WWNH: Feminism’s battle for the hearts and minds of women may better be described as war.
Some people see Marxism as a dead ideology. Others consider it as relevant and use it to make more modern ideologies work together, such as liberalism, globalism, environmentalism, socialism, humanism, secularism.
Some people consider fascism foreign to the American way. Others impose fascism, defined as government taking control of American businesses; that is, government pulls the reins of private enterprise. (The federal government recently fired the CEO of General Motors and appointed a lapdog to replace him. They immediately appointed a car czar to dictate the kind of cars GM will manufacture in the future. They also took control over the salaries and bonuses of executives in bailed out companies.)
Some people view government interventions in the private sector as fascism enroute to social democracy. Others call them bailouts.
Some people understand history and that fascism is ultra left wing, as in Hitler’s German National Socialist Party, the Nazis. Others claim fascism, brown shirts, and jackboots fit the right wing mold. This helps hide the excesses of ultra-left ‘-isms’ that killed millions in Germany, Soviet Union, and elsewhere.
Some people know that the founders of Feminism were radicals bent on forever changing the female face of America for political purpose. Others claim they were admirable role models out to help the senseless plight of females long victimized by patriarchal idiots.
Next: The Melting Pot
11 Comments
07/08/2009 at 9:02 am
I love ya, Guy, but calling Hilter ultra left wing is a little odd (perhaps a bit of hyperbole on your part?). Stalin was ultra left wing and a horible dictator. Hilter was ultra right wing and a horrible dictator. Whether we consider ourselves to be on the left or the right of the political spectrum we have to realise that we all have extremists within our midst, and in the political past…the key word being “ultra”. Although, I do concede that if you go far enough to the left and others go far enough to the right you’re bound to meet in the ideological middle.
Your Highness Dulce Domum,
Can’t figure why you say odd and hyperbole, except that you identify yourself with the side called Others. That’s just fine, but you confirm what’s untrue for the Some.
The separation of left and right divides on one issue: POWER in every form, also known as the ability to make others do what they don’t want to do. The left favors no limits on power by the people, just the natural restrictions that arise from competition for greater power among those seeking it.
The right insists that limitations be firmly imposed by laws approved by the people. Even with limits, power always grows. Without limits, people use government to fulfill their political agenda. Enough of them trying to exploit government induces and even justifies government to expand exponentially.
Calling Hitler ultra left wing reflects what Others have been propagandized to believe. Germany was fascist and socialist (German National Socialist Party) out to build and prove the master race, including the use of eugenics and medical experimentation of humans slated for death in the camps.
That Hitler hated and fought the communists does not make him right wing, just another left wing competitor for power. That he killed his own people also attests to his leftist dedication.
The left wing always centralizes power and concentrates it further, because it’s required to impose the will of a few on the many. When nothing stops the concentration in the hands of one or a few, dictators emerge, kill their internal competition, totalitarianism arises, and excuses are found for more killing.
In any of the leftist killing regimes—e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong-il, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejah—how well do women and children fare in genocides and street demonstrations? Or how well do they live after their husbands and fathers face death or the gulag for political reasons?
Also consider this: Leftists have been writing history for more decades than you and I have been alive. By calling Hitler’s dictatorship right wing, left-leaning historians “prove” that it’s not only the left that kills people.
Can you name one right wing dictator? Name a right wing government that has imposed such horrors on its people? (I doubt you can identify a true right wing government that functioned in your lifetime, because the only true one began its leftward drift in 1913.)
The right wing opts to limit power buildup with constitution, laws, and principles that balance powerful people, groups, entities, and agencies. Limiting power is the only protection of the people, by the people, and for the people. It especially protects women and children from governments grown powerful enough to abuse its power. Governments always grow more powerful, never weaker, until overthrown or conquered by another government.
Right wing politics foster a society totally unlike the left. Leftists believe self-anointed elitists know what’s best for the rest of us; if they can combine their interests and powers, they can succeed. Rightists believe that no one has or should have the power to tell others how to live. Nor can they use reason and logic to justify it.
Summary: Left and right wings don’t divide on politics; they divide on power to tell others how to live.
Your comments spark a need for a clearer picture of the political spectrum, if I’m to stay on track of politics vs. females. I’ll post it shortly.
Guy
07/08/2009 at 11:40 am
The bailout situation is frightening to me. “Never waste a good crisis” they say. I remember how quickly they wanted the bailout to take place because everything would “collapse” if they didn’t hurry.
Saying certain banks were “too big to fail” was a joke. Those same banks have made it almost impossible for anyone to get loans, even those with great credit, assets, jobs etc….so basically banks don’t even need to do what banks do anymore? Something does not compute here.
07/08/2009 at 12:13 pm
“The federal government recently fired the CEO of General Motors and appointed a lapdog to replace him. They immediately appointed a car czar to dictate the kind of cars GM will manufacture in the future. They also took control over the salaries and bonuses of executives in bailed out companies.” But isn’t that what we can expect to happen when the government ‘bails out’ a company? Just like the old homeschool voucher argument that was going on for awhile . . . even though that tax money that would be coming back to us in a voucher was really our own money to begin with, many could foresee how the government would then put rigid controls on the homeschoolers and we would lose many of our freedoms.
I have a lot of questions about the accountability of those companies with that bail out money, and yet your comment seems to be saying that it’s not right that the government should be dictating so much of what GM does. Hope I’m not getting you sidetracked here . . . I mean, you are trying to talk about politics vs females!
07/08/2009 at 1:11 pm
I’ll be very interested to see the mood of the country in 2012.
Your Princessness Theresa,
Me too, but will the future of women and children flare and brighten or dim and dull in the meantime?
Guy
07/08/2009 at 7:37 pm
Katrinka, it seems that the bailout was unnecessarily pushed on taxpayers in order to take control of private enterprises (banks).
07/08/2009 at 7:49 pm
“Some people know that the founders of Feminism were radicals bent on forever changing the female face of America for political purpose. Others claim they were admirable role models out to help the senseless plight of females long victimized by patriarchal idiots.”
Interesting to compare those earliest feminists – Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, et al. – who denounced abortion and contraception with modern-day feminists who have made both part of the feminist creed and denigrated female fertility with the vilest of language.
Your Preciousness Laura,
I’ve misled you. The radicals I mean are the dozen or so that led and propagandized the feminist charge through the 1960s and 70s. The earlier ones you cite weren’t radical as feminists but as suffragists.
Guy
07/09/2009 at 7:46 am
Mr. Guy:
I do like the way you’re preachin’!
The way things seem to be going, I believe that within 10 years (most likely less) there will be martial law in the US.
I grieve for my country and am sad, but also relieved, that I’m an expat.
07/09/2009 at 8:00 am
Rita, Oh . . . now I see why the bailout is frightening!
Guy, your explanation to Dulce Domum really clears up a lot of things, too. I’ve heard so many people say that there’s not much difference anymore between the political parties. However, explained this way, there’s a BIG difference, if they stick to their political roots.
Your Loveliness Katrinka,
But they’re not sticking to political roots. Stay tuned for the Progressives and Progressism.
Guy
07/09/2009 at 12:50 pm
Guy, I really believe the country is waking up, to the destructive effects of feminism and the other issues you address here. I fantasize about a certain someone being run out of office in 2012.
07/09/2009 at 1:38 pm
Me too. RP
07/11/2009 at 6:52 pm
When it was explained to me that communism, fascism and socialism were enemies and on different sides of the political spectrum, I remember feeling vaguely dissatisfied, because it seemed to me that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the various groups — they were all about power. So, I was greatly refreshed to recently find this video which explained the forms of government from a different perspective. Rather than dividing them into perhaps artificial “left wing/ right wing” groups, the various forms of government were divided based on how much power they held, and by whom. Here is a similar thing, only in written rather than in video form. Basically, if you look at governments such as communism, socialism, and even monarchy, you’ve got a rule by a few (even a monarch would generally have an equivalent to the US President’s Cabinet, to help govern), with essentially limitless power. Since every form of government eventually degenerates into a rule by a few — even anarchy does this eventually — eventually, *somebody* will come out on top and become a dictator, king, or chief, the trick is to keep the oligarchy from trampling on the rights of the many. A republic does this; a democracy does not. I thought you or your readers might be interested in these links.