|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jun 21, 2006 4:00 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: Bankers Extended WWI By Three Years |
| Rollo Tomassi
| |
Greg,
Don't be too quick to rush into committing to how innocent or organised feminism was, or wasn't.
The people we're talking about in these discussions, over 250 years ago discussed and agreed a manifesto by which they could take over the nations of the world invisibly, and invert the system of values to promote their own ends, and to destroy national identity, sovereignty, autonomy, and to disintegrate resistance.
Part of this prescribed course involved not merely the diminishment, but the inversion of traditional values, particularly judeo-Christian values.
Now, for plausibility's sake, it would seem logical to ask this question... for thousands of years humanity has produced just, equalitarian, effective, and profitable social systems as ours... why did the 'feminist movement' only take hold a hundred years ago? What changed? Why did a new social agenda suddenly raise it's head, and why, as an intellectual movement, was it so heavily associated with an inversion of traditional values; the resentment of men, the belittling of the role of wife and mother, the rejection of traditional marital values, an increased obsession with recreational as opposed to procreational sex, lesbianism. Even today, increasing numbers of women are noting that the feminist movement, far from creating a scenario beneficial to all, continues to look down on any women who see their role as 'traditional', and continues to blaze a kind of 'intellectual' trail which is proving to have unreasonable and irrational demands, is proving to be detrimental to women, is proving to be the opposite of objective and rational thinking, and is, frankly, getting women a bad name. Where did it come from, so spontaneously. How did thousands of years of human instinct and acceptance, tradition and biologically founded truist distinction (practicality) suddenly become anathema and become a cause for the most vigorous attack, and bring with it such inverted values and irrationality?
I'll tell you how...
It's because the same families that devised this long term plan make extensive use of institutes and think tanks to explore the possibilities by which society can be manipulated, postured, and taken advantage of, and the research showed them an ineffable truth: firstly, under feminism, men would be emasculated and lose their identity, no longer the breadwinner, or the protectorate of a family, losing his sense of duty to fight for wife and kids, and instead to live for a life of entertainment and pleasure which the 'new woman' is only too keen to supply, no-strings-attatched. Less marriage and less families mean greater economic transience, a mobile population that does not exist in terms of nationalism or patriotism. Take away the role that man has had genetically encoded for millenia, and you end up with exactly what we've got now: successive generations of feckless, and shiftless namby-pamby men (girliemen, as Ahnold says) who live for pleasure, take no responsibility, and are happy to let the decisionmaking and responsibility pass to women. Second, under feminism, humanity takes pause in order to replace traditional values that appear to be outdated... so they invert the values and live life as a celebration of the liberty to cast caution aside and live wildly, but also those values can be replaced with pleasure pursuits, including the increased love of consumerism, shopping, entertainments, travel and so on, and make society a true slave to internationalist commercialism. Third, with feminism in place as the first and foremost form of 'equalitarian liberation', and with women (some women) making it to power positions, politics, policy making, media, and societal change become increasingly the domain of women, meaning that typically the issues pushed on society are pushed from a more feminine than masculine standpoint, and the typical objectivity of the male is replaced with the typical empathetic subjectivity and emotionalism of the female. This in turn has affected society extensively in the last decades, and we no longer have a population that can stomach war and thus that would think, while under threat, that conflict is the answer. If you're going to take over a country and subvert sovereignty and demolish the constitution, you don't want a fight on your hands, you want to be able to move in and take over without a battle - so you work to manipulate that nation to welcome everything you're going to bring it... you don't need any nationalist men with a sense of duty picking up arms, so through political correctness (increasingly predominantly influenced by women) you make that nationalist maleness with the sense of duty an outlawed and outdated relic of a traditionalist system, then you persuade the society around him to surrender their only means of removing a government from power which is not functioning according to the constitution or democratic will. You might even create such a bad turn of events in that country, that your occupation would be like a breath of fresh air. You want to control the economy, so you want to encourage working for corporations, and discourage self-employment, and you want to take advantage of the psychology of women, who have become vastly more devoted to career than anyone else. In the meanwhile the breakdown of moral order, and traditional values promotes the kind of chaos in which multiculturalism and subversion go unnoticed, just another part of the 'noise' pestering society...
So where DID feminism come from, exactly...
It seems to be yet another thing that started as a good idea and then leapt to extremes, and which has cleverly made some rich elitists exponentially more rich, by appealing to 'new markets' to sell the trappings of 'feminism' and the 'modern women' to countless millions of females, from children to adulthood...
Bloody awesome coincidence.
Incidentally, MANY of the foremost researchers on conspiracy theories have identified feminism as one of the forced changes in social trends which have had a New World Order root. If you think the decrying of feminism is a terrible thing, then never look up the author of the original article that started this thread off. In fact, ignore most New World Order theorists... And you end up with one of two conclusions... either they're right and it is only political correctness ( a manufactured process of 'screening' human thought) which forms an objection to the acceptance of the general theorem, or they're wrong, and there is no conspiracy, no smoke, and no fire.
Which seems more plausible, knowing what we know about these insidious powers and their plans? At which point are we going to say 'given the track record of what humanity can, and will do, when it has leadership power and vested interest, I can believe absolutely anything that might seem apparrent in discussing these people and their plans.' I would suggest that since there is plausible evidence of social manipulation in altering our culture and our society at every juncture, it would not be preposterous to consider that feminism is by no means an exception to a well established rule. If true power exists, then nothing rises and falls on the whims of the people, if true power exists then nothing is coincidence... if the people aren't thinking what you want them to think, you make them think it.Private Reply to Rollo Tomassi (new win) |
|
| |
|
