The Satanic Roots of Feminism

The Whore of Babylon in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"

The Whore of Babylon in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"

By: Jay While there are many anti-feminist bloggers, "men's rights" activists and talking heads continually chipping away at the chief idol of our time (equalism/egalitarianism), few are aware of the origins of "equalism" and its hideous spawn, the feminist movement as a planned, engineered, and strategically deployed offensive, not just targeting women, but the entire populace.  And while the planned aspect of feminism may come up in rare instances, even more rare is any mention of the deeper occult agenda that is at root Satanic.  In this article I will analyze the origins and usage of the movement, its connections and deployment, as well as the larger goal of feminism and equalist thought. Modern conceptions of egalitarianism arise from philosophical presuppositions that emerged in the Enlightenment.  From medieval nominalism came the modern tradition that objects in the world did not actually possess "natures," but rather the assigning of such metaphysical categories and "essences" was strictly a human conceptual framework.  Thus, human nature was not an actually existing ontological description of something in the world, but rather a linguistic symbol that corresponded to a mental picture the tabula rasa mind had recorded, as the British empiricists further teased out the implications of nominalism.  In their day, it was still common to think "man" designated one side of the gender spectrum, and "woman" another, but we can see the seeds of a revolution of thought to come across the entire spectrum, as all ontological "natures" would have to be tossed away. I often mention the Enlightenment's universalization of human reason, which is likely becoming a bore to regular readers, but let me assure you, as the writer, I am just as nauseated by these ridiculous philosophies, but they are the unquestionable foundations of the whole modern world that must fall away.  What is meant by the universalization of human reason is the change in western civilization's perception of anthropology as regards human nature itself.  Since the West developed without the Eastern idea of man's nous as a higher faculty of point of contact with God, the Augustinian replacement became man's intellect and reason.  What was  in seed form in Augustine then became the norm in Descartes and the British Empiricists.  For early Augustine especially, reason was the ultimate path to God, as man's mind was the mirror refraction of the ideas in the divine essence.  By believing, man could cleanse his mind of fixity on the temporal and transient, and wind his way towards the eternal good.  This is why Augustine's City of God contains the same "cogito" argument Descartes later rewords.  It is also why in Soliloquies, young Augustine proposes a form of empirical idealism that Berkeley would later formulate.

The Whore of Babylon in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis"

In short, the trek of western thought follows the implications of Augustinian assumptions, varying only on which side of the theological dialectical dilemma one chooses: empiricism or rationalism, or even empirical idealism.   The rejection of the nous in western anthropology meant that the redefinition of human anthropology in Enlightenment thought could only be another form of dualism, where man is defined as a body and a soul, or in some kind of reductionism, where the soul is abandoned.  More radical materialists of that period had to keep somewhat silent, as rank materialism was still socially unacceptable and could lead to persecution.  Nevertheless, it was only a few generations later that the philosophes, Jacobins and Illuminists made it possible to publicly adhere to atheism and materialism.  The mind/body dualism that was so prevalent in the Enlightenment debates quickly caved to pragmatic materialism, as the scientific revolution brought empiricism to its pinnacle.  In this regard, the Grand Orient philosophes were more consistent with their philosophy than their Enlightenment forebears – if nature was only a linguistic and conceptual construct, then men and women only differed in their pipes and fixtures.  There was no “essence” of man or feminine “nature,” anymore than there were angels or demons.

It is not accidental that women’s suffrage and “women’s rights” began to appear around the same time, with people like Mary Wollstonecraft.  Although obviously not empirically true, the theory behind the emerging egalitarianism was still based on the jettisoned metaphysical assumptions of the universalization of human reason.  Since reason was man’s defining faculty, and women were also humans, all human beings must then also possess the same reasoning faculties and at least the same latent potential.  Since the individual person was simply the accumulation of recorded empirical impressions, as Hume would say, the equalists firmly held that all humans possessed the same latent potentiality, and could only differ based on adverse environmental factors.  Poverty, diet, lack of medical attention, etc., were thus proposed as the causes of human suffering and diversity of abilities, and therefore women were no different from men, aside from biological makeup and millennia of being repressed and oppressed.  As more and more radical forms of equalism and egalitarianism gained sway, Marxism and liberalism spread like a fire across the globe, as victimization and envy enabled women and minorities to more boldly declare all were equal.

Simultaneous with all of this was the rise of economic liberalism and the banking cartels that were the real functioning power behind the British Empire (see Dr. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope).  The banking elite had long ago learned that predicting and controlling large social movements and trends had tremendous potential for mass social engineering, as well as collectivizing and transferring wealth.  By the 1960s, the entirely created and controlled “counter-culture” movements paved the way for the final collapse of the West into nascent socialism and communism.  Pioneered by the Royal and Fabian Societies, the re-engineering of man into the technocratic utopia could only be achieved through global crises and complimentary global order.  As the direct descendants of the Empire’s empirical tradition, the scientistic technocrats of the 20th century and today firmly believe and propagate the mythology that gender is not objectively real.  Since man is only a biological robot, it stands to reason that he can be reprogrammed to be whatever his overlords wish – man, woman, trans-whatever.  And since historically man tended to resist such tyrannical intrusions, the globalist technocrats have determined to rewrite man’s existence entirely through annihilation.

It is important not to think of this annihilation as some great, one-time cataclysmic apocalypse, but rather in the incremental approach of the Fabians.  Through a gradual alteration of all things the prior millennia considered “natural,” the socialist technocrats planned the slow inversion of the nature they professed to not believe in.  The plan became to subvert and invert all of man’s existence, so that man would get rid of himself.  Being firm believers in Darwinian theory, the planned inversion of nature would therefore weed out the less desirable, and a small minority of technocrats would then make the cut onto Noah’s Ark 2.0, passing into the future scientific utopia.  But rejecting the belief in nature, and in turn seeking to destroy it, would have untold consequences.  Those consequences are where we are living today: We are presently many decades into the initial phases of this “final revolution,” as Huxley called it, against man himself.  And one of the chief weapons of destruction against man in this war that has wreaked untold havoc within the last 50 years has been feminism.

Supported by both the Rockefellers and the CIA, feminism, being directly connected to Marxism, is at root Satanic.  The governing principle of classical Satanism has always been the principle of inversion.  The black magic belief is that power comes to the individual occultist through committing acts of inversion or rebellion that specifically defy the biblical God’s designs.  Thus, if God says not to murder, murder becomes a potential ritual act that stores up demonic energy for the committed practitioner.  The more serious the practitioner, the more serious the acts of defiance.  I speak here, not of pop Satanists and alienated youths, but of real, elite practitioners.  The long history of human pacts with devils, real witchcraft and ritual Satanism are all based around this fundamental principle of inversion.  While generally coming under the guise of promising liberty, freedom and power, the devil’s con is always the same – man ends up tricked into being a dupe, is used, or damages his own psyche, or at worst, possessed.

The rise of Wicca and various “new age” and “goddess” spiritualities is a manifestation of this same principle of opposition and defiance, with the grand objective of destroying man.  Clueless teens and yoga-obsessed yuppies now imbibe all manner of alternative spiritual practices, and such irrational, “feminine” spiritualities are often associated directly with feminist ideology.  The ignorant and uninformed mass generally do not have the reasoning faculties to discover where the funding for such “movements” come from, and if they did, most would not be able to discern the designed, strategic plan of feminism and equalism to wreck the existing order as an act of Satanic defiance.  For serious practitioners of black magic, the inversion of all order and promotion of mass sacrifice through abortion and destruction of the nuclear family is a ritual offering.  One can see this clearly in the recent exposure of Jimmy Savile and the scandal in Britain.  The endgame is an attempt to get rid of the chaff of the weaker, slave mentality herd-brain, and force a punctuated equilibrium of Darwinian evolutionary jump, leading to a select few Satanic technocrats continuing into the future.

The never-ending spew of “empowered” women and feminist harpies that chirp away on television and in the media are going to learn a hard lesson as the social order collapses.  All the promised glittery gowns and chocolate-covered feelgood pharma pills of the feminocracy they bought into (as men were also emasculated and poisoned by the toxic culture) will turn into ashes and feces.  The Satanic lie is meant for their very destruction, not for their empowerment, as no empowerment can come that is contrary to the natures God created.  Nature can only be transformed and deified by God, not annihilated and reformed through occult, human, or demonic energy.  Although I am a preterist in terms of the dating and exposition of the Apocalypse, we can certainly apply the spiritual principle of chapter 18 to the Babel we inhabit in modernity.  Babylon will fall, ultimately, because it is unnatural and its own worst enemy.

“7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.”



62 Comments on The Satanic Roots of Feminism

  1. This is a really good article. The connection between Augustine’s Platonic rationalism and the Enlightenment insanity cannot be stressed enough.

    Your thoughts on black magic are top-notch. Have you considered writing on white magic (more generally speaking, not just what Wiccans claim to be practicing)?

  2. Very good, Jay.

  3. Jay, thanks for the wide ranging and far reaching exploration of the origins and intellectual development of feminism. Unfortunately, the very people who could benefit most – the ill-informed and the barely literate – will dismiss your well argued points as ‘sexist’. Oh, I cringe when I hear that nonsense. Keep up the great work, buddy.

  4. jarrodschneider // August 4, 2014 at 4:08 pm // Reply

    Speaking of the rise of irrational, feminine spiritualities, analyzing the “green language” of the new age movement provides insight into its actual underlying purpose of disempowerment, and also shows how this movement’s built-in deceptions were formulated by practicing dark occultists with a working knowledge of the interplay between sacred masculine and sacred feminine energies. For instance, there is the new age term “light-worker” and this term can be equated with the feminine, right brain imbalance that new age philosophy commonly engenders. There is active, “heavy work”, or there is passive, “light work”. The new age false notion that positive, worldly change occurs simply by aligning one’s consciousness with positivity, and that those who do such are “light-workers” illustrates my point. True change (heavy work/hard work) only occurs through real action in the world, and such action can only arise when one’s thoughts and emotions work in conjunction with one another. The so-called “law of attraction” propagated by the new age movement encourages an illogical, emotion-based, right-brain imbalance (a neutered approach to affecting change) and the fact that such an approach is deemed as “light-work” can be seen in this context as a macabre mockery of those individuals who operate under the auspices of such irrationality.

  5. Thanks for the compliments, guys.

  6. So let me get this straight, an invisible spiritual entity (“Satan?”) was behind the feminist movement?

    Some good things on this page that are unfortunately overshadowed by bronze age stupidity and the circular thinking of the Christ-Insanity.

    • While I’m sure your wisdom is highly esteemed within the hallowed halls of Reddit University, you’ll have to bear with us peasant simpletons who have not yet tracked down your PhD thesis on outdated 16th century empiricist argumentation, which I sense you specialize in.

      What an actual degree in philosophy will teach you is how centuries old self-defeating presuppositions like the naive empiricism and reductionism you affirm are quickly dismantled.

      Observe: the soul/self/psyche also meets your reductionist criteria for a thing that is invisible and spiritual, yet the ability to comment on my site assumes the existence of some such metaphysical focal point of energy (“Vike”). Otherwise, the self is purely material and illusory. Thus, in your worldview, non-existent invisible entities make comments on blogs, which contradicts your dismissal of angels. The past is also something not directly perceived, so if I adopt your worldview, I must add another layer of ontological doubt that a nonbeing, “Vike,” made a comment. So how was it angels were absurd, and your view rational?

      • Fascinating reply. You said a lot without actually really saying anything at all.

        The difference between “self” and an invisible spiritual entity, (such as “the Satan,” YHWH’s lapdog) is that one is based in reality, with tangible interactions and observable cause and effect, whilst another is simply the scapegoat for an individuals actions and reactions.

        You claim “Satan” is the progenitor of the feminist movement when in truth, it was women who were behind it and societal thinking as a whole was shifting.

        I don’t recall seeing Satan protesting women’s rights or holding a placard. You see how it works Jay? We make decisions based off material evidence. Maybe I’m moving too fast for you.

        A Catholic priest recently claimed he received a text message from Satan. Should I believe him as well?

      • I didn’t say a lot, I offered the most common argument against reductionist materialism, which is accompanied by a host of other metaphysical and epistemological dilemmas, such as identity over time.

        All you did was state that the self was real, when the objection was that you could not justify it given your presuppositions. So when I offer a transcendental argument, your response is “the self is real.”

        Merely stating that you observe causes and effects of an imagined “self” is just a cosmological argument attributed to the self. The problem, of course, had you paid attention to Hume, would be evident: you never observe an objective rational principle of “causation,” just events in succession. In the same way, you have no direct empirical experience of the past or the self, only sensations and impressions.

        If you understood theology, you would understand there are plenty of capable thinkers who have dissected these fundamental philosophical errors, despite your appeals to straw men and some religious person saying x,y, z crazy thing.

      • I also say feminism was funded by bankers, so I don’t leave feminism to a single cause. But in the spiritual realm it is caused by the spirit that seeks to destroy man.

    • RustyShackleford // February 23, 2015 at 1:26 am // Reply

      I think you are getting too hung up on terms and the historical baggage that’s been attached to them.

      You can think of Satan as a literal entity if you like but it won’t actually get you anywhere. Thinking of Satan as an adversarial mindset, a process that is ultimately self-serving and destructive, and rooted in the basest of animalistic rationale and you get something entirely different.

      In that sense, feminism IS satanic because it rejects one of the oldest and most basic concepts of nature; that male and female are dependent upon each other for the survival of the species, and that this dependence is not only necessary but perfectly natural. And for what would feminism do this? For “equality”, which in reality is just petty material gain and power over others. They would upset the natural order so a small fraction of little girls can grow up to be CEOs and power-brokers, participating in the same self-destructive system that is wreaking havoc on our planet and collective progress.

      There is no nation on Earth that has adopted feminism that has not seen its birthrates PLUMMET.

      A self-serving mentality that does nothing but bring destruction while promising bounty and prosperity.

      That is the essence of “Satan” and it, in my opinion, is not a concept that we should cast aside so casually.

      It’s not that I want to convince you that Old Georgie or some other personification of the Devil exists, I want you to think about the essence of the entity itself and what it professes:

      “The weak are meat, and the strong do eat.”
      “He who dies with the most stuff wins.”
      “God works too slowly…”

      That’s what the article is getting at, I think.

    • “Christ-Insanity,” huh? Actual insanity comes from the forgetting — whether willfully or not — of God. Look at the terrible aftermath atheism has left in its wake just in the last century alone. Millions upon millions upon millions dead for an ideology that, although it preaches a utopia on earth, actually creates a hell.

      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said it best when he described the atrocities the Russian people faced at the hands of their Marxist (atheist) oppressors:

      “Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”

      So, no, Vike, it is not those who are of Christ who are “insane,” but those have turned away from Him who are. Atheism is the true insanity.

  7. Personally, I would really like to know what Satan’s text said – most of the texts I receive are dull.

    • He said…

      Gen 3:1-5… “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

      Inversion. “Don’t listen to God, listen to yourself. Pay attention to what you want. God didn’t really mean what He said anyway…”

  8. Did he use emoticons? My kids fill whole screens with them.

  9. While some of your observations (for example about the historical origins and harmfulness of the feminist movement) are interesting, it was unnecessary to belabour the point with devilisation and to frame the whole topic in theological terms. There are too many contentious arguments in here to take the whole seriously by those it purports to attack (i.e. it would only ever be laughed off by feminists themselves), and as you’ve seen, based on the way you chose to write this article, it’s very easy to be drawn into tangential debates about the absolute, the self, angels and demons. Of course, having those kinds of debates would bring the sort of attention and interest that the topic of feminism when addressed through more conventional lenses wouldn’t bring. In which case, if that’s what you wanted, congratulations. However if your intention was really to express, justify and deflect criticism of an innate and sincere conviction you hold that feminism is “satanic”, it won’t be possible to do that by simply rehashing philosophical or theological ideas that you believe make your core argument (that feminism is born of the devil) rational. Your polemic stands on too many sub-polemics and it only “works” if the reader accepts all your assertions, from the Enlightenment’s universalisation of human reason to scientistic technocrats’ allegedly dastardly plans to invert and defile the figure of man, in a well-executed insane plan to carry out a mass sacrifice to the devil, largely unnoticed by the masses, who lack intelligence…

    • Well said. Amazing to me that Jay has such an eye for metaphor and hidden meanings and yet conversely, insists that key elements from the buy-bull are literary factoids. “Satan” behind the feminist movement? Apparently so.

      Incredible as well that when asked for proof of Satan, the tables are turned on the questioner and the “self” is then asserted as a similar non-entity.

  10. Great article. You provide a thorough evaluation yet say nothing about possible solutions. How should one’s femaleness thus be dealt with? How does one independently and personally defeat the false feminist within? I would most appreciate your response.

    • Thanks. The solution is awaiting the collapse of the present order and something better arising.

    • If I understood you right, you’re asking how a woman like yourself should deal with the temptations this perverse contemporary culture gives and perhaps the innate bad side of femininity also?

      Acknowledging there is a problem with temptation and sin is good. Most women these days think they can do nothing wrong. No, they’re good girls.

      Look to your family and especially the older males. You’re from Croatia and I’m from the Balkans, too, so I can assume a few things because I come from a similar culture. In the West there is a lack of strong father figures and males in general. Girls where I’m from are much better than in the West (where I live) because they have fathers, brothers and even cousins to look out for them. So listen to the men in your family, basically, be submissive.

      Find a husband. Let your father and other male relatives judge him and his character, the decision isn’t only yours. Be submissive to your husband, trust him, and always look to help him. The key thing to prevent women from rebelling against the divine order is for them to be submissive and loyal to God, father, husband and family. Don’t look at your self-interest, but look at the interest of those near to you. You are young now so go and learn how to be of good use to those around you.

      Two years late, but I just discovered this website.

    • The solution? Salvation in Christ, of course. Realization that you (all humans) are a sinner in need of a Savior. God has presented the most amazing gift to mankind, His own Son, died for your sin. He/she has but to receive Him. Christ took your place on the cross.

      We are all brought down to the same level by sin. Provision has been made to lift any above such a condition back into harmony with God. All (male/female, Jew/non-Jew) are equally cursed, all may be equally blessed.

      Gal 3:28… “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

      All who accept Gods free gift that is. A solution so simple most of the world misses it.

  11. Don’t listen to these haters, Jay… you’re speaking the truth and just because some people can’t handle it doesn’t make it less true. I know you know this, but sometimes when the fanbase backlashes it can be tempting to ‘re-evaluate’. don’t compromise those paradigms you know to be true just because they’re ‘unpopular’.

    • Oh I enjoy the haters.

    • This isn’t the fanbase, this is reddit nerds.

    • You obviously missed the part where I said: “Jay has such an eye for metaphor and hidden meanings” and “Some good things on this page…”

      Classifying someone as a “hater” is a fallacious tactic that does nothing to advance your cause or to support mutual dialogue. Everyone should be open to criticism.

      I’m looking forward to Jay’s audio dealing with the non-entity “Satan.”

      • I’ve blogged 8 years and had hundreds of debates. I’m not being unfair to you or whatever. It’s just a repeat of a scenario I’ve seen countless times. Next up is a special treat film analysis and then the audio.

  12. In a similar vein, I’ve noticed what I call a “redefinition of the archetype” in regard to the feminine in popular culture, especially on TV. For the past five years or so, more and more cop/crime dramas have portrayed women as being in charge, sometimes paired with a male who is less adept at fighting — for example, “The Mentalist,” “Castle,” “Sleepy Hollow,” “Fringe,” “SVU,” “The Good Wife,” and a host of others. In many of these shows, women who are no more than 120 pounds, are often seen throwing men around like rag dolls, physically taking them down and taking punches in the process. There are other TV shows and commercials where women are portrayed as competent and intelligent opposite men who are slovenly, anxious, and in a state of arrested development. To me, this represents an attempt to “redefine” the archetype in the hope of seeding the kind of Darwinian evolution you refer to, all the while creating cultural confusion in the process. Regardless of whether or not one ascribes to Jung, if this process is a real one it’s clear that some sort of psy-op is being directed at the collective unconscious. This attempt to tweak the evolutionary process seems consistent with an occult gnosis that Jeffrey Kripal in his book, “Mutants and Mystics” describes as commonplace in the comic book and sci-fi genres, most notably in the “X-Men” series.

  13. As a quick follow up in regard to naysayers who doubt your post, it’s worth noting Sarah Maclachlan’s female rock festival, Lilith Fair. Lilith has a number of occult and Kabbalistic references. It is a matter of public record that Ms. Maclachlan chose Lilith in direct reference to the esoteric Jewish tradition that claims Lilith was Adam’s first wife. According to versions of this tradition, Lilith was an original separate creation like Adam, not taken from Adam’s rib. Lilith then refuses to be subservient to Adam and leaves the Garden of Eden. Eventually, Lilith would be identified with the female demonic, a killer of children, and associated with the night and occult. One can easily see in the story of Lilith its rejection of God and “patriarchy.” Ms. Maclachlan’s music festival, while it lasted, was roundly embraced as a feminist event. While this does not establish your original claim about feminism and the Satanic, those familiar with so-called “gender feminism” will easily see an ideological and spiritual connection between Lilith Fair and the works of Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Starhawk, and others. The works of these writers is a far cry from Simone de Beauvior’s “The Second Sex” and so-called “equity feminists like Catherine MacKinnon. Gender feminism provides a direct and logical connection to “goddess” thought and Gardnerian Wicca. It is hard not to see much of this as implicit in Maclachlan’s Lilith Fair. While gender feminism was big in the 80s and 90s, it’s presence on campuses has waned. This may be due to the death of many of its theoreticians and writers and the passe nature of deconstruction and post modernism. But, one could also argue that, like all successful revolutions, a portion of its premises and ideology has been appropriated by the broader culture. It could be that the proliferation of all things “magical” — Harry Potter, Vampire Diaries, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Supernatural, etc. — has, in its own way, mainstreamed surface aspects of gender feminism in the same way All in the Family mainstreamed various aspects of cultural Marxism. Who knows — just a thought —

  14. Amusing. Some woman did a job on you, didn’t she?

    • You’ll forgive me if I don’t subscribe to the “born to bleed, born to lead” mantra of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood — now try and provide an argument if that isn’t to logocentric for you —

      • “too” not “to”, poser
        The remainder of your comment makes no sense; you simply make interesting and angry assumptions that are all wrong but common enough when the boys get together to whine about the evil that is woman. Lead away, angry man. I am simply an observer who has perhaps observed too much.

    • I think it’s a normal human experience to have your broken at least once. Sure, I’ve had a couple heartbreaks, but I don’t think my thoughts on this are based on that.

    • –Candice’s Mind–
      “Without a shred of evidence, I state unequivocally that this man’s criticism is the fruit of unresolved psychological conflicts regarding his association with the opposite gender.”

      This, gents and ladies (if there be any; shrews don’t count), is what projection looks like.

    • A classic emotional, “little girl”, hair pulling, no substance bashing…. I start to think that Candice is actually a misogynist bloke that is actually impersonating a girl in order to discredit their gender with stereotypical screams…or perhaps Candice involuntarily discredits her “cause” with total good (yet naive) faith?

  15. Wow — wat porful thoght — I gess yu told mee —

  16. Jay, I’m confused about the part in which you speak of the “natures God created”. Is this the divine order: ?

  17. This is so insightful. Goodbye telos, purpose, and meaning. You’ll be missed.

  18. Although I tend to view words like God and Satan as metaphors for states of being that the majority of human egos are at present ill-equipped to understand, I believe that in either context you are on the trail of a great big piece of humanity’s forgotten truth. Well done sir. I salute your efforts.

  19. Jay,

    I made a portuguese translation: As raízes satânicas do feminismo

  20. Never heard of you, never read your blog. This has been a pleasant introduction. Brilliant work.

  21. notice how pretty much everyone who commented on this shitty little article is a male, lol. your ideas toward feminism are bred by TV sitcoms and tumblr, otherwise you wouldn’t pretend that feminism is somehow about “destroying men”. nor does it belong to “clueless teens” or “yoga yuppies”. I almost think you had to be joking in your article, but maybe not. maybe you really are that pea-brained and corny.

    • Cute. Rather, I’ve read the Rockefeller’s biography that details the promotion of feminism via Abby. It was a created social engineering movement, as well as Steinem being CIA. On top of that, I read all the fem garbage in grad school. Note that in your response, all you did was emotionally react with ad hominems – a typical feminine response.

  22. Good research – definitely food for thought

  23. I’d genuinely appreciate more info on Preterism, beyond Wikipedia.

    Fascinating site. Hours I’ve spent here this week.

    • Check my archives for my research paper on ad 70, Josephus and the Olivet discourse

      • Will do. Appreciated.

      • This makes much more sense, in terms of the utilization of language, Old and New Testament and on and on. It also refocuses ideas on ‘end times’, in terms of how this is all playing out. The patterns are there, they are coalescing, and I’ve been seeing this for some time. But there are so many noisemakers out there looking to stir up confusion with end times madness, Raptures out of context, etc., that with the Premillennial view, it’s difficult to make head nor tails of it.

        But once seen from this aspect, if at least some of these things Jesus noted were going to happen have happened, it’s much easier to refocus the effort of investigating/observing from a calmer, more logical perspective. What’s the end goal, what’s the real focus? If you take Premillennial ideas into account, then it’s easy to imagine the scenario wherein this inconsistent method of interpreting could easily be used as another way to bring in confusion, and God’s not the author of that. It’s easy to be fooled by our own foolishness if we’re not careful. Or by our zeal.

        “Spoiler” alert follows:

        I recently watched Affirm Films, “The Remaining.” Premillennial ideas but what caught my attention was the bridge toward the end of the film. It’s saying something. The whole film is obviously saying something, otherwise, why spend the (granted low budget) money? But toward the end, we’re given essentially the same scenario as most other movies that focus on invasion/zombies/etc: your only safe bet is a government facility set up to ‘help.’ Interestingly enough, that facility is no help at all, in the end. But I can’t help but ask why that bridge and scene are both the climax and the obvious cash focal point, from an effects point of view as well as staging, lighting, extras, etc.

  24. Reblogged this on Situation Nominal and commented:
    Erm yeah, it looks like it works something like that.
    Why didn’t we see this thing coming?

  25. Muslims(non-radicals) and Christians(non-radicals) treat women better than the “enlightened” west, which usually presents these two religions as stunting and cruelly controlling women. It is obvious to see that the feminist idea endorsing women wearing less and less means more men are going to constantly sexualize women in ways that the feminists are supposedy fighting, which is the irony. If a woman wears tight fitting yoga pants around and men are leering like a coked up Bill Clinton, yes, part of this is men not controlling themselves, but women are magnifying the temptation these men have. Both play their part, but for some reason stating this obvious fact makes one a misogynist. I’m not talking about men assaulting women, that blame does lie solely with the man. Western culture has normalized fantasizing about sex with many different partners even for married men, which instead of “liberating” us makes us easier to control. Up is Down.

15 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The Satanic Roots of Feminism — State of Globe
  2. The Satanic roots of feminism | WebInvestigatorKK
  3. The Satanic Roots of Feminism - The Rundown Live
  4. The Satanic Roots of Feminism |
  5. The Satanic Roots of Feminism | State of Globe
  6. ‘Feminism’ Has Communist Roots | News-Press-Liberty With Responsibility!
  7. Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism | Jay's Analysis
  8. Why billionaire oligarchs bankroll feminism | WebInvestigatorKK
  9. El por qué los oligarcas billonarios financian al feminismo | Crónicas Subterráneas
  10. El por qué los oligarcas billonarios financian al feminismo. | educacionlibreysoberana
  11. ELECTRA COMPLEX: Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism | wchildblog
  13. Why Billionaire Oligarchs Bankroll Feminism – Shift Frequency
  14. Today,s Thought

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: