As opposed to what system exactly? The medieval peasant owned property and paid less taxes than the moder-day wagecuck even though the lacked basic technology and lived in a much harsher times.
But let's look at history: Is this why the jews were banished from those kingdoms for their usury and as retaliation instigated all major rebellions and revolutions toppling down the monarchies (1640, 1794, 1917, 1939)? But the jews loved that system under which they were persecuted and hate the "free democratic" regime we live under now, where they wield unparalleled power through international banking and control of all industries, having all world powers in their pocket sucking their zionist balls and spewing their insidious propaganda like you do here.
Is this why the jews were banished from those kingdoms for their usury and as retaliation instigated all major rebellions and revolutions toppling down the monarchies (1640, 1794, 1917, 1939)? But the jews loved that system under which they were persecuted and hate the "free democratic" regime we live under now, where they wield unparalleled power through international banking and control of all industries, having all world powers in their pocket sucking their zionist balls and spewing their insidious propaganda like you do here.
You know the Vatican runs Europe after the collapse of Rome and the Jews run Vatican right? It's not the Jews that are in power that get persecuted. It's just dog bites dog at that point.
You know the Vatican runs Europe after the collapse of Rome and the Jews run Vatican right?
The Vatican is infiltrated by jews and freemasons, that's correct. But was that always the case? take England: the jews were persecuted and banished until they recruited the protestant revolutionary Oliver Cromwell to help them get rid of Charles I and the monarchy, which he did and in return the first thing his parliamentary republic did is let the jews back into England and a few years later we got the first central bank - Bank of England (jews were banished a few centuries before that by Edward I I believe, on account of consolidating too much power through their international usury and espionage network).
And how is that an argument against Christianity? That's like saying: "our government is infiltrated and ran by the jews therefore all government bad". Good things get corrupted and that's what happened to Christianity in the West with the schism and later with the (jewish) Reformation. It's so bad right now, that people in the west hardly know about the one true apostolic Church that remains unchanged for 2000 years and remains critical of the satanic establishment and the zionists (although it's also subject to subversion and infiltration).
The Vatican is infiltrated by jews and freemasons, that's correct. But was that always the case? Because jews were persecuted and banished from England for example, until the jews recruited the revolutionary Oliver Cromwell to help them get rid of Charles I and the monarchy, which he did and in return the first thing his parliamentary republic did is let the jews back into England and a few years later we got the first central bank - Bank of England (jews were banished a few centuries before that by Edward I I believe).
It didn't get infiltrated, it is the incarnation of the Jewish System prior to the Freemasons. There is a reason why you almost can't find anything pertaining the era between the fall of Rome and the Medival era whatever little there is painted the Catholics in a positive light.
This makes no sense and you're just not familiar with the history of that period. The fall of Rome merged into the rise of the second Rome, Byzantium, under Constantine which was the first Christian empire and the longest lasting empire in history. It was the preeminent cultural center of the world at its height until the Ottomans conquered it in 15c. The Vatican was part of the empire and became a papal state in the 8c.
Note that the same guy written an entire thread defending the middle ages and ignoring the fact that if you are anything other than the rich or the Papacy, you are dead (citing the mamgificent wonders that are ancient churches). It is a Jewish utopia feeding on the deaths of "heretic" European Goyim whose crime is being the descendant of Greeks, Romans and Nordics or didn't believe in Blood God faith.
And then there are people on the comments section on another post that said that they want Feudalism more than "whatever we have today".
Even on this board there are people defending the Middle Ages, claiming that it is better than in the present day.
I dunno if they are bots or government shills, but when Feudalism returns for real you will die and there is nothing you can do about it.
The rich and the church gets richer while you can have fun dying of rat plagues and being kept under the dark why does Europe have out of control rat plagues while China does not. (Notice the obsession with "bloodletting" as a solution to rat plagues)
The entire thing is fully normalized manufactured consent...and if you wonder why we are on the way to LGBT genderfluid hell, this is it.
Note also that "food" aparently comes from the government in this world, and the peasants just "farm the land" and "pay rent", denoting that this was written by a retarded commie.
It was. All anti-monarchists are commies or commie-adjacent (libtards and lolberts). "All hierarchies are bad - liberte, egalite, fraternite, chud!" Never mind (((who))) brought communist enslavement to the world both in theory and in practice.
The entire thing is fully normalized manufactured consent...and if you wonder why we are on the way to LGBT genderfluid hell, this is it.
Do you realize the whole "me and muh freedoms" secular humanist movement that brought you the sexual revolution, feminism, relativism, scientism, skittles and a whole slew of other degeneracy is direct logical result of the liberal freemason (meaning jewish) worldview adopted at the time of the 18th century revolutions?
Western Christianity was corrupted a long time ago (1054 officially), but still it upheld Christian morality and social cohesion and most of all - it was the bulwark against the jewish world order (that's why jews hate Christianity and know it's their only true enemy; usury was banned in Christian kingdoms because it's sinful). That dam has broken by the 20th century and the jews were given Palestine by the British zionists like Balfour, Rothschild and Churchill and the US shills like Roosevelt. By denouncing Christianity, you're basically cutting off the branch you're sitting on without realizing it. There's no meaningful conservatism without it (what are you conserving exactly?)
Do you realize the whole "me and muh freedoms" secular humanist movement that brought you the sexual revolution, feminism, relativism, scientism, skittles and a whole slew of other degeneracy is direct logical result of the liberal freemason (meaning jewish) worldview adopted at the time of the 18th century revolutions?
They need to subvert the Renaissance movements somehow using another disguise given their defeat after their "treatment" towards the Bubonic Plague was way too humiliating. Feminism and Communism in the French Revolution was the first step in attempting their vengeance.
Western Christianity was corrupted a long time ago (1054 officially), but still it upheld Christian morality and social cohesion and most of all - it was the bulwark against the jewish world order (that's why jews hate Christianity and know it's their only true enemy; usury was banned in Christian kingdoms because it's sinful). That dam has broken by the 20th century and the jews were given Palestine by the British zionists like Balfour, Rothschild and Churchill and the US shills like Roosevelt.
First thing. Usury is banned, sure, but you know what isn't? Killing people who disagree with you, serfdom or falsely curing rat plagues through bloodletting. These people are hypocritical. They love to allow one thing and disallow the other equally deadly thing.
The other one; you named the guy who gave the Jews Palestine wrong. He's not called Churchill and Roosevelt, he's called Hitler, a wedlock bastard of the Rothschilds. Although Churchill funded Hitler in the first place to exterminate the German race, commit mass blood sacrifices for Moloch and making Nationalism automatically synonymous with clowns and enemies of the master ideology.
They need to subvert the Renaissance movements somehow using another disguise given their defeat after their "treatment" towards the Bubonic Plague was way too humiliating. Feminism and Communism in the French Revolution was the first step in attempting their vengeance.
What you fail to understand is the humanistic ideas behind the Renaissance, which were the result of Catholic theological errors (like natural theology - basically preferring empiricism and naturalism instead of God's own Revelation, which slowly but surely erased God from the picture because who needs Him when we have the soyence, right?) and pagan cuckery are what brought the later developments in European ideas during the Enlightenment and on. People started to question the validity of the Christian faith and morals and started experimenting with other forms of government and social structures. And here we are now.
The irony is the Renaissance you venerate so much was a child of the Western Catholic Church, its clergy, philosophy, art and sensibilities.
The other one; you named the guy who gave the Jews Palestine wrong. He's not called Churchill and Roosevelt, he's called Hitler, a wedlock bastard of the Rothschilds.
I'm still waiting for you "Hitler was a dirty jew" truthers to present evidence for your claims. Common sense and basic knowledge of history points the other way, but who knows, maybe he played some sort of 4D chess and his war against the jewish financial establishment, taking Germany off the usury system and his nationalization of the Reichsbank could all be a plot to help the zionists.
People started to question the validity of the Christian faith and morals and started experimenting with other forms of government and social structures. And here we are now.
I already said this before. Nothing the elite cannot take advantage of. As long as the key personnel are not uprooted, they can always come back for revenge using another mask. Just because the scam changed skins doesn't mean it's not a scam.
he played some sort of 4D chess and his war against the jewish financial elite, taking Germany off the usury system and his nationalization of the Reichsbank could all be a plot to help the zionists.
Conveniently avoids Switzerland during WWII, kills Germans more than Jews in the Holocaust and fails invasion efforts on purpose. It's not a coincidence, the Jews love to downplay the amount of people killed by Hitler regardless of race and only ring it back to "6 million Jews" -- a minority of the people dead (the narrative makes no sense because elite genocides kill several millions on a minimum, if it's just 6M Jews they betray their own goal of unhinged mass death).
I already said this before. Nothing the elite cannot take advantage of. As long as the key personnel are not uprooted, they can always come back for revenge using another mask. Just because the scam changed skins doesn't mean it's not a scam.
This sounds an awful lot like the commie cope "but we never had true communism because the bourgeois capitalists were always running things from within". That's why I asked you - if Christianity bad and what came after Christianity bad, then what is the good form of government and society structure?
The best case against Hitler you could make is that he was a patsy and the jews helped him get into power, i.e. they manipulated him and knew he would fail and give them perpetual victimhood status. But that's a weak case too considering the evidence. The jewish Hitler theory is outright demented and I'm not saying this as a Hitler fanboy since I don't support many of the things he did, though I can see things his way and the why behind much of it. He was facing the jewish commie NWO and thought the ends justified the means in this battle.
This sounds an awful lot like the commie cope "but we never had true communism because the bourgeois capitalists were always running things from within". That's why I asked you - if Christianity bad and what came after Christianity bad, then what is the good form of government and society structure?
The "but we never had true communism because the bourgeois capitalists were always running things from within" is exactly what I am opposing. If you look at modern Christianity, the ones that didn't fall for establishment agenda, all they call for is do not murder, do not rape, follow basic human decency and only kill in self-defense -- yes, whatever corrupt shit is going in on America now is worthy of a mass crusade. Those are the people Communists love to kill. On the other hand, you have literal Zionists and Talmudists who preach insanity like original sin or god has power over your children and you have to chop them in pieces if he asks you to (yes they teach this even in the present day) or delusional beliefs such as the Rapture (where the most pious Christians can evade genocide through Jesus by being pious). The elites still sorta do this, they just swapped the lie too many types that you fail to recognize that there is a pattern no matter what cover story they use.
The best case against Hitler you could make is that he was a patsy and the jews helped him get into power, i.e. they manipulated him and knew he would fail and give them perpetual victimhood status. But that's a weak case too considering the evidence. The jewish Hitler theory is outright demented and I'm not saying this as a Hitler fanboy since I don't support many of the things he did, though I can see things his way and the why behind much of it. He was facing the jewish commie NWO and thought the ends justified the means in this battle.
Mainstream historian narratives about Hitler don't make sense unless you see everything in the view of a gigantic false opposition psyop intending to kill as many people as possible and blame it all on a scapegoat.
Being implies ONE among other...it implies ignorance of ONEself to view self as part of other.
a jewish utopia feeding on...Goyim
a) If feeding is an utopia/ideal/imagination, then what generates hunger?
b) Why are there always more goyim than jew...more students than teachers; more followers than leaders; more poor than rich; more slaves than masters; more prey than predators; more many than few?
Feudalism implies suggestion (service) by few tempting consent (embracing) by many, and each one of many utilizes free will of choice to hold onto the suggested -ism.
genderfluid
Generation (motion) implies fluid (momentum) for regenerating solid (matter)...form (life) can be tricked to ignore flow (inception towards death) by holding onto other form, hence ignoring to regenerate itself.
The entire thing is fully normalized manufactured consent
a) Normal (want) implies versus abnormal (not want)...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring perceivable need.
b) What's the opposite of normal/standard? Alternative aka ones adaptation to all perceivable, which one ignores when holding onto a suggested standard.
c) Nature doesn't manufacture consent...it forces adaptation by setting apart manual (life) within auto (inception towards death).
Homo-shlomo (homogeneity of peace/piece) offers the service of manufactured consent by tempting gentiles to willingly give manual consent to the suggested service...for a reasonable price.
Suppose they added, "But since it's controversial, we'll just start off small, say with blacks."
Magically, a smaller version would instantly become The Most Outrageous Idea Ever, and that it was "Trump's secret Project 1619" to re-enslave the darkies.
As opposed to what system exactly? The medieval peasant owned property and paid less taxes than the moder-day wagecuck even though the lacked basic technology and lived in a much harsher times.
But let's look at history: Is this why the jews were banished from those kingdoms for their usury and as retaliation instigated all major rebellions and revolutions toppling down the monarchies (1640, 1794, 1917, 1939)? But the jews loved that system under which they were persecuted and hate the "free democratic" regime we live under now, where they wield unparalleled power through international banking and control of all industries, having all world powers in their pocket sucking their zionist balls and spewing their insidious propaganda like you do here.
History and geopolitics is not your forte.
You know the Vatican runs Europe after the collapse of Rome and the Jews run Vatican right? It's not the Jews that are in power that get persecuted. It's just dog bites dog at that point.
The Vatican is infiltrated by jews and freemasons, that's correct. But was that always the case? take England: the jews were persecuted and banished until they recruited the protestant revolutionary Oliver Cromwell to help them get rid of Charles I and the monarchy, which he did and in return the first thing his parliamentary republic did is let the jews back into England and a few years later we got the first central bank - Bank of England (jews were banished a few centuries before that by Edward I I believe, on account of consolidating too much power through their international usury and espionage network).
And how is that an argument against Christianity? That's like saying: "our government is infiltrated and ran by the jews therefore all government bad". Good things get corrupted and that's what happened to Christianity in the West with the schism and later with the (jewish) Reformation. It's so bad right now, that people in the west hardly know about the one true apostolic Church that remains unchanged for 2000 years and remains critical of the satanic establishment and the zionists (although it's also subject to subversion and infiltration).
It didn't get infiltrated, it is the incarnation of the Jewish System prior to the Freemasons. There is a reason why you almost can't find anything pertaining the era between the fall of Rome and the Medival era whatever little there is painted the Catholics in a positive light.
The Jews write history.
This makes no sense and you're just not familiar with the history of that period. The fall of Rome merged into the rise of the second Rome, Byzantium, under Constantine which was the first Christian empire and the longest lasting empire in history. It was the preeminent cultural center of the world at its height until the Ottomans conquered it in 15c. The Vatican was part of the empire and became a papal state in the 8c.
the last 2 points are stupid and show a complete lack of historical understanding.
Note that the same guy written an entire thread defending the middle ages and ignoring the fact that if you are anything other than the rich or the Papacy, you are dead (citing the mamgificent wonders that are ancient churches). It is a Jewish utopia feeding on the deaths of "heretic" European Goyim whose crime is being the descendant of Greeks, Romans and Nordics or didn't believe in Blood God faith.
And then there are people on the comments section on another post that said that they want Feudalism more than "whatever we have today".
Even on this board there are people defending the Middle Ages, claiming that it is better than in the present day.
I dunno if they are bots or government shills, but when Feudalism returns for real you will die and there is nothing you can do about it.
The rich and the church gets richer while you can have fun dying of rat plagues and being kept under the dark why does Europe have out of control rat plagues while China does not. (Notice the obsession with "bloodletting" as a solution to rat plagues)
The entire thing is fully normalized manufactured consent...and if you wonder why we are on the way to LGBT genderfluid hell, this is it.
Note also that "food" aparently comes from the government in this world, and the peasants just "farm the land" and "pay rent", denoting that this was written by a retarded commie.
It was. All anti-monarchists are commies or commie-adjacent (libtards and lolberts). "All hierarchies are bad - liberte, egalite, fraternite, chud!" Never mind (((who))) brought communist enslavement to the world both in theory and in practice.
Do you realize the whole "me and muh freedoms" secular humanist movement that brought you the sexual revolution, feminism, relativism, scientism, skittles and a whole slew of other degeneracy is direct logical result of the liberal freemason (meaning jewish) worldview adopted at the time of the 18th century revolutions?
Western Christianity was corrupted a long time ago (1054 officially), but still it upheld Christian morality and social cohesion and most of all - it was the bulwark against the jewish world order (that's why jews hate Christianity and know it's their only true enemy; usury was banned in Christian kingdoms because it's sinful). That dam has broken by the 20th century and the jews were given Palestine by the British zionists like Balfour, Rothschild and Churchill and the US shills like Roosevelt. By denouncing Christianity, you're basically cutting off the branch you're sitting on without realizing it. There's no meaningful conservatism without it (what are you conserving exactly?)
They need to subvert the Renaissance movements somehow using another disguise given their defeat after their "treatment" towards the Bubonic Plague was way too humiliating. Feminism and Communism in the French Revolution was the first step in attempting their vengeance.
First thing. Usury is banned, sure, but you know what isn't? Killing people who disagree with you, serfdom or falsely curing rat plagues through bloodletting. These people are hypocritical. They love to allow one thing and disallow the other equally deadly thing.
The other one; you named the guy who gave the Jews Palestine wrong. He's not called Churchill and Roosevelt, he's called Hitler, a wedlock bastard of the Rothschilds. Although Churchill funded Hitler in the first place to exterminate the German race, commit mass blood sacrifices for Moloch and making Nationalism automatically synonymous with clowns and enemies of the master ideology.
What you fail to understand is the humanistic ideas behind the Renaissance, which were the result of Catholic theological errors (like natural theology - basically preferring empiricism and naturalism instead of God's own Revelation, which slowly but surely erased God from the picture because who needs Him when we have the soyence, right?) and pagan cuckery are what brought the later developments in European ideas during the Enlightenment and on. People started to question the validity of the Christian faith and morals and started experimenting with other forms of government and social structures. And here we are now.
The irony is the Renaissance you venerate so much was a child of the Western Catholic Church, its clergy, philosophy, art and sensibilities.
I'm still waiting for you "Hitler was a dirty jew" truthers to present evidence for your claims. Common sense and basic knowledge of history points the other way, but who knows, maybe he played some sort of 4D chess and his war against the jewish financial establishment, taking Germany off the usury system and his nationalization of the Reichsbank could all be a plot to help the zionists.
I already said this before. Nothing the elite cannot take advantage of. As long as the key personnel are not uprooted, they can always come back for revenge using another mask. Just because the scam changed skins doesn't mean it's not a scam.
Conveniently avoids Switzerland during WWII, kills Germans more than Jews in the Holocaust and fails invasion efforts on purpose. It's not a coincidence, the Jews love to downplay the amount of people killed by Hitler regardless of race and only ring it back to "6 million Jews" -- a minority of the people dead (the narrative makes no sense because elite genocides kill several millions on a minimum, if it's just 6M Jews they betray their own goal of unhinged mass death).
This sounds an awful lot like the commie cope "but we never had true communism because the bourgeois capitalists were always running things from within". That's why I asked you - if Christianity bad and what came after Christianity bad, then what is the good form of government and society structure?
The best case against Hitler you could make is that he was a patsy and the jews helped him get into power, i.e. they manipulated him and knew he would fail and give them perpetual victimhood status. But that's a weak case too considering the evidence. The jewish Hitler theory is outright demented and I'm not saying this as a Hitler fanboy since I don't support many of the things he did, though I can see things his way and the why behind much of it. He was facing the jewish commie NWO and thought the ends justified the means in this battle.
The "but we never had true communism because the bourgeois capitalists were always running things from within" is exactly what I am opposing. If you look at modern Christianity, the ones that didn't fall for establishment agenda, all they call for is do not murder, do not rape, follow basic human decency and only kill in self-defense -- yes, whatever corrupt shit is going in on America now is worthy of a mass crusade. Those are the people Communists love to kill. On the other hand, you have literal Zionists and Talmudists who preach insanity like original sin or god has power over your children and you have to chop them in pieces if he asks you to (yes they teach this even in the present day) or delusional beliefs such as the Rapture (where the most pious Christians can evade genocide through Jesus by being pious). The elites still sorta do this, they just swapped the lie too many types that you fail to recognize that there is a pattern no matter what cover story they use.
Mainstream historian narratives about Hitler don't make sense unless you see everything in the view of a gigantic false opposition psyop intending to kill as many people as possible and blame it all on a scapegoat.
Being implies ONE among other...it implies ignorance of ONEself to view self as part of other.
a) If feeding is an utopia/ideal/imagination, then what generates hunger?
b) Why are there always more goyim than jew...more students than teachers; more followers than leaders; more poor than rich; more slaves than masters; more prey than predators; more many than few?
Does nature generate more than each ONE?
FEU'DAL, adjective - "embracing tenures by services" + TEN'URE, noun (Latin teneo) - "to hold".
Feudalism implies suggestion (service) by few tempting consent (embracing) by many, and each one of many utilizes free will of choice to hold onto the suggested -ism.
Generation (motion) implies fluid (momentum) for regenerating solid (matter)...form (life) can be tricked to ignore flow (inception towards death) by holding onto other form, hence ignoring to regenerate itself.
a) Normal (want) implies versus abnormal (not want)...a conflict of reason shaped by ones consent to the suggestion of another, while ignoring perceivable need.
b) What's the opposite of normal/standard? Alternative aka ones adaptation to all perceivable, which one ignores when holding onto a suggested standard.
c) Nature doesn't manufacture consent...it forces adaptation by setting apart manual (life) within auto (inception towards death).
Homo-shlomo (homogeneity of peace/piece) offers the service of manufactured consent by tempting gentiles to willingly give manual consent to the suggested service...for a reasonable price.
Suppose they added, "But since it's controversial, we'll just start off small, say with blacks."
Magically, a smaller version would instantly become The Most Outrageous Idea Ever, and that it was "Trump's secret Project 1619" to re-enslave the darkies.
One weirdo does not represent anything but himself.
a) Notice FOLLOW... next to the one weirdo, which implies how many others responding to presented?
b) Influence implies being within fluid, and form (life) put into fluid (inception towards death) gains momentum...
c) People implies an accumulation of person (per sonos; by sound)...sound moves; so anything within its momentum can be accumulated.