Rather, I found it entertaining that a certain American-English female female-supremacist tried to goad me into blaming The Jews for all the evil warfare of the world. I flipped it around, and defended my position. Here goes:
“They’re willing to work together because they all have something in common which transcends nationality etc., and that is that they’re all rich beyond our wildest dreams”
I agree ……. but are you willing to put a name to them as a group – or are you too PC?
There are plenty of names for them; however, focusing on nationalism unfairly tars their minions and people who desperately want to believe that their own elites identify with them—they don’t. Besides, it isn’t as if all the players don’t have something to gain and otherwise don’t want to be cut out of a deal.
“There are plenty of names for them; however, focusing on nationalism ……..”
Ah, the name that no-one dare utter, for fear of being thought a bad person! Sheesh!
“…. unfairly tars their minions”
Now there’s something solid. “We-know, we-know, we-know.” (in a squeaky high-pitched voice 🙂
I don’t shy from controversy.
But in refusing to give a name to the perpetrators, that is exactly what you are doing.
OK. Here goes: The materialism of Western Women.
Ah, so you are saying that the perpetrators to which you refer, are …….. jewellers?
No. The materialism of Western Women.
I’m fascinated to hear how you arrived at that conclusion. Do please elaborate.
Sit back on your comfy chair—or whatever it is that you perch on.
Monotheism—especially Christianity—degrades all archetypes of women except for the young and/or chaste (and the wives of the elites). Judaism and Islam are more nuanced but still guilty.
Meanwhile, the English monarchy represents the paramount of Western culture—a dowdy queen dripping in stolen jewels, and a million hopeful princesses vying for her position using only youth and beauty—because that’s all that matters (never mind that heredity makes the contest a moot one). Barring youth and beauty, a woman uses wealth or power which are the same thing in order to advance socially, or resigns herself to a virtual or actual life of chastity or slavery to her “betters”. Cinderella, Beauty, Snow White, or Rapunzel = Good; Mother-in-law, stepmother, ugly queen, witch = Bad. Chaste old nun or passive mother = Invisible but at least not bad.
This state of affairs—the degradation of the old priestess/goddess archetype—has resulted in a spiritual deficit in Western Woman. She makes up for that deficit in material pursuits and the endless and doomed search for eternal youth and beauty (and all the products and services that implies).
To be a woman who is either old, ugly, or poor and not chaste is to invite being characterized by the monotheists as an evil witch—not worthy of resources and perhaps worthy of being burned at the stake—unless of course such a woman is a wealthy benefactor.
To be a woman who is beautiful and not chaste is to invite envy from the whole kingdom of would-be, misbegotten, aspiring, over-age princesses (including some men).
So Western Woman desperately needs validation! A pile of material goods consoles aging Western Woman that she is of value—her pussy, her ideas, and her beauty—and she is good unlike that crazy old witch down the lane who has rejected materialism or who has been rejected by it. That’s Western Woman’s worst fear—to be that woman. Getting old shouldn’t be that scary! Actually Western Woman is scared of practically everything—terrified. There are a whole lot of dragons and boogeymen out there! Eek a mouse!
Western Man, on the other hand, just wants women to be happy—not bitching, as well as sexually available, satisfied, etc. So they bring them gifts, acquire wealth, start wars, steal other men’s resources (and women’s!) just to keep the old bag from cutting off their balls as well as to put their not-yet-ruined daughters on a pedestal—because they think that is “good”. They’re wrong and I think that Western Man is just starting to learn this. There is nothing like a spoiled, rich, bitch—pretty or no. Meanwhile, slaughtering all the dragons and boogeymen of the world won’t improve Western Woman’s outlook at all. She is morally and spiritually deficit and is deliberately blind to the carnage she causes and the men and women she tramples on her way to the top. Meanwhile, this battle of the sexes disguises a very ugly bubble of over-reproduction and women using their own children to get ahead. When it bursts, there will be Hell to pay.
Thank you for your comprehensive, and I must say interesting, expression of your outlook.
It is further interesting because we are contemporaries, at least in nationality and age. We do differ in a number of ways, but your capacity for rational expression is refreshing.
Your statement that monotheism degrades women is sadly true. Why do you think I started [Insert name of Female Supremacist Religion that she invented and advocates], as a secular movement? I would disagree about the English monarchy; what I’ve noticed since being over here is that although Brits respect the tradition, they really don’t give a toss for the various individuals of the extended royal family. That is why Diana was such a hit – people identified with her much more than the actual born monarchy members.
I do see what you mean about the culture of envy, but I don’t think that Western Woman’s lust for material things is to blame for the World’s ills. Certainly consumerism is to blame for many ills. Marx got it wrong when he blamed capitalists for everything; it is consumerism to blame. There is nothing wrong with capitalism, provided it is not oppressive capitalism. However, when it comes to consumerism—fueled by that little box in every home called a TV—it is a completely different story. We are constantly told that we need this or that new thing; that our kids deserve the best money can buy, etc. That we can have as much credit as we want. And of course we all fall for it, day after day, making the 0.5% you refer to even richer.
So naturally when you wrote:
“Rather, it looks to me like there are multiple players on the world stage who instigate and then capitalize on disaster capitalism using not only other people’s money but also other people’s bodies and then make out like bandits. They’re willing to work together because they all have something in common which transcends nationality etc., and that is that they’re all rich beyond our wildest dreams—the 0.5%-ers—and we’re all just speculation material.”
– you were obviously not referring to Western Women, you were referring to a group of people. And that is why I asked you to identify them. Who is it that you think benefits from the 99.5% of us buying everything we’re told to, and benefits from interest being charged on all the stuff we really can’t afford to buy? Where did all the money disappear to as a result of the international sub-prime mortgage scam that plunged the World into recession? Who has benefited from it, and still benefits from interest upon interest?
Go for it.
Come on, don’t disappoint me. Let us see if our conclusions are sympatico.
So we’ve gone way off topic here. Women tend to meander off topic—not all—just most. Anyone who wants to put this topic back where it started, please, go for it.
“Why do you think I started [Insert name of Female Supremacist Religion that she invented and advocates], as a secular movement?”
I actually have no beef with it provided that it is 100% consensual. I’m sure there are plenty of men and women who would be happy with it. I’m not one of them. I think that the world should have lots of religions—or whatever people want to call them. Anything that gives one sex, peace, joy, hope, etc., I’m for it—until any one of them gets too big in which case it becomes a problem—it inevitably becomes corrupt—and that includes the neo-cult of Darwinism—a product of the British aristocracy.
I think that the myth exceeds the reality of the individuals—especially the individuals of today. Over here, The Renaissance Faire and the Society for Creative Anachronism are too big too ignore. The cultural influence is huge—it doesn’t actually matter much who the particular figurehead is. William Shakespeare is also a big player—the English language itself is a player. Darwinism is a huge player. All of these things go right to the spot where time starts—Greenwich Mean Time that is.
It is a multi-pronged effect: each of the monotheistic religions combined with the English language cultural heritage.
I don’t have a television. I haven’t watched television on purpose (it isn’t like it can be entirely avoided) since 2005. I gave up women’s magazines in 1990. I haven’t looked back. Most television programming is geared toward women. Most consumerism is geared toward women. If women just stopped buying the crap everything would be better so I can’t let women off the hook—all of them. Women were also complicit in the destruction of the extended family in favor of the nuclear family. And then they got bored with that. Women are just way too susceptible to propaganda.
“- you were obviously not referring to Western Women, you were referring to a group of people. And that is why I asked you to identify them.”
You’re talking about the actors—they’re men, mostly—I’m talking about the source of the motivation of the actors. Men wouldn’t be doing this if women didn’t keep up the pressure. If men don’t comply they get: no sex, shunned from society, and enslaved by the military or prisons (as opposed to a relatively comfy cubicle).
I think everything anyone would ever want to know about the dynamic of Western Men and Women is encapsulated in the last scene of The Godfather…one word, “No”. So long as Diane Keaton gets to live the dream, she doesn’t care to know what it takes to give it to her.
“Who is it that you think benefits from the 99.5% of us buying everything we’re told to, and benefits from interest being charged on all the stuff we really can’t afford to buy? Where did all the money disappear to as a result of the international sub-prime mortgage scam that plunged the World into recession? Who has benefited from it, and still benefits from interest upon interest?”
So, you’re asking me, who are the 0.5%? Well the Anglo-American Industrialists/Royalists are practically one entity—with their perfect utopian slave nation and eugenics laboratory in The United States of America. There’s also International Banking, the elite of Zionism, the elite of Catholicism, the elite of Mideast Oil Money, and a few elite garden-variety gangsters.
Thats a pretty wide choice of who you say is the 0.5% of people running things. Industrialists, Royalists, eugenic scientists, international bankers, Zionists, Catholics, Arabs, and gangsters. Unless you’re strying to say that all these people work together to run things, you must have a clear idea of who the main culprits are – and a rational reason for thinking so.
Are you asking me if I think that there are conspiracies? Of course there are conspiracies. But expecting complete agreement at the top, well, that’s just nuts. They’re all in the game for themselves.
An awful lot of it, in my opinion, is just pushing the public’s buttons and using foreknowledge of the buttons to game the stock market. I presume that 90% of whatever the media is covering is a lie. So, who do I believe? Ex-CIA agents selling books? Ex-White House officials selling books? Ex military men selling books? Historians, archeologists, and anthropologists? That’s hard to say. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. As for high-finance, I know more than I’d like to know having worked in derivatives and exotic instruments analysis. But it is just a piece of the puzzle—not the whole puzzle. Nutrition science—my other field—is an even dirtier business. Nothing is as it seems and there’s always a scapegoat ready to be hung out to dry.
Interesting. I shall sleep on that one (4.30am over here) and come back to you tomorrow.