Judeo-masonry allied with British Imperialists, Anglo-Saxon culture

By Jude Duffy
July 25, 2017

Some white nationalists, especially those of the Anglo variety, portray the British Empire as a noble victim of unjust calumny by Zionists. In fact, much more often than not, modern Zionists wax enthusiastic about the Empire. Why not? Unlike the white nats, they know that the Rothschilds and other Jewish moneybags sponsored it, and that it served Jewish supremacist interests rather than those of the British people, much less the foreign subjects of the Empire.

Hardcore British Neocons—Michael Gove, Niall Ferguson, Melanie Philips, Andrew Roberts, and so on—use precisely the same arguments in favour of the British Empire that the likes of David Duke use, but then go a step further and posit the Empire as an early exponent of Neocon moral interventionism—the thrust of their message being, if you liked the British Empire, you’ll love Neocon creative destruction.

In an essay, The Very British Roots Of Neoconservatism and Its Lessons For British Conservatives, Gove even argued that, far from being minted in post-war America, Neoconservatism’s origins lay in the imperialist philosophy of 19th century British statesmen like George Canning and Lord Palmerston.

Even on the left of British politics, the more Zionist the pundit or politician, the more likely he or she is to champion British imperial rule in Ireland and elsewhere. Non-Zionist British leftists—Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn, the late Tony Benn, et al.—tend to condemn British imperialism, albeit from a debased cultural Marxist perspective, but Zionist progressives—e.g., David Aaronovitch, Peter Mandelson, and the lesbian feminist Julie Burchill—eulogise the Empire as an agent of progress and modernity.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Burchill was the highest paid columnist in Britain—her journalism invariably combining vitriolic attacks on the Irish, the Palestinians, the Germans, and continental Europeans generally, with slavish devotion to the Soviet Union and the state of Israel. Clearly, her blend of selective xenophobia and ultra-Zionist leftism found favour with the Rothschilds, since the Murdoch press empire (a Rothschild front) employed her as a star columnist, first in the Sunday Times, and later with the Sun newspaper. She’s also written for the Masonic soft-porn sheet, the Daily Mail, and for the left liberal Guardian.

Britain is one of the most PC nations on earth when it comes to racism. Making even mildly disparaging remarks about non-whites, Jews, or Muslims can land you in jail, but conversely, mocking the Germans as humourless sadists, the French as cowards, or the Irish as stupid feckless drunks, is positively encouraged by the Zio-cultural commissars.

Virulently anti-Catholic TV shows like “Father Ted” (still running on primetime on mainstream TV channels in Britain and Ireland 20 years after ceasing production) reflect the intense ethnic and religious hatred at the heart of the British cultural establishment (and its MI5 controlled “Irish” counterpart).

“Zio-Hollywood” makes a Catholic bashing blockbuster film on average once every two or three years—”Philomena”, “Spotlight”, “The Magdalen Sisters” etc.,—and garlands these productions with Oscars and Oscar nominations galore.

Even films with no ostensible religious theme are often thinly disguised vehicles for anti-Catholic propaganda, e.g., “The Legend Of Tarzan”, “Elizabeth”, “Pirates Of The Caribbean”, etc.

The ostensible paradox of the Anglo-Saxonist jingoist as “anti-racist” PC zealot is not really a paradox at all, but reflects the anti-western, anti-Christian hatred at the heart of Anglo-masonry.

In the centuries since the Reformation, Anglo-Protestant imperialism and Jewish supremacism, far from opposing each other, formed an enduring alliance, which found organised expression in occult societies like the Skull and Bones, the Round Table, Bohemian Grove, and the daddy of them all, the Freemasons (not to mention Masonry’s numerous offshoots, the Know Nothings, the Orange Order, Purple Arch, etc.).

It is no coincidence that the rabidly anti-Catholic Know Nothing movement, which terrorised Irish and German Catholics in 19th century America, was led by Jewish supremacists, Charles Lewis Levin and Samuel Kramer, or that Lord George Gordon, the instigator of the anti-Catholic Gordon Riots in 18th century London, later converted to Orthodox Judaism.

George Benjamin, the first Canadian Jewish Member of Parliament, belonged to the anti-Catholic Anglo-Israelist Orange Order.

Underscoring the unspoken alliance between Zionist sponsored multiculturalism and Anglo-Masonry, British Orange terrorist groups such as the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force, have a 25-year history of  trafficking illegal immigrants to the Irish Republic.

Faustus conjures up fallen angel Mephistophilis. The Faustus character, from whom we get “Faustian bargain”, is believed to have been based on John Dee. (1620 printing of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus.

John Dee, the occult magician at the court of Elizabeth I, was apparently the first person to coin the term “British Empire”, so from the very get go the Empire was an occult cabalist project—all its main propagandists, and indeed actors, being occultists of one sort or another.

According to Stuart Piggot’s book The Druids, Dee “grew up surrounded by the controversy and currents” of what became known as the British Empire—and “sought to merge the Arthurian Imperial tradition with cabalistic interpretations of Hebrew scripture”.

“Dee created the concept of British Israel, which gave the British and the Jews a common racial identity, and invoked biblical prophecy to show the inevitable triumph of British imperialism, the British as Abraham’s seed were to inherit the earth.”

Far from being simply an ethnocentric take on Biblical Christianity, Dee’s pseudo-genealogical supremacist theory was steeped in pagan druidism, being “Christian” only in the sense that New Age pantheism is “Christian”, i.e., it co-opted elements of Christian doctrine and ritual, the better to insinuate itself almost effortlessly into the mainstream of British Christian life.

Dee’s contemporary, the celebrated Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser, laid out a manifesto for British occult imperialism in his epic poem The Faerie Queene, which called for the ruthless crushing of Irish Catholics, the forcible imposition of the English language in Ireland, and the practice of incest among the English.

Two centuries later, another mouthpiece for Anglo-Judaeo Masonry, Marx’s sidekick, Friedrich Engels, gleefully predicted the wiping out of “whole races of reactionaries”—e.g., the Gaels, the Basques, the Slavs etc.,—in the cause of “progress”.

Zionists talk endlessly of the Holocaust, and Anglo white nats counter by invoking the genocidal Ukrainian Holodomor, but neither side dare mention the deliberate forcible starvation of Irish Catholics in the mid 19th century by the Masonic British government—an act of genocide that a Times of London editorial of 1848 gloated would make “the Celt as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the Redman on the banks of the Manhattan”.

Despite its occult Masonic origins and genocidal policies, Anglo-Israelism gained many adherents among British and American Protestants, who promoted the theory of the British Royal Family as the House of David, and Britain and the United States as the modern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh respectively.

One might have expected that the Jews, the original self-designated “chosen”, would have resented the Johnny come lately Anglo pretenders to chosenness, but far from it: Jewish supremacists welcomed the claims of Anglo-Freemasonry to tribal co-ethnicity precisely because they understood that wherever it took root, Freemasonry laid waste the surrounding Christian civilization.

However, when, in the 20th century, some mostly American Anglo-Israelists rejected the Anglo-Israelist alliance with organised Jewry and embraced Christian Identitarianism, Jewish supremacists, in the shape of the Anti-Defamation League, denounced Christian Identity as an “ugly turn” away from the original noble tenets of Anglo-Israelism.

So, the avowed anti-racists of the ADL had no quarrel with Anglo-Israelists’ ultra-racist claim to be the rightful rulers of the whole world but objected when some of the Anglos sought to shut Jews out of the exclusive supremacist party. Straining at gnats indeed.

Like Zionism, Anglo-Israelism based its claims on an incoherent mixture of cod genealogy and self-fulfilling prophecy. Initially, the Anglo-Israelists touted the ancient Britons as the source of Britain’s supposed Jewish connection, but once Protestantism became associated with the nordic nations, they changed tack and refashioned the English lost tribe as Anglo-Saxon to the core .

Most reliable evidence indicates that the English share considerably more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans, but when did facts ever get in the way of racial supremacist theories?

Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish supremacist British Prime Minister of the mid-Victorian era, eagerly promoted Anglo-Israelism as the semi-official ideology of the British Empire—which, thanks to Jewish sponsorship, was then reaching the zenith of its power and prestige.

Borrowing heavily from Protestant theories of wealth and success as a sign of divine favour, Anglo-Israelists argued that Britain’s great power in the world proved the English were part of God’s chosen race. The logic was circular—the belief in chosenness impelled  the supremacist drive to be “top nation”: the ensuing top nation status then being cited as evidence of chosen-ness.

Anglo-Israelism in the 19th century made huge inroads in the Church of England; the de facto takeover of Anglicanism by Masonic Israelists prompted Cardinal Newman to desert the English state church and convert to Catholicism.

According to The Union Jack, a 1970 book on Anglo-Israelism by ‘Helen Peters’, Anglo-Israelist Freemasonry controls all the major ‘right-wing’ Protestant churches in the United States. This helps explain why such churches have become slavish mouthpieces for Zionism and the endless war agenda of the Anglo-American Neocons on left and right.

The Union Jack argues that Anglo-Israelism and Freemasonry are synonymous, and embody the Kingdom-of-Heaven-on-Earth heresy, i.e., the idea of materialistic worldly “progress” as the ultimate goal of existence.

Though steeped in Protestant Freemasonry, Anglo-Israelism has a constituency even within the Catholic fold. The late Catholic modernist left liberal-turned Atlanticist Neocon Michael Novak touted liberal capitalism as the flower of “the English genius”, and condemned traditional Catholic teaching on usury, contraception, subsidiarity, and just war. A few years before his death, he wrote a book celebrating the New Atheism entitled No One Sees God.

Arguing, as many Ku Klux Klan types do, that the Jews have waged war against so called White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture, renders modern history utterly incomprehensible. Far from seeking to destroy Anglo-Masonic culture, the Anglo Israelist Jewish alliance strives to impose it as a one-size-fits-all model on the  whole world.

Otherwise, how can one explain the triumph of English language throughout the globe? Or the rapid spread, via Masonic lodges, of the Anglo-Masonic sports of soccer (the founding meeting of the English Football Association took place in the Freemasons Arms hotel), cricket, rugby, and their derivatives, baseball and gridiron football?

By the same token, the global Zio-media’s exhaustive and largely fawning coverage of the not especially charismatic or interesting Masonic British royal family doesn’t suggest any notable Zionist antipathy towards Anglo-Masonry or its institutions.

Almost all the major currents of modernity at least partly originated in Masonic Britain: political liberalism, usurious capitalism, Fabianism, Darwinism, even Marxism.

Throughout the 20th century, the Anglo-American alliance instigated devastating wars that wiped out the last vestiges of Christendom and paved the way for the current cultural Marxist wage-slave ultra-surveilled police states of the West.

In the 21st century, the same alliance has joined forces with Islamic Wahabists and the state of Israel to overthrow Christian-friendly governments in Yugoslavia, Syria, and Iraq.

Anti-globalists like Paul Craig Roberts tend to interpret all of this as proof that Britain is America’s poodle, but the evidence suggests something closer to the opposite: that the U.S. is in fact the City of London’s muscle-bound global enforcer.

One must be careful to distinguish between the City of London (the Crown) and the United Kingdom. The Crown is not the British Windsor monarchy but rather the cabalist Masonic force which controls both the British monarchy and the British government.

Just in case British Members of British Parliament run away with the foolish idea that their deliberations matter a jot, the City of London’s representative (or “remembrancer”) sits behind the Speaker in the Westminster House of Commons to remind them who really calls the shots in the U.K.

Nevertheless, the Crown has used Anglo- Israelism—a species of gentile Zionist supremacism—to impose its homogenized globalist Anglo-centric cultural and political model on the world.

Again, it is necessary to distinguish between Anglo-Israelism and common or garden British nationalism. Not every British or English nationalist is an Anglo-Israelist, just as not every Chinese nationalist supports the Chinese Communist Party. What distinguishes Anglo-Israelism from nationalism is its relentless drive to eradicate all other national cultures. Like Zionism, it is the enemy of nationalism—even English and British nationalism, properly understood.

If every nation in Europe still spoke its own language and maintained its own traditions and economic independence, it is impossible to imagine the current immigration tsunami now overwhelming Europe ever having taken place. The British people, it should be noted, have not been spared this tsunami or the other ravages of globalism, in spite of their country being the HQ of global masonry.

Far from regarding other European races as brethren, Anglo-Israelist Masons always viewed them as enemies of the Masonic liberal Anglo-international. The Masonic British Empire sided with the Turks against Christendom, with Pagan Japan against Orthodox Christian Russia, and with radical atheist revolutionaries against Catholic European governments and their possessions in the Americas and elsewhere.

Similarly, as the late British researcher Anthony Sutton has shown, Anglo-America not only aided the Bolshevik regime in Russia but ensured its survival through huge economic, military, and technological aid.

In modern times, Anglo-Israelist Neocons in Britain extoll the idea of the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic Commonwealth over the ancient Christian nations of Europe.

Many jingoistic Masonically inclined Brexiteers absurdly tout a German/Jesuit/Vatican conspiracy as the true power behind the E.U. but never get around to explaining why, if this is so, Europe has, since the start of E.U. integration in the 1950s, been rapidly Anglicized linguistically, politically, economically, and culturally, and why Anglo-Zio-Masonic militarism—and the disastrous migration that flows from it—define modern E.U. history.

David Duke has done sterling work exposing the ludicrous hypocrisy of Zionist “anti-racists”, but framing the debate about immigration and globalism as a struggle between old-fashioned noble imperialists and evil lefty multiculturalists completely misses the point. The Masonic imperialists and the leftists were on the same side in the 19th century and they still are today.

 

Khazar theory a scapegoat for Jews

James_Tissot_The_Morning_Judgment_400By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Sept. 7, 2014 Anno Domini

Regardless of if those who call themselves “Jews” today are indeed the descendants of Abraham, they are behaving in the spirit of the ancients who rejected Christ.

That is what matters most. People who obsess on the racial heritage of today’s Jews are missing the bigger picture. However, there is some value to the racial heritage question on a secular level. For example, if today’s Jews are not descendants of Abraham, how then can they, according to the Zionist view, justifiably claim a Biblical right to Palestine? But the focus of this article will be the Khazar theory as scapegoat for Jews and their anti-Christian behaviour.

Much of the confusion, present mainly in Protestant circles, is caused by a misunderstanding of Jesus words found in Saint John’s Apocalypse, chapter 2, verse 9.

I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

The confused are rendering this passage carnally, saying that Jesus was singling out only “fake Jews” as the synagogue of Satan but not the true descendants of Abraham. The root cause of this confusion stems from the heresy of dual covenant theology, which states that Jews are saved based on their race alone, not on their faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The truth of the matter is that Jesus was speaking of the spiritual bankruptcy of ethnic Jews.

 

Khazars didn’t exist when Jesus spoke against the Synagogue of Satan

khazaria1The Khazar Empire, a medieval power that lay just north of the theocratic Christian Byzantium Empire, is believed to have been established around the 7th century A.D., several hundred years after Christ walked the Earth. During the 8th century, many of its nobles converted to Judaism. It is believed that many or most of today’s European (Ashkenazi) Jews are descended from this Turkish Khazar tribe. How is it, then, that Jesus could have been referring to these supposed “fake” Khazar Jews in His admonishment of the Synagogue of Satan throughout the Gospels? Were the Jews to whom He spoke indeed the literal descendants of Abraham? The answer is unequivocally, yes. In almost all of Jesus’ discourse with the Zionist Jews of His time, he focused on their spiritual blindness, not on their supposed racial legitimacy. In the following passage, Jesus makes it clear that the faithful spirit that was present with Abraham, not ethnicity, is what counts. The following passage also proves that Jesus did not view the Synagogue of Satan as Khazar Jews.

I know that you are the children of Abraham: but you seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and you do the things that you have seen with your father. They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God. Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me: Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word. (John 8:37-43)

Jesus then exposes the true source of their spirit.

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. (John 8:44)

The consistent message in the New Testament is that one’s spirit towards Christ will determine his ultimate destiny, heaven or hell…to be reborn of the Spirit or to remain in the spirit of bondage to sin. There is no way of carnalizing the Gospels and making them about heritage or ethnicity.

these stones

 

The terms “Jew” and “Israel” were redefined by Christ’s coming

Adding to the confusion of the identity of the Synagogue of Satan is the definition of the term “Jew” in the Bible. In the New Testament, there are instances where Jew refers to a racial/national group and other instances where Jews are referred to as a spiritual group. Still yet, Jews are also referred to as an adversarial group, summed up in the term “Synagogue of Satan” and hinted at in passages like “they hid for fear of the Jews.” So how are we to determine what “Jew” means? Historian E. Michael Jones has a solid grasp of the variation in application of the term “Jew.”

When St. John uses the words “oi Ioudaioi,” he is referring to a group that has rejected Christ. The coming of Christ changed Jewish identity forever, something the Jews at His time comprehended only with difficulty. From then, the terms “Israelite” and “Jew” were no longer synonyms, because, Ferdinand Hahn points out in Caron’s book, “the true Israelites” from the Christian perspective “are precisely those who, like Nathaniel, recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

—E. Michael Jones, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History”, Fidelity Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2008, p. 33-34

Upon Christ’s arrival…the situation changes, for the Jews have to accept Christ to remain Israel…John uses the term “Jew” two ways. He begins by saying that “Salvation comes from the Jews,” and ends by saying those who call themselves “Jews” are not children of Abraham or Moses and, in fact, have Satan as their father. From identifying the word Jew with “we,” as he does with the Samaritan woman, Jesus goes on to refer to what John calls “Jews” as “you,” which is to say, a group that does not include Jesus. Accepting or rejecting the Messiah becomes the principal way of defining what it means to be a Jew. (p. 36)

In other words, the true meaning of what it means to be a Jew has to do with the spirit that was present with Abraham. By rejecting Christ, the Jews also rejected Abraham, for the Spirit of Christ was with Abraham. However, now, the term “Jew” has been redefined as a rejecter of Christ, regardless of ethnicity; for the Jews, in their rejection of Christ, accepted Satan as their father.

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

One who distinguishes him or herself as Jewish is declaring their rejection of Christ and the spiritual redefinition of God’s people in the above passage from Galatians. Israel is the spiritual body of Christ, composed of the faithful, from all races. Spiritual Israel and the Church are one and the same. Fleshly Israel has been put away.

That because the rebellious Israel had played the harlot, I had put her away, and had given her a bill of divorce: yet her treacherous sister Juda was not afraid, but went and played the harlot also herself. (Jeremiah 3:8)

Scapegoating Jews

Those who continue to advance the lie that Jesus was referring to Khazar Jews when He admonished the Synagogue of Satan are not only guilty of falsifying history but also of excusing ethnic Jews of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah. There can be no excuse for a Jew, or anyone, who rejects Jesus. In a religious and spiritual context, the Khazar debate is irrelevant. There is no validity in the dichotomy of “fake Jews” vs. “real Jews” outside of St. John’s definition of “Jews”.  And Jewish behaviour today cannot be excused away as being the rotten fruits of Turkish impostors. Jewish behaviour today is no different than it was 2,000 years ago when the Jews cried for the release of the criminal Barabbas over Jesus and for Herod to crucify the Messiah. The likely reason why some push the Khazar theory is in a cowardice attempt to avoid being labelled a racist or anti-Semite whilst implicating “Khazars” in crimes and conspiracy.

Yet no man spoke openly of Him, for fear of the Jews. (John 7:13)

Another group advocating the Khazar scapegoat are British Israelists (Christian Identity) and some white nationalists. Under the same spiritual blindness as Jews, this group rationalizes that if they can make today’s Jews out to be racial impostors of the ancient Hebrews, they themselves will inherit the birthright or, a more extreme view, they are the true descendants of the Hebrews. The latter view has its roots in the millenarianist heresy that plagued England during the Protestant Reformation.

More disturbing, perhaps, is the fact that many evangelical Christians embrace the Khazar scapegoat, in an attempt to deify the Jews. To avoid implicating their god race in the world conspiracy—on the rare occasion when they actually admit a world conspiracy exists—these Christian Zionists dismiss it as being merely the work of the Khazar tribe, not “true Jews”. What they are saying then is that “true” racial Jews are racially incapable of sin, racially incapable of being the conspirators leading the New World Order. Of course, this is completely absurd and completely contrary to the basic tenets of Christianity. This belief is more in line with something from the Third Reich than the Bible.


Genealogical records destroyed along with the Temple
It is next to impossible to argue that destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the slaughter of one million Jews (according to Titus Flavius Josephus) in 70 AD was not the work of God that brought the Old Covenant to fulfillment as well as prophet Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy. But also destroyed by divine will were all genealogical records of the ancient Hebrews. This is not only a major problem for racialists today, it is further evidence of the deeper spiritual truth behind the chosen-people archetype. If God intended for a small Hebrew tribe to rule the world for eternity, surely He would have kept in tact proof of this tribe’s racial authenticity. But since this was not the case, the loss of the Temple records is further evidence that God’s intention from the beginning was a faithful universal people unto Him, with the ancient Hebrew era serving as a mere type of bigger things to come. Saint Paul drives this home in his instruction to Timothy:

As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise, not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith.  (1Timothy 1:3-4)