|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a Libertarian. Some have called Libertarians "Anarchists who bathe".
Have you ever noticed how all cable company invariably stick you with channels you would rather not pay for?
There simply is no "one size fits all"political ideology. My radical political views have been posted elsewhere. I believe that ALL political parties should be outlawed. The serve no usefull good except to broker blocks of votes to powerfull interests. I believe in an independant delagate system that need not even be done by election. An area delagate could be selected in much the same way jurors are.
Lobyists of any stripe should be made to do their lobbying directly to the voters over the media and no lobbyist should be permitted to even speak to a delagate. Delagates should only be responsible for the management of the bureaucracy and all matters of public concern should be decided by electronic plebisite. That's my idea in a nutshell.
One of the things that continually occurs in this movement is the notion that men's activism comes in a package with republican right wing politics and "praise Jesus"evangelism...two things I detest as much as feminism because they are every bit as arrogant and oppressive.
A pox on both sides of this debate. We should get away from the notion that there are only two choices. Ban and outlaw political parties and our choices become limitless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:25 AM December 4th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
" I believe that ALL political parties should be outlawed."
"Ban and outlaw political parties and our choices become limitless"
Using the state's heavy hand to give us more freedoms....quiet Libertarian indeed.
"Lobyists of any stripe should be made to do their lobbying directly to the voters over the media and no lobbyist should be permitted to even speak to a delagate. Delagates should only be responsible for the management of the bureaucracy and all matters of public concern should be decided by electronic plebisite. That's my idea in a nutshell."
Sounds quite "Libertarian" for their to be "delegate/s" who are responsible "for the management of the bureaucracy"...Which is also somehow separate than the "public concern"............."and all matters of public concern should be decided by electronic plebisite."
I just don't participate in governance...The two partys are controlled by coporate interests. They will never give up this means of power. Take away the two parties, but corporate interests will be given priority. Because that is the nature of political power and economic power. They go hand in hand.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things that continually occurs in this movement is the notion that men's activism comes in a package with republican right wing politics and "praise Jesus"evangelism...two things I detest as much as feminism because they are every bit as arrogant and oppressive.
I certainly agree with this. In fact, both major parties here in the US drive me nuts. The Republicans are always sucking up to the religious radicals who are always trying to insert themselves into government and schools. The Democrats are always sucking up to radical feminists, who have successfully infested government, the courts, and schools with the help of public funding. In this way, I see feminism itself as a religion. Who are they worshipping? Themselves, of course.
I really have a hard time deciding who drives me more crazy, the religious right or the feminist left. It's a tossup, except that the feminist left is currently far more damaging to our culture because hardly anyone is willing to challenge them. However, I see the religious right as making a comeback, and we now have what I consider a dangerous faith-based government. How long will it be before creationism is openly taught in schools? Huge budget deficit? Don't worry, Jesus will save us. Ugh! I hope the Libertarian party continues to grow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The original role model of the ideal Facist leader was the Roman general Cincinati from the Punic Wars. The story goes that when Rome was going to come under seige of Hannibals elephant cavalry, the Senate of Rome came to Cincinati with the "faces of Lictors", that axe in a bundle of staves that the author of the article refered to,as a token of surendering their power to him for the sake of quick decisive action in the face of this emergency. It is written that when the crisis had passed, Cincinati immediately returned it to the Senate and went back to plowing his fields.
JarJar's five minutes of fame consisted of making a motion of facism to the interplanetary council.
One of the things characteristic of all facist regimes is the creation and sustaining of boogey persons in order to justify the facism.
As I have said before in this forum, if I were a soldier of fortune type bounty hunter and I arrived at CIA headquarters with Osama Bin Ladin's head and right hand on ice in a picnic cooler loking for the reward...me and everyone associated with me would disappear...a boogeyperson of THAT quality is simply irreplacable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:56 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I got hooked reading several of this guy's posted sermons and published articles after reviewing the "Fascism" piece.
In an article that his own Unitarian Association refused to publish, he (Davidson Loehr, Pastor at the Unity Church - Unitarian, Austin TX) rejects the easy acceptance of political correctness and feminism by members of his faith community, and warns against the substitution of political ideology for religious struggle.
I you're willing to entertain a serious religious scholar (he belongs to the Jesus Seminar... an elite group of academics who have spent years seeking to determine what is historically valid in the Bible...) then Dr. Loehr is well worth more than a passing glance.
Thanks to the original poster for this unexpected link!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:54 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
So where can I find this Loehr article that the UUA refused to publish?
Incidentally, with regard to the feminization of Western Christianity - which has been going on for eight centuries -- you might like to read "The Church Impotent" by Leon J. Podles.
Ask your friendly neighborhood librarian to find it for you.
ctw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:33 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
ctw,
There are two posted articles that were refused publication.
The one I referred to is at -
http://www.austinuu.org/sermons/salvationbycharact er.htm
You can link to an entire archive of this guy's writings from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a short excerpt:
Still another way to understand fascism is as a kind of colonization. A simple definition of “colonization” is that it takes people’s stories away, and assigns them supportive roles in stories that empower others at their expense. When you are taxed to support a government that uses you as a means to serve the ends of others, you are — ironically — in a state of taxation without representation. That’s where this country started, and it’s where we are now.
Bravo. Very well said. Damn well describes our present state. He just needs to see the obvious, that it is men who are the underclass, who are losing their rights and are being colonized.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:15 PM December 4th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
This sermons been out for a while, but I've never seen a preacher/denomination go more head on against feminism, than this Bible based Baptist.
Ray
P.S.
I'm not Baptist either.
A Biblical Response to the Feminist Agenda
"We cannot think lightly about this agenda--we have to think deeply about it. The fact that you may feel in your heart some need to be free because you become victimised by the current agenda, doesn't really mean that you really understand the agenda. You don't know that behind this entire feminist movement is some very Satanic religious philosophy, and it runs very deep in the people who are influencing our culture, the people who have influenced deeply and provided the whole agenda, to say, Hillary Clinton and many others. And we have to take these ideas very seriously because they are in the White House, and now they will be creating laws that we have to live by. They are obliterating our culture. They are being taught through every avenue to our youth, and even Christians are falling under the spell of the feminists."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've read a bit on the 'Net that U.S. churches are now experiencing a significant decline in attendance by men.
This seems to parallel the infusion of feminist dogma into the various faith practices, and the growth of "women's spirituality" forums and sub-communities within local churches and national denominations.
If men are leaving organized religion, could it be because it has long been one of feminism's goals to assault any and all foundations of masculinity/heterosexual "normalcy?"
Feminism has been arguably the most destructive social pathology our culture has experienced in its mere 200 years of existence.
Under the guise of "equality..." all we have experienced is destruction... of family, faith, work, romance,education,legality, ethics, even scientific standards of truth.
Feminism is an "equal-opportunity" destroyer... it cares nothing whether the victims are women or men.
In the medical field, this assault on the body would be immediately recognized as a CANCER.
And aggressively dealt with...
Yet we continue to deny, ignore, and even encourage a social disease.
It must be an interesting form of dementia to be a "Christian-feminist" these days!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Read about the roots of modern feminism and related movements here...
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/robertowen/d eclaration.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about the link in the previous post. Here is a better version of it...
Robert Owen, 1825
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:05 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a very interesting article. While it isn't explicitly stated in the article, it is clear that all feminism has its roots in atheism and hatred of religion, a hatred of division of recourses by capitalist means, and a profound hatred of marriage.
The article could have been written by Marx himself and the Marxist-Feminists.
What is really ironic is that those that denounced the article have been proven right in time. We now have secularism that attacks religion and oppresses most all-religious expression, and we have widespread chaos.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many people consider the present US government to be a fascist regime, and looking at the author's list of criteria, the Bush administration seems to match pretty much all of them.
The only bugbear I have is his inclusion of 'rampant sexism' as a criterion. His analysis is obviously influenced by feminist ideology, as he seems to imply that fascism somehow benefits men at the expense of women, which is a gross calumny.
Women's complicity in past fascism.
I mentioned in some of my earlier posts that the religious, social and moral strictures which the Spanish endured under Franco were the brainchild of Franco's wife. In 'White Feather Feminism' I also mentioned the role of female verbal and social aggression in the militarisation of society. See also 'Women of the Klan' by Kathleen M Blee for a discussion of female white supremacists in the early 20th century US.
George Orwell and E M Forster both claimed (separately) that the British Empire in Asia only became really racist once white women went and took up residence in the colonies, and this seems to me entirely plausuble. Manufacturing exclusive social cliques is one of the things that females do from adolescence onwards, and later in life they are good at getting their men to do what they want. At a time when racism was considered acceptable, it is going to be the aristocratic women who turn their noses up at natives in the social club. Because the men had to work outside the home, they had to be able to get along with anyone. I'm not saying there were no racist men, but I'm saying do not underestimate the level of women's complicity in this. Blee discusses how the WKKK used tactics like organising consumer boycotts and campaigns of vicious gossip. This kind of covert, passive-aggressive action is deeply insidious, highly effective - and of course, deniable.
Fascism is not 'what men would like to do if only women would let them get away with it'. Make no mistake - when it comes to constructing totalitarian societies, women are up to their necks in it, at least as much as men are, and in fact, probably more so.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the author right to say that fascist societies are 'sexist'? The word 'sexist' implies that one sex benefits at the expense of the other, and it is not clear that this is true of fascist societies any more than non-fascist ones.
Fascist societies are certainly 'gendered', i.e they tend to prescribe different roles for men and women.
In Fascist societies, the interests of the individual are subjugated to the interests of the state. Consequently, the individual will be ascribed whatever role best serves the state's interests. The state wishes to maximise its power and influence in the world, and this can be achieved by maximising its population, and its industrial and military power. As fascist regimes tend to be racist, immigration is not an option; maximising the population through breeding is the only option.
How then can the individual best serve the state? In the case of males, by heavy labour and military service; in the case of females, by child-bearing, and before marriage, perhaps some lighter duties as well. These roles are determined very heavily by male and female biology, whether we like it or not.
In this model, it is not clear that either sex has an advantage over the other. Neither sex has freedom of choice, or control over their own bodies. Men are more likely to be killed or maimed in the course of their duties - their bodies are disposable instruments of state power. Although women may be 'breeding cows', their health will be protected, as they are more use to the fascist state alive than dead. This means that they will tend to be confined to the private sphere rather more than 'Sex and the City' fans would like to be, but it is not clear that this is worse than being in the military.
One could make a case for saying that women are the most disadvantaged under this model, and one could equally make a case for saying that men are the most disadvantaged.
I'm suggesting that a society can be gendered without necessarily being sexist. I'm also suggesting that fascist societies are not necessarily any more sexist than other societies - what they are is less free.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looking at the author's definition of fascism, we can ask to what extent feminism meets each of his criteria.
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
- Nationalism divides the world up into 'self' and 'other', 'us' and 'them'. 'We' are always held to be superior to 'them'.
- An important concept in nationalism is the notion of an 'imagined community'. I consider myself a part of the community of 'British people'. However, the community of British people is so large that I cannot possibly have met all of them personally - I have met a few, and so I have to imagine the others.
- One is expected to take sides with any member of the community against outsiders. If I am a British nationalist, then an attack on any British person is to be understood as an attack on Britain, Britishness, and on me personally, and I have a moral duty to involve myself in the conflict.
- Critics of nationalism would say that the very diversity of the imagined community means that it is not really a community at all. Nationalists are telling me that I have more in common with the Queen of England than I have with Ray or Pete or Thundercloud, just because she is British, and this is absurd.
I believe that feminism satisfies this definition of a nationalist ideology. I have often thought of it as a kind of women's nationalist movement.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
'We' (women) have human rights, but 'they' (men) do not.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
Need I say more?
4. Supremacy of the Military
Feminism has a very schizophrenic attitude towards the military. On the one hand, war is an aspect of the patriarchy, one of the bad things that men do to women, but on the other hand, we need to get more women into the military, and get them into every role within the military, we need more women war heroes like Jessica Lynch. So, war is good when women do it, but bad when men do it (let's ignore Lynndie England).
An equally interesting point might be the constant celebration of its own radical elements. Feminists constantly talk about people like Dworkin in hushed tones of reverence, rather than disassociating themselves from her.
Consider the feminist reaction to Lorena Bobbitt castrating her husband was to applaud her rather than condemn it as domestic violence. Valerie Solanas shot Andy Warhol, Larry Flynt was shot and paralysed. These actions were never condemned by feminists. Violence by feminists against men is either condoned or praised. Consider also the repeated calls for judicial castration.
One must be careful not to bend the evidence to fit the model, but this constant admiration for radical misandry, and the condoning of violence, is almost like a kind of 'militarisation' of feminism, a hankering after a 'paramilitary' wing to take direct action against the enemy.
5. Rampant Sexism
'Nuff said
6. Controlled Mass Media
Porn=Theory, Rape=Practice
Feminists advocate widespread censorshp of the media, under the pretext of fighting violence against women. A bit like censoring the media to fight The War Against Terror (or TWAT as I like to call it).
Christina Hoff Sommers, Daphne Patai, and Erin Pizzey have all documented examples of feminist censorship of the media and publishing, the political 'correction' of books by feminist editors, suppression of conflicting evidence, fabrication of reports, etc. The feminist movement is more than happy to engage in political censorship.
7. Obsession with National Security
Consider the constant scare stories about how women are not safe in their own homes, the streets are not safe to walk in for women, personal alarms, reclaim the night marches, women's shelters, an entire industry exists based around feminist paranoia about 'security', all fed by spurious statistics and lies about '1 in 4 women is a victim of DV', '1 in 2 female students is raped or sexually assaulted on campus'.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
I cannot imagine a secular feminist government. The entire feminist movement is steeped in mysticism and superstition. Logic, science and mathematics are 'male' constructs designed to oppress women, 'women's ways of knowing' are inherently superior. In feminist culture, the Tarot has more respect than Physics. Women's Studies 'classes' often start with a ceremony to praise the Goddess, and there is no reason to think that Government meetings would be any different.
9. Corporate Power is Protected
10. Labor Power is Suppressed
The Feminist attitude to economics is less clear. Think of Feminism as a nation. It will tend to be protectionist. As the US may protect US corporate interests against foreign ones, and US labour interests against foreign ones, the feminist movement will behave in the same way. All prizes accrue to women. Inside the feminist nation, as inside the US, corporate power will dominate because it has the money.
As Neil Lyndon points out in his book 'No More Sex War', affluent mothers with careers often hire help, which means that middle-class women are entering into master-servant relationships with working-class women. How sisterly is that?
It must be said that feminism has always veered more to the Left than the Right on economics. They have always advocated State intervention in the economy to benefit women. State handouts for women, State educational funding for women, State funded women's shelters, the State should seize fathers' income for child support, and so on. Feminists also love to loudly condemn that great free-marketeer, Margaret Thatcher.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
As I said in one of my earlier posts, science is of no inherent interest; it is only of value insofar as it serves the interests of the feminist movement. Cures for breast cancer are good, but the rest of the time, logic, science and mathematics are 'male' constructs designed to oppress women. Art and science should function as instruments of propaganda, otherwise they have no justification.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
This is linked to the National Security issue. The UK government recently took steps to raise the conviction rate for men accused of rape, regardless of false accusations. Feminists want more men in jail for longer, regardless of guilt. Some feminists (Valerie Solanas, Mary Daly) advocate rounding men up and exterminating them. Where men are concerned, no punishment is ever excessive.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Erin Pizzey has some interesting things to say about feminism in the late 1960s / early 1970s, money going missing from funds etc. Someone recently accused NOW of extorting money from corporations using the threat of bad publicity.
Consider the infiltration of charities, aid agencies and the civil service by feminist activists. They take over committees, recommend each other for jobs, and appropriate budgets.
I'd like to find out more about this. If anyone has any useful links, please let me know.
14. Fraudulent Elections
If any. The major feminist figures are entirely unelected. Greer, Dworkin, MacKinnon etc have never been elected as far as I'm aware, unless you count book sales. At the grassroots level, what we see is usually cronyism. Feminists will give jobs to their friends, vote their friends on to committees. In other words, they only have elections when they are sure of winning them. This can be justified as being more cosy and inclusive. Who needs that nasty, hierarchical male committee procedure anyway?
Under the author's definition, it seems to me that feminism bears almost all of the hallmarks of a fascist movement.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:04 PM December 7th, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Gees. Give me a break! This article is one of the most deceptive ones that I've ever read. It literally has a communist bias that supports socialist ideology and speaks of conservatism as if it were the tool of the devil. Hell. It is even on par with the Communist Manifesto; which is possibly one of the most evil documents of all time.
Do I really have to quote the Communist Manifesto and the Marxist-Feminists to prove the numerous similarities? Are you guys really that ignorant?
If you believe this pack of lies then you might as well move to Communist Red China so that you can enjoy true freedom as described by Davidson Loehr.
Once you arrive in China you'll first attend the re-education camps. There you will be obliged to join and attend a "democratic discussion group" where you will learn how to embrace the communist parties dogma. If you fail to pass the class because the party leader doesn’t like you then you’ll be sent up-line to a more draconian re-education camp.
Indeed, you will be taught that China is a liberal country that disdains conservative ideology. There you’ll be taught that America is fascist and an imperialist nation out to overthrow the world. They’ve been teaching this stuff for decades now.
Once you have started on your way to becoming a communist in China, you can embrace the following ideals that this idiot Loehr assigns to America:
1)Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - this is determined by one party communist elite.
2) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Remember the slaughter at Tiananmen Square?
3)Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The US is the enemy and continues to be such.
4)Supremacy of the Military - The military is used to enforce absolute control over the masses.
5) Rampant Sexism - self-evident.
6)Controlled Mass Media - State controlled in China. That ass-hole would have you believe that America’s media is state controlled.
7)Obsession with National Security - Look at how China protects their borders sometime.
8) Religion and Government are Intertwined - No separation of church-n-state. NONE!
9) Corporate Power is Protected - In this case there are family lines that operate state owned companies. Foreign companies are protected to an extreme so that their workers are employed while economic war is waged against other countries.
10) Labor Power is Suppressed - Obvious suppression. Can you say child labor. Hell. American children are so protected and lazy that a parent cannot even get them to work at MacDonald’s anymore. Those jobs are being turned over to the massive influx of illegal aliens.
11) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - China has a history of slaughtering millions and continue to do so.
12) Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Try spitting gum on the sidewalk sometime. See what happens.
13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Don't think China has Cronies? Think again. Read some of the links to the article referenced earlier.
14) Fraudulent Elections - Elections? What elections? What few exist are shams.
Clearly, Davidson Loehr is little more than a communist homosexual hiding behind religion to put forward his agenda of hate for conservatives. It's really pretty ugly. Today we see all 14 points manifested in the American Democratic Party which is now in control of the MarxistFeminist.
I can cite numerous examples where I have personally witnessed the Dems following each and every point with religious devotion at the hands of Marxist-Feminst. The rest of you will be ignorant of these facts because you are not lobbying your legislators and meeting them in person. For example, without question it is conservatives that are support father’s rights, paternity fraud legislation, the removal of Marxist-Feminist dogma from our public education system, new law that will penalize false allegations made by women against males, and etc. You won’t see the Democratic Marxist-Feminists, who have secret meetings that exclude men, supporting men’s issues.
Finally, anytime a leftist, progressive, liberal, feminist, woman’s studies teacher, socialist, communist, collectivist, or others tell you that Hitler was a fascist from the right side of the political spectrum you can know that it is a major RED FLAG! Hitler was a SOCIALIST! Socialism is an ideology that originated in the left. This is the BIG LIBERAL LIE. Want proof? It isn’t hard to find. Get off you lazy ass and Google it!
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
