*Catholicism and the wonders of their saints and popes would be taught in all schools and colleges
*Sufferings of Catholics would be compulsory teaching for all schoolkids.
*Catholics would get huge sums of public money for made-up past suffering.
*Businesses and the media would be controlled by Catholics. Film and TV programmes would constantly mention Catholics, Rome etc
*All criticism of Catholics would be frowned on - there would be legal action, covert police action, protests and riots etc
*The history of the Orthodox Church in Russia would be widely known
*Shady outfits - 'Mafia' etc - would all be attributed to e.g. Jews or some other group
*Catholics would have their own special passports, special legislation, huge numbers of their own little groups
*Anything Catholics wanted would be widely promoted
*All modern history would be written from a Catholic viewpoint
*Catholics where a minority would carry out military operations and be given money for it and hardly anyone would comment
You can condemn and ridicule the Catholic Church
You can condemn and ridicule the Jesuit Order
You can condemn and ridicule the Knights of Columbus
You can condemn and ridicule the Salvation Army
You CANNOT by Law in Canada condemn or ridicule the Jewish Crime Syndicate and their sick culture of lies and deceptions.
(1) There would be school vouchers across the board, so that parents could send their kids to Catholic school if they wanted. As it stands, many Catholic schools are CLOSING, because parents just cannot afford to send their kids there and pay the tuition, while also paying the mandatory property / school tax for public school.
(2) Abortion would be illegal. And this would be a REALITY, in every state, and it wouldn't be something that is just talked about by mainly ONE political party, the Republicans. And any politician, of any party, who DARED to even criticize a right-to-life, anti-abortion position or school vouchers, would lose the next election. This is exactly what happens when any Congressman or Senator criticizes Israel.
(3) There would be no talk in the media of pedophile priests. And anyone who DID, would have to profusely apologize. Talking about pedophile priests would be regarded as the same as talking about Jewish ritual murder. As it stands, not only do the media talk about it A LOT, but late night comedians repeatedly make jokes about pedophile priests. If Catholics were the most powerful, we might expect something like these comedians making jokes about the holocaust on late night TV, to the uproarious laughter of the audience.
(4) The Pope would NOT be kowtowing to the Jews on things like the holocaust, and there would be NO changes in the theological position of the Catholic Church, like there was with Vatican II, in which Jews were no longer to be regarded as killers of Christ.
(5) The Catholic Church would print up its own currency, completely independent of the currencies of America, the Euro, etc. Imagine it being called the "Catholica." Americans would have a greater trust in it than in the US dollar, controlled by the Federal Reserve, and everyone would be demanding to be paid in the "Catholica"
(6) Europe would NOT be a basically secular continent. All of the Catholic churches in Europe would NOT be merely tourist attractions, but would be JAMMED packed with active congregations, every Sunday, and Holiday
(7) In America, there would be NO dispute over the public display of Christmas and even Easter decorations. There would be NO competition with public displays of menorahs for Hanakhah.
rerevisionist wrote:Hello, enjneer, and welcome.
The explosives-on-the-ground idea seems a redundant hypothesis, since given that firebombing easily destroyed Japanese towns, there's be no need for them, quite apart from the difficulty of planting the things in wartime.
rerevisionist wrote:We already have a piece on Roman Catholics, Do Catholic Conspirators Rule the World? [Alternative to the ZOG idea]
https://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/do-catholics-or-ZOG-rule-world.html
rerevisionist wrote:We seem to have collectively decided it's unlikely, because (these are collected together; there's more material on the link)---
rerevisionist wrote:@enjneer - we discussed this a long time ago (Apr 2011) Should we talk about Jews at all ? If so, how ?
should-we-talk-about-jews-1-of-2.html
And decided more or less that the quality of the information is the relevant thing.
NUKELIES wrote:@enjneer Any mention of Eric Jon Phelps is bound to raise red flags on this site. The whole Vatican conspiracy thing does seem implausible, especially in the United States and United Kingdom.
NUKELIES wrote:However, I have not closed the door on the possibility that The Catholic Church does still wield much more power than most conspiracy theorists give it credit for.
NUKELIES wrote:And as far as your comment on Jews holding the keys to the kingdom, I do believe that that is probable. I have long considered Jews to be gatekeepers. But the question is: To What? Who is behind the gates?
NUKELIES wrote:So even if the Vatican is still a significant center of power, that doesn't mean that it is not subservient to Zion. But what is Zion? Is it really just the Jews? … And all of our countries' leaders … are globalists, therefore Zionists.
NUKELIES wrote:They want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. Why? To reinstate the physical manifestation and abode of the Holy of Holies - which the Catholic and Muslim 'religions' appear to have collectively negated and ignored for their own purposes.
NUKELIES wrote:anyone who believes in the necessity of the re-establishment of Zion is an agent of the transformation.
NUKELIES wrote:So maybe a new conspiracy theory could be "Maybe it's the Catholics and the Jews and the Masons and the Globalists." But saying so is bound to alienate conspiracy theorists who refuse to shift focus away from one group, and accept that their own people may be in on the conspiracy.
enjneer wrote:They want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon. Why? To reinstate the physical manifestation and abode of the Holy of Holies - which the Catholic and Muslim 'religions' appear to have collectively negated and ignored for their own purposes.
Not quite following you there… Negated and ignored what, the plans to rebuild the Temple?
Sex in the Holy of Holies?
Posted on March 23, 2011 by markzima
[I mentioned this topic in a comment to h8red42's youTube video This just in "GOD HAD A WIFE!", and stated that I had considered doing a video on it. h8red42 (a username that signifies being anti-hatred, by the way) asked me to do the video, and so I pushed it to the front of my to-do list.]
In the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Qattina (alt. spelling Qetina) is quoted as having said:
“When the Israelites came up for the pilgrim festival, they [the priests] removed the curtain [the curtain between the Holy and the Holy of Holies in the Temple] and showed the cherubim, whose bodies were twisted with one another, and they said to them, ‘See how much you are loved before the Omnipresent, the way a man and woman love one another.” [1]
A few paragraphs later in the Talmud, Rabbi Simeon (alt spelling Shimeon) ben Laqish is quoted as having said:
“When the gentiles entered the sanctuary, they saw the cherubim embracing one another. They brought them out to the marketplace and said, ‘These Israelites, whose blessing is a true blessing, and whose curse is a true curse, are engaged in such matters as these.’ From that moment on they despised them: ‘All that honored her despised her because they have seen her nakedness.’ (Lamentations 1:8).” [1]
Rafael Patai favors identifying this incident as the looting of the Temple in 170 B.C.E. by Antiochus Epiphanes. [2]
From inquiries that I made a few years ago on an Orthodox Jewish forum I received indirect confirmation that these cherubim are regarded by Orthodox Judaism as being depicted in sexual union. I’d like to hear directly from a rabbi about it, and about the theology relating to these cherubim. Rafael Patai [3] and Marvin H. Pope [4] both regard the cherubim as being in sexual union.
I searched without success, even though I had the aid of a university librarian, for an academic paper written on this topic. If anyone knows of anything relevant written by academicians or rabbis I’ll appreciate being told about it.
~
REFERENCES (in progress):
1. Pp. 104-105. The Talmud of Babylonia. Volume V.B. Bavli Yoma. Bavli-Tractate, Yoma, Chapter 5. Folios 47A-62A. I.3. (Publisher info will be added soon.) Notes in brackets are influenced by
enjneer wrote:Sometimes I just assume that, at the very top, it's a mixed group of elites all sorts of races—like a council of tribes.
enjneer wrote:Sometimes I think it makes more sense that it would be one ethnic/religious group. I doubt we'll find out… But I'll keep on trying!
Third Temple
Jewish tradition teaches that when the Third Temple is built, the actual Holy of Holies will be restored. Traditional Judaism regards the location where the inner sanctuary was originally located, on the Temple Mount in Mount Moriah, as retaining some or all of its original sanctity for use in a future Third Temple. The exact location of the Holy of Holies is a subject of dispute.
and
Christian traditions
Certain branches of Christianity, including the Eastern Orthodox Church,[citation needed] and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church continue to have a tradition of a Holy of Holies which they regard as a most sacred site.
rerevisionist wrote:The ankh is supposed (by some?) to be a sexual representation. So is the Freemasons' symbol of square and compasses.
Return to Welcome to "Nuke Lies" Forum! Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest