Two Women And The Lie And Truth Of Feminism

Today the war on the web between the Social Justice Warriors and the men centered around a particularly nasty meme: a video by a woman walking through New York, claiming to be ‘harassed’ by cat calling and men saying hello.

But our women are learning too, and when they do, they immediately again become a force for good…………

The two main things that are visible in this video are the incredible body language of the young woman, walking and looking as if she’s constantly spit upon, and the generally friendly and good natured, albeit it sometimes somewhat primitive actions by the men.

Yes, the scene with the guy walking alongside her for while was a little over the top, but the woman could easily have stopped it, by simply slowing down or halting, forcing his hand.

The story is, that men paying attention are ‘harassing her’. And this is what the Communists (‘Feminists’) want: they want to end natural, pleasant relations, by mind controlling women into thinking this is ‘harassment’.

Men have no right, apparently, to be attracted to a pretty young women, let alone to let it be known.

And, unopposed, it works. Plenty of misunderstanding women fall for it, many interactions on-line showed. However, when asked directly, many women said that cat calling and nice gestures by men are not at all unwelcome in themselves, when not overbearing.

Here’s what Saba had to say about it, an insightful, sad and simultaneously uplifting view.

“The feminist poison has contaminated most men as well.

In the 70s and 80s, we were forcefully told that men were all rapist, violent, controlling and oppressors by nature and it would only be a matter of time and opportunity for them to show their real nature.

Women have also been taught, through the magazines, TV, advertising etc. that we are all ‘goddesses’ within and that it is for us to let the goddess within us shine.

In the 90’s, a new cult was forced upon us: the top model cult. You remember that group with Claudia Schiffer, Cindy Crawford, Karen Mulder, Naomi Campbell etc….
Interesting to point that it did not last, I think it was not meant to last, but its effects are visible now.

Most women now react like they are top models. We feel insulted when a man approaches us, unless his social status is visible…. in that case, we feel very flattered…
But with most men, we feel suspicious, we feel insulted: how dare he talk to me? How can he approach me? What does he have to ‘offer’ or to give me? And we react very aggressively, very arrogantly, sneer at whoever does not look ‘rich’.

Modern men, who for the most have been raised by their moms alone after she got rid of the dad, men are now petrified to say hello to woman or simply smile at her.

Men seem to be troubled by so many thoughts that kind of paralyze them and prevent them from making a move toward someone they find attractive: ‘she is too beautiful for me, too rich for me, too intelligent, out of my league’ etc.

And when a woman smiles back, we have a weird situation: they now think ‘ok, what is wrong with this one? Why is she smiling back? She must be the cheap kind’ etc.

This has happened to me….

But women are still women and our genetic code has not changed (not yet!). And we still want the same, which is: we only want men to love us.

Society has provided us with great ‘diversion’ so that we do not see thru it, so that we do not think about our deep loneliness and misery, so that we fill up the gap only a man can fill. These diversions are our jobs, our friends, our shopping, our ‘social life’ (think Sex and the City), but the older we get, the more the spell fades away.

Often, it is too late.

Women still dream of the same thing our grandmothers did.
But we do not understand why men do not approach us, we all wonder where have real men gone.

We think and are told by the magazines/TV/ads, that we are not beautiful enough….And so we go to the gym, we diet, we dress in a way that we know you will like. We read more women magazines to get tips on how to wear make up, dress, even make love.
We do all this for you.

But you do not react and so we undress more and more, all this to get you to look and smile at us.

You do not react because you are so scared to. And when some of men do react, then we take the piss (only if they do not look rich).

And so it is a vicious circle that can only end once women realize that they have been taken for a ride and get off the feminist band wagon.

Western men are the ones who do not react. Arab men and black men do and are the only ones because they have not been yet emasculated.
There was a time, not so long ago, in the 1990s, where Latin men did as well. These were my student years and I remember them very well. And now, even Latin men have been reigned in. And the greatest losers of this situation is us, women.

Trust me Anthony, believe me, all women, when alone or amongst each other, we all wonder where have men gone and we all dream of them coming back….”

And Saba added:
“I was surrounded by gay men, in all my London years: gay men are very ‘masculine’ in their bodies and cultivate the macho look to the extreme. But THAT is ok.

Straight men who want to look like men and not like metro-sexuals, are called macho and that is an insult, which women use the same way we use ‘fascist’.

‘Don’t know how to treat a lady, don’t know how to be a man’.

Women no longer act like women but want to be treated like ladies.
But we are scared or suspicious when a man does treat us that way or acts like a man and so we reject them.

How on earth can we get out of this impasse? What can we do, what can be done?”

Women want to be wanted by men.

Of course they do.

They have been mind controlled into (self) destructive behavior and the men, also fooled by ‘equality’, are at a loss how to deal with overbearing and arrogant women, who deep down want to be seen and cherished.

What remains is to answer the questions that Saba leaves us with……..

Feminism is dying
Ann Coulter And The Female Vote
Cultural Marxism: Managing The Ant Farm



Do Homosexuals Die 20 Years Early?

While billions are spent on researching the ins and outs of homosexuality, there is only very limited data about male homosexual life expectancy. The data there is, suggests homosexuals might die 20 years younger than normal men.

There is a study done in Canada 1997. It was done by researchers approving of homo agitation. It concluded that homosexuals die between eight and twenty years younger. Later, the researchers realized their research was being used by Conservatives to point at the problems of homosexuality. They distanced themselves from these conclusions, but confirmed the validity of the data.

Here is another study, focusing on homosexual obituaries. It concluded that the median age of death was not even 50. Life expectancy for an American man is almost 79.

These studies have been denied, obfuscated, ignored, resented. You can find hundreds of articles trying to make them go away.

But there are no studies being done to invalidate the conclusions.

The reason for this is quite clear: they know it’s the truth. Homosexuality is about as good for you as a meth addiction.

The Scientific Dictatorship
The Scientific Dictatorship was an idea by Bertrand Russell. He claimed ‘future rulers’ would use ‘science’ to force their policies on the people. In reality, the Scientific Dictatorship was long operational even in the days of Russell, and the, clearly top down driven, mainstreaming of the homosexual dysfunction is a top example of how it works: the Powerful decide they want this or that, next they hire endless scribes to promote their point of view.

The people suck it up, just as they uncritically and fervently believed other religions in the past.

If you say anything negatively about homosexuals, you’ll immediately receive links to studies showing it’s all normal. If you disagree, you are ‘ignorant’, as you cannot deny ‘science’. When you provide the links about homosexual mortality, they tell you ‘oh, that’s just conservative bogus ‘science”.

Today, billions are invested in homo ‘science’. If you want to find out how black men in South Africa enjoy having anal sex with each other, the Government will give you a few hundred thousand dollars to find out. Endless numbers of books are being published about ‘what homosexuals want’. Bank of America lends clueless kids hundreds of thousands of dollars for ‘queer studies‘ in college.

But the fact that homosexuals die 20 years younger is kept a secret, and very few people are aware.

Homosexuals are not ‘gay’.
Do not submit to their ridiculous Orwellianisms, like calling homosexuals ‘gay’. Gay is a perfectly fine little English word. It means ‘merry’, ‘light hearted’.

Homosexuals are not ‘gay’: while the Scientific Dictatorship goes out of its way to hide the myriad problems with the homosexual life style, close examination of conflicting data clearly shows homosexuals are less happy, less affluent, less healthy than normal people. Both male homosexuals and lesbians face much more domestic violence than heterosexuals. Many of America’s most heinous serial killers were homosexuals.

The homosexual lifestyle is beyond disgusting. The men usually have sex with hundreds of other men during their lifetime. They mostly don’t even know each other’s name. Drug and booze fueled parties involve having everybody jerking off on the dance floor, and next sliding through the disgusting concoction of booze, seamen, and fecal matter.

The morning after, these morons feel guilty and ashamed, and blame their feelings on society for being ‘non-inclusive’.

love is love
‘Love is love’
It’s all sold with ‘love is love’.

But only spiritual and mental midgets think sex has anything to do with ‘love’.

Love is self sacrifice based on truth and compassion.

Sex aims at procreation, and the spiritual union of man and woman.

There can be sex with love. This is the ideal that men and women should strive for.

Homosexuality is antithetical to both: homosexual sex cannot lead to new life. It’s not a function of love either: it’s a matter of addiction and self gratification.

There is no love in lying to homosexuals by saying they’re ‘gay’.

Trying to hide from them what the true implications of their life style choices are, and no, nobody is ‘born that way’, is real hate.

I wouldn’t trust anybody telling me I should just continue smoking ‘if it feels good’.

The point is not to ‘hate’ on homosexuals: everybody has their problems. There is no reason to outlaw them, we’re all sinners. Plenty of ‘christians’ work for the Bank and send their boys to kill for Zion: they’re probably a bigger scourge on society than homosexuals wasting their lives in the dark room.

But homosexuality is a very serious affliction. They die twenty years (!!!!!!) earlier. They are up to three times more likely to try to kill themselves.

It should be relegated to the fringe, only spoken about in polite society with hushed voice.

Ursula Haverbeck And Revisionism

Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck sees her house ransacked by a German paramilitary terror (‘anti terror’) squad, after being interviewed on prime time by ARD, the German public broadcaster. She is facing years in jail. She refused to tow the party line on the ‘Holocaust’.

Frau Haverbeck is an 86 year old lady, in the best sense of the word, who, as a young girl, lived through the horrors of the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Prussia in 1945. She’s the widow of Werner Haverbeck, who was a committed National Socialist during the war and a nationalist, christian and anthroposophical (‘extreme right’) campaigner thereafter.

She is a member of a network of Revisionists in Germany. The best known among them are Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and Horst Mahler, who is currently serving a 12 years sentence for ‘Volksverhetzung’ (‘inciting popular hatred’) and Holocaust denial.

Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany and several other European nations. The German State especially, clamps down viciously on all that dare to speak their mind on the issue. Recently, Sylvia Stolz was sent back to prison for 20 months for a speech she delivered in Switzerland. Stolz, who is married to Horst Mahler, had already served more than three years behind bars for the ‘crime’ of defending Ernst Zundel, who was convicted to five years in jail.

In France, Vincent Reynouard was sentenced to two years in jail in February this year. This was during the ‘Je Suis Charlie’ mass psychosis, with millions of French ‘celebrating free speech’.

Haverbeck was interviewed in a major attack by ARD (here is a youtube version with English subtitles) on Revisionism on April 23d this year. The main point of contention was Auschwitz, about which she made many points denying it was a ‘death camp’. She called the Holocaust ‘the biggest lie in history’.

Revisionism has been gaining major momentum over the last few years. The points that people like Robert de Faurisson have been making since the eighties have been, especially in the Alternative Media on-line, mostly vindicated.

While Revisionism has important other points too, Hitler’s ongoing peace overtures to the West come to mind, or the horrendous suffering of the German people in defeat, the main issue is of course the Holocaust.

Did 6 million Jews die through gassing as a result of a deliberate policy of industrial genocide? This, in a nutshell, is what we have been made to believe after the war.

Auschwitz is central in this theme. After the war, a plaque was shown to visitors saying 4 million Jews died there. It is upon this number that the 6 million figure is said to be based. However, later the plaque was changed to read ‘1,5 million Jews died here’. Currently, the Holocaust Industry maintains that about 1 million Jews were murdered in Auschwitz. Still, the mythical 6 million number remains in humanity’s mass consciousness.

But Haverbeck, in the interview, went a lot further: she denied Auschwitz was a death camp to begin with. Revisionist scholars maintain Auschwitz was a major industrial center and the Jews were brought there as slaves, not to be murdered.

There is no paper trail in Auschwitz whatsoever of any kind of systematic killings. Quite the opposite: the records speak of harsh penalties for guards comitting crimes against the inmates.

Haverbeck cites extensively from the camp records of the time, detailing the diet and medical requirements for the inmates. These suggest the prisoners were quite well taken care of.

Even more telling: there is no forensic evidence at all either. No gas chambers have been found anywhere in the German camps. The infamous one in Dachau, visited by many people, was built after the war by the Americans, for PR purposes.

Nowhere have bodily remains, either bones or ashes, been found. Another issue is that at Auschwitz they simply did not have the crematoria to deal with thousands of bodies on a daily basis. It takes hours to burn a corpse and there were only a couple of ovens at Auschwitz. These were sufficient to handle the ‘normal’ deaths of a major industrial hub, but most certainly not to burn 1 million (let alone 4 million) dead people.

A major blow to the official Holocaust narrative was delivered by a young Jewish investigator, David Cole, in the eighties. He interviewed the camp’s management with a hidden camera and they admitted no people were gassed in the supposed ‘gas chamber’ they were showing to tourists. Cole had to go underground after publishing his findings. He made a career for himself in the Republican Party as David Stein, but was outed a few years ago. He wrote an entertaining account of his travails since.

Fred Leuchter, who worked for the American Government as a gas chamber specialist for executions, went to Poland and investigated and concluded that the alleged ‘gas chambers’ would simply have been unusable for any kind of mass executions. He testified as such in the infamous Zundel trials.

Post war Red Cross reports indicate that about 300 thousand people died in the camps during the war. Most of them non-Jewish. They died mostly in the final months of the war, when the German economy had collapsed and the camps were no longer sufficiently supplied. Typhoid epidemics in several camps killed thousands of inmates.

Revisionism maintains that the Jews of Eastern Europe (and Holland) were arrested as ‘enemy combattants’. Basically the same legal framework with which the Americans interned the Japanese. Already in 1933, International Jewry had ‘declared war‘ on Germany. The ‘final solution’ Hitler had in mind was expelling them after the war.

It must also be understood that this was in the days of the rape of Russia, where the Jews under the guise of Bolshevism had been killing scores of millions of Russians and other Slavs, often in the most heinous fashion. Germany had been witnessing this first rank and there was both deep fear and disgust.

Zionism was instrumental in the whole affair: Zionists operated the Jewish Councils throughout Europe, which cooperated with the Germans and selected the people to be sent off to the camps. Zionists were spared the ordeal. Zionism needed the ethnic cleansing of Europe for its own designs in Palestine: the Jews had shown to be lukewarm to the project and needed a little persuasion.

It is quite obvious that the Revisionists are hunted down in similar fashion as German ‘war criminals’. The fact is that, on the whole, the Germans behaved no worse (and often much better) during the war than both the Russians and the Western Allies. But truth is always the first victim of war and Germany is still suffering occupation and classic ‘Sieger Justiz’.

The Jews need the Holocaust. To serve their national passtime, wailing, to hide their atrocities in Russia, and to pave the way for Zionism.

It is no coincidence that Putin, last year, promised to jail Holocaust deniers for five years. He also outlawed criticizing Stalin’s handling of the war. Both the Russian and German States have a lot to hide from their peoples and cannot allow them to come to terms with what actually happened to them in these dark years.

There is no doubt that the ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe by the Germans was a brutal affair. Families were ripped apart. Many innocent people were taken from their homes and used as slaves. Many died.

But the idea of an industrial scale genocide through gassing is unsustainable vis a vis the evidence that has been painstakingly put together by Revisionists over the last four decades or so.

The notion that an 86 year old lady like Ursula Haverbeck deserves prosecution, let alone incarcaration, simply for speaking her mind on this most crucial of historical issues, just shows the utter moral bankruptcy of the German State, International Jewry and their many lackeys in the Academia and Media.

Ursula Haverbeck’s basic message is simply that it is time to end this unreal defamation, weighing so heavily on the German people’s soul, and to allow them to mourn, at long last, their many dead.

The Stupidity Of The Gospel Of Thomas? Really?

I was recently watching some videos by pastor Anderson. He makes many good points about many issues.

But unfortunately, when he sets out to defame the Gospel of Thomas, he does himself and Jesus a disservice.

Paster Anderson overlooks that in the early stages of the Vatican’s rule, it waged holy war on authentic Christian sects. These were aware of the teachings Jesus gave his initiates, which were different from what he told the multitude.

These texts were lost because of this long term repression.

Anderson is limited by the ungodly notion that the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word of God, not the Bible.

He thus cannot rationally discuss how the Bible came about, or that it was at the time what the Vatican pressed on the Christian world with pure power politics and the manufacturing of ‘consensus’.

In this vid Anderson sets out to ‘destroy’ Jesus’ sayings in the Gospel of Thomas and he does so in a way showing his utter lack of real spiritual knowledge.

Let’s mention them point for point:
verse 114: “Simon Peter said to him, Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life. Jesus said: I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so she too may become a living spirit like you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven’.

Jesus here refers to the earthly nature of women, who therefore have more difficulty observing Source, consciousness, Him. They are more obsessed with passion and desire and this is the main enemy of spiritual awareness. However, women can learn to overcome this ‘by becoming male’, less identified with the lower chakras.

Verse 15. Jesus said: when you see one who was not born of woman, prostrate yourselves on your face before him, and worship him. That one is your father.’

The idea here is, that he who is reborn in the Spirit, is no longer of the flesh and thus ‘not born of woman’. He who knows the Spirit, knows the Father.

Verse 30: Jesus said: where there are three Gods, they’re Gods. When there are two or one, I’m with them.

This one I don’t completely understand. I do have an idea though: Christianity knows two Gods, who are basically one: The Father, who is in heaven, and the Son, the Word, Logos, who is the Creator (at the behest of the Father) and is in His Creation and who is known as our Lord Jesus Christ.

More than two Gods (father and son) is the polytheism of antiquity.

Verse 37: His disciples said: When will you become revealed to us, and when shall we see you? Jesus said: When you disrobe, without being ashamed and take up your garments and place them under your feet like little children and tread on them.

This harkens back to Krishna, who in the Baghavad Gita said that death is nothing but putting off old clothes.

Our Garments here represent self. The human condition is, that identification with self (mind, emotion, desire, body) hinders our view of the Spirit.

Verse 42: Jesus said: become passers by.

Anderson sadly really laughs hard about this one, making fun of such a ‘meaningless’ statement.

What is said here is the same as ‘be in this world, but not of it’.

Those how live in the Spirit are not identified with the material, which just flows through them without them clinging to it.

Verse 53: His disciples said to him: is circumcision beneficial or not? Jesus said: if it were beneficial, their Father would beget them already circumcised from their mother.

Well, it couldn’t be more clear, really. And this is fully congruent with the New Testament too, so I don’t really understand why Anderson would make fun of this.

Jesus said: He who drinks from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he. And the things that are hidden will become revealed to him.

It’s really sad Anderson mocks this, because this is the profound promise of the Spirit. ‘Drinking from my mouth’ is similar figure of speech like ‘eat my bread, drink my water’ etc.

What this refers to is that he that lives with the Spirit, silencing self, just being with Him, in the Holy Place, will be ‘reformed’ (like Paul wrote) and will receive the fruit of the Spirit. Profound insight comes to those who go deeper and deeper into the Mystery of the Spirit in personal surrender and communion. This is an eternal path, as the Spirit is endless and shares His endless bounty with those who go all the way in shedding their Garments and become like little Children.

So it’s not all so incredibly complicated. These are fundamental spiritual realities and most can be directly linked to things Jesus said in the New Testament.

The Gospel of Thomas doubtlessly provides the honest seeker with good wisdom to contemplate in prayer and meditation.

Worship not Jesus, but the Spirit he incarnated!

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods

As we can see, Copernicus had some interesting opinions on the scientific method.

Reality is not important. Just lay down a nice hypothesis and say: ‘you can’t prove yours and I can’t prove mine, therefore both are equally valid’.

This is the essence of Kabbalistic thought, upon which the powerful build their solipsism. This is the foundational thought of magick, where ‘truth’ becomes a personal experience.

This is how they manipulate not reality itself, but our perception of it.

However, we have a useful tool in these matters: Occam’s razor, which states that when faced with choice, the simplest one is usually the best.

And it’s clear that both at the time and today, Occam’s razor gives clear preference to Tychonic Geocentrism and not to Heliocentrism, which cannot explain why we are not observing stellar parallax.

These quotes are really very telling about a man who is known to have been heavily involved in groups around Platonic mysticism in Bologna. Plato had maintained the Sun was the most exalted in the observable world.

Wrote Copernicus:
“In the middle of all sits Sun enthroned. In this most beautiful temple could we place this luminary in any better position from which he can illuminate the whole at once? He is rightly called the Lamp, the Mind, the Ruler of the Universe….”

As we can see, it’s rather one sided to blame Catholics, Protestants and ‘Bible Believers’ for a religious agenda behind Geocentrism.

Because the ‘spiritual’ agenda behind Heliocentrism is quite blatant and comparing both camps it is clear that the X-tians have shown a great deal more respect for the scientific method than the Sun worshippers of Heliocentrism.

Let alone Tycho Brahe, who was a great and impeccable scientist who showed proper respect for the observable data and restraint in coming to conclusions.

Heliocentrism Is Dead. There Is No Stellar Parallax!

Heliocentrism Is Dead. There Is No Stellar Parallax!

Copernicus was a Sun worshipper who had been studying Platonic mysticism, which claimed the Sun was the highest in the observable Universe. It was this that drove him in his quest for Heliocentricity, at the cost of the facts.

Copernicus was a Sun worshipper who had been studying Platonic mysticism, which claimed the Sun was the highest in the observable Universe. It was this that drove him in his quest for Heliocentrism, at the cost of the facts.

Heliocentrism, the long standing belief that the Earth revolves around the Sun, is dead.

The key evidence for it, stellar parallax, does not exist. The implications of this stunning fact are enormous. Not only does this end Heliocentrism as a viable system, it also ends our ideas about the distance of the stars.

Tycho Brahe has been right all this time. The Sun revolves around the Earth and the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Do you not believe me? I don’t blame you. The implications are enormous.

But allow me to explain what is going on.

Historical context
Throughout antiquity and the Medieval era, Geocentrism had been the norm. Ptolemy was the great sage of this idea and his system, which claimed that all celestial bodies circle the Earth, was generally accepted as the standard.

However, already in antiquity, astronomers were starting to have doubts, as they were suspecting the Planets, Mercury and Venus in particular, were circling the Sun.

By the time of the late Middle Ages, it was becoming clear that the Planets were indeed circling the Sun and that the Ptolemaic system needed a serious update to accomodate this.

Then Copernicus published his famous ‘Revolutionibus’ in 1543, describing the orbit of the Planets around the Sun.

However, Copernicus did a whole lot more than just that: he also put the Earth in an orbit around the Sun.

And this was a wild leap of the imagination, which was absolutely not warranted with the available evidence.

In the first place, astronomy had always seen the Planets as simply wandering stars, luminiscent spheres on the firmament, only different from the other stars because they were moving, unlike the others.

To suddenly claim the Earth was just another Planet was not at all uncontroversial, and it still isn’t.

Secondly, we should be witnessing stellar parallax when the Earth circles the Sun.

If the Earth is orbiting the Sun, then this should show in relative movements of closer and further away stars.

If the Earth is orbiting the Sun, then this should show in relative movements of closer and further away stars.

Parallax is what we see when we drive by a landscape and closer by objects seem to  be moving more quickly than those further off.

Stellar parallax, then, should result from the movements of the Earth. Closer stars should show relative motion compared to further away stars.

And this was simply not being observed at the time.

However, Copernicus and his followers explained this away by saying that the Stars were simply too far away for the effect to be observed.

In doing so, he also laid the foundation for the insane size of the Universe that ‘science’ nowadays claims. The Universe has been ballooning immensely, since the days of the Copernicus…

It is for these reasons that Tycho Brahe published his ‘An Introduction to the New Astronomy’ in 1588, proposing a Geocentric, Neo-Ptolemaic system, where the Sun revolves around the Earth and the Planets around the Sun.

The Tychonic system is simpler than the Copernican one and definitely fitted the observable evidence of the time better than Heliocentrism. It still does today.

By explaining away the lack of stellar parallax, Copernicus was in fact not in accordance with Occam’s razor, which claims that the simplest solution is usually best.

However, the Tychonic and Copernican Systems would compete with each other for centuries. The reason for this is mainly that, for some mysterious reason of their own, Kepler, Galileo and Newton, would all three support Heliocentrism.

As a result, their fame based on their own achievements, would rub off on Heliocentrist credibility.

And this was not warranted, because Kepler’s elliptical orbits, Galileo’s observations of Jupiter’s moons and Newton’s laws of gravity, fit equally well with the Tychonic as the Copernican system!

This point is really very vital to understand the history of the Heliocentric deception.

Stellar Parallax…..or?
Then in 1838 something remarkable happened: Friedrich Bessel for the first time observed star movement. Shortly thereafter a number of stars were observed moving on the firmament relatively to other stars.

This in itself was an interesting achievement, a testament to improving telescopes.

However, Bessel and his contemperaries quickly jumped to the conclusion that this must be the stellar parallax that they had been looking for ever since Copernicus, no less than three centuries.

But this was most likely a premature conclusion. After all: parallax is the seeming movement of closer by stars relatively to further away ones as the result of the Earth orbitting the Sun.

The fact is that the star movements that Bessel and colleagues observed, might have been caused by other reasons.

However, by the authority of their great predecessors, astronomers and physicists were heavily invested in Heliocentrism, even though the Tychonic system was, by all available evidence, still the preferable system.

As a result, Bessel’s observations were quickly jumped upon as having finally settled the issue and everybody rested assured Heliocentrism was a fact.

This led to some horrible disasters later on, most notably the Michelson-Morley catastrophy, culminating in the mystique of ‘relativity’ and a wasted century for astronomy. We’ll come back to that later.

Meanwhile, ‘stellar parallax’ was considered a given and ever since mainly a proud member of science’s hall of fame.

However, since these days astronomers have been faithfully logging the movements on the firmament of hundreds of thousands of stars.

And now comes the great kicker: it transpires that about half of the logged stars show ‘parallax’ (or at any rate, movement). But about half of each move in opposite directions!

This is called positive and negative stellar parallax.

However: if we are indeed witnessing stellar parallax as a result of the Earth’s orbit around the sun, all parallax should be in the same direction!

As a result we must conclude that the movement of the stars that we have been measuring ever since Bessel does NOT validate Copernican Heliocentrism, but IS consistent with Brahe’s System.

Furthermore, we cannot call these stars’ movements parallax at all. Because if these movements were caused by moves in the firmament, a result of the stars spinning around the Earth, or vice versa, all movement should still be in the same direction.

We must conclude that the movement that we are seeing is caused by other factors, and cannot be called stellar parallax at all.

And this also means that all our calculations of the distance of the stars are rubbish too.

And this brings us full circle, because it was Copernicus himself who began the insane blowing up of the Universe, based on nothing but speculation.

We have been had. On a scale that is truly hard to fathom.

The scientific community is guilty of covering up an immense scandal: that hundreds of thousands of confirmed star movements refute stellar parallax and therefore Copernican Heliocentrism. Nobody dares touch this stuff, while it sits there sticking out like a very sore thumb indeed.

This is far from the only example of a huge cover up. The fact is that our entire ‘science’ based world view is a fraud of truly monumental proportions.

Here is another example before we close off. While Earthbound observation of the Sun can probably never conclusively show whether the Sun circles the Earth or vice versa, NASA should theoretically be able to do just that. Presumably, they are scouting the solar system as we speak and it should be a piece of cake to have one of their satellites monitor the Sun’s orbit (or the Earth’s). They would only need a few months worth of data to prove the point.

Why, do you reckon, has this not happened?

The implications of the shattering of such a paradigm are momentous and we leave the reader to ponder both them and the here presented evidence…

Feminism is dying

Emma Watson

(Above: The UN thought it sly to put a young starlet in front of millions with some particularly pathetic talking points. As a result she was widely ridiculed on the web.)

Feminism has quietly lost all support from women, except perhaps those brainwashed in University.

By Anthony Migchels, for Henry Makow.

In 2012 a major study was published, showing that women across the board are disentchanted with it. They consider it ‘too agressive against men’, ‘old fashioned’, ’70 per cent of younger women feel far too much is expected of them, with unprecedented pressure to ‘be red-hot lovers, domestic goddesses, climb the career ladder and look like supermodels’.

But the real knock out is: “The majority of the 1,300 polled felt feminism should be about ensuring women have ‘real choice over their family, career and lives’, and to reinstate the value of motherhood.”

It is exactly this sentiment that Feminism was designed to destroy.

According to Simone de Beauvoir, a disturbed woman, like most of the Feminists that were unleashed on an unwitting public by the Rockefeller Foundation, put it this way:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.””

And the trend is long term: the number of stay-at-home moms has been slowly rising over the last decade, after a calamitous free fall in the seventies and eighties. True, after tanking the labor market by flooding it with millions of cheap, easily manipulable wage slaves (‘independent women’), this is nowadays a tough proposition for many families. It’s now very difficult to run a family on one wage. Still the trend is clear and remarkable.

While the arty farty ‘liberal’ (Cultural Marxist) MSM is still parading ridiculous little whores like the above in front of the masses, claiming of this particular wench that she is ‘redefining beauty’, the real story is on the Web: the men’s movement has hammered feminism on-line and the ‘Social Justice Warriors’ are constantly on the defensive. Their insane man hatred (which is the core of Feminism) is being exposed more and more.

Every time they are confronted with coherent argumentation, they immediately succumb to narcissist breakdowns, claiming ‘people like you are why the world is such a mess’, or ‘fucking dickhead’. Clearly indicating lack of arguments, manners and most likely mental stability.

The SJW’s still manage to destroy careers, like recently PGA President Ted Bishop, after he said a golfer behaved like ‘a little girl’. That comparing a man with a little girl could be considered insulting is still hard to fathom for the little girls that currently control the debate.

But the real story is in the comments of for instance this article: the public clearly sees this is unacceptable.

At the moment, Gamer Gate is thrashing the feminist controlled Media via their on-line outlets, particularly, which is also a hotbed of agitation against the ‘Domestic Violence’ hoax.

Domestic violence is mainly perpetrated by women and it has been well known since at the least the seventies that the best shot that women have to avoid violence against them is……..refraining from violence against their mates: no less than two thirds of ‘battered women’ admit committing ‘severe violence’ against their husband before getting a taste of their own medicine.

Gamer Gate has such fall out, that major corporate sponsors are starting to see that Feminism is not about women’s rights, but is actually attacking their main consumer base: men.

“Perhaps it won’t surprise you to learn that microchip manufacturers and car companies are pretty sympathetic to the concerns of male consumers. But some of the things said to me–all, sadly, on condition of anonymity–have been nothing short of remarkable.

There’s the Intel vice president who told me via email that GamerGate was “doing great work” and that he was “sick of slander and self-loathing from the press”. He was talking about male journalists who do misandrist feminists’ work for them.”

In another funny development, Fox News Host Kimberly Guilfoyle, openly stated on TV, that young women should not vote and should not be on juries, but instead should be buying shoes and keeping an eye out on

While this is an obvious statement for anyone born before 1930 or otherwise endowed with some basic understanding of human nature, it’s a far cry from what has become the norm in our completely pussified society, ruled by girly ‘sensitivities’.

After getting scorched by the Left, she did not at all recant, and her co-host, a former press secretary at the White House, simply chimed in agreeing with her.

It’s not really surprising that women are saying this: they tend to be accutely aware of the nonsensical pussy worship that so many men are mind controlled into. Women are well known to prefer male bosses, for instance.

Women, more than anybody else, know about the female darkside.

While Feminism and Cultural Marxism is taking a heavy beating on the Web, the MSM is clutching at straws to fend off the inevitable. But this only hastens their own demise.

Meanwhile, many among the men’s movement, including major outlets like, are taking a wholly wrong turn by joining the Feminists in clamoring for ‘equality’, pointing at egregious inequality before the law, for instance in family courts, or punishment for men and women for the same offenses.

But there is no equality. Men are more spiritual, more rational, have a bigger brain and are simply much more powerful than women. Women are more earthly, emotional and have a womb.

Men want to possess their women and women want to be possessed. The male longing to possess her proves to her that she is wanted and desired. This also explains why by far most women are submissive in bed.

We can have something much better than equality: Male Privilege and Female Privilege.

We can have love.

Rapes In India: What’s Behind The Media Outrage?
Cultural Marxism: Managing The Ant Farm


More On Feminism In India

Indian gals on the warpath.......

Indian gals on the warpath…….

India court says women ‘misusing’ dowry law

Recently we were analyzing that the sudden hype of Indian rape stories were probably part of an orchestrated feminist attack on Indian society.

It now transpires that the feminist police state is already quite developed there. In an effort to clamp down on dowry deaths (men marrying women for the dowry and then disposing of them), incredibly restrictive laws were implemented. Men AND their families are immediately arrested on any complaint.

The predictable result: disgruntled wives file complaints simply to teach hubby a lesson.

In India there is bound to be a huge difference between the country- and city dwellers and these ‘one size fits all’ nightmare Statist intrusions always lead to more problems than they actually solve.

There is always an intricate balance of power between the spouses. Women usually rule, even if there is nominal male dominance. The reason is simple: women maintain more and better relations in the family and direct vicinity. Men are more solitary. The network effect gives women easy dominance.

With the brotherhood of men now completely defunct in the West, men are hopelessly outnumbered, as they quickly find out when getting married (let alone divorced, once the matriarchy is done with them). I’m not sure what the situation is in rural India, perhaps men there still cooperate to keep the women in line.

But the idea that women are hapless victims is really so 2013. Even in male dominated societies, women still have plenty of scope to live out their own traumas and usually they show less restraint in doing so than men. They’re just less powerful, but when the State sides with them and the woman can use State power to project her dismay, great problems are automatic.

This is not to say that there are no problems with women’s rights, particularly in rural India, it’s just pointing out that in addressing these problems, a realistic attitude about female nature and the male/female dynamic is necessary.

The State simply has no business in family life and no scope at all to do any good.

The Insane Tyranny Of Britain’s Child ‘Protection’ Services

Martin Cardinal, the soulless monster enforcing Britain's demonic family laws

Martin Cardinal, the soulless monster enforcing Britain’s demonic family laws

The Mothers Jailed For Waving To Their Children

Where is the outrage? How is it possible that we have degenerated to such depths? Why cannot people see what insane tyranny is already the norm?

British Child ‘Protection’ (snatching) Agencies are the worst in the world, rivaled only by Dutch Jeugd’zorg’. But even for their standards, this story is truly horrendous.

Mothers incarcerated for waving to their children they happen to meet in the streets……..I kid you not, Christopher Booker writes he knows at least of six cases of these.

A 72 year old Grandmother jailed for three months (!!!!!!) after lovingly embracing her granddaughter. The judge had the gal to actually say: “I am sure this grandmother needs restraint.”

The same ghoul, Martin Cardinal, had already made waves after secretly (!!!!), yes, secretly, family courts are secret in Britain, and the victims gagged, “jailed Wanda Maddocks – for removing her 80-year-old father from a care home where he had been placed by social workers, and where he was being so ill-treated that she feared for his life.”

When loving parents or grandparents are allowed to see their (grand)children, it is with insanely draconian limitations on what they can discuss. They can only talk in English:

“No reference can be made to the courts, social workers or any other “professional” involved in the case. Particularly forbidden is any “whispering”. Where foreign children are in care, they and their parents are forbidden to use the language they speak at home. When a Lithuanian grandfather recently flew to London to see his grandson, he was merely allowed one five-minute video exchange on Skype, using the only three words of English he knew: “I love you”.”

It’s heartbreaking and the cruelty of these maniacal State psychopaths is heart and mind numbing. The rage I feel when thinking of these people is immense.

I just can’t believe the restraint people suffering from this insane tyranny (and I know it first hand) show. Yes, they will commit suicide or even kill their own children in total panic.

But they never kill these soulless State perpetrators. Why has no judge been taken down? How is it possible nobody has taken revenge on these heartless monsters? Of course, it’s a great achievement spiritually, but sometimes I really wonder how far it must go before these criminals are held personally accountable.

They should be the ones living in fear, not parents and children.

Ann Coulter And The Female Vote

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." ~Ann Coulter

“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.” ~Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter certainly is one of the more sour witches out there today. The left loves to hate her and with good reason.

But her point is interesting and it can be heard more often in some circles, also by other women.

Does universal suffrage work? Probably not.

It’s not just about women (although the female vote is probably not beneficial), but also the young.

The basic idea behind universal suffrage is that voting is a right. But it is not: it’s a responsibility for a fairly important societal function and it is quite obvious that not all are equally capable of voting reasonably.

At the moment in the United States 55% of the vote is female. While women receive more from the State then they pay in taxes. So men pay more than 100% of all taxation, but they are represented by only 45% of the vote. Clearly this is wrong.

To put it very bluntly: men are picking up the tab for what women were fooled into voting for. The US offically left the British Empire because of taxation without representation.

The female vote has seen the rise of the all pervading nanny State during the 20th century. Women are more collectivist and more susceptible to Government propaganda (and commercial marketing too).

Women are certainly not more ‘peaceful’ as witnessed by the rampage the US Empire has been on during the era of universal suffrage.

Occasionally we also hear about giving the vote to younger people. Here’s the agenda as described in the Protocols:
“To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes.”

The problem with young people voting is obvious: they’re clueless. Also, they’re still very dependent society and not yet very productive.

How could the system be reformed? Perhaps it’s a good idea to have only heads of households older than 30 vote.

People living alone would be able to vote, women too. People living in families would decide among themselves who is the ‘head of the household’. This would probably normally be the man, and sometimes the woman. The head of the household would vote for the entire family, where each child is half a vote and each adult a full vote. A family of four with two children would thus have three votes, casted by the ‘head of the household’, who would vote according to his own conscience with the interests of his family in mind.

This would solve the problem of the female majority and inexperienced people voting.