Latest Posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communism. Show all posts

Where Did Feminism Get it's Money From..



There are a few things we know for an absolute fact..

Feminists has the backing from some very rich private sources like Billionaire George Soros, as well as quite a few others..
There is a direct link between Marxism, Socialism and Feminism, there is no doubt whatsoever, it's  directly attached via an umbilical cord, the over zealous left wing's determination to ensure their doctrines of influence are introduced and in the long term it will be the men who will continue to pay the price and that path to eventually include women as well as they rail them into the governments handouts which they will not be able to do without..

The gradual and consistent reduction of human rights can also be witnessed with the introduction of laws like VAWA, the "Safe at Home" legislation and also the new legislation the Gillard Government(Aus) wants in place under the guidance of radical feminists. All that legislation is designed to transfer additional powers to women and reduce the rights of all men. It is that simple. Plenty of example are already quite visible and if you refuse to accept that or believe it, go to a family court hearing and watch how they throw the Father's rights straight into the rubbish bin while priority is given to the "mother". This is a well known fact as well. Very rarely will you see justice actually done as  feminist influences increases..

How does all this affect the people involved in that industry, they can easily point out the "Dads" who have suicided, I can give you a list of four from the last two years..

Below are some names of those hypocritical left wing anti-capitalists, those wealthy promoters, whose hypocrisy glaringly stands out like a shining beacon of stupidity and sheer arrogance. These are the same people who fund  their other society goals and aims like feminism..

I have no problem with anyone making money but it should at least be used for good, not malice..

Most of these hypocrites have lead the life of luxury, they have sucked the profits out of anything they can get their hands on. They play the system in every possible way. Soros' fortune was made paying no more than 10% tax on the billions he has. He has lived off the taxpayer's hard work and here he is promoting the feminist religion that he uses to enrich himself even further, while at the same time promoting this hate movement like it will benefit all and sundry, when in reality is just causes more pain and suffering.
One does have to wonder what their long term motives are, whether it is following the dollars or just promoting communism or its variable version of socialism which will benefit themselves the most. In their opinion, there has to be an upper echelon akin to the politburo, which is just a copy that same upper echelon of greedy humans we have now as part of normal society. Yet these people make the claim to want to improve it. It is weird, The top 10 percent who own 80% want to make changes to do what ?

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea but I know it is not for the good of society as these people want to change it into something that has never been tested. These individuals are flat out trying to destroy the very same system that has made them the millions they have, must be reason to wonder..

The only match that I can see is that anyone associated with the global warming circus has the same sympathies with and about feminism. It seems to be the same mentality pushing and promoting it, the same people ploughing money into a doctrine they feel will benefit all. Instead it will instil the directly opposite effect wherein men will be cast back to the middle ages as far as our rights are concerned and just be increased slaves to the system..

To some this may be a stretch but there is more at work promoting and pushing the feminist agenda and we need to find out more about the people behind the scene, those people who hide behind anonymity, those faceless people who have always manipulated and managed the throngs, behind closed doors..


Posh Anti-Capitalism


The next time you’re forced to attend a dinner party, keep an eye out for the global warmer.  Then ask him what he thinks about supermarkets (wicked), ‘consumer society’ (soulless), world trade (cruel) and government regulation (more needed).  Global warmers are, in short, anti-capitalist.  But – and here’s the really important thing to understand – it’s a very specific form of anti-capitalism.  We might call it posh anti-capitalism.
In the old days, when there was less swearing on TV and kids were scared of policemen, anti-capitalism was coloured Red.   The Reds complained that capitalism would cause the ‘immiseration’ of the workers, and they dreamed of giant socialist factories, out-producing the West.
The tragedy (for the Reds) was that capitalism didn’t play ball.  Instead of getting poorer, ordinary folk got richer – much, much richer.  For the simple reason that capitalist mass production must necessarily go hand in hand with mass consumption.  What the new-leftists call ‘consumer society’.
But these days, anti-capitalists are coloured Green.  They campaign not in the name of the working class, but of ‘Earth’.  Instead of giant factories, they dream of little handicraft workshops and organic peasant farms.  They complain not that capitalism will impoverish the workers, but, on the contrary, that capitalism has made them too rich.  It is the very success of capitalism that seems to upset them.
Green guru James Lovelock says the overconsuming public is like a ‘revolting teenager’ and says we are ‘far too greedy and selfish for our own good.’  Green Party politician Caroline Lucas says we must ‘move away from endless consumerism and materialism.’ Green foodie Colin Tudge, condemns ‘the mindless accumulation of wealth for ill-defined purposes.’ John Naish, in his bookEnough, says we should be satisfied with what we have, ‘In the Western world we now have everything we could possibly need.  There is no ‘more’.’  To Oliver James, prosperity is a disease - he calls it the ‘Affluenza Virus’.  It’s all too much for celebrity journalist Rosie Boycott, ‘Stuff – in all its forms – fills the empty spaces inside, which materialism creates.’
It is more than ironic that the anti-consumption rant comes from people who are, by global standards, rolling in the stuff and from a superior social class. Take a look at Al Gore and Prince Charles, at Jonathon Porritt, the old Etonian friend of Prince Charles, son of Lord Porritt; or the old Etonian Baron Lord Peter Melchett, former head of Greenpeace, or Ecologist editor Zac Goldsmith, another old Etonian, son of the billionaire James Goldsmith, and nephew of yet another old Etonian the Green guru Edward Goldsmith; or ‘eco-warrior’ Mark Brown, who was acquitted of leading the ‘Carnival Against Capitalism’, who is a member of the fabulously wealthy Vestey family; or the founder of the Soil Association Lady Eve Balfour, daughter of the Earl of Balfour; or the author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, David de Rothschild, and so on, and on.   Charles Secrett, former executive director of Friends of the Earth helpfully explains, ‘Among the aristocrats there is a sense of noblesse oblige … a feeling of stewardship towards the land.’
Brendan O’Neill says in The Guardian, ‘It is remarkable how many leading environmentalists come from wealthy or aristocratic backgrounds.’ And adds, ‘There is something irritating - actually, let's not beat around the bush - there is something monumentally infuriating about rich people telling the masses that they should live more meekly.’
Link.. 

Carey Roberts : The Feminist Class Conscience..

The Greens - Marxist Enablers..
When McCarthy did the US a greater service than will ever be recognised. The Marxists/communists plague that he removed had to come up with another plan. A plan was hatched and it was one that would seek to benefit women only, destroy the family unit and destroy men's credibility, the one sex determined to hold it all together..
Communism and Marxism has always been linked to the feminist hegemony amidst denial and in some cases, incredulity. Fembots have never been known for their comprehension of history or even exploring what feminism's doctrine was all about. They were happy to just reap the rewards of all those extras that every government throws at them at every election just to ensure their vote..
Feminism is a corrupt organisation hiding under the guise of "equality". That false claim has been buried along with the fact that feminism as a doctrine, actually does not give a damn about either sex let alone, women, humans are just fodder for the cause. It will take a little bit longer for that revelation to dawn while they wallow in their newly found windfall..

Gillard, Feminist Enabler..

Achieving Feminist Class Consciousness

by Carey Roberts    




Radical feminism can be traced back directly to Marxism-Leninism. The feminist ideology, framework, and utopian aspirations all have their origin in the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/2004/roberts012704.htm).
Sometime visit the Women and Marxism website (www.marxists.org/subject/women/). There you can read exactly what V.I. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung had to say about women’s liberation.
Vladimir Lenin was the mastermind behind the early Soviet propaganda campaign. In his book The Birth of the Propaganda State, Peter Kenez concludes the Soviet state achieved its early successes because of the “ability of the political system to isolate the Russian people from information and ideas that would have undermined the message.”
And that message was the gospel of class consciousness. The Marxist mantra was repeated endlessly: the worker was exploited by the evil capitalist, and the peasant was oppressed by the greedy landowner.
This indoctrination strategy worked for several reasons. It motivated the workers and peasants. It channeled their anger towards the capitalists. And it vilified and demoralized the opponents of Communism.
Lenin also pushed the class consciousness theme in his speeches to women, but with a new twist. On the occasion of the 1921 International Working Women’s Day, Lenin proclaimed that women were doubly oppressed -- both because they were victims of capitalism, and because they were slaves “overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.” (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm)
“Drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking, and stultifying toil”? An apt description of life in the Gulag, perhaps, but not of housework in the relative comfort of the home.
But lack of historical accuracy did not deter the early feminists. Pick up a copy of Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex or Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. You will read exactly the same arguments: Men are the unending oppressors of women and marriage is a legalized form of slavery.
To achieve their vision of women’s liberation, the Matrons of Mischief pursued the age-old strategy of divide and conquer.
First, the Sisterhood canonized the strong, self-assured, independent woman. This ideal became government policy when the Clinton administration launched its “Girl Power” program and UNICEF later started its “Go Girl!” initiative. To this day, programs to prevent osteoporosis carry the slogan, “Strong Women, Strong Bones.”
But these campaigns carry an underlying message: “If you’re a strong woman, why would you ever need or want a man?”
And when the Marlboro Woman message didn’t completely sink in, feminists went to Plan B: male-bashing. Male chauvinist pig. Misogynist. Insensitive. Over-bearing. Abusive. Batterer. And many others.
At first, men thought the caricatures were funny. Then they tried to ignore them. But the end result has been to make men feel guilty and shameful.
The steady drum-beat of those inflammatory messages served to turn the battle of the sexes into a gender war.
The next step would be to conquer. And what was the target? Nothing less than the institution of marriage.
Robin Morgan, who would later become the editor of Ms. Magazine, referred to marriage as “A slavery-like practice.” Germaine Greer argued, “If women are to effect a significant amelioration in their condition, it seems obvious that they must refuse to marry.” Kate Millett extolled the destruction of the traditional family as “revolutionary or utopian.”
Persons who are interested in comprehending the scope of this relentless assault should peruse the Heritage Foundation report, Why Congress Should Ignore Radical Feminist Opposition to Marriage (www.heritage.org/Research/Features/Marriage/bg1662.cfm).
So what is the ultimate objective of this campaign of feminist class consciousness? Surprisingly, feminists have made little effort to disguise their goal. In her book Red Feminism, Kate Weigand makes this stunning admission: “this book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.” (http://print.google.com/print/doc?isbn=0801864895)
Subvert the gender system to overturn capitalism. Karl Marx would be pleased.