Fox News: "Liberals who reject that men should dominate women are anti-science."

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

You think you know so much.

Ironic.

so while we do not have a draft at present, it doesn't stop a tyrannical dictator and a bunch of CFR guys from making it happen.

Why would they when thousands are enlisted but there's no room, they have to wait for spots to open up. Could it happen? Of course it could, but it's unlikely given the situation I mentioned above.

You are so sure you know what the people in government are doing and have plans for.

As much as anyone is privy to, I feel pretty up to date, yes.

You obviously have zero awareness of how the radicals wanted the ERA legislation

Which put up the notion that women could be compelled to serve in a time of war and a shortage of troops? I happen to agree. Why should men carry that burden alone?

Of course the best option is to avoid wars instead charging headlong into them, but you aren't interested in how to stop them because all those notions belong to "radicals and communists".

I suggest you wake thyself up and stop accepting the spoon fed baby food your Progressive friends feed you to make you think the Nanny Government is your best friend and loves you cradle to grave.

No one feeds me anything, and I suggest that if you are going to continuously argue with me, to such great lengths that try to at least remember some details about our past arguments. I can't believe in their ideas, I just happen to understand them, and I happen to understand that if we're going to insist on Capitalism than we are going to have to accept a social safety net.

If you remember nothing else about me, remember this... so we can move a little further along in our arguments... I am an Anarchist, I believe in worker ownership of the means of production, I believe that we should have a very limited government, I believe in 100% liberty and equal access, I believe in our Constitution and the Rights it guarantees, I believe that if workers owned what they produce and not private persons owning the worker, there would be a hell of a lot less need for charity or welfare. So don't accuse me of loving government, I despise it.

communist devils in our government

I know you can't comprehend this, but for anyone else reading along... It's not even possible for a true communist to be in government, to understand that you would have to first understand that Soviet Russia, modern China, North Korea etc... are not Communism. I know you won't get but I have to at least try.

reply to post by Kali74

No one feeds me anything, and I suggest that if you are going to continuously argue with me,

Isn't that what you are doing with me? I even said that women should take their place among men as their equals. You completely picked my earlier post apart even though I didn't defend Fox news or anything that was stated that Fox news correspondents said. What must irk you is that even while not defending them, I won't support radical feminism. In other words, you cannot accept that I am not extreme on either side on this.
Radical feminists defend their right to end life in their very own wombs. That is Progressive, and it was so when Margaret Sanger spearheaded the movement of abortion birth control. It is thoroughly radical to condemn a woman for keeping her unborn baby with birth defects. You can come up with all sorts of rationalizations that work only if you imagine the baby is not alive, which is what they do in those clinics where they tell the woman it's just a clump of cells and then when the baby comes out crying, whimpering, and moving around they jab it with scissors. Dr Gosnell is a current example.
Obamacare uses tax dollars to perform taxpayer subsidized abortions.

I showed you that the Progressives and the radicals did indeed fully intend to force women into the military and on the front, and even Congress might have passed it, but people like Phyllis Schlafly stopped that from happening. It is a historical thing and you can google it. And that was the context of my post where I talked about women and the battlefront, because the red feminists were planning on it.
If you don't think that feminists were not co-opted by the communists, then look again.

As early as 1899 Lenin insisted that Clause 9 of the first draft program of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) contain the words: “establishment of complete equality of rights between men and women.” The program adopted by the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903 included this demand as well as the following special provisions:

“With a view to safeguarding the working class from physical and moral degeneration, and also with the view to promoting its capacity for waging a struggle for liberation, women should not be employed in industries harmful to the female organism, they should receive four weeks’ paid pre-natal and six weeks’ post-natal leave; all enterprises employing women should have nurseries for babies and small children, nursing mothers should be allowed to leave their work for at least half an hour at intervals of not longer than three hours, and male factory inspectors should be replaced by women in industries with a female labor force.”

www.icl-fi.org...

It would be foolish to overlook the hand in feminism that the communist party had.

reply to post by Kali74

I know you can't comprehend this, but for anyone else reading along... It's not even possible for a true communist to be in government,

Why would you say this? What represents "true communism"? Van Jones is a communist, albeit a Green one. He was in government unelected but appointed by POTUS. Valerie Jarrett is communist and comes from a communist family. Obama's grandparents and mother were communist. Are you still going to deny that there are communists in government? Oh yah I nearly forgot Anita Dunn, the one who told students at graduation that she loved Mao and put him in league with Mother Theresa.
David Axelrod may just be a slick PR guy, but he has red in his associations too.

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Jarrett

Like so many Obama appointees, Valerie Jarrett bears the unmistakable imprint of the president’s ideology. She is a leftist to her core, with notable personal ties to the communist movement. Jarrett’s maternal grandfather, for instance, was a Chicagoan named Robert Taylor, who in the 1940s was involved with such communist fronts as the American Peace Mobilization and the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee. Also a member of these groups was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist journalist who in the 1970s would mentor a young

In 1983 Valerie Jarrett married the son of Vernon Jarrett, a black journalist who formerly wrote for the communist-influenced Chicago Defender. In the 1940s, Mr. Jarrett was a leader of the Chicago chapter of American Youth for Democracy—youth wing of the Communist Party USA. He also served on a publicity committee for the Packinghouse Workers Union, a Chicago-based entity dominated by the CPUSA. In each of these endeavors, Mr. Jarrett had close contact with the aforementioned communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

frontpagemag.com...

No communists in government? What are you thinking? Do they have to be former KGB for them to be truly communist in your mind?

Would communist sympathizer seem more accurate to you? Is it far fetched that a communist wrote thee quintessential handbook for feminism in the 70's?

I am an Anarchist, I believe in worker ownership of the means of production,

I've heard this before. Is not worker ownership of the means of production part of the communist ideal? The dictatorship of the Proletariat, workers of the world unite and so on? Anarchism of the left is just a revolutionary tool. While you may personally wish for a non centralized type of utopia, the reality is that worker ownership really means centrally controlled state owned. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that is the reality. While you are telling me that the countries which have exhibited the most communist traits in world history(you forgot Cuba but you cannot claim that they have any Capitalist means whatever) are not really communist because they may be currently exhibiting some less communistic traits in some areas, you are at the same time trying to tell me that something which cannot truly exist without a dictatorship or centralized control is somehow existent. You seem to believe that if it is not fully communist then it cannot have communistic behavior. Do we have to run around with Che Guevara caps and hammers and sickles? (although some Obama campaigners did have Che Guevara posters up in their offices).

reply to post by Kali74

to understand that you would have to first understand that Soviet Russia, modern China, North Korea etc... are not Communism

I will give you that Russia no longer represents it's own former communist state.
It would be foolish to insinuate that the Communist Party is not still the central controlling authority in China, although they appear to be employing some State Capitalist ventures. Just try surfing the net in China without the Great Firewall controlling what sites you can see.

North Korea, I'm not ready to call them Capitalist or even socialist just yet

The North Korean government and Workers' Party of Korea (WPK, also known as the Korean Workers' Party) control most aspects of life, including major business entities. It calls itself a "socialist nation." The economy is centrally-planned.

The North Korean government was created under the auspices of the Soviet Union as a communist nation. However, over time the North Koreans developed their own version of communism called Juche, which replaced traditional Marxist-Leninism. See more here. In recent years, the military has grown more powerful than the WPK. This is called songun, or the military-first policy, and is explained here.
Contrary to the theory of communism, the nation is ruled under a hereditary, cult of personality dictatorship; the current "Gen Y" dictator of Korea, Kim Jong Un (see more here), is the grandson of Kim Il Sung, the founder of North Korea.
Bottom line: North Korea is a communist dictatorship as that is commonly understood and a far stricter one than others such as China and Vietnam. That said, North Korea places great emphasis on its unique Korean-style of dictatorship.

www.koreanconfidential.com...

Sorry, I'll take their word for it over yours.

So does any of that mean there aren't communists, communist sympathizers, Democratic Socialists, Marxists and extreme radical leftist/Progressives running about the government?
Do you really think all that change and transformation and going "forward" isn't the bald face of Marxism?

There are quite a few examples in nature of the female going out to hunt for her offspring.

FOX NEWS faithful will ignore this fact and see this thread and conversation as another sign that their wives should stay home barefoot, pregnant, and tied to the kitchen sink.

If FOX NEWS and GOP want a return to the values of the 1950's, let's start with an immediate return to the 90% tax rate for the wealthy. And remember that it was a DEMOCRAT, JFK, who first reduced it for them to 70%.

reply to post by babybunnies

There are quite a few examples in nature of the female going out to hunt for her offspring.

And there are examples of female eating their offspring. Does that mean we do it as well? But in any case, the human population has an anthropological heritage of hunting and gathering, although usually the males hunted and females gathered berries, roots, and herbs.

I do seem to remember a conservative Sarah Palin hunting game in Alaska. I think there were women in the old west who knew how to shoot guns. One Annie Oakley comes to mind.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I do seem to remember a conservative Sarah Palin hunting game in Alaska. I think there were women in the old west who knew how to shoot guns. One Annie Oakley comes to mind.

You have made me aware you are a Female TEH..

How do you feel being told you should be at Home, or Earn Less than your Husband,by these Conservative Pundits?
And your Not doing so.. is a Reason for the Decline of the Marriage Institution?

I'll be waiting for your Reply with Bated Breath...

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I do seem to remember a conservative Sarah Palin hunting game in Alaska. I think there were women in the old west who knew how to shoot guns. One Annie Oakley comes to mind.

You have made me aware you are a Female TEH..

How do you feel being told you should be at Home, or Earn Less than your Husband,by these Conservative Pundits?
And your Not doing so.. is a Reason for the Decline of the Marriage Institution?

I'll be waiting for your Reply with Bated Breath...

First, I have already said in posts you clearly didn't read too well that I did not defend any Fox news statements on this, nor did I defend statements made by any of its correspondents on the issue and I stated clearly and in no uncertain terms that WOMEN SHOULD TAKE THEIR PLACE AS EQUALS TO MEN AND SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL JOBS. I don't know what part of that you misunderstood as me thinking women should stay home or earn less, since I MADE IT VERY CLEAR IN MY POST AND AM POSTING THIS IN BOLD LETTERING SO YOU GET IT!

I also said that a woman who chooses to stay at home should not be ridiculed. Got a problem with that?

I don't think there's anything more to be said then. I'm sure I've cleared up this matter, but if not, I suppose I could go back to my post and repost it.

I don't consider women having abortions as a measure of women's equality with men, although perhaps Margaret Sanger had different ideas. The original precept Margaret Sanger had was that if women were at home with large numbers of babies, then she couldn't be involved in anything else due to the amount of time and energy spent in caring for the household. This was the reasoning for the original birth control concept, not abortion on demand because one was too lazy to wear a condom.
But Sanger herself had radical ideas

Here is an article linking communism and radical feminism. Sorry but that is what I am talking about, not women who want to be CEO's of a large corporation and can afford the latest and greatest daycare.

www.lewrockwell.com...

Here's some background on Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood

In 1912 Sanger and her family settled in New York City. She became a member of both the Women’s Committee and the Marxist Committee of the New York Socialist Party. “Our living-room,” she would write in her 1938 autobiography, “became a gathering place where liberals, anarchists, Socialists and I.W.W.’s [Industrial Workers of the World members] could meet.”

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

Sanger and Friedan are two examples of radical feminists with ties to either the Communist Party or Marxist/socialist organizations, and they are both considered to be main proponents of selling radical feminism to millions of women.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


As I said you wouldn't get it. Communism, Anarchism, Leftism are anti-statist... It's pretty brilliant that dictators use the word in it's antithesis, making people auto-dismiss the concept, don't you think?

Here's another example... most elected members of the GOP claim to be Conservative Capitalists? Are they?

Men should not have power over women can do anything a man
Can do and we can do it in a dress and high heels trust me. Sure
Some women aren't as strong as men and don't know as much
Stuff as men do but that doesn't mean women can't learn. Just
Saying!!! However, men are very good workers and protecters
But women can do things just like men can.

reply to post by Kali74


Would you care to define for me then, the "true communist", since now you are telling me that libertarian anarchists can be communists. Apparently, according to Wikipedia so can collectivist anarchists. But Van Jones, who self-identified as a communist can not be a true communist?
Is your version of a true communist an anarcho-libertarian type, a collectivist anarchist, a collectivist statist, Marxist, Leninist, or what?
And then tell me which kind Betty Friedan was, as she was definitely identified as "one time member of the Young Communist League", a communist youth group, and was active as a journalist for a communist front organization. Apparently her membership in this youth league is documented by the FBI. She is also described by Daniel Horowitz as a Stalinist-Marxist.

It is patently incorrect to claim that all real communists are anti statists and that anyone who is statist is somehow not really a communist. Perhaps you mean only in your stated ideal of anarcho-communism where everyone chooses to live in a communal utopia but somehow never gives up their private property or freedom. Both Marx(author of the Communist Manifesto and referred to by many as the "father of communism") and Lenin, the early soviet communist leader knew and stated that to achieve the goals of communism there would have to be a dictatorship of the proletariat. I don't know about you, but the word dictator sure dredges up the horrible nightmare of Stalin and gulags. I can only think of one or two reasons why leftists keep arguing that Stalin was not really communist and that the type of centralized control of the means of production in the former USSR was not really communist is that people are dreaming of something more Utopian and pleasant and cannot admit that the very structure of communism with it's hatred of the family is the reality of what Marx taught and what has been practiced for the most part in every country said to be communist.
But maybe you think the Communist Party of the Soviet Union wasn't really communist. Maybe you think the Comintern wasn't really communist either.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union emerged from the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin. After the February Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks pushed for socialist revolution and the overthrow of the Provisional Government. On 7 November, the Bolsheviks orchestrated the October Revolution which overthrew the Provisional Government, thus transferring all governing power to the workers' councils (Russian: soviets). Immediately thereafter, the Bolsheviks founded the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic - the world's first constitutionally socialist state. After a bloody civil war, at the end of 1922 the Bolsheviks emerged victorious and unified territories of the former Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The Party established the Third International, known as "Comintern" ("Communist International"), an international network of communist parties loyal to the Russian Communist Party, with the aim of fighting "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State."[1

en.wikipedia.org...

Or you can call it socialism if you like, since they did. So did they abolish the State in Russia? No, but they have changed the structure a bit.

I sought out the smartest, most beautiful, confident, educated, talented woman to be my partner, and I was incredibly fortunate when that woman settled for me.

I wish that everyone could be as happy with their lives, and their partners, as I am with mine.

The idea that some men believe they are 'more' or 'better' than females makes me sad, both for the men and for the women, because relationships like that simply cannot be as full as a relationship based on mutual human respect.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Van Jones is a communist, albeit a Green one. He was in government unelected but appointed by POTUS.

He was appointed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs in an administration that despite promises, refuses to take any meaningful action regarding it. He's definitely further Left than Obama. He was a communist, he is now a Progressive. I couldn't find the original article but Politifact mentions a profile in a bi-weekly alternative publication in which Jones explains this shift in his own words.

The far Left (Communists, Anarchists etc) believe you can't fix the State because the State will always put itself first and those within the State will, almost without fail, act in self preservation and self promotion. Van Jones came to disagree with that thought process and felt that better progress for the environment and poor communities could be made by working within the State. I think he's done a lot of good work, but I don't agree with him on working within the State (government and the private sector) and I got pretty mad and vocal when he tried to pull the Occupy movement into a re-elect Obama campaign with his 99% Spring flop.

Do they have to be former KGB for them to be truly communist in your mind?

A bright, flashing neon sign indicating your flawed logic.

If in my previous post, I said Soviet Russia was not Communist... how could I think a true Communist would be exemplified by the KGB, a creation of the Soviet State?

Is not worker ownership of the means of production part of the communist ideal?

There's more to it than that. Worker ownership of the means of production is Socialism, which is an economic model, not an ideology. Many on the far Left, not just Communists, believe that our economy should be Socialist not Capitalist. Progressives and Liberals are typically Capitalists... Anarchists, Communists, Left Libertarians etc... are typically Socialists. Communists believe the worker can be a commune, Anarchists believe the worker can be either... communal or individualist.

While you may personally wish for a non centralized type of utopia

Utopia is a fantasy and has nothing to do with the reality of what the Far Left thinks is achievable. Worker ownership is still work, and damn hard work.

the reality is that worker ownership really means centrally controlled state owned.

That would make it State Capitalism. Cuba, North Korea, China or any other labeled Communist country you can throw at me are State Capitalist... the State owns the means of production, not the worker.

reply to post by Kali74


Hi Kali74, you aren't going to convince thirdeye of anything. She is the queen of hyperbole. Think sex-ed is a good idea? Then she will label you a pedophile. Think social programs are ok? You and the government of the biggest and strongest capitalist nation in the world are "devil communists". Of course she has no proof or even an argument, but you will hear how right she is. Funny thing, as we all work for a living, that we live in a communist state. Hyperbole, and a lot of it.

CJ

Is it just me or does the running of this posting, along with this one:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
seem an odd pairing to anyone else?

I find it interesting that Gloria Stienem ( Mz magazine ) the queen of radical feminism was on the CIA payroll.

The terms "men" and "women" are real descriptors
"liberal" and "conservative" are NOT

Matriarchal societies seem work just fine till they encounter extrememly GREEDY and well armed patrarchal societies

and then the bottom line:
"Happy wife, happy life"

Originally posted by muse7


Societies that choose conservative politics will by definition not move forward.

Oh really? Are you sure liberals really "move forward" or do they just go off in random directions whenever they feel like it?

Anyway, we've supposedly been "moving forward" for decades and look where we are. We have this wonderful thing called the internet where we can network with other people and search for information that might be hidden from us by the (demonstrably) rotten government and media and all we can do is bicker about the lies we get fed by the MSM.

I think if we were really moving forward the internet wouldn't be infested with communists who can't let go of the Marx fairytale.

reply to post by Kali74

He was appointed as Special Advisor for Green Jobs in an administration that despite promises, refuses to take any meaningful action regarding it. He's definitely further Left than Obama. He was a communist, he is now a Progressive.

Hi Kali, thank you for the civil discourse on this. After considering our discussions of yesterday, and after looking at another thread on a slightly different subject but still involving the economic realm, I came to a feeling that you are truly trying to pull away from many of the schemes of economic systems which you feel are a point of slavery, and I commend you for that. I believe that your initial support of the Occupy movement was to achieve freedom from the oppressions of the "banksters" and corrupt banking system, and I agree with you that the bankers are behind the oppression. This however does not mean that the bankers are the only ones behind it. The Hydra of Hercules fame takes on many forms. The reason it is called a hydra is because it has so many different arms but all attached to the same monster.
So now for all intents and purposes, I will say that regardless of whether Jones used to be a communist and now a Progressive, or whether he is "further left" than POTUS, he is still offering a corrupted program and it is merely a different version of the old operating system. Because I understand that socialism was considered by communists including Marx and Lenin to be a bridge between Capitalism and Communism, I understand that it makes very little difference what type of gradation or form it comes in. It is still the same stuff with different packaging, and that is incidentally what UN Agenda 21 is.
Agenda 21 uses breezy new terms like "Smart Growth" and "Sustainability" that catch the eye of the individual who loves nature. In the end it will be seen to be another OS of the same old communist plot for world takeover, just with pretty breezy sounding terms and flowery language.
I think I have already delineated some of the problems I had with the ideas of the Occupy movement, and that is that primarily they prefer things like having their student loans subsidized or completely paid off by someone other than themselves(socialism), forms other than our Constitutional Representative Republic(they seek to change our system to something more like direct democracy which is again more socialistic or even communistic), some of their vocal members have stated in no uncertain terms they wish to overthrow Capitalism), and they are anarchic in their approach and have no problems squatting on public property, indeed many of them seem to hail from a Marxist point of view, which I cannot nor will ever support in any way, and it's for more reasons than I delineated on this forum which are not just economic but spiritual.
Van Jones was chosen by POTUS and by Valerie Jarrett precisely because of his communist mindset, make no mistake. The only mistake they made was in not covering it up as well as they like covering things up. After Jones was expelled from his position in government as an unelected appointee, and he was exposed in the media after making some thoroughly radical statements, he must have realized that he wasn't affecting enough people that way. So if he is now "Progressive" it likely just means he is finding what way will make people listen to him, and it's probably some damage control as well.
All of that being said, the Progressive Era came in with a lot of horrible ideas, such as those expounded on by Margaret Sanger, that is that women are just baby makers in their relation to men, and the way out was to stop making babies and leave the men so they can pursue other avenues of expression.
So ok, but her ideas were more radical and she was part of the awful program of sterilizing young black women for eugenic purposes. That was and still is a leftist, Progressive agenda, and John Holdren just widened it to everyone on the planet with his bizarre ideas of mass medication of the water.
Who else thinks like that? Why it would be Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as they support using vaccinations for the same purpose.
This is diabolical stuff and they have no problems eliminating all but themselves or those who directly support them.
To be fair, people on the right were also behind the bankster program of the Federal reserve, but it was still a two party solution. The Bush family is in the thick of it, so I am not justifying anyone on the right.
However, I do not, nor will I ever subscribe to anything with a collectivist solution, because whether one calls it anarcho or not, it still subscribes to an overriding of individuality, they just think they can retain their individuality within the scope of a collectivist system. I do not think that is realistic and neither did Marx or Lenin.

reply to post by Kali74


So Sanger presented a Progressive solution to the problems women were having of being tied to the household with little if any other choices. She also presented a Progressive solution to the problem of population control, and a certain Rockefeller supported her. This is why he helped finance her "American Birth Control League", which is now Planned Parenthood.
Why does every Progressive solution have to be so against the nuclear family and against life itself? Abortion and depopulation are both deathly solutions. It is well known that Marx hated both the nuclear bourgeois family unit and religion. Or at least mainstream religion. I have read that Marx was indeed connected to the Illuminati hierarchy, so any writing of his will be tainted with the desire for world domination.
Today we see Progressives suggesting that our children do not belong to their parents, that it requires a whole village to raise the children, that the State is supreme and that children exist for the State(Dewey), that society is responsible for taking care of the children collectively, that the UN can declare children to be free from their parents(UN RIghts of the Child), and that mom's homemade lunch does not have adequate nutrition and must therefore be replaced by something the State recommends(chicken mcnuggets).
The Communists saw that women would have to be drafted into their cause, and so there are many feminists who have direct or indirect ties to the communist system.
So they capitalized on women's discontent, an easy thing to do. It was to destroy the family for communism.
Probably many Progressive women today really believe it is about their independent choice to not have babies, but they do not understand the relationship between the depopulation agenda and their ability to reproduce.