Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Ethnic identity of elites is irrelevant and counterproductive to focus on a distraction

this was posted in youtube comments

Plenty of Jewish people don't rule the World. The vast majority don't. In fact since the elite are a tiny number of people, very good at syphoning off wealth and concentrating it in their familie's hands, they'd always have to be easily identifiable as from one culture or another and they were never going to be a representative sample of anything as large as a cultural group. They are so stinking rich they don't live lives like anyone else including other Jewish people. They may happen to be Jewish (I don't know or care) but what's more distinctive about them is that they are greedy even to the point they will ruin the source of their wealth which is everyone else. It becomes pointless to categorise them as Jewish in that sense even if they are. Really rich people mix with each other and nobody else. They don't belong to the culture they came from originally. They'll extract anyone else's wealth, Jewish people's, black people's, white people's etc.. What do they care where it comes from? If they did they'd have to have less and there's no sign I can see they're interested in that scenario. We've got a lot more in common with anyone in the more than 99 per cent of people who aren't in the elite and more shared interests with them than the elites share with the cultural groups they emerged from. The race/cultural labels can become a distraction that elites benefit from while people misidentify them as part of a larger group. The larger group becomes a target while they are safely tucked away somewhere living it up, suffering no consequences for their avarice. The real divide is between the super rich elites and everybody else. If we keep referring to them as belonging to any other group I think we're obscurring our vision of the pertinent facts. What do you think?"

I think this is very succinct and correct.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

How It Happened


A urinary hoax.

let me see if I got this right. Some bozo sends this crap, er, piss to the CIA and they put this ("raw intelligence," unvetted, unchecked on etc. etc. the stuff that gets checked and analyzed later) into their classified report on the election.

the references to pizzagate should be taken with a grain of salt as an example of fake news since
although you could say eh, weird about the things in the pizza joints, the bigger picture is the use
of this and related food terms identified by the FBI as pedophile secret code. the oddities in ping pong
pizza incl. the horrific speech by that freak singer who also refers to "special pizza" and may be
hinting at the meat in it being human. all this should be occasion for an investigation.

Friday, January 6, 2017

Stable Blindness in nationalism.

In horse breeding there is something called stable blindness, you can see all that's wrong with others' horses, and nothing that is wrong with your own. Here is a view of America by an outside, same as that of those Americans who have done the research.

from a blog post
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
Your very capital city is built with a map of masonic signs, your government buildings the same, very few of you have ever set foot outside of your goven State let alone country or even the Americas. You have painted blasphemy upon the inside of your Capitol, turning George Washington into a god being lifted up by the angels. Do you know what that painting is called and if so, what those words mean? Then there is a G. Washington statue in that same building depicted as Baphomet, and fascist symbols each side of the speaker of the house: need I go on?
Your United States Union was set up by a bunch of Christ rejecting deists and your country, more often the bad guys than not, has caused more wars than any other in the same time period. You forgot to mention McCarthyism, etc. You also believe that any social justice implemented is de facto Communist. You are the most violent Western country there is, arrogant, insular, and disliked place by right thinking people the World over. Your prison population is one of the largest, if not the largest in the World, many people are without recurse to health care or a proper education if they can't wave enough dollars about, your racial and class divisions are stark and draconian, and most of you have no idea about the places, peoples and cultures you set out to destroy in the World. You are a bunch of mindless bloodthirsty loudmouths, most not all, and no, thankfully I don't live in your arrogant and ignorant (so much so you forget Colombians, Hondurans, Canadians, Mexicans, etc are Americans too, not just those of the USA), uncaring and loveless entity you call America aka the USA.
I hope that answers your question and lets you know how most of the World, and how most Christians around the World (especially in the Middle East and Latin America) see you!"
There is a lot wrong with the USA and the old can't "go live somewhere else " is not an answer. for some of the secret evils and connections behind all this, http://visupview.blogspot.com has real good information lots of links. We talk about the need to repent of sexual immorality, perversion and abortion and of communoid thievery by big government aka taxes, and exalt as "Christian economic principles" something invented in the past two centuries and ignore pride, vainglory, covetousness, greed, ambition, class snobbery, brutality, etc. etc. that typifies American culture even when it was more moral (or better at hiding evil).

Thursday, December 29, 2016

DNA change worries and nephilim worries are a demonic deception

Some Christians are worried that some kind of transgenic changes will be made in people that
make them unredeemable. some connect this to the mark of the beast, sci fi-ed into some kind
of weird technology when Revelation just says its an identifier not of the individual as such, but
of the wearer as one who has worshipped the antichrist. then there's the nephilim
nonsense and some fear there are modern nephilim hybrids and figure if they have even one non
human gene they are not savable.

Enoch only spoke of the first generation spawn of the fallen angels as irrevocably cursed
along with their fathers. Nothing about more dilute generations.

And if Noah being pure in his generatins meant genetics, instead of spiritual and moral purity
throughout all the generations he lived through, then ONLY Noah was pure and that means his
wife and sons and daughters in law and therefore us are NOT pure.

Amazong how this common sense point is missed by these people, and those who think of it
argue God would have provided him a pure mate. But the Bible says ONLY Noah was pure
in all his generations. This was said when he already had sons. so they were not pure whether
its genetics or morals and spiritual issues.

The DNA change fears are a demonic deception designed likely to cause
despair among many and even violence towards the innocent by some.
"Anthony Patch believes it will change human DNA and render us unredeemable. I 100% agree ...
like the Days of Noah, and the fallen angel technology..."
Jesus compared the times of Noah to the last day in terms of unbelievers TAKEN BY SURPRISE
not expecting the Flood or the wrath of God because not believing the warnings.
your DNA has nothing to do with redeemability the Bible proves it Rev. 5:13 all manner of creatures
even in the sea praising God. IF NON HUMAN IDENTITY DOES NOT KEEP YOU OUT
or DNA morphing by CERN or anything else. (animals are souls also per Genesis listing them as
having the breath of life, and Ecclesiastes 3:21 says animals have spirits. it is not having a spirit
that makes us in the image of God it is character and implications of the bodily format.)
Enoch says nothing about any plan to corrupt the bloodlline, only lust. only the first generation
of hybrids the spawn of the fallen angels was condemned, no subsequent generations of partbreds
were even mentioned. have you got nephilim genes? do you love Jesus? do you determine to
follow Jesus regardless of contrary thoughts you might have? stop worrying about your genes.
Being fallen we are ontologically corrupt, body and soul and spirit. a little genetic wierdness
can't make it much worse. original/ancestral sin, remember?

Nothing to do with technology, which is irrelevant to redeemability anyway as is ancestry.
"and New Age deception no doubt that our "alien ancestors" are visiting planet earth will likely be
part of the deception." more likely they are HUMANS who were genetically modified.
" ...Alien abduction accounts...are nothing more than demonic deception.
 This has been proven by people who cry out the name of Jesus, and the so-called abduction stops
immediately. "
Greer etc. are the last people to pay attention to. Alien abduction is very real not fake illusion because
it leaves physical injuries, pregnancies some ultrasounded visible that are recovered to apparently an
artificial womb but need a jump start in a real one during the third month, and physical trace evidence
such as fluorescent hand prints etc. Greer denies the reality of these events or blames military
secret operations pretending to be aliens MILABS.
is from demon helpers, that doesn't change the physical reality of the people who do it.
The Budd Hopkins, David Jacobs and Derrel Sims research showing the evil ways and intents of the
aliens is rejected by Greer etc. and these researchers have been denounced as "rogue" because they
show the truth - this is evil not loving, physical not spiritual but with a spiritual component which is evil.
Some say aliens were leaving anyway you just woke up right at the end. NO. the aliens have been
backed off while being seen first approaching. The thing is, if they can't get you in a trance you are going
to be too dangerous to handle.

Friday, December 16, 2016

Turtle Island

No that is not about the Galapagos Islands and those big tortoises. Its the Native American
name for the North American Continent. Ever take a look at this thing on a map its shape?
Its like a turtle. you can figure the head north and tail is Mexico or vice versa, but its
a turtle.

How did they know this? An old name from thousands of years ago or more recently
people who could get high enough in the sky to see what its looks like, or information
from those who came from elsewhere (but are really humans originally from earth)?

There is another issue. Anyone remember that old view of the earth as sitting on
a giant turtle, and an earthquake is when it moves?

In any legend, you want to back engineer it, how might this refer to something that
was first reported by a wild eyed ignorant peasant and passed through a few
more people before the story stabilized with serious changes and misinterpretations?


Guess where this designator comes from: China and India. Well, their lands are
sort of the other side of the world from us. That means from their perspective, the
world (with themselves as rivals to be the center of it) is on top of a turtle that is
on the underside.

And pass this through a lot of story tellers and so forth and you get the world

Did the Native Americans get the story from the Chinese explorers? Maybe. Where
did they get it from? HOW DID THEY OR ANYONE KNOW?

unless there were some people who could fly a small segment a secret society
or a lost high tech civilization.

Ancient Astronauts and other nonsense (incl. awestruck near worshipful view of
"the ancients" and "antiquity") plays on odd indicators to argue that aliens
(WITHOUT an ultimate earth origin) were here teaching us everything. This of
course implies humans can't do anything but once in a while pick our noses
without breaking our arms in the process.

I think the aliens taught us some flight and electronic levitation and we taught
them megalithic building which their technology made possible to be much
bigger than we started with in the Neolithic. (despite my use of standard
geological anthropolical terms, I am not an ancient earth evolutionist.)

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Causes of the American Civil War

I am noticing an uptick of the drumbeat of claim that slavery was not
the cause of the Civil War. It is true that it was not the only cause.
But the declarations of secession by the states that then went on to
form the Confederacy make it clear that slavery was the primary
reason. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html#

Each state's statement is linked on the top of the page, and you can
read them for yourself. YES OTHER CAUSES EXISTED. but with
one exception slavery was given a lot of attention.

John C. Calhoun was the first to formulate a theory of secession, as
distinct from general remarks and so forth. Ironically, this was to slow
up the process that might start, because at the time he had property in
the south and a career in the government in the north, and didn't want
any conflicts that could affect him. Therefore he argued (in response
to the tariff issue that was a major tipping point for some) that when
the fed issues an order the states don't like, they should first simply
ignore it (on whatever basis he gave, I forget what) and go through
a process of development of opposition and rejection, with formal
secession an option to use at the very end of this. (Which of course
meant he would be retired and his careers north and south not
interfered with and he comfortably home in the south if this
happened. Disgusting hypocrite. not that such an effort is evil in
itself, but he was of course arguing as a southern loyalist so to
speak and from a Constitutionalist position (which didn't really
allow for any of his procedures).

Someone argued that the Emancipation Declaration didn't free
any slaves, since it addressed places not under northern control yet,
and any non seceded slave states were not addressed by it. But
the minute a southern location came under northern control, the
Emancipation Declaration applied, and knowing about this would
give slaves in unrecovered places motive to either run away,
revolt or drag their heels in compliance in the war effort, and to
help the Union troops when they came. Many did run off to join

The argument is given that the Constitution provides for secession.
Obviously people who say this haven't read the Constitution except
to skim lightly, or rely on the words of liars. The Constitution does
not provide for secession from the USA, only for secession from a
state, to become a new state of the USA, provided the state seceded
from allows this.

The Preamble speaks of "a more perfect union." as compared to
what? The Articles of Confederation that preceded it were like what
the Confederacy had, and a book was written showing how this
disunity itself interfered with effectiveness of the south during the
Civil War. Pride, romanticism, all these stirring, thrilling lies that
stir feelings that some think are "spiritual" but St. Paul calls puffed
up and empty, kept people from learning from this failure. Also
kept them from noticing that both sides prayed to the same God,
and the North won.

A more perfect union, by definition then, would be something
that was centralized, obliged all members to help each other
on demand either directly or through a central government, and
that you could not leave, and could not under most circumstances
disobey the central government.

Someone noted that the behavior of the signatories to the Constitution,
their caution and their demand for a Bill of Rights, showed that they
knew they were getting into something they couldn't get out of. Like
a marriage in the days when divorce was unthinkable.

When you examine what the Constitution gave the states, shows
exactly this. All meaningful manifestations of sovereignty were
stripped from the states. Most importantly, border controls and
tariffs and the right to deal with foreign governments except through
the federal government. Ego sops like having their own flags were
left, which is nothing.

The states were also required to guarantee a republican form of
government to their citizens. This meant that their constitutions had
to be approved by the federal government before they could be
admitted, and they could not write up one that or change later to
one that was monarchic, inherited political class (officially at
least), mobocratic democratic which by definition is without
representation, or other deviancies from the pattern of the federal

The Constitution declared that itself and any treaties made pursuant
to it were the supreme law of the land any decisions or laws of any
states to the contrary notwithstanding, which latter means, do not
withstand, i.e., have no standing, no merit, no authority.

What most so called "constitutionalists" tell you is a mix of truth
and lies.

The Tenth Amendment is a laugh. it reserves to "the people" whatever
the Constitution doesn't already secure to the federal government or to
the states. I can't think of anything that isn't already in one or the other

As for the income tax, that is not unconstitutional because it is created
by a formal amendment to the Constitution. Some things about it may
be unconstitutional, but the phenomenon itself is not.

A really odd thing is not only the liar who said that wages are not
taxable income (sending a lot of people to jail who believed him)
but the people who bought his argument, because he repeatedly cited
to prove this a paragraph WHICH EXPLICITLY LISTS WAGES AS
TAXABLE INCOME in the tax code.