## Monday, August 6, 2018

### Applying Numbers to the JQ

I have been curious about the JQ over the past few months and finally decided to sit down and put some numbers to it using basic statistics. For those who do not know, the JQ is the "Jewish Question". It asks why a disproportionate number of Jews hold the seats of power in Western societies. Numbers lead to an unbiased conclusion as long as they are understood. This essay may be unsuitable for those who are offended by people who ask the JQ.
The JQ is answered by the popular talking heads on YouTube such as Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones and Stephan Molyneux, people who have a clear bias toward the Jewish race and believe them to be superior and that they should be running things based on their inherent superiority. Its a clearly juvenile viewpoint for anyone who has actually read philosophy and the philosophy of laws. Most listeners of Peterson and Molyneux have not, so its easy to pull the wool over their eyes. Both Molyneux and Jones married into the matriarchal Judaism. I don't know if Peterson did or not. There are many other sycophants online as bad as these three, it is these three that I know well.
This has been a simple calculation and the assumptions are:

(1) IQ is normally distributed among any suitably sized group
(2) Standard deviation is 15 for both populations and all IQ's.
(3) Jewish population is assumed to be 20,000, the population of White Goyim is assumed to be 1 million. Jews have about 2% of the numbers of White Goyim in America.

I did this for two assumptions, (1) Jews IQ = 130 average, (2) Jews IQ = 115, in both cases average White Goyim IQ is 100. I did not calculate for IQ above 175, assuming these numbers to be too small for normal distribution.
I did it for an IQ of 130 just to help visualize how the numbers change. The average Jewish IQ is no where near 130, unless you are just listening to Alex Jones. Realistically it may be as high as 115, but more likely around 108.

Results:

(1) Jewish IQ = 130, White Goyim IQ = 100

IQ > 130:
Jews:10,000
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews 3,174
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 560
White Goyim: 30

(2) Jewish IQ= 115, White Goyim IQ =100

IQ>130
Jews: 3,174
White Goyim: 22,800

IQ>145
Jews: 456
White Goyim: 1,300

IQ>160
Jews: 26
White Goyim: 30

So, given the amount of Jewish power in government, academia, the media, publishing and of course finance, do these numbers explain it? Will affirmative action be applied to upper level positions in banks?
I'm not a fan of IQ testing, I test above 115. Even adherents to this answer to the JQ admit that Jews may have a higher IQ with numbers and words but that White Goyim is better at spatial orientation. IQ tests can therefore be skewed, if this is true.
You find Jews in math and computer engineering, but not in mechanical or civil engineering. Engineering has been viewed as an inferior profession by many and this may explain the small number of Jews in engineering.
Another useful comparison would be to compare philosophies. Compare Maimonides (the great lawyer of the Jews, known as Ram Bam in the Talmud) with one of our great scholars of law, Immanual Kant, or von Savigny. Compare the past century great thinkers in Judaism, Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno with CS Lewis.
The White Goyim philosophy has been to find the universals, as it has been for thousands of years. It has grown finer with age, as Christ said it would (the wine). The Jewish philosophy has been to espouse Jewish Supremism and to place the Goyim in a highly negative light, to say the least. It is fairly and reasonably called hate literature. It does not have the brilliance or the braininess of the universal philosophy of the White Goyim, who is clearly unmatched in this field. Only the White Christian does philosophy to find universals rather than in group supremism as in Judaism and Islam.

On the topic of philosophy I would like to leave you with two thoughts. The best and the brightest have the greatest capacity for evil as well as good. We have a society led by the best and brightest. How did they become eaters of the pizza? The answer is that they have been given too much liberty. The human being has a natural inclination to expand horizons and is not always good. This IS NOT original sin, as Douglas Murray claims it is. Original sin and sacrifice will have to be the topic of another essay. (the two go hand in hand)
CS Lewis writes the following passage at the very start of the Screwtape Letters: (Screwtape, the older devil is giving instruction to his apprentice, Wormwood)

"...It sounds as if you supposed that argument was the way to keep him out of our Enemies clutches. That may have been so if he lived a few centuries earlier. At that time humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not, and if it was true they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life based on a chain of reasoning. But with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man, ever since he was a boy, has been accustomed to having a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing around in his head. He does not think of doctrines as "true" or "false", but as "academic", "practical", "outworn", "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon and not argument is your best weapon for keeping him out of the Church.

...By the very act of arguing, you awaken his reason and who knows where that may lead"

The last line really explains why argument about politics is nearly forbidden in modern society and people are offended when truth emerges that challenges their world view.

## Sunday, May 20, 2018

### Does The Left Create Victimhood?

Victim hood creates debt that does not exist in reality, this divides people, makes them angry and creates new groups for leftist exploitation. The Left creates the problems, then offers dialectical materialism to create solutions. Dialectical materialism is the dialect between science and matter and it encompasses the idea that science can one day solve all of the worlds problems and that all problems stem from economics.
The problem with this basic idea is that it is purely reactionary and gives no yardstick from which to judge matters and thus no way back to rational thought. Cultural Marxism has no course but to be purely reactionary and therefore problems are required to get us to think in this context. When problems do not exist they must be created.
A perfect example of created divisions is the “White Mans Privilege” and its mythology that it was White Christians that ran the black slave trade. In truth a disproportionally low number of White Christians were involved. It was known as the Jewish Black slave trade during its time. (see E. Michael Jones, Michael Hoffman, Henry Makow, and other scholars)
This makes blacks angry at whites and they wish to seek redress, this is happening in South Africa where Whites are being murdered and a genocide may soon occur.
The Left says that the Whites stole the land. I say the whites civilized South Africa and brought the Blacks common law. The population of blacks exploded from 2 million consisting of warring tribes to around 40 million living in relative peace under the white mans Common Law.
Cultural Marxism is all about destroying ideas like common law and original sin and bringing dialectical materialism to the forefront of human consciousness. Dialectical materialism and its statutory laws will destroy the common law which will leave the people in charge with an purely statutory system of laws that no one will have any basis to criticize. No one will know how to question authority without the common law yardstick from which to make judgements.
Does law come from authority or does authority come from law? In the West, traditionally, law comes from reason and and authority comes from law. Under dialectical materialism, law comes from authority.
The West is moving away from its traditional common law and toward a system of statutory law based on Talmudic law. Noahide law will be the law for all non Jews. The destruction of the common law, brought about with dialectical materialism will get us there.
The Evangelicals are just as bad with their agenda and use of propaganda to bring us closer to the rapture, but this is a different topic and their propaganda is fundamentally different.
One final thought: Most people casually throw around the idea that we in the West live in democracies. This belief will get us closer and closer to actual pure democracies. In reality, most of the West lives in republics or constitutional democracy. Once full democracy is obtained, despotism follows in short time. This is part of the PTB getting us to forget the common law and our roots and the ideas that made the West strong and free.

## Saturday, February 3, 2018

### The Greatest Quote Ever

It needs no further comment. Its obvious:

"Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or worse, when they are required to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to."

Theodore Dalrymple

## Sunday, January 28, 2018

### White Genocide: Why?

The following essay is an attempt to explain White Genocide is a slightly different manner the the one on this topic that I posted about a year ago.

Before people adapt an ideal such as Equality, I want them to fully understand what they are giving up. This essay is an effort to convey this understanding, one that has taken me many years to obtain.

It explains the fundamental reason for Christian White Genocide, which is being done by communists as communists always do, as they always have. There is a basic hatred and opposition of Western Christian ideology that motivates communists. To explain this, I have to explain the concept of law and what makes Western law, the law that is hated by the communist, and why.

Its a bit discombobulated, please bear with me. I'm watching this Alex Jones Youtube video and felt the urge to switch the title of this little project from "Roman Law" to "White Genocide: Why?" and link it with this video.

It is law that creates a society, without it, nothing else can be and we live in an anarchy, like monkeys swinging from trees, maybe worse because we have guns. No one sane would argue that you can have a good society with bad laws.

The Roman Empire grew because it had developed laws. For a thousand or more years, all the best and brightest went to Rome to study law. The word "science" was first used in describing the fundamental nature of theoretical jurisprudence.

Science did not emerge Newton or Bacon or Descarte, it originated with the Romans and their work on laws. The age of reason started in Rome with a science built around the common law. It didn't start with the Enlightenment.

The difference between this science and the other hard sciences such as math and physics is not uncertainty. We know when a law has been broken, without looking at code.

Math and physics sit on hard principles which can be written in compact form on paper, almost perfect abstractions (but people keep making them better). Roman law sits on the pillar of the common law, the law which cannot be written. Jesus Christ writes it as the one commandment of the NT, Immanual Kant writes it as his categorical imperative. The Greeks call it the "Golden Rule" because they couldn't write it down, so they were probably smarter than everybody. Everyone knows it as "The Logos".

Western law has been based on this precept. Mathematics requires precepts such as counting and the shortest distance between two points being a straight line being those from which all else is built. Law is based on reason, like mathematics. Law requires a precept like mathematics because reason does not create precepts on its own. To be a science the laws developed from the precepts cannot be self contradictory in math or law.

By science, I do not mean the scientific method, science here refers to logic and not application of the scientific method. The Scientific Method doesn't work for math or minefields and it doesn't work for law. This is the spiritual world, as opposed to the material world, and the scientific method isn't part of the spiritual world.

Jurisprudence can never be exactly right or exactly wrong in practice. The Golden Rule has some room for interpretation. Justinian codified law so that Judgements would be less dependent on the judge, a fundamental problem of jurisprudence, the judge being well intentioned and well informed, or not. Justinian law gets a bad rap, but law was not understood as well as it is today. Law is a technology, just like any other. They had the old tube type version, we have the digital version of the same thing.

Another expression of the common law, America (United States is a corp) is a Republic and the basic idea of a Republic is: "A nation by the people, for the people and of the people" and is a well known Abraham Lincoln quote, from which he got the idea from a very highly respected German Scholar of Roman law and theorist, Von Savigny who wrote law books in around mid 1800's. Much of his work is on the web as free PDF's.

Widespread knowledge of the law could be a serious threat to those who write and administer bad laws, but this is not why good laws must be written. Good laws must be written to preserve the law, which in turn preserves freedom (Von Savigny).

A law not based on sound principle would be like math adopting an axiom along the lines of 2+2=5, people would just stop using math or stop taking it seriously.

The common law (which can be partially expressed as all men being equal under the law) is being replaced by another precept: equality of outcome. The two are not compatible. Left wing nut case "equality" will destroy the Western tradition of law.

Plato explains exactly how this would occur in book 4 of the Republic. Lawyers and legislators would be tripping all over one another making a mess if the law as not based on sound precepts. These must come from the Gods. In Rome the god was Jupiter, who appeared the same for everyone. Jupiter saw all the farms the same. This common law, as written in the New Testament forms the basis for Western law.

Kant explains that the law must be written, hence the need for the Bible.

Von Savigny explains the application of the codified law and its jurisdiction in his book, System of the Modern Roman Law, translated from the German Friederich Von Savigny by William Holloway, vol 1, 1867. On the subject of Jural Relations he writes: (S52)

"The essence of jural relation has been defined as a province of the independent mastery of the individual will (S.52). Its our first matters to search out the object-matters upon which the will can possibly excercise influence and thus extend its mastery; hence a summary of the different sorts of possible jural relations will of itself result.
...Thus in the pure logical treatment of the question proposed, there appear to us three main object matters for the mastery of the will; hence, it would appear, that three main sorts of all jural relations would of necessity be admitted. We have therefore next to examine those object matters singly, and the first the individual person as object of a special jural relation.
On this matter the following view is very prevalent. Man, say some, has a right to his own self which necessarily arises at his birth and can never cease so long as he lives; for this precise reason it is called an ORIGINAL RIGHT...
...If henceforth we entirely separate the so-called original rights and recognise the aquired rights as the only ones to which our further examination is to be directed, there will remain only two objects for the excercise of our will: unfree nature and extraneous persons."

In extraneous persons he gets the law of obligations, from unfree nature, comes property.

Von Savigny was a German and German law was quite a bit tilted toward freedom than others. Kant is similar in basic thought. Von Savigny was like a Kant, but for jurisprudence. Von Savigny follows the path of reason proves his statements almost as well as Kant. (No wonder the Globalists went after Germany the way it did.)

BUT Von Savigny is a philosopher in these books, not an actual judge. On that it is Christ that explains this cornerstone. The building, its occupants etc may change or burn down but the cornerstone will always remain for those who wish to use it in future construction.

We have no lawyers, we must become lawyers. (A lawyer IS NOT synonymous with attorney. If you don't believe me, ask one. I learned that from attorneys before other sources.). There is a saying "only guilty people hire attorneys" and its true. An attorney is merely a wealth transfer agent and hiring one is to admit guilt by admitting that a wealth transfer should take place.

So, maybe for now, we lose everything with the adoption of equality of outcome as an ideal because we lose the foundation for our law, the very thing that makes us free. Maybe we learn the law instead and decide to defend ourselves - really scare the hell out of the establishment instead of having a talking head just draining unfavorable parts of the swamp.

Without the Golden Rule as a yardstick, our rulers and legislators will make a mess of everything, just as explained in Plato's Republic, even if they have the best of intentions.

For over two thousand years the basic problem with communism has been well known, yet it rears its head once again in the minds of a public that has no understanding of its past or of its roots.

Communism is with us once again in the genocide of these South African farmers. We have not lost to this Bavarian conspiracy, we have good laws and we need to exercise them.

Note: Many people think of the common law as that which is held to be in common belief. What is held to be in common belief is really just a practical application the the law which is common to all men. They are one in the same thing, one a looser approximation of the other.

## Sunday, October 30, 2016

### A Psychiatrist Convention

There is a story that I heard on YouTube last week, I've been telling it to a few people. Some of them get it. So I'll tell it below and lets see what everybody thinks.
Psychiatrists were at a convention and a paper was presented. It was not much of a paper but more of a complaint.
In it the doctor described how his practice had grown, how he was understaffed and could not keep up with the workload. People were coming in for the first time and he had to perform tests to determine if they were crazy or not. Another psychiatrist during a question period mentioned that he had the same problem, having to rent the office next door for additional waiting room space for all of his new clients. Others echoes his concern citing the well known fact that it takes between forty and sixty man hours to properly evaluate a persons sanity.
Then one doctor stood up and explained that he had a small office in a basement with no secretary and had a small waiting room consisting of a few chairs and he was easily able to keep up with the workload, help his patients and quickly determine their sanity. He explained that his waiting room contained only a tap and in the corner, some old mops, and some chairs.
He said that when he came in in the morning he would let everyone in, sit them down, then turn on the tap in the corner and watch the waiting room from the window in his office. Patients that turned off the tap were judged sane and the ones that picked up a mop to known to be in need of help.

When we discuss politics in the conventional framework set forth by mainstream media, wanting the Fed to adjust rates, changing social policy, etc, we are using the mops to clean up a mess created by the fact that we have Jewish money. The monster debt is really nothing but a hoax. There is no possible promise that could back the promise that our promisary notes use as backing. No consideration has ever taken place between the Fed and the government, the Fed simply operates under its own agenda with no oversight from the government, nor obligation to the government (Alan Greenspan says this on YouTube so don't start calling me an anti semite again)
The only possible solution to get us out of this mess is to turn off the tap and recognize those folks who want to keep mopping the floor as nuts. Political will and knowledge for monetary reform would get us monetary reform. For people unfamiliar with the idea, see movies such as The Money Masters on YouTube.

## Monday, October 17, 2016

### Kant And The Misleading Frankfurt School

The Eclipse Of Reason by Adorno/Horkheimer a key founding document of the Frankfurt School and is an argument against Christianity done along the lines of Critical Philosophy. It does make a decent criticism of Christianity based on it's subjective nature in its lawful determinations. It is the subjective nature of Christianity that Judaism stands against. Ideas like Jury's can prevent absolute power desired by the Jews.

A fundamental aspect of Christianity is it's reliance on conscience rather than absolute law. No man is without sin and no man made law is perfect. Christianity and English Jurisprudence created the jury, the conscience of the court, the Holy Ghost in the Trinity. Christinity's fundamental doctrines protect us from tyranny. I explain the fundamentals here  "Why Are Christians Being Persecuted" from Kant's work on religion).

Dr John Coleman credits the great music critic, Theodore Adorno, with writing much of the music we know as coming from the Rolling Stones and Beatles in one of his books on the socialist conspiracy for world domination. Adorno has certainly been a leading figure in the cultural changes experienced over the past century.

The Eclipse Of Reason criticizes modern society along the lines of it's subjective ethic. It does not mention that it has been mostly Jew's that have lead us down this path to "freedom". Christianity takes the blame for everything that has gone wrong. The essay suggests that a return to Neo-Thomism is the most likely solution, perhaps in this statement they are pointing us toward Noahide laws. I do not know what Neo Thomism is and cannot find a useful definition or book anywhere. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments, it's been a "burning" question.

The essay, The Eclipse Of Reason, of about one hundred pages in length can be found on the web as a free PDF. Its sister document, the Dialectic Of Enlightenment is said by the Adorno/Horkheimer team to be the more academic version of the same statement. The Eclipse of Reason is by no means an easy read. Anyone that has doubts about a grand Jewish conspiracy should probably read the first ten or twenty pages of the Dialectic.

I enjoy cautiously reading Horkheimer & Adorno (they come as a pair, joined at the hip), the stuff is challenging and they do make some valid points. It becomes obvious that they view Kant as a serious threat to the credibility of their project. I'm a follower of Kant and when I read it's usually Kant so I picked up a copy of Adorno's Critique of Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason mostly to read some Critical Philosophy for myself.

Kant is largely unknown today or just remembered as part of the past, outshined by the likes of Berkeley, Hume, and Locke. In reality he is much greater than that, having redefined the problem of philosophy after reading his contemporaries, the most notable of which being Hume. Kant is likely one of the two most quoted philosophers in the history of the subject and is often quoted alongside Plato as being one of the most important thinkers to have ever lived. Schopenhauer is not the only one to have made this statement. Its been repeated often.

His views on space, time and human ontological and epistemological perception forms the basis for his hypothesis that the world cannot exist as we see it. The philosophical problem becomes one of perception.

Adorno's Critique of Kant is short, sharp and directly to the point in the first few pages but also fundamentally wrong. In these few pages of his Critique against Kant he makes a very naive statement that Einstein's relativity disproves the Kantian view on space and time, effectively discrediting the entire Kantian project on freedom itself. This particular criticism is often echoed in online discussions that I've participated in whenever the works of Kant comes up by both casual readers and academics.

Kant's views seem ridiculous to the first time reader and really only gradually begin to make sense on the second or third read. Kant himself even re-wrote it after some initial misunderstandings by his contemporaries. Many misunderstand him as a solipsist as I did on my first read. I can't really get into detail here without writing a hundred pages on the subject.

In the early part of the last century Bertrand Russell wrote some very interesting and short books on various subjects, one being a qualitative explanation on Einsteins relativity. At the end of the book he does a chapter on Kant's view of space and time to caution the reader against believing that the theory of relativity either discredits or credits the Kantian view (both arguments can be put forward with some ground) . This alone speaks to the importance of Kant. A reader of Russell's casual work was expected to be familiar with Kant's main body of work. He cautions the reader that these two views are quite unrelated, one being about perception and one being about reality. It is an obvious point to anyone that has studied Kant in detail, perhaps not so obvious for many who only give Kant a cursory look.

It seems to me that a scholar such as Adorno, who quotes Kant regularly in his works, would not only be aware of the fallacy involved in his basic critique of Kant but would also go to great effort to discredit him, given the goals of the Frankfurt School. The work of this great Christian scholar falling by the waste side in modern thought is no accident. It is a fundamental work on freedom itself, one that will be remembered long after his contemporaries have been forgotten. Its no surprise that those who wish to assault freedom would attempt to discredit Kant in a deep and fundamental way, one that often holds some water in the minds of both casual readers and academics.

Kant explains that his view is subjective, we may look at the world as materialistic in conception or as if there is more to the world than science and causality (cause and effect) itself. There is no penalty paid by science either way. There is no possible way of knowing. Many people do not like Kant, but this fundamental notion put forward by Adorno is incorrect and likely intentionally incorrect.

Two final notes:

(1) The Kantian ethic sits on a subjective basis in the sense that we can choose ethics and morals rather than pure materialism. If this choice is made then morals and ethics become logical and objective. They are are not subjective in themselves. This is a key point as Kantian subjectivity is often used to undermine absolutes in his works.

(2) I would like to caution anyone considering reading Kant's opus magnus in that his Logic notes by Wolfgang Schwarz and the recently published Routledge Guide by Sabastian Gardner are absolutely necessary prerequisites to reading Kant. Gardner's work makes reading Kant actually possible for a non academic such as myself. Garner has a YouTube talk on Kant.

He and other modern scholars do attempt to discredit him in subtle ways.

## Tuesday, October 11, 2016

### Does law come from authority or does authority come from law?

I've been studying the New World Order for many years. I do this by reading philosophy, watching YouTube videos about true history and reading essays on sites such as www.henrymakow.com.

I believe that there is a developing race war and that it is meant to distract us from the true nature of this conflict. In reality it is a religious war and this has been hidden behind the scenes of the media nonsense.

Jewish Hollywood  depicts Jewish criminals as Christians in movies such as Eastern Promises or Amistad or in TV shows such as the Supranos. This creates an underlying belief that Christianity somehow permits these ideas and organizations when in fact real history shows that criminal organizations on the scale of international slavery and organized crime are mainly Jewish organizations.

Jewish slave traders are not sinners under Jewish law. Women captured and forced into brothels in Israel are victimized under Jewish law. This practice continues today as Jews push for compensation to blacks for slavery from white Americans. (hypocrisy)

See David Duke - Anti-White Propaganda and the Slave Trade. (Anyone demonized in mainstream media and news is someone that deserves to be heard. Anyone incapable can be said to be immature, brainwashed, or both)

Hollywood, the news media, the government, the money system, and the educational system are controlled by a small and largely secretive and closed ethnocentric group. They behave the way any small ethnocentric group would reasonably behave to preserve its own culture and people. Its well worth noting that multiculturalism is a Jewish idea that does not include Jews (more hypocrisy).

Basic underlying ideas for a culture come from the philosophers, most of whom work in universities, which are in turn now teaching mainly Jewish philosophy, and are controlled by Jews. "Impossible equality and arrested development" - Winston Churchill.

Universities have nearly forgotten the great Christian thinkers such as Immanuel Kant or C.S. Lewis. Kant and Lewis are sources from which one can learn about Christianity in a greater depth than perhaps what one can learn from a church sermon or by reading the works by oneself, or by watching videos of sermons on the web, of which many are excellent.

The ideas of this essay, like my others, come in principle from the works of Kant. I am not a great thinker and do not expect to have original ideas. I fundamentally believe that most new ideas are intentionally bad ideas and are usually Jewish ideas in the Jewish universe in which we live.

Many people are unaware of the fact that laws in a country come from its adopted religion. Ideas that form law must have an immutable basis to prevent the law from being corrupted. Christian based societies have English Jurisprudence, itself based on Christianity. This guarantees that certain rights cannot be removed or trampled upon by any accuser of any accused. You would find many bibles in a Christian based court.Thou shalt not steal, etc are laws from which all man made laws are derived.

Judaism is statutory, a living law, and lives from new ideas such as an ever expanding set of acts and statutes we are to obey. It has no absolute truths other than Jewish Supremacy itself. Non Jews have no rights and Jewish males are incapable of sin under Jewish law. Christianity is built on a few universal core concepts that are outlined below. All men stand equal under the law in Christianity. Racism does not exist under Christian law.

In a religion that has no absolute truth other than the supremacy of its own followers, law comes from authority. If a religion is built on a few universal core concepts, authority operates under these concepts and authority comes from law.

Christians are being massacred all over the world, and have been over this past century. World war two was a Christian war. It was mostly Christians killing Christians. Only the banks and Israel can be truly said to have won the second world war. Ground zero for one of the bombs dropped on Japan was Japan's largest Christian church.

In the Bolshevik Revolution, up to sixty million Christians were killed, often by torture that lasted days, or even weeks. They were the victims of psychological experiments resulting in death.

The media war on Christianity, the founding principles of Western society, has turned most people into atheists. Atheists have no doctrine from to create law and must turn to Progressivism. Progressivism is an idea that the most intelligent of men should lead mankind. Its a stupid idea because they have the greatest capacity for evil, as explained in The Republic Of Plato. Progressivism is really a new Bolshevism.

Christianity is a doctrine that stands in direct opposition to a new world government. The Old Testament warns of it in the story of the Tower of Babylon. We live in a society that is building this tower and the tower is nearly complete. When complete, it will result in the complete subjugation of all of both Jews and non-Jews under different sets of laws.

There are three fundamental doctrines of Christianity that are in opposition to the New World Order which has lead to Christians being persecuted.

Jesus Christ said, in the New Testament, that his people perished from lack of knowledge. Modern churches are not teaching Christian doctrine, at least not the ones I have been in. Preachers on the internet and in YouTube videos are not teaching basic tenets of Christian doctrine. I learned them from Immanual Kant, mostly in his book, Religion Within The Boundaries Of Mere Reason. It is the only source I know of that one can learn Christian doctrine in a concise and logical form.

Many people forget that the Bible is a law book.

### 1. Eating From The Tree Of Knowledge

Knowledge refers to knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge of law. To eat from the tree of knowledge is to use the letter rather than the spirit of the law. Courts do this, jury's are supposed to be aware but courts are not required to educate jury’s and often instruct juries directly to judge from the letter rather than the spirit of the law. This is why the courts seem so corrupt.

### 2. Separation Of Powers

This is an idea that prevents conflicts of interest. The NT is a book of parables and it explains this as mixing water with wine. In this case mans laws and God's laws are mixed in lawful Holy matrimony. One of the disciples asks Christ about mixing water with wine at a wedding. The wine is the law of God, the water is the law of man. The law of man is necessary for commerce. Sometimes mixing these two is necessary such as in the case of marriage.

One cannot serve both God and Mammon, Mammon being the material world and man. In the case of holy matrimony this is necessary but does not create a conflict of interest.

In earlier times in Western societies, a young man, after graduating school, would have to decide as to whether to spend his life in the public or the private domain. The public domain offered rewards of spirit, doing the right thing. The private life, working in the private sector, offered material rewards. They were separate worlds and this system kept corruption at bay.

### 3. The Holy Trinity

This doctrine is hated more than any and is completely misunderstood leading to silly debates about one thing being three things at once. This is a classic straw-man attack. The father, the son and the holy ghost is simply this: The father is the law giver, God. The son is reason and forgiveness, the holy ghost is conscience.

It is manifested in Christian societies in courts as the prosecutor, defense attorney and jury. Noahide courts in the new world order will not permit defense attorneys or juries. The idea must be erased from the public mind.

Juries prevent the courts from eating from the tree of knowledge, sending an innocent man to jail on the letter of the law. Juries have jury nullification which permits them not only to consider guilt or innocence, but also if the law itself applies in the given trial. Both the law and the accused are on trial. Power is always being questioned and examined.

The three branches of government, legislative, judicial and executive also manifest the Trinity in structure as well as separation of powers in structure.

Ideas such as public-private partnerships undermine this structure. Legislation, particularly around vaccines, is bought and paid for. This is one example of mixing the public with private. Another one is war. Private corporations make enormous profit from war and therefor lobby for defense spending. Armies must be exercised.

### Conclusions

Christian doctrine represents the biggest threat to the Judaic New World Order tyrannical government.

These Christian doctrines prevent the formation and execution of a tyrannical government, the very thing that the New World Order requires. The New World Order is Jewish, this can be proven by the fact that Jews control the world of ideas as well as the material world. The idea would not be brought forward without Jewish permission. This small ethnocentric group controls reality because Christians have not been taught their doctrines.

The New World government will have two sets of laws, Talmudic Statutes for Jews and Noahide law for those who serve them. Both sets of laws are tyrannical in nature, the judges being trained in Israel by the Sanhedrin Priesthood. Both sets of laws will be administered by tyrants. Both Jews and non Jews will not have a defense against accusations. Double jeopardy will no longer hold and persecution will be at the sole discretion of centralized power, itself the very source of corruption. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As in the Bolshevik Revolution one can be taken to court over and over again under the same accusation until a conviction is obtained.

To imagine how people may be treated we can look at how Jews are treated now. They live in fear due to the false religion of holocaustianity.

Non Jews are being murdered wholesale such as in Palestine. If Jews get to the level of overtly rule rather than covert rule, we have every reason to believe that the world will look very much like Palestine does today.

"Even the best of the Goyim deserve to be killed"
- Babylonian Talmud.

Jews advocating the killing of all Palestinians

If we learn Christian doctrine, and demand it, we can stop the New World Order and return to sanity. Sanity occurs when fact and right rule over feelings and when people do not suffer from lack of knowledge.

Finally, to confirm what I have said in the above essay, I have this video of Jewish Intellectual Yossi Gurvitz revealing the grim truth behind the ancient Jewish strategy of playing nice and friendly as long as Jews are in a relatively weak position but of being totally without mercy “when Israel is mighty.”