3rd February 2018
I shall here present you with a thesis to consider. I guess you could call it my shot at playing Nostradamus. I hope you'll indulge me.
Jacob Rees-Mogg MP presents the biggest threat to Britain in living memory, and he poses the biggest threat to those in Britain sensible enough not to wholeheartedly support the anti-thesis of Mogg, the neo-Marxist "equality, liberty, fraternity" crowd who want to force "equality" on naturally unequal things and who are willing to disregard every moral law in order to do it. Rees-Mogg provides the public a sensible-seeming alternative to the insanity of social justice warriorship, and this is exactly what makes him so dangerous.
People don't like to think the worst. They like to think that there are politicians worthy of their support, and they like to find one to support, just like they like to find a football team to support, or a singer in X-Factor, so that they don't feel left out. They are generally satisfied that people more or less publicly represent the views they privately hold and they're more often than not happy enough to support someone with agreeable rhetoric, while often choosing to disregard entirely any other information which might call that support into question.
Jacob Rees-Mogg very ably presents the principles behind conservatism which really resonate with most conservative supporters, who have always believed: that money is better in their pockets than in government coffers, that the state should facilitate people's lives and not control them, that people are capable of making their own decisions without big government making those decisions for them, that charity should be voluntary, etc.. As Rees-Mogg has not yet held a position in the conservative cabinet, he can and does criticise the conservative leadership openly for not being conservative enough; for not being honourable to conservative values enough. He has been given licence to repeatedly attack the conservative leadership - whether it be Cameron or May - from the backbenches, on one occasion amusingly calling David Cameron "a socialist yahoo". For some this might have been career suicide. For Rees-Mogg, it is forming part of a portfolio of speeches which he now will be using to fraudulently promote himself as a champion of the British people.
Rees-Mogg represents ideas which have been under attack for a long time, like that abortion is wrong, that traditional gender roles are beneficial to society, that gay marriage is inappropriate. These ideas are clearly pushing in the opposite direction to the vast tide of propaganda coming from the mainstream media, hollywood and academia today, which are all controlled by the Jewish ruling elite.
So Rees-Mogg's clearly a Rothschild asset, as i demonstrate in my video above, and yet he's promoting things absolutely contrary to the things Rothschild is promoting. Why would the Rothschilds be promoting these contradictory ideas now through Jacob Rees-Mogg, and in such an eloquent and intelligent way? Can we explain? I think we can.
Let's do what all good leftist like to do, and compare him to Adolf Hitler. Hitler called himself a Roman Catholic, as Rees-Mogg does. Hitler was also a fantastic orator, who spoke a lot of truth which resonated with the German people. He even spoke of the real problem of Jewish power to the German people, and seemed to be actually doing something about it. However, a world war later and Germany was completely destroyed, economically, spiritually, nationally, and culturally. World War Two was about the destruction and ritual slaughter of Christians by whoever. Many many millions of white Christian people perished in the war, and the strength of Christianity and nationalism in the German nation was irreparably damaged and will never be the same again. After Hitler, Germans never muttered another word about Jewish power.
There is more "British pride" today in Britain than there is "German pride" in Germany today, and this is because of Hitler. I'm working from the thesis that Hitler was a Rothschild asset, something which there is evidence for but which i will not present here, but regardless of whether you agree that he was or wasn't, Rees-Mogg undeniably is. Crushing nationalism in the UK would be regarded as positive by the Rothschilds and Jewish banking elite as they work their way step by step to an automated technocratic one world government. So if crushing nationalism is their goal, why deviate from a tried and tested way of achieving this?: build someone up who represents nationalism, and then orchestrate the public annihilation of him and everything he represents. It seems to me, from the benefit of seeing how things have progressed politically since Brexit, that Brexit was likely the Jewish banking elite's plan all along; that separating the UK from Europe could have been crucial to a plan to single out the US and UK - the two major centres of imperial power over the course of the last couple of centuries - for the chopping block, like Germany was in WW2.
Rees-Mogg is destined to be one of the most divisive characters in political history, probably even more so that Donald Trump, and this could ferment the kind of civil war in the UK that they have been working on stirring up in the US. Antifa will call decent conservative and libertarian Rees-Mogg supporters "fascists", "Nazis", "nationalists", "mysogenists", "bigots". The radical left will not pause to wonder if "hatred" is really the reason for the public's support of Rees-Mogg, but rather they'll just completely lose their heads, as the media will accomodate. Pseudo-nationalist groups supporting Rees-Mogg will continue and up their game, using unpleasant inflamatory unintelligent words and behaviour towards immigrants which will rile up the outraged left. Could this be the real reason Jayda Fransen and Tommy Robinson have spent all this time developing their images? They could well have a role to play in this new chapter of British politics, and so, potentially, could Nigel Farage, who has a very large support base and who recently, and ominously, publicly declared his support for Rees-Mogg. Could this decade of fighting against the EU in Brussels really be part of a long plan to single out Britain for destruction as Germany was in WW2? That would sure throw another light on Nigel Farage, because i just do not buy for a second that he would out of ignorance endorse someone who is as clearly a Rothschild asset as Rees-Mogg is.
The radical left will declare Rees-Mogg a shame on Britain and they will make it their own ambition to destroy this treacherous country from within, and especially all the white people who got Rees-Mogg elected. If steps are taken by Rees-Mogg to begin the removal of EU citizens we could see things get very nasty. Until Rees-Mogg appeared on the scene i would have said to EU citizens who are here that they are likely to be allowed to stay, simply because it's through no accident that they're here in the first place as the opening up of European borders has done much to destroy Europe and bring European people closer to accepting world government. Now, with what they might have planned for Rees-Mogg, i wouldn't be so sure.
Jacob Rees-Mogg is shooting to fame quickly and has already built up a fanatical support base throughout a certain section of the country, amongst the much better-read and more moral libertarians than the generally under-educated reactionary identity-politics-obsessed Labour-supporting neo-Marxists. This is how it always works: build up a fanatical fringe support and then build on that, broadening his appeal. As things are currently, he is only just breaking through into the awareness of normal people, but every day he's gaining more support. In the words of Dave from X22 Report: "this is something we have to watch very carefully."
Thanks for reading friends. I would appreciate your feedback.