31 December, 2006

“Apocalypto” Review

Posted by alex in Alex Linder, Catholicism, Christians who fight the jew, Mel Gibson, movie reviews at 4:36 pm | Permanent Link

Apocalypto Now: Abortion and Human Sacrifice in the Americas

by E. Michael Jones

Apocalypto is some indication of how far we have come in a very short time. The base line for Mel Gibson could be The Patriot, produced in 2000, which portrays America from the point of view of its beginnings in the Enlightenment, as a nation of independent yeoman farmers, who, like the character Gibson portrays, only go to war reluctantly, in defense of their freedom, which is under attack by the brutal English. No one in his right mind felt that America was a republic in any meaningful sense of the word in the year 2000, but someone felt that the exercise in nostalgia that The Patriot bespoke had some hortatory or moral value. Smithsonian did a cover story on it historic factuality. It was a bit like conservatives claiming that they read Burke and found him a relevant guide for our age. It was implausible but possible, I suppose.

Apocalypto is an indication that “everything has changed,” as the cliché used to go, in the wake of 9/11 or, for Gibson perhaps, in the wake of The Passion of the Christ and the beating he took at the hands of the Jews. Like Apocalypto, The Patriot is a revenge movie. You kill my people, I kill yours. The scene of Mel unable to stop hacking away at the Redcoat in The Patriot gives some indication that we are talking about more than self-defense. The difference between Apocalypto and The Patriot is that The Patriot has lots of ideology behind it, which makes the revenge look less repugnant than it really is. Apocalypto is a revenge movie with all of the ideological justification stripped away. The Passion of the Christ was a deeply Catholic movie, but if Gibson’s other movies are any indication of the hierarchy of values in his soul, Christianity finishes a distant third or fourth in the values which he holds as important. Value #1 is family, Value #2 is revenge, Value #3 is freedom of the American patriot sort that sees the fulfillment of freedom as being left alone. After all that, Christianity emerges as something that vaguely seconds all of these emotions. The most significant thing that has happened between the 2000 premiere of The Patriot and the 2006 premiere of Apocalypto is that Gibson’s illusions about America have disappeared. There is no longer an America that can support Mel’s mythology, not even one which exists in his mind. Mel Gibson’s America is like Mel Gibson’s Catholic Church; neither is visible. The real Catholic Church exists somewhere in Mel Gibson’s mind psychically next door to the real America, which no longer finds expression in his movies.

America is no longer colonial South Carolina, where yeoman farmers come together to forge a Republic based on their reading of Roman and Greek classical literature and the Whiggery of John Locke. America is now the Mayan empire, the land of the banner of the sun, whose people are favored by God and destined to rule the earth. This becomes clear in a harangue given by the Mayan priest, whose duty is to cut the hearts out of prisoners of war so that fertility can return to a soil depleted by slash and burn farming. The priest’s rhetoric is a combination of George W. Bush’s “you’re either for us or against us” speech and a Bill Kristol article which could be found in any given issue of the Weekly Standard. The neoconservative Mayan priest addresses his harangue to the people Mel Gibson now portrays as the average American, a mob of besotted drug-crazed NFL fans, whose main sporting event is capturing in nets the heads of sacrificed prisoners of war as they bounce down the steps of the pyramid temple where human sacrifice takes place. The main difference here is that in modern American the sports fans paint themselves blue. In meso-America, this honor was reserved for those who were about to have their hearts cut out. The primitive meso-Americans were hunter-gatherers, like Jaguar Paw, the hero of Apocalypto, whose people get captured by the advanced meso-Americans, who engage in slash and burn farming—and human sacrifice when the soil gets depleted. Apocalypto is a movie about how to survive in a culture based on human sacrifice.

The modern American equivalent to Aztec and Mayan human sacrifice is, of course, abortion. Mel Gibson, the visceral Catholic and father of seven children, is, of course, viscerally opposed to abortion, as were the majority of Americans until the Jews like Bernard Nathanson (who later repented) began their campaigns (campaigns I have described in these pages, e.g., CW, June 2006) to get abortion legalized in New York and California. Other people have noticed the connection between abortion in the United States and human sacrifice in meso-America. I am one of those other people, at least that’s how I came across to myself after reading an article I wrote in 1984 comparing the Aztecs and the Democratic Party, both of whom were supportive of sodomy and human sacrifice. In an article entitled “Religion and Politics American-Style,” which appeared in the December 1984 issue of Fidelity, I claimed that “Sodomy and human sacrifice were integral parts of public policy in America before the arrival of Christianity. The devil ruled America with what must have seemed like an unshakable grasp. It’s a tribute to the devil’s tenacity that he has re-extended his grip after close to 500 years to include the majority party of the most powerful country in this hemisphere.”

What I find remarkable now is the fact that I somehow felt that the Republican Party was against sodomy and human sacrifice. I felt this way in December 1984 largely because in November 1984 I had been invited to a White House conference on, if not abortion, then certainly the moral issues which fell under the emanations of the penumbra of the abortion issue. Can anyone in his right mind imagine E. Michael Jones getting invited to a White House conference in 2006? That I got invited to a White House conference then was even more remarkable because of what it says about the White House than what it said about me. They, in this instance, was Steve Galebach, who was as sincere in wanting to do something about abortion as I was. Call us naive, but we both felt that the Republicans in Reagan’s second term were going to do something about abortion. Like Mel Gibson in his Patriot phase, we thought the American people had some moral vision and that the Republican Party was going to act on it. Or, as I said back then,

Try to think of one founding father, one Puritan, or one contemporary of Lincoln who could imagine the majority party in this country taking its cue from the Aztecs and making sodomy and human sacrifice a part of its platform. That that party went down to defeat [in the 1984 presidential elections] is a tribute to the moral vision of the American people. That that platform ever got proposed in the first place is a sign of how serious our troubles are and the magnitude of the battle that yet needs to be fought.

Backing me up in my contention—i.e., that the American people had a “moral vision” when it came to abortion and that the Republican Party was going to do something about it— was Thomas J. Ashcraft, then legislative assistant to Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

“My ultimate evaluation [of abortion],” Ashcraft told me when I interviewed him in Senator Helms’ office, “is that in essence it’s demonic because it’s a direct attack on the human race. It’s a direct attack on God’s creation of individual human beings. Estimates now are that there are over 50,000,000 surgical abortions a year in the world. Anybody who values innocent human life because of the redemptive work of Our Lord and that He died for every human being . . . I don’t think that you can look at it in any other terms than being a very evil thing and the work of the demon. I think it’s impossible to understand the abortion thing outside the terms of good and evil. It’s as basic and as old as the human race.”

When, I am tempted to ask, was the last time you heard a Republican politician or staffer talk like that? Probably 1984, which, it turns out was nowhere as Orwellian as the period which followed or the language of the Republican Party since that time. Was I naive? Were we? In a sense we were. The abortion issue was over by the end of the second year of Reagan’s first term, when the right to life movement split down the middle. The bishops and National Right to Life endorsed the Hatch amendment. The hard-liners endorsed Senator Helms’ bill. In the end, neither passed. President Reagan then consigned the issue to the realm of “benign neglect,” to appropriate the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s term for Nixon’s attitude toward the Civil Rights movement. On the other hand, even if we were naïve, I still think Tom Ashcraft believed what he said, as did Senator Helms.

Unfortunately, they were replaced with people who did not, and their name is Legion. So Legion in fact, one hardly knows where to begin. Shall we begin with the fact that this (the winter of 1984-5) was the time when Irving Kristol protégé Michael Joyce became head of the Bradley Foundation and the neoconservatives began their triumphal if subversive march through conservative institutions? What followed was a parade of thugs, liars, and prostitutes— all of whom were every bit as determined to preserve the hegemony of human sacrifice in American culture as the Democrats, but whose only distinction was that they were more duplicitous than the Democrats. As I said, their name is Legion, but I’m thinking in particular of people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, who came to power in 1994 and told the prolife movement they would have to wait a bit because tax breaks for the rich were more pressing than saving the lives of the unborn.

And then, two years later, there was Bob Dole and Ralph Reed, the man who made him the Republican nominee against the incumbent Clinton by destroying Pat Buchanan’s campaign in South Carolina. At the time, I thought Ralph Reed was working for Pat Robertson, who was certainly vociferous in his opposition to abortion. It turns out however, that I was naïve again, something I learned from Murray Friedman’s book The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and American Foreign Policy.

Unlike Jerry Falwell, head of the Moral Majority, who gave the impression that he would rather handle snakes at a church service in east Kentucky than talk with people like Abe Foxman, Ralph Reed, the head of the Christian coalition, grew up in Miami, in what he described as a “Jewish atmosphere” (all subsequent quotes on Reed are taken from Friedman’s book). To the uninitiated, Ralph Reed appeared to be the protégé of televangelist Pat Robertson. Their theologies were the same, which is to say, politically identical with Jerry Falwell’s dispensationalism, which saw the Jews as God’s chosen people and the state of Israel as divinely willed by God.

In reality, however, Ralph Reed was the protégé of Jack Abramoff, the Washington lobbyist who would go to jail in the early 21st century for influence peddling. Reed was to the evangelicals what Bill Buckley had been to an earlier generation of Catholics. Abramoff, an orthodox Jew whom Friedman describes as having been a “conservative firebrand at Brandeis University” not only gave Reed his first job in Washington when he hired him as a political intern in 1981, he also invited Reed to live in his home, where he presumably ate off of a separate set of dishes, “attended services with him, and introduced Abramoff to his wife, who came from Georgia.” Abramoff found Reed “incredibly philo-Semitic,” and Reed reciprocated by dealing harshly with anti-Semitism whenever it reared its ugly head among the College Republicans. In 1983 Reed succeeded Abramoff as executive director of the National College Republicans. Like William Buckley before him, “Reed used his influence to prevent the more extreme elements within the conservative movement from taking over the GOP.” Like Buckley, Reed invariably consulted a Jewish calculus when determining which elements were to be denominated “extreme.”

When the ADL shot itself in the foot by attacking the Christian Right, Israel’s most faithful allies in America, it was Ralph Reed who played the role of healer, addressing the ADL’s national leadership on April 3, 1995. Having gone to school with Jack Abramoff, Reed told the ADL that “the Christian Coalition believes in a nation that is not officially Christian,” and as such it was against school prayer—a statement which reportedly infuriated Reed’s ostensible mentor Pat Robertson. Reed went on to say the same thing to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) one month later, prompting Elliott Abrams, who attended the AIPAC meeting, to exclaim that Jews “need Ralph Reed.”

Reed showed the neocons just how much they needed him when he derailed Pat Buchanan’s second presidential bid by throwing Christian Coalition support behind Senator Bob Dole in the 1996 South Carolina Republican primary. Buchanan’s loss in South Carolina took the steam out of his campaign. Deprived of what was in many ways one of his natural constituencies by Reed’s effort, Buchanan’s political movement simply evaporated, to the point where he lacked the political clout even to address the 1996 convention. Friedman credits Reed with “the modernization of Christian conservatism.” Given Yuri Slezkine’s understanding of modernity, this would mean aligning Evangelical votes to Jewish interests, which is precisely how Friedman interprets Reed’s role in the South Carolina primary:

Buchanan’s George Wallace-like populism, his isolationism, and his attacks on neocons for their strong support of Israel outraged Jews; his isolationism also turned off mainstream conservatives. Quietly, Reed threw the weight of the Christian Coalition behind moderate Senator Bob Dole in the crucial South Carolina primary. Buchanan’s loss there dealt a fatal blow to his campaign, and Reed was widely credited with causing his defeat.

When Ralph Reed left the Christian Coalition saddled in debt to become a “lobbyist,” he returned to his roots by linking up with Jack Abramoff, playing Indian tribes off against each other in their efforts to start gambling casinos and profiting handsomely from his role as a double agent. In 2002, Reed, who by then had become a political consultant in Atlanta and chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, joined Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein in forming “a sort of Christian AIPAC.” On May 2, 2003, the ADL took out an ad in the New York Times, in which Reed hailed the Jewish state’s continued survival as “proof of God’s sovereignty.”

To be fair to William F. Buckley, he once criticized the ADL for giving an award to Playboy magazine publisher Hugh Hefner. Because of their idiosyncratic theology, Reed and the dispensationalists couldn’t even muster that sort of token opposition to the ADL, prompting ADL director Foxman, whose organization had denounced Reed and his followers as hatemongers, to announce, “I am proud to have Ralph Reed as a friend and as an advocate on Israel.”

Abortion

If there is one group responsible for the abandonment of abortion as an issue among conservatives and Republicans, it is the Jewish Messianic sect of Trotskyites known as neoconservatives. When the term finally emerged as a word in general political parlance, Max Boot wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he admitted that neoconservatives had never felt that abortion was an important issue, compared, say, with the continued survival and US tax-funded well-being of Israel. Jews like Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz and their offspring subverted the word conservative in a way that ensured that in the end more people who die because the Republican Party under their tutelage abandoned abortion as an issue in any real sense and got that party to embark upon a series of disastrous wars in the Middle East.

All of this was far over the temporal horizon in 1984. This is how the issue looked to me in 1984:

After a few days in Washington one comes away with the sense that winning the election was simply a way of continuing the battle. If Reagan had lost, if Helms had lost, there would be virtually no battle on the social issues.

At the heart of the issue stands Mr. Reagan himself and the staffing decisions he will make for his second term. According to one White House aide, choosing William Clark as Chief of Staff would signal a victory for prolife forces. The choice of Michael Deaver would be “a disaster.” The choice of James Baker or Drew Lewis would reaffirm the status quo.

Deaver was, of course, chosen as Reagan’s chief of staff, and disaster, of course, followed, but not in a way that I or the anonymous staffer could have predicted then. As one more indication of just how far we have come, two days before the premiere of Apocalypto, James Baker reemerged into the public spotlight when he issued the report of the Iraq Study Group. In that report, Baker and a bipartisan group of WASPs claimed that the neocon War in Iraq was the gravest danger the Republic had faced in the history of his involvement in public life. Once again the consigliere of the Bush family had to rescue Dubya from the consequences of his own stupidity and imprudence. Only this time the issue was more serious than one more DUI arrest. This time it looked as if the whole empire was going to go down the drain because the Jews, who were conspicuous by their absence from the ranks of the Iraq Study Group, had used Dubya to get America involved in what was now an obviously unwinnable war in Iraq. For his pains, Baker was denounced as an anti-Semite by Rush Limbaugh, who could have put in a cameo role in Apocalypto as one of the drug-crazed Mayans cheering on the blood-spattered priest talking about the destiny of the doomed people of the banner of the sun.

Doom, in fact, is the feeling that suffuses both Apocalypto and the country which went to see it. As Jaguar’s Paw and his fellow captives are being marched through the wasteland that slash and burn cultures have to create to survive, a young girl afflicted with a fatal disease prophecies doom for the land of the banner of the sun. Montezuma, the ruler of the Aztecs, was afflicted with a similar feeling of foreboding. He had heard that white gods were going to travel to Mexico from across the sea and destroy his kingdom. Mel Gibson must have heard of the prophecy because that is how Apocalypto ends.

After being saved from being sacrificed on the pyramid by an eclipse of the sun, Jaguar Paw escapes into the jungle and hurries home to save his pregnant wife. For the last hour of the movie, we watch him outrun and eventually kill all but two of his pursuers. They finally catch up to Jaguar’s Paw on the beach and are about to bash his brains in with their obsidian maces when the deus ex machina appears. The Deus in question is Christ, and the machina is the Spanish Galleons which brought both Conquistadors like Hernando Cortes and Franciscan monks like Fray Bartolomeo de Diaz to the New World.

At this point, the message of Apocalypto becomes clear: America has become so corrupt, largely because of the institutionalization of abortion/human sacrifice, that it can no longer be reformed from within. The days of the Patriot are over; the American experiment in ordered liberty has failed because liberty was redefined as sexual license, and sexual license requires abortion/human sacrifice as its guarantee. Mayan/Aztec culture was too corrupt to be reformed from within; it had to be swept away by the sword before a true meso-American culture could flourish in its place, and that culture, so Gibson seems to be saying, can only flourish under the sign of the cross. We need the deus ex machina to bring down the curtain on this play.

At this point in the film, the message becomes less clear. Jaguar Paw’s two pursuers step toward the Spaniards, but Jaguar Paw himself retreats back into the jungle. If he wanted a film with an unambiguously Christian ending, Gibson should have had the three Indians, formerly at each others’ throats, now reconciled to each other, kneeling in front of the cross. That is, in fact, what happened in the aftermath of Cortes’s conquest of Mexico, largely as a result of the miraculous appearance of Our Lady of Guadeloupe. This is how I portrayed that event in 1984:

Cortes sued for peace numerous times during his siege of Tenochtitlan, but in the end found that the devil-god Huitzilopochtli had become so accustomed to human blood that he would rather see the Aztec capital destroyed than relinquish his grasp on it. Washington is not Tenochtitlan, but after spending a few days there, one comes away with the impression that the battle over human sacrifice in our day will be every bit as protracted.

Having seen the movie, I can’t decide whether Mel Gibson read my article or not. The idea isn’t all that farfetched, certainly not as farfetched as the idea of E. Michael Jones getting invited to a White House conference. One of the people who was impressed with the article at the time was none other than soon-to-be presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, who cited my article in one of his syndicated columns. “The other day,” Pat wrote in a syndicated column which appeared in the January 23, 1985 issue of The Washington Times—right around the time of the Washington Right to Life March, “Fidelity, a new magazine put out by traditionalist Catholics, almost all of whom are scholars, priests, or doctors arrived. The lead editorial drew comparisons between the Aztec civilization Cortes discovered and the America of 1985.” Both Pat and I agreed at the time that “the Democratic Party is possessed by the devil” because of its support of sodomy and human sacrifice. Both of us thought that the Republicans believed in something better. Now the Republicans have gone down to defeat much as the Democrats did in 1984, and it looks as if they are going to drag the prolife movement with them because of a quarter of a century of hypocrisy, mendacity, and duplicity in their dealings with the constituency who thought they were going to put an end to human sacrifice in America. Either way—through Fidelity or through Pat’s column—the association between Washington and Tenochtitlan, as well as the association between human sacrifice and abortion escaped into the ether of public discourse.

Mel Gibson now seems to be disagreeing with me. Apocalypto’s message is pretty clear in this regard. Washington is Tenochtitlan in Mel Gibson’s mind. I, however, remain by my original assertion: I still claim that Washington is not Tenochtitlan; Washington is now far worse than Tenochtitlan. Who are we, I found myself wondering at the end of the movie, to badmouth the Aztecs and Mayans, who may have marched thousands of captives up their pyramids and cut out their still-beating hearts, but in the end murdered in the course of a century only a fraction of the children we slaughter every year? Only a neoconservative—like Max Boot or Bill Kristol or David Frum—who was in the grip of the most arrant Messianic fever could look at America and still see the Puritan “city on a hill,” and they can only do that by assiduously ignoring the abortion issue and focusing instead on the failed Messianic state of Israel as their model. A Catholic can’t look at the Aztecs or the Mayans and their penchant for human sacrifice and not think of the United States by way of comparison. That is why Steven Spielberg never could have made this movie.

And yet, for all of its visceral Catholicism, Apocalypto ends on a note of ambivalence, one that must mirror Mel Gibson’s ambivalence about both America and the Catholic Church. If Mel Gibson really wanted to infuriate the Jews who savaged him over The Passion of the Christ, he should have had the three Indians kneel down in front of the cross, reconciled to each other by Christ’s saving love. Instead, Gibson has the hero of the film retreat back into the woods with his wife. As if to underline his ambivalence, Gibson has Jaguar Paw’s wife ask—with the Spanish Galleons in the background—, “Should we go to them?” “No,” he responds, “Our place is in the forest.”

So after starting off with a Catholic ending to his film, Gibson reverts to the old American and turns Jaguar’s Paw into the meso-American version of Huck Finn, who ends up by lighting out for the territories, because Aunt Sally (or the Catholic Church) “is going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it. I been there before.”

Well, haven’t we all? Or have we? Mel Gibson doesn’t want to be “sivilized.” He prefers revenge over forgiveness, even if the failure of the American experiment has deprived him of an ideological justification for his revenge. In the end, Mel Gibson is ambivalent about both America and the Catholic Church. He prefers to worship in a Church that is not visible and live in an America that is as fictitious as the one portrayed in The Patriot. The one thing that the United States has never been is Catholic. It remains, as a result, to see which deus ex machina arrives on its shores to save it from itself. Will the meek—i.e., the Mexicans—inherit the earth? They will—pace, Pat—if we’re lucky.CW

E. Michael Jones is editor of Culture Wars.

This review was published in the February 2007 issue of Culture Wars.

[Original]


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 11/15/12 Quick Movie Review 51% similar
  3. 11/19/11 Quick Movie Review 47% similar
  4. 03/11/07 Movie Review: ‘Borat’ 47% similar
  5. 06/15/10 Quick Movie Review 45% similar
  6. 06/20/14 Quick Movie Review 44% similar
  7. 29 Responses to ““Apocalypto” Review”

    1. Jim Says:

      ” Will the meek—i.e., the Mexicans—inherit the earth? They will—pace, Pat—if we’re lucky.CW”
      WTF does that mean? I thought it was a pretty good article until the end.

    2. JG Says:

      The meek is all people. We are all related. At the end of the day, we all come from the same bloodlines and we all should be one race. We could live peacefully if the people untited in culture. Realizing that we are all human life and all have the exact same feelings will make us humble because we are all equal. The only real fact is that greed is destroying the human race. Revolution can be a good thing if we all look at it as a new opportnity. An opportunity to be your brothers keeper. The one thing the world lacks is love. These times have driven our human race to have no more morality. We must learn to love and serve one another. May you all be blessed this New Year.

      JG

    3. e.o.barlow Says:

      One hell of an article.

      How on earth do we get the message to [not the masses] the people who matter? I send numerous email links to yours and others websites to my friends and family in my never ending attempts to “light them up” a bit. Only on rare occasion do I get a response…in most cases they are asleep…like good “sheeple” should be I guess.

      I have been saying for years now, “that through an economic crisis will the people of this country finally begin to wake up…when they have little to loose materially. The fear is that by the time this happens we may have lost any means to react legally as we pass more and more laws to restrict our ability to even discuss the matter….much like what has happened in Great Britain and most of Europe.
      The time is fast approaching for the economic meltdown..I fear the manipulation of the working class masses more than anything.
      Please go to this link and see why “History Repeats Itself” a story of FIAT MONEY.
      http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1167407940.php
      The coming crises will give our enemies the supposed justification to take away our most sacred rights totally.

      We need and appreciate your wisdom, insight and most importantly…YOUR VOICE. Keep up the good and valiant and I may add..VIRTUOUS work. I will send a contribution soon.

    4. jackumup Says:

      we need to talk and never be silent. no matter the consequences it is our ability to communicate that is the weapon God granted us to fight the devil and his children (the jew)

    5. Carpenter Says:

      The parallel between decadent Tenochtitlan and decadent Washington, D.C. – that’s interesting. I wonder if that is what Mel Gibson intended. Could be.

      It would have been a good essay if he wouldn’t have trailed off for paragraph after paragraph about abortion, like the Catholic he apparently is. Scroll, scroll, scroll, to find something about Jaguar Paw again. Focus, Cath!

    6. New America Says:

      E. Michael Jones addressed several issues in his long review of “Apocalypto.”

      I have edited out much of his review, and will cite and discuss what I believe to be his most salient points in terms of what they mean to us, and how they matter to us.

      One, the Pro-Life Christian political forces have been played for fools, and have been converted into Christian Zionism political forces. As examples, Jones cited Ralph Reed (who went to school with Jack Abramoff), “told the ADL that ‘the Christian Coalition believes in a nation that is not officially Christian,’ and as such it was against school prayer.” As well, “Buchanan’s George Wallace-like populism, his isolationism, and his attacks on neocons for their strong support of Israel outraged Jews; his isolationism also turned off mainstream conservatives.”

      in reply:
      One, you would think the Christians/Conservatives would have had enough of being played for fools, wouldn’t you? If these damn fools were turned off by Buchanan’s “isolationism,” well, they wanted “interventionism,” and they got it – good and hard. I have the parents of three thousand of our children (who died for Israel) who might have a word or two to say about that.

      Good for you, “mainstream conservatives.”

      Good for you.

      Two, Jones seems to fall well short of the moral clarity that is the hallmark of VNN, describing the “neoconservatives” as a “Jewish Messianic sect of Trotskyites.”

      Brother Jones!

      Just say JEWS; you will be no less accurate, and much easier to understand!

      Jones continued:
      When the term finally emerged as a word in general political parlance, Max Boot wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal in which he admitted that neoconservatives had never felt that abortion was an important issue, compared, say, with the continued survival and US tax-funded well-being of Israel.

      in reply:
      Welcome to the party, Brother Jones!

      Do your eyes hurt if you’ve never opened them?

      Abortion is a strictly pro-JEWISH practice; their Talmud tells them to murder “even the best Gentiles,” and what better way to do that than to have the stupid goyim PAY YOU for the privilege of killing their children? Ever notice how many ob-gyns have Jewish names?

      Three, Jones discussed the poor treatment James Baker faced for his efforts in trying to solve the Iraq War for the President:

      Jones wrote:
      In that report, Baker and a bipartisan group of WASPs claimed that the neocon War in Iraq was the gravest danger the Republic had faced in the history of his involvement in public life.

      This time it looked as if the whole empire was going to go down the drain because the Jews, who were conspicuous by their absence from the ranks of the Iraq Study Group, had used Dubya to get America involved in what was now an obviously unwinnable war in Iraq.

      For his pains, Baker was denounced as an anti-Semite by Rush Limbaugh, who could have put in a cameo role in Apocalypto as one of the drug-crazed Mayans cheering on the blood-spattered priest talking about the destiny of the doomed people of the banner of the sun.

      in reply:
      Time will show Baker to have been correct; that Limbaugh, who uses borrowed phrases as a substitute for thought, attacked him without criticizing his analysis, is simply standard practice for the shabbas goy.

      All of Baker’s critics seemingly, and simplistically, attack him solely to obfuscate the obvious – we have been defeated in Iraq. The death of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein is simply the best Christmas present Dr. Ahmadinejad could have hoped for; the one man who understood how to hold it together is gone, and the Shi’ia Triumph is simply a matter of time, and, from the looks of things, not much time, at that. The Goddamn JEWS are simply delighted, and, at the cost of three thousand of what they consider our troops to be – subhumans – the cost effectiveness cannot be imagined.

      Four, Jones described what seemed to be Gibson’s big take-home message.

      Jones wrote:
      Mayan/Aztec culture was too corrupt to be reformed from within; it had to be swept away by the sword before a true Meso-American culture could flourish in its place, and that culture, so Gibson seems to be saying, can only flourish under the sign of the cross.

      in reply:
      Jones misses the common thread of his complaint concerning the collapse of the Conservative Movement within the Republican Party – just as the Goddamn JEWS took over the so-called Christian Right of the Republican Party, neutralizing them as a political force, and the Goddamn JEWS took over the foreign policy wing of the Republican Party, perverting it into an exclusively pro-Israel AT ANY PRICE tool of the Goddamn JEWS, so, too, can we learn the deep lesson from Apocalypto in one painfully simple truth, which our grandchildren will hopefully document in their films.

      To paraphrase from Jones:

      JUDEOAmerican culture was too corrupt to be reformed from within; it had to be swept away by the sword before a true American culture could flourish in its place, and that culture can only flourish under the signs of Western Civilization, in the White Nation, the White America, our forefathers foresaw as being the dwelling place of THEIR “posterity,” where WE can live in RACIAL peace, RACIAL harmony, and none may make afraid.

      That sounds like something that would be shown in a documentary in the cinema of Harold Covington’s “Northwest Republic.”

      Hint.

      And, to clarify a point of “Christian” doctrine:

      When the Bible says “meek,” it means “humble before God,” and specifically NOT “humble before men.”

      Thus, Moses could confront Pharoah, the temporal and spiritual leader of his nation, and still be “meek.”

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    7. Dan Says:

      Guyz and Doltz,

      Do you seriously take this review as an example of something one should embrace as being useful? Hobgoblins and devils stalk the halls of power in Washington? For f*ck sakes!

      The article psycho-analyzed and became so long-winded to the point I started to nod off and even got distracted a few times. Of course, Xian Catholics got it all figured out, that is why they kept us in the Dark Ages for only a few centuries and pretty much destroyed Greco-Roman culture by and large. But, hey, by all means letz listen to the voice of “reason” and “sober” thinking in the form of the believers of stigmata and devils under every toll bridge and throughout history influencing civilizations and mankind.

      There is such a thing as evil/predator instinct in humanity and the degeneration of civilization, because like a physical bodies, all civilizations go through the process as indicated on Apocalypto. Rome and its gory games is a case in point. Itz organic and the has to run itz natural course, which remains to be seen as yet. Until then, clench your fists, wail and gnash your teeth, see a therapist, have wet dreams about revolucion’, think the dude who croaked and came back is coming back again all you want, history is unfolding and we’re all bit players. How it will unfold obviosuly is not an exact science otherwise we would know what the future portends now wouldn’t we?

      Finally, if you think hobgoblins and devils run sh*t and abortion, albeit a grisly and cowardly act, is the same as Aztec priests sacrificing and their civilization was controlled by devils and not latent and a dying civilization’s bloodthirstyness then you are deluded and should grab that bottle of whisky and drown your sorrows and tears in more doom & gloom forevermore.

      Through a economic crisis people wake up? Hey, nombnutz, did they in the dirty 30s? Yeah, they sure did all right….killed lottsa Germans and others. Yup, big changes, in fact the perpetrators got even more esconced in their roles. So, based upon this historical fact, howz exactly will the latest gonna change things? If you’re hanging onto this “great hope” and afterwards the dumbed-down hordes will wake up to your message of kumbaya and peace and good will to all men – da troooth in other words – you’re an IDIOT! Read Machiavelli putz! You’re useless to yourself and everyone around you so long as you hold onto stupid “if only……..” scenarios take place. Your enemy MADE THEM HAPPEN, they didn’t wait with their whisky bottle and cheapass rhetoric to do something. They got organized and conducted sly and intelligent low intensity campaign of domination. They had opportunities presented to them and TOOK THEM. They didn’t sit on their asses wating for the Mad Max Road Warrior scenario to unfold. That is WHY YOU will ALWAYS lose and they will always win. They’re BETTER than YOU at this game and until you learn and adapt to this reality you’re a f*cking dodo bird.

      JG,

      The 60s called, something about you took their flower-child mantra and claiming as your own. Tell your peacenik crap to the Arikaaners in SA while they’re gettig killed for being white, eh? I’m sure Roberto Mugabe would appreciate your self-delusions too. Fool! Even when we’re being “unselfish” we’re being “greedy” and selfish. If Its not for money, itz for praise and “atta boys”. Its the cycle of life buddy! Do you think your kid “obeys” because he/she has some higher moral compass borne out of innate goodytwoshoesitude? Rewards and punishments, Pavlovian habits and reactions. Conditioning.

    8. Filles du Roi's Boi Says:

      I’m sure Hymie got a real kick out of knowing that the boyish-faced Ralph Reed, the hero of conservative Christians, was in reality a corrupt, stinking, shabbos goy. How they must have laughed and laughed.

    9. alex Says:

      ” Will the meek—i.e., the Mexicans—inherit the earth? They will—pace, Pat—if we’re lucky.CW”
      WTF does that mean? I thought it was a pretty good article until the end.

      You gotta understand: the guy writing this is perhaps the top traditionalist-Catholic intellectual. He believes that you take a Mexican, rub him up with some Catholic buffalo butter, and the shitskin changes into rich Corinthian leather.

      In other words, E. Michael Jones has great virtues, but biology doesn’t go away because he ignores it.

    10. alex Says:

      An opportunity to be your brothers keeper.

      Hey, JG. I don’t want to be da brotha’s zookeeper. And when your ilk gets paid by the fedgov to import these tropical exoctics, and they turn around and do what comes natural — steal, rape, and murder — your ilk disdains all responsibility.

      Why don’t you christians corrects the defects in your own heads before telling the rest of us how to think?

    11. alex Says:

      How on earth do we get the message to [not the masses] the people who matter? I send numerous email links to yours and others websites to my friends and family in my never ending attempts to “light them up” a bit. Only on rare occasion do I get a response…in most cases they are asleep…like good “sheeple” should be I guess.

      I think you’re right about economic collapse being the only thing that could potentially wake up the masses. But our concern is with the marginal man, not the mass. We attract the marginal man not by going directly at him so much as by tipping him we’ve got something a little better than the ‘Kwa. An Aryan alternative, so to speak.

      When what one says runs against the Going Line As Seen On TV, one must be seen personally to be superior for any of the Easily Influenced even to begin to change his mind. WN should strive for superiority in all the ways one can be superior: better grooming, dress, speech, money, wiv(es), children. What we are speaks louder than what we say, WN or not.

      Talk to people one one one. Things in the land of Idiocracy have degenerated to the point even the oblivious are beginning to take note. I find in public that I don’t need to say anything, I just wait for something to come up (Mexinvasion, war in Iraq), and it almost always does. Then I just give the conversation a gentle tap in the right direction.

    12. alex Says:

      The parallel between decadent Tenochtitlan and decadent Washington, D.C. – that’s interesting. I wonder if that is what Mel Gibson intended. Could be.

      He certainly intended the parallel of empires in decline. I saw him interviewed, and he quoted that line about empires crumbling first within, as the necessary condition for their being invaded from without.

      It would have been a good essay if he wouldn’t have trailed off for paragraph after paragraph about abortion, like the Catholic he apparently is. Scroll, scroll, scroll, to find something about Jaguar Paw again. Focus, Cath!

      Well, that’s just Jones. That’s his way. And I don’t mind. He’s one of those writers you can’t get enough. Also, the history of Reed is precisely the thing that might wake up the conservative christian bypasser who googled up VNN searching “Apocalypto.”

      It’s funny – I just got done reading The Mailroom: Hollywood History from the Bottom Up. This is all about the career ladder at William Morris and other agencies. Which is another word for 80% jew-nepotism among the “36 shorts” and the 20% admixture of shiksas and shaigetz. Ralph Reed, like Leghound Gary Bauer are both goyish 36 shorts. Shrimpy little wannabe jews. I find their diminutiveness underlines their servility.

      Jones doesn’t follow the standard commercial format, and I for one appreciate it. Very much like Goyfire in that regard. If he has something to say, he says it, at length if need be, and doesn’t worry overmuch about the ostensible agenda. Nothing can truly be discussed not merely in corporate radio, but in corporate magazines. There isn’t enough space. In his own magazine, like we do on Goyfire, Jones will go on for 25 pages, uninterrupted by ads, to give the reader the full picture. That is uncommon and valuable.

    13. Anglo Saxon Is True Israel Says:

      JG Says:

      31 December, 2006 at 7:54 pm

      The meek is all people. We are all related. At the end of the day, we all come from the same bloodlines and we all should be one race.

      JG Who told you bunch of BS? It has to be a Jew, or some lame ass preacher claiming to represent GOD. We are not all of the same blood, that was a lie and corruption of the word of GOD.

      C. R. Dickey, commenting on Acts 17:26 – “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation…” says: “Without quoting the latter part of this verse, some people make an ado over the first clause and use it glibly to overthrow all previous Bible teaching concerning racial separation. The key word used to prove the oneness of mankind is BLOOD, yet, actually it proves nothing because the word BLOOD does not appear in any of the ancient manuscripts. The following is a literal translation from the Greek: “and He made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, fixing appointed seasons and the boundaries of the dwelling of them
      The word BLOOD was added by translators.
      Perhaps the most logical reading of this passage is provided by the Ferrar Fenton translation from the original language which reads: “Himself giving every one life and breath and all things; because He made by one (that is in Christ) every race of men to dwell upon the face of the earth”. This agrees with the Revised Version, the Emphatic Diaglott, and others. Even Dr. Scofield in his translation footnotes, makes note of the fact that the word BLOOD is not found in the best translations.
      Over thirty years ago, Dr. James Bonner, Professor of Biology at Cal Tech, writing in the Saturday Evening Post (4/26/61) stated: “A tremendous fact developed is that the human races are not the same, but particular kinds of living things. The blood of the white Caucasian differs in molecular construction and hereditary factors from that of the Negro. The physical evidence of this difference has been commonly known as ‘sickle cell anemia’, a child killer and responsible for causing invalidism in adults. The anemia is not a disease. It occurs in the blood of the Negro as a mutation from the normal and is an inherited characteristic. It can be and is transmitted to the white race by transfusion of Negro blood”.
      Professor Bonner remarks that a striking example of this is the enzyme found in victims of this hereditary condition which is characterized by abnormal hemoglobin of the red blood cells.
      “Developments are gradually leaking out that the epidemics of hepatitus occu ring in hospitals the last few years are closely related to blood transfusions from different races of peoples. This is now being recognized by American blood banks”. He goes on to say:
      “The social engineers and misguided do-gooders, devoting their energies to race mixing as a basis for social adjustment, are now proven wrong from every scientific point of view. Race mixing is bound to result in racial suicide! The Red Cross and other blood banks, who have mixed blood of the races for transfusions, under pressure of minority groups, are guilty of a crime against humanity. The crime is not directed to the white Caucasian race alone, but there is much evidence that white blood given to a Negro has, in many instances, caused a much more serious result”. Professor Bonner concludes: “This must not be continued in the face of scientific evidence that mixed blood transfusions may have fatal consequences”.
      NOTE: While medical authorities are cognizant of the difference in the blood composition between the races, this is not considered a proper subject for general discussion and while this information is available from medical reference sources, it is not something which is promulgated by the published or electronic media. In fact it is considered to be “verboten!” (Does it not seem strange, that this vital information has been kept a secret from the “brainwashed” Christians in the Judeo-Christian churches. Ask yourself, why? Editor Mohr)

    14. alex Says:

      Jones is a reliable historian – as long as it is understood that he is blind to race, willfully or not. He makes the same mistake as Hoffman in claiming that Judaism is evil rabbis ruling over otherwise good jews. Not true, and precisely where biology should come to his aid. Talmudism reflects the jewish genetic soul precisely. Everyday experience backs up theory, which is how things work when you’re on the track to truth. Jews are experienced in the world as aggressive, hostile, accusatory paranoids. Their Talmudic doctrine is nothing but the verbalization of their genetic heritage. Catholic dogma prevents Hoffman and Jones from acknowledging this truth.

      Did you catch the subtle Jones sneer?: Value #3 is freedom of the American patriot sort that sees the fulfillment of freedom as being left alone.

      Jonesy knows that true freedom means listening to your priest. You may be able to sell that rotten tripe in jerkwater Ireland, but not here, baby.

      Freedom’s too cold for the Catholics. Too scary. Too wimpy even to beat down simple, honest, direct, bald, beautifully bald Protestantism, the Jonesim must content themselves with whines and kibbitzing.

      Freedom does in fact mean being left alone, and fuck the papist who says otherwise. Catholicism always comes off twinkish. It’s a good system for cramped, fearful souls, but there’s not much more to be said for it.

    15. alex Says:

      Here’s what I mean by cramped, fearful souls (not every post, you have to read through them).

      It’s the blog of a Catholic TSU student from Iowa. She’s obsessed with God’s plan for her.

      http://ceallach.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

    16. Kaalkop Says:

      Odd that E. Michael Jones extolls the Mexicans. They are the ones identifying with the Aztecs(www.aztlan.net). The Aztecs believed that a woman dying during childbirth was going to a special heaven. It is thus unlikely that they believed in abortion.

    17. Duke Says:

      The Organized Jewish vendetta against Mel Gibson has its typical payroll critics decrying the violence in the new film Apocalypto in hopes that it will reduce ticket sales.

      Absurdly, as well, similar payroll Jews are questioning the film’s historical validity and parading many a concocted “disgruntle Mayan” around the media to denounce the film.

      This is a replay of the absurdity of several a ridiculous rabbi lecturing Christians through the media on the “historical fact” surrounding Jesus Christ when Gibson’s Passion was released..

      Now, the transparent jealousy and bitterness still lingering over Gibson’s huge success with The Passion of the Christ clearly has many a Jew foaming at the mouth and desperate to use any means available to harm Gibson’s reputation.

      Considering what glorified violence and historical liberties self-styled Jews continue to put on the screen for mass consumption, for the same ugly network of media bosses to accuse Gibson of somehow crossing the line in using the time honored Hollywood shtick of violence is totally bankrupt and would be laughable if it did not signal the militancy of such a degenerate collective.

      Hollywood Jews appear to assert that they have a legitimate monopoly on film violence considering much of the the media is essentially run by a self-serving Jewish club wherein supremacist hypocrisy is the style and blacklisting is blatant and meant to intimidate all.

      To telegraph so openly to the world that a small club of “Jews” could conspire to blacklist someone for making a film about Jesus Christ is utterly foolish for a people whose very physical security requires the protection and patronage of non-Jews.

      I hope Gibson next makes a big budget film which lays bare Jewish domination in the film and media industry and shows the world that organized Jews are far over represented in an industry which many now are rightfully seeking to replace with our own, one not controlled by Jews.

    18. New America Says:

      Kaalkop made the point that Jones “extolls the Mexicans.”

      This is why the Roman Catholic Church is on its last legs; the Mexicans are “extolled’ only because they are “meek” – that is, humble before God – and blindly reporduce without thought to the ramifications of vast numbers of illegitimate children they produce, or the burden they place on a modern, First World Economy.

      If Jones had thought it through a little more closely, he would have extolled the Spanish, for carrying the Light of Christ into the barbarian darkness of the Aztecs and the Mayans – who are still admired by the mestizos underclass.

      And Mexico HAS an underclass – which it is importing to America with all due speed.

      Jones seems rather quiet as to why they should inherit the Earth, or how the Earth would be better off for it.

      Look what a great job they’ve done with Mexico!

      Look what a great job they’re doing with Los Angeles, the capital of Alta California, where all of the candidates for the last Mexican Presidential Election kicked of their candidacies!

      Jones misses Gibson’s meaning with this analysis:

      E. Michael Jones wrote:
      If Mel Gibson really wanted to infuriate the Jews who savaged him over The Passion of the Christ, he should have had the three Indians kneel down in front of the cross, reconciled to each other by Christ’s saving love. Instead, Gibson has the hero of the film retreat back into the woods with his wife. As if to underline his ambivalence, Gibson has Jaguar Paw’s wife ask—with the Spanish Galleons in the background—, “Should we go to them?” “No,” he responds, “Our place is in the forest.”

      in reply:
      This is part and parcel of the “forgive seven times seventy” and “bless them that curse you” crap that has given Christianity a bad name; how I wish Gibson would show Christianity at its finest – Martel, for example.

      Christianity will become a universal religion, but only in the fulness of times yet to come; until then, it simply has not carried at all well outside of its European spiritual home.

      Jones continued:
      So after starting off with a Catholic ending to his film, Gibson reverts to the old American and turns Jaguar’s Paw into the meso-American version of Huck Finn, who ends up by lighting out for the territories, because Aunt Sally (or the Catholic Church) “is going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it. I been there before.”

      in reply:
      I suspect Gibson looks to a Roman Catholic Church which seems comity with, and even the approval of, their RACIAL enemy, the Goddamn JEWS of whom Jesus spoke so truthfully, and eloquently, in John 8:44-47, in particular, and says. “Well, if this is the Roman Catholic Church, ‘I can;t stand it. I been there before.'”

      Damn right he has.

      How many of those men who wear dresses who call themselves Roman Catholic priests stood in the pulpit and said, “You know, let’s compare what Mel Gibson said to what Jesus Christ said. Turn to John 8, and…”

      Not a damn ONE of them – they all said, like Peter said of Christ, “I do not know him.”

      Then, they wonder why their claims of moral authority are the subject of laughter…

      Do you think Mel used the ending of Apocalypto to return the favor?

      “The Church has been gelded; we must return to what the Church was, when it was alone in the wilderness, and met the pagans of the hills and valleys, who communed with God in the hills and the valleys.”

      E. Michael Jones wrote:
      Well, haven’t we all? Or have we? Mel Gibson doesn’t want to be “sivilized.” He prefers revenge over forgiveness, even if the failure of the American experiment has deprived him of an ideological justification for his revenge.

      in reply:
      What so many Christian scholars refer to as “revenge” really isn’t; it’s simple, basic, Masculine Assertiveness.

      What’s Mel supposed to do – play “Forgive and Forget?”

      All that does is encourage the evildoers.

      Remember, they are only “forgiven” by God to the extent that they FIRST repent, and even then, only to the extent that their repentance is sincere.

      And “Forget?”

      But, Dr. Jones, the Goddamn JEWS NEVER forgive, and NEVER forget.

      What should we – and Mel – do about them?

      How about returning the favor, until they get the lesson?

      Masculine Assertiveness is NOT “revenge.”

      It’s standing up for your FAMILY, your RACE, and your CULTURE.

      E. Michael Jones wrote:
      In the end, Mel Gibson is ambivalent about both America and the Catholic Church. He prefers to worship in a Church that is not visible and live in an America that is as fictitious as the one portrayed in The Patriot….*snip*

      in reply:
      If Mel Gibson chooses “to worship in a Church that is not visible,” isn’t he following the example of Christ?

      Good for him!

      And, as for choosing to “live in an America that is as fictitious as the one portrayed in The Patriot,” at least the men in THAT America stood up and fought for their FAMILIES, their POSTERITY, their RACE and their CULTURE.

      There are few things less fictitious, and more REAL, than THAT.

      THAT is an example we could all do well to emulate.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    19. Dudeman Says:

      I look forward to seeing this. I was in the amazon, cuzco (macchu pichu) and galapagos in july. I’ve never been to mexico, but still like to see cultures in their natural state. Remember that christianity is nothing more that servileness to kikedom. It is kike-founded from the ground up. I applaud all people for going to their roots, white or not. I don’t adhere to their beliefs but they are truely theirs, not some hymie rehash imposed at the edge of a sword from generations ago by scumbag preachers like the fuckhead preacher in “beowulf and grendel”. Fuck them and all they are. We whites could learn much about our roots without the jew filter.

    20. bryan o'driscoll Says:

      Jerkwater Ireland?? Well, maybe you have a point. However, the hold of the Catholic Church in Ireland has loosened enormously. The continuous exposure of pedophile priests hasn’t helped. When the older generations die off they will have to close a lot of the churches.
      Unfortunately, the younger generation is just as gullible when it comes to liberal insanity. No problem getting them to agree that Ireland has been enriched by niggers.
      While it is true that the priest tripe sells here in Ireland the fundamentalist preacher lunacy wouldn’t. Lunacy hardly describes it. They hope to bring about the end of the world so that they will be ‘raptured’ up to kike heaven while the rest of us roast in a nuclear war instigated by ‘brave little Israel’. Only in the USA!

    21. Biff Baxter Says:

      Still using your pump-action atheist BB gun instead of the Christian phased plasma rifle at your feet, Alex? What a shame you let your hatred of the devil inspired Krisschanns cloud your judgement on Christianity. I see your cosmotheism adolescent wanker religion and raise you a Messiah who sacrified himself to pay for mankind’s sins. You really do go on, Alex – and frankly it’s not in our best interests to attack the ancient cultural core of the white race and call it progress. Sometimes you are a tad jooey, Alex. Give it a rest, telling us for the millionth time how irrational Christianity is and your nihilist Tikkun Olam is going to save us all by replacing our something with nothing.

      People fight to preserve both their race and kulture, Alex, only joos fight solely to preserve their race in an eternal boom-bust cycle that goes nowhere. If the joos had ever converted they might have amounted to something as a people instead of nothing. You’d rather convert all your fellow whites to crypto-Tikkunners instead of reinforcing the post that is there. I advise you that you will never be a leader without faith. Only joos go around busting everything up and calling it virtue.

    22. alex Says:

      Jones likes Mexicans because they’re Catholic. No other reason. More Mexicans in America means more political power for Catholics. He likes that. So, by the way, does Joe Sobran.

      He simply ignores that no matter what veneer Original Jebooism laid over them, mexes are the same savage shitskins they ever were. Race trumps religion. Jones can see this as an intellectual matter, but his devotion to the Big Lie called Christianity, and his hatred of Protestantism, override his reason.

      There are two ways you can go, White man. You can take the Nazi view that not everything with a face is human, or you can subscribe to the Catholic view that every single human is a gift from God, with an all-important soul.

      Catholics don’t hate the evils they denounce, such as abortion, half as much as they hate others not agreeing with their categorization.

    23. van helsing Says:

      Reed probly let the jews …er… spit on his … er… face. he is as big a fraud as “the right” has had.

      If Jones thinks (yes I read it and yes i subscribe to CW even tho i am not Catholic) millions of mexicans et al wont fubar the country he is wrong. But he spends a lot of time in CW focusing on the real problem children…

    24. New America Says:

      in reply to alex:
      alex wrote:
      Jones likes Mexicans because they’re Catholic. No other reason. More Mexicans in America means more political power for Catholics. He likes that. So, by the way, does Joe Sobran.

      in reply:
      So true.

      alex wrote:
      He simply ignores that no matter what veneer Original Jebooism laid over them, mexes are the same savage shitskins they ever were. Race trumps religion.

      in reply:
      Christianity only took life when it merged with the fertile soil of the European soul; for all of their claims of Christian Universalism, virtually all of history suggests this is a stage of Consciousness far removed from our time, and our place.

      Outside of Europe, Christianity, as matter of Substance, has made no inroads whatsoever.

      As a rule, the absence of the White RACE means the absence of true Christianity.

      Indeed, all true Religions seem to reflect one Culture – and this, one RACE.

      Ask the Goddamn JEWS!

      alex wrote:
      Jones can see this as an intellectual matter, but his devotion to the Big Lie called Christianity, and his hatred of Protestantism, override his reason.

      in reply:
      I suspect the Big Lie to which Jones subscribes is not “Christianity”; in fact, it’s JUDEOChristianity, and, in his case, a particular type of JUDEOChristianity called Roman Catholicism, whose leader lets some hook-nosed Satanist rabbi lecture him on “morality,” while pointing an accusing finger in his face.

      If the Pope is lectured on “morality” by people who believe Jesus lives in a pit of boiling human waste, tortured by the demons he commanded on Earth as a Dark Sorcerer, WHERE DOES THE POPE GET THE MORAL AUTHORITY TO LECTURE US ON MORALITY?

      C’mon, Pope!

      Be like Jesus, and form a whip, go into the Synagogue of Satan, kick ass, and take names! Be a MAN, for a change, take off that dress you wear, and stand UP for the “flock” you are supposed to be protecting!

      alex wrote:
      There are two ways you can go, White man. You can take the Nazi view that not everything with a face is human, or you can subscribe to the Catholic view that every single human is a gift from God, with an all-important soul.

      in reply:
      That we are all Created is one thing; that we are all created EQUAL, quite another.

      alex wrote:
      Catholics don’t hate the evils they denounce, such as abortion, half as much as they hate others not agreeing with their categorization.

      in reply:
      I agree that abortion is wrong; it is obvious that the NEED for abortion is evil.

      To the Roman Catholic Church, there is no “need” for abortion as the only purpose of birth is to create more sheep for the flock, and more cattle for the cattleherder.

      How remarkably JEWISH.

      The QUALITY of the children is a foremost concern of the eugenic society, which Goddamn JEWS practice among themselves by (1) screening for Tay-Sachs disease in the womb, with amniocentesis, and (2) immediately aborting the unborn child IF the child tests positive for Tay-Sachs.

      The QUALITY of the children is of no concern to organizations that are primarily interested in breeding more cattle – the Roman Catholic Church, and Goddamn JEWS, outside of their RACE.

      New America

      An Idea Whose Time Is HERE!

    25. A Catholic Says:

      SO why do you guys dislike Roman Catholics so much. I am not attempting to piss anyone off; I am attempting to understand your views.

    26. bryan o'driscoll Says:

      I wouldn’t have much of a problem with Catholicism if it was a force for white social cohesion and a defender of white civilization. However, it is not. On the contrary, it has become a lethal threat to our survival. The main problem with it, and virtually all Christianity, is that it is an alien religion imposed on us from outside. Certainly, it metamorphised over time to make it more palatable for the white soul. It provided a focus for our race in the face of threat from Islam and other external enemies and a somewhat curtailed forum for the expression of white cultural expression. However, it had poison at its core which we could never digest and which sickened our spirit. Now, its main concern seems to be for the welfare of the black, brown and yellow hordes which threaten us with extinction.

    27. A Catholic Says:

      So you see the Catholic Institution as a provider at one point for Aryans
      but now has strayed from that path.

      Is there any Christian Religion that supports your views wholely?

      I may not agree with your views, but I do greatly appreciate your input. It is easier to understand now.

    28. bryan o'driscoll Says:

      I think that it is obvious that the Catholic Institution has jumped completely off the path and is going to its doom in the swamp. I do not practice any religion as I believe that most, if not all of them, are rackets.
      Russian Orthodox has been experiencing a revival since the fall of the Soviet Union and has not been corrupted to the extent of western Christendom. However, I doubt that it is overtly supportive of the survival of our race. Identity Christians in the US are overtly pro-white but are hampered, in my opinion, by identifying with the same bible as the corrupted Christian churches. I will admit that a religion can act as a cohesive force for a race but, for it to be healthy, it must develop organically from within that race and not be imported or imposed from outside like Christianity was.

    29. matt nathanson fan Says:

      Thanks for posting :)