Jew World Order

My father laid on you a heavy yoke; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.’” (1 Kings 12:11)

Introduction

Some people say that despite its defects our economic system has created prosperity, a prosperity which otherwise would have never arisen. In reality, the creation of prosperity and civilization (each race in a different form) are part of our nature, and these can take different expressions and paths, just like Evolution.

The only thing our economic system promotes is growth, the concentration of wealth and nothing more. Anything positive that resulted from this process can be attributed with certainty to the creative forces inherent in Nature, and humans as part of Her.

Our economic system didn’t create those forces, but only exploited them, the same as it exploits any other natural resource. It encouraged us to grow hastily like a monster, which in his expansion-madness, didn’t develop proper limbs and became unviable, destined to live just a few seconds in the time-scales of human history. This malformed monster is also destroying every single living-being on earth in order to feed his unnatural hunger.

Around a half of our work goes just to subsidize the money speculators, and if, despite getting only the half of our earned income, we have access to food and many things, it is only because those things have been artificially made so cheap that we can get them for less than half of their real price.

Those artificial prices are not long lasting because they mean the definitive destruction of the future and the enslavement of ever more people. In order to maintain this façade of prosperity we are consuming in just a few years all the real riches of this planet, which should otherwise have lasted forever.

After WWII the Jews learned the lesson that too much economic oppression can breed racial nationalism, therefore Roosevelt and his other gang-members (as Hitler used to call him) decided to create such a cruel overflow of goods, and exploit Nature in such an efficient way that the resources for thousands of future generations would be available in just a few years.

This overproduction would make goods so cheap that people in Western countries would have access to a decent lifestyle, despite of most of their income being taken away to finance usury (Versailles treatises in disguise).

The Versailles treaty was never abolished; rather, it took new forms and spread around all nations. Economists now admit that the Versailles treaty had nothing to do with war reparations, and it was simply a systematic way of extorting tribute.

This systematic extortion of tribute is to be seen in all White countries today in an even more clever way than before WWII; or as the Swiss people (one of the most prosperous in the world) would put it: ‘They milk us like cows’.

In an Indo-Germanic economy we had grown slower but we would have reached a real wealth, in a sustainable way that lasts forever. We would have invested our knowledge and talents in creating renewable technology and not poisonous, addictive entertainment which dehumanize us.

Most of what we can buy today is useless, damaging or addictive. Having access to basic needs like food, water or electricity means the destruction of all natural resources, needs which could be easily covered in a sustainable way with another economic system; therefore we can conclude that our economic system has made us poorer and not richer.

With this point of view it is ironic to realize that a poor, uneducated person in India who earns his living separating garbage gives a greater service to humanity and creates more Beauty and real wealth through his work than the top managers of many corporations, who earn millions and graduated from Harvard. The former help Nature, the latter destroy it.

I would go so far as to say that in my eyes an uneducated person who separates garbage has a more respectable job than the chairman of the Federal Reserve or Goldman Sachs. What does this have to do with Jesus? We will discover in the course of this article.

PART I: IDEOLOGY

Judging from his speeches it seems almost as if no one could ever say something negative about Jesus, but in this article I want to show you that behind a façade of benevolence and altruism a really disturbing kind of personality hides itself.

The first thing the cautious researcher notices is that Jesus’ ideals cannot be put into practice, and when we try to put them into practice they breed the very kinds of evils Jesus claims to condemn. This is indeed a strange phenomenon and in order to find out the reason why, we will turn often in this article to Nature and the wisdom of our pagan ancestors.

Nature is healing, and a good understanding of Her can play the role of an exorcist. We must get exorcised, not from an ancient demon but from an even more astute being that had taken control of our thinking, and his name is not Beelzebub but Jesus.

As a good starting-point let me tell you that the most apparent characteristic of Jesus’ teachings is their one-sidedness. In the eyes of Jesus, only positive emotions are desirable, thus, when we follow his way of life we are expected to repress a good half of all our emotions and thoughts.

This crippled morality (or should I say crucified morality?) reminds me of an article I read some time ago about the growing concern among psychologists regarding depression rates; they concluded that in our Western culture it is expected from everyone to always be happy and to have only loving, rosy, warm feelings, leading to a very superficial social life.

A person who encounters a problem is not able to share or express properly his sadness or frustration because that would disturb the artificial harmony that reigns among walking ‘emoticons’, and it is this superficial social life, this sense of separation and loneliness which causes depression.

This kind of superficiality is also to be found in the realm of ideas. Our perception of the world has been limited to the rational, relegating intuitions and common sense to a separate realm, the one of ‘superstition’.

The Materialistic Samaritan

We wouldn’t exaggerate if we say that Jesus is the god of separation because he isolates parts of ourselves and plays them against each-other.

For example, charity is one of the clearest messages in his speeches, with the command to give everything to the poor and forget about worldly riches; now, the problem is that such an attitude doesn’t create a fair economy for everyone, it simply redistributes wealth without tackling the reason why wealth was unfairly distributed in the first place.

This command applies specially to the rich, who according to Jesus, will hardly enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:23-26, Mark 10:24-27 & Luke 18:24-27), implying that the kingdom of heaven is a place intended for Marx’s proletariat, like a Communist wonderland.

Now, why in the world does Jesus expects us to be poor in order to reach his kingdom?

Theologians tell us that in heaven there are no concerns about money, therefore we have to start here not to care about it, we should rather only care about morality, which is the eyes of Jesus means universalism and to stop selecting in an evolutionary sense.

But even pretending heaven exists and it is just as described by theologians, there is no reason why having material prosperity should be in enmity with it.

In reality, there shouldn’t exist a contradiction between prosperity and morality. Riches have negative associations only under a usurious economic system, where these are unfairly earned. In a pagan economy where everyone earned fairly, according to his effort, wealth had no bad connotations.

Contrasting Economies

In a Celto-Germanic economy there was enough for everyone and some had more wealth perhaps because they cared more about having a bigger farm, whereas another cared more about having free time and worked less.

In any case, there was cooperation instead of competition and even the aristocrats were happy to use their wealth for social projects. Something similar, but in a weaker form, exists still today in Denmark and Norway, with Denmark ranking every-time the highest world-wide in happiness studies made by sociologists.

A similar kind of economy was to be seen among most of races (each one according their abilities and sensibilities) before entering in contact with Jewish economic practices. Many anthropologists regret the fact that these kinds of ‘human’ economies had no chance to develop because they were overtaken and destroyed by Capitalism.

Thus, when Jesus preaches a war of classes, meaning prosperity is immoral, we can conclude he has in mind a usurious economic system. It is almost as if Jesus had the same mentality of scarcity, which belongs to a usurious money speculator and his supposed solution to that problem was very superficial to say the least, rather insufficient and, in the face of the misery it causes, almost insulting, especially when we consider how easily it would have been to ‘the son of god’ to suggest a real solution.

Considering his lack of real solutions, we can conclude that in the eyes of Jesus there are only two possible economic systems:

1. Either everyone is poor (Communism)
2. Or there are some very rich people who give charity, with the great majority being poor (Capitalism).

Theologians tend to believe Jesus believed the former, that is, Jesus was some kind of communist, but they fail to realize that communism cannot exist on its own, without capitalism. A universalistic society devoid of private property, with no violence, no race, etc., can only be kept in place with a totalitarian global state made up from a few chosen-ones, who maintain this unnatural situation.

To reach Communism without Capitalism is as absurd as believing farms exist in Nature on their own, without humans who created and administer them. These chosen ones who keep the Communist state can also become so powerful that they don’t even use money anymore to get what they want, resembling even more the kingdom of heaven, where besides the lack of private property and racial belonging among the masses, the chosen ones keep their power also without the need of wealth anymore, only through their perverse moral claims.

Thus, the irony of Jesus’ options is that they are actually the same in practice: An economy where everyone is poor is also an economy where a few chosen ones have sequestered all riches; and once people are enslaved like farm animals they don’t have to care about material things anymore.

This is the more evident when we realize that most rich people today prefer to give charity and hand out parts of their wealth to the poor rather than changing the rules of the game. This kind of behavior is actually necessary for usury to survive; were the rich not to give charity, all riches would concentrate too fast and would lead to a revolution, but when they give charity or subsidize the poor from time to time, they make sure to keep the system running without people noticing there is something terribly wrong.

That’s why Roosevelt signed the New Deal, in order to fight back Hitler’s economic success without really improving the lot of American people in the long run.

***

Now let’s dive deeper into Jesus’ mentality of scarcity. First of all, to forget about material things altogether is, as long as we are alive, impossible, and someone who doesn’t understand that cannot be taken seriously.

Trying to ignore the material aspects of life brings unavoidably the opposite, i.e. Materialism. When we think about it, it is only valuing the effort that it took to create something what makes us take care and make responsible use of it, and not waste our natural resources.

Those two extremes, not caring about material things (Jesus’ teachings) and materialism, belong actually to the same usurious economic system, and both avoid the healthy approach, which is to recognize the real value of an object (the burden to the environment, the time it took someone to create it, etc.) and make responsible use of it.

Only that recognition would motivate us to repair it, share it and keep it, despite  its old look, while investing our money in other things like learning or social relationships.

In an usurious economy all products are disposable and short lived in order to keep unnecessary growth; and in order to make more profit, the corporations promote carelessness about the material foundations of our ecosystem.

Yahweh’s Supermarket

Another aspect of Jesus’ materialism is the fact that when he describes ‘his father’ (the Jewish god) it is almost as if he were describing money in our economic system.

Now, most theologians might protest here that I’m extrapolating and that this is a false interpretation, but let me reply that values can be extrapolated without losing its goodness, and if Jesus’ description of god fits with our modern economic system: either our economic system must but the epitome of goodness, or god might be a source of evil.

In all of his parables Jesus compares god with a rich property owner, for example with the rich father in ‘the prodigal son’ (Luke 15:11–32), with the indolent capitalist in ‘the workers in the vineyard’ (Matthew 20:1–16), or with the usurious money lender in the ‘parable of the talents’ (Matthew 25:14-30).

Just like Jesus’ father, it is Jewish money that claims to free us from social relationships (to love us and take care of us individually), which transforms us in rootless, irresponsible loners, requesting in return our blind faith in order to do its magic.

Our monetary system is capricious, it is a jealous ‘Lord of the Hosts’, who puts its own rules above the laws of Nature. It has also its own eschatology, demanding the unification of ‘humanity’ in a ‘free’-market, despite of this meaning the destruction of life.

***

This connection of Jesus’ father with capitalism is the more evident in Jesus’ miracles of transforming water into wine or in the multiplication of fish and bread.

For our pagan ancestors it was actually the connection between food, life and Nature which makes them all wonderful and admirable. It was the fact that food had a history and a source, the fact that it had to be worked for, what made it holy.

But not for Jesus. For him it seems wonderful to create ex-nihilo, without roots, without history or connection to life. For him there is an absolute, insuperable distinction, almost a like war of classes, between Nature and Jewish morality. This attitude seems to me a kind of snobbism, which didn’t exist in our societies before Christianity. What Jesus is pointing out with his miracles is basically the following:

The history of things is not important. Things like working in order to earn food, or the natural necessity of killing for our nourishment, those are prosaic, base concerns. Only primitive people care about the sources of their nourishment (their connection to Nature!) see how I create wine, fish, bread etc. without getting in touch with Nature, without getting my hands ‘dirty’, with no apparent consequences for the environment or for reality; carelessness makes me charismatic. It is admirable to ignore reality and the forces of Nature.’

This snobbism, this disregard for work and the interconnectedness of Nature is the same attitude we find among materialistic people, who only care about money and superficial appearances, people who pretend not to have natural urges like shitting or getting hungry.

It’s almost as if Jesus were advising us to become like the ‘Gossip Girls’, or ‘Mean Girls’, that we find in modern Jewish films.

Some theologians might protest once again, saying that Jesus did that without destroying Nature, but that argument doesn’t do away with the fact that he is giving a bad example. We are expected to follow Jesus’ example and when Jesus rewarded the carelessness of those people with easy food, he gave a bad example, making them believe they can get food just by believing, without working or solving the source of their economic problems.

Needless to say a similar kind of snobbism is present in all of his miracles because returning people from death, curing someone from blindness (without him knowing how), or walking on water do no real service to the society in the long run.

A society becomes better as a whole when its members interact with each other, when they learn about reality and when they all fulfill their roles. But Jesus is a charismatic passerby (think of a Hollywood star), he doesn’t intend to live and work every day with those people he helps; he will not deal with the consequences of his miracles.

By bringing people from the death he is fulfilling a caprice, he is rewarding people who don’t accept the necessity of death in order to create life. By calming the waters he is also making people to think irresponsibly, to believe that a temporary human desire is more important than the cycles of Nature, which make possible the survival of fish and humans in the first place, and finally, the curing of a blind person without real effort and without a social connection with that person is also a form of narcissism without merit.

Either we cure people using our own efforts because they are important for our society and we take care of them in the long run, or we forget about the issue. To cure unknown people without reason, without effort, without giving them a place in society is crueler for everyone than letting them die.

Much worse is to cure someone who perhaps is no good for society and will burden the whole community.

And now I want to raise the question: Why exactly, is it that believing in Jesus makes people care so much about money? Well, it is our economic system actually the only thing in this word, which can multiply fish and bread, or transform water into wine, in a seemly magical way, without us having to care about the origin, without noticing the suffering of Nature.

Believing in our usurious money is in practice no different from believing in Jesus’ father. By believing in our universalist economy all those goods appear in the supermarket, in cruel quantities and we never get the slightest rumor of how our planet and billions of sentient beings are being unnecessarily tortured and exterminated in a wasting manner in the process.

Jesus makes no reference in the bible to supermarkets or to the destruction of Nature, but his attitude can only lead to such indolence if it is learned by humans, and he wanted every single human on earth to learn and follow his attitude.

Inventing the Individual

Thus, we see that Jesus’ arrogant display of power sets the example for wasting life and destroying a natural balance which took eons to arise, but now let’s analyze the consequences for us humans.

Among our pagan ancestors humans were valuable not because of ‘god’ but rather because of their belonging to the kin (race) or family. We could say that is the natural situation among all social beings, and any other state of affairs is an aberration.

Have you noticed that since the conversion, all leaders in Europe started sorting people out, not because of race but rather because of belief? It was a fortune that in those times belief accorded still somewhat with race, but Christianity robbed our ancestors from all rhetoric and all arguments for sorting people out by race.

Even the Jews were persecuted using religious arguments when their financial exploitation was the real issue (see Separation and its Discontents by Kevin Macdonald) and the crusades against the Muslims were also justified by belief, although the real problem was race. We realize here that Jesus replaced race with god, and that paved the way for replacing every human relationship with money.

Just like our economic system, the Christian god isolates us from our race, and when Jesus claims we exist outside our human relationships, he leaves us no other option than to derive the value of humans from monetary transactions.

As anthropologists have readily recognized, the main characteristic of being a slave is that he has been removed with violence from his social relationships (from his race or family) and lacking all kin-relationships in the new land, his life becomes quantifiable (with money).

Maybe for us this might seem shocking but for the kin-based societies of the past it was pretty obvious that humans could derive their values ONLY from these two sources (money or society), and when Jesus suggests that we derive our value independently from our kin or race, he is once again suggesting something which is impossible to follow without nefarious consequences, and once again, he might have promoted this idea precisely because of the unavoidable consequences.

Note: It should not surprise us at this point that the people who wrote the bible were the same Jews who invented the international slave trade, so much that the concept of slavery didn’t exist before the Jewish economic domination of the Greek and (later) Roman Empires. The term Slave was coined during the Judaized Roman Empire, and before those cosmopolitan Empires there existed only forms of serfdom or vassalage, which included some reciprocity and duties towards the serf.

Only after the Germanic conquests of Europe did feudalism replace total slavery, reflecting pagan views of servitude, although slavery made a comeback during the Renaissance as the Jews returned to Italy and Europe incorporated Roman law.

At first Jesus isolated our nourishment from its source (Life from Death), declaring one of them as evil or base, and playing it against the other, now he isolated the individual from his social relationships, transforming him into a quantifiable ‘human’ resource.

The Problem With Sin

Another central part of Jesus’ teaching is his concept of sin and forgiveness. Among our pagan ancestors there was no such a perversion as the concept of sin. People had responsibilities toward their fellow men, and the survival of everyone depended on the following of social duties. When someone acted in a way which risked the wellbeing of the community, he was punished with the goal of making him take responsibility; as simple as that. No moral esotericism.

Judging from Jesus’ famous sentence:, ‘he who is without sin let him cast the first stone’ (John 8:7), his concept of sin is an equalizing force. Everyone is a sinner and therefore no one is suited for judging any action in his community; no one is suited for deciding what he wants in society or what he doesn’t.

Jesus is basically doing away with all social responsibility and with all laws that  could protect social standards from financial exploitation.

There is in his eyes only one kind of crime (sin) from which everyone can be made guilty of regardless of its impact on society, and only one kind of measure against it: Being charitable and forgiving, which in practice mean nothing other than dysgenics and becoming multicultural.

Thus, Jesus the anarchist with his concept of sin makes it impossible to evaluate the actions of our fellow men or their impact on OUR society, because in his one-sidedness and his moral absolutism, an action is either good or bad*, and there is nothing in between. The goodness or badness of an action is for him, independent of context.

*Note: Only later did the church attempt to make a hierarchy of sins totally independent from Jesus’ teachings. As a good anarchist, Jesus dislikes all kinds of hierarchies and differentiations, therefore we can assume that he regarded all sins equal. His teachings resemble a black hole, which sucks all differences and diversity and squeezes them into the nothingness of unity and equality.

Morality is in reality not the action, but the social context; an action doesn’t exist on itself, independently of a social interaction, as Jesus wants you to believe. We realize here how Jesus isolates morality from social interactions, in order to play one against the other.

For our pagan ancestors there was not such a thing as a morally loaded action independent of social context. Even when someone did something selfish or ‘bad’, he didn’t count as a ‘bad’ person as long as this action didn’t cause great damage to the society.

Our lack of bad actions or our lack of selfish impulses is not what makes us worthy of judging others, but rather the fact that our community is an extension of ourselves and deciding what kind of morality we want in our society is as natural as deciding what happens with our own bodies. This works actually very well in racially homogeneous countries:

Prof. Michael Hagerty of the University of California at Davis surveyed decades of international happiness research and found that “for the most part, the top-rated countries are small and homogeneous.” The happiest people are the Danes. “People there have a similar world view and a similar religion, so that it’s easier for them to communicate and to understand each other’s motives,” he explains. “They don’t have race problems, they don’t have crime problems, and they have political freedom.”

Thus, despite his phrases, Jesus is unable to feel real love toward humans, because his ideology of sin means that he doesn’t love and accept humans for what they really are, with their ‘right and left’ side, with their social and more selfish sides. His forgiving of things, which shouldn’t even count, is just a token of his arrogance.

Our negative emotions are just as necessary as the positive ones for our survival and happiness, but Jesus is incapable of accepting them as natural part of our essence, and by encouraging us to repress them he is dehumanizing us and destroying the holistic balance in our souls.

He resembles a cruel mother who tells her child it is evil to feel hungry and it should be better for him to die than to express those feelings.

Our pagan ancestors knew much more compassion and love than Jesus without boasting about it. When someone acted egoistically or made a mistake, there was no sin; in the long run everything would even out.

Some acts of selfishness contrasted with others of great loyalty and generosity, and it was that contrast what made relationships so beautiful among our pagan ancestors, and no one ever thought about trying to abolish race, womanhood, sexuality, free speech, etc. as Christianity has done throughout history, based on Jesus’ dualistic thinking.

It was only elements, who in the long-run acted always selfishly, who were banned from society. In more serious cases, it was okay to kill them, because the artificial preservation of life (regardless of how destructive and meaningless it had become) was not part of their morals.

A society creates Beauty, happiness and cooperation only when their members have a healthy balance of selfishness and generosity, of aggression and love, of masculine and feminine forces, of positive and negative emotions (all in the right context!), and when this balance becomes disrupted through too much charity and love (as Jesus’ concept of sin would unavoidably do), it creates the same cruel and evil consequences as if we promoted only hate and selfishness.

Could it be that the promotion of blind, one-sided love breeds actually selfishness and extreme forms of hate? I believe this thought never crossed Jesus’ mind.

In short, becoming free of ‘sinful’ actions is under NO circumstances desirable in a human society and Jesus’ concept of avoiding sin belongs to the same mind-set of an anarchist consumed by hate; he is unable to love humans for what they really are.

One has to ask himself here: What is the main characteristic of psychopathic money speculators if not their eternal attempt to be freed from all social responsibility while pretending to be acting morally?

***

Now let me tackle a little deeper Jesus’ assumption that fallible individuals have no right to judge what happens in their societies, we ‘sinners’ being allowed only to use Jewish universalism as a moral guide.

Nature shows us that making judgements and deciding in our own societies, despite we being fallible (‘sinful’) individuals, is the best (and perhaps only) way to build a society.

A society is more than the sum of its parts, capable of producing a super intelligence when the members are connected through race and healthy morals. To claim that its members have no moral right to decide on it because they are fallible (sinful), is like claiming that ant colonies, for example, require to be raised in laboratory with the help of computer programs in order to prosper because individual ants are not perfect, and therefore they cannot create a successful colony without intervention from a ‘higher being’.

We see here that Jesus’ concept of sin is also intended to legitimate the totalitarian enslavement of our societies and the destruction of all social cohesion, taking the power over OUR societies away from us and giving it to Jewish bank owners. This mentality is the same behind money speculators, which considers social standards and laws of preservation of Nature as nuances which interfere with their business.

In fact, ant colonies have been shown to be more intelligent and solve problems better than anything ever invented by Christian rationalism, so much that corporations started to apply the behavior of ants in their logistics for solving situations in which human abilities and computers were not up to the task.

Ant-colonies, beehives or any group of social animals consist of fallible individuals with limited intelligence, but somehow they reach always the best decision, better that anything a computer, an incorporated organization or a religious ideology could ever achieve alone.

As an example, computer programmers wanted to solve a simple mental puzzle consisting on finding out the shortest route when visiting many countries. When the number of countries is as high as 10, the possible routes are so many that the best computers in the world require billions of years in order to compare and analyze all possible options. That was while applying our Western thinking grounded on Christian rationalism, but the problem was easily solved by simulating the behavior of an ant colony, in other words, the behavior of Nature. (The Smart swarm – Peter Miller, First chapter).

We could say that the human approach (wanting to control all factors) resembles Jesus’ concept of sin, a concept which is unable to solve even simple problems, whereas the method of ants resembles the way a society operates naturally when it is united by race and free of Jewish universalistic ideologies.

This is an important concept because a swarm is intelligent only as long as it is united by race. Were we to introduce mixed race ants or bees, or a Jewish religion, the colony would degenerate into confusion and die out.

Summarizing, with his concept of avoiding sin Jesus is once again advising something impossible to follow, (precisely because it is impossible to follow!) with nefarious consequences, taking away from us all control over our own societies and social relationships.

Note: I believe here is the appropriate place to tackle the concept of ‘conspiracy theories’ in connection with intellectual arrogance. This term is based on the same attitude of Jesus because there is the assumption that people cannot know anything without the scientific method or the approval of Jewish dominated academia.

Ants always find better routes than any group of academics, despite of many individual ants making mistakes. This is because mistakes cancel each other out, allowing the truth to come out. Also the laws of statistics say that from so many conspiracy theories at least a handful of them must be true and something most conspiracy theories have in common is the role of the Jews and the fact that the elites don’t represent our best interests.

Therefore we can demonstrate mathematically and empirically that some conspiracy theories concerning Jewish influence must be true.

***

And of course, I couldn’t write about sin without turning to the connection of sin and debt in our economic system. Jesus’ concept of sin is, as we have seen, an equalizing force, and equality can have a very cruel side.

Not all humans have equal abilities, neither equal needs nor preferences, therefore our pagan ancestors had a system of reciprocal relationships based on duty and honor, which made sure everyone was treated according to his personal needs and possibilities. For our ancestors it would have been immoral to expect equal treatment from a poor peasant the same as from a noble warrior.

But Jesus considers us all equal, regardless of our abilities or needs (think of a black hole). A lunatic who lived just a few years and didn’t learn anything, never understood what’s going on in his environment, never met a challenge in his life and perhaps never loved anyone, will go to heaven if he never protested against Jewish universalism, whereas a person who loved Nature, gave his life for his people, discovered the secrets of this universe and never had a single second free of challenges, he goes to hell if he doubts the money lenders who wrote the bible were holy.

Even if this person went to heaven we would still be speaking of an absurd, unfair result in comparison with the lunatic.

In Jesus’ concept of sin-heaven-&-hell, there is no place for further learning, for having a spiritual development beyond a single life-time, no place for transcendental, mythical experiences beyond good and evil, beyond limited dogmas.

It is all about obedience or disobedience to Jewish law and Jewish universalism, and it is sad to see how many Christians speak of ‘feeling god’ and having ‘spiritual’ occurrences or visions, because that only means they are prostituting their spirituality (their connection with Nature) in the service of Jewish law. It’s almost like a very talented White girl who decides to prostitute herself with Jewish pimps in order to become famous. They both are using the Beauty/talents they got from Nature in order to make the Jew richer.

This state of affairs reminds me of the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). A capitalist land-owner, who according to Jewsus is like god, contracts them to work different amounts of hours in his vineyard, but in the end he pays everyone the same loan (the ones who worked many hours got the loan of just one hour).

The idea is that god rewards everyone the same regardless of the moment they surrendered to Jewish universalism. Everyone is admitted to the New World Order … sorry, I meant, to the kingdom of heaven, regardless of how late you give up your soul to globalism… sorry, regardless of how late you came to god.

Analyzing this parable a little deeper, this idea of rewarding everyone the same despite having contributed differently is the same kind of equality that Jesus promotes with his concept of sin and this kind of equality is possible only when kin-relationships have been replaced with money. Being indebted with the Jew, just like being sinful, makes us all equal and the only way of escaping debt would be to differentiate and separate, exactly what Jesus abhors the most.

It is the same attitude of banks that extract debt systematically, without knowing who you are, without care about your special needs or abilities. In short, this is once again the destruction of all social standards as is typical of Jesus’ ideals.

This situation might seem normal to us today, but for our pagan ancestors an economic transaction depended totally on the relationship and it was immoral to expect the same kind of economic attitude toward a modest farmer as toward a noble.

To reward everyone the same was immoral for our ancestors because it was differentiation which allowed a happy society, whereas equality would only create a hellish totalitarian oppression for everyone even if it were to be heralded as a kingdom of heaven.

Some theologians claim the loan was good enough for 5 hours of more, and god was being generous to the late worker who worked just one hour.

But even pretending that is the case, that doesn’t do away with the fact that Jesus uses as symbol of heaven an economy of scarcity; he is not disturbed by the fact that there is one rich person who owns everything and who decides arbitrarily and totally independent from his society about the work of his fellows.

In the Proto-Germanic language the same word for paying a debt meant to heal and to repair. This shows us that the central point was about healing or repairing a relationship, something which cannot be quantified just with money.

[…]the medieval prohibition against usury didn’t originate from the church, rather was a phenomenon of the medieval social and economic tradition [remaining pagan traditions!!] und it had nothing to do with Christianity and its teachings, wrote [the famous Jewish economist] Ludwig von Mises (Jesus, der Kapitalist by Robert Grötzinger, P.37).

Among the Indo-Germanics everyone received and contributed according to his possibilities and needs, and this was based on relationships of honor and reciprocity; it was only Jesus with his concept of sin who equalized all relationships and thus paved the way for quantifying them with money and making them anonymous.

If that parable was not disturbing enough, we have also the one of the five talents (Matthew 25:14-30) in which Jesus doesn’t even bother to keep the appearances. In this parable god is explicitly described as a usurer who expects from his followers to raise usury too, and he, who doesn’t raise enough usury or finds this immoral, is punished by god by taking from him the little money he had (earned honestly) and giving it to the richest servant (who had earned his riches through dishonest speculation!).

Theologians interpret this parable as god ordering us to convert other people (one thinks about wars and persecutions) in order to make god richer in believers. If that interpretation is correct,we should ask ourselves: what kind of god likes to compare himself spiritually with a system which is destructive and immoral in the most literal of senses, without even noticing there’s something creepy about it?

Monopoly, persecution, economic enslavement, usury, etc. are evil in an economic level, but we are supposed to believe they are bliss when the same things happen in a divine level in so called ‘heaven’? Is not the attitude of Yahweh toward other gods a reflection of the attitude of the Jews toward other peoples? Is that a good thing in any level?

Note: Monopoly in the economic level means monotheism in a divine one; enslavement in the economic level means sin in the divine one and usury in the economic level means persecution and forced conversion in a spiritual one.

 […]‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest [usury]. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents [to the obedient Goyim?].

For, to everyone who has, will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless[honest] servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

The message couldn’t be clearer than that. God is here a money speculator with no scruples and the place where ‘there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ Is just an euphemism meaning the Jew will make sure you get no mercy if you don’t play along their usurious swindles either in a monetary or a spiritual level.

The sentence ‘I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed’ is an open admission that the Jew makes money without ever working for it. In fact it is the typical attitude of the Jew who scorns honest work.

Even if for theologians that has a spiritual message, the same attitude of enslavement and extortion remains the same but it simply takes an spiritual dimension. Perhaps it means that Yahweh wants to feed off our souls and that his kingdom of heaven is some kind of ‘happy’ farm for souls.

Not without reason the poor servant calls him ‘a hard man’. With those words he is actually accusing ‘god’ of being a swindler and, thus, the Jewish master gets angry at this disobedience.

In any case, with this parable Jesus is sanctifying an institution (interest rates or usury), which promotes competition among members of society who otherwise would help each other, creates artificial scarcity, concentrates riches in ever fewer hands and forces eternal growth, this last meaning nothing other than unnecessary wasting all natural resources and breeding together all human races as farm animals, in an attempt to squeeze the last remaining cent or resource, which has not been sucked yet by the rapacious Jew.

If that has also a spiritual meaning, it doesn’t save the case for Jesus because something that is supposed to be good in an spiritual level would not cause so much harm in an economic one, and the fact that usury is destructive in an economic level shows that in the spiritual one it is much worse.

The modern disappearance of the middle-class all around the globe reflects very well the situation in the parable: The richer servant takes the talent from the poorest one (‘he who has little will be taken from him and he who has a lot will be given more’). But in the end it is the Jewish god the one who profits the most; even the wealth of the rich servants is temporary and in the long run their wealth will end in the hands of the ‘chosen ones’ too.

If this interpretation seems too prosaic, well, here is a spiritual one: In the spiritual level it might mean that Yahweh destroys spiritual diversity just like the economic version of his kingdom of heaven has destroyed most of living form and has enslaved all humanity.

For the ones who still believe the New Testament brings a new message from the Old one, let me point out that this parable of the talents is only a complement to the story of Joseph in Egypt.

The bible tells us how Jewseph came to Egypt and speculated with the goods entrusted to him (Genesis 47:13-27), taking all property away from the people, making them landless and in the end concentrating all wealth in the hands of the elites. This creepy little story was written in the ‘Holy book’ only because the Jewish god is proud of dispossessing all nations and creating a war of classes among them:

[…]Today we would call the pharaoh’s palace, where Joseph brought all money, ‘The Bank of Egypt’ […]this brought a forced reduction of the circulating money and the fall of prices. […] agricultural production together with all other kinds of business became stagnated.

The farmers, who had been damaged in this way, had to limit their production, which made the famine longer and all grains that Joseph sold, brought even more coins to the Pharaoh’s palace. In this manner the prices fell even more until Egyptian agriculture was [artificially] ruined.

[…]Now the farmers were desperate and Joseph buys from them the whole land of Egypt through the giveaway price of bread and seeds. Because Joseph had now literally all money in his hands he was able to dictate the prices. […] and to avoid a revolution, the sly banking company ‘Joseph & Pharaoh’ procures investors in a cunning way: The priests became the sole private owners of the fields.

We can imagine what a succulent business the priests made, as they leased to the farmers their own lands, after they had been made destitute.  […] this priesthood was a necessary protection for the ‘Pharaoh’s Company’. Here we have the first known example in world history of capitalism showing his face.’

[…] From now on all Egyptian workers had to handle down to the pharaoh a fifth of their harvest, hence a good 20%[!] of their work. (Segen und Fluch des Geldes in der Geschichte Vol.1 – Fritz Schwarz, P.59)

The message is once again very clear; the Jew brought usury and the war of classes to Ancient Egypt. Many scholars know that, before the arrival of the Jews, the Egyptians had a human economy, free of usury and it was that prosperity which allowed the construction of the great pyramids, but the Jew didn’t like that, and he made sure to do away with that ‘wicked, heathen’ prosperity, which benefited ‘too many’ people.

With the arrival of Jewish economy (symbolized by the arrival of Joseph) we see in Egypt the exclusion of women from social life, the appearance of economic crises and the concentration of riches. [Bernard Lietaer –The Mystery of Money, Chapter 6: Case Study of Egypt].

***

By now it is clear that Jesus traces different paths for economics and morality, destroying the natural connection between the two, and this paves the road for our enslavement. Giving charity belongs, thus, to the same state of mind of extorting usury, and it should not surprise us that such morality is preached by a globalist Jew.

One can only imagine that one of the greatest problems for introducing Christian morals among the Germanics or Celts was that they didn’t make any sense them:

Why should we Germanics give charity when we have no poor people in our societies? And why should we condemn all riches when we know no usury which could distribute such riches unfairly? Not caring about material things wouldn’t actually make us poor and dependent from foreign economical enslavement?’

A distinction between economic and moral life would have been unthinkable for our pagan ancestors, or to any other pre-Christian society. To separate economics from morality, while promoting charity as a patchwork is no better than separating a child from his mother and giving him a candy as reparation.

Or using a more realistic metaphor, it is like taking a child away from his family, raising him as a prostitute and giving him drugs and enough to eat as a ‘reparation’, while feeling moral in the process.

This separation of economics from morality is symbolized by the scene of Jesus chasing the merchants from the temple. For our pagan ancestors the temple was a place of communal life where many goods were redistributed among the people, a place where economic transactions reinforced the sense of belonging to the community and of social responsibility.

Just as Jesus separated our negative emotions from the positive ones, in order to play the one against the other, he also separated economics from morality in order to allow materialism to flourish, while people still believe they are being moral.

It should therefore not surprise us that modern economic theories were developed by theologians like Adam Smith or Christian philosophers with a deep faith like Emmanuel Kant, inspired by god’s attitude towards humanity.

Here we reach the end of the first part of this writing and we can summarize that on the one side Jesus tells us to pay usury to god (economically and spiritually) and on the other hand we should not care about material things at all.

These two messages complement each other perfectly because slaves, just like farm animals don’t have to care about material things, have only to care about paying usury to their masters in the form of their work, a work which doesn’t benefit themselves, but only an external power which feels a lot of love towards them, although it is the kind of love a man has for his car; impersonal, not based on racial considerations or on reciprocal duties.