Single Women Are Illuminati Vanguard

Single Women Are Illuminati Vanguard

February 23, 2016

“In 2009, for the first time in American history, single women outnumbered married women.”

A measure of weak character is the alacrity with which many women have embraced feminist shibboleths and eschewed marriage & family, thus advancing the twin Illuminati (Communist, Masonic) goals of depopulation and family extinction.

They have traded familial love for a corporate master. Career will not fill the void after their fertility is gone.

As Rebecca Traister explains below, the Illuminati have forged an important tool in the feminist movement. They’re the reason why the Democratic Party is choosing between two Communists; why Masonic institutions like the mass media, education and government increasingly are staffed by women. By betraying themselves, feminists also have betrayed their society, culture, family and children.

Perhaps more dramatically than any other voting block, un­married women — comprising as they do other liberal-voting groups including young women and women of color — lean left. Way left. -Rebecca Traister

There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so, for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration. – Adam Weishaupt, 1748-1830, Founder of the Illuminati

We aspire to corrupt in order to govern… We have taken from the people all the gods of heaven and earth, which had their homage. We have torn from them their religious faith, their faith in monarchy, their honesty and their family virtues…” (Giuseppe Mazzini, 1805-1872, Revolutionary, Founder of Italian Freemasonry and the Mafia)

By Rebecca Traister
(Excerpts by

In 2009, the proportion of American women who were married dropped below 50 percent. In other words, for the first time in American history, single women (including those who were never married, widowed, divorced, or separated) outnumbered married women.

(By remarkable coincidence, a Jewish writer reports on Communist Jewish-inspired “social change.”)

Perhaps even more strikingly, the number of adults younger than 34 who had never married was up to 46 percent, rising 12 percentage points in less than a decade. For women under 30, the likelihood of being married has become astonishingly small: Today, only around 20 percent of Americans are wed by age 29, compared to the nearly 60 percent in 1960.

It is a radical upheaval, a national reckoning with massive social and political implications. Across classes, and races, we are seeing a wholesale revision of what female life might entail. We are living through the invention of independent female adulthood as a norm, not an aberration, and the creation of an entirely new population: adult women who are no longer economically, socially, sexually, or reproductively dependent on or defined by the men they marry.

They are doing it because they have internalized assumptions that just a half-century ago would have seemed radical: that it’s okay for them not to be married; that they are whole people able to live full professional, economic, social, sexual, and parental lives on their own if they don’t happen to meet a person to whom they want to legally bind themselves. The most radical of feminist ideas–the disestablishment of marriage — has been so widely embraced as to have become habit, drained of its political intent but ever-more potent insofar as it has refashioned the course of average female life.

Single women are also becoming more and more powerful as a voting demographic. In 2012, unmarried women made up a remarkable 23 percent of the electorate. Almost a quarter of votes in the last presidential election were cast by women without spouses, up three points from just four years earlier. According to Page Gardner, founder of the Voter Participation Center, in the 2012 presidential election, unmarried women drove turnout in practically every demographic, making up “almost 40 percent of the African-American population, close to 30 percent of the Latino population, and about a third of all young voters.”

Perhaps more dramatically than any other voting block, un­married women — comprising as they do other liberal-voting groups including young women and women of color — lean left. Way left. Single women voted for Barack Obama by a wide margin in 2012 — 67 to 31 percent — while married women (who tend to be older and whiter) voted for Romney. And unmarried women’s political leanings are not, as has been surmised in some quarters, attributable solely to racial diversity.

According to polling firm Lake Research Partners, while white women as a whole voted for ­Romney over Obama, unmarried white women chose Obama over Romney by a margin of 49.4 percent to 38.9 percent. In 2013, ­columnist Jonathan Last wrote about a study of how women ages 25 to 30 voted in the 2000 election. “It turned out,” Last wrote in The Weekly Standard, “that the marriage rate for these women was a greater influence on vote choice than any other variable.”


During the lead-up to the 2014 midterms, Fox News pundit Jesse Watters opined that single women “depend on government because they’re not depending on their husbands. They need things like contraception, health care, and they love to talk about equal pay.” Conservative pundit Phyllis Schlafly went so far as to claim in 2012 that President Obama was working to keep women unmarried by giving away so many social services to them. “President Obama is simply trying to promote more dependency on government handouts because he knows that is his constituency, ” Schlafly said.

The notion that what the powerful, growing population of unmarried American women needs from the government is a husband (or a gynecologist, as was the case with one horrifying 2013 Koch-funded anti-Obamacare ad that featured a grotesque Uncle Sam popping up leeringly from a pelvic exam) is of course problematic. It reduces all relationships women have to marital, sexual, hetero ones and suggests that they are, by nature, dependent beings, in search of someone–if not a ­husband then an elected official or a set of public policies — to support or care for them.

Whether or not single women are looking for government to create a “hubby state” for them, what is certainly true is that their (white) male counterparts have long enjoyed the fruits of a related “wifey state,” in which the government has supported (white) male independence in a variety of ways. It’s hard for us to recognize this, since it has been the norm for so long — and here, it’s useful to recall Elizabeth Warren’s stirring “You didn’t build that” speech, in which she pointed out that “there is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.”


The expansion of the population of unmarried women across classes signals a social and political rupture as profound as the invention of birth control, as the sexual revolution, as the abolition of slavery, as women’s suffrage, and as the women’s-rights, civil-rights, gay-rights, and labor movements that made this reordering of society possible. By their very growing presence, single women are asking for a new deal from their government. The Democratic platform, suddenly more liberal than it has been in a generation, is more liberal largely in response to this new segment of the American population.

(In Canada, most news anchors and reporters are women of colour)

Raising the minimum wage? Two-thirds of minimum-wage workers are women. Forty percent of working single mothers would benefit directly from an increase in the minimum wage, according to the National Women’s Law Center. Paid family leave, a third-rail issue for decades, now back in conversation? Well, it would benefit all families, but especially struggling single mothers; so would the government-­subsidized early-education programs touted by both Clinton and Sanders. Paid-sick-day legislation is fundamental to a world in which women are primary earners and no one is home to care for sick children or elderly family members. Promises of free college and lowered student debt likely appeal to the women who now outnumber men on ­college campuses…

In the context of the presidential primary, it’s Sanders who has become emblematic of the leftward inclinations of a changing party and especially its younger members. But the movement that has undergirded much of what we now perceive on the presidential stage as a leftward lurch has been building for more than a decade.

“If you were to take a step back and look at what’s going on in American social and labor policy over the past decade where we’ve actually moved forward and made on-the-ground wins, it’s with stuff that addresses changing marriage patterns and attendant work-life conflicts,” says Heather Boushey, chief economist at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, and author of Finding Time: The Economics of Work-Life Conflict. But what’s stunning, she adds, is how little we talk about unmarried women as the driving force behind these changes.

Adapted from All the Single Ladies: Unmarried Women and the Rise of an Independent Nation, by Rebecca Traister, to be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc. Copyright © 2016 by Rebecca Traister. This article appears in the February 22, 2016 issue of New York Magazine.
How Women Destroy Nations (YouTube)
Why Women Destroy Civilizations & Other Uncomfortable Truths (YouTube)
Woman Blames Feminism for Refugee Crisis (YouTube)
Beyoncé “Single Ladies” 99% Satanic choreographyé-single-ladies-99-satanic-choreography

Five Traits that Make Women the Best Useful idiots

5 Traits That Make Women The Best Useful Idiots For Liberalism

First Comment by Tony B:

What is consistently skirted in all the talk about women and politics here is the simple fact that men prefer freedom in this world, women prefer security. Plain and simple. Even exceptions are rare. This is also a dead giveaway to the true character of women and their worldly purpose.

It is exactly the reason women should have never been given the vote. A woman’s vote becomes nothing but a veto of her husband’s vote and we end up with the hated nanny state in which we now exist. You can trace the creation and growth of the nanny state and women’s vote. They are exactly parallel.

But it’s worse than this. In 1956, my children’s mother decided she wanted to be the belle of the bar, any bar, rather than a mother to her three children, all in (cloth) diapers as two were twins. When she left, I went to the local welfare office to hire one of those welfare women as a housekeeper but was rudely told that they were entitled and need not have work.

So I simply said, “Well, I can’t work and raise my kids at the same time so I’ll go on welfare.”

Reply: “You can’t do that!”

Answer: “Why not?”

Rude reply: “Because you’re a man.”

Now this was in 1956, before “everything went to hell.” Tell me about discrimination, someone. I’d like to discuss it.
– See more at:

Leave a Reply