By Neil Taylor
“Why does the wolf don sheep’s clothing? So he can devour them at his leisure. Appearances are deceptive. Relying on superficial optics is hazardous to health.” (Daily Kos)
I have been quite fond, if that is an appropriate adjective, of quoting the late film maker Aaron Russo in the youtube video of him talking to the American broadcaster, Alex Jones, where he reported Nick Rockefeller telling him personally “we sponsored feminism in order to tax the other half of the human race”.
I went to share the source recently and re-listened to the interview, which is now up in the full 2.5 hours as well as a 10 minute extract containing the passage in question.
The quote above is my paraphrase, and not verbatim, but what really shocked me was that Rockefeller reportedly cited two reasons for sponsoring feminism, or “women’s lib” as he referred to it, doubtless contemptuously, and yet for some reason I had only remembered the ‘tax’ reason, not the other reason. And this despite looking for direct evidence of this very elite agenda.
Anyway, at this point, here is the transcript of this part of the original interview.
AR: Well, one of the things he told me was that – he was at the house one night and we were talking and he started laughing, he said: ‘Aaron, what do you think ‘women’s liberation’ was about?”
And I said – I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point – I said I think it’s about women having the right to work, getting equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.
And he started to laugh and he said: “You’re an idiot.”
And I said: Why am I an idiot?
He said: “Let me tell you what that was about. We, the Rockefellers, funded that.
We funded Women’s Lib. And we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and televisions – The Rockefeller Foundation.”
And he says: “You want to know why? There were two primary reasons.” And one reason was: we couldn’t tax half the population, before Women’s Lib.
And the second reason was: now we get the kids in school at an early age.
We can indoctrinate the kids how to think. So that it breaks up the family. Your kids start looking at the state as the family. As the school, as the officials as their family, not as the parents teaching them.”
Doesn’t this scream at you what the ‘named person’ in Scotland is really about, if you actually still harboured any residual doubts?!
But how on earth did I miss that?!
This is a question I have been wondering about in general for some time, about this sort of ‘amnesia’ or whatever it is, fully aware that I am no less implicated in resistance of my own to taking on board too much horror too fast than most of us are. Some of us merely stick with the ‘conspiracy theorist’ ridicule handed to us not incidentally by the conspirators themselves, as Norman Dodd discovered when he undertook a federal commission in the 1950s looking into the role of the tax exempt foundations in American society and reported their use of ridicule, including specifically ‘conspiracy theory’ in the press to undermine the work of the commission and get it closed down. Then I discovered for myself that when Julian Huxley (Aldous’s brother and first director of UNESCO) wrote in 1964 in UNESCO’s founding document about moving people away from allegiances to ‘nations’, (i.e. what a generation in the previous five years believed they were sacrificing their lives to defend), and towards acceptance of a ‘single world organisation’, he had also conveniently provided the ridicule to be employed by anyone discovering his plans within a novel he wrote, in which ‘tin foil hats’ were employed to prevent telepathy, thus neatly packaging conspiracy with the means of its debunking, provided by the same author.
Intellectually, for some years now I have been familiar with and accepting of the idea of the destruction of the family as an elite plan, along of course with never ending dismay at observing its destruction all around me, to the point of it becoming an endangered species amongst my friends and associates. Hell, we experience its effects daily as our own children struggle to make a decent life for themselves in such a dysfunctional economy, where the outrageous ambition of owning a roof over your head and having (and nurturing) a family seems increasingly out of reach, where a generation earlier it was an option for most. But somehow I had managed to blank credible evidence from the mouth of one of the elite that yes, this was and is indeed a conscious and vigorously enacted plan.
Accepting such evidence of course removes any last vestige of hope that one might be wrong, and indeed be the suggested ‘paranoid conspiracy theorist’, with or without ‘tin foil hat’, which must surely be preferable as reality to in fact be living the life of a wildebeest on the Serengeti, or an animal on a farm. Whether you look on them as predators or farmers, and the latter is surely what they primarily are, the outcome is the same: we are their food supply.
Looking after our ‘wellbeing’ is farming, isn’t it? Good animal husbandry. The oxymoronic ‘Professional association of home education officers’ is merely another ‘farm implement’.
Further reading: A short history of human husbandry
Forum members may post responses on this forum thread.