Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

[Diarmuid]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

1)

3) Civilization is built on the concept of duty, not wants.

Found something I can agree with you on Serge, with the proviso, a right is born of a duty or the responsibility, however duties have to be entered into by consent, either by the community broadly as a whole or by the individual. The responsibilities of which natural rights are born, e.g. the responsibility not to kill, you will find general broad consensus in a civilized community, it is after this point where things get hairy, in a democracy (tyranny of the majority) or an authoritarian oligarchy (tyranny of the few), the sovereignty of the mind / monad has been and will remain a major hurdle for those whom would impose their subjective sense of responsibilities and values beyond the natural ones.

[ER59]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

I would presume, that you are attempting to highlight for us the classic logical fallacy of the ignoratio elenchi.

Not really and I am not very well versed in Aristotle. I wanted to understand what do you mean by

the establishment of an authoritarian aristocracy.

From wiki:

Aristocracy is a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule. The term is derived from the Greek aristokratia, meaning 'the rule of the best'.

Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom.

If you agree with the definitions, could you please explain why women should welcome abandoning democracy in favor of the authoritarian aristocracy. Thank you!

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

the sovereignty of the mind / monad has been and will remain a major hurdle for those whom would impose their subjective sense of responsibilities and values beyond the natural ones.

Funny, despite all this "freedom", I'd venture to say 95% of Americans couldn't even define the word "sovereignty".

Imposing values on the masses is easy. Our universities and mass media do it every day. Why do you think your 14 year old daughter (or maybe that of your neighbor) wants to dress like a whore?

The question is who imposes the values and to what end?

The natural division of society is always those who can lead, those who can exploit, and those who by nature are to be lead.

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

If you agree with the definitions, could you please explain why women should welcome abandoning democracy in favor of the authoritarian aristocracy. Thank you!

It would have better for you to simply ask this question.

Democracy is rule by weight and not quality. If most people like something, and believe it to be their preference, it is decided. This immediately shifts the question of government from "What is best?" to "What would YOU like?" and as every single person on earth will affirm, most other humans are probably not up to make the choice. Besides making people selfish, it thrusts the political question before a population at large, most of whom lack the inclination or ability to make the decision (just as almost all cannot be college professors, scientists, great artists, fine athletes).

Democracy in effect creates a dual illusion that states (a) the best government is that which pleases the people but does not necessarily do what is best for them (utilitarian) and (b) that the individual is more important than doing what is right for the whole, or society and environment together as an organic entity. It is important to note that throughout history, democracies have been short-lived and have collapsed into tyrannical governments.

As one ancient writer said, "It is easy to get rid of a bad king, but a bad idea takes longer." People raised on mass media tend to see the world in a binary state of either democracy or tyranny, but this is erroneous. A good leader does what is right for the people, and most people need only limited "freedoms" since they wish to live good lives -- rewarding work, sufficient wealth, family and friends -- and are not interested in doing something so illogical it requires government protection.

The most important right/freedom is for those who have knowledge to contribute it to social discourse without being annoyed; democracies interpret this in a conflict-oriented scenario through "free speech" but it is more effective in government to avoid biased conflict and instead to take a contributive viewpoint: wise leaders listen to their people and allow them a public forum in which rewards more truthful ideas and ignores insanity, selfishness and unecessary conflict. Paradoxically, democracies by the very nature of their rewarding popular ideas and not truthful ones, strangle all actual criticism of the course of a society while allowing "criticism" that changes details but not the overall path.

It is for this reason that democracies are slow to react to anything but blatant crisis and allow internal decay to overcome them. When popularity of ideas becomes more important than how realistic or intelligent they are, illusion and denial are sure to follow. Popularity is the opposite of logicality: most people prefer pleasant illusions to the more difficult truths, as well as preferring immediate reward to long-term betterment.

In addition:

Plato, speaking through Socrates, tells us that while democratic societies make for the best standard of living, they collapse into third world economies dominated by invisible and greedy oligarchs; the cosmopolitan rich ruling over masses of stupid, tractable grey cultureless peons. A tour of failed democracies reveals this to be accurate. So why oppose democracy, when it brings us a good standard of living?

The first recognition is that democracy is not the only system that brings about such a standard of living. Any organized society which does not act according to a principle of hyper-equality, or not rewarding those who are more competent with a better material standard of living, will achieve a quality of life unless its leaders become corrupt. Democracy initially offers this option, but it nurtures corruption in its leaders by the psychological symbolism and pressures it exerts on the population.

First, in the list of psychological and political errors of democracy, is its tendency toward averaging. When one person = one vote, the only leaders are those who seek to be popular in their opinions, and accuracy is interpreted through what others want, not what is correct (it was against this phenomenon that the profoundly individualistic Romantic movement in literature arose). Those who speak unpopular truths, and rise against the assent of the masses, are seen as motivated by personal desire for power and slammed down as best they can be. Democracy admits every kind of dissident except one that profoundly criticizes the system; those who encourage people to "buy green" and "vote blue" and do other ineffective things are OK. Democracy coopts all criticism into neutralized variants.

Second, democracy encourages a shallow individualism based on material self-interest. Since the system as a whole is not steered toward any rational direction by its reliance on the popularity of ideas and not their accuracy, individuals practice shrugging and doing what they can to make their own lot in life better. The problem with this is that often individual self-interest conflicts with the needs of the whole, or with what would be an intelligent course of action, so democracies are rife with "socialized costs" or acts that in enriching individuals create costs or wasted time for the rest. In a democracy, every action or object has a price tag on it because it is necessary or will be necessary for someone's material self-interest. Democracies tend to invent capitalism of the most unregulated kind for this reason, because individual self-interest likes the idea of no confining rules interrupting the pursuit of wealth and a comfortable (although insignificant, psychologically) lifestyle. For this reason, democracies "work" when populations are small, but populations inevitably expand, bringing with them the modern lament "I'm surrounded by morons" as simplistic people succeed and breed out legions of new simplistic people. The individualism of democracy results in the comfortable standard of living mentioned by Plato, but this comfortable standard of living is not assigned to the best, but to the mass, and so the undifferentiated masses grow while competent people are beaten down for being out of step.

Third, democracy creates a morality of parasitism: since it is founded on the idea that each individual is free to pursue self-interest, any action that denies any person self-interest is "bad," even if that action results in much higher socialized costs. This means that parasitic people cannot be checked from doing destructive things because as long as their actions are passive, or in self-interest but not violating visible taboos of murder or rape, these actions are accepted. Democracies cannot curb large corporations from their abuses because democracy encourages such abuses on a psychological level, and this tendency is intensified by growing frustration with democracy. As a result, democracies are stuffed with wealthy parasites whose descendents lack any of the abilities that made the parasites succeed, furthering the degeneration of population into insignificance.

Fourth and finally, democracy creates a schizoid dualism between public perception and reality that engenders a covert, tacit and non-conspiratorial system of oligarchy. When power is achieved by convincing the voters that something is good, those with printing presses or television stations rule the society, but are best served by not taking power themselves. Instead, they support those who benefit their self-interest, regardless of the cost to society as a whole (socialized cost), and through legal forms like lobbying, donations, and supportive media portrayals they get these candidates into office. Eventually, the system of oligarchy becomes so entrenched that political candidates solicit various oligarchs for approval in order to get into office, and then are beholden to them in decisions they make. For this reason, democracies generate a massive amount of debate over trivial issues -- abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and banning hip-hop music -- while ignoring the deeply-seated problems from whose atmosphere of lawlessness oligarchs benefit. Oligarchs usually do not act outside the law, although their legal and passive actions result in higher costs for us all.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4

[Diarmuid]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Funny, despite all this "freedom", I'd venture to say 95% of Americans couldn't even define the word "sovereignty".

Nothing an education in philosophy could not cure - they may not be able to define it and thus unable to enter it but it is intrinsic to each.

Imposing values on the masses is easy. Our universities and mass media do it every day. Why do you think your 14 year old daughter (or maybe that of your neighbor) wants to dress like a whore?

LOL - I am glad I do not have a 14 year old daughter.

The natural division of society is always those who can lead, those who can exploit, and those who by nature are to lead.

This imo is less a function of Darwin and rather more a function of education and wealth, one can stand on the shoulders of giants and a body of 5000 years of human knowledge or get the bastardized version currently found prominently in public schools, and thus find one self on knees rather then on shoulders:p

[BigBagel]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

You'd be surprised how many attractive, successful women are quite enthralled with my own calls for the abolition of democracy and the establishment of an authoritarian aristocracy.

I thought they did that already. They just kept the democratic veneer.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

No, you're a smart guy. I'll just overlook any talk that veers onto that subject as temporary insanity.

Huh. You know, there's another way to go with this logic. "You're a smart guy. Gee, maybe I should re-visit my thinking on 9-11."

Hey I don't care... just sayin'.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

You are absolutely right.

However, Russo could well be misinterpreting what he came to hear. It is quite likely, that the Rockefeller Foundation was engaging in popularizing the concepts of women's rights and equality throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s -- not from any nefarious intentions, but because it was something to aspire for.

However, there probably were some unintended consequences of those efforts. A sudden increase in labor force, and competition for jobs -- weakening the labor unions, and driving down the wages.

The Rockefeller Foundation is dedicated to social engineering, just like the Ford Foundation, the Tavistock Institute, and similar organizations. Don't have any illusions.

The key to understanding these organizations is not by listening to what they SAY, but by observing the results of what they DO.

There are no "unintended consequences" for these people. They are way, way too smart for that. Do you think they became fabulously wealthy by accident??? No, the consequences that have resulted by promoting these agendas were fully intended.

Saying that they supported these social agendas "because it was something to aspire to" is nonsensical. Of course it was "something to aspire to", but not for the reasons you imagine.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

It is the U.S. political economy that has made this difficult for them, because, income and wealth have been re-distributed upward to top 5% over last 50 years..

You have confused cause and effect. The single most important economic consequence of women entering the workforce is to create more economic output-- output that can then be siphoned off through the Central Banking scam.

The second most important economic consequence is to reduce the bargaining power of the family unit. When two earners are required to run a family, each earner is more beholden to his/her job.

But, the most important consequence-- the consequence that has intergenerational effects-- is the fact that the family unit is more easily broken down when no one is around to watch the kids.

These people think generationally, and they think practically. While you wallow around entertaining woolly-headed fantasies of "equality" and "freedom to be who you are", they are busy figuring out ways to control not you, not your children, but your grandchildren.

When you consider that they have been about this for hundreds-- maybe thousands-- of years... well, you are expressing the exact kind of opinion that they want you to express. You are a product of the environment that they created.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Fourth and finally, democracy creates a schizoid dualism between public perception and reality that engenders a covert, tacit and non-conspiratorial system of oligarchy. When power is achieved by convincing the voters that something is good, those with printing presses or television stations rule the society, but are best served by not taking power themselves. Instead, they support those who benefit their self-interest, regardless of the cost to society as a whole (socialized cost), and through legal forms like lobbying, donations, and supportive media portrayals they get these candidates into office. Eventually, the system of oligarchy becomes so entrenched that political candidates solicit various oligarchs for approval in order to get into office, and then are beholden to them in decisions they make. For this reason, democracies generate a massive amount of debate over trivial issues -- abortion, gay marriage, drug legalization and banning hip-hop music -- while ignoring the deeply-seated problems from whose atmosphere of lawlessness oligarchs benefit. Oligarchs usually do not act outside the law, although their legal and passive actions result in higher costs for us all.

http://www.corrupt.org/data/faq/#4.4

I note Fox News has hired Sarah Palin. That's gonna be a nice platform for her to launch into becoming the next president.

Just think, first an idiot, then a black man, than a woman. Life in the US is full of wonderful opportunities in politics and perhaps too in banking.

[BK]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

I just keep liking you better and better.

More on topic, this is an interesting discussion. World Traveler said it beautifully. When I read anti-feminist statements along the lines of, "Women should...", or "Women should not ...", or "Women are all..." I substitute the word "black" for "women". While no respectable person today would make such statements about blacks, many still think it's appropriate to define what women should and shouldn't do, and worse, what women should and should't want.

Personally, I've always hated the phrase "Women's Lib" because I've usually heard it said by men (and some women) with derision in their voices and sneers on their lips. The Women's Movement started with demands for "equal pay for equal work", and "equal treatment under the law", and for the life of me I've never been able to understand how anyone could feel threatened by that.

Steve Forbes advocated a return to the gold standard, saying that inflation due to fiat currency was forcing both parents in a household to work, causing a breakdown of the family and resulting social problems. I agree with him, but don't think a return to the gold standard is the right solution.

When the women's movement started, things were really bad for women with regards to wages and justice, same as they were for blacks. My mother had to start working outside the house in the mid-seventies when my father left. There weren't many jobs available to her that paid a decent wage.

Even my high school's vocational program discriminated against the girls, when they wouldn't have dreamed of discriminating against the black male students. Boys were funneled into training for high-paying trades such as plumbing and electrician work. Girls were restricted to secretarial training. I fought this policy in my school, and was loudly heckled by boys who thought they were so bright, so original, by calling me a "women's libber."

I'll always be a feminist when it comes to equality under the law. I don't like where the movement has gone involving itself in gun control and leftist politics. IMO, Dr. Condoleeza Rice deserves just as many accolades from feminists as does Hillary Clinton.

Shiny,
One thing to consider - "Did the economy of the 1970s contribute to the demise of your parents marriage'? My Mom went to work in the seventies because my Dad's TEachers salary wasn't enough to pay the bills.
Remember, for much of the history of mankind - work was something that happened in and aroung the home. The only way to for humans to survive was to mate and work together as a team to scratch out a living - think Hunter -gatherers, farming - and handiwork.
This Modern work where people travel to a building and work in an office has existed for 80-100 years at the most - its not even a blip.
Remember, Money is hard to come by unless you have a out of control Central BAnk that is printing massive amounts of it. When money is hard to find then jobs are hard to find.

In much of human time its been difficult to find two good paying jobs for every family in society.
Having two working adults in every family leads to higher levels of child obesity, higher disciplinary problems, lower academic performance (excluding the wealthy that can spend extra resources to back fill).
I have done the bulk of the Child care work in my family. The alternative would have been to have my child watch after by hired hands who really don't give a Rats a$$ about my child.
If I see one more TV show trying to uncover the mystery about obese children and diabetes - I'll go insane - TWO PEOPLE working in a FAMILY and no one as time to look after the children. Children are TIME INTENSIVE - and they have paid the price for so call Liberation of Women - which as lead to the daily incarceration of Children of the World (I mean Day care).

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

But, the most important consequence-- the consequence that has intergenerational effects-- is the fact that the family unit is more easily broken down when no one is around to watch the kids.

...

When you consider that they have been about this for hundreds-- maybe thousands-- of years... well, you are expressing the exact kind of opinion that they want you to express. You are a product of the environment that they created.

Well said.

In a way, that this has come to be should not be too surprising.

Notice first of all that many of us humans have learned how to breed dogs, cows, sheep, horses and other such animals to better suit our needs. This breeding occurs across generations of those animals. Similarly we humans are well able to understand the cultivation and breeding of plants across generations for various purposes.

Then consider that it is likely that at least a few humans will have sufficient talent in such matters to understand and pursue the breeding and cultivation of humans. If such humans ever existed, and if they otherwise were of above average talents, they and their progeny would have a tendency to rise like cream to the top, bolstered by their inherited talents, their passed on culture, education and training, their passed on wealth and resources, and in particular their skill, passed on both genetically and by training, at the cultivation and breeding of humans to their own purposes.

It is far from a perfect or certain system. But certainly it is more likely that you will grow up to be a powerful and wealthy banker if you are descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild than if you are descended from a PythonicCow .

[Scot]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Rather than descend into a rant, I will say that modern feminism has resulted in many unhappy women. Most are emotionally broken, their souls conflicted between the impossible dream of being a mother, being glamorous, and being successful.

My wife has many female friends that are professionals and nearly all are childless. We see them at parties and at dinner. I've gotten to know many of them. More than once regrets have been expressed concerning the absence of children, especially during the holidays. Many wish they had become wives and mothers.

Below is a video of a talk given by Dr. Steven Rhoads at University of Virginia concerning how women and men differ in how they respond emotionally to sex and to caring for children and suggests that regarding men and women as psychologically identical is a mistake and a threat to the happiness of women.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecq3OXYZpc[/media]

[chr5648]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

You have confused cause and effect. The single most important economic consequence of women entering the workforce is to create more economic output-- output that can then be siphoned off through the Central Banking scam.

The second most important economic consequence is to reduce the bargaining power of the family unit. When two earners are required to run a family, each earner is more beholden to his/her job.

But, the most important consequence-- the consequence that has intergenerational effects-- is the fact that the family unit is more easily broken down when no one is around to watch the kids.

Couldn't of said it better my self.

Not just more economics output but low wages and a new consumer.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2273825999151#
Between minutes 10-16 show how PR and marketing oligarchs made smoking socially acceptable to women, all in the name of making more profits for cigarette companies. Watch from the beginning to get a decent background, skip to 10-16 for main part.

I am sure we all know about the great health benefits of smoking. /sarcasm

These people think generationally, and they think practically. While you wallow around entertaining woolly-headed fantasies of "equality" and "freedom to be who you are", they are busy figuring out ways to control not you, not your children, but your grandchildren.

When you consider that they have been about this for hundreds-- maybe thousands-- of years... well, you are expressing the exact kind of opinion that they want you to express. You are a product of the environment that they created.

I go out all the time, in fact too much. Nearly 70 years after the beginning of the cigarette buffoonery, smoking is still in full swing. I would say that 5-6 out of 10 girls/women that I meet are smokers. With profits being made and lives being killed, all in the name of profits and control. They sure got those grandchildren.

Now take the smoking thing and analogize it to nearly any other control mechanism, not just for women but men and children, groups, and societies.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Woman's Liberation as a Power Elite Promotion

Below is a video of a talk given by Dr. Steven Rhoads at University of Virginia concerning how women and men differ in how they respond emotionally to sex and to caring for children and suggests that regarding men and women as psychologically identical is a mistake and a threat to the happiness of women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecq3OXYZpc

Good video - thanks. The embedding didn't work for me. Perhaps the following will: