Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Feminism - A Communist Plot!

Why are Feminists Surprised Their Daughters are Sluts?
by Henry Makow, Ph.D.
August 11, 2010
"We must introduce into their education all those principles which have so brilliantly broken up their order."
Protocols of Zion, 16
In a recent article "Outraged Moms, Trashy Daughters" by Anne Kingston, (Macleans, Aug 16, 2010) (see the article below) mothers lament that their daughters now see "empowerment" in terms of pleasuring males.
While the feminist mothers saw power as financial independence and rejected female "objectification," their daughters accept the pornographic message of pop music and advertising. In the words of one mom, they "believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings who please men."
"A blow job is like shaking hands," said another mom. "Their attitude is: 'We're emancipated, we're liberated, we're in control. They see [it] as power; I see it as giving their power away."
Yes but: Who taught girls they could have sex outside of courtship, love and marriage?
Feminists did. Feminism brainwashed young women to see husbands as oppressors and family as bondage. There was no longer any reason to restrict sex to love and marriage.
Understandably, feminists don't want to admit their teachers have betrayed them. Feminism was created by elite social engineers to reduce population and undermine marriage and family.
Even while they wring their hands, feminists are blinded by their ideology. (The article veers off into a
discussion of how feminism is still relevant.)
The words "love," "marriage," "husband" and "family" do not appear in the article. No wonder they can't understand the problem and what to do about it.
Both mothers and daughters are victims of deliberate social subversion. A woman's career used to be wife and mother. She consecrated her sexuality for the man she loved, the father of her children, her protector and provider.
Young women today are up a creek. They don't know how to be women and men don't know how to be men. But one thing that hasn't changed is - men don't marry sluts. These girls are going to be left high and dry once their sex appeal has faded.
They obsess on looking beautiful but don't know that true beauty comes from within, from a spiritual purity. This means rejecting all coarse influences and behavior. It means focusing on what is good, true, human and inspiring.
In the past, men had to prove their love and commitment before they could have sex. As a result, women were cherished and given a lifelong role (mother, wife) that satisfied their deepest emotional needs.
Now they have been reduced to amateur prostitutes and corporate widgets.
"I don't meet many girls who feel good about themselves, even though they are totally gorgeous," one social worker says.
How could they ... giving their bodies to strangers who dump them?
Girls figure they must give away sex or boys will get it from other girls. That's like saying, "if I don't let muggers rob and beat me, other girls will."
The other word totally absent from this article is "father." Girls could get love, self respect and guidance from their fathers. But I'm guessing their feminist mothers drove their fathers away.
It's not too late for girls to learn to be women again. There can be no sex without courtship and love. If other girls want to give it away, let them suffer the consequences.
Girls can become feminine again by making marriage and family their first priority. If they refocus, they can regain the path to fulfillment and happiness.
Outraged moms, trashy daughters
How did those steeped in the women’s lib movement produce girls who think being a sex object is powerful?
by Anne Kingston on Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A few weeks ago, when she was chatting with her teenage daughter, Olivia, Leanne Foster mentioned the word “feminist.” “She just wrinkled her nose,” Foster recalls. “It was ‘Eww, yuck.’ ” Olivia, an articulate 15-year-old who’s about to enter Grade 10 at a Toronto private girls’ school, thinks feminists are about as relevant to her life as a rotary-dial phone. “When I hear the word I think of the hippie-ish generation where they’re all ‘girl-power,’ ” she says. And not in a sexy Spice Girls “girl power” way, more in a humourless, style-less way: “They refuse to wear perfume because they don’t want to be seen as sex objects,” she says dismissively.
Like many other teenage girls, Olivia regards the fight for female equality as over. “In the Western world, we’re pretty equal,” she says.
She has every reason to think so. Going to university is a given. So is having a career—perhaps in business or maybe medicine. She’s surrounded by smart, independent women, including her mother, who holds a Ph.D. in education and is the director of LINCWell, a student enrichment support centre at St. Clement’s girls’ school in Toronto.
Yet Leanne Foster, whose position puts her in the daily orbit of the age-old divide between teenage girls and their mothers, is not as sanguine as her daughter about female equality. She sees a unique generation gap emerging: on one side, mothers who came of age during the women’s movement of the 1970s fighting for equal opportunities, “empowerment” through financial independence and rejecting female “objectification”; on the other, their daughters, raised in a hyper-sexualized culture replete with Bratz dolls, porn-inspired American Apparel ads, and the message telegraphed by Kim Kardashian and her tabloid-cover cohorts that a leaked sex tape is the quickest route to female success.
For these girls, Snoop Dogg’s misogynist Bitches Ain’t S–t is not an affront but a ring tone, and “slut” and “bitch” are not put-downs but affectionate greetings between female friends. Snooki, the 22-year-old star of the reality show Jersey Shore, whose ambitions consist of getting drunk, vomiting on camera, and spending days in a tanning salon, is the star of the hour. “I love Snooki,” says one 20-year-old. Olivia agrees. “It’s so ridiculous, it’s funny,” she says of the show. “I don’t relate that to my life at all. I wonder, ‘Why would you do that?’ But it’s enjoyable to watch.”
Meanwhile, their mothers, who walked in Take Back the Night marches to raise awareness of violence against women, are horrified, particularly by the sight of Snooki getting punched in the face by a man—footage used by MTV to promote the show.
Some of them see a clock ticking backward. “It’s worse than the 1950s,” says the mother of a 24-year-old, referring to the ubiquity of Photoshop and cosmetic surgery creating beauty standards more unattainable than ever.
Kimberly McLeod, a Toronto social worker who counsels mothers and daughters and has two girls, one 11, the other 14, is dismayed by the constant bombardment of sexualized media images directed at girls. “I don’t meet many girls who feel good about themselves, even though they’re totally gorgeous,” she says.
But the generation that grew up reading Our Bodies, Ourselves is most apoplectic over what they see as the
unrelenting pressure on girls to be sexual, and not on their own terms. “I’m so deeply pained to see where women are today and how girls—and I mean girls—are being groomed to believe their purpose in life is to be sexual beings that please men,” says Nancy Vonk, the co-chief creative officer of Ogilvy & Mather in Toronto and the mother of a 16-year-old daughter. Vonk recalls wearing satin hot pants when she was 15. “But it was a different time,” she says. “Back then there was at least equal premium put on intellect and what was in your head. It was the opposite of ‘Go out and please men.’ ”
Kate Lloyd, the director of program and service development for the Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario and an academic coach to teenage girls, says the heightened sexual activity concerns her. “A blow job is just like shaking hands. It’s ridiculous,” she says. “But their attitude is: ‘We’re emancipated; we’re liberated; we’re in control, don’t worry.’ They see being able to hold that type of sexual behaviour over the boys as power; I see it as giving their power away.” But one 19-year-old girl sees the double standard facing girls as more complex. “If men have a lot of sex it’s a good thing, but if women have a lot of sex it’s a bad thing,” she says. “Men have a biological imperative to spread their genes. But that should not be a reason to control women.”
Every generation thinks things are worse now than when they were growing up, Lloyd points out. And fretting over teenage girls is a perpetual cultural preoccupation, “so there is some of that sensationalizing for sure.” But she also sees the current generational divide as unique in new ways. “Access to technology and the sexualization of young girls is at a point it’s never been before,” she says. “Also, parents don’t have the same scope of reference because they didn’t grow up with these kinds of issues. We’re all kind of working with a divining rod.”
And the information is coming at warp speed. As one mother of a teenager puts it, “These girls go from American Girl dolls to Gossip Girl.” New technologies breed constant distraction, says Lloyd. “It’s all boom boom boom, no reflection. There’s no pausing, no depth; it’s all very, very surface.”
Communications professor Susan Douglas, the mother of a 22-year-old daughter, compares popular culture targeted at young women to junk food. “I feel like Julia Child forced to eat at Hooters,” she writes in her new book Enlightened Sexism: The Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work is Done. Douglas, the chair of communication studies at the University of Michigan, articulates the plight of the progressive mom back in the late 1990s observing her little girl watch the Spice Girls: “Should she be happy that they’re listening to bustier feminism instead of watching Barbie commercials on Saturday morning TV? Or should she run in, rip the CD out of the player, and insist that they listen to Mary Chapin Carpenter or Ani DiFranco instead?”
Enlightened Sexism charts how the wedge between mothers and daughters increased during the first decade of the 21st century as so-called “millennials”—girls born in the late 1980s and early 1990s—became the most sought-after advertising demographic in history. The desire for power and change that coursed through Douglas’s generation was recast for their daughters as “empowerment” through conspicuous consumption and sexual display, she writes. Activist outlets like Sassy magazine, published from 1988 to 1997, and “riot grrrl,” the feminist punk movement of the early 1990s,
were eclipsed by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Xena: Warrior Princess, along with a tribe of female action heroes. These “warriors in thongs,” as Douglas dubs them, paved the way for the retro “girliness” championed by Legally Blonde, Ally McBeal, and Bridget Jones’s Diary. And from there it was a heartbeat to reality shows like The Bachelor and Say Yes to the Dress, which depicted young women as obsessed with boys and getting married when they weren’t engaged in catfights with one another.
“If you did not know anything about American culture or American life other than what you saw on reality TV, it would be extremely easy to believe that the women’s rights movement never happened, that the civil rights movement never happened, that the gay rights movement never happened,” says Jennifer Pozner, the director of Women In Media & News in New York City, whose book Reality Bites Back: The Troubling Truth About Guilty Pleasure TV, is to be published in November. “Reality TV producers have achieved what the most ardent fundamentalists and anti-feminists haven’t been able to achieve,” she says.
“They’ve concocted a world in which women have no choices and they don’t even want choices.”
“Enlightened sexism” is Douglas’s term for this new climate, one based on the presumption that women and men are now “equal,” which allows women to embrace formerly retrograde concepts, such as “hypergirliness,” and seeing “being decorative [as] the highest form of power,” she writes. What really irks
her is how a Girls Gone Wild sensibility has been sold to women as “empowerment,” that old feminist mantra. But in this version, men are the dupes, “nothing more than helpless, ogling, crotch-driven slaves” of “scantily clad or bare-breasted women [who] had chosen to be sex objects.”
Douglas says she was inspired to write the book after noticing what seemed to be a glaring disconnect between the prime-time shows aimed at her generation—Grey’s Anatomy, CSI, The Closer, all featuring tough-talking, assured women who don’t use their sexuality to get what they want—and the programming aimed at her daughter. Eventually she came to believe both kinds of shows were perpetuating the myth that feminism’s work was over: “both mask, even erase how much still remains to be done for girls and women. The notion that there might, indeed, still be an urgency to feminist politics? You have to be kidding.”
Yet, as Vonk points out, female progress at top levels has not moved markedly in 20 years, Hillary Clinton’s ill-fated run for president notwithstanding. Certainly the numbers reflect this: in 1980, women held approximately seven per cent of the legislative seats across Canada.
Ten years later that number had risen to 17 per cent. But between 1990 and 2010, that percentage rose only six per cent—to 23 per cent. (According to the Intra-Parliamentary Union, Canada ranks a pathetic 50th on the world scale of women’s participation in politics, behind Rwanda, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates.) Women’s presence in top-tier corporate jobs is even lower. According to Catalyst, an organization that tracks female advancement, women head only 3.8 per cent of FP 500 companies in Canada, and make up a scant 5.6 per cent of FP top earners, 14 per cent of board directors and 16.9 per cent of corporate officers.
The notion that the workplace is an equal playing field is a myth, says Susan Nierenberg, Catalyst’s vice-president of global marketing. The first study to look at the impact of the recession on high-potential women found those in senior leadership positions were three times more likely to lose their jobs than men. Another Catalyst study published last February tracking 4,500 M.B.A. graduates in their first jobs found that women begin at a lower level than men and earned $4,600 on average less. “And more importantly, they never catch up,” says Nierenberg. As the mother of a 25-year-old daughter entering the workforce, one who believes she’ll be treated equally to men, Nierenberg finds the research troubling: “I hate to tell her that’s not the way it is. I want her going into it thinking she can do anything. But I also want her to be smart about it.”
Foster says the conversation between mothers and daughters was far easier when sexism was as overt as it is on Mad Men—back when women had to quit their jobs after they got married or were banned outright from schools or careers. “The current messaging girls are getting is so explicit but the subtleties of it—which is the negative piece of it—is really hard to talk about,” she says. When mothers try to raise the subject, girls respond with “we just don’t get it,” she says: “What happens is that they shut down and say, ‘You don’t like me looking sexy. You just don’t like me looking older.’ Or, ‘Oh Mom, it isn’t like that any more.’ When the reality is, it’s still like that.” She tries to watch TV with her daughter to point out double standards on The Bachelor or Gossip Girl. “I’m just trying to tease apart for her that this isn’t reality. And that didn’t fly. She called me ‘a wet sock.’ ”
Social networking creates another barrier, Foster believes. Of course, parents have always been excluded from the schoolyard or after-school she-said, he-said telephone chats. But the notion that children are having global conversations from which parents are excluded amplifies the gulf: “There’s less public space to come together to discuss these things so it’s much easier for them to keep it to themselves. It’s one of the
challenges we have with bullying—the whole notion of rumour-mongering, particularly sexualized rumours about girls.
And every time we try to have the critical dialogue it’s so decontextualized they think they’re being lectured.”
Lauren Kessler, author of the recently published My Teenage Werewolf: A Mother, A Daughter, a Journey Through the Thicket of Adolescence, has settled for text-messaging with her 16-year-old daughter Lizzie. “It’s lacking in nuance,” she admits. “But it’s better than nothing.”
Trying to maintain any sort of bridge with their daughters is paramount, given the paucity of female role models offered young girls, says Lloyd. Olivia Foster agrees, recalling being called upon to write essays in school about female role models. Coming up with someone who wasn’t famous primarily for her looks or style was next to impossible, she says: “It’s either Oprah or my mom. Not that my mom isn’t great. She is. But there really isn’t anyone else to choose from.”
Kessler still hopes she can fill that role for her daughter: “Call me Pollyanna, but I hope in 30 years my daughter will remember something I said, and she won’t remember the lyric of a violent, sexist rap song. Or even Snooki.”
Globalist's Plan: Put Cunning Women in Charge
By Betty Freauf
March 29, 2010
Following the Obama Health Care vote on Sunday, March 21, 2010, on Monday morning miscellaneous conservative media outlets used different terms to describe what happened.
Laura Ingraham played a song about “the end is coming soon.” Our local conservative radio host, Bill Post on KYKN in Salem mentioned the “end of the world.” The March 22nd European Union Times says the world mourns as communist darkness falls upon America. www.eutimes.net Three days after the vote, President Obama was giving a speech mocking the opposition to his health care bill stating they think it is the end of the world – Revelation and Armageddon. Will pride be America’s downfall? But the scripture that came to my mind was Jeremiah 9:17 about cunning women and no one was more cunning than the Jezebel House Speaker Pelosi with that Healthcare vote. Jeremiah, the weeping prophet shares God’s heartbreak. He longed to get away into a wilderness place where he would hide and not have to see the sin of his people that was bringing his nation to ruin.
Pelosi’s assimilated Martin Luther King civil rights march into Congress surrounded by Black Caucus House members with the biggest “gavel” I’ve ever seen was quite a demonstration of “I am woman, hear me roar!” It was a defiant “in your face” tactic daring some Obamacare protester to say something that could be used to destroy the opposition and if no one took the bait, she and her left-wing pundits would manufacture something.
Unlike the anarchists at other orchestrated left-wing rallies where demonstrators are bussed at taxpayer expense, the Tea Party folks paid their own way and they don’t wear bananas over their faces because they have nothing to hide. They protest peacefully and then pick up their trash after the rallies but that does not deter some left-wing talk show hosts from calling them every name in the book. Listen to Ray Taliaferro out of San Francisco in the KGO archives for a few days after March 21. Some people are being imprisoned for “hate” speech so why does the Federal Communications Commission allow such a hateful popinjay with a microphone and his garrulous monologues remain on the air? He’s on between 1 and 5 a.m. West Coast time so you can guess who his listeners are – senior citizens with insomnia, grave yard shift workers and those getting government checks so they don’t have to get up to go to work in the morning. One of his earlier colleagues hated the conservatives nearly as much as Ray. The last I heard in December 2008 his now repentant colleague was serving time in federal prison on pornography charges. In my article Every Knee Shall Bow I explain how he attacked Jerry Falwell the day Jerry died.
I watched the tally and the magical 216 number showed up on the TV screen after Congressman Bart Stupak and his pro-life “defenders” with Judas spirits folded like cheap umbrellas and put the needed votes for the bill over the top. I wonder how long it took Stupak and friends to realize poker-player Pelosi did not have the votes. It was all a bluff.
For some strange reason the T.V. show “The Price Is Right” popped into my head and the one game they play with the little Swiss boy climbing up the Alps. Contestants are shown a prize and they guess the price. The little guy goes up the mountain until he reaches the amount and stops. If the contestant gets the amount wrong, eventually the little Swiss boy gets to the top and falls into the abyss and the contestant loses. The “Price was Right” for those who Pelosi bought off for their votes. Believing this cunning woman, Stupak and friends felt it would be safe to change their vote to “yes” because the game was already over. The Republicans kept saying, “If Pelosi has the votes, they would have been voting.” Could we call Stupak the little Swiss boy who pushed our children and grandchildren and those yet to be born into the abyss strapping them with huge deficits for which they cannot pay. Will the final nail in the coffin of the middle class be some form of “consumption/value added tax” to pay for all these entitlements and the interest on the national debt? and a global currency. The government finally admitted on March 25 that Social Security is broke, but not to worry, benefits won’t be cut. I wonder how many loaves of bread the worthless promissory notes the government placed in the Social Security Trust Fund when they stole the money will buy. Is it any wonder people are angry?
As a side bar, I doubt that many exuberant contestants on these game shows realize the companies who give away these over-priced prizes which the contestant does not need get free advertising and then at income tax time, the contestant receives an I.R.S.1099 form and must pay taxes on their winnings because the prizes were considered expenses to the companies. But while I’m on the subject of I.R.S., in addition the Health Care bill requires 15,500 I.R.S. agents to be hired with the power to fine and jail those who do not participate in this takeover of the insurance industry. Many liberals wanted the single payer system, however the private insurance companies and the employees will eventually be forced to work for the government. They will become the (single payer) tax collector just like the employers in the private sector are required to withhold money from their employees’ paychecks and then forward to the government. Those employers are required to file and pay quarterly estimates on their own businesses. In addition, the government now controls the student loan programs; however, it was under the Democrat Jimmy Carter Administration that nationalized education with the creation of the Department of Education. Think Job Patronage. While the GOP is talking “repeal”, B.O. is full speed ahead on amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants thereby guaranteeing his re-election in 2012. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) says national bankruptcy will repeal the Obamacare.
Elizabeth Dilling in her 1936 book (The) Roosevelt Red Record said the Communist Party has always recognized the necessity of winning women to its ranks as an essential part of its revolutionary program. And now we see Nancy Pelosi two steps away from the White House and she’s being coroneted by the liberals as the most powerful woman in the world.
In Alan Stang’s 1965 book It’s Very Simple, a true story of civil rights, Stang takes the following quote from the Stalin archives of the National War College in Washington, D.C. as quoted in Coronet, vol. 29, no. 3 (January 1951), p. 23:
“How will we bring the masses of a nation into the communist programs? We have fashioned a number of organizations without which we could not wage war on capitalism: trade unions, cooperatives, workshop committees, labor parties, women’s associations, a labor press, educational leagues, youth societies. (Think ACORN).
“As often as not, these are non-party organizations and only a certain proportion of them are linked with the party. But under special conditions, every one of these organizations is necessary; for, lacking them, it is impossible to consolidate the class positions of the workers in the various spheres of the struggle. (Class Warfare)
“There is a veritable ant heap of independent organizations, commissions, and committees comprising millions of non-party members. Who decides upon the direction that all these organizations take? Where is the central unit of organization that wields sufficient authority to keep them within prescribed lines in order to achieve unity of command and to avoid confusion?
“The central unit in the Communist party!” – Joseph Stalin
To destroy our country from within the head of the Soviet Secret Police worked with the FDR administration and leading universities to corrupt (socialize) American society. Among subversions employed was the utilization of women as part of the class struggle. Soon we saw Women’s Studies promoting lesbianism and homosexuality being offered in colleges and Women’s Resource Centers.
These radical feminists in positions of power were quick to come to the defense of Hillary Clinton in 1994 from what they perceived as “right-wing” attacks on her husband but where are these women libbers when it comes to the attacks against Sarah Palin and her family? And now that Pelosi is in a powerful position, instead of patronizing the incendiary remarks by the radicals against the Tea Party people, why doesn’t she call a press conference to calm the waters?
Eleanor Smeal, former president of National Organization of Women (NOW) in the 80s said, “You can’t count on any woman, once she gets some power not to sell other women out.” And that is why the libbers hate conservative pro-life women such as Palin. The fundamental goal of the women’s movement was to reduce and contain maleness so today we find many men so demoralized they prefer to stay home with the kids while their wives go off to work.
As we saw our American society winding its way through the social revolution of the 60s, the family structure was changing dramatically. The “family” was being redefined. The state of Oregon has been very much a leader in women’s rights historically and I remember vividly the socialist legislation they got passed in the 80s followed by many other states. While many women either went to work because they had to or because they wanted to enhance their retirement so they could travel, etc., a few handfuls of Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Forum and Bev LaHaye Concerned Women for America members would go to Capitol to oppose the legislation but because our numbers were so insignificant, our testimony fell on deaf ears.
There was no George Wallace, no Senator Joe McCarthy, and no massive resistance to oppose the Marxist women’s movement. By lowering the standards and padding scores, women were allowed to join the military and now when mom ships out, baby stays at home with dad. Men are hesitant to treat women the same as other men, for fear of a harassment complaint but sensitivity is not an attribute in combat. We now find women in fire and police departments – many as chiefs. They pushed for acceptance as priests and ministers. I guess you could say women have finally made it but at what price? Women are now in the stress jobs that 40 years ago were primarily men’s jobs and are more likely to file disability claims and live off the taxpayer until they die.
But along with this new liberation more are smoking causing lung cancer, cocaine has replaced flowers, more gamble and become alcoholics. They became more promiscuous resulting in more STDs. And while Comparable Worth legislation in the 80s was seen as a wage equalizer, many women still complain they get paid less than a man for the same work.
In Mary Pride’s 1985 book The Way Home she says the oppression of women has been self-inflicted. Women pushed through the “liberated” divorce laws that allow husbands to collect alimony from wives and in some cases perhaps child support. The radical women worked feverishly to remove children from their parents at an early age and place them in government controlled day care. Obese children will be the next target by Big Brother with this Healthcare bill. They succeeded in making abortion legal and now pro-life folks will be forced in the Obama Health Care bill to pay for abortions with their taxes. The Executive Order promised to Stupak for his vote we now find cannot override legislative law. Stupak duped again. That answers the question I had in my It’s About Control article about President Kennedy’s E.O. 11110 to abolish the Federal Reserve.
The radical feminist movement motto was “make policy, not coffee” and the leaders began to organize to get women elected to office. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was quoted in the Nov. 1983 Seventeen Magazine, “In Politics, if you want anything said, ask a man; if you want anything done, ask a woman.” And Pelosi proved that to be true. She even upstaged the Messiah and their collective antagonism toward we, the people – the Tea Party folks. One orchestrated misstep will bring on Martial Law.
#Here’s the take on pending health care issues from an unknown source. It seems as though we’re about to be gifted with a healthcare plan written by a committee whose Chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it, to be signed by a President who also hasn’t read it and who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country who owes over $12,500,000,000,000 now. WHAT THE HECK COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
"Women's Day" is an Old Soviet Propaganda Ploy
By Henry Makow Ph.D
(Revised and updated from last year.)
March 07, 2010
International Women's Day (Monday, March 8) is a longtime Communist propaganda gimmick. What does it say when an official Soviet holiday is enshrined in our mainstream culture? Clearly, Communism isn't dead; it has just morphed into other forms like this one.
It confirms Norman Dodd's famous claim that Ford Foundation President Rowan Gaither told him, in 1954, that the agenda was to "socially engineer" US life so that "that it can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union" as part of banker-controlled world government.
Celebrating Womyn
"Women's Day" pretends to celebrate women but the poster (left) near my Winnipeg home in 2008 showed an ugly, surly shrew brandishing a hammer. She looks demonically possessed. The caption reads, "if I only had a hammer.."
She'd what? Hit men over the head? Tear down society? Smash women who want husbands and children?
This isn't far fetched. Under the dance notice, the poster actually says: "Come smash patriarchy at midnight!"
Women participating in the march are asked to bring "your hardhats, tool belts, safety vests and ideas for change." Typically Communists celebrate women by redefining them out of existence, as males i.e. carpenters.
Through its feminist surrogate, Communists have stripped women of a secure and honored social identity as wives and mothers, and made them workers and sexual commodities, hostages of the economy and the ravages of age.
Obviously this event is not about recognizing women for their grace, beauty, charm and intelligence. It is about cultivating a false sense of grievance and entitlement in order to manipulate them.
They used the same tactic with Jews, Blacks and Workers and harnessed these groups to their agenda. The ultimate goal is to concentrate all wealth and power in the Illuminati (Masonic) central banking cartel which is colonizing the whole world. The real meaning of "change the world" is the establishment of a totalitarian New World Order.
"Useful Idiots"
International Women's Day is hate against women and society perpetrated by the traitorous banker colonial establishment, which includes most "feminist" politicians, educators and the mass media. Women who participate are dupes and "useful idiots."
It is a vestige of Communist "popular front" movements first organized in the 1930's to ensnare naive idealistic people using feel-good platitudes like "equality," "peace" and "human rights." These rubes didn't know that the movements were funded and run by Moscow. The purpose was to alienate the intelligentsia from their own society and make them amenable to the Communist agenda, ultimately "world government." This seems to have largely succeeded. (See the 1993 book "Double Lives" by Stephen Koch)
Communism is about divide and rule. International Women's Day was inaugurated in 1910 in Copenhagen by "The Socialist International" (i.e. Communists) to promote "women's rights." As the poster on the right indicates, it was celebrated in Soviet Russia.
Here is a Manifesto for International Women's Day published in the German "Die Kommunistin" March 2, 1921:
"To all working women! You who make demands and struggle count in the millions....In all countries where the disinherited surge forward under the sign of Communism against the exploiting and subjugating power of capitalism. On International Women's Day, mothers filled with pain, housewives bent with worry, exhausted working women, clerical workers, teachers and small property holders flow together." (Wiemar Republic Sourcebook, 1995)
Women's Day is designed to make women feel oppressed. For example, a page of "gender facts" tells them that "women do 2/3 of the world's work but get only 10% of the world's income." Thus, western women, the most favored generation in history, get a chip on their shoulder vicariously.
Women are brainwashed to think their interests are separate from their own fathers, husbands, brothers and sons.
Thousands of events are planned around the world. For example, at the Unitarian Church in London Ont. an organization for Afghanistan women and girls "will honor and celebrate our local women with music, singing, dancing, and refreshments. All women and girls are welcome. Free event!" Sounds lesbian to me.
In San Francisco, there will be a cocktail party and movie to highlight the plight of the women of Gaza. What about the men and boys of Afghanistan and Gaza? Don't they count? In the name of equality, these Communist dupes are practicing inequality. By breaking up families, they will leave Muslim women and girls more vulnerable than ever.
The fact that Communist-inspired agitprop is part of mainstream culture is an example of how society has been subverted. Most people are not socialist, let alone Communist.
As long as a secret Illuminati clique (Communists, Zionists, Freemasons) is allowed to control government credit, subvert nations and plot world government, society is complicit in its own destruction. We will have no one to blame but ourselves.
American Gulag -- Feminist Laws Persecute Men
by Stephen Baskerville Ph.D.
(Abridged by Henry Makow)
February 5, 2010
"We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws." Protocols of Zion- 5
Men accused of rape today enjoy few safeguards. "People can be charged with virtually no evidence," says Boston former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman. "If a female comes in and says she was sexually assaulted, then on her word alone, with nothing else -- and I mean nothing else, no investigation -- the police will go out and arrest someone."
Almost daily we see men released after decades in prison because DNA testing proves they were wrongly convicted. Yet the rape industry is so powerful that proof of innocence is no protection.
"A defendant who can absolutely prove his innocence ... can nonetheless still be convicted, based solely on the word of the accuser," write Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson in Until Proven Innocent. In North Carolina, simply "naming the person accused" along with the time and place "will support a verdict of guilty." Crime laboratories are notorious for falsifying results to obtain convictions.
'Women Never Lie'
The feminist dogma that "women never lie" goes largely unchallenged. "Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes," says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that "41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false" during a nine-year period, "that is, by the complainant's admission that no rape had occurred."
In the infamous Duke University lacrosse case, prosecutor Michael Nifong suppressed exculpating evidence and prosecuted men he knew to be innocent, according to Taylor and Johnson. Nifong himself was eventually disbarred, but he had willing accomplices among assistant prosecutors, police, crime lab technicians, judges, the bar, and the media.
"Innocent men are arrested and even imprisoned as a result of bogus claims," writes Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit for the Manhattan District Attorney, who estimates that half of all reports are unfounded.
Innocence projects are almost wholly occupied with rape cases (though they try to disguise this fact). Yet no systematic investigation has been undertaken by the media or civil libertarians into why so many innocent citizens are so easily incarcerated on fabricated allegations. The exoneration of the Duke students on obviously trumped-up charges triggered few investigations -- and no official ones -- to determine how widespread such rigged justice is against those unable to garner media attention.
Media Complicity
The world of rape accusations displays features similar to other feminist gender crimes: media invective against the accused, government-paid "victim advocates" to secure convictions, intimidation of anyone who defends the accused. "Nobody dependent on the mainstream media for information about rape would have any idea how frequent false claims are," write Taylor and Johnson.
"Most journalists simply ignore evidence contradicting the feminist line." What they observe of rape characterizes feminist justice generally: "calling a rape complainant 'the victim' -- with no 'alleged'." "Unnamed complainants are labeled 'victims' even before legal proceedings determine that a crime has been committed," according to CMR.
Rape hysteria, false accusations, and distorted scholarship are rampant on university campuses, which ostensibly exist to pursue truth. "If a woman did falsely accuse a man of rape," opines one "women's studies" graduate, "she may have had reasons to. Maybe she wasn't raped, but he clearly violated her in some way."
This mentality pervades feminist jurisprudence, precluding innocence by obliterating the distinction between crime and hurt feelings. A Vassar College assistant dean believes false accusations foster men's education: "I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration.... 'If I didn't violate her, could I have?'"
Conservative critics of the Duke fiasco avoided feminism's role but instead emphasized race -- a minor feature of the case but a safer one to criticize. Little evidence indicates that white people are being systematically incarcerated on fabricated accusations of non-existent crimes against blacks. This is precisely what is happening to men, both white and black, accused of rape and other "gender" crimes that feminists have turned into a political agenda.
Domestic Violence = Prosecution of Males
Like rape, domestic "violence" is defined so loosely that it need not be violent. The U.S. Justice Department definition includes "extreme jealousy and possessiveness" and "name calling and constant criticizing."
For such "crimes" men are jailed with no trial. In fact, the very category of "domestic" violence was developed largely to circumvent due process requirements of conventional assault statutes. A study published in Criminology and Public Policy found that no one accused of domestic violence could be found innocent, since every arrestee received punishment.
Here, too, false accusations are rewarded. "Women lie every day," attests Ottawa Judge Dianne Nicholas. "Every day women in court say, 'I made it up. I'm lying. It didn't happen' -- and they're not charged."
Amazingly, bar associations sponsor seminars instructing women how to fabricate accusations. Thomas Kiernan, writing in the New Jersey Law Journal, expressed his astonishment at "the number of women attending the seminars who smugly -- indeed boastfully -- announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked!" He added, "The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants."
Domestic violence has become "a backwater of tautological pseudo-theory," write Donald Dutton and Kenneth Corvo in Aggression and Violent Behavior. "No other area of established social welfare, criminal justice, public health, or behavioral intervention has such weak evidence in support of mandated practice."
False Claims a Strategy
Scholars and practitioners have repeatedly documented how "allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage" in custody cases and "become part of the gamesmanship of divorce." Domestic abuse has become "an area of law mired in intellectual dishonesty and injustice," according to the Rutgers Law Review.
Restraining orders removing men from their homes and children are summarily issued without any evidence. Due process protections are so routinely ignored that, the New Jersey Law Journal reports, one judge told his colleagues, "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating."
Attorney David Heleniak calls New Jersey's statute "a due process fiasco" in the Rutgers Law Review. New Jersey court literature openly acknowledges that due process is ignored because it "perpetuates the cycle of power and control whereby the [alleged?] perpetrator remains the one with the power and the [alleged?] victim remains powerless." Omitting "alleged" is standard even in statutes, where, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly reports, "the mere allegation of domestic abuse ... may shift the burden of proof to the defendant."
Special "integrated domestic violence courts" presume guilt and then, says New York's openly feminist chief judge, "make batterers and abusers take responsibility for their actions." They can seize property, including homes, without the accused being convicted or even formally charged or present to defend himself.
Lawyer Walter Fox describes these courts as "pre-fascist": "Domestic violence courts ... are designed to get around the protections of the criminal code. The burden of proof is reduced or removed, and there's no presumption of innocence."
Forced confessions are widespread. Pennsylvania men are incarcerated unless they sign forms stating, "I have physically and emotionally battered my partner." The man must then describe the violence, even if he insists he committed none. "I am responsible for the violence I used," the forms declare. "My behavior was not provoked."
Child Support Choke-Hold
Equally feminist is the child-support machinery, whereby millions have their family finances plundered and their lives placed under penal supervision without having committed any legal infraction. Once they have nothing left to loot, they too are incarcerated without trial.
Contrary to government propaganda (and Common Law tradition), child support today has little to do with fathers abandoning their children, deserting their marriages, or even agreeing to a divorce. It is automatically assessed on all non-custodial parents, even those involuntarily divorced without grounds ("no-fault"). It is an entitlement for all divorcing mothers, regardless of their actions, and coerced from fathers, regardless of their fidelity.
The "deadbeat dad" is far less likely to be a man who abandoned the offspring he callously sired than to be a loving father who has been, as attorney Jed Abraham writes in From Courtship to Courtroom, "forced to finance the filching of his own children."
Federalized enforcement was rationalized to reimburse taxpayers for welfare. Under feminist pressure, taxpayers instead subsidize middle-class divorce, through federal payments to states based on the amount of child support they collect. By profiting off child support at federal taxpayer expense, state governments have a financial incentive to encourage as many single-mother homes as possible. They, in turn, encourage divorce with a guaranteed, tax-free windfall to any divorcing mother.
While child support (like divorce itself) is awarded ostensibly without reference to "fault," nonpayment brings swift and severe punishments. "The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support," writes Bryce Christensen of Southern Utah University, "have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state."
Gulag for 'Deadbeat Dads'
... Assembly-line hearings can last 30 seconds to two minutes, during which parents are sentenced to months or years in prison. Many receive no hearing but are accused in an "expedited judicial process" before a black-robed lawyer known as a "judge surrogate."
Because these officials require no legislative confirmation, they are not accountable to citizens or their representatives. Unlike true judges, they may lobby to create the same laws they adjudicate, violating the separation of powers. Often they are political activists in robes. One surrogate judge, reports the Telegraph of Hudson, New Hampshire, simultaneously worked "as a radical feminist lobbying on proposed legislation" dealing with child support.
Though governments sensationalize "roundups" of alleged "deadbeat dads," who are jailed for months and even years without trial, no government information whatever is available on incarcerations.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics is utterly silent on child-support incarcerations. Rebecca May of the Center for Family Policy and Practice found "ample testimony by low-income non-custodial parents of spending time in jail for the nonpayment of child support." Yet she could find no documentation of their incarceration...
We know the arrests are extensive. To relieve jail overcrowding in Georgia, a sheriff and judge proposed creating detention camps specifically for "deadbeat dads." The Pittsburgh City Planning Commission has considered a proposal "to convert a former chemical processing plant ... into a detention center" for "deadbeat dads."
Rendered permanently in debt by incarceration, fathers are farmed out to trash companies and similar concerns, where they work 14-16 hour days with their earnings confiscated.
More Malicious Mayhen
Other incarcerations are also attributable to feminism. The vast preponderance of actual violent crime and substance abuse proceeds from single-parent homes and fatherless children more than any other factor, far surpassing race and poverty. The explosion of single parenthood is usually and resignedly blamed on paternal abandonment, with the only remedy being ever-more draconian but ineffective child-support "crackdowns."
Yet no evidence indicates that the proliferation of single-parent homes results from absconding fathers. If instead we accept that single motherhood is precisely what feminists say it is -- the deliberate choice of their sexual revolution -- it is then apparent that sexual liberation lies behind not only these newfangled sexual crimes, but also the larger trend of actual crime and incarceration. Feminism is driving both the criminalization of the innocent and the criminality of the guilty.
We will continue to fight a losing battle against crime, incarceration, and expansive government power until we confront the sexual ideology that is driving not only family breakdown and the ensuing social anomie, but the criminalization of the male population.
Ever-more-repressive penal measures will only further erode freedom. Under a leftist regime, conservatives must rethink their approach to crime and punishment and their unwitting collusion with America's homegrown Stalinists.
Treason at the Top: Feminism, Fertility and Fascism
Henry Makow
August 14, 2009
( From May 7,2002, of interest to newcomers, researchers and nostalgia buffs)
A smoking gun! The elite doesn't want us to reproduce.
In 1970, Frederick Jaffe, the VP of Rockefeller-sponsored "Planned Parenthood" organization outlined how "social constraints" should be used to achieve "fertility control." ("Family Planning Perspectives" Oct.1970.)
These "constraints" included encouraging "increased homosexuality," altering "the image of the ideal family," and encouraging women to work outside the home.
If this failed, the agency recommended the placement of "fertility control agents in the water supply." We're not talking about unwanted pregnancies here.
The unprecedented decline of the American family since 1960 did not take place by accident. We are victims of a campaign of psychological warfare carried out by the CIA and foundations through the media, government and education.
They put the neutering agent in the cultural drinking water. The main ingredient is the promotion of homosexuality as an alternative to heterosexuality.
Feminism, which masquerades as "woman's rights," is in fact a pathological lesbian movement. It coerces women to believe that their feminine instincts are socially taught, oppressive and evil. It teaches them to fear and compete with men, and to find fulfillment in career instead of family.
Women who devote their lives to their families are the finest aspects of human life. They are saints who bring love and beauty into the world and tend to the real everyday needs of men and children. To disparage these women is a foul, vicious calumny worthy of the devil himself. Yet that's what the feminist movement is all about, though they deny it.
Betty Frieden, the "moderate" feminist founder, who hid the fact that she was a Communist activist, compared homemakers to concentration camp victims. Simone de Beauvoir, another Communist founder, said women must not be given a choice to be mothers and homemakers because they'll choose that option. According to feminist Ellen Willis, feminism "is the cutting edge of a revolution in cultural and moral values...The objective of every feminist reform, from legal abortion...to child-care programs, is to undermine traditional family values." (The Nation, Nov. 14, 1981)
What part of traditional family values do feminists object to? Love? Sacrifice? Devotion? Loyalty? Security? The preparation of a new generation for life?
They're Not Called Feminazis For Nothing
Rockefeller financed the Nazis through I.G. Farben. He sponsored the American Eugenics Society that had close links to its Nazi counterpart.
Rockefeller financed Alfred Kinsey, the homosexual pederast whose "Kinsey Report" replaced married love with casual sex.
Rockefeller continues to finance "Women's Studies" which is a training ground for fascist zealots who spread their poison in society as "change agents." (See Daphne Patai, Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.)
The elite is promoting homosexuality to bring about a fascist New World Order. Homosexuality is a developmental disorder characterized by a failure to bond with a member of the opposite sex. Lesbianism (feminism) which coerces women to be like men (and vice-versa) makes it difficult to achieve such a bond. As a result, millions of men and women have been defrauded of happiness and suffer the same symptoms as homosexuals, i.e. arrested development, and obsession with sex.
The elite's purpose is to transfer power from the nation state to their minions at the world level. Once our democratic power is gone, the elite will lower the standard of living. Look at the economic disparities in the Third World for a blueprint of the future. For the elite, the motto is "the less there is of you, the more there is for us."
A distracted, dysfunctional population, deprived of its history and culture, will not recognize its fate in time. Men, emasculated and demoralized, will not be able to resist.
From Rockefeller Center to Winnipeg Square
I ran headlong into this stealth elite policy when I was teaching English part-time at the University of Winnipeg. I was exploring the subject of male-female love in works by DH Lawrence, Chekhov and Henry James.
A handful of militant feminists objected to my defense of traditional femininity and wrote a letter slandering me. Constance Rooke, the university president, [now deceased] accepted their allegations without investigation. The university ignored my complaint of discrimination. The Manitoba Human Rights Commission, another feminist bastion, also dismissed my complaint without investigation.
Winnipeg Sun Editor Lyn Cockburn portrayed me as a 50-year-old man who got his jollies by importuning his 18-year-old female students after class with questions about their sex lives. She compared me to a MD who should be disbarred for making "inappropriate remarks and gestures" to a young female patient. I sued The Winnipeg Sun for defamation and won.
Vile slander is the lot of anyone who questions feminist dogma. Professors were afraid to speak to me.
This case is not about protecting innocence.
Last year, Cockburn had nothing to say when the same university was on the front page of The Winnipeg Sun for teaching lesbian masturbation to 14-year-old high school girls. The girls signed on for a summer school course on "women in the arts" and received an introduction to lesbianism instead. They learned that they didn't need men and could use bananas and vegetables. President Rooke was unrepentant and opined that it may have been too soon to teach girls about male substitutes.
Normally Rooke would have lost her job for this outrage. But there wasn't a peep from the Minister of Education or other stalwarts of the community. Rooke is brazen because her orders come right from the top.
This became clear when I saw Jim Carr, the executive director of the Manitoba Business Council. I thought the province's leading enterprises would be concerned that feminists teach the hatred of males, the overthrow of capitalism and discrimination in favor of women, minorities and homosexuals.
He denied this is happening. Carr's previous assignment was biographer of Duff Roblin. A former Manitoba Premier, Roblin is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (the elite's US coordinating body.)
Hartley Richardson, a longtime leader of the Manitoba business community, is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Rockefeller interests set up these bodies to promote elite world government and (Canadian PM) Stephen Harper and (Manitoba Premier) Gary Doer dance to their tunes.
In conclusion, elite planners and their stooges (in government, education and the media) are actively promoting homosexuality in order to destabilize and neuter us. Their ultimate goal is to steal our birthright, in every sense of the word.
The "Sugar Daddies" Behind Feminism
Henry Makow
April 4, 2009
(Left, John D. Rockefeller and his son, John Jr.) by Richard Evans
The "Patriarchy" is the Plutocracy and it's Funding Feminism!
When big changes happen, follow the money. Feminist funding comes from big foundations. Google "Women's Studies" and Rockefeller Foundation and you'll get 132,000 links. Google "Women's Studies" and Ford Foundation and you'll get 217,000 links. Carnegie Foundation yields 197,000 links. They frequently acknowledge foundation funding and expose a massive social engineering program designed to reduce population, emasculate men and undermine the institutions of marriage & family.
Yet, horror to tell, these foundations are dominated by men, not women. Feminism, ostensibly dedicated to "smashing the Patriarchy," is bankrolled by the Patriarchy.
* A 1990 report by Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy found that 23% of foundations surveyed had no women or people of color as trustees. Furthermore, women of color made up only 5% of all foundation trustees.
* 71% of foundation members are male. A similar bias exists among foundation directors. At 14%, women are better represented among chief executive officers of foundations, but they tend to head the smaller foundations. The largest independent foundations are headed by men.
If you take the time to really trace NGO funding, the faces change from radical chic hell raiser women gradually into very old white men.
Feminists drawing large salaries in universities and NGO's, all have these unseen sugar daddies. The rank and file don't know this. They're too busy picking on men who don't pull any more strings in this culture than they do.
I'll show you how to check it out yourself. First, you'll need the Grants Foundation Index. Using this you can look up foundations and see where their money goes.
Start with an organization's website and where possible, find who funds them, and the list of their board. Save to a notepad or word.doc. When you've collected a lot of donors names, most you won't recognize, some you will, but you'll see names crop up over and over again. They're not all American names either listed on these US foundations. You'll find many names listed in Who's Who in America consisting of mostly Anglo-Americans, Jews, and a smattering of Spanish, German, Italian, Japanese, and some Russian. But nationalities don't matter. What binds them more powerfully is that they're all Plutocrats.
When you have the names of the foundations that fund them upfront, check those foundations websites to find who their donors are. As you go, check each foundation with the Grants Foundation Index. This will tell you what other organizations they fund.
During the 20th century funding up through the 1970's feminist/population control organizations used to be relatively easy to trace to two 'prime mover' sources. These could be found either funding directly or through one or two 'conduit' foundations.
The big two were (are)
* Rockefeller Foundation (primarily funding US based feminism/population controller NGO's in the Western hemisphere.)
* Carnegie Foundation (US based international NGO's)
Today it takes more time to trace the money trail back to where the buck stops. The up front organizations who commonly fund NGO's involved in the catch-all 'women's rights' include: International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the International Women's Health Coalition, the Population Council, International Projects Assistance Services (Ipas), the Center for Reproductive Rights, Family Care International, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The MacArthur Foundation (Curiously, all these foundations have a common social agenda suggesting the rich belong to one club, the Illuminati, and were allowed to prosper because of this membership.) Prior to US invasion/occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the primary target of US population control and 'women's rights' foundations was Latin America, and Mexico. Until the Robles Reform was approved, abortion was illegal in every Mexican state. All that changed, however, in January 2002--thanks, in large part, to funding provided by U.S. pro-abortion foundations.
When the 911 episode gave the US government the excuse it needed to seize Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilizing the region from Iraq to Pakistan, the way was open for the Foundations to deploy the NGO's of 'culture change'. Islamic culture has a history of resisting Western culture and more importantly, our credit based central banking system. Men and women didn't want any of that in the Western hemisphere either a hundred years ago. But foundation funding of the education system, entertainment and media industry, and ultimately, manufactured adversarial division of gender consensus, changed all that.
The money trail leads back to expose once and for all the REAL Patriarchy making life hell for women, men, children, the elderly, and the starving: The Patriarchy of the International Central Banking Cartel. Would it feel any better if they were evil old crones instead of old evil men?
The real "Patriarchy" is the PLUTOCRACY. Not fathers, husbands, brothers and co-workers.
Blue Jeans -- The New Feminist Uniform?
September 28, 2009
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
(Updated and Revised from April 2008)
It takes vision to see what is in front of your eyes all the time.
"Slovenly" "Drab" Unkempt" "Slatternly" "Blowzy" --many adjectives describe most women who wear jeans.
Since I noticed this trend, I am appalled by its pervasiveness. At least half of the women I see are wearing jeans.
Jeans are a fitting feminist symbol. They are farmworkers' and miners' clothes. Feminism is an invention of the central bankers who also created and financed the socialist and communist movements as bait to control people through government (which they control.)
By wearing jeans, women are signalling loyalty to this drab unisex proletarian vision, where women work like men, look like men, and fornicate like men (i.e. dogs.)
Can it be any more obvious? If the sexes dress alike, it is because they are becoming alike.
Often I see married couples clad in blue denim, him and hers. Occasionally there is an eldest daughter already promised to the cult of androgyny.
The first time this article appeared, I got a storm of criticism from women who say jeans can be feminine. Yes, if you are incredibly sexy in the first place, (but you'd look good in anything.) Ladies, jeans (and pants in general) emphasize the caboose. Very few women should do this.
Men, a woman wearing jeans is a red flag that you might be dealing with "GID" --"gender identity disorder." Her jeans are saying: "I don't want to be a woman. I don't want to look good for men. I fear and distrust men. I want male prerogatives. I want to look like a man. I want to be a man."
Feminism which espoused "women's rights" actually has driven femininity underground, torn the sexes asunder, and stripped woman of recognition for being wives and mothers, roles essential to their own fulfillment, to men, and to children and society.
Young women were told they were rebelling against oppressive patriarchy and inequality and all things bad. They never imagined they were betrayed by feminist teachers and politicians, intent on breaking up the family and abandoning us to State and corporate control.
They never imagined that the "women's movement" was inspired and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation as part of their ongoing social engineering program. Google "Women's Studies" and "Rockefeller Foundation" and you'll get 93,000 hits. Do you really think the world's biggest monopoly capitalists, who fund Planned Parenthood, birth control and eugenic research, don't have an ulterior motive for feminism?
The Rockefellers are central bankers. In the words of insider Carroll Quigley, their ultimate goal is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled ...by the central banks...acting in concert." ( Tragedy and Hope, 324)
Under the guise of defending homosexual rights, heterosexuals are under ruthless and hateful psychological attack in the mass media and from government. In the UK, Australia and California, the terms "mom and dad" have been banned from schools and children are encouraged to experiment with homosexuality. They want us to be homosexual in the sense that gays usually have sex but don't marry and have families. They want to destroy the family because lonely confused people are easier to manipulate. This is the real story behind the "sexual revolution."
There is a Stalinist feminist stigma against looking feminine. Hopefully the popularity of "Mad Men" and the beauty of Don Draper's wife Betty wearing summer dresses will bring feminine attire back.
Truly liberated women can make a statement by wearing a skirt or dress. They can show they aren't afraid of men, and may actually like them. Christine, a Toronto woman, does this and gets a very positive response:
"Several years ago, I gave up dressing like a man for religious reasons (and no, I am not a Muslim, although it is rather peculiar to see Muslim women in blue jeans and head scarves.) Since the traditional garb of a Western woman is a skirt or dress... I try to wear that. And I do try to dress neatly. When I made this decision, I didn't think about how it would affect men. Nevertheless, its effect on men has been most touching. It brings out the best in them and they seem to like it. Some are even vocal in their approval; only one has said he disapproved."
Men should politely voice approval and support of women who are dressed in a feminine way.
There is nothing more beautiful than a women wearing a summer dress. I can still remember a young woman I saw five years ago wearing a frock. That's how powerful femininity is. Let's not let highly-paid pious feminist and lesbian "change agents" destroy it. It's time for real women to relegate jeans to garden work.
Betty Friedan: "Mommy" was a Commie
Henry Makow
July 27, 2003
"Comrades, you will remember the ancient tale of the capture of Troy ... The attacking army was unable to achieve victory until, with the aid of the famous Trojan Horse, it managed to penetrate to the very heart of the enemy camp."
--George Dimitrov, Comintern General Secretary, August, 1935.
Betty Friedan, the "founder of modern feminism" pretended to be a typical 1950's American mother who had a "revelation" that women like her were exploited and should seek independence and self-fulfillment in career.
What Friedan (nee: Betty Naomi Goldstein) didn't say is that she had been a Communist propagandist since her student days at Smith College (1938-1942) and that the destruction of the family has always been central to the Communist plan for world government. See "The Communist Manifesto" (1848).
Friedan dropped out of grad school to become a reporter for a Communist news service. From 1946 -1952 she worked for the newspaper of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, (UE) "the largest Communist-led institution of any kind in the United States." In 1947, Congress targeted the UE as a Communist front and its membership began a steady decline.
Daniel Horowitz, a History Professor at Smith with impeccable Liberal and Feminist credentials documents all this in his book, Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique: The American Left, the Cold War and Modern Feminism (University of Massachusetts Press 1999). Horowitz cites a union member who described how a Communist minority "seized control of the UE national office, the executive board, the paid-staff, the union newspaper and some district councils and locals." Betty Frieden doesn't want anyone to know her radical antecedents. Throughout her career, she said she had no interest in the condition of women before her "revelation." She refused to cooperate with Professor Horowitz and accused him of "Red-baiting."
Why? Because her book "The Feminist Mystique" (1963) would not have sold over five million copies if her subversive background were known. Communists operate by subterfuge -- pretending to be just like us. This is the "Popular Front" strategy that consisted of starting idealistic movements in order to ensnare well-meaning people, usually students, workers, women, artists or intellectuals. The membership was ignorant that their organization was funded and controlled by people with a totally different agenda. This is also the principle behind freemasonry, Zionism and Communism itself. Essentially the adherents are dupes.
Willi Munzenberg, an early confidante of Lenin, organized the Popular Fronts in the 1920's and 1930's and referred to them as "my innocents clubs". He pioneered the protest march, the demonstration, the radical bookstore and publication, the arts festival, and the recruitment of celebrities ("fellow travellers.")
In the words of historian Stephen Koch, Munzenberg "was amazingly successful at mobilizing the intelligentsia of the West on behalf of a moralistic set of political attitudes responsive to Soviet needs. In the process, he organized and defined the 'enlightened' moral agenda of his era." (Double Lives: Spies and Writers in the Secret Soviet War of Ideas Against the West, New York, 1994, p.14.)
In a 1989 interview, Babette Gross, the wife of Willy Munstenberg, described the Popular Front modus operandi:
"You do not endorse Stalin. You do not call yourself a Communist. You do not call upon people to support the Soviets. Never. You claim to be an independent minded idealist. You don't really understand politics but you claim the little guy is getting a lousy break." (Koch, p. 220)
Friedan observed this principle when she helped start second-wave Feminism, which is a classic "Popular Front." The very name, "the woman's movement" and claim to be for "equality" are but a smoke screen for a diabolical crusade to destroy the institution of the family. For example, feminist professor Alison Jagger calls the nuclear family "a cornerstone of women'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." ("Feminist Politics and Human Nature," 1988)
The "Congress of American Women," a Popular Front organization founded in 1946 reached a membership of 250,000. It was disbanded in 1950 after being required to register as a "foreign agent" by the U.S. Government. Feminist historian Ruth Rosen writes that the "CAW's agenda prefigured much of the modern women's movement that emerged in the sixties." (Ruth Rosen, The World Split Open: How the Modern Women's Movement Changed America, New York, 2000, p.28.)
The FBI kept tabs on the "Women's movement" but found no direct connection with Soviet subversion. Ruth Rosen, herself a veteran, finds this ironic.
"Ironically, the FBI searched for signs of subversion in the Women's movement but couldn't recognize what was truly dangerous. While they looked for Communists and bombs, the women's movement was shattering traditional ideas about work, customs, education, sexuality, and the family. Ultimately the movement would prove far more revolutionary than the FBI could ever imagine. Feminism would leave a legacy of disorientation, debate and disagreement, create cultural chaos and social change for millions of men and women, and, in the process, help ignite the culture wars that would polarize American society. But at the time these ideas were not what the FBI considered subversive." (260)
By attacking the social fabric, feminists inflicted more damage to Western society than Communists ever dreamed. Domestic violence hysteria has driven a wedge between men and women. Women have been psychologically neutered. They are encouraged to pursue sex and career not family. The US birth rate has plummeted from 3.9 children per woman in 1960 to 2 today, the lowest level in history. [Replacement is 2.1] The marriage rate has declined by 1/3 while the divorce rate has doubled since 1960. More than half of all first-born US children are conceived or born out of wedlock. (William Bennett, "The Broken Hearth" p.13)
The feminist Trojan Horse has proven extremely effective. The question is why? How could a sick subversive philosophy that openly pits women against men have been able to succeed?
The disconcerting answer is that monopoly capitalists are behind both Communism and Feminism and use them to undermine the political and cultural institutions of Western Civilization.
Rockefeller-Rothschild cartels own most of the world and naturally assume they should control it too. They own most of our politicians, media and educators. Their goal is a "new world order" (a.k.a. "globalization") in which they remake mankind to fit their nefarious ends.
Betty Friedan, take a bow.
Bikini vs. Burka: The Debauchery of Women
September 24, 2009
(Updated from Sept. 18, 2002)
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.
Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.
One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."
The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.
I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.
For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.
The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.
In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.
In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)
As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.
The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.
Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in "oppression" and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.
This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.
Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they'd end the war.
Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.
We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.
This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate.
Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.
Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.
I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.
The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.