Meguro’s annual saury festival draws 30,000


A grilled saury festival drew around 30,000 people near JR Meguro Station in Tokyo on Sunday, organizers said.

The annual autumn festival is based on a Japanese traditional “rakugo” (comic storytelling) about how tasty the fish is when cooked crudely rather than professionally. Meguro is featured in the story.

According to organizers, 7,000 fresh saury caught off Kesennuma, Miyagi Prefecture, were grilled and distributed for free from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the festival, being held for the 20th year.

The Alpha and Omega Unveiled!

In the time it took to make this video, I grew a long beard… If you all have not taken the speed reading courses, and the beginning and ending quotes pass by too fast for you to read, _just pause it…_ I had to shave some time off the video, because I’m locked to 15 minute videos for the next 6 months, due to a BS youtube strike… I also cannot post custom thumbnails for my videos. Small things to a GIANT! Enjoy Friends!

*The Alpha and Omega Unveiled! For those who had the “WOOL” pulled over their eyes!*

*References sited*:

Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names: Or, An Attempt to Trace …, Volume 1, Thomas Inman, Pg. 173

The Christian mythology unveiled, Logan Mitchell, Pg. 144

King James Bible, Revelation 1:14, Revelation 1:8

Testimony of the Ages: Herbert William Morris, Enoch Fitch Burr, (1883), Pg. 953

Historic Magazine and Notes and Queries:, Volume 12, (1894), Pg. 330-331

The Comet, Volumes 1-2, Pg. 186* 330**

The Œdipus Judaicus, sir William Drummond, Pg. 255

Historic Magazine and Notes and Queries:, Volume 13, (1894), Pg. 216

The Theosophical Glossary, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, (1892), Pg. 374

The Evolution of Man: His Religious Systems and Social Customs, William Wright Hardwicke, Pg. 81–82

The Unitarian Review, Volume 35, (1891), Pg. 285-286

Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology, Volumes 6-7, Society of Biblical Archæology (1878), Pg. 586

Unity, Volumes 3-6, 239

From Chrishna to Christ, Raymond W. Bernard, Pg. 29

Knowledge…: A Monthly Record of Science, Volume 27, Pg. xv

Symbols, Sex, and the Stars, Ernest Busenbark, (1997), Pg. 149-150

Dissertation on The ruins, or revolutions of empires: R. J. Rowe, (1832), Pg. 220-221

Anacalypsis an Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis …, Volume 2, Godfrey Higgins, Pg. 112

The Great Dionysiak Myth, Volume 1, Robert Brown, Pg. 59

Book III Learning the Qabalah of the Et Custosi Tutelae, Freedman & Cabalis, Pg. 355

The Herald of Progress, Pg. 210

The Horned Altar: Rediscovering & Rekindling Canaanite Magic, Tess Dawson, Pg. 98

The Alphabet: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters, Volume 2, Isaac Taylor, Pg. 87

“The Gods of the great ages” http:–­es.html

“Bible Dates” http:­m

Canada: “Quebec is a land of Allah. Convert or else.”

Stickers showing the Islamic State in Repentigny: police investigate

The Huffington Post Québec | By Hadi Hassin
Publication: 2015-09-05 15:13 EDT

The police in Repentigny is investigating a case of public mischief after hate stickers have been pasted on  cars in the parking lot of a shopping center on Valmont Street.

According to Bruno Malek, a spokesman for the Repentigny police, nearly a hundred stickers have appeared on cars in the last 24 hours, including on the Valmont nearTim Hortons and a Jean Coutu Store. Cars parked near the Galeries Rive Nord have also been targeted by vandals.

Stickers show what appears to be a picture of an armed man waving the flag of the terrorist group Islamic State. “Quebec is land of Allah. Converted or else… “, is written on the sticker. The logo of the Muslim Brotherhood is also visible.

Islamic State Repentigny

It is impossible for now to know whether it was a hoax or not. Repentigny police nevertheless took the threats seriously and says it has made contact with the Sûreté du Québec as is the normal procedure.

Increased patrol will be conducted in the commercial area over the next few days.

On social networks, a photo showing individuals who seem to pass the description and began circulating Saturday morning. But the police force has not been able to confirm authentication of the photo.

This is the first time that the city of Repentigny is the target of such threat.

Guardian Columnist Julie Bindel Says Put All Males ‘In Some Kind of Camp’


England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

Bindel’s suggestion of rounding up males “in some kind of camp” drew harsh attention from men’s rights activists (MRAs) at, the blog “HEqual” and at Reddit. What was most interesting, however, was the way in which other prominent feminists silently ignored this comment by Bindel, a militant lesbian who is a columnist for the British Guardian newspaper. What conclusion should we draw from the silence of “mainstream” feminists toward those who publicly express their movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology?

Are we to suppose that Bindel’s fellow Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti actually disagrees with Bindel? Valenti is heterosexual and married to a man. Does she not bristle at the implied insult of Bindel’s assertion that, like other men, Valenti’s husband is complacently benefiting from “the advantages of patriarchy”? Or what about a young feminist like Laurie Penny, whom Bindel insults by name?

On the one hand you have got utter idiots like Laurie Pennywho are simply coming out with the stuff that she does because she knows that the groups she is supporting, that are pro-trans, pro-sex work, and pro- other anti-women nonsense, are run by very high profile, powerful libertarian men. We know that she is doing it for a career move.

Considering that Laurie Penny is a fangirl of Bolshevik commissar Alexandra Kollontai, this accusation of being a mercenary puppet of “powerful libertarian men” is certainly shocking, and yet where is Laurie Penny’s rebuttal? Where is any feminist speaking out against Bindel’s forthright advocacy of “political lesbianism”?

Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy. We were the ones that said that until women had a free choice, that we had to speak about heterosexuality as imposed upon us, rather [than] freely chosen. . ..
So I think political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. . . .
So radical feminism saw heterosexuality under patriarchy as massively problematic, because it benefited men and it disadvantaged women.

To this we might answer simply, “Cui bono“? Who benefits from heterosexuality? Is it true, as Julie Bindel asserts, that heterosexuality is “imposed” on women, to their disadvantage, by males who thereby derive an unjust benefit? She is certainly not alone in asserting this, as anyone who has read my book Sex Trouble understands. Yet decades of silence by “mainstream” feminists about their movement’s fundamental anti-male ideology has served to shield feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — from critical scrutiny. Whenever feminism begins one of its periodic resurgences, as in the early 1990s when a media publicity campaign gave rise to the movement’s so-called “Third Wave,” lesbianism always emerges as crucial to the agenda. The feminist movement at large denies that there is any evidence of causation in this correlation, and internal disputes about sexuality within the movement are generally ignored by the liberal media, which prefers to present feminism as a united and wholly respectable cause, dismissing the movement’s critics as irrational bigots.

Few outside the movement’s intelligentsia realize that the celebration of so-called “Lesbian Chic” circa 1993 was anathema to many radical feminists, who reject the “born that way” claims of the gay-rights movement, preferring instead to see lesbianism as “a challenge to the institution of heterosexuality and a form of resistance to patriarchal relations,” as Professor Diane Richardson argued in her 2000 book,Rethinking Sexuality. Probably any college sophomore who has taken even an introductory Women’s Studies class is familiar with this radical critique — a rejection of heterosexuality, per se — which has been endorsed by some of the most prominent feminist in academia, notably including Professor Charlotte Bunch of Rutgers University.

“Lesbianism is a threat to the ideological, political, personal, and economic basis of male supremacy. . . .
“Our rejection of heterosexual sex challenges male domination in its most individual and common form. . . .
“Lesbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can be trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance.”
Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1971

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women . . .”
Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“As the organized expropriation of the work of some for the benefit of others defines a class, workers, the organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its social structure . . . and control its issue.”
Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . Men’s sexual violence against women is the primary vehicle through which the dominance of the penis over the vagina is established.”
Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Despite this ideology’s long history, most people are shocked when someone like Julie Bindel is caught saying in public what is actually taught to many thousands of university students every year within the academicFeminist-Industrial Complex. This shocked reaction is the result of a gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse (what feminists say when seeking support from the general public) and feminism’s esoteric doctrine (the beliefs shared among intellectuals and activists who lead and control the movement), as I have previously explained:


Like other movements of the radical Left, feminism preaches one thing to outsiders while teaching something else to insiders, and this deception is both deliberate and necessary. Feminists must conceal the truth about their agenda, because if taxpayers knew the ideology that is being propagated in our universities, this would cause such a political uproar that legislators would zero out the budgets of Women’s Studies programs and eliminate funding for much of the “research” done by academic feminists.”

For this reason, so-called “mainstream” feminists must maintain a discreet silence regarding Julie Bindel’s blunt expression of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. They must never reveal to the general public how much radical indoctrination and propaganda is being conducted at taxpayer expense. Bindel’s academic affiliations (she is currently visiting researcher at England’s Lincoln University) expose the extent to which radical feminism is subsidized by the “society” that feminists vow to destroy. Students are being taught this fanatical hatred of men in programs funded by male taxpayers with the approval of male officials, all of whom Bindel says should “have their power taken from them” so they can be rounded up “in some kind of camp.”