Is "someone" or some "thing" behind all of this monkeying around with our culture?
It's natural to seek someone to point a finger at, to try to explain how this could have happened to us. There are many different opinions and there are certainly enough pivotal events in history which are shrouded in mystery or lost knowledge to fuel many a conspiracy theory.
I can see two reactions amongst my readers as I say this. The first is going, "Well thank, goodness! I was wondering if he had the balls to bring that subject up."
|The Cervelati (33rd Order of the Salami)|
Well, not really - although I would like to briefly address some of these ideas to illustrate where my general position is on the matter and how it actually helped me understand the concepts of "truth" found within these pages.
- Julius Caesar was assasinated in a conspiracy.
- Otto von Bismarck conspired to foment the Franco-Prussian War by falsifying documents, which resulted in the unification of the Germanic States.
- The US Founding Fathers met in secrecy and conspired to overthrow the rule of the king and start a new nation.
History is positively filled with conspiracy theories that turned out to be conspiracy "fact."
Even in the modern day, we know that the CIA has used various subversive techniques to influence the direction of a nation's populace. They did it in Central America and South East Asia. They did it in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they're doing it today in both the Ukraine and China through the use of various NGO's and other organizations.
|Click Picture for Larger View|
Also, since the Financial Crisis of '08/09, there is no doubt that powerful banking and corporate interests influence the corridors of government. The "Man-Cession" that resulted also showed us that corporate interests and the interests of the citizens are absolutely not aligned with one another. This is what resulted in corporations off-shoring all of our good-paying manufacturing jobs, replacing us Westerners with what amounts to slave labour from the developing world, all in the name of Free Trade and Gloablization - which by the way, was mostly lobbied for by organizations funded by the very corporations that so vastly have profited from it.
when women flooded the workforce, were large corporations. After all, by doubling the supply of workers available to them they halved the cost of labour and booked greater profits because of it.
Also, the more divorce and family break-down there is, the more these corporations create a demand for their goods. A divorced man and woman need two fridges instead of one, after all. Do you think General Electric doesn't understand this? Most of corporate profits from mass-produced products are made "at the margin." What that means is there is a fixed cost to mass-producing a certain product - that GE, for example, must sell five million refrigerators a year to simply break even on the costs of materials and the factory and infrastructure needed to assemble them. The profit is made from selling six million refrigerators, or, 100% of the profit is made on the last million refrigerators sold, not the first five million. Therefore, if an increase in divorce raises the demand for refrigerators by only 10%, they will now have increased the amount of refrigerators sold to 6.6 million, and will have increased their profits by 60%. That is a huge incentive to support the break-down of the family and traditional gender roles, don't you think?
NGO's supposedly formed to help battered women are given billions of tax dollars per year. Does anyone really think they will ever declare that the "crisis" has passed and they will only need 50% of the tax dollars they did last year? Of course not - they'd lose power then. These organization exist to serve themselves, not the people they purport to help. They have a vested interest in intensifying the problems rather than actually solving them.
Not only that, but there is the whole of history to look at. As I've pointed out before, there are oodles of examples of cultures and civilizations rising and falling, often for the same reasons - like an androgynizing of the sexes and falling birthrates. We aren't the first people to be faced with these problems - it seems to be a recurring problem. In fact, when looking at the structure of America and how its Constitution is used to anchor itself into Absolute Truth by declaring rights are granted by The Creator (The Absolute is out of human reach and can't be changed), rather than by the State and its laws (The Subjective is easily changed), it seems quite clear that they knew there is a human tendency to rationalize things away until there is no longer a functioning society.
And, of course, I have myself pointed out that placing the Relative Truth above the Absolute Truth is as old as humankind itself, making it a natural part of the human condition - something we've had to struggle against since we emerged from the primordeal ooze.
The fact of the matter is, I haven't a clue who all the players are behind the scene, nor can I actually prove that any of them really exist in some sinister sense or not - although I have my suspicions.
However, there ARE certain things we can see which remove any doubt that "they" fully understand what they are doing. Look at this claim from the Canadian NGO called C.A.R.E. which is designed to help women in developing nations:
"When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children."
In other words, I am not the only one who understands that monkeying with hypergamy by pushing women into the workforce splits apart the genders and causes the birthrate to fall. This is not a judgement on whether women should get an education or not - it is just pointing out that it's known what the effects of it are, and in fact it's being manipulated into these developing countries' populations as a means of birth-control - something which again is not a judgement, because many of the poorest countries in the world certainly do need to lower their birthrates.
Countries in the Western World, however, have negative birthrates and are in serious peril of collapsing and disappearing from the face of the earth over the next century - or less. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that "they" also know they are killing off our Western culture by affirmative actioning women over men - despite half-assed claims to show they are concerned with the birthrates of their dying nations. Why are we at the same time cheering that women receive 60% of all university degrees? Furthermore, in the one area men still dominate - STEM subjects - there is a decided movement to affirmative action in at least 50% females, just to be "fair." Obviously, there are people who fully understand why our Western birthrates have plummeted, and they keep recommending more of it! One is left only with the conclusion that these people are purposefully trying to kill off Western Culture by shoving a feminist suicide-pill down our throats.
And I do know that the world is running pell-mell towards a one-world order, the end result of globalization. I also know that the end goal of the philosophies of Marxism were never about Soviet domination of the earth, but rather about creating a global government. The idea of Communism is international socialism while Fascism is national socialism, and it certainly does seem that this goal of creating a one-world system based on a global, centrailized government that adheres to Socialism will be achieved in my lifetime. Each and every time a "crisis" has occured over the past decades, it has been used to justify sacrificing national sovereignty to some supra-national organization or another. This is actual treason, by the way, since nowhere in the constitution of any country on earth is there authorization to cede national sovereignty to a foreign ruling body like this.
So what to do? I could write an entire book about "who" and still never prove it - at least not any further than hundreds of others already have. If that's your thing, you are more than welcome to take what I have written and draw your own conclusions.
"Who care about all the names in the KGB, if you don't understand what they are doing?"
Throughout this chapter, that is what I will be focusing on: What "they" are doing, rather than who "they" are.
I have zeroed in on the aspect of the problem which I loosely call "Marxism," although perhaps this is not the best term because what we are dealing is a bastardized version of Marx's Economic Theory. I've veered off more into the world of Cultural Marxism - since we are dealing with culture - and further, the philosophical significance of Hegel's and later Marx's "Dialectic," which was based upon the idea of "The Truth is Relative" and the abolishing of the Absolute. This obviously upset the "truth hierarchy" as put forth by the Bible, John Locke, and the Constitution as created by the USA's Founding Fathers:
|Click Pic for "The Masculine Principle"|
1 - God's Law/Absolute Truth
2 - Natural Law/Objective Truth = Masculine Principle
3 - Civil Law/Subjective Truth = Feminine Principle
After Hegel & Marx, the ordering became like this:
1 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle
2 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle
3 - Subjective Truth = The Feminine Principle
Also, it's not just "Marxists" who want to exert their will by tearing down the higher truths and replacing them with lower ones. For example, Auguste Comte, the father of the social sciences, devised a system back in the 1800's for totalitarian population control based upon sociological manipulations, and he too asserted that the world must be led by the feminine principle rather than the masculine principle.
Marx himself had this to say of the subject of women and society:
"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."
This, of course, leads to wondering just what the heck was it that Marx meant by that, and why do totalitarians want the world structured under the feminine principle rather than the masculine principle?
That's what we'll be examining next under the loose term of "Marxism."