Michael Brown Is An Agent Of Satan, He Will Attack Conservative Christians And Will Join The Homosexual Agenda
Michael Brown, the evangelical radio host, is agent of Satan. He will attack Christians like myself for simply affirming what the Bible teaches in regards to homosexuality, and he will side with demonic sodomites like Milo Yiannopoulos, who promotes homosexuality, loves the Emperor Nero, the tyrant who murdered St. Paul and St. Peter, and advocates for homosexual supremacist ideology. I did a whole video illustrating the reality of this harlotry:
I would like to present to you an article that my father wrote before my debate with Michael Brown, just to give you more information as to what we are discussing in regards to this sycophancy in the face of media pressure and popularity:
So how far will the Evangelical movement in the United States go to please the LGBT agenda?
When Shoebat.com posted this video calling for a death penalty on four homosexual wrestlers who raped two boys it upset one blaspheming homosexual and Right Wing Watch. These in turn taunt anti-gay activists within the Evangelical movement who quickly line up to express their condemnation and to denounce Shoebat.com.
And it works. Several Evangelical leaders began hurling denunciations and articles against our infamous Theodore Shoebat. According to these, calling for the death penalty for gay rapists, gay child molesters is 'unchristian'. The heavyweights from Calvinist John Piper, Glenn Beck to Dr. Michael Brown, Peter LaBarbera (1), Matt Barber and others were irate at Theodore's remarks that they are pumping away articles in denouncement of either Theodore or the death penalty.
One major gay activist who wraps some Evangelical scholars around his finger gives himself the blasphemous title as "Joe My God," so that when they twitter him they would blaspheme calling him "My God" instead of calling "Christ my God". The trick stems from when Caesar wanted the Christian world to address him as kyrios (My lord) which St. Paul denounced by stating "that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Philippians 2:11), that is that Christ is Kyrios not Caesar.
And as it seems, this sodomite blasphemer, Joe, has become their god instead.
To please Joe the Blasphemer Peter LaBarbera who heads Americans For Truth About Homosexuality goes as far as denouncing the young Shoebat for calling for such death penalty. Shoebat.com obtained leaked emails of him arm twisting the producer calling on them to scrub and edit out Theodore's contribution in an anti-gay documentary.
Dr. Michael Brown, a messianic theologian who gives the kosher approval stamp for the infamous and weird Brownsville Revival Movement, spends his lifetime arguing against his detractors and he too lined-up to strike his pen in denunciation. He was so sure that Christ would never kill such reprobates. He accepted to debate with the young Theodore on Dr. Brown's national radio (March 7th, 2016 2-3 PM eastern time). Under the headline "No Theodore, Jesus did not kill gays" Brown called the video "a very troubling video":
"Theodore's words [Jesus killed gays] do not represent Jesus, they do not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament, and they do not represent His true followers."
We were floored with threats from Mr. Brown to have us "marked" for condemnation unless we pull back. In several exchanges we had with Dr.Brown he argued that Evangelical leaders are not bending the knee to the homo-god hurled insults back at us: "That is just a blasphemous lie ... I only bend my knees to Jesus".
Brown doesn't get the metaphor. In no way shape or form these are making icons of the homo-god and are worshipping it. Taking this from Ezekiel's perspective in chapter 23, Israel was spiritually whoring around where God described them as copulating with a donkey. Where the Jews into beastiality? No. The truth is that the American anti-gay activists have sold out the farm on theological soundness that has always been the accepted norm, all for the sake of political correctness. After all "killing gay child raping pedophiles," according to these is not what Jesus would have ever done. "I only advocate for the death penalty when a life is taken (Gen 9:6)" responds Michael to our question on the death penalty for such reprobates.
Instead of supporting Theodore, Brown went as far as claiming that he could muster Christian leaders throughout the world to denounce Theodore's view:
"It is my privilege to work with godly leaders throughout America and around the world, a good number of whom are frontline, fearless Christians who stand firmly against homosexual activism, and every single one of them would join me in renouncing Theodore Shoebat's words ... "
Notice "around the world". Does Brown work with the Coptic leadership in Egypt or the Orthodox throughout the world all of whom would denounce Theodore? It is this huff-and-puff that says this: only the Evangelicals rule and sort of has a monopoly on global Christian theology since the apostolic-succession churches, according to these reprobates, has been left out by Christ. It is this type of rhetoric that should infuriate Christians worldwide. Fact is, despite such divided theological views within the American Evangelical movement, to preserve an appearance of a unified order, you find Brown sleeping with strange bedfellows like Rick Joyner, Benny Hinn, John Kilpatrick and even the anti-Trinity TD Jakes. He would never dare publicly condemn these, but Theodore according to this sell-out was "completely out of bounds".
Harassing messages from Brown went as far as pitting Theodore against his father and father against his son (which I will post for everyone's amusement to show how un-witty Brown really is). Dr. Brown did not realize, I raised a David, not a Goliath and he would never bend the knee to him or to the homo-god.
The young man needs to be destroyed by any means, not just by the sodomites but by the Evangelical clergy as well United Against Theodore.
However, had this controversy been in Russia, Egypt's Copts, Serbian Christians, Polish Christians ... and they will join Theodore not Brown and his ilk. Christianity in the view of these has a monopoly where only the Evangelical mega industry sets the rules on biblical interpretation. The Church, the Gospel, the nation ... everything, to these now exists to defend the rights of sodomites from legalizing punishments against them. This is the whole crux of the matter, that is, American brand of modern evangelicalism is the gospel.
It is not. American Evangelicalism, unlike the apostolic-succession Christianity, is such a divided group with scores of hair-splitting arguments that runs deep with so many sub-denominations that if one takes one sheep to a journey in the time tunnel, and compares to the times of the patristic fathers, this sheep would be viewed as a complete alien.
With the explosion of homosexuality in America, the Evangelical response have two extremes where some call for putting all gays in concentration camps while the "Jesus is love" side says that Jesus forbade capital punishment for sodomites. This is also another extreme.
Did Jesus kill gays? Nothing was ever said in this silly half-baked article that in the Bible it is as clear as the sun, Jesus killed the sodomites. Yet these intentionally overlook and refuse to disclose that some of the best passages of scripture ever used regarding the Trinity and the Theophany is within the context when Christ completely annihilated the sodomites.
Anyone who denies this ask them: was it Christ Who met with Abraham and announced the destruction of Sodom? In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and Who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17).
No sane theologian would argue that this person wasn't Christ. After much feasting, Christ and the other two men left Abraham to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:21-22). Christ even referred to His meeting with Abraham in the New Testament when He said:"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (John 8:56, also see St. Gregory as recorded by St. Aquinas, Catena Aurea). It was so clear in scripture that it was Christ Who killed 'the gays':
"Then the LORD [the Son] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD [the Father] out of heaven (Genesis 19:24)"
All of this scripture was completely ignored and is rarely if ever used by these losers. Why do I say that they are "losers"? It is because the sodomites (and unlike in the east) they have won and the American church completely lost for not trusting in God's judgment and for favoring American politics.
Yet this poorly written article which represents these leaders stance is from a man who touts himself "a scholar" was unable to see this?
Brown like the others concluded that executing sodomites "does not represent the spirit or letter of the New Testament".
Really?
It was the Holy Spirit who spoke through Paul in Romans 1 which taught that sodomites are "worthy of death" and Paul was basing this on what we discussed so far when the Theophany of Christ rained fire and brimstone from His Father.
The American brand of Evangelicals and even some of the Catholic Novus Ordo seminarians' are not Orthodox and they do not like the methods used to combat the LGBT-agenda in Russia or Poland or in the nation of Georgia where success is accomplished. They always describe them as harsh. But at the same time, they 'discretely' wish to have certain laws passed in the United States to halt the LGBT agenda. The difference between the two spheres is that Evangelicals are spreading an American brand of the Gospel which many times isolates New Testament from Old Testament in areas that they should not.
For example, what happens to: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Leviticus 20:13)
CARM, an Evangelical website gives the typical argument one hears in the American brand of Evangelical Christianity which sounds like this:
"There can be no doubt that the Old Testament condemns homosexuality as a detestable act worthy of death and that God has deemed it to be an "abomination" to Him. Of course, the Old Testament Law is no longer in effect in this area because the Messiah has come, and we are not under a theocratic governmental system. Therefore, we are not to execute homosexuals. We are to pray for them and their repentance, so they might find salvation in Christ.
Yet such modern Christians always argue for the death penalty, but only for murder.
But arguing for the death penalty as "a life for a life" could be argued as "an eye for an eye". This would debunk the notion that all Levitical laws are obsolete. How could these re-explain "vengeance is mine" along with their support of the death penalty and that we should not uproot the tares lest we also uproot the wheat?
This is the crux of the whole issue.
But one can't have it both ways.
It is these types of arguments they use to defend against capital punishments for the sodomites while they would rummage using the same arguments we use to finding theological solutions for their support of the death penalty.
And how do we reconcile such issues?
The solution to this is simple, uproot the tare only if it harms not the wheat, and do not uproot the eye for vengeance (2) and punish by passing laws to apply justice.
To argue against any death penalty for all sorts of evils, we ask: is the life of the victim and of the criminal put on the same level? Obviously, to go against this argument that the life of the victim is to be put on the same level of the criminal would mean that we do away with all the laws.
This would be absurd. This also proves beyond doubt that these who advocate that we cannot have an allowance for the death penalty for certain homosexuals are not using proper interpretation.
To go against the principle that the two (just and unjust) are equal because Christ requires us to forgive each and every infraction would mean no prison is necessary and all lawless be let on the loose to consume more victims. The LGBT agenda is the process of corrupting the innocent in order to go against the natural order.
Yet this modern mentality stated this "Why do we follow some Levitical laws and not others regarding things like [punishing] homosexuality and eating shellfish?" In other words, they state that Levitical "civil laws" are completely done with, except of course the current law of death penalty for murder. In other words, the biblical laws had to match American civil laws and anti-homosexual laws were lumped up with Kosher laws.
Romans is clearly stating that homosexuals are "worthy of death" (see Romans 1:26-32) and it is impossible to refute Romans 13 which clearly justifies the death penalty "princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil ... if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he [the ruler] is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil" (Romans 13:1-4).
If only the death penalty is to be applied strictly to "murder" how then can one respond, that despite this being pretty straightforward (3) the very New Testament (which Brown demands we exclusively use), in Romans 1:32 clearly teaches not just that the wicked deserve death but also the promoters deserve death too: "Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them."
Imagine, it is not only murderers or homosexuals, but the promoters of such evil acts also deserve death.
John Piper wastes much time in his article to show how scripture did away with the "Ceremonial precepts" (the ceremonial law). While we all agree that dealing with forms of worshipping God and with ritual cleanness and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses and were only temporary. But this never excluded the use of civil laws by either Orthodox or even Protestant theologians. While the judicial laws ceased to bind with the advent of Christ, it was not a mortal sin to enforce them either. Thomas Aquinas for example says, "if a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin."
Yet only Theodore sinned for calling for the death penalty?
Although Aquinas believed the specifics of the Old Testament judicial laws were no longer binding, he taught that the judicial precepts contained universal principles of justice that reflected natural law. Thus some scholars refer to his views on government as "General Equity Theonomy".
This is far from our modern Americanized application, where they call for, and completely make obsolete Old Testament's "civil law". Such laws were in use in Christendom from time immemorial from when Constantine established Christian governance. Christianity is not how some Evangelical websites assert which is more of a Waldensian interpretation where these denounced the death penalty as being wrong in all times. CARM for example asserts that such laws are "for Israel only".
Were only Jews allowed to punish sodomy while the Christian only needs to keep the Levitical 10% tithing, since this is necessary for the Evangelical mega industry? Nice.
If Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword, does this mean "no swords are ever allowed"? This also would be an extreme.
It is also an extreme to think that "Jesus would never whip gays" had they been in the Temple.
Insisting (as Michael does) that Jesus whipped only the animals and is how He drove the money changers is also rather a stretch.
Did the money changers simply flee running after the sheep and pigeons? To say that Jesus would never whip the sodomites begs another question: instead of using a leather whip He used a Fire whip and added some Brimstone and killed each and every one of the evil sodomites at Sodom and Gomorrah.
And to what level are these so-called scholars going to silence free speech?
Brown was irate and is calling on all scholars to join him in his denunciation of Theodore Shoebat for saying that Jesus, had he seen sodomites in the Temple, He would have killed them.
Brown says he is not on a "vendetta" mission against Theodore after making claims we had been attacking him, even though he had expressed anger suspecting we have written articles against him. When asked to show proof, he was empty handed. We spoke and he apologized. Whether he was on a vendetta or not you decide (4).
"Jesus" argues Brown would not even whip such reprobates since He never committed any acts of violence according to Isaiah 53:9. "The prophet Isaiah tells us explicitly that Jesus did not get violent" says Brown.
The method these modern seminarians use is always the same: "Theodore's words do not represent the New Testament".
The problem with many of today's theologians is that they strike a line with a pen and it takes ten pages to fix it. First of all, a serious scholar should never isolate everything based on the New Testament while we throw out the entire Old Testament. Did Jesus strictly want us to follow the New Testament?
Or did Jesus want us to follow the Old Testament as well, but in light of the New Testament?
To use only the New Testament is the tricks used by cults. Why then restrict all theological arguments to only the New Testament?
It is to promote a specific theological bent for a political purpose.
Angling oneself under the modern motto 'Jesus loves gays and He would never advocate the death penalty for gays' not even for aggressive sodomites who rape, is today's motto. To make his argument stick, that Jesus would never use the whip on men, Mr. Brown referenced a prophecy in Isaiah 53:9 that "no violence is found in Him (the Messiah".
It is easy to just jot such nonsense, but again, it takes more to refute it. The Hebrew word for "violence" in this verse is "Hamas" which is 'unjust' or 'malicious violence' as evidenced in every single verse that used "Hamas" in the entire Scripture. Yet Michael argued:
If Jesus had whipped people bloody, that would have been violence. Instead, He overthrew tables and drove out the vendors, using a whip on the cattle. So, I’ll take Isaiah’s word for this rather than Theodore’s.
In Brown's poorly written article, the whole essence of Jesus driving the moneychangers is missed.
Just as Christ was the one who poured fire and brimstone on Sodom, here it was Christ Who used His miraculous power in driving such a number of men before him, with so small and insignificant a weapon "scourge of small cords" to cleanse the Temple.
Michael belabors ridiculous issues while ignoring the significant.
I ask every evangelical: had an LGBT parade dancing in the nude, came into their church, would the ushers not drive them out of their temple? So how about if it was Christ with an LGBT parade coming to the Temple, while He threw the moneychangers, would He or any Levite for that matter stand by idle?
Should we not draw conclusions from Scripture on how to deal with sodomites?
This is the world we live in where everyone asks "show me in scripture" as to discount any reasonable argument. Show me in scripture where in a baptismal you had crazies jolting?
Michael has a neo-charismatic approach to everything and speaks with such authority that when he says something, that it is God who says it. Followers who are not apt to using biblical scrutiny usually speak with such authority where Michael on the phone with me says "God told me" this, and "God told me" that.
I urge him to show us from two thousand years of Church history where such lingo was the norm?
It is a clear violation of the third commandment (Exodus 20:7) and is usually the language of neo-charismatic loons. These exist plentifully today and we have educated maniacs like John Piper who claims he hears God speaks to him which even the acclaimed Protestant theologian Jonathan Edwards warns:
"...Scripture strongly impressed on the mind, are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven: for I have known such impressions [to] fail, and prove vain."
Even Catholic Bill O'Reilly says God told him to write his heretical book "Killing Jesus". The latter is proven from the devil for his book is littered with blasphemies saying that Christ never spoke from the Cross. Brown in this video (also you can see him @ 31:38) is here presiding to be the scholarly face to this utterly heretical mania while claiming that "the Lord is moving me" when he wants to split causing a schism within his movement. Where is this in Scripture:
Even worse, Brown purposefully and completely ignored all the beef. Theodore (as you watch the video he complained about) was speaking on gay rape stories, an epidemic influenced by the LGBT movement in the U.S. military where sodomites are raping male wrestlers and male soldiers.
It is the type of disgust that anyone with a sane mind would comment "I wish I had a rocket launcher," but then, in America the LGBT won't just put you on a watch list for saying that sodomites should be executed, but send the heavy weight Evangelical guns and as a result we now get a ton of comments accusing us of being "ISIS".
Who caused such slander? It is not Muslims, it is the Evangelicals!
In every case Theodore brings up, he speaks harshly of these sodomites. Brown told me by phone that he refuses to call them sodomites and is upset that we fight with his colleagues since it "hurts our witness".
Never mind the victims. Theodore's call for death penalty was (and always is) in the context of a news piece he does where sodomites have molested children, raped men or military officers.
But does that mean we go vigilante? Theodore never advocated for unprovoked violence. He does believe in the death penalty for gays depending on each circumstance.
Theodore usually speaks of Russia's zeal in fighting the sodomites and wishes that American laws at times allow for some of the Russian Orthodox 'rough methods' with homosexual predators. He does not support every case since there are victims who are homosexuals who need help, not punishment.
How else can we stop the epidemic if we do not punish the predator and the enabler out of the Temple?
While this is not applicable in the United States, the question is: whose method worked?
After all, Christ said: "you shall know them by their fruit".
In Poland, the nation of Georgia, Serbia and in Russia the sodomite agenda did not advance as it did in the United States.
This is a fact.
Let me rephrase my question even better: Is Jesus God? Was it Jesus Who visited Abraham prior to announcing and destroying Sodom(5) and was it Jesus Himself who destroyed Sodom?
If Mr. Brown answers "No" that Jesus never destroyed Sodom, he would just have turned into a heretic and a blasphemer. If He would answer "yes", he would have completely refuted himself when he said that Christ committed not even [righteous] violence.
Brown defends the hysterical Brownsville Revival and Faith Movement, which most of it is cultic to the core and the heresies is not as he once stated "just a minority".
This is what was sparked in the United States, just an old heresy with people rolling and barking in the spirit and claiming messages from the Almighty. To Brown God told him personally and gave him a private message how to conduct his approaches towards homosexuality.
It is obvious that he heeds to a different spirit.
Christianity is a global faith and not a faith only for the mega American brand of the Evangelical industry. Jesus rode a donkey, cracked a whip and told the disciples to "buy a sword". What for? To first, fulfill a prophecy where He is falsely accused "being counted amongst the rebels" (Luke 22:37, Isaiah 53:12) while these two swords of Peter "spiritual" and "temporal" was to carry out justice. To say that we should only and strictly focus on the New Testament is a heresy. Truth is not determined by American democracy or by supporters for homosexuality but by Church authority established from the ancient of times. While the Two Swords of Peter is a Catholic teaching, what amazes me is that being Catholic to many is worse than being a sodomite, where the Catholic is not given any latitude while the sodomite is given everything.
UPDATE:
Dr. Michael Brown wrote me insisting and persisting calling me a "liar" since he had no contact with Joe the blasphemer. Brown did not understand that to prove a lie one had to show evidence of knowledge of falsity. He failed to show such evidence. Although I do accept his claim that he did not communicate with Joe, but it is also obvious that he is in league with LaBarbera who is communicating with sodomite Joe and who quickly joined the twitter war against us taking Brown's side and Brown taking his side in league against Theodore. We are currently exchanging messages back and forth to get to the bottom line of this unprovoked attacks with LeBarbera's leaked email to stop a documentary Theodore is involved with. As it seems, it is the typical American style of "shaming and arm twisting" a method that never works in the stubborn eastern mind.
SOURCES
(1) Peter LaBarbera, an Evangelical who is in the documentary, was confronted by the leftist media on the fact he is in the same documentary with me, the man who believes in God’s law that says that sodomites are to be put to death. Instead of defending the law of the Bible, which he claims to believe, he decided to push for us to recant our statements, and said that if I didn’t that I should be removed from the documentary. Janet called me urging me to make a statement to “clarify” what I really believed, that I really don’t believe in the death penalty for sodomites, but simply in the anti-sodomy laws that were once enacted in Texas. To be honest I was quite hesitant to do this because to do so would mean recanting all of my writings in support for the death penalty. Janet sent me the first draft of the statement to receive my stamp of approval. The draft stated:
“While I have had homosexual activists call for my death and beheading, etc., I have not called for anyone to take the life of those practicing homosexual behavior. I do want the laws of the United States to once again make sodomy illegal as they did prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling because such practice is not only immoral, but physically dangerous, as well.”
But Peter LaBarbera objected to the draft and expressed his dissatisfaction with it, pushing for me to recant my position that an inquisition should be established to uproot homosexuality and other perversities. Peter LaBarbera responded to the draft with this email to Janet:
“Not good enough, if he called for an "Inquisition" against homosexuals. We need to look at the exact comments and craft a statement based on those. I do not have time to do that today or tomorrow as I'm driving to DC. We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he needs to disavow that approach (or clarify what he meant). Otherwise people will keep asking about those specific comments.”
Peter LaBarbera was blocked from entering Canada, and he goes before the media showing how persecuted he is, but yet he wants to block me — a Christian — from being in a documentary for being more politically incorrect than him. And at the same time, he kisses the feet of the sodomite to deny me as Peter denied Christ. A filthy sodomite who calls himself “Joe My God”, began to attack LaBarbera for being in the documentary with me. Peter LaBarbera quickly went on Twitter to appease the sodomite, even going to far as to address him with the blasphemous title of “Joe My God”. Peter LaBarbera wants to do an inquisition saying "We need to look at the exact comments" and "We need transcripts of the exact comments and then he [Theodore Shoebat] needs to disavow that approach", while at the same time he runs to some sodomite to get his approval. What an absolutely pathetic person. Peter LaBarbera does not want to respect God, but rather "Joe My God".
(2) The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, also wrote about the death penalty in his phenomenal Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 64, art. 2. On the question of whether it is lawful to kill a sinner, he responded as follows, first giving three objections to the Catholic view, then giving and explaining the Catholic view, and then refuting the specific objections given at the beginning:
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Mt. 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.
Objection 2. Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.
Objection 3. Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Ps. 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."
I answer that, As stated above . . ., it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6).
Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.
Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.
Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). (see Catholic Apologetics)
Also see Catechism of the Council of Trent (late 1500's) "Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord."
Also see The Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago (1899):
"The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God's authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit's guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment."
(Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, ed. by Richard Clarke [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1993], 388-89; italics added for emphasis.)The Catechism of St. Pius X: "It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one's own life against an unjust aggressor."
Pope Pius XII (1952): "Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual's right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already, by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live." (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.)" Also see Moral Theology, and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913).
(3) St. Augustine wrote in the fifth century A.D. in his monumental City of God:
The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of the State's authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. (qtd. in Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Catholicism and Capital Punishment," First Things, April 2001)
(4) Having been told by someone that we had attacked him (I have that in writing) filling his mind with all sorts of suspicions doubting that we were even Christian. He wrote Theodore "he [your father] decided to come after me last year". After asking him in writing to show such attacks, he came up empty handed. He then requested to speak by phone (we recorded the whole conversation just in case). He promised to tweet and clarify to the public. Unfortunately he did not include the agreement which included he considers us, being Catholic as Christian and that he wrote the report basing it on hearsay. All what Brown wrote was:
After writing my article re: recent statements by @theodoreshoebat today, I have had some very constructive dialog w. him & @WalidShoebat.
- Dr. Michael L. Brown (@DrMichaelLBrown) February 17, 2016
The 'constructive dialogue' included a confession of error by Michael on two counts: 1) doubting our faith 2) admit he wrote the article as a vendetta. It took a while to extract from him "Many Catholics are brothers in the Lord MANY or not."
Charismatic Christians, alongside gays are prone to using savage slander and the LGBT agenda has the heavyweight seminarians in their pocket who seem to have bonded United Against Theodore by using the typical hook 'you claim Jesus is love then go after Theodore'.
And I know we spoke last night via phone and he has kindly apologized for having stating that he has no problem with calling us Christians even though we converted to Catholicism. But his article still needs to be rectified in order to do justice.
(5) In Genesis Abraham is visited by three figures, one of whom he refers to as “My Lord” (Genesis 18:3), and who Scripture calls “the LORD” (Genesis 18:17). This person was then God in the flesh, and thus Jesus Christ.
Michael Brown, the evangelical radio host, is agent of Satan. He will attack Christians like myself for simply affirming what the Bible...
Muslims Take A Man, Strap Him Onto A Board And Bend The Board Together, And Snap His Spinal Cord. They Take Another Man, Chop His Head Off And Then Place The Head Next To Another Man As He Sleeps And Force Him To Wake Up To A Decapitated Head
ISIS has come up with a new form of torture, they call it the flying carpet. They strap the victim onto a board, and then bend the board together, snapping the victims spinal chord. They also beheaded a man and placed the head next to someone who was sleeping and forced him to wake up to a decapitated head. Here is the report on this horror:
In its jails in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State terror group uses a new method of torture to extract confession from prisoners. "The Flying Carpet" is a hinged board, to which inmates are strapped and then bent in half, breaking their backbones, a dissident group has revealed.
Terrorists from Islamic State, a Sunni group also known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh, strap their prisoners to the board with hinges in the middle and bring the ends together, bending the spine of the hostage, a covert dissident group, "Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently," has said, according to the U.K.'s Express newspaper.
ISIS uses another method of torture called "Shabeh," which means "Ghost." It involves a prisoner being hung by his hands above the floor for days to dislocate her or his joints and to possibly damage the brachial plexus, the nerves that control arm and hand moment, causing permanent disability.
ISIS also torments inmates psychologically, according to Daily Mail.
Abu Alnour, a prisoner who was recently freed after paying a huge ransom, was quoted as saying, "I do not want to talk about the beating, the electric shocks and the daily insults, I would rather talk about the young Abdullah who went crazy inside the prison. He was accused of being a former FSA fighter, and he had the biggest share of torture within our group, which consisted of 13 prisoners in a less than eight-square-metre-sized cell. One night we woke up and his voice was screaming. We later knew that some ISIS members entered into the room and put a severed head next to him and woke him up and when he saw the head he lost his mind."
ISIS has come up with a new form of torture, they call it the flying carpet. They strap the victim onto a board, and then bend the boar...
Read About The Horrific Ways Hillary Clinton Will Have Children Murdered If She Becomes President
Hillary (or should I say, "Hitlery") wants to allow unborn children to be murdered in the third trimester, in horrific ways. This woman is absolutely evil, a modern day Jezebel. The American people cannot vote in this female Hitler! Here is the report on what evils she will support, facilitate and enable:
As Hillary Clinton claimed the Democratic presidential nomination Thursday night, the pro-life group Live Action posted a video on its Facebook page Tuesday showing a doctor who performed over 1,200 abortions explaining the gruesome details behind a Clinton-supported late-term abortion procedure.
The video features obstetrician-gynecologist Dr. Anthony Levatino, who conducted abortions in the early part of his career before he realized that abortion, the killing of unborn children, is immoral.
Levatino explains how a late-term induced abortion, which is performed at 25 weeks of gestation to until birth, is conducted.
"At this point, the baby is almost fully developed and viable. Meaning, he or she could survive outside the womb if the mother were to go into labor prematurely," Levatino explained. "Because the baby is so large and developed, this procedure takes three or four days to complete."
On the first day, Levatino explains that the abortionist essentially poisons the baby by sticking a large needle filled with a drug called Digoxin through the woman's abdomen or vagina into the baby's face, torso or heart. The drug, which is normally used to treat heart problems, causes the baby to suffer from fatal cardiac arrest and die.
"The baby will feel it," Levatino asserted. "Babies at this stage feel pain."
The doctor then inserts sticks of seaweed called Laminaria into the woman's cervix so that the cervix will slowly open enough for the delivery of a stillborn baby. The woman returns home or to a hotel and waits for two to three days for her cervix to expand, Levatino said.
"On day two, the abortionist replaces the Laminaria and may perform a second ultrasound to ensure the baby is dead. If the child is still alive, he administers another lethal dose of Digoxin," Levatino stated. "The woman then goes back to where she is staying while her cervix continues to dilate."
But if the woman goes into labor before she can make it back to the abortion clinic, the doctor might advise her "to deliver her baby into a bathroom toilet," Levatino added.
"If she can make it to the clinic, she will do so during her severest contractions and deliver the dead son or daughter," he continued. "If the baby does not come out whole, then the procedure becomes a D&E — a Dilation and Evacuation. And the abortionist uses clamps and forceps to dismember the baby piece by piece. Once the placenta and all the body parts are removed, the abortion is complete."
The procedure does not come without health risks to the mother. Levatino said that late-term abortions present risks of hemorrhaging, lacerations, uterine perforations and even maternal death. Additionally, he explained that future pregnancies have a greater risk of premature delivery because of "abortion-related trauma" to the cervix.
The United States is one of seven countries in the world where late-term abortions are legal beyond 20 weeks of gestation.
Clinton, who was endorsed by America's largest abortion provider Planned Parenthood, has received much criticism from pro-lifers because of her opposition to abortion restrictions and limits.
Hillary (or should I say, "Hitlery") wants to allow unborn children to be murdered in the third trimester, in horrific ways. ...
Muslims Take Nine Christians, And Slaughter Them All
Muslims in Congo slaughtered nine Christians. They raided a village and made their attack, and spilt Christian blood. As we read in one report:
According to Barnabas Fund, local sources reported that the Islamic militants raided one early morning the three Christian communities near Oicha town and less than two miles from a United Nations station. The sources identified the attackers as the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), who came with their guns and machetes and looted people's homes and stole their livestock. The attack left nine Christians dead, five women and four men, including a church elder.
A similar tragedy took place only two months ago in a predominantly Christian village of North Kivu province where 34 Christians died from axe and machete attacks.
Muslims in Congo slaughtered nine Christians. They raided a village and made their attack, and spilt Christian blood. As we read in one...
Two Muslim Teens Befriend Serbian Man And Tell Him To Visit Them, When He Comes To Their House They Rob Him, Tie Him Up And Strangle Him To Death In The Bathtub, Then They Strip His Corpse Of His Clothes And Put Them On Themselves, When Arrested They Say That 'At Least We Washed The Clothes Before Wearing Them'
This callous Islamic violence in Europe is getting out of control, especially in Austria, which is where this crime happened. A 30-year-old Serbian Man was working as a janitor when he befriended two 19-year olds. They invited him to come to their house, and he accepted. He did not know these Muslims were already preparing to rob him, and had even assembled a "death kit" to execute their crime.
When he got there, the teens beat him savagely, tied him up, robbed him of his money, and then strangled him to death in the bathtub. But if that was not bad enough, they then stripped the dead man of his clothes before trying to cover up his body with water and soap suds and put his clothes on themselves.
When they were questioned by police about their crimes, both men openly admitted to them and were defiant. In fact, they even argued with the police, saying that 'at least they washed the clothes':
Two teenage Syrian refugees have confessed to the murder of a man found bound with cable ties and strangled in a bath tub.
...
According to a report by the Salzburg Nachrichten , the victim was a Serbian national who worked as a toilet cleaner at the Salzburg railway station who had befriended the two young men, who have not been named, and invited them back to his house.
It appears that they accepted the invitation with the intention of committing the crime, as before the two Syrians went to the victim’s home, they bought a 'death kit' of disposable gloves and tape at a nearby gas station, according to local media.
...
The refugees are said to have tied the 30-year-old Serb up using cable ties before repeatedly beating him in an attempt to force him to hand over his bank card PIN code .
Reports say that one of the offenders then admitted to having strangled the victim. It is not yet known if the refugees managed to get the code and were able to withdraw money using the victim’s card.
They are said to have left the victim’s body in the bathtub which they filled up with water and to cover their tracks, they added detergent, shampoo and shower gel to the water.
...
While processing the paperwork, police realised that he was wearing the victim’s clothes.
Both of the men have confessed to the crime, according to the police who said that when the Syrian was asked why he was wearing the clothes of his victim, he reportedly said: "I don't see why I should not, I washed them before I put them on." (source)
The part about wearing the victim's clothes is what bothers me the most. We know that Islam is violent, but to murder a man and then take his clothes from him corpse illustrates a level of pathological behavior that is found among only the particularly special in our society yet is very much a part of Islam because Islam is itself a pathological religion. Its moribund teachings not only encourage and reward anti-human behavior, but when taken to their logical conclusions, they embrace and legitimize the darkest forms of human behavior. It is why Islam has no place in any civilized society.
This callous Islamic violence in Europe is getting out of control, especially in Austria, which is where this crime happened. A 30-year...
Muslim Pervert Snatches 1-Year-Old Girl From Her Parents At Store And Sexually Assaults Her, Starts Licking Her Face
In a disgusting exhibit of Islamic pedophilia, a Muslim man sexually assaulted a random 1-year-old girl right in front of her parents:
“The parents of a small one-year girl has reported a man for sexual harassment of their daughter. The girl and her parents were, according to South and Southern Police, inside the 2nd hand shop at Jomfrustien 24, when a strange man took the girl up and, according to the notification started, kissing and almost licking the child in the face. …
The man is described as around 40 years and Middle Eastern-looking, and apparently he did not speak Danish. …
‘- The parents felt hurt. It could have been meant differently (than sexual harassment), but we would certainly like to talk to the man,’ said police chief Erik Lindholdt from South and Southern Police.” (source)
What the Muslim man did was not without precedent. As we have pointed out, Islam teaches that non-Muslims have neither a purpose in life or the right to exist outside the opinion and permission of the Muslim community, so they can be permissibly treated as less than human. Islam not only permits the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent girls, following in the example of Muhammad, but he was also looking at one-year-old babies in a sexual way:
In the riwaya of Yunus I. I. recorded that the apostle saw her (Ummu'lFadl) when she was a baby crawling before him and said, 'If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.' But he died before she grew up and Sufyan b. al-Aswad b. 'Abdu'l-Asad al-Makhzumi married her and she bore him Rizq and Lubab (The Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq, Page 311, source here)
While most often times we read about sexual assault with non-Muslims, it is another fact that most of this abuse is by Muslim men against Muslim girls, and these girls hate it and even though the oppose it, they usually have no way of fighting back.
So looking back at this case, it really wasn't his fault. He wasn't being a pervert. He was just being a faithful Muslim- like Muhammad.
In a disgusting exhibit of Islamic pedophilia, a Muslim man sexually assaulted a random 1-year-old girl right in front of her parents: ...
Angela Merkel Declares: We Will Bring In More Muslim Immigrants Into Germany
Angela Merkel has declared that Germany will be accepting in more Islamic refugees. Even after the recent attacks in Germany, she still wants to bring in more Muslim terrorists. As we read in one report:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her confidence in coping with refugee challenges on Thursday, repeating her mantra "We can do it" while raising a nine-point plan to ensure security after recent terror attacks in the country.
Merkel interrupted her vacation after four attacks claimed more than 10 lives in southern Germany within the past week. Three of the four attackers were refugees, two had connections with the Islamic State.
"We are facing a huge test," said Merkel at a press conference in Berlin. "In Germany, in Europe, in our neighboring countries, terror prevails."
She condemned the recent attacks saying they were "shocking, distressing and depressing," and that measures needed to be taken to ensure security.
Merkel announced a nine-point plan which included lowering the hurdles for the expulsion of asylum seekers, adopting an early warning system for radicalization among refugees, and joint exercises of the police and armed forces.
In addition to this, the plan would see the establishment of a central agency to decrypt Internet communication, passing an European weapon directive to prevent trading weapons online, enhancing international intelligence cooperation and strengthening work with countries in the Middle East and North Africa to reduce the number of refugees seeking asylum in Europe.
"Several months ago, I said in this hall that Germany is a strong country. This (refugee) issue is our national task," the Chancellor said, referring to last summer when she introduced her famous tagline "We can do it" and opened borders to refugees.
Over 1 million refugees flocked to Germany last year. The German population was welcoming at first, but public opinion has shifted somewhat after mass sexual assaults by refugees in Cologne on New Year's Eve.
Recent terror attacks have put more pressure on Merkel for her refugee policy and have fueled anxieties that far-right parties' political influence will increase.
"I did not say that it would be an easy task," Merkel told reporters about finding a solution to the refugee crisis, adding she had expected challenges ahead when she made the decision to open borders last summer.
She said Germany would stick to its principles and continue to grant asylum protection to those fleeing wars.
"I am convinced, just as earlier, that we can make our historical task well in the time of globalization," Merkel reiterated. "We can do it."
Germany is doing this by the demands of Turkey, and because it is an evil nation, it has made an alliance with the sultan, Erdogan, and it will be allied to the antichrist Islamic Ottoman Empire in the future.
To understand more on the evils of Germany, I would encourage you to read my in depth article on why Germany is an enemy nation:
The German military is amongst the top ten most powerful militaries on earth, and in this discourse it will be seen that it is conspiring with the Muslims with the aspiration of reviving back its evil empire, whose sinister roots go back to centuries of bloodshed, genocide and the bent to destabilize and destroy Christendom.
In the fourth century the Germans, who had converted to the anti-Catholic heresy of Arianism (which, like Islam, denied the Divinity of Christ), tried to destroy the Catholic world in its invasion of Europe and North Africa and in its sacking of Rome. The Protestant Reformation that began in Germany advocated for the destruction of the Catholic world and for the obliteration of the seat of St. Peter. The revolution of the Reformation would lead to the Thirty Years War, the first pan-European war in which Protestant Germany and their Muslim Ottoman allies warred against Catholic Europe. This aspiration to destroy Christendom continued on in both World Wars. In the First World War, the Germans allied with the Muslim Ottomans against the whole of Europe. In the Second World War the Nazi Germans conspired with the Muslim Albanians and Bosnians, while at the same time, praising Luther, invading Catholic Poland, and working to war against the Vatican.
The Protestant population in Germany, in the words of one historian, “provided the broadest and deepest reservoir of support for the Nazi party in all social groups during its electoral triumphs in the early 1930s.” (See Richard J. Evans, The Third Reich in Power)
Now in today's Germany, the Protestants (like Merkel and Joachim Gauck) are dominating politics, and dominating Europe through their economic superiority; working with Muslim Turkey (which is working to restore its own empire) in destabilizing Europe by absorbing masses of Muslim refugees; providing arms for Islamic terrorists in the Middle East with the intention of overthrowing Assad's secular government in Syria, and thereby advancing the Islamic empire in the Near East; and pushing for Orthodox and Catholic countries, such as Poland, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Austria, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Hungary, to accept the Islamic refugees into their countries, who are resisting Germany's advances. In addition to this, it is also pertinent to point out that Germany's economic strength is due to Nazi money, made by Nazi industrialists who were pardoned by the US and its allies after the war, thus allowing and enabling Germany to become the economic empire that it is now, and this will enable Germany to become the Fourth Reich that it so desires to become. Turkey wants to restore its old empire, and is working with Germany which as well has already proven itself to be an enemy.
As the Nazis created the Muslim divisions of the SS, so the Germans today are working on training an elite army consisting of the Islamic refugees that they brought over with the thanks of Turkey.
The Bundeswehr (or, the German Army) will be training thousands of Muslim refugees in a hundred skills that will enable them to fight, kill and take over Syria, and then sending them back to Syria where they will be fighting to establish their Islamic government. The skills that the soldiers will learn varies from explosives, bomb disposal, military logistics, etc. The Germans will also be training a team of Muslims to be “management experts,” or special officers who would be parachuted into Syria to rule the country. Germany is also planning on participating in this transformation of Syria, to create what German defence minister Ursula von der Leyen called a“recognized, legitimate Syrian government”.
The end result of this scenario is so conspicuous that one can easily prognosticate its end: these very Muslims who are the Germans are training will use the training to advance an Islamic empire. How is this even different from how when the German Nazis trained Muslims to form the Islamic divisions of the Third Reich?
And how, then, does this differ from the times when Protestant Germany conspired with the Muslim Turks in the devastating Thirty Years War, or how they were allies with the Ottomans in WW1? Germany is lifting its veil of modernity and revealing a face of evil that has always been there, masquerading itself from the current masses.
The German government gave tens of thousands of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition to Kurdish fighters, and those very weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS and other criminals. The very Kurdish fighters for whom the Germans supposedly provided the weapons, sold the arms illegally to terrorist criminals. In the cities of Erbil and Sulaimaniya, for example, German weapons have been found for sale in the black market, with the letters HK, signifying the famous German arms manufacturer Heckler & Koch, and Bw, for the Bundeswehr, or German Army.
One ex-Kurdish Peshmerga fighter stated that the standard rifle for the German Army, the G36, once costed $4,000, but now the weapon has been incredibly reduced in price — between $1,450 and $1,800 — because there are so many. The German government provided the Kurds with 12,000 G3 rifles, 8,000 G36 rifles, and 8,000 P1 pistols. These weapons are now being distributed amongst terrorists. One German report states:
“Isis fighters are equipped with numerous G3 battle rifles from German manufacturer Heckler & Koch, as well as German Walther KKJ rifles from the 1960s, according to the report.”
You may say that the German government is innocent of this because the weapons were specified for the Kurds and not Islamist terrorists. But tell me, how could a government as sophisticated as Germany not know that this would happen? If an average citizen like myself can predict that American arms given to “moderate” rebels would end up in the hands of terrorists, then how could the government — which superintends over the whole country and determines the state of lower nations — not know of this most obvious consequence?
Moreover, the German government’s ministry of defense admitted that it doesn’t even know to which Kurdish units received the weapons. If the government’s sole objective is to give weapons to one entity alone — the Kurds — then it should know to which exact units would receive the arms. But it did not. Because arming the Kurds was not the sole objective, and one may even question if it were the objective at all. The weapons were given chaotically, because they were given with the intention to create chaos, to fuel violence and bloodshed. They were given with the knowledge that the weapons would end up into the hands of terrorists, just as the German government is going to be training these Islamic refugees deliberately knowing that they will use their training for pernicious, anti-Christian goals.
Germany giving weapons into a military conflict was hailed by the media as the “the first time it will send weapons into an ongoing conflict since the end of World War II.” Angela Merkel, in regards to this giving of weapons, and in the attempt to sound like a protector for the defenseless, said "The immense suffering of many people cries out, and our own security interests are threatened”. And yet, even though your “security” is in such a critical dilemma, you send weapons without even knowing to which unit they would be going to. You may say that this is just a case of stupidity on the part of government, but secular governments do not do things without internal and calculative interests.
The Germans provided the Kurds with $90 million dollars worth of weaponry, which consisted of sophisticated weapons, such as anti-tank rocket launchers. With so much money spent, and given the severity and volatileness of the region to which they sent the weapons, I find it very difficult to believe the German government, that they would give so much for such a serious reason, without any serious precautions and measures to prevent weapons from going into terrorist hands. And I also am quite incredulous to the idea that Germany would send weapons without knowing that they would be given to Islamic criminals.
It would not surprise me, and nor would it be adventuresome to say, that Germany used the Kurds as a conduit by which to give weapons to criminals to further destabilize the region. Governments are infamous for creating chaos, to only make themselves the Don Quixote who will destroy the disarrayed windmills that they themselves erected. They construct the windmills and call them dragons, and then portray themselves to the people as the tough and heroic leaders who will slay these sensationalized and government funded enemies. State created enemies are what give politicians power. We already know, thanks to Putin, that there are G-20 nations who are financing and supporting ISIS, so I do not see why I must accept the excuses of the German government.
I am not open to the guile notion that we should see it as coincidence that weapons sent by Germany happen to fall into the hands of mass murdering criminals. Its not only to Muslim terrorists that German arms deals distribute their weapons, but to Mexican drug cartels as well. In 2007, the German government approved that its most powerful weapons manufacturer, Heckler & Koch (H&K), give 9,500 rifles to Mexico. Ostensibly, the German government agreed that no weapons would be sent to the Mexican states of Chiapas, Chihuahua, Guerrero and Jalisco. The supposed reason for this exception was the human rights abuses notorious in these states.
The making of this exception does not make much sense on account of the fact that human rights abuses have taken place in other states, even on major levels, especially in states like Tamaulipas where the Las Zetas have slaughtered countless lives. Regardless of this stipulation, the German weapons made their way into the hands of Mexican cartel terrorists who used them in their massacres. We know for a fact that 36 of these very German rifles were used by corrupt officers in Guerrero to open fire on a bus of students on their way to a demonstration against cartel violence. The officers, working for the cartels, took forty three of the students and handed them over to narco terrorists who then executed all of them. Two thousand Heckler & Koch rifles were found in the inventories of the Guerrero police, even though the Germans made an agreement that they would not go to Guerrero. In 2010, activist Jürgen Grässlin filed criminal charges against H&K in Stuttgart, stating:
"The consequences for Mexico will be fatal. In these first years, extremely corrupt Mexican police officers will shoot and kill demonstrators and other defenseless people with these illegally exported German assault rifles. In the years and decades to come the drug mafia there will use them after buying or taking them from the police."
Regardless of the criminal charges, Stuttgart prosecutors have failed to bring the investigation to court. And despite the fact that Stuttgart state prosecutors have been investigating the company for four years, criminal charges have not been filed. It was not until 2015 that the Customs Criminal Office in the German city of Cologne determined that the German arms manufacturer, Heckler and Koch, sent thousands of weapons to Mexico illegally.
The German government tried to cover up the situation. A senior German official wrote a letter to the military urging them to find out how the information about the illegal weapons distribution got leaked out. This senior official pushed for this information only after Heckler & Koch demanded him to do so. This shows that there was indeed a deliberate cooperation between the German government, Heckler & Koch, and the government of Mexico to distribute weapons to officers of whom it would be known — by the Mexican state — that they would be working with narco terrorists to kill peaceful protestors or any dissidents.
The German government hid behind the supposed deal that they made with Mexico, that weapons cannot go to the states known for human rights abuses. But this does not substantiate that any sort of serious precautions were made. Mexico is a narco state. Giving any weapons to Mexico will be used for the cause of the narco religion that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the sexual enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women. Any normal citizen can study and comprehend this. The German government, with all of its intelligence, knows this reality, and did know of this reality when it gave weapons to Mexico. There is no such thing as a stupid government. There are careless governments, evil governments, desperate governments, righteous governments, but there are no stupid governments.
Heckler & Koch weapons made their way to Michoacan, which was not listed by Germany as a state that should not receive weapons. Last year it was reported that Mexican police officers in Michoacan, armed with German H&K rifles, killed sixteen members of a citizen police force and their grassroots supporters while they were protesting against the government dissolving the militia without paying their salaries and without allowing them to fight the Templars, an evangelical terrorist cartel that has conducted its reign of terror for years in Michoacan. Over a hundred people gathered together for the assembly, but it ended in bloodshed. Mexican officers screamed "Kill them like dogs” as they opened fire on them.
Mexican journalist, Humbero Padgett, has done an investigative piece on Germany’s distribution of weapons into Mexico in which he states:
Germany no longer brings the war [into its] home, but spreads it around the world. …With the arms of Heckler and Koch — a rifle, a submachine gun and a pistol born in Germany and carried by Mexicans soldiers— they [Mexican officers] have carried out dozens of extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, rape, torture and illegal detention over the past four decades.
In the small Mexican town of Tlatlaya, Mexican soldiers butchered between 15 and 22 people; one of the victims was a 15 year old girl. They were killed with German Heckler and Koch firearms. The father of the young girl recounted:
"They left my daughter dying for an hour. Then they dragged her and her belly and legs were scraped. One of the soldiers turned. He had the gun in his waistband and he pulled it in front of her mother, the officer shot her eight or nine times on the chest.”
German weapons ended up in the hands of the Knights Templars, a major evangelical cult that is influenced by the American evangelical writer, John Eldredge, and their founder, Nazario Moreno, an ex-Catholic who converted to American evangelical Christianity while staying in the US.
The US government elusively used Turkey as a conduit by which to distribute weapons into Syria, and thus into terrorist hands, as a way to disguise their giving of arms to criminals. The Germans are no different in this case. Germany gives these weapons to the Kurds to supposedly combat ISIS. But yet when Russia began to bomb ISIS, Germany, instead of assisting Russia, joined Turkey to go against Russia. Merkel told Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's prime minister, that she was "not just appalled but horrified" of Russia’s bombing of Syria. I did not see Merkel say that she was “not just appalled but horrified” at the fact that her government sent weapons into Syria that are now being used for terrorist objectives.
I did not see Merkel, nor any of these hitleric parasites in the German government, express any sort of objection or moral indignation against the Turkish government when the Islamic terrorists they are supporting entered the Christian Armenian town of Kessab in 2014 and killed over eighty Christians and desecrated their churches. It was quickly found out, because of a leaked conversation, that the Turkish government armed the terrorists who killed these Christians and actually orchestrated the massacre.
Let history reveal the current reality. Turkey, a nation that orchestrated the holocaust of millions of Armenian, Assyrian and Syriac Christians, and other Christians, why would they change all of a sudden? Because they appear modern? An entire population may own iPhones and still be deranged and sadistic people.
Germany is a nation that, from the early Middle Ages onwards, has been pernicious to Christendom, a rebel against the Christian Faith. Germany right now is destabilizing Europe by absorbing all of these Islamic refugees. But this is not the first time that Germany has been chaotic to Europe. This is a continual theme and pattern of its history. Germany did not convert from paganism to Christianity, but from paganism to Arianism — the heresy that denies the divinity of Christ. So from its roots it is not a Christian based nation, but one whose foundations consist of the rotting wood of heresy and whose heart is that of antichrist. The Arian Germans would invade North Africa and slaughter orthodox Christians.
The ambition for domination, the insatiable desire for the gain of absolute power through chaos, is deeply rooted in the history of the Germans. Here is a brief history lesson.
In the fourth century, a civil war commenced amongst the German Goths, between two leaders, Fritigernes and Athanaric. When the latter was being overpowered by the former, he pleaded to the emperor Valens for help, and he complied. The emperor ordered that troops stationed in Thrace march to assist the weaker German army. They utterly routed the armies of Fritigernes, and brought victory. Athanaric desired to express his gratitude toward Valens, and so left paganism and converted to Arianism (the religion of the emperor). At this time there was a Goth named Wulfia, whose name literally means, "little wolf," and surely this is what he was. For this little wolf was the one who preached Arianism to the Goths. He translated the Bible from Greek to Goth to misconstrue its passages in order to teach Arianism, and the Goths embraced the heresy whole heartedly. (See Procopius, 3.2; Socrates, 2.41; 4.32)
The Christian world was faced with hearty barbarians, strong in body and violently fueled by the wiles of heresy, and who were much crueler then the Arian heretics of the Middle East. St. Ambrose would later write of their barbarisms and how much it spread throughout the empire:
No desire have I to recount the deaths, tortures, and banishments of confessors, the offices of the faithful made into presents for traitors. Have we not heard, from all along the border,-from Thrace, and through Dacia by the river, Moesia, and all Valeria of the Pannonians,-a mingled tumult of blasphemers preaching and barbarians invading? What profit could neighbors so bloodthirsty bring us, or how could the Roman State be safe with such defenders. (St. Ambrose, On The Christian Faith, 2.16)
Some time after this, the Huns charged into the territory of the Goths, and drove them from their rugged abode. The current emperor at the time, Valens, having compassion for his fellow Arians, took the Goths and placed them in parts of Thrace. The emperor believed that these heretical Germanians would make great guards to protect the empire, and he showed much more favor for them than the veteran soldiers who struggled so long to defend the empire. He despised the veterans, and put his reliance on his fellow heretics. (Socrates, 4.34)
And what was the result of allowing Arianism to take such a hold of the empire? The result was war. Arian Goths turned against the empire that helped them, and devastated all of Thrace with pillage and slaughter. (Socrates, 4.35) They sacked the region, and now headed toward that most holy city of Christendom, Constantinople. What is quite profound in all this is that the city of Constantinople was always the target of Christendom's enemies. The Persian Zoroastrians tried to conquer it; the German Arians wanted to take it, and eventually the Muslims, under the command of Muhammad, took it. Constantinople is one of the most holiest cities in Christianity, and thus it is of no surprise as to why Satan would want to take such a metropolis for his diabolical influence.
The people of the city expressed their rage at the emperor, for it was he who brought the heretical Germans into the empire. And so great was this frustration, that one could hear in the colosseum the people cry out, "Give us arms, and we ourselves will fight."
Valens had no choice but to attack his fellow Arians. He marched against them with an army, vanquished them, and drove them out as far as Adrianople in Thrace. (Socrates, 4.38) But this did not discourage the heretics, for they gathered another army and returned to the very walls of Constantinople, ready for another fight. This invasion was not responded to by the government military, but by the people, who armed themselves with whatever weapons they could possess, formed an efficient militia, and prepared for a defensive crusade against the Arian Germans.
There was even an army of Arabs who joined the ranks of the Christians. The Arian Goths attacked, but the people defended Christendom with all their exertion, fighting and striking with as much force as they could gather. Their defense was effective, and the Goths retreated a great distance away from the glorious city. (Socrates, 5.1)
Before Valens helped the Goths enter the empire, he, filled with paranoia as to who would take his place in the throne, consulted with a demon through necromancy, or communicating with the dead. He asked the demon who would take the throne from him, and it presented him with four letters -- Q, E, O, D,- and said that the name of his successor would have these letters, and that it was a compound name.
The answer was ambiguous and left Valens no actual conclusion, and so it drove him to madness, not knowing who exactly was to take his place. With the devils now influencing him, he concluded that the omen was speaking of someone named Theodore, or a name like it. With this, he massacred anyone with the names Theodore, Theodotus, Theodosius, Theodolus, and the like, and so much was the bloodshed that people began to change their names. (Socrates, 4.19)
But there was one man, who did not change his name, and that was Theodosius, and it was this man who took the throne after Valens died. Theodore means "Gift of God," and surely did this man fit this title. Theodosius was a defender of Orthodoxy, protector of Christendom, and guard against the heretics. He, alongside Gratian, took up his sword, and his cross, and led an army into battle against the Arians, and made victory over them. (Socrates, 5.6)
Theodosius exemplified a true Christian leader. For he not only defeated the physical threat of the Arian Goths, but the spiritual threat from within the empire that brought about the actual invasion to begin with. He attacked the problem -- heresy -- as opposed to just dealing with the symptom to the problem -- physical violence against the Church.
While it was noble, just and valorou that Theodosius defeated the Arians, he made a detrimental decision that would have ramifications lasting centuries later: he allowed the Arians to organize their own gatherings and services. (Socrates, 5.20) Because he did not obliterate and uproot the Arian heresy entirely, Arianism would, hundreds of years later, expand into Arabia, influence Muhammad, and spawn Islam.
Another disastrous consequence of Theodosius' leniency on the Arians was the Germanic Arians who lived within the empire were left untouched, and allowed to observe the pernicious and violent heresy.
There was a Goth within the Roman military named Gainas; he was a master warrior, and rose above the ranks, eventually becoming a general-in-chief of the Roman cavalry and infantry. (Socrates, 6.6) While he was allowed and enabled, with Roman freedom, to obtain such a prestigious position, there was one thing about Gainas that was very dangerous: he was an Arian.
The modern mind would ignore his religion, as though it was not relevant to his military accomplishments. It would be said, "He has risked his life to defend his country, keep his religion out of it!" But let us see the consequences of tolerating the Arian heresy, and we shall witness just how detrimental religious freedom was.
Gainas was not just a good soldier, but a very religious man, a fanatic for the Arian heresy. He sympathized with his fellow Arians, since they did not have an Arian church in Constantinople, and was determined to use his military position to obtain for them an edifice for their heretical worship. He requested from the emperor, Arcadius, that one of the churches in Constantinople be given to the Arians, but this was opposed by St. John Chrysostom, and thus it was denied. (Socrates, 6.5-6)
Gainas called for the Arian Goths of his own country, brought them into the empire, and gave his relatives high positions in the military. One of these relatives was Tribigildus, and he was given the command over the forces of Phrygia, and Gainas secretly ordered him to spark a violent revolt in this land.
When the emperor, Arcadius, heard of the revolt, he sent Gainus and the whole army of heretic Goths to stop the riots. This was all in accordance to the plan: create a disaster in the region, and then use the disaster as an opportunity to invade the region under the guise of bringing stability. It was a classic strategy.
Gainas charged into Phrygia, and instead of stopping the revolt, he joined it, intensifying the violence, and escalating the chaos and confusion that inflicted the Christian Greeks. (Socrates, 6.6) Now the heretics ruled Phrygia, and such was a result of religious toleration toward Arianism.
Gainas gathered his men and set his thirsty eyes on the holy city of Constantinople. When the evening came, he sent an immense body of Arian Goths to the palace within the city to set it to flames.
When the heretics arrived to wreak their havoc, they saw something that surpassed their carnal minds, and transcended all temporal existence: they saw men of a colossal stature, and of incredible height, taller than any men they had ever seen. These gigantic men pierced the hearts of the savage heretics with such fear, that they could no longer gaze upon their magnificent bodies, but fled. They returned to Gainas and told him everything their weary eyes had seen, and such news could not penetrate the mind of the barbarian.
He refused to believe it, knowing that the Roman army did not have such unimaginable warriors. Gainas sent another army, and when they arrived their minds were immediately staggered by the site of them, and it was obvious that these surely were not men, but angels, sent by God to protect His glorious city. They were soldiers of Heaven's army, of whom David spoke when he wrote, "The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels" (Psalm 68:17) Their souls were struck by the blade of such a heavenly sight, and they retreated in utter freight. Gainas was most exasperated by this, and decided that he now would lead his troops himself into Constantinople, and take the sacred metropolis.
When he arrived, he saw the lofty men that his warriors were trepidatious over, and deemed them only as mere men. But he was baffled by them, and desisted from his first attempt and decided that another strategy would have to be utilized. Gainas pretended to be possessed by demonic spirits, and rushed into the Church of St. John the Apostle, where he acted as though he was praying.
This was done as a distraction from what his soldiers were doing. Several Goths went to the front of the city gates, pulled out some concealed swords and slew the guards. The Christians within the city were terrified at the news of this bloodshed, sudden doom seemed so near, and a tumult of horror spread across the populace. The emperor Arcadius had to make a decision in order to preserve the empire and save the city from the coming horde of heretics.
He declared Gainas an enemy of the state, and ordered that all of the Arian Goths in the city be exterminated. The next day, not soldiers, but regular Christian folk, took up their weapons and attacked the Goths, unleashing a proficient tempest of onslaughts, and slaughtering many of them. The Goths tried to hide in their church, but the people killed a numerous amount of them, and set their entire church on fire. Gainas, hearing what had happened, fled to Thrace where he was stopped by a body of Roman soldiers and put to death. (Socrates, 6.6)
Out of all the cities in the world, the Muslims target the most holiest: Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Rome. In the mind of every Muslim, Rome must be conquered and made into an Islamic city. This is because it is the center for Christianity in the West. Arianism, Islam's parent, also wanted to conquer and destroy Rome, as did the German Nazis in the modern era.
Like the Muslims today and of antiquity, the Arians treated all of Christendom as enemy land, and in particular, wanted to destroy Rome, one of the holy cities of God. A black haze of sinister spirits permeated throughout the sacred land of the true Faith, and the eternal path of the Spirit, was sought out for destruction by the advancers of Antichrist. The German Arian named Alaric, pointed his sword upward as to defy Heaven, and aspired to shatter Orthodoxy for his love of heresy.
He marched with an army towards Rome, center of the Church Militant for the western saints. As he treaded upon the earth and came closer to the eternal city, a pious monk approached him, and encouraged him to throw away his fleshy ambition for bloodshed and dominance. Alaric's response only evinced what demonic forces were involved in his envisage to destroy Rome:
I am not going in this course of my own will; but there is something that irresistibly impels me daily, saying, 'Proceed to Rome, and desolate that city.' (Socrates, 7.10)
His words reflected the diabolical influence that was in his mind. The devil wanted Rome, and still does, and he was using the Arians as a means to this end. As he marched he was ambushed by a mighty army of Thessalians, filled with apostolic fury and Christian zeal. They overtook the Arians, and slaughtered three thousand of Alaric's men. But the Arian Goths managed to continue on, and struck Rome.
They pillaged without stopping; they saw some of the most magnificent Christian structures, and set them on fire, burning them to the ground; they seized many of the prestigious senators, accused them with all sorts of calumny, and put them to death. After much Christian blood was shed, there came the Christian army, headed toward the spiritual head of Christendom. Alaric heard of the approaching forces, and being filled with terror, retreated out of the city alongside his men. (Socrates, 7.10)
They destroyed the cities which they captured, and so much destruction did they cause south of the Ionian Gulf, that it was hard to believe that one could find a tower or gate remaining amidst the chaos (Procopius, 3.2).
From the earliest history of Islam the Muslims invaded Christian lands, conquering Spain, North Africa, all of the Middle East and much of Eastern Europe, forging a major empire. The German Arians were no different. They overran Spain and wrested Libya from the Roman Empire (Procopius, 3.2; 3.4).
After making alliances with the Moors, the leader of the Vandalic Arians, Gizeric, made several invasions over Sicily and Italy, enslaving entire cities and razing others to the ground. He plundered Illyricum and most of the Peloponnesus. His motivation had a religious basis, and as the Muslims believe that the countries they fight with are Allah's enemies, Gizeric said that he wished to war "Plainly against those with whom God is angry." (Procopius, Wars, 3.5)
Gizeric overtook the Greek island of Zacynthus, took five hundred people, and when he reached the Adriatic sea, he cut them all into small pieces and dumped them into the sea. (Procopius, Wars, 3.22)
Gizeric's successor, Honoric, was most cruel to the Christians of Libya. Like the Muslims, he ordered them to deny the Trinity and accept the heresy of Arius. Those who refused he burnt alive, and upon others he cut their tongues from the very roots. They marched into Tunisia, seized the priests and beat them ruthlessly with many blows. The king of the Moors, Cabaon, was not a Christian, but he respected the Faith, and wished for God to help drive out the Arians. A clash eventually took place with the heretics fleeing for their lives and many of them being killed by the Moors. (Procopius, Wars, 3.8)
ENTERING NAZISM AND THE REBIRTH OF GERMANY
This history lesson shows that Germany -- from the fourth century, to the Thirty Years War, to the World Wars-has been notorious for choosing the interest of heresy against Christendom. The current government of Germany is bringing in over a million Muslims who want to destroy Rome — the city the Goths once sacked —, and is working with the Muslim leaders in Turkey, the very people who control the former Christian city of Constantinople, the very city that the ancestors of Germany tried to vanquish. Lets not forget that Germany is the birthplace for the Protestant Reformation, a very violent movement that broke Europe apart and forced it into hundreds of years of war in which millions died.
Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, wrote that the Islamic refugees were a danger to the Christian identity of Europe, writing that “Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims… This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. …Those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims… This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity.” Who went against Hungary for blocking the entry of the Muslim refugees? Germany.
Ursula von der Leyen said that what Hungary is doing “is against the European rules," and that “those who are war refugees and fleeing civil war and terror, and those who need political asylum -- it is our principle that they have to get shelter, and ... to get asylum here in Germany."
Germany, a nation that has caused such division in Europe, is today causing division and chaos in Europe. Should this truly be a coincidence? Considering the history of Germany, not at all. Germany is still an evil nation. In December of 1989, after the Berlin Wall was taken down and East and West Germany established reunification, Margaret Thatcher stated: “We defeated the Germans twice – and now they’re back!” The economic restoration of Germany was very much thanks to Nazi industrialists who benefited from, and funded, the Third Reich. Paul Manning, who was a war correspondent in WW2 for CBS Radio, wrote an entire investigation showing how Martin Bormann, the head of the Nazi Party Chancellery, was already financially planning on how Germany was going to again be an economic superpower before the war even ended. Manning writes:
There are those who wish him [Bormann] dead and continue to claim he is; for were he to emerge, it would embarrass the governments that assisted in his escape, the industrial and financial leaders who benefited from his acumen and transferred their capital to neutral nations in the closing days of World War II, and the business of four continents who profited from the 750 corporations he established through-out the world as depositories of money, patents, bearer bonds, and shares in blue chip industries in the United States and Europe. (preface, p. 11)
Martin Bormann, through the voice of an emissary, told an assembly of Nazi industrialists in Strasbourg, on August 10th, 1944:
The war cannot be won by us; we must take steps in preparation for a postwar commercial campaign
Mr. Manning continues to say, based on his research and study, that this plan for Germany's revival was made possible “by putting into action his new German state policy: the flight of capital— that is to say, money, patents, scientists, administrators— to neutral stations where this wealth would develop free of seizure by the Allies. This Bormann program of flight capital to safe havens, together with the endeavors of the German people, the grants of Marshall Plan money for reconstruction of factories, and the investment money that eventually found its way back home, moved the new West German Federal Republic forward to its present prosperity.” (preface, p. 18) This meeting was ordered by Martin Bormann, and the emissary that was there to represent and speak for him was SS Obergruppenfueherer Scheid, a lieutenant general in the Nazi Waffen SS Division. Through this emissary, Bormann stated: “The steps to be taken as a result of this meeting will determine the postwar future of Germany.” (ch. 1, p. 23) Bormann went on to say:
German industry must realize that the war cannot now be won, and must take steps to prepare for a postwar commercial campaign which will in time insure the economic resurgence of Germany.
Twelve Nazi industrialists were present to represent very powerful and wealthy German companies, in a meeting that was done to prepare for the coming Fourth Reich that would be forged through economic revival on the part of elite German industrialists and the wealth of their industries. The meeting was recorded in what is known as the Red House Report. Mr. Manning writes:
A transcript of that meeting is in my possession. It is a captured German document from the files of the U.S. Treasury Department, and states who was present and what was said, as the economy of the Third Reich was projected onto a postwar profit-seeking track.
He then lists the companies’ names and representatives as follows:
“Present were Dr. Kaspar representing Krupp, Dr. Tolle representing Rochling, Dr. Sinceren representing Messerschmitt, Drs. Kopp, Vier, and Beerwanger representing Rheinmetall, Captain Haberkorn and Dr. Ruhe representing Bussing, Drs. Ellenmayer and Kardos representing Volkswagenwerk, engineers Drose, Yanchew, and Koppshem representing various factories in Posen, Poland (Drose, Yanchew, & Co., Brown-Boveri, Herkulesweke, Bushwerke, and Stadtwerke); Dr. Meyer, an official of the German Naval Ministry in Paris; and Dr. Strossner of the Ministry of Armament, Paris.” (ch. 1, p. 24)
Scheid, reading from the script written by Bormann, spoke more of Germany’s plan to restore itself after the war through the flight money of these companies:
From now on, German industry must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign, with each industrial firm making new contacts and alliances with foreign firms. This must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion. However, the party and the Third Reich will stand behind every firm with permissive and financial support. (ch. 1, p. 25)
Bormann’s strategy was to work with American industrialists who had made pacts with German Nazi companies. In the same meeting Scheid pointed to the fact that “patents for stainless steel belonged to the Chemical Foundation, Inc., New York, and the Krupp Company of Germany, jointly, that of the United States Steel Corporation, Carnegie, Illinois, American Steel & Wire, National Tube, etc., where thereby under an obligation to work with the Krupp concern.” Scheid also made reference to the Zeiss Company, the Leica Company, and the Hamburg-Amerika Line as common firms that had been very proficient in protecting German Nazi interests abroad.
After the meeting, several of these representatives left for the Rhine and Germany where they would “spread the word among their peers in industry about the new industrial goals for the postwar years.” Another conference was conducted in the afternoon and was attended by one Dr. Boss of the German Armaments Ministry, and as well as the representatives of the German companies of Hecko, Krupp, and Rochling. Dr. Boss made it clear that, although “the war was all but lost,” “it would be continued by Germany until certain goals to insure the economic resurgence of Germany after the war had been achieved.” Dr. Bosse articulated his plan for a future German empire that would restore itself after the war through the financial support of major German companies:
From now on, the government in Berlin will allocate large sums to industrialists so that each can establish a secure post-war foundation in foreign countries. Existing financial reserves in foreign countries must be placed at the disposal of the party in order that a strong German empire can be created after defeat. It is almost immediately required that the large factories in Germany establish small technical offices of research bureaus which will be absolutely independent and have no connection with the factory. These bureaus will receive plans and drawings of new weapons, as well as documents which they will need to continue their research. These special offices are to be established in large cities where security is better, although some might be formed in small villages near sources of hydroelectric power, where these party members can pretend to be studying the development of water resources for benefit of any Allied investigators. (ch. 1, p. 26)
The most powerful company that worked to fulfill the plan of the economic rebirth of Germany after the war, was the chemical industry conglomerate I.G. Farben, the largest single earner of foreign exchange operations in Germany during the years of the Third Reich. It controlled 380 companies with factories, mines, power installations, and chemical establishments. I.G. Farben also had a participation in over 500 firms outside of Germany, and it operated in 93 countries. The company grew as the Third Reich grew, and every country that Germany conquered, there was I.G. Farben erecting factories, expanding its investments to 7 billion Riechsmarks, and enslaving the local populations of the conquered to work in forced labor camps. I.G. Farben had a rubber factory right at Auschwitz. Today, I.G. Farben is known as its successor company, the German multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company, Bayer.
Other major German elitists such as Alfried Krupp von Bohlen used slave labor and plundered businesses in France and the Netherlands, crimes that he would eventually be found guilty of after the war. Part of the plan was for the German government to distribute huge sums of money to these industrialists who would then save the money in foreign countries. The funds were to be channeled through two banks in Zurich, or by agencies in Switzerland which purchased property in Switzerland for German interests.
The Nazis had been secretly sending money through neutral countries for years. The Swiss banks, specifically the Swiss National Bank, happily took gold that was stolen by the Nazis in other countries they invaded. They also, without hesitation, received assets and property titles stolen by the Nazis from Jewish businessmen in Germany and Nazi occupied countries. The collaboration between the Swiss and the Nazis were closely monitored by Allied intelligence. All of the wealth accumulated by the Nazis was made through bloodshed, and they intended to resume Germany’s power after the war. The money that would be transferred to industrialists and distributed to neutral countries was to be kept for the restoration of a German empire.
In the winter of 1943, Otto Ohlendorf, an SS leader who was responsible for the murder of 90,000 people, was transferred to the Ministry of Economics where he would already begin preparing for a pan-European massive economic empire after the war.
Ohlendorf took a special interest in Ludwig Erhard, a German economist, on account of his manuscript on how Germany could transition to a post-war economy after its defeat. Although it is said that Erhard rejected Nazism, he did not have an issue with working with an SS leader and mass murderer such as Ohlendorf, to guarantee Germany being a superpower after the war. Both Ohlendorf and Erhard agreed that Germany would need “rapid monetary stabilization through a stable currency unit." This “unit” would become the Deutschmark, introduced in 1948. This currency was very successful and it reinvigorated the German economy.
Despite the destruction that the war caused, by 1948 Germany had a capital stock of assets that were stronger than what it had in 1936. Erhard pontificated and wondered as to how the German economy could expand across a war torn Europe. The conclusion was that Europe needed supranationalism, or the giving up of national sovereignty to an international body. Such an idea would give birth to what is now known as the European Union. It first began with the E.U.’s precursor, the European Coal and Steel Community, established in 1951 by six European states. It established a common market for coal and steal over which it regulated and superintended. This began the gradual dissipation of national sovereignty across Europe, and the absorption of European nations into this collective body.
But before this common market was configured, the Nazis industrialists who were financially backing the Third Reich and their genocide, were pardoned. In 1957, the American High Commissioner for Germany, John J. McCloy, issued an amnesty for German industrialists convicted of war crimes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died fighting the Nazis, and their own government repaid them by pardoning wealthy elitists who were the financial backers of the very enemy that the US was suppose to be at war with.
Henry Morgenthau, Jr., pushed for a plan that would have eliminated Germany’s ability to wage war by destroying its armament industry and other key industrial entities necessary for military strength. But, John J. McCloy, alongside the US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, convinced Truman to reject Morgenthau’s proposal and thus enable Germany to keep its industry and military capacity.
The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfred Krupp of Krupp Industries, and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group would eventually own a 40% stake of the automobile company Daimler-Benz, were both released from prison after only 3 years behind bars for their crimes. After being released from prison, Flick would raise up a pan-European industrial empire, while remaining unrepentant for his war crimes. According to historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave laborers:
For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler … The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.
Another company was Siemens, which provided electric parts for the Nazi death camps and had a plant at Auschwitz. While being powerful under the Third Reich, Siemens also still had enough influence and leverage to censure public criticism of its participation in Nazi genocide. The German satirist F.C. Delius wrote a satire about how Siemens helped establish crematories in the Nazi death camps. Siemens was furious over this and a legal battle ensued, ending in the enforced censuring of the parts of the book that wrote of the industry’s involvement in Nazi extermination. In the later 1995 edition, one can see the lines on the crematories and other atrocities, blacked out. Although it was written in the form of a satire, the book spoke truth in regards to the Nazi connection with the company. Historian S. Jonathan Wiesen wrote:
Siemens ran factories at Ravensbrück and in the Auschwitz subcamp of Bobrek, among others, and the company supplied electrical parts to other concentration and death camps. In the camp factories, abysmal living and working conditions were ubiquitous: malnutrition and death were not uncommon. Recent scholarship has established how, despite German industry's repeated denials, these camp factories were created, run, and supplied by the SS in conjunction with company officials -- sometimes high-level employees.
Hermann Josef Abs is another one of these German elitists who worked for Nazism only to prosper and rebuild Germany’s economy after the war. Abs was an extremely powerful Nazi banker, being the head of the Duetsche bank, and he was a very significant mover of Hitler’s economic strategy for Germany. A fanatic and devout advocate for Hitler, Abs partook in the German tyrant’s economic plan that “performed a planning, shaping, and guiding function in the Nazi economy.” William L. Shirer, an American journalist and war correspondent, reported that the Duetsche bank, under Abs’ direction, was amongst the establishments that played “a pivotal role in the final maneuver which hoisted Hitler to power” (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 144)
After the war, this German heretic continued his evil and sought to perpetuate German supremacy through economic domination. According to John Loftus, who was part of the Office of Special Investigations, which was charged with prosecuting and deporting Nazi war criminals in the US, “Herman Abs, the president of the Deutsche Bank, used an ‘old school tie’ in Britain to arrange for Nazi money to continue to flow through American cut-outs during the war. Abs had many friends in Britain. One friend, Lord Hartley Shawcross, was Britain’s attorney general and in charge of the Nuremberg Nazi war crimes investigations. At this time U.S. intelligence had prepared a 300-page report on Abs’s alleged war crimes, including financing the construction of the I.G. Farben plan at Auschwitz.” (Lotus, The Secret War Against the Jews, p. 67)
Abs was a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, a group of elitist intellectuals that was set up in 1946 and that would also be a precursor of the European Union. When Konrad Adenauer took power as West Germany’s first Chancellor in 1949, the Nazi Abs was his most significant advisor. Adenauer also made Ludwig Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister, and in 1963 Erhard — a man who worked with the SS — would become Germany’s Chancellor for three years.
These very industries who were the financial foundation for the Third Reich, and in whose work camps 2,700,000 people died, were the same industries that would restore Germany to be an economic superpower, and partake in the creation the EU. British journalist, Adam Lebor, wrote:
Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.
The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.
Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?
The Germans — just like their ancestors — want to control the European nations, like Catholic Poland, through the EU and through their financial domination, a domination conspired by elitist Nazi financiers. There are very powerful people in Poland who do not believe that Germany has all of a sudden changed from its ways and realized that their Nazi ideology was evil. Germany still wants to control Catholic Poland.
A German EU commissioner, Gunther Oettinger, stated that Poland should be put under supervision because of its plans to put public TV and radio broadcasters under government control.
Poland’s justice minister, Zbigniew Ziobro, responded against Germany, evoking the memory of Poland’s resistance against the Nazis, and how his grandfather took part in the resistance:
I am not in the habit of replying to silly comments on Poland made by foreign politicians … Such words, said by a German politician, cause the worst of connotations among Poles. Also in me. I'm a grandson of a Polish officer, who during World War II fought in the underground National Army with "German supervision"
Moreover, the Polish magazine, Wprost, posted this cover with the headline: "They want to supervise Poland again."
Even in the year 1995, the German government supported a convicted neo-Nazi leader, Manfred Roeder, who was convicted as an accomplice to a bomb attack that murdered two Vietnamese refugees. An elite German military academy in Hamburg invited Roeder to give a lecture to German military personal “about the need to provide support for people of German ancestry living in East Prussia.”
East Prussia today consists of Poland, Russia and Lithuania. That the German military had this man speak on such an issue coincides with current day German animosity towards Poland and Russia, and leads one to affirm a connection between this and Merkel’s attack against Russia and her pushing Poland to absorb Islamic refugees. In addition to this, German government officials admitted that their military supplied to Roeder’s neo-Nazi organization with old trucks and jeeps.
People in Greece also are aware of how much of an enemy Germany is. On May 30, 1941, the Greek freedom fighter, Manolis Glezos, alongside a comrade, ripped down the Nazi flag that Germany ecstatically erected after they conquered Greece. Today, Glezos is now the oldest member of the Greek parliament, and still sees Germany as an enemy of Greece. Speaking of his days fighting the Nazis, he says, "That era is still very alive in me," and continuing on: "German capital dominates Europe and it profits from the misery in Greece… But we don't need your money."
He went on to affirm that Germany’s “relationship with Greece is comparable to that between a tyrant and his slaves." The German Gothic Arians wanted to control Greece; the Nazis wanted to control Greece, and now the Germans still are working to control Greece.
It is quite amazing how when the war with Germany in WW2 was coming to an end, and the Nazis' were coming to their defeat, the Nazi elite were already pondering as to what their country was going to be by the year 2000. Joseph Goebbels, the propagandist for the Nazis, on February 25th, 1945, wrote this prediction for the year 2000:
Germany will not be occupied by its enemies in the year 2000. The German nation will be the intellectual leader of civilized humanity. We are earning that right in this war.
Goebbels’ prediction was not utterly off, for by the year 2010, it is said, Germany dominated Europe financially. "Goebbels was only wrong by 10 years," Glezos says. People in Italy are also very weary of Germany and see its economic domination in light of its Nazi past. Respected Italian journalists, Indro Montanelli and Vittorio Feltri, have said that the euro is a means to a German end, viewing the currency as being reminiscent of the "tank divisions of yore." Germany expert Luigi Reitani mentioned at a conference in 2014 that some in Italy have begun drawing "a line from the barbarian invasions via Bismarck and Hitler to Merkel."
France’s former economics minister, Arnaud Montebourg, connected the former German empire of Otto von Bismarck to the government of Angela Merkel, stating, "Bismarck united the German principalities to rule over Europe and, in particular, France. In a shockingly similar way, Angela Merkel seeks to solve her domestic problems by foisting the economic and financial order adhered to by German conservatives onto the rest of Europe." The French sociologist and political scientist at the National Institute of Demographic Studies in Paris, Emmanuel Todd, warns that Germany is "increasingly pursuing politics of power and of hidden expansion."
Todd admits that the euro is a French idea that the Germans adopted only to use it to dominate the rest of the continent. Todd said in one conference:
The German dominance of Europe is possible only because of French acceptance. You must realize what the euro is from the point of view of French politicians, whether right wing or left wing. They had the idea, they imposed it on Germany, which accepted it and turned it into a very efficient, German economic instrument. For France, getting out of the euro would mean admitting that our entire political class was hapless. It would be the beginning of a social revolution.
In the same conference the German political thinker Ulrike Guérot called for a push for European countries to renounce political sovereignty:
The nation is an artificial construct, created in a time and place because of the needs it served. The question is whether we want to hold on to this construct. We can’t have globalization, national sovereignty, and democracy. We have to decide what to skip. I don’t want to skip democracy, and I don’t want to skip trade. That means skipping this outdated notion of national sovereignty.
The Frenchman, Todd, reading between the lines of such a statement, responded:
Let me just close by saying that in France we aren’t so keen on Germans telling us it’s time to lose our sovereignty.
Todd, in another interview, has stated that Europe right now is in the midst of a conflict between Germany and Greece, and that this conflict is going to eventually implode into a splitting of the continent:
For me, the striking thing is how the Europe we are dealing with today is no longer the Europe of yesterday. We now have a Europe under the control of Germany and its Baltic and European sidekicks. Under German supervision Europe has been transformed into a system of hierarchies, authoritarian and ‘austeritarian.’ Tsipiras polarizes this northern Europe against southern Europe; the confrontation comes down to Tsipras and Schauble [the German finance minister]. Europe is in the process of splitting down the middle. Regardless of what their governments are saying, I am willing to bet that the Italian people, the Spaniards, the Portuguese, even the English are feeling enormous closeness to Tsipras.
Look to Germany’s history and you will see how it has been the cause for so much war and bloodshed: The German Arians’ invasion of the Roman Empire, all of the violence that came as a result of the German Protestant Reformation, WW1 and WW2. History is a mirror that stares at the face of the future. Looking to Germany’s history, there is no sign that it will suddenly change into a nation of peace. As Todd explains:
The tragic reality of the situation is that Europe is a continent which, during the twentieth century, periodically committed suicide under the supervision of Germany. First there was the Great War, and then there was World War Two. Now it is a much wealthier continent, more peaceable, demilitarized, aging, arthritic. And in a context where things are slowing down, we are witnessing, like a replay, Europe’s third self-destruction, once again under the supervision of Germany.
Todd makes a fascinating observation: the conflict between Germany and Southern Europe transcends economics, and is rooted in the historical clash between Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe:
The political strongholds of the German Social Democrats are in the Protestant regions of Germany. They are even further to the north, even more antagonistic toward the “merry-go-round Catholics” of the continent’s south.
In the end, what it comes down to is not at all a left-right conflict, it is a cultural conflict as ancient as Europe itself.
I have no doubt that if the ghost of [prominent French historian]Fernand Braudel were to emerge from his grave, he would say that we are seeing once again the appearance of the frontiers of the Roman empire.Countries that are really influenced by Roman universalism find themselves instinctively siding with a reasonable Europe, meaning a Europe whose natural inclinations are not toward authoritarianism and masochism, but a Europe that understands that austerity plans are self destructive, suicidal.
On the other side there is the Europe that is more inclined toward the Lutheran world; which is the world of two-thirds of Germany, most of the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, and you might add to it the Polish sidekick; even though Poland is Catholic, it never belonged to the Roman Empire. Really, what is surfacing is something extraordinarily deep.”
During the Thirty Years’ War, that most violent war between German Protestants and European Catholics, the Germans wanted to invade Catholic Poland with 400,000 troops, and made an agreement with the Turkish Ottoman Muslim Empire in which the Islamics agreed to give 60,000 troops for the exchange of an annual tribute to the Sultan. Today, we have the Germans working with the same Turkey, supporting countless Muslim refugees in their invasion, and pushing Poland to open its borders for these invaders.
In September of 2012, there was a conference in Turkey in which Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared that the year 2071 would be the target year in which Turkey would again become a great and powerful superpower. Why 2071? Because 2071 would be the thousand year anniversary for the Battle of Manzikert of 1071, in which the Muslim Seljuk Turks defeated the Byzantine Empire, a victory that would transform the Seljuks from being just a mere body of bandits into an empire. It would be the beginning of the decline of Christendom, and this is the aim of Turkey. In this same meeting, there was not a single representative for a European country, except for one: Germany.
The German present was the former Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroder, a long time friend of Erdogan. Schroder attacked former slaves for suing Nazi supporting companies for their enslavement of them, describing the lawsuits as "a campaign being led against German industry and our country." The Nazi supporting companies that brought Germany back to the top, are still protected by government officials, regardless of their supposed "repentance" of the Holocaust. Erdogan happily receives the support from the Nazi sympathizing Schroeder.
In the wars between Catholics and Protestants, German Protestants sided with the Muslims for the cause of destroying Christendom. This was the case in the Thirty Years War, and it was also this way in WW2, in which the Nazis wanted to kill Pope Pius XII. Now we see Germany with a rising Protestantism in politics, alongside its absorption of Islamic refugees and its attempted leveraging of the rest of Europe to receive them. In 1990, the General Secretary for the Christian Democratic Union (Angela Merkel’s party), Volker Rühe, stated that the party would soon become “more northern, more eastern, and more Protestant”. This has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Merkel is an Evangelical Lutheran whose father was a pastor; the president of Germany, Joachim Gauck, is an Evangelical pastor. Merkel has advocated for what has been called “political Protestantism.” Her party is also under the umbrella of the Evangelical Task Force.
What are the odds? In the fourth century the German Arian heretics sacked Rome and tried to destroy Constantinople. When the Turks were heading for Belgrade in 1521, Pope Leo X sent money to Hungary to assist their defenses. Charles V of Spain was urged to help the cause, but he was prevented by the insurrection caused by the followers of Luther. Luther himself said that "to fight against the Turks is to resist the Lord, who visits our sins with such rods." The Lutheran members of the Diet of Worms in 1521, refused to give any help to Hungary. Because of this lack of unity, Belgrade fell that same year. To the Protestants, the word "crusade" was associated with "Catholic", and therefore deserved nothing but contempt. The Peasants' War-which was ignited by Luther's teachings-prevented Charles V from sending troops, and when they finally did arrive they were two days late because the Protestant members of the Diet of Speyer would not dispatch them in time.
In the Thirty Years’ War, in the 17th century, German Protestants conspired with the Turks to fight the Catholics, and this led to the Muslims attacking and defeating Catholic Poland. In WW1, the Germans and the Ottomans were allies against the very Catholic friendly Christian, General Allenby, who took part in a beautifully animate and large Catholic procession in Jerusalem before defending the Holy City.
In WW2, the Germans invaded Catholic Poland while working with the Muslim Albanians and Bosnians. And now, here we are, with modern day Germany collaborating with Turkey to bring in multitudes of Muslims into the whole of Europe. Is this a coincidence? History tells us no. On May 4th, 1945, Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, announced in his radio broadcast that “the destruction that has been inflicted on Germany can only be compared to that of the Thirty Years War.” (See Wilson, The Thirty Years War)
History is a continual record, playing the same song with the same morbid tune, and in between the song of a pernicious nation is the soliloquy of either despair or savagery. With Germany, it is the same song, playing over and over again: to conquer, only to lose with devastation in the end. Will Germany be yet again another enemy of humanity? Conventional assumptions tell us no. History tells us yes.
Angela Merkel has declared that Germany will be accepting in more Islamic refugees. Even after the recent attacks in Germany, she still...