Feminism, New World Order And Rockefeller's New War

In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a "New World Order."

The ultimate aim is to concentrate the world's wealth/power in a relatively few hands through a global "socialist" dictatorship, administered by the UN, and paid for by you. As former President George Bush told the UN General Assembly in 1992, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

This is the long-term agenda of the dynastic Anglo-American international banking and oil monopolies (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) and British aristocracy that have used foreign services and intelligence agencies to manipulate world affairs and cause havoc since the end of the 19th century. Some people call this a "conspiracy." Conspiracy is the history that isn't written.

Feminism was promoted for the purpose of de stabilizing society, and creating dysfunctional people. Stunted people can be brainwashed and manipulated. Rockefeller's new war (a.k.a. The War on Terror) is an extension of this elite agenda of world monopoly.

Feminism masquerades as a movement for women's rights. This kind of deception is typical of subversive movements of Communist origin. In reality, feminism is ruthlessly opposed to femininity, masculinity, heterosexuality, the nuclear family and children.

It deliberately promotes homosexuality which, according to experts, is a form of arrested development. Feminism neuters women, rendering them less fit to become wives and mothers. Men are emasculated, unable to create families, or make sacrifices for the sake for their children.

If feminism were genuine, it would have disappeared when discrimination against women ended. It continues as a tool of the elite agenda: depopulation, de stabilizing society, and dismantling Western Civilization.

In academia, feminists are the storm troopers of the Brave NW0, making politics supreme over science, objective fact and reason. Feminists believe western culture needs to be "reformulated" because men ("the patriarchy") created it. Essentially, this involves throwing it out.

Modern feminism is a classic Communist "popular front" subversive movement. (See American Communism And The Making Of Women´s Liberation and What Betty Friedan Didn't Want You To Know) Betty Friedan, and virtually all its leading exponents were/are Communist/Marxist activists. Feminism has taken over the education and legal systems, the media and federal bureaucracy because dismantling our culture is the elite agenda.

The elite financed the Communists because the state is the ultimate monopoly. By controlling that, they control everything. As well, they have the common goal of destroying western civilization.

Communists use social ideals to dupe the people. In the past, Communists exploited class and race divisions to divide and conquer. Now they pretend to champion women and homosexuals. Their real aim is to de stabilize and control society.

The result of feminism is massive social and psychological dysfunction. Feminists, who would not touch a genetically modified apple, deny the inherent male-female dichotomy, the yin-yang at the heart of the universe. They are standing between millions of people and their G-d, because loving sexual union mirrors divine union.

Western civilization is Judeo Christian. Every civilization is based on religion. They are founded on the assumption that the material world mirrors an immanent spiritual order. Call it G-d.

Culture, personal and social, is the attempt to reflect this spiritual order. This is the true path to fulfillment and happiness. Civilization is a quest for G-d. There is no such thing as culture divorced from G-d.

The monopolists want to bring down western civilization because the Divine Order is opposed to the New World Order. They want to replace civilization with paganism.

If believers are accused of imposing their morality on others, they should reply, you are imposing your IMMORALITY on us.

Believers should insist on prayer and references to G-d in public institutions because while there are many paths, all lead to the same mountaintop. While we should not insist on our particular path, we should insist on the common goal. There is only one G-d and we are all His children. We should unite to defend civilization against the onslaught of paganism.

Sexual promiscuity and pornography are a big part of this push to paganism. They result from arrested development. The stunted human equates sex with love and obsessively fills the vacuum with sex. The elite monopolists promote this decadence and call it liberation. They are turning us into misfits and sexual nomads unable to form fruitful permanent relationships.

Monopolists control the mass media, the education system and the professions. Universities and think tanks are filled with intellectual whores and moral cowards financed by tax exempt foundations. William H. McIllany's book, The Tax-Exempt Foundations shows how our tastes and attitudes have been formulated and controlled. For example, Rockefeller financed the development of contraception and the promotion of depopulation and promiscuity (The Kinsey Report.) Ominously, Rockefeller also financed the eugenics movement and paid for the United Nations site.

The elite media tells us that Iraq must be contained before it acquires weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't tell us who sold him these weapons. It doesn't tell us that Iraq now has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and is expected to supercede even Saudi Arabia. Could the projected 300 billion barrels of Iraqi oil be of any interest to Rockefeller-Morgan-Chase-Exxon? Might it interest their minions in the CIA and Bush administration? Who will benefit from these reserves after Saddam Hussein is toppled? These questions are worth asking, don't you think?

Last week General Tommy Franks inadvertently referred to the war in Afghanistan as "Vietnam" and didn't realize his mistake. This telling slip of the tongue wasn't reported in the US. (I saw it on a cable channel from France.) The American "victory" in Afghanistan may have been spurious. The Taliban may have melted away in order to avoid bombs and draw in American ground troops.

What was reported, however, was a "leak" in which seven countries were named as potential US first-strike nuclear targets. In addition to the "axis of evil," Russia, China, Syria and Libya were named. While the administration backpedaled furiously this week, the message got out loud and clear. According to the "Tehran Times", from Iran (a country with oil reserves of 100 billion barrels): "The order indicates the US administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination." (National Post, March 11)

An article in the Chicago Tribune March 3, 2002, was remarkably candid for the elite media. Under a headline "Whack Iraq? Striking Hussein is Ill-Conceived," Senior Correspondent R.C. Longworth reported that emissaries from "the Eastern Establishment" recently traveled to Chicago, to win local support for an American war on Iraq.

"About 20 prominent Chicagoans gathered recently for a private dinner to hear an emissary from the Eastern Establishment lay out the administration's case for a war on Iraq. It was a conservative crowd--lawyers, business people, bankers, a sprinkling of academics, even a retired Army general. All probably supported the war in Afghanistan, and there wasn't a card-carrying dove in the lot.''

Nevertheless, the Chicago elite unanimously opposed the war-on-Saddam pitch, comparing it to similar war-hawk assurances they received before the U.S. got into the quagmire in Vietnam. The Chicagoans were not demonstrating Midwestern isolationism. On the contrary, they argued that "a unilateral attack on Iraq would shred those alliances [with Europe and the Arab world], turning the U.S. from a global leader, respected by its allies, into a global bully feared by its subjects.''

It's about time we heard from these US regional elites. Feminism, the New World Order and the Rockefeller's new war are all part of the same picture: a ruthless, insatiable drive for world resource monopoly. Inevitably this will lead to genocide and tyranny.

The American people are good, decent and courageous. It's time they attacked the root of the evil that afflicts them. We should begin by networking with like-minded citizens, and making our voices heard. Our first demand should be an independent investigation of the events of Sept. 11. Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists? Show us that the elite didn't perpetrate this atrocity. I don't want to believe it did. But these days, self-delusion is becoming a luxury.

To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Henry at scruples@escape.ca .

You - or the author - will probably appreciate this more than most.

Pardon me if I wax skeptical about the possibility or even effectiveness of large scale conspiracies. Now, I know I'm probably one of the mind-controlled masses, subsisting on what only the monopolist illuminati or freemasons, or whatever the heck they are this time, are spoon-feeding into my brain (did you see Hannibal - that was a coded message to the American masses that they're spooning our brains out and feeding it to us), but conspiracies need people to work. People are bad. Bad people (i.e., everyone) eventually have fallings out, which, if they do not disrupt the efficiency of conspiracies, do cause information leaks. At best, you're left with competing sects of the conspiracy, but it's impossible to maintain a conspiracy to take over the world because no one can amass the necessary personpower without destroying the conspiracy.

What is possible, though, is that chaotic events appear to happen in concert, and appear to show patterns. There's your "conspiracy".

What is possible, though, is that chaotic events appear to happen in concert, and appear to show patterns. There's your "conspiracy".

However, One measure of a theory is its usefulness as a means of predicting future events. For example, the US gov't warning to Taliban leaders in EARLY 2001, that they could have a carpet of gold if they allowed the Unocal pipeline or a carpet of bombs if they didn't.

Another is that Yugoslavia stood in the way of the pipeline routing Caspian oil to western Europe(in addition to the reluctance of its gov't to let in the IMF/western business juggernaut).

Techonology has caught up with us. In the late 1800's we had the intercontinental phone and telegraph cables run over the seas and plains, enabling an close running of wide-ranging organizations, and a correponding loss in the flexibility, discretion and authority of agents. That agency -- the independence those agents had -- was a great block against elite tyranny, for those agents, in general, being trustworthy men were generally also of high moral character, even when those they worked for may not have been.

Now the internet and phone networks have given an equal communicative ability to the honest masses, and things will be different than that century plus of elitist clubs. What it will be is still to be known ... but they have not the anywhere near the power they had only a few years back.

Let's see now, Microsoft is too big to be effective? The Kennedys have no chance of being elected to any office they want? These conspiracies, of which there are none, have done what to high school graduates? Talk to one lately, or his teacher? If it is not a conspiracy then the last 300 years of this country have been an accident.

Thank you for proving my point. There is a difference between a conspiracy and a group of people getting together as a political group to achieve their political ends. If you're going to define the NEA as a conspiracy, then the word has lost any reasonable meaning. As to Microsoft, it's a public corporation with announced business plans and goals. That it got caught allegedly "conspiring" (legally, a corporation cannot conspire with its officers) again proves my point. To successfully take over the world, a conspiracy must be large - even economy sized. The larger it is, the more likely it will break down or leak.

Conspiracies - at least the ones being discussed here, are generally secret.

Conspiracy: 1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators.

Main Entry: con·spire

Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe Date: 14th century

transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE

intransitive senses

1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement

b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end -- i.e., circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts

And, before you jump all over the second definition, ask yourself - do I really want to argue that anyone working in harmony toward a common end is engaged in a conspiracy? Such that Republicans are conspiring, Libertarians are conspiring, FReepers are conspiring? Lots of luck if you do.

So what? Thousands of conspiracy theorists around the world predict stupid stuff every day. Out of all those vague and unfounded conspiracy allegations - most formed merely by stringing a wish list of bad stuff together - some of them are bound to be correct. Basic probability. Consequently, conspiracy theories have no usefulness in predicting future events because, without any evidence to back any of them up, there is no way to sort out any potentially true theories. Only hindsight can spot those which turn out to be true.

Additionally, conspiracy theories suffer from a kind of behavioral Heisenberg uncertainty principle - if a real conspiracy were uncovered and documented and released to the press with sufficient evidence that anyone actually believed it, then the conspiracy theory would no longer be predictive of the conspiracy's future actions because the conspiracy would alter its behavior to avoid being uncovered. Hence, even if there are short-term large-scale conspiracies, they can't be proved until after they fall apart.

It was taken out of context....

George Bush's New World Order

Also, if GHWB was such a globalist, why did he refuse to sign on to the Biodiversity Treaty?

The dream culminated in the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment, otherwise known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro. Hosted by none other than proclaimed new age and United Nations leader Maurice Strong, the Summit gave birth to what was called the Convention on Biological Diversity. Less than thirty pages long, this treaty was promoted as a crowning achievement for man that would save the earth by protecting biodiversity through the application of vaguely scribed principles and theology.
But a horrible thing happened on the way to the signing ceremony at the Summit. President Bush balked. He believed it left the United States unprotected with too many critical issues undefined. In spite of global catcalls and hoots of disdain from the press, Bush stuck to his convictions and the United States refrained from signing this otherwise beguiling document.
Such mundane concerns were lost on the presidential green team that succeeded Bush. Overnight the treaty went from being a dangerous document to one destined to save the earth. With little fanfare, President Clinton signed the treaty in July 1993, and the convention disappeared into the bowels of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a full review.

Source

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.