Are Marxists Equally Culpable As Feminists?
Masculist
true that some of them have been fighting the identity group stuff.
Tom
Society
"Masculist" <masc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b87ff28c-4b60-4650...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> On a scale of 1-10 how culpable for feminism are the Marxists?
Given that some form of feminism predated Karl Marx,
the answer to your question (taken in the most literal sense)\
is zero.
However, the especially poisonous feminism we see today
that descends from Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan,
Kate Millett, Robin Morgan, Naomi Wolf, Michelle Goldberg,
and the like is the spawn of the Marxist ideological germ line.
Modern grievance feminism (is there any other kind?) has
been said to be a Marxist heresy - that is, feminist ideology
engulfs much of Marxism but substitutes gender war in place
of economic class war.
> It's true that some of them have been fighting the identity group
> stuff.
"Some of them" - them who, feminists? That would be odd
because feminism is the identity group politics of female
supremacists.
--
I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable
political act, that the oppressed have a right to
class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
Robin Morgan, _The Demon Lover_ (1989)
(Ms. Morgan is also a past editor of _MS_ magazine_)
cited in _Leaving the Left_ by Keith Thompson
Sentinel/Penguin Group, New York (2006) p.43
Masculist
> "Masculist" <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b87ff28c-4b60-4650...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On a scale of 1-10 how culpable for feminism are the Marxists?
>
> Given that some form of feminism predated Karl Marx,
> the answer to your question (taken in the most literal sense)\
> is zero.
Feminism may predate marxism but isn't it true that many of the
socialist advocacies before Marx also were fueled by a variety of
feminism?
> However, the especially poisonous feminism we see today
> that descends from Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan,
> Kate Millett, Robin Morgan, Naomi Wolf, Michelle Goldberg,
> and the like is the spawn of the Marxist ideological germ line.
> Modern grievance feminism (is there any other kind?) has
> been said to be a Marxist heresy - that is, feminist ideology
> engulfs much of Marxism but substitutes gender war in place
> of economic class war.
Interesting. In this sense of gender war being a heresy against
marxist class warfare, I'm all for it. The trouble is the gender war
is too one sided presently.
> > It's true that some of them have been fighting the identity group
> > stuff.
>
> "Some of them" - them who, feminists? That would be odd
> because feminism is the identity group politics of female
> supremacists.
True, I was referring to some of the leading marxists like Gitlin and
I forget the other guy. They used "common dreams" as the phrase to
identify their non identity group variety of marxism. It's clearly
aimed at getting the feminists off their backs.
> --
> I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable
> political act, that the oppressed have a right to
> class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.
>
> Robin Morgan, _The Demon Lover_ (1989)
> (Ms. Morgan is also a past editor of _MS_ magazine_)
>
> cited in _Leaving the Left_ by Keith Thompson
> Sentinel/Penguin Group, New York (2006) p.43
This book looks interesting. I hope it's in audio.
Tom
Marcus Aurelius
because of the political power that the same affords them.
True communism is inherently extremely hostile towards women.
Why? True communism is only about one thing, "class struggle."
Attempts by feminists, ethnic groups, racial groups, and nationalistic
groups to include themselves as
a part of this "class struggle" are rejected as "opportunists" in
classical communist theory.
In fact, Communist theory, under Stalin, Lenin, and other communists
refers to women as " social parasites."!
Why? Women demand much more than men from society while providing
society with much less than men!
Men are much more productive than women and can defend the state.
As a result of the aforementioned, women in true communist states are
discriminated against as second class citizens!
I had a Polish girl friend who wrote to me while Poland was still a
communist state. She would write to me and tell
me how angry, despondent, and depressed that she was because of the
economic, political, and social inequities that
she faced under Communism.
Communist women have formed groups lamenting their second class status
under this system.
Although I am a men's rights activists, I condemn the injustices and
oppressive acts instituted under Communism towards women.
Masculist
That does it...I'm a commie! <smile>
Tom
retardsman
democracy = matriarchy, as the planet has aptly demonstrated
it was born of The Goddess, and it'll die of her too
i'd gladly be a Communist, if it really meant antifeminism
but y'all are just teasing poor ole ray, as usual
offering up eden, then cruelly snatching it away!
all ideologies and politics lead to female supremacism and subjugation
under pathetic male "elites"
fuck all of 'em
Andrew Usher
> > Although I am a men's rights activists, I condemn the injustices and
> > oppressive acts instituted under Communism towards women.
>
> That does it...I'm a commie! <smile>
Communist governments, once in power, had a realistic view of women.
This should give the lie to claims that socialism or Marxism are
necessarily feminist. Instead, one might say that the influence of
feminism is due to excessive democracy.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
Thugs like Stalin always emerge though.
> but y'all are just teasing poor ole ray, as usual
>
> offering up eden, then cruelly snatching it away!
>
> all ideologies and politics lead to female supremacism and subjugation
> under pathetic male "elites"
>
> fuck all of 'em
It does look bleak but maybe there's a way.
Tom
retardsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
oh, theres a way alrightee
it doesnt end with ism tho
Andrew Usher
> oh, theres a way alrightee
>
> it doesnt end with ism tho
Well, that's very meaningful!
Andrew Usher
Masculist
It made perfect sense to me Andrew. You have to believe..."isms" are
child's play. It's all written in the snox. Dig?
Tom
> Andrew Usher
retardsman
lol yeah, "taming the shrew sole bent to our purpose"
Andrew Usher
No. And I'm not going to 'dig' your (apparently) private language.
Andrew Usher
retardsman
no, you are far too smug to learn anything, so why should you learn
about that, eh?
anything you dont already know, O Andrew Usher, is certainly not worth
learning!
nor is any example of Andrew Usher's ignorance worth overturning!
it's like a Custer Decision!!
why, that would be WORK! not to mention the PAIN of having to
discover, and wrestle with, something beyond your vast psychic comfort
zone
why, everything worth understanding is already known by Andrew Usher,
indeed like net denizenry in general and toto, he/she is a veritable
EveryManWoman of Erf, tremendously proud of his ignorance and even
more tremendously defensive of it
lirch on, Andrew Usher!
lirch i say! for
even in cyberville, thou Toll Bones rattle at a walk!
;O)
Andrew Usher
> no, you are far too smug to learn anything, so why should you learn
> about that, eh?
>
> anything you dont already know, O Andrew Usher, is certainly not worth
> learning!
>
> nor is any example of Andrew Usher's ignorance worth overturning!
> it's like a Custer Decision!!
>
> why, that would be WORK! not to mention the PAIN of having to
> discover, and wrestle with, something beyond your vast psychic comfort
> zone
I think you're projecting. I learn new stuff all the time. I also
acknowledge what I don't know. You have never even tried to tell me
anything that I don't know, so how can I be blamed for not doing so?
On the other hand I've never seen you try to learn anything new, nor
acknowledge ignorance of anything.
I write everything in clear English prose; why can't you? And don't
appeal to humor either, I haven't found you to be the least bit funny.
> why, everything worth understanding is already known by Andrew Usher,
> indeed like net denizenry in general and toto, he/she is a veritable
> EveryManWoman of Erf, tremendously proud of his ignorance and even
> more tremendously defensive of it
Now that's really projecting! You don't even know if you're ignorant
or not, yet you assume anyone that contradicts you must be.
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
"Society" <Soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> "Masculist" <masc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b87ff28c-4b60-4650...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > On a scale of 1-10 how culpable for feminism are the Marxists?
>
> Given that some form of feminism predated Karl Marx,
> the answer to your question (taken in the most literal sense)\
> is zero.
>
> However, the especially poisonous feminism we see today
> that descends from Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan,
> Kate Millett, Robin Morgan, Naomi Wolf, Michelle Goldberg,
> and the like is the spawn of the Marxist ideological germ line.
> Modern grievance feminism (is there any other kind?) has
> been said to be a Marxist heresy - that is, feminist ideology
> engulfs much of Marxism but substitutes gender war in place
> of economic class war.
Karl Marx didn't invent politicl scapegoating, Society. It's ironic
that feminists who made up a silly patriarchial war against witches by
the Catholic church use the same methods themselves against working
class men. Scapegoating unpopular groups has been popular for ages
going back at least to the age of the Romans persecuting Christians.
Democracy at it's worst is 2 wolves and one sheep deciding what's for
dinner and Marxism aspired to the lowest common denominator.
Marxism used to be strictly a policy wonk hobby by people who had little
marketable skills and this is what made them both saavy in group
politics and simultaneously naive about how the real world such as
business worked (such as Obama) but what's interesting is the number of
saavy businessmen who have jumped on the cool aid express lately such as
Bill Gates, George "made a buck off the holocaust" Soros, and the owner
of university of Phoenix, Bill Pepicello. Also, science has become a
joke with believers in Global Warming resorting to tactics that put the
ol' Vatican of Galileo's time to shame. Thanks guys! You've made the
persecutors of Galileo look GOOD by comparison!
Something must really be alluring about marxism for so many people,
including those such as working class men and the wealthy who stand to
be the first to be strung up, to love it so much.
I guess it's the notion of wanting to help and save the world but
realizing that they don't have enough money, even if they're wealthy, to
do so on their own. Helping a few people or even more than a few such
as Bill Gates has done, simply isn't as fun as having a big powerful
dictatorial government ram "goodness" down everyone else's throats.
Marxism is the scientology of religion, science, and politics but took
all of the worst elements of all of them in one toxic brew.
> > It's true that some of them have been fighting the identity group
> > stuff.
>
> "Some of them" - them who, feminists? That would be odd
> because feminism is the identity group politics of female
> supremacists.
The view notion of feminism is identity politics. Even the "nice"
feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
men. They'll throw out a few sympathy gestures about the evils of
radical feminism and the hypocrisy of their fellow women but make no
mistake, they would rather see "equality" for women in getting goodies
while bashing men continue indefinitely rather than put women to the
real "equal" test and have them put out or get out because they know
that without men being "fair", there is no more faux equality for women.
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> Karl Marx didn't invent politicl scapegoating, Society. It's ironic
> that feminists who made up a silly patriarchial war against witches by
> the Catholic church use the same methods themselves against working
> class men. Scapegoating unpopular groups has been popular for ages
> going back at least to the age of the Romans persecuting Christians.
Precisely, and you similarly scapegoat the 'Marxists'.
> Marxism used to be strictly a policy wonk hobby by people who had little
> marketable skills and this is what made them both saavy in group
> politics and simultaneously naive about how the real world such as
> business worked (such as Obama)
Obama is definitely not a Marxist since he doesn't believe in any
philosophy. He only thinks the purpose of his job is to play politics
and socialise with important people in Washington.
> Also, science has become a
> joke with believers in Global Warming resorting to tactics that put the
> ol' Vatican of Galileo's time to shame. Thanks guys! You've made the
> persecutors of Galileo look GOOD by comparison!
The sad fact that many scientists promoting global warming have gone
to excessive lengths in their battle with 'sceptics' can do nothing to
impugn science, only the scientists. Besides, they are not responsible
for the use of their ideas for political purposes; rather, it is such
use that inspires the scientists to act in such unscientific ways (not
that I am excusing them, just explaining).
> Something must really be alluring about marxism for so many people,
> including those such as working class men and the wealthy who stand to
> be the first to be strung up, to love it so much.
Yes, there surely is something alluring about socialism (which you now
call Marxism); it is that government can be employed to serve the
welfare of all people and not just the welfare of the privileged.
> Helping a few people or even more than a few such
> as Bill Gates has done, simply isn't as fun as having a big powerful
> dictatorial government ram "goodness" down everyone else's throats.
It has nothing to do with 'goodness'. It is the very purpose of
government to undertake those projects that no one alone can do. This
idea is far older than Marx, and attaching his name to it is nothing
more than 'guilt by association'.
> Even the "nice"
> feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
> feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> men.
And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
behave any differently in any case?
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> In article <bRwWm.59731$ky1.34...@newsfe14.iad>,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Society" <Soci...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
> > "Masculist" <mascul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You miss the larger historical picture of political parties vis a vis
feminism. It was the Right who invented "progressivism" that relied
almost totally on feminism. Then FDR moved the democrats toward the
same alliance using Marxism instead of capitalism and sealing the deal
with feminism with the passage of CRA'64. Before FDR the dems were
the conservative party, now they are the progressives while the repubs
moan pathetically, "But we were the original progressives" as they cow
tow to all the identity bullshit the Left metes out.
You see Mark, women are attracted to wealth and of course rich men are
attracted to pleasing women so therefore whoever pleases women more
gets more of their power. It doesn't matter Left or Right, just who
carries feminist water. Now both parties are tripping over themselves
to please women.
Tom
Masculist
That may be true Andrew but when they consistently use marxist
strategies like identity groups, anti-religion, language control etc,
one has to call a marxist a marxist. The whole Left has been using
these strategies in spades for 40 years now, and yes, Obama is one of
their better practitioners...a pinko in black disguise.
Ironically, the Right has not only done nothing to resist this marxist
stuff, they dumbly go on conceding to it. The question is are they
doing this because they are stupid or simply pussies? Remember, the
Repubs were the first feminists and perhaps it made them the old
pussies while the dems are the new pussies. Or maybe this all serves
some other agendas of the Right?
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > It has nothing to do with 'goodness'. It is the very purpose of
> > government to undertake those projects that no one alone can do. This
> > idea is far older than Marx, and attaching his name to it is nothing
> > more than 'guilt by association'.
>
> That may be true Andrew but when they consistently use marxist
> strategies like identity groups, anti-religion, language control etc,
> one has to call a marxist a marxist.
OK, they (the Democrats) may be influenced by these 'Marxist' ideas
but that does not imply we should oppose everything they do. I get
angry at people like Mark trying to hijack men's rights to promote the
right-wing cause. It's become perfectly clear over the past decade or
two that the Republicans have become implacable enemies of the non-
privileged esp. white men; I guess one could view the Democrats as the
lesser evil now, it's just so unfortunate that we only have two
parties to choose from.
> The whole Left has been using
> these strategies in spades for 40 years now, and yes, Obama is one of
> their better practitioners...a pinko in black disguise.
Obama is nothing more than a tool, an empty suit, even more than Bush
was.
> Ironically, the Right has not only done nothing to resist this marxist
> stuff, they dumbly go on conceding to it. The question is are they
> doing this because they are stupid or simply pussies?
They're doing it because they, too, have been corrupted by the Jews,
and yes, they're 'pussies' in that they've basically sold out anything
they ought to be standing for.
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
<c8e03169-869c-470f...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PolishKnight wrote:
>
> > Karl Marx didn't invent politicl scapegoating, Society. It's ironic
> > that feminists who made up a silly patriarchial war against witches by
> > the Catholic church use the same methods themselves against working
> > class men. Scapegoating unpopular groups has been popular for ages
> > going back at least to the age of the Romans persecuting Christians.
>
> Precisely, and you similarly scapegoat the 'Marxists'.
The "marxism is different than socialism in action" argument reminds me
of the feminists who say: "there are many different types of feminism".
Yeah, but they're all anti-men! :-)
> > Marxism used to be strictly a policy wonk hobby by people who had little
> > marketable skills and this is what made them both saavy in group
> > politics and simultaneously naive about how the real world such as
> > business worked (such as Obama)
>
> Obama is definitely not a Marxist since he doesn't believe in any
> philosophy. He only thinks the purpose of his job is to play politics
> and socialise with important people in Washington.
Marxism/Socialism is about playing politics since it is all about using
politics as a power tool while the right has other means at their
disposal to affect society (such as running factories and making stuff.)
> > Also, science has become a
> > joke with believers in Global Warming resorting to tactics that put the
> > ol' Vatican of Galileo's time to shame. Thanks guys! You've made the
> > persecutors of Galileo look GOOD by comparison!
>
> The sad fact that many scientists promoting global warming have gone
> to excessive lengths in their battle with 'sceptics' can do nothing to
> impugn science, only the scientists. Besides, they are not responsible
> for the use of their ideas for political purposes; rather, it is such
> use that inspires the scientists to act in such unscientific ways (not
> that I am excusing them, just explaining).
>
> > Something must really be alluring about marxism for so many people,
> > including those such as working class men and the wealthy who stand to
> > be the first to be strung up, to love it so much.
>
> Yes, there surely is something alluring about socialism (which you now
> call Marxism); it is that government can be employed to serve the
> welfare of all people and not just the welfare of the privileged.
Hahahaha!
Yet, how often have you heard marxists/socialists/leftists say that they
need to help poor white Christians rather than wealthy Democrat minority
special interest groups? :-)
On the contrary, I have heard leftists sneer at how those who do not
fall into their special interest categories and groups wind up being
discriminated against and "bitter" and that they have it coming for,
well, being bitter. "If they weren't so bitter about us burning down
their house, then maybe we could afford to be nicer."
My point is that leftists are in love with a FEELING of using the
government to help the downtrodden (while mostly using it to help
themselves or hoping to get some of that cool aid slush money for
themselves.) It's hypocrisy and greed at it's best.
> > Helping a few people or even more than a few such
> > as Bill Gates has done, simply isn't as fun as having a big powerful
> > dictatorial government ram "goodness" down everyone else's throats.
>
> It has nothing to do with 'goodness'. It is the very purpose of
> government to undertake those projects that no one alone can do.
Using that definition and scope, most leftist positions don't fit into
it just as most feminist positions aren't about "equality."
Most people are able to afford education, healthcare, etc. and
especially if the government didn't raise the costs due to regulation
and political backscratching (the insurance companies are REAL happy
with the current bill! They'll just define CEO bonuses out of their
"profit" margin :-)
In theory, the left claims to help the "poor" but they are currently
stabbing them in the back via giving away their jobs to illegal
immigrants to get more votes.
> This
> idea is far older than Marx, and attaching his name to it is nothing
> more than 'guilt by association'.
Now I agree with that!
Indeed, Heidi's notion of feminist equality is nothing more than
reverence for the ol' Virgin Mary and a few times when women ran things
while their Viking husbands were off raiding and raping and looting
(before they turned into such wusses).
But that's not the only thing the left has warped for it's own purposes:
Environmentalism (flying around in private jets while proclaiming the
sky is falling because of jets) and ignoring actual environmental issues
(such as the effects on white flight caused by integration on suburban
sprawl. Ooops! That's too much truth, er, Science they can handle!)
Lowering the costs of healthcare (while raising them by taxing the
middle class to pay off their special interests), education (many middle
class pay for education twice to deal with integration) and integration
(which really is just surburban sprawl and white flight as the left
because limosine liberals.)
Marxism degenerates into these absurdities because marxism is absurd
simply as a religion in denial that it's a religion because it's "right"
and "truth" while other comparitively honest religions who engage in
that thinking are wrong. :-)
> > Even the "nice"
> > feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
> > feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> > men.
>
> And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
> behave any differently in any case?
>
> Andrew Usher
I didn't imply that they would. I was simply observing that feminist
apologists are merely apologizing for the excesses of feminism while not
addressing the root unfairness. (It's like they say that it's wrong
that a socialist burns down your house to make a better society but they
should just tax you at 90% instead.)
regards,
PolishKnight
Andrew Usher
> > Precisely, and you similarly scapegoat the 'Marxists'.
>
> The "marxism is different than socialism in action" argument reminds me
> of the feminists who say: "there are many different types of feminism".
> Yeah, but they're all anti-men! :-)
Socialism has a long history before Marx and after Marx. Socialist
ideas go back before recorded history, even. It's not remotely the
same case.
> > Obama is definitely not a Marxist since he doesn't believe in any
> > philosophy. He only thinks the purpose of his job is to play politics
> > and socialise with important people in Washington.
>
> Marxism/Socialism is about playing politics since it is all about using
> politics as a power tool while the right has other means at their
> disposal to affect society (such as running factories and making stuff.)
That's Jewish crap, you know, the Jewish 'Marxists' believe in using
socialist rhetoric to appeal to the masses while actually playing a
naked power game.
> > Yes, there surely is something alluring about socialism (which you now
> > call Marxism); it is that government can be employed to serve the
> > welfare of all people and not just the welfare of the privileged.
>
> Hahahaha!
>
> Yet, how often have you heard marxists/socialists/leftists say that they
> need to help poor white Christians rather than wealthy Democrat minority
> special interest groups? :-)
Well, I say that. And you're right when you say that special interest
groups are wealthy, that's exactly why they get so much influence:
Wealth corrupts!
> On the contrary, I have heard leftists sneer at how those who do not
> fall into their special interest categories and groups wind up being
> discriminated against and "bitter" and that they have it coming for,
> well, being bitter. "If they weren't so bitter about us burning down
> their house, then maybe we could afford to be nicer."
Why do you think leftists need to do that? It's because they thrive on
identity politics, on opposing the historically dominant culture
simply for the sake of opposing it; that's an old Jewish trick.
> > It has nothing to do with 'goodness'. It is the very purpose of
> > government to undertake those projects that no one alone can do.
>
> Using that definition and scope, most leftist positions don't fit into
> it just as most feminist positions aren't about "equality."
>
> Most people are able to afford education, healthcare, etc.
But fewer all the time, because of the things that are going on with
our economic system. How does this show that it's not appropriate for
government to step in?
> and especially if the government didn't raise the costs due to regulation
> and political backscratching (the insurance companies are REAL happy
> with the current bill! They'll just define CEO bonuses out of their
> "profit" margin :-)
Of course. The current health-care bill is entirely corrupt. It's not
serving the ostensible purpose to reduce the cost of health-care and
increase its availability: only single-payer would do that, really.
> In theory, the left claims to help the "poor" but they are currently
> stabbing them in the back via giving away their jobs to illegal
> immigrants to get more votes.
The Republicans do that just as much, though.
> Marxism degenerates into these absurdities because marxism is absurd
> simply as a religion in denial that it's a religion because it's "right"
> and "truth" while other comparitively honest religions who engage in
> that thinking are wrong. :-)
Well, it is for many people, a replacement for religion. That's why
they don't think rationally about it; religion is always about that,
setting off certain areas in which we're not allowed to think
rationally.
> > > Even the "nice"
> > > feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
> > > feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> > > men.
> >
> > And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
> > behave any differently in any case?
>
> I didn't imply that they would. I was simply observing that feminist
> apologists are merely apologizing for the excesses of feminism while not
> addressing the root unfairness.
Well, they're simply not being honest. But they're women, what do you
expect?
> (It's like they say that it's wrong
> that a socialist burns down your house to make a better society but they
> should just tax you at 90% instead.)
Look, if you take 90% of one man's income, it's theft. If you take it
equally from everyone, then it might be OK because the unfairness
vanishes, and if it's for a good cause.
Andrew Usher
PolishKnight
<6df2e98e-5a8d-4fca...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Masculist <masc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Happy New Year Tom!
I disagree with you (Yes, I know THAT never happens... :-)
I don't think Obama is this great orator and leftist that so many made
him out to be. I think that's just good ol' affirmative action and
white guilt going on.
Rush Limbaugh had a lot of fun pointing out how Hillary and the
Clinton's felt hijacked that Obama stole their thunder. THEY were
supposed to be the young, good-looking, charming, swarmy, smart leftists
who would take leftism to the next level and Clinton, well, someone else
that is, 'blew it'.
Under Obama, the left is taking an unintentional gamble and playing a
serious end-game: They are no longer boiling the frog with subtle
encroachments via general corruption and special interest entitlement
buy offs. They're going all out to get their whole agenda passed even
if it's awful by THEIR standards. It's like someone insisting upon
getting a Rolls Royce even if they know it's a broken down, beat up
jalopy.
> Ironically, the Right has not only done nothing to resist this marxist
> stuff, they dumbly go on conceding to it.
I agree. McCain and GW Bush have happily jumped on the illegal
immigration bandwagon along with even looking the other way at reverse
discrimination. Even Ronald Reagan nominated a feminist to the Supreme
Court. Many conservatives I know push for their daughters to become
career women and then wonder why they wind up unmarried spinsters half
the time.
> The question is are they
> doing this because they are stupid or simply pussies?
That a rather poor dichotomy. Pussies are often stupid because they
fail to see alternatives to giving in.
I think the answer is more subtle than that: A lot about what the left
has said and done is, on the surface, quite appealing and likable. Who
doesn't like getting their cake and having it too? In addition, it
takes leftist style back-scratchem politics to get elected in the first
place. Decent, hard working conservatives have a distaste for politics.
The two paradigms that conservatives need to smash apart are the:
1) Ratchet effect leftism (the notion that once a leftist puts their
foot on political ground, it stays there forever. This is very
appealing aspect of leftist philosophy and very disheartening to the
right.)
2) That politicians need to behave like leftists to get elected or water
down their ideals. For example, Ann Coulter is largely said to be
unable to go into politics because of her "extreme" views but Al Franken
who is a rabid extremist and figure got through. McCain won the
nomination precisely because the left viewed him as a win-win since he'd
be half on their side anyway.
If those two idealistic hurdles can be overcome, leftism would smash
like humpty dumpty. (Ideally before Western Civilization itself
collapses into a third world banana republic style of society.)
> Remember, the
> Repubs were the first feminists
Elaborate on this please. Are you referring to the original suffragist
movement? Or to chivalry? Or both?
In that case, I agree with you and this is why Republicans and
conservatives are half hearted at opposing feminism.
> and perhaps it made them the old
> pussies while the dems are the new pussies.
I don't think the dems are "pussies" in the sense that when it comes to
dealing with domestic enemies that play by the rules, they feel very
arrogant and confident since they bend, ignore, and break the rules at
every opportunity while accusing their opponents of foul.
But when they come up against, say, radical Islam they become very
polite and don't want any Mapplethorpes offending them.
In the heart of every leftist is the real Dream of becoming a high
ranking member of a stalinist government and getting goodies handed to
them while those who oppose or talk back to them are jailed or thrown
out on the street. They want to be the ones riding in the private jets
and limos to global warming the-sky-is-falling conferences to preach
against the little people... riding around in economy class airplanes
and compact cars.
> Or maybe this all serves
> some other agendas of the Right?
>
> Tom
I have LONG given that some thought.
I think that conservative ideals have been the factor in producing
affluence and improved lifestyles for all rising boats including and
especially the wealthy. How many wealthy people want to live in most
inner cities of major cities in the USA? I drive past their suburban
enclaves all the time with big fences and machine gun toting guards.
Georgetown, DC is 97% white and nearly all cars have Obama bumper
stickers!
I'm sure there is a room where the powerful and influencial swap notes
but I don't think the leftist ideals really figure in a right wing
revolution. I think they're going for stuff like getting gas prices
high so they can make a few bucks, that sort of thing. They probably
have some emotional investment in certain ideals that makes it difficult
even for them think rationally about the effects of leftism and feminism
in the long term.
> > > Even the "nice"
> > > feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
> > > feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> > > men.
> >
> > And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
> > behave any differently in any case?
I don't. I do think that there are right wing women such as Ann Coulter
and Schlafly who are far more to the right and supportive of men's
rights than most men out there though.
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
<<SNIP>>
> > and perhaps it made them the old
> > pussies while the dems are the new pussies.
>
> I don't think the dems are "pussies" in the sense that when it comes to
> dealing with domestic enemies that play by the rules, they feel very
> arrogant and confident since they bend, ignore, and break the rules at
> every opportunity while accusing their opponents of foul.
>
> But when they come up against, say, radical Islam they become very
> polite and don't want any Mapplethorpes offending them.
How many radical muslims even know who Robert Maplethorpe is?
I think Maplethorpe was more offensive to the radical Christians--
who, at least, had a chance to see or read about his work.
>
> In the heart of every leftist is the real Dream of becoming a high
> ranking member of a stalinist government and getting goodies handed to
> them while those who oppose or talk back to them are jailed or thrown
> out on the street. They want to be the ones riding in the private jets
> and limos to global warming the-sky-is-falling conferences to preach
> against the little people... riding around in economy class airplanes
> and compact cars.
>
> > Or maybe this all serves
> > some other agendas of the Right?
> >
> > Tom
>
> I have LONG given that some thought.
>
> I think that conservative ideals have been the factor in producing
> affluence and improved lifestyles for all rising boats including and
> especially the wealthy. How many wealthy people want to live in most
> inner cities of major cities in the USA? I drive past their suburban
> enclaves all the time with big fences and machine gun toting guards.
> Georgetown, DC is 97% white and nearly all cars have Obama bumper
> stickers!
Manhattan is about as inner city as you can get----and lots of
rich people live there! The same goes for central Boston and
San Francisco. What you're calling 'inner city' really has
nothing to do with location---it is really the pre-gentrification
state of development.
>
> I'm sure there is a room where the powerful and influencial swap notes
> but I don't think the leftist ideals really figure in a right wing
> revolution. I think they're going for stuff like getting gas prices
> high so they can make a few bucks, that sort of thing. They probably
> have some emotional investment in certain ideals that makes it difficult
> even for them think rationally about the effects of leftism and feminism
> in the long term.
>
>
> > > > Even the "nice"
> > > > feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of radical
> > > > feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> > > > men.
> > >
> > > And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
> > > behave any differently in any case?
>
> I don't. I do think that there are right wing women such as Ann Coulter
> and Schlafly who are far more to the right and supportive of men's
> rights than most men out there though.
>
That may be true---but will they ever have any power beyond a media
audience? A major part of the problem for men's rights is that
those who speak out for them are pretty much limited to speaking
out for them. And it often seems that those who speak loudest
are irritating enough that they are unlikely to acquire significant
political power.
Mark Borgerson
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <marek1965-D6C47...@news.giganews.com>,
> mare...@comcast.net says...
> <<SNIP>>
> > > and perhaps it made them the old
> > > pussies while the dems are the new pussies.
> >
> > I don't think the dems are "pussies" in the sense that when it comes to
> > dealing with domestic enemies that play by the rules, they feel very
> > arrogant and confident since they bend, ignore, and break the rules at
> > every opportunity while accusing their opponents of foul.
> >
> > But when they come up against, say, radical Islam they become very
> > polite and don't want any Mapplethorpes offending them.
>
> How many radical muslims even know who Robert Maplethorpe is?
> I think Maplethorpe was more offensive to the radical Christians--
> who, at least, had a chance to see or read about his work.
I wasn't talking about Mapplethorpe literally (since I referred to him
in the plural. I don't think he's been cloned. :-) I was using him as
an allegory for artists who go out of their way to offend religious
groups as a publicity stunt.
It wasn't only "radical" Christians offended by his work, of course, but
even so, my point is that even so-called radical christans rarely engage
in murder over merely offensive artistic behavior.
> > In the heart of every leftist is the real Dream of becoming a high
> > ranking member of a stalinist government and getting goodies handed to
> > them while those who oppose or talk back to them are jailed or thrown
> > out on the street. They want to be the ones riding in the private jets
> > and limos to global warming the-sky-is-falling conferences to preach
> > against the little people... riding around in economy class airplanes
> > and compact cars.
> >
> > > Or maybe this all serves
> > > some other agendas of the Right?
> > >
> > > Tom
> >
> > I have LONG given that some thought.
> >
> > I think that conservative ideals have been the factor in producing
> > affluence and improved lifestyles for all rising boats including and
> > especially the wealthy. How many wealthy people want to live in most
> > inner cities of major cities in the USA? I drive past their suburban
> > enclaves all the time with big fences and machine gun toting guards.
> > Georgetown, DC is 97% white and nearly all cars have Obama bumper
> > stickers!
>
> Manhattan is about as inner city as you can get----and lots of
> rich people live there!
Agreed. This is why I used the term "most":
most: �adjective, superl. of much or many with more as compar.
1. in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: to
win the most votes.
2. in the majority of instances: Most operations are successful.
3. greatest, as in size or extent: the most talent.
Therefore, I am clearly indicating there are exceptions.
> The same goes for central Boston and
> San Francisco. What you're calling 'inner city' really has
> nothing to do with location---it is really the pre-gentrification
> state of development.
Have you ever seen HGTV? I suppose EVERYWHERE is in a pre-state of
"gentrification" before flippers with money arrive to clean it up. :-)
And yes, I use the term inner city literally because logically inner
cities should be the wealthiest part of a city with the wealthy living
around financial and government centers and then different surburbs,
near and far, which have differing degrees of prosperity sometimes right
next to each other.
However, NYC and SF are largely the exception rather than the rule and
I'm glad you brought them up: Indeed, many of the ultra wealthy that can
afford to live in Manhattan and SF prefer not to travel that often to
other cities precisely because they are largely office parks surrounded
by suburban sprawl.
> > I'm sure there is a room where the powerful and influencial swap notes
> > but I don't think the leftist ideals really figure in a right wing
> > revolution. I think they're going for stuff like getting gas prices
> > high so they can make a few bucks, that sort of thing. They probably
> > have some emotional investment in certain ideals that makes it difficult
> > even for them think rationally about the effects of leftism and feminism
> > in the long term.
> >
> >
> > > > > Even the "nice"
> > > > > feminists who advocated equality and criticized the excesses of
> > > > > radical
> > > > > feminism always put women's equality first ahead of fairness towards
> > > > > men.
> > > >
> > > > And what makes you think that women (given political power) would
> > > > behave any differently in any case?
> >
> > I don't. I do think that there are right wing women such as Ann Coulter
> > and Schlafly who are far more to the right and supportive of men's
> > rights than most men out there though.
> >
> That may be true---but will they ever have any power beyond a media
> audience?
Reminds me of this exchange from Back to the Future:
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, "Future Boy", who's President in the
United States in 1985?
Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan.
Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor?
[chuckles in disbelief]
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis?
[rushing out and down a hill toward his laboratory]
I love your expression: "any power beyond a media audience?" Er, a
large media audience is a power in and of itself! Didn't you ever hear
of revolutionaries seizing the radio stations?
Leftism itself had to tolerate many communists going to prison or losing
their jobs in the media and politics during the McCarthy era. Only
after decades of must-see-tv programming did they finally achieve
mushing young minds into leftists...
> A major part of the problem for men's rights is that
> those who speak out for them are pretty much limited to speaking
> out for them. And it often seems that those who speak loudest
> are irritating enough that they are unlikely to acquire significant
> political power.
Au contrare, men's rights is literally human rights and closely tied to
the free market system since men generate most of the wealth and
therefore freedom. Feminism and other leftist agendas can only survive
via redistributionism (stealing) and class warfare (scapegoating) and is
therefore anti-freedom.
On the other hand, leftism which used to claim to be associated with
nobel causes is now largely scientifically and morally bankrupt: Global
warming, sexual harassment legislation (which makes leftists into bigger
prudes than right wingers who watch Benny Hill), workers rights
(leftists support illegal immigrants taking working class jobs as a
voting demographic ploy), etc.
Even women's rights will ultimately be pushed out of the back of the
cart (shhhh! They like to think they're DIFFERENT and the politicians
only lied to the other rubes like working class white men.)
regards,
PolishKnight
Mark Borgerson
mare...@comcast.net says...
> In article <MPG.25a95871b...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <marek1965-D6C47...@news.giganews.com>,
> > mare...@comcast.net says...
> > <<SNIP>>
> > > > and perhaps it made them the old
> > > > pussies while the dems are the new pussies.
> > >
> > > I don't think the dems are "pussies" in the sense that when it comes to
> > > dealing with domestic enemies that play by the rules, they feel very
> > > arrogant and confident since they bend, ignore, and break the rules at
> > > every opportunity while accusing their opponents of foul.
> > >
> > > But when they come up against, say, radical Islam they become very
> > > polite and don't want any Mapplethorpes offending them.
> >
> > How many radical muslims even know who Robert Maplethorpe is?
> > I think Maplethorpe was more offensive to the radical Christians--
> > who, at least, had a chance to see or read about his work.
>
> I wasn't talking about Mapplethorpe literally (since I referred to him
> in the plural. I don't think he's been cloned. :-) I was using him as
> an allegory for artists who go out of their way to offend religious
> groups as a publicity stunt.
If you have to explain an allegory, you've failed---except, perhapss,
in a literature class.
>
> It wasn't only "radical" Christians offended by his work, of course, but
> even so, my point is that even so-called radical christans rarely engage
> in murder over merely offensive artistic behavior.
Perhaps--but they do seem to engage in murder over other types of
offensive behavior. Check on this with your local ob/gyn clinic.
How about you now follow up with some stats on the number of wealthy
people who want to live in inner cities?
>
> > The same goes for central Boston and
> > San Francisco. What you're calling 'inner city' really has
> > nothing to do with location---it is really the pre-gentrification
> > state of development.
>
> Have you ever seen HGTV? I suppose EVERYWHERE is in a pre-state of
> "gentrification" before flippers with money arrive to clean it up. :-)
>
NAH, HGTV is not on the viewing schedule. I'm not planning to either
buy, sell,or extensively remodel a house in the near future. That
channel is probably of greater interest to renters with dreams of
home ownership! ;-)
> And yes, I use the term inner city literally because logically inner
> cities should be the wealthiest part of a city with the wealthy living
> around financial and government centers and then different surburbs,
> near and far, which have differing degrees of prosperity sometimes right
> next to each other.
In a lot of cities, zoning regulations actively work to keep businesses
and residences separated. That's one of the major failures of US urban
planning IMHO. It does seem to be more prevalent in small to medium
size cities, though.
>
> However, NYC and SF are largely the exception rather than the rule and
> I'm glad you brought them up: Indeed, many of the ultra wealthy that can
> afford to live in Manhattan and SF prefer not to travel that often to
> other cities precisely because they are largely office parks surrounded
> by suburban sprawl.
By 'they' I assume that you mean the other cities. I agree that that
model is one of the reasons that the larger cities are more attractive
than the medium-size cities where the businesss/residential split is
more drastic.
Did they seize them with a well-drafted infomercial? ;-)
> Leftism itself had to tolerate many communists going to prison or losing
> their jobs in the media and politics during the McCarthy era. Only
> after decades of must-see-tv programming did they finally achieve
> mushing young minds into leftists...
Who was mushing the young mind in the interim? I was watching TV then,
and I don't remember any lack of programming between 'Victory at Sea'
in the early 50s and the Reagan era.
>
> > A major part of the problem for men's rights is that
> > those who speak out for them are pretty much limited to speaking
> > out for them. And it often seems that those who speak loudest
> > are irritating enough that they are unlikely to acquire significant
> > political power.
>
> Au contrare, men's rights is literally human rights and closely tied to
> the free market system since men generate most of the wealth and
> therefore freedom. Feminism and other leftist agendas can only survive
> via redistributionism (stealing) and class warfare (scapegoating) and is
> therefore anti-freedom.
>
Do you read what you write before you post it? I would expect better
spelling and some agreement in number if you did so.
You've made the unsupported connection between wealth and freedom.
Would you please support that connection.
> On the other hand, leftism which used to claim to be associated with
> nobel causes is now largely scientifically and morally bankrupt: Global
> warming, sexual harassment legislation (which makes leftists into bigger
> prudes than right wingers who watch Benny Hill), workers rights
> (leftists support illegal immigrants taking working class jobs as a
> voting demographic ploy), etc.
>
OK, so just give them a noble prize! ;-)
I wasn't aware that leftism had a scientific basis---perhaps I've been
studying the wrong sciences.
> Even women's rights will ultimately be pushed out of the back of the
> cart (shhhh! They like to think they're DIFFERENT and the politicians
> only lied to the other rubes like working class white men.)
>
Mark Borgerson