Quote from: Hatchc

So in my reading about various powerful nations in Europe in the last 500 years I've noticed a recurring cycle:

The Jєωs come in large numbers, the nation experiences the greatest power it has ever known, the Jєωs leave (or are expelled), and then the nation goes back to having a normal amount of power.

Isn't it true that the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the English, and now the Americans have achieved their greatest power when Jєωs were at the helm?

Any powerful European nations in the last 500 years that were not controlled by Jєωs, at least by proxy?

I don't agree with this thesis. Jєωs weaken a Christian nation. They do not strengthen it. The тαℓмυd says Jєωs are to weaken and subvert and even destroy Christian nations whenever possible not strengthen them.

The Jєωs were marginalized in ghettos until the French Revolution. Prior to the French Revolution they had made progress in Protestant England after Cromwell and the Inglorious Revolution of 1688, and in the Calvinist Dutch republics where they helped originate the first stock exchanges and favored iconoclasm.

According to some historians, Calvin was Jєω, original name Cohen, or French Cauin.

Russia was powerful when it kept the Jєωs segregated and out of the loop. Russia was destroyed by Jєωs with the communist revolution.

The "U.S.A." has been completely undermined by Jєωs until today it stands over its own fall and ruin.

imo, the Jєωιѕн world power began to make its modern ascent after the Napoleonic Wars, and Napoleon wrecked France and Europe.

WW I and WW II and the UN '45 and "Israel" '48, and here we are ... a total moral and economic wreck watching TV and the media tell lie after lie ... day after day.

The Jєωs don't strengthen anybody, imo, unless people feel empowered by deception. The abortion industry and porn culture are quite well today thanks to the Jєωs. Who did you think was making most of the money on that anyway?

Where Nancy Peℓσѕι and Joe Biden find sacred ground, common sense and Christianity find a pit.

--- Thus it is not for nothing that everywhere there [in Europe] the Jєωs are reigning (tsariat) over the stock exchanges, not for nothing that they control capital, not for nothing that they are masters of credit, and not for nothing, I repeat, that they are the masters of all international politics, and what will be in the future is known also to the Jєωs themselves: their reign is approaching, their complete reign!

The Yid and his bank are now reigning over everything: over Europe, education, civilization, socialism - especially socialism, for he will use it to uproot Christianity and destroy its civilization. And when nothing but anarchy remains,
the Yid will be in command of everything. For while he goes about preaching socialism, he will stick together with his own, and after all the riches of Europe will have been wasted, the Yid's bank will still be there. The Antichrist will come and stand over the anarchy. ---

- Dostoyevsky, 1877

I didn't mean "powerful" in that the Christians in those nations were powerful, but that the Jєωιѕн nation that chose to go by another name was powerful. The United States is a Jєωιѕн nation, the British Empire was a Jєωιѕн empire.

The reason I asked the question is because I want to have a view of history that is able to distinguish powerful nations that were run by non-Jєωs from powerful nations that the Jєωs would like me to think were run by non-Jєωs, but that were really under their thumb.

It's not only the case in Europe - the great Asian powers of the industrial age were also totally in the hands of the Jєωs. I'm thinking in particular of the Japanese empire and individuals like Jacob Schiff, or Mao Zedong and his good friends Israel Epstein, Sidney Shapiro, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler.

Quote from: Hatchc

I didn't mean "powerful" in that the Christians in those nations were powerful, but that the Jєωιѕн nation that chose to go by another name was powerful. The United States is a Jєωιѕн nation, the British Empire was a Jєωιѕн empire.

The reason I asked the question is because I want to have a view of history that is able to distinguish powerful nations that were run by non-Jєωs from powerful nations that the Jєωs would like me to think were run by non-Jєωs, but that were really under their thumb.

Jєωιѕн power is institutional in law, finance, and iconoclasm --- property and money entitlements. Therefore, check the banks and the law to see its effects at work.

For example, the Inglorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bank of England 1694 were signs of an iconoclastic and materialist character, but it was still a weak power then.

"The Shetar's Effect on English Law "is an acadmenic paper on Jєωιѕн influence in the money and law of England, etc.

I don't think the United States is a "Jєωιѕн nation" or even a nation anymore. It's a field equation to serve the interests of the NWO and nothing else.

I don't think the British Empire was a "Jєωιѕн empire". It was more of a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic and Protestant "Coalition of the Willing" --- another sort of "scientific" materialist field equation like the Unites States.

I'm not trying to simply disagree with you. Just trying to be clear.

The powers of this world are ephemeral and Satanic in many cases. For example, King Henry VIII sending St. Thomas More and Bishop Fisher to the Tower and torturing and killing all the Carthusian monks.

Power is insitutional before it is national, imo. Jєωιѕн power is unique and coincidental in the Jєωιѕн nation and in international banking, law, "scientific" materialism, and socialism, etc.

The powers of this world are also contemporary with whatever dog is having his day --- like unbaptized, non-Christian Abe Lincoln and his factionalists and Ghengis Khan and the Golden Horde and Tamerlane. If opportunistic Jєωs have thrown in with a winning dog, that's all they have done --- thrown in with a winning dog.

I don't seem to have much of a point, except that power is institutional before it is national, imo.

The Catholic Church has national and institutional power, and the institutional power is greater.

Quote from: TheKnightVigilant

It's not only the case in Europe - the great Asian powers of the industrial age were also totally in the hands of the Jєωs. I'm thinking in particular of the Japanese empire and individuals like Jacob Schiff, or Mao Zedong and his good friends Israel Epstein, Sidney Shapiro, Frank Coe, Solomon Adler.

I'm not so sure about this.

The Chinese and Japanese has powerful empires for hundreds of years before Hymie ever came wandering in that part of the world. even to this day, the Orientals are very suspicious of the Judaic interlopers. Anyone "western" actually.

Quote from: Hatchc

I didn't mean "powerful" in that the Christians in those nations were powerful, but that the Jєωιѕн nation that chose to go by another name was powerful. The United States is a Jєωιѕн nation, the British Empire was a Jєωιѕн empire.

The reason I asked the question is because I want to have a view of history that is able to distinguish powerful nations that were run by non-Jєωs from powerful nations that the Jєωs would like me to think were run by non-Jєωs, but that were really under their thumb.

Jєωιѕн power is institutional in law, finance, and iconoclasm --- property and money entitlements. Therefore, check the banks and the law to see its effects at work.

For example, the Inglorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bank of England 1694 were signs of an iconoclastic and materialist character, but it was still a weak power then.

"The Shetar's Effect on English Law "is an acadmenic paper on Jєωιѕн influence in the money and law of England, etc.

I don't think the United States is a "Jєωιѕн nation" or even a nation anymore. It's a field equation to serve the interests of the NWO and nothing else.

I don't think the British Empire was a "Jєωιѕн empire". It was more of a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic and Protestant "Coalition of the Willing" --- another sort of "scientific" materialist field equation like the Unites States.

I'm not trying to simply disagree with you. Just trying to be clear.

The powers of this world are ephemeral and Satanic in many cases. For example, King Henry VIII sending St. Thomas More and Bishop Fisher to the Tower and torturing and killing all the Carthusian monks.

Power is insitutional before it is national, imo. Jєωιѕн power is unique and coincidental in the Jєωιѕн nation and in international banking, law, "scientific" materialism, and socialism, etc.

The powers of this world are also contemporary with whatever dog is having his day --- like unbaptized, non-Christian Abe Lincoln and his factionalists and Ghengis Khan and the Golden Horde and Tamerlane. If opportunistic Jєωs have thrown in with a winning dog, that's all they have done --- thrown in with a winning dog.

I don't seem to have much of a point, except that power is institutional before it is national, imo.

The Catholic Church has national and institutional power, and the institutional power is greater.

I don't think the British Empire was a "Jєωιѕн empire". It was more of a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic and Protestant "Coalition of the Willing" --- another sort of "scientific" materialist field equation like the Unites States.

I don't seem to have much of a point, except that power is institutional before it is national, imo.

The Catholic Church has national and institutional power, and the institutional power is greater.

Don't pay any mind to Hatchc because he/she is an apologist for Jєωry. I've noticed several comments on different threads in the past where he more or less defends Jєωs and/or bashes people, such as Brother Nathanael, who expose them. I can read between the lines. Hatchc is an apologist for Jєωry, and possibly, a crypto-Jєω himself.