American sniper is just another Dirty Harry movie - Jesse Ventura

“American sniper is just another Dirty Harry movie” says Jesse Ventura, former Navy SEAL, and pro wrestler. Pun intended towards Clint Eastwood who is the director of the record breaking blockbuster.

His recent victory of the lawsuit he filed against Chris Kyle and HarperCollins has attracted a lot of hate speech from American Sniper fans. Ventura claims that Kyle fabricated a bar fight between them, in which he said he punched out the former Governor. 

“A hero must be honorable, must have honor. And you can't have honor if you're a liar.” Ventura said about the acclaimed sniper, and his Autobiography. No one who worked at the bar can back up the alleged incident.

American sniper is still climbing the box office ratings, having earned more than $200 million so far.

 

The Illuminate and the nature of Money

Follow my youTube channel click here

There are the rich and the poor, and the in-between. There is the elite. The question is how localized or general it is. In other words the owner of Marks & Spencer makes the main decisions for Marks & Spencer. Bill Gates and the Microsoft shareholders control Microsoft. In the government, the president and the senate makes the decisions regarding the government… and so on. So, they are the elite in their respective spheres you could say. But does Marks & Spencer team up with Microsoft to control the government decisions? (Marks & Spencer & Microsoft are simply unfortunate random examples)

We know that big banks and corporations have big say in government. Oil companies and weapon contractors influence government decisions too. Especially when they offer huge ‘bonuses’ to congressmen and presidents for legislating in their favor. There is always speculation as to how far it goes.  How big is BIG? That is the only question.  It seems fair to say that the people with the money control lots of things, but the Illuminate theory goes beyond that. They say that it even goes beyond money.

If it goes beyond money, then what would be the motivation at all? In today’s world we accept that people do things for money or ideals. What would those ideals be?

Here’s a pyramid representing a basic theory of the Illuminate:

This is fair. I think most people can accept that the Rich are in a stronger position than the poor. Out of this point of view many conspiracy theories would make sense too. It’s possible and probable that the rich class do many despicable things to maintain the power and the status quo. 

Beyond that, you start treading in the zone of speculation. It’s entertaining, but it’s probably fiction. And besides, there are so many alternatives to this pyramid. Let’s look at a few:

OK, so we know who’s at the bottom. That’s us!.. But who’s at the top?

1. Introducing the first speculation: The Devil (Satan). This is mainly a Christian concept. The Devil controls the Illuminate. He is the ‘Illumined one’, the ‘Light bringer’. But you really have to believe in the Devil to believe this one.
2.  The free masons control the world. There is a 33^rd level in this organization that controls all facets of society. This sometimes links up with the first one. The devil controls the free masons! (otherwise, what would be their motivation?)
3.    A specific family or ethnic group. The Rothschild’s,  the Jews,  the white people, or the Kennedys or the Bush family. Their motivation?  To get richer and richer and…well, how rich can you really get?
4.  The reptilians: David Icke gets the credit for this amazing idea. Alien reptiles disguised as human beings control all facets of society. What do they want? They eat human beings of course! (What else does a crocodile want to do with a pretty girl?)
5.    The Anunaki control the world. Their motivation is simply to control the world to get people to mine and supply gold for them. They transport this gold to their planet, because they need gold (unlike us, we don’t actually USE gold). Their agenda is simple. Gold.
6. A financial conglomerate mafia, which is a collection of international banks and corporations extending into the oil industry, the military industrial complex etc.   

And that is about it. If there’s global elite, it would be one of these six.

Money controls the world, and there is a control of money supply. But does that mean that there is a global elite that controls the money? I won’t out rule such a possibility, but I’m going to explain what I think is the best option to believe. This option makes sense. It’s not a victim mindset, but one of understanding.

So, why take the route of understanding, when you can just blame it all on someone else?

Let’s start with the idea of the Devil.  The concept of the Devil is an important one, not because it’s true, but because this is a basic belief that flows into many other conspiracies, which may not have the devil as its object,  but something or someone else who gets the same special focus.

Many people believe that this one person is responsible for all the ills in the world. The Devil whispers in your ear to do all the wrong things. We are all victims of his secret cunnings. This is a Christian concept. Yet, forgiveness, and the power of Love, the power that love has to change people – that’s also a Christian concept. What about if people used all that Christian love to change the Devil. 

Haven’t you heard these stories of the reborn Christian’s love that changed the heart of the most satanic Satanist friend around?  Imagine, if the devil could have a change of heart, then all the problems of the world would end, right?

But People won’t consider that option, because it’s convenient for them to have a scapegoat to blame. There’s a peculiar morbid fascination that drives the belief in the Devil. It’s a myth that makes sense on some psychological level. 

Kahlil Gibran wrote a story about a religious leader who discovered an insured man dying next to the road one day. At first the pastor wanted to ignore the man, thinking it could be dangerous to get involved, but then the man whispered “You and I have been friends for a long time…Don’t you recognize me?” The pastor then started getting involved in a conversation with the man, who explained to the pastor who he was.  In a deep voice he confessed   “I am Satan”.

The pastor started cursing the Devil for all the evils he had done to the world. The devil quietly listened, and when the pastor finished his rambling, he was reminded of how the church has built their existence around him, the devil, and if he would die the church and the pastor’s occupation and purpose would disappear.

“Satan, you must live, for if you die and the people know it, their fear of hell will vanish, and they will cease worshipping, for nothing would be sin.”

The story ends with the pastor lifting Satan upon his back and walking toward his home...his lips moving in fervent prayer for the life of the dying Satan.

If the illuminate exists in the same way the Devil myth does, then it would mean that the illuminate gives the victims(the conspiracy theorists) a purpose for their suffering, and an ‘explanation’ for an irrational world.

If you consider many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Illuminate, it inspires a feeling of helplessness and anger, often towards one particular family, for instance the Rothchilds. Alex Jones and his network  for instance have the belief that the people on the top of the pyramid have evil intentions for humanity.

I have no doubt that decisions made by major corporations do have unfortunate consequences on the public. And I have no doubt that there certainly are conspiracies intending to protect the interests of big business.  Oil companies are polluting the world, and probably suppressing superior (unprofitable) technology to ensure their survival.  Weapons companies are in business to support war. Banks enslave people and governments with debt. Governments are serving the interests of the Banks and corporations, before us the people.

All true. 

But that is not the whole truth. To understand the situation better, you would have to want to understand the nature of money. Once you have this understanding, you can reframe the Illuminate concept again as you want, and choose your pyramid again - if you will.

The nature of money:

Most people work for money. But for some people, money works for them. These people are called investors. The more investments you have, the less involved you become with the object of your investment. Let me give an example: 

A friend advises you to invest in the stock market. He suggests a stock, with a ticker symbol XYZ. You buy some stocks, and after a year of investment, you made some money, as the stocks went up. As an investor you are mainly concerned about what the outcome is going to be for you. It’s not that you don’t care about what XYZ does. Your position as an investor is objective. You look at the stock values, the financial statements etc. 

Are you responsible for how XYZ treats its employees? That is a moral question that would be difficult to answer for an expert on ethics, let alone a simple investor.

You own a little piece of a company (stocks). You are supporting their employment, but you are also supporting the management who (possibly) treats their employees badly.

The main shareholders of McDonald's are aware of the fact that their business’ annual revenue is about $27.5 billion, and that they have 1.5 million employees. That’s a huge responsibility.  Do you think they are going to put the public’s health in front of the wellbeing of their business? It’s not that they don’t care about the average McDonalds customer.  Even more so, it’s definitely not that they are trying to poison the public. It’s a matter of priorities and convenience. Changing their priorities could have a drastic effect on the annual revenue. How about 10 000 employees losing their jobs, because of loss of sales? Welcome to the mind of the investor.

I can imagine that many investors know that their investments have bad consequences on some people. They choose to keep supporting it in spite of its offences, not because of it. Why do they choose to keep supporting a venture that could be polluting the environment, or making life difficult for some people? Because it’s profitable for them to do so. They are probably not noble people, but I don’t think they invest out of sadistic pleasure.

I see many large corporations invest back in the community by giving money to charities, building schools and hospitals. Are they trying to soothe their own conscience, or are they trying to deceive the public? The answer depends on how you frame their position in society. If you take the understanding from this article, you would at least consider the possibility of the first option. Alex Jones would say it is the second option (and that is profitable for him).

I know my article isn’t going to change the world. But at least you could be fortunate to see mr Alex Jones running home, with the devil on his back, praying for the life of Dying Satan.

Newtons laws as applied to feminism

Do you believe in Natural Laws? Do you believe that Newton’s third law can be applied to social dynamics? Science does.

Newton’s laws are actually very simple. We see it working all the time. It’s like yin and yang. You can’t separate it from life. Nothing changes by itself, what goes up, must come down. Life adapts.  When you push someone, they will (usually) push you back in a way they perceive as equal (a natural reaction). Well, I adapted his first and third laws a little already.

The first law states that nothing will change, unless there is a third force that is acting upon it. The third law states that every action has a re-action that is opposite in direction and equal in force.

Follow my youTube channel click here

The effects of Newton’s first law can be seen in the Feminist movement. It wouldn’t have been possible for a small group of women to have grown such a giant movement. Especially in the 1970´s. They needed a huge sponsor to infiltrate the media, movies, TV, magazines etc. Here comes the application of Newton’s first law. A third force.

To understand how this happened, you have to know a little about the state of mind of an investor. Investors don’t think in terms of good and bad. They think in terms of what would be profitable for their investment interests or not. Everything in the world of investment is seen in an amoralistic fashion. Also, investors don’t invent ideas. They just sponsor them. So, for example, many people blame certain rich investors for wars and abuses that have taken place in the world, but they (the investors) feel that they didn’t do anything. The people did it. Often investors simply put their money in a symbol, like a stock market ticker. As long as it gives them money, they don’t want to know what it actually does. It’s much like betting on a football match. You make the money if they win, but you didn’t play.

This is the mindset of an investor. This also explains why they don’t seem to feel a sense of guilt for what is happening in the world. 

Apparently feminism was sponsored by some rich investors. It was in their interest to get women into theworkplace. It was also in the interest of the governments, because prior to feminism, only half the population could be taxed. Feminism made the workplace attractive for women.  “Come get a career – prove yourself!” Women could work now, and be taxed too. Women could spend more money now, and be taxed too. And the media kept raising the bar as to what the ideal lifestyle is – and that also encouraged more spending to keep up with that.

“C’mon,  join the progress! Society is advancing! Don’t be left behind!!”

So, this was the financial drive behind feminism. Meanwhile, feminism was a think tank for a new generation of female writers, who were driving the direction of this movement.

The goal of the governments and investors were to get more tax money, and to put the economy on steroids.  What was the goal of the actual feminist movement? You’re assuming that the goal was to get EQUALITY for women. Don’t be so sure. There were different women in the movement, with different goals.  

“Radical feminist theorists do not seek to make gender a bit more flexible, but to eliminate it. Gender can have no place in the egalitarian future that feminism aims to create” - Sheila Jeffreys

 “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” - Marilyn French quotes

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act..." - Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." - Professor Mary Daly, feminist theologian

These are just a few. I think few people were aware of what the goal of some leading feminists were.

Think about what Sheila Jeffreys said. She didn’t say that women should have privileges equal to men. She said that gender would have to be destroyed in order to create her ideal of an equal society. See any parallels with Communism? 

But why destroy gender? That is a very good question, and not easy to understand what exactly she meant. The effects of this can be seen in society. Maybe her intentions were simply idealistic, but the ones who carried out the orders of the movement may not have understood her ideals in the same way. Many understood it simply as, ‘destroy men’.

So, how do you destroy gender anyway? And what did they do to society to accomplish this goal?

We grew up watching TV and reading magazines oblivious of the influence of this. Someone somewhere was writing scripts for movies and sitcoms and adverts, and they were injecting ideas inside that were designed to destroy gender. And they were paid in dollars for it. Did we know that? No! we just watched the Cosby show, Threes company, Cheers, Two and a half men! Yeeeaahi! It’s funny! 

The basic idea of these shows were to demonstrate that the feminist ideal could ‘work’. I did notice though, that in most sitcoms the wife was a professional, or a competent and confident person, while her husband was the stootch who’s only value was to give us something to laugh at. Sometimes the basic theme was acceptable to traditional society, but there were scenarios in every episode that overturned it. We adapted to that over time. If you look back at those old tv shows, none of that will shock or challenge you anymore.

It is the era of post-feminism. What are we left with? For about 40 years, women have been fighting for their rights – and now we can see the results of that. Introducing Newton’s third law. What was the opposite and apposing effect feminism had on society?

The first and foremost opposite or counter effect womens liberation had on the movement itself was that womens lib 'liberated' women's sexuality, and the related industries took of in the last 40 years like never before. Even the softporn industry overemphasizes that aspect - completely counter-blowing the idea of a 'genderless' world. Now women's lib was overfeeding an industry that was based on abusing women, reducing them to mere objects.

Another counter effect the feminist movement had on itself was the ‘TAKE IT LIKE A MAN’ effect. After all, if women and men are equal, why have any special respect for women. The Cleveland bus driver incident is a much discussed video on youTube, where there was a video clip of a fight between a women and a bus driver that went viral. Very few people sympathized with the women, because she was so aggressive, even though the bus driver was a much bigger man, and punched her so hard I thought he was going to kill her.

 Now people have been confronted with a new idea. Well, if men and women are supposed to be the same, then why should it matter if he punched her in the face? A movement that was intended to protect women, now created a culture that offset the protection of women. 

 It seems the movement jinxed itself, in so many ways. So what are we left with? I discussed some counter-effects. But what are some basic effects feminism has had on society?

A comprehensive study was done by the University of Pensilvania that found that women's happiness levels have dropped in the last 40 years. You think feminism had something to do with that?

A lot has been written about gender identity issues, and no doubt feminism contributed to this. People are very conscious of, let me say, alternative gender roles, and the confusion it creates. Society says ‘There’s no difference between men and women’. Yet we know that men and women are not the same. They are not physically the same. They are not psychologically the same.  Hence the confusion. Look chronologically at recent history. Is it a coincidence that gay consciousness movements have sprung up after feminism has had its run for a couple of decades?

The breakup of the family unit is another effect. Sheila Jeffreys' contemporaries anticipated this, but maybe the ordinary girl, hoisting the banners at a womens lib protest didn’t. Maybe some even thought that by challenging gender identity, couples would be happier. But there is a general sense of dissatisfaction in male-female relationships, otherwise why the sorry statistics?

The answer may lie in the concept of gender polarity and masculine and feminine dynamics. Tantric author David Deida says, “Masculine and feminine aspects exist in all beings. For real passion to occur, there needs to be a ravisher and a ravishee...attraction is based on polarity. All natural forces flow between two poles. The North and South Poles of the Earth create a force of magnetism. The positive and negative poles of a battery create an electrical flow. The masculine and feminine poles between people create a flow of energy in motion.” (Secrets of Mind and Reality)

These tantric concepts come from the east – India. These are old concepts. They come from traditional societies. When I say ‘traditional’, I don’t mean USA 1930. I mean India, no later than 5th century AD. 

“The feminine is pure, boundless and infinite energy moving freely without any particular direction. It is directionless but immense, ever changing, beautiful and destructive. The feminine is the force of life and source of inspiration. The feminine moves in all directions, the masculine moves in one direction. The feminine needs the masculine to give it direction, focus and purpose. The masculine needs the energy of the feminine to give it drive and passion. The masculine and the feminine need each other. The masculine directs while the feminine projects. This is the relationship of yin and yang.” (Blog, Evolution of the Male Part I)

These kinds of concepts go against the modern feminist view of men and women. What it says is that both men and women are incomplete in different ways. Attraction is caused because of this incompleteness that identifies the opposite gender as having the qualities you need to be fulfilled. I suspect that by destroying gender, you will also affect this polarity between men and women in a big way.  

Ask five different women the question, ‘What do you think of men these days?’ I doubt they would credit the male species with the quality, ‘man’. The response seems more to be ‘Where are the real men?’

Well, ladies, they are probably nearly extinct, and you can say thank you to feminism for that.

Modern society looks down on traditional concepts and values. But more and more it seems that the answers to modern ills lie somewhere in the traditional ancient manuscripts.

Society is advancing, isn’t it? Or not? The more things change, the more they stay the same?