FEMINISM: ON THE MARCH
In Conspiracy Nation Volume 8 Number 35 was mentioned how the
Women's Christian Temperance Movement (WCTU) and its offshoots
were not so much a populist women's movement as they were the
hired army of families such as the Astors, the Vanderbilts, the
Warburgs, and the Rockefellers. Purpose: to agitate and vote in
the 18th Amendment and consequent Prohibition during the "roaring
twenties". Prohibition, in turn, had as its purpose the
strengthening of gang structures and passive acceptance of
gangsters into the society.
Of course, the women's movement did not arise out of a vacuum,
as, for example, Andrea Pearson has argued. There has been
injustice against women -- though not to the hyperbolized extent
it is portrayed night after night in television docudramas. (See
CN 3.66, 3.69, 3.70, and 3.72 for Pearson's argument: "Feminism:
Mask for Marxism".)
An aftermath of the so-called "60s Rebellion" was the modern
womyn's movement, so overly familiar to attendees of university
literature classes. Yet we are beginning to see more and more
how much of what was perceived as "rebellion" during the 1960s
was not quite what it seemed. For example the introduction of
LSD into the popular culture of the time may well have been CIA
inspired. So too, Sherman Skolnick has pointed to so-called
"radicals" of the 1960s, such as Rennie Davis, as not being the
free agents they were supposed to be. Even "radical" Bill
Clinton, "anti-war protester", turns out to have been an agent of
Dave Emory, the west coast researcher into "deep politics", has
definitely linked portions of the modern (post 1960s) womyn's
movement to the CIA. For example, in his lecture series, "Gloria
in Excelsis", he explores just who *is* Gloria Steinem, guru-ess
to oppressed ivory tower females and such.
Kind-hearted Sherman Skolnick, however, apparently differs as to
a nefarious underground pushing a secret agenda with the help of
well-intentioned feminist dupes. When I met with him and Joseph
Andreuccetti in April of 1995, I broached the likelihood of a
feminist conspiracy operating within the womyn's movement.
Skolnick didn't think so. However Andreuccetti said, yes, it
seemed likely that the womyn's movement *would* be an obvious
place to look for the machinations of a secret society.
So why is it that the feminist movement is highly favored by the
mass media? It is almost a given that anything so supported and
propagandized by the establishment press *must* be in cahoots
with the dominant classes. Corporate America's public relations
shill, the mass media, makes it obvious who is who by negative
distortions of some groups (conspiratologists, for instance)
versus positive slants on others. In the case of feminists and
the constituent bloc they loudly claim to speak for, the slant is
so extreme it is grotesque: the evil male in one corner versus
"sugar and spice" in the other. Thank goodness there are plenty
of tough cops in television land to save these "damsels in
According to an item in the July 8, 1996 issue of the New
Federalist newspaper, current earnings of U.S. workers buy half
of what they used to. Says New Federalist, "...workers now have
less than 50 percent of the buying power they had in the
mid-1960s." By a strange "coincidence", the two-income household
has become increasingly common since that time. As buying power
got cut in half, wives began to leave their homemaker jobs for
outside employment. This societal phenomena was sold as
"liberation of women from household drudgery." But what was
really going on was that women, *from* *dire* *necessity*, were
forced to seek extra income for their families.
Or, maybe it worked the other way around: women increasingly
decided to work outside the home, that in turn doubled the
available labor pool, and wages consequently declined. It's
supply and demand: if the available supply of workers is
doubled, the price of labor goes down -- in this case it has been
effectively cut in half.
But what to do with idle labor, now increasingly frustrated in
its search for fair wages and worthwhile employment? All those
idle workers hanging around could spell trouble for the ruling
class. Due to strong anti-war sentiment, the younger male
population can't just be thrown away as cannon fodder, for "noble
causes", like in the old days.
What can be done? Criminalize them: get "tough on crime"; lock
them away. Disarm them. Turn them into dopers. Give them AIDS.
Feed them cultural crapola via mass media that keeps them stupid.
Demoralize them with "Big Lie" techniques, such as telling them
"the economy is good."
Then, when the men are mostly ground down, the all-powerful State
can turn its attention to the now less-protected women. You
thought your old man was bad news? Find out why Nietzche called
the State, "the coldest of all cold monsters."