Women weren’t created to lead or be in authority in the home, church, or nation. Men were. This is protection for women, homes, churches, and nations. It’s not for harm. Patriarchy was set up by God to protect women and children, not harm them.
Matt Walsh wrote a series of tweets on this topic: “Women increasingly do run our institutions and western civilization has declined as women have assumed more and more power.”
One woman responded: “Medicine and medical research, archeology, conservation, public safety standards, astronomy, the treatment of the disabled, wireless communications, computer programming, space flight, the arts.”
Matt responded: “These are utterly delusional attempts to list institutions that have been improved by increased female leadership. I mean they’re literally giving all of the examples that prove my point. Space flight? Computer programming? Men have done almost everything of note in these fields.”
Another woman wrote: “Marie Curie is one of only four people to win TWO Nobel Prizes, one in chemistry and one in physics. Do you think the Nobel committee was super woke in 1903 and 1911? This is a terrible argument you’re making.”
Matt responded: “I didn’t say that there haven’t been any impressive women in history. I said that no institution has been measurably improved by intentional efforts to increase female leadership. There is no dispute that women have much more power in academia, politics, the justice system, the military, etc, than they’ve ever had in this country. There’s also no dispute that all of those institutions are more impotent and confused than they’ve ever been. Oh and if we’re listing institutions that have been harmed by the rise of female leadership, we can’t forget the two biggest examples: the family and the church.”
Eric Conn responds: “Men are made by God to rule—in home, church, and society. When this order is inverted, moral chaos ensues. Feminism got its way and society has rapidly self destructed.”
I am thankful for men like Matt Walsh and Eric Conn who are willing to speak out against what feminism has done to destroy this nation.
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. Isaiah 3:12
Today begins the jewish “holiday” of hanukkah, so let’s take a look at the real history behind it. After Alexander the Great’s death in 323BC his empire was split amongst his generals. One of them was a man by the name of Seleucus I Nicator who founded the Seleucid Empire. In the year 170BC the Seleucid Empire had defeated Ptolemaic Egypt during the 6th Syrian War and gained full control of the Levant, including the province of Judea. In 168BC Seleucid Emperor Antiochus IV had plans to Hellenize the Levant and ordered a statue of the Greek God Zeus to be built outside of the jewish temple in Jerusalem. Because of this many jews gave up their religion and willingly converted to the Greek religion.
In 167BC a jew by the name of Mattathias began what would become to known as the Maccabean Revolt when he refused to sacrifice a pig on the alter of a Greek temple then killed the man who volunteered to take his place and desecrated the alter and fled the city into the hill. One year later Mattathias’s son Judas gathered like minded jews began a violent revolt, going into towns and massacring any Greek or jewish convert they could find and also began forcibly circumcising children, as well as destroying Greek temples. The Seleucid Governor was informed of the revolt and a Seleucid Army of around 30k was dispatched to crush the revolt. The jews fought a guerilla style war against the Seleucids, for many years and in 164BC the Seleucids withdrew to Syria due to Antiochus’s death. The jews believed this was a sign they had won and built a new temple to commemorate.
This event was completely forgotten by jews until around the 1890’s when jewish rabbi’s decided to turn the event into a holiday as a means of mocking the Christian Advent calendar and Christmas.
If you go to the Breitbart or Fox News sites, you can see the glee expressed on those pages regarding the resignation of University of Pennsylvannia President Liz Magill due to her failure to condemn antisemitism during recent Congressional testimony. As a result of this “failure,” UPenn had mega donors freeze nearly $100 Million in donor commitments until she was gone. The celebratory coverage included warnings to the presidents of the two other elite schools, Harvard and MIT, regarding their presidents’ respective futures if they did not do more to suppress pro-Palestinian activism on campus. As of right now, there is no indication they will resign. Dig further and you will learn why.
The president of Harvard is a black woman. The president of MIT is a Jewish woman. The president of UPenn was a White woman. In other words, despite being accused of similar dismissive behaviors toward the “plight” of Jews in Israel, the White woman was the only one forced to resign.
Of course, the matter gets even deeper and demonstrably more anti-White when you scratch below the surface. For years, universities have openly argued for the eradication of White people – especially White Christians. They have openly railed against White societies and Western Civilization. Yet, your tax dollars continued to fund an education system that taught “others” and your own children to hate White people.
At no time did a Republican Congress pull a university president into a committee hearing to discuss anti-White animus. To my knowledge, not a single mega-donor withheld funds over anti-White vitriol. To date, I have yet to have read of a university president forced to resign for not addressing anti-White hatred.
Keep digging deeper and you see that not only have the “power of the purse” Republicans continued to fund anti-White indoctrination, mega donors have done the same. The symbolism of the elite university presidential position seems to have gone largely ignored. That is not a surprise. After all, university presidents are primarily figureheads, with important but nominal day to day functions. Rather, their role as the university’s “head of state” is critical toward ensuring donor funds continue to come into the university while acting as symbols of the expressed ideological positions of the university. Liz Magill was the only non-Jewish, White president of an Ivy League university.
Of the eight leaders of the country’s most prestigious universities, every other president was either racially non-White (Harvard & Columbia) or Jewish by means of birth or marriage. The only one who was not happened to be the president of UPenn. After her resignation, within hours, she was replaced immediately by Jenny Martinez, a Hispanic lawyer who is married to a Jewish man.
The statement is obvious. The Ivy League universities are now conquered completely. Anti-Jewish rhetoric will not be tolerated. Anti-White indoctrination will be celebrated and well funded. You – the average White person with no advocates – will see the increased promotion of anti-White, pro-Jewish content peddled toward your children in the form of state exams even if you home school. Why? Because the Ivy League controls the content that underlies the necessary accreditation of an education whether it is in a public school, a Catholic school, or at home. Watch as that accelerates.
Meanwhile, the Jewish supremacists have scored a massive psychological victory in Pennsylvania. They proved, yet again, they could remove White people at will, even politically connected ones like Magill. It may seem like nothing superficially, but it is hardly “nothing.” Jews wielded the power of the donor purse to remove a university president. Neither Republicans nor White mega donors have done the same to defend against anti-White hatred on campuses.
Your “conservative” outlets are celebrating it. Average White people are ignoring it. But the reality of this latest Jewish win is that it is yet another score in the long march toward the end of Western Civilization – and nothing is being done about it.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSy6ENVAJlY In 2012, Ex-Yeshiva student Yossi Gurwitz explained what non-Jews can expect when Talmudic Jews gain total ascendency: [“According to Judaism], they are idolaters, and you have to kill them.”
There must be a cleansing. Religious law prohibits contact with non-Jews. Of course, the Kosher laws prohibit you from eating with them. Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. There is no prohibition on stealing from a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. You can’t say “hello” to them – unless there is no alternative. And so on and so forth.
Transcript of interview with Yossi Gurwitz, (courtesy of Ken Adachi)
“Judaism as a religion has been frozen in time for the last 1800 years. Generally speaking, Rabbinical Judaism, as it appears in the Talmud … is the source of Judaism, not the Bible. The source of Judaism is the Talmud… Okay, let’s get this exactly right: it defines only Jews who believe in the religion are men – as full humans. And everyone else is some level of ‘other’, that must be pushed aside or, in extreme cases, destroyed. But if you kill a non-Jew then you’re guilty, but there is no penalty. God will punish you. And that is – how shall I put it? – a bit problematic. When you say something is a crime, but there’s no punishment for committing it, then it’s not really a crime. That’s the Talmud. The worst case, in my opinion, is the case of Maimonides, who decrees…that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a 3-year old girl. That age of consent is – problematic. And second of all, he decrees that if a Jew rapes a three-year-old non-Jewish girl, then she must be executed. Her, not him – because she tempted him to sin. And for this reason, you have to treat her like an animal that puts obstacles in a person’s way. And he quotes some verse about a bull or something like that. And the rabbis know that these parts of the religion that are misanthropic, that are discriminatory to non-Jews, pose a problem for them. Because if they try to implement them – there are some rules that are very unpleasant, like that three-year-old-girl we were just talking about – if they try to implement them, there will be a pogrom. So to avoid that situation, the Talmud defines two different states of reality. There’s one called “Darkei Shalom” [Peaceful Ways]. In other words, “This is the actual religious law, this is how you are supposed to act.” “However, since it would cause a huge mess, and people will die. So due to ‘peaceful ways’, you don’t act that way.” Now, until what point does the “peaceful ways” rule still apply? Just as long as the other situation does not exist, which is “When Israel is Mighty”. That’s when there is a Jewish regime. It is independent, and it is merciless, it can do what it likes. Under those circumstances – it’s all over, you go back to the letter of the law. No more “peaceful ways”, no more nothing. Now when you think about Jewish history, lots of people talk about the Hasmonean Wars which was pretty much one of the only times that Jews wielded weapons and they think about what the Hasmoneans did to the Hellenized Jews [who assimilated Greek culture]. Which was to make them extinct, to destroy them. A small genocide. And I remind people of this frequently, every time Hanukah rolls around. But they didn’t stop there. They embarked on campaigns of looting and conquest and at the beginning, during their first 20 years, wherever they arrived, they would destroy the local temples. It was prohibited for a place that was under Jewish rule to have a pagan temple. That’s what we’re talking about. They also forced the Edomites to convert to Judaism on pain of death. It was a forced conversion. Something we learn the [Spanish] Inquisition did later on. They took people and told them: ;”Either you’re dead, or you’re converting to Judaism”. And things only got worse from there. Now, when religious zionists look at reality, they say: “We’ve got a state. We’ve got weapons. We’ve got a Jewish army. This hasn’t happened for 2, 000 years.” “What this means is that God wants us to bring about the Messiah, that God wants us to build the Temple.” In other words, the only difference between the time of Maimonides – he died in 1204 – and the time of the Messiah, is who is subordinate to whom. Are the Jews subordinate to “kingdoms”, to other nations? Or can they subordinate other nations? And that is how Maimonides begins his Book of Kings. He explains what the rules are for a king, what a king can do. It emerges from the belief that, yes, there can be a king. You don’t have to first have a temple. You don’t need God to come down from the sky and point at someone and say, “That’s the Messiah”. You can have a king, and if he is victorious, then he’ll also be the Messiah. And then you look at what religious zionists are doing about this. They want a Messiah. They want him now. There must be a cleansing. Religious law prohibits contact with non-Jews. Of course, the Kosher laws prohibit you from eating with them. Other laws forbid you from treating them fairly. You are forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. There is no prohibition on stealing from a non-Jew – except in order to “keep the peace”. You can’t say “hello” to them – unless there is no alternative. And so on and so forth. There are all kinds of prohibitions that are entirely psychotic that are based on a religion of vengeance. Religious zionists have a serious problem with the fact that there are any non-Jews here. The Land of Israel is supposed to be only for Jews. So, ironically, they would manage to get along with the Muslims more or less if we weren’t involved in a military conflict with them. Because according to Judaism, Muslims are not idolaters. Muslims believe in one God. They don’t have idols, they don’t have statues, they don’t have anything like that. So ironically, during the Medieval Era, Jews got along better with Muslims than with Christians. But what can you do? We conquered a territory populated mainly by Muslims. and the Muslims are fighting us – so those defenses fall away. And look, now they are starting to talk about genocide. You have the [book] “Torah Hamelech” [King’s Torah]. which tells you that you can kill children if there is a reason to believe that one day they could cause harm. Now, if you killed someone’s entire family and left only him alive, he will indeed have a reason to cause harm. If you stole his lands, turned him into a refugee, tossed him to Jordan or Lebanon – he will indeed have a reason to cause harm. Many people said that the book’s arguments are not sound according to religious law, and so on and so forth, but no one really tackled it head-on. And it’s no wonder that it became a best seller. Because in general, what religious zionists actually want is for the Land of Israel to be for Jews only. Now the situation for the Christians, on the other hand, will be really bad. [According to Judaism], they are idolaters, and you have to kill them even if they do not resist Jewish rule. In Jerusalem, religious seminary students have a despicable habit: they urinate or defecate on churches. If you go there and talk to the church staff, you’ll hear it from every church. Spitting on clergymen on the street is something that happens regularly. If the priest has the gall to hit the person back, to slap him or something similar, then he is deported quietly. They cancel his residence permit in the country. If you want to justify a pogrom, all you have to do is say the words “missionary threat”. And from that perspective, Christianity, which is the historical arch enemy of Judaism is going to get a serious beating once the religious zionists are in power. The Christian Fundamentalists who send them money apparently don’t understand what they’re dealing with. But you know, it’s really a case of “a pox on both your houses”. End of transcript
