|According to Buffett, women will 'save' the US economy|
Is it just me, or are the World's billionaire investors so caught up in a World divorced from the real life of ordinary people's family lives that they really do think of people in purely economic terms?
Whatever economic benefits women have experienced from having been liberated from '200 years' of marginalisation from the workforce, there has, surely, been a social cost.
Women, having gone from a situation in which they were 'shackled' to the home, now have no choice but to work. Empowerment has become slavery, so much so that it is financially almost impossible for a woman who makes the choice to stay at home and be a full-time mother to her children. Does Mr Buffett think of the social cost in an economy that now rests in tatters unless women come to the rescue? Seemingly not! How interesting it is that women will only 'save' the US economy if they agree to becoming economic cogs in a financial machine that treats human beings as products, consumers and producers? Meanwhile, the future of the human race itself depends upon the foundation of the family.
Isn't there a kind of reverse misogyny going on here? Why should a woman be tied to a computer desk at an office, or in some other role that sees her opportunities to fulfill a perfectly natural role of motherhood severely hampered? Why should wife and husband (traditional language I know) be financially penalised for wanting to be mothers at a younger age and give up the idea of a rewarding career in the workplace in order to raise the future of humanity? Is this not, in itself, a rewarding career? A high and noble calling? No?
It is disturbing on the same level that men and women are told they are no different to the point that men can form unions and 'marriages' with men and women form unions and 'marriages' with women.
The message for the genders is that there is no difference between them despite the fact that men cannot give birth and women cannot impregnate women (without some assistance from men). As long as these men and these women are living in economic servitude, what does it matter that they cannot have children. Perhaps they will be able to 'buy a baby' - another product, through adoption or IVF using someone else's sperm or egg? I suppose it doesn't matter that biological parents are not known to the child because the child born into the world doesn't have true links with parents, but with the State and the financial system in the City. Everyone is born thus into servitude - not familial ties, bonds with religion or anything but the State. Didn't someone write a book along these lines?
It doesn't seem to matter to men like Buffett if there is a crisis in men, a crisis in fatherhood and that the effects upon society are so drastic, having been ravaged by assaults on the family, that little children ask Santa for a 'dad' for Christmas.
So long as men and women see themselves as economic producers then the World is a happy place - a banking utopia - despite the misery of children who grow up to be miserable adults. Recreational drugs will fill these miserable people's lives, which will be legal anyway, once they have been pumped into society so much so that the only answer seems to make it legal in order to 'reduce crime' and 'deal' with addiction in the only way possible left.
I suppose the idea of these billionaire investors is to forge ahead with a vision of society in which human dignity is all but disregarded - a new age in which all people see themselves as useful only in as much as they produce and spend for the sake of the economy and a financial system that depends upon all 'pitching in' to be stakeholders in a brave new world. I suppose that this vision of every man and woman being a worker until they're deemed useless does kind of rely upon us not breeding too much.
The price tag of the unborn child works even as a positive value, since human embryos can be sold and bought in IVF. Perhaps the dream of the architects of the brave new world is one in which human reproduction will no longer be even natural, since new technology will afford children to be genetically free from original genetic anomalies. Thus the vision of a super-race of not that many people at all is secured, a vision born in the minds of eugenically minded Nazis
How we ever got to the stage that when a rich billionaire investor speaks we listen and give him credibility is a mystery as great as that of the Incarnation, in which the Lord God Himself descended into the womb of a Virgin Mother and condescended then to be born for our salvation in a stable.
I suppose it would have been a better story - the Nativity - if after Our Lady had miraculously given birth to the Son of God, she'd taken a few months maternity leave and got back to making computers for Microsoft in a sweatshop, to place the Son of God not with St Joseph (who was out working for a multi-national carpentry company), but a childcare unit for which Our Lady had to pay with the help of some weird tax credit system set up by King Herod. Three years of Earthly Ministry walking around with His Apostles would not have fitted well into this vision that well either, since the sick, lame, lepers and crippled, as well as the poor, would have been eradicated by a society given over completely to eugenics, abortion and post-birth euthanasia.
I've no problem with calling people like Mr Buffett and his billionaire mates servants of the Antichrist. For that is what they are. We have to remember, of course, that the Lord was born for the exceedingly rich as well as the exceedingly poor, but the exceedingly rich don't have that much time, jetting around the World in their private airplanes, to worry about Almighty God being born in a manger, surrounded by farmyard animals, nourished by the breast milk of the Immaculate Virgin Mother. I mean, what's that got to do with the rising and falling of markets?
It is the rising and falling of many in Israel and across the whole World, however, the rising and falling of whole civilizations indeed, that this Child will oversee.