Question for the ladies (men can participate too)

Do you beleive the entering of woman into the work force was a calculated move as suggested by the late great Aaron Russo in his interview with Alex Jones about his friendship with Nick Rockefeller?

Aaron Russo said that Nick Rockefeller told him MS magizine was funded by the CIA. He also said that the whole concept of double family earners was set up for the purposes of taxation. Also for the break down of the family unit .

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

Could you please elaborate on the suggestion made by the late Aaron Russo?

Yes, who is he and why do you say this and what's the thrust of this thread, and why does it matter one iota if "women entered the workforce" or not?

Just shooting from my hip here, I would say women had to enter the workforce for so many reasons that to site just one man's words as the reason they entered the workforce, is going to be inaccurate before you even post this man's view that it was "calculated."

When you start a thread like this, assume, like most of us reading it, have no clue who this man is or what his theories are and if you want us to debate it, perhaps you should post more info about him with links to illustrate your view, and if you're going to ask us about a specific interview between two people, it MIGHT be a good idea to post that interview here for us to watch?

reply to post by MemoryShock


Sorry for not being clear here is the full video

video.google.com...#< br />
I edited the the first post

reply to post by LateApexer313


Aaron Russo made such movies as Trading Places, The Rose and my favorite Freedom to Facism which if you hav'nt seen you must watch. You can watch it on the web.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

Many many women entered the workforce during WW2, willingly and the work they did was phenomenal and needed. Many women work when their husband's cannot for whatever reasons. The idea that the CIA concocted anything to force women into the workforce is a farce IMO. Women have done it for many reasons. And what about those who work that are not in a spousal situation, do they count as the ones the CIA wanted in there too? Sorry, this idea does not ring true.

All righty, thanks for posting the interview to clarify your thread...anyone else interested in this topic will be grateful.

I myself can't even get through it, once I saw the topic. Just not my area of interest but good luck with your thread!

reply to post by Swingarm



Of course I believe such.

Have studied the NWO since 1965 when I had to in my library job.

They decided before that to shred the society and culture every way they could--to set interest groups against on another--such as blacks against whites; women against men; homomsexuals etc.

Also, the destruction of the family unit was a big goal--particularly to help bring weakness to the country and attack our Christianity through attacking the family.

They are determined to set up the global government. They are on the bring of overtly bringing it forward.

Check out the quotes at post #76 on this thread at FREEREPUBLIC.COM

www.freerepublic.com...

It is a list of quotes from many political and other leaders in the USA from 1900 forward . . . articulating their determination to bring about the global government and what would have to happen in order to achieve that. They are on the brink of forcing it on the whole world overtly.

God have mercy on us all.

spelling edit bring to brink

[edit on 28/6/2008 by BO XIAN]

[edit on 28/6/2008 by BO XIAN]

reply to post by BO XIAN


Thanks, those are great, telling quotes.

reply to post by Swingarm


Thank you for this thread!! My late father said back in the 1960s that women (married w/children) entering the job market would be the ruination of America. He was wise beyond his years and very observant.
He told me that in the 1930s, when any of his single women co-office workers got married, they left the work place to become a housewife and care for their husbands and essentially retired. That was the way it was until WWII and we all know about MS and there is some story going around about Gloria Steinem being more than just a feminist - but someone with a truly hidden agenda. Maybe this is what the agenda was all about.
As a woman, in 2008 we still make .79 to men's 1.00 still for the same skills (Dep't of Labor statistics). I salute young mothers today who are choosing to sacrifice financially to stay at home with their young children. Our economy is now based on a two income household making it very difficult for us single person households to make ends meet, unless highly educated or in one of the high paying white collar professions.
This "feminist" approach was really sold to my generation and I remember a friend criticizing me for being a receptionist and fixing coffee for my boss and his clients..that it was somehow demeaning. I told her that as long as I was being paid to do this and it was part of my job description, I saw no problem with it. I've also cleaned one of my boss' toilet - again, I was paid to do it It seemed fair to me.
So thank you so much for bringing this to the attention of the ATS readers. I hope others chime in about this very subtle undoing of our Republic. It is another demonstration of the frog in the boiling water.

When my wife and I first watched this video with Aaron we both sorta looked at each other and laughed. As we disscussed it though it started to sink in that it was'nt far fetched at all but made perfect sense.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

Women in the work force has always seemed very natural to me.

Every female in my family, paternal and maternal, have always worked. Both sets of grandparents had their own business and also farmed. My grandmothers worked right beside their husbands.

Their female children worked. My mother moved to Georgia before WW2 and worked in the shipyard in Brunswick. Her sister was a welder there. My mother worked in the planning department.

ALL my mothers and my aunts children are college graduates. Several are teachers and my oldest cousin just retired from NASA.

I was groomed from birth to enter the business world. At 3 years old I was sitting on the counter in my grandparents grocery store learning to count money. Very normal to me.

Granted, this was not normal for the majority of families during the early 1900's. IMO it was necessary for women to work at home because families were larger, taking care of the home and family was very hard without the modern conveniences we now have. Anybody remember cloth baby diapers? I sure do. Yuck...what a chore it was just to keep diapers clean and ready when needed.

In 1952 when I entered school my parents felt it necessary to have two incomes to have all they needed and desired. Mother went to work outside the family business. After I finished college she stopped her outside job and only worked for my father in his business. She worked up until 3 days before her death in 2005.

I might add that all the women in my family were devoted wives and excellent mothers. They were also very feminine and loving women.

I broke the mold. The first divorce in the family was mine. I was the first female black sheep of the family since 1734.

I guess my point is, it is wonderful if a mother can stay home and raise the children. But, working mothers can and do have accomplished children. Both my children have their own business and I worked every day after I finished college until 18 months ago when I was the first person in my family ever to retire. The rest died with their boots on.
Not me.

Originally posted by Barbs46

Thank you for this thread!! My late father said back in the 1960s that women (married w/children) entering the job market would be the ruination of America. He was wise beyond his years and very observant.

That is one of the funniest things I have ever read.

reply to post by Swingarm


I am not familiar with the gentleman in question, but I can assure you that women entered the "work force" - en masse - at the outbreak of WW I (1914).
But even before that it was not terribly unusual to find women working as cashiers, bank tellers, teachers etc.
By the late 1920s, a new term had already been coined: "career woman".

So, unless he was referring to that (and I can't see how that would be calculated - unless somebody calculated the Great War in order to get women into the work force), I'd say NO.






[edit on 28-6-2008 by Vanitas]

reply to post by Swingarm



The question isn’t why should women work the question IS why shouldn't women work?

Whether a hundred years ago or today an individual’s freedom to choose, live, be educated and quality of life is determined by economics. The reason for this is obvious - we live in a society regulated by money - therefore to deny one half of the population that option to freedom is like advocating slavery for black people. Or are you also saying that liberating blacks from slavery was also another so called conspiracy as they were 'taken care of' by their white masters and so they should have been happy?

And that is the 'hidden agenda' at the core of your reason for bringing up this so called ‘conspiracy‘.

Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is any detrimental social effect on children if the female parent works. In fact it has been shown that children are better off socially and educationally in homes where there the female parent works, whether that is a single or married parent

Also, have you considered that some men prefer a wife who is more than a domestic servant and baby making machine?

You're advocating slavery.

reply to post by Marsrising

Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is any detrimental social effect on children if the female parent works. In fact it has been shown that children are better off socially and educationally in homes where there the female parent works, whether that is a single or married parent
Also, have you considered that some men prefer a wife who is more than a domestic servant and baby making machine?

You're advocating slavery.

I'm really not advocating anything. I asked weather you beleived that the move of woman into the workforce was calculated as suggested by Nick Rockefeller. Further I don't think there is a single man out there that would see their wife as a domestic servant and baby making machine if that is the case the man has shortcomings outside the scope of this disscussion. On the point that children are better off, I'm affraid I can't accept that.BTW my wife and I both work and we have 4 children.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Swingarm]

reply to post by Marsrising


I'll tell you why women should not be taxed at the same rate as a man.... which is was the objective of the Psy-op the OP was Referring to.

Via Problem-Reaction-Solution

Steinem and MS etc told women that society thought they couldn't compete as equals with the masculines. They told them it was because they were weaker and then told them that men think women belong in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant - which was all reverse-psychology propaganda

Women, being challenged Rose to that challenge. They began working jobs that were designed for men. They said they could do as much as any man. They demanded Equality!

Bills were passed, legislation enabled. You are now equal - You will now pay an equal amount of TAX....

no more tax breaks for each additional child, no more tax breaks period.... because before the FemNazi hysteria Women actually Netted an amount equal to men at the end of a year (same job same hours)... and were obliged to do only 2/3 the work, got more breaks and were designated easier jobs.

Problem: We need to Extract more Money From the Women and Get the Children into Indoctrination Facilities. We need to breakup the Family

Reaction:The Women are up In Arms The Women Demand Equality!

Solution: Give the Women What they want. Force them to work as hard as men. Force them to pay as much tax a man. Take away their mothers benfits, legislate the tax breaks out of existence. The women are now Equal.

reply to post by doctormcauley


Wow that had not occured to me. It makes perfect sense though. Thank you for your post.

I certainly believe that the injection of women into the work force has had a devstating effect on our society and was indeed a deliberate campaign.

Now please don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying that a woman shouldn't be allowed to work.

There was a time when one person could support a household with a non-specialized blue-collar job, like being a store clerk. When I say household, I mean just that, house, wife, kids, car, vacation, etc.

Then it came to pass that women became relied on, to work part time so that the family could have the "extras" like friday night movies and vacations.

Then it became necessary for the woman to go to work when the kids were at school, just to maintain the household, even scrimping to get by.

By the 80's and 90's, both parents had to work to get by. And by this time, the house has turned into an apartment, the cars are second-hand, the vacations never happen, and the unexpected second or third child gets aborted.

Nowadays, where I am anyway, a single person, even without kids, cannot survive on their own. Both women and men endure brutal and violent realtionships, just so they don't wind up on the streets, because it takes two full-time-plus incomes to maintain even the most meager of housing.

Where I am, a full time job, making a few dollars more than minimum wage will only pay the rent. Not food, not clothes, not electricity, not for the car, etc., etc.