Zionist Jew converts to Catholicism and exposes Jewish Conspiracy

Zionist Jew converts to Catholicism and exposes Jewish Conspiracy.mp4 — Yandex.Disk

Origin and evolution of the word jew

Origin and evolution of the word JEW

Middle English, from Anglo-French ju, jeu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew Yĕhūdhī, from Yĕhūdhāh Judah, Jewish kingdom

First Known Use: 13th century

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Jew

1125- 1175; Middle English jewe, giu, gyu, ju < OldFrench juiu, juieu, gyu < Late Latin judēus, Latinjūdaeus < Greek ioudaîos < Aramaic yehūdāi < Hebrew Yəhūdhī, derivative of Yəhūdhāh Judah; replacing Old English iūdēas Jews < Late Latin jūdē(us) + Old English -as plural ending

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/jew

In the 5th century BCE, the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyrian King Sennaherib, and the ten tribes were exiled and lost. The only remaining Israelites were the residents of the Kingdom of Judah, and the term "Yehudi" or "Jew" came to refer to all the Israelites, regardless of their tribal ancestry.

But there is also a deeper meaning to the name "Jew. The first individual to be called a Jew (Yehudi) in the Scriptures was Mordecai, of Purim fame. "There was a man, a Yehudi, in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordecai . . . a Yemini" (Esther 2:5). The Talmud (Tractate Megillah 12b) asks on this: "He is called a Yehudi, implying that he descended from Judah; he then is called Yemini, implying that he is a Benjaminite!" Rabbi Jochanan responds: "He was a Benjaminite. Yet he was called a Yehudi because he rejected idolatry--and anyone who rejects idolatry is called a Yehudi."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/640221/jewish/What-is-the-Meaning-of-the-Name-Jew.htm

History of God's Holy Bible and the so-called Jews

The Etymology of the Word "Jew"

In his classic Facts are Facts, Jewish historian, researcher and scholar Benjamin Freedman writes:

Jesus is referred as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally the 18th century, "Jew." The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews."

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses, unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations.

The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" was thus stabilized. . .

The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it.

The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.

ORIGEN OF THE WORD JEW

"Strictly speaking, it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a "Jew" or to call a contemporary Jew an "Israelite" or a "Hebrew." The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all," The Jewish Almanac (1980)

________________________________________

Many people suffer under the misapprehension that Jesus was a "Jew," moreover, that he was “King of the Jews." Thus, by inference, that the "Jews" were the "Chosen People" of the Holy Bible and so ancient possessors and modern inheritors of the Bible Covenants gifted by Yahweh to their forebears Abraham, Jacob and Judah. However, this is not the case. In fact, during Christ's Mission and Passion no such people existed called "Jews" nor indeed did the word “Jew.” In short: Jesus was NOT a "Jew" nor was he “King of the Jews."

ORIGIN OF THE WORD JEW

Near the time of Christ, there once existed a metropolis city, which was a trade center for the then known world. This city of wealth was once destroyed in 146 B.C., and its treasures carried off to Rome. But Julius Caesar restored it a hundred years later, and the Roman colony flourished so much that it soon became one of the most prominent centers in Greece. Some would say that in the 2nd century it was the richest city in Greece.

This city was a city of wealth, of luxury and of immorality. It seemed to have one quality that marked it as a commercial hot spot of its day, for it is said that "Jews flocked to it." That city was ancient Corinth, the chief city in the Roman Province of Achaia. This is the city that Paul spent at least a year and one-half preaching the Gospel and encountering the full force and fury of the "Jews."

Times do not seem to change much do they? The same problem is facing most of the major cities in America today. The commercial cities we have in the United States are fast becoming breeding cesspools of corruption and all manner of evil. Could this be caused by a "Jewish" society and their influence? Many wonder!

Strong's Concordance more or less defines the words "Jew" and "Jews" as: "in the sense of a country, i.e., a Judean." The word "Jew" is used 22 times in the King James Version of the Bible in the New Testament, and the word "Jews" is used 172 times and 170 times of those are from the same #2453 as the above "Jew" definition. There are another 6 times the plural word "Jews'" is used and all but one of these is this #2454. So for the 200 times, the words: "Jew, Jews, and Jews'" are used in the New Testament, at least 197 occasions are referring to a Judean in the sense of from a place, i.e., as from a country.

The question still haunts many and they have often asked, just who are these people the Bible calls "Jews”? Why were these people not just simply called "Judeans," "Israelites," or "Judeans whose religion was Judaism?

This is the age old word problem of society problem that is surrounded with so many, many, lies and deceptions. "THE FEAR OF THE JEWS" syndrome that plagues society today.

Much of it as a result of the so-called holocaust which we have been told 10,000 times 10,000 that the Germans cremated 6-million Jews during WWII. This story has installed a guilt complex in the American people, until the word Jew has become a non-speakable word, and if one dares to utter the word except in reverence and humility they will be attacked by both Jews and Christians.

Therefore, we have prepared this study to prove to you and any other thinking American that the bulk of these people called "Jew" or "Jews" in the Bible, were not and are not of the House of Israel or of the House of Judah.

Then who are these people who have plagued the pages of history for so, so very long? The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia defines "Jew" as the same word of Strong's #2453 in the following words: "'Jew' denotes originally an inhabitant of Judah, (2 Kings 16:6 applies to the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom) but later the meaning was extended to embrace all descendants of Abraham." (James Orr, Volume III, page 1675)

The question which faces us here is WHO had the authority and the power that: "extended the meaning to embrace all descendants of Abraham?" Mr. Orr goes on to say in his definition that: "'Jews' (always pl.) is the familiar term for Israelites in the Gospel (esp. in John), Acts, Eph. etc."

This definition only serves to confuse the issue even more, who, how, when and why was such confusion entered into society and the Holy Scriptures? Why, if the term "Jew," refers to Israelites, did they not just simply call them Israelites or Judeans, whose religion was Hebrew?

It is an incontestible fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language on earth. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English language for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals," Chapter 2, p. 1, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew." Prior to this use of the word "Jew" the word "Jew" had not become a word.

Contrary to what most people believe Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" nor did he ever use the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice," V, III, I, 61, Shakespeare wrote as follows "what is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?" You see there was not even a letter "j" or "J" until the middle of the 18th century. Check any encyclopedia you wish for proof of this.

In the Latin Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John reference to the inscription on the Cross, "Iudaeorum." It was in the 4th century that Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testament from the original languages in which they were written.

This translation by Jerome is referred to still today, as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today. Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English.

The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted English word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer any doubt.

The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equivalents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century.

From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively: "Gyu," "Giu," "Iu," "Iuu," "Iuw," "Ieuu," "Ieuy," "Iwe," "Iow," "Iewe," "Ieue," "Iue," "Ive," "Iew," and then finally the 18th century, "Jew." The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis," "Giws," "Gyues," "Gywes," "Giwes," "Geus," "Iuys," "Iows," "Iouis," "Iews," and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews."

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th century for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language.

In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any English translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all the editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" was thus stabilized.

The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" DID NOT APPEAR IN IT.

The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did not appear in it either. The word "Jew" appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times.

Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" nor did they care. They accepted the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios." How could they be expected to have known otherwise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a NEW English word to them.

When one studies Latin they are taught that the letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in the words like "yes," "youth" and "yacht." The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th  century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes," "young," and "yacht." The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" when it was used in the place of the letter "I."

The present pronunciation of the word "Jew" in modern English is a development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice," "jolly," and "jump."

This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes," "youth," and "yacht." Until the 18th  century and perhaps even later than the 18th century the word "Jew" in English was pronounced like the English "you" or "hew," and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews." The present pronunciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronunciation acquired after the 18th century.

The German language still retains the Latin original pronunciation. The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew." The "J" in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht." The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht."

The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable of the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus." The German "J" is always pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes," "youth," and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The pronunciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the ronunciation of the "J" in German.

The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliff Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there mentioned as One of the "iewes." That was the 14th century English version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew-weeze," in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular.

In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English the Gospel by John XIX.19, reads "ihesus of Nazareth kyng of the iewes." Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the Anglo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus." The Anglo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader."

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English published in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." Also in the Coverdale Edition the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Iesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes." In the Cranner Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes."

In the Geneva Edition published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes." In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves."

In the King James Edition published in 1604-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes." The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.

The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe 'the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch.'"

In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaia" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.

If the generally accepted understanding today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or elsewhere. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes today conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew."

When the word "Jew" was first introduced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean."

However during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the English speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew."

It is a misrepresentation presented to the world deliberately by this well organized and well financed "pressure group" to deceive Christians. (Facts Are Facts, by Benjamin H. Freedman, pp. 15-20) (And to claim a heritage that is not theirs). This sure seems to be the more correct terminology. It appears from all our readings that the Jews of all ages, always do best what their father, the devil does - and that is lie. (John 8:44)

Some Misconceptions About The Word "Jew"

The term "Jew' originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion. People now refered to as"Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same.

________________________________________

Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.

We know that Saul was the first king of Israel and that John was the first man called Baptist, but who was the first Jew? Neither Adam, Seth or Noah are called Jew. Nor were Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. Moses was not called a Jew and neither were Saul, David or Solomon called Jew. In fact you will not find the word Jew in the first eleven books of the Bible. The first time Jews are mentioned in the Bible, is in 2nd Kings 16:6 (and then only in translations revised in the eighteenth century) where we find Israel was at war with the Jews and drove the Jews from Elath. Isn’t it interesting that we can read over five hundred pages of the Bible before we find a Jew anywhere.

We know that God changed the name of Abram to Abraham, Gen. 17:5 and that God changed the name of Jacob to Israel Gen. 32:28, but no where in the Bible do we find where God changed the name of Israel to Jew! There is therefore no authority by which those who say they are Jews can claim to be Israel!

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn’t until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word Jew appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel.

Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian - Researcher - Scholar.

From "Common Sense", p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59

what was the word jew in the original 1611 king james - Google Search https://www.google.com/search?q=jew&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#hl=ens&q=what+was+the+word+jew+in+the+original+1611+king+james

ANGRY MARCO RUBIO UNLOADS On Breitbart.com and ICE Union President "Conspiracy Theories!" (VIDEO) - The Gateway Pundit

I was a huge Rubio supporter until he joined the gang of eight. I didn't know the half of it. His treatment of this ICE member is repulsive. It puts him in a most unfavorable light!

ANGRY MARCO RUBIO UNLOADS On Breitbart.com and ICE Union President “Conspiracy Theories!” (VIDEO)

Jim Hoft Feb 20th, 2016 9:20 am 324 Comments

On the eve of the South Carolina primary Breitbart dropped a scathing report on presidential candidate Marco Rubio.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council President Chris Crane told Breitbart.com how Marco Rubio misled ICE officers on his Gang of 8 amnesty bill.

TODAY MARCO RUBIO RESPONDED–

Marco Rubio SLAMMED Breitbart.com and the ICE Union President today on FOX News…

Rubio accused the ICE President of “Conspiracy Theories!”

Marco also went after Breitbart: “We don’t even credential them to our events.”

Marco Rubio responded to the report by Breitbart on his encounter with the ICE union officials.
Rubio called Breitbart.com a “conspiracy” website!

Marco Rubio: Number one, that’s not true. And he’s not an ICE official he’s the head of a union. And it’s being reported on a website that’s not a credible source. It’s the same website Neil that said that you guys gave me the questions to the debate because one of the members of my staff…

Neil Cavuto: This was a Breitbart… So you don’t give them any credence?

Marco Rubio: We don’t eve credential them for our events… I literally don’t talk about the things they report because they’re basically conspiracy theories and often times manipulated. And that individual is not an ICE official he’s the head of a union.

War against 'whites' continues as 'white' students undergo weekly 'deconstructing whiteness' program

Have you begged forgiveness for being white today? Slavery existed nowhere else in history other than in the young American Republic, so it appears. Someone is ramming this idea down our throats, someone who desires to destroy this nation and this race. It's part of the Zionist's 'New World Order' agenda. Refer to my last post for more on this war on whites...

War against 'whites' continues as 'white' students undergo weekly 'deconstructing whiteness' program

MICHAEL MCGRADY - CU COLORADO SPRINGS •FEBRUARY 17, 2016

White college students are undergoing a weekly “deconstructing whiteness” program at Northwestern University.

The “6-part workshop series for undergraduate students who self-identify as white” launched in January and runs through March, according to the university’s website. Students enrolled chose to do so – it is voluntary.

A spokesman for the prestigious private university located outside Chicago declined to give The College Fix details on the program, such as how many students enrolled and how it’s been received so far.

“It’s part of Northwestern’s Social Justice Education effort to create learning opportunities for our students,” Bob Rowley, a spokesman for the campus, told The College Fix in an email, providing a link to the social justice webpage and adding: “Beyond that, we don’t have anything more for you on it.”

According to a report in the campus newspaper, the workshops focus on “terminology used in conversations of race, the history and meaning of whiteness, white guilt and the difference between intellectualizing and feeling racism.”

“There’s a lot of space on this campus for conversations to happen around issues of privilege and specifically around issues of white privilege,” Michele Enos, assistant director of the university’s Social Justice Education office, told The Daily Northwestern.

A poster advertising the workshop series (shown above) posed rhetorical questions such as: “What is my role in doing anti-racist work?” or “why do I have to feel guilty about being white?” and “how can I talk about race as a white person?”

The Daily Caller reports the events are hosted in collaboration with the university’s Women’s Center.

“Students applying for the program are required to commit to attend all six sessions, seemingly preventing students from abandoning the program if they don’t like it or feel uncomfortable,” the Caller reports.

The program is a part of Northwestern’s “Social Justice Education” office, which “creates co-curricular educational opportunities in partnership with our student community that foster self-exploration, facilitate conversations across difference and support actions that create social change on campus,” according to its website.

Similar programming like the “Deconstruction Whiteness” workshop includes “student activism workshops” that end “racist cis-patriarchy” or programs that “navigate” real life diversity issues.

The Dire Consequences of Race-Mixing | Daily Stormer

America and Europe have been unrelentingly battered with white guilt for decades and decades to such an extent that they could not see what was unfolding under their very noses; to wit, the eradication of the white race! And it's all according to a diabolical plan!

It's no coincidence that white nations are being overrun with refugees. It's no coincidence that the movies and TV are filled with inter racial couples and scantily clad white women dancing around bare chested black men, 'twerking', bumping and grinding in explicitly sexual maneuvers. Blacks and whites should be up in arms protesting this. It's not a matter of bigotry, it's a matter of survival of the species! God made the different races for a reason, He wanted it that way!

There is a group behind this, notice I did not say a race but a group. The group is the synagogue of Satan. Most of them are white but they deny their whiteness, calling themselves Jews. Morgan Freeman asked Mike Wallace if he wanted a white history month to which Wallace answered, to my great surprise, I'm Jewish. That's the first I knew of Jewishness trumping race.

Something you need to know is that the Jews are not the same as the children of Israel of the Old Testament. The majority of Jews are not even Semites but hail from the ancient Khazars. There is a rabid sect of the Jews who are Zionists and they have a plan to rule the world; read 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion'. Before they can complete this plan they must annihilate the white race and it's culture and Christian religion. The white race by and large accepted Jesus Christ, who the Judeans rejected as their Messiah 2000 years ago, as their Lord and Savior.

They have a multifaceted strategy to accomplish this; corrupting their morals, challenging their belief in God, wars both past (more than a hundred million were killed in the 2 world wars) and present (incite a war between Christians and Muslims aka the 'war on terror'), overrunning their nations with immigrants, and Miscegeny, i. e., race mixing. The following deals with the latter, Miscegeny, i. e., race mixing.

Before stoning me for referring to the Jews, I did not say all Jews, I said Zionists, and certainly not all Zionists are in on the plan.

Also before you stone me as a racists I believe the black race and the white race are precious and should be preserved!

Before the article I want you to see a video of Mohammed Ali:

I also want you to see a video of a Jew Harvard professor who says we have to do away with 'whiteness':

The Dire Consequences of Race-Mixing

Sven Longshanks Daily Stormer February 18, 2014

Only you have the power to prevent this tragedy.

You would think that educating people about the negative consequences of race-mixing would be gratefully received and seen as similar to giving warnings about the dangers of smoking or fast food. And yet, when the subject does get brought up and you do try to warn people, they don’t thank you for it, but accuse you of ‘hating’ bi-racial people instead. If people knew the facts about race and the differences between them, they would realize that it is actually the parents of bi-racial people that are hating them, by forcing this genetic status on them in the first place.

Herein, I hope to give people a better understanding of the real life consequences of race-mixing. There is very little around on the internet that is specifically devoted to the subject and most people I find have never even really thought about it before.  The fact is, one quick fumble between the sheets can have a lasting negative effect on all successive generations.

Stay White, kids.

Genetic Similarity Theory

There are two genetically directed instincts within us regarding choosing a mate.

The most powerful one is explained by ‘Genetic Similarity Theory.’ This is the drive that makes you seek out a partner with a large amount of the same hereditary genes as you. This is to ensure that the features your combined genes contribute to in your children, physical and mental, are the same as the ones your ancestors had. This is the reason why there are people that look like you from far back in your family past, like grandparents or great grandparents. This is not just because you are related to them, it is because their parents choice of partner was similar to your own parents choice of partner. Your hereditary genes will have stayed the way that they were in your ancestors, being continually passed down from generation to generation, molding descendants in the likeness of their predecessors. This is why you get musical families, where each generation has musicians in it. The parent instinctively finds a partner with the same genes that their parents had and the talent for music can be passed on. It is also why people say that husbands pick wives who are similar to their mothers. If there were no drive to find partners with similar hereditary genes then there would be no distinct races. If you are mixed race, then there will be no-one in your family past that you resemble. They will all have been prevented from having an unobstructed influence on your form and character.

The second, lesser instinct is for variety, and this is there to ensure that you don’t mate with an extended family member, encouraging you to look for someone who is unlike you. This will add novel DNA to your offspring’s genome, leading to less chance of genetic disease. It is the source of the phrase ‘opposites attract,’ and works well when you are living among your own race, creating a healthy, disease-resistant population. Unfortunately, if other races are living among you, it can turn into a genetically destructive desire to mate with them and will result in a weakening of disease resistance. Different races are susceptible to different diseases and this susceptibility will then be passed on to the mixed race child, giving them both races’ weaknesses instead of just the one.

Mustn’t they feel weird, these folks?

Mendelian Inheritance

In a mixed race relationship between two pure types, the children will not have a smooth blend of characteristics from each parent, but the characteristics will each separate out into their individual racial components forming a patchwork of features in the offspring. This is true for all hybrids, even ones produced from breeds of the same species, and is why plant breeders do not generally create seed from F1 hybrids; the finished plants will show individual features from each parental type, rather than a harmonious blend, with the majority of the plants showing more of the dominant type’s characteristics. If you crossed a recessive small leaf plant with a dominant big leaf plant, you would not get a medium leaf plant, but a mainly big leaf one, with a few small leaves here and there. If you bred the hybrid back in with the pure types, you would no longer be able to predict quite how the plants would turn out, as each formerly pure type would have been adulterated and every so often, it would produce a plant with wildly differing characteristics to the parent’s type. The same happens with animals; you cannot get back to a pedigree once you have been left with a mongrel.

Hybridization shatters the form entirely into separate units of characteristics, and these units get jumbled up again each time they get passed on. People see attractive half-castes and think that the children will inherit the same characteristics, but it is impossible for them to be passed on like that, as they separate out again into the individual races’ features ensuring there is no unity of form to be passed on. Since Black genes are dominant and White genes are recessive, Mulattoes will always look more Black than White. This is why the mixed race ‘Seal’ (Black/Mestizo) and the White Heidi Klum’s two children look nothing whatsoever like either parent: they do not have a harmonious brown blend of each parents features, but have predominantly Black features instead.

Just one piece of hair is enough to identify which race it belongs too.

Species, Subspecies and Breeds

According to the evolutionary definition of race, races started out as the same species, but have diverged far enough apart from one another over time, to now almost be classified as separate species. In all defining categories man is composed of subspecies at least and by many standards, the variations are enough for the races to be classed as different species entirely. For example, if you saw two animals, one with feathers and one with fur, you would call them different species. The difference between Caucasian hair and Negro ‘hair’ is nearly as big a difference as between fur and feathers. The reality is that Negro ‘hair’ can be felted as it lacks the natural oil glands of real hair. It actually has far more in common with wool than it does hair and was defined as such up until the last century.

The differences between the races of man show more variance between them than even different breeds of dog do, which is why races are not called breeds. Human breeds are the separate strains within the race, Caucasian for example has Nordic, Alpine, Slavic, Mediterranean and others. Breeding between the human races is like breeding bulls with mares or goats with sheep; both of these produce viable offspring, so being able to produce offspring together is no guarantee of being the same species.

Why would anyone desire less intelligent children?

Differences Between the White and Black Races

People like to say that Caucasian man has only 0.5% difference in his DNA from a Negro, implying that there is only a very small difference between them; yet, there is only 1.5% difference in DNA between a Caucasian and a chimpanzee. A very small amount of change in the DNA makes for huge differences between species, due to the many different ways that the genes themselves can be combined. Unlike the Cultural Marxist lie that race is only skin deep, just about every part of the body is uniquely different among the races. They have different genital size, position and placing, different shape and sized feet, legs and arms, different amounts of teeth, eggs and muscle, different skull shape and thickness, in fact the bones themselves are so entirely different from each other that forensic scientists can tell what race someone is just from a tiny scrap of bone from anywhere in the body, by sight alone.

Blood transfusions are not possible between the races (yet they are possible between cats and dogs) and neither are bone marrow transplants. A mixed race person stands little chance of finding a donated organ that will not reject their mismatched body, since the organs are irreconcilably different as well. Obviously, the skin is different (the largest organ of the body), but so are the lungs, testicles, brain and kidneys.

Caucasoid brains are larger than Negroids and the frontal lobes have deep fissures associated with complex problem solving, whilst Negroid brains are smaller and have shallow fissures. Consequently the average Negro IQ is 15 points lower than the average Caucasian IQ. This result is found regardless of geography and social status. Negroes adopted into affluent White families and Negroes in Africa and in America all produce the same averaged IQ results. Obviously not all people have their average racial IQ and there are always exceptional individuals at either end of the scale, yet exceptions serve to prove the rule, rather than to negate it.

Racial differences seen in the fetus

Different Rates of Hormones

From The Biology of The Race Problem using breeds of dog as an example:

‘It may be assumed that in two behavioural types the genetics of each system is different, and the interaction between the genetic factors and the glandular processes also differs. Within the pure behavioural types there is a harmonious relationship between behavioural systems and the other bodily organs. This holds both for the inactive and active types. Among the hybrids however, in which there is mixed physical form, there is also a disharmonious relationship between the bodily organs and the reaction systems. The factors which influence behaviour become mixed and varied, just as those which determine physical form. In the mixed types, the harmonious relationship found within each pure behavioural type is BROKEN UP, and the result is DISHARMONY among the systems.’

One of the most important differences between the races is the rate of hormones that each produce. Hormones control our emotions, our pain control, our sensitivity – all the different feelings that affect our behavior are correlative with various secretions from different glands. Mixed race individuals can have a different rate of secretions to that needed for the particular organs that they have ended up with, which can cause highly unstable temperaments. This is caused by the same conflicting racial characteristics that result in things like having a Negro skull but Caucasian skin, or a Caucasian skeleton with Negro skin. Rather than having each organ being partially Caucasian and partially Negro in a harmonious blend of the two, some of the organs will be Negro but some will be Caucasian. So you might get White testicles in a predominantly Black body for instance, or a Black brain in a White body. In a mixed race person who appears to be mainly Negro, there is no way to predict whether all his organs are too. Negroes have higher testosterone rates than Whites and are more aggressive and less emotionally-balanced because of this, but at least their organs are intended for that amount of testosterone. Hormone irregularities are also linked with depression and not surprisingly there is a very high rate of depression, as well as all other health problems, among mixed race individuals when compared to non-mixed individuals. There is also a much higher suicide rate among mixed race children – they are five times more likely to commit suicide than someone of a singular race.

In every historical culture on earth, fairness of skin was the most important measure of physical attractiveness.

Women, Children and Marriage

Children like to look like their parents.  Little girls especially like to look like their mother. It must be very upsetting for mixed race children to see someone who looks nothing like them, that they will not be growing up to look like. It must also be very upsetting to know that this was knowingly done to you, by your own parents. Beauty products to make Black people look White are a massive industry – from wigs to skin whitening creams, Blacks desperately want to make themselves look White. A mixed race child has to live with the knowledge that they could have been born happy with their skin color and content with their hair type, if only their parents hadn’t deliberately deprived them of this. Some people like to think that they ‘own’ their bodies, but you can only really own something that you have made yourself or that you have purchased.

The human body is formed according to it’s genes and you are just its trustee. The beneficiary is the race, and the genes are relying on you to replicate them in a way that they can continue to grow in the form nature chose for them. You are just the current captain of your gene-chariot, not the owner of it, and the consequent drivers are all counting on you to be a careful pilot.  Women who commit miscegenation are giving away something that is not theirs to give, since they owe their very existence to their ancestors, who laid down their lives to protect them and provided everything that they now benefit from.

As well as the permanent alteration to your posterity’s genes, mixed race relationships are also more likely to split up and even more alarmingly, White women are 12 times more likely to be killed by a Black husband than a White one, and White men are 21 times more likely to be murdered by a Black wife than a White one.

Conclusion

Race is more fundamental than gender, and yet gender confusion is acknowledged as a disorder that modern medicine thinks is so drastic that it requires physical mutilation to attempt to put right. How much more of a disorder is being mixed race? Does anyone seriously think a child would choose to have no ancestors, no people, no community? These unfortunates do the best they can with a bad lot, trying not to end up hating life and despising those who do have a family tree behind them. And there is nothing whatsoever that they can do about it.

Even three month old babies know more about race than most adult Europeans; they show a preference for the faces of their own race, even when they are of people they have never seen before. They instinctively know what race they are. Which race’s face is it that 3 month old mixed race babies find comforting? The natural state of babies and children is racist, and this lasts until they are old enough to understand and succumb to the liberal programming that all Whites are now subjected to.

Yes, it is.

Prior to the advent of Cultural Marxism, race-mixing was always seen as the ultimate sin against nature in our societies. We can see that this is, objectively, due to an in-born, biological drive to preserve the genetics of our ancestors, and prevent a decline in future generations.  Historically, there were rapes and unlawful marriages, as part of slavery, war and necessity, but genetic similarity theory shows that desiring people of a different ethnicity as a partner to produce children with is an unnatural aberration, and those who have engaged in this behavior in modern times prove that it simply does not work.

Currently, there is a massive brainwashing operation underway to encourage the races to mix with each other and blend each other out. I object to this because I cannot think of anything more selfish and destructive than breaking an unbroken line of an immortal type of man, for the sake of what is essentially a fetish – a fetish that will still be affecting all your offspring long after you are gone.

Since the basic purpose of all life, and in fact the gift given to all natural life, is to be able to recreate itself in the perfect form that God and nature chose for it, to willfully destroy that template and think you know better than nature is an active defiance of the basic order of the universe. To forcefully take away from your children the right that God and nature gave you, the right to pass on that divinely formed genetic torch, is a crime against life itself.

The highest duty of any living creature is to pass on its existence to the next generation.  There is nothing worse that a man can do in this life than to extinguish that flame of our ancestors.