By Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat
Where there is violence, the shedding of innocent blood, revolt and massacres, there are sodomites. From Sodom and Gomorrah, to the French Revolution, to Nazism, there were the sodomites, spreading ideas of revolt, of rebellion, of bloodshed and paganism. Nazism (as we shall examine) was Sodom with a veneer of being for ‘nation and family’ — the types of words that appeal to current day conservatives. It was homosexuality but with a ‘masculine’ appeal and a fascination with pagan Graeco-Roman culture.
There are the sodomites, conspiring for evil, even going so far as to masquerade themselves with the face of conservatism or even playing the nationalist card, using the nationalist drunkenness of the masses to their advantage. In the conservative and nationalist circles, there too are the sodomites. And because they have made themselves positions of popularity, Evangelicals, Catholics and other people of so-called conservative persuasions will praise these sodomites and dare you say anything opposing them. Sodom is conquering the world, striving to eclipse the heavenly Jerusalem, and even the conservatives — who for years have uplifted “family values” are being taken, becoming not sodomites but those of whom St. Paul warned: those who approve of those who practice the evils of Sodom (Romans 1:32).
Within the nationalist and Right-wing movement, there is a prevalent presence of the citizens of the republic of Sodom, that is, homosexuals. These sodomites have been at the forefront of the nationalist movement and are quickly getting conservatives to express more positive views towards these citizens of Sodom. For example, Dennis Prager, one of the biggest voices for American conservatives, went on the David Rubin show where he spoke nonchalantly and even favorably towards sodomites, and even made light of pederasty:
Prager: “I am as comfortable with these two couples as with heterosexual couples
Rubin: And by the way, for the record, right before we started you asked me if I was married. You didn’t know if I was straight or gay and I didn’t sense that you cared—
Prayer: And my immediate concern was how did you meet. I wanna hear your romance. I’m as interested as if it was a woman.
Prager: “Well I assume you’d rather be on a political channel than a gay channel.”
Prager: You’re not defined by your gayness.
Rubin: “This is as gay as it gets.
Prager: “Normal is not defined by your sexual orientation … By the way I actually believe bisexual is the norm.
Prager: “The Bible said: ‘Men, you are as happy with boys — I don’t mean 8 year olds, 15 year olds — just as a grown man is happy with a 15 year old girl. In that sense, homosexuals and heterosexuals are identical.”
And what does Prager say about those people (like us) who oppose Sodom? Here are his words:
“Look, there are people on the Right — I hate to say this, and this bothers me — there are people on the Right who have contempt for gays. And its wrong, its biblically wrong, its humanly wrong, and it does bother me.”
(Start at 1:08:57):
So it is “biblically wrong” to oppose Sodom, according to Prager. Which means that Prager — while fooling the conservatives — wants to pull people to the side of Sodom, and not only this, but to make Christianity conform to Sodom.
Sodom has not only made its presence in the secular conservative world, but also in Catholic conservative circles. The most resounding voice in traditionalist Catholic media is Church Militant, ran by Michael Voris who himself confessed to being an inveterate sodomite for most of his 20s and 30s. We are not affirming that his confession is proof of his support for sodomy. However, in 2017, Church Militant published an interview with Milo Yiannopolous, a homosexual Jew who claims Catholicism.
Conservative Catholics who revere and follow Milo with sycophantical hysteria and who never express any criticism for this agent of Sodom, will always portray him as just a ‘poor sinner’ who needs prayer. But in this interview with Church Militant, it is quite clear that Milo stands in pride for his evil ways, boasting about his sodomitic life: “Maybe you mean it’s shocking that I’m always joking about my lack of chastity and my fondness for black dudes, but I still call myself Catholic. And I don’t see what’s so shocking about that, either.”
At the beginning of the interview, Church Militant put up a statement saying that Milo and them are in complete agreement regarding the Church’s teachings: “Although Church Militant does not endorse everything Yiannopoulis says and does, we are on the same page with regard to the unchanging teachings of the Church and opposing Catholics who would try to change Christ’s teachings to make them more comfortable.”
This is a contradiction. You do not endorse everything, yet they claim to both agree on the Church’s teachings when one of them is explicitly promoting Sodom.
How can you agree with a sodomite on the Church’s teachings when the Sodomite is openly promoting and exhibiting a poisonous pride for his sodomite citizenship? The entire situation has the appearance of a sinister collaboration, which is why I went out of my way to confront Voris and call him. During my conversation with Voris I asked him why he was promoting this sodomite, to which he said that he nor Church Militant are promoting him. I told him of Milo’s advocation for pederasty, for his promotion of Sodom and his eugenist teaching, but Voris did not care and ended the conversation abruptly.
To further exhibit his indifference to the reality of the evils of this insidious representative of Sodom, and to show that he was lying when he said that he was not promoting the sodomite, Voris brought Milo onto Church Militant for a full interview. At the beginning of the discussion Voris brought up Milo’s past statements that were favorable to pederasty to which Milo went on playing the victim and talking about how his words were taken by “the left” and used to calumny him (which is complete nonsense). Voris then asked Milo about the age of consent (since when Milo promoted pederasty he talked against the age of consent laws which he saw as “arbitrary”), and in this context the conversation went on as such:
Voris: “Do you think that the age of consent should be lowered to 12, 13, something around that age?”
Milo: “I think 16 is about right. …
Voris: “Canon Law would agree with you.”
After such an interview, it is time for the studio to remove the term “militant” from its title.
So, to Voris, it is okay for Milo to come on his show and say emphatically that 16 is a good age to get sodomized by an older man. Voris not only does not object but references Canon Law to affirm what the sodomite affirms. Voris positively reinforced Milo’s lie that he did not promote pederasty, and Milo’s sycophants will defend him and argue that his words were taken out of context. Milo has even used the excuse that he said what he said because he was tired and had consumed alcohol, as if tiredness and drinking leads one to start becoming a pederasty advocate. Milo’s own words speak for themselves:
I think in the gay World some of the most important enriching and incredibly the… mm … you know life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences.”
But this did not repulse the ‘traditional Catholic’ Michael Voris, and nor did it provoke him to rebuke or object to him. What this shows is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, an antichrist who deceived the very elect by portraying himself as being like the elect. It is the devil you don’t know that is more dangerous than the devil you know. Milo was a big voice for the Brexit movement which, as we have been warning since the night of Brexit, could have dangerous geopolitical ramifications for Europe, such as Brexit no longer being an obstacle to the advancement of German militarist domination. This is the same Milo who sung “America the Beautiful” in a Dallas karaoke bar as admirers, including the eugenist Richard Spencer, raise their arms in Nazi salutes.
What do we see here, but an attention seeking provocateur who, while spreading evil ideas, gets his kicks out of shocking people? By provoking he gets attention, by getting attention he is then in the position to inculcate his nefarious and destructive ideology.
This is one thing we must remember about sodomites: they are perfect recruits to start trouble and spread chaos and revolt. The Nazis understood this and its why many of the first Nazis were sodomites. Ernst Roehn, the leader of the SA and amongst the first supporters of Hitler, believed that homosexuality was part of the normal state of mankind and held sodomites to be the best recruits to cause violence. In the words of Snyder:
“[Roehm] projected a social order in which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behavior pattern of high repute … he flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted that his cronies do the same. What was needed, Roehm believed, was a proud and arrogant lot who could brawl, carouse, smash windows, kill and slaughter for the hell of it. Straights, in his eyes, were not as adept in such behavior as practicing homosexuals.” (Snyder: 55, in Lively & Abrams, Pink Swastika, ch. 1, p. 89)
Homosexuality was not just prevalent within the German nationalist Brownshirts, but had inundated the German Wehrmacht as well. This is why the German artist Martin Dammann, when searching through photos from the German army under the Third Reich, found many photos of German soldiers dressed as women. Dammann noted in an interview with Der Spiegel: “Even if the majority of soldiers were heterosexual, homosexual and transgender orientations also show themselves in unusual clarity.”
Dammann did not just find a few photos here and there, but hundreds of photos showing German soldiers dressed as women. Sodom truly had the Third Reich as one of its colonies.
Nazism was Sodom with a veneer of being for ‘nation and family’. It was homosexuality but with a ‘masculine’ appeal and a fascination with pagan Graeco-Roman culture. “Theirs was a very masculine brand of homosexuality,” writes historian Alfred Rowse about the Nazi SA, “they lived in a male world, without women, a world of camps and marching, rallies and sports. They had their own relaxations, and the Munich SA became notorious on account of them.” (Rowse: 214, ibid, p. 92)
A homosexuality with a masculinist image is what the Right-wing and the nationalists are utilizing. Dennis Prager, for example, while teaching that “bisexual is the norm” will also promote “masculinity”. What some on the “intellectual dark web” are promoting is androphilia, or masclunist homosexuality in which the sodomites are not feminine but punctual, well dressed and having a veneer of conservatism. An example of this in our own times is the work of Jack Donovan (also known as “Jack Malebranche”), a favorite of the nationalist Identitarian movement, pagan tribalist, satanist, and sodomite who writes and speaks about homosexual masculinity (“androphilia”) and the glory of violence against those who are not in ‘your tribe.’ From a 2007 Willamette Week article we reads:
“Jack Malebranche is an ordained priest in the Church of Satan. He likes to watch old Nazi movies. He used to work as a “dancer” at gay clubs in New York. But none of that stuff is nearly as fascinating to me as this: Malebranche is an ‘androphile.’”
And if you are going to give us nonsense about how ‘this does not represent what we nationalist are about’ — then do not give us your remonstrances, but rather give your ire to the nationalists in Europe who are collaborating with Donovan and others like him; give your anger to those Austrian conspirators who brought in Donovan to Germany to give a speech in which he promoted violence against those who are ‘not of your tribe’:
“In 1903, the malcontents, led by the writers Adolf Brand and Benedict Friedlaender, formed a group called Gemeinschaft der Eigenen, or Society of Self-Owners, the name referencing a concept from the anarchist philosophy of Max Stirner. Der Eigene, Brand’s magazine, became their mouthpiece, mixing literary-philosophical musings with mildly pornographic photographs of boys throwing javelins. In the same camp was the writer Hans Blüher, who argued that eroticism was a bonding force in male communities”.
Donovan points to the pederast Brand as a voice for his ideology of a Spartan sodom: “Brand believed that homosexuality could fit into traditional society, and that practiced within certain boundaries (his would be different from my own) it could be a healthy expression of masculine sexuality—even for some men who would later marry and father children.” Being a sodomite and yet being married to a woman and having children is one of the warped and chaotic things that these agents for the diabolical are promoting. Milo Yiannopolous has taken this idea a step further and said that sodomites should be married to women to as to continue their genetically inherited superior intelligence:
“gay men are smarter: we test higher for IQ than our heterosexual counterparts. Intelligence allows us to “transcend” our evolutionary programming, according to evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa, which may explain the correlation between homosexuality and high IQ.
But there’s a problem brewing, and it has to do with evolution. In the 1950s, gay men would “live a lie,” get married and have kids. … I am a gay exceptionalist, because that is what science and history tell me to be. That’s why I find it depressing that my fellow fags have stopped breeding. … gay sperm is precious. The medical establishment tacitly admits this by encouraging gays to be sperm donors but blocking them from donating blood. Since we know that IQ, an imperfect measure of lots of things but a reliable guide to genius, is 60 to 80 per cent heritable, the obvious question to ask is: did gay emancipation make the species more stupid? The answer is: sort of, yes. To be strictly accurate, a lack of gay reproduction wouldn’t make the population “more thick.” But it could, in theory, arrest the rate of increase in overall IQ.”
While Milo wrote for sodomite eugenics, we should also ask the question: who published this degenerate drivel? Well, it was none other than the precious and beloved Breitbart of the Right-wing. If a Left-wing publication had put this rubbish out, conservatives would be pointing their fingers about how “the Left” is against family values and hates marriage. But we did not see any objections from the conservatives of America over Breitbart — one of the biggest conservative American blogs in the country — promoting openly homosexual eugenics and declaring the superiority of sodomite genes.
What does this tell us?
It tells us that people’s outrage is selective. If the Left does something insidious, it is evil, and the Right-wing elevate themselves as being the good in a war against sinister forces. But yet, if the Right-wing promote homosexuality, then we have to hear about all of the excuses about how ‘you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette,’ ‘We can use the gays so the left can’t call us homophobes,’ or ‘Sexuality can no longer be the focus if we are going to win the hearts and minds of Americans.’
The bottom line is that homosexuality, no matter if it comes from Left or Right, is still Sodom.
Sodomites litter Right-wing and nationalist circles. Within UKIP, the pro-Brexit party in Britain, there are sodomites in their ranks. Richard Hendron, a politician for UKIP and a sodomite, wrote an article about how many citizens of the republic of sodom are opening up as Right-wingers:
“Increasing numbers of the LGBTQ community are ‘coming out’ as supporting right of centre parties. By definition, people who are ‘coming out’ of the closet as being politically right of centre are not converting to the right, they are simply stating what they have always been.”
Nigel Farage, once the main face of UKIP, also said that there are sodomites in the ranks of the party: “Let’s be clear, we have an active and growing LGBT group within UKIP, lots of gay candidates standing for us in these elections.” In France many sodomites were in favor of the nationalist Front National party of Marine Le Pen. In fact, one of Le Pen’s advisors, Sébastien Chenu, was the founding member of a political sodomite organization called “GayLib”, as we read in Vox:
“Le Pen has also surrounded herself with three high-level gay advisers, including her right-hand man, Florian Philippot, who is often identified as the architect of her effort to remake her party’s image, and Sébastien Chenu, who was a former founding member of a gay rights organization called GayLib.”
Sodom is not only an historical city; Sodom is a spirituality, it is a mentality, it is a disposition of the soul, a sinister edifice that represents the desired conspiracy for the overthrow of all order, the reversal of roles and a declaration of war on those words of the prophet: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31) Abraham went to Canaan where he met with a priest named Melchizedek, the king of Jerusalem, who gave to the sojourning prophet the sacraments of bread and wine (Genesis 14:18). But Lot moved to Sodom. The different directions that these two men took represented the vicious antithesis that Sodom was to Jerusalem. So today, the spirit of Sodom remains with its onslaught against the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22). Sodomites today are the representatives of Sodom, advancing their chaos, devising destruction and tyranny on those they deem a threat to their utopia of disorder, saying with their predecessors: “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you” (Genesis 19:9).
So the original citizens of Sodom hated Lot because he ‘judged’ them, and do we not incessantly hear it today, “Do not judge!”?
Lot was a righteous man who while in Sodom was tormented from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds (2 Peter 2:8). The sodomites of the past wanted to murder Lot because they saw him as a judge; they despised him and so he was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked as we learn from St. Peter (2 Peter 2:7).
Sodom today wants to engulf the whole earth and have humanity submit to its religion, to bow down to its altars and its idols, to acquiesce to its diabolical social construct. The world is not only being flooded with actual sodomites, but also with those who approve of those who practice the ways of Sodom (Romans 1:32). These are like Lot’s wife who looked back and became a pillar of salt (Genesis 19:26).
Today, there are many Lot’s wives, and it appears that they have become the majority, even in supposed Christian circles, ignoring the warning of Christ: Remember Lot’s wife. (Luke 17:32) Both the sodomites and their sympathizing acolytes will persecute and torment the Lots of this world. What nation will allow those who, like Lot, despise Sodom to live in peace within its own borders? What nation will be like that city of Zoar who, permitting Lot to enter its gates, was spared by God? As it was told to Lot:
“See, I have favored you concerning this thing also, in that I will not overthrow this city for which you have spoken. Hurry, escape there. For I cannot do anything until you arrive there.” (Genesis 19:22)
Zoar was one of the cities that, amongst Sodom and Gomorrah, were to be destroyed. But the city was spared because Lot desired to enter it and also because it was, apparently, not as wicked as the other cities. Remember that Abraham interceded for these cities, saying to the Lord: “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (Genesis 18:23) So God spared Zoar, for a saint was to take refuge in her. And what decision will the nations in the future take, to be as Sodom and Gomorrah, or to be like Zoar, giving a glimmer of hope of refuge to the righteous armies who combat Sodom?
The whole intercession of Abraham was showing that God would spare a city if one could find ten righteous in it. In other words, to be anti-Sodom was such a rarity and is why God proclaimed judgement against it. Such is the case that we are heading to, in which it is becoming rare to find open voices against Sodom.
In any conspiracy for sinister doings, there lies Sodom, contriving and devising, with her ranks of intellectual terrorists, those inventors of evil things (Romans 1:30).
Even in the French Revolution, Sodom was there. What is never talked about, and can only be found in so few books lost in obscurity, is that one of the most most major figures behind the conspiracy of the French Revolution was a sodomite named Philip of Orleans. It is said that when he was a child his mother, Queen Anne, would call Philip, ”my little girl” and would encourage him to put on dresses, something that he would continue to do for the rest of his life. Before the French Revolution erupted, Philip used his position of royalty to express public outcry against King Louis XVI. This was all a show, since Philip’s real intention was to have the king overthrown so that he could take his place. Philip would collaborate with several opponents of the king, such as Jean-Jacques Duval d’Eprémesnil (who was later guillotined in the revolution) who was infatuated with the Kabbalist Martinist occult circles; Anne-Louis Goislard de Monsabert, Fréteau de Saint-Just and the vicious Armand-Gaston Camus (who would vote in favor to behead the king “without appeal and without reprieve”). The conspiracy for revolution did not come from an outside country, but rather was right within the government itself.
In order to overthrow the king there had to be a violent revolution, rebels needed to be armed and trained, and this required funds. This is where Philip of Orleans played a significant role. Not only did he stoke up hatred for the king amongst the masses, he also financed brigands who would prepare their hands for the shedding of innocent blood. In the words of Barruel: “Philip instigates the people; pays brigands; and mobs are assembled in Paris.” (Memoirs, part iv, p. 750) One of the heads of these rebels was Savalette of Langes, a radical Freemason who served as the captain of the national guards of the battalion of Saint-Roch. De Lange went before the Municipality of Paris and spoke to the following effect:
“Gentleman, I am a Corporal. Here are citizens to whom I have taught the use of arms, that they might defend the country. I did not create myself a major or a general, we are all equal, I am simply a corporal; but I also gave the example; command that every citizen should follow it.— Let the nation take up arms, and liberty will be invincible.”
After making this declaration, de Lange presented seven or eight brigands and the crowed cried out: “Let us save the nation!” A mob surrounded the town hall and by the next day these rebels had formed into “Native Battalions” throughout France. This was a violent, rebellious and nationalist uprising, where violence would be done to the praises of “the nation”.
Orleans was also an occultist and was initiated into the Mysteries in which he pronounced the antichrist creed: “Hatred of all worship, hatred of all kings” (see Barruel, Memoirs, p. 2, ch. 14, pp. 383-84). He played a serious role in a conspiracy done by certain Masons to spark a conflagration of revolutions throughout Europe. A manifesto was issued to “all the Masonic Lodges” and “all the brethren of Europe” by the central Lodge of France, the Grand Orient of Paris, which stated:
“all lodges are summoned to confederate together; to unite their efforts to maintain the revolution; to gain over to it, in all parts, friends, partizans, and protectors; to propagate the flame, to vivify the spirit, to excite zeal and ardor for it, in every state, and by every means in their power.”
A copy of the letter was intercepted by the government of Austria, and it was signed “Philip of Orleans.” (See Barruel, Memoirs, part iv, ch. xiii, p. 780)
Where there was bloodshed, chaos and revolution, there the sodomites conspired, spreading their disorder and their ideas of war against order.