[N°6]

The Illuminati may or may not exist but I think it is a convenient term for those powerful groups who see themselves as enlightened and the experts on how the rest of us should run our lives.

I wonder if there is a case that what we have seen of the so-called Women's Liberation movement is in fact something that very powerful men have started. Above national governments and kings, there are the charitable foundations, the think tanks, the NGOs, the UN etc. It seems that there is an agenda.

For example, the late film producer Aaron Russo said that a member of the Rockefeller family told him that the purpose of feminism was to tax the labour of the other half of the population:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

Hitherto, women's labour within marriage was restricted to the needs of the family. Now, the state got the "kings cut" of her labour which because the Western states are in debt to private central banks is actually the "banker's cut".

I have read on this forum that 80% of expendable income is spent by women. This is important as post-industrial countries in the West exist on the consuming of imported goods through expendable income and debt. This might be the reason to ensure that women get their hands on as much Mammon as possible through the divorce courts. Men produce - women consume. I have also read that banks found that people work harder if they are in debt. Women workers are more submissive to low wages as men are as women tend to marry richer men who can subsidise a low wage. A man needs as high a wage as possible to increase his choice in the mating market.

So in reality, feminists are just the useful idiots of very powerful men, who are, ironically, their sugar daddies. We can see that George Soros' foundation which tries to spread democracy, funds foreign groups as long as they sign up to free abortion and the Western notion of women's rights. Why does a billionaire oligarch care about peasant women's birth control? This is a man who has created poverty out of plenty through financial speculation so why is throwing babies into the abortionist's altar so important to him? We saw how the tobacco companies used women's liberation as a way to get tobacco into the mouths of young women by using Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the founder of the propaganda industry which we now call PR.

There is also evidence that Gloria Steinem and her Ms magazine were financed by the CIA as part of its efforts to keep the Western Left away from the traditional leftism as sponsored by the Soviet Union and towards the identity politics of the New Left.

Alan Watt mentioned that female promiscuity was a goal of the global élite, then centred in London since the late 19th Century. The Roaring 20s was the first time when it pushed female promiscuity - the idea being that the more men a woman has had, the less able she will be able to bond with a husband and a family. Aldous Huxley wrote in Brave New World that pleasure and sexual freedom, not fear will be the tool to control the masses. In this book, he showed that motherhood would be scorned and free love encouraged by the "World Controllers".

The Roaring 20s was a failure because of unwanted pregnancies, STDs, the religious and conservative feeling of Americans and the German backlash against the Weimar Republic which brought about the family-orientated National Socialists as the pendulum swung to the other extreme. How often do we hear feminists and all the other identity politicos say that the Weimar Republic was like Paradise Lost? In reality, kids were starving in the streets, suicide was widespread, disease was rampant and street battles with fists and small arms was common.

By the 1960s, the pill and abortion laws were in place to encourage a remake of the Roaring 20s and female promiscuity has risen ever since. It is now an open secret that most women are now more promiscuous than straight men and when they do get married, 70% of divorces are initiated by them.

Qui bono ?

I will add some references if this thread starts an interesting discussion.

[CJ_W]

There isn't a group on the planet organized enough to pull something like that off over that long a period of time.

[Balboa]

(07-27-2013 04:55 AM)CJ_W Wrote:  

There isn't a group on the planet organized enough to pull something like that off over that long a period of time.

This is the usual straw man. You missed the point and didn't address any of the specific examples in the OP. For example, he mentions the CIA funding of Ms magazine in the 60s, and the spreading of feminism in developing countries by George Soros. Is that saying that Soros and the CIA had or have regular meetings? No. Its saying that the interests of certain powerful groups and individuals have coalesced over the last century with the effect of breaking down the traditional family for personal, state or corporate gain.

[AntiTrace]

(07-27-2013 05:18 AM)Balboa Wrote:  

Its saying that the interests of certain powerful groups and individuals have coalesced over the last century with the effect of breaking down the traditional family for personal, state or corporate gain.

Last century? More like for the better part of recorded history.

The powerful manipulate the masses for their own agenda. Once in a while the masses get upset and overthrow the powerful. The new leaders they put in charge then begin manipulating the masses for their own agenda.

Its nothing new. There is really no need to sensationalize it.

[Acute Angle]

Interesting topic. But I would rather call upon the reserve army of labour theory to account for the insertion of women into the workplace. The sexual political consequences are probably unintended, albeit powerful and far-reaching, side-effects.

[N°6]

(07-27-2013 06:50 AM)Acute Angle Wrote:  

Interesting topic. But I would rather call upon the reserve army of labour theory to account for the insertion of women into the workplace. The sexual political consequences are probably unintended, albeit powerful and far-reaching, side-effects.

That's definitely part of it and it shows the split between the Old and New Left. The old left would have seen the insertion of cheap-waged women (and immigrants) as organised capital triggering the reserve labour theory to drive down wages.

Yet, the New Left, now conveniently into identity politics, bitterly defends the endless increase of people in the labour reserve.

What I think has happened is that taxing the other half of the population was not enough to reduce the national debts. Worse, it caused the fertility rates to decline as well. So relying on the female workforce to share the tax burden only stabilised things for a generation or two after WW2. A new problem arose when the fertility rate begin to not provide the necessary seven tax payers to support a pensioner. So the tax base had to be expanded further by bringing in immigrants.

[Acute Angle]

Good point about the New Left. Identity politics fits very well with the interests of Capital, causing atomisation and solipsism.

And not coincidentally we need all manner of stuff to express our individualism; so much stuff that the average family needs two wage-earners just to buy an average house and support a consumerist lifestyle. It all fits together delightfully as far as Capital is concerned.

[j r]

Why do you need any external force to explain feminism? Societies form traditional social norms to survive rough environments. Women look to men for protection; they form a family with the most powerful/high status man they can attract to secure the safety and well being of them and their children.

As societies advance and economies grow, people begin to push back against their traditional roles. An ethnic or religous minority that was once shunned and kept at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder starts to demand more freedoms and more opportunity. Women start to want more self-determination, because they don't need the same level of protection that they once did.

People like I talk about natural gender roles, but there is also a natural tendency for people to want to be free to determine their own lives. When things get screwy is when people get new freedoms, but refuse the responsibility that goes along with it.

[Edmund Dantes]

(07-27-2013 04:37 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

So in reality, feminists are just the useful idiots of very powerful men, who are, ironically, their sugar daddies. We can see that George Soros' foundation which tries to spread democracy, funds foreign groups as long as they sign up to free abortion and the Western notion of women's rights. Why does a billionaire oligarch care about peasant women's birth control? This is a man who has created poverty out of plenty through financial speculation so why is throwing babies into the abortionist's altar so important to him? We saw how the tobacco companies used women's liberation as a way to get tobacco into the mouths of young women by using Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud and the founder of the propaganda industry which we now call PR.

Moloch demands human sacrifices.

[CactusCat589]

There's no need to go into lulzy Marxist economic theory.

The last four of so waves of feminism (in the United States) can be understood from the perspective of the the devaluation of the dollar.

When the dollar was taken off the gold standard in 1971, it immediately fell 30% against the deutche mark and every other major currency, before we backed it with oil instead (the original purpose of the Trilateral Commission, also founded by David Rockefeller.)



Women were entered into the workforce to mask the loss of purchasing power which made the average single-income household financially incapable of raising children to adulthood, which continued throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and continues today.

As Russo pointed out, Rockefeller was very aware of this.

The next step in the trajectory is the de facto abolishment of retirement as the elderly have to keep working longer and longer, as we see from the case of Japan.

[Grit]

The devaluation of the dollar is key. The dollar represents a quantifiable and physical manifestation of a man's effort and labor.

The modern dilemma is that machines and robots are doing man's labor, therefore the dollar is losing its value.

We no longer back the dollar with a gold standard because gold could not bear market demand, an insanely huge demand driven by technology.

In history, monetary systems used to evolve after wars to counteract huge war debts so that the host nation could slough off the burden of reparations and reconstruction.

In a way, we are part of a cold war, incurring huge debts because of the promises of technology. We are in an arms race with no fighting. We need to have the next modular air conditioned housing system equipped with predator drones and GPS guided hellfire missles simply because we are enticed with the promise that it can be the force multiplier in a future war (and endless promises of adaptation for peacetime civilian use).

Technology is humanity's invention, but it is making us write checks we cannot cash.

[Edmund Dantes]

I skimmed through Protocols of the Elders of Zion (can be found online) and destruction of the family unit is part of the plan. Seems like it's working so far.

[N°6]

The US dollar has been declining since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 allowed private banks create money out of nowhere and lend it at interest to the Federal Government. As interest is built into this system, more money has to be borrowed from out of nowhere which has caused the dollar to lose about 98% of its pre-1913 value.

I think we can agree that women entering the workplace and the reduction in value of their fertility had nothing to do with equality.

What we see of the 1960s New Left was discussed by Reich in the early 20th Century in Central Europe. The social policies were implemented by Trotsky but gradually rejected by successive USSR governments.

[CactusCat589]

(07-27-2013 11:15 PM)Grit Wrote:  

The devaluation of the dollar is key. The dollar represents a quantifiable and physical manifestation of a man's effort and labor.

The modern dilemma is that machines and robots are doing man's labor, therefore the dollar is losing its value.

We no longer back the dollar with a gold standard because gold could not bear market demand, an insanely huge demand driven by technology.

In history, monetary systems used to evolve after wars to counteract huge war debts so that the host nation could slough off the burden of reparations and reconstruction.

In a way, we are part of a cold war, incurring huge debts because of the promises of technology. We are in an arms race with no fighting. We need to have the next modular air conditioned housing system equipped with predator drones and GPS guided hellfire missles simply because we are enticed with the promise that it can be the force multiplier in a future war (and endless promises of adaptation for peacetime civilian use).

Technology is humanity's invention, but it is making us write checks we cannot cash.

Advancement of technology doesn't kill the value of currencies, there's simply no correlation there. When Ford and Edison made their inventions, the dollar was strong as ever. Only expansion of the money supply can dilute the purchasing power of currencies.

Leaving the gold standard had nothing to do with the progression of technology either, it was due to Lyndon B. Johnson starting the Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Also, JFK's Apollo program and setting the precedent for loose monetary policy. The fact that these things pushed the country toward inflation was what eventually triggered the gold run by the European countries when they realized the U.S. was debasing its currency.

Without these wild expenditures and with gold mining proceeding at steady levels so that the money supply could expand roughly on par with population growth (it was fairly linear up till the 1970s - then population exploded when the last restraints on deficit spending were cast aside with Nixon shock), we might very well may still be on the gold standard today, without this debt bubble of monumental proportions.

In fact, the devaluation of the USD is precisely what is neutralizing technology otherwise giving us higher standard of living.

[CactusCat589]

This is very dark, but I think a discussion on the conspiratorial/oligarchical side of monetary policy has to include debt. To take an example, let's use student loan debt. I find it to be a perfect example of gradualism/fabian socialism.

Here is a nice infographic detailing the history of student loans in the U.S.:
http://www.healthcareadministration.com/...tudent.jpg

The Democrats campaigned on student loan reform during the last election cycle. I watched Bill Clinton deliver his speech on the subject at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, and explained to my friend watching it with me that it was bullshit, in real-time and line-by-line, as Clinton spoke.

Sure enough, less than a year later: the interest rate on federal Stafford loans was allowed to double, there was some political theatrics as the Senate and the House squabbled, ultimately resulting in this "compromise": http://business.time.com/2013/07/29/stud...for-long/.

To summarize the current legislation: all loans are pegged to the 10-year Treasury, with undergraduate loans capped to 8.25%, graduate loans capped to 9.5%, and parent plus loans capped to 10.25%.

The reason we see the reckless growth of credit, the encouragement to the poor to engage in subprime borrowing with proactive government intervention in forcing down lending standards, only to see them screwed later...

Take the health industry. Take Pell grants, guaranteed low Stafford loan rates. Are they so stupid that they can't recognize the pattern of granting subsidies, thus allowing insurance providers and universities to bid up prices?

A lot of free market and classical liberals would say "Yes, central planners are that stupid."

The other answer is that it's a predatory policy from the three branches of power.

In high school, our youth are aggressively targeted with going to college. It starts in earnest in junior year and preparation for the SAT/ACT, and the bombardment never lets up from that moment onward. They trot out the college guidance counselors, and there's an automatic assumption everyone's going to college. They implant that insecurity about the prestige of where you'll attend university, and the U.S. News rankings.

I never heard a single alternative uttered once from my high school's faculty. Not trade school, not trying to start a business, simply working a blue collar job etc. Nothing. You have to go to college at all costs, and they'll go out of their way to proselytize on liberal arts being valuable in and of themselves, and they're worth burying yourself into debt for.

It is an inevitability that interest rates will rise, and with it the yield on the U.S. treasuries, short and long-dated alike. Then Fed Board of Governors member, Bernanke said this in 2003:

Then-Governor Bernanke Wrote:

Although neither I nor anyone else knows for sure, my suspicion is that bubbles can normally be arrested only by an increase in interest rates sharp enough to materially slow the whole economy. In short, we cannot practice "safe popping," at least not with the blunt tool of monetary policy. The situation is further complicated if, as is usually the case, the suspected bubble affects only a specific class of assets, such as high-tech stocks. Certainly there is no way to direct the effects of monetary policy at a single class of assets while leaving other financial markets and the broader economy untouched. One might as well try to perform brain surgery with a sledgehammer.

When rates rise as they inevitably will, what happens then? The hammer drops on the indebted who can't discharge their loans in bankruptcy: foreclosures, car repossession, wage garnishment, credit scores crashing to zero.

Then the federal government offers you a deal: serve in the military, likely in Syria/Iran/Middle East in proxy wars against Russia and China, and your debt will be forgiven:

http://www.cnrc.navy.mil/EIncentives/Loan-repay-FAQ.htm
http://www.military.com/Resources/Resour...--,00.html
http://www.military.com/education/money-...ments.html

That would be a de facto reinstatement of the draft. It's a neo-feudal version of landed lords in medieval Europe calling upon their subjects to fight in exchange for debt forgiveness.

Also, I noticed that in the last two or so years, they've been trying to get women into the military. These lobbying groups which have scant to nonexistent links to feminism want women in the military; it's the expansion of the pool of recruits.

This is what nations with fiat, debt-based economies do: they either crash when the rest of the world stops taking the currency (as they already have begun, through recent bilateral free trade agreements in 2012 and 2013 ongoing, namely the BRICs nations, the UK, Switzerland, France, Australia so far, may have missed some), or they eliminate external liabilities or force acceptance of the currency through war.

This is what Congressman Howard Buffett (father of Warren Buffet) said on the importance of the gold standard in 1948 (we were still under the gold standard, but after FDR it was gutted, you couldn't redeem your dollars for gold at the bank anymore, removing the citizenry's ability to check the government's propensity for deficit spending):

Representative Howard Buffett Wrote:

But we can be approaching the critical stage. When that
day arrives, our political rulers will probably find that
foreign war and ruthless regimentation is the cunning
alternative to domestic strife. That was the way out for
the paper-money economy of Hitler and others.

That's where we're headed, if we haven't passed the point of no return already.

[Honorable Man]

(shameless plug for my Garth Ennis Appreciation Thread)

[Cr33pin]

[Tim in real life]

Every time I read about the term "Illuminati", I cannot help but end up thinking how much of this is a rehash of the Knights of the Round Table, under these following bases:

I. 13 Members each.
A. Knights of the Round Table has 13 official members.
B. "Illuminati" has 13 main bloodlines.

II. Use England as their base.
A. Self-explanatory, especially the source of the Arthurian Legends are.
B. Since London is the financial capital of the WORLD...

Everything else consists of misused symbolism, plates of red herrings AND pitchers of Kool-Aid.

[Suits]

I like the new direction this thread is taking.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

There's probably no Illuminati as Dan Brown and thousands of conspiracy theorists have conceived them but there's always power behind the throne, and when armies or police don't do the job of quelling unrest, there's always divide and conquer.

I read recently in one of Marvin Harris's books (Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches if you're interested) that the medieval panic over witches was a scapegoat brought about by the nobles and fostered by the church to forestall rebellions, withholding or anything else that might obstruct the status quo.

Like a lot of conspiracy theories, it makes a certain amount of sense:
-The peasants suffered the taxes levied by their landlords, the requirement to serve in any local wars as the most expendable troops, the depredations of aggressive neighbours, the insults of laws like the jus prima noctae, contagious diseases and the effects of poor diets, as well as the threat of poor harvests which could wipe them out.
-The justification of the Church and crown for these oppressions would wear thin after a while, and the peasants and freemen and anyone else who owed land, labour or money to a noble would have nobody to blame but the Church and crown, one for bringing much of the oppression and the other for justifying it all.
-The scapegoats, who were mostly the mad, the simple, social pariahs or the victims of torture, could be blamed for everything that added to the precariousness of life, and taxes, hypocrisy and the opulence of the rulers was reframed as necessary to fight the Devil and his agents, who worked to kill your crops, your calves or your children and stir up conflict.
-Peasant revolts were averted as they could blame and punish somebody near at hand for their lot in life, instead of forming armies and deposing their bishops and kings.

Some holes in it, maybe, but the theory makes a lot of sense overall.

And the "Illuminati" are most probably like that. They benefit from something in the short term, like feeding cattle antibiotics, or the Industrial Revolution, or the Sexual Revolution, or outsourcing the manufacturing base, and for a while, they count their money and everything is fine for them. Before long, problems (often unforeseen) mount up and they have to explain them away or blame someone else for them, while the issue goes on and on and the government, or Big Pharma, or who-the-fuck-ever else look like bulwarks against chaos, holding back everything that would be much worse than this.

I don't know if that's more worrying but it used to scare me stupid.

[poutsara]

(07-27-2013 04:37 AM)N°6 Wrote:  

The Illuminati may or may not exist but I think it is a convenient term for those powerful groups who see themselves as enlightened and the experts on how the rest of us should run our lives.

You make some good points. I think what people really mean when they talk about the "Illuminati", they mean the small number of people who make the majority of decisions. For example, the "deep state", central bankers (to name a few), essentially, those at the very top.

I do not think there is a central conspiracy. Rather, these people are doing what is in their own best interest in the short run (and probably long run, too). Note that when you have enough resources and connections, most real world problems don't apply to you. Taxes? No, you have offshore accounts and top flight tax lawyers to take care of that. Crumbling public infrastructure? No, you have elite private schools, guarded gates, and private jets. Local wars? No, you have enough resources to be location independent. The government itself? No, you can manipulate the elections enough to ensure nobody really threatening to your power gets elected. Plus, getting anything meaningful done through the government bureaucracy will take longer than several election cycles. Public health? No, you have your own private access to healthcare. Massive immigration? No, your money comes from investments and capital, not labor, and more immigration means cheaper labor. The immigrants will pile into the urban centers anyway, walled off from your day to day life. Feminism and decline of the traditional family? No, your family is secure. Female promiscuity? No, and I should link the Dubai thread here. Wars? No, they are not fought by you, and you get to make money from the debt, and capital resources required to carry out these wars.

In America, note that both the Democrats and Republicans essentially are in agreement on the following: debt is good, immigration is good, free trade is good, taxes ought to be complex, capital is taxed lightly, wars are necessary. Where do they differ? On issues of no consequence to those at the top, namely, abortion rights, religious rights, gay rights, gun rights, environmental issues, relatively minor differences on foreign policy. There is the illusion of difference (and these differences are what the media emphasize) while the core positions remain the same. The "old left" (essentially, populism) is nearly gone. The "new left" is about identity politics and a culture of victimization. The "right" has embraced some level of cultural conservatism - just enough to pacify religious poor and middle class people, and some level of economic libertarianism - enough to satisfy (at least nominally) enough libertarians.

The real enemy of the power structures (which in my opinion is not centralized, although those at the top each have similar objectives) is: nationalism. Note this has become a four letter word in the west. If people are divided along ethnic, racial, social lines, then identity politics has replaced nationalism, and people will ignore the big problems and focus only on the small non-threatening ones, all while Rome burns. Will the torches and pitchforks come out at some point? I don't think so. People are too divided, and that is the whole point.

Just realized Roosh posted on this last year, essentially saying the same thing:
"We Are Nothing More Than Distracted Sheep In The Real Game Of Power"

[Honorable Man]

I've had some pretty esoteric conversations with an occult/conspiracy/etc buddy from an old forum, and we mutually decided that humanity might just be stupid enough to turn "The Illuminati" into a self-fulfilling prophecy. If that actually happens, I think I'll need to stop existing.

[Marmite]

I remember speaking to an ex worshipful master of my lodge (freemasonry) about the illuminati, and he vehemently denied the connection between Freemasonry and the illuminati. Not denied the existence of the illuminati however.

I have no doubt that there exist groups that use societal non issues (e.g. Feminism, organised sports, religion, etc.) as methods of control against the masses. That is not to say that all their methods work in their favour, nor that all methods of control are their doing. It's just that they do what they can do to guide our current civilisations towards their proposed (dis)eutopias.

We may be able to guide ourselves away from their control, but it would take some kind of revolution and new ways of governing ourselves to do it. We either need to revolt, or we will undoubtedly submit without consent.

[Saweeep]

Some are more powerful than others and the powerful will always collude to protect their interests. We see this at micro and macro levels.

As to an illuminati cabal of dynastic oil families etc controlling the world....it's all a complete load of bollocks.

[xxMarco]

The thing that really fucks with my mind is not too long ago we were worshiping Hulk Hogan, Sylvester Stallone, Van Dam, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter. Think about that. Terminator, Wrestling, Blood sport, competition, 2pac. All very masculine natural things.

Now we're being punished for even being a little masculine like saying get the fuck out faggot.
I'm having a hard time rebelling against this feminist bullshit. I grew up as a man who never gave a shit about feelings. Our feelings were stomped out on the football field or in the boxing ring.

Pretty sure if I stay away from television and this everything else section I'll probably be beating children down in no time again