Month: June 2022

Every institution on this planet has a leader, a boss. Marriage is no different. Two heads create a monster. A husband is head of his wife, and the wife is commanded to live in submission to her husband. It’s God’s perfectly ordained order for marriage, but many rebel against this. They use Ephesians 5:21 to say a husband is commanded to submit to his wife. This isn’t biblical. I will take you through the Bible in order to prove to you God’s ordained order in marriage.

In Genesis 2:18 we are told that God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” The woman was created to be a help meet suitable for her husband. This shows order right here. The man wasn’t created for the woman.

Part of the curse after the Fall was that the husband shall “rule over his wife” (Genesis 3:16). Before the Fall, he was the one in authority but they were both sinless so he didn’t “rule” over her.

Then, we come to the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, we have this: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

Then this: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of god: but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7).

The next few verses: “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

In 1 Corinthians 14:35, we are told: “And if they [women] will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

Moving right along, in Ephesians 5, we have these verses: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husband in every thing…And the wife see that she reverence her husband.”

In Colossians 3:18, we’re told, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”

1 Timothy 2:11-13: “Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence, For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”

In Titus 2:4,5, the aged women are commanded to teach the young women to be “obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Lastly, in 1 Peter 3, we have the following verses: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear…For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

God’s will for us is very clear, isn’t it women? Now, get to work obeying God and find the wonderful blessings in obedience!

https://thetransformedwife.com/husbands-are-never-commanded-to-submit-to-their-wives/

Hon. Louis T. McFadden  (1876-1936) of Pennsylvania was Chair of the House Banking Committee 1920-1931. 
In a colony such as the USA, 
traitors are honored 
while the nation’s true defenders 
are marginalized and forgotten. 
This is the case with Louis T. McFadden,a great American hero who shows here how, 
due to a massive identity and credit theft, 
Americans paid for their own enslavementand that of millions of others. For his trouble, McFadden was murdered. 
“…Mr. Chairman, we have in this Country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks – This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of these United States, has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the defects of the law under which it operates, through the maladministration of that law by the Fed and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”:from June 7, 2011by Louis T. McFadden (henrymakow.com)

Excerpt from:  “Financial Interests Should Not Dictate Foreign Policy of United States Government.” U.S. Congressional Record, Thursday, June 15, 1933 (legislative day of Wednesday, June 14) 

Full Speech Here 
. 

The Soviet Government has been given United States Treasury funds by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks acting through the Chase Bank and the Guaranty Trust Co. and other banks in New York City. 

England, no less than Germany, has drawn money from us through the Federal Reserve banks and has re-lent it at high rates of interest to the Soviet Government or has used it to finance her sales to Soviet Russia and her engineering works within the Russian boundaries. The Dnieperstroy Dam was built with funds unlawfully taken from the United States Treasury by the corrupt and dishonest Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve banks. 

Mr. Speaker, our workingmen have been told that Russia is the best country in the world to-day for a workingman to live in. They have been made to regret that they cannot go to Russia to work on one of the great enterprises being carried on by the Soviet Government from which American workingmen are excluded. 

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the Russians have a right to set up any form of government that pleases them and suits their needs. But for some reason, whether due to some defect in the Soviet form of government or to some other cause, Russia has not been able to maintain its present form of government otherwise than at the expense of countries in which there is greater freedom from individuals and in which the property rights of citizens have been respected and preserved. 

Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet Government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet trade organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Socialistic Soviet Republics, and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States Treasury for the benefit of Russia. 

Find out what business has been transacted for the State bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York; by Lloyd’s Bank of London; by Kleinwort Sons & Co. of London, whose correspondents are the principal New York banks; by Glyn Mills & Co. of London and their American agents – that is, the International Acceptance Banks of New York, the Guaranty Trust of New York, the Central Hanover Bank of New York, the Chemical Bank & Trust Co., H. Clews & Co., Kidder Peabody & Co., Winslow Lanier & Co., and Lee, Higginson & Co., the promoters of Swedish Match. Find out how much United States money has passed through the Bank for Russian Trade of London and through the Midland Bank, Ltd. 

If the extent of these transactions were known to the American workingman and if he could see that the raw material, the United States dollars, in those transactions came out of his own pocket and the pockets of his fellow citizens, he would understand that Russia is not a good place for a workingman unless other workingmen in other countries are forced to pay tribute to its needs. Russia owes the United States a large sum of money. 

If we had what Russia owes us today, the veterans of the United States would not need to fear the first of July 1933 when they are to be despoiled of their pension rights and privileges. Mr. Speaker, I am unalterably opposed to a reduction in the pensions that were lawfully conferred upon the United States veterans of all wars, their widows and dependents. 

I am in favor of the immediate payment of the veterans’ adjusted-compensation certificates. If the United States can carry Germany and Soviet Russia and John Bull on its back, it can pay its veterans. If it can lend $50,000,000 to Sovietized China and furnish material for the manufacture of high explosives, it can pay its veterans. 

Mr. Speaker, an immense amount of United States money has been used abroad in preparations for war and in the acquisition and the manufacture of war supplies. Germany is said to be part owner of a large poison gas factory at Trotsk on Russian soil.

China is almost completely Sovietized and in the Asiatic interior huge stocks of munitions are said to be stored awaiting the day when the war lords of the United States will ship United States troops to Asia. Mr. Speaker, the United States should look before it leaps into another war, especially a war in Asia. It should decide whether it is worth while to join hands with Russia and China in a war against Japan. 

For myself, I say and I have said it often that the United States should remember George Washington’s advice. It should mind its own business and stay at home. It should not permit the Jewish international bankers to drive it into another war so that they and their Gentile fronts and sycophants by way of Louis McHenry Howe, the graft master, may reap rich profits on everything an army needs from toilet kits to airplanes, submarines, tanks, gas masks, poison gas, ammunition, bayonets, guns, and other paraphernalia and instruments of destruction.”
—

Related:

Anthony Sutton’s books on Wall Street sponsorship of both Nazism and Communism

First Comment by GW
I see that on your website today, the top item is the 1933 speech given by Louis McFadden to Congress, spelling-out how the Federal Reserve was used for looting the Republic of the united States of America = a classic in the ‘right wing conspiracy theory” circles in which I used to hang around

a similar thing is going on now, with the “Panda Bonds” issued by Red China. British Columbia was the first non-communist country, to purchase Panda Bonds

 in exchange for scraps of paper,  funds gathered by taxation upon citizens here,  go  from the public accounts of British Columbia, laundered through  banks in Singapore/ Hong Kong,  then flow to Red China for  building infrastructure in that country.    Or?  maybe much more sinister projects than the Great Belt way?    How would we know?

is it that we don’t have projects here, worth doing? ,,, how come we are not using our own wealth to benefit ourselves?
the official answer from the NDP govt. in the Legislature of BC, is    “we get a higher rate of interest” … ie, than other bonds in the world, are paying

BC’s purchase of Panda Bonds explains why the Site C hydro dam is going ahead, in the face of very serious warnings from experts, that the thing is fatally flawed = at risk from seismic fault

the electricity expected to be generated at Site C is already dedicated to be used to compress BC’s treasure trove of Natural Gas, in order for it to be  exported  to China

Red China treating British Columbia as a colony

yet not a peep about all this in the lamestream media

https://www.henrymakow.com

If you’ve been around Jews for any period, you’ve likely discovered their tendency to exaggerate whatever they feel passionately about. Hyperbole seems to come easy to them. The sky is always falling. Doom is right around the corner. And, of course, it’s always directed at them because of their ethnic identity.

This powerful sense of group endangerment and historical grievance is associated with a hyperbolic style of Jewish thought that runs repeatedly through Jewish rhetoric. Chernin’s comment that “any negativity, criticism, or reproach, even from one of our own, takes on exaggerated dimensions” is particularly important. In the Jewish mind, all criticism must be suppressed because not to do so would be to risk another Holocaust: “There is no such thing as overreaction to an anti-Semitic incident, no such thing as exaggerating the omnipresent danger. Anyone who scoffed at the idea that there were dangerous portents in American society hadn’t learned ‘the lesson of the Holocaust.’ ”23 Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, a premier neoconservative journal published by the American Jewish Committee, provides an example:

[M]y own view is that what had befallen the Jews of Europe inculcated a subliminal lesson. . . . The lesson was that anti-Semitism, even the relatively harmless genteel variety that enforced quotas against Jewish students or kept their parents from joining fashionable clubs or getting jobs in prestigious Wall Street law firms, could end in mass murder.24

This is a “slippery slope” argument with a vengeance. The schema is as follows: Criticism of Jews indicates dislike of Jews; this leads to hostility toward Jews, which leads to Hitler and eventually to mass murder. Therefore all criticism of Jews must be suppressed. With this sort of logic, it is easy to dismiss arguments about Palestinian rights on the West Bank and Gaza because “the survival of Israel” is at stake. (“Background Traits for Jewish Activism,” p. 12).

As an example of this, it’s common for Jews to view all personal criticism of them as individualsas collective criticism of them as a people. It’s not that other ethnic groups don’t also engage in exaggeration and overreach at times, but only that Jews seem to have uniquely strong proclivities toward this sort of thing. One could say they have even perfected it.

There’s a long history of non-Jews noticing it too. Many Jews even concede this habit of theirs. They make no apologies for it either. It’s perfectly natural to them.

Yet like the Old Testament proverb that describes the evil man who is in continual fear that someone is chasing after him even though there isn’t (28:1), so also Jews often make whatever negative circumstances they find themselves in to be worse than they are or turn out to be. Their paranoia invariably leads them to faulty conclusions about the motivations of others. They are quick to impugn the character of anyone at the slightest perceived offense. This often leads to the most unfair and grossest of accusations, “anti-Semitism” being the most common.

For instance, the Jewish host of Democracy Now! (Amy Goodman) in 2002 asked the former Israeli Minister, Shulamit Aloni, what she thought about people in the U.S. who are critical of the Israeli government being called “anti-Semitic.” Her response illustrates precisely my point: “Well, it’s a trick. We always use it. When from Europe somebody’s criticizing Israel, then we bring out the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic . . . They are not ready to hear criticism.”

This reaction and strategy among Jews are perhaps understandable due to their tiny demographic in the U.S. comprising only about 1.8% of the overall population. This leads them to use their historic victim status and small numbers to blow things out of proportion in order to gain sympathy and approval from a gullible public.

Jews can be confident that their strategy will be supported by the U.S. government because “the Tribe” disproportionately influences much of the federal government, including society’s most important secondary institutions such as the news media, Hollywood, academia, and an array of social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Congress on both sides of the political aisle is unabashedly committed to the Jewish people and Israel.

In fact, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, has even gone on record to declare: “I have said to people when they ask me if this Capitol crumbled to the ground, the one thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid — and I don’t even call it aid — our cooperation with Israel. That’s fundamental to who we are” (Conference of the Israel-American Council, December 2, 2018).

History for at least the past 140 years is replete with examples of Jewish hysteria and overreach. Let’s look briefly at a few of them.

(1) Jews have claimed that great atrocities were committed against them in both Russia and Poland simply because of their Jewish ethnicity or religion. These ‘pogroms’ were instituted by the Russian and Polish governments, and they targeted Jews in the most inhumane ways. The persecutions were also carried out by local villagers. As a result, Jews were driven from their homes and businesses, and it’s claimed they suffered greatly at the hands of Russian and Polish Christians.

An article published in The Occidental Observer written by Andrew Joyce carefully examined such claims and found them in large part to be unfounded (“A Critical Look at the Polish ‘Pogroms’ of 1914–1920,’ May 1, 2022). Joyce cites the words of William Hagen (Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland, 1914–1920 [Cambridge University Press, 2018]) who assiduously investigated the matter: “Jewish reports tended toward exaggeration” (p.173).

Joyce notes that “From the outset, Hagen is skeptical of contemporary Jewish accounts that alleged spontaneous mass shootings. He opens the book by making it clear the documentary record has “gaps or blindspots” and “doubtless exaggeration occurred. . . . I have sought out multiple accounts so as to minimize bias.” He later argues that “resentment-laden animosity colored many such [Jewish] reports, which tended, in an atmosphere heavy with collective paranoia and hysteria, to exaggerate Jewish losses.” He even cites one brief but telling remark from Henry Morgenthau himself, who, although promoting atrocity propaganda, once admitted that “there is also no question but that some of the Jewish leaders [in Poland] had exaggerated” (A Critical Look at the Polish ‘Pogroms’ of 1914–1920).

This is not merely Hagen’s investigative conclusions, but also that of several other authors who discovered that Jewish reports of intense sufferings and prolonged mistreatment by the Polish people against them to be largely inflated and embellished.

The common assumption is that persecution of Jews always stems from irrational hatred when, in fact, the evidence strongly suggests that most of it is due to tensions between competing ethnic groups. Usury, fraud, various forms of thievery, and the multiple financial schemes that Jews engage in invariably provokes a backlash, one that sometimes leads to violence. Jews like gypsies are parasitical, and both groups often get the boot when people are angered and fed up with their deceitful ways. There is nothing irrational about it.

Andrew Joyce addressed the so-called Russian ‘pogroms’ in a series of articles also published in The Occidental Observer in May of 2012 (“Revisiting the 19th-century Russian Pogroms“). Joyce pulled his information from a wide variety of sources. One author stood out—the late John Doyle Klier and his monumental works: Pogroms: Anti-Jewish Violence in Modern Russian History [Cambridge University Press: 2004] and Russians, Jews, and the Pogroms of 1881–82 [Cambridge University Press: 2011]. Like the previously mentioned author, William Hagen, Klier is led to the same conclusions – namely, that Jews grossly exaggerated the events they declared to the world.

(2) Jews claim that “six million” of their people were murdered in the Holocaust and that this ‘liquidation’ of Jews was allegedly official Nazi policy ordered by Hitler himself. Jews were then systematically rounded up and forced to live in “death camps” where millions of Jews were gassed, tortured, and medically experimented on.

Given the exaggerations apparent in other Jewish claims of persecution, it would not be surprising to find similar exaggeration for the holocaust. Comparably few people are aware that the “six million” figure does not have its origin exclusively in the events of the Holocaust. The expression, in fact, was repeatedly employed by Jews as having symbolic, mystical, and kabbalistic significance prior to the outbreak of WW1. Interestingly, while Jews are allowed to interpret the “six million” number in a symbolic or allegorical way, this is not permissible for non-Jews. They must interpret it literally. No deviation is permitted. The double standard should be obvious.

The expression was routinely used by Jews beginning in 1850 among various newspapers, articles, and books which sought to highlight the sufferings of Jews in Russia. Over 250 separate pre-WW2 references to the “six million” can be documented in The New York Times, The Jewish Criterion, and a plethora of other American and Jewish newspapers and periodicals. American-Zionist leader, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and Zionist pressure groups such as The World Jewish Congress and The American Jewish Congress made sure that Jews were always portrayed as innocent victims and just on the verge of complete annihilation.

The constant call was for the world to recognize the plight of Jews and to rescue them from the hands of their oppressors. For those interested in reviewing the documentation for this, two books are, in my opinions, required reading: Don Heddesheimer, The First Holocaust: The Surprising Origin of the Six Million Figure(Castle Hill Publishers: 2021); and Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015).

Whether one agrees with the Jewish narrative of the Holocaust or not, there is little doubt that the “six million” figure is but one more example of Jewish exaggeration and overreach.

(3) Along with the “six million” number, there are also numerous outrageous claims made by Jews during and after World War II. For instance, that the Nazis made bars of soap and lampshades from Jewish skin. Nazis were alleged to have routinely committed the most unimaginable atrocities against Jews. Only later was much of it discredited and shown, once again, to have originated from Allied and Jewish propaganda.

Some of the most bizarre and unbelievable claims made by Jews as to what occurred inside the Nazi work camps are common (portable gas chambers, throwing Jewish babies into the air and bayoneting them, “masturbation machines” in which Jewish males were masturbated to death, etc.).

Jewish survival stories tend to be particularly fanciful, and many of them have been discredited upon closer examination. Behind them all are motives of greed and gaining sympathy for Jewish people. One such story involves Misha Defonseca (real name: Monique de Wael): “Desperate to be reunited with her parents, Misha travelled through war-torn Europe, becoming trapped in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. After escaping over a wall, she travelled thousands of miles to Ukraine, Romania, Yugoslavia, Italy, France and back to Belgium. During her arduous journey Misha said she stayed with a pair of wolves she named Maman Rita and Ita. . . . I was like the wolves — a hunted animal, and one that would be killed on sight. . . . Later she said she joined a pack of six adult wolves and four pups” (Grant Rollings, The U.S. Sun [8/4/2021]).

Turns out her wolf pack story was just a pack of lies. Misha reluctantly confessed her fakery when the matter was later investigated. She also had to return the millions she had profited from the story she weaved.

A good many of these Holocaust stories are so far-fetched that it’s hard to believe that intelligent people would take them seriously. Yet when it comes to the industry and religion of the Holocaust, one must bypass all critical thought and exercise only blind faith.

The Holocaust and spreading its message to the world is so important to Jews, in fact, that many of them believe it’s the key to their ethnic solidarity. It’s integral to who they are. Their belief in it is what holds them together, perhaps for some of them even more so than their belief in Yahweh and the Talmud.

Again, fanciful stories and claims about the Holocaust serve as examples of typical Jewish hyperbole. Mind you, I’m not saying that many Jews did not suffer and die during WW2 (so also did many non-Jews – even more so!). There were atrocities committed by almost all the involved parties (some more than others). Yet the Holocaust illustrates how deeply wedded Jews are to propaganda, and how they are largely unable to restrain themselves from spreading the most hysterical claims to the world that we are expected to believe without question. A good many Jews are offended when the same reviews and critical investigations that are applied to other historical events are applied to the Holocaust story. This event alone cannot be challenged. It’s not subject to the critical eye, and those who think otherwise soon discover the power of influential Jews. It shows again the religious nature of the Jewish Holocaust narrative.

(4) Additional examples of Jewish hysterical claims can be seen in more recent events, such as the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how it’s reported in the pro-Jewish American press. Israelis are almost always portrayed by Western media as innocent victims, while the Palestinians are always portrayed as terrorists and instigators. Since Jews largely control and influence our media, there is little nuance and context given.

(5) The Israeli government has claimed for over a decade that Iran has manufactured nuclear weapons and that a strike against Israel and America is surely imminent. Remember when Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed a joint-meeting of congress in March of 2015 – you know, the one where he was given 29 standing ovations? He warned against what he called a “bad deal” that was being negotiated at the time between the Obama administration and Iran to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.

Netanyahu argued that any deal with Iran would lead it to create nuclear weapons within “about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.” Well, almost eight years has elapsed since that speech, and there is still no proof that Iran has nuclear weapons and intends to use them against Israel or any other nation. Netanyahu’s exaggerated claims and congress’s willingness to lap it up validated the former Israeli prime minister’s claim in 2001 when he said, “America is a thing you can move very easily.” LINK

(6) That same level of Jewish-fueled hysteria occurred after 9-11 when a brood of Jewish neocons in the Bush administration persuaded President Bush that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction.” It was later discovered to a be bold-faced lie, one that led to the complete ruin of the Iraqi nation and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. These same Jewish neocons along with their compliant stooge, George W. Bush, led the U.S. to also invade Afghanistan. The foolishness and devastation of that two-decade quagmire should be obvious to all. Our withdraw from Afghanistan in August of 2021 leaving behind billions in military weapons only served to confirm it.

Israel and its subservient puppet, the U.S., has also engaged in a series of unjustified military strikes against Syria. The U.S. opposes Syria not because it poses a threat to the American people, but because the Israeli government perceives it to be an enemy-state, a regional threat to them.

The pattern seems to always be the same in all these conflicts. Anytime Israel feels threatened, it declares to the world a series of hysterical allegations all which spell doom to the Jewish people. Same as the hyperbolic claims by Jews prior to and during WW2, Jews are again about to be annihilated. It’s another Holocaust, but this time nuclear bombs will be used instead of poisonous gas.

(7) Consider also how Jews react to even slightest attempt on the part of Whites to unify in terms of their racial identity and cultural interests. Jews have always responded negatively to this sort of thing because they view it as potentially leading to the rise of another leader like Hitler who might unite Whites. Those same Whites could, as a result, turn against Jews and ‘voila!’ we’ve got another Holocaust on our hands. When you peel back the many layers of sophistry by Jews on why they oppose White people racially uniting, this is what you eventually discover.

This explains partly why Jews will never support even the mildest forms of White Nationalism. Politically conservative Jews might agree that illegal immigration is bad for the U.S., and they may even speak out now and then about Black criminality, but don’t ever expect them in any large number to declare that Whites have a right to be the dominant demographic in their own countries; that Whites have legitimate racial and cultural interests that ought to be preserved.

It should come as no surprise, then, why Jews will engage in the most extreme hyperbole and lies when assessing White racial identity. They are unable to treat the subject fairly because discerning Jews realize that when the goyim begin to grasp the ‘Jewish Question’ and its implications, it will invariably have an impact on Jewish hegemony over Europe and America. And so Jewish advocacy groups such as the ADL will continue to publish articles on its website and other platforms such as what Jonathan Greenblatt wrote in March of 2019: “White Supremacy is a Transnational Threat. Here’s why.”

Our current U.S. Attorney General who not-so-surprisingly happens to be Jewish, Merrick Garland, has recently parroted the same nonsense before Congress describing white supremacists as “the most dangerous threat to our democracy.” Such a statement would be laughable if it wasn’t so false and contrived.

(8) Consider also the gross exaggerations by our Jewish-dominated media when it comes to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict. Once again, complete lies, distortions, half-truths, and mythology abounds in reporting these events. The U.S. news media simply cannot be trusted, and it staggers the mind when one considers how many Americans are still unaware of this.

That overreach is such a prevalent trait among massive numbers of Jews suggests that it’s deeply rooted in their psyche, their character, and how they see the world around them. It’s largely part-and-parcel of who they are. One can reliably predict how Jews will react and what sort of extreme claims they will make when non-Jews start to wake up and ‘notice’ certain patterns about them. A circle-the-wagons reaction is almost always their collective response.

Yet we must ask ourselves: What kind of people are these who have such a habit of overreacting and grossly inflating every perceived criticism into something it’s not? Why would so many Jews react in this way? How does it help them or even work against their collective interests?

A couple of possible reasons could be given to such questions, but I must admit that these are only opinions drawn from historic patterns and are largely anecdotal in nature. Still, I believe those who are perceptive of Jews will mostly agree with the following two points:

Firstly, it’s the kind of response indicative of liars and conmen who discover that they are about to be exposed. More lies are compounded, and the hysteria ramps up in order to throw off their opponents or anyone else who might be observing. This helps to explain why Jewish advocacy groups like the ADL come down hard on any person or group that dares to challenge Jewish power structures in America. Noticing the same patterns of conduct by the same ethnic group — and then making it known to others — threatens America’s entrenched Jewish cabal. If too many were to discover it, uncomfortable questions would arise that could have devastating monetary consequences.

One must remember that Jews largely succeed and maintain disproportionate influence and power because they keep a low profile (at least mostly). They tend to work behind the scenes. They are not quick to draw attention to their ethnicity. Their last names are often no different than that of non-Jews so it’s not always readily apparent who they are.

This is, admittedly, not always the case. There are occasions when Jews speak openly of their ethnic and collective motives against their host country and its people. They will sometimes get caught boasting of who and what they control. This occurs when their ‘chutzpa’ is unable to restrain itself, and they more or less spill the beans.

Joel Stein in an L.A. Times article published in 2008 is one such example: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between “The 700 Club” and “Davey and Goliath” on TV all day. So, I’ve taken it upon myself to re-convince America that Jews run Hollywood by launching a public relations campaign, because that’s what we do best. I’m weighing several slogans, including: “Hollywood: More Jewish than ever!”; “Hollywood: From the people who brought you the Bible”; and “Hollywood: If you enjoy TV and movies, then you probably like Jews after all . . . But I don’t care if Americans think we’re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them” (‘Who Runs Hollywood? C’mon’).

But for the most part, Jews prefer to work in ways that are not so obvious, choosing instead a more low-key and subtle approach, yet still retaining their same power and influence over society.

Secondly, Jews have a long history and persistent pattern of engaging in fraudulent monetary schemes and in creating vice industries. If it were widely known, for example, that Jews played a disproportionate role in the modern porn industry, including their dominant role in Weimar Germany in the years 1918-1933, it would not look favorable for them. Their reputation could be tarnished. An excellent book by Benjamin Garland, Merchants of Sin (2017), extensively documents this intriguing history. Jews were also major players in the gay rights movement as well as the recent Transexual movement in America. This includes the Civil Rights and the Feminist movements, all of which helped to destroy the social and moral fabric of the country.

Thus, for the public to discover that Jews were the main promoters of so much of the over-sexualization of this once great nation, it would certainly raise some eyebrows – although little would be done about it now when one considers how morally bankrupt the nation has become.

Most Americans generally perceive Jews as people who are deeply religious with a strong moral base (actually, great numbers of Jews are secular atheists). Such realities as noted above would be troublesome for many Americans. Jewish success, it must be remembered, is in large part due to the kind of image they project upon society. They are masters of propaganda, and this must always be remembered when dealing with them. Jews could not have created the motion picture industry in Hollywood if they did not have a seemingly innate ability to deceive, to create smoke and mirrors, and distort reality.

Their long history of relying on deception, trickery, including endless monetary schemes to get them through the centuries has perhaps given Jews an upper hand in some ways over gentiles. Thus, the kind of social problems and hysteria that Jews create in the U.S. should serve as a warning to other western countries. When Jews are allowed to burrow into a nation’s most important institutions and gain a permanent foothold, it’s just a matter of time before societal strife and division takes root. The pattern is undeniable.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

https://www.unz.com/article/jews-and-their-long-history-of-hysteria-and-overreach/

https://www.winterwatch.net/2022/06/fed-hack-jerome-powell-a-profile-in-corruption-and-conflict-of-interest/

In 2014, Sunshine Mary, who used to have a blog, wrote about the way her husband dealt with her rebellion. I wrote a post called Should Husbands Ever Discipline Their Wives and asked the women on Facebook what they thought about Sunshine Mary’s post. She wrote the following after reading the women’s response. It’s quite interesting to say the least!

Last fall, in Nip disrespect in the bud before it blooms into a flower of rebellion, I told the story of how my husband told me to stop putting sharp knives in the dishwasher because it dulls the blades and damages the wood handles. I really prefer to wash them in the dishwasher, so I kept sneaking them in, and he kept catching me disobeying him. Eventually the dishwasher broke, not because of the knives, but just because something mechanical went wrong with it, and he refused to replace it for me because I hadn’t followed his directions about the knives.

Today, I am looking at the mound of dishes on the counter and feeling very sorry for myself. Learn from my mistake, ladies. You may think you can get away with disrespect and disobedience, but those consequences, when they finally arrive, are not worth it. Because he is nipping my disrespect for his authority in the bud, you can be sure that I will not test his resolve to respond to rebellious disobedience again. And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a rather dreadful chore to which I must attend.

Some verses upon which I will be meditating while immersed in dish detergent suds:

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. (Colossians 3:18)

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Ephesians 5:22)

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. (1 Peter 3:1-2, 5)

The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears it down. (Proverbs 14:1)

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. (Revelation 3:19)

For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. (Hebrews 12:11)

A few days ago, my dear sister in Christ and fellow blogger, Lori Alexander at Always Learning, posed this question on her Facebook page:

“Sunshine Mary’s husband told her not to put the knives in the dishwasher but she did anyways. When the dishwasher broke, he wouldn’t buy her a new one because she disobeyed him. Should husbands be allowed to discipline their wives in this way?”

Later, she started a new thread with this rephrased and expanded question:

“Putting good knives in the dishwasher ruins them. SSM kept doing it even though her husband told her numerous times not to do so. When the dishwasher broke, he refused to buy her a new one so she would have to wash the knives by hand. Another husband cut up his wife’s credit card since she was putting her family deeper and deeper into debt. You don’t think a husband should ever allow the wife to suffer from the consequences of her disobedience?”

Now, Lori is a devout Christian, and her readers are almost exclusively very devout Christian women. So how do devout Christian women respond to the idea of a husband having the right, as the Biblically-appointed head of the marriage, to enforce mild consequences (such as refusing to replace a broken dishwasher) on an unsubmissive, disobedient wife? I’ve gone through the Facebook comment thread and grouped the responses to Lori’s question into ten common themes (all bold typing is mine; some comments were edited with […] for brevity).

1. A husband has no authority to tell his wife what to do. A man is only permitted to love his wife, and by love, I mean let her do whatever she wants.

Laura ~ He can’t control what she does. She is the only one responsible for submitting. If she chooses not to, that is between her and God. Her husband’s only responsibility is to love her; that’s what he’s called to do. Not buying her a new dishwasher sounds like he is lording his position over her. It doesn’t sound very loving to me. I think if a husband does this, it’s a sign of his selfishness.

Chris ~ I have to agree with this! It’s God’s job to work with each person and not have someone looking over their shoulder throwing a tizzy because you aren’t measuring up. I think Jesus addressed this with that whole speck and plank thing. The minute the way others act or how they treat you becomes more of a concern than your own actions is a sure sign you have gotten off track.

Veronica ~ Man is naturally sinful and can’t be trusted to “discipline” his wife. That’s between her and God…

Jill ~ The Bible ONLY tells the husband to LOVE!!!! Love = prayer!…Where is love from the husband in that?

Linda ~ I think the dishwasher thing sounds inappropriate. If it’s a case of not being able to afford a new dishwasher right now, that’s a perfectly valid call for a husband to make. But if it is (as it sounds like) a case of a husband who doesn’t like that his wife does things differently than he does and tries to punish her by making her life harder, that’s petty and childish. That doesn’t mean that the wife should rebel or disobey him, but it does mean that the husband is acting improperly. That is NOT servant leadership. The wife should voice her concerns, appeal to him, and then submit in order to win him without a word. It might also be appropriate to apologize for ignoring his wishes. But her offense doesn’t justify his response. Nor is it his duty or right to discipline her as if she was a child.

Karen ~ …Wives are not children that the husband can ‘discipline’. Husbands are to love their wives as it says in Ephesians 5:25-29 …There is nothing there about punishing or disciplining the human wife! He is to treat her as himself!!

Chris ~ Hmmm, I don’t know that the idea of disciplining your wife is biblical. I don’t think parenting your spouse has any part in a marriage […]

Reading that last one, my husband snorted, “Neither do the Scriptures say anything about dishwashers. Therefore, we should get rid of them. See, I am a very Scriptural man.”

2. A husband who tells his wife to do or not do something is just a controlling, disrespectful, selfish man.

Michelle ~ Unbelievable how a sweet biblical truth can become so twisted. A controlling man should never be confused with submission.

Emily ~ Disobedience? What is she a 4 year old? He sounds like he needs some help and to grow up and communicate appropriately/respect his wife.

Marjorie ~ …He was using that as an excuse to discipline her for not obeying. For her husband to place himself in the position of micro-managing her, he is showing criticism and not allowing her to grow in a natural way…Everyone should be allowed to make mistakes and to constantly be criticized, judged and punished is disrespectful to her position as his wife. He is undermining her and the children will follow suit and not respect her either… A man who criticizes, belittles and undermines his wife will destroy her and believe me, there can be stiff consequences for that. I have seen my sister-in-law become morbidly obese over the years because of my critical and domineering brother. It is such a sad thing to witness.

Megan ~ If it was a big deal to my husband I’d try to accommodate him in that area; both in the knives and in the credit card situation. My husband wouldn’t deny me a dishwasher based on knives though- we probably WOULD have some frank discussions about respect…

Susan ~ The credit card is different and I can be agree with that. A husband can teach wives how to control the money, but about dishwasher its look like a selfish husband. This is my humble opinion.

Scherrie ~ No. That was his selfish excuse…

3. It is a little unnerving to me that we are criticizing women for failing to submit to and respect their husbands. Could we please go back to criticizing men for failing to love and lead us, like I am used to?

Sue ~ Lori, you know that I love reading your blog. You are a wonderful teacher. You are always talking about wives loving their husband, pleasing husband, obeying husband, but I will love it if you one day you would talk about how a husband needs to protect, love their wives, be the husband that the word of God said they should be.

Jill ~ Lori, how do you believe a women can expect a husband to treat his wife? We are adults and should be able to discuss this. I would even say it is important to talk about it because if we only talk about how a wife should behave then the discussion is not totally balanced.

Shelley ~ Sure that would be okay, if it was also okay when his wife reminded him a few times that his lunch for work the next day was in the fridge for him to take and when he forget it, I guess he would just be hungry. Or if he didn’t wash his clothes for work or forgot to remind his wife to do it, he didn’t have the clothes he needed the next day. If ‘consequences for disobedience’ work for wives, then ‘consequences for stupidity or laziness that the wife won’t bail the husband out of’ should be ok too.

Emily ~ So if a husband forgets to mow the lawn and then does it when it is very long and the mower doesn’t function…does the wife throw the mower away and leave a pair of scissors for him for next weekend as a punishment?

Angie ~ If hubby neglects to mow, hire someone to do it, take it out of the grocery fund or something that affects him directly, and he will remember….

Cyndi ~ Isn’t Sunshine Mary’s husband also the guy who cheated on his wife over and over and over?

As to that last one, the subtext is clear: if a man has ever sinned, even before becoming a Christian, that is a wife’s get-out-of-obeying free card. He wasn’t perfect, so she never has to obey him.

4. I have never seen a sharp knife ruined by a dishwasher. Probably he is wrong, and if he is wrong, that absolves a wife of having to obey her husband.

Jill ~ My dishwasher has never ruined my knifes; perhaps there is a difference between knives in the USA and Australia?

Veronica ~ How does a dishwasher get ruined by knives? IMO, he isn’t taking on his provider role. Just seems like a power play, not a loving action.

Marjorie ~ Even though I have only read this blog for the first time today, I am shocked at this question. My first question is how would putting a knife in the dishwasher be responsible for breaking it??? I know of absolutely no one who would not hesitate to put a knife in the dishwasher, unless it had a wooden handle. I could understand the possibility of a glass breaking in the dishwasher and causing it to break, but not a knife. But of course, I realize that is not the question here…

Susan ~ …its a little tiny thing about these knives that gets me the most. I don’t know about their dishwasher but mine doesn’t ruin knives! I don’t think having a different way of cleaning to your husband is WRONG, just different! Women take on the majority of the housework/cooking, etc. and surely it’s up to them how they clean? I just find this a petty attitude from the husband, like he is throwing a hissy fit because things weren’t done EXACTLY as he decreed. Doesn’t sound like a lovely kind attitude to me?

5. Anyway, unless the wife judges her husband to be wiser than she is, you can’t really expect her to obey him.

Marjorie ~ … The husband is not always the wisest one in the household and if a wife is expected to blindly obey, then there is a destructive force that will cause so much pain and imbalance in a family. I see it in my children as they struggle to understand their own marriages, following growing up in a household where there was a dictator. Good communication is one of the MOST valuable keys to a good marriage… not blind obedience. Love, respect and kindness are more key ingredients and without them there will be consequences. I think the days are long gone where women did not have a voice and were not even allowed to vote without first consulting their husbands…

6. Actually, even asking this question as to whether a husband should expect his wife to submit to and obey him is shocking and horrifying.

Heidi ~ Oh my… Is this really a serious question?? Wow!!

Cris ~ Is this true, Lori?

Debbie ~ You have a sick mentality of what a husband should be to his wife.

7. Plus, everyone knows that if we start expecting women to follow the Bible and submit to and obey their husbands, we will have a rash of out-of-control, power-mad men on our hands.

Shelley ~ Allowing a husband to discipline his wife is taking that power away from God. If submitting to your husband is about obeying God, not about whether or not the husband “deserves” the respect and obedience, then if a woman chooses not to submit she is ultimately disobeying God, NOT her husband. The Holy Spirit will have to convict her and change her heart and hopefully her husband will pray for her. But a husband disciplining his wife? That’s sick and if anyone encourages that there will be a whole lot of regular guys out there turning into maniacs on a power trip who are selfish, manipulative and more like a mean father instead of a loving husband.

Sara ~ …everyone is not perfect. A husband like that is like having your Dad in home.

Jill ~ Lori, does SSM’s husband leave her a list of what to do in the day and she has to do it that way? I am asking because I know someone whose husband does that and if she doesn’t do the list she is in trouble!

8. Anyway, it’s just too difficult for a wife to obey her husband. No loving man would expect her to do that.

Jennifer ~ …that’s weird. My husband is sweet enough to bless me with mercy and forgiveness when I screw up and/or “disobey him”!

Sue ~ My husband would never do this to me, because he loves me too much and he knows that sometimes it is difficult for me to obey him.

9. Abuse! Abuse! Abuse!

Jill ~ I have had dishwashers and trust me, Lori, knives do not break them; something about this husband is not right! My husband has fixed our dishwasher many times and it has never been because of a knife! I think the husband needs to talk to his Pastor about loving his wife more because if he wouldn’t buy her a new dishwasher because of the knives that is just being mean, controlling and not loving her as he would love his own body!! Sometimes women who are in an abusive marriage don’t see it while it is happening; sadly!

Marjorie ~ … I would say this husband is a power hungry control freak and he is punching holes in his marriage to punish his wife in this way. A marriage is a partnership and if no one is allowed to make a mistake without being “punished” then there is something seriously wrong. To be expected to blindly obey is so wrong on so many levels and this most certainly does NOT express love and/or kindness.

Jill ~ Marjorie, I do agree a home with a husband who yells and dominants his wife is setting up their children to need counseling for a long time to come…

Michelle ~ I would have never continued to wash the knives in the dishwasher, if my husband asked me not to, it’s such a small thing fact that she did reveals much deeper issues in the relationship. My question would be ‘why’ did she continue? Is she so controlled that she was trying to find something in her life that she could control?…

Nicole ~ Anything that involves shame, fear, guilt, etc. is manipulation.

Jill ~ There is nothing about a husband treating his wife like that; that shows light to the world. All the world would see is someone being a door mat and the other person seen as a dictator. I know because people who are not saved have told me that. Sadly! Love wins every time but for the world to see it as love, it must go both ways! The world is very quick to see abuse as abuse and love as love! Even if we don’t see it that way!

Jan ~ If wives can be disciplined like children, smacking a child is ok, why not smack one’s wife. Why would it be treated any different? If a government can lock up someone for breaking the law, why not lock up one’s wife for breaking the “home” laws? Where does the husband draw the line?? Sending her to bed early for misbehaving? A marriage is not like a having children or being a CEO {who can sack you if they don’t like you; this would be called divorce}. And what happens if the husband spends all the money and the wife suffers, who cares? What happens if he drinks too much? It seems this is a recipe for abuse and that’s really sad. Men are human and power can easily go to their heads.

Do you understand, men? Not buying your wife a dishwasher is actually abuse. Buying her a dishwasher as a reward for ruining some of your property and disobeying you is love. Therefore, the proper response by a wife to a husband who refuses to love her by buying her something she wants is…

10. Rebel! Rebel! Rebel!

Jodie ~ Still looks like he will be washing dishes…

Sharon ~ NO. I would not put up with that and if I were her, I would go out and buy my own dishwasher and have it put in before he got home. HE is not a dictator he is to love his wife. {just the thought of him allowing her… sounds parental they are both adults}.

Linda ~ He would not be my husband!!!!

Paula ~ …he would not be married to me. No man is going to control me but GOD that is it.

Scherrie ~ Buy it anyway. Men shouldn’t discipline their wives…

Only one man weighed in on the Facebook thread. Here is what he had to say to the question of whether a husband ever has the right to discipline his wife:

Jeremiah ~ Yes, when they act like children.

Ha! Exactly. Jeremiah is going to have an orderly home.

Instead of teaching a lesson in my own words on everything that was so very wrong with the women’s responses, I’ll let that be done by the few women who got it.

Anna ~ Why didn’t she listen to him? She can hand wash now. I would fully expect my husband to do the same thing if I disregarded what he told me to do.

Kimberly-Anne ~ I agree with Anna. The situation doesn’t seem as the husband “lording over” a wife. She was in the wrong in both situations, causing more stress to her husband, not being a very good help meet and being horribly disrespectful and selfish.

Anna ~ As stated in the previous discussion, I think the consequences the wives faced in both of these situations were perfectly acceptable. Why should the husband waste money on another dishwasher if she’s just going to disregard him and keep putting expensive {easily ruined} things in it? He’s going to have to pay for new knives eventually too! Neither of these instances shows selfishness or a husband “lording over” a wife. They show husbands who are looking out for their families. I’m actually kind of shocked at all the Christian women in the other thread saying he wouldn’t be their husband, or saying they’d then go behind his back and purchase things anyway. Wow!

Kimberly-Anne ~ And it shouldn’t be an “I will respect and honor my husband IF” it is “I’ll respect and honor my husband no matter what, even if he doesn’t deserve my respect.” Our children don’t have to earn our love, we love them unconditionally. When you made your vows, there was no clause or subtexts (at least there wasn’t in mine!) Love, Honor, Respect ~ until death do us apart…. Not until he does something that I don’t agree with. Yes, there are times when I might disagree with him, and my husband will let me voice my opinion because two brains are better than once. But if I come across as a shrew, he’s going to shut down. Meekness, quietness, respectfully. “Better to live in the corner of a roof than to live with a quarrelsome wife.”

***Postscript: In reading this all over again so many years later, think about it women, isn’t it better to have your husband do what he can to nip your rebellion to him in the bud ASAP (and not in an abusive way) so the Lord won’t have to chasten and scourge you? God tells us He chastens and scourges those whom He loves. He does it for our good. He wants our obedience. I don’t know about you, but I think I would choose washing dishes every day over having the Lord’s discipline upon me for my rebellion against my husband; for we do reap what we sow. Sunshine Mary was wise enough to see that her husband’s actions towards her were for her good, not her bad.

https://thetransformedwife.com/my-favorite-sunshine-mary-post/

The Russian president is delivering his speech at the annual SPIEF business forum in St. Petersburg. His address is dedicated to the future of Russia and the rest of the world in the wake of renewed pressure from western sanctions against Moscow. 

Addressing the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that the unipolar world has come to an end despite all of its beneficiaries’ attempts to preserve it at any cost. The president added that following the end of the Cold War, the US declared its national interests to be “sacred” and not to be undermined.

He went on to stress that the so-called “golden billion” countries still believe that they are superior and consider the rest of the world to be their colonies. He added that the West’s ruling elites live in a dream world and refuse to see global changes taking place.

“Over the past decades, new powerful centres have been formed on the planet […] each of them develops their own political system and public institutions, implements their own models of economic growth, and, of course, has the right to protect themselves, to ensure national sovereignty. We are talking about real processes, about truly revolutionary, tectonic changes in geopolitics, global economy, the technological sphere, in the entire system of international relations”.

Putin accused western countries of deliberately undermining the foundations of international order to satisfy their geopolitical illusions. He noted that business reputations and trust in currencies were undermined by their actions. The president also pointed out that the US can steal any person, group or state’s money simply over something Washington did not approve of.

EU Has Lost Sovereignty, Harms Own Citizens With Anti-Russia Sanctions

The Russian president criticised the European Union over the decision to impose anti-Russia sanctions, calling it “crazy” and “not well thought out”. Putin said that their goal was to crush the Russian economy in one go, but that they have failed to achieve this.

Instead, EU politicians delivered a serious blow to their own economies, prompting high inflation, the president stressed. He estimated the costs of the “sanctions fever” to be around $400 billion this year alone and noted that the measures will become a burden on regular people’s shoulders.

The Russian president stated that the EU has lost its political sovereignty as its elites are dancing to another country’s tune, even if it damages their own European populations and business interests. Putin predicted that this will result in deepening financial inequalities and social divisions in European societies. It is possible that it will eventually lead to a surge of radicalism and a change of elites in the bloc.

Soaring US Inflation & Looming Recession Are Bifurcating Democrat Support, Economist Says14 June, 16:30 GMT

Putin added that global price increases and problems in the energy sphere are the direct results of faulty policies by the US and the EU. The president dismissed the terms “Putin’s tax” and “Putin’s inflation” used by western politicians, specifically US President Joe Biden, to explain soaring fuel and consumer prices. The Russian president alleged that only uneducated people would believe the tales that Russia’s actions in Donbass caused prices to grow.

At the same time, Putin stressed that western countries’ forecasts about the grim prospects of the Russian economy failed to materialise.

“It is clear why they waged this propaganda campaign, what all these spells about 200-to-1 ruble-dollar exchange rates and claims that our economy would collapse were all about. All this was – and remains – a tool in the information warfare, an attempt to put psychological pressure on Russian society”.

He underscored that despite sanctions, foreign pressure and Russia’s strategy to replace foreign imports with domestic manufacturing, the Russian economy will never become an autarky – an isolated economy with no or limited foreign economic ties.

On Ukraine

The Russian president separately touched on the issue of Ukraine, where Moscow is currently conducting a special military operation. Putin promised that Russia will support Ukrainians in the territories under its control, allowing them to choose their own fate, and that Moscow will respect that choice.

He stated that military action is always a tragedy, but insisted that Moscow was forced to act. The president added that unlike US actions in Libya or Iraq, the Russian special operation was absolutely legitimate – a statement disputed by the West.

Putin continued his criticism of the US by accusing it of building an anti-Russia foothold – something that Washington would never tolerate in bordering territories. The president further stated that in 2014, the White House should have urged for new elections in Ukraine instead of gifting treats to the opposition and backing the coup organised in February that year.

https://sputniknews.com/20220617/putin-era-of-unipolar-world-has-ended-despite-attempts-to-preserve-it-at-any-cost-1096410547.html

The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman affirms both his masculinity and her femininity. 

Women used to align their interests with those of men and society. But humanity has been colonized by a satanic cult, the Illuminati who are pushing depopulation and the breakup of the nuclear family. 

Cabalist Jewish bankers and their Masonic flunkies (Communists, Satanists) convinced women that serving the people they love, their families, is “oppressive.” They need to be “independent” instead.  As result, millions of women are deprived of their natural biological and social role and are flailing about like fish out of water. 

Heterosexuality is based on the exchange of female (worldly) power for male power expressed as love. Women want love. Men want power. Heterosexual marriage is an exchange of the two. Feminism taught women to seek power instead of love. The result is both male and female are neutered.

Men must reassert their power.  A man must enlist (not petition) the right woman, his future wife, to realize his vision for life. A woman must surrender to the right man, her future husband. This is how women love. Of course, a man asserts his male prerogative with finesse, winning consent by loving persuasion. 

Women need sex as much as men. A woman is only too happy to have a sexual relationship in the context of love and marriage, when she is recognized and treated as a human being and not a sex object. 

Men should focus on women who “look up” to them. If you’re looking for your “equal,” you’re probably still looking for yourself. 

Reclaiming Male Power in the Viagra Age

(slightly revised from Oct 24, 2001 & July 17, 2018)

by Henry Makow PhD

You’ve heard of the “Stone Age,” the “Iron Age” and the “Information Age.” This is the “Viagra Age” — the era of male impotence. Television commercials say 1/3 of all men suffer from “erectile deficiency” attributed to old age, high blood pressure, prostate cancer, or diabetes.

I suspect that often the real culprit is feminism. Women should empower men but for a long time, they’ve been doing the opposite. Instead of taking the Viagra pill, men need to reclaim their masculine power. 

In the workplace, a man can accept leadership from a competent woman. But in the intimate sphere, a man who takes orders from a woman is not a man, and usually can’t perform like one. He sees his mother and feels like a child again. 

Power is synonymous with masculine identity. Impotent literally means “powerless.” We would never say a woman is “impotent.” Rather, she is “infertile” or “frigid” reflecting her passive or receptive role.

A man cannot love if he does not have power. He exercises his power on behalf of his wife and family. Women take away male power and wonder why they aren’t loved. 

MY EXPERIENCE

I felt liberated after I finally understood the power dynamic. I decided to look abroad for a traditional woman. After a misstep in the Philippines (described in my book A Long Way to Go for a Date), I married an educated, intelligent Mexican woman from a secular Jewish background similar to my own. For the first time in my life, I have found contentment and so has she. We have an almost friction-less relationship. 

She tells me what she’s thinking but she never tells me what to do. She avoids the 4 C’s: She does not complain, criticize, control and compete. In the past, women constantly blackmailed me by childish scenes or passive-aggressive tactics. 

I find myself cringing in expectation of this. It doesn’t happen.

The division of labor reflects our preferences. I do all the shopping and cooking. She mows the lawn. 

The gesture of a man opening a door for a woman illustrates how men and women should relate. We all know a woman can open a door herself. But when a man does it, he is affirming her femininity, beauty or charm. When she accepts this gesture, she is validating his masculine power. This trade, woman surrendering her power in exchange for man’s love, is the essence of heterosexuality. In order to develop emotionally, men and women need this mutual validation as much as sex itself. Exclusive sex is an expression of it. 

Under the toxic influence of feminism, women open their own doors. Neither sex’s identity is validated, neither matures emotionally. Men feel redundant and impotent; women feel rejected and unsexed. 

RESTORING MALE POWER

The following are some practical tips to help men restore their power. 

• The best way to select a woman is to make a reasonable request. If she clicks her heels, salutes and says, “Oui, mon Captain,” she’s eligible. (I’m exaggerating.) On a summer day, before I remarried, I met a young woman who was rollerblading. I asked her to take off her sunglasses so I could see her face. She obeyed. That was a positive early sign. Courtship is the process by which a man earns a woman’s trust (love) so that she will accept his leadership. Men express love in terms of benevolent power and perceive a women’s love as her acceptance of his protection. A woman wants a man to make her feel secure. 
  
• Feminism encourages men to pursue “independent” women and reject the women they actually need. If a woman wants to be “independent,” she doesn’t want you. If her dating profile says “Are you man enough for me?” or “I’m high maintenance,” decline the challenge. Life is too short. Marriage is not about independence. It is about two people becoming one and that only happens when a woman surrenders leadership to a man.
  
• Men give their power to a woman in hopes of getting love, sex and beauty. For a while she is flattered, but ultimately she cannot respect a man she can control. Women trade power for love. When men do it, they become women.  A woman wants to be drafted not petitioned. She wants a man to have a wholesome vision of his life, in which she has an essential place. This vision need not be elaborate or complicated. It could involve a life focused on mutual values and interests, like children, music, health food, church, sports, dogs or the outdoors. 
  
• There is a book entitled: Why do I Think I am Nothing Without a Man (1982) The author, Dr. Penelope Russianoff, tries to help women overcome this feeling. The truth is, this feeling is grounded in reality. Self-fulfillment for a woman is when the “self” is her husband and children. Women self-sacrifice and serve; in return, they are deservedly cherished. If the “self” is her personal satisfaction and career, she is already full and filled. Her husband and children are secondary. 
• Most women  crave their husband’s intense and exclusive love. In her book, The Psychology of Women, (1944) psychiatrist Helene Deutsche said woman are masochistic-narcissistic by nature. They sacrifice (masochism) in exchange for love (narcissism.) She is his queen. He is her Knight in Shining Armour. It’s Power for Love. If he does not reward her sacrifice with love, the contract is null and void.
  
• A man wouldn’t be attracted to so many beautiful women if he asked, “to which woman can I entrust my spirit?” His seed is the symbol of his spirit. Similarly, the sex act is very invasive for a woman. It should be reserved for love, ideally marriage. Anonymous sex and promiscuity are dehumanizing and degrading, proof that society has been invaded by a perverse occult force. (Cabalism.) 
• We really seek intimacy. You cannot have intimacy without love and commitment. 

CONCLUSION

A man can reclaim his identity by recognizing that his power is non-negotiable. It represents his ability to love. It is the essence of his masculinity. 

A man should focus on women who are receptive to him and ignore the rest. She may be behind a counter rather than an executive desk, a barista rather than a brain surgeon.

A single man should be aggressive and quickly sift without concern for rejection. Be wary of women who are from broken marriages or hate their fathers. 

A man must be prepared to offer the right woman a profound relationship. She is not interested in “hooking up.” She does not want to be “gamed.” She is the ground on which he cultivates a family. He “husbands.” 

Single men are so passive and juvenile today that single women are climbing the walls. We need to “man up.” 

As my father taught me, work is the backbone of a man. He must find self-confidence in professional achievement and recognition.Men represent the active principle; women the passive. We have the power and if we don’t use it constructively, we will continue to fail women.

—-

Makow – Young Women Have Lost the Script

————What is Feminine? 

———-  Psychiatrist Explains how Feminism Causes Frigidity
 ———- Wife  Must Surrender to Husband to Achieve Unity 

—————- Having Sex is Not Making Love

https://www.henrymakow.ca

Written By Vivian Maddox in response to someone who fully supports egalitarianism in marriage by quoting Ephesians 5:21: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

The way that people mishandle the text in the fifth chapter of Ephesians is unfortunate. They take verse 21 out of context and use it to nullify verse 22: “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.”

Verse 21 is addressed to the same “one another” as is verse 19 where Paul tells the Ephesian church specifically, and the church through the ages to speak to “one another” in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. So, he’s telling the church – not husbands and wives – to submit to one another in the fear of God, and then moves on to exhorting husbands and wives in the rest of chapter 5 and then he continues in chapter 6 to exhort the parents and children and to exhort the masters and servants and then resumes talking to the church in Ephesians 6:10 about putting on the armor of God and so on to the conclusion of the letter to Ephesus.

Why are people kicking against the idea of wives submitting to their husbands? Three points:

One. The marriage relationship and orientation of the wife to her husband is supposed to mirror the relationship of the Church (bride) to Christ (groom). Would we kick against the Church submitting to Christ by saying that there should be a mutual submission with Christ submitting Himself to the Church? No. The Church submits to Christ and follows His lead and takes His Name. This reality should be joyfully reflected in our marriages.

Two. Do we not see a beautiful example of submission within the Godhead when God, the Son, for the sake of the glory of God and His Name, took on the form of a servant and came to earth? He demonstrated what submission was like when He was obedient to His Father in everything He did and said. He showed us what it is like to submit His will to His Father. Why can’t wives mirror that beautiful submissive spirit to our husbands for the sake of the Gospel?

Three. We’re so muddy with egalitarianism when we try to take Ephesians 5:21 out of context by requiring mutual submission between husbands and wives. Why not go all the way and apply it to the parent and child relationship and require mutual submission or mutual obedience between parents and children? Or, between masters and servants?

No. In the church where we are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:226-29). We are to submit to one another, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female – and I would add that in Christ there is no distinction between parent and child. That pertains to our standing before God and our mutual submission to one another. But that doesn’t erase our social standing and responsibilities in our relationships of husband and wife, parent and child, bond or free. God is not egalitarian, and He didn’t create these earthly relationships to be egalitarian either.

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
1 Peter 3:5,6

https://thetransformedwife.com/an-egalitarian-marriage-is-a-myth-not-supported-by-scripture/

About five years ago, women began wearing thong bathing suits on our beaches here in San Diego. When they were laying on their stomachs on their towels, they looked naked. I got to the place where I despised walking on the beaches with my husband. I hated being where naked and promiscuous women were, but he liked walking on the beach, so we continued walking on the beach. Well, those same beaches have completely eroded and are filled with rocks so we no longer walk along it. God took care of that! 🙂

When we listened to Michael Pearl teach through Hebrews in person almost 20 years ago, he told us he never went to beaches or the malls. He takes the verses about lusting seriously. Now, some of your husbands are like Michael Pearl and some aren’t. Some still like to go to the beach and malls. How do wives handle this when they are incredibly uncomfortable with almost naked women strutting around their husbands?

They have to give it to the Lord. If their husbands lust, it’s their sin, not the wives. Yes, it may make you uncomfortable but forget about being your husband’s Holy Spirit and enjoy yourself at the beach or pool. If he wants you to hold him accountable by warning him (this is what my husband asked me to do), warn him when a naked woman is nearby. If he doesn’t, then don’t! Remind yourself that this is NOT your issue or problem. Yes, it’s a huge temptation for most men, but many godly men have disciplined themselves to look away when they see immodestly dressed women since they are almost everywhere, especially in the summer.

You continue to set a good example to the women around you and your children of dressing modestly. Thankfully, there are many cute and modest bathing suits you can buy now. It’s not our job to convict the world of sin. Yes, we are to speak the truth in love, and older women are to teach younger women to be modest and discreet, but this is not our home, we’re not in control, and God wants us to love Him and others. That’s it!

Many men have become sensitized to the immodesty of women. Leggings are everywhere we look! Low and tight tops and shorts abound. This is the world we live in right now. It’s not going to get better. As believers in Jesus Christ, we are not to conform to this world but be transformed by His Word. As our culture grows darker, we will stand out as being different. This is okay! We only aim to please our Savior, not those of this world.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Romans 12:2

https://thetransformedwife.com/nudity-on-the-beaches-and-public-pools/

https://www.azurestandard.com/healthy-living/four-powerhouse-veggies-for-your-health/