If you haven't seen the documentary, I STRONGLY SUGGEST that you do.
While I don't concur with All of the theories [9-11], I do believe the Federal Reserve/Gov [and world elites] jumped on the situation and Used the horror to their advantage...
so much of what is in the documentary is right on, and as one who worked in the far left, let me ASSURE YOU,
STALIN WOULD BE UTTERLY IMPRESSED WITH THE NEW WORLD ORDER BEING CREATED TODAY...
as too would Hitler and Mussolini.
see: http://www.freedomtofascism.com/
I liked what it [documentary] said at the end:
Stop being Good Democrats
Stop being Good Republicans
and Start being Good Americans
ain't That the truth!
And it is amazing isn't it, a demand for a National ID card and chip, yet Open Borders and not only that,
but look at the world wide push for Sharia Finance [international banking], the EU's allowing and bringing in a Caliphate, Sharia Law in the UK, the War in Iraq,
and the push for tolerating Sharia Law here in the US...
the reverse of women's rights [though interesting too, Rockefeller said the World Order folks pushed for ERA not for women, but for two reasons,
1. to tax the other half of population and
2. to force children under the STATE ownership a.k.a. public indoctrination.
This is interesting that years ago, we were seeing changes towards gender in public schools When it was beneficial to corporations, Now we are seeing, agendas and multi-cultural curric being taught and girls being forced [in some schools] to take part in forced
coverings, segregation and second class status, to show 'respect' for other cultures [never mind its Religion]...
well anyway,
just some other factors that I as well as others have noticed that the documentary didn't bring out,
but the film did bring out the issues around NAFTA, CAFTA, and how true...
Mussolini's love of Corporatism and Fascism, the perfect vehicle of Orwellian control over the masses.
You know it doesn't take a genius or a crazy to see the damn signs...what Does concern me however,
is that yes, the intellectuals see it, those who know history see it, those who know political philosophy AND [this is important here] who have read across the board, not just one way of thinking,
have seen it,
but Is that enough?
No, it isn't, and why? Because in every single fascist take over, be it right wing or left, the First thing the machinery of police state does is go after the thinkers, the intellectuals, the resisters and the poor who protest...
and they exterminate them and I do mean exterminate...they are either the
unpure race/mixed race [Hitler]
or the class enemy [Stalin/Cambodia]
the enemy of the nation [nation-state expansionism]
or the infidel...
which ever,
except now its global...not just one nation, not just several nations, but it is All nations.
And mark my words, Obama will play into it as well, with the UN...thats what I suspect,
I also think he's a part of it, just as Clinton was, as Bush was/is, as they all are...just like the EU works.
Now I've not paid that much attention to the accusations against the Federal Reserve, how I came to see it through the years was seeing the 'agenda's' of the IMF and the World Bank and through, the bullying and taking over of NGOs.
And that was just in observing women's human rights...and the poor worldwide.
And thats just it, the way they are accomplishing this feat is to do so, under the myth of the general public's best interest,
the same way Stalin did it.
Anyway, take a look at the site, and see the documentary, it has been showing on Public Television. It was also funny how some in the government sent emails to the station with condemnation for showing the film by Russo,
like, what are they afraid of?
If its not true, then whats the harm? Whats the harm in questioning, in asking, in resisting chips?
No way in fucking hell will the gov put a damn chip in my or my family...what concerns me though,
is there are enough Stupid people out there and enough lazy mentally people out there that will not just allow,
but will line up for.
But then, thats been the indoctrination now hasn't it?
Theories, conspiracies?
I think not, because obviously, there is something to it,
or there wouldn't be the shift in gov power, the changes of the gov power to torture, arrest, detain all without legal rep and all the other changes...including watching whats online.
And added to that, the mind controls, everyone is depressed or has hyper disorders and needs some kind of psychotic,
in early ages, Don't you think thats just a little Too convenient?
more later,
Natasha
REAL FAMILY VALUES DON'T FORCE PREGNANCIES OR CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS
RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM IN GOV IS DEADLY TO KIDS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you are like most people, you may believe that adoption begins with a mother wanting and choosing to GIVE AWAY her baby. This is what the 
6 comments:
I saw your comments in the comment thread on another blog - the "man hating" post about how all men are rapists, etc. Just wanted you to know that someone - me - agrees with you. You bravely waded into incredibly troublesome waters.
Thank you,
and as for the other blog, I have so much admiration for the woman that writes that blog, but strongly disagree with the co-author [who I believe is somewhat new there].
And I do consider myself a Radical Feminist, if by Radical meaning challenging the status quo of patriarchy--but I draw the line when it gets into fanaticism,
and misandry. I know firsthand abusive men, have experienced the wrath of men who hate women...but on the same token,
I've met men who are the most kindest pro-women rights human beings out there...and on that same note,
I've met some horrible abusive women. So point being, I don't buy into the ideology that all men are born evil woman haters and all women are pure angels,
never have and it just defies common sense really. Patriarchy survives not just because it benefits men but because like other hierarchies it benefits a lot of women,
there are women who would throw their sister under the bus because she has or is in a position of power,
and while yes, I will strongly agree that due to patriarchy, most men, are supportive of that framework or social order to some degree,
some more than others, and I do believe that men for the most part do resent their position of privilege, being challenged,
but, on the other hand...in all fairness--that's not all men, that's some men, and not all men benefit from either patriarchy or the current state of affairs and there Are and have been flaws in how feminism has been applied,
which I touched on upon in this post...so much of feminism has been hijacked by Stalinist ideology, on that I know because I was radical in the far left for years. It looks good on paper,
until you peel the layers away and see how the totalitarianism comes out. I suppose thats when I began to see some serious problems between the 'theory' and the 'reality', especially studying/reading up on Eastern studies [gender specifically]. The backlash against Left feminism in the East[former Soviet Bloc countries and including China] didn't come about due to capitalism [privitization], though that was part of it,
no, it came about when the realities of what its like to live in a total degenderless world came into being, which wasn't truly degenderized due to the old attitudes that couldn't be done away with [very much like how racism continues in spite of everything],
but I think, because of the biological differences [factual differences, meaning, women bearing children and having the sole responsibility often of their care--and the social experiment of the State being the 'Mother' was a complete failure [why Stalin reversed so much when it came to women--it was necessity, a dark one but one all the same],
well, anyway, my point is, this whole thing about forced separation and forced lesbianism because quite frankly thats what the extremists are working to push for and force--
won't solve a damn thing. One, whether they like it or not, you can't force feelings...or sexuality [no matter how patriarchal a society is and how much one wants to change it],
women will seek out men and vice versa--and unless one creates a borg society--which I think strongly would be a complete nightmare, the evidence in how children abandoned to state care in Romania [emotional detachment] is enough to convince I think--because they are so indifferent and damaged that they are in no way capable of living in a peaceful society,
thats just one example [in other words, let the State be the parent and thats what we would wind up with, children with absolutely no bonding to anyone and with no bonding, then no caring for others and ironically, would be for argument's sake, a total failure for a communist or socialist or communal or especially a nuturing (sic) feminist society/egalitarian to come about,
and thats just it, thats the TRUE agenda of the totalitarians, be they left fascist or right fascists or corporatist-elitist fascists...create drones,
the perfect war machine/humans with no conscience, no feeling, no cares...
and what better way to do it than to twist feminism into something horrid and ugly?
Thats what has happened to feminism...
the complaints, mind you are legit--violence against women in our society, is yes, horrid and increasing and I won't lie to you, I've had my moments of thinking,
this is the nature of men.
But, but when I step back and think--I know, I KNOW,
there are men who are DYING right now, horrible deaths, men who have been tortured, killed, and yes,
raped,
for standing up, for WOMEN. For standing up for their mothers, daughters, sisters and yes,
for strangers.
Men in Afghanistan, men in Iraq, men in Iran [prisons are full of men who stand up for human rights and for women's rights],
men who stood up against rape in wars,
men who, not in chivalry as the man haters say--no, but in their Humaness, took a stand and paid a dear price.
I know, KNOW, those men exist,
I've met them, and for that reason, well, other reasons too but knowing this, I eventually made a decision, to not be afraid and stand up to the fanaticism.
And it doesn't mean I compromise or condone patriarchy or the abuses, hardly--I just don't jump in with the true fascists of feminists--who like in other ideologies--
allow their hate towards injustice and their pain to blind them--and harden their hearts until they become just as totalitarian and bully like--as the very things they oppose.
When any, any revolutionary or one working for change starts mandating and working towards social engineering with eugenics [and forcing women to refuse any form of sex with men is exactly that--its no damn different than forcing women to have sex with men to create a perfect race--when that quest for this perfect world--this world order, of a certain type or color or gender of people is the goal--
watch out--its deadly. Because like every other social experiment where people play GOD,
they don't just stop with one group/nor will they stop with gender,
once they accomplish their goals [hypothetically], they won't be satisfied with that,
they'll seek out the next 'flawed human being', and Thats what feminists, I think,
had better start paying close attention too. When I read articles or those claims that men need to be done away with [because if you peel the layers thats what they truly want--no sons born, no male child allowed to live--no sex/relationship with men, total cutting off in hopes to mold men into a female being which is unrealistic but all the same],
when they make those claims--they sound exactly like those who declared their rightousness in extermination of impure races/or Jews or those who were the Class enemy...or related to class enemies, what have you,
same way of thinking.
And totally, contrary, to human rights, including the rights of women.
OK, off my soapbox now, LOL...
Natasha
Natasha - actually, "radical feminism" is an actual theoretical term in the academic sense. It is often misused - no offense - in the sense that some people think of it the way you do. The way I do as well. That we are "radical" in that we are opposed to the patriarchal status quo. However, "radical" is a problematic term that has been stuck on a particular brand of feminism that tends towards reverse sexism. I remember the first time I actually learned the "formal" definition of the term I thought - that's going to confuse a lot of people.
My point is - that on the blogosphere I see a lot of women identifying as "radical" feminists & then I read their blogs and I think - no, not technically. Then there are others - like the woman you've been debating with in that now infamous post - who ARE radical feminists in the true sense of the theoretical term.
Does any of this matter? In a way I think it does because it blurs certain distinctions that are important. For example - I do not identify as a radical feminist because I fervently believe that men can be feminists too - an ideological perspective that " true radical feminism" does not ascribe to. I do not personally agree with RFem so I don't claim the word. Theoretically I am more of a "materialist feminist" (I think - I haven't been in a womens' studies classroom for awhile). "Materialist" is also a terribly misleading term.
Be any of this as it may - I personally think all of the textbooks need to be rewritten to include your term for radical feminism which is fanaticism. I hate to speak ill of fellow feminists - no matter what - but I draw the line at man hating. To be fair, though, not all radical feminists are man haters, but they do tend towards reverse sexism at times, I think.
Thanks for listening - sorry for the long comment.
«Honestly, marriage is supposed to the meeting of two SOULS, not two bodies. And it says this in the Quran, so no Muslim should deny it.»
Really?!
[sarcasm]
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18600181&postID=8435256877607919730
Great comment actually,
thank you for posting it, sorry it took so long to get it up here, been swamped and just Now checking this blog.
You are absolutely correct, there does need to be a lot of redefining of terminology, much of what I think is still remnant from the whole post Cold War revolution. [the sixties/New Left, etc]
And today so much is either blurred or a mix that its hard for me at least to distinguish what is what. And I hear ya,
I've often left out the radical in defining myself but then, at other times, I've thrown in the radical to offset the radical 'mainstream' feminists,
a counter revolution of my own of sorts, I guess you could call it.
Because it seems that on the cyber world at least, the typical thought on non-radical feminists is that of the right wing/patriarchal kind,
and yes, its misleading. That segment is out there no doubt, but I think, there are more of us than whats commonly known yet, its like the fanatics have done all in their power to lump us all in with the liberal feminists label/catagory (sic) or the traditionalists.
And the sad thing is a lot of what the radical feminists fight for, is vital because so few want to go there,
like with any other revolutionary movement but you are correct, it starts getting into that whole nihilistic means of reverse sexism and flat out man hatred.
But we've seen this in extreme forms of nationalism and class warfare,
its born out of frustration I think, frustration and years of resentment of not seeing real change or seeing too many compromises,
that in the end, thrust us right back and maybe even worse off than where we started,
maybe thats where the 'ideals' don't quite measure up to the realities involved with actual life itself.
Anger at injustice blindsights, not just in feminism but in any struggle against oppression, because the oppressed can get to that place where they don't see how they too, are part of that whole stratification of oppression,
within the hierarchy But, then at the same time, there are times where hierarchy is necessary,
order verses chaos. There are no easy answers is there? I wonder too, where the cynicism comes in and the whole age factor,
I know as I get older I may still be radical on many things but its like its tempered, I start seeing things from a much larger perspective and seeing or being able to connect things that before I wasn't able to,
but then, its dealing with the bitterness and resentment of hurt and pain too. If one doesn't come to terms with that and internalizes that, it I think, causes that struggle against oppression to become or morph into [borrowing off of one woman writer here] into the oppressor,
and the ones that morph will scream thats not the case, they don't see it,
but its there. I think, its a very, very fine line, and so easy to cross and I've crossed it, myself so I say this not in judgment but in understanding,
and I'd be lying if I said I still don't struggle with that conflict because I do, not so much with feminism but in dealing with issues of classism.
I think what boggles my mind some days is realizing, as horrid as traditionalism can be,
in some ways its less of a yoke, its funny,
how fighting enslavement can actually lead to worse enslavement under the guise of freedom/or emancipation,
and its done in such a very subtle way to which, by the time one realizes its, its too late to do anything. In so many ways I'm think,
what we are seeing within the feminist movement and among feminists, those conflicts, is identical in many ways to the separations within the African community or Latino community in confronting racism,
that argument of whether to strive for equality and civil rights or to completely separate and reclaim the national heritage stolen,
both valid arguments yet, both with disadvantages.
I think feminists are in that same place, revolutionary speaking,
but its even more complex because with that struggle, the others are combined and/or are intertwined.
And it seems the unifying factor among the radicals as far as really getting to the root of patriarchy is finding that common ground and unfortunately that common ground is in fact, the oppression handed out cruely by men, for the benefit of male power,
and maybe thats where the reverse sexism comes from too, because men become the target, per se.
The focus shifts from confronting entitlement and hierarchy to that of gender,
just like it was with race [and still is].
Its no longer the issue of warring against the oppression but warring against the oppressor,
and all that fit within that oppressor cateragory (sic) whether they oppress or not, intentional or not, become targets of hate and
that I think, is when the struggle becomes something more than just overthrowing the shackles...
it becomes about not just overthrowing but taking over power. Taking that position of power then, Then, they become exactly like the power apparatus they all this time,
were battling to overthrow, or chains they were working to cut.
They don't just cut those chains, they make new and stronger ones.
But what is the answer? The resolution?
And maybe thats where the other side of radical comes in, that radical that says, we got to get the human question back in,
not putting that right, what I mean is, putting the value of human back in, both genders,
confronting the dehumanization that has been allowed to take hold...thats I think,
where the real warfare begins. I wish I knew the solutions to that social question,
I do not however. I'm contemplating it myself and the ironic thing is, I think in our generation [older] when we finally come to those realizations,
we pass on and the next generation has to deal with whats left to them.
It sure makes some sense though out of that whole revolution and then counter revolution/synthesis debate/explaination though,
LOL, except, I don't see humans evolving but rather, devolving...and that observation in itself,
leaves a lot to be desired and maybe touches on my own cynicism. Something I've been pondering of late and asking more and more,
if its something spiritual.
Just my own questions there...not to be projecting my own source of debate on this subject. It leaves a lot to question doesn't it?
And what is so hilarious about arriving to that point, it truly moves from that belonging to oppressed group to being an individual,
where one's own life choices/behaviors start having meaning/or regrets, and maybe, seeing how the individual is just as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution,
sure throws everything into a whole other perspective. Ah, but I'm just rambling on here outloud about a lot of what sometimes I wonder,
how much truly matters in the whole sum of things. LOL
Natasha
What´s in the koran:
Qur´an 4:11 «Allah commands you as regards your children´s (inheritance); to the male, a portion equal to that of two females...»
Bukhari:V3B48N826 «The Prophet said, `Isn´t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?´ The women said, `Yes.´ He said, `This is because of the deficiency of a woman´s mind.'»
Muslim:B1N142 «`O womenfolk, ... ...You lack common sense, fail in religion and rob the wisdom of the wise.´ Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense? The Prophet replied, `Your lack of common sense can be determined from the fact that the evidence of two women is equal to one man. That is a proof.´»
Tabari IX:113 «Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur´an.»
Post a Comment