Update 2018 07 26: To correct links
Unfortunately, Aaron Russo died on August 24, 2007 at age 64, of cancer of the bladder. In the best interest of the children, the time-worn slogan goes. No, that is not it at all. It is being done to gain control of the children.
Here is a link to a long interview that Alex Jones had with Aaron Russo and filmed. ‘AaronRusso: Reflections and Warnings‘ is an eye opener, if you still have illusions about democracy.
Let there be no mistake. Aaron Russo didn’t stress the point very much (although he alluded to it), but what Russo presented is not an American problem, it is an international one. World government is being rammed down our throats.
The big banks are the driving force, they control the money supply, and there is not a single developed nation (and not a single developing one I heard of) that does not have a central bank.
Contrary to what by far most people believe, central banks are not controlled or owned by governments. They are owned and controlled by a handful of bankers who work very hard to install a global government.
Aaron Russo addressed that in the interview, where he showed various quotes from a number of prominent people that indicate their desire to have a world government and to have it replace nations.
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Money is power, and there is no greater power than to have absolute control of all money.
The interview provides a surprising and revealing truth about women’s lib. I have extensively written about that and its communist roots at Fathers for Life (for instance, see addendum).
Do Betty Friedan’s and NOW’s objectives differ from, say, Mao tse tung’s? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to the family:
A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority [political authority, clan authority and religious authority]…. As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities – political, clan, religious and masculine – are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority, the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter…. As to the authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis for men’s domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women’s associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system is tottering with the growth of the peasants’ power.
“Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan”
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46.
[The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN,
—Full text, Look it up. It’s only a little more than one page.]
From Mao’s Little Red Book, this is Mao’s version of the truth that Rockefeller talks about in relation to women’s lib:
With the completion of agricultural cooperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front…. China’s women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.
—Introductory note to “Solving the Labour Shortage by Arousing the Women to Join in Production” (1955), The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
Nicholas Rockefeller told Aaron Russo, after he had asked Russo about what he thought what women’s lib was all about and received the standard, politically correct answer,
“You are an idiot….We Rockefellers funded that. We funded Women’s lib….You want to know why? There were two primary reasons….One reason was, we couldn’t tax half the population, before woman’s lib….The second reason was, now we get the kids into school at an early age. We can indoctrinate them how to think, which breaks up their family. The kids get to look at the State as their family, at the school, at the officials as their family, not at the parents teaching them….” (Link to that section of the interview), at 34:52)
Mao, Lenin, Rockefeller… what is the difference? “…women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country…” (or global state, and so that they can be taxed, if you will. —Walter)
However, to get the full impression of how little anyone who promotes a totalitarian system differs from Rockefeller, you need to listen to what Aaron Russo reported that Rockefeller had stated, that to bring women into the workforce serves the State to gain control of the children.
Still, it is all being done “in the best interest of the children,” as the time-worn slogan goes. No, that is not it at all. It is being done to gain control of the children. This is how it is being made to work, first they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families. In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State. (More on that at Children of the State)