As our stalwart reader and regular comment-leaver 'Behind Blue Eyes' stated in his comment to our last post re. "Obama the Zionist:"
"he makes Rahm Emanuel his first appointment as Chief of Staff. He is the son of a Jewish terrorist and some have said he is the head of MOSSAD in America."
Right: The Greater Israel as fought for by Emanuel's Irgun terrorist father. Why is it sons of - and current - Commies and Zionists are so acceptable? Is it because these cults of murder, repression and suffering are both Jewish?
We hate to say "we told you so" but... erm... we told you so!
Democrat or Republican, Labour or Tory, Left or Right.
Organised Judeo-Masonry has its stodgy little fingers in many pies. Democracy doesn't give us any freedom, because all the parties are bought and sold, the media is slanted, the money flows in pre-ordained ways, it's a closed shop my friends!
Anyone who tells you different is an idiot or an agent of those powers.
Talking of which... let's see if the Neo Con's Useful Idiots, the Israel-Firsters and the proponents of the "Islamofascist" power of nightmares theories pick up on this appointment and the fact that yet another American government is under the thumb of a tiny coterie of Judeo-Masons?
But let's look at America and Obama's "Change" promises.
Can we expect yet more war, more power to the state, more power to the banks, more pro-faggot and pro-abortion laws?
Quelle surprise!
Welcome to the New World Order.
Links:
Kikipedia on Rahm Emanuel
Son of a Terrorist
Thursday 6 November 2008
Rahm Emanuel (Hebrew: רם עמנואל): Obama's Mossad Man
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Watch out for an upsurge in Sayanim activity....
Especially id Obama starts off (like Dubya before him if you remember well!) by promising to withdraw from conflicts and be less interventionist.
many of us initially thought Dubya would be good, not only because he was Pro-Life, but because he was making isolationist noises.
Then the false flag op called "911" happened and we got needless Zionist wars, 1984 legislation like the Patriot Act [sic] and suchlike.
Will history repeat itself?
This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or compassionate one." * But Rahm also signifies the WOMB * or the bowels; * as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity with the Supreme, using the following words: "The great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place my foetus, and from it is the procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the various forms which are conceived in every natural womb." * How could such language ever have been applied to "The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being, before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord," * but from the connection between Rahm "the womb" and Rahm "the merciful one"? Here, then, we find that Brahm is just the same as "Er-Rahman," "The all-merciful one,"--a title applied by the Turks to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now, had once known that "the most holy, most high God," is also "The God of Mercy," in other words, that he is "a just God and a Saviour." * And proceeding on this interpretation of the name Brahm, we see how exactly their religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the account of the origin of all things, as given in Genesis. It is well known that the Brahmins, to exalt themselves as a priestly, half-divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for many ages taught that, while the other castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma--the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him--they alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the Vedas, speaking of Brahma, it is expressly stated that "ALL beings" "are created from his MOUTH." * In the passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt what was the real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty and exclusive pretensions of the Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the "Merciful * and Gracious One" (Exod. xxxiv. 6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who in the beginning "spake and it was done," "commanded and all things stood fast," who made all things by the "Word of His power." After what has now been said any one who consults the "Asiatic Researches," vol. vii. p. 293, may see that it is in a great measure from a wicked perversion of this Divine title of the One Living and True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men, that all those moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of India so offensive to the eye of purity. *
So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the Living God, severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it: "They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of the ONLY ONE, * eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together" (Isaiah lxvi. 17). In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. * In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye compare unto Him?"
The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * The Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria *
Site reference: http://reluctant-messenger.com/2-babylons06.htm
What the hell was 'anonamoys' waffling on about, switched off after the first few lines, a name is a name to be honest Brahm, Rahm, it's the same as someone who is called Rowan for example meaning this that and the other, but it's just a name, or to give it an 'ethnic' feel it's like a jigaboo naming it's offspring 'Bentley' or 'Mercedes' after a car, it doesn't mean the piccaninie is the holder of the realm of cars!!!
99% of conspiracy theories are put into the public domain by the conspirators themselves.
As for Protestants being pro-jew, read Martin Luther on the jew.
Martin Luther and his mates (who he hated more than Catholics) used the Jewish printing presses.
Because they were kicking the one established Church (Christ and St Peter an all that) and breaking from the anti-Semitic Catholic (Universal) Church they assumed the Jews would join them.
This looked like the case because the Jews helped them profligate their half-truths and lies in order to attack the Church of Christ (which did need reforming, as the Church did at the Council of Trent and during the Counter Reformation, but not tearing apart, destroying the sacraments, etc.)
However when the Jews failed to come true (hey what a suprise) Luther turned his ire on them in his book The Jews and Their Lies.
Luther hated Calvin and their followers loathed each other. This didn't mean they were forces ranged against Christendom and all its Traditions.
It was this reason, that they espoused revolutionary change, which made the precursors of the Freemasons, the Jacobins and the Soviets back them.
Again, it's through Protestantism that the out and out heresy of accepting Israel has come about. This is especially true in America (a WASP country) where they think the people who murdered the Son of God are still the "chosen people."
That is something even a nursery level Bible-reading class could see through.
Christ was rejected by the Jews, He set up his Church with St Peter as the first Pope, he rent the Jewish Temple's doodit in half (where the Jews offered sacrifices), and became himself the sacrificial lamb: and this sacrifice is the centre of the Mass for Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
Judaism is a dead religion built on post-Christ laws (aka The Talmud) in which they solidify their opposition to the Holy Trinity and become THE Anti-Christ force in the world.
It was those same people that backed Luther and Calvin, that organized the French and Russian Revolutions, that founded the Banks as we know them, that founded Hollywood, and it was their influence in Protestantism that has brainwashed people, brainwashed Christians, into accepting the anti-Christ state that is Zionist Israel.
So 'Luther and all his mates' used the jew printing-press, well yeah, if you know a bit about Caxton you will know that he was put in hock to the jew, who always manage to 'aquire' means of production - but not the labour! So yeah, probably everyone used 'jew printing presses' (except the clandestine miniscule groups!)
As for Protestants being pro-jew, there are many and varied Protestant variants so anyone can pick out any group to back up their argument.
You need to look a bit closer to home and ask why the Pap caved in to pressure from the jew and reconsider the timing of makin Pope Pius XI a Saint?
As for the banking question, yeah right, the Medici family were bang on?! Marvellous how usury is not usury with a little word-play.
Without the Protestant ethic of everyman being a priest and of everyone interpreting the Bible outside of "Papist" control and tradition, there could be no "Christian Zionism."
What the hell is 'Christian Zionism'??
I think you tie in American Evangelicalism with Protestantism.
I'm a non-conformist, and don't recognise the Pap as God's hand-picked representative on Earth.
And I am not getting into any sectarian arguments with any 'holier than thou' types. I'm a Protestant end of.
Christian Zionism is an oxymoronic term used by the Premillenial Duispensationalists in America, a Protestant grouping that spread its teaching that the jews were still God's "chosen people" into all corners of Christianity via insinuation, coercion and latterly (post-Holocaust) emotional blackmail.
It's what allowed the Neo Cons to take root in "conservative" American politics and why most US Christians even in the Bible Belt (where they are supposed to read their Bibles!) to support israel inspite of - rather than because of - the jews' rejection of Christ.
Right you are then.
Mount Zion is a very important part of Christianity. Why do we not call the 'zionists' Kabbalists, because that is what the Talmud calls them, zionism is a merely a term the khazar has given themselves for us to use to describe them!
The 'premillenial dispensationists' were a Protestant grouping, but not all Protestants are 'premillenial dispensationists' That's like saying that not all Muslims are bombers, but all the bombers are Muslim!!
Post a Comment