Just a few ideas about global banking and feminism.

Sohck · 2011-01-17T16:51:12+00:00

They don't want any more money because they control/amass majority of it regardless of the gender composition of the workforce. What they really want is control, with everyone slaving themselves into debt and looking into the authorities for guidelines on how to deal with their problems, and with the only opposition they have - freely associating men - controlled and financially enslaved by newly-"liberated" womyn, they've pretty much won.

2011-01-17T15:11:29+00:00

Yes. Female employment provides low cost labor to the capitalists, allowing them to increase production and exports. Since women control most of the consumer wealth and consumer spending, capitalists see an advantage to putting money directly in their hands. The increases in the labor pool due to high female employment also drives down wages and has decreased the power of labor unions. All of these things are good for global bankers and the captains of industry.

In both the commercial market as well as the sexual market, feminism creates winners and losers. The winners are primarily beta females and alpha males. The beta females achieve a higher level of autonomy, standard of living, and sexual opportunities with alpha males. The alpha males benefit from the female contribution to the economy and the sexual availability of many beta females. The beta males lose on both accounts, losing jobs to the women, and women to the alpha males.

eyeofthestorm · 2011-01-18T01:09:40+00:00

Your observation is correct and is confirmed by Aaron Russo' interview (re: Rockefeller):

Excerpt from Aaron Russo’s last interview before his death in 2007: Well one of the things he told me was that.. he was at the house one night and we started talking and he was laughing and he said,

“Aaron what do you think Women’s Liberation was all about?”

And I had pretty convetional thinking about it at that point and I said,

“I think it’s about women having the right to work to get equal pay with men just like they won the right to vote.” He started to laugh and he said, “You are an idiot.” And I said, “Why am I an idiot?” And he said, “Let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers funded that.” “We funded Women’s Lib and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television (through) the Rockefeller Foundation…” And he says, “You wanna know why? There were two primary reasons. And one reason was we couldn’t tax half the population before Women’s Lib and the second reason was now we get the kids in school at an early age.. we can indoctrinate kids on how to think and with it break up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family.. As the schools as the officials as their family.. not the parents teaching them.

And so those were the two primary reasons for Women’s Lib.” Which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. But when I saw their intentions behind it.. where they were coming from when they created it and the thought of it.. I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture..”

Read more ... http://russianwomentruth.com/feminism-created-to-destroy-families-and-control-society-part-1/

thetrollking · 2011-01-18T06:29:34+00:00

Think of it through supply and demand. If you double the workforce you can lower the average wage by about half. This means cheaper labor and a higher profit level.

firejat · 2011-01-17T17:51:03+00:00

hit the nail on the head

fondueguy · 2011-01-18T00:17:36+00:00

Is this simply to put those women to work too?

The 1950's were a nasty aberration in which the men did most the work. That is work meaning work. Granted there are differences in men and women's work on average as their will always be but women would share the burden of work.

Supporting housewives, which prosperous times may have allowed, and leaving men to do all the work is bad the economy, men, and the children IMO. The dad needs time too.

cuteman · 2011-01-17T15:29:43+00:00

Yes and dont forget taxes and pacification of society through the breakdown of the typical family unit.

ignatiusloyola · 2011-01-17T17:33:28+00:00

Only in so much as it was women who traditionally didn't work. The same effect might be seen if we had a society that assumed only one partner worked, but did not have a preference for which gender. A capitalist society would want to increase the production of the population by encouraging the home-partner to work.

nomowolf · 2011-01-17T16:37:27+00:00

belongs in r/conspiracy

hassan-i-sabbah · 2011-01-17T19:41:22+00:00

Assuming this is ironic, upvoting though for interesting twist on the laughable idea of "men's rights" and anti-feminism

edit: actually not upvoting. I laughed though, thanks

2011-01-18T04:13:42+00:00

Now this subreddit is getting somewhere...

Guys, it can be a little more basic than that.

Taking women out of their husbands' homes and putting them in your office? Hmmm, I wonder what kind of advantage that confers.

Also remember that giving women the vote is essentially acting to aggregate power to those who control the media. Fear is easy to generate, and as we can plainly see, women respond predictably.

Please look at the field of anthropology. Think about it what it should concern itself. Then look at what it actually does concern itself with. Then look at its history.

2011-01-17T17:53:49+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Liverotto · 2011-01-18T17:04:37+00:00

It is very difficult to prove, plus you should suspect stupidity instead of malice.

There are no secret meetings planning to subjugate men to women.

No conspiracies.

No intelligent design in this.

It is more like a self organizing organism.

Like evolution, you know.

On the other hand there are proofs that the Rockefellers bankrolled feminists because they wanted women to enter the labor force, doubling the available workers and so halving workers wages and enriching the bankers even further.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter by 2030 Western Civilization is done, we will be satellites of China like Europe as been a satellite of the US since WWII.

2011-01-17T21:48:08+00:00

Lower wages, more taxes, divide and rule and emasculation.

cynwrig · 2011-01-17T18:09:23+00:00

Hilary Clinton said recently that womens rights and womens empowerment is now at the core of US foreign policy.

Someone needs to tell the first mangina president to go get his nuts back from Hillary.

NiceGuysSTFU · 2011-01-17T16:01:23+00:00

You can't have it both ways, dude.

2011-01-18T07:00:51+00:00

Women marry up. Men with less buying power means fewer qualified males. This leads to a lot of female frustration which they gloss over by being promiscuous. Women often say things and believe them, that is simply not true. I hear women say all the time that they like having commitment-less sex. I am sure some do, but in the end, they generally fall hard for a guy who dumps them, and then they go back to whoring it up (dating). In the end, women ARE looking for a prince, and feminists are setting up society to kill most of the princes, thus directly hurting women (not helping them).

An example: a wealthy 6-figure affirmative action female was seeking a husband. She, of course, was looking for a man who made more than she did, which was VERY hard to find because even though she was of average intelligence, she was making bank (promoted well beyond her talent level). So a rich shyster comes along and tells her a bunch of lies, beds her, and BLAM she gets herpes. Now if not for her insane prince-seeking infatuation, she should have been able to see the rat. This guy was way more attractive than she was, and had girls hanging off his arm, and he was single over 30.

So now she lays in bed and can barely get up to go to work, knowing no attractive wealthy man would ever want her (unless he already had herpes). She is JEALOUS of her sister who has been married for years and works as a retail clerk.

Feminism was created to make women live like men (which HURTS them).

Most females I know over a certain age are miserable. Society is broken.

Women should choose to make less than most men. Women should turn down promotions, knowing that it will cut down their dating pool even more.

Men's dating pool becomes larger with every promotion.

Feminism was good to a point, but now it is hurting women, because in the end, we are all humans, and need love. More and more young women are finding it hard to find a suitable partner, and it is getting worse every year.

Maybe I just know the wrong women, but I don't know a single happy female over the age of 23, and I'm 36. There are so few men who make decent money, that they pick these jerkstores simply because they made it up the corporate ladder. Female biology requires feeling inferior, and thus they open themselves to a lifetime of mistreatment by jerks just because of a larger paycheck (even if the woman is a doctor or an investment banker).

The next time a woman complains about not being able to find a "good guy" tell her to quit her job, and then suddenly any male with a job would be a "good guy."

I don't know how we men can fight this, except to save people one at a time. I've saved my girlfriend from the manipulation. That is one. How many have you saved?

Title	Just a few ideas about global banking and feminism.
Author	AntiFeministMedia
Upvotes	3
Comments	21
Date	January 17, 2011 2:47 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/f3t38/just_a_few_ideas_about_global_banking_and_feminism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/just-a-few-ideas-about-global-banking-and-feminism.1044251 https://theredarchive.com/post/1044251

Comments