Adam’s Rib: The Deep Roots of Masonic Jewish-Gay Subversion


a-rib.jpeg

The main message of the movie 
is that “man is evil and weak, 
and woman is strong and virtuous, 
so women don’t need men”.
Because of their media control, society is unaware that Masonic Jews (Communists) and their homosexual helpmates have been subverting Western society for more than a hundred years. Adam’s Rib,(1949), written by Jews and directed by a homosexual, made men and women deny their gender identity.
How many millions of lives were ruined by this satanist  social engineering?How many marriages broken? How many children grew up without fathers? How many women without husbands? Men without wives? These evil bastards continue to sabotage society today.
by Anon
(Abridged by henrymakow.com) 
 
Why am I writing about a movie from 68 years ago that most people have forgotten?  Because it shows that the Golden Age of Hollywood was not really “sweet and innocent” at all.  It helps to answer the questions “how was our society destroyed?” and “where did it begin?”
 

movieAdamsRib.jpg

Adam’s Rib is a feminist gender bender movie from 1949.   Notice that the title is Biblical but the movie is Anti-Biblical. This tricked conservatives into thinking that it was a safe movie to watch.
The plot involves a woman who shoots her unfaithful husband and puts him in critical condition but is found “not guilty” by a court of law.
[Echoes of Chicago]
A lawyer (Spencer Tracy) is assigned to represent the man in court.   His wife (Katherine Hepburn), instead of supporting her breadwinning husband who lavishes her with gifts, thinks it is fun to compete with her husband and to ridicule him in court. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” -radical communist Saul Alinsky.
The lawyer’s reaction is to yell “I wanted a wife, not a competitor!”
MODELLING DYSFUNCTION AND SELFISHNESS
His liberal wife does not cook, clean, nor raise any children.   She spends her time drinking, smoking, and going to fancy restaurants.  And insulting and goading her conservative husband whenever he disagrees with her.
When her husband gives her a fancy hat, she gives it away to her client accused of attempted murder.
She effortlessly gets a job as a lawyer on a whim.
Although the accused woman shoots her husband, she is portrayed as a “good-hearted victim” who was protecting her family, while her cheating husband is portrayed as a selfish boor who never mentions his children once.

AdamsRibManIntoWoman.jpg

The victim of the shooting is mocked by transforming into a woman.
All men in the film are mocked except for an effeminate songwriter.
The cheating husband is played by Tom Ewell, who would continue his promotion of adultery in The Seven Year Itch with Marilyn Monroe six years later, in 1955.
During the court testimony in Adam’s Rib, we hear that the accused beats her husband as often as he beats her. Even in abuse, they are portrayed as equals.
As the lawyer’s wife gives him a massage, she slaps him.  But when he gives her a massage and slaps her, she is offended.  There are two sets of rules:  Although they are “equals”, she can do things that he is not permitted to do.  “Some are more equal than others” -George Orwell.
When the lawyer’s wife asks the jury to picture a role reversal, two women morph into effeminate men and the man morphs into an ugly woman. All three are shown dressed in drag, promoting transvestism and transgenderism.
At the beginning of the movie, women had cried repeatedly to manipulate men.   By the end of the movie, the man turns on the tears to manipulate his wife. Their roles have been reversed.
Throughout the movie, a neighbour plays the song “Farewell Amanda” on the piano, foreshadowing the couple’s eventual split up and divorce proceedings.
The song was written by homosexual occultist Cole Porter (Scroll and Key).   The effeminate piano-playing joker in the movie is a dead ringer for Cole Porter, too.   He mocks the husband at every opportunity and hits on his wife right in front of him.   The husband lets it go.   He is too weak to defend his wife.
In the final scene, the angry husband points a gun at his wife and her effeminate male lover.
The male lover cowers in fear behind the wife as she shields him.
The husband bites into his licorices gun.   He has proven that a pre-meditated gun attack would not be a justifiable “crime of passion” after all.

Adams_Rib_Katherine_Hepburn_as_Amanda_Bonner.jpg

When Katherine Hepburn states that men and women are “exactly the same”, Spencer Tracy says “Well, not quite exactly”.  In other words, men and women are identical except for their physiology.
Both the lawyer and his wife call each other “Pinky”, hardly a manly moniker.   Once again they are portrayed as almost identical equals.
The husband is continually made to look like a fool.   He jumbles his lines, he bumps his head, and he gets lifted in the air by a woman in court who is clearly much stronger than he is.   Everyone thinks it is hilarious. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy” -Saul Alinsky.
The smartest person in the movie is another woman in court who has endless degrees and credentials.
Yet he outsmarts his wife in the end – twice.   Once by pointing the licorice gun at her to prove he was right in court, and again when he cries his way out of a divorce proceeding.   He is no dummy.
This movie always gets a high rating from critics.   It is well-acted, full of humour, and it makes you think.   However, morality is never taken into account in their ratings.   If it was, Adam’s Rib would rate a zero.
The main message of the movie is that “man is evil and weak, and woman is strong and virtuous, so women don’t need men”.
It is almost as if Spencer Tracy’s character in Adam’s Rib represents God of the Bible, and the secular crowd mocks him and are unthankful for his gifts.
 
Adam’s Rib mocks conservative values and glorifies liberalism, much as All in the Family would do 22 years later, starting in 1971.

commie.jpg

The Luciferians, the communists, and in more recent years Hollywood, have been fomenting this “Battle of the Sexes” for hundreds of years.   It is a cornerstone in their “divide and conquer” tactic.   What else would you expect from Hollywood, the land of immorality propaganda?
Adam Weishaupt, founder of the illuminati, wrote:
“There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves;
it will be an immense release to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowledge that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration.”
This undermining of Godly morals and traditional families is essential for the luciferian globalists to replace God with lucifer, demoralize society, and set up a New World Order dictatorship.  “The family is enemy number one,” said satanist Aleister Crowley.
Yes, we were programmed to accept feminist gender bending and immorality a long time ago, as this movie from 1949 aptly illustrates.
—–
RelatedA Streetcar Named Desire – Another Liberal Jew-Gay Co-Production
 
First Comment by Dan:

Katherine Hepburn’s mother was the chair of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association and personal friend of Margaret Sanger.  At the root of it all, Feminism is merely an arm of Fabian eugenics for the underclass.

hep.jpg

(Left, Hep. ‘Manspreading.’)
Back in the day she and Spencer Tracy carried on a torrid ‘on and off’ relationship officially.  My grandmother told me all about it when I was growing up in the ’60’s’.
With hindsight I now believe their ‘illicit relationship’ was a public relations script like most Hollywood heterosexual pairings.  I believe that, because their ‘real life’ dynamics was exactly the same as this movie.  In ‘real life’ Tracy was said to be brooding depressive alcoholic that didn’t have the nerve to divorce his wife, with Hepburn as the devoted but entirely independent ‘other’ woman that was stronger than him.  Hepburn was a role model to the generation of ‘Rosie the Riveter’ women that worked in the defense plants during WWII.
Hollywood has been nothing but social engineering from the beginning.
 James Perloff writes:
 
Very glad to see this post, as it’s important to know how we’ve been culturally scammed throughout history. I remember ADAM’S RIB very well, how I despised Katherine Hepburn’s obnoxious feminism while I also undeniably laughed at the film’s well-crafted humor. Hollywood’s social engineers know that QUALITY SELLS, and will spare no expense or talent to communicate a “new normal.” This is why the first film to use the words “bitch” and “sperm” wove them into a riveting courtroom battle between George C. Scott sand James Stewart (1959’s ANATOMY OF A MURDER), and the first movie to display naked female breasts were in Rod Steiger’s career performance (1965’s THE PAWNBROKER). Each time a “new normal” got past the censors on the pretext that “great art must not be suppressed,” there was no turning back. Older movies seem attractive to us now because they nostalgically convey the more virtuous climate of the past, but within each time period, Hollywood was always boiling the frog toward greater immorality.

The SERPENT


The serpent, sometimes depicted as a dragon, is perhaps the most confusing of esoteric symbols. Mating snakes entwined depicted above & below pictures.

The official interpretation of serpent symbolism is that it means wisdom, but as I will explain in this article, the symbolism has a deeper and much more complex meaning. It essentially relates to the complex nature of the human psyche, energy and our body chemistry.

The serpent is an expression of our higher and lower consciousness.

Given the serpent was used by ancient cultures the width and breadth of the earth for thousands of years, its importance cannot be ignored.

As with all symbols, the snake has positive and negative connotations, but its very meanings are central to understanding human consciousness and the psycho-biological process of mankind

In actual fact, the serpent/dragon is one of the keys to understanding transcendence to higher states of consciousness and how we tend to fall foul of our sub-conscious mind. But through the serpent, we can find wisdom to overcome our lower conscience self and discover the higher self – that aspect of our personalities that religions call ‘God.’

Rebirth and renewal
At its deepest level, the serpent is a symbol of rebirth and renewal. Just as a snakes sheds its skin, humans have the capacity to defeat old values that no longer serve us and develop improved values.

We are able to do this by using the power of our innate wisdom which enables us to attain self-knowledge and reach enlightenment.

The snake is often associated with the underworld and depicts the demonic side of our nature – our base instincts that have been shaped by our experiences and arise from the sub-conscious mind.

But depending where it is placed within esoteric iconography and myth, the serpent also denotes our higher conscious state. In Hindu and Buddhism for example, it is common to find a seven-headed serpent, the Naga, above the heads of the Devas. This denotes enlightened beings – Buddhas.

Possession is Part of Marriage


first-pos.jpeg

A woman expresses love in terms of 
surrender, i.e. trust. She empowers 
her husband by accepting his leadership,
and by believing in him.
 
Women exchange power for love. They want
to be possessed by their husband’s love. 
 
 
 
 
(Revised from Dec. 2009)
 
by Henry Makow Ph.D.

My wife recently asked me why I loved her. Instead of enumerating her good qualities, I simply answered honestly: “Because you belong to me. ”

At the risk of being politically incorrect,  many men do not seek great beauty, brains or sex, but the simple feeling of “possessing” a woman. In other words, what they seek is a degree of ownership or power. This affirms their masculinity.

And many women have the complementary craving, to totally “belong” to their husband.

This is the key to intimacy, how two people become one. When a man earns a woman’s love, she entrusts herself to him. And of course, he aspires to be worthy of this responsibility.  Conversely, if a woman foolishly gives herself to the wrong man, she bears the responsibility.

As I have said: Men want power. Women want love. Heterosexual marriage is an exchange of the two. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond.

Thus, a woman empowers her husband by accepting his leadership. Men and women were designed to complement each other, not to compete or fight. Most marriages break up due to a struggle for power.

Possession is a practical necessity. A man needs to “own the womb” to ensure his wife conceives his child and not another man’s. A woman wants to rear a child that expresses her love for her husband. Sometimes the child is ‘a little version’ of him.

Marriage is based on the exchange of feminine worldly power for masculine power expressed as love. Of course, women retain other forms of power, i.e. aesthetic, moral, emotional, intellectual etc.

WORLDLY POWER: TOTAL SURRENDER = TOTAL LOVE
The greater a woman’s acceptance her husband’s leadership, the greater his love for her. When the issue of worldly power is settled, nothing prevents a husband’s love from expanding to encompass his wife. She becomes part of his ego, his sense of self.
Women express love in terms of surrender, i.e. trust. She empowers her husband by believing in him.  Thus, she inspires him to sacrifice for her and their children.

surrender1.jpg

In “The Power of Sexual Surrender” psychiatrist Marie Robinson writes that femininity is based on “an essential female altruism” i.e. putting husband and children first.  Real women do not seek power. They seek love. They are cherished because they dedicate themselves to husband and children.

SATANISTS DESTROY MARRIAGE 
We live in a toxic environment for marriage. The Illuminati (satanic, Masonic) central bankers who control modern politics, education and kulture, continue to sabotage this exchange by attacking women’s trust in men.

Men are irresponsible “abusers.” Marriage is exploitative and oppressive. Women must be  “independent.” How can one person belong to another? Women must be “strong and independent.”

dildo.jpeg

By haranguing women to seek power, they fit them with a psychological penis (penis=power) thereby neutering them and creating gender dysfunction. By promoting homosexuality and promiscuity, they are making it difficult to form an exclusive lifelong bond, and stable foundation for family.

Our “feminist” political leaders, pundits and educators are dupes and opportunists at best, impostors or traitors at worst. No honest government allows its men and women to be turned against each other.

We have a de facto Communist society. Feminism is nothing but Marxism applied to gender. Communism is Satanism. The satanist goal is to spread sickness and dysfunction as a way to exploit and control. “We corrupt in order to control,” Giuseppe Mazzini said.

Similarly, feminism has conditioned men to extend their adolescence by seeking sex instead of marriage and family. Emasculated men can neither demand nor command a woman’s trust.

Young men and women now equate love with sexual attraction which inevitably is transitory and fickle. As I said, love is based on sacrifice. We love people who do things for us. When a woman self effaces, she awakens an outpouring of love in his soul. Their identities and self interest are fused.
Love is also based on many qualities that have nothing to do with sex appeal. I also love my wife because she is smart and capable. She’s not perfect but then neither am I.


ENLIGHTENED “POSSESSION” 

You don’t win a woman’s trust by attempting to dominate or suffocate her. You want her to want to belong to you. You consult her and consider her wishes.

You accept her individuality. For example, you don’t try to impose your ideas. Naturally you will choose someone who has an affinity with you. But you’re not looking for a clone. You should value her perspective and appreciate your differences. You complement each other. For example, I am a big picture guy. My wife is detail oriented. I need her.

I get emails from men who complain that their women can’t accept the “Conspiracy.” So what? Do you really want the madness mirrored back to you? If what we’re saying is true, it will become apparent to everyone eventually. People in possession of the truth do not have to proselytize.

As for sex, I can’t imagine a man ever insisting on sex when his wife is not in the mood. There’s no faster way to turn a woman off. Sex should never be an issue.

On the other hand, a man won’t let his wife engage in activities that endanger her or their marriage.

CONCLUSION

When a man loves a woman, he wants her to be happy. He wants her to want him.
If you are single, narrow the search to women who want you.

Seek feminine receptivity: i.e. the ability to give, trust, belong.

Why Women Aren’t Getting Loved


Go-out-for-dinners-get-to-know-each-other-better.jpg

Ladies, if you want  

love and marriage,

act like a potential wife 

and mother,

not a slut.

(Updated  from Sept 12, 2004)

by Henry Makow Ph.D

A news story June 7, 2016 said that more than four in 10 US women are obese.     Women are getting fat because they’re not getting sex and love. They’re eating to compensate. (See: Why the feds Spent $3 million to study Lesbian Obesity)

Contrary to popular belief, women need regular sex as much as men and more. Both sexes need regular intimate contact.

Despite the availability of online hookups, women aren’t getting satisfying sex. Why would strangers care about their satisfaction? Back in the day when sex was called  “love-making,” sex was an expression of feelings.

For heterosexuals, sexual intercourse is a woman’s act of surrender to her husband; and a man’s taking possession of his wife.  It symbolizes an exchange of female power for male power expressed as love. A woman gives her husband the power to grant her wishes (or not.) She gives him the power to love her. She is not afraid to depend on him.

Women want love; men want power. Marriage is an exchange of the two. If either party reneges, the contract is broken.

For a woman, this exchange requires trust. Trust entails patient courtship and commitment. Sex creates an intimate bond between a man and a woman. Two people do become one.

Anonymous sex is profoundly self-destructive. If a woman gives herself to a stranger, she experiences a profound rejection no matter how much the Illuminati try to convince her otherwise.  It is self-destructive for a man as well because it undermines his sense of possession and commitment to a single woman.

The Illuminati hate us. They brainwash women to seek power instead of male love.  Power = penis. Essentially they have taught women to neuter themselves and emasculate their men. Heterosexual love is under constant attack. Homosexual and transgender confusion are considered chic.

This Rockefeller-sponsored program  is designed to degrade, depopulate and destabilize society by divorcing sex from marriage and procreation and by pretending gender roles are social and not biological in origin. (See also, How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women)

WOMEN’S SELF DEFEATING BEHAVIOR

Young women act like sex is the only way to attract men. They try to parlay sex appeal into lasting love and family. This is self-defeating. It is sending men the wrong message.

Ladies, if you want love and family, do not present in sexual terms. Why compete on the same terms as practically every other young woman? No wonder you’re dumped! You’re interchangeable.

Instead present yourself as potential life partners: wives and mothers. In other words, dress modestly and prepare to be indispensable to the man and children you will love. Learn the skills of a homemaker and helpmate. You will discover a large pool of quality men who are looking for you.

download (11).jpeg

Recently a female cashier shocked me by smiling. I quickly realized that it was part of her job. Female charm (warmth, grace, cheerfulness, attentiveness, modesty) have been crushed under the jackboot of feminism.

Ladies, make sure a man is worthy of you. Don’t get involved with sexual nomads who haven’t time for courtship and marriage.

Sex is the sacred ritual of procreation. Sex should always take place in the context of love, preferably marriage.

Our children are literally part of us. They represent our organic growth.

PROMISCUITY
Promiscuity is not normal or natural for heterosexuals. It is essentially homosexual because it reflects a failure to form a permanent bond with a member of the opposite sex.

The Illuminist portray traditional morality as “old fashioned.” Traditional morality represents the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding happiness. Our moral conduct contributes more to our health than diet and exercise.

Monogamy is good for men too. A friend wrote: “Men get their sense of self worth from their families, the honest production they create at the work place and they feel good about what they are doing when they believe that they are building a better world for their children. All of this has been taken from us Henry. It is so sickening that very few men have the courage to look at any part of it.”

Women also depend on a man (their husband) for personal fulfillment. This is why they obsess about love and marriage.

In marriage, a man assumes a responsibility to fulfill his wife as a woman, i.e. as a life partner and mother. Women are different from men. They are instruments, vehicles. They need to be cared for and used for a higher purpose or they will rot on the vine or explode with frustration.

We live in a bizarre precarious world and we need to choose real people with character and ability to be our mates. Love grows from day-to-day caring over a long period of time.

THE FOCUS OF MARRIAGE

The proper focus of marriage is not the man and woman, but on God. In particular, the man should have a vision of how he will serve God. The wife should choose a man whose vision she can share.

It is about getting things done, doing God’s work at home and in society.

They’ve tried to discredit God by blaming Him for everything that goes wrong. God is not a fixer: He is a spiritual ideal: absolute truth, justice, goodness and love. Our ability to perceive these ideals is what makes us human.

We are intended to embody these ideals and bring them into the world. If we don’t, it won’t happen and we will deservedly suffer the consequences. So will our progeny. Most people care about their children but pay little heed to the world they will inhabit.They focus on approved subjects like the environment instead of the insidious war waged upon society by a cruel and corrupt elite.

We can resist their sabotage by upholding traditional sexual and moral values.

https://www.savethemales.ca/000585.html

Chosen by God !!!


By Gilad Atzmon…….    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/12/31/jewish-religions-and-the-prospect-of-dissent

 

chosen_by_god


“The Jewish religion is a religion of Mitzvoth (commandments) and without this religious idiom, the Jewish religion doesn’t exist at all.”   Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz

While Islam and Christianity can be easily understood as belief systems, Judaism actually defies the notion of belief all together. Judaism is an obedience regulative system. The Judaic universe is ruled by ‘mitzvoth’ (commandment), a set of 613 precepts and directives ordered by God. In opposition to Christianity and Islam that build from spiritual and heavenly precepts in worship to a transcendental God, the Judaic subject subscribes to strict earthly and material observance. While the Islamo-Christian is wrapped in God’s loving and the spirituality of the sublime and divinity, the follower of Judaism is judged by his or her ability to adhere to hundreds of rigorous earthly orders.

A brief look at the Judaic Sabbath common prayer reveals the nature of Judaism as an obedience regulatory system. As we can see below, in Judaism, even God-loving is not an involuntary act:

“You shall love Adonai your God with all your heart,
with all your soul, and with all your might.
Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day.

…Thus you shall remember to observe all My commandments
and to be holy to your God.
I am Adonai, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God:
I am Adonai your God.”

(Common Prayers for Shabbat Evening From Deuteronomy and Numbers)

For the Jew, belief and God-loving are not subject to either rational discretion or spiritual impulse. God loving, as we read above, is a strict “charge”, an order. But if Judaism is not a belief system, what kind of system is it?  Does the Judaic subject believe in anything at all?

The answer is yes: the Jew believes in ‘The Jews’ and the Jews believe in ‘The Jew.’ This mode of mutual affirmation establishes a solid and forceful tribal continuum that serves the collective as well as the singular subject.  Accordingly, the subject adheres to the collective and vice versa. In pragmatic terms, the Jew sticks to the ‘chosen people’ and, together the ‘chosenites’ uphold a collective sense of choseness.

In Judaism, ‘choseness’ is the belief that the Jewish people were singularly chosen to enter into a covenant with God.  For religious Jews, being chosen is realised as a duty. According to Judaic belief, the Jews have been placed on earth to fulfill a certain purpose. This purpose is bestowed upon the Jews and they pass it from father to son.[1]

In reality, the first Jews invented a God who chose them over all other people. For some reason this God is occasionally cruel, often non-ethical and as if this were not enough, not exactly a nice father. The Jewish God doesn’t even allow his people to call him by name. One may wonder what led the first Jews to invent such a horrid father figure. One may further question what led the Jews to sustain their ‘relationship’ with such an obnoxious father. The answer is surprisingly simple. They don’t.

The Jews don’t believe in God, they are observant of God. They believe in themselves- the Jews believe in ‘The Jew’ and vice versa. Within this peculiar troubled family affair, the Jew is free to dump God, as an author can freely re-write or at least re-shape his or her own narrative.  But the Jew can never dump the Jews as much as the Jews can’t allow ‘The Jew’ to go free. And what about God, can he be emancipated, can he choose another people? Certainly not. Unlike the Jew who is free to dump God while clinging to a Jewish identity, the Jewish God is merely a Jewish protagonist, he can’t go anywhere, he is stuck with ‘his’ chosen people forever.   

Choseness, so it seems, is hardly a heavenly gift, it is in fact a curse. It confines the Jew in a realm of self-imposed commandment and materiality. Instead of beauty, holiness and the pursuit of the divine and the sublime, the rabbinical Jew is left with an earthly obedience scheme that is sustained by a rigid tribal setting. ‘The Jew’ and ‘The Jews’ are bound in a set of mutual affirmations in which God serves an instrumental role.

Some may rightly argue that this spectacular bond between the Jews and ‘The Jew’ is essential for an understanding of the dichotomy between Judaic tribalism and the universal appeal of Islamo-Christian beliefs.

The Judaic crude intolerance towards dissent serves as an example of the above. Throughout their history, Jews have proven themselves hostile toward their nonconformists; now we are ready to grasp why.  For the Islamo-Christian, secularization, for instance, entails a rejection of a transcendental affair. But for the rabbinical Judaic subject, failure to conform constitutes a rejection of the Jews. It interferes crudely with the fragile relationship between ‘The Jew’ and the Jews. It shatters the self-affirmation mechanism. While in the case of Christianity and Islam dumping God suggests turning one’s back on a remote supernatural entity, in the case of Judaism, such an act is interpreted as a disbelief in the tribe.

This interpretation may help illuminate Jesus’ plight. It may explain the reasoning behind the brutal Rabbinical Herem (excommunication) against Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa. And it also explains why the secular and the so-called ‘progressive’ Jew is equally obnoxious towards dissent or any form of criticism from within. If Judaism is not a belief system but rather a system of obedience regulation, then Jewish identity politics is merely an extension of the above regulatory philosophy.

Jews often drop their God, simply to invent a different God who ‘facilitates’   subscription to a new regulatory system. The new system, like the old outlines a new set of strict commandments, a manner of speech and rigorous boundaries of ‘kosher’ conduct.

In the beginning of the 20th century, for instance, Bolshevism appealed to many Eastern European Jews. It provided a sense of self-righteousness in addition to regulating a strict form of obedience. As we know, it didn’t take long for Bolshevism to mature into a genocidal doctrine that made Old Testament barbarism look like a juvenile fairytale. The Holocaust, that seems to be the most popular Jewish religion at present, may be the ultimate and final stage in Jewish historical development. According to the Holocaust religion, ‘God died in Auschwitz.’  Within the context of the Holocaust religion, ‘The Jew’ is the new Jewish God. The Holocaust religion has finally united ‘The Jew’ and the Jews into a self-sufficient comprehensive and independent ‘God-less’ religious narrative. Both were about to be eradicated. But, not only were they both saved: they have prevailed and each did so independently. In the Holocaust religion, Jews are both victims and oppressors – they have transformed slavery into empowerment and they did it all alone, in spite of being dumped by their treacherous God.   The Holocaust religion, like Judaism, prescribes a manner of speech and a strict set of commandments. Most crucially, like more traditional Judaism, it is totally and disgracefully intolerant toward dissent.

Due to the lack of a divine transcendental entity, Jewish religions have always regarded criticism as rejection of the tribe. Jewish religions, whether Judaism, Bolshevism or Holocaust, are equally intolerant towards criticism and dissent. Jewish religions treat opposition as a vile attempt at ‘delegitimization’ on the verge of genocidal inclination.

Jewish religions can be defined as different templates that facilitate a sense of choseness. They affirm a bond between an imaginary marginal ‘collective’ and a phantasmal ‘archetype’: the Bolshevists and ‘The Bolshevik’, the Survivours and ‘The Survivour’, the Jews and ‘The Jew,’ and so on.  The bond between the collective and the idea of an archetypical singularity is always maintained by a set of rigid commandments, a correct manner of speech, some strict regulatory guidelines for behavior and vile opposition to dissent.

Tragically enough, intolerance of dissent has become a universal Western political symptom. Incidentally, Christianity, Islam, religion and divinity in general are also under attack within the context of contemporary Western discourse. Is this a symptom of the Jerusalemification of our Western universe? Is the emergence of the tyranny of political correctness a coincidence? And if we are becoming Jews, is there any room for the hope that our universe may, at some stage, embrace a universal ethos once again? Can we once again believe in something?   Or do we have to wait for a new Jesus figure to resurrect our trust in the human spirit and humanity in general?  Or have we been re-designed to self-destruct as soon as we come close to such a lucid awareness? 

[1] As God himself suggests in the Book of Genesis: “And I (God) will establish My covenant between Me and you (the Jews) and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.”  (Book of Genesis, Chapter 17).

Continue reading

How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed West


http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/09/10/how-america-double-crossed-russia-and-shamed-west.html

Eric ZUESSE 10.09.2015 00:00

The conditionality of the Soviet Union’s agreement to allow East Germany to be taken by West Germany and for the Cold War to end, was that NATO would not expand «one inch to the east». This was the agreement that was approved by the Russian President of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, a great man and a subsequent hero to democrats around the world.

He agreed then to end the Soviet Union and abandon communism and thus to end the entire Cold War; he agreed to this because he had been promised that NATO would expand not «one inch to the east,» or «one inch eastward,» depending upon how the promise was translated and understood — but it has the same meaning, no matter how it was translated. He trusted American President George Herbert Walker Bush, whose friend and Secretary of State James Baker made this promise to Gorbachev. With this promise, Gorbachev agreed to end the Soviet Union; end the communist mutual-defense pact which was their own equivalent of NATO, the Warsaw Pact; and he believed that the remaining nation that he would then be leading, which was Russia, would be accepted as a Western democracy.

He was even promised by the United States that «we were going to make them a member [of NATO], we were observer first and then a member». In other words: the U.S. promised that NATO would not extend up to the borders of Russia and so become a mortal threat to the national security of the Russian people – now isolated and separated from its former military allies. Instead, Gorbachev was told, Russia would itself become welcomed into the Western Alliance, and ultimately become a NATO member. That was the deal, ending the 46-year Cold War.

Russia kept its part of the bargain. The United States did not; the U.S. instead lied through its teeth and so has since expanded NATO to absorb former member-nations of the Warsaw Pact into NATO as being, now, an anti-Russian military alliance — exactly what the U.S. had promised would never happen. U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush in private told West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl (who had wanted to go along with what James Baker had arranged): «To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t». He didn’t want peace with Russia; he wanted to conquer it; he wanted to rub Russians’ noses in their inferiority to Americans.

Russia’s continued (and continuing) desire to join NATO has simply been spurned. This is war by NATO in intent; it is the exact opposite of what the U.S. had promised to Russia, on the basis of which the Warsaw Pact ended. How can the Russian people then trust such a country as the United States? They would need to be fools to do so.

But this deceit, this double-cross, isn’t merely America’s shame; it has also become the shame by the entirety of the nations that joined in that Western promise at the time. Because all of them accepted America’s leadership in this double-crossing war against Russia, America’s war to conquer Russia. They accept this merely by remaining as members of the now-nefarious military gang, which NATO has thus become. Worse yet, some of the other member-nations of NATO at the time were (like West Germany’s Kohl, the model for his protégé Angela Merkel, who now continues the crime) themselves key participants in the making, and now breaking, of that promise to Russia.

Here is the evidence regarding this massive and ongoing historical international crime — the crime that’s now the source of so much misery and even death in not only Russia but the rest of Europe, and of millions of refugees fleeing from Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and other former Russian-allied nations — the chaos that’s being led by America:

THE TESTIMONY

«I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member, we were–observer first and then a member»: Lawrence Wilkerson, 3 October 2014, on The Real News Network, at 18:54 in the interview.

«When I spoke with Baker, he agreed that he told Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union allowed German reunification and membership in NATO, the West would not expand NATO «one inch to the east»: Bill Bradley, 22 August 2009, in Foreign Policy.

«Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory’ into East Germany»… Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day… Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system: Mary Louise Sarotte, New York Times, 29 November 2009.

«According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany. Kohl thus assured Gorbachev that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory to the current territory of [East Germany].’ In parallel talks, Genscher delivered the same message to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying, ‘for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.’… But Kohl’s phrasing would quickly become heresy among the key Western decision-makers.

Once Baker got back to Washington, in mid-February 1990, he fell in line with the National Security Council’s view and adopted its position. From then on, members of Bush’s foreign policy team exercised strict message discipline, making no further remarks about NATO holding at the 1989 line. Kohl, too, brought his rhetoric in line with Bush’s, as both U.S. and West German transcripts from the two leaders’ February 24–25 summit at Camp David show. Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’… In April, Bush spelled out this thinking in a confidential telegram to French President François Mitterrand… Bush was making it clear to Mitterrand that the dominant security organization in a post–Cold War Europe had to remain NATO — not any kind of pan-European alliance.

As it happened, the next month, Gorbachev proposed just such a pan-European arrangement, one in which a united Germany would join both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, thus creating one massive security institution. Gorbachev even raised the idea of having the Soviet Union join NATO. ‘You say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is simply a security structure that is adapting to new realities,’ Gorbachev told Baker in May, according to Soviet records. ‘Therefore, we propose to join NATO.’ Baker refused to consider such a notion, replying dismissively, Pan-European security is a dream.’ … By the time of the Camp David summit, … all members of Bush’s team, along with Kohl, had united behind an offer in which Gorbachev would receive financial assistance from West Germany — and little else — in exchange for allowing Germany to reunify and for allowing a united Germany to be part of NATO»: Mary Louise Sarotte, Foreign Affairs, October 2014.

«A failure to appreciate how the Cold War ended has had a profound impact on Russian and Western attitudes — and helps explain what we are seeing now. The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong. The fact is that the Cold War ended by negotiation to the advantage of both sides. At the December 1989 Malta summit, Mikhail Gorbachev and President George H.W. Bush confirmed that the ideological basis for the war was gone, stating that the two nations no longer regarded each other as enemies. Over the next two years, we worked more closely with the Soviets than with even some of our allies. … ‘By the grace of God, America won the Cold War,’ Bush said during his 1992 State of the Union address. That rhetoric would not have been particularly damaging on its own. But it was reinforced by actions taken under the next three presidents. President Bill Clinton supported NATO’s bombing of Serbia without U.N. Security Council approval and the expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact countries. Those moves seemed to violate the understanding that the United States would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat from Eastern Europe. The effect on Russians’ trust in the United States was devastating»: Jack Matlock, Washington Post, 14 March 2014.

«Sir Rodric Braithwaite GCMG, former British Ambassador to the Soviet Union and Russia, informed us that assurances were given in 1990 by the US (James Baker, US Secretary of State) and Germany (Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor), and in 1991 on behalf of the UK (by the then Prime Minister, John Major, and the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas Hurd) and France (by French President Francois Mitterrand). Sir Rodric Braithwaite said that this ‘factual record has not been successfully challenged in the West’»: The EU and Russia: before and beyond the crisis in Ukraine, 20 February 2015, British House of Lords, paragraph 107.

CONCLUDING NOTE

Gorbachev’s failure to demand these assurances in writing has been widely criticized, but handshake agreements in international affairs are common, and no treaty was to be signed at the end of the Cold War because it hadn’t been a hot war: there were no claims, no restitution or reparations to be paid by either side to the other. Gorbachev thought that the U.S. was honest and could be trusted — that understandings reached in private and witnessed by numerous participants would be honored by the West, as they would be by Russia. 

Sadly, he was trusting mega-crooks who were led by a super-gangster, G.H.W. Bush, and the entire world is suffering from those crooks today, and every day. Instead of the West apologizing, and stopping, it insults Russia constantly. It’s digging in deeper, into G.H.W. Bush’s original sin, the West’s mega-crime, which produces increasing global chaos and bloodshed, in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and elsewhere, and now a resulting refugee crisis throughout Europe.

For example, Defense News, the trade journal for U.S. military contractors, headlined on 4 September 2015, «Ukraine’s New Military Doctrine Identifies Russia As Aggressor, Eyes Naval Acquisitions,» and reported that:

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk [whom Victoria Nuland of the U.S. State Department had appointed on 4 February 2014, 18 days before the coup] said that the country’s new draft military doctrine is the first in Ukraine’s history to clearly identify Russia as an enemy and an aggressor. The announcement was made Sept. 1 during the prime minister’s visit to Odessa. … Yatsenyuk said that … the Ukrainian President «will sign the corresponding decree»… Vice Admiral James Foggo, commander of the US 6th Fleet, and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey R. Pyatt [who took instructions from Nuland and ran the coup for her] took part in the ceremony… «We feel as one force with our partners, NATO [member] states, with our American partners. Therefore, the American ships have entered and will [defeat the Russians in Crimea and expell from the naval base there the Russian navy which has been headquartered there since 1783, and so] enter the Ukrainian territorial waters in the future. We will continue our joint exercise,» Yatsenyuk said.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Why do Jews love Idolatry (Illuminati) ?


Just like every other thing about Jews this problem has its roots in ancients.The Hebrew Bible Torah forbids any kind of idolatry .See First Commandment (Exodus 20:2-3, Deut 5:6-7)
Opposite to this we see Jewish historical enthusiasm and obsession with Idolatry ,Paganism and Kabbalah. One reason We can give may be psychological…..Under Pharoh rule in Egypt Israelites worshipped their masters as their Gods .They were in love with their slavery so even after they accompanied Moses to Sinai They still managed to revive Paganism in some form or other despite warnings and curses coming their way.One famous example is Israelite making calf from Egyptian gold and worshipping it Exodus 32:4. 

The major theme of the Hebrew Bible’s narrative is the loyalty of Judah, and especially its kings, to Yahweh, which it states is the God of Israel.

Accordingly, all the kings of Israel and almost all the kings of Judah were “bad”, which in terms of Biblical narrative means that they failed to enforce worship of Yahweh alone. Of the “good” kings, Hezekiah (727–698 BCE) is noted for his efforts at stamping out idolatry (in this case, the worship of Baal and Asherah, among other traditional Near Eastern divinities),but his successors, Manasseh of Judah (698–642 BCE) and Amon (642–640 BCE), revived idolatry, drawing down on the kingdom the anger of Yahweh. King Josiah (640–609 BCE) returned to the worship of Yahweh alone, but his efforts were too late and Israel’s unfaithfulness caused God to permit the kingdom’s destruction by the Babylonians in c.587/586 BCE.

Gradually The teachings of Torah were forgotten and already scant criticism died The the cults Judaic Paganism and Hellenistic Judaism emerged.The pagan practices came to be regarded and practiced as Judistic.

This was done easily by the Oral Law Yes,The Talmud.The very first rabbi to interpret idolatry in a favorable light.Today We can find origins of one of most Kaballistic ,brutal and racist teachings in Maimonides.He was a medieval Sephardic Jewish philosopher and astronomer.

In his The Guide to the Perplexed, I:36, Maimonides holds that in the original form of idolatry, no one actually believed that their idols were gods; he states that idol-worshippers understood that their idols were only representations of a god, or God. Idols are “worshipped in respect of its being an image of a thing that is an intermediary between ourselves and God.”

Maimonides spends the first one-third of the Guide attempting to show that a literalist understanding of the metaphores, idoms, and homonyms in the Hebrew Bible are idolatrous in this regard. For Maimonides, and other philosophers in the neo-Aristotelian mold, it is idolatry to believe that God has positive attributes.

Within two centuries the confused Jews who already did worship idols in some form or other accepted Mainomide’s interpretation put Torah aside .With incoming centuries rabbis discussed more and more the practices of Idolatry among Judean Kings rather than the teaching of the prophets hence alienation of common Jews from Torah.

Illuminati is just another manifestation of Idolatory.Judeo-Paganism, which is a mixture of Jewish and polytheistic practices. Some of those practices involve honoring (or remembering) divinities that were among those rejected by the prophets of the Tanakh (for example, Ba’al and Asherah).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry_in_Judaism