Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

[Badger]

Ok, though I am not convinced the top dogs at banks are just functionaries, for the sake of advancing the argument, let's just set aside arguing over labels, and let me ask you: who is the influence sticking the knife? Who is or what is the entity associated with bank or any other powerful institution? Kyle's probings into your statements on this issue seems to me spot-on, as you don't seem able or willing to answer this question, but only dismiss any answer given so far as "functionary," that is, just a dupe, a patsy of somebody else. Who in Hell or Heaven else, please? Lets cut to the chase.

 

[Queequeg]

But strictly speaking, the owners of a bank are referred to as bankers, like the Rothschild family. Or what are they called? Shareholders of their bank?

The Rothschilds were a merchant banking house or Investment Bankers. They started as banker to the German Monarch and it was his money they used as well as the money of other monarchies. If they were a threat to the Monarchy they would have been beheaded the first time they stepped out of line for treason. The Rothschilds were a front for the ruling elite just like Janet Yellin is today.

 

[Badger]

Kyle, I would add most of MSM is owned by Jews, too: Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media |

I didn't put the notes on that abstract and what I find more interesting is the experiment itself, but as a matter of fact most of the multicultural political groups in America are founded and run by Jewish people. Either way, the experiment is creepy, and you seem to be missing that.

 

[x-ray peat]

Most would just say the power elite or the power's that be but to be precise I think it is the European nobility in combination with the old moneyed families in the US and elsewhere plus the church.

The Rothschilds were a merchant banking house or Investment Bankers. They started as banker to the German Monarch and it was his money they used as well as the money of other monarchies. If they were a threat to the Monarchy they would have been beheaded the first time they stepped out of line for treason. The Rothschilds were a front for the ruling elite just like Janet Yellin is today.

Yes this is the truth. Here is some background reading for those who still think the Jews run the world.
The Jesuits | History of Jesuits | Jesuits Power and Political Nature
Jesuits Behind Politics
The Jesuit Vatican New World Order
The Rothschilds are Jesuits

 

[x-ray peat]

Kyle, I would add most of MSM is owned by Jews, too: Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media |

This could not be more untrue. Yes there are a lot of Jews working in Media but for the most part they are not the owners or controllers.
Disney was started by a protestant Mason Walt Disney
Time by a Catholic Knight of Malta Henry Luce
News Corp by a Catholic Knight of Malta Rupert Murdoch
Sony is also not Jewish

 

[Badger]

If you are a functionary of say, a Mafia boss, and he directs you to murder someone, who is the murderer? Answer: the law says you and your boss. Jews and their old money bosses - they are all killers, both blameworthy. Straining to over stress the difference between boss and employee is a distinction with little or no difference. Without say, the Jews, the old money could not manipulate the world, and the Jews without old money could not get their payoff for conducting services for them. Jail or hang them both. This logic was applied to hanging the Nazis at Nuremberg, and millions of people agreed.

 

[Badger]

This could not be more untrue. Yes there are a lot of Jews working in Media but for the most part they are not the owners or controllers.
Disney was started by a protestant Mason Walt Disney
Time by a Catholic Knight of Malta Henry Luce
News Corp by a Catholic Knight of Malta Rupert Murdoch
Sony is also not Jewish

Doesn't matter who started the media, what matters is who owns them now.

 

[Kyle M]

Most would just say the power elite or the power's that be but to be precise I think it is the European nobility in combination with the old moneyed families in the US and elsewhere plus the church.

And I wouldn't totally disagree. Mr. anarcho-capitalism himself, Murray Rothbard, wrote a lot on power elite analysis. But that's stupid cuz muh reasons economics doesn't exist.

 

[Atman]

Doesn't matter who started the media, what matters is who owns them now.

Exactly. What's also interesting, is how the content of the productions of for example Disney changed during the last decades.

 

[Kyle M]

The Rothschilds were a merchant banking house or Investment Bankers. They started as banker to the German Monarch and it was his money they used as well as the money of other monarchies. If they were a threat to the Monarchy they would have been beheaded the first time they stepped out of line for treason. The Rothschilds were a front for the ruling elite just like Janet Yellin is today.

You really think that the central bankers of a state are at the bottom? What is the monarchy any way? Back then, they had to pay their armies or else off with your head. Once a bank got monopoly power over a state's money, that is a new power that is very much equal to or greater than a simply monarch's chair. How often have the monarch's changed compared to the bankers? Are the monarch's even there any more? In Game of Thrones, the queen doesn't just kill the Iron Bank bankers and take their money, she has to appease them to get loans to pay soldiers. You do realize that soldiers, real people who have their own interests in mind and believe a variety of ideas about their state, are the power of a head of state right? They don't have some mystical force, some magic sword from the stone, that they can wield against their enemies. They need real men to take real murderous action, and those men don't do it for free ever.

 

[Kyle M]

Doesn't matter who started the media, what matters is who owns them now.

Haha this point is so obvious that it really makes you think.

Hey who cares who runs the United States now, we all came from single celled organisms! #bacterialoneworldorder

 

[AJC]

A bit long, but another Beyond good and evil quote. This was from 1886:

Edit: The last paragraph is the clincher

The weaker sex has in no previous age been treated with so much respect by men as at present—this belongs to the tendency and fundamental taste of democracy, in the same way as disrespectfulness to old age—what wonder is it that abuse should be immediately made of this respect? They want more, they learn to make claims, the tribute of respect is at last felt to be well-nigh galling; rivalry for rights, indeed actual strife itself, would be preferred: in a word, woman is losing modesty. And let us immediately add that she is also losing taste. She is unlearning to FEAR man: but the woman who ‘unlearns to fear’ sacrifices her most womanly instincts. That woman should venture forward when the fear-inspiring quality in man—or more definitely, the MAN in man—is no longer either desired or fully developed, is reasonable enough and also intelligible enough; what is more difficult to understand is that precisely thereby— woman deteriorates. This is what is happening nowadays: let us not deceive ourselves about it! Wherever the industrial spirit has triumphed over the military and aristocratic spirit, woman strives for the economic and legal independence of a clerk: ‘woman as clerkess’ is inscribed on the portal of the modern society which is in course of formation.

While she thus appropriates new rights, aspires to be ‘master,’ and inscribes ‘progress’ of woman on her flags and banners, the very opposite realizes itself with terrible obviousness: WOMAN RETROGRADES. Since the French Revolution the influence of woman in Europe has DECLINED in proportion as she has increased her rights and claims; and the ‘emancipation of woman,’ insofar as it is desired and demanded by women themselves (and not only by masculine shallow-pates), thus proves to be a remarkable symptom of the increased weakening and deadening of the most womanly instincts. There is STUPIDITY in this movement, an almost masculine stupidity, of which a well-reared woman—who is always a sensible woman—might be heartily ashamed. To lose the intuition as to the ground upon which she can most surely achieve victory; to neglect exercise in the use of her proper weapons; to let-herself-go before man, perhaps even ‘to the book,’ where formerly she kept herself in control and in refined, artful humility; to neutralize with her virtuous audacity man’s faith in a VEILED, fundamentally different ideal in woman, something eternally, necessarily feminine; to emphatically and loquaciously dissuade man from the idea that woman must be preserved, cared for, protected, and indulged, like some delicate, strangely wild, and often pleasant domestic animal; the clumsy and indignant collection of everything of the nature of servitude and bondage which the position of woman in the hitherto existing order of society has entailed and still entails (as though slavery were a counterargument, and not rather a condition of every higher culture, of every elevation of culture):—what does all this betoken, if not a disintegration of womanly instincts, a defeminising?

Certainly, there are enough of idiotic friends and corrupters of woman among the learned asses of the masculine sex, who advise woman to defeminize herself in this manner, and to imitate all the stupidities from which ‘man’ in Europe, European ‘manliness,’ suffers,—who would like to lower woman to ‘general culture,’ indeed even to newspaper reading and meddling with politics. Here and there they wish even to make women into free spirits and literary workers: as though a woman without piety would not be something perfectly obnoxious or ludicrous to a profound and godless man;—almost everywhere her nerves are being ruined by the most morbid and dangerous kind of music (our latest German music), and she is daily being made more hysterical and more incapable of fulfilling her first and last function, that of bearing robust children. They wish to ‘cultivate’ her in general still more, and intend, as they say, to make the ‘weaker sex’ STRONG by culture: as if history did not teach in the most emphatic manner that the ‘cultivating’ of mankind and his weakening—that is to say, the weakening, dissipating, and languishing of his FORCE OF WILL—have always kept pace with one another, and that the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men.

That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her NATURE, which is more ‘natural’ than that of man, her genuine, carnivora-like, cunning flexibility, her tigerclaws beneath the glove, her NAIVETE in egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and virtues. That which, in spite of fear, excites one’s sympathy for the dangerous and beautiful cat, ‘woman,’ is that she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman, always with one foot already in tragedy, which rends while it delights—What? And all that is now to be at an end? And the DISENCHANTMENT of woman is in progress? The tediousness of woman is slowly evolving? Oh Europe! Europe! We know the horned animal which was always most attractive to thee, from which danger is ever again threatening thee! Thy old fable might once more become ‘history’—an immense stupidity might once again overmaster thee and carry thee away! And no God concealed beneath it—no! only an ‘idea,’ a ‘modern idea’!

Nietzsche the prophet again eh?

Someone was asking about solutions a few pages ago. The most straightforward one and the one I believe to be historically based is for MEN to return to acting like MEN--healthy masculinity. This is what men and women want. Men lead and women follow. Men have been the protectors for thousands of years. Strong men as protectors make women feel safe. When there are no strong men then women feel unsafe and then take on the functions of manhood. Not because they want to (at least at first) but because those functions have to be fulfilled by someone.

I think what happened historically is that young boys used to learn manhood from their fathers, just like young girls learned womenhood from their mothers. When the Industrial Revolution came children were now separated from their parents so they could no longer learn it. Men stopped being the "strong men of old" and women got scared and started taking matters into their own hands. The solution isn't to demand women just "start acting more feminine", the solution is for men to simply grow up and act in a more masculine way (again--healthy masculinity). Women love this because finally they can relax, and they'll naturally want to support a man acting in this way.

I don't really know a better solution.

 

[Regina]

Thread kind of low-key suggests male neutering but I'm an ***hole #literallyshaking

yeah, I should have stopped that theme at the boxer.....

 

[Badger]

Kyle, just between you and me (don't tell anyone else, ok?), but I think you make a case in this post for who is the real functionary-puppet and who is the real boss.

You really think that the central bankers of a state are at the bottom? What is the monarchy any way? Back then, they had to pay their armies or else off with your head. Once a bank got monopoly power over a state's money, that is a new power that is very much equal to or greater than a simply monarch's chair. How often have the monarch's changed compared to the bankers? Are the monarch's even there any more? In Game of Thrones, the queen doesn't just kill the Iron Bank bankers and take their money, she has to appease them to get loans to pay soldiers. You do realize that soldiers, real people who have their own interests in mind and believe a variety of ideas about their state, are the power of a head of state right? They don't have some mystical force, some magic sword from the stone, that they can wield against their enemies. They need real men to take real murderous action, and those men don't do it for free ever.

 

[Badger]

It isn't all so simple as men "growing up" and acting in a more masculine way, whatever that is. There are very powerful social, economic, legal, cultural and political forces and institutions all consciously working to undermine both male and female identity and replace it with something else, variously called "non-binary" and similar alien terminology (when applied to gender). Long story short: you don't go up against such forces as an individual and declare, "I'm going to become more masculine" and expect this will wilt and wither such forces into defeat.

Nietzsche the prophet again eh?

Someone was asking about solutions a few pages ago. The most straightforward one and the one I believe to be historically based is for MEN to return to acting like MEN--healthy masculinity. This is what men and women want. Men lead and women follow. Men have been the protectors for thousands of years. Strong men as protectors make women feel safe. When there are no strong men then women feel unsafe and then take on the functions of manhood. Not because they want to (at least at first) but because those functions have to be fulfilled by someone.

I think what happened historically is that young boys used to learn manhood from their fathers, just like young girls learned womenhood from their mothers. When the Industrial Revolution came children were now separated from their parents so they could no longer learn it. Men stopped being the "strong men of old" and women got scared and started taking matters into their own hands. The solution isn't to demand women just "start acting more feminine", the solution is for men to simply grow up and act in a more masculine way (again--healthy masculinity). Women love this because finally they can relax, and they'll naturally want to support a man acting in this way.

I don't really know a better solution.

 

[Regina]

Nietzsche the prophet again eh?

Someone was asking about solutions a few pages ago. The most straightforward one and the one I believe to be historically based is for MEN to return to acting like MEN--healthy masculinity. This is what men and women want. Men lead and women follow. Men have been the protectors for thousands of years. Strong men as protectors make women feel safe. When there are no strong men then women feel unsafe and then take on the functions of manhood. Not because they want to (at least at first) but because those functions have to be fulfilled by someone.

I think what happened historically is that young boys used to learn manhood from their fathers, just like young girls learned womenhood from their mothers. When the Industrial Revolution came children were now separated from their parents so they could no longer learn it. Men stopped being the "strong men of old" and women got scared and started taking matters into their own hands. The solution isn't to demand women just "start acting more feminine", the solution is for men to simply grow up and act in a more masculine way (again--healthy masculinity). Women love this because finally they can relax, and they'll naturally want to support a man acting in this way.

I don't really know a better solution.

Somewhere near that Nietzsche bit in BG&E, he bemoans the "borification" of women. I loved that word.

 

[Tarmander]

Strong men as protectors make women feel safe. When there are no strong men then women feel unsafe and then take on the functions of manhood.

I am not sure we can assume that. Strong men often make women afraid. I think you could make an argument that women today feel safer then they have ever felt in history, and they are not running to men in thanks, but getting more hysterical as a group every year.

I like your idea about men being strong and leading, and this will right the wrongs of the ship...but I think it is...a bit rosy glass colored? If that is the right phrase? I think I would have agreed with you in my youth, but as I have learned more and more about "WOMAN" as Nietzsche calls it, I do not think it is so simple. No, I think she is far more dangerous, yet in some ways simpler, then Men have been led to believe. I think if men understood that the feminine principle, equality of outcome, is leading towards nuclear winter, they would have more respect for giving the respect to women they do. There is also every chance that the men who stand up and start leading again will be destroyed for their behavior, leading even faster to some societal collapse.

Just as men need something to hunt, perhaps women need fear and structure to properly flourish, as Nietzche suggests. Men have always had to hunt, perhaps women have always been afraid?

No the boat we are on is not so easily righted. The forces of pleasure and stability at work complicate.

 

[Tarmander]

Somewhere near that Nietzsche bit in BG&E, he bemoans the "borification" of women. I loved that word.

HA. That is a great word. Poor Nietzsche never did well with the ladies...

 

[AJC]

It isn't all so simple as men "growing up" and acting in a more masculine way, whatever that is. There are very powerful social, economic, legal, cultural and political forces and institutions all consciously working to undermine both male and female identity and replace it with something else, variously called "non-binary" and similar alien terminology (when applied to gender). Long story short: you don't go up against such forces as an individual and declare, "I'm going to become more masculine" and expect this will wilt and wither such forces into defeat.

Are you saying that if every individual decided to go against these forces and act this way that the forces would not be defeated? How can they have their influence on society if not through individuals? For example, although these forces have been at play in my life all my life, and although I'd say I was under their sway for a while, I am not under their sway to anywhere near the same extent now. This was my choice, and it came to fruition even in a society full of messages to the contrary.

I'm offering a suggestion that is actually tenable and achievable by any man right now. I am aware there are societal problems and forces at play. However these forces are abstract ghosts until they reach the individual and actually effect the individual in a certain way. I'm still exposed to these forces and choose to stand up to them and do things the way I think is right. All the effects of those institutions you mentioned take place at the level of the individual and the only place where change can be effectively and reliably implemented is on the free-will level of the individual. This is also the level that is always just barely beyond societal control, because humans can always respond in unforeseen ways to external stimuli.

The other factor at play here is that those forces are trying to mold humans into something they're not. They're fighting an uphill, futile battle against nature, and I don't think it can last forever.

 

[AJC]

edited