Women's Liberation- who done it?

Obelisk

Director Aaron Russo talking in an exclusive interview about his experience with Nick Rockerfeller.
Over dinner nick explains the TRUTH beheind women sufferage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhJCTFZf03A

http://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive...

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to "chip us." Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations...

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

Jeboa Safari

Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base.

Sounds contradictory

Obelisk

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Sounds contradictory

1:

Birth rates have plummeted

2:

The media sold women "a career in exactly the same drum banging way that the Happy Homemaker had been sold to their mothers."

Jeboa Safari

And how does continuing depopulation increase their profit?

Obelisk

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

And how does continuing depopulation increase their profit?

See here- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74012795#post74012795

Mahatma coat

Deopulation, or 'Population Stabalisation' serves toi increase the Tax base

instead of having a Woman at home Raising 6-7 Children all of whom are a burden on teh taxpayer with Childrens allowance, Housing Benefits and Education, only some of whom will grow up to be 'Productive' members of society, you have a working mother generating Taxable income, with 1-2 Children which is a reduction in costs to the state, these children are then raised by a Childminding service which is taxable and will most likely to grow up to be taxable adults later on.

Jeboa Safari

And what then when these people become old and require state pensions, now with a shrinking working base to support them because the fertility rate is lower than the replacement rate?

Jeboa Safari

Obelisk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxPvKyg2U7c

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

how does a link about eugenics (after a few edits) answer my question?

Jeboa Safari

From you're first link:

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[9] The "interventions" advocated and practiced by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals and entire racial groups -- such as the Roma and Jews -- as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[10]

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[11]

So it's not used, and it still doesn't answer how they increase profit by reducing the population, or whatever you posted about less questions or healthier genes before editing.

And population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, how does that work with their depopulation agenda? And do you not think reducing the growth of population might be a good thing in the long run for both the people and the planet?

Obelisk

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

So it's not used, and it still doesn't answer how they increase profit by reducing the population, or whatever you posted about less questions or healthier genes before editing.

I love your logic. You highlight a line from a full page, and use this as your proof that this whole philosophy must not exist anymore.

Get real please. The topic of discussion here is Women's Liberation.

Jeboa Safari

Obelisk wrote: »

I love your logic. You highlight a line from a full page, and use this as your proof that this whole philosophy must not exist anymore.

Get real please. The topic of discussion here is Women's Liberation.

Where is it practiced? And how does it increase their profit? Hardly qualifies as much of a discussion when all you do is post links.

Obelisk

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Where is it practiced?

In the kitchen! Which option did you choose?

clever_name

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Deopulation, or 'Population Stabalisation' serves toi increase the Tax base

instead of having a Woman at home Raising 6-7 Children all of whom are a burden on teh taxpayer with Childrens allowance, Housing Benefits and Education, only some of whom will grow up to be 'Productive' members of society, you have a working mother generating Taxable income, with 1-2 Children which is a reduction in costs to the state, these children are then raised by a Childminding service which is taxable and will most likely to grow up to be taxable adults later on.

This has zero logic, do you honestly think that a global superpower ploting to depopulate the planet is doing it because the cost of childerens allowance would be too much?

If this depopulation group can alter the birth rate for the planet then they could probably also come up with a better way to make money? (dont answer that yet, see below)

Lets consider that if a group exists who aim to depopulate the planet, (pretty poor job they are doing for the last... well forever), so this group have a global plan and exert massive control over the media and goverments, - the very notion that they give a crap about tax revenue is beyond foolish.

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzrUFhsrR04

Illuminati Manifesto:

1 Elimination of all existing governments
2 Elimination of all private property
3 Elimination of the succession
4 Abolition of patriotism
5 Elimination of all religion
6 Elimination of the family
7 The creation of a world government

hooradiation

People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive...

While trying to recruit Russo for the CFR, Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. He admitted they want to "chip us." Google "Rockefeller Foundation" and "Women's Studies" and you'll get a half million citations...

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.

What a horrid load of nonsense.
Misogyny is an ugly, ugly thing.

Obelisk

What's your point?

hooradiation

Obelisk wrote: »

What's your point?

That it's a horrid load of nonsense. Sorry, I wasn't aware that would be considered ambiguous.

Obelisk

hooradiation wrote: »

That it's a horrid load of nonsense. Sorry, I wasn't aware that would be considered ambiguous.

We are looking for proof here, not more conjecture...

hooradiation

Obelisk wrote: »

We are looking for proof here, not more conjecture...

Well we do have plenty of conjecture to begin with, i suppose there is a limit.

OK, how about proof of these statements being anything more than fantasy and misogynistic waffle.

feminism is mass indoctrination

Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women's liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity.

The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family

jargon buster

Illuminati Manifesto:

1 Elimination of all existing governments
2 Elimination of all private property
3 Elimination of the succession
4 Abolition of patriotism
5 Elimination of all religion
6 Elimination of the family
7 The creation of a world government

8. ?

Obelisk

hooradiation wrote: »

Well we do have plenty of conjecture to begin with, i suppose there is a limit.

OK, how about proof of these statements being anything more than fantasy and misogynistic waffle.

I thought you have a vested interest in Law? You prove it.

I've provided the evidence.

hooradiation

Obelisk wrote: »

I thought you have a vested interest in Law? You prove it.

I've provided the evidence.

The burden of proof, It lies with you not me.

jargon buster

The burden of proof, It lies with you not me.

+1
Start a thread with a link to a conspiracy site and then ask others to prove it wrong :rolleyes:

I would also look up the definition of "evidence" if I were you obelisk

Obelisk

jargon buster wrote: »

8.

Profit. http://www.overlordsofchaos.com/html/illuminati_manifesto.html

hooradiation

hey now, we all know it goes

1: Collect Underpants
2: ???
3: profit.

honestly....

Obelisk

jargon buster wrote: »

+1
Start a thread with a link to a conspiracy site and then ask others to prove it wrong :rolleyes:

Evidence: "To be or show evidence of".

That's right, I started the thread and is this is the Conspiracy Theory forum I suggest that if you dont agree with the theory then the onus is on you to either back up your viewpoint (with evidence) or dont bother posting your 'view' at all. Back it up, or shut up, please

jargon buster

Profit.

profit?????????
To do what with?
Do you mean financial profit, because if you do then thats the most ridiculous answer I have ever seen on a forum.

hooradiation

Obelisk wrote: »

Evidence: "To be or show evidence of".

That's right, I started the thread and is this is the Conspiracy Theory forum I suggest that if you dont agree with the theory then the onus is on you to either back up your viewpoint (with evidence) or dont bother posting your 'view' at all. Back it up, or shut up, please

Sadly that's not how it works.

If you're going to put forward the theory that womens liberation and feminism are part of a plot to rule the world then the onus is on you to provide some actual evidence.

We have a hypothesis (that womens liberation and feminism are part of a plot to rule the world) and the opening post lays down that hypothesis. Now comes the proof part where the idea needs to be shown to have some merit.

And the burden is with you in this case.

Take your time and good luck.

jargon buster

Evidence: "To be or show evidence of".

Thats a verb, not a noun
You said you had provided the evidence, that makes it a noun
ev·i·dence


1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Sparticle

Obelisk wrote: »

Evidence: "To be or show evidence of".

That's right, I started the thread and is this is the Conspiracy Theory forum I suggest that if you dont agree with the theory then the onus is on you to either back up your viewpoint (with evidence) or dont bother posting your 'view' at all. Back it up, or shut up, please

The onus of proof is on the person putting forward the theory. Posters ask questions about the theory and if the original poster cannot answer these or cannot supply supporting evidence then the theory has lost credibility and is probably not true. This is how people filter any old ****e on the interwebs.

Asking someone to prove you wrong is childish and unproductive in all walks of life.

IT IS A DISCUSSION FORUM NOT A CIRCLEJERK FORUM to put it bluntly.

jargon buster

That's right, I started the thread and is this is the Conspiracy Theory forum I suggest that if you dont agree with the theory then the onus is on you to either back up your viewpoint (with evidence) or dont bother posting your 'view' at all. Back it up, or shut up, please

using obelisks logic
I have a fairy that lives at the bottom of my garden, I have a link to a website about fairies and could put that forward as evidence.
Prove me wrong