The concept of ‘heaven and hell’ comes from the Romans into Christianity, although it probably originated from the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians. Christianity completely changed from its birth amongst a breakaway Hebrew sect to being an entirely independent religion adopted by Gentiles (Non-Jewish people and nations) within the Roman Empire. Jesus was breaking away from Jewish Pharisaic control.
Christianity’s further development turned it into the Roman Empire’s official religion although the Romans made some little-noticed changes to the doctrine of Jesus. Jesus taught love and peace but was nailed to a scaffold because he stood up against authority when authority was in the wrong. However, when the Church was codified as the official religion of the Roman empire, this was conveniently adjusted and the objection by Jesus of wrongdoing was downplayed. The Church taught that Jesus died to ‘save our souls’. This was not on the mind of Jesus when he hung by his sinews on two nails. He died because he stood against the mistreatment of the ordinary people in what was effectively an apartheid arrangement by the Pharisees who were enfranchised by the Romans. The ordinary people were treated unfairly by the ruling Pharisee class who colluded with the Roman occupiers. The collusion of the Pharisees with the conquering Romans saved the Romans the effort of controlling the locals. The British Empire, operated by the ruling British Aristocracy, got the locals to govern the locals, which left their conquering armies to play cricket. The Hebrew sect called the Pharisees the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein stated in his book ‘The Pharisees, The Sociological Background of Their Faith’ that: “Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name . . . the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered . . . From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered . . . demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Pharisaism as a religious movement . . .” The JewishVirtualLibrary states: “The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism.” [1] It also states: “The Essenes, emerged out of disgust with the other two. This sect believed the others had corrupted the city and the Temple.” [1] Jesus was either an Essene or aligned with the Essenes or thought like an Essene. Jesus was constantly rebuking the Pharisees:
“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” [John 8:44]
That is classic Jesus. He was not all peaceful and smiling. He was often fire and brimstone. He stood up against those he accused of lying. Never forget that truth is superior to untruth. Do not forget the problems with ‘fake news’ that is on the side of corporations that takes us to war with those who should be friends. I am friends with Muslims, but our faiths are so different that it is better that we live in different countries. I am writing this in Jakarta — a Muslim city — and everyone is exceptionally pleasant. But I would not put a million Hindus here, nor would I put a million Buddhist here, nor would I put a million Africans here, nor would I put a million Middle-Eastern Muslims here. Indonesia is for Indonesians. A few from other places is good for dissemination of knowledge and ideas. But I think it is better to keep that below 0.1% — which is one in one-thousand. When it reaches one or two percent, problems seem to arise. Maybe the groups start to protect themselves from the other group, perhaps they just differ from the other group or perhaps they can be incited to go against each other by a third party on the basis of ‘divide and rule’. Whatever it is, there eventually seems to be problems and splits. It is better not to encourage the situation by purposefully mixing different cultures. They are cultures that developed over many years to live in harmony with the surrounding people and with the environment. Working together works better when persons are like minded in culture.
Old Testament Jewish polygamy (multiple wives.) clashed with Roman monogamy (one wife.) at the time of Jesus. Although, it was probably only the rich that practiced polygamy. The daily prayers of Hebrew males at the time included the line: “Praised be God that he has not created me a woman.” Females were in a vulnerable position under Judaism as it was at that time. A first-century teacher said:
Rabbi Eliezer: “Rather should the word of the Torah be burned than entrusted to a woman.”
As in the Mosque, women were separated from the males in the synagogue. Men were not to greet women in public areas. Women were subject to many limits and restrictions of right. Jesus challenged this and broke the taboos. He spoke with women in public. He refused to treat women as inferior. This makes Mary, his mother, very important as mothers now follow the practice of Jesus and teach their male offspring the practices of Jesus. The mothers of today teach their sons the ways of Jesus. They teach their boys about Jesus as a role model for a ‘good’ man.
Jesus broke with tradition and treated females with respect and dignity. When a synagogue leader chides Jesus for healing a female on the Sabbath day, Jesus emphasizes her dignity by referring to her as: “daughter of Abraham” [Luke 13:16] thereby giving them a spiritual status equal to that of men. Males had been called “son of Abraham”, but girls had never been called: “daughter of Abraham”. Jesus demonstrates that women are of equal value. Jesus sees females as persons rather than simply as the objects of male desire. [2] Jesus also allows women into his ministry which was unheard of in his time. This was at a time when Jewish women were not allowed to learn the Scriptures or leave their houses. On another occasion, he breaks taboo by talking to a foreigner who had the double indignity of being female. The foreign female replies in surprise: “How can you, a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan woman, for a drink?” Local thought was that a woman’s testimony was not trustworthy, yet Jesus is talking to a foreign woman. John questions: “Why are you talking with her?” [John 4:27]. Jesus even treats women in strife with compassion rather than the norm which was to treat them as unclean. Jesus questions: “Do you see this woman?” [Luke 8:44]. Which was a way of telling his followers not to ignore the plight of women in distress. In one example, the scribes and Pharisees try to trap Jesus. They bring before Jesus a woman who has been caught in adultery. [John 8:2 to 11] The Mosaic law required that any woman caught in adultery be stoned to death. They brought with them a ready mob complete with rocks prepared to throw these stones at her until she was dead. She stood there alone and waiting to die. They want to see if Jesus will ignore the laws of Moses. They thought they had Jesus in a ‘no win’ situation. This is the passage from John 8:
but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn, he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now, what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Jesus was the greatest supporter of women’s rights in history. He gave them a status that has only recently been overturned by the trickery of re-branded communism.
When the accusers have departed, Jesus converses compassionately with the stricken woman. She has escaped certain death. He does not gloss over the sin, but suggests a new place of freedom with a fresh image of herself. This is one of my lines: “A sin is a sin. You have to live with your sins and aim for a better self.” Sins cannot be forgiven by the act of a pastor and reciting “Hail Mary” a few times. Start again and be a better person in the future. Be a bit more forgiving to those who do wrong to you. Also be a bit more forgiving in your relationships. We all make mistakes. Minimize the mistakes.
Women were effectively second-class citizens until Jesus corrected the situation. Jesus insisted that there were significant differences between men and women, but he elevated women above men through Mary whilst also subordinating them in a complementary companionship as husband and wife. The marriage becomes a complementary companionship under the teachings of Jesus. Males and females have complementary roles in marriage. It was an interesting arrangement. Men were in control outside of the house, but inside the house, women ruled the roost. Women did not directly rule over men, but women had the upbringing of males in their domain which gave them the opportunity to train the boys that women were to be revered. Mothers teach their sons in very strict terms: “You never hit a girl.” and “Do not answer your mother back.” All males that I talk to carry this strict discipline into the marriage. This is a truly wonderful system for women. This suddenly gave women the power over men without men realizing. It was the beginning of ‘The Secret. They get the men to support them rather than take advantage of them. The status of women had gradually fallen during the ten-thousand-years of civilization to that time. Jesus removed the male influence by forcing men to stay married in a husband-wife relationship. Mothers trained the young males to respect, protect and care for women. The young males were prepared for marriage by pushing them into subservience to a mother. The same tactics are used by a wife to control the husband. The wife keeps the male in emotional limbo as a means of control and sends him out to do whatever work is available. The well-trained male is expected to provide for the wife and family. The mother taught him so. It took some discipline on the wife as well. She could not just refuse sexual relations, but she rationed them. The male felt that he had status in the family as he was deemed to be head of the family. I reality, he got his quiet instructions from his wife. Men tend to be logical and women tend towards emotion. Mothers made sure that males were emotionally dumb, which conveniently allowed women to manipulate them from a position of physical weakness. The small girl controls the big strong horse. The manager controls the boxer. The frail old general with his walking stick commands an army. The little sweet diminutive girl controls the macho man. Mothers encourage the macho bit.
When the women try to control with logic, they put themselves in a dangerous position. When they control by emotion, they win every time. If the woman tries to use logic, an argument is liable to erupt. If the woman uses emotion she wins and makes the relationship stronger. The man enjoys the emotional support. The woman enjoys the physical support. The woman can confuse the man with his own logic. She controls him with an arsenal of feminine tactics. Nineteen-year-old girls wind me around their little fingers on a regular basis. This girl crushed the sixty-six-year-old man and didn’t even realise that she had done it. She only used a flash of the eyelids lasting less than half a second. Being male, I hid all signs of the effect and continued in polite conversation.
Such is the power of the female eyes. You must learn to use them effectively. This is my grandparents. My mother is the tall girl.
What is fascinating about this dynamics is that this put women in a position of influence because they then taught the ways of Jesus to their children which included respect for women.
I was talking to a black-dressed security man at the entrance to a nightclub last night. I asked if his mother had told him: “Never hit a girl.” He replied: “Yes.” How did she enforce that? He indicated with the movement of his hand with a slapping movement. I quizzed whether she had said: “Don’t answer your mother back.” He said: “Yes.” He then told me that one time he did answer her back and he got a slap that he has never forgotten. I quizzed whether he would now answer his mother back and he said: “Never.” He told me that he was terrified of his mother. I asked if he was terrified of his father and he told me that his relationship with his father was different. It was like an adult relationship. They talked man to man. I asked him whether he could hit a girl and he answered: “No way.” I asked the reason and he said: “because my mother told me.” So we have a situation where even the roughest and toughest of males will not hurt a girl because of their mother’s instruction. Three days later, our black dressed security man had a problem with some violent women at the door and he could not handle it and had to call the demure female receptionist to sort it out. This demonstrates the immense influence that Jesus transferred to women. Women control the whole ethos of society by controlling the upbringing of the young males such that young males act as ‘gentlemen’ and look after women. The whole concept of romance is men grovelling to women.
When a male plays-up in a relationship, there is a need to look at the way he was raised. The mother creates the value system for the male. Effectively, the mother sets a contract between males and females. Look after your mother and mother looks after you. This contract becomes nullified if the male has bad experiences with women. So I am hearing things said by males in my daily conversations that shock me. Things that I would never have heard in my youth. The respect for girls is evaporating. It is not the males that have changed. It is the girls that have changed. In a further conversation with our black dressed security man, he said that “if the current generation of girls does not follow this code on their sons, then he is concerned that males in the future may not treat women with the respect that he has.” Thus a male is concerned about the future position of women in society. Out of interest, his wife is a dentist, and he is a doorman. That previous sentence is terribly important. I shall repeat it.
As evidence, I shall cite this report by Naomi Murphy [the lead forensic psychologist at HMP Whitemoor] whilst working with serious violent and sexual offenders. “Fifty-four percent had a history of being sexually abused as children by women... 73% physical abuse, 81% neglect, 64% from ‘broken’ families, 59% parental antipathy. She reminded us that her staff were almost all women in their twenties and thirties. Yet the prisoner-psychologist dynamic was one in which it was the men who were fearful.” In another section: “In 1984 two American researchers, Petrovich and Templer, reported that of a sample of 89 incarcerated (male) rapists, 49 (59%) had been sexually abused as children by one or more women. There is, therefore, a de facto correlation between female sex offences and male sex offending.” Irrespective of the media blasting the anti-male manifesto into the ears of a gullible population, if young boys are incorrectly inculcated into female servitude, they will be problematic to women in future years. Mike Buchanan, Leader of a political party, Justice for Men and Boys, commented: “Perhaps feminists could start teaching women not to sexually abuse boys.” He is an MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) for J4MB but is clearly commenting for a better safety for women. Michael Faraday comments “ [3] Considering those detained at Broadmoor ‘secure hospital’ (asylum for the criminally insane), most of the male ‘patients’ incarcerated for male-on-female rape were, as boys, both sexually molested and physically abused by women.” [3] [Unverified]
Here is a topical boyhood story from South Africa:
Duncan McDermott: “When I was a little boy I was beaten by men and women. Teachers, parents, friends of my parents, parents of other little boys — just about any adult — would beat me or slap me around casually, sometimes raging with fury, other times just kind of happy slapping for Jesus.
Generally, I found the men easier to predict, they didn’t seem so outwardly angry as the women. Women hit less often than men, but, and this is a very big but, men usually beat as a result of women’s insistence. ...
The school I attended from the age of three up to eleven when I went to the all-male high school, were matriarchies. They had only two or three male teachers ... Where I went to school in South Africa, Natal School Regulations forbade the striking of ‘any girl’ in any circumstances. So I was beaten because I was a male, at the insistence of women and often in front of girls. I recall incidents where I was reported by girls for teasing, swearing or loosening my tie ...; they wanted to have me beaten. When sent to the headmistress for a beating I had to return to a mixed gender class full of eyes. The boys were professionally interested to see how I had taken it, dispassion being the ideal, and the girls were — what? ... the gender-beating I sustained at the hands of women, some of them young and pretty, has deeply affected me. ... I’m usually uncomfortable in female company, aware of feelings from the past and battling to prevent their driving my present behaviour. I suspect much of the violent behaviour to women by men is driven by what was done to those men by women when they were small and vulnerable. ... Just wait until your father gets home! ... I just don’t feel safe with women in power any more than I do with men. Women are just as crazy, just as destructive...” [Alice Miller webpage]
This image shows the punishment meted out to any male that hit a woman. The punishment was administered by males on males.
Back to the times of Jesus. Some documents of the family of Babatha, for example, around 100AD show that when Babatha was widowed, she became someone’s second wife. She joined their family as part of the family. [4] There was general unease about polygamy and even in Judaism, it was banned in the eleventh century, although it may have ceased being practiced well before this date.
Jesus supported monogamy as implied in:
Matthew 19:4-6: “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ‘So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’ ”
Similar in:
Mark 10:6-9: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Ephesians in the New Testament says similar. There was certainly a taboo concerning the marrying of close relations. Christianity was extremely strict on this, however, the kings and queens of Europe suffered for failing to observe this convention. Incest is the term for sex between close relatives. Incestuous marriage refers to marriage between persons ‘of the same blood’, meaning that they descend from a common close ancestor. It is subject to definition but is usually considered to at least include first cousins. It is not a human rule that should be messed with. Biology calls it “Inbreeding” which causes a significant increase in the occurrence of genetic disorders.
The Muslim faith suffers somewhat from this issue. Biologically, it is most inappropriate to cohabit with a close relation. Humans created a society where incest was abhorrent for very good reasons. There is widespread practice of Muslim inbreeding caused by commonplace cousin marriage which leads to a high incidence of birth defects and social ills. Anybody commenting is classed as an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.” Large-scale inbreeding has been taking place amongst Muslim communities for 1400 years since Mohamed allowed cousin marriage. This cousin marriage was seen as a way of keeping wealth within the family. Reports suggest that seventy percent of Pakistanis are inbred and the figure in Turkey is around twenty-five percent. [5] In Britain, the BBC reported that at least fifty-five percent of the British Pakistani community was married to a first cousin. They also reported that British Pakistanis comprised less than four percent of births in Britain but that they accounted for thirty percent of children with recessive disorders. Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, reports that close to half of all Muslims are inbred:
Nicolai Sennels suggests that this massive inbreeding in Muslim communities may well have done irreversible damage to the gene pool which includes damage to sanity, intelligence, and health. The effect of the Left’s control of the boundaries of debate is that any discussion about such issues causes an individual to be called an “Islamophobe” and a “racist.”
Name calling is a good way to get wise persons to self-censor. Persons of European origin are particularly hard hit by this type of self-censorship. New anti-western terms crop up every now and then: ‘White privilege.’ I don’t know about you, but I worked very hard for everything I have and I have never been on welfare.
Muslim guidance on divorce is worthy of respect. Strict marriage rules were incorporated into the rules of society. Religions were the custodians of moral leadership and maintained the rules that maintained civilisation. We have a lot of tradition behind the relationship between women and man. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is very dangerous to mess with the definition of marriage. This includes the nullification of marriage which is called divorce. Currently, the nation-state is trying to usurp the role of the Church as the gatekeeper of morals and is failing in the worst ways possible. This gives the nation-state the opportunity to denounce the permanence of marriage, destroy Christianity with its value system, purposefully transform the role of the mother as a nurturer of offspring into a useful item in an office, and remove children to government-approved care centres replete with religion-free state and corporate indoctrination.
In Noah’s Arc, the animals went in two by two, male and female as an example of male-female union as a unit for the purpose of procreation:
“They entered the boat in pairs, male and female, just as God had commanded Noah.” [Genesis 7:9]
Jesus elevated women more than any force in history. He recognized that the woman had rights as well as the man. When the apostles heard Jesus on this subject, they queried, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” [Matthew 19:10]. They are asking him: “If you can’t divorce the woman if she goes bad, why would any male enter a marriage with a woman?” Thus, if a man cannot divorce his wife for just any reason, his responsibilities are clear. The wife cannot be discarded at the man’s whim even if she displeases him. The marriage is “for better or for worse.” The woman has a permanent place at the husband’s side. Jesus was the great power of women. Although he taught that women should submit to their husbands, the reverse is what happened in practice. This was part of ‘The Secret’. Man is told he is in charge, but in practice, the woman controls the man without him losing respect. Man will provide all needs for the women and the offspring. This was way better than the arrangement under the Old Testament with the harsh rules of Moses. Clearly, this was not going to work if the woman took advantage of the arrangement. It was expected that man support the wife. In other words, he had to work and bring home the bacon for his whole life. Jesus took the one-sided arrangements that had arrived with the invention of agriculture and put balance, security, and happiness back into matrimonial relations. This was a milestone in matrimonial relations and the general relationship between females and males. Jesus was a milestone in the history of civilisation. Even Islam holds Jesus as a Prophet, a good prophet at that. They just disagree that he is the son of God and they believe that the authorities nailed the wrong bloke to the scaffold. Jesus escaped and a random stranger was nailed to the cross.
The disciples analyzed the discomforts of marriage under the conditions which Jesus had dictated, and came to the conclusion that the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. Why would a male entangle himself in a marriage that they were no longer able to terminate, when they got tired of the marriage? Joseph Benson (1749—1821), an early English Methodist minister makes this noteworthy comment:
“If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.”
And thus, under Christianity, males want to marry ‘good girls’, for to do otherwise he, in the words of Joseph Benson: “may make him miserable all the rest of his days.” Men had to behave. Women had to behave. Matthew Henry (1708—1710) comments about law cases concerning divorce:
“Cases about marriage have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice.”
In other words, the life of women, before the teachings of Jesus, were subject to the vagaries of the whims of men. Matthew Henry continues:
“When the gospel is really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace and happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society. And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with great seriousness and earnest prayer.”
Under the teaching of Jesus, men look after society as a whole, including women. The teaching of Christ is embodied in the value system imparted to boys by their mothers. I have puzzled that the real Christianity is that taught by mothers to their offspring. Fathers reinforce the teachings of the mother as they were also taught by their mother. I ask many men where their respect for women came from and they always answer: “My mother.” I ask: “Did she say: ‘You never hit girls’.” with an emphasis on hit. They always say: “Yes”. I ask how did she reinforce that? They reply with an indication of a whack with the back of the hand. I also ask: “Did your mother say: ‘Don’t answer your mother back’?” The answer is always: “Yes”. So the teachings of Christ live on through the teachings of mothers to their sons. They teach their children about the kind ways of Jesus such that males might emulate the nature of Jesus. The Church is another issue. The Church sometimes goes astray or gets hijacked but the words of Jesus live on in the teachings of mothers to their sons. So, although it may seem that men are running the show in society, they are completely guided by the teachings of their mother. The male defers to the female because he was taught that when he was a very small youngster. The husband is controlled in the same manner as the mother controls the son. The husband very quickly learns not to argue with his wife. He won’t win. You hear men say: “She who must be obeyed!” They are referring to their wives. For this to work, the wife must not push her luck too far. “She who must be obeyed!” has earned an Acronym ‘SWMBO’. Usually pronounced “swim-bo”. Urban Dictionary has a usage sentence: “Oh man, you better make sure you do what SWMBO says or else you’ll be sleeping alone for a while!” This suggests that it is common for females to ban sex for minor disobedience. For big disobedience, the male got the treatment of a disobedient slave:
Only the unskilled woman does not get her slave to do exactly what she wants. She controls him with every trick in the book. Women are brilliant at getting things done — they get men to do it for them! Women are so good at it that men think it was their idea. Women are staggeringly effective at getting men to do as they want. Andrea, in the seat next to me on the plane from Singapore to Perth, was traveling with her husband and three children. She gave a wry smile as she described it as: “reverse psychology”. She uses “reverse psychology” on her husband to get what she needs for her family.
The complete operation of Western society relies on the teachings of mothers that females are to be respected and cared for. This makes Jesus the greatest influence on the life of humans. He gave females the power to control society by proxy through the teaching of the young. By teaching young boys that they must run society for the benefit of women, women control the society by proxy. The young London male in the hostel today was on the phone to his mother this morning saying: “Yes mother” and “Yes mother” and “Yes mother”. I, myself, find it impossible to break the rules impressed on me by my mother. It is where this statement comes from:
Although this statement was made as none too friendly jibe, it is actually the system set up by Jesus. The women completely control the ethos of society through the upbringing of their sons, and males go out and run everything for the benefit of women. The women are so skilled at this that the men do not realize that they are being controlled. Women wield this power very carefully to ensure that it does not backfire. If they completely ban sex, it backfires. If they push too hard, it backfires. If they give direct orders, it backfires. If they play logic to a man’s logic, it backfires. Women say: “Wouldn’t it be nice to go to Bali for a holiday.” and the man has a look at the bank balance, decides to take an extra work shift on Saturday, and, at dinner, he says in a commanding voice: “We’re going to Bali for a holiday.” The children say: “Oh thank you! Daddy.” The woman says: “Do you think those trees are getting a bit overgrown?” and the man says: “The trees are overgrown. I shall be trimming them this weekend.” But if she says: “You’re trimming the trees this weekend.” The trees will not be trimmed until next year and even then he might resist. Women accomplish goals by manipulating men into doing what they need the men to do. This is a fascinating quote by:
Albert Einstein: “When we first got married, we made a pact. It was this: In our life together, it was decided I would make all of the big decisions and my wife would make all of the little decisions. For fifty years, we have held true to that agreement. I believe that is the reason for the success in our marriage. However, the strange thing is that in fifty years, there hasn’t been one big decision.”
Here is another quip:
Ogden Nash: “I have an idea that the phrase ‘weaker sex’ was coined by some woman to disarm the man she was preparing to overwhelm.”
And, as I proofread this chapter in a Prague airport café, I just got the girly look out of the waitress as she turned away. It seems a very neat time to give the girly look. It leaves us males in a mental quandary as to what she was thinking. It seems to have a little bob, whilst the eyes stay in contact as she turns with an inviting smile as she turns away. Two contradicting messages at one time. Turning away and an inviting smile and walking with a healthy bounce. They make my day when they do such things. The male mind cannot work these things out. Now, another quip by a person called:
Anonymous: “A woman has the last word in any argument. Anything a man says after that is the beginning of a new argument.”
This actress got it nearly right:
Farrah Fawcett: “God made man stronger but not necessarily more intelligent. He gave women intuition and femininity. And, used properly, that combination easily jumbles the brain of any man I’ve ever met.”
Women control men using intuition and femininity. Women play femininity to man’s logic. Females can confuse males with their own logic. Woman wins, but without man losing.
Daniel Wallace: “Women are more interested in controlling men’s consciousness, whereas men are satisfied with the control over women’s body.”
I shouldn’t avoid this one from comedienne:
George Burns: “There will always be a battle between the sexes because men and women want different things. Men want women and women want men.”
The control procedures are interesting. This next quote was written way back in the 1800s and is particularly illuminating:
Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch 1836 to 1895: “Man is the one who desires, woman the one who is desired. This is woman’s entire but decisive advantage. Through man’s passions, nature has given man into woman’s hands, and the woman who does not know how to make him her subject, her slave, her toy, and how to betray him with a smile, in the end, is not wise.”
Leopold was a rare man indeed. He was one of few men that understood ‘The Secret’. Thankfully, men tend to think that type of quip is a bit of a joke. Man desires woman, thus woman has the advantage. Nature thus puts man into the influence of woman. Any woman that does not know how to make the man into her subject, slave or toy is lacking in skill. — She is a woman that does not know ‘The Secret’. Leopold says: “betray him with a smile”. I teach girls that the smile is the best weapon against a male. He melts almost without fail. Thus I say that the smile is our primary means of communication.
‘The Secret’ is the mechanism by which women control men from a position of physical weakness. As an exercise in fun, when I meet a girl, I try to show a position of weakness whilst also showing a position of strength. I show that I am strong as a male but that I am happy to play weak to girly tactics. This is not physical strength but a hidden strength that comprises a strength of character, a strength of person, an emotional flexibility that is all the non-verbal components of the communication. The non-verbal includes your every (sweeping) move, to the stance, to the nods that indicate respect, to the inviting smiles. It should be used in every human transaction. It is much more than the way you say a hearty good morning. I demonstrated to the waitress that I enjoyed her service even though she stumbled through the procedure as a novice.
Women will always be involved with childrearing. If the women cease to have children, that segment of society disappears within a generation or two and is replaced by a segment of the society where the culture encourages women to reproduce. To create a culture were the women cease to breed is but temporary as they are soon replaced by a more realistic culture. Thus feminists in Christian nations will be replaced in a few generations. Better then that the women push the burden of provision entirely onto males so that they have little else but to enjoy their families whilst the males work to provide money for the females to spend. Even in a so-called patriarchal country, the city of Marrakesh in Morocco, I estimated that nearly ninety percent of the shops were orientated towards women. Attempts to change this, push women into self-support where they join the workforce and still look after a household. The only way to make males useful to civilization is to have them working to support a family, the reward being access to the honeypot. Where men are not kept busy servicing females, the men become troublesome. The male incarceration rate will rise as women take a higher portion of the jobs. Here are some quotes that I have cherry-picked from a tedious book with some beautiful thought-provoking lines by:
Camille Paglia (born 1947): “Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It’s an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. That’s what the strip clubs are about; not woman as victim, not woman as slave, but woman as goddess.” [6]
Men are controlled by women. Initially by a mother and then by a wife. Men’s desire for pussy, enables woman’s control of males.
Camille Paglia (born 1947): “Every man harbors an inner female territory ruled by his mother, from whom he can never entirely break free.” [6]
Mothers create an everlasting control system to ensure that males respond to the wishes of women. Men operate their whole lives for the benefit of women.
Camille Paglia (born 1947): “The male has to will his sexual authority before the woman who is a shadow of his mother and of all women. Failure and humiliation constantly wait in the wings. No woman has to prove herself a woman in the grim way a man has to prove himself a man. He must perform, or the show does not go on.” [6]
Males have to play their sexual games before women in the school of hard knocks. Failure is failure.
Camille Paglia (born 1947): “Women have conceptualized less in history not because men have kept them from doing so but because women do not need to conceptualize in order to exist.” [6]
Women do not need to be inventive because men did it for them. Men did everything for the benefit of women.
What Jesus set up prevented males from taking the upper hand. By making marriage a lifelong commitment, it forced people to create harmonious partnerships. It put women in the position of strongest influence. Men had their hierarchy in society. Men went out and did most of the work, but they were conditioned to treat women with the utmost respect. Male governance put no requirement on women to join the army nor join the workforce. It was the females that conditioned the males at the most impressionable age — when they were very small. Young males came under direct female control during their most impressionable age. The mothers taught the boys that they were to find a good girl and marry her and go and work for his whole life to support the girl and her family. Our problem at present is that illogical logic is being used to damage this hierarchy. Illogic is being used to damage male standing in the society. Males are beginning to reject what their mothers were previously teaching them. Some mothers are teaching their boys that women can do everything — that women can be the breadwinners. The boys then become lazy or troublesome. They start to believe that they have no role. They shun girls and play computer games and turn to porn. If you put the word ‘porn’ into a search engine, you will find that the female participants are almost entirely from this demographic. They are almost entirely Western white Christian girls. Porn depicts girls as being subservient to males. Girls service males and offer every orifice for male satisfaction. The male actors say: “roll over.” and she does. He says: “open your mouth” and she does. Every orifice is available on voice command. Males give explicit instructions to females. The female use of “No” disappears. She does as she is told. This is an entire reversal of the gender relations that have been in place for two-thousand years. For some reason, porn is free. Why is something so powerful released free of charge? One can be in serious trouble for downloading a copy of a popular song but not so for a porn movie. The answer came to me whilst have a searching conversation with an outspoken Muslim mother in Amman, Jordan. This pornography has altered gender politics. I took a strong, no holds barred, conversation with a Muslim mother to get me to see the damage done to males, girl, and society by pornography. As girls, pornography is one of your number one enemies.