The Jiggly Room

.

.

Ah, yes. Boobs!

.

Two things that are constantly on the minds of both genders are a woman's breasts. Of course, fembots have been convincing women that men are pigs because they can't keep their eyes off of a woman's chest when they talk to her. Bad, bad, men! They treat women like nothing more than sex objects!
.

.

Yes, men are pigs!

.
But, why aren't women considered to be pigs when they expose the fleshy globes for the whole world to see? Does anyone really believe that a woman "innocently" didn't realize that she was advertising her jahoobies when she pulled on a blouse like this in the morning?

.

.

Women, unlike men, never buy clothes without trying them on first. When the above (appropriately faceless) woman bought that blouse, she first pulled it on in a dressing room, stood in front of a mirror, and I guarantee you that her eyes were fixed on her boobs in the mirror's reflection. It is no accident when a woman displays cleavage. It is not like accidentally walking around with your fly unzipped.

.
Back in the day, before I unplugged from the fematrix, I used to make damn sure that I never looked at woman's boobs when talking to her, no matter how flagrantly she displayed them. I listened to the ceaseless propaganda about how degrading it was for a man to talk to a woman's chest instead of her face, and I let non-logical PCism cloud my mind and not think about the woman's role in all of it.

.
Women are intensely aware of their boobs. Before puberty, girls ache for their first training bra. Flat chested teenage girls are viciously jealous of the girl who blooms early and receives male attention for it. At the same time, the earlier bloomer hears the propaganda about how degrading it is for men to like her breasts and goes into her first, of many to come, victim modes and allows her clouded female brain to be contradictory by believing she's a victim of her boobs while secretly loving it and playing on her sexual power over the boys at the same time. Of course, the woman who remains flat chested into adulthood believes she is equally victimized because she doesn't receive similar male attention.

.
Women buy bras that make their boobs look firmer than what they are, that lift and separate them to make them more appealing, there are padded ones to make them bigger, and they can even buy ones with built-in hard nipples. Women are intensely aware of their boobs and the power that they wield. Boob jobs are the number one plastic surgery done in our femi-narcististic world.

.

When this woman left the house in the morning, she knew she was putting her boobs on display for the world. Go ahead. Have a good, long look at them! That's what she wants - no matter what her flapping gums might be currently whining about.
.

.

"Talk to my face, not my chest. Pig!" Says the appropriately faceless creature.

.

This reminds of what I once read in Jack Kammer's excellent book, If Men Have All The Power, How Come Women Make All The Rules, http://www.deltabravo.net/files/ifmenhav.pdf in which Mr. Kammer makes a keen observation about the difference between Men & Women's sexuality. He says that when a man "comes on to a woman," it is like dealing with an annoyingly pushy door to door salesman who targets one customer and digs his heels in trying to convince the one person in front of him. But women's sexuality is advertised like annoying junk mail (or internet spam). It is ever present. You cannot escape it. She advertises to the whole world and whether the recipient wants to recieve her advertisement or not is of little concern to her. She targets everyone and plays the numbers game of "if I advertise to 100 people, I will get one nibble - and if I advertise to 1,000 people, I will get 10 nibbles."

.

So, let's get it straight. Women who show off the jahoobies, are trolling for sexual attention. It is very rare for a woman to "accidently" let someone see her fleshy globes. A woman who wears a tight, form fitting blouse like the following, fully well knows that her blouse accentuates her breasts:

.

.

And when a woman leans forward and "accidentally" lets you look clear down her blouse to her belly button, like the following, it is no accident either.

.
.

Don't believe me that it is no accident? Then ask yourself why only women with "boobs to be proud of" allow this. How come flat chested women never "accidentally" flash the mammaries? How come older women, whose boobs are well passed their prime years, are never giving you shots like that? How come men aren't wearing shirts that show off the man-boobs every time they lean over? Because the women whose cleavage & boobs you do see are quite aware that they are "accidentally-on purpose" doing it. That's why.

.

"Now, Rob," you say, "what's the big deal?"

.

Well, as some of you may know. The only Television I watch anymore is the Business News Network. A few weeks ago I was watching and listening for business reports of various natures when, in typical TV propaganda fashion, the filthy TV programmers decided it would be prudent to have a short 5-minute interview with some stunned female academic who was "an expert" on workplace etiquette. It didn't take this harpy with a BS in Academia more than one breath after introducing herself before she femi-moaned about sexual harrasment in the workplace, like when male co-workers are looking down a woman's blouse.

.
I just can't tell you how much it annoys me that the only "intellectual" thing that "academic" women seem capable of discussing, when interviewed, is women's victimhood in some way at the hands of those awful males. I taught the TV screen a few things about how foul my mouth can get when confronted with sexist women like that.

.

But it reminded me of a place where I worked once, and where I had a lower-level manager who was a woman.

.

Now, this woman came to work each day like a tarted up little whore. Her blouses would be unbuttoned down to the maximum point - as in, undo one more button and she would be displaying below the bottom of her bra - you know the type. This woman, every day, wore very short skirts - very short. Short enough that everyone knew she was wearing stockings instead of pantyhose, because the lacy top of the stockings would sometimes come into display if she bent over to pick something up etc.

.

But what this woman, a manager, used to do to me was complete sexual harassment. Passive sexual harrassment. On several occasions, when in her office discussing various work related issues, this woman would lean back in her chair, locking her hands behind her head like she was stretching - and lean way back, with a short skirt, legs open, and display clear shots up her skirt of the crotch of her panties.

.

.

I don't believe it was an accident. Exhibitionism is a top female sexual fantasy.
.

And here becomes the situation: You have to talk to a woman, out of work related neccessity, who is either leaning forward to talk to you, and fully displaying her cleavage to you - or she is leaning back and talking to you, fully displaying the crotch of her panties. Yet, you are expected to only be looking her in the eyes while she is displaying herself like a Penthouse Centerfold. She is looking at your face, and if you should allow your eyes to betray that you are fully aware that she is displaying herself sexually, YOU could be charged with sexual harassment in the workplace and not her! You could lose your job, wind up being sued, and have difficulty securing another job - the stakes are positively huge!

.

Now, the thoroughly corrupted feminist legal system has ambiguously defined Sexual Harassment in the Workplace as "that which would make a reasonable woman uncomfortable." But what about men? This woman made me uncomfortable in the workplace! I even contemplated discussing it with higher level management but I decided against it, contemplating that if I allowed them to know that I had been seeing down this woman's blouse and up her skirt, that I would get the boot for sexually harassing her. So I kept my mouth shut and endured the tightrope that this sexually flagrant harlot forced me to walk. And it did affect my professional performance, because I dreaded dealing with her, and that did affect the bottom line profitability of that particular business. I go to work to make money, not to ogle women. And the owner of the company started the business to make money, not to provide some tramp a venue to fulfill her exhibitionism fetish.

.

As I previously pointed out, women don't put themselves on display by accident. All women know this. Women are very aware of how to hide their bad features and accentuate their desireable features. The boobs you see are boobs you are meant to see. Yet, should some woman level a charge of sexual harassment against a man for looking at the boobs that you were meant to see, all the other women will quickly rally around the "afronted" woman and support her over the male pig. Even though they full well know "the game." At best, the other women will remain silent and not call the exhibitionist woman out on her bullshit and let the man go down in flames. 

.

Women should be discriminated against in the workplace until they all start dressing for business instead of dressing for attention. It's about time that women start showing up in suits, with a tie, so that they are forced to "button up." Otherwise, given the sexual harassment bias of our legal system, coupled with female sexual fetishes, women are a profit draining lawsuit waiting to happen and it is justifiable to unemploy their asses.
.

.
Previous Index Next

MGTOW

“If it’s not right, Go Your Own Way!”

....................

..oooO...........

..(....)...........
….\..(............
…. \_/...........

………....Oooo..
………....(....)…
…………..)../....
..........(_/......

....................

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:

Philalethes #2 – The Sexual Noise Is Deafening

The Multi-Tasking Pink Proletariat

It is interesting to read descriptions of modern day feminism. Many times you will read that feminism has now branched out in other areas of Civil Rights and that they champion the causes of Ethnic Diversity, Gay/Lesbian/Trans-sexual Rights and they combat Racism.
.
It all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The Pink Proletariat is branching out and finally caring about others instead of their usual screeching of “ME, ME, ME!” We should applaud them… or should we?
.

Maybe we should have a look at the big picture.

.
The first thing that we must acknowledge is that Marxism did not fail when the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed. The whole idea of Marxism is to collapse all of mankind's superstructures, including the State, to enable Marx's "new kind of man" to walk on Utopia (Heaven on Earth).
.
"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." -- V.I. Lenin
.
Marxism fully intends to collapse the State. All of the States around the world! Karl Marx outlines that to collapse the State, you use the known economic failure of Socialism to collapse the State.
.
"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism." -- Karl Marx
.
The real failure of Marxism was that it engulfed only 1/3 of the world before the state of the Soviet Union collapsed, which was planned all along by Marx!
.
That was a pretty damn good first run, if you ask me!
.
We also make a mistake in calling the Soviet form of government "Communism." This is incorrect. What the Soviet Union had was pure Socialism. True Socialism means that the government will control every aspect of your life, from when you wake up until you go to bed, from when you are born until you die. Socialism is complete control of the individual by the State.
.
What Communism means, from the purely Marxist perspective, is Globalization!
.
"[After Communism succeeds] ...then, there will come a peace across the earth." -- Josef Stalin
.
Yes, the word "Globalization" is nothing more than a prettier sounding synonym for "Communism."
.
And, to go on a bit of a quick sidetrack here, isn't it great how we have become fully addicted to propaganda? Goebbels would be wiping the drool from his chin if he could have had access to the type of propaganda we are subjected to.
.
In World War II, bombers used to drop leaflets. In Vietnam, Saigon Sue was chattering on the radio at American G.I.'s in between playing their favourite songs... but today, the whole population in the West runs home after work and automatically does what?

.
Yes, the idiot box comes on the second we walk in the door. It holds us in a hypnotic trance, requiring that the viewer shut off all private thought and conversation and let the propaganda box fill our minds with its message. We now eat dinner in the living room rather than gathering at the dinner table where we can converse while eating... It is a great babysitter for the kids... It does not get turned off until we go to bed, and even then, many of us have another propaganda box in the bedroom that we watch until drifting off to sleep, often with the box still on throughout the night, filling our subconscious with still more messages.
.

And what messages are we being told?

.

.
...Men are bad... men are rapists... men are violent... men hurt women and children... men are evil... the boogey monster beneath your bed is a typical male... the world is becoming increasingly global (communist)... globalization (communism) is happening... we have to prepare for globalization (communism)... accept globalization (communism)... globalization (COMMUNISM) is here!!!... there is no escaping globalization (COMMUNISM)...
. .
HEY ROB! Will you SHUT UP already? I can't watch TV while you are continually yacking at me!

. .
CLICK!
.
Sorry, I got a bit sidetracked by the real opium of the masses for a minute there. Now let's get back to the big picture, shall we?
. .
"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev

.
"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep." -- Mikhail Gorbachev

.

Now, where was I?

.

Oh yes. The goal of Marxism is to have Marxist ideologies engulf the people of the world, and then when you have them "suspended" in absolute equality, you use Socialism, a known economic failure, to collapse the State.

.

Currently, human society is/was structured like this:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

The ultimate longterm goal of Marxism is to create a human society that looks like this:

.

Individual --> World

.

The only thing left, aside from the individual, will be a select group of elites at the top who will govern every aspect of the individual's lives across the entire globe. This is Utopia, and mankind will be walking upon it in Communist bliss.

.

Now, the elites at the top need to set up shop somewhere, so perhaps they might pick a fancy shmancy building like this one, from which to decide how the insignificant peons of the world should live:

.

.

Hey, I'm just saying... it would be a good place, wouldn't it?

.

Remember now, the failure of Marxism was not the collapse of the Soviet Union - that was a success!

.

"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- - Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, January 13, 1849

.

The failure was that Marxism failed to spread across the whole world like a wildfire during/after the First World War, as Marx had predicted it would. This is why brilliant Marxist theorists such Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukacs set about to tackle the problem of what caused the Marxist malfunction which resulted in only 1/3 of the world taking up the Marxist cause. While Marx had stopped at saying the destruction of economics/Capitalism would cause Marxism to engulf the world, Gramsci and Lukacs theorized that certain other factors, which Karl Marx had failed to identify, had stopped Marxism cold.

.

The following factors were present throughout Western Culture and needed to be destroyed for Marxism to succeed in engulfing the world, so said Gramsci and Lukacs, and later the Frankfurt School: Christianity, Capitalism, Authority, the Family, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/cultural_marxism.htm

.

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin

.
Now, if we could just assume that Rob Fedders, in his infinite wisdom, is correct when he says that Feminism is Communism.

.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

.

By such an assumption, it would also be safe to say that "feminism" is nothing more than a false front for a subversive Marxist movement. (***Note to Harpies: I am not saying that women should not have rights, but rather that the evils of Marxism has hidden behind "women's rights" to push through a master plan intent on collapsing our great civilization, all under the rubric of "equality." Sigh, keep reading.)

.

So, if this is true, then does it not make sense for "modern day" feminists to say that they also stand for Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Trans-sexual rights as well as stating that they fight racism? They are also determined to end "white privilege."

.

This sounds like a divergence from "women's equality," which in the sense of that aspect it certainly is, but note that they still have their eye on the ultimate goal: Globalization/Communism.

.

Feminism was never about "women's rights," it was always about Communism, and it still is. Just like, despite what Lenin told the people, the Russian Revolution was not about freeing the people from Tsarist Tyranny.

.

"Psychologically, this talk of feeding the starving is nothing but an expression of the saccharine-sweet sentimentality so characteristic of our intelligentsia." -- V. I. Lenin, "Robert Conquest," The Harvest of Sorrow, (London: Arrow Books, 1988), p.234

.

The reason for Gay rights support is obvious, I believe. Gay rights is being used to further undermine the family by Critical Theory - to further divide it, and then redefine the smaller "divisions" until there is nothing left of the family which makes any sense whatsoever.

.

Lol! Feminism has pretty much run its path of destruction through the family. It is hard for me to imagine what else feminism could possibly do to destroy the family anymore than it already has. There are few loose ends to tie up, like getting things like State Run Daycare pushed through to ensure that women are no longer given the option of being a Stay At Home Mom. Off to be a slave in the fields with you, peon-ette! But for the most part, feminism has succeeded in mortally wounding the family.

.

So, the next thing to do is to undermine what is left of the family by completely redefining what ever little bits and pieces of it are left. (Read my piece, "What is Marxism and How Does It Work? http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-is-marxism-and-how-does-it-work.html )

.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

.

.

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

.

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of the family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

.

(Also, read my piece, "A New Kind of Bigotry," here: http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

.

And for the ultimate in supreme irony. I predict that when the family is completely demolished, the powers that be will use "Useful Idiots" from the "Men's Movement" to completely slam the door shut and take full totalitarian control of the family by granting those men who are clamoring for Male DV Shelters/Laws & "Equitable" Divorce & Custody Laws what they are asking for. I predict that some unwitting baby-boomer with a Ph D in something will be allowed to make headway with the MRM, position himself as a "leader," and will bring a "male styled feminism" into society. And that will be it! There will be full government control of every aspect of people's close relationships & family. Remember, the trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that both sides find themselves running to the government to get their piece. This is the "Totalitarian Trap."

.

It should be noted that with the Totalitarian Trap, the eternal drive to "equalize" is met by first pushing down one side, and then pushing down the other side until they are "equal." Equality is never reached by restoring rights. It is achieved by removing rights. Always.

.

The best thing that women could do to preserve their "rights," is to fully abandon feminist lies and throw their full weight at demolishing the Marxist creep. Because women are next on the Marxist destruction list. But this would require allying themselves with those icky men that they've been gleefully bashing for the past 4 decades. (Let's see if you've got the "right stuff," ladies.)

.

Ahem...

.

And now onto Racism & Ethnic Diversity.

.

Now, you're going to say, "Rob, surely you're not a racist white supremacist."

.

No, I am not. I couldn't give a tinker's damn about people's skin color.

.

What I do give a damn about is multi-culturalism.

.

.

Multi-culturalism is another thing that is "designed" to create conflict. It is a natural agent provacateur. And once the "conflict" begins, the government gets to rush in and "solve" the problem... with... guess what... here it comes... MORE LAWS!

.

And yet, somehow, we get Politically Corrected sunshine blown up our wazoos telling us that there is "strength in diversity." What a supreme load of bullshit! And it all evades criticism by hiding behind people's natural fears of being called a racist. Much like how people are mentally censored from speaking out against feminism by brownshirts screeching at disenters that they are misogynists.

.

There is no strength in cultural diversity! Open up any history textbook and look for the causes of World War One... which one jumps out at you? Could it be the one that details "Unrest in the Balkans?"

.

.

Yes, ask the people from the former Yugoslavia how great Cultural Diversity is.

.

.

Or ask the people in the Middle East.

.

..

Or tell me what the Paris Riots were about? Oh yes, the Paris Riots were about the strength of cultural diversity.

.
.

Why don't other countries around the world seek this strength? Why is it only predominently Caucasian Western World Nations that need to "seek" this strength? Why not the Japanese? Why not African countries? Why aren't they offering incentives for people from all over the world to move to their countries and encourage them to maintain a completely separate sub-culture contrary to the majority of the nation's population?

.

Because it's utter nonsense, that's why. It plays on the subtly propagandized message that tells white people to feel guilty for being white. Shame on you, bow down and repent of your White Privilege. Lol! Why don't they tell the Japanese to repent from their Japanese Privilege?

.

Multi-culturalism causes conflict. This is not news, it's been know to cause conflict for centuries. But Marxism needs conflict to work.

.

If you have a look throughout the history of the West, you will notice a distinct shift that occured a few decades ago... it occured around the same time as the rise of Second Wave Feminism... when all of those people, what are they called again? The bloomers... the late bloomers... the cry-baby generation... damn, it's on the tip of my tongue. It'll come to me. Anyway, I remember that they were all severely smacked up the side of their intellect by heavy Marxist indoctrination through the Peace Movement and previous Frankfurt School Marxist thinkers like Herbert Marcuse... all aided by a good spattering of illicit drugs.

.

Out of this age, it seems that the drift from the "melting pot" to the "cultural mosaic" began to occur.

.

If we have a bit of a closer look, what were some of the "pillars" which the Cultural Marxists declared needed to be destroyed, amongst others?

.

Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism.

.

When my family immigrated to Canada after the Second World War, they spoke no English and were from a different culture. But they assimilated themselves into being Canadians very quickly! For me, a second generation Canadian, that is exactly what I am: CANADIAN! And damn freakin' proud of it! I am a foreigner to my parents' native country. I have no desire to be anything but Canadian, except perhaps a Western Canadian if Ottawa continues be a bunch of asshats. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/03/solution-to-save-western-civilization.html

.

.

This is how most immigrants who came to the "New World" were encouraged to behave, up until the last few decades. And we built one helluva powerhouse of a civilization out of nothing here in North America by doing it this way, didn't we? Now that is some culture we should not be ashamed of at all. Brave pioneers, seeking adventure, carving their own futures. Why are we propagandized to believe we have a trash culture in North America? We have a very brave and honourable culture! It was also strong enough to "naturally" resist the Marxist wildfire after WWI.

.

All throughout North American history there has been a direct effort to accept immigrants mainly from Europe, because even if the language is different, there are still many similarities like the same basic religion, the same geographic origination (European), etc. etc. This was done on purpose, not out of white supremacy, but out of the desire to take in immigrants who will easily assimilate to the Canadian Culture (or its copycat little brother, the 11th province, American Culture. Heh, heh.)

.

But over the past few decades, there has been a distinct shift in Canadian immigration policy, specifically since Pierre Elliot Trudeau, a Marxist admirer, took over Canada and slammed it full of Socialism, a known economic failure. http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/pierre-elliot-trudeau-cultural-marxist.html

.

Keep in mind that Trudeau spent the late 40's studying MARXISM!

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Trudeau

.

"Trudeau was interested in Marxist ideas in the late 1940s. In the 1950s and early 1960s, he was a supporter of the social democratic Co-operative Commonwealth Federation party — which became the New Democratic Party. During the 1950s, he was blacklisted by the US and prevented from entering the country because of a visit to a conference in Moscow... ...and because he subscribed to a number of leftist publications..."

.

And what did Trudeau the Traitor do as soon as he began to rise to power?

.

"He [Trudeau] introduced legislation permitting therapeutic abortions, legalizing adult consensual homosexual acts, allowing the dissemination of birth-control materials and contraceptive information, and authorizing judicial divorce based on a range of fault and no-fault grounds." (The Globe and Mail: Pierre Elliot Trudeau 1919-2000, by Lorraine Weinrib, Oct 2000)
.

Trudeau did all things Marxist, it appears. The Status of Women Canada was created by this Traitor. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was created by this Traitor, which got rid of the old documents which already guaranteed us the same freedoms - except the new Charter was carefully worded by Trudeau to allow for Hegelian-Marxist Dialectical Arguments - which allows minority groups to over-rule the will of the majority by technically manipulating the document itself. All things Marxist!

.

And what else did this Traitor bring to us? Why, he introduced multi-culturalism to Canada.

.

"The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitatity to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expressions and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.'' -- Pierre Elliot Trudeau

.

What a complete load of horseshit! At the time when Trudeau took office, Canada was one of the most prosperous and powerful nations on earth!

.

We were doing pretty good with the "melting pot." The melting pot was our "structure and vitality."

.

Why abandon it and replace it with the "cultural mosaic?"

.

Patriotism, Nationalism, Ethnocentrism. Pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists had identified as needing to be destroyed.

.

After 30 years of the Cultural Mosaic, the word "Canadian" has very little more meaning than a typical gerund. French-Canadian, Italian-Canadian, Indo-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, First Nations, Lebanese-Canadian... All specifically encouraged to maintain a sub-culture which is contradictory to what was the Canadian Culture, effectively destroying any uniqueness we used to have.

.

Will the Canadian-Canadians please stand up to be counted? (Hey, why am I the only one standing up?)

.

Multi-culturalism has given Canada a globalized identity! Whatever uniqueness we once had, that which bound us together as a people, has been replaced with nothingness and everything at the same time.

.

And notice, as a country, we now prefer to hinder those from Western Europe, who are highly educated and skilled, from immigrating to our country while at the same time we are willing to allow thousands upon thousands of immigrants from nations where people are not highly educated or skilled - from the Third World. People who are as radically different from us in their culture as possible!

.

This is goes along nicely with the Marxist Utopia Masterplan, which is to equalize everone and everything and then collapse all of society's superstructures:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

Individual --> World

.

For Marxism to work, the poorer Third World Nations must also be equalized with the richer Western Nations. (This is what is so scary about the UN's relentless drive to create world taxes - with the stated goal of using the money from the richer countries to equalize the wealth to the Third World. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm And remember, people - the power to tax is the power to govern - and we don't vote for these guys!)

.

In the perfect Marxist world, the West would be made to be poorer, and would be filled up with dirt cheap labour from the Third World.

.

Now, dear reader, I can tell I am boring you... and you are saying, "OK, Rob. But what does all this have to do with feminism?"

.

Well, I'm about to tell you, grasshopper.

.

We have a Demographic Trap looming up in the future that will force Globalization (Communism) upon us.

.

.

I hope you are all beginning to see that this is all one big perpetual motion machine that keeps chugging along down the road to Globalization/Communism - and a worse future for all of us.

.

Thanks to Feminism, the nuclear family has been mortally wounded. Since the advent of Second Wave Feminism a few decades ago, our birthrates have plummeted from 3.9 per couple to 1.5 per couple. And it is not getting better, it is getting worse!

.

.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1599121,00.html

.

"Two-thirds of Canada's rapid population increase over the past five years came from immigration — a force that in coming decades will account for almost all of the country's growth..."
.

From the same article: With births slowing, Canada is reaching a unique situation, said Laurent Martel, a Statistics Canada analyst. "We're heading towards a point where immigration will be the only source of growth in Canada," he said."

.

Again from the same article: The country's shift toward immigration as the only source of growth is still a couple of decades away. That point will not be reached until after 2030, when the peak of the baby boomers born in the 1950s and early 1960s reach the end of their lives.

.

"You're going to see an increase in the number of deaths in Canada, and the number of deaths will exceed the number of births — so natural increase will become negative," said Martel. "The only factor of growth will then be immigration."

.

At the same time, let's consider what else has been happening - here in Canada it was a direct result of Trudeau the Treacherous Traitor:

.

http://www.westcan.org/westcan/WSP/AuSeOc00WSP.htm

.

In 1968, when Trudeau went from rich, socialist professor to prime minister, Canada's national debt was a modest $11.3 billion; the federal deficit was zero. When Trudeau left office in 1984, the debt had mushroomed to $128 billion; the deficit to $25 billion annually.

.

When Trudeau entered office, Ottawa spent 30% of Canada's total economic output (the same as the U.S.). When he left, government spending had skyrocketed to almost 53%. With half of Canadians working directly or indirectly for Ottawa, the nation became infected with state-sponsored laziness.

.

* After Trudeau retired, his unstoppable socialist juggernaut picked up speed. Canada's federal debt - the amount Ottawa borrowed in the past that remains unpaid - has skyrocketed to $576 billion, or $54,000 per taxpayer.

.
A third of your federal taxes go to paying interest on this debt - just like on a credit card with an unpaid balance. In 1999 alone, Canadians paid $41.5 billion on debt interest, four times what Ottawa spent on defence.

.
Add $2.3 trillion of unfunded pension liabilities, and the figure rises to a staggering $244,000 owed per taxpayer. Canada's "just and compassionate" society is built on a mountain of debt, passed on to future generations.

.
* In 1970, Canada had one of the lowest debts - and lowest tax rates - among industrial nations. Today, Canada ranks as one of three leading debtor nations, along with socialist-run Belgium and Italy. While Ottawa's annual deficit was ended by imposing crushing taxes, the monster debt hangover remains... ...At Ottawa's puny repayment rate, it will take Canada 288 more years [to pay off the debt].

.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRAP!!! (and these financial figures are old - from Oct 2000)

.

Do you see the machine?

.

Do you see the trap?

.

Whether there are 30 million Canadians or 15 million Canadians, the debt figure does not change!

.
But I guarantee you this: It will be far more difficult for 15 million Canadians to struggle with servicing the debt than it will be for 30 million Canadians to do so.

.

We do not reproduce nearly enough to be able grow our population on our own. Therefore, if we take in zero immigrants we would soon go flat broke as this ridiculous debt would crush us with a smaller population and destroy Capitalism!

.

The solution, of course, is to keep on taking in more immigrants to maintain a population that can cope with this debt - of course they will continually be encouraged to maintain their multi-national identities under Canada's policy of the "Cultural Mosaic," forcing Canadian Identity to become even more obscure than it already is. (Anyone... Anyone... further destruction of Patriotism, Nationalism and Ethnocentrism... pillars of Western Civilization which Cultural Marxists declared must be destroyed for Marxism to win.)

.

Now, please also note, these immigrants only slow down the destruction of Capitalism. They will not solve the problem at all. We will not be taking in immigrants from other Western Nations, remember. We will be taking in immigrants from Third World Nations who are uneducated and unskilled compared to us. Therefore, they will not come as high-earning, high tax paying workers. They will come as very low paid workers. But a low paid individual earning $20,000/yr still uses as much of our inefficient yet extravagent Socialist Welfare Services, such as our Healthcare, as a skilled worker earning $60,000/yr. In fact, in order to maintain our GDP, we would have to take in 3 unskilled immigrants to equal the output of 1 skilled labourer... and we would be taxing our entirely useless Socialist Service system at three times the rate! This means higher taxes for EVERYONE. The higher the taxes, the less efficient is the Capitalist system.

.

Eventually, we will no longer be able to sustain ourselves, and Capitalism will collapse.

.

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." -- V.I. Lenin

.

Western Civilization Pillars identified for destruction by Marxists: Christianity, Capitalism, the Family, Authority, Patriarchy, Hierarchy, Morality, Tradition, Sexual Restraint, Loyalty, Patriotism, Nationalism, Heredity, Ethnocentrism, Convention and Conservatism.

.

The Marxist goal is to change us from this:

.

Individual --> Family --> Community --> Province/State --> Nation --> Continent --> World

.

...into this:

.

Individual --> World

.

"We shall destroy you from within." -- Nikita Krushchev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

Cultural Marxism is a SOCIAL NUCLEAR BOMB! -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2007

.

.

Now, dear reader. I can see that you are eagerly awaiting to see what solutions I propose. Yes, I can tell from the drool that has escaped the side of your mouth and now glistens as a droplet on the edge of your chin..

.

Alas, I do not have all the answers because I have not yet reached the end of the internet, which is where I assume the answer sheet will be located.

.

I do have some ideas, however. I mean, how could I be contemplating running for Leader of the Universe if I did not have some ideas?

.

But first, let me ask you a question.

.

.

Was there a television set playing in the background while you read this?

.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Theodore Roosevelt on Theodore Roosevelt on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN

“In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile…We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” -- Theodore Roosevelt 1917

.

************************************************************************

.

Read Dworkin's idea of Utopia:

.

"...[W]omen and men are distinct species or races ... men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself... in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to 'encourage' women to 'collaborate' with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her 'energy' which must not be dissipated keeping 'weaker' women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears." -- from a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that met in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977; Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, - Take Back The Day - Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea (1977), (Dutton Publishing, 1989) p.146

.

*******************************************************************

.

Feminists Are Cat Lovers

Yes, Marxists & Feminists (same thing) are cat lovers. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact it is somewhat endearing, isn't it? But that they are cat lovers is for certain. I know it's true because they are determined to create as many Crazy Cat Ladies as they possibly can to care for the furry little critters.
.

Well, either that or they are major shareholders in the company that makes these and are trying to make the stock soar:

.
.

Lol! I might buy some shares myself - I think this is a growth industry! Call your broker.

.

It makes me wonder though... how come there is no phrase like "Deranged Dog Man?" Hmmm? Oh, that's right, we patriarchally oppressed the crap out of such phrases.

.

At any rate, that Marxo-feminists have collaberated with PETA to make sure that no cat will ever go hungry will be easily demonstrated to you via this very large quote list, courtesy of No Ma'am.

.

"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

.

.
Lol! Isn't it just priceless that feminism has a Patriarchal Father in Karl Marx? Oh, the irony, my dear fembots.

.

Karl Marx - Reincarnated

.

"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State 

.

"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58 

.

"The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society." [Engels, p.67]

.

"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx, 1886 (Eleanor was Karl Marx's youngest daughter)

.

"Destroy the family and you destroy society." -- V.I. Lenin

.
"So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified. -- In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that "in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law." -- Carey Roberts 

.

"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." -- Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10
.

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." -- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

.

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, make unequal treatment not unequal at all." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Lay," Yale Law Journal, 1991

.

.

"[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed." -- Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

.

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

.

"The married woman knows that love is, at its best, an inadequate reward for her unnecessary and bizarre heritage of oppression." -- Beverly Jones and Judith Brown, Toward a Female Liberation Movement (Gainesville, Fl.: June 1968), p. 23.

.

.

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -- Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman

.

"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." -- Kate Millet, Sexual Politics, 178-179

.

"[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." -- Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

.

.
"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar
.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

.

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." From the article, Is Marriage the Answer? by Barbara Findlen, Ms Magazine, May-June, 1995

.

.

"[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman's oppression: it enforces women's dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation." -- Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

.

On Gay Marriage: "A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

.

On Gay Marriage: "It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

.

(Also see "A New Kind of Bigotry")

.

"*N* *O* *W* Action Alert -- October 20, 1999 -- Fathers' Rights Bill Advances in the House. This Action alert explains that the Father's Rights legislation before Congress is "bad for women and children" because it will "promote marriage" and "disseminat[e] information about the advantages of marriage", "promote successful parenting" and "disseminat[e] information about good parenting practices", and "help fathers and their families ... leave ... welfare". A plain reading of the Action Alert shows that when read in full context NOW will do ANYTHING to destroy marriages, families, and even children. -- nodnc.com

***Read the Action Alert Here*** http://www.now.org/issues/right/alerts/10-20-99.html

.

.

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan (ed), Sisterhood is Powerful, 1970, p.537

.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan

.

"[F]eminists who ceaselessly inveigh against their own oppression by men (often hardly specifying its exact nature) would ignore how they themselves have oppressed ? feminine women. It oppresses a woman who could delight in domesticity to tell her that her domesticity makes her a parasitic inferior to men. It oppresses a woman who yearns to stay home with her children to tell her she is worthy only insofar as she achieves in the workplace." -- F. Carolyn Graglia, A Brief Against Feminism, p.349

.

.

"The belief that married-couple families are superior is probably the most pervasive prejudice in the Western world." -- Judith Stacey

.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- Sheila Cronan

.

"The little nuclear family is a paradigm that just doesn't work" -- Toni Morrison

.

"[M]ost mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they 'marry' and raise children." -- Phyllis Chesler, Women and Madness, p.294

***also on Chesler*** http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060307

.

.

"Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and fathers who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society. -- Borst, William, Ph. D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Midnszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1, January 2003, pg 2. (Online version at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf) Cited in the Amicus brief for Massachusetts advisory opinion on Gay Marriage, opposing gay marriage. http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/o/woodb01/011004_Mass_Brief.htm

.

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that" -- Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily Illini," April 25, 1981

.

"The institution of marriage is the chief vehicle for the perpetuation of the oppression of women; it is through the role of wife that the subjugation of women is maintained. In a very real way the role of wife has been the genesis of women's rebellion throughout history." -- Marlene Dixon, "Why Women's Liberation? Racism and Male Supremacy"

.

.

"[C]ontemporary patriarchies...[wives'] chattel status continues in their loss of name, their obligation to adopt the husband's domicile, and the general legal assumption that marriage involves an exchange of the female's domestic service and [sexual] consortium in return for financial support." -- Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (New York: Avon Books, 1969). pp. 34-35.

.

"Millett argued that the impetus of the sexual revolution had the potential to collapse antiquated patriarchal systems, including the institution of marriage, thereby creating "a world we can bear out of the desert we inhabit."7 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

"In Millett's view, a dismantled patriarchy--resulting from the destruction of traditional marriage--would generate the downfall of the nuclear family, a goal she called "revolutionary or utopian."8 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

"Millett argued that the complete destruction of marriage and the natural family is necessary to produce an ideal society."11 -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm

.

.

"The institution [of marriage] consistently proves itself unsatisfactory--even rotten.... The family is...directly connected to--is even the cause of--the ills of the larger society." -- Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (New York: Morrow, 1970), p. 254.

.

"It became increasingly clear to us that the institution of marriage `protects' women in the same way that the institution of slavery was said to `protect' blacks--that is, that the word `protection' in this case is simply a euphemism for oppression," -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 214.

.

"marriage is a form of slavery." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 216.

.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women's Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronan, "Marriage," in Koedt, Levine, and Rapone, eds., Radical Feminism, p. 219.

.

.

"If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 317.

.

"The plight of mothers is more desperate than that of other women, and the more numerous the children the more hopeless the situation seems to be.... Most women...would shrink at the notion of leaving husband and children, but this is precisely the case in which brutally clear rethinking must be undertaken." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 320.

.

[Greer called for the establishment of] "rambling organic structure[s]" [that would] "have the advantage of being an unbreakable home in that it did not rest on the frail shoulders of two bewildered individuals trying to apply a contradictory blueprint." -- Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971), p. 233. (Full quote taken from -- Patrick F. Fagan, Robert E. Rector, and Lauren R. Noyes, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm )
.

.
“Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole... patriarchy.” -- Gloria Steinem
.

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men" -- Nancy Lehmann and Helen Sullinger, Declaration of Feminism, 1971

.

"...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

.

"It takes a village." -- Hillary Clinton

.

Andrea Dworkin Reincarnated

.

"Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. -- Andrea Dworkin

.

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

.

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo." -- Valerie Solanas http://gos.sbc.edu/s/solanas.html and http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/chance.html

.

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine Mackinnon

.

"My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter." -- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room

.

.
"What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property... The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production." -- Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 1848 

.
"The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884 

.
"The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." -- Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, (New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58] 

.
"Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers." -- Eleanor Marx, 1886

.
"DESTROY THE FAMILY AND YOU DESTROY SOCIETY" -- V.I. Lenin

.

"WE SHALL DESTROY YOU FROM WITHIN!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate, 1959

.

.

GET UP OFF YOUR KNEES! -- Rob Fedders, No Ma'am Blog, 2006-2009...

.

People, the evidence sits right in front of you. Feminism is 100% Marxist and it is being used against us, the people, in a direct effort to cause chaos and destruction and its subversive goal is to collapse the State and remove your freedoms!

.

Do you know what's an easier way to say the same thing?

.

Just refer to it as HIGH TREASON!

.

Yes, it is!

.

Everytime that a politician takes your tax dollars and funnels it into a program that supports the feminist agenda -- whose subversive agenda is to cause a collapse of the State, a la Marxism -- an act of HIGH TREASON is being committed! That your tax dollars are used to fund things like Women's Studies (Marxist Indoctrination) within Academia, is nothing short of using your tax dollars to support an enemy of the State.

.

Treason is the only crime deemed to be more serious than First Degree Murder.

.

.
MILLIONS have died to give us freedom, and to keep us free. We owe them better than this.
.
It's easier to keep and maintain freedom than it is to give it away and then try to re-install it!

.
Related:

Women's Studies 101a - Winter Semester

The Encyclopedia Marxo-feminist
 

********************************************************************

.

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE!
.

.
****************************************************************
.
Useful Idiot Quote of the Day:
.
Huggles Ben said...
Hmm, after reading around this beastly blog I can honestly say I am sickened. Your not as crass as some of the other misogynists but you are just as stupid as them. I'm ashamed to have even read your hatred.
.
---
.
http://www.sydneyline.com/Language%20Wars.htm
.
"Political correctness works so well because it satirises terminology long used by the left itself. A recent analysis, Political Correctness and the Theoretical Struggle by Frank Ellis of the University of Leeds, shows that rather than being a stuffy but essentially harmless effort to avoid offending people, the concept has long been deeply embedded within radical culture.
.
It originated in the early writings of Vladimir Lenin and evolved as a concept in his work up to 1917. The phrase politicheskaya pravil'nost' derived from Lenin's insistence on a rigidly enforced party line on all questions. Lenin argued that only a specifically revolutionary theory would prevent the revolutionary movement from abandoning "the correct path". Before the Russian revolution, to be politically incorrect meant being denounced by Lenin as a "revisionist", "factionalist", "wrecker" and "enemy of the people". After the revolution, to be politically incorrect meant a death warrant. Joseph Stalin used the phrase in the 1920s to destroy his rivals Trotsky and Bukharin."

Reviewing an Old Article

Perhaps I have given the wrong impression with my last post. It is not so much that I "want to quit," but more that I am very worried that for some issues, we are behaving exactly as "they" would expect us to. There is virtually no doubt that we are dealing with Marxist techniques of how to manipulate mass populations, and upon studying such techniques from the past, it becomes evident that Marxists never walk in a straight line. They always zig zag to get to their goal. They push to the left to cause the debate & the change, then they allow the backlash to the right to consolodate their gains.

So, for example, take Marriage/No Fault Divorce. They created No Fault Divorce 35 years ago or so. No Fault Divorce/The Decline of Marriage is one of the largest underlying factors of our societal ills. I don't think I need to go into them all, as most of you already understand them. But the point I would like make is that this was a radical push to the left. VERY RADICAL! Never heard of before! No Fault Divorce Laws have caused an enormous amount of other laws, it has created entirely new organizations, and it has created entirely new multi-billion dollar industries.

No Fault Divorce should go. Follow the time line from the advent of No Fault Divorce and let the pieces fall into place. This is Marxism at work - create the conflict and have a predetermined outcome. It does not become visible unless one has the benefit of 35 years of hindsight. No Fault Divorce has, over its time frame, become exactly the same as "Man Fault Divorce" before No Fault Divorce existed. And it was no accident. They wanted to split apart the sexes.

But it becomes so outrageous that "they" know there will be a backlash. They are not dummies. And don't forget, their whole game is to create a conflict with a predetermined outcome - so they can offer the "proper" solution. That it was women who spearheaded all of this claptrap with feminism was done more because it is obvious to everyone from Aristotle to Marx that women control the culture - so they must always be the spearhead into changing society, and the rest will follow. But these people are not stupid either. They know about people's psychology, women may be able to push unreasonably, but men will push back - eventually.

Men pushing back will be "the movement to the right." It will consolodate the gains they made with No Fault Divorce and also open the can of worms for their other stated goals: taking children from women and turning them over to the state. Shared parenting will reinforce the public's notion that there is nothing wrong with divorce and it will make it as firm as if it were in concrete that the State has more rights and power over people's children than the actual parents to whom such children belong! 50 or 60 years ago, people would have chased the state with pitchforks and shotguns if it were so arrogant to assume such a thing! Domestic Violence laws and shelters for men will also reinforce the "state's right" to invade our homes and control our personal lives. (Does anyone even remember Assault and Battery laws anymore?)

At any rate, I have much to say on this subject, including something that would work but is very difficult for me to convey to others properly. So, I will take my time and not try to do it all in one post. In the meantime, however, I am going to put up an old post for review because this is exactly what I wish to discuss... but with a twist.

******************************************************

First of all, let's find out what Marxism is all about. Phil Worts has an excellent article titled Communist (Community) Oriented Policing describing the basic philospohies behind Marxism that everyone should read:

http://www.newswithviews.com/community_policing/community_policing.htm

It is absolutely essential for one to acknowledge the following in regard to Marxism/Cultural Marxism:

1). Karl Marx was heavily influenced by the philosophies of George W.F. Hegel to whom we can attribute the following maxim: "The Truth is Relative." Therefore, Hegelian philosophy will argue the possibility that 2+2 = 4 can also mean 2+2 = 3, or 9... There are no absolute truths. This was a mind blowing concept at the time, for people back then lived in a world where God DOES exist, and there was no questioning the black and whiteness of that within society. Hegel changed that.

Also of supreme importance is to acknowledge Karl Marx's statement: "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it."

That one statement of Marx should always be kept in mind. Not only did he have in mind some fantasy about the kind of man that would emerge from from his "Utopia" but he directly states that his uses of the philosophies of the day are specifically designed to enable the changes which allow Utopia to come about. He is contemplating how to use "The Truth is Relative" to alter society for his own purposes. This is why he is considered a revolutionary. His philosophies are geared towards destroying society, allowing its ashes to fertilize the Utopian soil upon which the flower of his new form of mankind will flourish.

Marxist philosophies include much study on how to mass manipulate society.

2). After the Russian Revolution, a leading Marxist philosopher, Antonio Gramsci visited Lenin's Soviet Union to witness for himself how Marxist Utopia was progressing. Lenin had seized control of Russia via violence and then foisted Marxism upon the Russian people by use of force, and waited for Utopia to arrive. It didn't. So Gramsci set about to tackle the problem of why the people did not embrace Marxism, but rather only paid obligatory lip service to it. Gramsci concluded that Marx had not gone far enough by only identifying the economic system as what holds society together - so he expanded it to include society's culture and he identified the various pillars which created societal cohesiveness by way of culture. Gramsci essentially said that if one could destroy cultural pillars like religion, the family, nationalism etc., society would self-destruct and then Marxist Utopia would naturally occur without the use of violent revolution. He concluded that if a "long march through the culture" could occur, ultimately destroying his identified pillars of society, then society would self-destruct and there would be massive chaos out of which the population would request the government to impose totallitarian control in order to "stop the madness." It is important to note that the goal is to create conflict, not to stop it.

3). There once were two schools in the world dedicated to studying Marxist theories. One was in Russia and one was in Frankfurt, Germany. Thus the name "The Frankfurt School." The Frankfurt School, to put it simply, dedicated itself to tasks such as identifying what factors are necessary to form human cohesiveness at the level above the family unit... the community. This was because the family was identified by Gramsci as a "societal pillar" which needed to be destroyed. Those of the Frankfurt School also put effort into the study of "mass psychology" with the specific intention of how to destroy the societal "cultural pillars" which had been identified by Gramsci - they wanted to find out how to destroy such pillars without the use of violence which Lenin had displayed, and set about to study various techniques which would encourage the populations to willfully throw aside cultural values - without the use of force. Therefore, they designed the notion of Critical Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory_(Frankfurt_School) The Frankfurt School disbanded when Hitler took control of Germany and its academics fled the country and integrated themselves into various areas of the Western World.

4). Critical Theory is essential to understand. The idea behind Critical Theory is to use criticism (based on "the Truth is Relative") to destroy by continual division. A necessary tool for Critical Theorists is the Agent Provocateur, for without someone starting the argument, Critical Theory never begins. A conflict must be started for the plan of Critical Theory to be implemented. The second tool Critical Theorists use is the natural human behaviour of fearing difference from the crowd. An example of this is the use of Political Correctness to slowly encourage mass acceptance of an idea. Human alienation is a powerful threat and therefore there is a strong urge to compromise your own principles in order to maintain social cohesion with the larger group.

AND... that last tool Critical Theorists employ is a specific tool of brainwashing which can trace its origins to torture - they just took the physical torture out, but left the mental aspect in. This is the 3-step brainwashing technique of how to change personal values:
1 - UNFREEZING from the present level of acceptence,
2 - MOVING the subject to the next level,
3 - FREEZING the subject at the new level until proper acceptance occurs.
(Repeat until the desired destruction occurs.)
---

So, could you destroy something absolute, like mathematics with such techniques? Sure you could. Imagine that you have proven to yourself that 1+1=2 by physically using oranges to prove the absoluteness of the statement.

It's all pretty simple, 1 orange plus another orange equals two oranges and I know it's true because I can physically prove it. Life is good, the Canada Tax & Revenue Agency is continually pleased with the accuracy which Mr. Rob Fedders files his taxes based on the "orange calculator." There is no need to change this system, because it works.

Along comes Delilah, an Agent Provocateur, and she notices my system - to which she points out that oranges a made up of segments, in fact there are 10 orange segments which make up an orange. "Fair enough," I say, "there are oranges and there are orange segments which make up 1/10 of an orange. The math still works."

"The next time I see Delilah, she argues with me that it is discriminatory for me to consider an orange segment to be only 1/10th the value of an orange. She argues that without the segments, the orange wouldn't exist, therefore each segment is worth FAR more than just 1/10th of an orange. The "truth is relative," remember? She tells me that it is discriminatory to consider the "traditional orange" to be more valuable than orange segments and she demands that I acknowledge that all parts of oranges are important, whether that be "traditional oranges" or orange segments. By allowing her to define an orange as a "traditional orange," I have already lost half the battle because by such a definition one has to acknowledge that there are types of oranges other than the traditional.

As time goes on, Delilah's friends start to grumble, anyone who does math using traditional oranges is a hate-filled, right-wing Orangaphobe. Rob doesn't respect all types of oranges equally and believes that traditional oranges are superior to other types of oranges... what a BIGOT!

The next time Delilah stops by, she hardly even talks to me. She is marching with her friends, all carrying signs reading: "Respect ALL kinds of oranges" and "Stop Bigots from Determining for Me What an Orange is." Finally the last moronic Delilah follower walks by with a sign saying "All Oranges are Equal - Equality for Orange Segments."

I think you can see where this simplified example is going. Eventually, if they can get "unequal" parts of a traditional orange to be defined as equal... well, effectively, math has been destroyed because now math can be 1+1=2 or 1+1=11, or 15, or 20... Math is useless, so let's just do away with it!
---
Think this is a joke? Just another "Red Herring?" Let's put it all together.

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point, however, is to change it." -- Karl Marx

Antonio Gramsci theorized how communism would naturally take place if the identified cultural pillars of society were deconstructed by "a long march through culture."

Critical Theorists devised specific schemes to enable "a long march through culture" by use of "Critical Theory."

"We shall destroy you from within!" -- Nikita Kruschev, during the Kitchen Debate.

Classic Hegelian-Marxist Theory is illustrated by this statement: "Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity and precision on which the former depend." -- Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York Basic Books, 1994) p.116 (***Note: Patai & Koertge write from a critical perspective of the aforementioned logic and use it in the context of an example. See Daphne Patai's website here: http://www.daphnepatai.com/ And read about her work here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai )

Feminists and Gay Rights Activists have collaberated on a joint attack against marriage & the family, which Antonio Gramsci & the Frankfurt School had identified as a "cultural pillar" which must be destroyed. Take note of the theme which permeates from the following quotes from feminist & gay rights activists and see if you can spot the Marxist revolutionary theme:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ...Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ...Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests." -- Linda Gordon, Function of the Family, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -- The Declaration of Feminism, November 1971

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [Gay Marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

Read those quotes carefully and then sit back and ponder for yourself the following:

- Why did "No Fault Divorce" get foisted upon society without any massive outcry from the public requesting such a radical change?

- Why did we redefine the physical "Male and Female Sex" as Gender? Up until only a short while ago, gender was used solely to describe the feminine or masculine in languages, as is done in French. Why do we now have "gender sensitivity" towards heterosexuality, gay-relationships, lesbian relationships and trans-gendered relationsips? Could this have been possible without the sleight of hand of redefining "sex" as "gender?"

- Why are long-term heterosexual marriages refered to as "traditional marriages/family values?" Does this not, by default, acknowledge there are different kinds of marriages/families?

- Why do we now use the phrase "life partner", even as a preference over directly saying husband and wife?

- Why is there a push (here in Canada) to have all types of "families" declared to be equal? Obviously a single mother "family" or a homosexual "family" is not equal, because they are not equally equipped to produce children. They are not "equal" except by use of direct government intervention.

- How did it become recently possible (here in Canada) to have a family declared to legally be able to have 3 parents? Yes, 2 married lesbians and one male/father have all three legally been declared parents of the same child... the worry is now directly that this has opened the door to allow for polygamous relationships - sanctioned by the state of course... Does anyone remember the Gay Activists' cry, only 2 or 3 years ago that gay "marriage" would do nothing to alter the "traditional family." All those opposing gay marriage were intolerant bigots.

(Also, see my piece: "A New Kind of Bigotry" http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-kind-of-bigotry.html )

These examples are all indicitave of a Cultural Marxist plan to use Critical Theory to destroy marriage, which Antonio Gramsci had identified as something which needed to be destroyed. How many other areas of Western Life have been attacked by such a ploy?

Also, take notice something which is pure genius on behalf of the Cultural Marxists. They have chosen their Agent Provocateurs to argue against Nature! What a stroke of genius to have picked arguments which can never be won. There will always be these arguments that women are not equal to men, or that Gay Marriage's are not equal - because they cannot be equal by natural design! Imagine rallying people together to "fight the ocean's tide" or to "stop the moon," you will have them at your service for eternity. The night will never be equal to the day, no matter how many street lamps you erect. But the fight will always continue, because you will always be able to point out that the battle still hasn't been won... and that's the point.

Marxism needs conflict for its agenda. 100 years ago, people didn't run to the government to tell them what their family life was all about. And this is the real danger and the real goal of Cultural Marxism and Critical Theory. It encourages people to take something which the government didn't previously control, and then cause as much chaos and confusion in it as possible... so that people run to the government to "settle their differences" and thereby grant to the state the "power of definition/settlement" over something which it previously did not have power over.

Even those who are for "traditional families" are lost in this quagmire. Once upon a time, no-one questioned the word "family." There was only one kind of "family." Now, without society requesting that gov't be an arbiter, those same people are forced to petition the government to preserve their values... and automatically they default to the government the power to decide (totalitarianism), over something which the gov't never had the original power to decide over, and over which was not willfully given up by the people. The trick is not in who gets the biggest piece of the pie, but rather that all sides are now running to government to request that they get their piece. The people have willingly allowed the government to subvert their freedom and decide for them - totalitarianism is completed!

No, it is not a "red herring" to say that feminism IS Communism. It is very accurate. The red herring is all the other arguments which distract us from what is happening.

TAKE BACK THE LOGIC!