Winston Churchill, Freemasonry and the end of the word "man". We already miss it.

I'm too smart not to know that, given his position and given his connections, his wife was daughter of Hannah Rothschild, due to the peculiarity of the real Great Britain, yes of course Churchill must have been a mason too, if it's not given for granted, then it's given for certain, and that's all. But, back then, a man could also say "A man does what he must..." try and say it now and they'll correct you, you've got to say "A person does what she/he feels inclined to..." and it's the end of rhetoric. And do you want, do you hope, you can win a war against ISIS or anyone else with people like this? The gender wasn't obligatory, probably, at the time freemasonry initiated Winston Churchill, they would destroy him, or maybe he would have never accepted to enter, there is something more wicked happening now than has ever happened,  or maybe it's just the time , or they think so. Freemasonry in Britain is less directly evil than in Italy or in France, it's more subtle: they know they have to corrupt boys who may have a sense of respect for God more ingrained in their mental structure than in Italy or France, what works in Italy does not work in England and the devil goes at your pace. But it wants to arrive to the same point, through a longer way: he's got patience.

I saw Cameron and Osborne swearing on the Bible one and on the New Testament the second, pledge allegiance to the Queen etc. and I don't think they were hypocrite, I think the devil is being patient with them but it will want the full monty. The christian society behind them is crumbling and they still think they are like Ivanhoe: the good english soldier who protects the Jews and the other minorities and the poor, and they are truly also a little bit like this. Also Winston Churchill was a little bit like this, and what happened? Ivanhoe won the war, the Jews and the minorities are protected, we evil ones (I'm italian) were forgiven basically, they didn't let us pay any price and gave us money to reconstruct the Country and fight against the Communists, but someone is unhappy about it: George Soros. Like Blatter, he just hates Italy and Mr. Marco Pannella, an insider of freemasonic elitist ambient, not because he was rich, in fact he wasn't, but because he politically pushed strongly the pro-abortionist agenda, now he's pro-euthanesia and the Elite owes him something, you know, well he, not Alex Jones and not David Icke, informed us, through the italian first national channel RAI 1 that: "The crisis in Italy was decided in international high financial ambients as a punishment for the second world war, because the italians were allied with the nazi..." then he was mediatically stopped, the message was interrupted. Now, really I can't remember that rhinoceros of
George Soros or Lord Jacob or whoever is the high financial international ambient ever fought a real war in their lives: they didn't win the second world war, in the end, if Eisenhower, Churchill and DeGaulle decided not to punish Italy it was the winners' freedom to supersede vindictive attitudes, what's Soros to do with it? Did he win the second world war? No, he didn't win and didn't fight and he's not God to decide to send me to Paradise or Hell, he only wants to command, he can only count money. Should I pay for things happened when I wasn't born? No. They could, the winners, then, in 1947 have another attitude, Soros or Rothschild they cannot play the part, because they want to ruin countries for their own personal wickedness, step in and do as if they were the winners of the WWII. Stay in your place. They are the masonry that's prohibiting the use of the word "man" that put Mandela's and Gandhi's statues beside Churchill's, as if they were the same, they worship the female demon, or at least are suspected doing so, they were communists, not me. And they are destroying the places they pledge allegiance to, they pushed immigration and probably handled both Mandelson and Blair. As for me, I can inform them that, the italians are not ethnically mixed: the italians are bastards. So, now, while Winston Churchill forgave my grandfather, Soros, a no one with a lot of money, wants to punish me and my generation of italians, and why does he want to punish the english then? With whom were they allied? and the french? and the swedish? They hate the West, they are using immigration and multiculturalism against christianity, are giving children to gays and pay journalists and activists to push a neo-marxist agenda that wants to de-establish the christian institutions, they will tell Cameron's children one day that they can't swear on the Bible, they want to eliminate the bibles from Cambridge and Oxford Universities, in the name of multiculturalism obviously, they, no matter what they swear, will try to put off the King of England. So Ivanhoe, do you believe you can fight against a snake the way you would against a lion? Blair and Mandelson, probably Churchill would have shot them, and I mean it, or maybe they wouldn't dare and do what they did: deconstructing piece by piece the Country and calling unworking immigrants for having an excuse to de-institutionalize the Church of England on the base that the ethnical composition of the Country is not white christian anymore, they are waiting, they're patient, they gave taxpayers' money for more immigrants to come even if they didn't have a job, that was the aim not the means and they're doing it in the rest of Europe too.
Everybody is a fighter now, everyone quotes Churchill and never backs down, never surrenders, never never never gives up and courage is the very first virtue, but all this exhibition of toughness, this "vulgar display of power" is not matched by actions. You cannot say "man", you're not a man you're a person and "person" sounds weaker, they know it, they do it on purpose because they know the inner power of the words, they don't want men because they don't want fighters, they want "people" you listen to the word and you feel weak, unmotivated, had Churchill said "person" instead of "man" and all his speeches would have had no impact on soldiers and citizens, wouldn't, couldn't have
motivated anyone. Or the other big deal, the gender, two men marrying one another, or two women, lesbians pretending to be masculin and men pretending to be females and they get raped; this is it: raped, weakened, people no men, this is Soros agenda for you, and you believe it? Are they blackmailing you, by the way? They are the types, they are snakes. I don't fall into it, I know how some gays were gang raped before "understanding" they were gays, there's a lot of brutality in all these stories and it's useless to pour sugar over it, I know the true version. Churchill, if everything he did was effective it's because he had a sense of duty and honour related also to his idea of what a man should be, which made him into a very successful playboy, by the way, and with all the delicate respect for the wife, he was a successful playboy also when he lost gradually his impressive youthful handsomeness, a man who does what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, dangers and pressure and that's the base of human morality... what should I say? This is sexy. If anything sexy means behind the handsome face and the muscles: the courage is the muscles of the soul.