that girl actually says that surgery is necessary to keep a penis clean. she must have been raised in a swamp, or a crack den.
Is Feminism Outdated?
- Thread starter iHeartCats
- Start date
ive worked in a hospital operating theatres, and i can say for certain that women who dont wash between their legs are smelly and revolting, just the same as men who dont.
I thought this video was fun... particularly the orgasm round. So true that everyone wins. Made Me smile so early in the morning...
Thanks [MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION].
Oh... and vagina wins!!!!
Yeah, I don't think they're doctors or scientists, plus I think they're exaggerating for emphasis.
I have no problem with vegetarians
I have no problem with women having equal opportunities and equal rights and equal votes
I do have a problem with how the move toward gaining equality for women was hijaked in the 1960's and 70's by marxist feminists who have an agenda of turning men and women against each other
Gloria Steinem the famous feminist (hijaker of the move towards equality for women) admits publically that she was funded by the CIA and the was trained by them. She said to her fellow feminists: ''we have become the men we wanted to marry''
For me there are a number of things wrong with that statement
Last edited:
Let me make some more predictions!
Less men will enter relationships. They will turn to computer games, pornography and when the technology comes to sex robots
Women will pursue their careers more and more and will stop having as many meaningful relationships as they become increasingly estranged from the opposite sex
They will stop developing relationships with men they know and will instead seek out unknown and unfamiliar sexual partners on tinder for one night stands with no strings attached
Many women will begin to believe that they are bisexual or at least claim they are (feeling as if it is somehow liberating)
Men will become increasingly androgenous and fertility rates will drop in both men and women
For me the discussion only really starts getting interesting when people start to discuss why the above things are happening
Men and women are being deliberately exposed to things that their grandparents were not being exposed to
If i tell people what those things are that are causing these physiological changes then some people start shouting 'conspiracy theorist!'
And yet fertility rates continue to plummet and alzeimers cases continue to skyrocket and are occuring to younger and younger people
I had a discussion with a doctor a while back and i asked him why he thought alzeimers cases were increasing and he said: 'because people are living longer''. So then i had to show him an article from his own newspaper which showed that younger people are now getting alzeimers and that many of the cases are from increasingly young people. He couldn't explain that...i can though....i knew it was happening before his paper said so....but everytime i try to discuss why these things are happening i get called a 'conspiracy theorist'
The world needs equality it does not need rule by females...that is swapping one imbalance for another
New Left propaganda funded by the globalists will tell you feminism is great though...i know...i used to read it
The 'power' behind feminism is the illuminati
Can you see the pyramid symbol gloria steinem (CIA agent) is making with her hands?
That symbol is a sun symbol and a penis symbol
If you invert it then it is the female symbol; why isn't she making an inverted pyramid to symbolise the female yoni?
If you want to know why feminism hasn't brought us a happy society then consider for a moment that their leaders are using occult penis symbols
Have no illusions..we are being led up the garden path
Last edited:
you cant "hijack" feminism, because its not just one coherent school of thinking, its a diversity of schools of thinking. seeing it as being just one school or another, and rejecting it on that basis, is fundamentally incorrect, because it is not just one school of thought.
i agree, that round of the debate was false though. the vagina is self cleaning, but the vulva isnt. the ladies need to wash between their legs just as the guys do. this is a very popular misconception and piece of propaganda to do with male genital cutting that really deserves to be killed.
but, more to the point, and in support of your post, the idea that women have penis envy hasnt been remotely academically current for at least 50 years. anyone who thinks they do is either insufficiently educated in humanities fields, or is stuck in the 19th century.
Some groups shout louder than others
Those groups have far reaching influence
They are able to exert unconscious influence through films, magazines, TV programmes, the news, the radio, fashion and a multitude of other ways that have helped to destabilise western society (i'm not afraid of change and actually want change but i am against the change they are gunning for: centralised control of both men and women and state indoctrination of children
It was a fruedian concept if i'm not mistaken
There are marxist groups working with fruedian ideas
If they suspected for a moment that there was something in the female psyche that they could apply leverage to they'll do it (or rather have been doing it already for decades)
Concerning that clip of the debate...for me it perfectly captured the real essence of feminism...it didn't go for a draw...it put women one up (and as you've pointed out it did it through falsehood)
there is no "real essence of feminism". this is pure falsehood and misrepresentation of a diverse scholarly field.
i dont even know where to start about feminists taking over the world. absolute nonsense. it makes me too outraged. i dont even know where to start. i need to not discuss this anymore.
i dont even know where to start about feminists taking over the world. absolute nonsense. it makes me too outraged. i dont even know where to start. i need to not discuss this anymore.
lol
no the feminists won't take over the world!
The feminists are simply being used as pawns to destroy society on the march to the nwo
Of course there is an essence to feminism! It doesn't matter how many schools of thought you can identify under that umbrella term the bias is energetically stamped within the fabric of the word 'FEMIN-ism'
Women may however be used as adminstrators in the nwo beaurocracy
You know when you ring up a government branch to query something and you get those really grating officious little hitler types?
Those ones will be selected through psychometric testing and they'll be the people the public have to deal with for any sort of query....that's if you're lucky enough to get to speak to a human rather than a computer or a robot
***flat mechanical voice*** 'take a ticket and get in line'
I hadn't even heard of this self-cleaning myth. I can't imagine anybody not cleaning everything down there on a regular basis.
I have to admit that the only time I do have penis envy is when I am camping or hiking and the men can just pee on a tree with no problem, that and write their names in the snow
. Peeing out in the woods when you are a woman is not easy. Otherwise than that I'm just fine with I have .
No this is what it is really about:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/review-of-kerry-boltons-revolution-from-above/
Review of Kerry Bolton’s “Revolution from Above”
March 12, 2013 — 3 Comments
Jonas De Geer
Revolution from Above
by Kerry Bolton
Arktos Media 2011, 258 pages, $27
Available from Arktos Media and Amazon
Why is it that the ”Left” in its various guises — Communists, anti-fascists, feminists, advocates of multiculturalism and other enemies of traditional European civilization — have, as a rule, considerable resources at their disposal? Why are such people constantly awarded influential and prestigious posts in the media and in academia?
The answer is quite simple: the generic Left is the creature and protégé of the real power — “Big Money” — and the dissolution of the Western, Christian nations has been a primary goal for the cosmopolitan financial elite for a long time.
Hence the title of Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above. The author mainly focuses on the last century’s destruction of traditional values and social institutions, especially the family, through politics, academia and the mass media. The book also contains valuable chapters on Wall Street’s role behind many revolutions, from the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 to the heavily-subsidized and widely-covered coups of recent years, such as the “color revolutions” in the various former Soviet republics or the Arab Spring.
With this very well-documented work, New Zealander Bolton places himself in a proud Anglo-Saxon tradition of genuine contemporary history writing, in the line of Nesta Webster, Douglas Reed, A. K. Chesterton and Ivor Benson.
Bolton traces the beginning of the end of Western civilization back several centuries, when merchants and bankers started replacing the land-owning aristocracy as the ruling class, bringing about the birth of usury, industrialization, urbanization and social misery. The apparent paradox is that essentially the same forces created and nurtured socialism. As Bolton shows, however, socialism was never the actual enemy of Big Money — even if the vast majority of socialists have lived and died believing in that illusion.
Bolton notes that this development can be documented as far back as the French Revolution, but begins his narrative with the Russian Revolution of 1917. That the Communist takeover in Russia was heavily financed by Wall Street is an indisputable historical fact, but still systematically ignored in history textbooks and television documentaries.
The single most important financier of the Bolshevik Revolution was probably Jacob Schiff, head of the Jewish investment bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co. It is worth noting that his partner in the firm, his brother-in-law Paul Warburg, was the architect of the Federal Reserve System. Warburg’s brother, Felix, was also married to Schiff’s daughter, Frieda.
Bolton writes:
The USA has pursued a foreign policy from the time of Pres. Woodrow Wilson that has been dictated by the international bankers primarily through the CFR. This foreign policy amounts to a “world revolution” as far-reaching and subversive as anything promulgated by Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. [p. 227]
The Council on Foreign Relations (the ”CFR”) was founded in 1921 in New York. This was only a formality, however, since the CFR was headed by the same camarilla of plutocrats who, with their academic and journalist henchmen, had been running American economic and foreign policy throughout Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, between 1913 and 1921.
CFR and its transatlantic twin, the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, were in fact conceived at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, during the peace negotiations at Versailles. These two institutions have been cornerstones of organized plutocracy’s global power structure ever since.
Remarkably little has changed since Wilson led the United States into war under the hypocritical slogan of “making the world safe for democracy.” His later successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought the country into the Second World War with the same duplicity and pompous rhetoric, and, de facto, inaugurated even friendlier relations with world Communism. They were both in the hands of the same cosmopolitan moneymen, such as Bernard Baruch, who was advisor to both.
Clearly, Senator Joseph McCarthy was not fighting windmills when he warned his nation about Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the apparatus of American power. Although he did not understand, at least initially, that this was no mere network of spies, but that he had stumbled across something far more powerful and malign. Bolton quotes the official historian of the CFR, Peter Grosse, as follows:
Concerns that seemed more pressing bore down at the turn of the 1950s. The nation was in danger of succumbing to a red-baiting frenzy, marked by the rise into the headlines of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Not surprisingly, the Council’s membership seemed solidly united in contempt for the Wisconsin demagogue; under his provocative rhetoric, after all, was a thinly veiled attack on the entire East Coast foreign policy establishment, whose members gathered regularly in the closed conference rooms of the Harold Pratt House. [p. 43]
This is the real reason why the brave Senator’s name continues to be dragged in the mud to this very day as being synonymous with political paranoia.
Bolton contends that if it had not been for Stalin, the rapid development of the world government that is now coming into being would probably have already taken place in the immediate aftermath of the war. The original purpose of the United Nations was for it to become a far more powerful and efficient institution than it in fact became. The Soviet tyrant had not eliminated all his domestic rivals in order to become merely a subordinate to an external, internationalist power. Thus, the Cold War was not entirely a fake conflict.
When the Soviet Union was finally dismantled, however, the same forces wasted no time in a new push for their age-old agenda: a global government that would make the world safe for financial exploitation.
Today, the Council on Foreign Relations operates through government-funded institutions masquerading as independent organizations acting to promote noble ideals, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and the International Republican Institute. One of the book’s merits is that it not only brings up infamous neoconservative warmongers like John Podhoretz, William Kristol, or Paul Wolfowitz, but also lesser-known figures such as Max Schachtman and his disciples such as Tom Kahn, who had considerable influence upon Reagan’s foreign policy, and Carl Gershman, the long-time boss of the National Endowment for Democracy.
All of these people were Trotskyists who, at some point, shifted strategy and draped themselves in the Stars and Stripes in order to more successfully further the ideal of world revolution, and almost all of them were Jews. Even though Jews are extremely overrepresented, not just in the American foreign policy apparatus, but also in general amongst the ideologues, politicians and financiers of the Russian Revolution, Bolton makes a point of ignoring this extremely important ethnic and cultural factor. Why he does this is not entirely clear. In an interview with Alex Kurtagic for Wermod and Wermod, he explains:
I also wanted to do this without being sidetracked by issues such as Jews and Zionism. Much material focuses on this, but it leaves no room for other factors. There are plenty of scholarly books on the Zionist and Jewish machinations, such as Kevin MacDonald’s volumes, and those of Israel Shahak. I have also written a lot about these matters in pamphlets and articles, so I cannot be accused of avoiding these issues, or “compromising” or “selling out.”
Indeed, people nowadays are conditioned to reject any information about Jews which is not positive and flattering to them, so it might be worthwhile to point out the fact that the “Left,” to a very large extent, is the creation of Big Money without sending the reader into a panic over “anti-Semitism.” Still, it is doubtful whether these matters can be understood at all if the Jewish factor is to be systematically ignored. For example, Jacob Schiff’s support of the Bolsheviks was primarily motivated by a typically Jewish hatred of the tsarist regime, and not just as a good investment. That being said, Bolton does not twist himself into the bizarre position of denying that the Jewish factor is at all relevant in this context, which so many have done, from Anthony Sutton and Gary Allen to Alex Jones.
There are, of course, several notable exceptions to the Jewish dominance in the international financial elite, most notably the Rockefellers, but there are others, such as the Wallenbergs of Sweden. However, both these families have had close business connections with their Jewish colleagues since the nineteenth century. More telling is the fact that these non-Jewish financial dynasties have never shown any sign of ethnic solidarity with their own peoples, while this is definitely not the case among the Jewish financial elite. On the contrary, they have often played prominent roles in Big Money’s internationalist network. David Rockefeller was one of the primary financiers of the CFR, and was the founding father of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, organizations in which the Wallenbergs, among others, have always been represented at the highest levels.
The global revolution that had its origins at the time of the Russian Revolution persisted in the Western world throughout the postwar era, even if not by violent means, and was backed by the same forces that had financed the Revolution of 1917.
Since the Second World War, the revolutionary strategy pursued in the West has focused on seeding culturally destructive ideas and promoting anti-social behavior in order to break down the cultural, intellectual and moral fabric of society. This is always done in the name of — what else? — “liberation.”
The agenda of the gradual destruction of the White, Christian West was first expressed clearly and coherently by the Frankfurt School, in the form of “critical theory.” The explicit purpose of this purportedly scientific endeavor was the destructive criticism of morals, tradition, faith, family, and nation — in short: all the cornerstones of Western civilization. Bolton notes that political correctness, the intellectual disease which has infected the contemporary mentality in general and academia in particular for almost half a century, can be directly traced to the Frankfurt School.
As the name suggests, this neo-Marxist school of thought was developed at the University of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial capital. An organization affiliated with the university, the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), was founded there in 1924, funded by the wealthy Argentinian-German Jew, Felix Weil. It attracted young, almost exclusively Jewish, socialist intellectuals from all over Central Europe who, even if they remained Communists, had lost faith in the “revolutionary potential” of the working class. In the eyes of these academic revolutionaries, the workers were instinctively conservative. The destruction of the despicable civilization of Christianity demanded a more thorough revolution in mentality. That was the underlying notion that united Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and their ilk.
The first chapter in the history of the Frankfurt School ended in 1933, when Hitler came to power. Then, this entire group of Jewish Communist academics, humorously enough, relocatedfrom the German capital of finance, Frankfurt, to the world capital of capitalism, New York, where the exiled Institute was hosted by Columbia University. Prominent members such as Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann spent the 1940s in dividing their time between the prestigious Ivy League university and the Office of Strategic Services, which was the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Later, in the 1960s, Marcuse was to become the Grand Old Man of the “New Left” and on a par with his colleague Wilhelm Reich as the main ideologue of the “sexual revolution.” Bolton documents how abortion, homosexuality, feminism, psychedelic music, and degenerate art has been fostered by the CIA and lavishly funded by Big Money’s tax-exempt foundations such as Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller. The feminist icon Gloria Steinem has admitted to having worked with the CIA. Evidence has also been uncovered linking drug guru Timothy Leary, propagator of the “turn on, tune in, drop out” catch-phrase of the hippies, to the CIA. Really, this should come as no surprise to anyone. It goes without saying that if these “subversives” had not had the approval and support of those truly in power, they would have remained in obscurity. It’s that simple.
Apart from the awkward, self-imposed blindness to the Jewish factor in all of this, the most striking flaw of Revolution from Above is that Bolton relies on the testimony of the late Aaron Russo in an interview with Alex Jones, which does not deserve to be dignified in such a manner. Russo was a successful Jewish entrepreneur in the entertainment business who had been Bette Midler’s manager, as well as the producer of films such as The Rose and Trading Places. In the interview with Jones from 2007, Russo, dying of cancer, talked about his friendship with one Nicholas Rockefeller, allegedly a scion of the illustrious family and an insider of the power elite. Even if most of what Russo pretends to remember from their conversations is in accordance with actual events, it falls flat when he claims that the world’s power elite has seriously considered moving the entire state of Israel to Arizona. Whether “Nick” Rockefeller was pulling Russo’s leg, or whether Russo was pulling Jones’, is irrelevant. In either case, it is beyond ludicrous.
In spite of these flaws, the book as a whole is a very well-documented exposé of the ongoing world revolution of cosmopolitan finance. Most of Bolton’s references are easy for the reader to access and consult, if he is inclined to verify them, and Bolton is generous with quotations. And it is especially valuable that he brings the reader up-to-date by covering the roots of the recent subversion in the nations of the former Soviet Union and the Muslim world.
All in all, this is a book that it is very worthwhile to read.
Jonas De Geer is a Swedish writer who lives in Orkney, Scotland. He was the editor of the Swedish conservative magazine Samtidsmagasinet Salt between 1999 and 2002, and has written extensively on nationalist subjects.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/03/review-of-kerry-boltons-revolution-from-above/
Review of Kerry Bolton’s “Revolution from Above”
March 12, 2013 — 3 Comments
Jonas De Geer
Revolution from Above
by Kerry Bolton
Arktos Media 2011, 258 pages, $27
Available from Arktos Media and Amazon
Why is it that the ”Left” in its various guises — Communists, anti-fascists, feminists, advocates of multiculturalism and other enemies of traditional European civilization — have, as a rule, considerable resources at their disposal? Why are such people constantly awarded influential and prestigious posts in the media and in academia?
The answer is quite simple: the generic Left is the creature and protégé of the real power — “Big Money” — and the dissolution of the Western, Christian nations has been a primary goal for the cosmopolitan financial elite for a long time.
Hence the title of Kerry Bolton’s Revolution from Above. The author mainly focuses on the last century’s destruction of traditional values and social institutions, especially the family, through politics, academia and the mass media. The book also contains valuable chapters on Wall Street’s role behind many revolutions, from the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917 to the heavily-subsidized and widely-covered coups of recent years, such as the “color revolutions” in the various former Soviet republics or the Arab Spring.
With this very well-documented work, New Zealander Bolton places himself in a proud Anglo-Saxon tradition of genuine contemporary history writing, in the line of Nesta Webster, Douglas Reed, A. K. Chesterton and Ivor Benson.
Bolton traces the beginning of the end of Western civilization back several centuries, when merchants and bankers started replacing the land-owning aristocracy as the ruling class, bringing about the birth of usury, industrialization, urbanization and social misery. The apparent paradox is that essentially the same forces created and nurtured socialism. As Bolton shows, however, socialism was never the actual enemy of Big Money — even if the vast majority of socialists have lived and died believing in that illusion.
Bolton notes that this development can be documented as far back as the French Revolution, but begins his narrative with the Russian Revolution of 1917. That the Communist takeover in Russia was heavily financed by Wall Street is an indisputable historical fact, but still systematically ignored in history textbooks and television documentaries.
The single most important financier of the Bolshevik Revolution was probably Jacob Schiff, head of the Jewish investment bank Kuhn, Loeb & Co. It is worth noting that his partner in the firm, his brother-in-law Paul Warburg, was the architect of the Federal Reserve System. Warburg’s brother, Felix, was also married to Schiff’s daughter, Frieda.
Bolton writes:
The USA has pursued a foreign policy from the time of Pres. Woodrow Wilson that has been dictated by the international bankers primarily through the CFR. This foreign policy amounts to a “world revolution” as far-reaching and subversive as anything promulgated by Trotsky and the Bolsheviks. [p. 227]
The Council on Foreign Relations (the ”CFR”) was founded in 1921 in New York. This was only a formality, however, since the CFR was headed by the same camarilla of plutocrats who, with their academic and journalist henchmen, had been running American economic and foreign policy throughout Woodrow Wilson’s presidency, between 1913 and 1921.
CFR and its transatlantic twin, the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs, were in fact conceived at the Hotel Majestic in Paris on May 30, 1919, during the peace negotiations at Versailles. These two institutions have been cornerstones of organized plutocracy’s global power structure ever since.
Remarkably little has changed since Wilson led the United States into war under the hypocritical slogan of “making the world safe for democracy.” His later successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought the country into the Second World War with the same duplicity and pompous rhetoric, and, de facto, inaugurated even friendlier relations with world Communism. They were both in the hands of the same cosmopolitan moneymen, such as Bernard Baruch, who was advisor to both.
Clearly, Senator Joseph McCarthy was not fighting windmills when he warned his nation about Communist infiltration at the highest levels of the apparatus of American power. Although he did not understand, at least initially, that this was no mere network of spies, but that he had stumbled across something far more powerful and malign. Bolton quotes the official historian of the CFR, Peter Grosse, as follows:
Concerns that seemed more pressing bore down at the turn of the 1950s. The nation was in danger of succumbing to a red-baiting frenzy, marked by the rise into the headlines of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. Not surprisingly, the Council’s membership seemed solidly united in contempt for the Wisconsin demagogue; under his provocative rhetoric, after all, was a thinly veiled attack on the entire East Coast foreign policy establishment, whose members gathered regularly in the closed conference rooms of the Harold Pratt House. [p. 43]
This is the real reason why the brave Senator’s name continues to be dragged in the mud to this very day as being synonymous with political paranoia.
Bolton contends that if it had not been for Stalin, the rapid development of the world government that is now coming into being would probably have already taken place in the immediate aftermath of the war. The original purpose of the United Nations was for it to become a far more powerful and efficient institution than it in fact became. The Soviet tyrant had not eliminated all his domestic rivals in order to become merely a subordinate to an external, internationalist power. Thus, the Cold War was not entirely a fake conflict.
When the Soviet Union was finally dismantled, however, the same forces wasted no time in a new push for their age-old agenda: a global government that would make the world safe for financial exploitation.
Today, the Council on Foreign Relations operates through government-funded institutions masquerading as independent organizations acting to promote noble ideals, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and the International Republican Institute. One of the book’s merits is that it not only brings up infamous neoconservative warmongers like John Podhoretz, William Kristol, or Paul Wolfowitz, but also lesser-known figures such as Max Schachtman and his disciples such as Tom Kahn, who had considerable influence upon Reagan’s foreign policy, and Carl Gershman, the long-time boss of the National Endowment for Democracy.
All of these people were Trotskyists who, at some point, shifted strategy and draped themselves in the Stars and Stripes in order to more successfully further the ideal of world revolution, and almost all of them were Jews. Even though Jews are extremely overrepresented, not just in the American foreign policy apparatus, but also in general amongst the ideologues, politicians and financiers of the Russian Revolution, Bolton makes a point of ignoring this extremely important ethnic and cultural factor. Why he does this is not entirely clear. In an interview with Alex Kurtagic for Wermod and Wermod, he explains:
I also wanted to do this without being sidetracked by issues such as Jews and Zionism. Much material focuses on this, but it leaves no room for other factors. There are plenty of scholarly books on the Zionist and Jewish machinations, such as Kevin MacDonald’s volumes, and those of Israel Shahak. I have also written a lot about these matters in pamphlets and articles, so I cannot be accused of avoiding these issues, or “compromising” or “selling out.”
Indeed, people nowadays are conditioned to reject any information about Jews which is not positive and flattering to them, so it might be worthwhile to point out the fact that the “Left,” to a very large extent, is the creation of Big Money without sending the reader into a panic over “anti-Semitism.” Still, it is doubtful whether these matters can be understood at all if the Jewish factor is to be systematically ignored. For example, Jacob Schiff’s support of the Bolsheviks was primarily motivated by a typically Jewish hatred of the tsarist regime, and not just as a good investment. That being said, Bolton does not twist himself into the bizarre position of denying that the Jewish factor is at all relevant in this context, which so many have done, from Anthony Sutton and Gary Allen to Alex Jones.
There are, of course, several notable exceptions to the Jewish dominance in the international financial elite, most notably the Rockefellers, but there are others, such as the Wallenbergs of Sweden. However, both these families have had close business connections with their Jewish colleagues since the nineteenth century. More telling is the fact that these non-Jewish financial dynasties have never shown any sign of ethnic solidarity with their own peoples, while this is definitely not the case among the Jewish financial elite. On the contrary, they have often played prominent roles in Big Money’s internationalist network. David Rockefeller was one of the primary financiers of the CFR, and was the founding father of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, organizations in which the Wallenbergs, among others, have always been represented at the highest levels.
The global revolution that had its origins at the time of the Russian Revolution persisted in the Western world throughout the postwar era, even if not by violent means, and was backed by the same forces that had financed the Revolution of 1917.
Since the Second World War, the revolutionary strategy pursued in the West has focused on seeding culturally destructive ideas and promoting anti-social behavior in order to break down the cultural, intellectual and moral fabric of society. This is always done in the name of — what else? — “liberation.”
The agenda of the gradual destruction of the White, Christian West was first expressed clearly and coherently by the Frankfurt School, in the form of “critical theory.” The explicit purpose of this purportedly scientific endeavor was the destructive criticism of morals, tradition, faith, family, and nation — in short: all the cornerstones of Western civilization. Bolton notes that political correctness, the intellectual disease which has infected the contemporary mentality in general and academia in particular for almost half a century, can be directly traced to the Frankfurt School.
As the name suggests, this neo-Marxist school of thought was developed at the University of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial capital. An organization affiliated with the university, the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research), was founded there in 1924, funded by the wealthy Argentinian-German Jew, Felix Weil. It attracted young, almost exclusively Jewish, socialist intellectuals from all over Central Europe who, even if they remained Communists, had lost faith in the “revolutionary potential” of the working class. In the eyes of these academic revolutionaries, the workers were instinctively conservative. The destruction of the despicable civilization of Christianity demanded a more thorough revolution in mentality. That was the underlying notion that united Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich, Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse and their ilk.
The first chapter in the history of the Frankfurt School ended in 1933, when Hitler came to power. Then, this entire group of Jewish Communist academics, humorously enough, relocatedfrom the German capital of finance, Frankfurt, to the world capital of capitalism, New York, where the exiled Institute was hosted by Columbia University. Prominent members such as Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann spent the 1940s in dividing their time between the prestigious Ivy League university and the Office of Strategic Services, which was the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Later, in the 1960s, Marcuse was to become the Grand Old Man of the “New Left” and on a par with his colleague Wilhelm Reich as the main ideologue of the “sexual revolution.” Bolton documents how abortion, homosexuality, feminism, psychedelic music, and degenerate art has been fostered by the CIA and lavishly funded by Big Money’s tax-exempt foundations such as Ford, Carnegie and Rockefeller. The feminist icon Gloria Steinem has admitted to having worked with the CIA. Evidence has also been uncovered linking drug guru Timothy Leary, propagator of the “turn on, tune in, drop out” catch-phrase of the hippies, to the CIA. Really, this should come as no surprise to anyone. It goes without saying that if these “subversives” had not had the approval and support of those truly in power, they would have remained in obscurity. It’s that simple.
Apart from the awkward, self-imposed blindness to the Jewish factor in all of this, the most striking flaw of Revolution from Above is that Bolton relies on the testimony of the late Aaron Russo in an interview with Alex Jones, which does not deserve to be dignified in such a manner. Russo was a successful Jewish entrepreneur in the entertainment business who had been Bette Midler’s manager, as well as the producer of films such as The Rose and Trading Places. In the interview with Jones from 2007, Russo, dying of cancer, talked about his friendship with one Nicholas Rockefeller, allegedly a scion of the illustrious family and an insider of the power elite. Even if most of what Russo pretends to remember from their conversations is in accordance with actual events, it falls flat when he claims that the world’s power elite has seriously considered moving the entire state of Israel to Arizona. Whether “Nick” Rockefeller was pulling Russo’s leg, or whether Russo was pulling Jones’, is irrelevant. In either case, it is beyond ludicrous.
In spite of these flaws, the book as a whole is a very well-documented exposé of the ongoing world revolution of cosmopolitan finance. Most of Bolton’s references are easy for the reader to access and consult, if he is inclined to verify them, and Bolton is generous with quotations. And it is especially valuable that he brings the reader up-to-date by covering the roots of the recent subversion in the nations of the former Soviet Union and the Muslim world.
All in all, this is a book that it is very worthwhile to read.
Jonas De Geer is a Swedish writer who lives in Orkney, Scotland. He was the editor of the Swedish conservative magazine Samtidsmagasinet Salt between 1999 and 2002, and has written extensively on nationalist subjects.
Last edited:
I'm sorry to break this news to you but more men die in our society due to violence then women
Men have always born the brunt of the physical and risky work and the wars
Men are far more likely to be killed through violence then women and here is a big shock for you which no doubt in your marxist feminist infected mind you will instantly dismiss but this study published in the mainstream newspaper 'the independent' has found that women are more violent then men (thank goodness women aren't bigger then us is all i can say!)
The big question is: are there any women out there who are magnanimous enough to acknowledge the truth of all this and can they acknowledge that men need legal protections from women?
because as the study says...if men know they are not going to be protected by law they are more likely to defend themselves with counter violence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html
Women are more violent, says study
By Sophie Goodchild , Home Affairs Correspondent
Sunday 12 November 2000
Bruised and battered husbands have been complaining for years and now the biggest research project of its kind has proved them right. When it comes to domestic confrontation, women are more violent than men.
Bruised and battered husbands have been complaining for years and now the biggest research project of its kind has proved them right. When it comes to domestic confrontation, women are more violent than men.
The study, which challenges the long-standing view that women are overwhelmingly the victims of aggression, is based on an analysis of 34,000 men and women by a British academic. Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.
Male violence remains a more serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners. Female aggression tends to involve pushing, slapping and hurling objects. Yet men made up nearly 40 per cent of the victims in the cases that he studied - a figure much higher than previously reported.
Professor Archer analysed data from 82 US and UK studies on relationship violence, dating back to 1972. He also looked at 17 studies based on victim reports from 1,140 men and women. Speaking last night, he said that female aggression was greater in westernised women because they were "economically emancipated" and therefore not afraid of ending a relationship.
"Feminist writers say most of the acts against men are not important but the same people have used the same surveys to inflate the number of women who are attacked," he said. "In the past it would not even have been considered that women are violent. My view is that you must base social policy on the whole evidence."
His views are supported by Dr Malcolm George, a lecturer in neuroscience at London University. In a paper to be published next year in the Journal of Men's Studies, Dr George will argue that men have been abused by their wives since Elizabethan times. He uses examples such as the actor John Wayne, beaten by his wife Conchita Martinez, and Humphrey Bogart battered by his wife Mayo Methot, as well as Abraham Lincoln whose wife Mary who broke his nose with a lump of wood.
His research is backed up by historical records which show that men who were beaten by their wives were publicly humiliated in a ceremony called a "skimmington procession". The procession was named after the ladle used to skim milk during cheese making.
Dr George has also unearthed a plaster frieze in Montacute House in Somerset that depicts a wife hitting her husband over the head followed by a "skimmington" ceremony.
"It's a complex argument but we do get more women aggressing against male partners than men against female partners," said Dr George. "The view is that women are acting in self-defence but that is not true - 50 per cent of those who initiate aggression are women. This sends a dangerous message to men because we are saying they are not going to get any legal redress so their option instead is to hit back."
Terrie Moffitt, professor of social behaviour at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, admitted that women do engage in abusive behaviour and said the Home Office should fund research into the issue in the UK. "If we ask does women's violence have consequences for their kids then the answer is 'yes'," she said. "There is also an elevated risk of children being victims of domestic violence if there is central violence between parents."
However, Dr Anne Campbell, a psychologist at the University of Durham, said that women should still receive the most support because they were the greater victims of domestic violence. "The outcome of violence is that women are more damaged by it and need the bulk of resources," she said. "But women's violence has become increasingly legitimised. There is a sense now that it's OK to 'slap the bastard'."
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] it isn't worth debating you on things like this because I could give you links to hundreds of articles from what most educated people would consider credible sources and you would say they are not credible because you prefer to believe rare, obscure and unproven articles. Yes, men are the victims of a lot of violence as well, but mostly from other men, and yes many women can be violent as well but it doesn't change the fact that men in the vast majority of cases cause much more physical harm when they are violent. If you still don't get that this isn't a men vs women issue then you just don't get it. Female genital mutilation has been performed on millions of girls and it is often women who perform and promote this procedure. I don't give a crap if well-known 'feminists' are funded by whoever you say they are, I care to stop young girls from being forced to endure a procedure that has been proven to be very harmful. I don't care if the people causing the harm are women or men, I just want them to stop. You are the one spreading false information and making these issues into a war between men and women. It is simply about protecting vulnerable women and girls from whoever is causing them harm.