cons) are Jews. The U.S. government, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, has taken hundreds of billions of dollars from American taxpayers and given them to the government of Israel over the past 50 years. We have fought wars and spent billions trying to prop up various Roman Catholic dictatorships. [...]

Because Christianity is neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam, there is no need for the United States, a historically, if not currently, Christian nation, to be involved in the religious wars of the twenty-first century.

I fully agree, and have argued the same as what is written above in other postings on this site. There is no reason why we should be getting involved in these things at all. Why are we getting involved in these things, anyway? Well, as was alluded to in the above, we are being manipulated:

But because of the influence of American citizens (and non-citizens) who are Jews, Catholics, and Dispensational Evangelicals, we are already involved. In fact, because of our foreign policy of interventionism developed in the twentieth century, and because of our more recent policy of pre-emptive war, the United States has become the primary target of militant Muslims worldwide. And not of Muslims only. Agents of both Israel and Rome are active in the United States, both gathering intelligence and influencing policy. The U.S. government is manipulated by foreign interests. Both Israel and the Vatican see the United States as their proxy in this religious war.

Another excellent point that is often neglected. Here we have two foreign and hostile groups (the Roman Catholic Church and what's called "Organized Jewry") trying to manipulate us in our foreign policies and domestic affairs--they are trying to get us to be their dupes. And in fact they've been quite successful at it lately. (That both groups work against us for their own ends is no secret, it is obvious to anyone paying attention.) Even more insidious is that both groups (RCC and Organized Jewry) have done a good job conning most of the Protestant people of this country into believing that their interests and our interests are exactly the same, and that we are all the same people of the same religion. (As Robbins notes, the allegedly Protestant "Religious Right" has been pro-Rome, pro-Catholic, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, for decades now. Also of interest is the growth of the term "Judeo-Christian", which did not exist 50 years ago.)

I am going to reproduce the entire essay on this site in case the original link ever changes or goes down. Note that it is originally from Trinityfoundation.org. Here it is:

The Religious Wars of the 21st Century

John W. Robbins

The phrase "collapse of a civilization" is a common figure of speech that misleads many into thinking that civilizations collapse in much the same way that buildings collapse during controlled demolitions, or like the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on September 11, 2001. The whole affair, they think, is dramatic, obvious, and over in a relatively short period of time; and when it is done, nothing is left but dust and rubble. The metaphor of civilizational collapse is misleading, and some people, under its influence, deny that the West is in collapse. But civilizations do not come crashing down in a matter of months or even years; and it is foolish to expect them to do so.

The West has been in collapse for more than a century. The Biblical theology that created Western civilization five hundred years ago has all but disappeared in the West. The rejection of Christianity in North America and Europe, and the rise of several false religions – including Arminianism, Romanism, Pentecostalism, atheism, and mysticism – have led to the collapse of the West. That collapse is marked by, or, more accurately, is the dissolution of the Biblical family (husband, wife, and children); the economic and political regimentation of the individual and business enterprises; government ownership and control of most educational institutions; the growth of crime; the waning of civility; the acceptance of public profanity, obscenity, and homosexuality; and the resurgence of brutality. To oppose some of this civilizational collapse, the Religious Right in America has embraced both Romanism and Judaism as saviors of the West, foolishly ignorant of the fact that they, as forms of unbelief, are destroyers of the West and causes of the collapse. What we call Western civilization arose because of the widespread preaching and believing of the Gospel of justification by faith alone. Theologies that deny this doctrine are fatal to both souls and societies.

One result of the growing rejection of Christian theology in the West during the late eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries was that the twentieth century was the bloodiest century in recorded history. Perhaps only Noah's century, which was so wicked that men provoked God to destroy all human life on the planet, save eight souls, was worse. Genesis 6:11 and 13 tell us that "The Earth also was corrupt before God, and the Earth was filled with violence.... 'The end of all flesh has come before me, for the Earth is filled with violence through them [men]; and behold, I will destroy them with the Earth.'" In the twentieth century hundreds of millions of deaths were caused by the actions of rulers making war on other nations and on their own people. The names of the dictators – Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-Tung, Nikita Khruschev, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, to name a few of the infamous – are inseparable from the history of the twentieth century.

In addition to mass murder by government, in which perhaps 200 to 300 million people perished in the twentieth century, crime and legalized murder in the form of abortion took hundreds of millions more lives. As horrific as the twentieth century was, however, it now appears that the twenty-first century will be even bloodier. To understand why, we need to review a little history.

The Separation of State and Church
The nineteenth century was one of the most peaceful centuries in recorded history, despite the bloody stupidity of the War of the Rebellion [1861-1865]. It was peaceful primarily for two reasons: The fundamental reason was the widespread preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – which had been suppressed by force in Europe for a thousand years, which began again in the sixteenth century with the Christian Reformation, and which initially resulted in dissension and war as unbelieving clerics and rulers sought to uphold their long and time-honored tradition of torture and murder – the widespread preaching of the Gospel had the long-term effect of reducing the amount of violence in the nations to which it came and by which it was received. Under this preaching, the basic theoretical error of the notion of Christendom – the pagan notion that a civilized state requires a legally enforced uniformity of religion – was gradually replaced by the Biblical view that God made state and church to be separate institutions, that each had its own proper sphere, and that force was not to be used in either the propagation or suppression of the Gospel, or any other philosophy. The separation of state and church is now under attack from the Religious Right, which has adopted the Romanist / Reconstructionist notion that force ought to be used to advance the "Kingdom."

Capitalism
The second major institutional cause for the reduction of violence in the nineteenth century (after the institutional separation of state and church), also resulting from the widespread preaching and believing of the Gospel, was the emergence of laissez-faire capitalism, which is the economic system of Christianity. As the power of governments in the West was reduced close to their proper role as guardians of innocent life and private property, as Paul commands in Romans 13; as men tended to their own business as commanded by God (1 Thessalonians 4:11), and as the economic cooperation required and engendered by capitalism spread further, even across political borders, violence subsided. It was Christian theology, with its respect for the individual and his property, that brought forth the only moral system of economics, laissez-faire capitalism. Today, capitalism is despised, especially by those who profess to be Christians. They think that some sort of welfare state (now called compassionate conservatism), or backwoods, Luddite agrarianism, or socialism, is the Christian system of economics and government.

The Nineteenth Century
During the nineteenth century, Christianity began to disappear. The Gospel preached by the Reformers and their children in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries was replaced by several counterfeits: By the mid-nineteenth century, the largest denomination in the United States was the Arminian Methodist Church. By the beginning of the twentieth century, it was the Romanist Church. (In 1789 there were perhaps 15,000 Catholics in the United States. By 2006, there were about 75 million. This enormous growth was due largely to immigration and reproduction, not conversion.) Roman Catholicism, after suffering a mortal wound by the Reformation in the sixteenth century, made a resurgence in the nineteenth century led by Thomas Aquinas, whom Pope Leo XIII named the official philosopher of the Roman Church-State. One result of Leo's 1879 decree was the appearance of Neo-Thomism in the twentieth century as obedient Catholics carried out the Pope's command.

Theological Liberalism first ruined the churches and universities of Germany in the nineteenth century, and then spread around the globe in the twentieth. Cults of all sorts sprang up in the nineteenth century – Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Christian Science, Pentecostalism, Theosophy, and more. The rejection of Christianity led to the eruption of false religions as men suppressed the truth by imagining gods and goddesses.

As the Gospel disappeared, the power of rulers grew. Totalitarianism was the dominant political feature of the twentieth century; even the United States, the supposed bastion of capitalism, assumed many of the characteristics of fascist and socialist states. Those industries that the government did not own outright, as in the Communist variety of socialism, it regulated and controlled, as in the fascist variety of socialism. The dominant political ideologies of the twentieth century were Antichristian: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, and Nazism. Their chief difference was the color of their shirts. They resembled some religions, and Nazism in particular attracted many religious totalitarians, but all were based primarily on the assumption that the God of the Bible, and the Bible itself, were mythology.

During the nineteenth century, irrationalism prevailed in philosophy, and it quickly spread to theology. Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and Friedrich Nietzsche were quickly followed by William James, Sigmund Freud, John Dewey, and B. F. Skinner, and a host of academic fools who denied not simply the God of the Bible, but the idea of truth itself. According to twentieth-century philosophy and theology, man is an animal; emotions are fundamental, deeper than thought; thought is merely rationalization; and truth, as one Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court (Oliver Wendell Holmes) said, was the opinion of the group that could lick all others. The stage was now set for the bloody wars, genocides, and revolutions of the twentieth century.

The Twentieth Century
If the twenty-first century were going to be an improvement over the twentieth century, there would have had to have been some dramatic improvement in the philosophy, theology, and political thought of the twentieth century. (Not only do ideas have consequences, but only ideas have consequences: Human actions are not independent of ideas but the results of ideas.) But there was none. The dominant schools of both philosophy and theology in the twentieth century were not Christian; they were not even rational in a loose sense. The great worldwide Christian revival heralded by people like Philip Jenkins and Gary North is a mirage; their statements tell us more about their counterfeit Christianity than about the state of the religious world. Their religious hallucinations are based on their Romanism and Postmillennialism. (Postmillennialism is one of the factors contributing to the revival of Romanism in the twentieth century: Postmillennial eschatology requires visible, photographable, ecclesiastical progress throughout church history, and it cannot accommodate more than a thousand years of regress during the Middle Ages. Therefore, Posties tend to become historical revisionists whitewashing the barbarity and idolatry of the Middle Ages. Posties regard the Roman Catholic Church-State as a true church of Christ; they admire its use of force and wealth in achieving its goals "in time and on Earth" (to use a favorite Postie phrase), and they seek to imitate Rome's manipulation of civil rulers through bribery, promises, and intimidation. For these reasons and others, Posties are open to Rome's heretical beliefs and practices. It is no accident that the language of Chapter 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith was changed under the influence of Postmillennialism to omit the Assembly's identification of the Pope as Antichrist: "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." It is no accident that most if not all the heretics on the doctrines of justification in Presbyterian churches are Reconstructionist Postmillennialists.

The mass movements of the twentieth century were continuations and expressions of the irrationalism of the nineteenth century. Existentialism was the child of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche; Positivism was the child of Auguste Comte; theological Liberalism and Neo-orthodoxy were the children of Kierkegaard and Friedrich Schleiermacher; Charismania, which now boasts more than 600 million adherents worldwide, was the spawn of Liberalism, experientialism, and medieval mysticism. All the major theological and philosophical movements of the twentieth century have this in common: A profound hostility to reason, rationality, intelligence, understanding, and the Word; and an equally profound affinity for emotion, irrationality, instinct, mystery, experience, and the deed.

The early twentieth century in the West was characterized by boundless optimism; capitalism and technology were creating a new and better world: Everything from electric lights to refrigeration to powered flight promised many more good things to come. In theology Postmillennialism was the dominant eschatological school, and the Kingdom of God was just around the corner. Then in 1914 the Great War began, and the foolish romantic optimism of the early twentieth century turned to despair. War spawned dictators and dictators started more wars. All the technological progress provided by capitalism could not compensate for the moral and theological regress produced by non-Christian philosophy and theology. Even worse, in the hands of the non-Christian and Antichristian governments of the twentieth century, the technological prowess of capitalism became the means for killing people more efficiently than they had ever been killed before.

The Twenty-first Century
The result of two centuries of irrationalism is that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, we are faced, not with a hopeful prospect, but with an even more dismal prospect than our great-grandfathers faced a hundred years ago. The last hundred years has seen the resurgence of medieval Romanism and the emergence of Romanist zealot organizations such as Opus Dei. Medieval Romanism is not just confined to the Roman Catholic Church-State and its thousands of educational institutions, but has gained many adherents among nominal Protestants as well: The prolific authors Norman Geisler and R.C. Sproul, and many lesser known Protestant theologians and philosophers as well, are disciples of the official philosopher of the Roman Church-State, Thomas Aquinas. Their influence has misled most Protestants away from a Biblical and Reformed view of philosophy and apologetics and into a compromise with Rome. Medieval Islam, now usually called "fundamentalist Islam," and medieval Judaism, with the establishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948, are on the rise as well. All three religions – Romanism, Islam, and Judaism – are false, militant, and violent. Devout members of each group hate, oppose, and plot against members of the other two. But today the date is 2006, not 1006, and the true believers of each of these medieval religions have access to nuclear, biological, chemical, and electromagnetic weapons.

Barring dramatic divine intervention, such as a new Reformation, or the second coming of Christ, the wars of the twenty-first century will be religious wars. They will be worse than the secular wars of the twentieth century. The three principal protagonists will be the three medieval religions that have warred with each other for centuries. Already the battles have begun.

It is important to realize that the Christian has no dog in this fight. Neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam is Christianity, yet many who profess to be Christians support either Judaism or Romanism. The so-called Christian Right in the United States, influenced by Romanism, Dispensationalism, and Reconstructionism, has been a supporter of Israel, Judaism, and Rome for decades. The principal figures in the American conservative movement have been Romanist, though their source of funds has largely been Protestant. The principal figures of the so-called Neo-conservatives (Neo-cons) are Jews. The U.S. government, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, has taken tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars from American taxpayers and given them to the government of Israel over the past 50 years. We have fought wars and spent billions trying to prop up various Roman Catholic dictatorships. (More recently, the U.S. Government has started sending money taken by force from the American people to Arab and Muslim nations as well.) The conservative movement in the United States has abandoned the American (and Biblical) foreign policy of strategic independence pursued by our government since 1776 for a policy of global interventionism that has angered many foreign nations and peoples, most recently the Muslims.

Because Christianity is neither Romanism nor Judaism nor Islam, there is no need for the United States, a historically, if not currently, Christian nation, to be involved in the religious wars of the twenty-first century. But because of the influence of American citizens (and non-citizens) who are Jews, Catholics, and Dispensational Evangelicals, we are already involved. In fact, because of our foreign policy of interventionism developed in the twentieth century, and because of our more recent policy of pre-emptive war, the United States has become the primary target of militant Muslims worldwide. And not of Muslims only. Agents of both Israel and Rome are active in the United States, both gathering intelligence and influencing policy. The U.S. government is manipulated by foreign interests. Both Israel and the Vatican see the United States as their proxy in this religious war.

In my book, Ecclesiastical Megalomania: The Economic and Political Thought of the Roman Catholic Church, I document the Roman Church-State's theory and practice of violence for the past 1,500 years. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor" and official philosopher of the Roman Church-State and unofficial philosopher of many nominally Protestant teachers, was a totalitarian, just like his mentor, the pagan Greek philosopher Aristotle. A.P. D'Entreves, one of the foremost historians of political theory in the twentieth century, wrote of Thomas: "It is hardly possible for the modern man to accept the system which St. Thomas founded...without renouncing the notion of civil and religious liberty which we have some right to consider the most precious conquest of the West." The "Angelic Doctor" defended imprisonment, torture, murder, and banishment as proper policies in defense of Christendom. In its willingness to use force, Romanism is no different from the other major world religions of Islam and Judaism.

Despite what some misinformed people might think, this desire to use force for religious purposes did not end with the Middle Ages. Hilaire Belloc, a twentieth-century English Catholic fondly quoted by semi-educated Protestants, defended the "right" of society to make "Catholic ideas, education, manners and all the rest of it, the rule of a Catholic state" and to struggle "long and hard to prevent the break up of Catholic society and to save the unity of its civilization." "Any established society, good or evil," Belloc bloviated, "possesses rights." That being the case, we ought not to blame pagan Rome for persecuting Christians, for pagan Rome was merely trying to "save the unity of its civilization." Catholic school textbooks teach that "Catholics must make all possible efforts to bring about the rejection of this religious indifference of the state and the instauration, as soon as possible, of the wished-for union and concord of state and Church." That is, Catholics have the religious duty to undermine the American system of freedom of religion.

Because this false thinking is so widely accepted, there is, humanly speaking, no hope for peace or freedom in the twenty-first century, but rather the spectre of global religious war. The theology of the Prince of Peace, who is the author of liberty, has been rejected even by most of those who call themselves Christians. If the Lord Jesus Christ does not return from Heaven soon – and not 10,000 years from now as the Postmillennialists say he will – devoutly religious, Antichristian men will kill hundreds of millions of souls in the bloody wars of the twenty-first century. The Protestant Reformation is indeed over; the respite of peace, freedom, and prosperity it afforded the West from the long history of human brutality is drawing to a close; and the world is about to enter a new Dark Age of slavery, brutality, and war. Only the second coming of Christ or an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit can prevent religious totalitarians from imposing their will on billions of people.

The Christian Hope
Christianity, that is, the propositions in the Bible and their logical implications, alone offers hope, and the Christian alone has hope, for Christianity is not of this world, and the Christian is – by election, new birth and divine adoption – a pilgrim, not a citizen of this world. "These all [Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah] died in faith, not having received the promises, but, having seen them afar off, were assured of them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the Earth. For those who say such things declare plainly that they seek a homeland.... But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11). "For our citizenship is in Heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Philippians 3:20). Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here." It follows from this statement that those who fight to establish some earthly religious kingdom are not of Christ's kingdom. The servants of Muhammad fight, just as Muhammad did, because his kingdom is of this world. The servants of the papacy fight, just as the Popes do, for their kingdom is of this world. The servants (not children) of Abraham fight, just as the Maccabees fought, for their kingdom is of this world. But the Holy Spirit, writing through Paul, said, "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal [that is physical, visible, tangible, photographable] but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." Because his citizenship is in Heaven, the Christian need not fear him who can kill the body, for he fears Him who can and will preserve his soul and give him a magnificent body suitable for the world to come. The Christian knows that when the last person chosen for salvation repents (2 Peter 3:9-10), God will end human history, judge all men, separate the sheep from the goats and wolves, and call his friends to eternal life with him. War will be no more; the Prince of Peace will rule; and the saints will grow in the grace and knowledge and freedom of the Lord Jesus Christ forever and ever, world without end.

This essay is from Dr. Robbins' forthcoming book, Freedom and Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics. This 650-page book is scheduled for release in October 2006 for $24.95. For customers willing to pay in advance and wait for the book, pre-publication copies are available for $15 (cash or check only) postpaid to a U. S. address.

The essay can be accessed in PDF format here.

Turn from the Lies to the Truth

2006-08-16T23:55:00.001-04:00

.
Whosoever has ears to hear, shall hear.
Turn from the Lies to the Truth,
And turn from the Pope to Christ,
So God will reward You with a blessed end.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In Their Own Words...

"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903)

"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. By divine right, the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the Head of the entire Church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God Himself on earth." -New York Catechism (early 20th century)

"The Pope and God are the same." Pope Pius V (1566-1572)

"The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were, God. and the vicar of God." -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary, 18th century.

"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope." - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, Chapter 17.

(many more instances of the same here)

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Muslims and Catholics flooding into Norway

2006-08-04T00:37:00.000-04:00

It wasn't long ago that there was no Muslim or Catholic population to speak of at all in Norway. A mere generation ago in the early 1970s, there was not one mosque in all of Norway, and only a negligible number of largely foreign-origin Catholics. Norway was Norwegian, Scandinavian, Protestant, Lutheran. Unfortunately, this is rapidly changing, as you will see in the statistics below. Over the past twenty to thirty years, a massive influx of immigrants from Islamic and Roman Catholic countries, which continues to the present, has seen the Muslim & Catholic populations explode by an incredible 1000% in 25 years, with no end in sight to this growth. It doesn't take an expert statistician to realize that if the trends seen in the below statistics continue, it will mean that Lutherans of Norwegian/Scandinavian stock will likely slip into minority status in Norway at some point in the latter part of the present century, displaced by these great masses of foreign Catholics and Muslims, who will be the majority! This must be stopped and reversed. (The same fate is currently befalling this country, as pointed out in "America's Vanishing Protestant Majority".)

Number of Muslims and Catholics in Norway, by year:

1970
Catholics – 9,000 (0.23%)
Muslims – N/A

1980
Catholics – 14,000 (0.34%)
Muslims – 1,000 (0.03%)
Total: 15,000 (0.37% of total)

1990
Catholics – 33,000 (0.78%)
Muslims – 19,000 (0.45%)
Total: 52,000 (1.23% of total)

2000
Catholics – 48,000 (1.07%)
Muslims – 62,000 (1.38%)
Total: 110,000 (2.46% of total)

2006
Catholics – 60,000 [est.] (1.31%)
Muslims – 90,000 [est.] (1.95%)
Total: 150,000 (3.27% of total)

The other ~97% of the population is as follows (for now):
85% Lutheran--Church of Norway
4% Other Protestant incl. Free Lutheran
1.5% Norwegian Humanist Association
0.5% Other Religions
6% No Religious Affiliation

['70, '80, '90 muslim data] [2000 data] [sources for Catholic data: 1, 2, 3.]

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Muslims burning Norwegian flag - Feb 2006
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Here are the current figures for the other Scandinavian countries, for comparison. Note that not one of these countries had any significant Muslim or Catholic population two generations ago.

Sweden
Catholics/Orthodox – 265,000 (2.94%)
Muslims – 400,000 (4.44%)
Total: 665,000 (7.38% of total)

Denmark
Catholics – 57,000 (1.05%)
Muslims – 200,000 (3.68%)
Total: 257,000 (4.73% of total)

Finland
Catholics - 9,000 (0.17%)
Muslims - 20,000 (0.39%)
Total: 29,000 (0.56% of total)

Iceland
Catholics – 5,800 (1.93%)
Muslims – 800 (0.27%)
Total: 6,600 (2.20% of total)

So of the three main Scandinavian countries, Sweden is clearly in worst shape with the highest Catholic/Muslim percentage (7.4%). Norway is in best shape (3.3%), Denmark is in the middle (4.7%).

Note that the so-called "Extreme Oath of Induction", taken by many top Jesuits, mentions Norway, Denmark and Sweden by name as top targets for subversion and destruction! (Click here to read it: http://www.reformation.org/oath.html, hit ctrl-f and type "Norway"). What better way for the Vatican to accomplish this goal than by flooding these countries with foreign Roman Catholics and Muslims? What better way to Catholicize a country than to have thousands of Roman Catholics immigrate in continously? (Why else do you think Rome has been the #1 supporter of immigration into the US?)

General Patton - assassinated by the Jesuits?

2006-07-31T23:08:00.000-04:00

General George S. Patton died mysteriously in late 1945. What really happened to him? The official story is that he was killed in a car accident in December of '45, period end of story.

Some, however, allege that Patton's death was no accident, and that he was actually assassinated by elements in the US government who wanted him removed from the picture, because he was vociferously against the Soviet Union and in favor of going to war with them. He proposed liberating and rearming Germany to help in the crusade against the Russians/communism. This was all while the Soviets were officially our allies, and before the Soviets had nuclear weapons. Patton's ideas and opinions were seen as dangerous and deeply worrisome to some in the US government, it is alleged, because they were counter to their agenda and counter to the world order they wanted to set up. And Patton himself was particularly worrisome because he was actually more popular back home in the US than the president!

It is alleged that Wild Bill Donovan, founder/early leader of the OSS, precursor to the CIA, ordered the assassination. Patton's car "accident" was set-up, and then when it turned out he didn't die the crash, he was poisoned in the hospital. Some of the men supposedly involved in the plot corroborated this story decades later at the end of their own lives.

So where do the Jesuits come in? It is alleged that the true orchestrators of the assasination were in fact the Jesuits. "All roads lead to Rome". Wild Bill Donovan himself was a rabid Roman Catholic who, we now know, funnelled intelligence and other information to the Vatican during his time as leader of the OSS.

Did the Jesuits assassinate Patton, and if so, why?

This might seem like a ridiculous and absurd question to ask, almost like asking "Did the Sesame Street characters conspire to blow up the World Trade Center?". After all, arent the Jesuits just a humble little order of devout Catholics dedicated to serving God and helping their fellow man?

Let's address this issue before going any further with the Patton assassination topic. Those who know a little about the history of the Christian world these past 500 years know that the Jesuits played a central role in the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation (which, we might add, is still very much ongoing!) in various ways, and continued to work for the advance of Catholicism/The Catholic Church/Vatican power for centuries after the end of the Reformation era and after the religious wars came to a close.

The specific and stated goal of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) when they were founded was to destroy and eliminate Protestantism, reverse the gains of Glorious Reformation, reconquer and force all of Christendom to submit to the Pope and to the Roman Catholic Church. Any nation, government, or people that did not submit to the Pope, especially those within Christendom, was a fair target in the eyes of these fanatics for subversion and destruction (see what they're doing to this country currently), and any king, political leader, or other prominent person who did not submit to the Pope and/or worked against Vatican interests, was a fair target for outright assassination.

Here are excerpts from what is commonly known as the Extreme Oath of the Jesuits, historically taken by some senior Jesuits and those in extreme subsects of the group:

I...declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's vice regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; that...His Holiness [the Pope] hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments and they may be safely destroyed.
...
I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers.
...
I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise.
...
I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants' heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.

This is not a fairy tale or a conspiracy theory, people. It is a historical fact that the Jesuits have conducted espionage, fomented wars and revolutions, carried out assassinations, and engaged in other nefarious activities to advance Catholic power in the world since coming into existance in the mid-1500s. It is an established fact that the Jesuits were behind the Lincoln assassination, and were perhaps involved in the Kennedy assassination as well. Among their other confirmed kills in centuries past were King Henry IV of France, William the Silent of Holland, Huguenot leader Coligny, and even some "renegade" Popes. One of their famous (but failed) attempted targets was King James I of England and the entire Parliament in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

The Jesuits in the past would behave as passively as sheep, teaching the people in their schools, performing charitable work, etc., when it served their interests to do so (just like today). But they did not hesitate to tear off that mask and become involved in international intrigue and subversion, all the way up to assassinations of foreign leaders. In this sense, allowing the Jesuits to stay in your country is like keeping an unmarked cannister of flour mixed with rat poison right next to your regular cannister of flour that you use every day. Leaders throughout history have realized this, and as a result, the Jesuits at one time or another have been expelled from every country in Europe. France expelled them in 1764, Spain in 1767, the newly united German Reich under Bismarck banned them from German territory in 1872, even neutral little Switzerland banned them in the 1800s for over a century, only revoking that ban in the 1970s. One Pope (Clement XIV) in the 1700s even tried to ban the Jesuits because of all their evil activities, and was poisoned soon afterwards for it. Most Popes, though, fully acquiesced and supported what the Jesuits were doing. Only a few years after the attempted ban, another Pope lifted the ban (though this was just a formality, as the Jesuits never went away in the first place).

The question is this: If these Jesuits were so heavily involved in international politics in the past, all the way up to assassinations of foreign leaders, why would we assume that they suddenly stopped all involvement in the 20th century?

Now back to Patton. Here is part of an interview conducted by Rick Martin of The Spectrum magazine with Eric Jon Phelps, author of "Vatican Assassins". You can read the entire interview at the Spectrum website, scroll down to the blue box that says "Notice!" in the bottom right to find it. We pick up in the middle of this long interview and quote the relevant dialogue:

Martin: There are a lot of strong Americans out there.

Phelps: The only problem is this: they're not united and they can't be led. Americans are leaderless because they do not follow. They all think their opinions are equal, and they're not. I would follow General Patton anywhere. I wouldn't question an order of his. We don't have men like that today, for the most part, because we don't have leaders like that today.

Martin: I found your account of Patton's assassination fascinating, also your speaking of the Jesuits' poisoning of him.

Phelps: A member of the OSS came out in the Spotlight [newspaper] and said that. His name was Zapata, that agent. He said he was given a contract on Patton for $10,000. He didn't kill him, but he knows the guy who did. So, Patton was murdered, and General Vlasov was murdered, and both of them hated the Jesuits' 'Grand Inquisitor', Joseph Stalin. They would have united together to eradicate Russia of that dictator, but the Jesuits would not have it because Russia is theirs. They must control the Orthodox Church to bring it back to Rome. That's why they got rid of the Romanoffs.

Martin: Patton's take-out was ordered by 'Wild' Bill Donovan? Did I read that?

Phelps: That's right. Wild Bill Donovan was the head of the OSS at the time. And if you get Anthony K. Brown's The Last Hero, it's on Wild Bill Donovan. He is in the Vatican at the end of his life, in a picture, walking in the Vatican to receive one of the highest medals from the Pope, for a 'lifetime' of intelligence service to the Vatican. That is in The Last Hero and the picture is mesmerizing. I want to put it in my book.

The OSS is nothing but an arm of the CIA and the Vatican, and that's why they took out Kennedy. They kill all the generals who don't 'play ball'.

You will notice that Stalin is refered to as "The Jesuits' Grand Inquisitor". Phelps' contention is that Stalin served the Jesuits' designs, probably largely unconsciously, and his harsh treatment of the areas of Protestant Germany that he occupied postwar were a form of Inquisition. The fate of postwar Germany was absolutely devastating from a Protestant perspective, but just delighful to the Jesuits. Firstly, all the German territories that Stalin occupied (half of pre-war Germany in land area) were part of the German Protestant heartland. Large parts Germany under Stalin's control saw all Germans expelled, with many hundreds of thousands killed in the process, and the land given to Poland and Russia, despite their having no claim to it at all. The western part of Stalin's occupied Germany became "East" Germany (in fact it had never been the eastern part of Germany, but the central part, until Stalin stole all the land to the east!). The "East" German state was rigidly atheistic and used a variety of methods to extirpate religion from society. 90%+ of Germans native to what became East Germany were Protestant, but today you wont find but maybe a dozen in a hundred East Germans who are active Protestants. Meanwhile, all the Catholic areas in the German-speaking region of Europe (Bavaria, some parts of the Rhineland, Austria) fell on the brighter side of the Iron Curtain, and although religion across the board declined somewhat with secularization in the second half of the 20th century, it didnt crash to the floor like the Lutheran churches did in communist-occupied East Germany. Between the time Bismarck united Germany in the 1860s-1870s and WWII, Germany had been two-thirds Protestant. Today there are more affiliated Catholics in Germany than Protestants! Not even the aggressive wars of religion waged by the Catholics against Protestant Germany in the 1500s-1600s had succeeded in doing such a thing.

A few more points on the Soviet Union: Lenin readmitted the Jesuits to Russia in the 1920s. They had been banned prior to that by the Czars. Stalin himself was educated and trained by the Jesuits in his native Georgia. Despite the anti-Christian nature of Communism, it has widely been commented on (notably by author Avro Manhattan) that the Catholic Church was very pleased with the Bolshevik Revolution because it gutted and badly weakened The Orthodox Church in Russia and Eastern Europe, the Orthodox Church being a longtime enemy of the Vatican. Some have said that the Jesuits even had a hand in the Bolshevik Revolution (historically such a thing would not be too out of the ordinary). This is what Phelps meant when he said "that's why they [Jesuits] got rid of the Romanoffs [the Czars]". Phelps refers to WWI and WWII as "The Second Thirty Years War" (1914-1945) elsewhere, because it was a series of conflicts with unmistakable religious underpinnings, themes, and outcomes, just like the first one. With WWI the Orthodox world was ruined and enslaved by communism, the '20s and '30s saw the rise of numerous Catholic fascist dictatorships (The Nazis were overwhelmingly Catholic, Italy, Spain, Croatia, Portugal.), all of which were strongly pro-Catholic/pro-Vatican. WWI and especially WWII saw continental Protestantism ruined and devastated, as half of the foremost Protestant nation in Europe and the birthplace of the Reformation, Germany, was thrown to the wolves, not to mention the fact that millions of German Protestants died in the war (civilian and military).

Pro-Israel Evangelicals in disgraceful display

2006-07-17T16:04:00.000-04:00

"We're Being Set Up for Wider War in the Middle East" is the title of the newest article by Paul Craig Roberts. In it he launches a scathing attack on the Jewish neoconservatives, who seem to "have total control of U.S. foreign policy in the Bush regime", much to our misfortune. He warns, rightly, that the interests of the Jewish neocons are not our interests, and are in fact very much at odds with our interests. He further warns that the neocons want to drag America into more military conflict for Israel, just like they dragged us into attacking Iraq (for Israel). His other targets in the article are the neoconservatives' gentile stooges out there, including those in the "Bush regime". Bush himself escapes any direct scorn, as he is simply painted as the puppet of the Israel-First Jewish Neoconservatives.

All of this seems on target. It is clear that the primary problem with US foreign policy today is the power wielded by Jewish neoconservatives and their stooges (neoconservatism is a Jewish movement, and as some have said it is neither "new" nor "conservative").
But our interest in the article primarily lies not with what a gang of non-American Jewish neoconservatives are trying to force us to do (The Jewish necons might be US citizens in most cases, but they are not Americans in any real sense, as their loyalty is totally to Israel. They are Israelis/Israeli-agents de facto), but with what some actual Americans are up to. We are not concerned with the squabbles of two alien peoples half a world away. What we are concerned with, and disgusted with, is the news that some American Protestants are disgracing themselves and this country by their disgraceful actions related to all this. Let's let Roberts tell the story:

Evangelical "Christians" are part of the propaganda show. Three thousand of them, under the lead of the Rev. John C. Hagee, are heading to Washington for a "Washington/Israel summit" to demand, needlessly, that the neocon Bush regime show "stronger support for Israel." It is difficult to see how Bush could show any stronger support without using the U.S. military to assist Israel in its attacks, which is, of course, what the "Christian" Rev. Hagee intends when he declares: "There's a new Hitler in the Middle East [he doesn't mean Bush or Olmert]. The only way he will be stopped will be by a preemptive military strike in Iran."

Present at Rev. Hagee's "Washington/Israel Summit" will be Israel's former Minister of Defense, Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, Republican Senators Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Gary Bauer.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful lobby in Washington, expressed its thanks to Rev. Hagee for demonstrating "the depth and breadth of American support" for Israel. Recently, AIPAC has been under investigation as a suspected nest for Israeli spies.

David Brog, former chief of staff for Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, has gone to work for Rev. Hagee. Brog, who is Jewish, says he works for Hagee's evangelical enterprise because "we're bringing into a pro-Israel camp millions of Christians who love Israel and giving them a political voice. Israel's enemies are our enemies, and this group instinctively understands that." Brog goes on to say that Hagee's evangelicals understand that they are not supposed to talk about Jesus, only about saving Israel: "Christians who work with Jews in supporting Israel realize how sensitive we are in talking about Jesus. They realize it will interfere with what they are trying to do."

[Read the whole article here.]

Are these people insane? Israel is so important that we should go to war with Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, and continue to funnel billions of US taxpayer dollars yearly to Israel, but Jesus is not important? What would any of the founders and great past leaders of Protestantism think about this? What would any of the ancestors of these quote-unquote Protestants think? They are giving their loyalty to a non-Christian religion, a far away non-Christian state, and an alien people, while meanwhile they neglect their own people: their very country is being flooded with Catholics from the south, to which they turn a blind eye. This is a shameful and disgraceful display if there ever was one!

What we are left with, besides being sick to our stomach at all this, is "Why". Why are these supposed Protestants more interested in the Jewish religion, the Jewish state, the Jewish people, than they are in the Protestant Christian religion, the (formerly-)Protestant USA, the Protestant people of the US and of the world? The answer probably lies in perceptions of power and desire for institutional survival. Any institution or group and the leaders thereof are always primarily interested in institutional survival. These pro-Israel Evangelicals have, for decades, no doubt seen the large amount of power that the Jewish people have in the opinion-shaping media in this country, and so they probably feel that it would hurt their "institution" to speak ill of Israel or criticize Jews in any way, as the Jewish media would "crucify" them, so to speak, if they did. And so, most refrain from attacking or criticizing Israel and Judaism and what is called "Organized Jewry", even on those occasions when it is more than warranted. Some, though, have taken this concept to an extreme and have become fanatically devoted to Israel and to the Jewish people (e.g. Hagee), to the point where that devotion has quite literally risen above and beyond their devotion to the Christian religion and the fate of their own people in America! It is this same desire not to offend seemingly powerful groups that led most American Protestant leaders in the middle of the 20th century to abandon criticizing Catholicism and the Catholic Church, after witnessing the advance of Catholic power in this country.

It is unfortunate that many of these supposed Protestant leaders have been willing to sell out to groups whose interests are wholly at odds with those of the Protestant people of this nation. Though we must point out that only a small minority of the Protestant Americans are actually lavishly pro-Israel. The media gives the impression that most are by focusing immensely on the relatively small percentage of them who are.

America's vanishing Protestant majority

2006-07-06T18:55:00.000-04:00

Protestants will no longer be the majority group in the US before this decade is out, and they might be in the minority already (depending on who you count as Protestant) according to a major recent study.

This has always been a nation populated by men women and children of primarily Northern European extraction and Protestant cultural-religious background. Catholic and other non-Protestant immigration, secularization, and the undermining of the Protestant identity in the past decades have changed this, to the point where barely half the American population identifies as Protestant. It was at some time in the mid-late 1990s that the USA lost its white-Protestant majority for the first time ever. Having been in decline percentage-wise for decades, white-Protestants finally slipped down to 49.999999% on one otherwise uneventful day in the 90s. Now in mid-2000s it is no longer just white-Protestants but all Protestants who are in the minority, or soon will be.

The very character of this country is at risk. We are at risk of being subsumed and eventually obliterated. Here is part of an excellent article written by the Reverend Albert Mohler dealing with this dispossesion of Protestant America:

Writing in 1927, French observer Andre Siegfried described Protestantism as America's "only national religion." To miss this, Siegfried advised, is "to view the country from a false angle." Now, less than a century later, a major research report provides proof that Protestantism no longer represents a clear majority of Americans. Researchers Tom W. Smith and Seokho Kim of the National Opinion Research Center [NORC] at the University of Chicago have released "The Vanishing Protestant Majority," a report documenting the declining membership of Protestant churches in the nation. The decline of American Protestantism will come as a shock to many observers
....
According to the NORC study, Americans identifying themselves as "Protestant" fell from 63 percent to 52 percent between 1993 and 2002--a massive decline in less than one decade. According to the University of Chicago press release, the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Protestant "has been falling and will likely fall below 50 percent by mid-decade and may be there already."

Article originally published on AlbertMohler.com

Link to the NORC study (pdf)

The cause of the decline of Protestantism? Immigration, Secularization, and an undermining of the Protestant identity, along with the ongoing entrenchement of a kind of radical leftism that has nothing to do with politics (what has been called "cultural marxism"), which is very insidious because it prevents people from mounting any serious viable opposition to their own dispossession and it morally disarms people from stopping the aforementioned. (note: The Catholics/Catholic Church in the USA are big partakers of the doctrine of cultural marxism against white-Protestants.)

The root cause of all of these factors, one or way another, directly or indirectly, has been the Roman Catholic Church. So if we cut out the "middle man", the cause of our problems is the Vatican and its thousands of divisions that are attacking America daily, many of which have inflitrated our borders and are attacking from the inside. (Stalin was wrong, the Pope does have divisions, though they dont carry guns, usually.)

Rev. Mohler reaches the same conclusions (they are obvious to anyone who has eyes to see). He points, rightly, to Catholic-backed immigration as the main driving force behind the decline of Protestantism. He points out that virtually none of the immigrants to America today are Protestants. The vast majority of immigration today is from Roman Catholic sources, with only a negligible amount (essentially zero) from white-Protestant sources. Secondly Mohler points to the "theological liberalism" of many of the ecumenical Protestant churches today, which "has eroded the entire system of Christian doctrine, leading to the evaporation of faith and the secularization of those churches. Once the churches have been thoroughly secularized, what value remains in church membership and denominational identification?". What's that you say? Surely this one can't be blamed on the Catholics, this is a fault of those more liberal Protestant churches? Wrong. The ecumenical "movement" is a Roman Catholic plot from beginning to end, a scheme by the Vatican to subvert the Protestant churches of this world and then reassert papal authority over these "heretics".

So in short, the reason for Protestantism's decline in America is The sinister influence of the Catholic Church, on many fronts, in many forms and fashions, sometimes subtle and hidden, other times overt and blatant, but always present, never abating, not till Rome conquers this country. That is Rome's goal, and that is the real issue here.

Catholic terrorists caught in Miami

2006-06-28T05:43:00.000-04:00

If you've watched the news or read the newspaper lately, you know that a group of Muslim terrorists have been arrested in Miami for plotting to blow up the Sears Tower. Wrong!

In fact, these men were Roman Catholics, not Muslims.

"The family of Phanor [one of the arrested]...told reporters in Miami he was innocent of all charges and was a practicing Roman Catholic, not a Muslim.

'They all call themselves brothers and they are well-mannered,' said his older sister, Marlene Phanor. "All they were trying to do was clean up the community. We are Catholic. He's Catholic.' She said the family attends St. Mary's Catholic Church in Miami." [CNN].

"[Phanor's mother said that] alleged plot ringleader Narseal Batiste recruited her son and other men in the area about a year ago to join a neighborhood group to study the Bible and give food to the hungry and clothing to children." [Chicago Tribune].

"Narseal Batiste attended a Catholic elementary school and Brother Rice High School [A Catholic HS]." [Chicago Sun-Times].

It seems that this is another example of the media hysterically pointing to some red fishes and calling them Muslim terrorists. Meanwhile the real threat to the US (Catholic Church/Catholicism) is downplayed or ignored. This time the trick failed, and it turned out that the "Muslims" were actually Catholics! Some major damage control was in order.

Sure enough, the past four or five days have seen two things: 1-The under-reporting of the real religion of the men (Catholicism). 2-The dismissal of the whole thing as imaginary by many in the media.

The point here is not necessarily that these alleged (would-be) terrorists are Catholic (though foreign Catholics in America are without doubt more likely to turn traitor than others), and it's not necessarily that the real religion of the Miami Seven was swept under the rug by the media. The point is this: The media play up the supposed "Islamic terrorist threat" so much and so often, yet never report on the far more dangerous ongoing threat to this country from a far more dangerous alien religion and political power. That would be the Catholic Church, which has done and is doing more damage to this nation than whole divisions of enemy soldiers or muslim jihadis could possibly hope to do.

New papal agent in DC Archdiocese will continue Catholic agenda

2006-06-22T21:09:00.000-04:00

Papal agent Donald Wuerl (former "Bishop" of Pittsburgh) is taking over the Catholic Archbishopric of Washington DC, which includes the District of Columbia and several counties in Maryland.

Total population of Washington DC archdiocese: 2.6 million. Total number of Catholics therein: 582,000, or 22% of the total population (according to the Vatican, who very carefully track these things, almost as an invading army would monitor their progress...Have to monitor how their attempted conquests are going now, you know...). Note that this is up from a mere 14% in the 1950s! (Although at that time it included some parts of non-Catholic Northern Virginia.)

By all accounts, Wuerl will continue to mercilessly pursue his predecessor Theodore McCarrick's anti-American policies, just as McCarrick's predecessor fought for the anti-American Catholic agenda, just as his predecessor... etc. You should ask yourself, does every powerful member of the Catholic Church in the US have the same anti-American agenda independently and totally by coincidence? If you believe this, I'll sell you some nice beachfront real estate in Nebraska! No, this agenda is Rome's agenda, plain and simple. If you want to be mad at Catholic leaders for their vicious anti-American agenda, direct your anger at the Catholic Church itself, not pawns like McCarrick and Wuerl.

Expect the Catholic agenda to continue to be topped by "immigration reform", i.e. amnesty for Roman Catholic illegal aliens and increased immigration quotas for Roman Catholics.

"Wuerl will...also interact with Catholics in Congress and other high ranking government posts." (AP article). So papal agent Wuerl will "interact" with members of our government, despite a supposed separation of Church and State. Or does that that separation of Church and State only apply to Protestants?

I submit this your your review:

"The [Roman Catholic] Serpent has entwined its folds about the Capitol."

Indeed.

Catholics vote to abolish America

2006-06-17T02:32:00.000-04:00

Do you remember where you were on May 25th, 2006 at 5:39 PM Eastern Time? You may not know it, but it was at this time on this date that a coalition of Roman Catholics and Jews in the US Senate voted to abolish the United States of America.

It was at this time on this date that the S.2611 Immigration Bill was passed, which not only allows for double current legal immigration levels, but provides for amnesty for anyone who comes here illegally, effectively abolishing all immigration policy and border control for our nation.

The Bill was passed by a margin of 62-36 (It would have been 63-37 but two Senators were not present). So 63% voted in favor, that's a pretty solid margin, isn't it? Well yes, 63% did vote in favor, but that is a deceptive figure. Let's take a look at the breakdown of the vote by religion to get a clearer picture of what is going on here:

White-Protestants: 31 NAY, 23 YEA = 57.4% AGAINST
Catholics: 23 YEA, 4 NAY = 85.2% IN FAVOR
Jews: 11 YEA
All Other: 6 YEA, 2 NAY

(notes: "Protestant" in the above refers to any Christian denomination that is not Catholic, Orthodox, or Mormon. The Catholic figure includes Orthodox. "All Other" consists of the three non-white Protestant Senators and the 5 Mormon Senators. Two Senators did not vote, but they are included where they would have voted, to get a clearer picture. [link to vote, link to Congress' religious affilations])

The staggering combined Catholic-Jewish vote of 34 to 4 (or 90% In Favor) is quite telling. Truly now, it is safe to say that this was not a bill passed by "The Senate", no, it was a bill passed a gang of anti-American (or, more precisely, anti-white-Protestant) Catholics and Jews in the Senate.

You might say, "Well Catholic and Jewish Senators are mostly Democrats anyway so this is not surprising. This was a Democrat-backed/passed bill, not a Catholic/Jewish-backed one, you are creating something out of nothing here". If you said such a thing, you would be dead wrong. The overwhelming Catholic and Jewish support for this bill crosses party lines, geographic lines, and any other lines you want to bring in. An overwhelming majority of Republican Catholics voted in favor (8 of 12), as did both Republican Jews. So it was not a "Democratic bill". It is more accurately called a Catholic (and Jewish) bill. In this vote, religion was a far better predictor of which way a Senator would vote than party affiliation.

Nor did the vote break solidly along any geographic lines. As one example, see how the two Senators from the fine state of Iowa voted: The Roman Catholic Tom Harkin (D-IA) voted YEA (i.e., voted for the abolition of America) while fellow Iowan, Protestant Charles Grassley (R-IA) voted NAY (i.e., voted against the abolition of America). Another such example can be found in Kansas: The Roman Catholic Sam Brownback (R-KS) voted YEA, while the Protestant Pat Roberts (R-KS) voted NAY.

So it is clear that the Catholics (and their Jewish allies), were responsbile for the passage of this bill. The question then becomes, why do the Catholics want to destroy America? Well one thing that cannot be ignored is the Catholic Church's full-scale mobilization in favor of open-borders/amnesty/superior rights for illegals. The constant moralizing from their Church no doubt affected them (it is largely phony moralizing anyway, the Catholic Church wants Catholic immigration and works tirelessly to promote it for its own selfish & greedy ends, namely increasing their power and influence in America and Catholicizing America. They are weakening Protestant America in the process which is also beneficial to them). But more than that, it is also about these Catholic Senators showing solidarity with their Catholic immigrant brothers and sisters, it is about their desire to bring more Catholics into America, it is about dealing a blow to white-Protestant America, it has to do with nostalgia for their own Catholic immigrant ancestors. It is the knoweldge that they are members of a foreign religion, that this is not a Catholic nation (What percentage of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Catholic? Answer: 1 out of 56. How many delegates at the Constitutional Convention were Catholics? Answer: 2 out of 55), the Catholics know it and act accordingly, including by means of throwing the floodgates open to millions of foreign Catholic immigrants, they feel obliged to do so. It is about their own interests and their Church's interests, which are wholly at odds with our interests, the American Protestants.

Whatever the reasons, it is undeniably clear, beyond the possibility of dispute, that the Catholics are working against America and in favor of open-borders [Catholic] immigration. This is nothing new of course, most of the issues facing our nation for the past century and a half have seen the Catholic Church take positions at odds with Protestant interests (not the least of which has been immigration! Catholic pro-Immigration agitation/lobbying goes back to pre-Civil-War times and has never really abated).

Demographics
According to research done by the Heritage Foundation, this bill would allow for massive immigration levels in the coming years--66 million new legal immigrants/amnestied aliens over the next twenty years , and if we count the children they would have, that would mean a net increase of upwards of 100 million, next to none of whom will be of white-Protestant origin.

The number of white-Protestants in the US is approximately 140 million, and that number is remaining steady (birth rates are steady, and we get little white-Protestant immigration). There are approaching 290 million Americans (exlcuding illegal aliens), meaning the US is just under half white-Protestant as of this writing. Note that the US had always been majority white-Protestant ever since its inception, and was white-Protestant long before then, even.

Now let us examine what this Catholic immigration plan will do to America's white-Protestant dispossessed (former-)majority. Firstly, there will in 20 years time be 400 million residents of America (I hesitate to use the term "Americans", because that term will have lost all meaning by then, if it hasn't already!) under this plan. Assuming the 140 million white-Protestant number remains steady, we will constitute a mere THIRTY-FIVE PERCENT of the US population!

The United States was just under two-thirds white-Protestant in 1950. Three generations later it is destined to be one-third white-Protestant? Such a major demographic change/dispossession is unprecedented, and catastrophic for the United States. Note that this would not have happened if not for the poisonous influence of the Roman Catholics and Jews (both groups have some shared reasons for doing what they are doing against America, but the Catholics have the numbers and so are more dangerous). It would not have happened if Protestants controlled our government.

May God help us!

Sounding the Alarm

2006-05-28T06:54:00.000-04:00

What you will see on this site will be commentary on issues relating to Protestantism in America and around the globe, including commentary relating to the very serious and ongoing Roman Catholic threat to the Protestant USA. Yes, despite what the television set tells you, the primary threat to America today does not come from Islam, but from the Roman Catholic Church. Not from Arab Muslims but from the millions of Catholics flooding into our nation yearly. Not from Al Qaeda terrorists but from the legions of anti-American priests, Bishops, and other powerful Catholics, from the Jesuits, Opus Dei, Catholic "charities" and "social services" (which are, in fact, largely fronts for subversion of America), Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta, and on and on. All of these groups are arms of the Catholic Church, and are working to subvert our Protestant Republic and for the ascendancy of the Catholic Church in America.

We are in favor of the Protestant religion and we want to see America remain a Protestant nation. We want to see Protestantism succeed and thrive in America, in its original home in Europe, and further afield.

We are opposed to Roman Catholicism, opposed to the Roman Catholic Church and its ongoing work against America, and bitterly opposed to Catholicization of America. In this sense we are "anti-Catholic", but we much prefer the term pro-Protestant, which is more accurate anyway. We want to see this country remain and thrive as a Protestant nation. We do not want an alien, hostile religion/political power to take over our land.

Stay tuned