Who Funded Feminism

2019-01-15 by Andy Chalkley

Now I am treading in murky water. This blogg alone will warrant me being black-banned. It is necessary to realize that feminism was funded and promoted by males. It was not done so for the benefit of women. Its promotion had the effect of destroying the privileged position held by women in society.

• It created equality by bringing women down to the level of men.
• It pushed women into the increasingly corporate workforce.
• It is destroying the family.
• It lowered the sexual status of females which made them readily available to enterprising males.
• It destroyed the Christian moral standards that held women at the peak of society.
• It destroyed the ‘women’s cartel’ on sex and marriage.
• It created an underlying message of selfishness, self-importance, and self-interest.
• It has caused women to victimize themselves and blame others for any lack of personal success.
• It has created unprecedented levels of alienation between the genders.
• It has destroyed happiness in the female population.

Men no longer say: “She who must be obeyed!” This next blogger has it well understood:

Confusedfellah: “Feminism is consistently supported by big business and government alike. Why? Big business benefits by getting two workers for the price of one from every household. In the 1950s, one worker (typically male) could support a household by working forty hours per week. Now both husband and wife must work, often fifty hours a week or more each. That’s what happens when you double the workforce. You push down the price of labor. Government benefits because feminism allowed it to tax women’s labor for the first time. Government taxes women’s income, plus imposes a sales tax on the extra stuff they need to buy to maintain a job (e.g., another car, fuel, eating out, etc.). Women working also makes it look like the GDP is growing, which makes the government look good.”

As I walked down the street today, which house had the laughter? The house with children. Which house has the misery? The house with male-female status issues, illogical arguments, and cats. Who has the biggest smiles — the girls with the prams!

Feminism ushered in an era of illogic branded as ‘Political Correctness’:

“When males are better off than female, the situation is described as ‘injustice’.”

“When females are better off than males, it is described as ‘empowerment’.”

Let us look at some random statements alluding to the funding of feminism:

Daily Mail: “Billionaire George Soros gives $246million to 100 groups behind the ‘Day Without a Woman’ protest. Groups included Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Watch and the ACLU. Soros is an outspoken abortion supporter and supports American progressive causes. The 86-year-old Hungarian-American investor is said to have a net worth of $25.2 billion.”

George Soros (born György Schwartz), a Hungarian Jew, is not a popular person. An Israeli site, Ynet News, reports:

“Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, based his last election campaign on huge posters featuring George Soros’ laughing face, accusing him of being part of a dark plot to destroy Christian Hungary. A parliament member representing Poland’s ruling party referred to Soros as ‘the most dangerous person in the world.’ American radio show host Alex Jones.. announced that ‘the head of the Jewish mafia is George Soros.’ … OSF’s activity has been banned in Russia. A hate campaign was launched against the foundation in Italy over its support for refugees…. Soros is described as a monster in Romania, Macedonia, Croatia and Belarus, as well as in America.”

He is quoted as saying:

“I’m going to bring down the U.S. by funding hate groups. We’ll put them into a mental trap and make them blame white people. The black community is easiest to manipulate.”

In 1998, George Soros wrote:

“Insofar as there are collective interests that transcend state boundaries, the sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

Some say this is false. However, Newsweek reports that he said: “Changing the attitude and policies of the United States remains my top priority.” Thus, he considers ‘public opinion’ as something that can be altered with money. This is my contention. Public Opinion is open to the highest bidder. A significant portion of Soros’ fortune came from manipulating currencies. In 1997, during the Asian financial crisis, Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, accused George Soros of bringing down the nation’s currency by his inappropriate trading activities. In Thailand, he was described as an ‘economic war criminal’. He is also known as ‘The Man that Broke the Bank of England’. He started a financial crisis in the UK by dumping ten billion in sterling which forcing a devaluation of the currency which gave him a billion-dollar profit. In another book on economics, I have described people such as him as ‘economic terrorists’. It is not men that are your enemy, it is the likes of Soros. Soros is the evil enemy. Heather MacDonald describes a pattern of rich males funding feminism with large sums:

“One of Harvard’s most prominent benefactors, Sidney R. Knafel, is a prime example of misguided philanthropy. Chairman of Insight Communications, the nation’s ninth-largest cable company, with a market value of some $2.1 billion, Knafel has recently forked over a juicy $1.5 million to the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, a font of feminist grievance and left-wing posturing.”


Kimberly Schuld documents how the Ford Foundation was important in funding Women’s Studies programs:
“Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. In fact, Ford’s support of women’s studies and feminist causes is so extensive that it cannot be summarized in an article of this length. The subject is ripe for a full-length book. It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics.”
There is suspicion of the motives that wealthy males are sponsoring a movement that is anti-male. Logic might lead you to realize that it is part of ‘divide and conquer’. Create a rift between woman and man and society is easier to control by the money men that control our politicians. The enemy of females is the rich oligarchs that fund feminism. Our collective enemy is not feminists but those that fund feminism. What is clear, is that feminist organizations are funded. They do not stand without funding. Thus feminism is only a force due to funding. Feminism does not live a life of its own without funding. Even a quick search for ‘who funds feminism’ on a websearch brings up organizations that will give grants to any fledgling feminist organization. One example out of many:
Frida: “In order to respond to the funding gap felt by the growing number of young feminist organizers worldwide, FRIDA provides small grants to newly established groups in the global south. Using a participatory grant making model, our core grants are awarded as flexible funds and core support, which allows groups to define their own budgets and dedicate funds to where it is most needed – whether it is for renting meeting space, buying supplies, or compensating staff.”
That is one small fund. With a quick search, I found dozens of funding bodies:

• Global Fund for Women: We bring grantees and donors together in an international network that promotes women’s action for social change…
• Filia. die frauenstiftung: Founded in 2001 by nine founders with start-up capital of €260,000. Currently, the foundation capital amounts to €15.7 million.
• Feminist Review Trust: focus on campaigning and activism in: lesbian and transgender rights, violence against women and girls, and refugee women and girls.
• Women’s Funding Network.
• Open Society Institute: works to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable to their citizens. …implements a range of initiatives to advance justice, education, public health, and independent media.
• Soros Foundations Network
• Mediterranean Women’s Fund
• The Leeway Foundation: supports women and trans artists.
• The Astraea National Lesbian Action Foundation: help lesbians and allied communities challenge oppression and claim their human rights.
• Mama Cash: supports about 100 courageous groups that are led by women, girls and trans people.
• NWF – International Network of Women’s Funds.
• Fonds pour les femmes Congolaises.

And many more…..

The list is massive. They talk about the importance of “flexible funding to collective women’s organizations.” They are throwing money at any group wishing to demand ‘rights’ and set the turmoil in motion. There are advice organizations to make it easier for feminist and ‘women’s rights’ organizations to find funders. AWID claims a list of 221 donors and that 52% of the funders in the list are located in North America and 28% are located in Europe. It claims no funders in Southeast Asia or the Pacific. I used their ‘funder research’ for ‘homelessness’, ‘building peace’, and ‘food security’. There were no funders. For ‘Climate & Gender’, ‘Disaster response for women’, and ‘Gender Equality’, I found funders. If we track back a century or three, we can follow the gradual introduction. Jay Dyer of ‘Jay’s Analysis’ has this to say:

“To understand this, we must see the real players behind ‘women’s liberation,’ dating roughly from the period of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, up to the Paris Commune and in the last century allying with Marxism and socialism to form a global front against the long domination of evil, stupid, and tyrannical men. As is often the case, the real history and power behind these revolutionary causes was oligarchical and subversive, not at all concerned with the interests of woman in general, but in deconstructing western society at the hands of moneyed elites. While this sounds counter-intuitive, it is a fact that almost all so-called ‘liberal’ movements have been funded, co-opted, used and harnessed by the money power as a means of psychological warfare for the destruction of the existing order. Feminism is no exception to this, and like Marxism, had the backing of powerful financial interests which could utilize the ‘liberation’ by appealing to the deluded and naïve ignorance of youth, as the world witnesses with Mao’s cultural revolution. Thus, just as the banking elite funded revolutionaries in Russia and China to destabilize the existing regimes, so with feminism and ‘women’s liberation,’ the destabilization of the masses could be more easily accomplished, not just through altering social structures, but also through attacking gender. The attack on gender is a long, scientific process that began with women’s liberation and has now consummated in the synthetic rewrite of all nature. Along this long, technocratic and scientistic path, the oligarchs reasoned that the inversion of all existing orders through subversion would result in the socialistic Brave New World of enforced androgyny — the feminization of men, and the masculinization of women.” [1]

Even the French Revolution utilized the women of France to destabilize the existing regime. Five to ten thousand women marched to Versailles to demand justice. These were mostly market women unable to feed their families due to the price and scarcity of bread. It magnified to some sixty thousand within a couple of days. This woman’s march turned the tide against royal rule in France. King Louis was forced to submit to the will of the people. A bloodbath followed. Unfortunately, the women got the wrong enemy. The real enemy was the usurers who had pushed King Louis into debt and damaged his ability to run the nation. The women of France had been told endless wild lies in order to stir up hatred of the monarchy and promote revolution. The revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work of foreigners, whose object was to destroy everything, which had been France. [The Nameless War] The usurers to you are the money-men, the moneyed elite, and the bankers. As is usual in a revolution, the revolution turns on the gullible idiots used to foment the revolution and many of the women involved in the Revolution were publicly executed for ‘conspiring against the unity and the indivisibility of the Republic’. The use of women for political activation is useful in a revolution because women are the only thing that males are scared of. Guns can be used against males but males will not use guns against women. And thus women are used as ‘useful idiots’ in revolutions. They were used for this purpose in the Russian revolution. China used this tactic. As is usually the case with these contrived revolutions, they end up establishing regimes that are far more ruthless than the ones they replaced. In the ‘Sexual Revolution’, women were convinced to give sex away for free in a big ‘fuck fest’ for males. Feminist illogic emphasizes women’s sexuality as a source of freedom, whilst under feminist logic it became a source of exploitation. According to an observant person writing as fmwatkins:

“Feminism is an ideology. Like communism. In fact, the feminists got their ideas about destroying the family, capitalism etc from Karl Marx.” [2]

This matches what Catharine A. MacKinnon told us in ‘Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.’:

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”

She is describing feminist theory and tells us that feminism is rehashed communism. It might be described as “Communism-Lite”.

Women have been encouraged to ‘rise up’ and become ‘empowered’. This was only made possible by corporate sponsorship. If you look at the push on every branch of corporate media against men and toward women, one can sense that this was a construct of corporate interests. To rehash a previous sentence: The women of Western nations have been told endless wild lies in order to stir up hatred of the males. The main benefactors were those that seek to control us. The losers were women and society. This was a society that women controlled by proxy. They trained the men to run society for the benefit of women. Women had ‘hands-free’ control of the world. Women, as a cartel, controlled the world by controlling men. They would only come out to complain in force when things were ‘going off the rails’ such as war. A total disregard for logic has always been a hallmark of feminism. The gender system that feminists denigrated — ‘patriarchy’ — has occasionally led to male mistreatment of women, but for the most part, males operated to place women’s needs before their own. It is definitely not about the suppression of women. When males seek to protect and assist females, the feminists attack with accusations of ‘paternalism’ — whilst simultaneously demanding assistance from males to ‘level the playing field’ which results in the tables being tilted in the direction of females. Males now suffer from being in a position of being abused if they do and abused if they don’t. As Tanika said to me: “Andy. Men are guilty of things that they haven’t even done.” When it comes to money, the word paternalism is never to be heard. The $1.5 million donation to the feminists in the Radcliffe Institute was not classified as ‘paternalism’. Alimony is not considered to be ‘paternalism’. Welfare is not considered to be ‘paternalism’. Yet ‘paternalism’ is considered to be another form of domination. It appears that the Black feminists don’t like the White feminists because of another dividing propaganda called ‘racism’. This is what ‘Black Women Against Feminism’ have to say about the funding of Feminism:

“A) The Rockefellers Funded the Women’s Liberation, provided Media coverage. They could not tax half the population before Women’s Liberation, rather than taxing one gender. It is more profitable to tax both. Now the State becomes responsible for raising our children at a young age, the state and entertainment industry then establishes ‘Culture’ (Women are the gatekeepers of Culture) — After the Feminist Movement Entertainment and Public Education became the gatekeepers. B) Hugh Hefner (Play Boy) – Supported your ‘Reproductive Rights’, the Sex Revolution, and the Feminist Wave of Political Lesbianism. C) The Ford Foundation Also Funded the Women’s Liberation Movement. D) Eugenics Movement in America (Followed social Darwinism ‘Survival of the Fittest’ and saw Black People and Disabled people are genetically inferior ex: Margaret Sanger (Eugenics Prominent Feminist & Founder of Planned Parenthood to depopulate Black Population)… Since then we have had More Black Babies Aborted than we have had Lynchings, and we wonder why the Population Growth of Black’s in America remains between 12-13%. E) CIA – funded MS Magazine, inventing the second wave of Feminism. In 1958, prominent Gloria Steinem Feminist was recruited by CIA’s Cord Meyers to direct an ‘informal group of activists’ called the ‘Independent Research Service’. – Gloria Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots. – Clay Felker (CIA Agent). In the early 1960’s, became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Gloria Steinem which established her as a leading voice for the Feminist Movement. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971 funded by the CIA. – The CIA’s ‘Project Mockingbird’ involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included the direct takeover of major news outlets. ‘By the early 1950’s’, writes Deborah Davis in her book Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and Her Washington Post Empire ‘the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all.’ In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. – Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his ‘suicide’ in 1963, boasted that ‘you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month.’ Do research beyond your College Classroom and Major Black Feminist, and question why you have joined the Feminist Movement.”

The funders would have done their homework and would hopefully be aware that Catharine A. MacKinnon was writing things such as:

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”

 [Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), P10]

It is thus reasonable to assume that the end goal of the male funders was this Socialist/Communist government that Catharine A. MacKinnon describes. The media owned by these mega-rich clearly have policies that describe anything beneficial to women as ‘empowering’ or ‘girl power’, whilst anything catering to men is described as sexist. Men’s clubs are ‘sexist’! Women’s clubs are ‘empowering’! Ms. Magazine was started with funds from Mortimer Zuckerman. Gloria Steinem was editor of MS Magazine which was indirectly funded by the CIA. A minor search will uncover a video of Gloria Steinem discussing her connections with the CIA. Frank Wisner, the CIA’s first chief of political warfare, in his book ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’, describes the CIA’s ‘array of front organizations’ as the ‘Mighty Wurlitzer’ to characterize the Central Intelligence Agency’s ability to be “capable of playing any propaganda tune he desired”. One blogger writing as Disciple888 blogs:

“Gloria was a writer, journalist, and social and political activist in the 60s and 70s who became one of the most prominent faces and voices of the second wave of feminism. She was also a motherfucking spook sent in by the CIA to destabilize the African American community by pitting the women against the men.”

This blogger is black and is particularly sensitive to racial issues within the feminist propaganda machine:

“What follows is a fact sheet about Gloria Steinem’s operations against the various social and political movements in America, particularly her role in creating a hateful and virulent strain of Black feminism that attacks Black men while partnering with the white establishment. Gloria Steinem first came across the radar of Black men in 1978 when Steinem put a book called ‘Black Macho and the Myth of the Superwoman’ on the cover of Ms. Magazine, the magazine which she controlled. The book was ‘written’ by a Black ‘feminist’ and ‘activist’ named Micele Wallace who came out of nowhere. Wallace was in her early twenties at the time, yet she was being touted as the ‘leader’ of Black feminism. In the book, Wallace called abolitionists like Harriet Tubman and Sojouner Truth ‘ugly’ and ‘stupid’ for supporting Black men. She called Black Revolutionaries ‘chauvinist macho pigs’ and advised Black women to ‘go it alone.’ Gloria Steinem said that Wallace’s book would ‘define the future of Black relationships’ and she pushed hard to make sure the book received massive publicity. Gloria Steinem’s work triggered a flood of ‘Hate Black Men’ books and films that continues to this day. Needless to say, some were quite suspicious of Ms. Magazine and Gloria Steinem. Why was Steinem sticking her nose into the affairs of the Black community? So people started doing some research on Steinem. When it came out that Gloria Steinem was probably the ghost writer of the book with Michele Wallace’s name on it, Wallace had a nervous breakdown and went into hiding for two years. However, the damage was already done and the ‘Hate Black Men’ movement was off and running. But the research into Gloria Steinem’s background continued. What follows is the findings of many different researchers.”

Blogger Disciple888 is adamant that the so-called ‘Black Feminist’ movement was a creation of the CIA to manipulate the black community. The Black Revolutionaries knew they had been infiltrated and manipulated, whilst the Black Feminist are unaware they were operating under CIA manipulation. Disciple888 tells us that a particularly hateful brand of Black feminism has been created. The stated goal of feminism is to end sexism, but what it does is fan the flames. Black feminism has been particularly devastating to the black communities and their family way of life. The CIA had a direct input in creating this situation. The statistics for black family situations have deteriorated during this propaganda time to give this horrendous statistical picture:

Thank-you black feminism! You took the accent off black inequality and devastated the black community through division. Children living with a never-married mother has also skyrocketed.

The graphs demonstrate a demographic disaster, yet the precious feminism juggernaut is not to be stopped. The racial divide is not helped by feminism. Here is a random comment by a black female:

“Give zero fucks about snowflakes and hurting feelings. Be yourself. You know why? Because white feminism is on a class of its own. It’s funny. It’s a joke. It’s hilarious. It’s comical and it doesn’t give a shit about you as a black woman. As an African woman. As a woman of colour.” [3]

Then she really gets carried away. She says she thought “thought feminism was all about equality.” and “women getting the same opportunities regardless of who they were.” Then she mentions that feminism: “came with race, sexuality, gender, common stereotypes of what feminism was: Obviously from the narrative fed to us about what feminism is.” But some were “labelling black women as ‘angry’.” She gets stuck in with:

“Don’t we have any right to be angry? Police brutality? Racism? Sexual harassment? Rape? Gentrification? Neo-colonized bastards aka house negroes? Paedophilia? Homophobia? The murder of black trans persons? The murder of queer women in Africa? Anyone? Anyone? Then when we tell them about our pain, they say we’re overreacting, leaving us wondering if we’re too sensitive.” [3]

Notice that this observant girl does not bring up the past. None of us can alter the past. Although, the textbooks, encyclopedias, and Wikipedia seem to get things unfavourable to the controlling elite edited out. But we still cannot alter the past. We can only alter the present and future. Nobody is guilty of sins committed by their forefathers. She contends that:

“We are not too sensitive. White feminism is too raaaaacist.” [3]

Which ponders the question: “Have the white feminists failed to address the issues of black feminists?” I’ll give you one last comment from Disciple888:

“In white feminism, the concept of unity as a show of support for ‘women’s issues’ is usually based on white, middle class, cisgender, able-bodied women. Not queer women. Not black women. Not poor women. Not women who work as sex workers or strippers. Not women who live with disabilities. Not the uneducated woman struggling to make ends meet. No. … They will be screaming equality when wanting to be paid the same as white men but will still be treating black people shit.” [3]

Still on the subject of black, one black male commenter comments:

“The majority of black feminist that I have known, have an ‘illogical’ hatred of black maleness.”

Notice his use of the word ‘illogical’. Another black male by the name of Boyce comments:

“Black feminism is a racist mind trick designed to get black women to hate black men as much as the white man…”

You cannot turn gender roles inside out and expect society to continue in a healthy harmonious manner. Here is some striking evidence of CIA covert operations in USA as evidenced in this declassified 1969 memo from the FBI:

“The Women’s Liberation Movement may be considered as subversive to the New Left and revolutionary movements as they have proven to be a divisive and factionalizing factor… It could be well recommended as a counterintelligence movement to weaken the revolutionary movement.” [1969 report by the head of the San Francisco FBI office.]

The declassified memo is a red hot smoking gun telling us that the FBI considered the Women’s Liberation Movement as a tool for their covert operations against the people of their own nation. Here are some random comments about the situation:

• “Feminists and other leftists are useful idiots who serve only to destabilize the society.”
• “KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov knew what was being done to American women and American youth as the Long March through the institutions started with feminism and proceeded to uproot and overturn other pillars”
• “Feminists are useful idiots who are literally destroying the world.”
• “They think they’re empowering women when in fact all they’ve done is destabilize society. They’ve taken women away from jobs that play to their natural strengths and make them happy, such as childrearing and homemaking, and put them into corporate jobs as warm bodies to be consumed generating quarterly profits for an ungrateful CEO. ”
• “The ‘diversity’ and ‘multicultural’ movements represent Communism’s attempt to empower and use other minorities, gays and ‘people of color,’ to further undermine the majority (European, Christian) culture.” [Henry Makow]

Someone writing as Wayne gets carried away with:

“Both the Left and Right are financed by the Usurers. Fox News and Alex Jones, like the Left, are just puppets for the Usurers. The Usurers despise Yah’s law. ‘Sexual Liberation’ only ‘liberates’ the seven deadly sins. ‘Sexual liberation’ is a weapon of war to enslave humanity in its own lust.”

Yah’s law refers to the original laws that governed civilization. The use of women to destabilize society makes one wonder if women are easily led astray with the illogic. Why would the Rockefellers fund feminism? Well, they wanted women in the workplace. That’s another half of the population they could tax. Their children would have to go into state-run schools, they could then be ‘taught’ whatever is necessary to keep them dependent on consumerism and loyal to the state. The nuclear family would take a nose dive. It had nothing to do with ’empowering women’. In fact, it did the opposite.

V.I. Lenin: “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”

So, feminism is now well entrenched. It actually does the opposite of what it claims to do. It claims to give women rights, but only by attacking men’s rights. It claims to demand equality, but only by bringing women down to males standards. Anything that assists women is described as ‘empowering’ or called ‘girl power’ or some other dreamt up slogan whilst anything assisting to men is sexist. Illogic has taken hold. Men’s clubs are sexist whilst women’s clubs are empowering! The flavour of the day is ‘pay discrimination’ which completely ignores women’s preference for shorter working-weeks and less-demanding jobs. In the early seventies, the Ford, Rockefeller, and other foundations, who had connections to the CIA, made grants to study race and gender. There was a move towards identity politics which had the potential to create splits in the society and discourage class or economic analysis. The Ford Foundation’s grant-makers are employed “for the general purpose of advancing human welfare.” which is a nice catch-all phrase to allow any manner of social manipulation. The people of the world become an audience to which those that wish to control us ‘entertain us’ with propaganda. Arundhati Roy of ‘Outlook of India’ describes the situation this way:

“By the 1920s, US capitalism had begun to look outwards, for raw materials and overseas markets. Foundations began to formulate the idea of global corporate governance. In 1924, the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations jointly created what is today the most powerful foreign policy pressure group in the world—the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which later came to be funded by the Ford Foundation as well. By 1947, the newly created CIA was supported by and working closely with the CFR. Over the years, the CFR’s membership has included 22 US secretaries of state. There were five CFR members in the 1943 steering committee that planned the UN, and an $8.5 million grant from J.D. Rockefeller bought the land on which the UN’s New York headquarters stands. All eleven of the World Bank’s presidents since 1946—men who have presented themselves as missionaries of the poor—have been members of the CFR. (The exception was George Woods. And he was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and vice-president of Chase-Manhattan Bank.)”

Even David Rockefeller himself spews forth in his memoirs:

Populist Paranoia “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [‘Proud Internationalist,’ Memoirs]

Jay Dyer has this to say:

“The crux of the matter is, feminism and so-called ‘liberation’ is useful to billionaire technocrats to reorganize society — it has nothing to do with liberation or freedom, but enslavement to the passions and ultimately, death through dysgenics and dying reproduction rates.” [1]

In other words:

“Feminism results in the loss of family.” [1]

It is a form of divide and conquer using art, culture, music, gender relations, and class. The people are divided amongst themselves until they do not know what they stand for. Before long, girls claim they can manage without having children, boys start to act as girls and most are too timid to shout out. What we are witnessing is a cultural subversion encouraged by elites of America through seemingly respectable institutions such as the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations along with the CIA. Under the banner of ‘Sexual Freedom’, a system has been developed to enable covert political and social control. For a nation to be governable requires that individuals act in a decent honourable manner to each other. It relies on people being good to each other. It can then be governed and policed by a small body of laws, a small police force, and a small judiciary. If people start to treat each other poorly, no simple set of laws will hold the nation together. A judicial system can only operate when relatively few stray from a natural decency toward each other. When the people of the nation stray from common morality and fall for common chimes such as ‘progress’ which substitutes for ‘rebellion and riot’ or they fall for calls for ‘liberty’ which stands for ‘licentiousness’ or chaos, a dictatorship and police state become necessary to control the wayward ‘liberated’ people. The words ‘law’ and ‘order’ are often combined. Law is law, but order is not legislated. That is why the riot police come out to restore order and they often do it with a heavy uncaring hand with little regard to the lawfulness of their behaviour. In a magic but difficult to understand book called “Libido Dominandi”, Michael Jones writes:

“Liberalism, by the inner dynamic of its logic, was forced to become an instrument of social control in order to avoid the chaos which it created by its own erosion of tradition and morals. Democratic man could not be left to his own devices; chaos would result. The logic was clear. If there is no God, there can be no religion; if there is no religion, there can be no morals; if there are no morals, there can be no self-control; if there is no self-control, there can be no social order; if there is no social order, there can be nothing but the chaos of competing desire. But we cannot have chaos, so therefore, we must institute behavioral control in place of the traditional structures of the past tradition, religion, etc. Abolishing tradition, religion, and morals and establishing ‘scientific’ social control are one and the same project.” [4]

Elsewhere, Michael describes liberalism as “arsonist and fire department”. He continues with:

“Science was the solvent which was to dissolve all of the old bonds associated with morals, religion and tradition, and once that dissolution had been accomplished and the culture was on the verge of social chaos as a result science, specifically the new science of psychology, would provide the culture’s mandarins a way of controlling the unruly masses along new, more ‘rational’ lines, which also, by the way, would benefit the controllers both politically and financially.” [4]

Schools were to become the tool of socialization which would produce compliant citizens that were “purged of ethnic and familial affiliation, who identified with progressive, national goals articulated by the masters of public opinion in a mass-media age.” [4] Michael explains that morality involves self-restraint, but I don’t follow his next line of logic. I usually explain it as:

“When we live in a society, the needs of society override the wants of the individual. Self-interest should not over-ride community needs.” [4]

Michael Jones believes that in becoming free, one becomes irrational. Man is then only driven by “his appetites, his impulses, and his passions.” [4] Man is thus “driven by his passions” [4] and he loses control of his actions. He argues that:

“…freedom of this sort, as the ancients rightly saw, becomes a form of slavery. Those who advocate freedom of this sort are promoting, whether they understand it or not, a form of social control because the motive for action which previously lay in reason has now been replaced by the stimulation of passion. Those who control the stimuli now control the stimulated.” [4]

Thus if we chase our passions and self-interest, moral standards decay particularly in the way we deal with each other. Decisions are made on the basis of ‘self-interest’ rather than for the benefit of the community as a whole. An attitude of ‘what is in it for me’ prevails over what is good for others. The use of lawyers and their legalistic logic escalates. I tell small business people as a computer consultant: “If anyone mentions the ‘L’ word (lawyer), never do business with them again.” You will finish up in court for real or perceived errors on your part. People cease to give a damn about the welfare of others. At one time, the open fields were called the “commons” and they were available for anyone to use to feed animals or whatever. They were owned by everybody in the community. These “commons” became private property, and as such, could be bought or sold by those with access to fictitious funds loaned by the usurers. Thus the wealthy gained power over the poor. Under a regime of self-interest, individuals puzzle what they can get out of a relationship rather than what they can give to a family and society. It is the fine virtues of honour, honesty, self-sacrifice, sharing, and kindness that enable community and maintain a nation-state. These are ridiculed daily by inappropriate messages on television. Nations start to use force with illogical reasoning. Chris Hedges describes it as a ‘cultural retreat into illusion’ where the false logic is pedalled by positive spin, Hollywood, newscasters, songwriters, and a biased media in some form of illogical thinking. Michael Jones, who words things well, adds:

“Those who relinquish reason are controlled by their passions, which are exploited financially and politically by those who control the flow of transgressive imagery. [which includes porn] The people who profit financially and politically from promoting the imagery contribute to the election of those who will protect it politically, and so a form of political control evolves from a system of financial exploitation.” [4]

He tells us that unbridled passions “tend toward death as their ultimate end.” You either control your desire for drugs, or drugs will control you. You either control your self-interest or you will be controlled. Reject the destructive illogic of mass-media for it will destroy you and your society. Please read ‘Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control’. In the Jewish Quarterly, you can read:

Alvin ‘Al’ Goldstein: “The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.” [American pornographer]

And:

“According to one anonymous industry insider quoted by E. Michael Jones in the magazine Culture Wars (May 2003), ‘the leading male performers through the 1980s came from secular Jewish upbringings and the females from Roman Catholic day schools’. The standard porn scenario became as a result a Jewish fantasy of schtupping the Catholic shiksa.” [American pornographer]

[Schtupping: to engage in sexual intercourse.]

As to the effects of pornography, I give you one telling statistic because it affects girls:

“A quarter of the men ages 27 to 31 had lost interest in having sex with their partner, and 31 percent of the same group reported difficulty reaching orgasm.”

In his book ‘Porn Nation’, Michael Leahy calls pornography “America’s number one addiction.” Pornography becomes a way of destroying Christian culture. Jesus established moral laws for the protection of our culture. The unwritten rules of morals were taught by mothers, and supported by fathers, for the quality operation of society. Moses wrote the ten commandments, but they were mostly negative. “Don’t do this. Don’t do that.” Jesus arrived and, in simple terms, he told us: “Be good to each other”. The positivity of Jesus enabled him to be used as a role model for the young children. Mothers implored their young, particularly the boy, to: “Stand up against wrongdoing.” and “Never hit a girl.” Here is the front page of a very prominent Israeli newspaper:

And the British edition of Jewish Quarterly report to its presumably Jewish readers:

“A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer that the ‘triple exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue’ Jews.” [‘Triple Exthnics: Nathan Abrams on Jews in the American porn industry,’ Jewish Quarterly (UK), [print edition] 2005, p. 27-30.]

That was written by Professor Nathan Abrams, who is a Jewish Professor of American History at Aberdeen University, UK. He informs that Jews are the primary force behind the worldwide availability of porn and that the motivation includes the destruction of the morals of the Gentiles. He says: “has become a primary constituent of Americana.” I sometimes pose the question: “Why is porn free?” This defies logic. One can get in trouble for downloading an image of the Eifel Tower or an innocent video but one can download thousands of images and videos of white girls in numerous acts of illogical sexual acts. Acts that would wipe that stream from the gene pool. Professor Nathan Abrams revolutionary Jewish attack on European values. Porn shows the beauty of the female body whilst encouraging the defilement of women.

“Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s.” [Nathan Abrams]

This was pushed around the world in the global spread of American popular culture. It appears that Jews that are supportive of the pornography business believe that it is acceptable to destroy the moral codes of the dominant culture of the lands in which they cohabit. They happily “weaken the dominant culture in America by moral subversion” One can perhaps understand why Jews have created situations where they have gotten themselves expelled from almost every country in which they have settled. There appears to be more anti-Christian sentiment by the Jews than there is anti-Semitism by the Christians. This was classed as an anti-Semitic poster from Nazi Germany:

An example of anti-Semitism from Julius Streicher’s newspaper, ‘Der Stürmer’. (National Archives, courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives.) Here is more anti-Semitism:

Here is modern porn:

The much-maligned ‘The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion’ contain an insight. Many claim they are fake — but a quick read will help you understand why they would claim them to be fake. Whether they are valid or invalid, they are an illumination of the current situation:

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

Protocol 14:

Assault on Religion

1. When we come into our kingdom it will be undesirable for us that there should exist any other religion than ours of the One God with whom our destiny is bound up by our position as the Chosen People and through whom our same destiny is united with the destinies of the world. We must therefore sweep away all other forms of belief. If this gives birth to the atheists whom we see to-day, it will not, being only a transitional stage, interfere with our views, but will serve as a warning for those generations which will hearken to our preaching of the religion of Moses, that, by its stable and thoroughly elaborated system has brought all the peoples of the world into subjection to us. Therein we shall emphasize its mystical right, on which, as we shall say, all its educative power is based …. Then at every possible opportunity we shall publish articles in which we shall make comparisons between our beneficent rule and those of past ages. The blessing of tranquillity, though it be a tranquillity forcibly brought about by centuries of agitation, will throw into higher relief the benefits to which we shall point. The errors of the GOYIM governments will be depicted by us in the most vivid hues. We shall implant such an abhorrence of them that the peoples will prefer tranquillity in a state of serfdom to those rights of vaunted freedom which have tortured humanity and exhausted the very sources of human existence, sources which have been exploited by a mob of rascally adventurers who know not what they do …. USELESS CHANGES OF FORMS OF GOVERNMENT TO WHICH WE INSTIGATED THE “GOYIM” WHEN WE WERE UNDERMINING THEIR STATE STRUCTURES, WILL HAVE SO WEARIED THE PEOPLES BY THAT TIME THAT THEY WILL PREFER TO SUFFER ANYTHING UNDER US RATHER THAN RUN THE RISK OF ENDURING AGAIN ALL THE AGITATIONS AND MISERIES THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH.

WE SHALL FORBID CHRIST

2. At the same time we shall not omit to emphasize the historical mistakes of the GOY governments which have tormented humanity for so many centuries by their lack of understanding of everything that constitutes the true good of humanity in their chase after fantastic schemes of social blessings, and have never noticed that these schemes kept on producing a worse and never a better state of the universal relations which are the basis of human life …

3. The whole force of our principles and methods will lie in the fact that we shall present them and expound them as a splendid contrast to the dead and decomposed old order of things in social life.

4. Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the various beliefs of the “goyim,” but no one will ever bring under discussion our faith from its true point of view since this will be fully learned by none save ours who will never dare to betray its secrets.

5. In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature. For some time after our entrance to power we shall continue to encourage its existence in order to provide a telling relief by contrast to the speeches, party program, which will be distributed from exalted quarters of ours …. Our wise men, trained to become leaders of the GOYIM, will compose speeches, projects, memoirs, articles, which will be used by us to influence the minds of the GOYIM, directing them towards such understanding and forms of knowledge as have been determined by us.

Goy (plural Goyim), in modern Hebrew and Yiddish, is a standard term for a gentile. It is the commonly used word for a non-Jew. Many consider it to be offensive and derogatory. The word tends to be used when mocking non-Jews. Its use could also be claimed to be racist. Some consider it similar to the use of the word ‘nigger’. However, if a group is using a religious or other gathering or kinship to take advantage of your kinship groups, they action needs to be taken. Jesus taught us to stand up against those that operate in the wrong. In his case it was the Pharisee sect of the Hebrew religion that was controlling the nation and collaborating with the external invaders, the Romans. Beyond porn, the control of Hollywood is of interest. Joel Stein had this to say:

“I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only twenty-two percent of Americans now believe ‘the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews,’ down from nearly fifty percent in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.” [Joel Stein]

Unfortunately, France has become a country where Jews are murdered simply for being Jews. I have said for a long time that we need to discourage Jewish people from dominating so many areas so that they don’t put themselves in a position of being hated. Christians also need to discourage their government from using our military to attack Muslim nations. The corporate media describes it as “the spread of hatred against Jews” without saying why any group, person, or nation might generate a hatred. A few years ago, I was traveling around the Middle East. I often set myself a new annual discovery mission an the task was to discover “Who controls the world?” I had yet to puzzle this out so I would ask people as a conversation starter. Throughout the Middle East, when asking the question: “Who controls the world?”, I would always get an answer without hesitation: “The Jews”. Even at the end of my travels, I had not accepted their answer and I just thought they were what we in the West might call “Racist Bigots”. The Middle East had been a comparatively peaceful place for six hundred years when it known as the Ottoman Empire. Certainly more peaceful than the last one-hundred years. Many blog entries by males echo similar concerns about the endpoint of feminism:

Ian Bailey: “The big myth of modern feminism is that its teachings lead to female empowerment — that women are more free in this system than in a patriarchal system where she is expected to honour her man. Not so. Women have not become more free. Women are enslaved to the government, corporations, and to pleasure in the matriarchal world they created.” [Return of Kings]

Ian Bailey: “The government has grown and replaced honor of her man with a dependence on the government. The government has grown in power and size and has more freedom to exert power to do what it wants, and feminism is largely to blame.” [Return of Kings]

Jay Dyer sums it up in an article called ‘The Satanic Roots of Feminism’:

“The banking elite had long ago learned that predicting and controlling large social movements and trends had tremendous potential for mass social engineering, as well as collectivizing and transferring wealth. By the 1960s, the entirely created and controlled ‘counter-culture’ movements paved the way for the final collapse of the West into nascent socialism and communism. … While generally coming under the guise of promising liberty, freedom and power, the devil’s con is always the same — man ends up tricked into being a dupe, is used, or damages his own psyche, or at worst, possessed. … The ignorant and uninformed mass generally do not have the reasoning faculties to discover where the funding for such “movements” come from, and if they did, most would not be able to discern the designed, strategic plan of feminism and equalism to wreck the existing order as an act of Satanic defiance. … The never-ending spew of “empowered” women and feminist harpies that chirp away on television and in the media are going to learn a hard lesson as the social order collapses.” [5]

Many males that I have talked with state that they worry for womanhood when this madness ends. When a societal collapse occurs, as nearly occurred in the financial collapse of 2008, the women are going to be in peril as there will be a return to ‘strongest takes all’. The same is already occurring in Europe where religious minorities are taught that European women are ‘as nothing’, implying that a crime against them is not a crime. Vocal feminists are decrying ‘rape culture’ but nobody supports rape. However, they neglect to realize that it is necessary to keep male sexual energy at bay by careful female management. This involves the training of young boys and the harnessing of adult males into a productive family life where each man is harnessed to a girl and her family. ‘The Secret’ needs to be given centre stage amongst young girls. Men need to look after women in every way, whilst the men think that women are looking after them. The final word on these funders of feminism is that they employ males in greater numbers than females and pay males more. Currently, only twenty-one women hold CEO jobs at the top 500 companies in the world. Clearly, the funding of feminism is not done to benefit women! The enemy of males is not the feminists, it’s those that fund and propagate feminism. The enemy of females is not men, it’s those that fund and propagate feminism.

_{[1] Jay Dyer of ‘JaysAnalysis’ https://jaysanalysis.com/2015/02/21/why-billionaire-oligarchs-bankroll-feminism/ retrieved 2018-03-30
[2] https://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/why-feminism-is-a-fraud/ retrieved 2018-03-31
[3] Gender Bent on AfroPunk retrieved 2018-04-02
[4] E. Michael Jones. ‘Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control’.
[5] jaysanalysis.com/2014/08/04/the-satanic-roots-of-feminism/}