From Aaron Burr's e-mail discussion list; 2003 04 25
To whomever wrote in response to me:
Please read my responses to yours inbetween the lines.
ORIGINAL PROPOSITION STATED:
The real power in this country has been on the Right for a hundred years or more, and
it could be argued rightfully so due to the threat of communism.
Why is Communism worse than Capitalism?
This is a VERY important legal and sociological question to the Father's Rights
First, we must identify things. Feminism is "communism." ....
[And the objection was:]
Feminism is not communism. Feminism is feminism, it is all about women, not the
Wrong. FEMINISM IS COMMUNISM. Who says this? The FEMINISTS THEMSELVES.
First, if you go to my first book at
and read my first chapter you will find these proofs:
- ...Ellen Wilkinson,...had served her political apprenticeship in the feminist and
peace movements, and in the communist party.. [pp. 123, A Century of Women.]
- Anna Louise Strong doctor in philosophy, campaigner for child welfare and
socialist party member, appeared to be the epitome of radical progressivism...(she) found
herself facing empty tables at the American Unions against militarism: The
respectable members were returning to war work. The Presidents of the Womens
Clubs were swinging behind the President. Only a handful of socialists,
anarchists and industrial workers of the
WorldWobbliesremained. [pp. 91, A Century of Women.]
- Cristal Eastman in contrast, challenged the political mainstream as a
socialist-feminist. [A Century of Women, p. 97]
- Socialists and Anarchist who continued in opposition were severely persecuted,
when Emma Goldman organized a No-Conscription League, the government arrested every young
man attending the meeting. [A Century of Women, p. 100]
- ...In Europe (Margaret Sanger) researched the history and practice of
birth-control, meeting writers on sex psychology like Edward Carpenter and Havelock Ellis,
with whom she had a love affair. She also made friends with anarchists and socialist
advocates of birth control Rose Witlop, her companion Guy Aldred and Stella Browne.
Havelock Ellis was however, to convince her that the cause of sexual reform would be best
served by separating it from the left.
Sangers supporters in the United States tended to be linked to the Socialist Party,
the Industrial Workers of the World or Anarchist circles. [A Century of Women,
- The Socialist-Feminist Journalist and agitator Agnes Smedley, for example, was
arrested in April 1918 because of her support for Indian Nationalist as well as birth
control, bringing Margaret Sanger to her defense. [A Century of Women, p.
- In 1922...the Anarchist Rose Witcop and her companion Guy Witcop...[along] with
these Socialist and anarchist women gained support no only from women who were anxious to
lima their families, but also from radicals committed to sexual liberation. For example,
Harry Wicks describes his autobiography, Keeping My Head, how birth control and free love
were part of the Battersea Socialist movement, along with vivisection and
vaccination. [A Century of Women, p. 140]
- Egalitarian in theory if not in practice, the party attracted numerous women like
Dorothy Healey. Healey joined the Young Communist League (YCL) in 1928 at age fourteen and
went on to serve as the leader of the Lost Angeles district Communist party for over
twenty years. [Second to None, Vol II, by Ruth Barnes Moynihan and Cynthia
Russett © 1993 The University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 0-8032-3166-0, p. 189.]
- From the vantage point of an African-American feminist, with revolutionary
aspiration toward socialism that refuse to go away." [Malcom X, In Our Own Image,
Joe Wood, Editor, @1992, St. Martin's Press, Inc., 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010,
ISBN 0-312-06609-0, p. 41.]
- ...The girls became the world's first lady stockbrokers and, when that palled,
proprietors of the Welsley newspaper that was first to publish Marx's Communist Manifesto
in the United States. [SEX IN HISTORY, by Reay Tannahill, @1980, 1992,
Scarborough House/ Publishers; ISBN 0-8128-8540-6; p. 397.]
- The late Eleanor Leacock was an anthropologist and feminist who published claims of
societies that were supposedly "Egalitarian," in regard both to wealth, and to
sex. Her writings display a strong Marxist bent. She wrote a long and admiring
introduction for her new edition of Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, which was published by International House Publishers (New
York, 1972), the publishing arm of the Communist Party of the USA. [Deceptions of a
'Gender Equal Society': Eleanor Leacock's Depiction of the 17th-Century Montagnais-Naskapi,
by Robert Sheaffer, June, 1993]
- In a new book, "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique", Smith
College professor Daniel Horowitz (no relation) establishes beyond doubt that the woman
who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on
her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind.
- In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and
professional propagandist for the Communist left for a quarter of a century before the
publication of "The Feminist Mystique" launched the modern women's movement.
- Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her
mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War
fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on
atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.
- ...Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife "was in the
world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and "seldom was a wife
and a mother". [Betty Friedan's secret Communist past Why has this feminist icon
continued to cover up her years as a party activist? By David Horowitz SALON magazine
Jan. 18, 1999 ]
In fact, (as shown above) it was a belief [that it was] a pair of lesbian feminists
whom first brought the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO into the United States, published it,
sold it, and disseminated it. Throughout feminism's history (right up to Hillary
Clinton) you will find them knee-deep into Socialism and Communism. In fact, the
Democratic Party (at whose last convention had every main speaker a female and not male
excepting one: Ted Kennedy) can be considered the modern communist party of the
You are "clearly" wrong here. Not just clearly, but
"egregiously" wrong. Feminism was socialism in our past, and it is
socialism/communism now. [Its] goals are to deconstruct the family in order to gain
inroads to the control of capital:
- In the origins of the family, private property and the state Engels refers to Patriarchy
as a form of the family whose essential features were the incorporation of the bondsmen
and the power vested in the Paternal head of the family. [F. Engels (1884). The origins of
the family, private property and the state, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works,
London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 488.] Similarly in the Communist Manifesto
Marx and Engels refer to The little workshop of the Patriarchal master. Here
Patriarchy is understood as a social relation of domestic production. [K. Marx and F.
Engels The Communist Manifesto in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected
Writings, Oxford University Press, 1977 p. 227.]
However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by Marx and Engles is a
limited one. Patriarchy refers to the system under pre-capitalist modes of production in
which the means of production and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the
head of household, rather than a more generalized system of female subordination and male
The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from
Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p
4EE, pp. 6-7
Just the facts.
"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist
government is the goal of feminism."
Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, Catharine A.
MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press, Page 10
You trust MacKinnon? Feminists often seek to join themselves to Christianity too, does
that mean Christianity is evil?
The only feminists I know who seek to join themselves to Christianity are the
"Republican Feminists" (I believe, I cannot remember fully the subcategory (out
of many subcategories) of feminism which believes in Christianity. Again, to quote
from Volume I of my work:
- In the 1970s the concept of "republican motherhood" provided the rationale for
women's political activities. It also initiated a debate on women's education and led to
the first female academies. The term recalled Thomas Paine's ideal of the republican as an
independent, mature person dedicated to the good of society. It reflected women's newfound
patriotism, which developed during the American Revolution. Republican mothers had a dual
responsibility: to educate sons to be good citizens and to promote the communal good.
Throughout the nineteenth century, women used the rhetoric of republican motherhood to
justify their political activities, saying they could not be good mothers unless they
could vote to keep wrong doers out of public office.
Women's Progress in America, by Elizabeth Frost-Knappman
1994 ABC-CLIO, Inc.
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbera, CA 93116-1911
ISBN 0-87436-667-4; pp. 258-259
However; this is oxymoronic, as one of the avowed goals of feminism is to destroy the
church, patriarchy and Christianity. This is not a guess, this is within the
definition of feminism itself.
Feminism hates the church, Patriarchy and Christianity. Period.
Its first mandate is to control mankind's free will and the resources of economic
development. Know that Marx and Engel first goal was to deconstruct both the home
and family. This is the first LAW of Feminism and socialism/communism; destroy the
rule of the father.
That is no goal of socialism. Feminism and the evil rulers of society aim for this, not
WRONG. Again, you have zero idea of what you are speaking of. Zero.
Lenin tells us: "The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of
mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations
closer together, but to merge them. . ." How were they to do this? The
communist revolution's first goal was to deconstruct the home and family. It wasn't
the second thing they did in Communist Russia, it was the first thing:
- Citing Engels that it is the law of the division of labour that
lies at the basis of the division into classes. And utilizing his observation that
the original division of labour was between a man and woman for the purpose
of childrearingthat within the family the husband was the owner, the wife the means
of production, the children the labour, and the reproduction of the human species was
important economic criteria in itself.
The Law of the Father?, Mary Murray, p. 21
cited from S. Firestone,
The Dialectic of Sex, London
The Womans Press, ©1979; p. 14
Citing from the same work:
- In The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,
Engels refers to Patriarchy as a form of the family whose essential features were the
incorporation of the bondsmen and the power vested in the Paternal head of the family. [F.
Engels (1884), The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, in
Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p.
488.] Similarly, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to The
little workshop of the Patriarchal master. Here Patriarchy is understood as a social
relation of domestic production. [K. Marx and F. Engels The Communist
Manifesto in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford
University Press, 1977 p. 227.]
However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by Marx and
Engels is a
limited one. Patriarchy refers to the system under pre-capitalist modes of production in
which the means of production and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the
head of household, rather than a more generalized system of female subordination and male
The Law of the Father
Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism
by Marry Murray, Routledge
11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7
We have already placed many of the feminist leaders in the camp of socialism, and now
we have found that socialism/communism main intent, as cited by Marx and Engels, is to get
rid of the "little Patriarchal Master" within the home in order to deconstruct
These propositions are an identity.
From Chapter Three of my book:....
Appeal to authority, logical fallacy. Even worse because your "authority" is
a) no authority at all and b) yourself.
Perhaps my words do not entreat you. However; you have not addressed the authority
of the other works I cite over and over...meanwhile, all you offer is dissonance...nothing
more. No cites...no authority, just imbecilic noise.
We must understand, that feminism, is socialism/communism.
Indeed, where Karl Marx and every communist on earth want to create a class struggle in
order to control the means of production, feminists just replace class with gender.
Then they are different, aren't they? Class and gender divides are interconnected, the
traditionalist rightist upper/middle classes fighting for the idolisation of woman.
Wrong. You didn't read it right. Perhaps they are different. But,
feminist are using communism, and instead of using the term 'class' to perpetrate
communism on an unsuspecting American society they are using 'GENDER.'
In other words, it is the thief using a gun instead of a knife to steal your property.
Just because you claim the gun and knife are different terms, does not mitigate the
crime of thievery.
Your argument holds no logic. Again, only noise.
Where communist attempted global conquest, now, the feminist create a silent
"constant state of war" implemented silently against every home and family via
feminism. I find it very odd that other their party intellectuals have also made
this same connection:
Everything feminists advocate was advocated by the Communist Party of the United States
in the 1940's and 1950's.
Go on, prove it. Feminism is far more akin to Nazism than to Communism, right
down the the parallels between Marija Gimbutas and the Nazi Ahnenerbe and the ethnic
cleansing of planned parenthood.
What planet are you from? Take me to your leader.
Have you ever heard the term "Feminazi?"
If you have, then "why" did the term gestate? Why is it in the lexicon of
American thought and vernacular?
And again, you have made my case; as "if" you admit that feminism is "far
more akin to Nazism than to Communism" you will have to disprove my theory that
Feminism/Socialism/Communism/Fascism are all the same plant in different stages of growth.
I want a sidebar notation here, that it is Lenin whom said: "The goals of
socialism are to lead to a communist state."
Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique (1963) and founder of modern
She was nothing of the sort.
LOL. Yeah...right. This fact, has been documented over and over. In
fact, I think she herself has finally admitted it. It also has been published
publicly for quite some time now and odd that every person publishing these
facts has not been sued...
Would endeavor quotes to this fact? Please go to:
and read: "What Betty Friedan Didn't Want You to Know" by that garrulous
propagandist Henry Makow Ph.D., August 15, 2001.
hid the fact that she had been a Communist activist for 20 years.
Steinem worked for the CIA.
And also was a socialist. Again, all those within Feminist enclaves are not for
either Christianity, Capitalism, Patriarchy, nor even truth or justice. Please note:
"Logic is a weapon of oppression." (Nye in PK:152)
"Logic was made for men by men." (Nye 1990:177)
(See Feminist historian, Kate Weigand's, Red Feminism: American Communism and
the Making of Women's Liberation, Johns Hopkins Univ.Press, 2001). Feminism simply
transfers Marxist class analysis to gender. The aim is the same: the
"patriarchy" (white men, capitalism) is the source of all evil and must be
Socialism has nothing against the "patriarchy". Socialism has nothing against
white men. The impact of feminism has been disproportionately negative on men of racial
You have zero knowledge. Again, from my first book, quoting a University Professor,
he quotes socialism as being "Anti-Patriarchy." Why? If it is, then
why are Feminism and Socialists/Communists from the same root of the same plant in
different stages of growth??
Women (the proletariat) and anyone else deemed "oppressed" (gays, people of
color) must be handed position and power on a silver platter.
Women are the now legendary bourgeoisie.
Whatever that means.
"Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was
the intellectual organization of class hatred.
Socialism is nothing of the sort.
1.) Who said anything about socialism? Why did you make that intellectual
Could it be, because Feminism is an offshoot of Socialism, exactly the way Lenin saw
Socialism as the pre-state of Communism??
Hmm. Me thinks this could be something called a "Freudian
slip" on your part. I think you just admitted my case.
2.) Socialism: Any theory or system of social organization which would
abolish, entirely or in great party, the individual effort and competition on which modern
society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action, would introduce a more perfect
and equal distribution of the products of labor, and would make land and capital, as the
instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the community."
[From: Blacks Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, © 1933, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn.,
(What is very odd, is that just on a whim, I went to Google and typed in the term
Socialism. You know what the second hit is? "Radical Women Freedom
Socialist Party." Odd, no? What "is" the FSM you ask??
Well, don't let me tell you, here is what they say:
THE FREEDOM SOCIALIST PARTY IS a revolutionary, socialist feminist organization, dedicated
to the replacement of capitalist rule by a genuine workers' democracy that will guarantee
full economic, social, political, and legal equality to women, people of color, gays, and
all who are exploited, oppressed, and repelled by the profit system and its offshoot --
imperialism. [Go to: http://www.socialism.com/whatfsp.html
Gee...kind of sounds close to the legal definition of socialism given by Blacks Law
Feminism's business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education,
politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow "patriarchal
tyranny." In this undertaking, the male's civil rights count for no more than those
of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.
Yeah, of course.
 [S]econd-wave feminism stands as an excellent example of a 1960s movement that
blossomed from the seeds that Communist women germinated thirty years earlier. (American
Communism and the Making of Womens Liberation, by Henry Makow, PhD., October 3, 2001;
 Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism. (From: Toward a Feminist
Theory of the State, by Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press,
 They will subvert all foreign nations using this same gender warfare as well.
I believe this is what is presently occurring foundationally in the Middle East.
 What civil rights has wrought. Paul Craig Roberts, July 26,
2000. Townhall.com - Creators Syndicate.
Feminism, Socialism and Communism-is the exact opposites from each other. Like
matter and anti-matter they are totally disparate and cannot occupy the same area.
COMMUNISM. "A system of social organization in which goods are held in
common, the opposite of the system of private property;
As any Christian knows, this is the only way to run a society.
No it is not. Communism is directly against religion. Again, are you ignorant
of history? Stalin as well as other communist regimes (China in most
particular) remove(d) all religions....and outlawed them. Indeed, wasn't it Marx who
said "Religion is the opiate of the masses?"
Methink's no true Christian will countenance communism.
communalism, any theory or system of social organization involving common ownership of
agents of production of industry, the latter of which theories is referred to in the
popular use of the word "communism" while the scientific usage sometimes
conforms to the first alone and sometimes alternates between the first and second; also
the principles and theories of the Communist Party, especially in Soviet Russia.
(Feinglass v. Reinecke, D.C.Ill., 48 F.Supp. 438, 440.)
As Dr. Milton Freedman....
Appeal to incredibly biased authority.
No...again, all my cites come from "things" called "Dr.'s" or
You mistake education for bias. You must be a product of our national education
Please note the delusion as quoted by Herbert Hoover: "The Socialists claim
they would preserve democratic institutions and all other freedoms except economic
Any Feminist government is a socialist government which devolves to Communism then
institutes fascism to support it.
Any feminist government must have an element of social control. Socialism is
anti-feminist. Read a bit of Orwell, he was a real Socialist.
I have no idea what you are saying. I'm not sure Orwell was a socialist. (I
think I have heard that), however his writings do not expound that political philosophy,
in fact, expose it and lend it as reprehensible.
I would suggest you (and everyone following this thread, read the work on him located at:
That URL is quite eclectic in cataloguing who Orwell was and [shows] excerpts from his
diary. "IF" Orwell was in fact, a socialist he may have started out
as one, but I do not believe he ended as one, as his work depicts. Please note a
quote of his from the aforementioned URL:
- In 1943 Orwell felt that the people in England, because of their
admiration for the Russian war effort, consciously or unconsciously overlooked the faults
of the communist regime in the USSR. He also felt that the English communists used their
position as unofficial representatives of the USSR to prevent the truth from coming out -
just as they had done in connection with the Spanish Civil War.
- "Indeed, in my opinion, nothing has contributed so much to the
corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist
country. [...] And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of
the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement."
[CEJL vol. 3 p. 458] [From:
In this you may be right however; the final conclusion of this analysis says it all
from this document:
- 5. Conclusion
- On the surface Orwells political development may seem filled with
contradictions. After his time as a policeman in Burma he was an anarchist; a superficial
one perhaps and not very consistent but that was how he felt. In the early 1930s he became
more critical of society, and in The Road to Wigan Pier we see him as a socialist. But he
is an undogmatic socialist who does not care much for the theories and who criticises the
doctrinaire socialists, who precisely because of their theories, have forgotten that
socialism first and foremost is about liberty and justice. After Spain he was very
sympathetic to anarchism and was even more undogmatic after having seen what dogmatism can
lead to. The membership of the ILP therefore seems inconsistent, since party membership
will always to some extent result in dogmatism. But this must be seen in relation to the
war, which at that time was just around the corner. Orwell was against the war and he felt
that the ILP was the only party that would adopt the right attitude to the war, most
likely because of the partys pacifism. With the war a drastic change in Orwell took
place. Having been against the war he was now for it; he criticised the pacifists for
views that he himself had held just a few years before; and he left the ILP. With Animal
Farm he took up the themes from Spain and Homage to Catalonia and elaborated on them.
Orwells anti-authoritarianism became more pronounced as he came closer to Nineteen
Eighty-Four, where we see Orwell as a fairly consistent anarchist who saw the dangers of
the State and leaders in general.
- As said, this development may seem contradictory, but this is because
Orwell lived in the present. His views were always to some extent shaped by the situation
he at any given time was in. Perhaps he only had one view. In 1936 Orwell said that to him
socialism first and foremost meant liberty and justice, and this view he never left. The
contradictions were in many ways a consequence of this basic belief.
However; under the system of CAPITALISM, you NEED the family.
Capitalism doesn't need the family. The family is very important in socialism, in
capitalism it is expendable and won't survive long.
You are so wrong it is not even funny. You must read and educate yourself; as you
are just making superfluous remarks with no authority. Just one book which
controverts your thinking (out of many) is quite definitive on this question. Read:
Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism,
Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE.
Capitalism uses peoples individual needs in which to have them accrue
wealth. To have Capitalism, you need families.
In what way? You are a fool.
Read Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Freedman, ©1962; University Chicago Press
© 1962; also The Road to Serfdom by Frederick A. Von Hayek; as well as the
Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.
All of whom were written by apparent fools.
You need a free society. You NEED sexual regulation.
Contradictory statements. Freedom and regulation are mutually exclusive. Freedom
and capitalism are mutually exlusive. Capitalism is the only cause of poverty,
starvation and so on. It is a child of greed.
Wrong. You are in direct contravention of all great thinkers from Plutarch to Freud
(and beyond) who understood that "to have an advanced society, you need sexual
The idea that you can make sex work for society, was foundationally what Marx and Engels
feared, and why they called fatherhood, "the little Patriarchal Master."
They did not want him, as that person accrued wealth from his home and family, and NOT FOR
All family law in the US is based off of "Wisconsin Model" Article 81 Russian
Soviet Family Law. Clearly, this precept is not only an important one, it is one of
which both the government, socialists/feminist take quite seriously. Their own acts
How many families did Pinochet and Thatcher destroy?
Easy question: The answer is 14.2.
In socialism there can never be the underclass there is in capitalism.
Tell the Russians that.
Apparently their whole society collapsed under that belief.
Where CAPITIALISM needs all members of the family to voluntarily submit to Patriarchy
(sexual regulation) the feminists/communists NEED to destroy the family:
Capitalism has destroyed the patriarchy, Socialism will reconstruct it.
You know not of what you speak. They are completely disparate ideals.
Socialism and Patriarchy are in direct contravention of each other. That is why
Marx, and Engels, all the way up to Trotsky and beyond, made sure that the Father and
Christianity (Church) were outlawed.
You cannot have state-directed control over a society and have free Fathers reigning
independently within their homes. That's like saying you are going to have cancer by
having all the cells in the body be healthy. No...Cancer needs an unhealthy cell to
propagate. It needs its own disease to flourish.
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living
together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an
objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by
separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common
interests." (From: Functions of the Family, by Linda
Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
What's that got to do with socialism?
That was cited from a feminist who was a socialist who declared the goals of destroying
the family. In other words, you have a socialist declaring what for so long you have
been attempting to dissuade otherwise.
This is called "proof." I know you aren't familiar with things like
'proof' but, this discounts your whole thesis and proves socialists need to
deconstruct and destroy the family. Just like the Socialist Feminists admitted above
at their URL.
In other words, you cannot have a free independent media which informs the public
and then have a Matriarchal / Feminist society.
That's exactly what we've got, fool. Capitalism is about money, the media will do
whatever gets it the most money. In a socialist country it does what the government tells
it. Neither is honest. A feminist society, like the ball-less American society, will breed
a feminist media. A feminist government in a socialist country will cause a feminist
society through a feminist media. All capitalist media will reenforce the feminism in
society, only socialist media has the capability to go against this.
Read what you just wrote here over. You contradict yourself and you are
In Hillary Clinton's Village, the media can ONLY be a propaganda arm of the government.
The media is always for propaganda, the propaganda of it's owners. Capitalist
media can be swayed by the preexisting views of the public too, beyond that all
media is just propaganda. Even Thatcher, in her dispute with the unions, had the BBC lie
outright to make her jackbooted stormtroopers look like the wronger party.
Wrong...under a free-American Capitalist society, the media controls itself.
Indeed, if your proposition was true: then how in the past did the media expose great
corruption scandals, such as the Teapot Dome scandal? How did the media expose
the corruption of both,
GOVERNMENT and INDUSTRY??
Under your paradigm, these things couldn't happen, YET THEY DID.
How do you explain that? Water fluoridation?
You cannot have savings, and have a government with a huge 7 Trillion dollar debt.
In a socialist country that would never happen. Nor would there be the huge budget for
military and black projects.
I.B.I.D. See the term "Collapse of Russia" noted above.
You cannot have an intelligent society under Socialism, ergo, you need a dolt school
system which is dead last in world TMSS scores...
America is the least socialist of all the major countries on earth. Only Andorra, San
Marino and other tax haven type countries are less so. Socialism provides services
for the people, capitalism doesn't. Based, as Tony would say, on the size of your need,
not the size of your wallet.
Wrong. We have converted to a total socialist nation in every aspect. From
education to health care to government itself.
Capitalism provides a system where people help themselves. This has proven to be one
of the most efficient systems to help people on earth. You don't have to believe me,
believe the figures in regards to Family Law itself. The BEST place you can
place people on this earth, is not the single family household it is not gay and
lesbian, it is not the socialist "blended family" the BEST place you can
place a man, woman and child is in the two parent household.
This institution, throughout millennia has been the place where people are best protected,
best cared for, have the best sex and most reliability throughout their lives. There
is no other institution which even comes close to comparing to it.
under Patriarchy, you have highly efficient schools and an educated public as Thomas
Jefferson mandated, and which this nation implemented for almost 200 continuous years
(until the advent of modern feminism within our schools).
Then it's just diluted socialism. Anything publicly funded is socialism. Why have
a public school system, but no public health system, no publicly owned industries and so
on? Answer me that.\
Wrong. For our present school system was developed by a SOCIALIST named Horace Mann.
Once he took hold of our schools, they have devolved to the state where NOW the US is DEAD
LAST in world TMSS scores.
That is the genius of socialism within our socialist controlled educational schools.
> IT IS SELF-REGULATING FOR THE GREATEST PART;
AND IT IMBUES THINGS SUCH AS CHIVALRY AND CALVINISM WHICH DOES GREAT THINGS FOR ANY
Chivalry and calvinism. Worship of woman combined with fatalism. Yeah, great.
Yet socialism has no comparable institutions to stand up to these beneficial institutions
within Patriarchy and Capitalism.
These systems demand free-sovereign families. Whereas,
feminism/socialism/communism has to destroy families in order to "seize control of
Frankly, this is one of the stupidest arguments against socialism I've ever heard. A
nice blend of incorrect facts, non sequiturs and "i'm right because I say I'm
Well, I suggest you count up the CITATIONS which are REPLETE throughout my arguments to
you. Add up YOUR citations (zero) and then figure out who is saying "I'm right
because I say I'm right."
I will say I am right because of the innumerable AUTHORITIES I have submitted to this
It is you that babbles with unsubstantiated documentation.
You are nothing but a socialist lackey, and you not only have lost this argument, I have
humiliated you intellectually.
I say: "So much for socialism." If you are the best its got, I rest my
In fact, they lead to huge oppressive "statist" governments whom brutally
control their populaces "from cradle to grave."
Where freedom is constrained and overthrown. Where huge prison systems and
government infrastructures are instituted, groomed and maintained...
You cannot have huge prison populations--and have a free government.
America, as I've already said, is far less socialist than France, Holland, even England
yet has a far larger population of prison inmates relative to population of country,
largely from the desperate underclass only a lack of socialism could allow.
Clearly, feminism is worse than Capitalism.
Feminism isn't an economic system.
OH YES IT IS...and all you have to do is READ THE FAMILY CODE TO PROVE THIS.
The family code is in fact, a socialist "transfer of wealth program." You
don't have to believe me, believe the case U.S. v. Faasse, 265 F.3d 475, 489
(6th Cir. 2001) (yet another one of those nagging "citations" I give" where
the US District court admits this fact.
It's time that people understand the importance of fatherhood. Fatherhood is a
basic template of freedom. It is very much the component of Capitalism and
Capitalism and patriarchy are mutually exclusive, they can never coexist.
Yeah...right; thanks for the citation.
Inevitability of Patriarchy, by Margaret Meade, plus Dr. Daniel Amneus,
Case for Father Custody and the Garbage Generation, etc., etc., etc. ad
infinitum, ad nauseum.
Yeah, yeah, I know, we are all wrong and you are right, (but still without any citations.)
And Fatherhood is the enemy of feminism--there is no dispute of this fact.
It is clear where fatherhood's interests must lie. We must support Capitalism and
Patriarchy UNCONDITIONALLY and excoriate and expunge anything in opposition to these
necessities of all free societies.
Not in a million years, Capitalism is the root of the feminist industrial complex. Only
Christianity, which looks a lot like Communism, can save us from feminism.
What planet do you come from?? I dare you to find throughout the realm of social
sciences, one citation where they admit that "Capitalism is the root of the feminist
Are you on Lithium? Is that suppository put in right? Has that
brain cancer leaked down into your lower colon again?
Take me to your leader...please.
Hope this helps.
No, it doesn't.
Thanx for telling us who you are. Methinks you were too ashamed because you
KNEW people here would have reviled each and every fantasy you have placed forwards here.
Just know I cannot say it long enough nor hard enough DEATH TO FEMINISM, DEATH TO
SOCIALISM, DEATH TO COMMUNISM.
The are the great evils of our time, and they are one in the same...and indeed, you are
part of that problem.
I know this helps.
It is too bad to see someone so badly informed waste a serious researcher's time by
stating unsubstantiated opinions and bolstering them with nothing more than ad-hominem
For starters, the anonymous misinformed and misguided individual could at
least make the effort to read the Communist Manifesto (see excerpt
from the CM pertaining to the family and related issues). That's what communism,
socialism and feminism is based on. Why not make the effort to look at the root of