Women's Liberation- who done it?

Penn

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

From the forum charter:

There should be a reasonable give-and-take in terms of how strongly someone expresses a belief in the truth (or falsity) of something, and how others react to it.

For example, if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim. Conversely, if you state that you personally tend to favour one interpretation over another, it would be unreasonable for someone to ask you to prove your stance to be correct.

If you state something to be fact, the burden of proof is on you.

Regardless, for consistently ignoring mod warnings for which you have already been given a yellow card and a red card infraction, you're banned for 3 days.

hooradiation

Well, to give a helping hand here is the most outlandish (if only by a hair) bit

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

Here's an interesting thing. "Nicholas Rockefeller" doesn't appear anywhere in the Rockefeller family tree as far as i can see.
In fact Nicholas Rockefeller is not part of the "infamous Rockefeller" dynasty.
He just happens to have the same last name.

So, I'm wondering if this means there's supposed to be a second Rockefeller foundation that Nicholas has a part in?

CiaranMT

What a strange few threads we have going at the minute!

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

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

A question: why?

And who is leaking the Illuminati manifesto? We have their whole manifesto, but we don't have any proof that they even exist?

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

A question: why?

I would have thought that much is obvious at least... Total control?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And who is leaking the Illuminati manifesto? We have their whole manifesto, but we don't have any proof that they even exist?

I'm not sure, was it Weishaupt? Come on dude, historically there is loads. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

hooradiation wrote: »

Well, to give a helping hand here is the most outlandish (if only by a hair) bit

If by a helping hand you mean useless research that leads to nowhere & simply detracts from the issue then yeah, thanks for nothing.

http://www.nicholasrockefeller.org/

His clients include several multinational companies and many succesful technology ventures throughout the world. His securities practice includes litigation before the United States Supreme Court and a number of his transactions have been featured in leading periodicals. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Insitutute of Strategic Studies, the Advisory Board of RAND, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Committee on Foreign Relations in Los Angeles, the Western Justice Center, and has served as a participant in the World Economic Forum and the Aspen Institute. He is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Law Schools of the University of Oregon and Pepperdine University and is active in the affairs of his alma mater, Yale University. He recently chaired a panel at the United Nations on E-Commerce and is a co-author of "Economic Strategy and National Security."

You all want 'proof' that this is what's happening in our society, and you expect someone else to provide the 'evidence' for you...

I would say that the evidence is all around you, yet for some reason most of you choose to ignore it.

(ie-If you look at those manifesto tenets, it's exactly what's happening in the world around us today... No?)

jargon buster

obelisk wrote

I would have thought that much is obvious at least... Total control?

You said the objective was profit earlier, now its total control??
I suppose you realised that profit isnt actually real at all.
So I ask again when they have total control, then what?

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

(ie-If you look at those manifesto tenets, it's exactly what's happening in the world around us today... No?)

I can offer a more obvious explanation though: the 'manifesto' was written to suit what some people think is going on in the world. The very first thing I'd like to establish is the authenticity of this manifesto, and then I'd work backwards. So, can we be certain the 'manifesto' isn't some nonsense someone knocked up for internet distribution, and the writer put the 1911 date on it or whatever?

Can we be sure of that much at least, before we go any further?

Edit: hang on a second: haven't you noticed an uncanny similarity between the "Illuminati Agenda" and the widely debunked, anti-semitic nonsense of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion"?

Creation

The Protocols is a fabricated document purporting to be factual. It was originally produced in Russia between 1897 and 1903, possibly by Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Paris office of the Russian Secret Police, and unknown others.[2][3]
Source material for the forgery consisted of an 1864 novel by the French political satirist Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu or Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu,[4] and a chapter from an 1868 book of fiction entitled "Biarritz" by the antisemitic German novelist Hermann Goedsche, which had been translated into Russian in 1872.[5]

Literary forgery

The forgery contains numerous elements typical of what is known in literature as a "false document": a document that is deliberately written to fool the reader into believing that what is written is truthful and accurate even though, in actuality, it is not.[6] It is also one of the best-known and most-discussed examples of literary forgery, with analysis and proof of its fraudulent origin going as far back as 1921.[7] The forgery is also an early example of "conspiracy theory" literature.[8] Written mainly in the first person plural,[9] the text embodies generalizations, truisms and platitudes on how to take over the world: take control of the media and the financial institutions, change the traditional social order, etc. It does not contain specifics.[citation needed]

Maurice Joly

Elements of the Protocols were plagiarized from Joly's fictional Dialogue in Hell, a thinly-veiled attack on the political ambitions of Napoleon III, who, represented by the non-Jewish character Machiavelli,[10] plots to rule the world. Joly, a monarchist and legitimist, was imprisoned in France for 15 months as a direct result of his book's publication. Ironically, scholars have noted that Dialogue in Hell was itself a plagiarism, at least in part, of a novel by Eugene Sue, Les Mystères du Peuple (1849–1856).[11]

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

Obelisk

Thanks for the response. I'm not too familiar with the protocols of zion thing. Hmmm, disinfo eh.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can we be sure of that much at least, before we go any further?

I guess we cant be sure, of course documents can be forged and such but there is a lot of history dating back about the illuminati which cant all be false. This is an interesting article http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/proof_of_conspiracy.htm

The two prime source books for our knowledge of Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati conspiracy are Professor John Robison's *Proofs of a Conspiracy*, first published in 1798, and the Abbe Augustin Barruel's impressive four-volume study, *Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism*, published in 1799, some months after the first appearance of Robison's book. Both men -- one a Professor of Natural Philosophy at Edinburgh University, the other a French clergyman -- writing in different countries and in different languages, without the one knowing the other, basically covered the same subject matter and came to the very same conclusions. Thus, we have two excellent works which tell us virtually all we need to know about the origin of history's most diabolical, long- range conspiracy.

Here is a rather revealing quote which is widely attributed to Weishaupt, wether correctly or incorrectly-

There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation…of standing up for themselves…it will cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire for personal admiration.

In any case I feel we are getting a little off topic here.
The way I see it, there are only three possible outcomes to the the initial video I posted; (Re Women's Lib)

1. Russo is telling the truth, and so was Rockefeller.

2. Russo is telling the truth, but Rockefeller wasnt.

3. Russo is lying, to suit a particular agenda.

All three point toward a conspiracy, so which one is it to be? I cant say I know for sure so somebody help me out here...

jargon buster

So I ask again when they have total control, then what?

obelisk?

Obelisk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsf2_xL5sHQ

Monty Burnz

Presumably whoever made this video thinks that women not even having the choice to work, or men not having the choice to look after the kids while the wife works, makes women more free?

Freedom is about choices. The clown behind this video suggests we can increase freedom by cutting out options.

Obelisk wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsf2_xL5sHQ

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Presumably whoever made this video thinks that women not even having the choice to work, or men not having the choice to look after the kids while the wife works, makes women more free?

Freedom is about choices. The clown behind this video suggests we can increase freedom by cutting out options.

In any case, it does back up my OP. What do you think of this;

The way I see it, there are only three possible outcomes to the the initial video I posted; (Re Women's Lib)

1. Russo is telling the truth, and so was Rockefeller.

2. Russo is telling the truth, but Rockefeller wasnt.

3. Russo is lying, to suit a particular agenda.

Any idea which option here is the most viable...

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

Any idea which option here is the most viable...

Any one that doesn't involve the claims being true. This Rockefeller guy seems to have nothing to do with the famously wealthy family of the same name. I'm sure he has his own take on various issues, same as anyone else. And if he believes that feminism was a CT (I don't) then it's not surprising that he'd say this to someone else. That doesn't make it true though, does it?

If my surname was 'Branson' and I told someone that the moon is made of cheese, most people would think "that's rubbish". But some people would go..."hmm...Branson? As in Richard Branson? (well, no but...) Wow - this guy must have inside information if he's part of the wealthy, connected Branson clan..."

This Rockefeller guy seems to be some randomer with the same name. Maybe he even changed his name to Rockefeller.

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Any one that doesn't involve the claims being true. This Rockefeller guy seems to have nothing to do with the famously wealthy family of the same name. I'm sure he has his own take on various issues, same as anyone else. And if he believes that feminism was a CT (I don't) then it's not surprising that he'd say this to someone else. That doesn't make it true though, does it?

If my surname was 'Branson' and I told someone that the moon is made of cheese, most people would think "that's rubbish". But some people would go..."hmm...Branson? As in Richard Branson? (well, no but...) Wow - this guy must have inside information if he's part of the wealthy, connected Branson clan..."

This Rockefeller guy seems to be some randomer with the same name. Maybe he even changed his name to Rockefeller.

That is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. :pac: You sir, are a troll.

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

That is probably the dumbest argument I have ever heard. :pac: You sir, are a troll.

Your claim: some unknown guy says that some other unknown guy whose name happens to be Rockefeller but who has no connection to the wealthy family of the same name claims that women's lib was organised to enslave women and break up families so children would see the state as their parent and be enslaved in turn.


My claim: people claim an awful lot of stuff, and and awful lot of what they claim is rubbish.

Which claim do you think is more reasonable? And which one may be the dumbest ever heard?

Obelisk

They are not unknown guys! I just showed how he is a member of the CFR amongst others, and Russo is a film director, ran for governer etc and happens to be dying of cancer. It's either info, or disinfo so what's the agenda?

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

They are not unknown guys! I just showed how he is a member of the CFR amongst others

So what? What is the CFR? You realise that you can establish a 'foundation' or organisation called anything you like? He's no relation to the 'real' Rockefellers, just seems to be some busybody with odd views, who seems to like to trade on his name (or else others - like you - like to).

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So what? What is the CFR? You realise that you can establish a 'foundation' or organisation called anything you like? He's no relation to the 'real' Rockefellers, just seems to be some busybody with odd views, who seems to like to trade on his name (or else others - like you - like to).

The council on foreign relations.

Nicholas Rockefeller declined to say where in the Rockefeller family he fits. But the family's patriarch, David Rockefeller, said through an associate that he doesn't recall ever meeting Nicholas. The relationship 'is probably quite distant, seventh or eighth cousins,' according to the associate, Peter Johnson.

Man who cares, your still detracting from the poibt which still remains to be seen.

clever_name

Obelisk wrote: »

Russo is a film director, ran for governer etc and happens to be dying of cancer.

Have you ever looked at some of the crackpots that run for office? you might aswell say hes a mate down the pub... How is the cancer relevant? did a woman cause it?

Obelisk wrote: »

It's either info, or disinfo so what's the agenda?

So are the only two colors black and white? if its not one thing it must be the only other option... it must be a strange life when everything is a 50:50 choice....

this thread is about your theory that women getting more rights is a bad thing to destroy families so that the overlords can have more control - guess what - if they had the power to change the world and give women rights then they already had all the power!

What about equal rights for black people? is that another bad thing? Must be, it means a lot more families with women out of the house.

How about all the families with disabled people in them who now receive assistance , must be a bad thing - allowing women folk to leave the house and destroy the family unit.

BTW all of the above is 100% from the mouth of John Rockefeller, yes THE John Rockefeller who drinks in the same pub as me and is member of the DCR, so it must be true.

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

The council on foreign relations.

And what is the Council for Foreign Relations? I was a member of the Irish Espionage Unit* some years ago, so I should know whether he's talking nonsense or not.

By the way, if it's this Council on Foreign Relations, they don't seem to know anything about a Nick or Nicholas Rockefeller. There are over 150 references to 'Rockefeller' in the site's archives - but strangely not one reference to your man.

Can you show that he has anything to do with the CFR without linking to another CT website? It looks to me like a false claim that has been repeated by uncritical thinkers all over the web.


*An organisation of spies that me and some other kids formed when we were about 10.

Obelisk

Wether he exists or not, it still doesnt explain the video.

In a relatively small deal with broad implications, an investment firm connected with the Rockefeller family appears set to buy a luxury hotel on the island of Bali from a company controlled by one of Indonesia's own wealthy industrial dynasties, according to people close to the buyer and seller.

Surya Semesta Internusa, a company controlled by the Suriadjaya family of Indonesia, plans to sell the 500-room Melia Bali hotel to Trenwith Holdings Ltd. for approximately $50 million, one of the informants said. Trenwith is a joint venture 70 percent owned by Rockvest Development, a Rockefeller trust controlled by Nicholas Rockefeller, a California lawyer.

More than the names of the buyer and seller, the deal is important because big real estate transactions in Asia, particularly any involving prominent hotels, have been extremely rare, even with the Asian economic crisis severely hurting the hotel business.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/03/business/international-business-asian-luxury-hotel-is-near-a-rare-sale.html

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

Wether he exists or not, it still doesnt explain the video.

I'm sure he does exist, in some form. But I don't know why you think the video requires any explanation? The video proves nothing. The video is just one guy saying that another guy made some claims about women's lib. That's all.

I can get a video up on Youtube in half an hour of me stating that the king of the masons told me the opposite. How would you explain that?

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't know why you think the video requires any explanation?

Because, it's either true or false (info or disinfo) and I'm interested in the possible motives behind either or...

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

Because, it's either true or false (info or disinfo) and I'm interested in the possible motives behind either or...

It's disinfo so. Why? I don't know why, but the web is full of people spouting nonsense for whatever reason. Sites like this one for example.

If I was forced to give a reason, I'd say that the world is full of:
1. People who are very bad at weighing evidence
2. Those who believe what they want rather than what the evidence points to
3. Those whose minds don't work quite right in the first place and may be suffering from mental illness.

There's a whole world of such disinformation for you to explore here. Don't waste too much time trying to figure out why they are there on a case-by-case basis - you'd be better off coming to general principles as I did above.

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Obelisk wrote: »

Because, it's either true or false (info or disinfo) and I'm interested in the possible motives behind either or...

It's disinfo so. Why? I don't know why, but the web is full of people spouting nonsense for whatever reason. Sites like this one for example.

If I was forced to give a reason, I'd say that the world is full of:
1. People who are very bad at weighing evidence
2. Those who believe what they want rather than what the evidence points to
3. Those whose minds don't work quite right in the first place and may be suffering from mental illness.

There's a whole world of such disinformation for you to explore here. Don't waste too much time trying to figure out why they are there on a case-by-case basis - you'd be better off coming to general principles as I did above.

I'm glad that after 4 pages in, the issue I presented is finally being addressed. I will say this though, I don't generalise people in the same manner that you just did there.

So your saying it's disinfo. Well, there's certainly plenty of that about the net.

Lets just assume for now that you are correct... The only thing that we have left to establish is a motive... ???

Monty Burnz

Obelisk wrote: »

The only thing that we have left to establish is a motive... ???

I imagine that the motive is to be found in the list I already suggested. For example, what is the motive of the guy who posted that 'Illuminati manifesto" nonsense that you linked to previously?

Obelisk

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Obelisk wrote: »

The only thing that we have left to establish is a motive... ???

I imagine that the motive is to be found in the list I already suggested. For example, what is the motive of the guy who posted that 'Illuminati manifesto" nonsense that you linked to previously?

Good to see you starting to use your imagination! I don't know the motive. That's why I'm asking you...

humanji

Later than it should have been, but Obelisk banned for a week for insulting another user.

studiorat

The text is the same, the bad guys have been changed to condem les bogeymen du jour

Here we have Feminism is a communist plot:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Feminism/engineered_women.htm

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

Recently Aaron Russo, the producer of Bette Midler's movies and "America: From Freedom to Fascism" identified all three confirming what I have been saying.

Obelisk

Those who want to destroy the family will continue to urge mothers to leave the home and 'become fulfilled in the workplace.' When the mother goes into the workplace to become 'fulfilled,' or to increase the family's income, she leaves the care of the children to others. Those who warn against such practices will continue to be scorned by the feminists and others who have a hidden agenda: they want to destroy the family.

^ Some quotes from your links >

Feminism, our official gender ideology, masquerades as a movement for women's rights. In reality, feminism is a cruel hoax, telling women their natural biological instincts are "socially constructed" to oppress them.

Feminism is elite social engineering designed to destroy gender identity by making women masculine and men feminine. Increasingly heterosexuals are conditioned to behave like homosexuals who generally don't marry and have children. Courtship and monogamy are being replaced by sexual promiscuity, prophesied in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.

The Rockefellers and Rothschilds created feminism to poison male-female relations (divide and conquer.) Their twin objectives are depopulation and totalitarian world government. Why? These bankers create money out of nothing and think they are God.