Zionism markets itself as Jewish ‘Nationalism’. This is a perversion for Zionism is a parasite that pollutes and destroys. At the most fundamental level Zionist ideology must be understood as a community operating within another community for the good of the ‘guest’ nation not the host nation. Zionism has infected Europe for over 2,000 years though during the last 60 years it has been draining host country’s National wealth and funneling it into Israel. Without continual ‘support’ from external Nations Israel would not survive.
It was during the 19th century that Karl Marx developed Zionism’s most dangerous tool of deception-Communism. With considerable contribution from Moses Hess known as the philosophical father of Zionism Marx produced material that worked on 2 levels. On the face of it Das Capital promises the ‘worker’ a utopian equality through Communism. However, on a deeper level what he is offering is reduction to the lowest common denominator because only then can a mass be the same. Of course this comes at a price since true ‘equality’ does not exist in nature. Thus it was necessary for Communism to formulate mechanisms to enforce ‘equality’. For the Nationalist modern ‘multicult’ policy alive in Europe should provide some insight into the inner workings.
Traditionally, or more correctly idealistically, a Nation is organically grown from the families and communities indigenous to a particular land. The Nation state would be produced from these indigenous peoples and work for them. In modern Europe, however, our indigenous Nations, be that Britain, Germany, France etc have been colonised by innumerate foreign peoples. Even though these people no longer live in their own lands they remain a part of their own nations. We see this particularly at election times when the same face parties try to attract block votes from Muslims, Somali, and African voters. It is clear that these ‘newcomers’ have a solid community identity. They know what their community requires and use the community’s weight to achieve it. In a new land this all comes at the expense of the host community. Here we have a perfect example of the divide and conquer strategy used by Zionism. This is on a grand scale but history shows that the Zionist concept has been in use for centuries.
“The [Jewish] diaspora is commonly accepted to have begun with the 6th century BC conquest of the ancient Kingdom of Judah, destruction of the First Temple (c. 586 BC), and expulsion of the population…” Wikipedia
So the Jews are and have been a scattered people for a long time! To remain an identifiable people would suggest that they have learned to survive among ‘other’ nations without fully adapting to host cultures. This would mean that the ideology developed would have to be one of stealth and cunning. If one was working against the host one would not want to be found out. It may also be necessary to be some what unassuming, blend in. It is only once the underdog has gained a position of power that they can begin to show their true colours.
Though the term Zionism was actually coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1890, it was Moses Hess who laid the foundation of what is considered as the philosophical base of Zionism with the book Rome and Jerusalem Published in 1862. However, it is clear that the parasitic communities have been by Zionist ideology for centuries prior to Birnbaum’s use of the term. In fact, while not wholly portrayed in the mainstream, it was William of Orange who gave Zionist Jews permission to set up their Bank of England. It was not until the late 1800’s that gentile’s become aware of Zionism. Perhaps now more confident of their power, this ideology is now less concerned of showing their true colours.
Stemming from Zionism Karl Marx, a student of Hess created Communism. His sole intention in producing this ideology was to dupe the masses. In essence Marx created the template for eternal upheaval. Again this can be seen in the original mass Jewish Bolshevik (Communist) revolution. The fundamental idea is to set each group against one another-the worker against employer, rich against poor, man against woman.
Following the initial success of the Bolshevik revolution the plan was to spread Marx’ Communism across Europe. The master plan was to dismantle and replace European culture with hollow, meaningless filth. Naturally the ideology behind this was Zionist as was the parasitic community that was to inherit power. However, Europe did not take to Communism as easily as Mother Russia so a different strategy had to be formed.
Generally speaking it was back to the academy. The Frankfurt School and its close associates the Fabian Socialists needed to redefine ‘Communism’ for a different audience. The politico-economic message of Marxism did not work in Europe so it was necessary to drive the divide and conquer method via European conduct. Thus Cultural Marxism was born and its allies political correctness and anti-Christianity. It is because of these dogmas that the divisive groups such as feminism and anti-Racism develop. The less cohesive White European society the more easily it is to corrupt and consequently control.
Follow us on twitter – http://twitter.com/TheAZL
The cross of St Patrick is the symbol meant to celebrate St Patrick’s Day, just as the Cross of St George is meant to celebrate St George’s Day. However, as we reached March mainland England was bombarded with Green, White and Orange of the tricolour.
No animosity at all is felt towards the Irish people. However, the tricolour is the flag of Eire the Republic of Ireland and St Patrick is the Patron saint of the whole of Ireland. Therefore, the tricolour is not meant to celebrate this patron’s day. One should see that this is a blatant political move in that in England St David was completely ignored on March 1st while tricoloured bunting was already on sale. Similar to the planned ‘Republican’ march through an English City there is a high level political agenda. Labour Marxists have united with their brother IRA and intend to split kin race and intensify sectarian violence.
Meanwhile, on St George’s Day, if the corporate Zionist remembers, the English are treated to a repeat of the George Gross plastered all over footballs. This is another political manoeuvre by Zionist media to belittle the English. In “Come on England” the Zionist is in fact implying that the only ‘heritage’ the English have is football. Ironically while White man did invent ‘the beautiful game’ he is now a spectator to the sport that is being populated by Africa’s excess.
When set against each other these displays of supposed ‘national’ celebration reveal the perfect opportunity for Zionism to play their divisive ‘games’. Elevating St Patrick over and above St George in the consumer market pushes it to the forefront of the mass mind. In this way the corporate Zionist is politicising St Patrick by using the tricolour and marginalising the English by ignoring St George or ‘relegating’ it to football. In reality while the tricolour is the flag of the Irish people or the Irish Republic, Zionism is trying to contaminate it with Marxist IRA connotations. Their intention in doing this is to stir up sectarian violence. Sectarianism is another means to distract the Gentile mass while Zionism makes a profit.
The crosses of the patron saints combine to form the Union Flag. Given the emblem of St Patrick is the heritage of the whole of Ireland, St Patrick’s Day is the perfect opportunity to call upon and celebrate the day in unity.
Follow us on twitter – http://twitter.com/TheAZL
The Khazar theory argues that Ashkenazi Jews are the descendants of the Khazars a multi-ethnic collection of peoples who allegedly ‘converted’ to Judaism in the 8th-9th century AD. It is then claimed that it was these ‘Jewish converts’ that migrated into what is now Russia, Eastern Europe and later Northern and Western Europe. It is critical to highlight however, that the primary exponents of this theory are Jewish from the earliest alleged reference to a connection between Khazars and Ashkenazic Jews to Benjamin Freedman in a speech given before an audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel, Washington, D.C and Jewish Communist Arthur Koestler in The Thirteenth Tribe first published in Britain in 1976.
Initially the Khazars were believed to be a semi-nomadic people of mostly Turkic decent dominating the Asian steppe and the North Caucasus between the 5th and 10th centuries. In the 7th century, they founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus called Khazaria. This occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The general theme of Koestler’s book is this trading empire that existed between the expanding power blocs of Christianity and Islam. He suggests that speculation exists about the origin of the word ‘Khazar’ and indicates that the Khazar was never ethnically homogenous but made up of tribes from various racial backgrounds, as steppe peoples traditionally absorbed those they conquered. Koestler also highlights modern ‘deviations’ for example the German Ketzer –heretic referring to the Jew thus inserting ‘reasonable’ doubt perhaps to add weight to his theory. Nevertheless, the term is most likely tied to the Turkic verb form meaning “wandering” and likely derived from the Turkic gaz-, meaning ‘to wander’ or ‘flee.’ Initially Tengri shamanists, between the 8th or 9th century under the instruction of the Khazarian King, Koestler asserts that the Khaganate adopted Judaism as the state religion. However, Koestler’s source for the ‘conversion’ are to be found in a work by the Hungarian Marxist historian, Dr Antal Bartha, supported by an article in the 1973 variant of Encyclopaedia Judaica and the curious choice of a comment from a Muslim envoy a staunch enemy of the Jew. Indeed a 2013 critique argued that “A careful examination of the sources shows that some of them are pseudepigraphic, and the rest are of questionable reliability.
The majority of the book is padded with an attempt at historical context but when the flimsiness of Koestler’s sources are revealed it is hard to judge fact from whimsical fantasy. In particular on matters of ethnicity it is clear that he desires to undermine European racial homogeneity thus providing the mixed race Jew with a greater status. Indeed in places Koestler’s writing seems to applaud the Khazars for their apparent ‘services’ to Europe remembering that his thesis makes them Jewish if only ‘converts’ and in keeping with Jewish chutzpah he cannot help infusing some self-congratulation. Nevertheless, producing a ‘pseudo-Jew’ does provide a suitable scapegoat onto which one can deflect ones crimes. In fact the so called ‘good Jew’ Benjamin Freedman laid the groundwork for this defence (33 mins) during his 1961 speech at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C. However, the concept falls apart when one considers the extraordinary amount of evidence proving that the Jew has been a problem throughout gentile specifically European history well before the so-called ‘Khazar conversion’.
The vulgar Talmud written in 70 AD is a testament to the contempt that the Jew holds for the gentile and in its own words “To communicate to a Goy anything about our religious relations would be equal to killing all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.” Libbre David 37 This only confirms that the despicable religion originates from a despicable tribe and that the Jew is not a product of converting to a loathsome religion. The Roman historian Tacitus reinforces this notion of the Jewish religion in his most famous work Histories written 109 AD –
“…Moses prescribed for them a novel religion quite different from those of the rest of mankind. Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral…The other practices of the Jews are sinister and revolting, and have entrenched themselves by their very wickedness. Wretches of the most abandoned kind who had no use for the religion of their fathers took to contributing dues and free-will offerings to swell the Jewish exchequer; and other reasons for their increasing wealth may be found in their stubborn loyalty and ready benevolence towards brother Jews. But the rest of the world they confront with the hatred reserved for enemies. They will not feed or intermarry with gentiles… They have introduced the practice of circumcision to show that they are different from others.” (Tacitus, Histories, 5.2–5).
Indeed it was not long before the wicked activities of the Jews roused Roman public opinion against them following the establishment of the very first Jewish community outside the Middle East in Rome in 139 BC. During sittings of the Roman senate the famous orator Cicero, among others, frequently spoke against the Jewish presence in Rome. Equally there is historical evidence relating to their negative impact on Romans during the first century AD. The world’s first anti-Jewish riots broke out in the city of Alexandria in 38 AD, and re-occurred in 66 AD, 115 AD, 118 AD, and 411 AD. In that year Cyril, the archbishop of Alexandria ordered the expulsion of all Jews from the city. The Roman Emperor Tiberius formally expelled Jews from Rome in 19 AD. They returned shortly after, only to be expelled again in 49 AD. In 116 AD, Emperor Trajan ordered that all Jews in Mesopotamia should be killed on the grounds that they were the cause of continual uprisings in that region. One of the most famous emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire, Justinian (527–565 AD), adopted a comprehensive anti-Jewish policy which barred Jews from the civil service, military posts, and any other positions of influence in his government. All of these events that pre-date the supposed ‘Khazar conversion’ serve to highlight the devastating impact the Jew had on Roman life and provide substantial proof that the Jew displayed identical behavioural patterns centuries prior to the alleged ‘conversion’. Patently the Khazar theory has been produced to suggest an “Ashkenazi” problem rather than a “Jewish problem” yet it was the Middle Eastern Mizrahi bloodline that interfered with Roman life 900 years prior to the Khazars and the Sephardi are currently notoriously anti-Gentile easily proving that all Jews have been and remain a problem throughout history.
Logic would also dictate that if a massive conversion of substantially different racial stock took place after the 7th century the racial make-up of Jews in that area would alter dramatically compared to that of their Sephardi and Mizrahi (Middle Eastern) brethren. However, to date twelve DNA studies prove otherwise. Beginning in 1999 the studies all reached very similar conclusions that Jewish community’s whether Ashkenazi, Sephardi, or Mizrahi formed a clearly distinct cluster sharing a common lineage consistent with origins in the region of the Middle East. While the most recent involving Harry Ostrer, a professor of Pathology and Genetics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University and the Jewish HapMap Project are a double edged sword in that they tend to compound the notion that the Jew is a race alone and not a tribal facet of a larger Semitic race that has long existed and continues to live in the Middle East. Nevertheless, there is conclusive DNA evidence against the reality of the so called ‘Khazar theory’ thus substantiating the notion that it is a mechanism to distract from the “Jewish problem”. Indeed by associating Zionism with only the Ashkenazi strain the Jew attempts to disassociate from his crimes against Europe and the globe.
So it remains only to explain why so called reasoned Nationalists would entertain this obviously weak hypothesis meant to distract. What is transparent from the substantial evidence presented is that those claiming that only the ‘Khazar/Ashkenazi’ pose a problem are verifiably wrong. The concept of only “some Jews” or “false Jews” has been addressed and exposed as black propaganda. Consequently those pushing the Khazar theory are shills participating in a Jewish construct designed to distract from the Jew regardless of what historical documentation records.
Follow us on twitter – http://twitter.com/TheAZL
Zionism has complicated the matter of purchasing a simple 1st class stamp. This means by which to facilitate the passage of ones mail through the British postal system should by rights picture the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The postal organization of Great Britain is after all called ‘Royal Mail’. However, rather than proudly displaying a symbol of the British Crown that could easily represent reinvestment into the British economy the co-opted ‘post office’ is advertising Zionist profit making.
Not buying into ‘conspiracy’ theories it is clear that London 2012 is nothing more than a huge money spinning exercise that benefits none but the greedy Zionist few. The re-jigged so called ‘Olympic’ signage so well sponsored that it haunts the land, and now in bold gaudy orange on white one has no choice but to advertise if one posts a letter. The original spirit or meaning of the Greek Olympic Games was a celebration of the physical ability, beauty and achievement of the body. The London 2012 ‘Olympics’ has become a vehicle for Zionist propaganda not least its bizarre ‘climate change’ garbage that has BP promoting ‘offsetting’ the carbon foot print.
Naturally the responds that Britain and Europe would be a desert without a significant amount of carbon dioxide-trees breath it, in fact the human being is a carbon based life form. Never-the-less the common sense approach does not make the Zionist a profit.
Follow us on twitter – http://twitter.com/TheAZL
Originally, Jewish scholarship was oral. Rabbis expounded and debated the law and discussed the Tenakh (Hebrew Bible) without written works. This situation changed drastically, however, mainly as the result of the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth in year 70. A.D. It seemed that the rabbis were to lose control over Jewish action so at this point it became necessary to commit the oral traditions to paper. Two bodies of analysis developed, one in Palestine and the other in Babylonia leading to two works of Talmud. The older compilation called the Jerusalem Talmud or the Talmud Yerushalmi has far less influence than that of the Babylonian Talmud. This is because the influence of the Jewish community in Israel steadily declined in contrast with the Babylonian community. Quite a ‘poetic’ happenstance given that the ‘wandering’ community would take “out of Zion…the Law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”. From the time it was completed the Talmud has been integral to Jewish scholarship. It forms the moral and social grounding for the entire Jewish community worldwide. For Jews the teachings of the Talmud supersede the teachings held in the Torah/Tenakh. It is the Talmud, and not the Tenakh (Hebrew Bible) that Orthodox (mainstream) men study at Yeshivot (Jewish colleges) to become rabbis. However, since its inception it has also been a source of contention between Jews and the non-Jewish Nations in which they lived.
In 1264 Pablo Christiani denounced the Talmud, which resulted in a papal bull against it and in the first censorship. This was undertaken at Barcelona by a commission of Dominicans, who ordered the cancellation of passages reprehensible from a Christian perspective. At the disputation of Tortosa in 1413, Geronimo de Santa Fé brought forward a number of accusations, including the assertion that the condemnations of pagans and apostates found in the Talmud referred in reality to Christians. Pope Martin V, who had convened this disputation, issued a bull two years later forbidding Jews to read the Talmud, and ordering the destruction of all copies of it. On September 9 1553 copies of the Talmud confiscated in compliance with a decree of the Inquisition were burned at Rome. Censorship of the Talmud was introduced by a papal bull issued in 1554 and in 1565 Pope Pius IV commanded that the Talmud be deprived of its very name. Pope Gregory XIII (1575-85) again denounced the Talmud and in 1593 Clement VIII renewed the old interdiction against reading or owning it. The last denouncement of the Talmud took place in Poland in 1757, when Bishop Dembowski, at the instigation of the Frankists, convened a public disputation at Kamenets-Podolsk. The Bishop a wanted all copies of the Talmud found in his bishopric confiscated and burned by the hangman. http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Considering that one is ‘meant’ to believe that the Talmud is a holy book of a religious community the above would seem a bit harsh. Yet take the time to ask WHY this piece of work was so loathed and the answer is most enlightening. A fundamental issue to tackle is the notion of the Jewish Community as a purely religious community. They are not. They are a racial group masquerading as nothing more than a religious group. To that end this community views themselves very differently from those outside their community and it shows in their writings. For example Gentile means Non Jew, but the Yiddish term Goy referring to Gentiles actually means cattle. One must also be aware that the Yiddish term for a non-Jewish female, Shiksa, actually means hoar. Even Wikipedia had this to say-
“The word shiksa is etymologically partly derived from the Hebrew term שקץ, sheketz, which means “abomination”, “impure,” or “object of loathing”, depending on the translator. Several dictionaries define “shiksa” as a disparaging and offensive term applied to a non-Jewish girl or woman. In Polish “siksa” (pronounced “s’eeksa”) is a popular pejorative word for an immature young girl or teenage girl (or, in its masculine form, “sikus”, boy), as it is a conflation between the Yiddish term and usage of the Polish verb “sikać” (“to piss”, “to urinate”). It means “pisspants” and is roughly equivalent to the English terms “snot-nosed brat”, “little squirt”…”
Naturally this contempt for the Gentile is rife throughout the Talmud.
Jehovah created the Gentile in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The Gentile is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. Midrash Talpioth p. 225-L
The Gentiles are not human they are beasts Baba Mazia 114b
All children of Goyim are animals Yebamoth 98a
Sexual intercourse between the Goyim is like intercourse between animals Sanhedrin 74b
A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat. Hadarine, 20, B, Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat
A Jew may violate but not marry a non Jewish girl Gad Shas 2:2
If you eat with a Goy it is the same as eating with a dog
Tospoth, Jebamoth 84b
A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine that a Gentile has touched because the touch has made the wine unclean.
Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah 122
If a Jew finds an object lost by a Goy it does not have to be returned. Baba Mazia 24a
What a Jew steals from a Goy he may keep Sanhedrin 57a
If a Jew kills a Goy there will be no death penalty Sanhedrin 57a
If a Goy hits a Jew he must be killed Sanhedrin 58b
Do not save the Goyim in danger of death. Show no mercy to the Goyim Hikkoth AkumX 1
Even the best of the Goyim should all be killed Soferim 15
A ‘prayer’ or ‘benediction’ to be said by a Jewish man every day: thank God for not making me a Gentile a woman or a slave.
Hikkoth Akum X1
A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them Szaaloth-Utszabot, The book of Jore Dia 17
To communicate to a Goy anything about our religious relations would be equal to killing all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly. Libbre David 37
In conclusion, as a general echo of the above passage, the Christian gentile of the past has in reality been rather mild in choosing to destroy the book or just expel the keepers. Clearly if the gentile had the mentality of the Zionist writers’ streets would run with Jewish blood.
Follow us on twitter – http://twitter.com/TheAZL