Category Archives: General info/relevant topics

The Holocaust And The Liars at John 8:44

John 8:44

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

From just a cursory glance at John 8:44 it is obvious what racial group is being referred to – I.e. The Canaanite/Edomite Jews. They are indeed the great “father of lies” who “speaks from his own nature”, and only they could possibly invent a hoax as big as the Holocaust!

– White Racial I.D. Admin

The Enemy of My Enemy is Not My Friend

This is a great first law on the constitution for any new nation.

This is a great first law on the constitution for any new nation.

There exists within secular White Nationalist circles this lingering idea that if a group doesn’t like the Jews, then they are our friends. Whilst hypothetically, if the interests of our race and the other race in question were complete separation and opposition to the Jewish problem, then we’d have mutually agreeable aims that we could work towards. Fact is though, the best that we can ever hope for among non-whites is a general hatred of Jewry which usually comes as a result of the Jewish wars in the middle-east, and rightfully so. What will never (or very rarely) happen is non-whites opposing Jewry and wanting separation from their White host nations. This is obviously because they are the prime beneficiaries of the Jewish communist systems running the west nowadays. This scenario will never change with non-white racial groups, and as a consequence it is a waste of time to ever think we will be able to work with them in any serious way against Jewry. Hell, we can’t even work with the vast majority of our own race, let alone others!

This brings us to the topic of how Islam works with Jewry:

No Islam either.

No Islam either.

The most common ‘enemy of our enemy’ you’ll hear about is the Muslims or sometimes ‘the Arabs.’ We all know there are loads of Muslims who aren’t Arabs, but these terms are used almost interchangeably, so whatever – I’ll just refer to them as Arabs, meaning the Muslims of Arab racial mixture.

The ultimate reason why we will never be able to work with the Arab/Muslim world is because they descend from the Seed of the Serpent, which is exactly the same seed Jewry comes from.

The Serpent and arrow forming a dollar sign - rather appropriate

The Serpent and arrow forming a dollar sign – how appropriate!

The Jews and Arabs share a lot of the same DNA, and when you understand Scripture you realize it shows how the Seed of the Serpent will always be the eternal enemy of the White Adamic Man (see Genesis 3:15). Since both Jews and Arabs share the Serpent lineage, the only logical way to view Judaism and Islam is as a dual pronged attack against Christendom.

Is this not exactly what we see happening in reality?

Everywhere on earth the White Adamic Race (Christendom) is under attack. The more cunning and rat-like Jews have interbred their kind with predominately European Adamic people. As a result they have created a far ‘better disguised Satanic stock’ than the Arab Muslims, who’ve bred a lot more with darker negroid Northern African stock. The Arabs therefore are the Jews underlings, being of lower intellect and far lesser ability when it comes to organisation and ‘cunning.’ This is why the Jews are leading the attack against Christendom and allowing their Satanic brethren, the Arab Muslims, to do what they naturally do. When bad stuff happens like rape and small scale ‘terrorist acts’, (as it always does when Muslims are about the place) the Jew plays us off against them and hides in the shadows, usually complaining about how Jews are always victims of everything (read Holocaust).

In the more sophisticated examples of ‘TV-style Terrorism’, it is usually the Jews through Mossad and the relevant western intelligence agency carrying out the attack or pulling off the hoax, then blaming the Muslims. Either way, it seems to have the same net effect of Muslims getting the blame, guilty or not, while we’re not allowed to point the finger at Muslims as a group anymore, just the ‘extremists’, whatever that means. It’s the opposite scenario to 9-11 where we were 100% positively encouraged to blame Muslims, as a group, for something the Jews did.

Anyhow, add to this exciting mix of Jewish/Muslim terrorism, a flood of Asians, Blacks, and other assorted non-whites to destroy Christendom and we wind up exactly where we are today – seeing Revelation 17:15 playing out courtesy of:

6 points, 6 lines, 6 triangles = 666

6 points, 6 lines, 6 triangles = 666

In conclusion, the idea that ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ has to go, because put simply, the Jews and the Arabs/Muslims hate us. The Anti-Islam political parties in Europe are useless because they love the Jews, and the secular White Nationalist idea of ‘getting in’ with the Muslims because they hate the Jews, is just as useless. They are both our eternal enemies and always will be. Just because Jews and Arabs hate each other doesn’t make it a good idea to side with either!

– White Racial I.D. Admin

Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945

Click image to visit

Click image to visit

By William Luther Pierce

A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in Germany was round up all the guns.”

One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can. Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him. If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.

This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.

Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group such as the JPFO to mount a damage-control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.

Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government, which had contained a number of Jews.

It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the “Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:

  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and have shields or bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government stamped down hard on Communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright, law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with mutual trust and respect.
  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.
  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier by his predecessors, substantially ameliorating it in the process (for example, long guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped). Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms; no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were relaxed or eliminated.
  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found in possession of even a single cartridge.
  • Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate. The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.

It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint, have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of darkness, terror and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy, and spiritual and material renewal.

Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early 1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to expose the widespread Communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S. institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of the Communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch hunt.” Of course, it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least. History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews — always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.

[To understand the significance of the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National Socialist government, a little background information first may help the reader.]

After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other subversive activity, much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated, and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for Germany’s distress.

The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic, and there was much public unrest. The Communists had made major inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.

Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the Communists in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save Germany from a Communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The Communists, with aid from the Soviet Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable, as the government lost popular support.

The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews and Catholic Centrists).

Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government, and the Communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.

Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens, rather than manufacturers or dealers, follow:

  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit(Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue. Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein). A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular, a permit may not be issued to:
    1. persons under the age of 18 years;
    2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
    3. Gypsies or vagabonds;
    4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole] or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;
    5. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
    6. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since the term of imprisonment.
  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
    1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
    2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
    3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers, importers and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military and other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark); to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.

The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law: they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.

The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the latter were inhumane.

The German firearms laws were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt. The most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private citizens — is Part IV of the Law. Two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein),required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.

When you [consider the National Socialist law and that which preceded it], you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today. Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of self-defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest.

And you will understand that it was not until 1945, when the Communist and democratic victors of the Second World War had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.


Original Article

On “Being Stuck in the Past”

Eli Stenson
Daily Stormer
December 24, 2014

I was stuck in the past once. But I wasn’t required to have gay sex to get back to the future.

I was stuck in the past once. But I wasn’t required to have gay sex to get back to the future.

Our opponents often insist that we are “stuck in the past,” i.e., our opinions regarding race, culture, and government are “outdated” and “have no place in modern society.”

Such sentiments were expressed in a recent article written by Al Jazeera America’s Massoud Hayoun titled “Gay marriage makes big gains but attitudes are stuck in the 1960s.”

To briefly sum up the article, Hayoun argues that although homosexuals possess marriage rights in 35 states and Washington D.C. and no longer “live in the shadows,” the private attitudes of Americans have not changed as much as legal protections for homosexuals have.

Hayoun believes this is a problem.

Homosexual marriage is one of the most popular social issues of today. Everyone seems to have an opinion on it. Since leftists tend to think that history is a linear progression from racial, cultural, and religious intolerance toward complete tolerance, they therefore think that right-wing opinions are roadblocks to their terminus ad quem and that a societal return to traditional values would constitute backward steps for mankind.

These beliefs suffer from a logical fallacy: If idea X is more recent than idea Y, thenidea X is better than idea Y.

And this logical fallacy ties in with the false notion that Truth is relative, that different generations have their own correct conception of what Truth is.

We know, in contrast, that Truth is eternal and unchanging because it is rooted in Natural/Divine Law, which is also eternal and unchanging. To apply this to the example of homosexual marriage, Natural/Divine Law states that homosexuality is an immoral, unnatural lifestyle; thus, permitting homosexual marriage in a legal sense is tolerating a lifestyle in opposition to Natural/Divine Law, i.e., Truth.

In other words, opposition to homosexual marriage is correct not because it is per se an “older” idea, but rather because it is grounded in Truth. Certain ideas will always be correct regardless of era.

This may also be applied to other realities of the world, such as race. Natural/Divine Law states that the races of mankind are fundamentally different and that it is best for each to live amongst their kind and pursue their own destiny free from outside influence. No matter how many European countries may become majority non-White, Truth is Truth, and fighting for it will always be a moral cause.

So the next time someone has the audacity to tell you, the reader, that you’re “stuck in the past,” remind them that Truth does not change over time. It is everlasting, unalterable, and just.

Original Article

Biblical Food Laws


There are so many diseases afflicting God’s people today that it seems imperative to remind everyone of God’s Divine Food Laws listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. God loves His children and wants them to be healthy, which is why He gave us these dietary laws in the first place. The Jewish people outwardly keep the food laws, even though God through Moses did not give these laws to them. The Christian Israelites eat all manner of unclean foods (bacon, ham, pork chops, shrimp, clams, shellfish, oysters, rabbit, squirrel, catfish) since they have been taught that the food laws have been somehow abolished by the crucifixion of Jesus, even though their ancestors were the only people ever given instructions by God as to what foods to eat and not eat.

The most familiar Biblical health laws define clean and unclean meats (creatures that are acceptable to eat and those that are not) yet most people (even theologians!) have little or no understanding of the medically sound reasons behind these instructions! The scientific wisdom behind the Biblical dietary laws is seldom taught today; instead, these laws are commonly viewed as Old Testament regulations that are no longer applicable. However these lists of clean and unclean creatures have a significance often ignored. Far from being based on fad or fancy, these lists emphasize a fact not discovered until late in the last century – that animals carry diseases dangerous to man. In fact, the same animals labeled unclean in Scripture still carry parasitic diseases that are still dangerous to man today!

“Clean” land animals are ruminants – grazing animals such as cattle, sheep, deer and elk – whose digestive tracts are designed to turn grass that man cannot digest into meat that we can digest. Most unclean animals are carnivores or scavengers that can transmit dangerous diseases to man. Pigs eat roots and grains, rather than grass, and thus are ecological competitors to man. Clean fish have fins and scales. Unclean aquatic organisms like clams and oysters are filter feeders that purify water, and that concentrate poisonous chemicals and pathologic bacteria and viruses in their tissues. Eating an oyster is like eating your vacuum cleaner bag, yet modern connoisseurs do not like to think about this! Crabs and lobsters are scavengers that eat dead things on the bottom of bodies of water. Most unclean birds are carnivores or scavengers. God in His wisdom inspired laws that protect us from contracting dangerous diseases, but also protect “nature’s clean up crew” by making them “off limits” as food for us. These biological principles still operate today.

Pigs are gluttonous, never knowing when to stop eating. Their stomach acids become diluted because of the volume of food, allowing all kinds vermin to pass through this protective barrier. Parasites, bacteria, viruses and toxins can pass into the pig’s flesh because of overeating. These toxins and infectious agents can be passed on to man when we eat pig. In the United States, three of the six most common food-borne parasitic diseases of people are associated with pork consumption. These include toxoplasmosis, taeniasisor cysticercosis (caused by the pork tapeworm) and trichinellosis. It has long been recognized that the meat of shellfish; shrimp, crabs, lobsters, etc. is especially dangerous. Many illnesses, including instant paralysis, devastate some people every day as a result of eating shellfish.

However, the laws of clean and unclean meats are not the only Biblical instructions that concern diet. In Leviticus 3:17, we read, “It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations, throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.” One of the most significant discoveries in the last century was that high fat diets are linked to increased levels of heart disease, stroke, cancer of the colon and breast and a host of other pathologies – including obesity – that bring additional complications. Our challenge is to learn to recognize major sources of fat in our diet (visible fats on meat, fatty cuts of meat, fast food, frozen meals, etc.), and reduce our intake of fats that are high in calories. It has also become painfully obvious in recent decades that contaminated blood and blood products can transmit AIDS and hepatitis. The simple principle of avoiding fat and blood is a powerful principle of prevention (if it is followed) because it still works today!

Can we eat the liver and kidneys of clean animals? Before we move ahead with the issue, let us first understand that this is not a Salvation issue. The food laws are there for our health, not for us to divide and attack each other over. We believe that it is Biblically wrong and unhealthy for us to eat the caul of the liver and kidneys of animals. Remember, according to these verses in Leviticus 1-9, the fat, the caul that is above the liver, and kidneys were to be burned. Are we to assume that the priests burnt the fat, the caul of the liver, and kidneys and then ate them? This simply does not add up, especially when the Bible clearly forbids man to eat “the fat” except when the fat is mingled with the flesh or muscle. All meat has some fat in it, including the choicest of steaks. The priest was to detach all the separable portions of the fat such as the flare, and that in which the intestines, kidney, and liver are embedded. These portions were then burnt with the daily offering. The fat was chiefly found in a detached state, sometimes referred to as the omentum, or caul.

Biblical principles also cover the use of plant foods – carbohydrates. Ezekiel was instructed to make a nutritious bread from “wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt” (Ezekiel 4:9). This was a multigrain bread containing complex carbohydrates for energy, different kinds of fibre and multiple amino acids for proteins and bodybuilding. It was not a highly refined product like today’s common breads that have most of their nutrients removed, then are misleadingly called “enriched” when a few nutrients are added back.

The Bible advises us to use sweets like honey or other simple sugars sparingly (Proverbs 25:16; 27). We are warned against overeating – gluttony (Proverbs 28:7). Modern books on health give the same advice! The Biblical dietary guidelines are not old-fashioned, burdensome regulations – they are divinely inspired guidelines that have taken mankind’s science thousands of years to understand.

God repeatedly promised His people that if they would hearken unto His voice, and “do that which is right in His sight, and will give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes” that He would not put any of these diseases that He had put upon the Egyptians (Exodus 15:26); “And the LORD will take away from thee ALL SICKNESS, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee, but will lay them upon all those who hate thee” (Deuteronomy 7:15).

Read More

Sydney Hostage Crisis Over, Three Dead Including Gunman

This is what happened (or so we’re told):

Video found here.

From Sky News:

One of the two innocents (both White) killed in Monday’s siege in Sydney’s CBD has been identified as 38-year-old mother of three and barrister Katrina Dawson.

The second victim has been identified as the 34-year-old manager of the Lindt cafe Tori Johnson.

Hostage taker Man Haron Moris (non-white Muslim) was also pronounced dead after heavily armed police stormed the building in a hail of gunfire.

Four others were injured after a 16-hour siege in Sydney’s CBD, a police officer.

Two women have been taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries, while a male police officer suffered a non-life threatening wound to his face from gunshot pellets has been released from hospital.

Another woman has been taken to hospital with a gunshot wound to her shoulder.

The crisis, which began about 10am (AEDT) on Monday at the popular Lindt cafe in Martin Place, escalated dramatically about 2am on Tuesday when shots were fired and police stormed the premises.

‘Unbelievably overnight we have lost some of our own in an attack we would never thought we would see here in our city,’ Premier Mike Baird said at a press conference before 6am.

‘I come before you with the heaviest of hearts.’

Mr Baird said the government’s thoughts and prayers were with the innocent victims of an ‘horrendous vicious attack.’

‘I want to say to their family and friends that everyone in NSW stands beside you,’ he said.

‘My thoughts also remain with those hostages who have been freed.

‘They will be provided every support they need in coming days and weeks and months.’

Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione said officers had so far accounted for 17 hostages.

Read More

OK. So apparently a Muslim nutter has taken a few hostages at gunpoint, killed 2 of them and injured a few others.

How would you expect the general public to react to such a thing? An outpouring of sympathy with the Muslim community? Well, that’s exactly what seems to be happening. Click this to see: “#illridewithyou”.

It’s unbelievable how successful the Jews have been inviting all our non-white historical enemies into our White homelands. What’s even more unbelievable is that when these non-white savages become violent and kill some of our own, the Jewish media is able to make us feel sorry for the perpetrator’s community as a whole. We feel sorry for Muslims when they kill some of us? This is clearly an insane situation made possible by the altruistic and uniquely White characteristic of being able to view all “humans” as individuals (when trained to by Jewish media), whilst in reality every non-white ethnic/racial group acts as a group.

A simple test to do in this situation is to switch the races around (I know that “Muslim” is not a race, more a mish-mash of non-white racial groups from all over the place masquerading under the banner of a farcical “religion” known as Islam, but you should still get the point):

Imagine if a White person took a whole bunch of Muslims hostage, killed a couple of them and injured a few others? Can you picture the Muslim community offering the White community an outpouring of sympathy and a “hashtag” Twitter campaign titled #westillloveyouwhitey? Hell no! They would be up in arms beyond all belief and the Jewish media would be supporting them 100%, just like how they were 100% behind the Black community with the Michael “Cigar-Thief” Brown shooting, even though they shouldn’t have been. He was a thug and deserved what he got. On the other hand, these 2 White victims of the mad Muslim were actually innocent victims, but is the White community up in arms like they should be? Hell no! That’d be racist or bigoted or some other “ist” or “ism”.

Anyway, this siege case does sum up how pathetic the White race has become in this day and age. Can we not even see the most blatant Jewish media double-standards for what they are? Obviously not, for the most part.

We must awaken or we are history. Choose.

– White Racial I.D. is Truth

A Short History of Usury in Europe

By Sven Longshanks


Gradually over the years usury has been redefined from being an amount asked for on top of the principle amount of a loan, to just being ‘excessive interest’. This has been a slow process, happening over the last 500 years, but before that, usury had its original and true meaning which is asking for anything over and above the principal amount loaned.

It was seen as unjust earnings and four times worse than theft in legal terms. Although it is usually applied today only to money, which is not a thing in itself but a measure of value, back then it did not just apply to the loaning of money, but to the loaning of anything. You would not loan a coat to somebody and expect a pair of trousers with it to come back and the same common sense applied to the loaning of money.

The church saw it as a mortal sin and prosecuted it as such for 1500 years, with usurers being refused absolution, their will and testimony being nullified and their descendants deprived of all inheritance, usurers would have no Christian burial and all their possessions would be seized and distributed among the poor.

It was seen as being against the divine law, natural law and mans law, as it was gaining an increase through unnatural means and cheating man of the time that God had given him, by using it up in paying for something which did not exist and was not a part of the loan.

The prohibition on usury led to the concept of a ‘just price’ and a living wage, which was enough for a man to support a wife and four children. It was the intrinsic value of the work or product to the community that mattered, not making a profit on it for the individual. Supply and demand were no reason to raise prices, to charge more than the correct price was a sin and competition or monopolies were unheard of.

People did trade at a profit, but they did not trade for profit. The object of working was to help your community, not yourself and the living wage was adequate, but not luxurious. Without the community the individual would have nothing, so to seek to make a profit from that community for doing nothing other than your duty to it, was quite rightly seen as wrong. The rich were looked upon with suspicion and pity and they were required by their own faith to give to the poor, or to loan to them expecting nothing back on top.

The mediaeval guilds determined what the just price and the living wage were. In the middle ages, 14 weeks of the year were all that a labourer needed to work for in order to provide for his  entire family. In their spare time, the people would help build the cathedrals and churches throughout Europe which were all built voluntarily with no debt or mortgage involved. This also became a good way to learn new skills.

A usurer did nothing to help his community, he forsook husbandry or merchandise and instead was a parasite, worse than a thief, since thieves only stole from the rich and out of necessity. The usurer wished for others to lack so that he might profit. Even the word ‘profit’ has had its meaning changed from that of ‘to advance, or to progress’ to ‘a pecuniary gain resulting from employment of capital in a transaction’ thanks to usury.


Death comes for the usurer

The Jews and Usury

It was practically unheard of in Europe until the Jews entered and a large part of the reason for this was the church teaching on it. The Bible sees usury as a weapon of war and the Israelites were banned from lending anything out at usury to one another, they were only to use it against their enemies the Canaanites, who were already employing it among themselves. Alfred the Great included the laws and punishments for usury when he collected the ancient laws of Britain together into one place and these differed from the Roman laws, which allowed the charging of interest but only to a certain extent.

It was by following the Roman laws as opposed to the Biblical laws that the Popes would gradually relax the Catholic church teaching on usury later on, which was then imitated by the Protestants. If there had not been two laws in operation, one for the Jews and one for the Christians, this situation where the church chose to ignore Biblical teaching on the subject would not have been able to arise. The Jews were first brought into Britain by William Norman in 1066 to act as tax collectors for him. When they arrived they also began loaning out money and because they were not Christian, they were able to argue that they should not have to follow Christian laws. Any decent king who cared for his subjects would not allow anyone into their country that did not have to follow the same laws as everyone else and the good kings of Britain up until this time had refused to allow any Jews in.

As well as lending money out they also started clipping the coins, melting the slivers down and then smuggling them into Europe. This was the origins of the spy network that the Rothschilds would later make use of to gain inside information on the battle of Waterloo, eventually transferring secrets from the royal courts instead of the wealth of one country into another. Along with depriving the nation of its gold and bleeding the peasants dry through usury, the Jews also started abducting children and torturing them to death. This last outrage was the final straw and Edward I expelled them from the country in 1290.

It is a great shame that the popes and Kings of Italy did not immediately do the same, but instead they tolerated the Jews and allowed them to set their money lending operations up, where they soon started fleecing the poor again and ingratiating themselves with the aristocracy. It was the result of the Jews making the poor even poorer that became the excuse for the Catholic church to start up their own version of a bank.


The Monte de Pieta ‘charity’ bank

The gradual rise of the usurious bank

The ‘Monte de Pieta’ was supposed to be a charity bank and the first one was set up in Florence around 1350. Its brief was to provide loans to the poor to prevent them from being preyed upon by the Jewish money lenders, but they themselves started stealing people’s time, by claiming that charges for administration needed to be made. However in Britain a real one was set up by Bishop Michael Nothburg, with a deposit of 1,000 silver marks that were lent in exchange for pawned objects, no charges for admin were made at this genuine charity bank as it was run by people who gave of their time for free to help the poor, rather than to make a profit.

Gradually the Monte de Pieta grew, until it was funding the state of Florence and charging the people the equivalent of taxes to pay for it. It offered an interest rate for deposits as well as collecting interest on the loans. Eventually 86% of the debts were owed to the richest 10% of the province, who also happened to be the ones setting the interest rates.

In 1382 a usurer’s legal indulgence was proclaimed, absolving them from civil and criminal prosecution and the ‘just price’ started to be challenged by the lawyers, who wanted the right for every man to make the best bargain he could for himself. Prior to this, even charging more for goods on credit had been seen as theft. As the renaissance dawned, the Italians started looking to Roman law for ways to justify their sinful banks, rather than looking at Biblical and Christian precedents. Emperor Justinian had set a standard that the popes were to end up following, condemning usury on the one hand, while setting acceptable rates for it with the other. The Italian lawyers claimed that laws must change to keep pace with the time, that usury was a worldly necessity and that the ban on it was a ‘product of irrational superstition’. They started undermining the guilds that had previously set the ‘just price’ and revived the Roman laws that legalised usury and permitted speculation in prices.

Eventually in 1515, Pope Leo X declared the charity banks to be ‘meritorious’ and that anyone who disagreed was a heretic. This was an unprecedented overthrow of Christian social justice and enabled the Jewish money lenders to team up with the Gentile ones, under the cover of ‘protecting the poor from usurers’. It caused a complete reversal from the original meaning of commerce, which had formally been a way of interacting with and giving back to the community, and now became a way of taking from the community with individual material gain its primary motive. The economy had changed from being one of ‘mutual protection, to being one of unilateral capitalist exploitation.’

In England Henry VIII changed the law to follow the example of the Pope in 1538 but Edward VI banned it again in 1545 calling it ‘unnatural and equivalent to man-slaughter or homicide, entirely wrong in itself and damnable.’

Unfortunately King Edward’s usury ban only lasted until 1571, where it was repealed by Elizabeth I’s parliament. All mention of God and his law against usury disappeared and instead ‘acceptable’ rates of usury were set, making it allowed if it was at no more than 10%. In 1600 the East India Trading company caused the demand for loans to grow and usury became an integral part of the monarchy’s economic model, with James I’s absurdly titled ‘law against usury’ making it seem a normal and necessary part of life by 1624.


The Jews enter Britain again

It was shortly after this that Oliver Cromwell overthrew King Charles I and had him beheaded in 1649, with an army financed by Jewish bankers from Holland. The Jews then managed to talk Cromwell into allowing emissaries of theirs back into England so that they could make their case for being allowed back in to the country. Cromwell was eventually deposed after doing incredible amounts of damage to Britain, starting a civil war in England, executing the rightful king and then going to war against Ireland. After he died, he was dug up again and hanged for his crimes, before being beheaded himself and his head stuck on 24 foot spike on top of Westminster hall.

The next King, Charles II officially allowed the Jews back into the country again but the law for expelling them still remains on the books, as you cannot undo laws. It is just waiting there to be revived. The Jews had no loyalty to Charles though and straight away started plotting to depose his heir and brother King James II, the last Catholic King of England with the help of William of Orange. Once Dutch King Billy had the reigns of the country, he repaid the Jews who had helped him by giving them a charter allowing them to call themselves ‘The Bank of England’ in 1694. It looks very much like he gave away the sovereign right of the nation to create its own money, in exchange for him being put on the throne of England.

It was from here that they were then able to start fractional reserve banking, which means loaning out much more than you could ever cover in deposits, because nobody ever asks for all the deposits back all at once. They were able to fund other banks throughout Europe all working to the same principle and had no shortage of people wanting loans in order to trade with the far reaches of the empire and the New World.


The Jews had this removed for being ‘anti-Semitic’ and by doing so they admitted that all bankers are Jews.

The rise of the Rothschilds

In 1745 Pope Benedict XIV expanded Pope Leo X’s law, to make interest on investment credit capital legal and allowed ‘certain other titles to run parallel with the loan’. Shortly after this the Rothschild family began banking using the smuggling routes mentioned earlier as communication lines, with which they were able to get inside information on Waterloo and crash the London Stock Exchange. By doing this they were able to buy up controlling shares in much of the industry of Britain as well as the banks themselves, replacing the few gentiles that had been involved in it since the lifting of the restrictions by the Church.

The first loan from a Rothschild bank to the pope was in 1832 and by 1850 there had been another, for 50 million francs. In 1857 Peter’s pence was pledged as collateral and by 1872 the Holy See was upping the allowed interest rate to 8%. In 1918 Benedict XV proclaimed that it was not illicit to reap a legal profit from loans and by 1983 John Paul II had actually made it a requirement of all church admins to ‘invest for profit all funds not needed for expenses’.

This is far removed from the original church teaching for clergy and laymen alike, which can be summed up with this quote from the council of Tarragona, canon II: ‘Whosoever will be in the clergy, let him be careful not to buy too cheap, or sell too dear, or let him be removed from the clergy’.

From the bank of England the Jews were able to start the World Bank and the IMF and decouple banking entirely from the precious metals that it had started with. This eventually had to happen, as once you add interest to the system it has to continually expand, in order for there to be enough currency in circulation to pay back the previous loans. If you lend out a hundred pounds, there is only a hundred pounds in circulation that can be paid back, so if the bank asks for more than a hundred back, the only way for the extra to be found is if another loan is taken out somewhere which puts the extra money into circulation. You can see that this system is terminal and will always cause inflation and savings to lose their original value.

This is the real reason why the banking system crashed, it was an deliberate flaw built into the system right from the beginning and this is why the divine law forbids the taking of any interest, no matter how small the amount.

usurers in hell_thumb[2]

Usurers in hell.

Original Article