Defining the “Individual”: The Ruler and The Ruled

While I am principally an individualist, unlike most sworn individualists (who often see all people as intrinsically, unequivocally equal; “the sanctity of the individual” and so on) and proportion their politics to this maxim, I believe that at a certain level of heritable intelligence (namely biological IQ: intelligence quotient) a person’s predisposition towards individualism declines sharply — and therefore the need for benevolent collectivism is an (inevitable) necessity in swaying these groups of people of lower intelligence that are going to take on the beliefs of someone or something sooner or later — the crux of my argument is that lower intelligence people are an ideological power vacuum — Why? It’s simple enough — they lack the reasonable individualistic capacity to be resistant to, and critical of malevolent, monolithic, collective thought and its resulting politics — they, quite simply, are lacking the intelligence to discern and exercise sensible, pragmatic individualism: an important factor in holding together a civilization and ensuring its sustainability. The history of these populations’ civilization concurs with this assertion.

The need for parity between ruler and ruled.

If an electorate lacks the intelligence to “connect the dots”, sees only its own interests (due to lack of creative and/or empathetic vision to see benevolent collective goals) — it both lacks comprehension of itself and others and falls prey to predatory politicians and rulers in all their forms.

These are rulers who will outclass such an electorate in intelligence, knowledge, practicality, conscientiousness, time preference, and just about every other trait that is a reliable predictor of success and influence in its numerable forms.

We are seeing this more and more, the Ashkenazi Jews currently rule over whites and all racial groups beneath measured by genetic IQ.

I believe, unlike the absolute assertions of Jordan Peterson that suggest it is only intelligence that accounts for Jewish influence, that, at least some element of Jewish in-group consolidation is the reason the highest echelons of power are dominated by them. There are simply too many smart non-Jewish ethnic whites for this to go unaccounted for me to believe Jewish dominance has no environmental causes whatsoever.

Peterson makes an assertion here about the nature of White-Nationalist’s outlook, one I feel makes an incorrect assumption. A White-Nationalist’s sobriety regarding race comes not from hatred, but acknowledgement of irrefutable differences between groups of humans that must be objectively taken into account, it’s white advocacy rather than white supremacy.

This, mixed in with the fact Jews came to occupy influential financial positions first before anyone else (due to Christian Europeans being unable to partake in usury historically) this helps to explain why Ashkenazi Jews dominate today — they got into positions first due to the lucky societal circumstances, and then consolidated their positions, with an element of persecution and the fact Jews were relatively ostracized, these positions likely were passed on in a nepotistic way; more so than not with the in-group in mind.

Also, most of the immoral, extraordinarily powerful so-called “Jews” are actually Judeo-MasonicSolomonic adherents — by extension, Satanists, this has served to totally mischaracterise Jews altogether. The people who are responsible for the Globalist agenda are not real Jews, they may identify as Jews publicly, but they have Masonic inspiration. For example, their very non-Jewish symbol, the “Star of David”, is a Satanic, Masonic symbol, many half-Jews have fallen for this false non-biblical imagery and have followed the so-called state of “Israel”; thinking it is a Biblical revelation.

See how the Judeo-Masonic elites are obsessed with Israel for non-Jewish reasons.

Stop opposing the broad ethno-religious group that is Judaism, it’s simply not the case that a broad group of some multi-million Jews are colluding against the world, to suggest so makes little sense. More accurately, a small sect of Solomon-praising, Satanic-Masonic “Jews” are to blame for the sheer misrepresentation of the Jewish community, and all conspiratorial behavior that has seemingly come from a broadly “Jewish” establishment.

“Masonry is a search after Light. That search leads us directly back, as you see, to the Kabalah. In that ancient and little understood medley of absurdity and philosophy, the Initiate will find the source of many doctrines; and may in time come to understand the Hermetic philosophers, the Alchemists, all the anti-Papal thinkers of the Middle Age, and Emanuel Swedenborg. Everything scientific and grand in the religious dreams of all the Illuminati, Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Saint-Martin, and others, is borrowed from the Kabalah; all the Masonic associations owe to it their Secrets and Symbols.”
— Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 33° freemason and founder of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

This so-called “light” is, in essence, reverence of Lucifer not as the devil, but as a liberator, a guardian or guiding spirit, or even the true god as opposed to God (YHWH).

Judeo-Masons are obsessed with Israel in the context of Solomon; but look at how Solomon was addressed in the Bible:

“The Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel.” — 1 Kings 11:9

The charge against Solomon was that ‘his heart was not perfect,’ or wholly devoted to the YHWH, that he ‘went not fully’ after the YHWH. His was a case of halting between two opinions, or rather, of trying to hold both at once. He wanted to be a worshiper of YHWH and of these idols also — It is clear to see how Satanic Freemasonry is a combined religion of pagan Gods and the Judaic God, this is why the elites identify as “Jews” today, but aren’t truly so.

Jewish Mysticism is not true Judaism, it’s a non-biblical offshoot of what is sanctioned in scripture. The entry of the Kabbalah— developed roughly around the 12th century, derived from the heretical, non-inspired text, the Talmud.

Solomon the Wise was an Israelite, he was a Jew, but he turned away from God (YHWH) and pursued Satanism. Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, a Goddess connected with fertilitysexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked. She has been known as the deified morning and/or evening star (Luciferian symbology). Solomon also began to praise Moloch/Milcom/Molech (as the Judeo-Masonic Elites do annually at the Bohemian Grove). Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.

Look at the chest of this portrayal of Molech, the “Star of David” is clearly embossed in the metalwork. The “Israel” we see today is NOT Jewish!


The Star of David, (David, the visionary of Solomon’s Temple), is intertwined with Freemasonry’s square and compasses.

Judeo-Masonic Agenda.

Judeo-Masonic Ashkenazi “Jews” closest competitors, those most genetically similar to them, are Caucasian European whites. If whites are removed from the equation as a major demographic, then the genetic (and thus influence) gap will become wider than ever — this is what those in power are attempting to do; diminish “whiteness” in all its forms — they know the significant predictive role of race in political influence and socioeconomic systems, and are (understandably) putting all of their money into brainwashing people to be blind to this reality while carrying out their dysgenic agenda behind the scenes.

As a result of this agenda, such a dysgenic electorate will be more susceptible to emotional arguments, logical fallacies, compartmentalization, designed dialectics, irrationality, superstitions, hysteric trends, and so on — the funny thing is, we can already see how these “minority groups” are already predisposed to all of these things, yet are protected groups nonetheless — and, right before our eyes, are rapidly replacing whites in Western nations as the new dominant population with an army of liberal “progressives” employed to assure us that this will “enrich” us, all the evidence points to the contrary.

Varying intelligence: why collective thought will always have a place in human society, whether we like it or not.

It’s about mitigation — rather than hoping for a sociopolitical Utopia, I believe reasonable mitigation and sensible policy-making is enough to deliver a society that can flourish.

TL:DR — Just as individual thought will always exist relative to collective thought and vice versa; it’s a seesaw based on aforementioned factors. The further towards base consciousness a population gets the more negatively collectivist it becomes, taking on often bad ideas in lieu of their own.

The role of benevolent collectivism (such as the group-think religiosity of cultural and ethical Christianity) for susceptible groups is deliberately overlooked in postmodernist society — because certain globalist forces want to unilaterally over-represent in society genetically and/or culturally limited “individuals” that, on average, simply lack said mental faculties, know-how, background etc (due to numerous factors including historic inbreeding among many others) to represent themselves as capable individuals, and thus are more receptive to collectivism and the centralization of the state. They’re bending over backwards to represent these people: granting copious welfare, slanting society to the their defense against all sensibility, bringing in compelled speech and taboos, white guilt and so forth — it’s quite simply a bubble for a protected group, that, without such an outrageously preferential bubble – would not get very far at all.

The globalist elite want us to believe that “everyone is equal” to all other concerned citizens regardless of significant civilization-defining traits such as intelligence. Hence the ideological over-representation of Cultural Marxist ideology across all institutions owned by the trendsetters.

In lower IQ people — traits such as gullibility, a lack of receptiveness to rationality, and a predisposition towards unthinking group-think collectivism abounds, all this has a biological basis in race. Populations that operate at a more basic consciousness, i.e. concerned with R-brain matters such as sex, domination, resources on the group or individual basis, lacking the empathetic foresight to perceive and act upon wider concerns.

It is not entirely environmental as the Jew-funded Cultural Marxist institutions will insist.

Guess what? Europe will become a continent dominated by low IQ “individuals” that have just as much of a right to vote as rational, moral, and savvy individuals — the UK alone will become a Muslim country by 2050 if current demographic trends persist due to the proliferate compound nature of R-selective populations: by which point, proxy-totalitarianism will have a firmer foothold than ever.

This is bad news for the individual but great news for the centralized state.

If we look back to the societies that are today deemed “antiquated” and the “wrong side of history”, we can see various successful, influential classical societies and groups that practiced eugenics, Rome, Ashkenazi Jewry, ancient Greeks incl. Sparta, and so on. Even one of the Godfathers of philosophy, Plato, suggested the benefits selective mating to produce a guardian class.

Furthermore, we can see how Western Christian societies averted dysgenics by making legal provisions against birth of inferior human beings, this was notably promulgated in Western European culture by the Christian Council of Agde in 506, which forbade marriage between cousins. Something dysgenic populations never really did to an effective extent, the genetic rift thus widened.

Up until the mid-late 20th century, genetic discrimination such as compulsory sterilization of persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation and genocide of races perceived as inferior was a wide societal norm, the accepted norm was that there are differences between certain groups of humans, whether we wanted to accept that or not for humanitarian reasons was, quite rightly, a secondary matter.

This article, while cautious to frame such practices and conventions as supremacist, malevolent, or otherwise, hopes to illustrate that a dysgenic society will lead to more suffering and conflict than a society with eugenicist practices ever will; and the evidence supports it.

Drawing the line as to what defines an “individual” in relation to sociopolitical systems.

Because a comprehensive system of natural selection no longer exists, (even culturally now) — the distinction between genetics that are passed on by merit and genetics passed on with the help of welfare and so on — is nonexistent, we have R-selective groups being able to pass on their genes where in a truly open, decentralized society this wouldn’t be able to happen.

In simple terms in application to political systems — smart people are often more individualist (thus, conservative and nationalistic), lower intelligence groups are less individualist (more predisposed to group-think, socialism), the role of mass-indoctrination may be able to net some fringes of higher intelligence groups but generally the core principle remains.

I propose we can relatively reliably categorize people into “capable individuals” and “incapable individuals”, largely reliably on the five racial groups and dysgenic/eugenic traits, gender, background, but also (albeit somewhat less reliably) within these groups based on class. (Cultural Marxism is all about denouncing the terms “categorical” or “general” but these are perfectly fine terms, used in the correct context).

While these assertions of justifiable partition certainly sounds collectivist and an affront to individual rights — race realism and the taxonomic significance between biological groups is founded in science; and a factor worthy of serious consideration when regarding any system of social and political arrangement.

I’ve written a whole article (called “the truth about racism”) detailing the significance of race and intelligence, so I won’t go into too much detail here, but here are a few points that help illustrate my argument:

If we cannot see the influence of race and IQ on upholding individual representation, we will fall to absolutist collectivist politics, especially as the “migrant crisis” rapidly undermines Western population of capable (higher IQ) individuals with incapable (lower IQ) individuals.

Representing the voting rights of incapable (low IQ) people is dangerous, I propose an IQ and general/applied knowledge test for eligibility to political vote. While this kind of test cannot determine moral character, at least it can determine intelligence.

Lower intelligence groups are almost always going to organize towards the characteristics of the mob, fragmentation, and group-think, whereas higher intelligence groups tend to represent their own thoughts and interpretations and have awareness of benevolent collectivism, thus shaking-off most inclinations to representing monolithic thought.

They will almost always make irresponsible, hysterical, passionate, and irrational decisions with their rights to liberty, democracy, and self-determination, by extension empowering the state; not themselves or the wider capable individual.

At a higher level of intelligence, the ability for someone to think for themselves increases, hence the commonality of individualism and democracy in Western nations occupied by races of higher overall IQ (even if Western democracies and systems that champion the individual are often subverted — the general attitude towards individualism is more common in people of higher intelligence than without).

In my opinion, this is where the role of independent collective thought such as the Bible comes in, while you can absolutely take on the teachings on your own terms, regardless of your intelligence — the importance of casting a collectivist thought process that engages with several fundamental principles such as “do not not steal”, “do not kill”, “do not lie lie”, etc based on the threat of eternal damnation is the only way to communicate to a group of people not (easily) able to operate on a rational level of thought, the Bible does this exquisitely, it uses the threat of death mixed in with something that cannot be possibly tangibly understood (a deity), the perfect enforcing combination for keeping susceptible populations in line.

The decline of Christianity as a (mostly) positive force of collectivist thought has spelled disaster for the West.

As Christianity has been mocked and destroyed in Western culture at the hands of Jewish influence, we see susceptible (lower intelligence) populations previously protected by the positive collective standards of the Bible now become receptive to new “progressive” hive-mind ideas, it really is one religion exchanged for another more materialistic one, this new nihilistic religion as Christianity’s replacement lacks any direction.

Instead, it opens vulnerable populations up to sophistic ideas that, ultimately, reduce essential liberties, that, without the safeguarding ideals of collectivist Biblical faith, have now been able to infiltrate and infect Western culture.



The Motives For Globalism?

The global community today is clearly in a state of flux. This is not an aberration – we are in the midst of a normal and periodic global reordering. We shall briefly take a “big picture” look at this phenomenon and attempt to glean an understanding as to the direction that we are heading as citizens of a global society. It is my hope that these observations can foster a more in depth discussion between reasonable people; leading to the development of ideas which can then be implemented to improve the human condition.

What is the core motive and means for the select few that together actively seek to steer the world towards their collective vision? Is this vision a noble, virtuous one? Will it work in practice?

It’s easy to oppose Globalism in the waywardly pessimistic lights espoused by alternative circles; “A genocidal order of chaos”, “A warmongering Empire”, “A misanthropic Zionist-Satanic creed”, “A covert tyrannical force”, “Money manipulators”; all are true, but all have a purpose pushed by the enlightened few who see humanity for what it is at its common worst; irresponsible, pleasure-seeking, egotistical, selfish, so on.

Their realism has spawned an idealism; that man can be brought into an “Age of Reason”, that there is a solution to the human problem.

It is equally easy to get on board with how Globalism is popularly portrayed (and misrepresented) to the masses; “Public-private partnerships.” “Distributing energy fairly in an energy-scarce world.” “Saving the environment.” “Reducing manmade warming.” “No child left behind.” “Open borders.” “Tolerating and celebrating diversity.” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” “It takes a Village.” “A kinder gentler government will take care of you”.

But there is a middle ground that must be examined, that Globalism is a process, that while devastatingly immoral in its process, may be the forceful order necessary to salvage and secure the world’s, and mankind’s, future — or at least be a viable alternative to the self-destructive path we are presently on as a species.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (1903) purports to document the minutes of a late-19th-century meeting attended by world Jewish/Satanic leaders, the “Elders of Zion”, who are conspiring to take over the world.

One claim in the document is that the masses are too unreasonable and unruly to rule by “reasonable counsels and arguments”, legitimizing their secretive and subversive approach to rule, and punctuating an anti-human ideology that spearheads the globalist vision:

“Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favour with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, customs, traditions and sentimental theorism, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument.” — The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

“The mob is a savage and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.”
― The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

“[…] one simple, true piece of knowledge, the basis of all knowledge — the knowledge of the structure of human life, of social existence, which requires division of labour, and, consequently, the division of men into classes and conditions. It is essential for all to know that owing to difference in the objects of human activity there cannot be any equality, […] human suffering, arising from an education which does not correspond with the work which individuals are called upon to do. After a thorough study of this knowledge the peoples will voluntarily submit to authority and accept such position as is appointed them in the State.”
― The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Their pursuit is utilitarian; but do the envisaged “utopian” ends justify their duly reckless means?


They see themselves as exempt of these basal vices of the human condition, which, in their view, makes them solely responsible for directing humanity towards this vision of ‘enlightenment’ by whatever means necessary, their involvement with occult Masonic ideology reflects this.

Yet, even within their numbered ranks, the Globalist families pursue different ideas, even at times dissenting from the agreed agenda, as seen with the Kennedy family and the subsequent “assassinations” in the sixties. However illuminated they regard themselves, they still seem far-removed from the “perfection” they seek to embody.

They are the “Philosopher Kings”, self-proclaimed Gods in the limited bodies and minds of men.

They see the need to use their immeasurable knowledge, volition, and power to steer the human race away from tribal, base-consciousness ruled iniquity, to a totalitarian, Communist-Globalist-Technocratic “Plato’s Republic” enlightened utopia of genetically and epi-genetically “flawless” superhumans. All without accounting for the selfish gene that underpins everything; the primal, selfish instincts within us all, and the unshakable natural law of free will.

No matter where it was tried, communism has always resulted in mountains of dead bodies. As for socialist economics, it has always resulted in shortages, inefficiency, poverty, and desperation. Why? Because it operates in opposition to human nature.

Form follows function.

Why is the world as it is today, and has always been throughout history? The human condition — the form (of the world and all human affairs) follows the function of the individual’s biology in collective representation.

Their grand social pursuit will require deconstruction and reconstruction of the very fabric of the natural order of all things human; to make a communist utopia work you must reconfigure man and nature itself.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” […] the intellectuals, could not make anything out of the uttered words in their abstractness; did not note the contradiction of their meaning and inter- relation: did not see that in nature there is no equality, cannot be freedom; that Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws”
— The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Their highest regard is the ‘higher-thought’ human ability to perceive all the components that makes man what he is, the human awareness, or “consciousness”, cogito.

They believe this God-given gift means that they can control the human destiny in every regard, provided enough enlightenment and occult understanding is achieved, hence the imagery of the all-seeing eye. They believe that democracy is not a viable approach to sound policy-making.

“The ill-guided acquaintance of a large number of persons with questions of polity creates utopian dreamers and bad subjects, as you can see for yourselves from the example of the universal education.”
— The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

“Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike.” — Theodore Roosevelt, 32nd US President, Freemason

The spiritual argument states that no matter how “wise” a gnostic man is, he cannot ever understand the higher plane and the doings of God, they will always be blinded by the flesh that binds us.

The Globalists are a select society of wise men, “intelligentsia”, who think they know what is best for humanity. But they do not and they cannot.

“Nobody can understand what God does here on earth. No matter how hard people try to understand it, they cannot. Even if wise people say they understand, they cannot; no one can really understand it.” — Ecclesiastes 8:17

Globalists Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made several references to the people they considered “enemies of benevolent control and the new world order”: bitter clingers with religion and guns, and a basket of deplorables. This was an effort to characterize “hold-outs” who insisted on freedom. Freedom, in elite eyes, is the resistance, plain and simple. It is archaic and dangerous. It is ignorant and senseless. It is primitive.

Freedom, on the other hand, implies self-reliance, self-sufficiency, inviolable private property, and the protections expressed in the Bill of Rights.

The Utopian vision will be corrupted.

This Utopian vision for man is something that, inevitably, will become bastardized; as those who are attempting this “great idea” or “Age of Reason” are flawed humans themselves; liable to exploit, and prone to chaos as much as the masses they seek to control. Humans are beings of entropy, not of order.

There is no essentially “perfect being”.

There is no essentially “perfect being”, perhaps in varying physicality and intelligence but not in moral character. Even those few who rule benevolently, possessing great self-control and sound moral character; their successors are not guaranteed to be as they were. You can mitigate basal human nature, but never truly extinguish it.

Wherever humans organize themselves to collective moral character and order — corruption always comes in the end.

“For you were formerly darkness, but now you are Light in the Lord; walk as children of Light” — Ephesians 5:8

As to quote the Bible, we are all ‘fallen’, and hopelessly anthropocentric, to pursue a Utopia of man, is to ultimately manifest a dystopia masquerading as a Utopia.

The human body cannot be engineered to this moral ‘perfection’ as so without sacrificing faculties integral to the basic healthy human condition.

It is this basic, healthy human condition they seek to subvert and recondition; to use their man-made machinations to punish undesirable behaviors and reward desirable behaviors, to change the very form and function of the human body to their own ends.

Consider this question contained in a 1952 CIA MKULTRA memo: “Can we get control of an individual to the point where he will do our bidding against his will and even against fundamental laws of nature, such as self preservation?

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” — Romans 3:10

They believe they can engineer this utopia in a material sense; through eugenics, by inculcating the moral code of their choice; enlightened Luciferianism, and by reducing the number of people on the planet to a manageable 500,000,000 as opposed to the rudderless 9 billion at present time.

Yet, what follows could be even more disastrous; malevolent editing of the genes. Insertion of visual images directly into the brain. Use of drugs to dampen and neutralize emotional responses to sidetrack and take away impulses that are considered “anti-social”, popularize and then mass-introduce trans-human technology to regulate, track, and control the human biology, life and death in their control, all for the “greater good” of the species.

Human ecology is inclined towards the individual.

Give one inch of ground to a social utopia and moves for greater and greater centralized tyranny will follow; uni-polar world order has never, and will never work.

The forces within human ecology mostly move towards the individual and group interests, not outwardly towards the wider “spiritual” collective, although every population is multivariate. This makes any pursuit for absolute order impossible. Humans are fractious and tribal by nature, to assume otherwise is misguided.

“Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known.” — Deuteronomy 28:64

The Georgia Guidestones outline this utopian vision:

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

To transition into this world order they must actively exploit the flaws of humans.

Because, as aforementioned, dealing with the masses in a reasonable manner is futile, they must use engineered liberalism and other occult stratagems to weaken manifestations of consensual order, to replace one order with another.

They know that mankind is inconsistent, any perceived “order” is, in reality, fleeting and malleable, just as is the human condition.

To study the machinations of man himself, is to understand how the world truly works, the Masons have studied man and the occult sciences exhaustively, their very logo represents base consciousness (the square), and its manipulation and expansion, (the compass). This explains why their Hegelian dialectic, ‘Order out of chaos; stratagem is widely used, to use to fear as a tool to bring about a desired end result, this is also known as the “organization of disorder”.

“One man is equivalent to all Creation. One man is a World in miniature.” — Albert Pike, Freemason

“Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears: the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.”
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The new Solomon’s temple and the return of Babylon.

Babylon and Solomon’s temple are the prime symbols of the temporal, Satanic power of Freemasonic enlightenment, of the light bringer, Lucifer.

Freemasonry is the Satanic, materialistic ideology of a material Kingdom of Heaven, not under Biblical faith, but under Satanic ideals; it is carnal Israel.

“The city of David” (Zion) is the subjective consciousness of the individual.

It makes sense then, that under the guise of oppressed Jews, the synagogue of Satan Globalists are forging a middle-eastern Greater Israel state to seat their Masonic vision, that of Solomon of Israel.

Hiram Abiff, King David, and the Temple of Solomon.

With the assistance of master Mason and architect, Hiram Abiff, Solomon’s Temple began to take form in theory, and with the assistance of Hiram I, the materials required for the construction of the Temple began to amass, joining those already gathered by King David, Solomon’s father, who was the original visionary of the Temple.

Another interpretation of I Kings 8:1-11, the dedication of the Temple by Solomon, is given as follows:

A “tent” or tabernacle represents a transitory or perishable body built by man before he has brought forth his inherent spiritual faculties sufficiently to enable him to demonstrate eternal life. The “house of Jehovah” is the abiding, spiritualized body of man, the temple of God. This temple is the result of man’s bringing forth all his spiritual powers; when man abides in it he can say with Jesus Christ (Yahshua), “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.”


The Star of David, King David was the father of Solomon. David was the original visionary of the Temple.

Stone cutters quarried the blocks of stone that were its basic material, artisans from every building craft gathered to the site, and as the Temple was raised, the entire project was directed by the great architect, Hiram Abiff, who was sent to Solomon by Hiram I as part of his contribution to the skilled labor and materials pool.

Solomon aligned himself with King Hiram I, of Tyre, for many projects to public service, but perhaps the most famous and well known of these collaborative projects is the erection of a Temple in Jerusalem meant to house the relic The Ark of the Covenant.

Masons and what they represent.

A Freemason is someone who builds using raw materials, including stone and rock, which represents the material Earth as opposed to the immaterial spirit.

The Ark of the Covenant is the sum total of man’s conscious understanding of Truth, combined with faith affirmations and loyalty within and without to the principles of Truth. This covenant was written on tablets of stone, showing that the spiritual law is expressed not only in mind but in body also.

Stone has an allegorical meaning, taking elements of the Earth and fashioning them to a higher form or structure, otherwise known as occult magick.

Not all practicing masons were the same type of mason. Among the dozens of specialties there were what are called “rough” masons – those who constructed basic structures, foundations, and walls, and then there were “Freestone” masons – men who took stone and rock and transformed it into what we can easily call pieces of art – columns, arches, that sort of thing, often combining stone and metals. This required incredible skill, technique, and an aptitude for measurements and symmetry. Thus, it is said that the architecture and measurements of Solomon’s Temple held the truths to many mysteries.

This Freestone Masonry was a guarded secret among practitioners of the craft – even among other masons. It was not uncommon to find in the temporary “town” set up next to a building site a private conclave – or lodge – just for the Freestone Masons, where they lived together, ate together, and socialized.

They are known to have used a system of codes to record their designs and techniques, signals and handshakes to identify themselves to a fellow practitioner, and they tended to live and work together as a community.

The death of Hiram Abiff.

When the Temple was nearing completion, three masons sought out Hiram Abiff with it in mind to force him to reveal the secrets of the Temple to them.  When he refused, they killed him and hid his body.  King Solomon dispatched search parties when Hiram Abiff was missed, with the goal being to find him, and if necessary, recover the secret that he died to protect.  Whether or not King Solomon was privy to that secret is a mater of speculation.

Freemasonry has elevated Hiram Abiff to the position of first Master Mason, and that is how Hiram Abiff connects to Freemasonry.  King Hiram I sent Hiram Abiff to King Solomon to help him to construct the first Temple of Jerusalem, and that is how Hiram Abiff connects to both Kings. King Solomon is thought to have considered Hiram Abiff to be a genius, a master craftsman, and a friend, and placed him in a position of great authority and creativity in the construction of a Temple that was largely designed and built by stone masons.

The body represents the Temple.

To understand the measurements and mysteries of the Temple, is, according to Freemasonry, to understand the mystery of life.

“Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” — 1 Corinthians 3:16 

(1). The Holy Place represents a believer’s new heart (kardia) (2). The Porch (including the pillars) is analogous to a believer’s new supernatural willpower or volition (dianoia) (3). The secret, hidden, wooden chambers around the main sanctuary, you probably already guessed, represent the hidden part of a believer’s soul which is called in the Hebrew ‘cheder’ (6). This is the place in our soul where we bury and store our hurts, doubts and fears, etc. (if we don’t know how to deal with them or don’t want to deal with them), thinking because they are hidden, “no one will see and no one will know.” We will spend the next couple of months further investigating this area. The Inner Court represents the conscious part of a man’s soul (psyche) (4) and the Outer Court represents a believer’s body (soma) (5), which is the vehicle by which we express our life (soul). Together, our soul and body are known as the “flesh.”

The Temple represents the human body, the Temple of God/YHWH, the covenant in the temple is the covenant of YHWH in the body of he who follows, and is yoked to, YHWH.


Trashing the Torah: Justice, Freedom and Israel’s Assault on Jewish Values

Article from The Occidental Observer.

Precise definition is the keystone of liberty under law. A vaguely worded or imprecise law is an invitation to injustice, a judicial club that an overweening state can wield against its defenceless citizens. Laws should not be clubs but scalpels, used precisely and deftly to cut out only the malignancy of crime and corruption, not to harm the vital organs of a free society.

Right judgments and true laws (Neh. 9:13)

And no group should understand the importance of precise legal definition better than Jews. After all, they are a community whose religion and culture have, for millennia, centred on the meaning, application and extensibility of “statutes and judgments and laws, which the LORD made between him and the children of Israel” (Lev 26:46). Indeed, The Torah, as the oldest and most sacred part of the Jewish Bible is known, has the literal meaning of “The Law” (Ha-Tôrāh, הַתּוֹרָה, in Hebrew). This long history of legal argument and textual analysis has equipped Jews to flourish in those stereotypically Jewish professions of law and medicine, which demand mastery of complex, endlessly ramifying systems and skill in minute description, interpretation and diagnosis.

That’s why you would expect Jews to greet a certain new legal definition with horror and disbelief. The definition is vague, arbitrary and deplorably imprecise. Any law based on it truly will be an invitation to injustice and a club in the hand of the overweening state. The deplorable definition goes like this:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

… It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

When I first read that definition, I found it hard to believe it wasn’t a joke. How could any intelligent adult, let alone any lawyer, take it seriously? But the definition isn’t a joke and it’s being taken seriously by more and more organizations and institutions. British citizens can find it laid out on the official government website under the title “A definition of antisemitism.” The website says that it is taken from “the UK’s College of Policing” (UKCoP), where it is used as “guidance to police forces in the UK.”

The Campaign Against Crimethink

And where did UKCoP take it from? From the “European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),” where, according to UKCoP, it was “created … to help professionals understand” the “nature” of “antisemitism.” I don’t agree. I think it was created to help totalitarians end free discussion of Jewish behaviour and Jewish political activity. One thing is certain: Jews haven’t greeted this vague definition with horror. On the contrary, they’re eager to have it used as widely as possible to catch as many thought-criminals as possible. The British-based Campaign Against Antisemitism celebrates their success to date:

In 2005, the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), adopted a “working definition of antisemitism” which has become the standard definition used around the world, including by the European Parliament, the UK College of Policing, the US Department of State, the US Senate, and the 31 countries comprising the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In 2016, the powerful House of Commons Home Affairs Committee joined Campaign Against Antisemitism’s longstanding call for the British government and its agencies, as well as all political parties, to formally adopt the International Definition of Antisemitism, following which the British government formally adopted the definition. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

Anyone who believes in liberty under law should be very worried at the spread of this so-called “International Definition of Antisemitism,” which is clearly aimed at crushing free speech. In essence, the definition states that if Jews don’t like an opinion, it should be illegal to express it. The Campaign Against Antisemitism helpfully gives an example of such an opinion: “Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”

Truth is no defence

In other words, truth will be no defence for anyone accused of “antisemitism.” It is undoubtedly and obviously true that many “Jewish citizens” are “more loyal to Israel” and to the “priorities of Jews worldwide” than than they are to “the interests of their own nations.” The Jewish “intelligence analyst” Jonathan Pollard was an American citizen who spied for Israel. Clearly, he was “more loyal to Israel” than to “his own nation.” Under the “International Definition of Antisemitism,” it was “antisemitic” to say so, let alone to prosecute and imprison him for his crimes.

Numerous other Jews who are American citizens have served in the Israeli Defence Force rather than in the US Army. Again, they are clearly “more loyal to Israel” than “to their own nations.” Jewish neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams and Bill Kristol, all of whom are American citizens, promoted the disastrous and hugely expensive Iraq war against Third-World nation that posed no threat to the United States but was a regional enemy of Israel. Whose interests are these neo-cons really pursuing: America’s or Israel’s?

And then we have fervent Jewish support for mass immigration into Western nations, which has taken place decade after decade despite the opposition of the non-Jewish White majority in these nations. Support for mass immigration is clearly a “priority of Jews worldwide.” However, if it were good for Western nations, then Jews would also want it for Israel. They don’t: Israel rejects ethnic enrichment and maintains tight control of its borders. Discussion of all these facts, from Jonathan Pollard’s treachery to Barbara Roche’s xenophilia, would be strictly out of bounds by the “International Definition of Antisemitism.” After all, such discussion would, in the words of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, promote “sinister stereotypes” and ascribe “negative character traits” to Jews.

It’s a shame

The official definition of anti-Semitism includes “sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.” Whether intentionally or not, this leaves unclear whether one can be charged with anti-Semitism for describing individual Jews as conforming to negative Jewish stereotypes. But in any case, if you want to see “sinister [Jewish] stereotypes” and “negative [Jewish] character traits” ascribed to Jews, look no further than a British newspaper called The Jewish Chronicle. In March 2015, it hosted the Jewish playwright Jonathan Maitland as he argued that Margaret Thatcher had been Britain’s “greatest Jewish Prime Minister” (my emphasis).Why so? Because, Maitland said, she was a paranoid, arrogant, ruthless and self-centred outsider who brought about her own downfall by provoking the very betrayal she was paranoid about. In September 2017, the Jewish Chronicle was at it again, peddling the toxic antisemitic stereotype that Jews wield excessive political influence and “like to be close to power.”

By the International Definition of Antisemitism, these stories are clearly antisemitic and should render the editor of the Jewish Chronicle liable to prosecution and a stiff prison sentence. But it doesn’t end there. Look at how the Jewish Chronicle has treated Jeremy Newmark, national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement in Britain. He was once accused by gentiles of trying to “push” his way into a university meeting that he did not have the right to attend. He neither denied nor accepted the accusation; instead, he complained that he was being stereotyped as “a pushy Jew.” But guess what? The Jewish Chronicle recently stereotyped him as a tight-fisted and dishonest Jew:

A leading communal figure has been embroiled in a four-year dispute with an Israeli taxi driver over unpaid fares totalling £3,000. Jeremy Newmark, the chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), ran up the bill when he hired Yair Yatziv to drive him and his family during trips to Israel between 2013 and 2014. In a letter seen by the JC, dated February 2016, Mr Newmark agreed he owed £3,000, and promised to pay the debt in instalments. He claimed the delay had been due to health problems he had suffered.

However, until this week, Mr Yatziv had received no payment. When contacted by the JC on Monday [13 Nov 2017], Mr Newmark said it was unclear how much he owed and [he] had been waiting for invoices and receipts from Mr Yatziv. He also contended that he had already paid part of the bill, which had been unacknowledged by the driver. … Mr Yatziv said he had been hired by Mr Newmark when he visited Israel both in a professional capacity and for family holidays. Mr Newmark was employed by the Jewish Leadership Council at the time but resigned in October 2013, leaving Mr Yatziv unable to contact him. Mr Yatziv said: “One day I told him: ‘Listen, the account, it’s getting more and more’ and he told me that he would be travelling to the United States, and he would then transfer the money. After one month, two months, I called to the [JLC] office. They told me Jeremy Newmark had stopped working there. And that he was sick.”

The Jerusalem-based driver, who served for 30 years in the IDF, said he could not understand why Mr Newmark had failed to pay up for such a long period. “I don’t know why he did it. I gave him service, he used me — why didn’t he give me the money? You’re a big shot, running for Parliament in London. It’s a shame.” (Jeremy Newmark in row over £3,000 taxi faresThe Jewish Chronicle, 16th November 2017 / 27th Cheshvan 5778)

That story clearly promotes a classic antisemitic stereotype and the Jewish Chronicle should have been prosecuted for running it.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the wife of a world-famous prime minister is being stereotyped as a “Jewish Israeli Princess”:

Sara Netanyahu in fresh lawsuit for allegedly treating staff like ‘slaves’

Sara Netanyahu, the wife of Israel’s prime minister, is facing a new lawsuit from a former employee accusing her of abusive and threatening behaviour and treating staff like “slaves”. The details of the latest case, which follows hard on the heels of two previous cases that found against Netanyahu for wrongful employment practices, also follows a warning that she faces potential prosecution allegations of fraudulent spending in the prime minister’s official residence. …

The legal claim adds Netanyahu regards employees as “slaves”, preferring highly religious women from the ultra-Orthodox community, whom it suggests she believes to be harder working, as well as more introverted and compliant. Describing a dress code related to Netanyahu’s alleged concern with extreme cleanliness (also alluded to in previous court cases brought by former employees) the suit alleges: “SR was required to pack each item [of clothing] separately in two sealed and sterile bags, and at the end of each work day was supposed to take them home, wash them (even if they had not been worn) and reseal them in new sterile bags.” …

According to SR’s deposition she was scolded by Netanyahu, who allegedly said: “I have just been to Argentina and suffered for the state of Israel. You have some nerve asking for breaks.” Matters allegedly came to a head at the beginning of October after Netanyahu allegedly became angry over a missing pair of shoes when — the claim continues — she appeared to raise her hand as if to hit the cleaner.

The Facebook page for Benjamin Netanyahu — who has habitually denied any allegations of wrongdoing in the household as persecution, even after the two successful lawsuits against his wife — once again [denied] the new allegations. (Sara Netanyahu in fresh lawsuit for allegedly treating staff like ‘slaves’The Guardian, 17th October 2017)

Sara Netanyahu is clearly being stereotyped as an obsessive and authoritarian Jew. And look again at what she is alleged to have said: “I have just been to Argentina and suffered for the state of Israel. You have some nerve asking for breaks.” That is another classic hate-stereotype: the guilt-tripping, self-pitying Jew. Benjamin Netanyahu is also the target of a hate-stereotype: the hysterical and hyperbolic Jew. The Guardian claimed that he complained about “persecution,” “lies,” and “character assassination” despite his wife already having been twice found guilty of mistreating her staff.

Racial realism

Let’s return to the International Definition of Antisemitism, as set out at the Campaign Against Antisemitism. Are the stories about Jeremy Newmark and the Netanyahus full of “dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews”? They certainly are. Therefore all these stories should be illegal and the journalists responsible for them should be prosecuted and jailed. But it gets worse. In stories elsewhere, Benjamin Netanyahu is being stereotyped as a corrupt and manipulative Jew: he “has been questioned six times under caution by police looking into allegations he accepted gifts from businesspeople and colluded with newspaper publishers.”

It’s true, Zionism and Judaism are extreme opposites.

As Netanyahu himself might ask: Is there no end to the persecution? And it’s entirely possible that Netanyahu, like the Labour prime minister Ehud Olmert before him, will be persecuted into jail. I myself would be sorry to see him go there. Netanyahu might well be a crook, but he’s also a patriot and racial realist — a model that Western leaders would be wise to emulate. When Black African migrants began entering Israel in large numbers at the beginning of the decade, he acted with commendable toughness and efficiency to end the problems they inevitably began to cause.

Israel’s borders are now lined with high-tech fences to protect it from “predators in the region,” as Netanyahu robustly put it. Israel’s laws against illegal immigration have been progressively toughened and now “infiltrators” can be deported against their will. Netanyahu himself has said: “The infiltrators have a clear choice — cooperate with us and leave voluntarily, respectably, humanely and legally, or we will have to use other tools at our disposal, which are also according to law. I hope that they will choose to cooperate with us.”

Walking in the law of the LORD

Note how Netanyahu stresses that Israel will be acting entirely within the law. As I described above, the Law, Ha-Tôrāh, and its analysis have been central to Jewish life for millennia.

Psalm 119: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.” But what light does the Torah shed on migrants and asylum-seekers? Well, you could say it sheds a glaring light. Unlike the International Definition of Antisemitism, there is no vagueness or imprecision in the Torah’s definition of how Jews must behave towards migrants:

Exodus 22:21 Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: 10:18 He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. 10:19 Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

Quite clearly, Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu are trampling on the Torah when they treat “infiltrators” with such harshness. Many people defend Israel’s treatment of migrants on the ground that Israel was explicitly founded as a “Jewish state.” As we can see from the Torah, this is no defence whatsoever. As a Jewish state, Israel should welcome “strangers,” not reject them. Benjamin Netanyahu is trashing Jewish values and dishonouring the memory of those ancient Jews who “were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

But it gets worse. You would expect the fiercest opposition to Israel’s xenophobia to come from the most religious and conservative Jews, who still regard the Torah as the literal and irrevocable word of God. However, the only opposition to the xenophobia and the planned deportations is coming from a small minority of liberal and secular Jews. Shockingly, these xenophilic Jews say that they need to “wake up the Jewish world,” which is ever-ready to support mass immigration into non-Jewish nations like Britain and America but rejects all such immigration for Israel:

Israeli rabbis to hide African refugees facing deportation in ‘Anne Frank-inspired’ scheme

A group of Israeli rabbis have launched an “Anne Frank-inspired” activist programme to protect African asylum seekers facing forced expulsion from their homes. The sister of comedian Sarah Silverman is among those leading movement which hopes to help around 40,000 African asylum seekers, largely from Sudan and Eritrea. The Israeli government is intending to deport en masse from April and over the coming two years. …

As well sheltering asylum seekers, Rabbis for Human Rights said its members also intend to accompany asylum seekers on tours to the Garden of the Righteous Among the Nations at Yad Vashem — Israel’s Holocaust museum and memorial. The Righteous Among the Nations were non-Jews who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. The group hopes to “wake up the Jewish world” according to an internal memo. “People risked their lives to save Jews and we as a country are now saying we don’t want to risk the tiniest demographic shift,” Rabbi Silverman told Haaretz.

… The Rabbis for Human Rights group said it is also considering protesting the offices of airlines willing to transport deportees to Africa and also launch a large-scale social media campaign labelling Israel’s leaders and ministers as racists. (Israeli rabbis to hide African refugees facing deportation in ‘Anne Frank-inspired’ schemeThe Independent, 18th January 2018)

It is shameful that these liberal and secular Jews are having to take this action in defence of migrants. It is also deeply puzzling. After all, who is better-placed than Israel to turn Black Africans into law-abiding and productive citizens of a First-World state? For many years, Jews have been at the forefront of the battle for minority rights. Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould have argued with great success that race does not exist and that “Human equality is a contingent fact of human history.” In twenty-first century Britain, the Jewish activist Rebecca Hilsenrath heads the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and has been described by the Jewish Chronicle as “The Woman with the Best Job in the World.” After all, she stands in a proud Jewish tradition, fighting to rescue minorities from the prejudice and oppression they face in what is still a White-majority nation.

A hierarchy built on hate

Why, then, is Israel not a paradise of equality and fairness for minorities? It doesn’t even get close. Instead, it reproduces the deplorable racial hierarchy that Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Rebecca Hilsenrath have so tirelessly campaigned to overthrow in America and Britain. Ashkenazim, or light-skinned European Jews, are Israel’s intellectual and cultural elite, enjoying power, privilege and high incomes. Dark-skinned Mizrahim, or Jews from Arab countries, complain that they are second-class citizens and point out that David Ben-Gurion, the Ashkenazi founder of Israel, thought that they might reduce the nation to the level of “the Arabs.” Black Ethiopian Jews are at the bottom of society and have long complained of the racism and police brutality that they face. They are even alleged to have been the targets of state-sponsored attempts to restrict their numbers with a powerful contraceptive.

And now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, the Jewish nation of Israel is planning not to “love the stranger,” as the Torah commands, but to deport strangers forcibly by the tens of thousands. Does this mean that Jews are guilty of double standards? Are they promoting pro-migration policies in gentile nations while scornfully rejecting them in their own nation? Because of this, can Israel be considered a truly Jewish state? I don’t think it can.

These are questions that will be illegal if Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Community Security Trust have their way. See above.