Category Archives: Ideology

Sudanese Women Stripped Naked For Crime Against Modesty

Posted on by

Police harassment of Christian women in Muslim-majority Sudan:

A Sudanese court has fined three Christian girls on charges of “immoral dress” for wearing slacks and skirts on their way home from a Baptist church function in June, while it found four other girls who were wearing similar clothing innocent of the charges, the advocacy group Christian Solidarity Worldwide has reported. During their apprehension, 10 girls from the church were forced to strip naked in front of police who inspected their clothing for compliance with Shariah law.

All seven girls were among a group of 12 Christian females who were arrested on June 25 while on their way home from a service at El Izba Baptist Church in Khartoum simply because they were wearing trousers and skirts, which police deemed to be immoral dress.

Two of the girls were released from police custody without charges, while the remaining 10 were forced by authorities to strip out of their clothes and later charged with indecent dress under Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Code. Advocates for the girls said they range in age from teens younger than 18 to early 20s.”

Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/3-sudanese-christian-girls-found-guilty-of-immoral-dress-after-being-forced-to-strip-naked-in-front-of-police-142835/#qZlQ5UbqKTUojfCu.99

Israeli Rabbi: Jewish Messiah Arriving Sept. 12, 2015

Posted on by

From Breaking Israel News:

After a lifetime of immersing himself in classical Jewish texts, Rabbi Kanievsky’s study partner informed various media sites that the Rabbi is talking about the messiah “all the time.” Since last summer’s war in Gaza, the Rabbi has been spreading this message of imminent return…….

When asked about the timing of the Messiah’s arrival, Rabbi Kanievsky answered, “At the end of the Sabbatical year.” Several people have asked the Rabbi to verify this and he has given the same answer each time. This year is the Sabbatical year and it will be ending on the 29th day of Elul, which, by the Gregorian calendar falls on Saturday, September 12, 2015.

In answer to Rabbi Kanievsky’s call, the Jews of France have begun to arrive in Israel in blessed droves. The impetus is certainly a reaction to increasing anti-Semitic and Islamic fueled violence across Europe……

Last year, 7,000 French Jews made aliyah to Israel, making it the number one country of origin for new immigrants. The Jewish Agency and the Ministry for Aliyah and Immigrant Absorption are expecting more than 3,000 French Jews to immigrate to Israel this summer alone, many of them families with children who want to arrive and integrate before the beginning of the school year.

It should be noted that it is considered a positive trait to always be anticipating the Messiah. The Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, a great Torah sage, is  told to have said that any time he heard a loud noise, he would say, “Perhaps the Messiah has arrived?” Similar stories have also been told of the leading Moroccan Kabbalist, the Baba Sali, Rabbi Israel Abuhaseira.”
Read more at http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/44534/leading-israeli-rabbi-messiah-imminent-jewish-world/#gZQFjwYySQ88p6ii.99

Bertrand Russell: The Ghost Of Madness

Posted on by

John Hare, in booksandculture.com, analyses the personality and personal history of the celebrated mathematician and anti-Christian philosopher, Bertrand Russell.

Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian,“ is a favorite of  many atheists and anti-Christian Hindus.

Note: Most Hindus adhere to the mainstream Hindu tradition of  respect for Jesus as an avatar of God, even while they object to the aggressive conversion tactics and chauvinistic language of some missionaries.

But, as Hare writes, Ray Monk’s outstanding biography of the man, “Bertrand Russell: The Ghost Of Madness,” tears off the mask of genius to show  a deeply immoral, cruel, and mentally unstable man:

What keeps the reader fascinated is the unfolding of this double truth; that one of the century’s brightest, most influential thinkers seems to have been at the same time capable of appalling cruelty and moral blindness……..

Russell’s sense of the hereditary danger was confirmed by his own experience. An informal account of what we would now call a psychopathic personality is the disorder of someone who is amoral, who harbors great rage that he usually hides, who considers almost all others inferior, and who is a pathological liar. Monk gives us evidence of all of these traits in these first 49 years of Russell’s life. I am not trying to say here that Russell was a psychopath, but that he had evidence in his own life to make it reasonable for him to fear that he was predisposed to some such disorder.”

Salient excerpts from Hare’s review of the Monk biography reveal Russell’s moral monstrosity:

[Note: Beatrice Webb (referred to in the first line below) was the wife of Sidney Webb, and, along with him, was one of the founding members of the Fabian Society, which promoted Fabian socialism.

Fabian socialism was a gradualist approach to communism that was inflicted on former colonies, like India.

It had as its own goal the goal of the New World Order – population control through family planning and feminism and through the advocacy of income redistribution]

On Russell’s callous treatment of women (this from someone who championed women’s “liberation”):

Beatrice Webb, after a visit, put it this way, “[Russell] looks at the world from a pinnacle of detachment. What he lacks is sympathy and tolerance for other people’s emotions.” One of the most chilling examples of this trait is the story of Russell’s relationship with Helen Dudley, whom he met in America and persuaded to come to England to live with him. When she arrived, he discovered he was no longer in love with her and got rid of her, as a result of which she suffered a complete and permanent mental breakdown. In his Autobiography, Russell puts it this way: “I had relations with her from time to time . . . and I broke her heart.”

It is not just what Russell did that is chilling, but the fact that he talks about this and other such episodes as though they had happened to somebody else.”

On Russell’s murderous rages and seething hatred (this from a “humanitarian” and “pacifist”):

Russell’s desire to kill people was sometimes quite literal. Indeed, this was one of his fears about his heredity, because of the fate of his Uncle Willy, who had lost his memory and ended up in a workhouse infirmary. As in Plato’s example in the Republic, the police gave Uncle Willy back a knife he owned and with it he went on a murderous rampage. When institutionalized, he continued to be prone to apparently random attacks of rage and violence. Russell had moods in which he hated the whole human race. But he also had to fight against the desire to kill quite specific people, such as his friend Fitzgerald: “On one occasion, in an access of fury, I got my hands on his throat and started to strangle him. I intended to kill him, but when he began to grow livid, I relented. I do not think he knew that I intended murder.”

On Russell’s alienation from, and feelings of superiority to, ordinary people (this from a man who professed that his hatred of religion, especially of Christianity, was based on his love for human freedom):

“When I am talking to an ordinary person,” Russell says, “I feel I am talking baby language, and it makes me lonely.” In prison because of his anti-war activities, he reports that “Life here is just like life on an Ocean Liner. One is cooped up with a number of average human beings, unable to escape except into one’s own stateroom.”

On Russell’s pathological lying (this from a philosopher who attacked religion for being based on something other than truth):

He seems to have been a pathological liar. This started very early, with his grandmother. He maintained the outward show of piety, while departing further and further from the Christian faith. It became, however, a recognizable pattern in all his relationships, even those he cared most about. “You simply don’t speak the truth,” said D. H. Lawrence to him. “You simply are not sincere.”

On Russell’s self-loathing, expressed in hatred for  Christianity (the religion of his upbringing), alienation from his own emotions, and constant alternation between rage and guilt (this from someone who claimed to be completely rational):

Later, the sense of sin keeps recurring, as a kind of self-hatred………

..On another occasion Russell found himself on his knees in a church in Verona, praying for strength to subdue his instincts. He does not associate either experience explicitly with God, but what strikes this reader is the echoes of Russell’s grandmother’s piety, which was also a religion of love, duty, and suffering.

A Christian can see these experiences as God trying to break through, as the untiring chase by the hound of heaven. But Russell himself could not interpret them that way, or at least he could not do so for long. My hypothesis about why he could not do so is the one I gave earlier. The experience of God’s presence and his own failure was just too painful for him, and the pain was too close to his fear of madness. One response was the retreat to the surface and to disengagement.”

 

Why Bertrand Russell Was Not A Christian

Posted on by

 

Update:

This post should be understood in the context of my other writings in and around this subject.

Clearly, Bertrand Russell was a Christian in upbringing, as were his ancestors for generations.

Clearly, there is nothing in Torah-based Judaism per se which supports the kinds of positions he took in his life. Russell’s liberal/libertine and atheistic views have nothing in common with either Christian or Jewish orthodoxy. However, central tenets of modernist ideology (by modern, I mean the schools of thought arising out of Darwinian Evolution theory, Freudian psychology and the psycho-social theories associated with the Frankfurt school) were formulated by people whose descent was ethnic Jewish (in the sense in which that term is employed today).

In doing so in no way am I suggesting a biological/genetic component to this ideology of modernism.

I am suggesting instead that biology explains the phenomenon of the converso, who retains ancestral traditions and beliefs, regardless of the conversion.

I am suggesting that a tradition of hostility to the establishment and explicit espousal of revolutionary socio-economic schemes and libertine theories, colors the converso’s new-found faith and renders it only a variant of his old faith, which he, perhaps unconsciously, continues to propagate.

Put more bluntly, Russell could well have been a Sabbatean Frankist (a kabbalist) in everything but name.

Please read the original post by scrolling down below the two updates.

The substance of this post is that the celebrated mathematician Bertrand Russell, who wrote perhaps the most popular denunciation of Christianity, was a cold, cruel and deeply immoral individual in his personal life.

A recent book has also shown that he came from a family-line with a high degree of insanity and psychopathy.

That same line funded the Tavistock Institute and was notable for the propagation of sexual libertinism and population control, twin pillars of the New World Order.

Update 2:

In “Black Terror, White Soldiers,” David Livingstone has the following:

“MK-Ultra, the CIA’s infamous “mind control” program, was an extension of the behavior control research conducted by the Tavistock Institute. Formed at Oxford University, London, in 1920 by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), a sister organization to the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) created by the Round Table, the Tavistock Clinic became the Psychiatric Division of the British Army during World War II.[1] The clinic took its name from its benefactor Herbrand Russell, Marquees of Tavistock, 11th Duke of Bedford.

The Dukes of Bedford was the title inherited by the influential Russell family, one of the most prominent aristocratic families in Britain who came to power and the peerage with the rise of the Tudor dynasty.

Herbrand Russell and arch-conspirator Bertrand Russell shared the same great grandfather, John Russell, 6th Duke of Bedford. Bertrand Russell was descended from John Russell’s third son, Bertrand’s grandfather, John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, who served twice as Prime Minister of the England in the 1840s and 1860s.

Herbrand Russell’s son, Hastings Russell, Lord Tavistock, the 12th Duke of Bedford, went on to become patron of the British Peoples Party, a far-right political party founded in 1939 and led by ex-members of Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. It was he whom Rudolf Hess flew to England to contact about ending World War II.

The basis of the project of the Tavistock Institute was explained by Round Tabler, Lord Bertrand Russell, who is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his protégé Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the twentieth century’s premier logicians.

Russell offered a revealing glimpse into Frankfurt School’s mass social engineering efforts, in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society:

 I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology… Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called “education.” Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part…. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

…Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.[2]

Update:

The author of numberless anti-Christian statements, toward the end of his life, Bertrand Russell attempted to blunt the force of his singular attack on Christianity by including Hinduism, Confucianism, and other religions, in his criticism.

Notably, he did not include Judaism.

There are two explanations for this: either Russell was aware of the ruling class whose interests he served and feared reprisal, or he actually supported the goals of the ruling class.

The second seems more likely, when one researches Russell’s history.

He came from an aristocratic family line – the Dukes of Bedford – with a long history of subversive activity and “progressive” ideals (women’s liberation, birth-control, free love etc.).

The name Russell/Russel is said to derive from the word “rous.”

Rous was originally a nick-name for a person with red hair and derived from an Old French word for red.

The nick-name might have arisen from the supposed red hair of the Norman conquerors of England.

[Coincidentally, note the following:

1. The “Red Jews” were part of a legendary Jewish nation that can be found in vernacular literature in Germany upto the 1600’s. They were said to be an existential threat to Christendom and were associated with  Gog and Magog who are released in the end-times in the Bible.

2. The name Rothschild is derived from the German for Red Shield.]

A description of the origin of the Russell/Russel clan in Scotland can be found at Wikipedia, which identifies Bertrand Russell as the descendant of one Rufus (which is an alternative name for Russell).

Rufus is a popular Jewish name.

Bertrand Russell was thus apparently of Jewish/crypto-Jewish descent (using the word Jew here in the modern sense to refer to the people known as Ashkenazim).

That might explain how his advocacy of the goals of the NWO became so popular.

It might also explain his anti-Christian animus.

ORIGINAL  POST

Bertrand Russell, the mathematician, philosopher and activist, has had a great deal of popularity among atheists and among anti-Christian Hindus in India, because of a book he wrote attacking Christianity, “Why I Am Not a Christian.”

Russell’s stature as a “peace activist” is such that he is accorded a pass on what it is he actually advocated.

I urge Hindus and atheists who take Russell’s critiques at face-value to delve into the motivations of the man who wrote it.

A closer look shows a deceptive and unsavory supporter of  the key goals of the New World Order.

  1. Russell was a Fabian Socialist from his college days at Cambridge onward. He is thus associated with the pernicious system of thought responsible for the “stealth communism” that has destroyed most of  India’s social and economic fiber.
  2. Even though he was aligned with pacifists in theory, in practice he was in favor of violence, if it was in the cause of overthrowing what he considered unjust governments. Thus, he supported the communist revolution in Russia, but, after its conclusion, distanced himself from it.
  3. He claimed to have held refined views on human relations, but the facts of his own life are at odds with his claims: he betrayed his first wife for a succession of wives and paramours, although his wife continued to be devoted to him to her death; he seduced the bride of the great Christian poet, T.S. Eliot, before her wedding, contributing to the destruction of the marriage. A bi-sexual and an outspoken advocate of “free love” his “consensual cuckolding,” enabled by wife, Dora, created an unstable home for his children that exacerbated the latent insanity in the family leading to more than one case of insanity and suicide.

Russell’s political positions were far from purely humanitarian and seem to have been articulated ultimately for the benefit of the New Order coming into being.

In “Bertrand Russell, Prophet Of The New World Order,” David Peterson writes:

Bertrand lost both father and mother at a very early age. In his sixth year he was placed in the home of his elderly grandmother. In his autobiography Russell complains bitterly about the stifling tyranny and repression he endured while living in her home. Unlike his older brother who rebelled and left home, little Bertie remained her pet, never openly defying his granny. He said he developed an overwhelming rage which, to keep the peace at home, he completely suppressed during his childhood. Whether his grandmother did him any harm is hard to say; however, there is no doubt he developed some serious psychological problems. In his autobiography he speaks about his plan to commit suicide as an adolescent, a plan, which was abandoned when he realized it would mean never learning any more mathematics. Despite his great intellect he displayed the personality of an iconoclast and a misanthrope all his life. The primary motivation of Russell’s intellectual effort was the removal of cultural repression, which he attributed to traditional religion. He set his mind to the task of eliminating the influence of Christianity on Western culture.

Here is a passage from a letter Russell sent to his friend Gilbert Murray, which gives some insight into his tumultuous state of mind as a young man: “I have been merely oppressed by the weariness, tedium and vanity of things lately, nothing seems worth doing or having done. The only thing that I strongly feel worthwhile would be to murder as many people as possible so as to diminish the amount of consciousness in the world.”

Sexual obsession and lust were a dominant force throughout Russell’s life and underpinned his public advocacy of population reduction and birth control. Lady Ottoline Morrell, Bertrand’s longtime lover and confidante, was the wife of Phillip Morrell. Russell was a notorious libertine whose multiple marriages never prevented him from satisfying his momentary lusts with whomever was at hand and willing. Russell carried out a long series of such affairs after he walked out on his first wife, Alys. With characteristic bluntness, he explained that he left his despondent young wife because he was “bored and disgusted with her.” We could say that, all in all, Bertrand Russell devoted his life to eradicating what is known as the moral order. Nietzsche had pronounced in his writings that “God is dead” and firmly held that the ethical norms taught by Jesus Christ had emasculated the human race. It was Russell who took Nietzsche’s call for the “transvaluation of all values” (reversing the Judeo-Christian moral order) and lent to that project his respectable credentials as a modern scientific thinker.”

At one time or other, Russell became a highly effective public advocate of the pillars of the New World Order – sexual libertinism (the destruction of the family unit, social control through psychology and addiction to drugs, a one-world government, and population control.

Russell’s population-control, like Sanger’s, was an outgrowth of his own eugenecist and racist ideas.

David Peterson:

He was alarmed about the higher fertility of nonwhite women and he demanded that the Asian and black birthrate be drastically curtailed. Otherwise, he felt his own breed (whites) would be overwhelmed, resulting in chaos and disaster. His view on population was made clear in his Prospects for Industrial Civilization: “Population [must be] stationary or nearly so…. The White population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens…the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific….”

Advocating what is now know as Zero Population Growth, Russell wrote:

If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full.” Russell went on, “this state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”

As for Russell’s pacifism, David Peterson has the following:

During World War I, Russell described himself as a pacifist and was jailed in England for his antiwar speeches. Later his reputation as “peace maker of his generation” suffered severe damage when, in the early years of the Cold War, Russell signed on as an avid backer of the so-called Baruch Plan. The proposal was billed as a peace offer to the Russians but it might be better described as a bomb hidden in a CARE package. Under the plan, Stalin would be given an ultimatum: the Soviets could join an international peace agency and forgo developing an H-bomb; but if they refused, Moscow and the other major Russian population centers would be instantly obliterated by a nuclear bombardment.

In his defense, Russell told a BBC interviewer, “I thought the Russians would give way but you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.” Certainly this English aristocrat and intellectual was not the only voice that could be heard recommending a pre-emptive nuclear attack against the Soviets, but he was by far the most prominent “pacifist” to do so. Some years later when he was faced with the publication in a New York newspaper of the charge that he had “decided that it would be good morals and good politics to start dropping bombs on Moscow,” Russell contracted a convenient case of amnesia and vehemently denied that he had ever countenanced any such thing.

By the opening of the inaugural meeting of the Pugwash Conference in 1957, Cold War Realpolitik had changed considerably and the Baruch Plan was buried. Russian scientists had developed a Soviet version of the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and just as suddenly Russell experienced a change of heart. Miraculously, his former mortal enemies, the Soviets, were now his partners in world peace! Anti-Communism had dissolved in favor of Russell’s new crusade for world peace and nuclear disarmament. Pugwash proposals were imbued with the ideology of the British Fabian Society, calling for a world government (made up of the world’s elites) to enforce a global peace. The plan called for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to be partners in halting the spread of nuclear weapons. The Pugwash Plan, however, went far beyond megatonnage and delivery systems. All nuclear energy and technology were to be centralized in the hands of the existing nuclear states–America, Britain, and Russia.

The antinuclear weapons campaign allowed Russell and his circle to accomplish two of their most important cultural objectives. The first was establishing a command and control center for one-world government. The second was creating a radical ecological movement that was hostile to technology and industrial progress. Pugwash propaganda skillfully equated “nuclear warfare” with “industrialism and technology.” The three terms were linked together and branded as the characteristic “evils of modern capitalism,” three evils which would soon annihilate us, either by nuclear war, by uncontrolled pollution, or by the depletion of our “fixed” resources. Only the Pugwash planners — with the “peace-loving” Soviets as their partners — had the solution. World leaders had to come to their senses and submit to a world government or all humanity was doomed!

Many of the Pugwash initiatives became the bedrock beliefs of Zero Population Growth and the radical ecology movements. The same ideology was disseminated in Western media channels and financed by the donations of hundreds of wealthy corporations, think tanks, and foundations. Much of this philanthropy is subsidized by having tax-free status — which means in effect it is paid in part by U.S. taxpayers.”

Female Privilege Check-List

Posted on by

From MensResistance.com:

I’ve been waiting a long time to say this….Check your privilege,feminists!

As a response to the feminist “Male Privilege Checklist” I’m going to codify the privileges that most if not all females enjoy.

1. From an early age the opposite sex will be instructed never to hit me but I may not be given the same instructions. However, should I strike males I can expect not to be hit back and any social penalties that occur from my actions will actually fall on the male.

2. If I’m not smart, but pretty, I can marry and achieve the social and financial level of my husband without ever working.

3. I can produce offspring. A status which grants me an “essential” status in our species that men can never have and which can never be taken away from me even in old age.

4. Regardless of my mate value society has organized fertility clinics and social welfare programs that will allow me to have children and provide for them should I choose to reproduce without a mate or marriage.

5. I not only have the more valuable and sought after sexual identity, but I also have complete control over my reproductive choice and in many ways over the reproductive choice of the opposite sex.

6. At any time I can abandon my parental responsibilities with little or no social stigma and hand the child over to the state or abort the pregnancy. A male could never relieve himself of this burden unless I allow him to.

7. I am granted all the rights of a democracy without any of the burdens of military service.

8. At age 18 I lose the protective status of the child but retain the protective status of the female. Boys at age 18 lose the protected status of the child and become targets if they fail to gain status after that point.

9. When I marry a man with status I can take his name and become whoever he has spent years becoming. I need not do anything special to be worthy of receiving the reputation he has built. However, if I wish to keep my own name I can do so. Should my husband feel the sting of this insult I can simply call him a sexist for it.

10. People will help me more when I’m in need and I will receive no social penalty or stigma for it.

11. When I’m on a date things will be paid for me.

12. When I search for employment I can choose jobs which I think are fulfilling without concern of whether they provide a “family” wage.

13. I can discriminate against the opposite sex ruthlessly without social penalty.

14. If I marry and quit my job and enjoy a leisurely life with light housework and then later divorce I will be given half of the marital assets.

15. If I commit a crime and am convicted I will get a sentencing “discount” because of my gender. If I am very pretty it will increase my discount.

16. If I am a partner in crime with a man I will likely be charged with lesser crimes even though I committed the same crimes even if I was the ringleader.

17. I have the option to be outraged if my husband asks me if my behavior is due to PMS and later on use PMS as a successful legal defense for murdering that same husband.

18. At age 18 I will not be forced to register for Selective Service and will not be penalized for failing to do so.

19. At a time of war I will never be drafted and ripped from my employment, home, and family and forced to become a military slave.

20. My feelings are more important than men’s lives. Every precaution will be made to protect me from harassment at work. However, males will make up nearly %100 of workplace fatalities.

21. My gender controls 80% of domestic spending. We get to spend our money if we have any and we get to spend men’s money.

22. The majority of luxury apparel is designed, marketed to, and consumed by women.

23. Seven times as much jewelry will be purchased by or for me than by or for men.

24. I have a department of women’s health whereas men have no such department.

25. My gender enjoys more government spending on health than males do.

26. My gender consumes the lioness’ share of entitlement programs while men contribute the lion’s share of taxes.

27. If I rape or molest a child I can expect lighter treatment in court and afterwards receive less social stigma. What’s more, should I become pregnant, I can sue my victim for child support when he finally turns 18.

28. When I divorce my husband I will be guaranteed custody of my children unless I am deemed to be unfit. Even if my husband is “Parent of the Year” 10 years running it is unlikely he will get custody over me even if I am a mediocre parent.

29. When I divorce I can use false accusations of domestic violence, sexual molestation of the children or abuse of the children to gain advantage during court proceedings. If I am found out to be a liar I can expect to get away with it.

30. If a man calls me a slut it will probably hurt his reputation more than it hurts mine, but at any rate the damage will be small and localized. However, if I call him a child molester or claim that he raped me I can destroy him completely and the damage may be nationwide.

31. If I fail at my career I can blame the male dominated society.

32. I may have the luxury of staying home and being a housewife but if my sister’s husband does the same thing I’m likely to call him a deadbeat loser and tell her to leave him.

33. If I “choose” to join the military; the best military occupations providing the most lucrative civilian training will be reserved for me. I will be kept away from the fighting as much as possible to the point that I will be thirty times less likely to be killed in a war zone than my male counterparts. I will be given equal pay for less risk. I will never have to consider the fact that by joining the military and getting a plumb assignment I automatically forced a male out of that position and into a combat role that may cost him his life.

34. If a male soldier injures himself before a deployment he can be arrested and court marshaled for it. If I deliberately get pregnant before a deployment or even during a deployment I will be reassigned and or taken out of a war zone and I will receive no penalty for it.

35. My gender watches more television in every hour of every day than any other group. This along with the fact that women control %80 of domestic spending means that most television shows and advertisement are designed to appeal to me.

36. I can wear masculine clothing if it pleases me however men cannot wear feminine clothing without social penalty.

37. Not only is there a wealth of clothing choices designed for me but it is likely that I will be able to afford or have them provided for me.

38. I can claim that a wage gap exists and that it is the fault of sexism while simultaneously seeking employment without considering income as a priority. I will probably choose my job based on satisfaction, flexibility of hours, and working conditions and then expect to make as much as the males working nights, out in the rain and cold or working overtime.

39. I can be bigoted or sexist against males without social penalty.

40. If I make a false claim of rape against a male in an act of revenge or in order to cover up my own scandalous behavior I may well succeed at both and he may spend years in prison. If I am found out it is unlikely I will be charged, convicted, or serve any time at all.

41. If I abuse my husband and physically assault him and the police arrive it is almost guaranteed he will go to jail.

42. If I am in an abusive relationship there are a multitude of social organizations to help me get away from him. There are few for men in the same position even though women initiate the majority of DV and even though men are hospitalized %30 of the time.

FPC Part 1

43. In the event of a natural disaster or other emergency that requires evacuation I can expect to be evacuated before males. This includes male doctors, humanitarians, politicians, captains of industry, billionaires, and religious leaders. I will receive no social penalty if all of those people died because I was evacuated first. However, should they manage to get evacuated before women and those women died they will all suffer a social penalty.

44. If someone is attacking a person on the street I have no obligation to assist them and I will receive no social penalty if I do nothing.

45. If someone is harming my children and I run away and ask someone else to help I will receive no social penalty for my cowardice.

46. I’m immune to cognitive dissonance.

47. I may denounce the concept of a dowry, however, I still expect a man to give me an engagement ring when he asks me to marry him.

48. I expect a man to ask me to marry me and suffer the potential risk of rejection.

49. If I lie it’s because I’m a victim of a male dominated society forced into difficult circumstances and not because I’m a bad person.

50. If my boyfriend sabotages a condom he can pay me child support for the next 20 years. If I secretly don’t take my birth control my boyfriend can pay me child support for the next 20 years.”

Read the other 50 items at Men’sResistance.com

Proof That Free-Bleed Marathon Was A Stunt

Posted on by

Previous Related Posts:

1. The Kotex-Industrial Complex I Another Indian Stooge

2. The Kotex-Industrial Complex II

3. The Dynamics Of the Humanitarian-NGO Racket

1. Kiran Gandhi claims that she ran the marathon without a tampon to bring awareness to her “sisters” in poor countries who have no access to tampons.

But there are no links to any charities or organizations that supply tampons to the poor on her web-site. If she really did it for the poor, wouldn’t she have a link on her site?

2. The only organization that is mentioned by Gandhi is THINX. Thinx is a private company created by her friend, Miki Agrawal, a serial entrepreneur, who has a book accompanying it.

Forbes and major media have given a lot of play to Thinx, which doesn’t happen to your usual drum-playing recent Harvard MBA.

The title of the Forbes piece is a give-away.

It runs, “Can these panties disrupt the $15 billion feminine-hygiene market?”

The word ‘DISRUPT’  is a favorite with the NWO ruling elites. You will see it repeated often. Sometimes these words are used innocently by people unaware of their potency. But when the word “disrupt” comes with the backing of Forbes and front groups for the Royal family, you can label it a ruling-class meme.

Gandhi is in the music business (she is a professional drummer).  Gandhi’s mother and father are prominent figures in international financial and NGO circles. Thinx and the Gandhi family’s philanthropy, Asha Impact,   are both involved with AfriPads, a tampon distribution outfit in Africa.

The “free-bleed” stunt is a way to push THINX and its related companies and to allow the Gandhi family foundation (which is a front for Rothschild interests, as I have shown above) to profit.

3. The extensive coverage of menstruation in the major media in the past year is proof that the Western ruling elite is seeking to enter the lucrative feminine hygiene market. Compare this to the high number of Indian beauty queens who cropped up at international levels in the 1990s, when the Western ruling elite was entering the Indian luxury goods market.

4. Photos of Kiran Gandhi at a TED talk show that she is already a voice for the ruling elites. TED talks are a prominent elite venue. She is promoting “Atomic living,” which is another way of talking about synchronicity, the notion of “finding your bliss” by “going with the flow” (notice the pun) of events.  Those are major New Age/New World Order themes. They are rehashed Hinduism, omitting the moral and traditional content.

5. The dark patch on Kiran Gandhi’s track-suit was amazingly small for 4 hours of bleeding during exhausting physical effort. It is also amazingly neat. I didn’t see any streaks and runs. How do we know that Gandhi actually had a period at this time?

6. If her point was that having to wear tampons to avoid being a mess in public is oppressive of female agency, then why did she shave her arm-pits when she ran? Let it all hang out.

7. Is training for a marathon for a year the best way to spend your time, if female hygiene in the third-world is really your passion?

8.  Isn’t the most likely result of this stunt that more people will look at ordinary Indian women abroad as disgusting and unhygienic, adding to other attacks on them (partially accurate) on the Internet that have garnered a lot of attention?

9. Isn’t Gandhi speaking for women who would most likely find her behavior repellent themselves?

10. Isn’t Gandhi slandering poor women, who do NOT walk around with blood running all over them? Most poor women use and reuse rags, or use straw, leaves, sand, or ash, or simply lie down for a few days, out of public sight. Rather than representing them, Gandhi is misrepresenting them.

This Bloomberg article, which is also pushing the menstrual meme, gives the game away in a paragraph toward the end. An Indian specialist states that it is the lack of WATER that is the problem in menstrual hygiene, not the lack of things to staunch the flow.

11. In countries, where public hygiene is a serious problem, Gandhi’s message is actually a horrible one.

She’s saying that you can do in public anything you want, regardless of how unsanitary, offensive, or inconvenient it is for everyone else.

Does a country like India or Indonesia, with so many people defecating outside the house, really need this message?

Even in the West, more and more people feel it is OK to litter, spit, breast-feed, pull down their pants, and go topless in public. Reality shows and media are saturated with vulgar exhibitionism. Doesn’t Gandhi just add one more chunk of degradation?

12. With all those appeals to “sister-hood,” what is the real message? Women already receive the larger part of public funding of health in India and the West. Yet, men are ignored when it comes to public health campaigns.

[Note: I  don’t think the tax-payer should be funding health-care at all. Let private companies compete freely, without any subsidies.]

Consider that the first person to develop a cost-effective tampon for the Indian market was a man. That man was shunted aside so that the Indian government and foreign corporations and NGOs could enter the hygiene market with a program of “free” tampons for poor Indian women. The tampons are actually purchased at above-market rates from Western companies, and the government then distributes them through Western NGOs to the poor. That means, the Indian tax-payer is actually paying Western companies to undercut local Indian businesses for a sham humanitarian venture that actually puts money in the pockets of the ruling class (see links above).

13. Kiran Gandhi has written publicly that she is interested in pornography.

? You know, we’ll just talk about things that matter to me, for example, like feminism and pornography and just like weird things that I like and just kinda see where they’re at with it. I live for these conversations.

Her website (which I won’t link) contains a video, which she says was made to empower women who are terrified by men exposing themselves in public. Her idea of empowerment is making a porn video of the subject. This connects her to the menstrual porn that is being distributed by the CIA, via so-called anti-Islamicist activists affiliated to Pussy Riot.

These supposed acts of disruption are actually advertisement for new genres of pornography.

That link is very clear from reading through Gandhi’s website and from the interview cited in the link above.

That interview ends this way:

So, if I were a piece of art, I would want it to be some sort of gender-funk performance art that make people question the way they view their own world.”

[Of course, there was no “gender-funk” in the optics of the London Marathon. Kiran Gandhi SHAVED her arm-pits, like any other woman subject to traditional beauty norms, Western or Eastern.]

As for the interviewer, if this is the kind of individual being sent to man the guns of gender war in India, god help that country.

Medha is currently a student at Bryn Mawr College studying things like Health, Policy, Sexuality, and South Asia. She spends her free time getting inspired by other brown womyn and dabbling with music. In the near future, she hopes to be working in the Public Health field with a focus on violence against women in India.”

These are the brain-washed tools of elite university campuses who function as the thought-control agents and enforcers of the crippling ideology of modern feminism, the twin-sister of communism.

 

Indian Fake Rape Cases Soar

Posted on by

Where’s the international clamor about a “false rape” crisis in India?

The Times of India reports:

Three days ago, the Saravanampatti police went into a tizzy as they received information that a woman was ‘raped’ by two men in a women’s hostel room in the area. The woman said she did not prefer making a complaint as it would shame her family and also threatened suicide if a complaint was filed.

But investigations have revealed that she had staged the drama as she was in love with a man since the age of 14. But her parents were against it. To put an end to her parents’ attempt to get her married to someone else, she claimed that she had been raped.”

Here are more examples of  false rape accusations:

1.In 2013, out of 583 rape cases decided in Delhi courts, only 12 involved stranger rape.

More than half involved elopement and  accusations by in-laws; in about a fifth, the plaintiffs turned hostile or didn’t show; and most of the rest was rape by acquaintances/neighbors, with a few by family members.

2.An alleged gang-rape in Dharmasala, widely circulated via social media, has no basis whatsoever. The alleged victim denies there was any rape and denies that the woman who spread the rumor was her sister, as she claimed.

The victim believes it was an attempt to slander her.

3. A 35 year old casual laborer in Mumbai, arrested for raping a 4-year old girl, was released after 21 months in jail, when it was found that the girl’s mother had coached her child to frame him, so that her husband would not have to repay the laborer for a loan of Rs. 400 (about $6-7).

4. A Delhi court acquitted a man charged with rape after the alleged victim married the man and it came out that the case was only filed to apply pressure on the man to marry her. The judge did not prosecute the woman to avoid  destroying the marriage.

5. A 24-year-old management graduate in Delhi admitted to having filed a false rape case to pressure her live-in partner to marry her. She withdrew the case once the marriage took place.

6. A Delhi police chief stated at a conference that more than 60% of rape cases filed in the capital are false.

7.  A gang of four men and a woman from the state of Haryana were arrested for conspiring to blackmail rich men whom they befriended. They extorted them with the threat of filing of rape charges.

8. More than one woman has had her father jailed on false rape charges because he would not let her continue to see her boyfriend.

9. A Delhi woman lodged a false rape case against a businessman on behalf of someone who had a score to settle with him.

10. After the Delhi gang-rape of 2013, acquittal rates shot up from 46% to 75%  for the rest of the year and to 70% in 2014, implying that the greater part of cases filed were false.

11. A New Delhi outfit that counsels survivors of violence and trauma studied rape cases in which they were involved from 2003-2008. They found that almost 20% were outright false; another 25% were were motivated by hostility to the accused; another 25% were filed under pressure from family members; 15% were filed after consensual sex; and the rest defied categorization.

12. A frail 75-year-old man who had just lost his wife was jailed for 6 months for raping a 30 year-old maid, but released when the maid confessed that she had been put up to do it by a neighbor as a way of extorting him for his property.

13. A Delhi woman who had filed 11 cases of rape, stalking and other offenses was jailed for extortion and theft when one of her intended victims fought back.

14. DNA evidence and the alleged victim’s contradictory statements have led to the release of two accused rapists, a hotel-owner and his employee. The alleged victim had borrowed money from the hotel-owner and had filed the rape case against him because he’d asked for it back.

15.  An Indian medical journal noted with alarm the rise of false rape cases after the Delhi gang-rape. It described the case of a nurse who claimed she’d been kidnapped from Chandigarh and gang-raped in a moving car but was found to have concocted the story to frame the husband of a woman she claims had had her arrested for allegedly injecting her with HIV.

16.  A woman forced herself on her son’s 16-year-old friend after spiking his drink, video-taped the act, and black-mailed him with the threat of false-rape charges into having a relationship with her, according to charges filed by the boy. He cannot charge her with rape, because the Indian penal code does not include men among possible victims of rape.

17. A Delhi judge ordered the prosecution for perjury of a 20-year-old woman who falsely accused two men of gang-raping her, when they were documented to have been with their families.

18. Police and women’s advocates around India state that a high percentage of “rape” cases are “false promise” cases (breach-of-promise case) that are made after women have premarital sex or become pregnant before marriage, only to find that the men do not intend to marry them. The false rape charges are filed to pressure the men to marry them.

19. The 69-year-old head of a Brahmakumari ashram in Gwalior was accused of rape by a 33 year-old woman, who threatened to file a case if he did not give her 5 lakhs rupees (about $10,0000). When the man filed a false-rape case against her, it turned out that she had a history of extorting people with false rape charges and was duly arrested.

20. A woman was sentenced to 4 years in jail for a false rape case against her landlord, which she filed to avoid paying back a loan she and her husband had taken from him. The landlord spent 72 days in jail and then committed suicide, blaming his ordeal for his action.

 

The Kotex-Industrial Complex: Another Indian Stooge

Posted on by

UPDATE 1

My apologies. I included a link from Reason I thought I’d deleted and which I didn’t know had a nasty image. If there are any disturbing images, please let me know and I will delete those too.

ORIGINAL POST

One more case of FeminismMakesYouAnIdiot….and why, pray tell, are all the idiots these days Indians?

There was Belle Knox, the disturbed Indo-American girl who claimed that being urinated on, gang-sodomized and repeatedly hit on video-tape was “her joy.”

Any sensible adult would have yanked her out of college, put a paper-bag over her head, and forced her into as much therapy as 24 hours will hold. They would have then sued her pimp-agent into oblivion and slapped lawsuits galore on any site that republished her pictures.

But that’s just me.

[Behind the pseudo-activist jargon, Belle Knox was in fact advertising under-age/college porn. Given that there is a growing porn market in India, driven by incessant Western advertising through the internet, putting an Indian face on the business, can be seen as a marketing gimmick.]

Now, The Cut has a piece on what comes after “slut-walking” and “topless protests.”

LINKS DELETED

It’s “free-bleeding” (menstruating publicly, without a tampon), which is a strike against the “objectification of women,” according to Ms. Socrates, the bleeder-in-residence.

Yes, I see how that goes.

Turn your body parts and emissions into a public spectacle a ping-pong bar would reject and use Feminism101 as an excuse.

I think not.

It turns out, as the Spectator points out, that “free-bleeding” is nothing more than a satirical prank that feminists swallowed naively:

So in 2014 — inspired by some crazy idea they’d read somewhere on the internet — the pranksters decided to fake an even more ludicrous trend designed to discredit the radical feminist movement. ‘What is free bleeding? It consists of us womyn bleeding with no restriction … Being able to menstruate is something that is a [sic] undeniably female characteristic. How DARE they try and oppress it,’ read their working notes.

A few helpful tweets later from fake Twitter accounts and ‘free bleeding’ had become an urgent new cause of radical feminism. Eventually word got out among some women’s interest websites that they’d all been had: ‘Free bleeding is not a thing,’ warned one. But it appears the memo didn’t get through to everyone. Hence Kiran Gandhi’s marathon protest.”

But was this really just a joke?

The anonymous pranksters belong to an Internet site called 4Chan that many suspect has attracted the attention of the intelligence agencies because it was frequented at one time by pedophiles.

It wouldn’t be a stretch to conjecture that the intelligence agencies floated the meme themselves.

Just as the CIA-funded PussyRiot is really about advertising sexual tourism while pretending to protest against it, this kind of activism is  also only a form of advertising.

Of what?

Well take a look (well, actually, don’t…I won’t link, lest I contribute to the dissemination of this nonsense).

Here are activists menstruating and defecating in public.

LINK DELETED

Forget the politically correct explanation of what they are “activisting” about.

The medium is the message, remember.

These girls aren’t selling anything else except their bodies and their bodily fluids.

Menstruating in public has suddenly become a trend in the past year or so.

Check it out.

Here’s Rosie O’Donnell threatening to “free-bleed” on Trump’s face.

And here’s the entirely manufactured Donald Trump menstrual-blood libel.

And CNN had an Indian girl write this long piece admonishing Indian women not to adhere to taboos against menstruating  in a temple or in the kitchen.

And here’s a whole bunch of free-bleeding, free-pissing, free-sticking-the-cross-into-my-body-feminists who give a new meaning to the term badass...

[I didn’t insert the link, because obviously the NWO wants us all to become implicated in this pornography and sear our minds, memories, and imagination.]

It’s a meme, I tell you.

I’ll bet you, the porn industry is developing a market for this kind of thing to shore up its declining revenues.

[Added: Actually, Jessica Valenti has already told us what the menstrual meme is at least partly about: It’s about making sanitary products freely available all the time to all women – that is, making tax-payers pay for everyone’s tampons.

And this is part of a larger notion that companies like Kotex and Always (two of the largest brands) should be boycotted, because their products raise the risk of toxic-shock syndrome.

To be honest, as a tax-payer, I really wouldn’t mind paying for poor women and girls to get tampons,

But knowing that tax-money rarely goes where it’s meant and knowing that we’re already over-taxed and knowing that the introduction of the IRS was the beginning of the surveillance state, and that taxation itself is a form of expropriation by the state, I’d much prefer to donate to organizations that directly fund sanitary products for the poor.

No need for a government hand-out or a government campaign on behalf of alternative tampons –  which is what this whole absurd “free-bleeding” meme sounds like. I have nothing against alternatives to the tampon giants. I do have a problems with slick campaigns hood-winking the public.]

Slap an Asian or Indian girl’s face on it, and it also serves the double purpose of branding immigrant women as repulsive, air-headed social justice feminazis.

And that helps polarize public debate along racial lines and fuels the sex-war.

Which keeps us all looking in every direction except the one that counts –  in the direction of the NWO puppeteers.

 

Is Jehovah Satan?

Posted on by

Is Jehovah Satan?

That was what many Gnostics, both medieval and modern, believed.

Gnosticism is the idea that liberation from the world of matter (believed to be sinful) is available to someone who cultivates esoteric wisdom that the masses cannot easily grasp.

The particular form of gnosis might vary – it might involve chanting mantras, or contemplating mystical visions, or inquiring into the nature of the self.  The main notion is that liberation from the world of the senses requires some kind of  knowledge inaccessible to the hoi polloi.

The early Gnostics were antagonistic to the early Christians. They thought the religion was simple-minded and ant-intellectual.

Many leading Gnostics were part of the Jewish emigre population in Alexandria, one of the great centers of learning in antiquity.

This was the Syro-Egyptian Gnostic school.

There was also a Persian school, but that was regarded as a distinct religion – Manicheanism.

The Jewish-Christian conflict of those days was reflected in the anti-Gnostic polemics of Church leaders and the Gnostics have had a bad reputation among Christians ever since, sometimes unfairly.

Many beliefs that Christians now regard as heretical, such as, Arianism – the notion that Jesus is not divine, but only a man –  began with the Gnostics.

But Gnosticism is increasingly understood to be rooted not in heretical Christianity but in heretical Judaism.

One of the most typical of the Gnostic beliefs was that from the original creator of the universe who is an impersonal monad, emanations issued, each more remote from divinity than the one before.

Among the lowest of these divine emanations was a demiurge or a lesser/false god, to whom the creation of the physical world is attributed.

The demiurge was seen as imperfect, even evil.

Yaldabaoth, Yahweh in the Bible, Satan, Ahriman (in the Persian tradition) were all regarded as demiurges.

It is this conflation of Satan and Yahweh among the Alexandrian gnostics that was revived in the 18th century by William Blake, the English poet, that underlies the tension of such famous lines as

Tyger, tyger, burning bright
In the forests of the night
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”

Blake’s Tiger suggests a darker deity than the benign Father of orthodox Christian belief.

So, when you see  websites springing up all over the Internet, equating Yahweh with Satan, it’s a continuation of this ancient Gnostic and neo-Gnostic error.

Error, because Yahweh is not Satan.

And Satan is not the same as Saturn, despite the visual resemblance of the two words.

Saturn is an Indo-European term.

Satan is Semitic (HaSatan in Hebrew) and it is not a proper but a common noun. It should be translated “the adversary.” From its root (S-T-N), the Arabs get Shai-tan.

A closer equivalent to Satan in the West is the Egyptian Set, the murderous brother of Osiris.

Although at one period considered a “good” God,  Set was later seen as evil, perhaps by association with the Semitic Hyksos rulers of Egypt in the early part of the 2nd millenium before Christ.

The Hyksos linked Set with the Phoenician god, Baal.

[Baal only means “lord” and was used to denote a variety of deities. There was Baal Hadad and there was Baal Hamon, to whom child sacrifices were offered.]

Because Baal is also known as El (Lord, singular), and the term Elohim (plural) is often used to refer to God in the Old Testament, the Gnostics in turn equated Baal with Yahweh.

The Gnostic equation was:

JEHOVAH =  BAAL =JUPITER = SATURN = SATAN

It ought to have read:

SET = BAAL(ZEBUB) = SATAN

 

 

 

Strong’s Concordance

Posted on by

The best way to study the Bible at first hand is to use the King James Version (which is not without its flaws) in conjunction with Strong’s Concordance, which gives the Greek and Hebrew meanings relevant to the text.

(Note: I first linked by mistake to something called Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, which at first glance, seems like a highly politicized version of the famous resource. It dispensed the familiar end-times narrative of political Zionism. Stick with the original Strong’s).

The Old Testament texts that Jesus read were in Greek (in the supranational Koine form), because the Greek version (Septuagint or LXX) was the most authoritative one at the time.

Here is an online version of the Septuagint with the Greek text next to the English.

It was called the Septuagint  because, at least anecdotally, 70 (or 72)  of the most important Hebrew scholars  compiled it.

The Septuagint predates Jesus by a couple of centuries and was widely used in Alexandria in Egypt, where there was a very large Jewish diaspora.

This was the text used by the Church fathers when Christian doctrine was formulated in the first few centuries of the millenium.

The other authoritative Old Testament text, the Masora, was compiled over several centuries by Rabbinical scholars (Masoretes)  between the 6th century and 10th century AD (that is, almost a 1000 years after the Septuagint).

It was a product of Rabbinical schools that were actively attacking and responding to Christianity and it should be understood in that light.

[Note: It isn’t necessary to ascribe a malicious motive to the Masoretes, although many Christian scholars do. From the Masoretes’ point of view, the Christians were simply reading things into the Hebrew text and they were taking a more neutral position. Both sides probably had some valid points.]

The Masoretic texts are the Old Testament texts used in the Talmud, which is the Rabbinical commentary on the Bible.

The Talmud, not the Torah, is the true core of modern Judaism.

Since the Talmud in both its Palestinian and its more famous Babylonian version were written down only in 200 AD (Mishnah) and 500 AD (Gemarah), the written records of modern Rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism post-date those of Christianity.

Even the oral traditions of modern Judaism stem only from the Babylonian captivity, around the 6th century BC.

Consider that the earliest manuscript of the Talmud is the 1342 AD Munich Talmud.

By contrast, the first full manuscript of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates back to the middle of the 4th century AD or around 350 AD (a thousand years earlier).

In addition, there are fragments of the New Testament that go back much earlier, to the second half of the 1st century AD.

Altogether, there are over 25,000 early copies or fragments of the New Testament, not including quotations by the Church Father.

The New Testament is the most well preserved and well-documented piece of writing from antiquity.

Even so, understanding how the original Hebrew or Greek words have been translated into English is essential to understanding how meanings have been changed, either  accidentally or intentionally.

In that respect, Strong’s Concordance is an invaluable resource.