By: Jay Dyer
I’ve received several messages from feminists of late inquiring as to why on earth I would dare to question women’s rights, supposed equality and empowerment. Having written a past article on the Satanic nature of feminism, the operant assumption by these questioners is of course guided by the official narrative of history as one of patriarchal oppression, wherein only in the last few centuries has the “tyranny” of old white men been exposed in the vast conspiracy theory known as gender. Of course none of this is true, but I thought it appropriate to answer these charges and explain the real nature of feminism as a social engineering plot to re-organize and re-engineer mankind by the technocrats.
To understand this, we must see the real players behind “women’s liberation,” dating roughly from the period of the Enlightenment and French Revolution, up to the Paris Commune and in the last century allying with Marxism and socialism to form a global front against the long domination of evil, stupid, and tyrannical men. As is often the case, the real history and power behind these revolutionary causes was oligarchical and subversive, not at all concerned with the interests of woman in general, but in deconstructing western society at the hands of moneyed elites.
While this sounds counter-intuitive, it is a fact that almost all so-called “liberal” movements have been funded, co-opted, used and harnessed by the money power as a means of psychological warfare for the destruction of the existing order. Feminism is no exception to this, and like Marxism, had the backing of powerful financial interests which could utilize the “liberation” by appealing to the deluded and naïve ignorance of youth, as the world witnesses with Mao’s cultural revolution.
Thus, just as the banking elite funded revolutionaries in Russia and China to destabilize the existing regimes, so with feminism and “women’s liberation,” the destabilization of the masses could be more easily accomplished, not just through altering social structures, but also through attacking gender. The attack on gender is a long, scientific process that began with women’s liberation and has now consummated in the synthetic rewrite of all nature. Along this long, technocratic and scientistic path the oligarchs reasoned that the inversion of all existing orders through subversion would result in the socialistic Brave New World of enforced androgyny – the feminization of men, and the masculinization of women.
At the time of the Enlightenment, Mary Wollstonecraft had spoken out as an early proponent of “women’s rights,” with her Vindication of the Rights of Women, published in 1792. From there, and with the radicals of the later Paris Commune, the so-called liberation was one in which the toppling of the monarchies gave rise to socialism and republicanism. It is important to recall that Weishaupt’s illuminism was communism, and the liberte, egalite, fraternite that was revered amongst the illuminist Jacobins and revolutionaries found their natural complement in women’s liberation. We can therefore see parallels in the Masonic Declaration of the Rights of Man with treatises like Wollstonecraft. The same radical egalitarianism of Paris communism would manifest in Bolshevik and Soviet propaganda, as women were told to cast off the slavery of domesticity for masculine occupations.
Fast forward to the last century, and we find the same strategy: Rockefeller daughter Abby was instrumental in establishing Cell 16, a radical feminist group advocating celibacy and the end of all traditional gender roles. Abby and Cell 16 organized some of the first feminist conferences that would prove to become influential in “Third Wave Feminism’s” strategies for attacking the West. Collier and Horowitz’s authorized biography of the Rockefellers presents Abby as somewhat of a rebel against the family’s capitalist veneer, but as we will see, this is not exactly accurate. Collier and Horowitz write:
Late in 1968, she [Abby] was visited by a different kind of supplicant. It was Roxanne Dunbar, and she was requesting funds to send a delegate to a forthcoming feminist conference in Chicago, the first major gathering of its kind. Together with Dana Densmore, Betsy Warrior, and a few other harbingers of the new women’s movement, Roxanne had already founded and put out the inaugural issue of The Journal of Female Liberation. ..
‘I’d considered myself a feminist all my life, although I never would have used that word, because I hated anything involving the word ‘female.’ Not a case of self-loathing, just the realization that there was nothing in what I had been given as a woman to like. All the associations were repellent to me. All ‘feminine’ mannerisms – making oneself up, wearing clothes men designed, acting the way men had designed – seemed to be a set up to make women contemptible to men, so that men could hate them.’…
With Roxanne and the others, Abby started Cell 16, soon of the premier feminist organizations.” (The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty, 599-600.)
We are told, of course, that Abby was the black sheep of the family, and her Marxism and feminism were in direct opposition to the family, yet when we consider the support of the Rockefeller Foundation for various projects, we find they have been no stranger to feminist causes. In fact, David Rockefeller famously praised Maoist China in his 1973 New York Times editorial, as seen below. Even today, the Rockefeller Foundation projects involve the funding of numerous women’s liberation projects, all under the guise of populism (and here, and here, for example). Ironically, populism is something David Rockefeller derides in his Memoirs:
For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (“Proud Internationalist,” Memoirs, pg. 405)
Another stunning example of this strategic subversion is the use of radical feminists like Pussy Riot or Femen by NGOs funded by George Soros. In the case of Soros and U.S. State Department NGOs, these radical left movements have the goal of being a social and psychologically destabilizing factor. Indeed, these clownish groups exist for their aesthetic terrorism, all with the backing of billionaires to cause dissent against Putin and Eurasia. Certainly other means are used, as Soros had bragged about funding the Crimean crisis through color revolutions. Kurt Nimmo explains:
“George Soros told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria over the weekend he is responsible for establishing a foundation in Ukraine that ultimately contributed to the overthrow of the country’s elected leader and the installation of a junta handpicked by the State Department.
“First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?” Zakaria asked Soros.
“Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now,” Soros responded.”
In like manner, Hollywood director Aaron Russo met with Nicholas Rockefeller and reported in an interview that Nicholas informed him of the true nature of feminism and why it was funded by the elites. The crux of the matter is, feminism and so-called “liberation” is useful to billionaire technocrats to reorganize society – it has nothing to do with liberation or freedom, but enslavement to the passions and ultimately, death through dysgenics and dying reproduction rates. The explanation is best given in Russo’s own words, especially when we recall Gloria Steinem’s own admission that feminism via Ms. Magazine was funded by the CIA: