Boris Johnson, The New Julian and British Philosemitism.
Above: Boris Johnson bowing to Nathaniel Rothschild.
He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
While contemplating the symbiotic relationship between paganism and Judaism, I was reminded of a chapter from The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by Dr. E. Michael Jones concerning the attempted building of the third Jewish temple byJulian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor, and as his nickname suggests, a revert from Christianity to the Hellenistic religion who attempted to revive the paganism of the Empire. It was an ambitious plan, to say the least. By that time Hellenism, now a motley collection of superstitions, had been usurped by Christianity as the religion of the Empire. Dr. E. Michael Jones recounts an episode where he explained the ruined state of Greek philosophy to an anti-Christian Hellenist:
“Hellenism,” Lady Renouf announced after she had served Shamir and me a cup of tea, “is what makes our discussion possible.” We didn’t need anything else, certainly not Jewish fairy tales about a vindictive God who should be dragged to the Hague and charged with crimes against humanity and genocide
I replied by reminding Lady Michele that that the most famous convert to Hellenism was Julian the Apostate, who thought he could wash the effect of baptism from his person with the blood of bulls and ended up conniving with the Jews in their attempt to rebuild the Temple. Hellenism was another word for magic and mumbo jumbo. Greek philosophy, even in its pure state, as when it came from the lips of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle was incapable of saving itself from decadence. The only thing that had saved Logos as discovered by Greeks like Plato and Aristotle was Christianity and its fusion with the Hebrew scriptures by thinkers like St. Augustine.
As mentioned above, to discredit the Christians, Julian forged an alliance with the Jews. Dr. Jones explains on page 73 of "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit":
An educated man, Julian understood the thrust of Christian anti-Jewish polemic. The Christians claimed that destruction of the temple proved the superiority of Christianity and that Christianity had superseded Judaism as the New Israel. Julian's desire to rebuild the Temple fit squarely into the trajectory of anti-Jewish Christian polemic. To blunt Christian claims, he could find no more willing allies than the Jews, who hated Christians and were eager to collaborate with those who held political power. The Jews had cried that they had "no king but Caesar," and now Caesar was reaching out to them, willing to support their deepest aspirations, the restoration ofJerusalem and its Temple.
This was the beginning of the Judeo-Pagan alliance that would surface again and again through history and attempt to sheer the West of its Christian moorings. Before the Renaissance, this usually took the form of propping up local heresies to destabalize the Church. Gnosticism was one such project, so says Dr. E. Michael Jones on page 72:
Bar Kokhba's failed rebellion did not end Jewish animus against Christianity; it merely required a change in strategy. Largely eschewing armed insurrection, the Jews turned to psychological warfare and promoted heresy instead. Irenaeus' work, as its title implies, was written to combat heresy, specifically Gnosticism, but in entering that fray he had to deal with the Jews, acknowledging "from the very beginning of the Gnostic attack on Christianity," that Gnosticism was associated with judaizing.95 Irenaeus claims Simon Magus, the proto-heretic mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, "bears a Jewish imprint."96 His ideas of God, of the world, of angels, of the Law and of man, according to Irenaeus, "all show Jewish influence."97 Origen saw "Jewish influence on heresies such as Docetism and Gnosticism.''98
English nationalism is a Judeo-Occultic enterprise based on the Kabbalah. England has been a Judaised state ever since the Tudors turned against the Catholic Church. Returning to Dr. Jones points out on page 255 of the "Jewish Revolutionary Spirit":
John Dee, Elizabeth's astrologer, helped spread the Caballah and its occult practices to England, but it was only in the 17th Century that Caballah studies were pursued with zeal. In England the enthusiasm for Caballah re-emerged on the other side of the Reformation as Freemasonry. Albert Pike traces Freemasonry to 1717. William Thomas Walsh claims it existed at the time of Elizabeth, who stumbled upon the first lodges and made a deal with the Masons: if they would initiate her into their secrets, she would allow their secret society to continue. By tracing Freemasonry to the Cecils and Elizabeth, Walsh links it with the judaizing anti-Catholic conspiracy that swept Germany in the wake of the Reuchlin/Pfefferkorn controversy.
The "Walsh" he refers to is William Thomas Walsh, who painted the beginnings of Freemason as an alliance against Protestant England and the Jews against Catholic Spain:
Francis Bacon, nephew of William Cecil by marriage, and son of that Nicholas Bacon of low origin who assisted Cecil so zealously in destroying the Catholic worship of England, is the final witness for the existence of Freemasonry as an active secret organization, already "speculative," despite the twentieth-century encyclopedias, and connected in some mysterious way with the Spanish Jews. In him the old gnostic paganism of the Rosicrucians and the new ambitions of Freemasonry for the control and transformation of the world meet so strangely, with a dash here and there of Protestant idealism, that it has been much disputed whether he was a Rosicrucian, as De Quincey believed, or a Freemason, as many Masons have held. Nicolai, the friend of Lessing and editor of Moses Mendelssohn, went so far as to call him "the founder of modern Freemasonry." In support of this latter view it is pointed out that the Freemasons of London have borrowed much of their phraseology from Bacon's work.40 Another student of secret societies and Baconiana believes that the Freemasons and Rosicrucians were one and the same thing, with a joint aim of restoring paganism to the world—which is perhaps another way of saying, destroying the Church of Christ. It was the object of both, says this writer, "to shelter, preserve and hand on as lamps for posterity . . . these heathen antiquities and pagan rites" and he quotes a Masonic student to the effect that "the Freemasons' society was founded for the purpose of concealing the rites of the ancient pagan religion, under the cover of operative masonry; and that although the religion is extinct, its ceremonials remain, and clearly develop the origin of the institution."41 And Bacon, in his opinion, "was active in promoting a general reformation throughout Europe, either in league with the Rosicrucians, or in favor of Masonry." Be that as it may, this much is fact, and significant fact: the intelligent and mean-spirited Francis Bacon, Cecil's nephew, sitting in a house stolen from the Catholic Church or paid for with church loot, wrote, about 1625, a treatise called The New Atlantis, which was not published until after his death. This opus, joyfully claimed by Freemasons as their own, tells of "the erection and institution of an Order or Society, which we call Salomon's House; the noblest foundation (as we think) that ever was upon the earth" . . . It was named for King Solomon, and, says the speaker, "I find in ancient records this Order or Society is sometimes called Salomon's House, and sometimes the College of the Six Days Works." An elaborate Feast of the Family, presided over by the Tirsan or Father of the Family, is then described; its ritual very suggestive of that of Masonry. Then there is a long explanation of the purposes and activities of the Order by a mysterious Jew named Joabin. The English Christian reader, however, is assured that although "he was a Jew and circumcised: for they have some few stirps of Jews yet remaining among them, whom they leave to their own religion," yet "they are of a far differing disposition from the Jews in other parts. For whereas they hate the name of Christ; and have a secret inbred rancor against the people among whom they live: these (contrariwise) give unto our Saviour many high attributes, and love the nation of Bensalem extremely. Surely this man of whom I speak would ever acknowledge that Christ was born of a virgin and that he was more than a man; and he would tell how God made him ruler of the seraphims which guard his throne; and they call him also the Milken Way, and the Eliah of the Messiah; and many other high names; which, though they be inferior to his divine majesty, yet they are far from the language of other Jews. "And for the country of Bensalem, this man would make no end of commending it; being desirous, by tradition among the Jews there, to have it believed that the people thereof were of the generations of Abraham, by another son, whom they call Nachoran; and that Moses by a secret Cabala ordained the Laws of Bensalem which they now use; and that when the Messiah should come, and sit in his throne, at Hierusalem, the king of Bensalem should sit at his feet, whereas other kings should keep a great distance. But yet setting aside these Jewish dreams, the man was a wise man, and learned, and of great policy, and excellently seen in the laws and customs of that nation." Is Bensalem a figure for England, and are "the laws which they now use" the new dispensation of Cecil and Thomas Cromwell and their servants? Is this a subtle way of saying that Freemasonry, which claims Moses as one of its founders even to this day, had brought about the Protestant revolution in England "by a secret Cabala?" One almost hears the voice of a suave Spanish Marrano professing such a limited reverence for Christ as American rabbis still pay him in occasional sermons, and flattering the English Christian with the Talmudic-sounding legend that he is really a sort of first cousin to the Jew, and almost as good, and will get his share when the Messias finally appears? The denial that Christ is the Messias is done so deftly that the victim of the propaganda will probably not ask himself whether the future Messias to whom he is asked to give his allegiance may not turn out to be the Antichrist. Later a messenger interrupts the Jew with some secret intelligence, and he disappears. Next day he explains that "There is word come to the Governor of the city, that one of the Fathers of Salomon's House will be here this day seven-night: we have seen none of them this dozen years. His coming is in state; but the cause of his coming is secret. I will provide you and your fellows of a good standing to see his entry." The mysterious personage arrives in sumptuous clothing and kingly state, evidently from Spain; for he wears a Spanish montera, and speaks "in the Spanish tongue." Seated on a throne richly adorned, he speaks to the initiates and explains to them "the true state of Salomon's House."
Walsh, William Thomas. Philip II: (1527-1598) (pp. 316-318). TAN Books.
Note again how Bacon's paganism and judaising go hand-in-hand. How the supposed true pagan religion will supplant Christianity and replace it with an occultic belief that is more palpapable to the Jews. You can see the influence of Kabbalism on later esoteric thinkers like Evola, who in turn influenced later pagan thinkers. Like Julian before him, Bacon intertwines his paganism with flattery towards the Jews. What pagans and occultists talk about returning to the"old ways" of pre-Christian Europe which have been hidden by time, they are following that Talmudic playbook without even knowing it.
John Dee, the occult magician at the court of Elizabeth I, was apparently the first person to coin the term “British Empire”, so from the very get go the Empire was an occult cabalist project—all its main propagandists, and indeed actors, being occultists of one sort or another.
According to Stuart Piggot’s book The Druids, Dee “grew up surrounded by the controversy and currents” of what became known as the British Empire—and “sought to merge the Arthurian Imperial tradition with cabalistic interpretations of Hebrew scripture”.
“Dee created the concept of British Israel, which gave the British and the Jews a common racial identity, and invoked biblical prophecy to show the inevitable triumph of British imperialism, the British as Abraham’s seed were to inherit the earth.”
Far from being simply an ethnocentric take on Biblical Christianity, Dee’s pseudo-genealogical supremacist theory was steeped in pagan druidism, being “Christian” only in the sense that New Age pantheism is “Christian”, i.e., it co-opted elements of Christian doctrine and ritual, the better to insinuate itself almost effortlessly into the mainstream of British Christian life.
Dee’s contemporary, the celebrated Elizabethan poet Edmund Spenser, laid out a manifesto for British occult imperialism in his epic poem The Faerie Queene, which called for the ruthless crushing of Irish Catholics, the forcible imposition of the English language in Ireland, and the practice of incest among the English.
Two centuries later, another mouthpiece for Anglo-Judaeo Masonry, Marx’s sidekick, Friedrich Engels, gleefully predicted the wiping out of “whole races of reactionaries”—e.g., the Gaels, the Basques, the Slavs etc.,—in the cause of “progress”.
Zionists talk endlessly of the Holocaust, and Anglo white nats counter by invoking the genocidal Ukrainian Holodomor, but neither side dare mention the deliberate forcible starvation of Irish Catholics in the mid 19th century by the Masonic British government—an act of genocide that a Times of London editorial of 1848 gloated would make “the Celt as rare on the banks of the Shannon as the Redman on the banks of the Manhattan”.
Despite its occult Masonic origins and genocidal policies, Anglo-Israelism gained many adherents among British and American Protestants, who promoted the theory of the British Royal Family as the House of David, and Britain and the United States as the modern tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh respectively.
One might have expected that the Jews, the original self-designated “chosen”, would have resented the Johnny come lately Anglo pretenders to chosenness, but far from it: Jewish supremacists welcomed the claims of Anglo-Freemasonry to tribal co-ethnicity precisely because they understood that wherever it took root, Freemasonry laid waste the surrounding Christian civilization.
However, when, in the 20th century, some mostly American Anglo-Israelists rejected the Anglo-Israelist alliance with organised Jewry and embraced Christian Identitarianism, Jewish supremacists, in the shape of the Anti-Defamation League, denounced Christian Identity as an “ugly turn” away from the original noble tenets of Anglo-Israelism.
So, the avowed anti-racists of the ADL had no quarrel with Anglo-Israelists’ ultra-racist claim to be the rightful rulers of the whole world but objected when some of the Anglos sought to shut Jews out of the exclusive supremacist party. Straining at gnats indeed.
Like Zionism, Anglo-Israelism based its claims on an incoherent mixture of cod genealogy and self-fulfilling prophecy. Initially, the Anglo-Israelists touted the ancient Britons as the source of Britain’s supposed Jewish connection, but once Protestantism became associated with the nordic nations, they changed tack and refashioned the English lost tribe as Anglo-Saxon to the core .
Most reliable evidence indicates that the English share considerably more genetic heritage with the French than with the Germans, but when did facts ever get in the way of racial supremacist theories?
Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish supremacist British Prime Minister of the mid-Victorian era, eagerly promoted Anglo-Israelism as the semi-official ideology of the British Empire—which, thanks to Jewish sponsorship, was then reaching the zenith of its power and prestige.
Borrowing heavily from Protestant theories of wealth and success as a sign of divine favour, Anglo-Israelists argued that Britain’s great power in the world proved the English were part of God’s chosen race. The logic was circular—the belief in chosenness impelled the supremacist drive to be “top nation”: the ensuing top nation status then being cited as evidence of chosen-ness.
Anglo-Israelism in the 19th century made huge inroads in the Church of England; the de facto takeover of Anglicanism by Masonic Israelists prompted Cardinal Newman to desert the English state church and convert to Catholicism.
According to The Union Jack, a 1970 book on Anglo-Israelism by ‘Helen Peters’, Anglo-Israelist Freemasonry controls all the major ‘right-wing’ Protestant churches in the United States. This helps explain why such churches have become slavish mouthpieces for Zionism and the endless war agenda of the Anglo-American Neocons on left and right.
Liberal secularism is one such poisonous fruit of British masonry and was subversively exported to weaken and undermine the Catholic order in continental Europe. This same ideology was at the base of the United States of America, which has done the work of the Judeo-masons through history, including sponsering the evil of the French Revolution.
This also explains the disgusting philosemitism of the British, expressed most revoltingly by bootlicking worm John Derbyshire, who claims that "Our civilization at large needs the energy, intellectual brilliance, and commercial acumen of the Jews." However will we get on without central banks and pornography? Derbyshire was a founder of the ill-fated "secular right" website, yet another attempt to excise Christianity from conservatism to make right-wing politics more tasteful to secular jews.
Which brings us to Boris Johnson, the Turkish-Jewish mongrel who currently occupies 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. While a schoolboy at Eaton, Mr. Johnson apparently became enamoured with the pre-Christian Hellenistic world, and like Gibbon befiore him, came to believe that the conversion of the empire. It's all here in this editorial by some fag calling himself "Erasmus" in the Rothschild rag "The Economist", a piece with is perhaps even more illuminating for the picture above the byline of the great pagan Mr. Johnson praying at the Talmudic idol of the Wailing Wall. A few years ago Jude Duffy gave an illuminating summary of Boris's connections to the Zio-mob:
Unless they have been paying very scant attention indeed, they should have noticed that the Brexit movement is overwhelmingly dominated not just by common or garden Zionists, but by hard-core Zionist ultras of a particularly toxic variety. For example, Boris Johnson, the part-Jewish de facto frontman for Brexit, describes himself as “a passionate Zionist” and supports with an equal passion both the corrupt City of London and mass migration to Europe.
Why don't we all take a moment to bask in the irony of someone who laments the alleged weakening of Europe from Christian influence working to hasten his own nation's destruction trhough immigration and servitude to the Jews. Irony, as will be shown in future posts, is a thing which the neo-pagans graspeth not.
Even obstensibly anti-Jewish pagan commentators cannot help but forward the Jewish agenda, consiously or not. Many echo the sentiments of Oswald Spengler, who famously accused Christian theology of being “the grandmother of Bolshevism”. What they omit is that Spengler was a Jew himself, born of a Jewish mother, and who deliberatly obscurred the role of Jewish agitators in the rise of bolshevism and who thought that Hitler's nationalism was too German, not pan-European enough, and too concerned with the Jews. Sounds like a regular Barbara Spectre to me.
It is from Spengler that these modern heathens get the notion that it was not really Christianity that elevated the germanic tribes, but some inherint spirit within Western man himself that did so in spite of Christianity. The Church was just in the right place at the right time to reap what Western man had made for himself and take the credit. This theory, known as the "Germanization of Christianity" (a term employed by James C. Russell) holds an appeal to neo-pagans and atheists too miserly to give the church the necessary credit it deserves for the building of the West and prefer to believe that Christianity was a useless and pacifistic religion that need bold pagans to make something of it.
A quick reading of Luke 22:36 should convince most that Christianity was never a weakling pacifist religion, but more dilligent scholarship revelas that Christianity did not need to crib a pioneering spirit from the pagans. According to Allen J. Frantzen:
Because we associate chivalry with courtliness and the “civilizing” impulse, many have assumed that the triumphant figure of Christ was a survival of Germanic culture and it was gradually replaced by a human-centered, more emotionally resonant representation of the Passion. The militant spirit of Christianity was not a pagan survival, however, but a commonplace of monastic literature. Here is the opening paragraph of the Benedictine Rule, developed by St. Benedict in the early sixth century, long before Christianity made headway in the Germanic territories of northern Europe:
'Listen, my son, to your master’s precepts, and incline the ear of your heart. Receive willingly and carry out effectively your loving father’s advice…To you, therefore, my words are now addressed, whoever you may be, who are renouncing your own will to do battle under the Lord Christ, the true King, and are taking up the strong, bright weapons of obedience.'
Behind such expressions we hear the words of St. Paul calling Christians to don “the armor of Christ” (Eph. 6:10-18, for example). But in the Rulethe thinking is refined and adapted to the formation of a brotherhood. Obedience has become a weapon; renouncing one’s will enables one to “do battle” under Christ. The Rule was probably known in Anglo-Saxon England already in the seventh century and shows that Christianity did not depend on Germanic paganism for an appreciation of martial metaphors.
Moreover, Christianity valued culture to an extent that paganism did not:
It is clear that through monasticism Christianity did something to give dignity to labour and added greatly to agriculture and so to the increase in the supply of food. Under the Benedictine rule work was obligatory. Although in many of the Benedictine houses food and clothing came from estates cultivated by serfs and while in several monastic orders manual work in the fields was assigned to lay brothers and the choir monks gave themselves to prayer and study, in others all the monks, even those of aristocratic birth, toiled in their gardens or on the lands of the monastery. Whether by all members of the community or only by the lay brothers, monasteries did much to clear land, bring it under cultivation, and develop improved crops and methods of tillage. The first use of marl to enrich the soil is attributed to them and they were noted for their vineyards and their wines.
British idealogy, be it freemasonry or liberal secularism, is at an atomic level an anti-Christian and self-destructive ideology that favors nobody but the Jews, regardless of what sychophantic philosemitic whores like Boris Johnson and John Derbyshire say. Any society that does not submit to the cross is a society that will destroy itself and leave the jews to pick the carrion.