Saturday, August 16, 2008

Hussein For President

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?

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Pope to parade through American capital

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.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Anti-Islam film released - A patriotic critique

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!

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Catholics for McCain

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.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Pope endorses global warming

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.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Catholic imperialism in Iraq

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.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Neocon Puppet Giuliani or Patriot Ron Paul?

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.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Bibles Banned at 2008 Beijing Olympics

[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.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Orthodox Church issues warning to Rome

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

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

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]

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Pope declares self to be God..again

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).

Sunday, June 17, 2007

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

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.

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!


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!"

Friday, December 15, 2006

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

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:
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.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

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

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.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Gay FL Congressman admits he is a Roman Catholic

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!

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Phony Pope-Muslim controversey exposed

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.

Friday, August 25, 2006

A group of terrorists founded this country

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
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
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 and, 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.

Friday, August 18, 2006

The Religious Wars of the 21st Century

"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 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 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."

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.