Ist Feminismus Social Engineering und eine moderne Empörungskultur?

Feminism is a movement that advocates gender equality and women’s rights. Although I fully support equality, freedom and rights for all, I believe that aspects of this movement have led to a division between us due to an over-identification with gender.

What is Feminism?

According to “History and Theory of Feminism”, feminism defines itself as follows:

“The term feminism can be used to describe a political, cultural, or economic movement that aims to establish equal rights and legal protections for women. Feminism encompasses political and sociological theories and philosophies that address issues of gender difference, as well as a movement that promotes equality for women and advocates for women’s rights and interests. Although the terms “feminism” and “feminist” did not become widely used until the 1970s, they were used in public much earlier; for example, Katherine Hepburn refers to the “feminist movement” of 1942 in the film Woman of the Year.

According to Maggie Humm and Rebecca Walker, the history of feminism can be divided into three waves. The first feminist wave took place in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the second in the 1960s and 1970s, and the third spans from the 1990s to the present day. Feminist theory emerged from these feminist movements. It manifests itself in a variety of disciplines such as feminist geography, feminist history and feminist literary criticism.

Feminism has changed the dominant perspectives in a variety of areas of Western society, from culture to law. Feminist activists have fought for women’s legal rights (contract rights, property rights, voting rights), for women’s rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care), for the protection of women and girls from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; against misogyny; and against other forms of gender discrimination against women.

For much of their history, most feminist movements and theories had leaders who were predominantly white, middle-class women from Western Europe and North America. However, at least since Sojourner Truth’s speech to American feminists in 1851, women of other races have proposed alternative feminisms. This trend accelerated in the 1960s with the civil rights movement in the United States and the collapse of European colonialism in Africa, the Caribbean, parts of Latin America and Southeast Asia. Since then, women in former European colonies and the Third World have proposed “postcolonial” and “Third World” feminisms. Some postcolonial feminists, such as Chandra Talpade Mohanty, criticise Western feminism as ethnocentric. Black feminists like Angela Davis and Alice Walker share this view.”

When we look at gender issues, especially women’s issues, we have seen massive inequalities throughout history. For example, look at all of our founding fathers of science, quantum physics, engineering, psychology, etc. Gender inequality exists in every field of science. Many “groundbreaking” discoveries have been attributed to men, and exclusively to men. Many were stolen from women just because they were women, and many discoveries by women were completely ignored by science. The wage gap is another example of inequality, but more on that later.

One of my favourite women in history is Rachel Carson, a major player in today’s environmental movement. Carson sparked the whole movement in the 1960s with her book Silent Spring. She is an author, biologist, environmentalist and ecologist. The book documented the dangers of pesticides and herbicides, the dangers of which we are still trying to raise awareness about today.

It is my hope that one day we will have a book that describes all revolutionary minds, regardless of gender or even race.

Candace Owens on Feminism

However, I still believe there are some important points to consider when it comes to gender issues. One point of view that really resonates with me is that of political activist Candace Owens, which she shared in an article in the Stanford Advocate. Owens states:

“My first outward rejection of the modern ideals of feminism happened to be during a mandatory women’s studies class in college. My professor had just gone over an amazing statistic that about 89 percent of people suffering from eating disorders were women. “That,” she explained, “was because of the unrealistic expectations the patriarchy has of us.” “Then what do you think of all the men taking steroids?” I guessed aloud, “….is it the matriarchy’s fault?”

That’s a good point, and it stems from questioning the blame game we have in our modern world. Candace’s question highlights the pressures that society as a whole puts on both genders. Both have been given “identities” within society and both are subject to sexism. For years, elitist groups and corporations have created narratives around gender norms to exploit gender identification.

She then describes how it was the above exchange that triggered her thesis on why feminism is ‘broken’ and how women are only taught it instead of experiencing it.

“Women are taught it instead of experiencing it. In many cases, we are even encouraged to override our experiences in favour of indoctrination. At best, the movement denotes a selective musketeer mentality: it’s a promise that a bad experience had by one should be transmitted and accepted as a reality for all, but a good experience by one? Well, that woman should just shut up and keep it to herself. Yup. Let’s give a microphone to the woman who was beaten by her husband, but muffle the one next to her who might want to thank him for the part her own husband played in her happiness.”

I thought that was a very interesting point that I can relate to. I think we also tend to expect this behaviour (racism and discrimination) from others, rather than observe it actually happening.

This behaviour on both sides comes from a narrative of separation that has become so ingrained in society that we sometimes perceive experiences as racially motivated, even though they may not be. Many women have also become accustomed to distrusting men, feeling hatred towards men and acting on the same sexist mentality they feel they are fighting against. Doesn’t this just reinforce hatred and inequality and lack of compassion as a whole? Doesn’t this separate behaviour in society benefit the power of our political overlord? Separatism, gender and race issues are common topics in the media, and while they deserve to be discussed, they are also exaggerated and blown up for political purposes. More on this below.

Identity Politics

The promotion of identity politics has always been a state instrument and as a result the masses simply follow and are indoctrinated without ever questioning it. Identity politics has and serves many useful purposes for the elite. Mark Crispin, professor of media studies at New York University, shares something many of us don’t know:

“It’s interesting to note that Ford and Rockefeller and the other foundations with strong CIA connections began making grants in the early 1970s to study race and gender. It was a sudden move towards identifying politics by these organisations, and the theory is that the reason they did this was to balkanise the left and prevent them from pursuing any kind of class or economic analysis (source).”

He goes on to explain that rather than reinforcing a class identity that supports unity, the main academic institutions are encouraged to promote the primacy of race and gender to ensure that the establishment’s agenda for “polarisation” is pushed ever further.

“New York University (NYU), one of the most prestigious and expensive institutions in the United States, likes to present itself as liberal and “diverse” and as an “institution without walls.” Many of the school’s departments, including history, sociology or anthropology, count leading exponents of postmodernism and identity politics among their faculties, and the promotion of race and gender as a priority over class is in many ways the official school ideology.”

“Behind this surface of “diversity”, however, lie far-reaching connections to big business, the Democratic Party and the military. As this series will show, NYU is now intimately involved in preparations for war against Russia and China, and thus in the efforts of the state and big business to carry out mass surveillance and censorship of free expression on the Internet.”

The rise of Gloria Steinem

After that, Gloria Steinem became increasingly popular. Steinem was known as a feminist, journalist and socio-political activist and was considered a leader and spokesperson for the American feminist movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that she worked for the CIA, spying on Marxist students in Europe and infiltrating their meetings.

She has not denied this, as an article from the New Yorker points out:

“What exactly was the NSA useful for? Here’s where it gets murky. According to Paget’s report, the N.S.A. was apparently not used for what the C.I.A. called “political warfare.” The agency set up a front organisation called the Independent Research Service (inventing titles that are as meaningless as possible is part of the spy game) to recruit American students to disrupt the Soviet-controlled World Youth Festivals in Vienna in 1959 and Helsinki in 1962. Responsible for this was future feminist Gloria Steinem, who knew exactly where the money was coming from and never regretted it. “If I had a choice, I would do it again,” she said later.”

Regarding the women’s liberation movement:

Apparently Steinem also tried to suppress information discovered in the 1970s by a radical feminist group called Red Stockings. This group spoke out against Steinem, and the two were considered the most important leaders of the women’s liberation movement at the time. The Red Stockings seemed very upset with Steinem, questioning her motives and why she was receiving all the funding from these intelligence agencies to push her version of the women’s liberation movement.

The Ms. Magazine is what the Red Stockings seemed to be upset about, which was founded by Steinem. It represented a different kind of women’s liberation movement than any other at the time. Again, this was probably due to her connections with the secret service and the motivations behind it. It is the one that attracted the most attention and became the most popular.

Shiva symbolism on Ms. Magazine

“Some of these women who were in the audience at the Red Stockings press conference asked why the Red Stockings didn’t give more weight to their political criticism of “Ms.” (Steinem) didn’t carry more weight than the allegations that Steinem worked for the CIA. Sarachild’s response (from Red Stockings) about this is that the Red Stockings discuss liberalism in the women’s movement in their forthcoming magazine ‘Feminist Revolution’, but that they consider “Ms.” inauthentic. ‘”Ms.’s” liberalism is different from the liberalism of others’, she said. Her first feelings that something was “Ms.” was wrong came in 1972 at a meeting where “Ms.” told old NOW members how to organise. She said that although she disagreed with NOW women on many issues, she almost wept at the condescension with which they were treated. Sarachild does not believe that the Red Stockings’ challenge to “Ms.” can appropriately be called a fight because ‘one faction has all the money and all the power’.”

Steinem tried to suppress this information, which was discovered by the Red Stockings in the 1970s. In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA friends Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in Feminist Revolution. Nevertheless, the story appeared in the Village Voice on 21 May 1979.

How fascinating are all these connections?

If Candace Owens were alive then, she probably would have been part of the real feminist revolution, not the seemingly manufactured one that prevailed for ulterior motives and agendas. Although the feminist movement played an important role in history in its time, it is important to understand all the background.

Another Rockerfeller Connection

The feminism movement was developed and designed by a group of powerful elites to tear apart Western family values, get women to work, add the other half of the population to the cash cow for the elites (the tax system) and get children into school early to be educated and indoctrinated into the state system, with mum and dad too busy to educate them themselves….

This is not just another conspiracy theory, Aaron Russo, a highly respected Hollywood director who let the cat out of the bag in an interview shortly before his death….

The now deceased Nicholas Rockefeller, like many of the cabal, knew how to hide well and change society from the background. One finds little about him, but what one does find is on a par with his more publicly known internationalist brother David:

“His securities practice includes litigation before the United States Supreme Court and a number of his transactions have been featured in leading journals. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Insitutute of Strategic Studies, the Advisory Board of RAND, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Committee on Foreign Relations in Los Angeles, the Western Justice Center, and has been a participant at the World Economic Forum and the Aspen Institute. He is a member of the Board of Visitors of the University of Oregon and Pepperdine University Law Schools and is active in the affairs of his alma mater, Yale University. He recently chaired a panel at the United Nations on e-commerce and is co-author of Economic Strategy and National Security.

Nicholas’ China practice includes transactions with China’s largest banks, energy companies, communications companies and real estate companies, as well as with major Chinese cities and leading provinces. He was elected a board member of the Central China Construction and Development Commission and a director of the Xiwai International School at Shanghai International University. He has appeared several times on CCTV and other Chinese media.

Nicholas is a graduate of Yale University and Yale Law School.”

AAron Russo & Nick Rockefeller

Here is a summary of the interview between Aaron Russo and Alex Jones (Yes, I know Jones is a posed and paid opposition, but nevertheless he brings some truths):

Nicholas Rockefeller offered Aaron Russo that he would invite him to the Council on Foreign Relations, which Aaron, who is an enemy of the enslavement of humanity (reflected in his docs), of course refused, saying, “As much as I like you Nick, your activities and mine are on opposite sides of the fence.”

Well, one of the things Rockefeller said to him when he was in the house one night: “Aaron, what do you think the women’s liberation was about?”

Aaron said he thought about it pretty conventionally at the time, he said he thought it was about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.

And he started laughing and he said, “You’re an idiot.” And Aaron said, “Why am I an idiot?

He said, “Let me tell you what that was all about. We, the Rockefellers, funded this. We funded Women’s Lib. And we’re the ones who put it in the newspapers and on TV, the Rockefeller Foundation. You want to know why? Feminism is our invention for two reasons. Before, only half the population paid taxes, now almost all because women go to work. It also destroyed the family and gave us power over the children. They are under our control with our media and get our message drummed into them, they are no longer under the influence of the intact family. In turning women against men and destroying the partnership and community of the family, we have created a broken society of egoists who work (for the supposed career), consume (fashion, beauty, brands), thereby being our slaves and then think it’s good.”

Until this conversation with Nicholas Rockefeller, Aaron was a supporter of the women’s rights movement and thought it was a noble cause. Now that he knew the real intentions behind it, he could see the evil in it.

Aaron Russo, who died shortly after the interview, was a successful and respected film producer, he had no reason to lie and drive his name into the mud. Perhaps he knew he was going to die and needed to clear his conscience? Was he killed for testifying? People disliked by the cabal are often offered to change sides (invitation to the CFR). If this is not accepted and things are also blabbed, one can quickly die (see Russo).

Feminism masquerades as a movement for women’s rights. In reality, however, feminism is directed against women, a cruel lie in which they are told that their natural biological instincts have been “engineered” to oppress them.

The cabal, through their sympathetic front women in the movement, had all the women of the western world communicated to them for years that they were being oppressed by their loving husbands. Their only way out to freedom is a career in business. They said having children and staying at home to raise the children is supposed to be a symbol of slavery. It is simply no longer in keeping with the times. They brought women into the workforce to collect even more taxes. To have even more slaves to feed the central bank system through their income taxes. They took the children out of the homes, out of the mothers’ arms, to brainwash the children at an even younger age. More importantly, they broke the will and spirit of husbands of the western world. Because if a woman thinks she doesn’t need a man to protect and care for her, what is a man worth fighting for? Nothing. The feminist movement destroyed the family unit.

Idoctrination of women

It seems that this was the beginning of indoctrinated feminism, a tool that can be used to divide society.

In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural love instincts. As a result, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have dropped.

We must remember that love for a woman is an instinctive act of self-sacrifice (just as it is for men).

She gives herself to her husband and children and is fulfilled by seeing them thrive and receiving their love, respect and gratitude.

A woman makes this supreme sacrifice only to a man who will cherish her and provide for his family. Men instinctively want to take on this responsibility. This is the essence of the heterosexual contract (i.e. marriage): female power in exchange for male power expressed as love. Sex is the symbol of this exclusive bond. Marriage and family may not be for everyone, but it is the natural path for most.

Feminism has led women to reject this model as “an old-fashioned, repressive stereotype”, even though it reflects their natural instincts. One British writer reported overhearing two young women saying:

“All men are useless these days,” she said. “Yes,” said the other. “The problem is that they haven’t risen to the challenge of feminism. They don’t understand that we need them to be more masculine, and instead they just dropped out.”

That’s their logic? If women are less feminine, men will be more masculine? Men are not meant to fight with women. They need to be validated by a woman’s acquiescence and faith. If women constantly challenge them, men will “bracket out” marriage and family.

Now that love and marriage have been “discredited”, women have nothing to trade for love except sex. So many are unnaturally obsessed with their appearance and pathetically give their bodies to all and sundry.

Lasting love is not based on a woman’s sex appeal, personality or achievements. Ultimately, it is based on self-sacrifice. We love the people who love us.

Is feminism more taught than experienced?

Owens preaches, as mentioned above, that feminism today is not experienced as much as it is taught.

“I find it necessary to formally state that not once in my entire life have I felt incompetent or weak alongside my male colleagues. Not once did a teacher tell me to learn to cook and clean instead of read and write, and to be clear, the eating disorder I had in college had absolutely nothing to do with pushing a man.”

How many feminists out there have actually experienced discrimination just because they are a woman? How many simply believe they experienced it because their minds were indoctrinated with that mindset in the first place? I am not saying that we have achieved 100% equality, nor am I saying that you should not stand up for someone who is being discriminated against. It is clear that gender inequality can still be seen in aspects of society today. However, we are bombarded by reports of sexism and separatism on a daily basis in the mainstream media, and it feels like the hatred and gap between men and women is widening, regardless of how close the equality gap has become. Why?

“It’s getting nastier: I just happen to think it’s polite when a man opens the door for a woman, and not once has the action sent me into analytical overdrive, what kind of monster would my inability assume?! No, in fact I usually just say thank you. And I’m not sorry about any of that, by the way, so if that somehow keeps me from sitting at the “real women’s” table, I’ll learn to live with the losses. Happy women are tired of being silenced. I have female friends who choose to stay home to raise their children and they are not prisoners; I know several who voted against Hillary Clinton who are anything but deplorable, and perhaps most shocking of all, not one of these ladies feels victimised by the state of their own womanhood.

Asking them to ignore their experience in favour of a movement isn’t a movement, it’s an agenda, and a strikingly ironic one; it’s telling us women over and over again that we must accept our status as the weaker sex, the very notion it purports to reject.” – Candace Owens

According to Owens, women are targeted and intimidated into a certain train of thought:

“It is not my intention to laugh or offend. I am aware that in a culture where ‘being a victim’ is the new black, such a bold declaration of happiness could inadvertently cause a flaw in the matrix. I am aware that if I am trying to be trendy, I should hold on to my femininity, my African-American roots, or my absolutely anything that might consider me an objectifiable minority. And then I cry boo-hoo and wait… for an outstretched hand, maybe. Or a pat on the back, or a hashtag that would make it rain affirmation in the deepest recesses of my heart. And then, of course, I wouldn’t have to be responsible for anything; not my own lack of achievement, not my today, and certainly not my tomorrow, because I could blame it all on my unfortunate status as a victim. It’s just that they couldn’t programme me to think that way, and for that, feminism couldn’t care less about me.”

This narrative reminded me of a post I saw floating around on social media that is very pertinent (see below). This is where the conversation about emotional intelligence and dropping our identities comes into play. Are we addicted to drama, conflict and disagreement? If what we learn causes our belief systems to break down, are we attached to them at all? Do we get stuck trying to hold on to them because we identify with them? Sometimes it’s not easy to let go of our political identities, the sides we choose and even the division that comes from over-identifying with race, religion and culture. But at some point, if we want change, we have to learn to let go of these narratives and look at the truth. Think back to a moment when you had to let go of a belief. How did you do that? Was it so bad when you did it? Where might you be stuck today if you hadn’t let it go? Is what you are holding on to or fighting for something that really makes you happy or makes your life better?

Feminism in the light of the western world

“I think we are stretching gender a little too much, as far as I am concerned, whether someone is a man or a woman is not even my concern. What someone has in their pants, what do I have to itch about? These things are only relevant in the bathroom and bedroom. This should not be relevant anywhere else. Because, you have to understand, too much identification with gender is essentially identifying with your body parts. If you have to identify with your body parts, if that is the only way you can live, why should you choose reproductive organs? At least choose the brain! Why do we keep thinking about who is a man, who is a woman? It’s a fetish. Why do you even bother? It’s only important for certain relationships, the rest of the time, why does it matter? I say we are making too much of it, only both sexes will suffer because of it.”

These words are from Sadhguru, which I also found very interesting. He goes on to explain.

“Yes, unfortunately there were long periods of exploitation of women all over the world and even in this country, but you have to understand that there was a time when women in this country were not exploited at all. They lived fabulous lives, you just look back and see it. For example, you see, from say Ramayana, Mahabharata (Hindu texts), whatever you have, you see women walking around on whales? Do you see women hiding? No, the lady sat on the lap of the king in public. So this was not such a culture, but you have to understand that we are dealing with a little over a thousand years of innovation. When innovations happen, they don’t just go on your gold, they go on your wives and daughters first. So it became a normal thing to leave them behind, to hide them somewhere between sacks of grain. So when thousands of years of continuous innovation happened, the risk of keeping your wife away became a very wrong thing, so unfortunately they still go on. I think we will break through in the next generation, I think we are already breaking through in a big way, but we have to understand that we are only the second generation after independence, so don’t be in too much of a hurry and don’t turn this one species into two species.

Unfortunately, in response to past exploitations, we are trying to create two species. It’s very important that the changes we make in our society are not in response to the wrong things in the past.”

This is another great point that echoes Owens’ point made above.

It is important to note that some feminists may respond to the lady/king comment above by implying that the role of a lady sitting on the lap of a king makes the lady worse. Success and happiness are not measured by how much money we make. This brings me to one of Sadhguru’s main points about modern feminism: it is driven by economics.

And no, that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be equal pay. Of course there should be complete equality in pay.

But throughout history, men and women have had different roles, neither represents anything better, and both have been equally powerful. In fact, every human being has masculine and feminine energies within them, we are two halves that form a whole. One no better than the other. But if we focus only on money when discussing gender inequality, we will always live in a male-dominated world, “not masculine but masculine” (Sadhguru). The feminine qualities will disappear if we continue to look at this from an economic point of view, because women will also strive for the “masculine” (assertiveness, determination, dominance, etc.).

“Suppose a man here wants a baby, can he have it? So however we complain, we don’t have equal opportunities. Biologically we are designed to fulfil different aspects of nature. Why is one thing superior and another inferior? Simply because you make economic activity the ultimate activity, that is the only problem. The fundamental problem is that you make economic activity the greatest thing you can do. Just making money is the most successful thing you can do in life? If you value people only for the money they make, you will make the whole world your marketplace.”

Personally, I am not sure how many gender issues really exist today and how many examples of inequality exist. Take the wage gap, for example. The average woman’s wage is about 80 per cent of a man’s. Is this because they are women and do not have equal hiring opportunities? Or is it because men are more attracted to higher paying jobs, such as the role of a CEO? On the other hand, many of these statistics only take into account white women, so the gender pay gap is much higher in many minority groups. There are so many more factors at play here than what we are shown.

The bottom line of the statistics is that we need to look at a multi-factorial analysis behind the issues we have and not just blame them on one aspect like gender. Many, many things go into understanding why things are the way they are today. This is exactly why many people are exceptions to statistics, because it is never about ONE factor.

Society often frowns on the traditional image of women being at home, caring for and nurturing children. We implied that this was somehow inferior to working outside the home, when in reality it is just as important as any other job, if not more. And it is not just a woman’s job. Many men are ashamed of wanting to stay at home and look after their children, because societal norms encourage men to care for their families in the more ‘traditional’ sense.

So I encourage you to ask yourselves: what is really going on with modern feminism here? I ask all women of my generation to read this: Have you ever experienced discrimination just because you are a woman? If so, how often?

First and second waves of feminism fought for a good cause and achieved it (for the most part). The third wave, however, harms both men AND women

To reiterate, it is very clear that there are problems that we as a society still need to address, but in order to solve them, don’t we really have to understand them? We should also remember that we are approaching these issues from a place of love, not anger or hatred. Otherwise, it will only lead to more separatism and more sexism. Instead, there is a culture of indignation today.

“Thats offensive!” – How we were trained to find anything offensive

There is a massive shift in consciousness taking place, and as part of that process, we begin to wake up to many things, including who we are, how our world really works, and what is possible for humanity.

In a very practical sense, this could be done in a way where you start to question what you are doing with your time – you can change your career, the way you eat, the way you do feel what is outside of thoughts in your mind and so on. It is spreading and has spawned a number of different things in the collective consciousness of humankind, such as racism, hatred, anger, judgment, political arguments, environmental issues, and ancient patterns. We are individually and collectively faced with the task of having to face these things so that we can understand them and then develop beyond that – to essentially change ourselves and our world.

But is there also a role that the Cabal / Deep State and the media play in wanting to keep control of the population as we become more and more aware of ourselves? In order to prevent us from raising these deeper internal questions, the focus is again on the outside. It’s about things like race, gender, how we look, the words we use, who is right, who is wrong, and who we can judge and for what reason. We are systematically taught NOT to change. And it happens through innocent memes, articles, videos, and even loving intentions, all of which are devoid of deeper thought.

Think about it: When have you ever seen in the media, when something potentially offensive comes up, that we use this experience to understand why someone is allowed to say or do what they do, or why it bothers us? Instead of looking at and understanding the deeper question, we are taught to simply react and tell people that they are right or wrong. What essentially…. nothing changes.

We all know, for example, that simply telling someone they are wrong only makes them defensive and in turn triggers a bigger fight. Not to mention that when we are in the state of judging someone for their actions, we are still in a low vibrational state. But when we ask a person why they feel the way they do, we start to make them think and reflect without them having to defend themselves first. We can lovingly begin to help that person explore themselves. In doing so, we can continue to question how they came to the thinking they are working from and begin to understand how people become the way they do.

You see, we are systematically trained to solve nothing by teaching everyone that it is someone else’s problem or someone else’s fault. As a result, we don’t take real action to create change. By teaching people to judge others and situations, we put ourselves in the mode of not wanting to connect with other people to create an “Us vs Them” mentality.

A Good Example

The same solution or approach works with EVERYTHING, not just racism. Whether it’s a problem you’re experiencing with someone or other social challenges, it will help.

Imagine you see a right-wing radical family and the mother and father taught their young child that people who look different from them are evil. It is likely that you will want to put yourself in the child’s shoes, feel bad for them and remove them from that environment. But let’s say you have now seen the child 18 years later and you didn’t recognise him from before. Now that child is an adult and a white supremacist. Suddenly you might have a judgement and dislike for that person, for who they are and their beliefs, and you might think they are terrible and should be locked up or whatever. But what has changed there? The person? No. What has changed is our perception of the situation. We no longer choose to understand how the person became the way they did, we simply judge.

This person was raised in an environment of hate, and we now meet this person’s hate with either more anger or more hate, effectively doubling the hate, when instead we could stop and ask how did this person become this way? What questions could I ask this person to make them think about how they have formed their faith? What questions can I ask to make them think more deeply about how it feels to have these beliefs?

And for those who may think that can’t possibly work, I can promise you, it does, and one man has clearly proven that. You can check out Daryl’s story: Sehen Sie hier.

He met with many members of the KuKluxKlan to ask the simple question, “How can you hate me when you don’t even know me?” Then he talked to people who had racist beliefs and effectively changed their perspective through love and understanding – “by accident”, he says. He never tried to change their beliefs or get people to adopt his way of thinking; he simply shared his time and asked questions. That is what love is and does.

So why is Daryl’s approach to racism making a stir these days? Because it is being done in a way that is contrary to what we are programmed to do.

And we might think at this point, “Well, that doesn’t help us, we are oversimplifying things.” But all this kind of thinking brings us back to the same place, refusing to see the core problem and do something to change it, instead of taking responsibility for what we all ACTUALLY CAN DO to help change the challenges we face. And this is done through connection, empathy and love, by not choosing to judge something we don’t understand. It’s a big responsibility, and society has largely chosen to talk about the same issues over and over again without having a helpful dialogue about how to transform them. And I think that’s a mindset we’re programmed to stay in, so we don’t solve problems and unite, because that will hurt the cabal’s plans.

That’s why I’m sharing this article because I truly believe that by empowering people with real resources to shift their perspective from hating and judging to that of Connection, Love and Intelligent Conversations, we can help them question how they got to be the way they are and then effectively move away from a mindset that doesn’t agree with us. Imagine if this message was brought into the mainstream media; if instead of condemning, we were taught to understand all of our issues and have real conversations about how to change them. We would effectively create a new approach to understanding ourselves and each other on a deep level.

I know it may sound like this is impossible, but it’s not. We simply have to realise that we have the power. We have to take responsibility for what we can do and start living that way. It will spread like wildfire to others because not only does it work, but it feels incredible to have real and meaningful connections with others. It is also our natural state of being.