close

Please consider supporting us today!


https://buy.stripe.com/eVadR81Ec3aD7L25kl
btc:bc1qr3hh67c265sdj73snn6a8kdvj730eq0zg4hs4d

Up next


Napoleon Bonaparte and the jews

62 Views
Balkanfight3r
153
Published on 13 Nov 2021 / In Jewish Question

.

Show more
2 Comments sort Sort By

dustyfemalecat
dustyfemalecat 25 days ago

Now it makes sense why this fucker is constantly praised and mentioned all over mainstream entertainment.

   3    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

Exactly! I’m sick of all this pro French stuff because it’s extremely clear the Napoleon was used by the Jews to destroy Europe and free all the Jews and release them throughout Europe!!! Godbless the Europeans who stopped him!!!

   1    0
dino
dino 25 days ago

Hmm, I think it's a little more subtle than just philo-semitism that makes Napoleon a darling of modernity. Napoleon was a freemason and exponent of the Enlightenment, so in that sense people tend to view him as a liberator too. Napoleon was a revolutionary who fought against monarchy, tradition, and Christianity. It's all a little confusing, because he crowned himself emperor while fighting against monarchy, but in a way you could argue that he embodied a premonition of the antichrist.

   0    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@dino: Have you forgotten that you yourself is Jewish?

   1    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

Pathetic how the Jews used the French to start a bunch of wars with other Whites! Thank God the rest of Europe stood up to this Jew loving moron and saved Europe!!!

   5    0
bannedforhatespeech
bannedforhatespeech 24 days ago

It wasn’t just the French that they used. They used England to start wars too and more recently America.

   2    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@bannedforhatespeech:

Agree but that was later. Early in they used the French and they also caused all the French Revolutions which saw the rise of a secular state! Remember the words Liberté, égalité, fraternité, French for "liberty, equality, fraternity",? Well those words are the definition of what Jews want and have been trying to push since then!

   1    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 1 day ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: No, it's the other way around. They used Holland, and England. This later lead to the three kingdom wars with Cromwell the traitor, which killed King Charles. This then lead to the Dutch-Anglo war. Napoleon didn't have anything to do with the first revolution. He was a general and arrived in France from Corsica when France was already a disaster. Despite your opinions, he picked France up out of the ashes. He later admitted his mistakes in his diaries of trying to integrate the people and unify them only to be betrayed. If we even listen to the Jews today, crying about being outsiders and being forced into ghettos, it seemed logical to resolve that problem. It's not the first time that a ruler in Europe has tried to integrate them into society. It's easy to criticize somebody's mistakes after the fact. He was a Christian. He wasn't a diest like the revolutionaries were. He wrote about Jesus in his journal. Even to go into battle, he sold the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to get enough money to feed and pay his army instead of allowing France to go into debt again to those global bankers. Napoleon crowned several kings. The Tzar of Russia sent the marble for his funeral. Was he perfect? Probably not, but what leader is? All have made mistakes. Yes, I wish he didn't try to integrate too (as he regretted it himself in his diary), but the King was long dead and he put life back into France. What came after, he couldn't control, as he was removed. What we know today may not be what was known then. Also, some organizations are infiltrated and more powerful today than they would have been back then.

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are in the US Constitution as well. It was inspired by the French Constitution.

   0    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

I’m not sure who the Jews used first, but I know for a fact that Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are not in the constitution. There is no equality in the constitution and the founders explicitly said so! That line was only meant to be read by the king and was referring to the fact that we were saying we were all equals as Englishman. We were not saying we were all equal with niggers or any other group of people. That’s what the Jews tried to interpret our constitution as. Liberty is only referring to Whites only just as the founders said and was not referring to niggers. And the word fraternity is also not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. the whole phrase came in the 1790s with Maximilian which was after our war for independence. So to say we had any connection with that phrase is not true. Our founders completely disliked the French Revolution and considered is a godless revolution which is why we never helped the French because we despised it.

Here is what Alexander Hamilton said about the French Revolution.
Source Alexander Hamilton Papers at the Library of Congress, Container 25, Reel 22.


In the early periods of the French Revolution, a warm zeal for its success was in this Country a sentiment truly universal. The love of Liberty is here the ruling passion of the Citizens of the United States pervading every class animating every bosom. As long therefore as the Revolution of France bore the marks of being the cause of liberty it united all hearts and centered all opinions. But this unanimity of approbation has been for a considerable time decreasing. The excesses which have constantly multiplied, with greater and greater aggravations have successively though slowly detached reflecting men from their partiality for an object which has appeared less and less to merit their regard. Their reluctance to abandon it has however been proportioned to the ardor and fondness with which they embraced it. They were willing to overlook many faults—to apologise for some enormities—to hope that better justifications existed than were seen—to look forward to more calm and greater moderation, after the first shocks of the political earthquake had subsided. But instead of this, they have been witnesses to one volcano succeeding another, the last still more dreadful than the former, spreading ruin and devastation far and wide—subverting the foundations of right security and property, of order, morality and religion sparing neither sex nor age, confounding innocence with guilt, involving the old and the young, the sage and the madman, the long tried friend of virtue and his country and the upstart pretender to purity and patriotism—the bold projector of new treasons with the obscure in indiscriminate and profuse destruction. They have found themselves driven to the painful alternative of renouncing an object dear to their wishes or of becoming by the continuance of their affection for it accomplices with Vice Anarchy Despotism and Impiety.

But though an afflicting experience has materially lessened the number of the admirers of the French Revolution among us and has served to chill the ardor of many more, who profess still to retain their attachment to it, from what they suppose to be its ultimate tendency; yet the effect of Experience has been thus far much less than could reasonably have been expected. The predilection for it still continues extensive and ardent. And what is extraordinary it continues to comprehend men who are able to form a just estimate of the information which destroys its title to their favour.

It is not among the least perplexing phenomena of the present times, that a people like that of the United States—exemplary for humanity and moderation surpassed by no other in the love of order and a knowledge of the true principles of liberty, distinguished for purity of morals and a just reverence for Religion should so long persevere in partiality for a state of things the most cruel sanguinary and violent that ever stained the annals of mankind, a state of things which annihilates the foundations of social order and true liberty, confounds all moral distinctions and substitutes to the mild & beneficent religion of the Gospel a gloomy, persecuting and desolating atheism. To the eye of a wise man, this partiality is the most inauspicious circumstance, that has appeared in the affairs of this country. It leads involuntarily and irresistibly to apprehensions concerning the soundness of our principles and the stability of our welfare. It is natural to fear that the transition may not be difficult from the approbation of bad things to the imitation of them; a fear which can only be mitigated by a careful estimate of the extraneous causes that have served to mislead the public judgment.

But though we may find in these causes a solution of the fact calculated to abate our solicitude for the consequences; yet we can not consider the public happiness as out of the reach of danger so long as our principles continue to be exposed to the debauching influence of admiration for an example which, it will not be too strong to say, presents the caricature of human depravity. And the pride of national character at least can find no alleviation for the wound which must be inflicted by so ill-judged so unfortunate a partiality.

If there be anything solid in virtue—the time must come when it will have been a disgrace to have advocated the Revolution of France in its late stages.

This is a language to which the ears of the people of this country have not been accustomed. Every thing has hitherto conspired to confirm the pernicious fascination by which they are enchained. There has been a positive and a negative conspiracy against the truth which has served to shut out its enlightening ray. Those who always float with the popular gale perceiving the prepossession of the people have administered to it by all the acts in their power—endeavoring to recommend themselves by an exaggerated zeal for a favorite object. Others through timidity caution or an ill-judged policy unwilling to expose themselves to the odium of resisting the general current of feeling have betrayed by silence that Truth which they were unable not to perceive. Others, whose sentiments have weight in the community have been themselves the sincere dupes of ____. [sic] Hence the voice of reason has been stifled and the Nation has been left unadmonished to travel on in one of the most degrading delusions that ever disparaged the understandings of an enlightened people.

To recall them from this dangerous error—to engage them to dismiss their prejudices & consult dispassionately their own good sense—to lead them to an appeal from their own enthusiasm to their reason and humanity would be the most important service that could be rendered to the United States at the present juncture. The error entertained is not on a mere speculative question. The French Revolution is a political convulsion that in a great or less degree shakes the whole civilized world and it is of real consequence to the principles and of course to the happiness of a Nation to estimate it rightly.

   3    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

Let’s not forget what the Jew Vladimir Lenin said about the French Revolution.


We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory.

Vladimir Lenin

Or what John adams said.

My History of the Jesuits is in four volumes.... This society has been a greater calamity to mankind than the French Revolution, or Napoleon's despotism or ideology. It has obstructed progress of reformation and the improvement of the human mind in society much longer and more fatally.

John Adams

   3    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 18 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: I don't know why it matters what Lenin said about the Revolution, as it was before Napoleon. Anything Lenin says, one needs a puppy to hug afterwards to recover.

I read a book by John Adams, but I don't remember that quote. Do you know where it's from? Napoleon brought the Catholic Church back into the fold. Adams, I believe was a protestant. So yes, he might see the Catholic Church reinstated as obstructing "progress" or progressives. I do like John Adams in general. He was very intelligent, but was accused of wanting to be king. However, he went to England with his wife and was rather critical of the English too. Keep that in mind.

   0    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

I don't know why it matters what Lenin said about the Revolution, as it was before Napoleon. Anything Lenin says, one needs a puppy to hug afterwards to recover.

It matters because Jews had a big part in the French Revolution and Jews completely created the Russian revolution. So view it as one Jew commentating on a past revolution that his people had a part of and recognizing that it was a great revolution with merits that could be used in the Russian revolution. It’s all apart of their plan.

I read a book by John Adams, but I don't remember that quote. Do you know where it's from?

Here is the source. John Adams, Charles Francis Adams (1856). “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations”, p.229

Napoleon brought the Catholic Church back into the fold. Adams, I believe was a protestant. So yes, he might see the Catholic Church reinstated as obstructing "progress" or progressives.

As a devout Protestant I absolutely agree with John. Catholic teaching is extremely against the holy scriptures. I’m not saying they are bad people are that everything they say is wrong. But it’s a fact that they get an huge portion of the Bible wrong. And let’s not forget the extreme evil of the Jesuits who were Jewish created and Jewish run even to this day. They are absolutely satanic and evil and they completely overran the Catholic Church after the Spanish Inquisition.

   3    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 17 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: I was raised Catholic, have been to Baptist, Protestant (as some family memembers are), Presbetarian, Lutheran, and Methodist. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they all answer to the Catholic Church. They all read out of the same book. In fact, some of these other denominations take the scriptures lighter than the Catholics. Catholics have kept the roots a live. Maybe you forget who printed your protestant bible. But you are in Tennessee, so you are probably Baptist, no?

   0    2
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they all answer to the Catholic Church. They all read out of the same book.


We do not read out of the exact same book! The Catholic Bible is seven books longer than our for one. First off, Christians did not have a single volume of inspired texts for roughly the first 300 years. The creation and compilation of the Bible was a long process. Leaders of the early Church sifted through numerous manuscripts and discerned, using several different historical, doctrinal, and theological criteria, which books were to be kept and included in the canon, and which books were to be set aside.
According to Catholic scholars, at the time of Christ, two main “canons,” meaning collections of books that were considered to be sacred and genuine, existed at the time of Christ. The first collection of books is called the “Palestine Canon” and it is identical to what is used today in the Protestant version of the Old Testament. The second collection of books is known as the “Alexandrian Canon” which is also known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint is the earliest translation of the original Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) from the Hebrew language into Greek (specifically, Koine Greek). The seven additional books of the Old Testament in the Catholic Bible are:

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Other difference in Catholic Bible: Books of Esther and Daniel

Additionally, it should be noted that in the books of Esther and Daniel within the Catholic Bible there are additional passages not included in the “Palestine Canon.”
It is also worth noting that while the Catholic Bible recognizes the first two books of Maccabees, it rejects books three and four.

Those books are:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additional verses in Esther
Wisdom
Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah (which appears as the last chapter in Baruch in Catholic Bibles)
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon (additions to Daniel)
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
Psalm 151



I hate to be the one to break it to you, but they all answer to the Catholic Church.

We absolutely do not answer to the fucking Jew owned Pope!!! The Pope is a false leader and is a Jew owned puppet!!! Anyone who claims to follow that fool and satanic figure is most definitely professing that he or she follows Jews! The Pope has no fucking authorities over anyone or anything!
The only authority over me or anyone on this planet is god and only his word can be the sole guidance of us! Not the fucking Pope and his fake religion!!!

   4    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 17 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: You ramble on a lot and use a lot of eclamation points whilst ignoring the question. Since you argued everything else, but left alone that you are from Tennessee and Baptist, I will take that as a yes.

   0    2
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

I will take from you that you suck the Jew popes dick and salivate over his every word like a good goy! You are the one ignoring my fucking words like a typical Catholic, mackerel loving, Sunday worshiper! Keep living in sin and ignoring what the holy scriptures have to say. I refuse to tell you where I’m from because that’s a straw man. My location has nothing to do with the accuracy of Gods word!

   1    0
drumbum
drumbum 15 hours ago

@pastprovespresent: How can anyone be a catholic today?
Aside from the vatican II stuff, Look at the current poope......a fricken commie.

What is your excuse? or I should rather phrase it as reasoning?

   2    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 14 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: You are not Christian with your language. Your hostility speaks of something other than Christ. You use hositilyt to deflect a perfectly normal conversation. A very simple question of if you were Baptist or not.

   0    1
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 14 hours ago

@drumbum: You didn't understand the question. We were talking about Napoleon, but he changed the subject. I already said that all of the churches answer to the Catholic Church, but he didn't seem to like the truth. I also aksed him who publichsed his bible, but he ignored that question too, because he knowns darn well the Jews did for the Protestant reformation to create division between all of us; The truth is, we all read out of the same book. Anyone arging some label is still judiazed and just won't recognize it. You either believe in God and are on a path to learning or you are not. Not one person I have talked to is an expert nor jesus to get on a soap box above others.

   0    1
drumbum
drumbum 14 hours ago

@pastprovespresent: Why are you answering a simple question I posed to you with a hissy fit about NatBedFor?
because you "said" all churches answer to the catholic church, makes it fact?....lol

What "question" did I not understand?

"jews did for the Protestant reformation"...WTH.......yeah, that kike lover Martin Luther.....

No...I don't believe we read out of the same book.........

   1    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@pastprovespresent:

My language is perfectly in line with scriptures snake! Remember you follow and worship the devil! Don’t wag your tung at me when you follow a Jew satanic puppet!!! I have clearly answered your questions with facts, unlike you who went to attack my place of residence which you made a bullshit hypothesis about. You have done nothing but explain your hypocritical stances and beliefs and profess your leader is satan!!!

   0    0
Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

@drumbum:

He’s full of shit! He makes ad homonym’s and straw man to make his satanic point and then tries to tie that in to my geographical area as if that matters to the word off the Lord. Typical Catholic moron who says one thing and follows another.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 6 hours ago

@drumbum: I answered you assuming that you read this conversation thread. I am perfectly calm. I thing it's Bedford Forrest who is having a hissy fit and unable to see what is going on. They already plan on the one world religion. If you think that your government today gives them 501c3 status without prior approval, you are fooling yourself. Those who wanted us all fragmented and divided, so they could have us fight amongst ourselves instead of the real enemy. Voilà! And here we are! This is what I tried to point out. Plus, the fact that I know fro personal experience that they both read the same Bible. Of course, without him admitting which Church, I couldn't say that.

Martin Luther, from what I read, didn't intend to start a new church. He just wrote thesis and wished to erradicate some corruptions within the church. I'm sorry, but just like today, the Jews did own most of the printing presses. This is a commonly known fact. It even says in the bible,"Woe to you scribes and pharisees".

The Catholic People are not the pope and have been praying for his excommunication or conversion since day one. Other Bishops have spoken out, essentially, contradicting him. They all know he is false. But if people live in France, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Germany Hungary, Slovakia et al. All this is by design to take down the West. It's only in America that you have these 3k sects. That's why in Europe, they call you all protestant, which means protesting.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 6 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: Quoting you,"ke from you that you suck the Jew popes dick and salivate over his every word like a good goy! You are the one ignoring my fucking words like a typical Catholic"
Yes, beautiful Christian language.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 6 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: I don't follow the pope. I never said I did. You are making assumptions so you can insult me.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 6 hours ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: You are so blind by your own anger, you miscomprehended the whole thing. I don't care where your house is located. I was making a point. Where you live has a lot to do with what sect you probably belong. If you still lived in Germany, you wouldn't be Baptist. You would be Catholic (the majority) or the minority (Protestant) most likely. I only asked if you were Baptist. You were welcome to say no, I am this other sect ,but you didn't. You went off the deep end. The Catholic Chruch reads out of King James Bible, which is what most do. And every Baptist service I went to also read out of the KJV. That is what I was trying to show you. One of my closest friends is Baptist and I have gone to their Chruch and know their pastor well, so I'm sure of this.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 6 hours ago

@drumbum: You make assumptions. I said I was raised Catholic. I mostly just read scripture. I don't need to show up at a brick building to virtue signal. Sure, I will go with friends when invited, but it's not required. In a process of discovery, I went to every sect (just about) and they all say the same thing. In recent times, some are more liberal than others, such as the Lutheran (ironically enough) and Methodist. I hate to break it to you, but the two greatest strongholds in Europe, Poland and Hungary are both Catholic. The pope is just a man and has little bearing on the Catholic families who were there before he took office. Nobody is more alarmed by this pope than the Catholics themselves.

   0    0
pastprovespresent
pastprovespresent 2 minutes ago

@Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest: There is no straw man arguement. You accuse me of ad homonyms when it is you getting emotional without facts?

I didn't think it was important before, as I was trying to stick to the topic, but you accuse me of maing statements without facts when everything I have said is a fact. So, let's begin with what you said:

I’m not sure who the Jews used first, but I know for a fact that Liberty, Equality and Fraternity are not in the constitution. There is no equality in the constitution and the founders explicitly said so!

Sorry, but There is definitely liberty in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Liberty is found in the Preamble and 1st Amendment. Equality is found in the Preamble and the 14 th Amendment.

Declaration:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note: The French word Liberté is freedom in English.
1st Amendment of the US Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence: His inspiration and time in Paris, France.
https://revolution.chnm.org/items/show/581

14th Amendment of the US Constituion
Section 1
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The word "fraternity" is not explicitly said, but is understood as written "under God's laws". In the Bible Note: Fraternity is synonym for brotherhood
Romans 12:10
Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
1 Peter 3:8

Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.
1 Peter 1:22
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
John 13:34
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
2 Peter 1:7
And godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love.
There are over 50 verses in the Bible on fraternity and brotherhood, but I won't list them all.

   0    0
Show more

Up next