Maurice de Pinay, The Plot Against the Church - an overview by JMR

JMR, over in the comments at Tanstaafl's (http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/2011/07/monomaniacal-concern-for-jewish.html) summarizes the role of Jews in Europe, and in America, as documented in Pinay's 1962 book, The Plot Against the Church.  [Pinay's book is available online http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/] :

 

JMR said...

 

I know most of you if any have little sympathy for the Catholic Church but the Church is one organisation that has had experience in trying to combat Jewish perfidy for over thousand years.
I am reading Maurice de Pinay's "The Plot against the Church" and it is amazing how over and over again parasitic jews were allowed into a country and then proceed to destroy it from inside and the Church has had to issue expulsion orders just to ensure the survival of the country.

Some will argue that it is the fault of the Church that the Jews are the way they are. But look at the case of the protestant USA.  Many Americans died to "liberate" the jews from "anti-semitic" Europe,and they were received into the USA with open arms. In one generation however,they have managed to undermine every single American institution;the universities,the judiciary, capitalism etc.They have actively encouraged the immigration of aliens to weaken American values.

Why couldn't they be happy just to settle and build their lives in the USA like any other immigrant group? The parallels with eighth century Visgothic Spain is amazing.

The book tends to be repetitive as over and over again, Europeans with short memories would welcome jews into their countries and the jews would then proceed to undermine them from the inside.
Another theme of the book is how the jews would pretend to convert to Catholicism and then proceed to usurp the Church for their own ends; hence the need for Inquisitions.

Unfortunately,they have been succesful and the Church has been destroyed by jewish communist, infiltrators and masons. You only have to look at the behavior of the present Pope,who has reverted thousands of years of Catholic teaching to absolve the jews from the accusation of "Christ-killers.'

The book was published in 1962 on the eve of Vatican 11 because the authors wanted to warn Catholic churchmen of the dangers of communist jewish infiltration. Unfortunately, their warnings went unheeded and the Church has been mortally weakened.

I know the Catholic Church is one organisation that everyone loves to hate. But I ask you, who controls the media,who writes and publishes the history book?

When the destruction of the USA by the jews is apparent to all,what organisation in the USA has the spiritual and moral courage to deprive the jews of their ill-gotten gains, and expel them like Edward 1st did from England in 1290 and Fernando and Isabella from Spain in 1492? The Jews have been expelled from over 100 european territories. Does anyone think that the USA will manage to do the same to guarantee it's own survival or will it implode like the USSR?

I would like to add the following:-The world is about to enter an economic depression unlike we have seen before. Who is responsible for this? Jews and the practice of usury which the Church tried to combat for years because it has always understood that usury confiscates money from the productive parts of the economy and benefits parasitic bankers. If you have any kind of debt you have a become a wage slave to the banks.

Man is now just an economic unit. They already abort babies with slight handicaps and they will soon be euthanizing the old and unproductive members of society. If you cannot produce or consume you will be of no use in the materialist NWO. 

To take over orthodox Russia the Bolshevik jews and their jewish backer bankers had to slaughter millions of priests, bishops, the aristocracy,academics and middle class kulaks.To take over the USA, they didn't need to fire a shot.

Obesity Rates by Race and Sex

Report out today, detailing just how fat we are getting.  F as in Fat, by the Trust for America's Health (http://healthyamericans.org/report/88/).

 

On average, Whites are least obese (25.5%), Latinos in the middle (29.2), Blacks are the most obese (36.0).  [Asians and Native Americans were not part of the data.]   Analyzing the data, there were some surprises.

 

Odd State results

 

Blacks were less-obese than Whites in four states: South Dakota (-8%), Montana (-5.8%), North Dakota (-3.8%), and Vermont (-2.6%).  Blacks are less-obese than Latinos also in four states: North Dakota (-14.1%), South Dakota (-9.1), Montana (-5.8%), and Wyoming (-3.1%).

 

The biggest gaps between Whites and Blacks are in DC (-25.1%), Alaska (-20.7%), Wisconsin (-19.3%), Connecticut (-18.7%), Delaware (-16.5%), and North Carolina (-15.7%).

 

Whites were the most obese group in only two states: Vermont (W: 23.6%, B: 21%, L: 20.8%), and (with a tie) Montana (W: 22.9%, B: 17.1%, L: 22.9%).

 

--The fittest Whites are spread out through the nation: D.C. (9.3%), Colorado (18.3%), Hawaii (19.3%), Connecticut (20.8%), and New Mexico (20.8%).

--The most obese Whites, however, are concentrated in a clear "Fat Belt": West Virginia (32.1%), Kentucky (31%), Tennessee (30.5%), Mississippi (30.4%), Arkansas (29.8%), Oklahoma (29.7%), Missouri (29.5%)

 

Blacks exhibit the opposite pattern. 

--The fittest are concentrated in the northern plains states of Montana (17.1%), South Dakota (20.1%), and North Dakota (23.6%)  [along with the outlier Vermont (21%)].   

--The most obese Blacks are scattered: Wisconsin (45.8%), Alaska (45%), Kentucky (43.2%), Mississippi (42.6%), Delaware (42.5%), Alabama (42.4%), North Carolina (42.4%), Kansas (41.8%). 

 

 

It is harder to find a pattern among the Latinos.  Latinos tended to be fitter in places farther away from Mexico, perhaps mirroring the differences in Latino ethnic groups (Mexican versus Puerto Rican/Cuban). 

--Least obese Latinos were found in D.C. (18.1%), Vermont (20.8%), Maine (21%), Wisconsin (21.1%), Montana (22.9%), New Hampshire (24%). 

--However, the most obese Latinos can be found anywhere (i.e. not just in proximity to Mexico): South Carolina (38.2%), North Dakota (37.7%), Texas (36%), Missouri (35.4%), Kansas (34.7%), Pennsylvania (34.5%), and Kentucky (33.3%).

 

Obesity by Sex and Race

 

White men were more obese than White women on average, and in every state except one (Alaska). 

 

Among Blacks, the opposite was true, including some truly amazing imbalances.  In Arizona, for example, 19.7% of Black men are obese, compared to 52.7% of the Black women!   Black women were more obese than Black men in all but five states (Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota).  

 

The average obesity rates (***) confirm what you probably would guess based on personal observation, putting them all in order:

White women (23.8%)

White men (27.3)

Latino Women (28.7%)

Latino Men (29.4%)

Black men (31.8%)

Black women (38.5%)

 

***note: these are not true population averages, just the average of the 50 states. For blacks especially, these will be inaccurate (on the low side), because the states with the lowest black obesity averages have minuscule numbers of actual black people.

 

 

Summary of Data by State, in order of obesity percent

 

Whites

DC	9.3
CO	18.3
HI	19.3
CN	20.8
NM	20.8
CA	21.8
MA	21.8
MT	22.9
UT	23
NJ	23.1
AZ	23.3
RI	23.3
VT	23.6
FL	24.1
NV	24.1
NY	24.1
AK	24.3
MD	24.3
WY	24.6
ID	25.1
MN	25.2
VA	25.2
OR	25.3
IL	25.5
GA	25.6
NH	25.8
DE	26
WA	26.2
WI	26.5
ME	26.7
NC	26.7
TX	26.7
NE	27
ND	27.4
SC	27.4
PA	27.7
IA	28.1
SD	28.1
KS	28.4
LA	28.4
OH	28.7
IN	28.8
AL	29
MI	29.1
MO	29.5
OK	29.7
AR	29.8
MS	30.4
TN	30.5
KY	31
WV	32.1

 

 

Blacks

 

MT	17.1
SD	20.1
VT	21
ND	23.6
CO	27.9
MN	28.2
NV	28.5
WY	28.9
MA	30.5
NY	31.4
NM	31.7
ME	32.2
NH	32.5
IA	33
WA	33.8
DC	34.4
HI	35.3
RI	35.6
CA	35.8
NJ	35.9
AZ	35.9
MD	36.3
IN	37
UT	37.1
VA	37.2
GA	38.1
OR	38.2
MO	38.2
TX	38.5
FL	38.8
CN	39.5
IL	39.5
PA	39.5
LA	39.5
WV	39.5
NE	39.6
SC	40.3
OH	40.8
TN	40.9
MI	41.1
OK	41.3
AR	41.5
KS	41.8
NC	42.4
AL	42.4
DE	42.5
MS	42.6
KY	43.2
AK	45
WI	45.8
ID	na

Latinos
DC	18.1
VT	20.8
ME	21
WI	21.1
MT	22.9
NH	24
CO	24.8
VA	25.1
OR	25.4
NC	26
NV	26.5
NJ	26.8
HI	27
MN	27.1
NY	27.2
MD	27.4
UT	27.4
IN	28.4
AK	28.6
FL	28.7
MO	29
CN	29
MA	29.1
SD	29.2
LA	29.3
IA	29.5
ID	29.6
WV	29.7
AR	30.1
TN	30.3
OK	30.3
WA	30.4
CA	30.6
NM	30.7
AL	30.7
RI	30.9
IL	31.5
DE	31.5
NE	31.8
WY	32
AZ	32.3
OH	32.5
GA	32.7
MI	32.9
KY	33.1
PA	34.5
KS	34.7
MS	35.4
TX	36
ND	37.7
SC	38.2

Misandry in elite discourse - Nick Paumgarten in the NewYorker

As many observers of contemporary culture have noted, trying to speak FOR men is fighting an uphill battle. Our popular culture produces a constant stream of anti-male attitudes and assumptions - what we call misandry (a correspondence to the word misogyny) in an attempt to raise awareness.

I came across a classic case of misandry in today's The New Yorker, in an article about online dating (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/04/110704fa_fact_paumgarten?currentPage=all). The article reflects the casual misandry which permeates the air in what passes for elite discourse these days.

The author is one Nick Paumgarten. Himself the son of a managing director at JP Morgan, his wife is an MBA-holding daughter of investment bank directors. [Read the short bios of the NY power-couple revealed in his wedding announcement here http://www.nytimes.com/1997/10/05/style/weddings-siv-rafford-nicholas-paumgarten-jr.html].

In other words, here is a man from the highest echelons of elite money and power. His words express the very spirit and substance of the condescension and disdain that elites have for commoners. In other words, this is a glimpse of the same spirit that guides our elitist law-makers and judges as they set policy on family law.

Paumgarten himself has absolutely no dating experience, as he puts it, "I've been on two real dates in my life, both of them in my freshman year of college, nearly a quarter century ago". He married the second of those two women, and he has been married for the last 14 years. Notice how he sets up his qualifications for writing a story about online dating: FOCUSING SOLELY ON WOMEN:

So, for the purposes of this story, I didn't do any online dating of my own. Instead, I went out for coffee or drinks with various women who, according to their friends, had had extraordinary or, at least, numerous adventures dating online.

What contribution do men have to make to his inquiry? In short: none. Read his sneering dismissal of men, whom he characterizes as simplistic liars (as he puts it, "reductive and disingenuous").

He says, literally, that men are simple and lazy creatures, who see women solely as trophies and sex objects. Men's demonstrated preference for marriage, he simply waves off, chalking it up to deception. In his words:

I talked to men, too, of course, but there is something simultaneously reductive and disingenuous in most men's assessments of their requirements and conquests. Some research has suggested that it is men, more than women, who yearn for marriage, but this may be merely a case of stated preference. Men want someone who will take care of them, make them look good, and have sex with them—not necessarily in that order. It may be that this is all that women really want, too, but they are better at disguising or obscuring it. They deal in calculus, while men, for the most part, traffic in simple sums.

Beautiful exhibition of White Knighting manginahood, isn't it? "Women are calculus, men are arithmetic". Just lovely.

If you ever wonder who the real enemies of men are, well, there you go. Men are the primary enemy of men. Men are always quick to shove other men right under the bus, especially men of a lower station. Elite pricks like Nick Paumgarten make sure these anti-male attitudes get translated into elite discourse and public policy.