In 1806, after reading Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism, a professional soldier from the Piedmont in northwest Italy named Jean-Baptiste Simonini felt compelled to write the author, a French Catholic priest named Augustin Barruel, to divulge his firsthand knowledge about the role the Jews played in the Freemasons and the Illuminati — and how this nexus of power orchestrated the French Revolution — and had plans to take over all of Europe.
It is clear that Barruel believed the letter and its contents to be authentic — despite the fact that he was never able to subsequently locate or contact Simonini, but researchers have confirmed that Simonini was exactly who he said he was and lived in Lilianes in the Aosta Valley. Barruel used his network of connections within the Church to make inquiries about Simonini in Piedmont — and was told that Simonini had a good reputation and could be trusted.
So convinced of the truth outlined in Simonini’s letter, Barruel felt compelled to write another book that included the Jewish hidden hand in world events — but on his death bed, he had misgivings about publishing it and asked that the manuscript be burned — and it was.
The original letter in Simonini’s hand has never been found — though some believe it still exists somewhere in the Vatican archive — a detail that many have used to desperately try to discredit or debunk it. Others have made the spurious claim that the Illuminati had “disbanded” prior to the French Revolution — transparent disinformation put out by the Freemasons themselves, as detailed by former Scottish Freemason John Robison in his landmark 1798 book, Proofs Of A Conspiracy.
An important aspect of Simonini’s letter is that he contends that the Jews in Piedmont approached him because he was a high-ranking military man who could be useful to them and their cause — and he admittedly let them believe that he was an orphan born into a Jewish family with strong natural affinities and sympathies to the Jewish nation — so that they would feel that they could trust him.
Historian Claus Oberhauser — who went to the Jesuit archives in Vanves outside of Paris — wrote, “I’ve seen a copy of [Barruel’s] book accompanied by notes written by him after 1806. At various points in these notes, Barruel wrote Simonini’s name over a passage about Jews and remarked that it was probably Jews who were pulling the strings.”
Despite being firmly convinced of the truth of the Simonini letter, Barruel chose not to publicize it — allegedly fearing that its revelations could incite widespread violence against the Jews. However, the fact that Barruel was a Jesuit likely had a greater influence over his decision to withhold the letter — after all, the Jesuit Order was founded by a converso Jew — Ignatius Loyola — and had attracted so many other conversos that the Order gained a reputation of being a “virtual synagogue.”
According to Oberhauser, Barruel did, in fact, send copies of Simonini’s letter to some of his Jesuit colleagues — along with a postscript explaining his opinion of the Jewish-Masonic-Illuminati conspiracy. As such, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to speculate that one — if not a number of — these Jesuits dissuaded Barruel from making the contents of the letter public. The Jesuits themselves had been infiltrated by Freemasons — a controversy that has plagued the Church for many centuries.
Given his extensive research, it was probably not lost on Barruel that the founder of the masonic Illuminati order was Adam Weishaupt, who was an orphan born of Jewish ancestry but raised and schooled by Jesuits — just as Siminoni himself pretended to be to gain the trust of the Jews.
Despite all the evidence Barruel received from Simonini, he subsequently chose not to portray the Jews as the main conspirators of this secret cabal in the final manuscript that he was working on up until his death — and which he ultimately ordered destroyed. What caused him ultimately to shy away from portraying the Jews as the ultimate power behind the Freemasons and Illuminati? We will probably never know the answer, but surely the answer can be found within the circle of Jesuits to which he belonged.
The Simonini letter was finally published for the first time in 1878 — fifty-eight years after Barruel’s death — in a French magazine Le Contemporain — and today, almost 140 years later, the letter has been virtually scrubbed from the internet — and finding an English translation is extremely difficult — proof that powerful people do not want this letter read, circulated, or given an credence.
So here we present our own English translation of the “The Simonini Letter” — based on the French copy published by Le Contemporain in 1878. We do not contend that our translation is perfect, but we have done our best to represent the contents of the original without embellishment, and we would encourage any of our many French-speaking readers — who are obviously more adept in translation — to submit any corrections to improve our text.
The Simonini Letter
Sir,
It has only been a few months since I was fortunate enough to learn of your excellent work “Mémoires des Jacobins.” I read it—or better said devoured it—with real pleasure. Your book had the advantage of providing me with great insights for my own conduct, all the more so as I found an infinite number of exact depictions in it of things of that I have been, in the course of my life, an eyewitness to without fully understanding them. Please accept, then, sir, from an ignorant military man like myself, the most sincere congratulations on your work, which may rightly be called the quintessential work of the last century. You have unmasked these inflamed religious sects so well—sects that prepare the way for the Antichrist and are the implacable enemies, not only of the Christian religion, but of all worship, of all society, of all orders!
There is, however, one sect that you only touched lightly. Perhaps you did it on purpose, because it is the best known and therefore the least to be feared. But, in my opinion, it is the most formidable power today, considering its great wealth and the protection it enjoys in almost every state in Europe. As you know, sir, I am talking about the Judaic sect, which seems entirely separate and an enemy of other sects, but really it is not. Indeed, it is enough that one of these other sects shows itself to be an enemy of Christians, for the Judaic sect to favor it, bribe it and propagate it. Haven’t we seen members of the Judaic sect lavish gold and silver to support and multiply the modern sophists, the Freemasons, the Jacobins, the Illuminati? The Jews, therefore, along with all the other sectarians, form a single faction whose aim is to annihilate, if possible, Christians.
Please do not think, sir, that all of this is an exaggeration on my part. I am putting forward here nothing other than what was told to me by the Jews themselves. Here is how it came to pass.
While Piedmont, of which I am a native and which was in revolution, I had occasion to frequent them and to consult confidentially with them. They were the first to seek me out; and I, as I was then unscrupulous, pretended to forge a close friendship with them. I succeeded in telling them, while begging them keep the strictest secrecy, that I was born in Leghorn into a happy family, but that while still a very little boy I had been brought up by others—I do not know much about them; I did not even know if I was baptized and, although on the outside I lived and behaved like the Catholics, inside, however, I thought like those of my nation, for which I had always kept a tender and secret love. So they made me the biggest offers and gave me all their trust. They promised to help me become a general if I wanted to join the sect of Freemasons. They would show me the sums of gold and silver they intended to give, they told me, to those who embraced their party. They absolutely wanted to present three weapons to me, decorated with signs of Freemasonry, that I agreed accept so as not to displease them and to encourage them to tell me more of their secrets. Here is what the principal and richest Jews of Turin communicated to me on several occasions.
1. Manete (in French the Manes) and the infamous old man or old man of the mountain had come out of their (Jewish) nation.
2. The Freemasons and the Illuminati had been established yet have escaped memory (1).
3. In short, it is from them that the origins of all the anti-Christian sects can be traced—these sects are now so numerous in the world that they reached several million people of all sexes, of all states, of all ranks, of any level.
4. In Italy alone, they had more than eight ecclesiastics as supporters, both secular and regular, among whom many priests, public professors, prelates, a few bishops and a few cardinals. They even hoped to soon have a pope from their party. (Assuming that he [the Pope] was a schismatic, this becomes probable.)
5. Likewise in Spain, they had a great number of partisans, even in the clergy, although in this kingdom the accursed inquisition was still in force.
6. The Bourbon family was their greatest enemy, and in a few years they hoped to destroy it.
7. So as to better to deceive Christians, they pretended to be Christians, traveling and passing from one aisle to another with false baptismal certificates, which they bought from certain stingy and corrupt priests.
8. They hoped, by means of money and cabals, to obtain a civil status from all governments, as has already happened to them in several countries.
9. Once they having the rights of citizens like other people, they would buy as many houses and as much land as they could. By means of usury they would soon succeed in stripping Christians of their property and their treasures. (This is beginning to be true in Tuscany, where the Jews exert the most exorbitant usury with impunity and make immense and continual acquisitions both in the countryside and in the towns.)
10. Consequently, they promised themselves that in less than a century they would become the masters of the world and abolish all the other sects so that theirs would reign. The would make synagogues of Christian churches and to reduce the remaining Christians to true slavery.
These, sir, are the treacherous plans of the Jewish nation, which I have heard with my own ears. Undoubtedly, it is impossible that they can perform them all, because they are contrary to the infallible promises of Jesus Christ to his church and to the various prophecies which clearly announce that this ungrateful and obstinate people must remain wandering and vagabond, held in contempt and slavery, until they recognize the true messiah, whom they crucified, and, at this last consolation of the church, until they embrace the Christian faith.
However, they can do a lot of harm, if governments continue to favor them, as they have done for many years. It would therefore be wise to wish that an energetic and superior pen like yours made the aforementioned governments open their eyes and instructed them to make this people return to the abjection due to them and in which our fathers, more political and judicious than we are, always took care to keep them.
Sir, I beg you to forgive this Italian, a soldier, for the many errors of all kinds that you will find in this letter. I ask that the hand of God reward you for all the luminous writings with which you have enriched his church and which grant you, from those who read them, the highest esteem and the deepest respect in which I have the honor of to be, sir, your very humble and obedient servant.
Jean-Baptiste Simonini
P.S. If you find yourself in this country and I can oblige you in anything, for example if you need new light to be shed on the contents of this letter, let me know and you will be completely obeyed.
Hi guys , Winderful info ??????
If ever you need a French Translator , I am a French Canadian and I can do a pretty good job
You can get in touch with me
God Bless
I found this. Can you translate it?
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qae7x_bGMmhRqqsZBjr_cGJ4Ow3yNd3ctF2wOmenqB-L_KAw_iJ1KKjtQjb114j75b8tPuz7ey1qJ4ByPGu1Yah3UPUDDBgait5_4sQOgfBmUaY3t8Rw0jOqpvd-U5zNjBGiQ9iGO9GkdNEJP7hKtzRF-2tF_mosxOAkFSDlhHjQqQmrGdRcejwZF2rrCGPLBDFqI4rJVmadYSZ1dGIJ9u2CHQ3cPtpiBJPqfg8q-jpnDNQcGHDb2ArKbzn8inJWiTRtjsZR
Greg, that link doesn’t work….
Captain RAMSAY : The Nameless War — 33 — [42] DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE Four revolutions in history merit our special attention. The study and comparison of the methods employed therein will reveal on the one hand a basic similarity between them: and on the other an interesting advance in technique, with each succeeding upheaval. It is as if we studied the various stages in the evolution of the modern rifle from the original old “brown Bess.” The revolutions in question are firstly the Cromwellian, secondly the French, thirdly the Russian, and lastly the Spanish revolution of 1936. All four can be proved to have been the work of international Jewry. The first three succeeded, and secured the murder of the reigning monarch and the liquidation of his supporters. In each case Jewish finance, and underground intrigue, are clearly traceable ; and the earliest measures passed by the revolutionaries have been “emancipation” for the Jews. Cromwell was financed by various Jews, notably Manasseh Ben Israel and
Carvajal “the Great Jew,” contractor to his army.
https://resist.com/Onlinebooks/TheNamelessWar.pdf
The Jews and the British Empire .
https://ia600706.us.archive.org/29/items/JewsAndTheBritishEmpire/The%20Jews%20and%20the%20British%20Empire.pdf
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-rothschild-colonization-of-india.598421/
https://destroyzionism.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/the-jewish-rotting-of-china/
The Jews frequently received titles of
nobility in England, especially since the long reign of Queen
Victory, to such an extent that investigators have shown
that most of the titles of Earl, Marquis, Viscount and Lord
are presently in the hands of Jewish ennobled families
or of ancient aristocratic English families linked with Jew-
ish families. Dukedoms have been Judaized by means of
marriages of Jewesses and ancient Dukes, and those
20
Jewesses, with the help of the powerful Israelite com-
munities, have secretly initiated in Judaism the eldest son
of that marriage, this is to say, the new Duke. It is not
strange, then, that the international Judaism is not in a
hurry to overthrow the English monarchy, which is con-
trolled by the Israelite imperialism.
https://rumble.com/vohcg9-chinese-communism-and-the-jews-itsvan-bakony-audio-book.html
https://ia801903.us.archive.org/8/items/LibraryOfPoliticalSecrets4-ChineseCommunismAndChineseJews1969/LOPS-04-BAKONYItsvan-Chinese_Communism_And_Chinese_Jews_1969.pdf
I agree with you, Dave , that the Jews are not in a hurry to overthrow the kingship in England because it is there that it is said that the price of gold is set daily, they control the economy, and a kind of seat of power and security to them. And England is where the control of most of the world was held.
Have you noticed how we always hear that we are the most powerful country in the world, but we fight our wars with other nations or they assist us as was done in WW1, WW11, Korea, Vietnam , and the Middle East?
Then, it would seem to me to be what is called propaganda.
I subscribed many years ago to a socialist publication, because I wanted to know something about it, what they said, thought etc. and it was free.
One thing that I never forgot in one of their tales of the past was that a certain people in a certain country (I can’t remember where] were upsets with the king, duke, ruler for some reason.
But because he controlled the money , he could control the soldiers or military or anyone to be enticed to support him or whatever and thereby was able to put down the rebellion.
And that is something that has bothered me thinking about. Who really controls our government behind the scenes? The Rothschild’s are said to control our economy and money system.
So , if the day ever comes when we must defend our country, family’s , friends, will a foreign nations or even our own Military be used against us, because money will buy loyalty or betrayal against our fellow man?
“Wars are not fought to defeat a nation BUT TO CREATE A
CONDITION.” How true! The war against Japan wasn’t fought
to defeat an enemy. It was fought to create a condition—a condition of desolation and abject poverty throughout Japan. This
was done so that the International ‘redevelopers’ could rush in
at the end of hostilities and seize the prime real estate for their
own use.
Shortly after the war—after the American airborne demolition crews had done their job—vast sums of money became
available for the reconstruction of Japan. The capital to build
and equip Japan’s gleaming new industrial plants, ports, railroads,
warehouses and skyscraper office buildings didn’t come from
inside Japan. It came from outside Japan. It came from the
same people who benefited enormously from the war debts piled
up by many nations around the world. It came from the International Bankers. They put up the money. They own the show.P200
https://chinhnghia.com/Griffin-DescentIntoSlavery1980.pdf
Something I never noticed , Dave , until I read an article was that the word SONY stood for the Standard Oil Company . (of New York)/?
How A Group Of International Bankers Engineered The 1929 Stock Market Crash and Depression:
Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, came to Washington on February 6, 1929, to confer with Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury. On November 11, 1927, the Wall Street Journal described Mr. Norman as “the currency dictator of Europe.” Professor Carroll Quigley notes that Norman, a close confidant of J. P. Morgan, admitted: “I hold the hegemony of the world.” Immediately after this mysterious visit, the Federal Reserve Board reversed its easy-money policy and began raising the discount rate. The balloon which had been inflated constantly for nearly seven years was about to be exploded.
On October 24 [1929], the feathers hit the fan. Writing in “The United States’ Unresolved Monetary and Political Problems”, William Bryan describes what happened:
“When everything was ready, the New York financiers started calling 24 hour broker call loans. This meant that the stockbrokers and the customers had to dump their stock on the market in order to pay the loans. This naturally collapsed the stock market and brought a banking collapse all over the country because the banks not owned by the oligarchy were heavily involved in broker call claims at this time, and bank runs soon exhausted their coin and currency and they had to close. The Federal Reserve System would not come to their aid, although they were instructed under the law to maintain an elastic currency.”
The investing public, including most stock brokers and bankers, took a horrendous blow in the crash, but not the insiders. They were either out of the market or had sold “short” so that they made enormous profits as the Dow Jones plummeted. For those who knew the score, a comment by Paul Warburg had provided the warning to sell. That signal came on March 9, 1929, when the Financial Chronical quoted Warburg as giving this sound advice:
“If orgies of unrestricted speculation are permitted to spread too far the ultimate collapse is certain … to bring about a general depression involving the whole country.”
Sharpies were later able to buy back these stocks at a ninety percent discount from their former highs.
https://21stcenturycicero.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/how-a-group-of-international-bankers-engineered-the-1929-crash-and-the-great-depression/
The Nameless War.
The main discovery that such an examination will reveal is this fact: the
revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work
of aliens, whose object was to destroy everything, which had been France.
This conclusion is borne out by the references to “foreigners” in high
places in the Revolutionary Councils, not only by Sir Walter Scott, but by Robes
Pierre himself.
We have the names of several of them, and it is clear that they were not
British, or Germans, or Italians, or any other nationals ; they were, of course,
Jews.
Audio Book Version of the Nameless War by Capt. Archibald Ramsey.
https://archive.org/details/the-nameless-war_202103
Furious Frog ……
You wrote — “…Racism and Jesus (Mark 7:21,28, KJB): ²¹ Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. ²² And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out….In the Heavenly Kingdom, no race, no sex, no age: nothing but faith and deeds”
Are you suggesting that the “Woman of Canaan” was outside the lineage of Adamic man? In other words ….. was the Woman of Canaan a non-Adamite or an Adamite?
I think the consensus here at CFT would suggest the “Woman of Canaan” was of the Genesis 10 Nations. She was not an Israelite, but was still blood related the Nations of Genesis 10.
I don’t want to ‘assume’ what you believe, which is why I am asking. It seems you are saying any “Race” — White, yellow, black, red —- has been included in the “Whosoever” (John 3:16) category.
If YES ……… could you kindly explain how we can get or have 4 primary classifications of people — white, black, yellow, red — out of ONE homogenous couple?
I grew up believing this occured at the Tower of Babel. I no longer accept that theory.
Thanks.
Westwins,
Here I know I am not in my home. And I assume I’d rather explain who I am, for it relates to your question.
I’m a foreigner. English isn’t my first language (maybe you already knew that).
In my country almost everyone was Catholic, including my ancestors. When I read the Bible, I use translations from saint Jerome of Stridon, for it is what the Catholic Church admits as the reference Bible.
But I’m here. And not for trolling. I’m here because I consider there is many very useful news here and that this site worths being read. And when I comment here, I use the KJB, for I assume it is the reference Bible here.
I disagree with the Adamite thesis but don’t want to make a war on it, and my aim was not to suggest in that comment anything about Adamism that CFT would disagree with. My aim was just the opposite.
If it’s possible to discuss the Adamite thesis here, I’ll maybe try to do it, but not now. First, for if I do, it would be pointless where the subject is the Illumiati; second, for I will possibly be excluded from commenting, whereas I wish I spend more time here, and, furthermore, I also wish knowing better that Adamite thesis before discussing it. Last (but not least), I want to be sure the comments I may write won’t be considered as hostile ones against CFT. Or I prefer not to write them.
I didn’t know you considered the Canaanites as belonging to the same race than the Israelites did. So I’m sorry my comment was opposite to what CFT writes.
In fact I believe too that Canaanites and Israelites are a part of the same race (well, not that race you believe they’re belonging to), but with national differences.
Jesus would today be condemned in my country for what he answered to the Canaanite woman, for he was according to the laws of my country guilty of national « hatred ». Knowing few about the Adamite thesis, I thought all or nearly all people here believed that the difference was about race rather than about nation, which would have made that quote even better for that subject. I learn from you that the Adamite thesis describes Israelites and Canaanites as belonging to a same race.
In fact, I committed at least one other mistake, for Mark 7:26 reads: « The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. » It’s enough, I think, to demonstrate what I meant. I don’t know whether she was a Canaanite (Matthew 15:22 – not Mark 7!) or a hellenized syrophenician woman, but the conclusion was the same in my mind, and I believed it would be too for all of you.
Regarding the questions you’re asking me, I think it would be better to answer them elsewhere on CFT, and latter, but if you really want to know my answer here, I’ll answer.
Furious Frog,
If you would like to critique the Adamic Nations thesis, you should address your comments after the following articles — clearly, you need to study them and the previous comments carefully before commenting, please:
https://christiansfortruth.com/who-are-the-nations-in-scripture-and-who-they-are-not-and-why-it-matters/
https://christiansfortruth.com/will-all-israel-be-saved-or-just-a-remnant/
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-do-i-know-im-an-israelite/
https://christiansfortruth.com/edom-in-the-old-and-new-testaments/
We do not have a problem with people disagreeing with our Bible studies; however, we do require that you do so without anger, hostility or mockery, and no personal attacks. And if you are going to disagree, we do ask that commenters make an attempt to adhere to logic and evidence from the Scripture. Here are a couple essays we have written explaining common problems and logical fallacies we often encounter with people disagreeing over Bible studies. Please read them:
https://christiansfortruth.com/how-to-more-effectively-disagree-in-biblical-matters/
https://christiansfortruth.com/begging-the-question-and-distorting-scripture-in-biblical-exegesis/
Furious Frog,
My question is really very simple.
If Adam and Eve were a homogenous (blood) couple (of the same ‘kind’), how do we get 4 vastly different categories or “kinds” of peoples — – White, yellow, black, red.
As I told you, growing up in a protestant evangelical church, it was ASSUMED everyone was the same prior to the Tower of Babel. And it was at the Tower of Babel that God changed the peoples into 4 distinct peoples — white, yellow, black, red.
I’m just curious your opinion as to how we have such a vast difference in people groups.
Do you believe in micro-evolution i.e., climates determine skin color, eye shape, nose shape etc., etc.
Do you believe in some kind of “curse” that changed mankind?
I just want someone, who believes the 4 primary people groups all come from Adam and Eve, to explain how that happened.
If this is what you believe, I would appreciate an explanation. Like I said, that is what I was taught. But no one explained it to me. You just believe it, because everyone around you believed it. But I don’t even think Christian Ministries like “Answers in Genesis” or the Hank Hanegraff (the bible answer man) ever attempts to explain that theory.
I’m not trying to be hostile. I’m just very curious to hear a rationale, scriptural based argument.
Cheers.
Westwins,
Not only is your question very easy, and in no way a hostile one, but furthermore you asked it in the most correct terms.
Once more, I’m not here for trolling; my aim is not to make a war against what you believe.
In fact, my comment might have given you my answer, but maybe you know as few about Catholicism than I do about Evangelism.
Despite how it had been pictured by some hostile protestant writers and later by Hollywood, the Catholic Church, as a whole (I don’t mean anyone inside it) never had problems with scientific knowledge. In fact, monks in monasteries tranmitted to us copies of either the scientific, the phiosophical, even the mythic religious writings of the Greeks witers, and of the Romans too (almost nothing new about science from them). The Catholic Church believed in most of what was written in the Old Testament, but considered it was partly allegoric, and that if it was possible to prove something against the events described in it, then the religious meanings was to be kept as before, but that the fact proven was to be admitted. Once more, it was the mainstream understanding inside the Catholic Chuch, and other disagreed, either for or against a more « protestant » view.
So, the Catholic Church, as a whole (few authorities in it did else), taught the Earth was not flat, but a sphere; it taught Ptolemy and Aristotle; it even taught Aristochus of Samos and heliocentrism as a possible truth, even before Copernicus, whose Narratio Prima was known, and whose De Revolutionibus Orbium Cœlestium was dedicated to the pope. Luther and Calvin considered heliocentrism as impossible because of their litteral reading of the Bible.
In the sixteenth century Protestant writers blamed the Church for everything which was not in the Bible but came from the heathen past: the relics, the saints… Aristotle or Platon…
As a consequence, a part of the Church coped with the Protestants, and rejected heliocentrism violently. And, as the mainstream teaching of the Church came from Thomas Aquinas, it rejected everything which was new in science from what he admitted (whereas Thomas Aquinas himself considered that science wasn’t to find in the Bible, but only religious truth).
The consequence was the trial against Galileo Galilei. He was charged with having claimed its writing were availed by the pope, writings in which he said heliocentrism was taught in the Bible (!). Believing in heliocentrism himself, the pope didn’t want to sentence him because of that, but because of Galileo Galilei’s lies. The sentence was lenient in fact.
In the Protestant countries, the Calvinist Holland was then ruled by a liberal bourgeoisie, very far from Calvin’s views, and in England, from Cromwell, the political power faded and the City began its reign.
The new Protestant leaders considered the Catholic Church as a tyrant and favoured a kind of religious liberalism. The Catholic Church was depicted as opposed to science.
From the nineteenth century, the Church became (a bit) what it had been depicted by its opponents, but even then the evolutionist theory (due not to Darwin, who only introduced in it the natural selection, but to the Lutherian freemason Lamarck) wasn’t considered as impossible. And when Cuvier (a French Calvinist, and, I believe, a freemason) tried to save the Bible litteral meaning through the theory of several creations, the last of which being described in Genesis 1, his theory spreaded in Protestant countries rather than in his own country.
For a Catholic, evolutionism is possible, and true or not it won’t change the religious meaning of the Bible. Science is not a religious matter in itself, and faith is not a scientific object in itself.
So, to your easy question, my answer is that it is pointless regarding religion as I know it. And that I believe in evolution, but either true of false this theory has no religious consequences, as far as, for a Catholic, God created all the human souls, and love all of them, even if, in earthly kingdom, political, social or religious functions can differ.
So your “proof” is the the Catholic Church says “God created all the human souls,” therefore, that accounts for the four primary races? And what verses in the Bible exactly did the church derive this doctrine from? Or did they just declare it because that’s what they want Catholics to believe?
Surlapont,
I didn’t say I had any evidence, any proof. In fact, I believe in evolutionism not because the Church want me to believe in it (it doesn’t: it declares it not a religious matter) but because of what I know about paleontology. A catholic can be a creationist or an evolutionist But if I (not the Church: it teaches science being outside religion) admit that dozens of millions of years of evolution can make a bird from a kind of lizard, for sure I can admit that all the human races can come from a same family.
Is it true? Is it wrong? For a Catholic, true or wrong, a scientific theory will never change the religious truth.
FF,
Thank you for your answer. I do find it both interesting and revealing.
I’m shocked quite frankly, that the Catholic Church never bothers to explain the origin of the popular concept called “Race”. Even Contemporary Christianity will at least try to explain — https://answersingenesis.org/racism/one-race/
Excerpt — The families that scattered from Babel brought different combinations of genes with them. But their physical differences were trivial. We all have the same basic brown pigment, and we belong to one race—the human race—descended from Adam.
This is exactly what I was taught to believe — you just believe something because the “authorities” (pastors/teachers/priests) tell you to believe something.
Answers in Genesis writes — “The families that scattered from Babel brought different combinations of genes with them.”
This is just pure speculation. Adam and Eve were of the same “kind”. Eve created from the rib of Adam. They would produce children that looked just like them. And so on and so on and so on.
Answers in Genesis speculates and assumes they carried genes that could mutate and produce diversity. Again ……… pure speculation. Not based in science.
The darkest of Africa has been black for thousands of years. The Congo is not producing yellow and white peoples steadily or incrementally.
White Icelanders are not producing “shades” of White children to eventually turn yellow, black and red.
White mating with a White will always produce White. Black mating with a black will always produce black. And so on and so on.
Then Answers in Genesis says their “physical differences were trivial”.
Trivial? Pure denial.
I am surprised the Catholic Church doesn’t at least try to offer some reasonable explanation. Just believe it, because we told you to believe it.
This is unacceptable to me.
But I do appreciate you provided an answer regarding this topic. More than most. You at least had the courage to admit you simply do not know.
Thanks Furious Frog.
Furious Frog,
Paleontology refutes evolution. The fossil record reveals no transitional species, even Darwin himself regretted this. The fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory is not science, but rather metaphysics.
The evolutionary theory cannot be tested scientifically; therefore, it cannot be honestly called “science”.
Mennim,
I think paleontolgy suggests evolution from what I know of it.
Paleontoly studies fossiles. Evolution implies that species change in a long and slow process. According to that theory each specie is a link in that process, and each of those links, each of those species, is in itself a chain, in which each individual is a link. Known fossiles are what has already be found of what remains, so a very small part of a very small part. So the missing links will, even if the evolutionary theory is true, always be the rule, and the known links, the exception.
And of course, missing links will also remain the rule if it isn’t true, so for sure paleontology doesn’t prove the evolutionary theory, and that’s why it remains a theory.
Maybe there was metaphysics in Darwin’s mind (not the first evolutionarist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck Lamarck was a deist from a Catholic family, whereas I said he was a Lutherian) or in any of his forerunners’ mind. Also there was in Cuvier’s mind.
Westwins,
I think the Catholic Chuch also explained the racial differences by Babel; but, despite what it was said by biased historians and lazy parrots, and is still said in newspapers and in Hollywood, it was not dogmatic in scientific matters. It considered all religious truth as being given in the Ten Commandments and in Jesus’ teachings, and itself as the guardian of that religious truth, but that the Bible isn’t about science. Only in religion it claimed to be the perfect authority outside which no salvation was possible. In fact, the Catholic Church was dogmatic about faith but adogmatic about science, for which it should be congratulated, whereas it is depised and slandered from misrepresented accounts about the charges against Galileo Galilei.
Has a Church dogmatic about science and adogmatic about religion ever existed? And would it have be a Church?
I found « answersingenesis » claims strange: nowhere in the Bible races are said to be fictious. It is very « uncatholic » (and I hope they don’t pretend they are Catholics; what is their religion?) to build science on the Bible. And the Genesis doesn’t say races don’t exist, or I don’t know where. But the worst is that from those religious views on a scientific matter they claim something we can see and touch doesn’t exist. Which means that you just have to see that races exist to understand that either they misrepresent their religion or their religion is a mistake. Polical correctness vs Truth.
God for a Catholic created all mankind and loves all mankind. God created either souls and bodies. And races being God’s opus, trying to destroy them is possibly tikkun olam but everything but a Christian duty I say.
When I was a child I was interested about astronomy. I wondered if I would believe in heliocenrism if I had lived centuries earlier. I wondered if, by what I could see by my eyes, I would have understood.
I think today that, from Aristarchus of Samos to Kepler, I would have regarded heliocenrism as what was true yet uncertain; from Kepler to Bradley, as very surely true yet unproven and still uncertain; and certain from Bradley only.
I consider today that it is about evolutionary theory what it was before Kepler about heliocentrism. Is it possible that from one specie, divided in groups among which individual differences, by sample effect, cause small panel differences which, after a very long time and especially under very different conditions, will appear new races, and, in a much longer time, new species? That’s the point. But time can’t be built by men. I believe it is what happened.
It is not so common to disagree in religious discussions without anger.
Thanks to both of you.
Is beastiality a religious matter? Of course it’s a religious matter, because the Bible tells us it is a sin (Leviticus 18:23). How do we define what is a beast so that we don’t sleep with them? Adam was created from the dust of the earth while everything NOT Adam is a beast. If we sleep with something NOT Adam, we commit beastiality.
But what differentiates us from beasts in evolution? Nothing differentiates us. Thus evolution cancels the Bible with a tradition of men. We can go and sleep with animals, because we are all animals.
You might say that “humans” are obviously not animals. Why not? Where have you drawn line? Were the giants in the land of Canaan (Deuteronomy 2) humans or were they animals? They could talk, likely walked on two legs and they could breed with the local Canaanites.
Where along the evolutionary sequence did we become Adam? What about the bushmen in Southern Africa or the Abos in Australia? Are they “human” according to the Bible? If you decided “yes”, then why? They are very different physically and intellectually. Did you decide because they walk on two legs and we can talk with them and we can breed with them? The giants in Canaan were no different in that way, so what are the specific criteria by which you have decided?
When we compare giants and those descended from Adam and Eve, we could see they each spoke, walked on two legs and could breed with one another. According to the Bible, these are not good criteria to decide. But they are good criteria for evolution. Does the Bible agree with your definition on what is “human” (and what is “Adam”)? Does the Bible agree with evolution?
By trying to keep the law of love towards all “humans”, we invalidate the law of God not to sleep with animals. Just like the Pharisees, we nullify the laws of God with traditions of men. The Catholic church rules out that evolution is not a religious matter, but it is gravely mistaken.
Sheepdog,
Sorry but I think you are nullifying the Law with human traditions. Exactly as the Talmudic Judaism does (the spiritual child of the Pharisees) when ravs longly discuss how much of an egg came out of a hen before sundown on the sabat to decide if it is kosher or not.
Talmudic answer: ⅔ of the egg.
Who will look? In what do such quibblings relate to God and His Law?
What IQ for an human being? Was a pithecanthropus a man or a beast? And what if genetics is to give birth to one of them? Is it permitted for an human being to mate with?
All that is what Jesus condemn in Matthew chapter 23; there is not need for Talmudic quibblings: you know what an human being is. No pithecanthropus lives. To make one would be a Satanic work.
In 1778 a Catholic king forbade weddings between his subjects and Black people. In my opinion and in the Catholic Church’s one, and in the Protestants’ opinion of that time I know, Black people are human beings. But Babel is an Antichristian project, so why don’t you understand than love for all mankind is just the opposite of the Kalergi project, which would be the destruction of what God created?
All mankind was created by God. All nations and races too. Melting pot is the destruction of what God created.
FF, I’m afraid you didn’t actually address anything I said. You tell me my logic is “Talmudic quibblings”, but I don’t understand how your example of the egg on the Sabbath relates to the argument I gave? You’ve resorted straight to ad hominem by falsely and illogically equating my argument with “Talmudic quibblings”.
My argument does relate to God’s law, because it determines whether or not we could sleep with and produce offspring with other upright bipeds.
You say that “you know what an human being is.” It is a word for a species of primate according to paleontological/evolutionary classification. None of the ancients who wrote the Bible had such a classification as “human”, therefore it is not found anywhere in the Bible. The word “human” didn’t even enter the English language until the 15th century. If you read the modern scientific concept of “human” into the Bible, you are reading something into the Bible which isn’t in the Bible. Why presume that the ancient Bible writers knew what a “human” was when nowhere in the Bible do we ever find a definition of “human” according to modern science?
So yes, I know what a “human” is. I know that blacks, whites, Asians and whatever other half-breed is a “human”. But “human” is not in the Bible. We do see intelligent, upright bipeds who are not considered as people… Like the giants in the land of Canaan. So where do you draw the line between what is a produce of Adam and Eve, and what is a product of something else?
You argument presumes that because giants no longer live, and pithecanthropus no longer lives, therefore no other intelligent bipeds exist that are not from Adam and Eve. That’s like saying if apples went extinct, all fruit would also be extinct. You’ve merely presumed that blacks (for example) come from Adam and Eve because they fit your extra-Biblical, evolutionary concept of “human”.
You cannot read your extra-Biblical “scientific” views into the Bible and accuse me of “Talmudic quibblings” because I hold you to a standard of Scripture. Imagine a man sex-changes to a woman, then he marries another man. If I call them “homosexual”, you would accuse me of “Talmudic quibblings” because the world sees the sex-changed man as a woman. This may be an uncomfortable position for you, but you have to see the world through the Bible, not see the Bible through the world.
If you want to debate this matter, you have to PROVE your concept of “human” FROM WITHIN the Bible. You cannot merely PRESUME your own definition INTO the Bible. On the other hand, I’ve shown you why the modern classification of “human” DOESN’T work on the Bible, because I have shown you there were bipeds so closely genetically related, people could even breed with them (the giants).
Furious Frog, it appears that you have no interest in really studying Scripture or citing Scripture to prove any of your beliefs. For you everything you believe is “self-evident” and therefore beyond discussion. Those who disagree with you are being “talmudic”. As such there is really nowhere to go with this discussion, and unless you are willing to strictly adhere to proving what you contend with actual Scripture, we will have to ask you to stop this discussion. It will only serve to waste everyone’s time, as we here have a higher standard of proof than you are willing to provide. Thanks
Sheepdog,
I’d like to answer but I had already read CFT’s comment pleading for a stop and thus I didn’t read yours.
Nice to meet you! But farewell.
__________
ChristiansForTruth,
You wrote:
I stopped citing Scripture when I was asked about what I believe – believe; so in fact you allude to « you know what an human being is » – answer to which it would be possible to ask me: « No, Furious frog, what is an human being for you and from where are these criteria? »
I can hear I should have explain but only had two free minutes when writing that comment.
I would have cited the Bible (for knowing what is an human being is not a scientific matter for the Catholic Church) and Catholics fathers praised by the KJB’s translators, and Protestants writers from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and an American Protestant writer supporting the Confederate-to-be States just before 1861.
I might have cite Luther and Calvin! But it would have been the same.
Blamed for considering Law as Pharisees did, I replied on the same ground (Talmudic Judaism is the spiritual child of Pharisees).
So:
You rule (it’s your home):
Scripture as read and explained by Luther? By the American Protestant writer I alluded to? By the many sources he cited? I was ready to post.
But the concern here is neither the Catholic Church nor the Protestants’ views.
I have already said my aim was not to comment against your views, at least before having time to read your links; how to discuss what is ill-known? But I was asked else.
My comments don’t fit your website? No problem.
Please publish this last comment – it would be fair to do so. I won’t read any answer (why? cf. supra).
Thanks to you; farewell.
Furious frog, may these men to whom you appeal for authority intercede for you before Christ — and that their own opinions would matter before the Lord — on the day of judgement, because even they will know that when you had your opportunity to defend your faith in the Bible, you instead appealed to the praise of men. So that we might seek their praise — and your praise — as well.
Furious Frog, like most Catholics who show up here, you don’t seem to be able to get out of the artificial and arbitrary Catholic vs. Protestant paradigm. Neither are correct or strictly scriptural. We are not “Protestants’ simply because we are not Catholics. Those who desire to subvert and destroy Christianity want to keep us in this simplistic Catholic-Protestant paradigm — because (((they))) control both sides, just as they do with Left-Right politics.
When we express our opinions about the Bible, we have a moral obligation to be able to defend those opinions with scripture, and if we can’t we shouldn’t make the pretense that the discussion is anything other than our personal opinion. Your opinions are a hodge podge of Catholic dogma, polemics, metaphysics, and pseudo-science, none of which shows a strict discipline or desire to justify one’s views with the what the Bible actually says. You are welcome to comment if you are willing to play by those rules.
Apropos of medieval history person of note who was likely “Black Nobility”, William-the-Conqueror,- please find very stimulating results within http://www.startpage.com search-engine from search terms ;
mileswmathis.com AND william the conqueror
Yet,- it is likely that his lineage for many generations were self-consciously Christian & did not ever consider themselves as Non-Goyim.
technical drawing, you are quoting Miles Mathis, who is a self-admitted Jew, and he is also a Jew denier who runs interference for his fellow Jews, instead putting the blame on the nefarious “black nobility” who are all allegedly inter-related bloodlines. But he makes a lot of it up, and bases a lot of his theories on flimsy evidence like the William the Conqueror evidence. Ignore Miles Mathis, he’s a rabbit hole.
When you buy your ticket you pay both the good guys and the bad guys. The success of the presentation depends on the ability of the theatrical company to get the audience wrapped up in the plot. The greater the audience participation the greater the success. Real success is achieved when the audience becomes so emotionally involved in the plot that they begin to think it’s the real thing. The profits from these theatrical extravaganzas go to those who put up the ‘seed’ money and stage the shows. Don’t misunderstand! The Americans, Canadians, English, Germans, Russians, Japanese and other nationalities who fought and died in the various theaters of war’ during this century weren’t play-acting. They were deadly serious about what they were doing. For them war was a life and death struggle. What few of them realized was that everything was carefully programmed to a carefully prepared script.p54
https://chinhnghia.com/Griffin-DescentIntoSlavery1980.pdf
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22didi18%22
I believe that the best and the worst people belong to the same group, and this group is whites. I don’t believe jews run everything. At the very top you’ll find whites
What’s the weather like in Tel Aviv?
Although the evils perpetrated by the Jews over the past four millennia have been scrubbed, by and large, from the annals of history, and lately the internet, evidence of their perfidy can still be found by those willing to take the time to research, exercise critical thinking, and evaluate source materials.
Jews have a propensity to masquerade as “whites” to gain the trust of gullible goyim until they have been accepted as one of their own, following which they implement the second phase of their plan which generally involves distancing themselves from those they have pilloried to avoid any blowback.
Stephen Birmingham and other notable authors have found evidence the Rockefeller family is Jewish, the British Royal Family have been Jews ever since 1714 when the Hanoverian Royal Family were invited to the City of London to become the “British” Royal Family, all CEOs of pharmaceutical companies pushing the COVID “vaccine” are Jews, it appears Bill Gates may be of Jewish descent, Biden and Trump’s children married Jews.
Who are these “whites” of whom you speak who run everything.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between the two poles, “Whites run everything” and “Jews run everything”. Maybe it’s even skewed to some extent towards the Jews.
In practice, very powerful white people carry out the aims of the Jews. The agenda comes from the Jews. Donald Trump in his capacity as president of the USA is a good example. There are many such examples.
On another point, if you call everyone who disagrees with you a Jew, you’re basically following the same tactics as Jews. That makes you a Jew in your character.
I am well-acquainted with many crypto-Jews and understand their methods. My original post was intended to be amusing rather than accusatory, although in a certain sense you may be right insofar as – indirectly – I may have alleged the original poster was of Jewish descent given the MO employed was so familiar from my numerous exchanges with Hasbara agents.
Trump, if not a crypto-Jew, is undoubtedly a shabbos goy. Given he was bailed out by Wilber Ross in the 1990s, that would not surprise me one jot. That said, the evidence belies your comment “the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle”. In actuality, the evidence points in one direction – my Marxist indoctrination and belief in the Jews being the “chosen people” instilled in me almost from birth meant that it took me years of looking down rabbit-holes to come to that realisation.
You should lead with your argument next time. Then if someone comes along reading the comments, they see a well reasoned argument in response to the statement, as opposed to just an accusation. If you lead with the accusation, then you’re acting like a Jew who feel they’re above giving evidence for their accusations. Moreover, everyone who reads the comments could learn something.
Adam wrote, “Trump, if not a crypto-Jew, is undoubtedly a shabbos goy. Given he was bailed out by Wilber Ross in the 1990s, that would not surprise me one jot. That said, the evidence belies your comment “the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle”.”
That’s exactly why I said, “In practice, very powerful white people carry out the aims of the Jews.” That’s why I said that the spectrum is skewed towards the Jews. If you think there are no very powerful whites fulfilling the wishes of Jews (“shabbos goy” as you call them), then you’re welcome to claim the spectrum is entirely one-sided… Though you’d be hard-pressed to prove it. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Cecil John Rhodes, FW de Klerk, Abraham Lincoln… The list goes on.
What makes it worse is that these white people give their mental effort and creativity towards the cause of the Jews. They’re carrying out orders, but in effect they’re doing so much more than that. It’s not hard to understand why someone who’s newer to this game (which we’re so familiar with) could think that white people run things.
Right! More like the weather at unit 8200.
Milla, when the Jews brag that “‘We Own The Whole Freaking Country’”, do you think they are lying? When the Jews write in their Protocols of Zion that they are running everything and pulling all the strings, do you think they are lying? Why are you trying to protect Jews from taking responsibility of ownership of the nations they live in?
The Jew has plenty of Shabbos Goy flunkies more than willing to help them do any dirty deed, like assisting the Zios pull off the Israeli masterminded 9/11 false flag.
White? Like the Juden who stir up all sorts of trouble–pretending to be white, then when it hits the fan, backs off & says they’re Jew?
Off topic, but a pertinant question none the less.
What say you: CRT aye, or CRT nay?
Same Old Same Old: Youngkin seeks the Jewish stamp of approval
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/same-old-same-old-2/
Anudda back-stabber that is more than happy to serve Zionism while crapping on Americans.
Considering that this guy and his team bragged about going against Trump’s America First platform, and he hung out with the likely-Jewish, and certainly a judas goat, Ted Cruz, I am not surprised.
VA has tons of “righter-wing” pundits, like (((Mark Levin))) and Jared Taylor. Out of curiosity, why don’t these pundits ever even try to run for office, and instead let some milquetoast moderate squish take the reins?
Not that I would actually want (((Levin))), though our pal Jared Taylor does name the Jew fairly frequently FWIW.
Robespierre — the main leader of the terror in the Revolution in France of 1789 — was descended from a family who emigrated to France from Ireland ;
The family name being “Ruben”.
Ireland had gotten Jewed by then?
I don’t understand Ireland. The Irish hated British rule, rebelled against it for years, and then immediately and almost now completely surrender their sovereignty once granted independence.
The Irish chafed at rule by the British monarchy but is A-OK with a Pajeet peter-puffer (Leo Varadkar) having run the show until recently, and now he’s still stinking up high government there.
I don’t want to gripe too hard on our Irish brothers. I just don’t understand their predicament.
Jews have been in Ireland for almost 1,000 years. Jews would instinctively be attracted to Ireland because it’s like Poland….largely rural and agrarian, and the Irish would be easy to take advantage of by siding with the English overlords and lending them money. As they did in Poland, they would get farmers in debt, loaning against future harvests, then sell them cheap alcohol, get them drunk, then rob them blind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Ireland
Similar to Scotland, where Jews fled to during one of their ‘Exodus’ from some nation that kicked their money-grubbing butts out.
There’s more than a few Scots that are Scottish in name only.
Forget 109 expulsions of the nation wreckers. This is well-sourced & an interesting read.
Read it now while you can & before Joogle wipes it off the history books.
The way their proceeding with deleting history, then fabricating their kosher version, in another 20 years, schools will teach that only blacks & Jews fought WWII against white supremacists.
Lord Molyneaux’s The Complete List Of The 1030 Jewish Expulsions In Human History
https://archive.org/details/LordMolyneauxLordMolyneauxsEmpireMay22018TheCompleteListOfThe1030JewishExpulsionsInHumanHistory
History of Ireland proves that real rebels are very few.
Starting around 900 A.D.,- the Vikings upon request / instructions by the Non-Goyim [ based in Ukraine ] began raiding & pillaging & destroying the monasteries & nunneries of the Irish in Ireland, & North of England & Scotland for purpose of sabotaging the profound effect that Irish missionaries were having in saving & advancing Christianity in continental Europe.
The Vikings generally operated in an anti-clockwise circuit starting from Northern Russia – Latvia – Estonia – Scandinavia & Denmark & Northern Germany over to Britain, & then to Ireland & then to Iceland [ a refuge ] & then to North of France & down to coasts of Spain & Portugal & some distance down the west coast of Northern Africa prior ] & then return north to enter the Mediterranean & over into Turkey & into Ukraine & up the Volga to Norther Russia.
Eventually the Vikings settlements integrated with the Irish.
In the year 1066,- William-the-Conqueror [ crypto-Jew by ethnicity at least ] winning the Battle of Hastings meant the Normans now ruled combined England & Wales.
The Normans were the descendants of the Vikings who settled in Normandy, France.
In the year 1166,- the Normans invaded & conquered substantial parts of Ireland ;
This invasion was financed by Jew usurers ;
Especially by Josce de Gloucester [ based in Gloucester, West of England ]
They created as their main settlement a defended region known as “The Pale” ;
The Pale was the reverse in logic, & pre-dates also, “The Pale of the Settlement” in Russia for the Jews.
And,- the phrase “beyond the Pale” originated as reference to any person outside of The Pale in Ireland ;
Such a person showing themselves near The Pale was, according to instruction of the British, a die-hard native & to be killed immediately.
Many Crypto-Jews expelled from Britain & continental Europe have settle in Ireland successively since 1166 ;
The vast majority of their descendants over the centuries are not aware of this ancestry, & were sincerely reared as Catholics.
Some have featured as famous Irish rebels.
The modern IRA got infiltrated by agents of the Non-Goyim ;
Some evidence of this is discernible from public facts.
And,- Sinn Fein got corrupted & infiltrated more easily ;
Because,- Sinn Fein is a political organisation ;
The IRA being a secret army.
Most people in Sinn Fein would not be IRA members.
Anyway,- Sinn Fein today are rotten
What’s your proof that William the Conqueror was a “crypto Jew”? There’s no doubt there were Jews who accompanied William to England, as Jews can recognize a good opportunity to make money when they see one. But where your proof that William himself was a Jew?
For sure he wasn’t a Jew. I never found any claim of it. And he was called in France a Normand, i. e. a « Northman », i. e. a son of Vikings (either by blood or by allegiance: Nordmanni settled in the part of France to which they have given their name after the treaty of Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, 911 A.D., and became the military ruling class of it, and a part, or the main part, of its population – demographic ratios unknown, of course).
The Black Nobility is a project long in the making ;
https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2016/05/did-william-the-conqueror-have-a-jewish-mother/
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32758-Was-William-the-Conqueror-s-mother-Jewish
Let’s take a closer look at what these sources cite as “proof” that William the Conqueror was a Jew.
1. “Most” scholars agree that William’s mother was the daughter of a tanner. Some scholars do not agree to this. The proof that her father was a tanner is not definitive.
2. While the vast majority of tanners in France were not Jewish, tanning was a common trade among Jews. In other words, if William’s grandfather was a tanner, there’s an outside chance he could have been a Jew because some tanners were Jews.
3. William was accommodating to the Jews as an adult, giving them certain concessions. Many rulers Europe who were most certainly not Jewish did the same. Jews brought with them certain financial incentives. Showing preferential treatment to Jews makes William no different from most greedy European royalty.
4. Allegedly, besides being called “William the Bastard”, he was also known as “William the Mamzer”, a Jewish term for bastard. Instead of proof that he was.a Jew, more likely this nickname was a barb about the preferential treatment that he showed Jews, which was resented among his non-Jewish courtiers.
5. Rouen, where William was from, had a large Jewish population (20%). At one time, Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe, but there’s no proof that Poles were any more likely to race mix with them than in other nations. In fact, in cities with larger Jewish populations, the Jews would be less likely to take a gentile wife because there was no shortage of Jewish women.
None of these “proofs” amount to anything except an entertaining article written by a Jew, who concludes his article with the following evaluation of his evidence:
“Does any of this prove that England as we know it was founded by a Jew? Of course not.”
The alleged proofs are:
1° His mother was the daughter of a tanner, and often tanners were jews. Which means that they weren’t always jews. For exemple, when the Jews were expelled, yet there were many tanners.
Not only it means nothing, but it’s wrong: the job of the father of William the Conqueror’s mother is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulbert_of_Falaise
Please note that his name was a Germanic name, in a time where yiddish language didn’t exist. The jewish names known of that time weren’t Germanic names, were they?
William’s mother also had a Germanic name. Same conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herleva
2° He was nicknamed « the Mamzer » – hebrew name.
Where? From whem? By whom? He had never been called like that in France, the only place where his ancestry was known. So I assume it’s a nickname lately given to him by people who hated him.
The only ancestry known to William the Conqueror:
http://helmerichs.us/Rollo/HistoricalRollo.html
The website Historum states that according to Jewish sources, Jewish tanners didn’t even appear in that area of France where William was born until 100 years after 1066.
Also, claiming the William’s mother was the daughter of a tanner was a common put down, a way of mocking anyone’s low birth, and shouldn’t be taken literally. It’s a figure of speech.
https://historum.com/threads/duke-william-jewish-ancestry.4573/
So,- William-the-Conqueror most likely had a mother who was Judaic or Ashkenazi ;
You cannot fault him for that.
Nobody has any justifiable claim to find fault with a person for having Judaic & / or Ashkenazi ethnicity in their background.
And,- neither should folks become sensitive to their hero having such origin.
Unless,- yee be the non-sequitor “Anti-Semitic” ?
viz.
despite the wrong phrasing which “Anti-Semitic” is,- that yee be hostile to Judaics & Ashkenazis on an “inherited physical trait” > “racist” basis ?
That would be “racism” ;
And,- racism is immoral, & Anti-Christian.
No, the evidence shows that William the Conqueror was highly unlikely to have been a Jew. Why do you insist that he was? Do you have an agenda?
Please show us all where “racism” is mentioned in the Bible. And please show us where “racism” is shown to be “immoral” in the Bible.
In reality, you can’t, because it is nowhere in the Bible. The Bible is about only one people, the generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1), which in itself shows a preference for one people. God’s choice of the Israelites over all the Adamic people to be His spiritual representatives also shows a preference. Israelites were commanded to stay separate and have nothing to do with other peoples. How is that not “racism”?
“Technically” impossible: no yiddish before the thiteenth century A.D.
None in his mother’s familly had a Jewish name.
But I assume for you having Viking parents is the evidence you’re a Jew?
Racism and Jesus (Mark 7:21,28, KJB):
In the Heavenly Kingdom, no race, no sex, no age: nothing but faith and deeds; but in earthly kingdoms, sex, age, nation and race matter. That’s what I understand.
« technical drawings »’ aim is to make from any people he dislikes a racist and a half-Jew, and a racist because a half-Jew. It’s the famous « half-Jew conspiacy » which make from any Jew, whatever he might have done, a pure and innocent scape-goat victim of hatred because of the evil due to half-Jews. This alleged « half-Jew conspiracy » is promotted by Jews (Makow for exemple), free-masons (W. S. L. Churchill for exemples) and free-masons-idolaters (Nesta Webster for exemple). You can find it in non-senses like William Guy Carr’s funny stories. It’s a kind of alchemy: each time you see in Marx, in Trotzki, in some Rothschild, a. s. o., a Jew, they answer: « No, they were Ashkenazim, not Jewish people ».
So anyone they dislike is a half-Jew.
He hates William the Conqueror, so in his mind he was half-Jewish. He could be nothing else.
William the Conqueror by his father was a Viking. His mother had a Germanic name, two centuries before the first yiddish word was written. The father and the brother of his mother also had Germanic names. This family came from Huy (today in Belgium). The father was maybe not a a tanner, and nowhere in Europe Jewish became tanners before the century after William the Conqueror. No writing of his time I know of called William the Conqueror a Jew.
So for someone who believe in Churchill’s masonic lies, for sure William the Conqueror was a hidden half-Jew racist.
No evidence means hidden evidence for them.
If you can imagine that “The Troubles” served to justify the presence of the British,
then it would follow that all of it -The Troubles- or part of it was instigated
and/or accomplished by the British.
Sort of elegant. And twisted and perverse. Scheming, scheming like the demon.
That particular invasion of the North East of Ireland [ N.E.O.I. ] by Presbyterian Presbyterian Protestants were sent there expressly by that autonomous State “The City of London / The City” within a town [ London ] for the plantation of that part of Ulster.
Most of them were of “The Raiders / The Reivers”.
i.e.
the groupings of families who practised raiding homesteads, & farms, to pillage & to steal cattle, in both North of England & Southern Scotland.
Their recent ethnicity would be Scottish, & English, & Dutch-Flemish [ because of Dutch-Flemish settlement in North-East of England ; I have not sourced reference to this fact in my very quick “raid” on www just ahead of completing this reply ; But,- I did read convincing mentions in recent past ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_reivers
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofScotland/The-Border-Reivers/
“The City” & White-Hall are very clever people ;
Of course they organised Bloody Sunday in Derry as a massacre with the intention of causing civil war in North East of Ireland ;
It has been both an experiment & a training-course for the rulers for how to control & defeat paramilitary terrorism.
The tribe through their politicians & high civil servants & high military persons were involved from the beginning of the so-called “The Troubles” ;
And,- Izy was very involved too ;
Indeed,- Izy strategically set-up “The Murder Triangle”.
Wheels, within wheels, within wheels….All in service to Zionism.