by Evropa Soberana
Cicero and the Jewish lobby
In 62-61 BCE, the proconsul Lucius Valerius Flaccus (son of the consul of the same name and brother of the consul Gaius Valerius Flaccus) confiscated the tribute of ‘sacred money’ that the Jews sent to the Temple of Jerusalem.
When this happened, the Jews of Rome raised the populace against Flaccus. The well-known Roman patriot Cicero defended Flaccus against the accuser Laelius (a tribune of the plebs who would later support Pompey against Julius Caesar) and referred to the Jews of Rome in a few sentences of 59 BCE, which were reflected in his In Defence of Flaccus, XVIII:
The next thing is that charge about the Jewish gold. And this, forsooth, is the reason why this cause is pleaded near the steps of Aurelius. It is on account of this charge, O Laelius, that this place and that mob has been selected by you. You know how numerous that crowd is, how great is its unanimity, and of what weight it is in the popular assemblies.
I will speak in a low voice, just so as to let the judges hear me. For men are not wanting who would be glad to excite that people against me and against every eminent man; and I will not assist them and enable them to do so more easily. As gold, under pretence of being given to the Jews, was accustomed every year to be exported out of Italy and all the provinces to Jerusalem, Flaccus issued an edict establishing a law that…
From these phrases we can deduce that already in the 1st century BCE, the Jews had great political power in Rome itself, and that they had an important capacity for social mobilization against their political opponents, who lowered their voices out of fear: the pressure of the lobbies.
8 replies on “Apocalypse for whites • IX”
Dear Cesar,
I could not help but think of your postings about the Incas and Aztecs when I read this:
“What do I mean? This isn’t some kind of artistic abstraction. They harvest the blood of children. They eat their flesh. They believe this gives them life force. If the child was suffering in body and psyche before it died, they believe this gives them extra life force.”
More here
The astronomical difference is that Gibson is speaking metaphorically: the pre-Columbian Amerinds did it literally. (On January the 1st I’ll add another DOW chapter in this site.)
This sounds quite literal to me. He says it is not an abstraction. Quite literally they harvest the blood of children. They eat their flesh. They believe this gives them life force. If the child was suffering in body and psyche before it died, they believe this gives them extra life force.
Even more specifically he says Hollywood studios are “drenched in the blood of innocent children”, claiming the consumption of “baby blood is so popular in Hollywood that it basically operates as a currency of its own.” Can this be thought of as a metaphorical statement?
Jewish history is filled with such ghoulish narratives. One needs to go no further than the recent “Pizzagate” to find horrific overtones off this very kind of bizzare, cannibalistic behavior. What else is one to think when people like John Podesta refer to children as food?
The main thought that stuck me was how the suffering of children brought increased rewards in the sacrifice. This is very much like the Jew’s torture/murder of children, like the toddler Simon of Trent.
In the context of Hollywood, they do not eat the flesh of the children, as the Mesoamericans actually did after ritually killing them, literally.
I would be grateful were I able to feel similar assurance. However, knowing what I know about the bloody murderous history these parasites, leaves me in doubt. One only needs look at their horror movies to see with clarity what lies behind the Jew’s primitive, puerile mind. Silence of the Lambs is but one movie that comes to mind in this regard.
The Hebrews did practise ritual child sacrifice in the historical past; they used to sacrifice their first-born. I’ve written about it in DOW.
If you have not done so, please read the link for a full transcript of what Mr. Gibson says about Hollywood. It is a short article.
Hollywood elites are an “enemy of mankind continually acting contrary to our best interests” and “breaking every God given taboo known to man, including the sanctity of children,” Mel Gibson said in London…”
Why did he equate eating children to being an enemy of mankind? Jesus, you people have been reading Cesar’s blog for years, and still don’t get it?
Eating children is some of the most basic human desires. It’s not some Jewish “corruption” or sin. Humans ARE evil; they CAN become good.