Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas

Expand Messages
  • Spencer Mewha
    All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as something to
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 1, 2010
      All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
      your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
      something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
      demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.

      The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
      insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.

      With kind regards Spence

      ------------------------------
      Cristian Malinescu wrote:
      >
      >
      > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
      > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
      > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
      > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
      > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
      > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
      > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
      > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
      > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
      > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
      > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
      > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
      > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
      > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
      > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
      > machinery dejection?!
      >
    • Tom Smith
      I would add that whether marxism was originally feminist or not, from the early 20th Century on they were totally on board in the uncompromising way we see
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 1, 2010
        I would add that whether marxism was originally feminist or not, from the early 20th Century on they were totally on board in the uncompromising way we see now.  Check out what happened to the first masculist and leading American marxist at the turn of the 20th Century, E Belfort Bax, for confirmation.  The Right ALWAYS moved to the Left on feminism when they saw the Left (Marxism) pushing it.  In fact this was the case from the early 1800's on and can be seen to be the primary element driving our deomcracy for two centuries.

        Marxism is dead.  It's not only their mealey mouthed support and vanguarding of feminism for over a hundred years, but the mistaken view of classes.  We have a feminist IQtocracy.  That's the new oppressive class and they are mostly associated with marxism now.  We need both a new social and economic philosophy to guide the Left and before that can happen the Marxists have first to be defeated.  That's why we now need to lean to the Right while preparing ourselves to take over the Left.

        What this new social and economic philosophy should consist of should be our main topic.

        Tom


        From: Spencer Mewha <spencer@...>
        To: fathers_are_capable_too@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com; F4J-scotland@...; aum@yahoogroups.com; Domestic_Violence-Mens_Support@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:26:11 AM
        Subject: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas

         

        All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
        your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
        something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
        demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.

        The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
        insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.

        With kind regards Spence

        ------------------------------
        Cristian Malinescu wrote:
        >
        >
        > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
        > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
        > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
        > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
        > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
        > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
        > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
        > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
        > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
        > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
        > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
        > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
        > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
        > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
        > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
        > machinery dejection?!
        >


      • MrMtnHiker
        ... ================ Cristian Malinescua really needs to read this... ===================================== Before Hillary, Oprah, Betty Friedan and Gloria
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 1, 2010
          > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
          > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
          > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
          > > socialism.
          > Cristian Malinescu
          ================

          Cristian Malinescua really needs to read this...
          =====================================

          Before Hillary, Oprah, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem there was
          Shulamith Firestone:
          -----------------------------------------------------------

          Shulamith Firestone (born 1945) (also called Shulie Firestone) is a
          Jewish Canadian-born feminist; a founding member of the Chicago
          Women's Liberation Union in 1969, and a member of Redstockings and the
          New York Radical Feminists. In 1970, she authored The Dialectic of
          Sex: A Case for Feminist Revolution in which she stated that women
          must seize the means of reproduction. The Dialectic of Sex synthesized
          the ideas of Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick
          Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir to put forth a feminist theory of
          politics and became a major text in second-wave feminism in the United
          States.

          Firestone perceived that gender inequality originated in the
          patricarchy forced on women through their biology...

          Source of article excerpts:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone
          ===============================

          [Excerpts from www.ewtn.com follow:]

          This is what had happened. In the 1960's women had joined the
          radical Marxist based movements of revolution, and been [supposedly]
          treated terribly by the radical men. They had been denied a voice,
          relegated to menial tasks, and used sexually. Around 1970 a group of
          radical women split off from the men and formed their own groups. They
          applied the radical Marxist ideas they had learned to the
          relationship between men and women.

          The most influential of this women was Shulamith Firestone who
          wrote the feminist classic <The Dialectic of Sex>. You probably have
          heard of Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, but
          the real founder of radical feminism was Shulamith Firestone. The
          feminists have kept Shulamith in the academic closet because she was
          so radical. She advocated the destruction of the family, and
          marriage, total sexual liberation including the acceptance of
          child/adult sex and incest, and finding a technological replacement
          for pregnancy.

          Firestone applied the philosophy of Marx and Engels, particularly the
          ideas found in a book by Engels entitled <The Origins of the Family,
          Property, and the State>, to the situation of women. Engels and Marx
          had argued that all history is the history of class struggle - the
          oppressor against the oppressed, the owner against the worker, and the
          man against the woman. Classic Marxism holds that originally there was
          a classless society without property or family. According to this
          theory which is totally without foundation, in the beginning, in the
          Marxist garden of Eden, men didn't know they were fathers. They didn't
          associated intercourse with child birth and therefore there were no
          fatherheaded families and no inheritance of property through the male
          line. All goods passed from the mother and her family to the children.
          But then the great evil occurred, the Marxist original sin, men
          discovered that they were fathers and they claimed their right to
          their children and the right to pass their property on to their
          children. Men enslaved women in marriage, so that they could be sure
          who their children were, and this caused private property and all the
          evils of oppression.

          For the classic Marxist, these evils can be eliminated only when
          private property is eliminated. The elimination of property must be
          combined with laws that make divorce easy. Women wouldn't need
          husbands, the state would provide. All women would work outside the
          home, the state would provide 24 hour free day care. Illegitimacy
          would be acceptable since the state would provide for children.
          Religioun would be eliminated, since religion promoted the family.
          Once this was accomplished the great and wonderful classless society
          would emerge, and people would finally be free. Of course, no Marxist
          society ever succeeded in creating a classless society. They have all
          been disasters.

          The radical feminists were not deterred by the failures of
          classic Marxism or the failures of Communist states. They felt that
          they understood the cause of those failures. The Marxist had focused
          on the economic issues, but according to Marxist theory, the first
          oppression was caused by marriage. Women were the true oppressed
          class. Therefore, to eliminate oppression and suffering it would be
          necessary not to have an economic class revolution but a sex class
          revolution. Firestone writes:

          So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes
          requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and in a
          temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of
          production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes
          requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of
          control of reproduction: the restoration to women of ownership
          of their own bodies, as well as feminine control of human
          fertility, including both the new technology and all the social
          institutions of childbearing and childrearing. And just as the
          end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of
          the economic class <privilege> but of the economic class
          <distinction> itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution
          must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just
          the elimination of male <privilege> but of the sex <distinction>
          itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer
          matter culturally.

          Source:
          http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FEMINISM.TXT



          --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@...> wrote:
          >
          > All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
          > your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
          > something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
          > demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.
          >
          > The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
          > insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.
          >
          > With kind regards Spence
          >
          > ------------------------------
          > Cristian Malinescu wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
          > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
          > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
          > > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
          > > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
          > > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
          > > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
          > > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
          > > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
          > > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
          > > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
          > > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
          > > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
          > > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
          > > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
          > > machinery dejection?!
          > >
          >
        • Spencer Mewha
          Hi Tom What happened to Bax? Wikipedia only details his political doings. Comments between the [brakets] below. With kind regards Spence ... From: Tom Smith
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 2, 2010
            
            Hi Tom

            What happened to Bax? Wikipedia only details his political doings.

            Comments between the [brakets] below.

            With kind regards Spence


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Tom Smith
            To: aum@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:55 PM
            Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas


             
            I would add that whether marxism was originally feminist or not, from the early 20th Century on they were totally on board in the uncompromising way we see now.  Check out what happened to the first masculist and leading American marxist at the turn of the 20th Century, E Belfort Bax, for confirmation.  The Right ALWAYS moved to the Left on feminism when they saw the Left (Marxism) pushing it.  In fact this was the case from the early 1800's on and can be seen to be the primary element driving our deomcracy for two centuries.

            Marxism is dead.
             
            [Yup, I would rejoice except for the fact the Bible says: do not rejoice when your enemy falls or the Lord might see and disapprove.... I forget the rest of it but the Lord might stop punishing them; and they're [the socialists] still too alive to be taken lightly.]
             
              It's not only their mealey mouthed support and vanguarding of feminism for over a hundred years, but the mistaken view of classes.  We have a feminist IQtocracy.  That's the new oppressive class and they are mostly associated with marxism now.
             
            [Yea, I thought that too. The feminists are Big into using Marxism to destroy the family and the Church.]
             
              We need both a new social and economic philosophy to guide the Left and before that can happen the Marxists have first to be defeated.  That's why we now need to lean to the Right while preparing ourselves to take over the Left.
             
            [Yea, I think so too.]

            What this new social and economic philosophy should consist of should be our main topic.
             
            [You read psychology, at uni, didn't you Tom? Well, have you any ideas?]

            Tom





            From: Spencer Mewha <spencer@...>
            To: fathers_are_capable_too@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: MensIssuesOnline@yahoogroups.com; F4J-scotland@...; aum@yahoogroups.com; Domestic_Violence-Mens_Support@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:26:11 AM
            Subject: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas

             
            All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
            your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
            something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
            demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.

            The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
            insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.

            With kind regards Spence

            ------------------------------
            Cristian Malinescu wrote:
            >
            >
            > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
            > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
            > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
            > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
            > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
            > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
            > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
            > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
            > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
            > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
            > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
            > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
            > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
            > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
            > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
            > machinery dejection?!
            >




          • Tom Smith
            ... From: Spencer Mewha To: aum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 4:34:00 AM Subject: Re: [AUM] Re:
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 2, 2010


              From: Spencer Mewha <spencer@...>
              To: aum@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wed, June 2, 2010 4:34:00 AM
              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas

               

              

              Hi Tom

              What happened to Bax?

              [The same thing that happened to us anti-feminists on the Left the past 40 years.  The female feminists and their beta (wimp) males shunned him and in ten short years he went from being the darling of the American Left to being a total non entity.  The best example of it in our time is Warren Farrell.  When he was on the feminists side from '70-'75 he was getting speaking engagements, jobs, promotions etc and when he went up against them all that disappeared and he was essentially in poverty....well, relatively speaking compared to where he had been.]

              Wikipedia only details his political doings.

              Comments between the [brakets] below.

              I'll comment the same way...

              With kind regards Spence


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Tom Smith
              To: aum@yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 6:55 PM
              Subject: Re: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_ capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_ action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas


               
              I would add that whether marxism was originally feminist or not, from the early 20th Century on they were totally on board in the uncompromising way we see now.  Check out what happened to the first masculist and leading American marxist at the turn of the 20th Century, E Belfort Bax, for confirmation.  The Right ALWAYS moved to the Left on feminism when they saw the Left (Marxism) pushing it.  In fact this was the case from the early 1800's on and can be seen to be the primary element driving our deomcracy for two centuries.

              Marxism is dead.
               
              [Yup, I would rejoice except for the fact the Bible says: do not rejoice when your enemy falls or the Lord might see and disapprove.. .. I forget the rest of it but the Lord might stop punishing them; and they're [the socialists] still too alive to be taken lightly.]

              [Good point Spence.  They are at their peak of power but know they are headed for a fall.  They will continue to try to maintain their power and we are their first target.]
               
                It's not only their mealey mouthed support and vanguarding of feminism for over a hundred years, but the mistaken view of classes.  We have a feminist IQtocracy.  That's the new oppressive class and they are mostly associated with marxism now.
               
              [Yea, I thought that too. The feminists are Big into using Marxism to destroy the family and the Church.]

              [It's all well documented too.  In my rad days in the late Sixties the marxist talked about it freely and in the underground press.  That's exactly what they had in mind for feminism...to undermine the institutions and take over]
               
                We need both a new social and economic philosophy to guide the Left and before that can happen the Marxists have first to be defeated.  That's why we now need to lean to the Right while preparing ourselves to take over the Left.
               
              [Yea, I think so too.]

              What this new social and economic philosophy should consist of should be our main topic.
               
              [You read psychology, at uni, didn't you Tom? Well, have you any ideas?]

              [It's more an issue of political science and history.  Whatever we come up with has to be consistent with a few hundred years of American History.  Why American?  The feminist bullshit may not have originated here, it originated in France and England in the late 18th century, but it was developed here politically and then that was spread to the rest of the world the last 40 years.

              A good place to start in transforming the Left, or democratic party, before progressivism took hold in both parties and that would be before the Wilson era.  Yep, that's when Bax got axed on the Left...1913.  The democrats were the conservative party and the repubs the progressives between the Civil War and the First World War.  By kicking the feminists and marxists out of the Left we are simply retrieving, or going back to, the original dichotomy of Left and Right.

              The Old Left was big on individual freedom, States Rights, small government, etc.   We should keep the progressive advocacy for social programs but without the marxist draconian bullshit we've had for 40 years.  Kind of like the old liberals.  We should also be the regulators of business without being in bed with them like the Marxists now.

              The main problem is the marxists and the best way to bring them down is by taking out feminism on the Left.  The marxists are totally dependent for their existance on the feminists and secondarily on the Right who they always have been butt boys for. 

              We need an independent Left that is returned to truth and justice.  Feminism is the only thing in hte way.

              I'll write more on this but this is not the best time.  My computer is on the fritz and I'm posting from the Library.  I'll get it up and running in a week or two and will write more than in a separate email.]

              Tom 


              Tom





              From: Spencer Mewha <spencer@spencermewh a.plus.com>
              To: fathers_are_ capable_too@ yahoogroups. com
              Cc: MensIssuesOnline@ yahoogroups. com; F4J-scotland@ yahoogroups. co.uk; aum@yahoogroups. com; Domestic_Violence- Mens_Support@ yahoogroups. com
              Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 3:26:11 AM
              Subject: [AUM] Re: [fathers_are_ capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_ action] Men's Rights and Feminist Advocacy in Canadian Domestic Violence Policy Arenas

               
              All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
              your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
              something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
              demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.

              The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
              insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.

              With kind regards Spence

              ------------ --------- ---------
              Cristian Malinescu wrote:
              >
              >
              > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
              > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
              > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
              > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
              > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
              > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
              > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
              > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
              > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
              > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
              > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
              > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
              > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
              > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
              > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
              > machinery dejection?!
              >





            • Spencer Mewha
              Nice one, MtnHiker; and, yes, of course, every Marxist society has been an utter failure. Also, every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 9, 2010
                Nice one, MtnHiker; and, yes, of course, every Marxist society has been an utter failure. Also, every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war= genocide. The prisons are full of men. Just about every law is harder on men [as shown by almost all prisons being full of men]. Heck, they're even trying to release the few women who are incarcerated. And men have no rights to love and protect their children. Everything goes against men. And if we can get to the point where we rock the cradle [rule the world], and get all spending in men's hands; then we will rule.

                With kind regards Spence


                ----- Original Message -----
                From: MrMtnHiker
                To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:21 PM
                Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism


                 
                > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
                > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
                > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
                > > socialism.
                > Cristian Malinescu
                ================

                Cristian Malinescua really needs to read this...
                =====================================

                Before Hillary, Oprah, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem there was
                Shulamith Firestone:
                ----------------------------------------------------------

                Shulamith Firestone (born 1945) (also called Shulie Firestone) is a
                Jewish Canadian-born feminist; a founding member of the Chicago
                Women's Liberation Union in 1969, and a member of Redstockings and the
                New York Radical Feminists. In 1970, she authored The Dialectic of
                Sex: A Case for Feminist Revolution in which she stated that women
                must seize the means of reproduction. The Dialectic of Sex synthesized
                the ideas of Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick
                Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir to put forth a feminist theory of
                politics and became a major text in second-wave feminism in the United
                States.

                Firestone perceived that gender inequality originated in the
                patricarchy forced on women through their biology...

                Source of article excerpts:
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone
                ===============================

                [Excerpts from www.ewtn.com follow:]

                This is what had happened. In the 1960's women had joined the
                radical Marxist based movements of revolution, and been [supposedly]
                treated terribly by the radical men. They had been denied a voice,
                relegated to menial tasks, and used sexually. Around 1970 a group of
                radical women split off from the men and formed their own groups. They
                applied the radical Marxist ideas they had learned to the
                relationship between men and women.

                The most influential of this women was Shulamith Firestone who
                wrote the feminist classic <The Dialectic of Sex>. You probably have
                heard of Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, but
                the real founder of radical feminism was Shulamith Firestone. The
                feminists have kept Shulamith in the academic closet because she was
                so radical. She advocated the destruction of the family, and
                marriage, total sexual liberation including the acceptance of
                child/adult sex and incest, and finding a technological replacement
                for pregnancy.

                Firestone applied the philosophy of Marx and Engels, particularly the
                ideas found in a book by Engels entitled <The Origins of the Family,
                Property, and the State>, to the situation of women. Engels and Marx
                had argued that all history is the history of class struggle - the
                oppressor against the oppressed, the owner against the worker, and the
                man against the woman. Classic Marxism holds that originally there was
                a classless society without property or family. According to this
                theory which is totally without foundation, in the beginning, in the
                Marxist garden of Eden, men didn't know they were fathers. They didn't
                associated intercourse with child birth and therefore there were no
                fatherheaded families and no inheritance of property through the male
                line. All goods passed from the mother and her family to the children.
                But then the great evil occurred, the Marxist original sin, men
                discovered that they were fathers and they claimed their right to
                their children and the right to pass their property on to their
                children. Men enslaved women in marriage, so that they could be sure
                who their children were, and this caused private property and all the
                evils of oppression.

                For the classic Marxist, these evils can be eliminated only when
                private property is eliminated. The elimination of property must be
                combined with laws that make divorce easy. Women wouldn't need
                husbands, the state would provide. All women would work outside the
                home, the state would provide 24 hour free day care. Illegitimacy
                would be acceptable since the state would provide for children.
                Religioun would be eliminated, since religion promoted the family.
                Once this was accomplished the great and wonderful classless society
                would emerge, and people would finally be free. Of course, no Marxist
                society ever succeeded in creating a classless society. They have all
                been disasters.

                The radical feminists were not deterred by the failures of
                classic Marxism or the failures of Communist states. They felt that
                they understood the cause of those failures. The Marxist had focused
                on the economic issues, but according to Marxist theory, the first
                oppression was caused by marriage. Women were the true oppressed
                class. Therefore, to eliminate oppression and suffering it would be
                necessary not to have an economic class revolution but a sex class
                revolution. Firestone writes:

                So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes
                requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and in a
                temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of
                production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes
                requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of
                control of reproduction: the restoration to women of ownership
                of their own bodies, as well as feminine control of human
                fertility, including both the new technology and all the social
                institutions of childbearing and childrearing. And just as the
                end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of
                the economic class <privilege> but of the economic class
                <distinction> itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution
                must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just
                the elimination of male <privilege> but of the sex <distinction>
                itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer
                matter culturally.

                Source:
                http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FEMINISM.TXT

                --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@...> wrote:
                >
                > All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
                > your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
                > something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
                > demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.
                >
                > The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
                > insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.
                >
                > With kind regards Spence
                >
                > ------------------------------
                > Cristian Malinescu wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
                > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
                > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
                > > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
                > > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
                > > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
                > > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
                > > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
                > > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
                > > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
                > > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
                > > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
                > > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
                > > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
                > > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
                > > machinery dejection?!
                > >
                >


              • MrMtnHiker
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 10, 2010
                  <<< every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war [etc.] >>>

                  Yes Spence this all took off in the Progressive Era with the first generation of men who were raised by strange women (the first female public school teachers who started en masse in the 1870s). This was the first socially engineered Progressive generation of men and they were ready to trade off their power to have a shot at the "new woman".

                  The "new woman" was independent and the new mores offered new levels of relations with them and men without marriage. "If a man could go from flower to flower, why not a woman?" "Equal" thinking was the new order of the day and men were all too happy to concede to it, and they still are today. Women can have all the man's power, if men can live immorally and reap carnal benefits from it.

                  It was the start of the nanny state as new laws "empowered women" and took care of them with their newly attained property and divorce rights. Now no man was needed.

                  Today the most Progressive are called the "hook-up" culture, the least Progressive just 'experience' a few others before marriage, then proceed into serial monogamy.

                  Any way you slice it it's the way of the West with it's "new woman", the new 'pass around' woman made socially acceptable along with the "sexually active" male.

                  Larry

                  PS: "New woman" is a term used in one of the publications I have from circa 1900 to 1917. It was Physical Culture magazine that ran a story back then about the "new woman" and how she is independent and travels the world now without a man to accompany her (that was new, bold and Progressive back then).

                  =====================================
                  --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Nice one, MtnHiker; and, yes, of course, every Marxist society has been an utter failure. Also, every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war= genocide. The prisons are full of men. Just about every law is harder on men [as shown by almost all prisons being full of men]. Heck, they're even trying to release the few women who are incarcerated. And men have no rights to love and protect their children. Everything goes against men. And if we can get to the point where we rock the cradle [rule the world], and get all spending in men's hands; then we will rule.
                  >
                  > With kind regards Spence
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: MrMtnHiker
                  > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 11:21 PM
                  > Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
                  > > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
                  > > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
                  > > > socialism.
                  > > Cristian Malinescu
                  > ================
                  >
                  > Cristian Malinescua really needs to read this...
                  > =====================================
                  >
                  > Before Hillary, Oprah, Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem there was
                  > Shulamith Firestone:
                  > ----------------------------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Shulamith Firestone (born 1945) (also called Shulie Firestone) is a
                  > Jewish Canadian-born feminist; a founding member of the Chicago
                  > Women's Liberation Union in 1969, and a member of Redstockings and the
                  > New York Radical Feminists. In 1970, she authored The Dialectic of
                  > Sex: A Case for Feminist Revolution in which she stated that women
                  > must seize the means of reproduction. The Dialectic of Sex synthesized
                  > the ideas of Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick
                  > Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir to put forth a feminist theory of
                  > politics and became a major text in second-wave feminism in the United
                  > States.
                  >
                  > Firestone perceived that gender inequality originated in the
                  > patricarchy forced on women through their biology...
                  >
                  > Source of article excerpts:
                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone
                  > ===============================
                  >
                  > [Excerpts from www.ewtn.com follow:]
                  >
                  > This is what had happened. In the 1960's women had joined the
                  > radical Marxist based movements of revolution, and been [supposedly]
                  > treated terribly by the radical men. They had been denied a voice,
                  > relegated to menial tasks, and used sexually. Around 1970 a group of
                  > radical women split off from the men and formed their own groups. They
                  > applied the radical Marxist ideas they had learned to the
                  > relationship between men and women.
                  >
                  > The most influential of this women was Shulamith Firestone who
                  > wrote the feminist classic <The Dialectic of Sex>. You probably have
                  > heard of Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, but
                  > the real founder of radical feminism was Shulamith Firestone. The
                  > feminists have kept Shulamith in the academic closet because she was
                  > so radical. She advocated the destruction of the family, and
                  > marriage, total sexual liberation including the acceptance of
                  > child/adult sex and incest, and finding a technological replacement
                  > for pregnancy.
                  >
                  > Firestone applied the philosophy of Marx and Engels, particularly the
                  > ideas found in a book by Engels entitled <The Origins of the Family,
                  > Property, and the State>, to the situation of women. Engels and Marx
                  > had argued that all history is the history of class struggle - the
                  > oppressor against the oppressed, the owner against the worker, and the
                  > man against the woman. Classic Marxism holds that originally there was
                  > a classless society without property or family. According to this
                  > theory which is totally without foundation, in the beginning, in the
                  > Marxist garden of Eden, men didn't know they were fathers. They didn't
                  > associated intercourse with child birth and therefore there were no
                  > fatherheaded families and no inheritance of property through the male
                  > line. All goods passed from the mother and her family to the children.
                  > But then the great evil occurred, the Marxist original sin, men
                  > discovered that they were fathers and they claimed their right to
                  > their children and the right to pass their property on to their
                  > children. Men enslaved women in marriage, so that they could be sure
                  > who their children were, and this caused private property and all the
                  > evils of oppression.
                  >
                  > For the classic Marxist, these evils can be eliminated only when
                  > private property is eliminated. The elimination of property must be
                  > combined with laws that make divorce easy. Women wouldn't need
                  > husbands, the state would provide. All women would work outside the
                  > home, the state would provide 24 hour free day care. Illegitimacy
                  > would be acceptable since the state would provide for children.
                  > Religioun would be eliminated, since religion promoted the family.
                  > Once this was accomplished the great and wonderful classless society
                  > would emerge, and people would finally be free. Of course, no Marxist
                  > society ever succeeded in creating a classless society. They have all
                  > been disasters.
                  >
                  > The radical feminists were not deterred by the failures of
                  > classic Marxism or the failures of Communist states. They felt that
                  > they understood the cause of those failures. The Marxist had focused
                  > on the economic issues, but according to Marxist theory, the first
                  > oppression was caused by marriage. Women were the true oppressed
                  > class. Therefore, to eliminate oppression and suffering it would be
                  > necessary not to have an economic class revolution but a sex class
                  > revolution. Firestone writes:
                  >
                  > So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes
                  > requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and in a
                  > temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of
                  > production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes
                  > requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of
                  > control of reproduction: the restoration to women of ownership
                  > of their own bodies, as well as feminine control of human
                  > fertility, including both the new technology and all the social
                  > institutions of childbearing and childrearing. And just as the
                  > end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of
                  > the economic class <privilege> but of the economic class
                  > <distinction> itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution
                  > must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just
                  > the elimination of male <privilege> but of the sex <distinction>
                  > itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer
                  > matter culturally.
                  >
                  > Source:
                  > http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/FEMINISM.TXT
                  >
                  > --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > All of us except, dear bro, that what you say is true. And we appreciate
                  > > your insight and knowledge on the matter.... We just use socialism as
                  > > something to kick around as the gov has already put so much propaganda into
                  > > demonising it already..... Just makes it easier.
                  > >
                  > > The groups in the cc box are just brother's groups and they might find your
                  > > insight illuminating. Hope that's ok.
                  > >
                  > > With kind regards Spence
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------
                  > > Cristian Malinescu wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > Guys, I see so often the paranoid usage of the term Marxism in
                  > > > conjecture with Feminism; did any of you ever read Marx or any
                  > > > socialist philosophy?! Feminism has nothing to do with Marxism or
                  > > > socialism all it has to do is with mass social manipulation with the
                  > > > purpose of destroying the grounds of the family as this being the
                  > > > ultimate goal of the fascist capitalism to transform everybody in a
                  > > > bison consumer not tied to any moral and ethical values but to his
                  > > > selfish mega-ego-maniacal focus, and centered to work enslaved and
                  > > > spend all his money in mechanisms owned by the new social aristocracy.
                  > > > Give me a break with paranoia and do something for the namesake, there
                  > > > are so many n-generation Canadians in this movement and all they do is
                  > > > selling anti-socialist paranoia - I wonder if this isn't in did their
                  > > > hidden agenda? What you expect people - the newcomers who strugle with
                  > > > the same exploitation system you put in place in every level and place
                  > > > of your society to take care of your own Canadian-proud social
                  > > > machinery dejection?!
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Spencer Mewha
                  Hi Larry Comments between the [brakets] below. With kind regards Spence ... From: MrMtnHiker To: aum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:52 PM
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 10, 2010
                    Hi Larry
                     
                    Comments between the [brakets] below.

                    With kind regards Spence


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: MrMtnHiker
                    To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:52 PM
                    Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism


                     
                    <<< every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war [etc.] >>>

                    Yes Spence this all took off in the Progressive Era with the first generation of men who were raised by strange women (the first female public school teachers who started en masse in the 1870s).
                     
                    [Tell me about it. I had a school teacher like that in primary school [for 4-11 yr olds.] That old witch used to hit me most days with a ruler. Now I never minded being hit but it was the psychological stuff that went along with it. So she had me in tears most days [what's a 7 yr old going to do against someone like that?] And I hid my shoes most days, or something, to get out of going.... Day in/day out- she filled us full of feminazi crap like: 'little boys are slugs and snails', etc.]
                     
                     This was the first socially engineered Progressive generation of men and they were ready to trade off their power to have a shot at the "new woman".

                    The "new woman" was independent and the new mores offered new levels of relations with them and men without marriage. "If a man could go from flower to flower, why not a woman?" "Equal" thinking was the new order of the day and men were all too happy to concede to it, and they still are today. Women can have all the man's power, if men can live immorally and reap carnal benefits from it.

                    It was the start of the nanny state as new laws "empowered women" and took care of them with their newly attained property and divorce rights. Now no man was needed.

                    Today the most Progressive are called the "hook-up" culture, the least Progressive just 'experience' a few others before marriage, then proceed into serial monogamy.

                    Any way you slice it it's the way of the West with it's "new woman", the new 'pass around' woman made socially acceptable along with the "sexually active" male.
                     
                    [I reckon women have always been in control. Sure they *Say* men used to oppress them but there's no evidence to support it. Take marriage- it used to be sanctified but as soon masses of women could prostitute themselves to the state then they, literally, retranslated the Bible to show that divorce is fine. Now a whore, can, literally, have sex with multiple partners and then say: 'well the marriage is invalid now there's ''marital unfaithfulness'''[NIV- pro feminist 'translation' in many ways. [Matthew 5.32.]]
                     
                    ]

                    Larry

                    PS: "New woman" is a term used in one of the publications I have from circa 1900 to 1917. It was Physical Culture magazine that ran a story back then about the "new woman" and how she is independent and travels the world now without a man to accompany her (that was new, bold and Progressive back then).

                  • MrMtnHiker
                    I missed a lot of school too. Maybe that s why we can see around the feminist snow-job.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 20, 2010
                      <<< I hid my shoes most days, or something, to get out of going. >>>

                      I missed a lot of school too. Maybe that's why we can see around the feminist snow-job.

                      Parents today that allowed their children to miss all the public school that I missed would probably be arrested.

                      Larry

                      =============================
                      --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Larry
                      >
                      > Comments between the [brakets] below.
                      >
                      > With kind regards Spence
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: MrMtnHiker
                      > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:52 PM
                      > Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > <<< every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war [etc.] >>>
                      >
                      > Yes Spence this all took off in the Progressive Era with the first generation of men who were raised by strange women (the first female public school teachers who started en masse in the 1870s).
                      >
                      > [Tell me about it. I had a school teacher like that in primary school [for 4-11 yr olds.] That old witch used to hit me most days with a ruler. Now I never minded being hit but it was the psychological stuff that went along with it. So she had me in tears most days [what's a 7 yr old going to do against someone like that?] And I hid my shoes most days, or something, to get out of going.... Day in/day out- she filled us full of feminazi crap like: 'little boys are slugs and snails', etc.]
                      >
                      > This was the first socially engineered Progressive generation of men and they were ready to trade off their power to have a shot at the "new woman".
                      >
                      > The "new woman" was independent and the new mores offered new levels of relations with them and men without marriage. "If a man could go from flower to flower, why not a woman?" "Equal" thinking was the new order of the day and men were all too happy to concede to it, and they still are today. Women can have all the man's power, if men can live immorally and reap carnal benefits from it.
                      >
                      > It was the start of the nanny state as new laws "empowered women" and took care of them with their newly attained property and divorce rights. Now no man was needed.
                      >
                      > Today the most Progressive are called the "hook-up" culture, the least Progressive just 'experience' a few others before marriage, then proceed into serial monogamy.
                      >
                      > Any way you slice it it's the way of the West with it's "new woman", the new 'pass around' woman made socially acceptable along with the "sexually active" male.
                      >
                      > [I reckon women have always been in control. Sure they *Say* men used to oppress them but there's no evidence to support it. Take marriage- it used to be sanctified but as soon masses of women could prostitute themselves to the state then they, literally, retranslated the Bible to show that divorce is fine. Now a whore, can, literally, have sex with multiple partners and then say: 'well the marriage is invalid now there's ''marital unfaithfulness'''[NIV- pro feminist 'translation' in many ways. [Matthew 5.32.]]
                      >
                      > ]
                      >
                      > Larry
                      >
                      > PS: "New woman" is a term used in one of the publications I have from circa 1900 to 1917. It was Physical Culture magazine that ran a story back then about the "new woman" and how she is independent and travels the world now without a man to accompany her (that was new, bold and Progressive back then).
                      >
                    • Spencer Mewha
                      Agreed. With kind regards Spence ... From: MrMtnHiker To: aum@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:20 PM Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re:
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jul 3, 2010
                        Agreed.

                        With kind regards Spence
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2010 3:20 PM
                        Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism

                         

                        <<< I hid my shoes most days, or something, to get out of going. >>>

                        I missed a lot of school too. Maybe that's why we can see around the feminist snow-job.

                        Parents today that allowed their children to miss all the public school that I missed would probably be arrested.

                        Larry

                        =============================
                        --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, "Spencer Mewha" <spencer@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi Larry
                        >
                        > Comments between the [brakets] below.
                        >
                        > With kind regards Spence
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: MrMtnHiker
                        > To: aum@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:52 PM
                        > Subject: [AUM] [fathers_are_capable_too] Re: [fathers_in_action] Men's Rights / Marxism
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > <<< every claim put forward, by the Marxists and feminists, against men could be put against women. And it would make a lot more sense to say it is men who have been abused.- war [etc.] >>>
                        >
                        > Yes Spence this all took off in the Progressive Era with the first generation of men who were raised by strange women (the first female public school teachers who started en masse in the 1870s).
                        >
                        > [Tell me about it. I had a school teacher like that in primary school [for 4-11 yr olds.] That old witch used to hit me most days with a ruler. Now I never minded being hit but it was the psychological stuff that went along with it. So she had me in tears most days [what's a 7 yr old going to do against someone like that?] And I hid my shoes most days, or something, to get out of going.... Day in/day out- she filled us full of feminazi crap like: 'little boys are slugs and snails', etc.]
                        >
                        > This was the first socially engineered Progressive generation of men and they were ready to trade off their power to have a shot at the "new woman".
                        >
                        > The "new woman" was independent and the new mores offered new levels of relations with them and men without marriage. "If a man could go from flower to flower, why not a woman?" "Equal" thinking was the new order of the day and men were all too happy to concede to it, and they still are today. Women can have all the man's power, if men can live immorally and reap carnal benefits from it.
                        >
                        > It was the start of the nanny state as new laws "empowered women" and took care of them with their newly attained property and divorce rights. Now no man was needed.
                        >
                        > Today the most Progressive are called the "hook-up" culture, the least Progressive just 'experience' a few others before marriage, then proceed into serial monogamy.
                        >
                        > Any way you slice it it's the way of the West with it's "new woman", the new 'pass around' woman made socially acceptable along with the "sexually active" male.
                        >
                        > [I reckon women have always been in control. Sure they *Say* men used to oppress them but there's no evidence to support it. Take marriage- it used to be sanctified but as soon masses of women could prostitute themselves to the state then they, literally, retranslated the Bible to show that divorce is fine. Now a whore, can, literally, have sex with multiple partners and then say: 'well the marriage is invalid now there's ''marital unfaithfulness'''[NIV- pro feminist 'translation' in many ways. [Matthew 5.32.]]
                        >
                        > ]
                        >
                        > Larry
                        >
                        > PS: "New woman" is a term used in one of the publications I have from circa 1900 to 1917. It was Physical Culture magazine that ran a story back then about the "new woman" and how she is independent and travels the world now without a man to accompany her (that was new, bold and Progressive back then).
                        >

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.