Oxford University

Puppets & Players IV: The Round Table Group / Movement

“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.”

— Cecil Rhodes


The British Empire is the most recent expression of pathocratic rule to grace the shores of unsuspecting nations. Almost 90 percent of the globe had been invaded by Victorian stiff upper lips with only 22 countries ever escaping the glorious injection of Christian missionary and military zeal. [1]One individual who was the epitome of strong-arm, British imperialism was Cecil Rhodes. Though the inception of a distinctly British version of a World State extends far back into time we will take up the narrative as Rhodes made his way to South Africa in the year 1870, aged 17 years-old.

Born from a poor but religious family, the story goes that he was sent there to improve his health and to extend business interests with his brother Herbert, based in Natal as a planter on a cotton farm. By 1871, they had made a claim in the Kimberley diamond fields and rapidly amassed a fortune. After only a few years he returned to England and entered Oriel College, Oxford. Though his recurring ill-health is often sourced as the reason it is difficult to imagine how it was possible for a seventeen year-old from a poor family in Hertfordshire could return in just a few years with a fortune and be able to travel as he pleased between Africa and Oxford without completing his degree for almost ten years! The most probable reason for his rapid success and freedom from the normal constraints of Oxford students is that he had been selected by Nathaniel Rothschild to act as agent and facilitator for his African conquest. No doubt Rothschild recognised a kindred spirit in the young, ambitious Rhodes and decided that not only was he on the same page, he would be a very useful political and ideological asset.

In 1888, with the backing of N. M. Rothschild and Sons, Rhodes, at just 24 years-old bought out all rival mining companies in the Kimberley region. He quickly became a most powerful man, entering the Cape House of Assembly as member for Barkly and eventually taking office in the Cape Ministry. The mining industry was under his complete control eventually growing into De Beers Consolidated Mines. By 1890, he had become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony with enormous leverage over the Cape economy as a whole. [2]

22518586

John Ruskin

John Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford and a major player in the rise of the Romantic Movement. He was an architect, philosopher and talented artist who also preached the doctrine of collectivism and elite rule, partly due to the influences inherent in his upper-middle class background and British Empire traditions. Ruskin was sincere in his beliefs and was one of the first true philanthropists of his age, giving away much of his wealth to the poor. His mix of art and elitism was extremely appealing to the Establishment who felt their elevated status and access to education and riches gave them a moral obligation to manage the masses. The rise of Marxism was entirely compatible with persons such as Ruskin as it combined the uplifting of the poor with the collectivist future for the world.

Rhodes was greatly influenced by John Ruskin’s romantic, imperialist philosophy while at Oxford, though Ruskin’s somewhat benevolent colouring was lost in Rhodes’ fanatical racism and belief in the British as the New Olympians. His unfailing confidence in the supremacy of the British Empire reflected his own dedication to white supremacy and the promise of an Anglo-Saxon Global Empire. He became the dominant colonist in expanding British territory, securing the charter for the British South Africa Company which was heavily involved with the slave trade. He made sure that Bechuanaland remained in British possession instead of falling to the Boers; developing the vast areas of land north and south of the Zambezi. The monopoly exerted by Rhodes over the diamond and gold mining industry was already creating tensions in the region most particularly between the Boers and the indigenous populations, the latter seen as less than human by both sides which meant that massacres were frequent and brutal.

The Transvaal region of South Africa was beset by prospectors looking to strike it rich. Kings College, Oxford educated, High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony Lord Alfred Milner was to prove vital to Rhodes’ and therefore, the Rothschild’s expanding ambitions. Like Rhodes, he was a great believer in British supremacy though less bullish insofar as his role as enforcer had a semblance of constructive diplomacy should it prove to be the only option. Rhodes, Milner and the overshadowing Rothschilds safely tucked up in London vowed to dominate the region by every possible means.

clip_image002clip_image004

Lord Alfred Milner and Cecil Rhodes

Biographer John Flint unearthed the original will of Cecil Rhodes made in June 2 1877 in his own handwriting entitled “Confession of Faith.” Considering the astounding influence this man had on his world and what he set in motion after his death it may be helpful for the reader to step inside Rhodes’ mind more fully and thus understand why he seems to have been used as  a Rothschild agent keen to establish their leverage via the British Empire. Without using British influence in the Middle East the creation of the State of Israel at this juncture would never have happened. The Rhodes document is a platform for extolling the virtues of a master race, systematic genocide, racism; a distinctly British colonialism and the creation of control via a new secret society:

It often strikes a man to enquire what is the chief goal in life; to one the thought comes that it is a happy marriage, to another great wealth, and as each seizes on his idea, for that he more or less works for the rest of his existence. To myself thinking over the same question the wish came to render myself useful to my country. I then asked myself how could I and after reviewing the various methods I have felt that at the present day we are rhodesactually limiting our children and perhaps bringing into the world half the human beings we might owing to the lack of country for them to inhabit that if we had retained America there would at this moment be millions more of English living. I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race.

Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives. I contend that every acre added to our territory means in the future birth to some more of the English race who otherwise would not be brought into existence. […] In the present day I became a member of the Masonic order I see the wealth and power they possess the influence they hold and I think over their ceremonies and I wonder that a large body of men can devote themselves to what at times appear the most ridiculous and absurd rites without an object and without an end. […]

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire. […] 

… think of those countless 1000’s of Englishmen that during the last 100 years would have crossed the Atlantic and settled and populated the United States. Would they have not made without any prejudice a finer country of it than the low class Irish and German emigrants? All this we have lost and that country loses owing to whom? Owing to two or three ignorant pig-headed statesmen of the last century, at their door lies the blame. Do you ever feel mad? Do you ever feel murderous. I think I do with those men. I bring facts to prove my assertions. Does an English father when his sons wish to emigrate ever think of suggesting emigration under another flag, never – it would seem a disgrace to suggest such a thing I think that we all think that poverty is better under our own flag rather than wealth under a foreign one. Fancy Australia discovered and colonised under the French flag, what would it mean merely several millions of English unborn that at present exist we learn from the past and to form our future. We learn through having lost to cling to what we possess. We know the size of the world we know the total extent. Africa is still lying ready for us it is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race more of the best the most human, most honourable race the world possesses. […]

To forward such a scheme what a splendid help a secret society would be a society not openly acknowledged but who would work in secret for such an object. […]

Let us form the same kind of society a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed. […] (In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe…) [3]

In 1891, fuelled by Rothschild funding and his Oxford-based intellectual elite, Rhode’s plans began to take shape. The Round Table and later the Council on Foreign Relations would be the culmination of just such a “secret society” incorporating all of the above principles, differing only in their euphemistic representation, being soft on the ear and easy on the eye, appealing to high society civility and champagne smiles. With well-known journalist William T. Stead and Reginald Baliol Brett, known as Lord Esher, friend of Queen Victoria, and eventual advisor to King Edward VII and King George V, Rhodes formed the membership of what would soon grow into an international organisation. In Professor Carroll Quigley’s second book The Anglo-American Establishment he tells us the plan for such an organization was to act as an inner circle: “… to be known as ‘The Society of the Elect’, and an outer circle, to be known as ‘The Association of Helpers.’ Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Lord Alfred Milner.” [4]

carhodes

“French cartoon depicting Cecil John Rhodes with a bottle of champagne while the Transvaal burns” Source: http://angloboer.com/

However, by 1895, Cecil Rhodes suffered a setback. Large scale operations were carried out in the Transvaal in an attempt to quash insurgent attacks by increasingly hostile Afrikaans who wanted to oust British rule and monopolise the gold. The Jameson Raid was one of the bloodiest disasters for the British colonial designs and forced Rhodes to resign as Prime Minister of the Cape. By 1899, largely due to Milner’s intransigence and belief in British imperialism as the only way to proceed, war between the British and the Boers broke out in 1899, with the annexation of the two Boer states in 1901 and then claimed by the British Empire.

Milner was assigned the administration of the two states which meant he had to rescind the governorship of the Cape Colony, while still retaining the post of high commissioner. During the war concentration camps incarcerating over 27,000 Boer women and children were created with some records reporting more than 14,000 black South Africans died while imprisoned in the camps. [5]Though Milner privately expressed his opposition to the camps he did very little to prevent or to restrict the atrocities inflicted by Lord Kitchener on his departure from the Cape to the Transvaal. It was to be the imperialistic pioneering personalities of Rhodes and Milner who would form the nexus of a British Elite formed in South Africa based on the same Synarchist and supremacist beliefs bubbling away in the crème de la crème of upper class English society.

he remit was to not only spread British Rule throughout Africa but to lay the foundation for a wider global domination just as the British Empire itself was weakening. It was to be called the Imperial Federation of the British Empire. Members included: Lionel Hitchens, J. F. Perry, Robert H. Brand, Geoffrey Dawson, Philip Kerr, Leo Amery, and Lionel Curtis. By 1910 Milner, Cecil Rhodes, and Lionel Curtis had formed the European Round Table Group drawn from the mythology of the Knights of the Round Table and the search for the Holy Grail – Rhodes’ own romantic vision of a strictly British birth right. Lionel Curtis, as so many of his colleagues, also believed in the superiority of a white, Aryan race, harbouring the dream of a one world government that would oversee a New World Order run by an initiated Elite – another variant of the same old Synarchist beliefs.

Nathaniel Rothschild’s financial support was behind the existence of the Round Table through the auspices of his agents such as Rhodes and Milner but there is no evidence to confirm a direct link. For most members Rothschilds’ financial influence was likely immaterial since the momentum of power was extending into multiple avenues of interest for all. Psychopaths were cultivating their clustering abilities once again. Indeed, Rhodes was in it for power and white supremacy, Milner for a “natural” British imperialism and Curtis for a British global theocracy. Much like the degrees of difference that exist in the power brokers of today, the primary directives of world domination encompass all members.

Though Rhodes died before the Round Table was created he left considerable amounts of money in his will for the establishment of a secret society whose purpose was to establish British rule throughout the world. As caretaker of the Rhodes fortune, Milner brought this wish to fruition. Rhodes also set up scholarships at Oxford University so that carefully selected candidates could continue the work of British interests and his visions of a dominant, Anglo-Saxon race. Soon after its formation, the Round Table Publication was produced as an anonymous quarterly magazine containing several reports (or propaganda) that helped to found other Round Table groups all over the world. The first issue of The Round Table was largely written by Philip Kerr and appeared in November 1910. By 1914, the Round Table network was expanded in every dominion of the British Empire the role having been taken on with relish by Lionel Curtis. He would later go on to form the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) (or Chatham House) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) acting as a front for both, with a large share of the influence afforded to the corporate giant of J.P Morgan. Once again, Rothschild interests were also lurking in the background with all three making sure their power was at the forefront of operations.

The industrialist John Pierpont Morgan who financed much of the American Elite had originally begun his meteoric rise from London through Rothschild’s Peabody and Company and his own Grenfell Morgan & Co. It was at the Paris Peace Conference that Milner and Morgan’s Wall St. connections and legal acolytes would mingle and join forces.

In 1912, Woodrow Wilson had discussions with those in the American Democrat party organized by international banker Bernard Baruch. The Great War was essential to the plans of not only the Anglo-American establishment but the future of Zionism. The Zionists had an important stake in making sure the United States entered the war. While the Rothschild supported American Industrialists the Rockfellers and J.P Morgan were salivating at the chance to wrest financial control from the American people, the Round Table Group and the Zionists were striking a deal. Bernard Baruch, Louis Brandeis, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, and Colonel Edward Mandell (a Round Table agent and Wilson advisor) were all working on President Wilson so that he had nowhere to turn but toward Elite designs. The German people were further demonised while a false flag attack of the Lusitania “incident” was ushered in to turn the tide of public opinion. The same old pretext of “making the world safe for democracy” was used.

paul warburg-j-schiffZionist Industrialists Paul Warburg (left) and Jacob Schiff

Author Dr. Albert D. Pastore explains Round Table and Zionist wheeling and dealing so that the United States would enter the war by 1916:

The British government and the Zionist leaders struck a dirty deal. The Zionists were led by Chaim Weizmann, the man who one day become the first President of the State of Israel. The idea was for the Zionists to use their influence to drag the mighty USA into the war on Britain’s side, so that Germany and it’s Ottoman allies could be crushed. In exchange for helping to bring the USA into the war, the British would reward the Zionists by taking over Palestine from the conquered Ottomans after the war was over. The British had originally wanted to give the Zionists a Jewish homeland in an African territory. But the Zionists were fixated on claiming Palestine as their land. Once under British control, the Jews of Europe would be allowed to immigrate to Palestine in great numbers. […] it wasn’t long before the German, Austrian, and Ottoman Empires were defeated and their maps rewritten by the victorious powers at the infamous Treaty of Versailles in 1918. In addition to the numerous Zionist bankers who were influencing Versailles, the Zionists also had their own delegation which was headed by Chaim Weizmann.Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in November 1917, the same month that Germany surrendered. But it had actually been prepared 20 months earlier in March 1916 with Weizmann’s influence. 13 The Declaration allowed mass Jewish immigration to conquered Palestine while promising to preserve Arab rights. The Arabs living in Palestine weren’t buying these promises. They protested, but there was nothing that they could do to stop the coming wave of Jewish immigration. This was the first step in creating what was to later become the state of Israel 20 years later. [6]

Everyone had something to gain from the puppetry of Wilson. He was inducted into the designs of the global governance crew and in return he was asked to give backing to the Federal Reserve and income tax, and anyone in the future cabinet. They also cautioned that if they managed to place Wilson in power then it would be wise to follow their guidance should there be a war in Europe, a war that many emerging corporatists like the Rockefellers, Harrimans and the Bush family were busy trying to support. He was offered a front seat on the gravy train and the power and status it offered.

Woodrow Wilson’s intelligence, socialist ideals and religiously tinged self-importance followed a very similar road to power as Fabian member Tony Blair. Wilson presided over 2 million deaths of young men for a road-map of geopolitical re-configuration and greed by several large weapons companies, while Blair oversaw and helped to ensure the invasion of Iraq as a key phase in a larger Middle Eastern push to secure resources, along with the construction and maintenance of Anglo-American network of oil pipelines. He also had a direct part in the deaths of over 1.5 million Iraqis based on the same impeachable religious self-belief despite all the evidence that the invasion had nothing to do with peace and democracy. Unlike Blair, Wilson later expressed dismay at how easily he had been duped.

tonyblair3-horz

Tony Blair (left) and Woodrow Wilson (right)

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson was elected President beating incumbent William Howard Taft, who had been against the imposition is of a central bank. As money and lobbying always determines the candidates in most elections, industrialist J.P. Morgan on the advice of Rothschild and Round Table members injected huge quantities of cash into Theodore Roosevelt’s Progressive Party thereby fracturing the Republican vote and placing the unknown Wilson in pole position. After constant pressure for a central bank had been plaguing Congressman for several years, the dream for the industrialists and the demise of democracy was set in motion.

In the same year the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists … acting together to enslave the world … Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is — the Fed has usurped the government.” [7]There was nothing “Federal” about the bank. As it was then, it has remained so up to the present: a private company owned by a consortium of international bankers not subject to presidential congressional oversight, nor any auditing procedures. It gives international banking exactly what it wants – control of the domestic and international markets with speculative and insider knowledge atop a deregulated financial architecture that benefits the few at great expense to the majority.

In the last year of the First World War, a new idea had taken root for an antidote against such destruction. At least that was the propaganda that everyone was eager to believe. During the Paris Peace Conference of 1918 the floatation of a League of Nations was introduced. It was to be an international organization that would settle disputes between nations by using a raft of laws, treaties, and agreements, as opposed to war.

President Wilson’s post-World War I, 14-point plan for peace underscored this new internationalism and “A general association of nations.” In the fourteenth point of the plan it reads: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” [8] In fact, it was British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey and the president’s private, non-elected, right-hand man Colonel Mandall House who “advised” Wilson to put forward the idea of the League instructed by the Round Table. Wilson’s well-intentioned League of Nations Commission of Mandates soon followed which was designed to brainstorm solutions to the problems of the world and was to be headed by Colonel House and Cecil Rhodes’ friend Lord Milner. Having already established a network of politically-minded, mostly socialist intellectuals, Milner’s helmsman ship was to prove incisive in the expansion of the Round Table and connected groups.

The League of Nations was the result of a design by Mandell House and Milner both of whom were “socialists” and dedicated to inaugurating a Fabian-led version of world government. Harvard Law graduate, Jerome D. Greene was secretary to the Reparations Commission at the Paris Peace Conference. He was general manager of the Rockefeller Institute from 1910-1912 going on to become a trustee to the Rockefeller Institute, the Rockefeller foundation, and to the Rockefeller General Education Board until 1939. He was also part of Milner and historian Arnold Toynbee’s Oxford intellectual set and well=placed to act as a co-founder of the Council on Foreign Relations which was up and running as the American branch of the Round Table in New York on July 29, 1921. Founding members included Colonel Mandell House, and big names in international banking and commerce such as: J.P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Otto Kahn, and Jacob Schiff who had all been involved in the establishment of the Federal Reserve System and a fiat currency. So, when the Paris Peace Conference arrived with their specially placed puppet Woodrow Wilson, Morgan and Rockefeller saw their opportunity to introduce their vision of global governance under the cover of Wilson’s peace plan.

Despite those carefully laid plans the US Senate with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge leading the charge rejected Wilson’s 14 Point Plan, primarily due to the restrictions and limitations on Americans’ way of life that would eventuate if the plan was allowed to go ahead. The Senators were not about let a socialist vision of a one world government riding on the fake idealism of internationalism destroy the idea of national sovereignty. On March 8, 1920 ratification in the membership of the League of Nations was rejected. Although the icing on the cake did not happen the idea of a League of Nations had been firmly planted in the minds of many, even if they had no awareness of its real intent. After the war many were looking for solutions so that such an appalling loss of life would never happen again. With the spirit broken in humanity it was easy to implement seemingly benign institutions that fed into that hope.

In 1913, just prior to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act President Woodrow Wilson published his book The New Freedom in which he declared that since he had entered politics his private discussions between his friends and fellow members of government had revealed what might be called a shadow government working behind the scenes: “Some of the biggest men in the U. S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” [9]Ironically, President Franklin Roosevelt was to reiterate the same point in a letter to none other than arch-insider and Wilson’s close advisor Col. Edward Mandell on November 21, 1933 where he stated: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson …” [10] A network now existed by which a slow but steady march towards world government could take place. Their future seemed assured in that many other international organisations could be overlaid onto the international infrastructure of Round Table Groups.

roundtable-logo-horz

(left) Logo of The Round Table Movement as it is today apparently acting as no more than a cover for operations long since been submerged into the Anglo-American Liberal Establishment. (right) Logo of Chatham House aka The Royal Institute for International Affairs.

With the aftermath of the Second World War a new push to establish a further system of organisations and institutions from which yet another important phase of a New Order could come into being. Professor Carroll Quigley reminds us that the Round Table’s vision was to: “… create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole … controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.” As we can see today, the organisations and groups responsible for this ideology are as determined as they ever were. With the Rothschilds and other dominators sitting on their thrones at the nexus of all these groups we can best re-visit and summarise their methods to shape the world by returning to Carroll Quigley’s observations from his book: The Anglo-American Establishment (1966). He offers three means by which they intend to shape societies: “(a) a triple-front penetration in politics, education, and journalism; (b) the recruitment of men of ability (chiefly from [certain universities) and the linking of these men to the [Group] by matrimonial alliances and by gratitude for titles and positions of power; and (c) the influencing of public policy by placing members of the [Group] in positions of power shielded much as possible from public attention.” [11]

Today, The Round Table and Rhodes’ legacy has been absorbed into the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) and multitude of supportive think-tanks, PR fronts and parent organisations. There is a also The Round Table Commonwealth Journal which maintains a low-key presence with a token tip of the hat to its past. The editorial board is called “The Moot” and is made up of members of European industry and Commonwealth bureaucrats. The real power has certainly been disbursed and strengthened.

 


Notes

[1] Only 22 Countries Have Never Been Invaded by the British The Telegraph, November 5th, 2012.
[2] Chambers’ Encyclopeadia A Dictionary of Universal Knowledge, Volume VIII, 1908.
[3] John Flint, Cecil Rhodes, Little, Brown & Co, Boston 1974; and Hutchinson, London, 1976. pp.249-252
[4] p.3; The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, By Carroll Quigley, 1981, Books In Focus, NY,
[5] ‘The Boer War 1899 –1902’ By G. H Le Le May | http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/africancampaigns/boerwar/boerwar.htm
[6] Stranger than Fiction By Albert D. Pastore 2005
[7] Woodrow Wilson’s speech on “The Fourteen Points Plan” in Congress, January 8, 1918.
[8] Ibid.
[9] p.14; The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People By Woodrow Wilson Doubleday press 1913.
[10] Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), (p. 373).
[11] p.15; The Anglo-American Establishment By Carroll Quigley, GSG Associates publishers, 1981 | ISBN-10: 0945001010

Feminism or Infiltration? III: Libido of the Ugly

1973951Feminism, if not infiltrated has without doubt become infected by the same strains of pathology as any other ideology or belief that has the seeds of truth within it and thus a threat to the Pathocracy. Nowhere is this more evident than in its response to the many dissenters of the new feminism that was riding the wave of acceptance in the early seventies.

One antidote which provided plenty of vitriolic critique came from Argentine-German Esther Vilar whose book: The Manipulated Man made plenty of fresh-faced feminists even more apoplectic with rage and shock. Rather than white, middle-class women being the object of oppression and exploitation Vilar claims that the reverse is true – it is women who employ a sophisticated mixture of emotional manipulation, blackmail and psycho-strategy to gain the upper hand in a relationship of which most men are not aware. Some of the strategies she believes women use include luring men with sex and specific seduction strategies; using praise to control men administered at optimal moments for maximum effect and the use of love and romance to mask real intentions.

Though it might seem obvious now, it was heretical stuff and mightily controversial at the time. As regards men in contemporary society, Vilar listed some of the disadvantages she saw for men compared to women:

  • Men are conscripted; women are not.
  • Men are sent to fight in wars; women are not.
  • Men retire later than women (even though, due to their lower life-expectancy, they should have the right to retire earlier).
  • Men have almost no influence over their reproduction (for males, there is neither a pill nor abortion — they can only get the children women want them to have).
  • Men support women; women never, or only temporarily, support men.
  • Men work all their lives; women work only temporarily or not at all.
  • Even though men work all their lives, and women work only temporarily or not at all, on average, men are poorer than women.
  • Men only “borrow” their children; women can keep them (as men work all their lives and women do not, men are automatically robbed of their children in cases of separation — with the reasoning that they have to work). [1]

Vilar’s book certainly caused a veritable storm of indignant protest in its day, mostly from feminists. Admittedly, even by today’s standards decrying all women as essentially “bitches” and “stupid” is as extreme as generalising that all men are chauvinist thugs. This serves only to polarise gender issues rather than offer progressive understanding. It is an extreme book by anyone’s standards, not least the reaction it caused including death threats and the most abject vitriol that understandably took Vilar by surprise. However, not only did the book provide a counterpoint to the unassailable feminist movement as a whole, it also acted as a mirror for narcissistic feminists and their unfortunate trajectory.  It certainly got people talking and allowing more moderate versions of Vilar’s critique to emerge.

Regardless of the psychological reasons for writing such a work, in her 1998 preface to the new edition she stated:

As absurd as it may sound, today’s men need feminism much more than their wives do. Feminists are the last ones who still describe men the way they like to see themselves: as egocentric, power-obsessed, ruthless and without inhibitions when it comes to satisfying their instincts. Therefore the most aggressive Women’s Libbers find themselves in the strange predicament of doing more to maintain the status quo than anyone else. Without arrogant accusations, the macho man would no longer exist, except perhaps in the movies. If the press stylise men as rapacious wolves, the actual sacrificial lambs of this ‘men’s society’, men themselves, would no longer flock to the factories so obediently.

So I hadn’t imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life — violent threats have not ceased to this date. A woman who defended the arch-enemy — who didn’t equate domestic life with solitary confinement and who described the company of young children as a pleasure, not a burden — necessarily had to become a ‘misogynist’, even a ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist’ in the eyes of the public.[2] [Emphasis mine]

Though conveniently brushing aside her tendency to reduce issues down to simplistic, hackneyed white-washing she nevertheless raises important points in the above. Is a woman allowed to be all the things that feminism seems to squash? Or have we indeed arrived at a strange point where much of feminism in the modern Western world is unyielding to the point that it has indeed become another belief without the ability to evolve? It certainly seems that way.

Though economic shifts have played an enormous part in twisting the gender roles, of far more importance is the effects of an anti-human world on our core selves. In post-modern societies of cynical materialism and fake spirituality everything is filtered through this narcissistic façade where the perfection of the body is sought for and according to the whims of advertising, fashion and the stale clichés of male and female stereotypes. The effects of this on women are processed differently.

Studies show that emotional intelligence or a social cognition is higher in women with logical/mathematical intelligence and IQ tests persistently higher for men. [3] Does that mean women are more stupid? Absolutely not. Knee-jerk reactions from academics and media commentators feed into preconceived definitions of what it means to be male and female, each grinding their respective axes on the wet-stones of their own visions of emancipation.

In the same way, recent studies have confirmed the obvious assertions (obvious accept to the financiers of this research) that when either sex shows more flesh they are considered less intelligent. Once again, for both sexes it is the body and the mind as separate entities just like the functioning of male and female that promotes erroneous conclusions:

The new research suggests we see others as having two aspects of the mind – called agency and experience. Agency is the capacity to act, plan and exert self-control, while experience is the capacity to feel pain, pleasure and emotions. Interestingly, the amount of skin shown can determine if we see another as one of ‘experience’ or ‘agency’. During the study, men and women who focused on the body regarded that person as ‘experience’ with little capacity to plan and act. Professor Gray suggested this was because people automatically think of minds and bodies as separate things, even opposites. The capacity to act is more often tied to the ‘mind’ while experience is linked to the body.”[4]

Could it have anything to do with the strictly rationalist and reductionist brand of science still holding sway in the halls of academia? [5]

The above findings says much about our conditioned learning that sees mind and body as separate rather than a holistic system. This also explains why both sexes are trapped in their respective mirrors.  If showing more skin immediately equates women with the “experiencer” label and man with “agency” this not only confirms how disconnected we have become from our natural bodily state but a culture that glorifies commodity and quantity over quality and substance. It is little wonder that women will be placed in the “bimbo” with “little capacity to plan and act” while feeling “pain pleasure and emotions,” and thus “sexually available”. Conversely, men will automatically confirm the sporty, alpha male as well as being sexually available rather than the sensitive, “touchy-feely” type.

With the onset of largely iconic gay influences which have helped to encourage the uniform brand of gym-bodies in the last several years, this describes the upward curve of narcissism and vanity rather than health and fitness based on useful service to others. More gender clichés are served up for consumption from a technophilic society keen to keep it that way.

If women are suffering inside from a battery of historical and feminist led modern influences then men’s role as an emotionless robot with pectorals bigger than his porn-rag fantasy and the excess feminisation that produces the little boy syndrome unable to do anything but watch TV and play video games is directly related. But both sexes have been responsible for its continued fixation as they try on new ways of viewing their relative positions without awareness of natural predispositions.

For instance, women’s beauty is both a complex mix of power and pariah. Naomi Wolf illustrates on the one hand, the relentless push to find love and appreciation from readily available masks which women have donned as much for competition with other females as the goal of material acquisition which drives some men’s ambition. She explains:

Whatever is deeply, essentially female — the life in a woman’s expression, the feel of her flesh, the shape of her breasts, the transformations after childbirth of her skin–is being reclassified as ugly, and ugliness as disease. […]  At least a third of a woman’s life is marked with aging; about a third of her body is made of fat. Both symbols are being transformed into operable condition–so that women will only feel healthy if we are two thirds of the women we could be. How can an ‘ideal’ be about women if it is defined as how much of a female sexual characteristic does not exist on the woman’s body, and how much of a female life does not show on her face?” [6]

When men respond to the facade it often acts as a mirror of his narrowing values and lack of authenticity. Or in the words of H.L. Mencken, he has been directed to worship “the libido for the ugly” and take this as reality. Wolf comments: “What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her “beauty” his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.”

Despite Wolf’s assertions in her writings that this is all about men oppressing women the truth is somewhat more complex which should become evident as we continue. And let’s not pretend that women do not do exactly the same by setting the “trap” for such mutually satisfactory contracts while claiming innocence. Nonetheless, it is little wonder that women are still seen as sexual objects when relationships at both ends of the spectrum are determined by sex as “fast food” trail-blazed by the mainstreaming of pornography and online dating.

Again, do women really want to be “equal” when that equality is dysfunctional at the outset?

Wolf reverses the male objectification:

Women could probably be trained quite easily to see men first as sexual things. If girls never experienced sexual violence; if a girl’s only window on male sexuality were a stream of easily available, well-lit, cheap images of boys slightly older than herself, in their late teens, smiling encouragingly and revealing cuddly erect penises the color of roses or mocha, she might well look at, masturbate to, and, as an adult, “need” beauty pornography based on the bodies of men. And if those initiating penises were represented to the girl as pneumatically erectible, swerving neither left nor right, tasting of cinnamon or forest berries, innocent of random hairs, and ever ready; if they were presented alongside their measurements, length, and circumference to the quarter inch; if they seemed to be available to her with no troublesome personality attached; if her sweet pleasure seemed to be the only reason for them to exist–then a real young man would probably approach the young woman’s bed with, to say the least, a failing heart.” [7]

And such a “training” for the young woman has already been taking place for many years. “Failing hearts” are occurring in both men and women though expressed differently.  Sure, the above sexual objectification occurs on a daily basis. But  let’s not forget the same toxic effects from the narcissistic arsenal of damaged women who objectify men through manipulation and dangerous emotional games which have nothing to do with appearance but everything to do with a deeper imperative, whether it be the biological urge for birthing or the need to have emotional control., the effects of which can be highly toxic in both marriage and partnership. But because the “fairer sex” are historically “oppressed” then it cannot be possible that covert forms of female induced oppression against the male exist…

What remains true is that our identity – whether we are gay, lesbian, straight, bi or transgender – is under attack from social engineering where movements become progressively hollowed out by pathological individuals who corrupt the purity of intent and replace it with a counterfeit version – a form of psycho-subversion, if you will.  It is truly a “group-think” which derives its energy from an Orwellian “double think” where paramoralisms and paralogic reign supreme.  (You’ll see why if you keep up to date with future series).

Feminism isn’t the only one.

MAN-AND-WOMAN_2-1024x656

TAMARA KVESITADZE: opening ceremony of statue |‘Man and Woman’ on October 30th, 2010 in Batumi, Georgia (Effigies)


Women in the West have finally clawed back many of their rights to find that they are ironically mirroring the male who was already a victim of an economic and social contract drawn up by those who cannot be considered in anyway “normal”.  When you fight for the right not to be objectified, to have a place in politics or to be treated as an intellectual equal – this is right and proper. But such a wish has gone much further so that the same quality of injustices are visited upon the male the recognition of which is largely swept away by a form of narcissism masked by largely white, Western feminism.  Whether in the family courts or the toxic effects of feminist belief within relationships, this is not going anywhere good for either sex.

We are spiritually and psychologically compromised in ways we are only just beginning to fathom. And feminists are in danger of fighting for the right to be exploited at a higher rung of the ladder that actually leads nowhere.

Whatever has been “deeply, essentially female” and male is in danger of being comprehensively discarded by the feminism of the 21st century.  A new way to perceive ourselves and the material world is desperately needed.  It is not the lack of material power, freedom in the work place or the red herring of gender equality but the toxic effects of a body-centrism that claims both male and female – the objectifying of the female form and women’s embrace of such a caricature and the disempowerment of both gender roles. This may be one reason that women’s narcissism is through the roof whilst the recognition of the female paedophile, child abuser, pathological narcissist and psychopath are only just managing to break through the cultural bias so that deep research can take place.

A recent report distinct for its large demographic analysis confirmed the emergence of women “reclaiming their power”  both in the market place and in relationships. The objective of the project was to: “… find out how close, intimate relationships vary over a lifetime.” The results of the study which were published by Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, UK in the Journal of Scientific Reports came from the analysis of the texts of mobile phone calls of three million people incorporating the age and sex of callers providing a very “big picture” of people’s lives.  It gave overwhelming evidence that “romantic relationships are driven by women” based on “pair-bonding” proving that this is much more important to women than men. From the data as a whole, researchers determine that: “…a woman’s social world is intensely focussed on one individual and will shift as a result of reproductive interests from being the mate to children and grandchildren.” [8] 

The project also wanted to “…find out how the gender preference of best friends, as defined by the frequency of the calling, changed over the course of a lifetime and differed between men and women.” Professor Dunbar’s team reported that: “… women start to switch the preference of their best friend from about the mid-30s, and by the age of 45 a woman of a generation younger becomes the ‘new best friend.’ Men tended to choose a woman (a girlfriend or wife) as a best friend much later in life and for a shorter time.

“Women, however, choose a man of a similar age to be their best friend from the age of 20. He remains for about 15 years, after which time he’s replaced by a daughter.” At the beginning of a relationship women call their spouse more than any other person, but as their daughters become old enough to have children, the focus is transferred and they become the centre of the woman’s life.  In the words of Professor Dunbar: “…at root the important relationships are those between women and not those between men.” [9]

Let’s re-visit Esther Vilar’s somewhat wild musings on this issue back in 1971:

… only women exist in a woman’s world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice – these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women’s standards correspond to those in other women’s heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman – and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points. [10]

This extract at least, is not quite as extreme when there is some statistical and socio-biological data to back it up.  Professor Dunbar believes this proves that we are returning to a more matriarchal based society. However, if under psychopathological dominance it is unlikely to resemble the kind of “equality” that human society yearns for.

With this in mind, could the real shift that ripped the sexual and emotional inheritance from our daily lives have buried a truth that there was something sacred and mutually empowering in the sexual act and by extension, the relationships between men and women – and other sexual orientations?

Eisler and many others believe so:

The search for this lost wisdom by mystics – and by women and men throughout the ages – is the search for reconnection with our partnership roots. It is the search for a way of relating that is the antithesis of the dominator mode, where in both reality and myth polarization and strife, conflict and separation, winning and losing, dominating and subduing, dismembering and disembodying, conquering and controlling, in short, force, fear, and violent disconnection, are the central themes. And its very essence, as mystical writings have so often brought out, is the search for a means of healing what was so brutally rent asunder with the shift to a dominator world: the fundamental erotic, and with this also spiritual, connection between women and men. [11]

Perhaps the only thing that will change the fortunes of both sexes is the recognition that male and female understanding lies beyond the terminal dance within the society’s economic, corporate and political framework. The success of one gender over another in order to retain the same consequences of mass pathology perpetrated by high level psychopaths and stepped down to endemic narcissism, must be seen for what it is if we are to free ourselves from a perception that men and women are constantly equated with inferiority or superiority – my rights as opposed to your rights. Perhaps we need to obtain a big picture view of the forces that shape us, otherwise, all the wonderful creative ideas that lie within so many great minds will prove to be still-born, yet again. That necessarily means an equally radical shift in perception that saw the division between the sexes all those years ago, so that a bridge may once again be formed.

The devaluation of women is a disaster for men. The devaluation of men is a disaster for women. Our misplaced anger and its projection into the external world are too easily channelled into causes and beliefs that temporarily mollify but ultimately benefit no one. The psychological knowledge of the psychopathic trickster that exists to create division between the two must form part of our collective education for young and old. Until we begin to see the culprit is the institutional and ceremonial psychopath – the embodiment of natural evil – that loves to create ideologies to divide and rule, then the true roles of men and women – heterosexual and homosexual – will continue to be obscured and pathologised.

In the next post we’ll have a look at some of the causes and effects of our present confusions in order to observe what we may call the “Sex Establishment” and how it not only benefits from such gender divisions, but has grown to distort and subvert the very concept of sex and sexuality.

 


Notes

[1] The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar Published by Abelard-Schuman 1972 | ISBN-10: 0200718754
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Men cleverer than women’ claim BBC News, August 25, 2005.
[4] ‘Cover up to look smart: Men and women who bare more flesh are regarded as less intelligent, study finds’ By Lauren Paxman, The Daily Mail, Femail, 11 November, 2011.
[5] For more on this do read The Science Delusion by Rupert Sheldrake.
[6] p.232; The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women by Naomi Wolf. Published by Harper Perennial, 1992 Reprint: 2002 | ISBN-10: 0060512180.
[7] Ibid (p.154)
[8] ‘Phone data shows romance ‘driven by women’ BBC News, April 2012.
[9] Ibid.
[10] op. cit. Vilar.
[11]
Eisler, Riane; Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body, Published by Harper Collins, 2012.


Note: (February 2018) This 3 part essay on Feminism was written in original form more than ten years ago. Since then, Third Wave Feminism has metastasized into something much worse. Postmodernism and its neo-Marxist roots; gender and women studies; Social Justice Warriors; left authoritarianism and the blindness of many liberals have fused together turning a growing number of universities and even schools into indoctrination centres. Victimhood is the new ideology, a product of cultural stagnation and social engineering which is now threatening free speech and what is left of democracy in the West. It seems ponerological infiltration is occurring through the extreme left more rapidly than the far right. For more on this subject and its root causes and effects see the series: The Hissy Fit Generation And The Loss of Free Speech.