10 Comments

1. Boulder on September 9, 2026 at 7:36 am

   Not surprising.
   Not the least!
   The Hannibal directive in practice.
   These are the details of it.
   The power against the people.
   Workers in all countries, Unite!

2. Tony O'Neill on September 9, 2026 at 9:13 am

   “‘Nuttyahoo’ knew at least 10 days before the October 7, 2023, terror attack on an Israeli music festival, that an attack was imminent. He sat on his hands and did nothing. More than 1,000 innocent people were killed.”

   Typical jew smokescreen from ((( Hohmann ))). Good old Nutyahoo knew a lot longer than ten days – after all he organized the whole thing.
   1000 innocent ( ? , most of these ‘innocents’ are FULLY in favour of the genocide in Occupied Palestine ) were killed, maybe, but all were killed by bolshevik jews themselves as has been proved by video footage they took as they did the killing from Yankee paid for attack helicopters.

   “… well-armed Hamas…” ha ha ah. Gaza is an open air prison and the bolshevik jews have held the keys for decades. As such NOTHING gets in or out without them knowing about it.

3. Leo Ho Ho Hohmann on September 9, 2026 at 9:34 am

   > Israeli PM Netanyahu was reportedly warned about October 7 attacks 10 days beforehand, did nothing to step up security

   How remiss of him.

   > Netanyahu knew what was coming but probably felt he was trapped.

   That’s what comes of hitting your drive into a bunker.

   > To prevent it would have ruined his plan to ignite a wider war, involving the U.S. and the West, that he hoped, would destroy Iran

   Our friend in havana seems to be pushing the “october the 7th” hoax. If nutjob was “trapped” into overrunning the green, the “attacks” must have happened – right?

   “AI” says:

   > The October 7, 2023 attacks in Israel were led by Hamas, with participation from Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian armed groups based in Gaza. They killed about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took about 250 hostages.

   That’s a big ol’ heap of remiss. And a big ol’ excuse to carry right on…

4. Peter Petherington on September 9, 2026 at 1:21 pm

   This is NEWS???

5. Amalek on September 9, 2026 at 2:57 pm

   Israel fighting, has been fighting since 1948 to keep Judaea and Samaria…

   Israel
   Judaea
   Samaria

   You see, Arthur James Balfour was an adherent of the ‘Church of Scotland’ being Protestant and Presbyterian. And he believed Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild was a Semite and from that part of the world.

   Israel
   Judaea
   Samaria

   Were there any Catholics in Lord Balfour’s day who helped the Jews acquire a homeland in Palestine?

   ChatGPT said:

   Yes—but very few, and with an important qualification. If by “Lord Balfour’s day” you mean roughly the period surrounding the Balfour Declaration of 1917, there were individual Catholics who were sympathetic to Jewish restoration or at least willing to support Jewish settlement in Palestine. But the Catholic hierarchy as a whole was not a supporter of the Zionist project, and the Vatican was generally wary or opposed to Jewish political sovereignty in Palestine.
   The clearest example: Catholic sympathy for Jewish settlement

   One interesting case is the Catholic attitude toward Jewish agricultural settlement. Even where Catholics opposed a Jewish state, some Catholic thinkers and churchmen distinguished between Jewish immigration and colonization and Jewish political control. Contemporary accounts indicate that Catholic representatives could accept Jews entering Palestine and establishing agricultural colonies, while objecting to Zionist political sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Holy Places.

   This distinction is important because the Balfour Declaration itself did not explicitly promise a Jewish state. It spoke of establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” while promising protection for the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish population.

   What about the Pope?

   The most important Catholic figure was Pope Benedict XV (1914–1922). He was not a Zionist, and it would be misleading to portray him as having helped establish the Jewish national home.

   There was, however, an intriguing episode in 1917. Chaim Weizmann’s colleague Nahum Sokolow met with senior Catholic/Vatican figures while seeking international support for the Zionist project. Sokolow came away believing that Catholic circles were sympathetic to Jewish restoration. Weizmann subsequently reported that they had received assurances from “the highest Catholic circles” that they saw no religious objection to a Jewish national home. In reality, this interpretation was considerably more optimistic than the Vatican’s actual position.

   The Vatican’s principal concern was that Jewish political control might threaten Christian rights in Jerusalem and the Holy Places.
   Cardinal Francis Bourne is particularly revealing

   The English Catholic hierarchy was not generally pro-Zionist. Cardinal Francis Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, actually wrote in 1919 to British statesmen denying that the Holy See had approved Zionism. He regarded Jewish political domination of Palestine as incompatible with Catholic interests.

   That said, Bourne’s later position was more nuanced than outright hostility to Jews living in Palestine. By 1924 he acknowledged that the Pope accepted the British Mandate and said that an Arab-Jewish agreement incorporating the Jewish National Home was possible.
   So were there Catholic Zionists?

   If you mean Catholics who actively campaigned alongside Weizmann and Balfour to create the Jewish national home, the answer is essentially no—not among the major Catholic hierarchy.

   The major political coalition behind the Balfour Declaration consisted primarily of British Zionists, sympathetic British politicians, Protestant/evangelical figures, and other non-Catholic supporters. The Catholic Church’s institutional position was substantially more cautious. Indeed, historians describe the Vatican’s position after 1917 as increasingly concerned with protecting Catholic rights in Palestine and resisting the possibility of Jewish political domination.

   But there is a fascinating middle ground: some Catholics were sympathetic to the Jewish return to Palestine without accepting Zionist political sovereignty. That distinction gets lost in many modern accounts.

   If you’re asking this because you’ve encountered a claim about a particular Catholic—perhaps a cardinal, priest, aristocrat, or politician—who supposedly helped Balfour or Weizmann, tell me the person’s name (or whatever details you have), and I can investigate that specific claim in the historical record.

   Was the ‘Reformation’ anti-Catholic?

   Yes—in an important sense, the Reformation was anti-Catholic, but that needs qualification.

   The Protestant Reformation of the 16th century began as a movement to reform Western Christianity, not necessarily to destroy Catholicism. Martin Luther initially wanted to challenge what he saw as abuses and theological errors within the Church. His 1517 objections to indulgences, for example, were framed as a call for theological debate and reform.

   But the movement rapidly became fundamentally opposed to important Catholic doctrines and institutions:

   Papal authority: Reformers rejected the Pope’s supreme jurisdiction over the Church.

   Church authority: They challenged the Catholic teaching authority of the hierarchy and emphasized Scripture as the ultimate authority (sola scriptura).

   Justification: Many Reformers rejected the Catholic understanding of justification and emphasized justification by faith (sola fide).

   Sacraments: Most Protestants rejected the Catholic understanding of seven sacraments and retained only Baptism and the Eucharist as instituted by Christ.

   The Mass and Eucharist: Reformers rejected the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a sacrificial offering, although they differed enormously among themselves about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.

   Religious institutions: Monasteries, religious orders, pilgrimages, relics, indulgences, and devotion to saints were attacked or abolished in many Protestant territories.

   So there is a useful distinction:

   The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Catholic Church but developed into a rejection of fundamental elements of Catholic Christianity.

   And it wasn’t uniformly “anti-Catholic” in the modern sense. , Luther, and the English Reformers had substantially different objectives and attitudes. Some regarded themselves as restoring true Christianity, rather than creating a new religion.

   There was also a very real anti-Catholic political dimension. In England, Scandinavia, parts of Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere, Protestantism became intertwined with opposition to the political power of Rome. In some places this led to confiscation of Catholic property, destruction of religious images, persecution of Catholics, and occasionally warfare.

   At the same time, the Catholic Church responded with its own reform movement—the Catholic Reformation (or Counter-Reformation), particularly associated with the Council of Trent (1545–1563).

   So if your question is about the broader historical connection between Protestantism, anti-Catholicism, and later political movements, that’s a particularly interesting subject. The relationship becomes quite significant when you get into English Protestantism, Puritanism, evangelicalism, and 19th-century Christian Zionism.

   I suppose Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli and John Knox were all useful idiots for the Tribe from Eastern Europe…

6. Amalek on September 9, 2026 at 3:50 pm

   Are the Jesuits anti-Catholic?

   No. The Jesuits are not anti-Catholic; they are a Catholic religious order.

   The Society of Jesus (Jesuits) was founded in the 16th century by and companions and formally approved by the Catholic Church in 1540. They became one of the principal forces of the Catholic Reformation, defending Catholic doctrine and undertaking missionary, educational, and intellectual work around the world.

   In fact, the Jesuits have historically been particularly associated with:

   Loyalty to the Pope and Catholic teaching.
   Defending Catholic theology against Protestant Reformers.
   Education, including universities and schools.
   Missionary work, especially outside Europe.
   Intellectual and theological scholarship.

   There have certainly been controversies involving individual Jesuits, including disagreements with other Catholics, governments, and even periods when the Jesuit order was suppressed by the Pope. But that is very different from the Society of Jesus being anti-Catholic.

   Interestingly, this connects to your previous questions: if you’re investigating whether Catholicism, Protestantism, the Reformation, and later support for Jewish restoration in Palestine were connected, we can trace that history chronologically. There are some surprising distinctions between Jesuit/Catholic attitudes, Protestant Zionism, and British imperial policy.

   No mention here of Jesuits trying to rule the world.

   Apartheid Israel going ape against the British Labour Party.

   What does the Protestant Church think of Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Ed Milliband’s latest speech in Parliament?

   Chat GPT

   If by “the Protestant Church” you mean Protestant Christians generally, there isn’t one single Protestant position. Protestantism is made up of many denominations and theological traditions, and they differ sharply on Israel and Palestine.

   But the reaction that is emerging to Ed Miliband’s 8 September 2026 speech is broadly sympathetic among Protestant/Christian groups concerned with Palestinian human rights and international law.

   Miliband announced a major change in British policy: the UK will ban imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, introduce sanctions against companies and individuals involved in settlement construction and financing, and restrict exports that materially contribute to the occupation. He explicitly distinguished these measures from opposition to Israel itself and said Britain continues to support Israel’s security and a two-state solution.

   Why many Protestants would support it.

   There is a substantial tradition within mainline Protestantism of supporting Palestinian Christians and opposing the Israeli settlement programme. The theological reasoning generally isn’t “anti-Jewish” or necessarily even “anti-Israel.” Rather, it tends to be:

   opposition to dispossession and occupation;
   concern for Palestinian Christians as well as Muslims;
   support for international law;
   support for a negotiated two-state settlement;
   opposition to violence against civilians, whether Israeli or Palestinian.

   Miliband’s argument that settlement expansion is making a viable Palestinian state impossible therefore fits quite closely with that outlook. His government says the settlements and occupation are unlawful, and he described settler violence in the West Bank as part of an “ethnic cleansing” process.
   But evangelical Protestants can be very different

   This is where the question becomes particularly interesting in light of what you were asking me earlier about the Reformation and Zionism.

   A significant strand of conservative evangelical Protestantism, particularly in Britain and the United States, has historically been strongly sympathetic to Israel. Some of this comes from biblical interpretations concerning the Jewish people, the land of Israel, prophecy and the Second Coming. Christian Zionism became especially influential among certain Protestant groups from the 19th century onward.

   Those Christians are much more likely to regard Miliband’s speech as unfairly hostile toward Israel, even if they agree that individual settlers committing violence should be punished.

   So there isn’t a contradiction in saying:
   Protestant Christianity has both a strong pro-Israel tradition and a strong Palestinian-solidarity tradition.

   They come from quite different theological traditions.
   And there is an important historical irony

   Your previous questions about the Reformation, Catholics, and the Balfour Declaration are actually relevant here.

   The people who ultimately provided much of the theological groundwork for Christian support for Jewish restoration in Palestine were not Catholics but Protestants, particularly certain English Puritan and later evangelical traditions.

   That theological tradition existed before modern Zionism and eventually influenced some of the political atmosphere surrounding the Balfour Declaration.

   Yet other Protestant traditions today are among the strongest Christian critics of Israeli settlement policy.

   So if your underlying question is:

   “How did Protestant Christianity go from helping create the intellectual environment for the Balfour Declaration to having major Protestant churches today criticize Israel’s occupation?”

   —that has a fascinating history, and I can trace it from the Reformation → Puritans → 17th/18th-century prophecy → 19th-century Christian Zionism → Balfour → modern evangelicalism and Palestinian Christianity.

   Which Protestant churches are criticizing Israel?

   Yes. There are several major Protestant denominations and church bodies that have strongly criticized Israeli government policy, particularly the occupation, settlements, treatment of Palestinians, and the conduct of the war in Gaza. But most distinguish criticism of the Israeli government from hostility toward Jews or Judaism.

   Some of the clearest examples are:

   Church of England (Anglican) — Its bishops have repeatedly criticized Israeli settlement expansion, settler violence, the occupation and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. In May 2025, the House of Bishops described the suffering being inflicted on Gaza as a “grave sin” and called for an end to settlement expansion and forced displacement. It also supported recognition of Palestine.

   Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — This has gone considerably further. Its General Assembly has adopted resolutions describing Israeli laws, policies and practices as constituting apartheid against Palestinians, and has called for an end to the siege of Gaza and collective punishment.

   United Reformed Church (UK) — The URC has been strongly critical of the occupation and supportive of Palestinian rights and the Palestinian Christian community.

   United Methodist Church — Parts of the UMC have supported divestment from companies considered involved in the occupation and have called for an end to settlement expansion.

   United Church of Christ (UCC) — Its General Synod has passed resolutions critical of Israeli occupation and supporting Palestinian rights.

   Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) — It has criticized settlement expansion and policies that deny Palestinians political and civil rights, while simultaneously condemning antisemitism and attacks on Israeli civilians.

   There is also a particularly significant Palestinian Protestant voice. Palestinian Christians themselves include Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists and other Protestants, and many of their churches have been among the strongest Christian critics of Israeli occupation.
   The Church of England is particularly relevant to your previous question

   Because you were asking about Miliband’s speech, the Church of England is probably the most pertinent example.

   The bishops’ position is actually remarkably close to the general moral framework of Miliband’s speech. They have said:

   “Israel’s security cannot be achieved by continuing with a system of occupation that denies millions of Palestinians their rights and freedoms.”

   They have simultaneously condemned Hamas’s October 7 attacks and insisted that Israeli security matters.

   In 2025 they went further, condemning the Israeli government’s conduct in Gaza and calling settlement expansion and forced displacement unacceptable.

   So yes: there are major Protestant churches criticizing Israel quite forcefully.

   But there’s an important historical point behind your line of questioning: this is not necessarily the same Protestant tradition that produced 19th-century Christian Zionism. Some Protestant traditions became deeply committed to the idea of a Jewish restoration in Palestine, while other Protestant traditions—especially those influenced by Palestinian Christianity and modern ecumenical theology—came to regard the occupation and settlement project as incompatible with Christian ethics.

   If you’d like, I can explain which Protestant churches are still strongly pro-Israel/Christian-Zionist today, and which have moved to the opposite position. That comparison is quite revealing.

   Yes please.

   ChatGPT said:

   Yes. The Protestant world is quite divided, and the division is theological as much as political.

   A useful way to see it is as two broad Protestant traditions, with a substantial middle ground.
   1. Strongly pro-Israel / Christian-Zionist Protestants

   The strongest Christian-Zionist support is found in parts of American evangelical Protestantism, especially among Pentecostal, charismatic and fundamentalist/Bible-prophecy movements.

   These Christians commonly believe that:

   God made an enduring covenant with the Jewish people.
   The Jewish return to the land has biblical significance.
   The modern State of Israel has a special place in God’s purposes.
   Biblical prophecies concerning Israel are still awaiting fulfillment.
   Christians should therefore be particularly supportive of Israel.

   Some organizations actively lobby and raise money for Israel. The movement is especially prominent among American evangelicals.

   However, “evangelical” does not automatically mean “Christian Zionist.” There are evangelical Christians who reject Christian Zionism and are highly critical of Israeli government policy.
   2. Mainline Protestant churches increasingly critical of Christian Zionism

   This is where the contrast becomes striking.
   The Episcopal Church in the United States

   The Episcopal Church took a particularly explicit position in 2024. Its General Convention adopted a resolution rejecting Christian Zionism, arguing that it improperly conflates the modern State of Israel with biblical Israel and undermines Palestinian rights. It also expressed solidarity with Palestinian Christians.

   That’s significant because Episcopalians are the American branch of the Anglican tradition.
   Presbyterian churches

   The Presbyterian Church in Canada explicitly rejects Christian Zionism as a doctrinal position, while affirming both Israel’s right to exist and the Palestinians’ right to a state.

   The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has likewise taken strong positions against the occupation and in support of Palestinian rights.

   Anglican and Lutheran churches in Canada

   The Anglican Church of Canada and Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada have jointly called for peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis and have specifically sought to reduce the influence of Christian Zionism within their denominations.

   Protestant churches in Germany

   The Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD) takes an interesting position. It strongly affirms the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and Israel’s right to exist, while simultaneously supporting Palestinian statehood and rejecting Christian Zionism’s theological justification of the occupation and settlements.

   Church of Norway

   The Church of Norway’s bishops have also explicitly criticized Christian Zionism and called for an end to the occupation and discrimination, while supporting the rights and security of both peoples.
   3. Palestinian Protestant Christianity

   This is perhaps the most important piece that often gets overlooked.

   There are Palestinian Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists and other Protestants who are themselves Christians living in the Holy Land.

   Many of them strongly reject Christian Zionism because they believe it has effectively taken a biblical promise and used it to justify political policies that harm the indigenous Palestinian population—including Palestinian Christians.

   This has produced an unusual situation:

   Some American Christians say, “We support Israel because of the Bible,” while Palestinian Christians say, “That interpretation of the Bible is helping to destroy our Christian community.”

   That is a genuine theological disagreement, not simply a political disagreement.
   4. The most interesting middle position

   There is also a substantial Protestant position that says:

   “Israel has a legitimate right to exist, Jews have a historic connection to the land, but that does not give the Israeli government unlimited rights over Palestinians.”

   The German Protestant position is a good example. It explicitly says Jewish self-determination and Palestinian self-determination are both legitimate.

   That position is also broadly compatible with the position taken by many Anglican and Lutheran churches.
   And this brings us back to your earlier question about Balfour

   There’s a fascinating historical reversal here.

   The 19th-century Protestant world that produced Christian Zionism was an important intellectual precursor to the political environment in which the Balfour Declaration became possible.

   But today, many of the historic Protestant denominations—Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Episcopalians—are explicitly rejecting Christian Zionism.

   Meanwhile, some of the evangelical Protestant movements that inherited the older prophecy-oriented tradition remain among Israel’s strongest Christian supporters.

   So the division isn’t simply:

   Protestant = pro-Israel
   Catholic = anti-Israel

   It’s much more complicated.

   In fact, some of the most outspoken Protestant critics of Christian Zionism today are also among the strongest defenders of the Jewish people’s right to exist and of Israel’s security. The EKD’s position illustrates this particularly well.

   And there is a very interesting historical question underneath all of this: how did a movement that was originally overwhelmingly Protestant—Christian Zionism—help create support for the Jewish restoration in Palestine, while many of its theological descendants now disagree so profoundly about Israel? That story runs from the Puritans and 17th-century England through Lord Shaftesbury, the 19th-century evangelicals, Balfour and Weizmann, and finally modern American evangelicalism.
   ______________________________________________

   This might be the time for British Christians to rally, (go a marching in the streets) in support of their Labour government.

   Wow, that would really get the Synagogue of Satan mad.

7. Gabreal Jones on September 9, 2026 at 4:42 pm

   9 September https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/if-the-united-states-wants-to-survive-it-must-free-itself-from-israel/#comments gj comment 195

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coKF2z1WjLk

   A picture is worth a trillion words Dr. G.: drumpfs Manic Truth Social Binge & Mental Decline: Psychology Analysis

   1 July 2015 https://www.jns.org/israel-news/donald-trump-says-he-is-no-apprentice-when-it-comes-to-israel#.VdDqQrJVhBc= “The only [candidate] that’s going to give real support to Israel is me,” said the 69-year-old Trump. “The rest of them are all talk, no action. They’re politicians. I’ve been loyal to Israel from the day I was born. My father, Fred Trump, was loyal to Israel before me. The only one that’s going to give Israel the kind of support it needs is Donald Trump.”

   drumpf a manic chabad lubavitch addict/ why does no one talk about the fact/ even his sympathetic niece Mary daughter of drumpfs older brother Fred / avoids mentioning that his dad Fred donated quite some money that he and his chabad buddy Bunny Lindenbaum – a NYC real estate lawyer and higher up in NY cbabad circles – had siphoned off of HUD to build a big Shul ( synagogue) in Beach Haven Brooklyn”

   29 February 2016 https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/086/452/0b4.png “drumpf” is old Prussian for bags used to catch falling manure from horses”

   THSB Trojan Horse Shit Bag drumpf (original family name of his granddad Friedrich) rigged the 2024 election/ is thus currently s(h)itting illegitimate WH resident in the Oval Office doing the bidding of his luciCiFeR Overlords of the satanic House of RotSchild – who shoved him there- the founders of 1948 israhell after WW I + II ( 1914- 1945) after they established in December 1913 their private owned FED that is controlling the US money ever since….

   USA/yank this rotschild poupée (russe? 1987 KGB code name crash usa now= krasnov)/ who smells like hell from his golden toilet/ he is stealing you blind & started (t)his Iran war to hide his nearly omnipresence in the heutzutage epic eppy pedo files/ pushed by his chabad buddy Mileikovsky aka netanyaWhodid911 still PM of 1948 israhell

   Anyway Every Body Anywhere 😎 h.a.n.d. have a nice day

   CIA O

8. Gabreal Jones on September 9, 2026 at 6:34 pm

   8 September https://www.bitchute.com/video/I9BZuWzFybvf/ October 7 was a false flag

   rec. earlier https://www.bitchute.com/video/6enNpw6AaC9r/ October 7 Inside Job [Plain + Clear] / 1948 israhell False Flag attack

   10 September 2024 https://www.bitchute.com/video/tzc5O7rlMhGr/ ‘Leaked footage from Israeli Airforce: IDF took out its own citizens on October 7 ✡️ / Those are civilians trying to escape in their cars and being fired on by a helicopter with Hellfire missiles.’

   9 September https://www.bitchute.com/video/wjicvaGjFuh4 “Europe is a garden – We have built a garden” Josep Borrell …says ” most of the rest of the world is a jungle….and the jungle could inade the garden”

   “ℹ️ Joseph Borrell Fontelles is a Spanish politician who served as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission from 2019 to 2024. A member of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, he served as President of the European Parliament from 2004 to 2007 and as Spain’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation from 2018 to 2019.” by Dani Paso

   9 September 2026 https://www.bitchute.com/video/WsIfsD1AQ2v8 EU honours Angela Merkel* with the “European Order of Merit” established by the Kalergi Society / by Dani Paso

   This Spanish (Kalergi) politician – never heard of him till this very sec.- is blind & deaf intellectually / saying the aforementioned:

   https://alchetron.com/John-G-Jackson-(writer) John Glover Jackson 1 April 1907 Aiken, South Carolina U.S died 13 October 1993) https://drrunoko.com/bring-dr-runoko-to-your-city/attachment/63-historian-john-g-jackson-and-runoko-rashidi-in-chicago-around-1990-photo-by-james-e-brunson/

   19 September 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X80mjEjvN1A “John G. Jackson Africa Civilized Europe Twice…..

   Tthe Greeks who were supposed to have been the founders of civilization because they were the first civilized white folks

   But the Greeks got their civilization from the Egyptians and the Egyptians were black people and the Greeks passed their civilization on to the Romans they couldn’t retain it they lost it they had a dark age in in Europe for 500 years….

   And then another bunch of Africans the Moors from north Africa moved into Spain (check it out Señor Borrell) and started civilization all over again…

   So instead of Europe civilizing Africa/ Africa has civilized Europe two times —”

   15 February 2015 https://innercivilization.substack.com/p/was-the-prophet-muhammad-black
   “The original Arabs are the same as Africans. The Prophet Muhammad was a black man from the Quraysh tribe….”

   * Angela Merkel / I somehow suddemly came to pay an esp visit to Frau Merkel when I was in Berlin arounfd 21 March 2018 together with an inner circle amego Julien dubbed “Romanovsky” still had to get used to my abnormal esp xyz files….but I have do some shopimgs

   later more on my dia gnosis of the understandable Kalergi allergy…..in short it is een uneasy “broodje Karma”/ shoved thru the throats by the jew world order ….how to deal with it/ Johm G, Jackson points in the right direction…..

   1776 USA starting with Colon – the Spanish name for 1492 Colombus) – colonisation…..connecticut / in Dutch: ken ik die kut…?

   Anyway Every Body Anywhere
   h.a.n.d. have a nice day 😎

   CIA O

9. Daniel on September 10, 2026 at 1:03 am

   Oct 7th 2023 was a DEFINITE STAND DOWN OPERATION :

   PROOF:

   (1) Netanyahu more than helped fund the Hamas organization and boasted about this. See various articles in the Israeli press over the years.

   (2) The female border fence security continuously informed the upper IDF that Hamas was up to something for up to a year before the “surprize” attack.. The IDF did not respond. Even the New York Times had an article on this shortly after.

   (3) Israeli intelligence had a number of spies in the Gazan population and knew the names and addresses of all its citizens. On the day of the attack you have mobs leaving the Gazan area similar to the go get Frankenstein movies of the 1930s. ..And where were those phone calls on Oct 7th to the IDF ?

   (4) Hamas breaks into the security zone in not just 1 spot but into over 20 different ones !! Keep in mind the security fences could detect a cockroach within 1 inch of the fences.

   (5) The IDF as an intact unit did NOT RESPOND to the “surprize” morning attack until 7 hrs. later !!!!!! This alone is the proof of an intentional stand down operation.This delay is very well known and that is why the Knessitt was after Netanyahus ass in the evening after the attack.

   (6) The smost supreme Israeli Intellgence unit 8200 was off that day which was the Jewish Sabbath !!!! as well as a minor holiday. GO FIGURE !!!!!!

   (6) This stand down operation had multi purposes: (a) Keeps Netanyahu in power where as the Knisset was ready to hang him earlier (b) to gain international sympathy as well as disregards for extreme Israeli reponses to the attack (c) wiping out of Gaza to clear it out (4) stronger formation for the Greater Israel Project now obvious in further operation as well as Netanyahus desire to destroy Iran.

10. Gabreal Jones on September 10, 2026 at 1:54 am

    (…) For this Spanish rather cocky jungle politician/ this y-tube short “borrells up”/ if he is still Diesseits or else it will reach him Jenseits wherever he is in the One Moment in which All Life with all its Infinite b.a.d. births and deaths takes Place:

    2024/prior to 5 Novenber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-6Bo4DupHg Economist Richard Wolff : Are Native Americans Savages? / by Robinson Erhardt (browse thru the 6730 comments)

    When these darskinned African Moors started their holidays (711-1493) in Iberia they brought a whole lot of civilisation with them / Spain and the rest of Europe was a jungle ca 711 / “they lost it/ they had a dark age in Europe for 500 years”/….John G. Jackson)

    Anyway Every Body Anywhere
    h.a.n.d. have a nice day 😎

    CIA O