Sorry, you need to update your flash player to view this flash animation. You may download the flash player from here. However, you should still be able to view the rest of this page.

Below - Should Married Men be allowed to Cheat? (scroll down)

A Jew Rejects Talmud's Duplicity

May 25, 2013

arrestbankers.jpgI was raised as a Jew and I harbor no malice to the Jewish people. I feel obligated to tell this personal story. I believe that we will be accountable to the God in Heaven for our actions in this life and on this world.


ALTHOUGH MOST JEWS HAVE NEVER READ THE TALMUD, RICH'S TESTIMONY INDICATES OTHERS ARE INFLUENCED BY ITS HATE OF GENTILES


"Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread "Judeo-Christian" notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God.

The Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As students of the Talmud, we know this to be true."

 -Michael Hoffman II from "Judaism's Strange Gods"


by Rich S

(henrymakow.com)


One 'tract' in the Talmud recently grabbed my attention. It seemed to leap from the page and  strike at the core of what it means to be Jewish:

"To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly."  Libbre David 37

The key point is: ' If they ever find out what we are up to, they'll be enraged and will  kill us . As a Jew I found this very disturbing. Is Judaism a religion or a conspiracy against man and God?

I checked for authenticity and the exact source of the above passage. I got online and found a searchable Babylonian Talmud. I could locate many similar themed tracts, but not this one, I also asked another friend about the 'tract' and my thoughts on it. He went and asked a Talmudic scholar about it. We learned that the 'tract' above is a sort of 'mash-up' compound of several quotes. The common theme does indeed relate to the 'dire' importance of keeping Jewish 'religious relations' out of the earshot of a goy. What affected me was the part " if they knew what we teach about them", we'd be killed out in the open. 
I felt that I realized a basic truth about Judaism. It is a religion that puts man before God, and Talmud before Torah. If a religion chooses fallen mankind's word above that of the Divine, is it a Religion of God? I believe that this ultimate act of hubris sealed the fate of the Jewish reputation and fate. 

JEWISH SUPREMACY

The offensive nature of these tracts about Jews dealing with Non -Jews are nothing less than an ideology of  Jewish Supremacy. Certain tracts reveal a deep seated contempt often aimed at non-Jews known as 'goyim' or cattle. There are others which are much more tasteless. In 2010, Israel's Sephardi leader Rabbi Ovadi Yosef invoked the ire of non-Jew and Jew alike with his pronouncement, " Non-Jews exist to serve Jews. goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world; only to serve the People of Israel."

The cat was out of the bag - the truth about the Talmud was blown wide open in the 21st century, for all of the world to see. Sadly, the story was destined for the back pages and had some minor talk radio buzz. Here are a few of the Talmudic tracts:

" How to interpret the word ' robbery '. A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew, but he (a Jew) is not forbidden to do all this to a goy. " Tosefta, Aboda Zara, viii,5.

"If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed." -Sanhedrin 58b..

"Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile." Baba Kamma 113a.


MY LIFE AS A JEW

In my early 20's,I met a lot of new people at the university. That's when I really started to listen  to the conversations . What I was hearing about Jews was very negative, different than what I had known. A Jew was referred to as a con-artist, greedy, and responsible for Christ's being killed . I learned ' Jew ' could be a verb; I was 'jewed' in the deal." 

A Christian friend who knew I was seeking the truth, befriended me.. I heard about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and a few months later I was given a copy as a gift, along with a Ryrie KJV Bible w/ Concordance. I am eternally grateful for the Bible and his friendship. 

I checked out the history books and the library to find out more. I wanted to REALLY know why the Jews were scattered across the earth, after Babylonian captivity, and destruction of the temple and the revolt against the Romans. Was there something pathological about Judaism. It seems there is a disconnect between the rest of the world, and the Tribe. Seems like the Jews have been wandering the earth after the Crucifixion, and were expelled from nearly 100 countries for causing problems.

SCRAP METAL

In my early thirties, I moved up east to work for a Jewish family in a scrap metal yard.  After a couple of years I was called in to see the boss. I was being offered a promotion,charge of a rigged weigh scale. I would have an office, salary increase, with the promise of more increases to come. Near the end of the meeting, boss quoted something from the Talmud about 'buying something from a goy', insinuating it was 'our little secret'.

I'd made a Faustian deal. My non Jewish co-workers to treat me different, they did not want to associate with me. On the other hands, the Jewish co-workers all congratulated me. I had made a Faustian deal, and it was I was the last to catch on.

Even as I drove around town I believed that people knew about what I was doing. and I was neck deep in a corrupt business enterprise.

The Book of Bismillah in the Talmud which is concerned with money and property dealings contains a phrase which most closely corroberates the quote my employer had used that day:

"Bismallah,4. Deception in business: It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during purchase."

I was ashamed of what I'd become, and knew that I could no longer keep the job. I decided to leave, and the boss acted as if I betrayed him. I saw him in a new light that day. I left the job but I spend years searching for my redemption. 

It was already given to me free, by Christ,  and I didn't have to live that way any more. The truth can be ugly and painful at first, like lancing an infected wound. The truth is protected by God, as what is hidden now, will one day be shouted from the rooftops.






Power for patriots


You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2013/05/Jew-Rejects-Talmud-Duplicity.html

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for "A Jew Rejects Talmud's Duplicity"

JG said (May 24, 2013):

A lot of the Gentile Christians have fallen into the snare of these Talmudic Jews because they don't know the Law or the Gospel. If their Jewish politicians or Jewish Psychiatrists tell them war and sexual immortality is now permissible than it must be true because they are " chosen ones". Not only that, they also have the money and the power to help prosper them or destroy them. As Henry Ford once observed "the Jews of today are not the Jews of the Old Testament ".


Below - T. Stokes, Whistle blower Dead at 93(scroll down)

Should Married Men be Allowed to Cheat?

May 23, 2013

Extra-Marital Affair 1.jpg
James raises the problem of boredom in marriage.
He says men are programmed to seek variety, and should be allowed some slack. I welcome reader feedback and will give my own later.


by James
(henrymakow.com)


Agree with all you say here, about marriage and the man-woman bond.

The trouble with marriage is that after some time boredom sets in. It seems unavoidable, in most marriages. Have never seen this discussed here, though. The fact that man is naturally polygamous seems to have something to do with it. And isn't it God who made us that way?

dond.jpg(TV's #1 philanderer, Madmen's Don Draper)

Yet our cultural "leaders" have carefully crafted movies and TV shows of happy marriages, in which one little misstep or fling by the husband with another woman becomes fodder for the most terrible of dramas and tantrums by the wife that inevitably must lead to divorce and family break-up. That has developed into something of a subversive standard formula the TV Jews have foisted on people (with a litany of other family destroying machinations).

Why not be a little more forgiving with men who have a romp in the hay out of the house? Most men still love their wives and family and would never think of abandoning them. Mankind has been like that for millions of years and it hasn't changed yet since we became "civilized". We can either be honest about it or sweep it under the rug.

I know the purists will be outraged about this but never mind their torpedoes and accusations of promoting Sodom and Gomorrah. This is meant to honestly explore whether - absent the artificial formula of the TV b*stards - it could save families that (almost unnecessarily?) break up.

FIDELITY OVERRATED

I  speak from personal experience, but more so also from observation of others. Besides, I wanted to know it from the horse's mouth. A number of years ago I asked more than 50 women the same question.

It went like this: You live in a tribe with a strong and good leader, clearly the best man. You have to choose to have kids from one of the regular guys in the tribe and have him all for yourself. Or you could be one of the wives of the leader and have kids from him. But you share him with other women. He is not exclusively yours.

I expected some kind of contest between the two positions. Surprise, not one woman wanted to have kids from a regular guy who is not the best. They all wanted kids from the strong leader, even when they had to share him with other women.


That proved to me that for females the priorities are different. They are hardwired to do what is best for their offspring.

For a male it's different. He will kill if another guy messes with his woman. For him it's a question of paternity and infidelity cannot be tolerated. Very basic.

This whole story just proves that while jealousy is not absent in females, it is not the top priority. The whole infidelity issue is contrived and overrated. Male and female infidelity are not the same. At least not in a natural setting. Only in today's brainwashed world they are.

This was one of the early things TV audiences were duped and molded with, together with the portraying of queers a normal, in the 60's. It has been downhill ever since.

-----
Makow Comment-   Fidelity is essential to a marriage. If men sow their wild oats before marriage, they will know that infidelity isn't the answer to marital boredom. I posted James' comment because it is provocative and would enlist interesting reactions.










Power for patriots


You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2013/05/should-married-men-be-allowed.html

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for "Should Married Men be Allowed to Cheat?"

D said (May 24, 2013):

If from the start you are honest with the woman, that is, if you let her know you have the intention and the means to have a second wife, then there is no infidelity if actually later on you do so. Obviously the second wife will have to know she's being taken as a second wife. Believe me, if polygamy was accepted as it's supposed to be, there won't be as much desperate women around as there are. Many women become femminists, just because they couldn't find a man to follow.
I would like to close my comment with a little question: would it not be more useful to society to validate polygamy.

Today polygamy is widely condemned in the western world, but cheating on his partner seems to a norm tolerated by all. May be western women prefer monogamous marriages because they know that men will certainly end up cheating on them, and by doing so, they(the women)will be disenfranchised to do the same, or even better, throw out the husbands in order to have a house they didn't spend a dollar for, and a lot of money...


Adil said (May 24, 2013):


Muslims are the ones who had brought polygany into legal form, yet they are unable to defend it!

To avoid a lengthy post, you may follow the link (http://adilsud.blogspot.ae/2009/06/ploygany-yet-polygamy-not-polyandry.html) to the whole concept at my blog. Once done, either you accept the notion that "Polygany" has a rationale to start with, or to conciliate with the forgivable multiple-affair concept..



Posted said (May 24, 2013):

Rationalization is the down fall of society. James is another brainwashed fool, convinced he is entitled to to do what ever feels right for him. If you make a vow be a man and keep it, if you don't have the balls, don't get married, and be a whore the rest of your life, just like what you see on tv and movies. If you want freedom to cheat, and you wife wants the same that is not marriage. Would you be okay with raising kids your wife had from an affair, or are you the onlyone who can have the freedom to whore. What I have observed over the years if there are few men left in this world. Just brainwashed adolescents, in men's bodies. Its sad to see.


Dick said (May 24, 2013):

To take James at his word that women would prefer polygamy with an alpha male, it would seem that monogamy is in fact a strategy by males to prevent
their wives from cheating (and bearing the genetic offspring of other males). We exchange our protection for our wives' fidelity.

I saw a documentary on zebras the other day. Zebras live in a "harem" structure like James' example, with one stallion and maybe six mares. There was a shakeup of some kind where a new stallion took over a harem. One of the mares gave birth shortly after, and the stallion brutally murdered the foal, knowing it wasn't his.

This is the problem – at a base level, males are biologically programmed to ensure the success of our offspring. While on the surface cheating would seem biologically advantageous for the male,
we're not fish who can simply spray our seed all over town. As every parent knows, raising children requires a tremendous effort.

Biologically, the wife wants protection – hence the preference for an alpha male. Not wanting our offspring or ourselves murdered, males have adopted a social insurance policy where we have a chance to reproduce by agreeing to stay within the confines of monogamous pairs. The female is guaranteed protection, and the male is
guaranteed a chance at reproduction.

This is why adulterous women are treated so brutally in more primitive societies (not an endorsement). When family and clan bonds are the key to your survival, you better make sure Don Draper isn't sneaking in the back door of the tent!


JC said (May 24, 2013):

I suppose that since our culture has become one where lying and cheating is acceptable in almost areas of society your premise is acceptable.
However, that doesn't make it right. Right in this context refers to integrity. Marriage is much more than a physical or legal bond between a man and a woman.

Successful marriages are ones based on mutual trust and living together in truth and integrity. Tell me what about cheating has anything to do with integrity?


Dan said (May 24, 2013):

Matt 19: 8-12

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

--end quote---

Causa finita est.

The reason James provides for polygamy is lust. "Boredom" is a pollite way of saying the man's wife just doesn't make his dick anymore. He needs a woman he doesn't know so he can focus on her tits and ass so he can get it up.

In the marriage Jesus was talking about, love between one husband and several wives is impossible, for holy matrimony is the formation of one mind out of two, and polygamy destroys this. "Love": that is divided among several partners is not true marriage love, but lasciviousness. It's also quite GAY.

So please don't drag Jesus into your petty sexual fantasies. Holy marriage is only possible between a man and woman who have placed God FIRST in their lives - even ahead of a hard penis.


Tony B said (May 24, 2013):

f you want to cheat, don't get married. Find a partner as one-track, dumb-assed as you are. Neither of you will be happy with your sex life - or each other. Did your parents satisfy your every whim, proper or improper, as a spoiled brat kid? Did the public schools successfully dumb you down to the point that you can't discern the difference between right and wrong? You fit right in to the "new age" bunk.


anon said (May 24, 2013):

Cheat? God's law allows for more than one wife. Nothing in the new testament forbids a man to have multiple wives. St. Paul wrote to one church saying the bishops should have only one wife. This was the law of that time, the roman law. He didn't want trouble with the proconsuls. It is in no way a command to us. And was a.command only to the.bishops then. Islam is more godly than current Christianity in its marriage law. Chinese are more realistic also. God's law is perfect. It plainly allows polygamy. Most 'christian' women hate that law because they hate GOD.


Below- Charles Darwin - Stock Picker (scroll down)

Man & Woman mirror God & Creation

May 22, 2013


marriage.jpeg"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
 And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Genesis 1-2

Ideally, man represents God's Will ("form.") Women represent His Creation.
Despite gender confusion, women are still looking for leaders, protectors and providers, so they can raise their children themselves. Traditional gender roles give our lives meaning. That's why they are under attack.



by Henry Makow Ph.D.

Why "Hell has no Wrath like a Woman Scorned'"
(Revised and Updated from 2002)


In a deceptive article, "Infantriarchy", currently lauded as "brilliant" on the anti-feminist website A Voice for Men,  Gordon Wadsworth argues that "equality and self actualization" will result from overcoming two basic "defects." He seems ignorant that these "defects" in fact define gender and are at the heart of heterosexuality.  


"The female defect is her desire to infantilize herself; to project a facade of weakness and victimhood. The female does this because part of her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf. This is a mechanism which allows the female to feel desirable, important, and powerful. ...Thus, the female defect keeps her from assuming personal responsibility, which presents a barrier to her self-actualization.

The male defect is his desire to compensate for the infantilized female. He does this because part of his identity is contingent on earning female validation. He thus demonstrates his ability to protect, provision and inform. This is a mechanism for feeling useful, powerful, knowledgeable, and important. The male defect leads him to compete with other males to demonstrate his primacy to females... This becomes his own barrier to self-actualization.

These defects mean that the female path of self-actualization is one of taking responsibility, and the male path of self-actualization is one of relinquishing responsibility."


Wadsworth thinks he is anti-feminist; but this is pure feminism - neutering the sexes by empowering women and enfeebling men.

Wadsworth is providing a recipe for more gender neutering and confusion not "self actualization." Gender is based on an imbalance of worldly ((physical, material) power between male and female. Just look at how much stronger males usually are. As I have said, heterosexuality requires the surrender of female material power to a select male (husband) in exchange for his power, expressed as his love. This exclusive contract is consecrated by exclusive sex, marriage and family.  

Men want power; women want love. Marriage is the exchange of the two; i.e. Male love in exchange for Female power.

With "strong and independent" women, there is more temptation for men to evade their role, i.e. providing leadership. This is just what the Illuminati  want. Instead, men need to return to the traditional model, where the male is the Captain of the ship, and the woman is the First Mate. This is what women still want: a man strong and worthy enough to earn her allegiance. No amount of feminist social engineering can overcome natural instincts, as long as Captains don't abandon ship. 


MARRIAGE IS MYSTICAL

Marriage and family is a God-given path that allows us to find love and grow inwardly. Today, millions of people are in a state of arrested development because they cannot form a permanent relationship. 

Man represents the God Principle. Woman represents the Creation Principle. There is no war. Man and woman are in love. God is in love with Creation and vice-versa.

"Making love" is a physical expression of this mystical alchemy. It illustrates how each Principle works. The Male Principle penetrates, possesses and plants the seed. The seed is the spirit, code and spark of creation.

The female yields, opens and accepts the spirit. But, by being possessed, she also possesses. Look at the imagery. The penis is totally engulfed by the vagina. The man belongs to the woman who belongs to him.

Another metaphor is the relationship between a farmer and his land. The farmer cultivates the soil and plants the seed. The verb "husband" means to cultivate and manage prudently. The land gives birth to new life and nurtures it.

Femininity is by nature passive and instrumental. Woman is a bridge to the future. She is a medium. When she is fertilized, grows large, and gives birth, she transforms herself and her mate into their child. Through the child, they are recreating themselves and producing the future. Creation is in a constant process of transformation.

spurned.jpgIf a woman isn't chosen and used for a higher purpose, she never realizes herself and remains unfulfilled. If she is discarded after having sex, the sting is all the sharper. In her soul, the sex act is a living metaphor for the love of God. This may explain the elemental wrath of the scorned woman.

Love in a woman is synonymous with trust, openness and acceptance. Indeed, this is exactly what a man most craves from a woman. He needs someone to believe in him. Her belief makes anything possible for him. Her faith provides the space that the male expands into. She is Creation.

A woman wants to be nurtured, used and shaped by a man's love, which is a surrogate for the divine spirit. I'm not saying all or most men are surrogates for God, but this is the ideal. When a woman loves a man, she accepts his leadership. She is content to be consulted and considered.

Men forget that the position of wife is a status to which all women aspire. Dating is an interview. Courtship is probation. Marriage is a Sacred Covenant. Women find their bliss in being intensely needed by her husband.

FIND A WOMAN WILLING TO BE YOUR FIRST MATE 

A single man should approach marriage with a clear sense of how he wants to live, where a woman fits, and what her job description is. This is what women actually want and what they respond to. They do not respond to men who are starved for sex and love, and don't have a plan for her. Nor are they satisfied with men who want them to remain independent, two parallel rails that never meet.

In conclusion, Marxists, having failed to create a class war between capital and labor, created one between men and women. The aim is the same: power. They are creating conflict where none exists. They are trying to portray as a disease something that is in fact mystical and divine. They are presenting sick behavior as healthy. They are standing between millions of people and God.

Men represent the God-principle. Women the Creation-principle. Man and woman, God and Creation are in love with each other. They need each other for completion and self-transformation. The way to stop the spread of Marxist feminism is for men to start acting like men, so that once again women may trust and yield to them.

---

RELATED - Woman says Contraception Bad for Her

Makow - Relearning Heterosexual Love








Power for patriots


You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/220801.html

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at

Comments for " Man & Woman mirror God & Creation "

Lisa (NYC) said (May 23, 2013):

Thank you for your article Men and Women in Marriage Mirror God and Creation. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of needing traditional gender roles for true happiness in marriage. I have been unhappy lately due to the fact that my husband is putting pressure on me me to work a job that I would like to quit. I have been married for thirty years and for many years I was an at-home mom raising my children and caring for my home and my husband. This was the happiest time of my life and I felt a sense of appreciation that my husband would provide for us and felt like I wanted to do things for him like pack his lunch and always have a nice meal ready for him when he arrived home.

The job I have now leaves me exhausted and irritable most of the time and my days off are spent catching up on the house work and grocery shopping. I don`t feel the compassion for my husband`s hard work that I should, but mostly resentment at having to do all the housework and cooking in addition to working a full-time job.

I believe this two-income lifestyle is what the feminists have foisted on society and is the opposite of god's plan for marriage and the cause of misery in women and the soaring divorce rate in the U.S. Now that so many women are in the workforce, the economy has become so upset with higher taxes and higher costs of living that the wife feels locked-in to working or else risk putting her family at a great financial disadvantage. There has been a survey which states that women are less happy now than thirty years ago and I believe it is due to the fact that feminism has pervaded our culture and is keeping women from their true god-given role in life and thus their ultimate fulfillment.

The feminists must have known that the they could use women's unhappiness as a weapon in their goal to destroy marriage and family. Do you have any advice for a woman like me who wants to be a wife and homemaker and is experiencing pressure from a husband who does not value this as much as a woman who brings home a paycheck?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to reading your articles on a daily basis and I was wondering if possibly you would write an article pertaining to this situation of women being locked into the role of wage-earner and what is the right perspective to have once they find themselves completely dissatisfied with it.


JV said (May 23, 2013):

This is a great succinct article on the matter, and yes, many 'men's' sites still buy into the feminist frame/ mold.

One thing I would add here is my belief that the effects of modern warfare have , had, twisted men's souls to such a degree that with inevitable PTS (only the moral ones get PTS), these traumatized former men, now confused and emotionally laden and unpredictable 'men' , trying to go from the unspeakable insanity of war to the humdrum responsible sanity of peace, these damaged men, with young daughters witnessing such men as 'examples of the gender', feminist ideology made a lot of sense to them witnessing a generation of damaged 'male role models', damaged by industrial war.

One cannot separate the 'war crimes' against the psychologies of one's own troops from the 'rise of feminism'.
Damaged men do not good fathers or husbands make, for 'the school of murder' has been their most compelling education. note how these 'honour our troops' leaders throw them into the trash can of homelessness as soon as they are no longer of use. Then only their 'families', their women, are left to 'deal with the mess'. Feminism came out of this cooking pot created by 'the Masters of War' Dylan described.

Naomie's 'Shock Doctrine' relates to inter-personal relations in families, as well as intra-country dynamics. This quote speaks to how the 'international elite' succeed by war as a pre-condition for the rest of the ill they intend:

"As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless." :
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 - (letter to Col. William F. Elkins) - Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)


Annette said (May 23, 2013):

Bravo on your article, Man Woman Mirror.
I don’t know if there was a forum for rebuttal to that retarded article but if so, your article needs to be posted. You are on the money.

I never wanted to be subservient to my husband, I wanted to walk hand in hand with him as an equal. But that walking hand in hand requires respect for each other’s roles.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTLEY RIGHT, without the support of a strong male there is no way for a woman to take care of and nurture her children as they need to be nurtured. Studies have already shown children dumped at day care have lower IQ’s and are emotionally and psychologically underdeveloped as compared to those children being cared for by their own mothers.

I’m so tired of it all the propaganda, but what is more disheartening is seeing how the younger ones have bought all the lies, and are living and defending them. A voice in the wilderness you are. Thank you for that voice.


Dan said (May 22, 2013):

The "Infantriarchy" article opens with an appeal to a false analogy, "If our species were observed by an alien race...". Wordsworth never gave a reason why "our species" has these 'defects'. Instead, he gives a motive: "her identity is contingent on compelling males to act on her behalf." C'mon Gordon, how do you know that?
He doesn't say. He just whips out one logical fallacy after another in what appears to be a vitriolic cliché filled internet rant.

Volumes were written over centuries regarding the 'fairer sex' when it was well understood that women were physically dependent upon men before machines replaced the need for constant physical labor to survive. That's easy for us to forget in today's world, in which everything is done with the flip of switch.


JG said (May 22, 2013):

Beautiful article here Henry, good work! The Anti-God Marxists who are the authors of this "feminist movement" have successfully perverted the identity of the woman from innocence and submission to defiance and dominance. This was successfully achieved when they made females competitive with males in the workplace. When a man can no longer protect and provide for his wife his marriage is dissolved.

Once the roles of male and female are reversed in the marriage is when all hell breaks loose in the family unit. So many homosexuals grew up with mothers who dominated their fathers, thereby creating an atmosphere of love and sympathy for the male and not the female. This nightmare did not happen by "chance", but by Satanic "design".


Death of Whistleblower T. Stokes, 93

May 23, 2013


Death of Whistleblower T. Stokes, 93

by Chris Cooper
(henrymakow.com)


The ex-intelligence operative and analyst Anthony Thomas Trevor-Stokes has died aged 93.

Known as T Stokes,  he came up the long hard way and never achieved the rank many said he deserved, always an advocate of democratic freedoms he wanted much less secrecy  and did not see why things like the  House of Commons menu should be an official secret.

A supporter of real news activists, his outspokenness for sharing the aims and goals of the intelligence world with the public and often engaging their help  as watchers and informants made him many internal enemies but brought him massive public approval, with his catchphrase " trust the people ".

Stokes believed that NWO Communism could only be defeated by educating the public that the Soviet Georgy Arbatov soft socialism plan  was the thin end of a very sinister wedge.
One of his remits was the protection and care of Winston Churchill's wartime close colleagues and secretaries after the war.

 British intell wanted Britain to stay out of W W II and so Churchill replaced all the key figures in order to get Britain into the war, having the popular intel cheif Vernon Kell murdered in his own fireplace.

Churchill's used black magicians in W W II, many of whom were known personally by Stokes who himself studied occultism, and was also was one of three men who exposed Churchill's murder of  Neville Chamberlain the most popular Prime Minister ever.

B
ut it was the Michael Gordon case which brought him to prominence, Gordon was an unusual recruit for the intelligence world, he was quite low I Q,  awkward, unfit, overweight and  self conscious. He failed most tests, yet was chosen for special training and sent to Russia to recruit  dissidents in the nuclear weapons arena. He was caught and died under torture.


Stokes maintained he was chosen especially to fail as all he was taught was false and should have come out under torture giving the Soviets a pack of false leads and wrong intel, but Gordon never spoke he died without revealing any of his fake data.

The intelligence hierarchy is of vital importance to a foreign power  and is known as the Or/Bat or order of Battle, and knowing this the whole apparatus can be unravelled
so Gordon had been instructed to name people actually outside of the service.

Stokes wanted the British news media to cover Soviet murders of British nationals, which usually appeared in the British news media as  deaths through car crashes, skiing acidents drug overdoses or falling from high balconies during  parties.

Both Peter Wright of Spycatcher book fame,  along with T Stokes were alleged  to have secretly briefed the Daily Express Defence correspondent Chapman Pincher on anything they wanted revealed through the newspapers, both believed  that every operation  against the Soviets up until the late 60s failed because of high level traitors, Stokes was able to penetrate through Londons Jewish taxi driver community into Mossad, and along with James Rusbridger who was murdered, claimed that Lord  Rothschild was the major spy of W W II, and also claimed that since the Russian revolution of 1917 the Soviet Union was run by Rothschild appointees who colluded together with the British Rothschild's to bring about wars and conflict for financial gain.

 In the early seventies crisis when the Soviet navy had Britain surrounded by nuclear subs, no one knew whether this was an exercise or the real thing, The Russians wanted to see how the British responded in a security flap, Stokes trounced them by calling in all retired officers and giving them two weeks work on half their old pay and put them to work laying false trails, generally muddying the waters and allowing small snippets of info to get to the Russians that the British were pro-active and taking hard line military control of the situation. This is known as chicken-feed release.

In 1973 Stokes was sent to meet a dissident Jewish nuclear physicist who wanted to pass information to the west about the horrific Israeli nuclear arsenal. When the documents were passed in the Moscow art gallery, he was seized and after a quick trial next day, he was sentenced to 2 years in prison.

H
e did not help himself by constant escape attempts and after injuring two guards was given 6 years at Svetmagorsk on the Siberian border. In 1977 he was exchanged for the Communist activist Brian Edward Mitchell and brought home. Weighing just 5 stone he had been severely burnt by having petrol thrown over him and set alight while asleeep in his cell.


Physically and mentally shattered, he claimed he had been betrayed to the Russians, and began to whistleblow about Soviet criminal activity in Britian. This angered the British authorities who accused him of being an angry and bitter man,  and a big falling-out ensued which never healed.


BY T Stokes- Was Churchill an Illuminati Agent ?
 

NEW YORKER MAGAZINE cartoon

May 18, 2013

paul-noth-with-a-real-live-woman-right-here-why-would-you-turn-to-the-internet-for-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
My wife and I got a kick
 out of this cartoon
in the latest New Yorker

Knights of Columbus are NOT Masons says Hernando, a Spanish Reader

May 16, 2013

Knights_of_Columbus_color_enhanced_vector_kam.png
Knights of Columbus are NOT Masons     says Hernando, a Spanish Reader


I have just seen this article saying that The Knights of Columbus are Masons?
Come on!
Here you have the web and the history of the Knights of Columbus, founded by a priest and giving honours to the Virgin Mary (Mother for Us, the Catholics), to the Pope, etc.
http://www.kofc.org/en//index.html
According to this point of view, even all the Catholics could be "secret or infiltrated" Masons.

The priest of my Parish Church could be a secret mason.
The Bishop of my diocese could be mason.
And all the 1.000 millions of Catholics could be masons. The world upside-down!
This person says that the Klu-Klux-Klan was catholic or christian?
Not at all, sir. The fact that they burn a cross in their meetings or rituals don't mean that they were Christians as an association. Perhaps some of the KKK members could be covert Catholics or Christians but NOT the association officially.

The symbols.

Here in Spain, the Civil Guard (a Police Corp) also has the FASCIO, as a symbol, but is not a mason society. The fascio comes from the Romans and in Spain, my country, there were Romans, and called this country HISPANIA.
Probably the Civil Guard (Police, Police, Police) took this symbol as precedent from the Romans or simply as a group symbol, meaning that this Police would be united and grouped as a corp to prosecute the delinquents, NOT AS MASONS, PLEASE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Guard_(Spain)

One could ask then: Do they have the crown in their logo because they only serve the King and Queen? NOOO!! They have this symbol of the crown because in Spain we have as a political system a Parliamentary Monarchy and even our shield in Spain has a crown, though many people would prefer to have a Republic.

Conclusion:

Some people, IGNORANT of the real and authentic meaning of things don't interpret things adequately. What I have to hear today is:

1) The Knights of Columbus, founded by an Irish priest who wanted to help the inmigrants to New England, and that forms a society with good relationships with the Church, within the orthodoxy of Catholics belief (faith, Virgin Mary, Pope, etc) is... MASON ?

2) A symbol as the "fascio", the Roman fascio (unknown in the other side of the Atlantic Ocean because the Romans weren't there, is interpreted as... MASON? when there is a Police Corp in Spain called "Guardia Civil" (or Civil Guard) that has the same symbol. Perhaps the Civil Guard is also... MASON?  I don't think so, because dozens and dozens of members of the Civil Guard in Spain have been assassinated by the terrorist group ETA (this is not, as in USA think, a separatist group of the Basque Country, but a TERRORIST GROUP who has murdered around 1.000 people (police, judges, politicians, journalists, civil people, children...)