For those of you who haven't figured it out, feminism is simply the belief that women and children are the property of the elite to be administered by the government/corporate system.
It has been said that feminists want women to be independent and have autonomy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Huge campaigns are openly conducted to influence the behavior of women. Any solo-mother who has dealt with social services or any woman said to have a mental illness who has dealt with mental health authorities will know the system is as paternalistic as all get out to women. In fact feminism is a particularly strong form of the traditional idea that women are mentally ill grown children and need to be protected and controlled. The only issue is who is to do the protecting and controlling. Feminists sometimes seem to be providing women with autonomy, but only because they are enabling behavior that separates the women from ordinary men and delivers them into the hands of the elite.
The problem with this theory is that feminism benefits lowlife men (omegas) more than anyone else, including the elite (alphas). In a moral, patriarchal society, alphas would still have a wife and maybe a mistress, but omegas would have nothing. Feminism benefits alphas somewhat in making more women available to them, but also harms alphas in that their wives are more likely to screw them over.
I see feminism as a degenerative cultural disease where women become essentially common property. The result is known as the tragedy of the commons where women are overused and become hostile sluts unsuitable for marriage. The biggest supporters of this system are omegas, followed by women who support it because their instincts aren't designed for this kind of decision-making, so when given inappropriate authority, women make decisions that are contrary to their own self-interest. Alphas simply want power and since in a democracy omegas and women are a majority, alphas will side with them to be elected or just popular.
I'd see females having sex with non-elite dirtbags as being a transitional phase to achieve the goal of rendering the females incapable of relationships with normal, decent men. In time such sex will likely be cracked down on. The sexual goal seems to be to turn females into lesbians who keep each other entertained between sessions of whore-type sex with big shots, as depicted in the novel Fools Die. The elite will get to monopolize young females, not only in terms of sex, but in terms of their company (with the females being corporate whores and such) and in terms of controlling their labor. Under feminism, formerly informal contributions by females are done through the formal economy where the elite can supervise and regulate them, and take a major cut of the value generated.
By elite do you mean a demographic of people above a certain networth? Or do you mean a single monolothic organization? If yes to the latter what is the best book for learning about this elite organization? I consider the latter view to be conspiracy theory, which I don't agree with. But I'm willing to do some reading if a good book can be suggested.
By elite do you mean a demographic of people above a certain networth? Or do you mean a single monolothic organization? If yes to the latter what is the best book for learning about this elite organization?
By "elite" I mean the hereditary ruling class, which consists of a set of interlinked families and has its own hierarchy, and so functions similar to a monolithic entity. Most societies have such a class. It is just that in Western colony countries it historically suited the elite to let the sheeple think they are masters of their own destiny. This pretense is now being dropped. I'm not sure about a book on the subject. You could try this one, which isn't all that good, but does point out that there is a quite distinct class of people to whom the usual rules do not apply.
My sense is that families come and go and their wealth divides over generations, making them less important. As an example the Rockefeller family slides every year, none of their family members are even on the richest 100 people in America list anymore. Most of the current richest men in America like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison did not inherit their wealthy.
My sense is that families come and go and their wealth divides over generations, making them less important. As an example the Rockefeller family slides every year, none of their family members are even on the richest 100 people in America list anymore.
The published figures are a pack of lies. An obvious case of understatement is Queen Elizabeth II, who is said to be worth a paltry few hundred million, but only because the figure only includes wealth held in her own name (despite the fact that most super-rich people hold most of their wealth in the names of other entities) and necessarily doesn't include the Sovereign Fund, which is immune to being audited. People like the Rockefellers are most likely trillionaires, but in any case it doesn't matter how much wealth the real elites nominally own as they can co-opt more wealth any time they want.
Most of the current richest men in America like Bill Gates and Larry Ellison did not inherit their wealthy.
I don't know about Ellison, but Gates did inherit his position. He is the son of the lawyer who helped convert the American Eugenics Society into Planned Parenthood, and now his money is being used for eugenics and population control projects under the guise of charity. Most likely this was a condition of him getting the money in the first place. If you follow the history of Microsoft, it is pretty clear that the fix was in from the beginning.