Some user on killchan talking about Peter Strzok and his family being big shit Jesuitsand turns out it's true...

David Icke "it's the Reptilians!" tier diversion.
THE GAS MUST FLOW

Not fooling anyone here

the jesuit redpill goes very deep

The only real redpill about Jesuits is that they tend to be communists. All the other bullshit is just disinfo.

Catholics are leftists. Thomas Aquinas could probably be called the original leftist. He was the father of the enlightenment and invented all the left wing concepts we know today such as human rights and social justice and all that garbage.

jesuits started accepting conversos in 1946 again.

I wonder why.

you are a fucking idiot

Catholics don't hate gays. Most of their priests are gay.

Jesuits were dominated by new christians(aka cypto jews) in spain and portugal. There is an interesting book about it but i cant remember where i am sorry.

Jesuits were fucking krypto jews from the beggining

Found it its called
web.archive.org/web/20180123181532/https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/01/07/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews-part-one/
www DOT veteranstoday DOT com/2018/01/07/review-the-jesuit-order-as-a-synagogue-of-jews-part-one/

The copies of this book on amazon are over $250. Books that have redpilled history of Jews always coincidentally skyrocket in price for used copies. Almost like (((someone))) is buying them up because they don't want others to read it.

oapen.org/download?type=document&docid=627427

Full pdf of book. Jesuits started out as catholic spies, a number of orgs were formed under them ("illuminati", templar/malta, …) Jews saw the potential to use this compartmentalized, shadowy, powerful group (kinda ike cia today) to infiltrate and hijack the catholic church. This lead to the great schism of 1054 when eastern christians noticed the jewish control and corruption of the catholic church and realized they had to separate themselves from vatican control before the virus spread to them.

absolutely euphoric

...

Catholics are a mix of both; right-leaning with most of their social stances except for immigration. This isn't owed to them being cucked, but how they believe that people should be judged by their actions/behavior than the traits they were predisposed with. They border more closely to civic nationalists than liberal leftism. They're just altruistic conservatives.

They have a legitimate excuse for being naive with regards to race realism, but liberal atheists don't. The latter has plenty of statistics, but they willingly disregard it and outright lie.

What you can say for certain is that the majority of them are left-leaning political activists who actively work against the right.

Going to Catholic school does not make, or mean, one a Catholic. There were two kikes at my elementary/middle Catholic school, one was even expelled for repeatedly wearing its Star of David. In my Catholic high school there were, again, two kikes–both mischlings. There was even some shitskin Santero in my class.

That's a CIA member.

You've never actually read him have you?

Kikes have always used the jesuits as a scapegoat to mask jewish power.

archive.org/stream/ARealHistoryLessonForMisguidedTruthersZionCrimeFactory266/Jesuits Hoax By- ZionCrimeFactory-16

The catholic leadership is complicit in advancing the jewish narrative and policy control measures

Trips of truth. Never forget that (((Adam Weishaupt))) was a Jesuit.

No he wasn't. Weishaupt had a Jesuit education, but he grew to hate them. There's also nothing definitive about him being a kike.

Yes, I have. He was the original leftist and the father of the enlightenment. Prove me wrong.

That is a leftist position, retard.

They border more closely to civic nationalists than liberal leftism. They're just altruistic conservatives.
No, they are just leftists.

Leftist Lord Acton agreed with me, by the way, and called Aquinas "the first Whig."

Love how this turned into a religious d&c thread

The burden of proof is on you, Chaim. Typical jewish tricks, make a claim without elaborating and ask others to do all the work. First of all you simpleton, if Aquinas is indeed the father of the enlightenment, then he is not "the original leftist" but rather the original classical liberal; as that is how the enlightenment should be categorized. Leftists neither believe in individual freedom or in the supremacy of reason, two fundamental principles of the enlightenment. Read a fucking book before you embarass yourself further.
kek

Which he is
Classical liberalism is leftism, doofus.
False. Leftists believe both of those things.

Wew lad, he literally carried the torch Voltaire laid out in subverting the masses towards eternal kikedom

It's important to remember that Catholicism was subverted and taken over by the usual suspects a long, long time ago. The Rothschilds handle all Vatican finances and all decisions made by upper-level clergy are, especially personnel decisions, are actually by the upper echelons of Freemasons.

I would argue that in our age, it is safe to say that there is nothing "supreme" about reason. We "reasoned" our way into this situation. It was explained to us why it's good and it was reasonable so we rolled with it. Look where it got us.

That is in many ways even worse, since it splits the right wing camp and redirects effort into pointless overtures.

Jesuits had a strong role in the commie movements in South/Latin America. JPII was also feuding with them for a few years prior to his assassination attempt. Most of them are much worse than typical Catholics and highly activist, who are mostly normies who hate abortion.

Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, Archbishop of Chicago, homosexual rapist priest, was closer to the papacy than some realize, is a notable figure, given his diocese paid for Barack Obama to receive Alinskyite training. Just look at pictures of the guy and you can tell he was a twisted fuck.

A claim you have yet to prove convincingly, Chaim.
Typical burger-tier semantic confusion. Are you sincerely comparing one ideology that advocates for small government and free-market absolutism with another that advocates its opposite? Was Adam Smith a communist?
Leftists believe in individual freedom? Do you see any leftists promoting values such as total free speech, gun rights, etc and pushing against affirmative action? Leftists don't believe in individual rights, faggot, they believe in group rights - i.e. the rights of non-whites to a free ride. You're out of your depth, Moishe.

False you, stupid kike. Modern leftists believe in post modernism, cultural marxism, communism, boazian anthropology etc
All these claim either that they are "post-rationality" or even that rationality is an "oppressive bourgeois phallocentrict construct". (example : en.wikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Phallogocentrism)
This while also they maintain, in the surface,an association with scientific thinking and rationality( or should i say((("scientific"))) like scientific marxism) for the normies who havent went to liberal arts college degrees.
Just think about thinks like the denial of gender differences and race differences.

The same with individual freedom. Though here they play a lot on the loose meaning the word freedom has while also supporting freedom only for their side(freedom for goys to do buttsex). All the while using marcuses's repressive tolerance (research it) principle that you should tolerate only left leaning thinking(which is exactly what our politicians do).

Your claim is ridiculous and you are either ignorant or a liar.

...

All are just good guys to (((them)))

All of those are concerned with individual freedom and reason except for post-modernism (which is still concerned with freedom and reason, but states that reason cannot be divorced from contextual biases, such as whether or not you are a fucking white male). They are all directly descended from liberalism and from Thomism.

This is the logical outcome of the Thomist/Religion of Cuck™ic/pagan assumption of divine simplicity.

Marxist theory is based 100% on the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, so yes. Communism and capitalism share most of the same first principles. For example, labor theory of value and Lockean theory of property. These are the foundation of all of Marxism, along with enlightenment ethics. Marx just carried these ideas of Smith and Locke to their logical conclusions.

Oh my god you really are a leftist shill. Go away commie jew faggot. When you get any sort of pressure you always come up with these:

I am glad i am reading Nazi works that expose you now. It took me a while to go out of the libertardian cage.

The last green text is a hitler qoute btw. I am sorry that i need to repost but i hadn't got much sleep

I'm not a leftist. Do you think national socialism is any more favorable to Smith than it is to Marx? No, because it rejects both at their shared root.

Some articles on this:
jaysanalysis.com/2016/10/19/augustine-aquinas-barlaam-palamas-the-root-of-western-theological-error/
jaysanalysis.com/2013/08/22/from-thomism-to-enlightenment-deismatheism/

You exposed yourself already. Faggot( it's sad that you probably dont mind that I call you that way).
A non leftist wouldn't speak the way you do about marx.
Do the following. Get out of here and come back with new ID. Because you already have a glowing david star above your gigantic nose. Then you can shill again freely from exposure.

That's a fallacy man. Careful to not let anybody see your forked thong.

Yes they would. Because it's just a fact that Marx's first principles are Lockean and Ricardian.

It's not NS being opposed ot them that makes them similar. It's their shared assumptions that make them similar. NS is opposed because the are similar, not the other way around.

The chutzpah on this kike. Always misdirection and deception with you people. Obviously Marx, writing a book on economics, was going to reference the most important economic thinker of the 18th century. In no way does that make Adam Smith a fucking communist you disingenuous cretin. Once again, arguing for laissez-faire capitalism (i.e. no state intervention in economic affairs), small government, and suggesting that rationallly self-interested individuals acting together would naturally lead to the greatest possible good is not the same as communism, marxism, or fucking leftism.
Here we go again. Your mentioning that Marx drew on established scholarship to formulate a radical critique of said scholarship does not prove your ridiculous claims, it simply confirms that you are a kike because you know full well that it doesn't actually contribute to your argument. You don't belong here, Mordecai.

it is actually the jesuits that are at the top of this conspiracy. they use jews. jews are way too stupid to plan something so grand. but their hate against whites and christians is easily exploited by Rome. Remember that the Rotschild family are the Hofjuden of the vatican.

This is also why I'm starting to outgrow my 'white genocide' phase. Although the genocide is still happening, the goal is not to eradicate whites. It's to catalyse and direct their eventual explosive backlash aggainst nigger hordes into creating a new world order.

The church does look out for its sheep. And that is us. It's not the mohomo'd the pedo goatfuckerans, it's not the niggers and it's not the jews either.

What would stop them from being jesuits then?

Hardly believable. Got any evidence? (it would be funny if it were true tho)

Fool. Jesuits = Jews

Literally, the Jesuit church was founded in Spain by a converso, right after the Inquisition and Expulsion from Spain.

Marranos are Jews who pretended to convert to Catholicism because they had a gun to their heads, converso is the idea that Jews sincerely converted en masse with guns to their heads. Meaning, you can bet your ass there are no "conversos."

Ignatious of Loyola who founded the Society of jesuits was a Jew. Weishapt who founded the illuminati was also a Jesuit marrano. The black nobility,, black pope and now Pope Francis are all of a Jewish order.

What are the connections between the Benedictine monks and the Jesuits? The monks were up to some shady shit in the 15th and 16th century, a connection between them could be a missing puzzle piece.

He acted on behalf of jewry, but there's no proof that he was one himself.

disinfo mate. Loyola was not a kike. youtube.com/watch?v=R9tbv_FFA_Y

can't give you easily digestible proofs. rather it emerges as a model that's superior to the jew-model after you've researched things long enough. keep an open mind and consume all info you can get your hands on and eventually the big picture will emerge.

God does indeed work in mysterious ways.

It wasn't a critique. He literally used Locke's theory of property and Smith labor theory of value. That is the entire basis of the concept of "surplus value" which is his entire justification for communism.

And yes, it is. There is almost no difference whatsoever. Communism is 100% identical to liberalism except for the question of whether private property is legitimate or not, and both are left wing.