listen here

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

The International Jew The Worlds Foremost problem


Published on Mar 16, 2017

This entry was posted in Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
996

11 Responses to The International Jew The Worlds Foremost problem

  1. Peter says:

    In 1492 Spain issued the Alhambra decree expelling all Jews from the country. Maybe that leaves the theory that the Italian Christopher Columbus could sail to explore the western world without the Jews getting their ” cut ” in any way from the expedition. Comments please !!!!

    • James M says:

      Columbus couldn’t get anyone to give him permission to explore the new world until he convinced the Pope, and the Pope consented but with the condition that he convert all the natives he found into Catholics. Columbus consented, but the thing is, most of his passengers were crypto jews — who settled in Latin America. So in time, the natives became Catholics, but with jewish genes.

    • Bob says:

      The Puritans and I believe the pilgrims were cryptos. It appears that Columbus was jewish too. They actually left Spain on the day that the law you speak of came into effect. North America was known before Columbus ever set sail. The copper trade (out of Michigan?) was in full swing in the Bronze age, and it was captured by the jews way back then. Many people in New Mexico and Arizona (in particular) are finding that they have jewish roots through DNA testing.

      Here is something to think about. It was the Puritans who pushed through the separation of church and state. It appears they needed this law to keep laws about jews specifically from being passed.

      There is a lot on this time period at bitchute/_drivedump_

      • Henry Shivley says:

        I don’t buy the argument that the Puritans/Jews, or whoever in the hell they were, were the authors of separation of church and state. It is the violation of the separation of church and state that opened up the door for the destruction of our country.
        Would you have had a Christian theocracy in the United States?

        • Bob says:

          Christian or jewish Henry, they really didn’t care which one it was. At this point, I’m of the opinion that all written law is Talmudic whether papal bull or X country’s constitution. My view definitely keeps evolving though, and I don’t have many answers for sure, and I don’t mean to come off that way.

          The separation of church and state concept was presented in the last year by Gnostic Media based on their Salem work, and I have really been grappling with it since. The above episode of Ford’s work really talks about how jews used “jewishness is a religion” to hide their numbers, so this discussion is very relevant here.

          • Henry Shivley says:

            “At this point, I’m of the opinion that all written law is Talmudic whether papal bull or X country’s constitution.”
            Does that include the Bill of Rights?
            You never did answer my question. Do you support a Christian theocracy?

        • Bob says:

          Very astute Henry. I am trying to figure out where the Bill of Rights fits in. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, which we both comprehend to be flawed correct? I’ll share the argument I’ve been pondering. Forgive misunderstandings on my part.

          At this time The Bill of Rights seems the appropriate framework to attempt to restore morality, thus freedom, to our people.

          However:

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE thereof”

          What was happening in Europe at that time? Laws were often passed to control/expel/protect from the jews who claim to be a race and/or a religion, depending upon need. Supposedly the founders grappled with the jewish question themselves. Here is my question for you: Does the first article have precedence over those that follow? (I assume so, but I really don’t know.)

          Given that jewish religious doctrine promotes pedophilia, child sacrifice, usry and slavery for the goyim, etc., etc., etc. The words above stand in contradiction to the rest of the articles. A moral juror would NOT respect the free exercise of [that] religion or the masonic dirty church cabal that it spawned. “Cabal” root: Kabbalah. I’m sure we could find practices in Catholicism that would be just as immoral. How about circumcision?

          From the Talmud, expounding on the old testament:

          Sanhedrin 54b

          Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [three years old], it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as ‘a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.’…

          And, to answer your question snarkily, I do support a theocracy, though I am the only practicing member of my religion. Sorry I didn’t answer your question. Similarly I support Monarchy, and I am the monarch of concern.

          This stuff is universal, and I believe you and I agree on the fundamentals. If we were neighbors would we treat each other according to the BIll of Rights or based on what is right and what is wrong, perhaps this is what your radio show is about: not the Bill of Rights, but the difference between right and wrong which our people have lost due to jewish mind control, degeneracy and the trauma of warfare and general destabilization of society.

          If you and I had a dispute, as reasonable men and neighbors, would we go to the government for redress or would we naturally seek arbitration among the wisest of our community? I suppose the court would be our last stop if one or both of us was incapable of being reasonable.

          I am a mere student of this stuff. But even the Bill of Rights seems to acknowledge that it is only enumerating the higher (real) law in article 9.

          Thanks for helping me with this stuff.

          • Henry Shivley says:

            It is the common law courts with the jury of the peers who decides the fact of law in every case, and every case is absolutely unique. It would come down to each juror weighing the right in question against their own rights and own morality. Christians do not have an exclusive on morality. I have found moral people in just about every mindset.
            You are most certainly free to think anything you choose to. If you act upon that thought and cause a violation to another’s right, you can be called to account in front of a jury who may be moral, partially moral, or not moral at all.
            I guess this would kind of solve the problem of where people hung out, huh?
            It is kind of like this. Does a fag have a right to be a fag in the confines of his castle? Yes he does. Now if that fag comes out into the public square and makes the mistake of grabbing my junk, I would pound him into a bloody pulp with the very crowd watching that would be judging me.
            Now, if I am convicted, maybe I was in the wrong place, but in the whole of the county, at least where I live, I don’t believe you could convict a man who pounded the shit out of a fag that someone saw walk up and grab his junk.
            The enemy tries to project the immorality and the bad are somehow the majority. I disagree. I believe the majority of the people would be moral if given the chance.
            Now, when it comes to the matter of rape and incest, that would come down to the morality in the individual juror, because in the end equation, the Bill of Rights not only protects us as individuals, but protects our state of peace of mind and body. If another’s actions disturb that peace, that is a seizure of my being and there will be due process of the law. The degeneration of this nation pretty much coincides with the degeneration of the Bill of Rights.
            If a group of queers come to town and one of them tries to start a queer church, trying to bring more queers to where I live, I guess we would see what the penalty is for beating the shit out of a queer. If it is five years in prison, we see how many men in the community are willing to do the five years, and you commit yourself to your morality.
            If we have truth and a path to justice, we stop treating people life f-king animals, I believe we could become a moral people again.
            As for the Jews, theirs is a system which is a mix of religion with a political agenda. It is a joinder of church and state, in its essence thus forbidden by the 1st Article, as it enters the equation, not as a religion, but as a religion joined with a political system, which is what a theocracy is. The abominations you speak of in the Talmud are the result of a theocracy.
            Everybody equally armed on a level playing field with absolute equal rights is the very best that anyone has ever done on this earth. It is the formula for good people who want happiness to live together in peace. On the other side of the blade, which cuts both ways, it is a detriment and a folly for those who want hate and misery.
            Now, you’ve made me write a whole lot here, Bob and I’m a little burnt on writing right now, in fact I could use a couple of days in solitude away from the world. I just gave my people a great truth with that mandamus; I think I want to rest a little bit if it is alright with you.

  2. KOYOTE says:

    THANKS BOB!! GOOD STUFF!!

Leave a Reply