This shall be another short, perhaps even diversionary post, until part three of the series concerning the study of pop music, of its origins and purpose, materializes in mere days.
Many may judge from the title above that the writer of this particular post harbors misogynistic tendencies. This is not so. But the genesis of the feminism movement developed from primarily profit driven motives. It was never about feminine independence or personal empowerment.
Can one call themselves free if they are confined by the four walls of an office cubicle?
It has been noted several times in past posts concerning the agenda of Crown Temple bankers and their handmaidens the media sorcerers in shaping social and economic trends. The sole purpose of the feminism movement was not to stimulate the personal growth of millions of women convinced of the perception they were exploited by a white male dominated society in positions of power, but rather to expand the tax base from which the bankers draw their profits, creating more debt based financial instruments with which to create in turn greater mass dependence.
The logic involved behind the artificial stimulation of the women’s movement, is that if there were more women out in the work place, there would be more paychecks from which could be drawn state and federal taxes, as well as creating more debt and fostering new trade markets. If one follows the proverbial money, one will immediately note the Rockefeller family at the root of every foundation funding women’s issues, issues that were later accentuated by the media sorcerers in shaping public perception.
The Crown Temple bankers have been behind every social and political movement of any note stretching back to the ideological foundations of the communist revolution. Lenin and Trotsky were every bit the hand puppets of the bankers that such women’s movement luminaries as Gloria Steinem, and Camille Paglia.
The very methods of operation that set up the feminism movement into motion were the same that set up the counter-culture, communism, fascism, or any other major social or political revolution one cares to name.
ONE SHOULD NOT BELIEVE IN AN ISM, BUT BELIEVE IN THEMSELVES
The feminism movement was but another case of duping tens of thousands or even millions of otherwise dedicated, hard working and well-meaning individuals in becoming party to their own enslavement, slaves to the very white male power structure they claimed to be railing against.
In truth, the Feminism movement is another profit motivated pyramid scheme covered over with superficial ideological gloss. One sees the by product of this so-called independence movement even today, in the breakdown of the nuclear family unit, the hallmark of any strong society as an anchoring and organizing principle. In fact, if one observes closely, there is a parallel to be drawn between the emergence of the feminism movement and its spin-off profit making niche the emergence of the social services industry. One will notice in the last two generations alone, the growing demographic of single motherhood, some conditioned by the pseudo-philosophy of feminism, that they can raise a family on their own, and do not need a man for financial support. This plays right in to the hands of the Crown Temple Bankers, who in creating a plethora of state sponsored social service programs, have a deeper well of profits to draw from. While the single mother’s are out working more than five days per week, more than forty hours per week, their children are placed in day care centers, many of them connected to various government funded organizations. As a result, entire generations of children are being raised by the state, and the existence of the nuclear family, the bedrock of all strong societies, gradually vanishes. This is completely in line with the Crown Temple Bankers philosophy of order out of chaos, causing the social problems that they in turn have ready made solutions for. In this way, with entire generations of children reared by the state, propaganda becomes easier to dispense to those conditioned to government dependency. How can democracy thrive when these are the prevailing social conditions? It can’t, a scenario the Crown Temple bankers owning and operating the US corporation foster at every turn.
But that the Crown Temple bankers are very adept at creating order out of chaos, this isn’t very surprising. The above mentioned leaders of this movement back in the 20th century were much like their counterparts in the counter-culture movement; Timothy Leary, Abby Hoffman, etc. etc.., representing government created personas, or controlled opposition, in essence gatekeepers.
While the likes of Steinem and Paglia were exhorting women from all social and economic backgrounds to become independent of the white male dominated power structure, they were inducing not independence, but slavery.
Look next for part three of the long running blog series on pop music, coming very soon!