Marilyn Monroe and the Jews

Original title: Marilyn Monroe, "I'll never have to suck another Jewish cock again!"

Marilyn Monroe is one of many Gentile actors who fell under the dominance of a string of Jewish psychoanalysts, including, most famously, Ralph Greenson (born: Romeo Greenschpoon) who was her therapist when she allegedly committed suicide. "Like many of his colleagues at the time," notes a review of Donald Spoto's biography of Marilyn, "Greenson relied heavily on drug therapy for his patients, routinely prescribing barbiturates and tranquilizers or having patients' other doctors do so. 

He referred Marilyn to [Jewish] internist Hyman Engelberg, who prescribed many of the medications Greenson ordered for her ... Her friends noticed that the more Marilyn saw Greenson, the more miserable she became ... Greenson encouraged Marilyn's deep dependency on him (he was seeing her twice daily)" (Good Housekeeping, 1993, pp. 212, 214). [Image: Ralph Greenson.] 

The incestuous nature of Hollywood life may be observed in Greenson's case: his sister Elizabeth was married to Milton 'Mickey' Rudin, a Jewish entertainment attorney who was one of the town's major powerbrokers. Rudin was Monroe's lawyer.

Marilyn's publicist, Arthur Jacobs, was also Jewish. So were her agents at MCA, Jay Kanter and Mort Viner. Many of the directors of her films were Jews (for example, Billy Wilder of Some Like It Hot and George Cukor of Let's Make Love). Natasha Lytess, her personal manager and the subject of speculation about Monroe's rumored lesbianism, was Jewish, from Austria. 

Their relationship, says Barbara Leaming, was "mutually exploitive" (Leaming, 31). Milton Greene, a Jewish fashion photographer "with whom she'd reportedly had a fling during the late forties," was another early personal manager. 

Monroe had resolved to sleep with anyone who could help her attain fame and fortune in Jewish-dominated Hollywood. Close friend Ted Jordan notes that she had "sex with anybody she thought might be able to advance her career" (Jordan, 121). "It is clear," says Anthony Summers in his biography, "that Marilyn made judicious use of her favors. 

A key beneficiary was the [Jewish] man who got Marilyn that vital first contract at Fox -- Ben Lyon. According to writer Sheila Graham, Lyon had been sleeping with Marilyn and promising to further her career ... Lyon called the casting director for Sol Wurtzel, a [Jewish] B-movie producer of the time [and Monroe was awarded a small part in the 1947 film Dangerous Years]" (Summers, 35).

In olden times," Upton Sinclair once remarked, "Jewish traders sold Christian girls into concubinage and into prostitution, and even today they display the same activity in the same field in southern California where I live." Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald summed up the Hollywood scene of his era -- "a Jewish holiday, a Gentile tragedy" (Gabler, 2).

Garment millionaire Henry Rosenfeld was another Jewish sex partner on Marilyn's road to fame. "She would join Rosenfeld at his home in Atlantic City for trips in his speedboat and for quiet evenings of talk and laughter" (Summers, 45). Jewish mobster Bugsy Siegel, himself a Hollywood powerbroker, also slept with her (Jordan, 84, 87). Ted Jordan (born Edward Friedman) even wrote a book about his early sexual experiences with Monroe -- they began on his fourth date with her when she was 17. 

Then known by her real name, Norma Jean, Monroe was soon sleeping with Friedman's uncle, Ted Lewis (original name also Friedman), who, "with his clarinet and distinctive style of old favorites, was among the hottest acts in show business" (Jordan, 73). It was Lewis who introduced the then-unknown model to narcotics.

"I learned," says Jordan, "that at one point in their little backstage meeting, Ted had slipped Norma Jean a piece of paper with his telephone number on it. Soon they were meeting in hotel rooms whenever Ted was in town ... Soon he was pulling strings for Norma Jean, trying to hook her up with an agent who would do her the most good ... As Norma Jean had vowed to me, whoever she had to fuck, she was prepared to do it. And, for good measure, she did the same with [prominent Jewish gossip columnist] Walter Winchell" (Jordan, 75).

Early in Monroe's career as a struggling actress, the Jewish head of Columbia, Harry Cohn, invited her to an overnight cruise on his yacht. Monroe was required to strip naked for Cohn in his office. As she bent over, at his direction, he approached her, penis in hand. When she declined his advances, said Monroe, "I had never seen a man so angry" (Jordan, 91; Wolfe, 211-212). 

Cohn then "banned her from the [Columbia] lot after she refused to accompany him on a yacht to Catalina Island" (Leaming, 8). "You know," Monroe once said, "that when a producer calls an actress into his office to discuss a script that isn't all he has in mind ... I've slept with producers. I'd be a liar if I said I didn't" (Summers, 34-35). In 1955, 20th Century Fox awarded Monroe the richest per-film contract of any actress. "It means," remarked Monroe, "I'll never have to suck another cock again!" (McDougal, 217).

The network of Jewish men that controls Hollywood has always been characterized by an intense sexual fixation on the shiksa -- shiksa being a derogatory slur for a Gentile woman, literally signifying "unclean animal" according to its Yiddish etymology. Hence the ubiquitous "casting couch," a Hollywood institution that provided Jewish powerbrokers access to otherwise unavailable non-Jewish women, whom they despised as non-Jews yet idealized as avatars of alien sexual desirability. 

The shiksa thus became the ultimate sexual trophy. The Jews who ruled Hollywood, noted Hollywood rabbi Edgar Magnin, "were men who made all that money and realized they were still a bunch of Goddamned Jews. Sleeping with a pretty gentile girl made them feel, if only for a few minutes, 'I'm half gentile.' No wonder they made idols out of shiksa goddesses."

A key agent in accelerating Monroe's early career was Johnny Hyde (like many Hollywood Jews, born in Russia, and a veteran of vaudeville.) She was also his mistress; he was 53, she was 23. Hyde "not so coincidentally ... was Ted Lewis' personal manager" (Jordan, 85). "In making Marilyn known," says Fred Guiles, "[Hyde] flexed a lot of muscle. The simple fact is that Johnny Hyde was the chief architect of her fame and her eventual legend" (Guiles, 147).

"By 1953," Jordan reports, "... [Monroe] could be virulently anti-Semitic (a prejudice that grew as she got older). To my discomfort she would sometimes refer to Joe Schenck, the mogul [and another sexual stepping stone], as 'that Jew shit' and to other Hollywood personalities as 'Jew' this or that. Occasionally I would have to remind her that I was half Jewish" (Jordan, 188). Monroe's anti-Semitism did not prevent her from later converting to Judaism, at the behest of her Jewish husband, playwright Arthur Miller, who (despite his vocal anti-racialism) would not wed an uncoverted Gentile.

The Hollywood world and its pressures of being a sex goddess of course destroyed her. Monroe's physician Hyman Engelberg and her therapist Ralph Greenson were the first to her death scene, reported to be the result of a drug overdose, but they did not call police for four hours. 

One investigative author, Donald Spoto, in a 1993 work, even burdens Greenson with the responsibility for killing her, directing that a female employee "administer [to Monroe] ... a fatal barbiturate-laced enema." (In this scenario, Greenson's motivation was that Monroe was trying to free herself from his influence and control, and had fired him [Wolfe, 99]).

A friend of Monroe's recalls that she was beginning to feel that Greenson was "trying to substitute himself for everything she'd built up those past years. She decided he was anti-everything she wanted. She was radically turning on Greenson and Mrs. Murray, the woman he'd put with her, she felt, to spy on her" (Strasberg, 250-251).

The famous movie star's alleged suicide has always been controversial, and there are various conspiracy notions about who would want her dead. Greenson's secret life is much clouded. As well as being a therapist, he was an activist Communist Party member and part of its international Comintern. Greenson, as his sister Elizabeth has reported, was also a Zionist with "strong ties to Israel" (Kelley, 305).

Whatever Greenson's role as a listener of movie star's confessions, his communist ties have profound implications because Monroe had romantic affairs with President John F. Kennedy and knew a great deal about behind-the-scenes politicking, perhaps including plans against communist Cuba and Fidel Castro. Everything Monroe knew she undoubtedly told her psychotherapist. As Donald Wolfe writes:

Once Marilyn Monroe became Greenson's patient, he became one of the most important Comintern operatives in America; he had access to the mind of a woman who often shared the bed with the president of the United States and was an intimate of the attorney general [Kennedy's brother, Robert] 

... As Greenson has correctly stated, Marilyn Monroe had a tendency to 'get involved with very destructive people, who will engage in some sort of sado-masochistic relationship with her.' 

Ironically, among these people was her psychiatrist [Greenson], her physician [Engelberg], and her housekeeper, Eunice Murray [who was appointed by Greenson to live with Ms. Monroe and report back to him], who joined in a conspiracy to survey Marilyn Monroe within a sphere of influence designed to gather intelligence from her relationship with the president of the United States and the attorney general (Wolfe, 386).

Marilyn Monroe's road to psychoanalysis was directed by the influential Jewish acting teacher, Lee Strasberg, who is usually credited with spawning "method acting," made famous by the likes of Marlon Brando and James Dean. Brando's first Jewish analyst, early in his career, was Bela Mittelman, "the coldest man I've ever known." ... "Acting afforded me the luxury of being able to spend thousands of dollars on psychoanalysts, most of whom did nothing but convince me that most New York and Beverly Hills psychoanalysts are a little crazy themselves, as well as highly motivated to separate patients from their money while making their emotional problems worse" (Brando, 124, 243). 

Brando was not much endeared to Lee Strasberg either, calling him "an ambitious, selfish man who exploited the people who attended the Actors Studio, and he tried to project himself as an acting oracle and guru. Some people worshiped him, but I never knew why" (Brando, 85). Strasberg's daughter, Susan, notes that her father "sent numerous actors to psychiatrists, and many doctors sent their patients to class because they felt his work helped theirs in analysis" (Strasberg, 31). 

Susan Strasberg herself used to argue with Marilyn Monroe about whether she or the famous sex goddess "needed therapy more" (Strasberg, 138). As Barbara Leaming observes:

It was said that the master teacher Lee Strasberg could open inner doors that one scarcely knew existed. Some admirers called him the Rabbi. Some compared him to a psychiatrist or a highly judgmental Jewish father ... Strasberg focused on psychology. He ran his workshop as though they were group therapy sessions... Strasberg often advised actors to enter psychoanalysis in order to put them in touch with emotionally-charged material they could use in their work" (Leaming, 156-157).

Under Lee Strasberg's influence Marilyn became an earnest devotee not just of method acting, but of Freudian analysis as well. Monroe's one-time husband, Jewish playwright Arthur Miller, also had his own Jewish psychoanalyst: Rudolph Loewenstein. Monroe even had sessions with Sigmund's Freud daughter, 

Anna, also a therapist, in London. "The significance of [Monroe's reliance on psychoanalysts] for psychoanalysis," notes Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, "was that Monroe left a substantial part of her estate to further the work of Anna Freud, whom she had seen briefly for analytic help in 1956 (Anna Freud wrote about her that she was paranoid with schizophrenic traits), and this bequest was undoubtedly achieved through her analysts, who were intimately connected to Anna Freud" (Masson, 129). As Masson, a former offical at the Sigmund Freud Archives, further notes about the ethical undercurrent of such funding: 

It is not, in fact, uncommon for analysts to solicit, usually through roundabout methods, former patients for money to support analytic projects. Chairs of psychoanalysis in medical schools at various universities have been partially endowed through former patients.

There was also the case of the Centenary Fund, named for the centenary, in 1956, of Freud's birth. [Marilyn Monroe's therapist Ralph] Greenson had organized this fund for psychoanalytic research in Los Angeles ... I felt then, and still do now, that it is an exploitation of the emotional relationship with a patient to solicit money, in whatever form, directly or indirectly. It seems to me that the patient, or ex-patient, is in no position, emotionally speaking, to refuse ... I find it wrong and morally distasteful" (Masson, 130).

A Monroe friend once stated that "I felt [Ralph Greenson] had a big ego, like a lot of doctors he wanted to be God, and of all the analysts in L.A. she found him. Inger Stevens was his patient too. She killed herself later" (Strasberg, 250). As Greenson once claimed, "I can count [on] Marilyn to do anything I want her to do" (Wolfe, 422).

Read More

Why Hatred of Whites Is Here to Stay

Not so long ago, mere mention of the deliberate murder of whites in South Africa—country folk and commercial farmers, in particular—was called “racist.” “Raaacist!” the media collective brayed when candidate Trump retweeted a related “white genocide” hashtag.

It’s still “racist” to suggest that the butchering of these whites, almost daily, in ways that beggar belief, is racially motivated. Positively scandalous is it to describe the ultimate goal of a killing spree, now in its third decade, thus: the ethnic cleansing of white, farming South Africa from land the community has cultivated since the 1600s.

Be thankful for small mercies: At least the international media monopoly is finally reporting facts, such as that just the other day Andre and Lydia Saaiman, aged 70, were hacked to death in Port Elizabeth. (Imagine being chopped up until you expire.)

Or, that the elderly Bokkie Potgieter was dealt a similar fate as he tended his small, KwaZulu-Natal holding. Potgeiter was butchered during the October “Black Monday” protest, which was a nation-wide demonstration to end the carnage. Internationally reported as well were the facts of Sue Howarth’s death. The 64-year-old pharmaceutical executive was tortured for hours with … a blowtorch.

This black-on-white murder spree has been ongoing since a dominant-party political dispensation (mobocracy) was negotiated in my homeland for South Africans. (Learn about “The American Architects of The South-African Catastrophe.“) But while the criminal evidence is at last out in the open, the motive for these hate crimes is only mumbled about for fear of offending the offenders.

In South Africa we find a criminal class, born into freedom after 1994, that burns with white-hot hatred for whites.

Why?

The South African state’s stout indifference to the plight of whites does not exist in a void. Witness the steady, anti-white venom the dominant-party cobra-head, the ANC, spits out. “The de facto situation is that whites are under criminal siege explicitly because of their race,” writes a South African historian, cited in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa” (2011).

“The black criminal collective consciousness understands whites are now historical fair game.”

The physical, existential vulnerability of white South Africans flows from a confluence of historical antecedents that have placed them in a uniquely precarious position. “The white minority surrendered political dominance in return for non-racial constitutional safeguards.” By forswearing control over the state apparatus, whites ceded mastery over their destiny, vesting their existential survival in a political dispensation: a liberal democracy.

In a needlessly optimistic assumption, whites imagined blacks too would be bound by the same political abstractions, and would relinquish race in favor of a constitutional design as an organizing principle in the society they now controlled.

Having “surrendered without defeat,” for a tepid peace, Europeans are, moreover, particularly and uniquely vulnerable within this political dispensation because of their history on the continent. Remedial historical revisionism notwithstanding, South Africa—with its space program and skyscrapers—was not the product of the people currently dismantling it. Rather, it was the creation of British and Dutch settlers and their descendants.

For what they’ve achieved and acquired—and for the original sins of apartheid in South Africa; slavery in America—whites are the objects of envy and racial enmity.

The observations of liberal, African-American journalist Keith Richburg are particularly pertinent here. Richburg believes that on the Dark Continent, tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. He cites the fate of the Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—among the Hutu who are a Bantu people.

The Hutu have always resented the tall, imposing, attractive Tutsis, who had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th century. When Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, they were, on a deeper level, contends Richburg, “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.”

Are shades of this impulse alive in the savagery inflicted on the European “settlers” of South Africa (and Zimbabwe and the Congo before them)? Who can say for sure? This much I know: Empowering political majorities in Africa has helped, not hindered, the propensity of hostile masses to exact revenge on helpless minorities.

It would be a mistake to believe, as the American ruling Idiocracy preaches, that minorities in the US—soon to form a majority—will relinquish race and tribe as unifying principles, in favor of the US’s constitutional design.

Like South Africa, America is a creation of (northwest) European settlers. And it is in Man’s nature to dislike those who are unlike him—all the more so when they, as a group, have accomplished what he has not.

Read More

Rodrigo Duterte

Read More

"We (((white))) people"

Read More

Chilfree

Read More

You must chose

But chose wisely.....

Read More

The jewish "holocaust" in numbers

Read More

Full Speech Of Rabbi Rabbinovitch Found

Commentary By Rose Rabbinovich
rabbinovich@bluemail.ch
Former Zionist - Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
11-30-3

Hello again Jeff,

Thank you for posting my commentary last week 'Our Race Will Rule Undisputed Over The World' http://rense.com/general45/race.htm , it seems that this article shocked many Jews around the world. I have been inundated with hundreds of e-mail. I would like to apologise to many of you for not replying, I promise that I will reply to each one of you in time. If any of you had email 'problems' trying to contact me, please try again.

One question which was repeated in many of the emails to me was: 'How can we find the full Rabbinovich speech?'

I searched the Internet, but all websites with Rabbi Rabbinovich speech have been 'cleaned up' or blocked (I assume by the Zionists, as usual). Since I remember hearing from my grandfather about this speech already in the fifties, I decided to contact my Rabbi. He searched his favourite website http://abbc.com/ and found the full article. I am enclosing here the full speech by Rabbi Rabbinovich (Rabinovich).

To tell you the truth, I was surprised at the fantastic reaction of your readers to this speech. After all there is little new in that speech, and most people who read the Elders Of Zion Protocols are already very familiar with this information. Unfortunately we Jews are NOT allowed to read the Protocols, as the Zionists want to keep us uninformed to the hidden agenda of Zionism.

Some of the email I received claimed that The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion are a forgery.

To this I have five comments:


1. If it is a 'forgery', it implies that there is an original somewhere, WHERE IS IT? WHO WROTE IT?

2. Whether it is a forgery or not IS IRRELEVANT for the simple reason that our Zionist 'Jewish' 'brothers' have already implemented most, if not all of it. That is a fact. Every Jew who reads the Protocols knows that it was written by Jews, NO ONE ELSE could have written them.

3. The gentiles are really stupid (sorry), until now, they did not realise yet that the Zionists essentially control them.

4. It is VERY sad that most honest and honorable Jewish thinkers and intellectuals' articles are posted today on Moslem websites only.

5. As a person who grew up on Jewish ethics, I am at a great loss and shame to see our Zionist Rabbis justifying the present Moslem holocaust in the name of God and our Jewish religion. One thing I am sure of, if there is God, he is NOT 'Zionistically' Jewish. After reading many non-Zionists Jewish websites, I started believing as do many Rabbis in New York, that Zionism is: Satan hijacking our Jewish religion.

Some of the emails were complaints that they could not buy The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. This is true, as we Jews control most of the printing and book distribution in the USA and many other countries. I had to go myself to: http://churchoftrueisrael.com/protocols/

I printed it and made 100 copies, and distributed them to ALL my friends and ALL members of my synagogue. I encouraged everyone to distribute them to as many friends as possible. Unless the stupid gentiles understand the Zionist agenda, we are marching blindly into WW3 as lemmings off the cliff.

I would like to thank you, Jeff, for your wonderful website and for being the best source of knowledge on the Internet for Jews. I took the time to write you this second comment as I feel that it is OUR responsibility as Jews to alert the world to the dangers of Zionism.

Sincerely,

Rose Rabbinovich
rabbinovich@bluemail.ch
Former Zionist
Melbourne, Victoria,
Australia

Read More

Diversity and enrichment

Read More

Benjamin Ginsberg on Jewish hypocrisy and double standards

Tablet interview: “Q&A: Benjamin Ginsberg, the Author of ‘How the Jews Defeated Hitler’”

[Tablet] One of the things that’s fascinating about my WASPy friends and compatriots is that so many dislike the State of Israel, to varying degrees. It bugs them. What interests me is trying to suss out the underlying or psychological impetus or sense of injury beneath these feelings, which are frankly less common in general among American gentiles than they are among American Jews. When I’ve asked them, “Why does this particular injustice bother you so much – why not Tibet?” the answers are very interesting. They come down to something like, “Why on one hand do you Jewish people come to us and say we have to be democratic and inclusive because otherwise we’re anti-Semites, and then back in the old country, where you go on your family vacations or Birthright trips, you get to strut around with automatic weapons and oppress everybody else, which isn’t fair, and is probably what we would want to do here, in some secret corner of our WASPy brains.”

[Ginsberg] That is a very good line, and I think it’s totally true. The animus is some form of displaced anti-Semitism.

Say what? Displaced anti-Semitism would be if these Whites used Jewish hypocrisy as an excuse from some deep irrational hatred of Jews. But isn’t hypocrisy always seen as a negative? The White Protestants who are on trial here assume a principled morality. They assume that if inclusiveness is a moral imperative in the U.S. as our intellectual elites constantly tell us, it must be a moral imperative everywhere. But many of the same people who advocate inclusiveness in the U.S. advocate oppression in Israel. And there’s resentment by many Whites because as a result of the moral imperative of inclusiveness in the U.S., they are losing the country. So, yes, there is probably a “secret corner” of their brains where they would like to reassert themselves and boot out or oppress the interlopers. But that has to remain secret on pain of job loss and social opprobrium.  Because they no longer command the moral and political high ground, they don’t dare  say that.

[Tablet] Is that what I’m saying? I actually think that American Jews are in this sense way too quick to label such feelings as anti-Semitism, even when the effects may be anti-Semitic.

[Ginsberg] I think you’ve characterized it very well. It’s not 1930s anti-Semitism, but it’s a resentment. It’s a resentment of a particular evil that the Jews have done, which is the Jews have undermined WASP America but refuse to do the same thing in their own country.
You know, there’s an old joke: Three elderly Jewish Communists in the Bronx are talking. They’re in their eighties. One is in a wheelchair. So they say, “Abie Cohen, have you heard from him lately?” “Abie, he’s had some health problems but he’s living in Los Angeles in a nursing home, still working for socialism.” “All right, what about Mike Abramowitz, have you heard from him?” “Well, you know Mike is in rehab, he fell, he broke his hip, a lot of problems. But even in the nursing home he’s fighting for socialism!” So someone says, “What about Moe Goldberg?” “Oh, Moe, he moved to Israel, didn’t you know that?” “Well, is he fighting for socialism?” The guy answers, “In his own country? What kind of man do you think he is?!”

The joke would be mildly humorous except that the Jewish left has been spectacularly successful. So I am not laughing because the not so hidden agenda of the left has been the displacement of the people and culture of European societies throughout the West. Again we see the double standards and hypocrisy inherent in a movement led by strongly ethnocentric activists intent on displacing the previously dominant Protestant elite and in the process becoming an elite themselves. Policies that are advocated in the Diaspora are rejected for Israel. The Protestant elite that was endlessly criticized for being non-inclusive turns out to be way more inclusive than their critics.

So I think as Jewish humor often does, that captures the point that you made. I’ve actually had students say exactly this. They say, “How come in my high school we couldn’t sing Christmas carols; however, in Israel they can establish a religion?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Or to rephrase his comments, I imagine students saying

“How come in my high school Whites are a minority in the same school that was all-White when my parents attended. However, in Israel they can enact immigration laws that keep out non-Jews?” And they believe that it was the Jews who brought this about in the United States. And are they wrong? No.

Indeed, they are not wrong about immgration policy or about Christmas carols.

Ginsberg’s comments are another example of a phenomenon noticed by Andrew Joyce: “It appears that Jews are becoming more and more flamboyant and confident (or aggressive) in asserting their dominance. While the ADL would like us not to think of Jewish power and influence at all, there are recurrent examples where Jews unabashedly assert their influence.”

Source: http://bit.ly/104lO1O

Read More

The Jew as Ally of the Muslim

Source

I was reading a book [in Spanish so I won't post extracts] about the history of Jews in Spain, which essentially confirmed what I had already written about (here, here and here), namely Jewish collaboration with Muslim invaders in the post-Roman era. This fact is of central importance to the history of Europe's confrontation with Islam. Yet all of the supposed "Counterjihad" sites, although they regularly feature pieces about the Crusades, 1683, the Battle of Lepanto and so forth, resolutely refuse to mention it. This exposes the Counterjihad movement's essentially fraudulent nature. These people are not primarily interested in resisting Islam. Their goal is to promote the interests of Jewry. Resisting Islam is simply a means of doing that, as they perceive it, and, at best, a secondary objective.

The book made reference to another book I had never heard of: "The Jew as Ally of the Muslim". Like many books that expose critical truths about Jews, it is not easily available. I will now order an expensive copy from an antiquarian bookshop in the USA. I did, however, find an old (1987) review of it from Daniel Pipes, the Jew who funds Fjordman and could loosely be considered part of the Counterjihad movement today.

As the title of this study suggests, Allan and Helen Cutler believe that the tendency of medieval Christians to see the Jew as an ally of the Muslim was the decisive factor in the development of anti-Semitism. In making their case, the Cutlers challenge conventional wisdom, which holds that anti-Semitism originated in the charge of deicide (that Jews killed Jesus) and the Jews' anomalous socio-economic status in Europe. Although the Cutlers' study is poorly written and far too lengthy, it offers an intriguing and ultimately convincing argument. 

The logic of their case can be reduced to a syllogism: (1) Medieval Christians feared and hated Muslims. (2) Medieval Christians saw Jews as the allies of Muslims. (3) Therefore, medieval Christians feared and hated Jews. 

On the first point, the Cutlers are correct to note the presence of a pervasive fear of Muslims among medieval Christians. That fear began with the emergence of Islam and lasted until the 19th century. In 634, just two years after Muhammad the Prophet's death, for example, the patriarch of Jerusalem referred to the Muslims as "the slime of the godless Saracens [which] threatens slaughter and destruction." This early view was later echoed many times over; for centuries, the role of arch-enemy, in myth and literature, was filled by Muslims. 

This is understandable, for Muslims, who inhabited a belt of territories extending from Morocco to Egypt to Turkey to Siberia, physically surrounded medieval Christendom. Muslims were also the most constant enemy: with only one exception (the Mongols), every serious military threat against Christian Europe after the 10th century was launched by them. The Muslim danger continued to preoccupy the Christians of Europe for more than a millennium, until after the second siege of Vienna in 1683. 

Muslims also differed from the other invaders - Germans, Bulgars, and Hungarians - in presenting a religious and cultural danger as well as a military one. Hungarians would eventually accept European culture and convert to Christianity, but Muslims brought with them a rival civilization which not only withstood Christianity but even seduced Christians from their faith. For all these reasons, Muslims were the outstanding enemy of Christendom. 

Second - and this is the heart of the Cutlers' study - Jews were seen as close associates of Muslims. There was some justice to this view: the Hebrew language shares much with Arabic, and Judaism shares much with Islam; on the most abstract level, both are religions of law, while Christianity is a religion of faith. More specifically, they share many features such as circumcision, dietary regulations, and similar sexual codes. Further, because the Muslims were preeminent in the medieval centuries, "Jews themselves associated Jew with Muslim." When this became known among the Christians, it much harmed the Jews' position. Most damaging of all, Jews on occasion helped Muslim troops against Christians (as in the initial Arab conquest of Spain) and some Jews held prominent positions in Muslim governments at war with the Christians. Even when they did not actually take part in the fighting, "Jews usually rejoiced when Christian territory fell into Islamic hands." 

The Cutlers marshall a variety of textual and pictoral proof to make their case that medieval Christians saw a deep connection between Jew and Muslim. To take one of each: An influential twelfth-century Christian text includes the bizarre statement that "A Jew is not a Jew until he converts to Islam." The woodcut in a book of religious disputation published in 1508 pictures a Jewish and a Muslim figure: while the Jewish figure carries a banner with the name "Machometus" (Muhammad), the Muslim's banner depicts a Jew's hat. 

The Cutlers conclude:

Since the rise of Islam, the primary (though by no means the only) factors in the history of anti-Semitism have been the following: the association of Jew with Muslim, the longstanding European tendency to equate the Jew, of Middle Eastern origin, with the Muslim, also of Middle Eastern origin; the intensely held Christian feeling that the Jew was an ally of, and in league with, his ethnoreligious cousin the Muslim against the West; the deep-seated Christian apprehension that the Jew, the internal Semitic alien, was working hand in hand with the Muslim, the external Semitic enemy, to bring about the eventual destruction of Indo-European Christendom. 

Third, Christian fear of Muslims affected the view of Jews. In order to prove this thesis, the Cutlers must show that Christian anti-Semitism varied in response to Christian-Muslim relations. The status of Jews had to decline as Christian animosity toward Muslims increased; conversely, Jews had to be better off when wars against Muslims ceased. 

The authors do establish this point in a broad-brush sort of way, more by assertion than through a close look at the record. They argue that far fewer anti-Semitic outbreaks occurred in 700-1000, when Muslims were still a distant concern, than in 1000-1300, when they had become the victims of intense hostility. The Cutlers date the transition to about 1010, when rumors spread through France that the Jews had helped the Fatimid rulers of Egypt destroy the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. In retaliation, the Jews of Orleans were made to pay with their lives.

Source

As I have noted before, the Jews have constructed a narrative of "antisemitism" that is nothing but a preposterous fable. This narrative claims that antagonism to Jews either has no reason whatsoever and/or has ludicrous mythical or psychological explanations, such as the belief that Jews killed Jesus. In reality, antagonism to Jews is provoked by Jewish behaviour. My own present feelings towards Jews were provoked, first of all, by the sight of prominent Jews constantly pushing immigration, diversity, multiculturalism and pro-Islam sentiments while playing the Hitler card against anyone who disagreed; and, perhaps even more importantly, by the reaction of other Jews when these facts were pointed out, one of unreasoning hostility and an absolute inability to admit fault, exactly like Muslims when confronted with their iniquities, in other words. My present suspicion of Jews is rooted, not in fantasy, but in Jewish behaviour.

Similarly, as this book makes clear, the hostility our ancestors felt towards Jews had a similar explanation: they were perceived as a fifth column of traitors collaborating with hostile Muslims threatening to overwhelm our civilisation. (And, as the book points out, and as I have pointed out, there were many instances where this collaboration did undoubtedly occur.) As Muslims largely ceased to be threatening to Europe after the 17th century, so hostility to Jews faded.

Now Muslims are threatening Europe again. Again we see Jews playing the collaborative or facilitating role for their incursions into our lands. And, tragically, almost the entirety of the resistance movement to this invasion is in Jewish hands. Even the Counterjihadists in Europe who aren't themselves Jewish are so utterly under their thumb that they're afraid to say anything bad about them or even link to a site that does! Poor Europe.

Note the authors of the book apparently end it with some bizarre political advice for the present day. They demand that, rather than end Jewish-Muslim collaboration, it should, in effect be intensified.

American and world Jewry should be ready and willing to put much more of its community-relations time, money, energy, and imagination into urging Christians and Muslims to enter into genuine dialogue and reconciliation.

They also demand that the Pope should, in effect, stop being a Catholic and instead become a kind of rainbow figurehead for all.

 [the Pope should] ...transform his office and mission from a more narrowly Christian into a broadly Abrahamic one . . . to create a new spiritual and institutional unity between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

- 

Read More

Jews conspired to destroy the White South African government and murder the Boer / Afrikaaner people.

In the 19th century the British fought wars to subject the Boer states to British Rule. In 1948, the Boers took power democratically, with the election of the National Party.

In the 1960s the government of Hendrik Verwoerd took power and implemented the formal separate but equal policies in South Africa. These policies made South Africa the economically strongest nation in Africa, and gave the blacks in South Africa (and the whites) the highest standards of living of any African nation.

Verwoerd's policies had two main opponents. One was a Jew named Harry Oppenheimer, the other a Jew named Anton Ruppert. Both controlled banking monopolies in the country, and wanted "rights" extended to black South Africans for the purpose of extending their money lending business. Oppenheimer had ties to the Rothschild banking family and to the US CIA, which throughout the 1970s through 1990s supported the overthrow of white South African rule, at the direction of the Jew Henry Kissinger.

Oppenheimer lobbied the Rothschilds to overthrow Verwoerd, who had publicly denounced the Jewish banking monopolies in Parliament. The Rothschilds secured the support of the Rockefeller, Carnegie and other "Anglo" families in the United States, and had those institutions lobby against the white government. Rockfeller influenced the Council on Foreign Relations and its members in the US government in particular to oppose white rule.

In 1963 a group of Jews founded the "African" National Congress. The ANC was founded by Lionel Bernstein, Bob Hepple, Dennis Goldberg, Arthur Goldreich, Hazel Goldreich and James Kantor, with a few African front men -- Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki (father of Thabo Mbeki), Raymond Mhlaba, and Ahmed Kathrada. In this, the ANC followed the model the Jews established when they founded the NAACP in the United States, with the exception that the ANC was a much more violent and openly communist organization. These Jews and their African National Congress received funding and support from both the Soviet Union and the US CIA.

In particular, Ruth First, the Jewish wife of Jewish Soviet KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, a leader of the South African Communist Party, was primarily responsible for funneling funds to this "African" National Congress.

In 1966 the CIA financed the assassination of President Verwoerd, through their "lone nut" operative Demetrio Tsafendas, a Greek immigrant to South Africa. In particular, Oppenheimer's South African Foundation funneled CIA money to Hendrik Van Den Bergh of the South African Security Police and John Vorster, the Minister of Justice, who were the men who recruited Tsafendas to assassinate Verwoerd.

By the 1970s the Jewish campaign to subvert South Africa was having no effect. The economy was unaffected by sanctions and communist unrest was minimal -- though much was made of it in the Jewish owned elements of the US press.

In 1978 the CIA recruited Pik Botha, the South African foreign minister, as a spy and used him to subvert the South African government, working with Samuel Huntington and Chester Crocker, Botha was assigned to undermine and alter the attitudes of the South African government regarding black rule.

Botha recruited Minister of Sports Piet Koornhof **and Head of Military Intelligence General Tienie Groenewald to the CIA-Jew operation. Groenewald in particular passed on the names of Afrikanner nationalist and white rights activists to MI6 and the CIA, and arranged for acts of violence and harassment, COINTELPRO style, against Boer activists in the country.

In the late 1970s and the early 1980s the banking families, Oppenheimer in particular, began to speculate in the Rand for the purpose of devaluing the currency. Inflation rose to 7 percent and growth fell to 3 percent, with inflation reaching 16 percent in the early 1980s.

In 1989 a Freemason with ties to B'nai B'rith, the Jewish Masonic fraternity which controls the ADL, was elected President of South Africa. Presient Frederik De Klerk was a Jewish-backed candidate with ties to the international Zionist establishment. De Klerk worked for, and eventually achieved, the Jewish goal of black rule in South Africa.

Today, South Africa's central bank is run by a Jew named Gill Marcus, with the black frontman named Tito Mboweni taking instructions. Trevor Manuel, a Jew, is the Minister of Finance. Alec Erwin, a Jew, is the Minister of Trade and Industry. Helena Dolny, the Jewish ex-wife of KGB Colonel Joe Slovo, runs the Land Bank. Ronnie Kasrils, a Jew, is the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry. Louise Tager, a Jew, is chairman of the railway system, Spoornet. Michael Katz, a Jew,is the chief consultant on taxation. Meyer Kahn, a Jew, is the managing director of the police service. Three Jews -- Richard Goldstone, Arthur Chaskalson, and Albert Sachs -- sit on the South African Supreme Court

What has happened in South Africa under the name of "democracy" and "diversity" has been the Jewish takeover of their country. As with all Jewish governments, South Africa is now a failed nation. It is poor, it is crime ridden, and it is not safe to walk the streets.

The Jews wage war on anyone who opposes their total domination of the world's economy. They also work to make sure they control the governments of every single developed country in the world. Jews use whatever tools they can -- phony allegations of "racism" or pleas for "democracy", for instance -- to win stupid, thoughtless non-Jews to their cause, but all celebrated communist, socialist, "democratic" and/or anti-racist groups in the world are Jewish run and Jewish financed.

Source: http://bit.ly/1nQMWa9

* * * * * * *

One might say that the bankers use the jews to advance their own agenda, but saddly jews themselves (or the majority of them) pretty much allow this to happen.  Either way, this is good information.

Read More

Who Controls the Federal Reserve System?

The Federal Reserve System is divided into two parts: the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, located in Washington DC, and the Federal Reserve District Banks, located throughout the United States. Here is the official website of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors: 

If you examine this page, you will see that there are five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. You will also see that all five(5) of the board members are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 100%. Why is this important? 

It’s important because Jews only constitute about 2% of the United States population*. So the odds that all five members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors would be Jewish are infinitesimally small. Here are the five members of the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors: 

Benjamin S. Bernanke - Jewish 

Donald L. Kohn - Jewish 

Kevin M. Warsh - Jewish 

Randall S. Kroszner - Jewish 

Frederic S. Mishkin - Jewish 

Now, if you examine the presidents of the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks, you will discover a similar pattern of Jewish over-representation. Here is the section of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors’ website that lists the twelve Federal Reserve District Banks and their respective presidents: 

If you examine this section, you will see that there are twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents. You will also see that nine(9) of the twelve presidents are Jewish. This is a numerical representation of 75%. Again, this is important because Jews only comprise about 2% of the United States population*, so the chances that nine of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank presidents would be Jewish are incredibly miniscule. Here are the twelve presidents of the Federal Reserve District Banks: 

FRB of Boston: Eric S. Rosengren - Jewish 

FRB of New York: Timothy F. Geithner - Jewish 

FRB of Philadelphia: Charles I. Plosser - Jewish 

FRB of Richmond: Jeffrey M. Lacker - Jewish 

FRB of St. Louis: James B. Bullard - Jewish 

FRB of Minneapolis: Gary H. Stern - Jewish 

FRB of Kansas City: Thomas M. Hoenig - Jewish 

FRB of Dallas: Richard W. Fisher - Jewish 

FRB of San Francisco: Janet L. Yellen - Jewish 

FRB of Cleveland: Sandra Pianalto - gentile 

FRB of Atlanta: Dennis P. Lockhart - gentile 

FRB of Chicago: Charles L. Evans - gentile 

This extreme numerical over-representation of Jews among the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve District Bank presidents cannot be explained away as a coincidence or as the result of mere random chance. You must ask yourself how such an incredibly small and extremely unrepresentative minority ethnic group that only represents about 2% of the American population could so completely dominate the highest levels of the United States Federal Reserve System?

Source: http://prince.org/msg/105/271100

Read More

Racism

Read More

Isaiah 53: What Did the Rabbis Say?

Source

Maybe you weren't told, but many ancient rabbinic sources understood Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah. Here are quotations from some of them: 

Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b) 

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

Targum Jonathan: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong..."

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'" 

Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted inThe Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)

Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so."

 (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)

---

Many more rabbinic citations can be found in books listed in the resource link.

---

To see why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to Israel, and who it must be, click here.

To learn about the curious idea of the Leper-Messiah click here.

To learn about the "Two-Messiah" theory of some rabbinic thinkers click here.

To see a list of resources for further study click here.

To learn about how you can develop a relationship with the Suffering Servant.

To go back to the Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53) page click here

To return to the CHAIM home page click here.

Read More

Edward Snowden

Read More

Boko Haram: "I Will Sell Your Daughters"

Read More

Ex-Scoutmaster Sentenced to 30 Years in Prison for Homosexual Child Abuse

Source

An ex-scoutmaster has been sentenced to 30 years behind bars after pleading guilty to sexually abusing three boys while serving as a Keswick Boy Scout troop leader.

David Brian Watkins, 50, accepted a plea deal earlier this year after originally being indicted on 70 charges surrounding inappropriate contact with scouts. He plead guilty to 36 counts in January, avoiding a jury trial, which could have resulted in multiple life sentences.

Watkins, who led Keswick Troop 1028 from 2002 to 2008, admitted to abusing male scouts from 2006-2009. He was arrested in November 2012 after a scout, who was 13 at the time of the incident and is now an adult, reported him to the police.

On Thursday, Judge Cheryl Higgins sentenced Watkins to ten years in prison for each of three counts of carnal knowledge of a child between the ages of 13 and 15. She suspended the remaining 33 charges, which would have placed him behind bars for another 165 years.

Prior to his sentencing, Watkins asked the court for mercy, but prosecutor Darby Lowe read segments of a report to the court where Watkins had told police that it was instead the boy who initiated the sexual contact. According to the Charlottesville Daily Progress, Watkins stated that it was he who felt that he had been raped.

Watkins’ defense attorney Andre Hakes also told that court that the boys involved consented to having sexual activity with the Scoutmaster.

“These were continuing sexual relationships, and though they were with children under 18, they were consensual,” she stated. “David Watkins is not just these crimes. He is responsible for them, but they are not all of who he was.”

Before issuing her sentence, Higgins expressed a concern that Watkins and his defense failed to have contrition over his behavior.

“What is especially concerning to the court in this case is the lack of acknowledgement by the defendant,”she stated.

Following his arrest two years ago, a Portland attorney who won a lawsuit in 2010 lodged by a former Boy Scout who claimed that he was molested by an assistant scout leader told reporters that Watkin’s case reinforces her concerns about the organization.

“This says two things about Boy Scouts,” attorney Kelly Clark said. “First, there is a serious problem with child abuse in Scouting. Second, a lot of organizations [like Boy Scouts] put their own interests ahead of the interests of the kids.”

As previously reported, thousands of documents were released in October 2012 outlining evidence of longstanding and widespread sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America. The documents, which the Boy Scouts had fought to keep secret, contained information collected since shortly after its inception in 1910, including letters from victims and their parents, as well as memos and handwritten notes. Some allegations had been substantiated, while others were yet undetermined.

In all, there were 14,500 pages of evidence released.

Read More

They tried to kill him

Read More

Gay Conversion: I Slept With Over 200 Men, Now I'm a Happily Married Heterosexual Dad

I guess I became straight by accident. It was never a grand plan; the therapy was an attempt to resolve commitment issues, rather than sexual identity. I never had any desire to change my sexuality. But that's what happened – in fact I changed everything.

Having had hundreds of homosexual partners, I eventually married a woman and had a child. And my whole outlook on life changed. I grew from a loud and arrogant person, trying desperately to mask my deep insecurities in group situations, into a strong, assertive guy who loved sports and war films. At the age of 46, I've never felt better in my own skin.

But before we get into the details of my conversion, let's go back to the beginning.

I knew I was gay at about 10 or 11. My cousin himself had come out and I realised my own attractions were the same. At the age of 10 or 11 boys start getting interested in girls, but I was only interested in boys. I was definitely a number six on the Kinsey Scale – an exclusively homosexual male with no heterosexual desires whatsoever.

Teenage years were hell. I often thought of suicide, occasionally self-harmed and had a growing problem with alcohol and gay porn. I came out to my parents when I was 17, in floods of tears. But mum and dad were amazing; they said they had known I was gay and then affirmed their unconditional love for me. My mates at school also told me they had known for some time and supported me. The 'coming out' process wasn't tortuous or traumatic.

At 18 I moved to London from the north of England and fully embraced my gay identity. I became the first person to live openly as a gay man in the section of the university I attended, and even established an LGBT group for other students, actively preaching against those who suggested that being gay was somehow a choice, or even wrong.

I never felt the need to change. I was born gay, it was all I'd ever known – end of. Even though I'd been raised a Christian and attended an LGBT Christian Movement in London, I reveled in the capital's gay scene and led a very promiscuous lifestyle. In fact, I reckon I had 200 sexual partners.

Eventually I settled down with a long-term boyfriend, an ex-soldier and Falklands vet, and we considered going abroad to marry – or at least have a civil-partnership. But around this time I made the decision to enter a relationship with Christ, which allowed me to examine my life more deeply.

I realised I had some issues, centring on commitment. I discovered I had a deep-rooted fear of rejection, I was too anxious, and I used people. I had an innate fear of men – not of their homophobia, but the real thing: a chasm between me and the normal heterosexual male (Kinsey's so-called number ones).

I terminated my relationship with my long-term partner to get a clean slate, and, acting on a friend's advice, I went into therapy to address my commitment issues. There was nothing brutal or harrowing about the help I received; the horror stories you hear from some of those gay-straight 'conversion' documentaries don't apply here. It was simply a mixture of cognitive therapy, to challenge my core beliefs and root out one-sided thinking; behavioural therapy, to change problematic actions trained through years of reinforcement; and EMDR, which uses rhythmic eye movements to dampen the power of traumatic memories.

My therapist and I never focused solely on my being sexually attracted to men, but my "being gay" had to be part of the dialogue, otherwise I'd have been leaving a part of my life at the door. Much of my journey was about forgiving those I needed to forgive, and recognising where I had built walls against significant others in my life, especially my parents and siblings.

I eventually came to realise that as a boy I had failed to interact with other men on any significant level. I had perceived myself to be rejected by men even as a small boy and had made an inner vow never to deeply trust them. People had reached out to me and I had spurned them, including my father and two older brothers. No wonder men had become a mystery to me and even an obsession by my teens, when I began erotically craving men and feeding this through porn.

I also realised I had thrown myself wholeheartedly into a world of the feminine, with no masculine counter-balance, yet I despised women for having the natural ability to woo every aspect of a heterosexual man, which I could not do. I discovered that my natural place was not among women.

A lot of core behaviours were challenged - my looks, my body, my walk – and my therapist challenged me to look at where I wasn't like other men, and where I was. The therapist began to work on things like my voice and my gait - he was giving me permission to think in a different way, to do things differently.

Feeling of acceptance

My fears and anxiety gradually subsided, and I began to feel more accepted around both men and women. I moved from constantly rejecting masculine identity to embracing it; my posture changed, I began to walk straighter and lost my old mincing walk. My voice gained a whole new resonance, such that people would regularly comment on it to me.

I began to see that maybe, just maybe, I was never truly gay and that there was a man as real and as noble as the men I had often admired, worshipped and yearned for hidden deep within me, waiting to be freed and released.

Physical contact with women, even touching a woman's hair, became more enjoyable. I began to enjoy being a man, and enjoy women's company more. This doesn't mean I went out and was attracted to every woman I met; I wasn't an on-heat teenager. But it was a gradual process, eventually leading to dates and relationships.

Today I've been married to a woman for eight years, and we have a five-year-old daughter. I love art and theatre, but I enjoy team sports in a way that frightened me as a child. One of my favourite movies is Saving Private Ryan, because it's about brotherhood and deep male friendships, something I'd never enjoyed before.

Am I now exclusively heterosexual, some people ask? Most of the time, yes. But for most people there are periods where sexuality can be quite fluid. At times this is true for me too. I don't miss the gay lifestyle I left behind –when I visited my ex-boyfriend, five years after therapy, it brought to home to me the drawbacks of that life. His voice had become camp and weak, and he had even contracted HIV.

I know more than ever that my decision to entertain therapy, and at a later stage the therapy which concentrates on repairing malformed sexual orientation, saved my life in the long run. It also saved a lot of taxpayers' money too. I now believe I would have ended up considering, and no doubt requesting, gender reassignment at the expense of the public purse.

But the changes in my life (and my ex-boyfriend's) don't make me want to preach or convert anyone. Therapy can be dangerous, and there's no reason why anyone should feel compelled to 'convert'.

But I now believe people aren't born gay, and anyone can develop the sort of hidden identity I've found.

Source: http://bit.ly/PXt0r7d

Read More

Homosexual Hijackers: The Hypersexualization of Cultural Hostages

When the celebration of a godly Catholic Saint becomes a flashpoint for the homosexual agenda, it’s just another sure sign that things have really spiraled out of control in America. How is it that the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York have become the latest pawn in the homosexual hijacking of this country?

In the current cultural clash between morality and decadence, apparently nothing is considered sacred or beyond the tainting touch of the “gay lobby.”

As the militant homosexual activists aggressively sweep through our society in their hostage-taking enterprise, they trample on religious rights — and numerous other freedoms — leaving only debauchery in their wake. Through their shameless “gay” gangland style thuggery, they defile and hypersexualize everything that they come into contact with. And the “Big Beer” brouhaha is just their latest attempt to distort a holiday observance, which is supposed to be about commemorating a heroic, holy man, into more perversity on parade. The homosexual wrecking ball has “come out” in full vengeance mode with corporate sponsors, professional sports organizations, elected officials, mainstream media outlets, Hollywood celebrities, and universities all drooling and panting to be the first to ride the “gay” bandwagon on its path to perdition.  

Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church doesn’t want to sully their Saint with the raunchy displays that are typically seen in the annual “gay pride” parades held across America? Why would the organizers want to see homosexuals prancing around in drag, genitalia-revealing clothing, or nearly naked?

And what’s the likelihood that “gay pride” organizers would ever allow Christians to march in their parades and pass out biblical literature about the sinfulness of homosexuality? Or what’s the chance that they would welcome groups such as NOM (National Organization for Marriage), NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) or JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality) to march right alongside the transvestites? Or what about an ex-gay marching band or Mark Regnerus as the grand marshal? Not on your life! The simple fact is that homosexual events are not “open” to everyone. Certain individuals and organizations, that don’t conform to their ideology, are absolutely barred from participating in their parades. Of course, they wouldn’t want any religious or moral principles “raining on their parade.” Homosexual extremists march along a one-way street when it comes to so-called “tolerance.”

At “gay pride” events and parades in places such as San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, and New Orleans, it is not uncommon to see drag queens, phalluses, public nudity, actual and simulated sex acts, offensive signs/music, pornographic images, NAMBLA (pedophilia) representatives, S&M paraphernalia, and public spankings to raise money for AIDS efforts. So, why would the Catholic Church – and any morally sane individual – want to associate St. Patrick with those kinds of debauched displays?

In some places, the homosexual hijackers’ reign of terror is basically complete. For instance, in San Francisco, public decency ordinances are consistently and systematically overlooked during their homosexual, perversity-promoting events. Nudity and public sex acts are the norm during the annual Folsom Street Fair and other “gay pride” parades and festivals held in the city. Police officers, on foot and bicycle, congregate nearby and observe, making no attempt to enforce the law for fear of being labeled homophobic or worse.

And where is the mainstream media while all of this crude and vulgar behavior is so blatantly on display? They’re engaged in a homosexual-friendly, collaborative cover-up via a media blackout because they know that these sex-crazed, pornified sin-fests don’t fit the nice, neat little narrative of the happy, “normal gay family” that’s just minding their own business in relative suburban obscurity. Although not all homosexuals are militantly involved in the hostile takeover of the American culture, we can’t ignore the intimidating and morally corrosive efforts of the aggressive “gay” activists.

In advance of the September 15, 2013 “gay pride” parade in Dallas, Texas, the city officials made it clear that they had had enough of this type of outrageous behavior. They pledged to crack down on the lewdness and nudity that had become widespread at their annual gay pride parade. While past marches had featured bare-breasted women and men in tight, wet underwear with visible genitalia, Dallas law enforcement said the city would no longer turn a blind eye to such violations of city and state law. The rules now state: “In accordance with the city of Dallas public nudity ordinance, parade participants must not expose genitalia, buttocks, or female breasts.” Additionally, the new parade restrictions prohibit other vile exhibitions: “In accordance with state of Texas obscenity law, sexual paraphernalia, real or simulated sex acts and genital or phallic representations are prohibited from the parade.” City officials, along with the event’s organizers, said they wanted the pride event to be more “family friendly.”

The reaction, however, from the “gay” community and activists to this policy change was quite eye-opening. It shockingly revealed the true darkness that lurks at the heart of America’s homosexual movement. They expressed great outraged at the newly-implemented common sense changes. On the social media website Twitter, incensed homosexuals vowed to wear  – or not wear – whatever they wanted to the pride parade. Activist Daniel Cates wrote on his Facebook page, “The ‘queer’ is effectively being erased from our Pride celebration in favor of the most polished, heteronormative representation of our community as possible. It should be noted that the rioters at the Stonewall Inn fought to break OUT of the d*mn closet! Our movement was built of sex positivity and our desire to BE WHO WE ARE! I urge you ALL to openly DEFY the Tavern Guild!” (Evidently, the word “restraint” is nowhere to be found in the homosexual dictionary.)

Based on Mr. Cates’ own words, here are a just a few thoughts:

If they “can’t be themselves” without being mostly naked, raunchy, and highly sexualized, doesn’t that contradict the whole “It’s not about sex, it’s about love” mantra? It sounds much more to me like a crotch-centric fixation than anything to do with love. 

If they’re so adamantly against “heteronormative” behavior, then why are homosexual activists also fighting so hard to get “married?” Marriage, after all, is the most heteronormative institution there is! There is obviously no method to their madness.

And homosexuals claim that they want equal treatment under the law, but as soon as they are told that they will be treated like any other citizen who breaks public decency laws, they throw a hissy fit. Apparently, they don’t really want equal treatment; what they demand is special treatment. They think that they are entitled to some sort of “protected class,” above-the-law status that allows them to brazenly break the law with impunity, and sadly, in most places and in many ways, that’s exactly what were witnessing as public officials cower in fear and cave to their every terrorist-like tactic!

Therefore, the “coexist” meme is a falsehood of epic proportions; it’s really “Leftist code” for the legal authorization of the anti-Christian forces – of which the virulent homosexual hijackers have become the worst offenders – to run roughshod over anyone with whom they disagree. In their twisted idea of coexistence, Christians and conservatives must live under the heel of the homofascists.

What the St. Patrick’s Day Parade organizers and every other religious group, cultural edifice or icon of morality need to do is implement a “we don’t negotiate with ‘queer’ terrorists” policy. Or else all will be lost to the homosexual hijackers.

Source:  http://bit.ly/1ozcBWe

Read More

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

###

©2009 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.

Read More