Karl Marx and Jewish Power
________
by Miles Mathis
First published February 16, 2020
As you can see from the graphic above, this is a response to this month's cover story at The Atlantic. I saw an issue near the check-out at my local organic market, and I really wanted to stomp the magazine to little shreds, then toss the lady a fiver for my damage. I didn't for only one reason: I don't want The Atlantic to have even $1 of my money. Plus, I know that the bulk of these magazines will end up in the incinerator or landfill anyway: almost no one is daft enough to read this crap or believe it.
However, I think a response is worth my time anyway, since it plays right into several themes that have come up in my papers recently. First of all, many readers will say, "See Miles, you are a conservative". That takes us back to this recent paper, which is about liberalism and why I am a liberal. But yes, in this sense, I definitely am conservative, since I want to conserve the family, I want to conserve the best things of history, I want to conserve the old definitions of art, I want to conserve rationality and truth. But before you start patting yourself on your back for your victory, you may want to read the rest of my paper here, as well as read David Brooks' article and bio closely, because you will find out it isn't that simple. The word "conservative" will dance around all over the place below.
Others will say, "You are jumping the gun, Miles my dear, since I have read the article and Brooks isn't arguing what you have assumed he is. He admits the loss of family in the past 60 years has been a tragedy and tries to suggest various ways of rebuilding it". To which I can only say, WAKE UP! That isn't what he is doing at all, though I admit that is what is trying to make us think he is doing.
Brooks is a master of "sober, evenhanded writing" and appearing earnest. . . but he isn't. He is just one of the most slick propagandists alive, fooling you into thinking he is the exact opposite of what he is. Jim Denison at the Christian Science Monitor replied to Brooks almost immediately, but he seems to have missed this fact completely. We expect him to argue against Brooks strongly, but that also doesn't happen. His reply is short and squishy in the extreme and is hard to glean anything from. You won't have that problem with me, you can be sure.
The first thing you should do is search on David Brooks online. At least read his Wikipedia page, which should provide you with the lay of the land here. He is from a wealthy Jewish family and he went to work for Bill Buckley right out of college, writing for the National Review. Now, that is conservative, but not in the way we were just talking about. It would be better to call the Review fascist, since what it wished to conserve was the hegemony of old money, the military, the government, and the Intelligence community. Buckley was unabashedly peerage, Intelligence, military, and bloodlines. He was an actual CIA agent. Brooks has also been connected to the Hoover Institution since his 20s, another huge red flag. We have seen the Hoover Institution many times as a primary bastion of fascism and government control. So already you should be surprised to see Brooks writing for The Atlantic. For many decades The Atlantic sold itself as a progressive and liberal voice, appealing to the opposite demographic of National Review. But although that sale was always just a pose, the magazine recently gave it up, and it is now openly run by conservative Jews, like everything else. The whole liberal/conservative dichotomy was jettisoned after 2001 and the magazine is now just another bullhorn of Intelligence propaganda, matching the tone and the politics of just about every other magazine and media outlet.
So if your knee-jerk reaction to that title "The Nuclear Family was a Mistake" was to assume the jackals were at it again, ripping up the American family on purpose for profit, with ever less subtlety, you were right. Brooks is shifty, but hardly subtle. For those who know up from down, his article remains as transparent as thinnest glass.
More proof of this is that Brooks then ended up at the Wall Street Journal, which is certainly not liberal. It sells itself as conservative but is again fascist, since it is another government front. What it wishes to conserve is the wealth of the already wealthy, including their military contracts and other gulp-from-the-treasury projects and conjobs.
Brooks' most famous book is Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There. According to its own self promotion at Wikipedia, "The book, a paean to consumerism, argued that the new managerial or 'new upper class' represents a marriage between the liberal idealism of the 1960s and the self-interest of the 1980s." If that doesn't make you want to toss your lunch, you aren't paying attention. Especially, note how the word "liberalism" has been flipped and squashed, so that it can be applied to "self-interested consumerism". I have news for you, liberalism never had anything to do with that until these frauds like Brooks got a hold of it. If there was any real liberal idealism in the 1960s, which I begin to doubt, it wasn't about self-interested consumerism, it was about altruism and caring for your fellow man. Self interested consumerism was never a project of liberals or liberalism, it was a project of these greedy Jewish and crypto-Jewish bastards like Brooks, Buckley, and all the rest, who wish to fully control society for their own enrichment and glorification. Just go back in memory or read your history: was self-interested consumerism sold by the hippies, anti-war protestors, or any other real liberals of the time? No. It was sold by the merchants and other cloaked fascists. Who benefits from consumerism? Not hippies. Merchants. And, as it turns out, the only hippies who were selling limited and perverted definitions of freedom have turned out to be hippies planted by the fascists—fake hippies like Ram Dass, Tim Leary, Terence McKenna, Carlos Casteneda, and so on. Cloaked and costumed hippies infiltrating and blackwashing the opposition.
They admit this at Wikipedia. See this line in Brooks' bio, which gives it all away.
Collins [of New York Magazine] was looking for a conservative to replace outgoing columnist William Safire, but one who understood how liberals think.Now, ask yourself why he would want that. Obviously, so that Brooks could pretend to be liberal, while actually blackwashing liberals and liberalism. Collins wanted someone surpassingly oily and unctuous, a person with zero scruples, but one with the touch of a snake charmer. Someone who could sell snow to eskimos. That is what Brooks has always been. That is precisely what he is doing in this article at The Atlantic.
Tripping on any article with the title "The Nuclear Family was a Mistake", you would assume it would be written by a liberal, right? If there is anything most genuine conservatives wish to conserve, it is the family. So you should be surprised to find Brooks, a conservative, writing it. You have been flipped even before the first word, because—unless you are well aware of who Brooks is and what he is up to —you will read the article in the wrong light. You will read it thinking you are reading the words of a squishy caring liberal, and that is exactly the way Brooks comes across here. He makes you think he cares greatly about the break-up and loss of the family and is working hard to build alternatives. He isn't. He is part of the cabal that destroyed the family with malice aforethought, for profit, so all his tears are crocodile tears. I don't believe his claims to being involved in Weave or his attendance at All Our Kids and neither should you. It sounds like blarney to me. If Weave exists it is only as a CIA project front to do exactly the opposite of its founding creed. At best it is a band-aid on a decapitation, at worst it is salt on the wound.
If you don't believe me, look it up. Weave comes out of the Aspen Institute. If you trust anything coming out of the Aspen Institute, again, you aren't keeping up. It was founded by Atlantic Richfield CEO Robert Anderson, who was also behind Harper's Magazine—another faux-liberal rag like The Atlantic. Anderson came from a big banking family, and he later pushed modern art, including Bauhaus. The Aspen Institute was originally a spin-off of Bauhaus, since another founder was artist Herbert Bayer, also Jewish.
There you can see how incredibly talented he was. Reminds me of Gary Larson's notorious "Cow Tools".
They admit the Aspen Institute is funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the Carnegie Foundation. So if you are black and you think these people are on your side, well, good luck to you. If you think anything that comes out of the Aspen Institute or any of these Foundations benefits the little man, of any color or creed, good luck to you. For the truth is, these people made their money preying on you and yours, and they don't give a rat's behind for your prosperity one way or another. All they care about is continuing the con, by any means necessary.
Often, they continue it by fooling you into thinking they are philanthropists of some sort, as here with Brooks and the Weavers. But I suggest you go to the Weaver's website and watch Brooks talk for ten seconds. If you have any sort of intuition at all, you should be able to look into his eyes and tell you are being conned. If you can't, then not only should you realize your intuition is faulty and that your eyes don't work like they should, you should realize you need to study history a bit closer. Weaver can't possibly care about opiate/opioid addiction, since again his people and class created it on purpose. The huge pharmaceutical companies are run and owned by the same companies that own and fund everything else, including these top foundations and institutes like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Aspen Institute, and they profit incredibly from the sale of addictive drugs. They aren't addictive by accident, they are made as addictive as possibly in the lab on purpose. This has been known for decades. These are the same people that made cigarettes as addictive as possible back in the day, but now that cigarette sales have plummeted due to health concerns, they have to get their immoral profits elsewhere. One of those places is with prescription drugs, with your own doctor as pusher.
But let's look closely at the article itself, which confirms in gut-wrenching detail everything I have just told you. Brooks leads off the article like all modern articles—with a dunking in syrup. Nobody ever just gets to the point anymore, they have to carry you in on a fluffy pillow with a soft human angle, where Grandma is making coffee or Jennifer is patting a dog or someone is washing the car with his son. In other words, the author has to lull you into a state of faux-rapture, one where you couldn't possibly imagine he might be another nasty Intelligence writer trained to hypnotize you. I am immune to that, because I have learned to just flip-off the screen with both middle fingers and scream, "get to the point you smarmy jerk!" I recommend you try it. It is very liberating and immediately breaks any possibility of hypnosis.
Anyway, Brooks' gambit is to open with a Thanksgiving story, where children are sitting around wide- eyed and oldsters are squabbling about whose memory is better and there are piles of plates in the sink, yadayada. Actually, Brooks is incapable of creating his own cliches here, and he is borrowing them from director Barry Levinson. This is a scene from the 1990 movie Avalon. Which name is yet another level of the hypnosis, of course. The movie is part of Levinson's series of Baltimore films, exploring the themes of Jewish assimilation into American life since the 1960s. So why is it named Avalon? What does Jewish assimilation in Baltimore have to do with the little island in the lake where King Arthur found the sword Excalibur? On the surface nothing, as on the surface there is no reason why Brooks should be mentioning either Levinson or Avalon in the first paragraphs of the article. But if you are a reader of mine, you know these people don't do anything by accident. If they mention Avalon it isn't just because they like the consonance. It is part of their centuries-old protocol. Remember, we have discovered these top crypto-Jewish lines have ruled the British Isles (and world) long before their cousin William came over in 1066 and joined them. They have ruled it even before their cousins the Vikings/Phoenicians showed up to join them. Which means. . . yes, they are nodding to their ancestor Arthur here, and to previous propaganda. [Avalon is probably the same as Glastonbury Tor, by the way, which means that area was once under water, except for the hill. This will help you understand the current Glastonbury festival, but that is subject for another paper.] They are still doing their best to cover up the connection between Welsh and Hebrew, but it is pretty obvious. Do a search on that, and you get many intriguing hits, including a recent article in the Independent confirming that two British journalists were detained in Libya because the authorities there thought Welsh writing in their effects was Hebrew. Which tells us. . . the word Avalon probably has Hebrew/Phoenician antecedents, referring to something long before the Arthur legends. But again, subject for another paper. That does tell us why Levinson used it, and why Brooks is keen to reference it here.
Anyway, in the Levinson film, the break-up of the family starts when the eldest son arrives for Thanksgiving to find the father has already cut the turkey. He gets angry and causes a huge scene. Levinson tells Brooks that "when you violate protocol, the whole family structure begins to collapse."
Really? That's what Brooks decided to go for? We are supposed to believe that the family in America collapsed due to a minor violation of protocol? You see what I mean by lack of subtlety. Unction out the wazoo, but not a drop of subtlety.
You will say that Brooks is just easing us in with a harmless anecdote, but it doesn't get any better. And, besides, that is not what he is doing. As I said, this is all a hypnosis for the weak-minded. It is the first small lie in a series of ever larger ones. He starts you out slowly, and once you have digested that one, he feeds you a larger one. They have an entire playbook on this. Just pay attention.
Here is the next lie: "But then, because the nuclear family is so brittle, the fragmentation continued.” The nuclear family broke because it was so brittle? Not because it was targeted by the billionaires and trillionaires and strafed unceasingly over many decades. Not because the CIA, FBI, DIA, Justice Department, Pentagon, and every other government agency targeted it for extermination. Not because the media targeted it for extermination. Not because promoted authors targeted it for extermination. Not because modern artists targeted it for extermination. Not because Hollywood targeted it for extermination. Not because the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and Gates Foundations targeted it for extermination, spending trillions to destroy it on purpose. The family broke simply because it was brittle. If you aren't angry enough for revolution in the morning, you need to knock off the opioids.
Next, Brooks tells you he is going to investigate the destruction of the family, but he utterly forgets to do it. All he does is tell you what you already know: the big extended Walton or Amish farm family was whittled down to a nuclear family of 4-6 by the 1940s, and that in the 1960s that began to crumble. He tells us that the nuclear family was always “freakish” but gives absolutely no examples of that. He says the extended farm family was more resilient and more supportive, which is true, but that doesn't make the nuclear family freakish. He admits that even now more than 1/3rd of all people in the US still live in nuclear families, which he tries to spin as a sign of its weakness, but which is actually a sign of its strength. 33% is a pretty big number, considering that the family has been targeted by all those powerful entities for 60 years or more. Any weak or brittle construction would have absolutely dissolved down to nothing under that kind of attack. And yet, the American family is still around. Brooks admits it is actually making a small comeback, which explains why he is here. The comeback of the family worries the governors, because it is a sign they are failing. So their response is predictable: spend more money, increase the levels of propaganda, tell more lies.
Later in the article, Brooks admits that more than half of all adults are still married, or as good as. They are not single. Furthermore, while 90% of baby boomer women were married by age 40, and 80% of GenX women were, only 70% of Millennials are expected to be. But wait, that is still pretty good! Especially if we consider that around 10% are gay. That means only 20% don't get married. You can see why the governors are pissed and are stepping up the propaganda here. Their project is failing. We aren't getting the message. They have been trashing marriage and the family since 1960, but only 20% of women are listening to them in 2020, sixty years later?
Brooks is sure to repeat over and over that we can't go back: the favorite mantra of the Phoenician navy. Move on, the past is over, you can't go back. In other words, “We won, get over it.” But of course none of that is true. You can go back if you decide to. If the recent past was better, you can easily return to it. Hell, you can still buy all the implements on Ebay.
That is what worries them. They know you could buy back your entire 1963 existence in a week, for much cheaper than they are selling you the present. Just throw everything you own in the garbage and buy back 1963 from Ebay. I am totally serious. It's all there, and you can get it for little more than postage. I know, I've done it.
Brooks even admits the nuclear family in the 1950s was tied closely to many other families, creating an extended nuclear family. Not just relative families, but neighbor families. All true, which completely undercuts his claim it was freakish or brittle. But he ignores that contradiction, of course. Speaking of the 1950s, Brooks admits:
Finally, conditions in the wider society were ideal for family stability. The postwar period was a high-water mark of church attendance, unionization, social trust, and mass prosperity—all things that correlate with family cohesion. A man could relatively easily find a job that would allow him to be the breadwinner for a single-income family. By 1961, the median American man age 25 to 29 was earning nearly 400 percent more than his father had earned at about the same age.Which is exactly why that prosperity had to be targeted. There was excess income, and the Phoenicians have never seen a pot they didn't think belonged to them by birthright. They saw that extra 400% and told themselves that if the guy's father could live on 1/5th of that, so could the son. That money was ripe for the skimming. So the first thing they did is change the tax structures to feed heavily on that excess, while making greater plans. One of those plans was the destruction of the family, so that the vampires could drink not just from the men but from the women and children as well. They found they couldn't raise taxes 400% overnight on middle-class men: that might look suspicious. What they could do is split the men from the women. If you do that, you only have to raise taxes 200% on each to achieve the same thing, immediately taking them much nearer their goal. You still can't raise taxes 200% overnight, so you need corollary schemes, such as inflation, state and locals taxes, new fees: a whole smorgasbord of new bleeding via decreased services and increased costs. And of course this is what happened.
Once all that was achieved by the 1990s, the vampires figured, why stop now? If we can get away with this mass blood-sucking, we can get away with anything. Let us just gut the government, replacing it with a feeding frenzy. Once we drain all the treasuries worldwide, we will just raise the debt ceilings to allow a continuous and unauditable theft, out into the future. And we won't stop until the people yank our bloated and distended bodies from the feeding tubes by force.
Please go to Updates to read the entire essay.
________
Source: Yahoo News
'There will be dad and mum': Putin rules out Russia legalizing gay marriage
Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting on proposals for amendments to the Russian Constitution at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence
Reuters • February 14, 2020
MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday Russia would not legalize gay marriage as long as he was in the Kremlin.
He made clear he would not allow the traditional notion of mother and father to be subverted by what he called "parent number 1" and "parent number 2".
"As far as 'parent number 1' and 'parent number 2' goes, I've already spoken publicly about this and I'll repeat it again: as long as I'm president this will not happen. There will be dad and mum," Putin said.
During his two decades in power, Putin has closely aligned himself with the Orthodox Church and sought to distance Russia from liberal Western values, including attitudes toward homosexuality and gender fluidity.
He made the comments as he met a state commission to discuss changes to Russia's constitution.
The commission was set up last month after Putin announced sweeping changes to Russia's political system that are widely seen as being designed to help him extend his grip on power after his scheduled departure from office in 2024.
Other proposals have since been put forward and Putin was asked to comment on a proposal to add a line in the constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
"We need only to think in what phrases and where to do this," he replied.
In separate comments during the meeting, Putin said he backed an idea to make it unconstitutional for Russia to give away any part of its territory, a move likely to irritate Japan and Ukraine that have land disputes with Moscow.
Please go to Yahoo News to read the entire article.
Russian version dated 2 June 2018: Путин: поддержка семьи была и остается в числе безусловных государственных приоритетов
________
Look what the British elite unleashed on British citizens to demoralize then destroy them.
Chapter 32 England's Asian Grooming Gang Epidemic: The Perfect Cover Hiding the VIP Pedo-Network
Related:
World Congress of Families Launches Major Pro-Family, Pro-Life News Network in 5 Languages
Feminist Hypocrites Shame 'Tradwives' for Putting Family First
Recovering Fatherhood - What Must a Man Do?
The war is on to destroy Russia and the Russian Eastern Orthodox Church by creating a manipulated schism.
Atheist President of Montenegro, a US Lapdog, Tries to Seize Churches, Enraging Serbs (Russian TV News)
George Soros & Co. through their well financed insidious NGOs have been trying to destroy Russian culture and education for a very long time.
The Devastating Damage Soros NGOs Inflicted On Russia's School Curricula (Excellent Documentary Film)
It's winter in Russia during student spring break Russian style. Moscow students party in the snow...wholesome fun not degenerate behavior like what we see every year in Florida...
Russian Students Celebrate The Students Day - Saint Tatyana's Day -
With Festivities & Celebrations
With Festivities & Celebrations
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.