How do you know when somebody is lying to you about their intentions?

Sometimes it’s body language; sometimes it’s when their claims are outlandish or sharply contrary to observed reality. Some liars are skilful and quite hard to detect. But with individuals, given time, liars are relatively easy to spot. As a general rule, when a person’s statements and their actions consistently point in different directions, rather than their statements and their actions pointing in the same direction, you can tell that they’re lying.

There’s other ways to tell, consistent reliance on formal logical fallacies, such as ad-hominem, the unstated major premise, or the straw man argument is a pretty clear signal as well, that the person making such arguments is dishonest. Refusal to address an opponent’s argument, while reciting it in a high squeaky voice, or with an added laugh track are simplistic examples of the classic ad hominem.

It becomes more difficult to make such determinations when dealing with organizations. An organization engaging in deceptive practices has the advantage of being able to separate its public statements from its actions by using different groups of people to perform each.

As organizations get bigger, the ability to mask a divergence between stated goals and organizational practices is heightened. We bring good things to life – is the motto of a company selling toasters to the American public, but which makes most of its profits manufacturing the weapons of modern warfare.

General electric invented the mini-gun. This is generally well known in the year 2010, but nobody buying a toaster at wall mart seems to mind as long as the people slaughtered with weapons like the mini-gun are brown people in faraway countries. Now, I’m not saying general electric, or their parent company, general dynamics are evil. They’re filling a need. And if there’s a market demand for the industrial-scale killing of humans, as there clearly is, then somebody’s going to fill that need and make a profit for their shareholders.

But what about humanitarian organizations or a non-profit organization who’s publicly stated goals are obviously humanist, good, and just. One way to spot organizational lying is to examine the organization’s actions, comparing the action’s efficacy in advancing a publicly stated goal, versus simply adding money or political power to that organization, or producing some other outcome.

Much like with individuals, the outcomes produced by the actions of organizations offer a far clearer view of the organizations goals than any public manifesto of purpose. In fact, in dealing with organizations, publicly stated purpose’s likelihood of veracity diminishes relative to the size of the organization.

Organized feminism in its modern form is roughly 50 years old. In 1960, many families consisting of a man and a woman and zero or more children lived in homes they owned with one family member working full time, typically the husband. One of the public goals of feminism was to give women the “right” to enter the workplace, higher education, political office and other areas habituated by mostly men at the time. The public swallowed this declaration of purpose, despite the reality that women’s choices, and not exclusion, was the principal factor in the predominance of men in the fields mentioned.

After 50 years of female favouring initiatives by government, and affirmative action, stay at home wives and mothers are rare to the point of extinction. This is not because women have recently attained the right to enter the workforce, but because they have to. Only the very wealthy can afford home ownership on a single salary now, and that was the planned outcome from the beginning.

By adding women to the workforce, the available pool of labour in society doubled. This means that allowing for inflation, the relative value of labour has been cut in half. We are all, men and women, made poorer and less personally autonomous by this transition. This outcome is not an accident.

If you’re a woman and would prefer not to work, or to work part time at a job that provided you with personal satisfaction but not much money, too bad. Being liberated has reduced your freedom.

This is an illustration of the difference between public statements of intent, such as give women the freedom to join the workforce, and unstated, planned intent, force women to work, and cut in half the relative value of labour within society.

Mainstream feminism is the largest, most successful scams perpetrated on the public since the inception of central banking and fiat currency – and most of the public haven’t caught onto those yet either.

Proponents of mainstream feminism will sometimes call individuals rebuking the supposed legitimacy of feminism by the derisory label “conspiracy theorists”. This is simply shaming language intended to silence discussion and discredit the critic without addressing any argument. However, the term conspiracy theory is apt, because although feminist propagandists like to pretend that feminism is a grass roots social movement, it is anything but that.

Gloria Steinem, feminist icon, founder of Ms. Magazine was funded indirectly through the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation. [1] This information is documented by Dr. Henry Markow in a 2002 article called “How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society” and confirmed in a New York Times article in February 1967[2]

Prior to her public involvement as a major actor for early second wave feminism, Steinem was an employee of the CIA who disrupted student organizations in Europe, and funnelled information to her CIA handlers.  While she was starting Ms. Magazine, she was dating Henry Kissinger – a matter of public record, and amazingly, nobody seems to think this lends a stink to the movement she was an early pillar of.

How is feminism a grass roots movement if it was funded by the Rockefeller foundation and the CIA?

For that matter, how is it that feminist organizations funded by national governments, or which are departments within national governments have any legitimacy in their claims to grass roots.  In 2010 the Canadian commission on the Status of Women (SOW) gave a grant totalling $1,016,400.00 to fund a large feminist conference, called the Women’s Worlds 2011 (WW 2011). Its objective is to draw feminist women together from across Canada and abroad to form a new feminist movement. [3]

Feminism is not a grass roots, bottom up movement. It is top down, elite instigated and funded AstroTurf with real objectives that have no relation to human rights or social equality between men and women. What’s a worse indictment of the gullible public is that this is obvious to the most cursory examination.

The myth of women’s oppression in western society is another screamingly obvious falsehood which can only be maintained by the wilful, active self-delusion of the public, including self-identified and politically active feminists.

There are a number of obvious signals of this, such as lighter sentences

Women are sentenced more leniently than men for equivalent offences in western criminal courts.

In many cases, women on trial for violent crimes are excused by a collective manufacture of imaginary past victimhood by some hypothetical evil man, and the violent crime justified. This is a form of social collective hallucination – because this is not how western law works. An eye for an eye is the brutal, outmoded philosophy of retributive justice of the Old Testament.

In Canada, legal precedent is established that women found guilty of murder should be sentenced, when possible under the lesser crime of infanticide [4]. This is women’s oppression? This is patriarchy?

The United Nations, who operate the World Food Program, does so on the lines of an

ideology of female supremacy. During the Haitian crisis of 2010, the WFP  treated the

humanitarian crisis as an opportunity for social engineering with a female supremacist agenda, giving aid to women only. [5] Reports of men overwhelming guards at food and water distribution points were used to justify this, but denial of aid based on sex in a humanitarian crisis would not have produced such desperate acts from starving and dehydrated men in a country shattered by natural disaster.

Selective Criminalization of Normal Behaviour.

Individuals within the men’s rights community will already be familiar with the selective criminalization of normal human behaviour falling inside the sphere of sexual relations between men and women.

Some examples of this are the criminalization of flirting in Scotland [6], the attempted redefinition of verbal argument as battery in France [7], and continued efforts of feminism to expand the legal definition of rape to encompass normal, nonviolent male behaviour.

What’s less well understood is the increasing criminalization of normal behaviours unrelated to sex.

Dr. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University wrote about this trend in  2009 [8] citing the prosecutions of children for chewing gum, a senior citizen for allowing a hedge to grow over 2 feet, and the use of child protective services to redefine any act of parenting as criminal child abuse.

So the trend towards criminalizing non-criminal behaviour extends considerably farther than the anti-male sexual discrimination understood and discussed within the men’s rights community. The increasing criminalization of normal masculinity is connected to criminalization of other normal human’s behaviours, but understanding the connection is easier from a higher altitude viewpoint.

Primary aggressor laws and mandatory arrest laws are a by-product of the Violence Against Women Act – a set of laws authored by the current vice president of the United States, Joe Biden. Succinctly stated, primary aggressor laws are legally mandated profiling of participants in any situation where a complaint of domestic violence has been made. This is a departure from the police’s traditional role as impartial law enforcers, because regardless of the actions of individuals, arrest based on profile is apartheid, and not how police behave outside of totalitarian regimes.

The fact that arrest based on the physical profile of men as the bigger, stronger parties in a domestic violence complaint superficially benefits women, affording them fiat power over men’s freedom within any romantic relationship is only partially fully explainable by the theory of mainstream feminism as a doctrine of female supremacy and violence. That apparent female supremacy is merely a step in a longer program of social engineering.

The 2010 G-20 Toronto summit was the fourth meeting of the G-20 heads of government, in discussion of the global financial system and the world economy, which took place at the in Toronto, Ontario in July 2010.

During the G20 summit, Canadian citizens engaged in nonviolent objection to the usurpation of representative government by a few secretive banking families were encircled by body armoured and horse-mounted police (in war, these are respectively called armoured infantry and cavalry) then mauled, bludgeoned, and mowed down, captured, and interned by those armoured and mounted representatives of the central banking system.

I replaced conventional terms including “police”, “protesters” and “arrested” in the previous paragraph with more accurate terminology, because conventional labels, as used in the mainstream media serve to obscure the reality of events.

These armed and armoured banking enforcers are the same state employees who enact mandatory arrest laws and profiling (primary aggressor laws) in instances of domestic violence complaint.

Recognition of this is critical, because the established mainstreaming and ongoing incremental escalation of feminist ideology – informing the courts, the family courts, education, government and other areas of society is not an end to itself, only a tool.

Modern feminism has succeeded in creating a state of privilege for western women unmatched by any other demographic in human history.

Female privilege is easily demonstrated in women’s affirmative action programs in education, government and employment.

Female privilege is sharply visible in the discrepancy between male-weighted lifetime earning imbalance and the inconvenient fact that 65% of disposable income is spent by women. [9]

Female privilege is evident in sexually unequal sentencing within western criminal courts.

Female privilege is obvious in the contrast between the preponderance of men victimized by violent crime, and the existence of national and international anti-violence campaigns which focus almost exclusively on women.

Female privilege is illustrated by the overwhelming majority of workplace deaths being male, and the rate of male suicide which quadruples the suicide rate in women, while no mainstream media ever takes their focus off the sustained narrative of women as a class of victims.

Female privilege is demonstrated in the difference between US combat deaths of men and women in Iraq. Between the start of the war in 2003 and September 2010, 110 female service members were killed. In the same period, 4298 male service members were killed. [10] This translates to 97.5% of  killed service personnel being male. This is similar to male versus female ratio of workplace deaths in North America, with 93% of workplace deaths being male.

Feminists arguing the reverse case, that western society elevates male privilege sometimes cite the predominance of men in police work or government as evidence of patriarchal male dominance. These arguments ignore the fact that police work is dirty and dangerous, and that police are the enforcers of the largely feminist ideology dictating policies in government, courts, education and employment. Also ignored in the men-run-the-world argument is the fact that women, and not men are the majority of voters putting those mostly male elected officials into office. The most powerful and longest running monarchy in the world also happens to be governed by a queen, and not a king.

Some feminists actually argue that male soldiers who enjoy the “right” to be killed for the benefit of oil company executives and bankers constitute a demonstration of male privilege.

The reality however, is that although mainstream feminism appears to pursue a long term goal of male subjugation, this is actually just a tactic designed by the founders and funders of organized feminism divide men and women, weaken families, and impoverish the public – allowing trans-national corporations and the bankers behind them to rule without any bothersome resistance from an informed populace.

The political philosophy of neo-conservatism influencing the American Democratic and Republican parties was developed by Leo Strauss and can be summarized as the belief that the elite should use deception, religious fervour and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses. Feminism’s mythology of female oppression and practice of male subjugation has no end point, but rather than elevating women, is intended to divide men and women against each other.

Division, distraction and control.

To the banking families who actually rule this planet, you don’t exist. You are not a person, nor do you have rights, or property. You are only your credit score. You are a unit of debt. That is your purpose, and feminism is only one more tool in service of the cementing of this corrupt reality.

This is the end game facilitated by feminism and its unwitting proponents.

The vast majority of the public, including feminists as well as many who chafe in the increasing dystopia facilitated by public reality denial through the media – have no faint grasp of the depth of deception and manipulation they are subject to. And this would be a very bad, nearly hopeless situation, except for one thing.

Fortunately for us, human beings controlled by a poisonous diet of lies are weak. They make bad decisions, and react slowly and poorly to anything which challenges their constructed reality.

This is actually good news for everybody, including feminists, because under the poisonous ideology, they’re also human beings as trapped in a lie as any prisoner in a cell.

Also, the men’s rights movement is winning.

When the scale and financial resource of organized feminism is considered in contrast to the tiny, un-funded, and totally grass-roots nature of the men’s rights movement; the impact of our tiny movement is staggering. We are just finding our feet, and beginning to fight back, and already we have drawn the derision and mockery of the mainstream media.

The truth, spoken by a tiny handful of men and women is having a profound impact on the mainstream established and well financed institutions of organized feminism. The continuing, unbroken narrative of  feminism must be maintained without interruption, because a tiny dose of reality goes a long way. Attacks against the men’s rights movement have only just begun, and we should expect them to grow louder, more frequent, and more hysterical.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. ~ M. Ghandi

Addendum:

MSNBC’s Dylan Rattigan show has done something unexpected, on 18 March 2011 the show has produced a segment partially addressing central banking’s ongoing scam, perpetrated on the public, although the MSNBC hasn’t connected central banking to organized feminism yet. In spite on the incomplete story told through the MSM, this is an encouraging sign that some segment of the public is waking up and paying attention.

The financial crisis which appeared to start in October 2008, and led to the federal government transferring billions of dollars of bank debt onto the public through the bail-outs. This debt was created by allowing and encouraging lenders (banks) to issue bad risk loans, then rather than eat those loans when they failed, package them up and sell them to other financial institutions.

The packages of bad mortgages and loans sold back and forth between banks had value only as long as they remained in the trading game played by bankers, but had no real world value. When the trading game finally collapsed, the rather than letting banks pay the price of issuing bad loads, the debt was shifted to the public. The Bailouts.

Billions of dollars of bankers bad gambling debt, transferred onto you. To the elite few families who control the central banks you are not a human with rights, you’re an ATM machine. You exist to service their debt, and your credit score is your only existence in the “real” world of world leaders.

A more complete discussion of the scam perpetrated on you through the federal reserve and privately created fiat currency will be addressed in an upcoming article.

[1] http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

[2] http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html

[3] http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-status-of-women-funds-a-new-canadian-feminist-movement/

[4] http://www.suite101.com/content/ontario-court-of-appeal-upholds-canadas-infanticide-law-a354869

[5] home.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/communications/wfp232415.pdf

[6] http://www.itwire.com/it-policy-news/regulation/18917-sexy-texting-in-scotland-punishable-by-10-year-prison-term

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/6938961/France-to-criminalise-shouting-at-your-wife.html

[8] http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=112868.0

[9] http://www.womenwantmorethebook.com/press/august3.aspx

[10] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf

[11] http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/

Recommended Content

Skip to toolbar