Post: #1

I simply had to share this, since it seems so incredibly brutal on several points.

Here is an article written by Mallory Millett - the sister of famous Feminist icon Kate Millett:



http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallory...ned-lives/

I previously stated again and again, that I consider feminism a deliberate top-down doctrine that just happens to use the eternal feminine imperative as a stepping stone to destroy the fabric of the lower social strata of society. And here we have a few tidbits and insights which support that assumption:

Best parts of the article:

Quote:During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

University is first and foremost a perfect indoctrination tool. While personally I do not care much about atheism, since some are highly ethic and have a high consciousness, there are countless things which are connected to the word "atheism" - relative worth of life, the right to kill the few for the many (supposedly) etc.

But here comes the heavy part:

Quote:It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

The incantation-routine they did sounds extremely true to what happened later on. Especially the little prayer-routine is extremely chilling and oh so true. Their invasion of all American institutions could have never been achieved without top-down support.

Quote:How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Despite the fact that those women were highly connected, it still does not explain how Time Magazine and the entire Academic establishment promoted Deliberately Marxist Theses in the middle of a cold war that was pitted against Communists?
(On a side note- anyone who has read Antony Sutton - Stanford university historian - would know that the cold war was a farce and the plutocracy controlled communism all along. So in that respect it makes perfect sense. http://www.amazon.com/Antony-C.-Sutton/e/B001K1S1ZE)

She also shares a view on Woman's Studies programs and similar indoctrination tools:

Quote:Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love. Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. ..

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, [/b]

Quote:There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow. “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!” In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals. (“Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!”) She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids. They’re such a bother and only get in the way.” They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

Quote:I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

“Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.”

What do these templates for women remind you of?
The current generation of women has drunk the cool-aid by the gallons even if they do not view themselves as feminists:

+ Opening doors is creepy.
+ Slutting it up is good despite their inner instincts that tell them that it is wrong.
+ Marriage only after a "career".
+ Being cold and cynical is greatly empowering.
+ Children are a nuisance.
+ They see patriarchy, oppression, sexual abuse and rape everywhere

And you have not seen anything if you think that the feminists of previous times are the only ones crying themselves to sleep in their 40s and 50s without children. The Millennial women will have record numbers of suicides and psychotropic medication levels in their 40s and 50s - being childless and barren.

In the end those witches have managed to achieve most of their goals. Maybe in a few decades sleeping with someone for longer than a week will be considered creepy and unhealthy.

Viva la liberacion!

Post: #2

Those women sitting around a table treating communism like a religion ...Wow! I have heard for a long time about this a agenda. (to destroy the American family) but I didn't realize how radical..... plotting such a thing (the destruction of the institutions surrounding male-female relations)"

Now this new agenda.."RAPE CULTURE" (when in fact we live in the most woman-pampering society that has ever existed) and women are accepting this as a given, an obvious fact of their lives. In another generation or two and no one will even know anymore what was destroyed.

Post: #3

Quote:It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Colour me skeptical, but this anecdote seems TOO good to be true, especially coming from something like FrontPage Magazine.

Post: #4

(09-03-2014 05:46 AM)Deluge Wrote:  

Quote:It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Colour me skeptical, but this anecdote seems TOO good to be true, especially coming from something like FrontPage Magazine.

Actually, that kind of in-your-face, almost naive opposition to traditional mores was very much a part of the 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution. The rhetoric of Second Wave feminism was more extreme then than what we have now.

Post: #5

(09-03-2014 06:07 AM)RawGod Wrote:  Actually, that kind of in-your-face, almost naive opposition to traditional mores was very much a part of the 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution. The rhetoric of Second Wave feminism was more extreme then than what we have now.

While it might be true for rhetoric, the actual effects of that rhetoric are much harsher now. During second wave feminism, there probably weren't masses of men getting divorce-raped or being dumped in jails over false rape accusations, false physical abuse accusations, false pedophilia accusations and so on.

What's worse, just listening to a screeching hag who wants you killed, or a screeching hag who actually has the power to put you behind bars just on the basis of her word?

Post: #6

(09-03-2014 06:42 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  While it might be true for rhetoric, the actual effects of that rhetoric are much harsher now. During second wave feminism, there probably weren't masses of men getting divorce-raped or being dumped in jails over false rape accusations, false physical abuse accusations, false pedophilia accusations and so on.

What's worse, just listening to a screeching hag who wants you killed, or a screeching hag who actually has the power to put you behind bars just on the basis of her word?

It took some time to adjust the laws accordingly (no-fault divorce, family laws, rape re-definition) and also to indoctrinate law enforcement sufficiently (most cops would never dream of charging men of sexual assault and rape as quickly as today - despite higher incidences of real rape happening).

And I was thinking, what this little chanting scene by those radical feminists reminded me of:

   

Radical feminism is truly at the core of the movement - combined with interests of higher parties. The article is believable since the woman is a successful CFO & does not have financial reasons to write it. Sure - she is pro-life and Christian, but what those women screamed about is exactly what has happened, since we are now 45 years later and the spells of those "witches" have become reality.

The goals have always been to destroy the family and were never meant to give "freedom and independence" to women. Just some were more aware of that little fact than most even among the feminist circles. The article slipped through likely because of the strong pro-choice message that some of the Republican party still are so proud of, while in reality they do the very same shit as the other puppets.

That kind of mass-chanting reminded me of cult-indoctrinations as well as of the last stages of Occupy Wallstreet, where one dwerp shouted something to be repeated by all the other dwerps.

Post: #7

(09-03-2014 06:42 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(09-03-2014 06:07 AM)RawGod Wrote:  Actually, that kind of in-your-face, almost naive opposition to traditional mores was very much a part of the 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution. The rhetoric of Second Wave feminism was more extreme then than what we have now.

While it might be true for rhetoric, the actual effects of that rhetoric are much harsher now. During second wave feminism, there probably weren't masses of men getting divorce-raped or being dumped in jails over false rape accusations, false physical abuse accusations, false pedophilia accusations and so on.

What's worse, just listening to a screeching hag who wants you killed, or a screeching hag who actually has the power to put you behind bars just on the basis of her word?

The floodgates opened during the 1970s, and divorce rates peaked around 1980. Younger men may not realise the strength of the cultural marxism movement in those days. Now they have moved on to transexuals and video games, then they were taking apart the family itself. And they were successful, that's why we have these secondary issues like trannies and gay marriage given so much prominence.

Post: #8

The OP mentioned Anthony C. Sutton. I'll strap on my tinfoil hat and add Cleon Skousen, and his book "The Naked Communist". It blows your mind when you read these books from the 50's, and 60's much later. You would think Sutton and Skousen were lunatics until you look back through history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Communist

Post: #9

Damn that bitch just flat out dissed her sister out loud! Can someone tell her to please write a fallow up the next time she'll see her bitch sister

Post: #10

We can thank the boomers for this mess. Came right out of the "counter-culture" movement of the 60s.

There was an author that wrote that feminism and the occult go hand in hand. I won't lie, after reading that I am not surprised.
http://www.returnofkings.com/33270/the-d...the-occult

That picture needs to be plastered all over the internet.

Post: #11

It's sad that so many women were the useful idiots of traitorous communist provocateurs.

I'm increasingly convinced that feminism of this sort was a tool used by the Soviets to destabilize the West, part of a long game strategy to win without firing a shot. David Horowitz, the guy who runs the FrontPage, himself was a communist at one point and involved in fostering racial strife.

It's also funny how the USSR, in practice, did not embrace feminism and Putin's Russia most certainly does not. Since he was a KGB operative is there a chance he knows this to be true?

Is it possible that they gave us the first dose of toxin that exposed us to this cancer, which subsequently grew and metastasized?

Post: #12

Not sure, but there's a difference between the old-fashioned (purely economic) Marxism-Leninism of the early Soviet Union and this later cultural version, which copies Marx but applies it to cultures/social groups.

Post: #13

(09-05-2014 10:15 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Not sure, but there's a difference between the old-fashioned (purely economic) Marxism-Leninism of the early Soviet Union and this later cultural version, which copies Marx but applies it to cultures/social groups.

Marxism-Leninism was never purely economic, but I get what you're trying to say.

Post: #14

(09-05-2014 10:07 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  It's also funny how the USSR, in practice, did not embrace feminism and Putin's Russia most certainly does not. Since he was a KGB operative is there a chance he knows this to be true?

Is it possible that they gave us the first dose of toxin that exposed us to this cancer, which subsequently grew and metastasized?

Funny that you mention that. The Bolsheviks early on (the 1920s) experimented with rampant feminism and destruction of marriage laws etc., but it was such a disaster that they stopped that soon afterwards:

1. Pretty Peasant girls were flooding the cities and living in dozens with some wealthy guys
2. Peasant girls were getting pregnant by the few Alpha cads in the rural areas
3. Some men were marrying only some sturdy women for the harvest, afterwards instantly divorcing them and getting a hot lass right between harvests.
4. Unwanted pregnancies, single mothers and orphans exploded - back in those times that was sometimes a death sentence for the woman and the child.
5. Hordes of men (probably the majority of poor men in rural Russia) went completely without any woman and resorted either to crime or cut their lives short.

This created so much economic and social chaos (coupled with the already known factors) that they had to scrap the "sexual revolution" and reversed marriage laws to the old order. Completely unrestrained female hypergamy destroys the fabric of society faster than any men could.


Later on Feminism was even banned - When Women's Lib brochures landed in Russia in the 1970s and 80s, they were burned and forbidden.

While they had their own brand of feminism with women encouraged to work and be strong, single motherhood, cock carousel and other ills of Western feminism were not only discouraged, but actively fought by the communist governments. That is why the women there are still highly traditional.

Russia, Belarus as well as Ukraine are countries where feminism was not supported by the State even after the collapse of communism. Now of course with the EU-led part of Ukraine things might change there over time.

Post: #15

I highly recommend everyone watch this video by defected KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov about ideological subversion. It's an hour long, but one of the most interesting videos you'll watch, and profoundly relevant to the methods and goals of these people.

The thing that's particularly chilling is, from a strategic point of view, there doesn't seem to be any way to counter subversive strategies other than cultivating an Orwellian control over what media the population may and may not consume - the antithesis of a free society.

(09-05-2014 10:15 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  Not sure, but there's a difference between the old-fashioned (purely economic) Marxism-Leninism of the early Soviet Union and this later cultural version, which copies Marx but applies it to cultures/social groups.

You misunderstand. Cultural Marxism isn't truly an ideology - it's a tool used to destabilise western civilisation, so that a crisis and revolution can be brought about to institute true Marxism. At this point, the current Marxist academics would be rounded up and shot, having served their purpose (possibly the only satisfying part of the whole scenario). Whilst the western supporters of "cultural Marxism" may be earnest in their beliefs, the belief system itself was a deliberate construction of true Marxists. Make no mistake about this.