"Women workers play a key role in assuring an alliance of the women’s movement with the working class, while nationally oppressed women play such a role in the alliance with the nationally oppressed. There are long-standing and growing relationships and coalition partnering between the main women’s organizations, the labor movement, and other major progressive organizations." - Communist Party USA, The Road to Socialism USA, unity for peace, democracy, jobs and equality.I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you accept the deceptive nomenclature, you accept the premise, and if you accept the premise you've already conceded the point and therefore lost the debate. You cannot win an argument by affirming and acknowledging your opponent to be the good guy (obliviously or otherwise). Because if Socialists are "liberals," and you concede that point by accepting the label, then what does that necessarily make you? This is why one will find I essentially never refer to Socialists as "liberals," "progressives," etc. The only time I use these words is in quotations, because that's what other people call them, and often purely to illustrate why they shouldn't be called such. There is nothing "liberal" about the people who call themselves such. So why do people, allegedly on the right, continue calling them by that name?
The first thing leftists do when seeking to advance any portion of their agenda is change the label. There's a reason they refer to illegal immigrants as "undocumented workers." To use the former term would be to concede its criminality, and that they're supporting a criminal enterprise. This perception is effectively neutralized in a large portion of the populace by simply substituting a euphemism in its place. There's a reason the bill referred to as "Obamacare" was called the "Affordable Care Act" and not the "Socialist Restructuring of American Health Care Act." The latter would be far harder to market and support in a society that still largely views the term "Socialism," much like "illegal," with negative connotations. And thus it's labeled euphemistically, i.e., deceptively, as something with a positive connotation for the purposes of moral inversion. The "Socialist Restructuring of Health Care" would have elicited significant backlash; even many of the most uninformed Americans will be reluctant to support something with that label attached. But who's against "affordable health care?" Such misappellation is part of a deliberate, multi-pronged strategy. If you oppose the bill, it allows its proponents to vilify you as an opponent of "affordable health care" (the rhetorical purpose), as opposed to being an opponent of Socialist medicine (it's tactile purpose).
As in the past I'll illustrate it analogously thus. Misappellation is to the body politic what an immunosuppressant is to the human body. The body's (society's) immune system (defenders) can't fight off an invasive pathogen (subversive element) it doesn't recognize as an invasive entity. And Socialists refer to themselves as "liberals," for example, precisely for this purpose. Socialists are trying to supplant our Constitutional Republican with a Democratic, or even totalitarian, state. That's treason. "Liberals" however, as moron John McCain so often opined during his presidential bid, are just Americans with a differing opinion on matters of polity. The latter will never induce the sort of austere counter-revolutionary sentiment requisite to impede or reverse subversion. That's the point; that's why they do it. "Liberals" will never be viewed, as they should be, like the perfidious Rosenbergs.
It must be understood, that euphemism is ultimately a form of lying, that being deliberately prevaricative it's inherently evil, that it's employed to introduce harmful elements to the body politic, and that when you adopt such terminology and use it yourself you become complicit and guilty of facilitating that agenda. If the people who claim to be on the political right can't understand that, then they're doomed to perpetual and consummate failure. Period.
It's a common thing in "modern" America to see "feminists" urging women to adopt mens' interests, conduct, and vocations; to compete with men in those spheres traditionally or more commonly pervaded by men. The inherent presumption in this disposition being there's no difference between the genders, physiologically or otherwise (indeed gender doesn't exist at all), and that women therefore should want and do the same things as men, and that they, being "equal," will do them equally well. It also inherently diminishes those behaviors and activities deemed traditionally feminine. So in the deluded mind of a Socialist, a movement that establishes men as the standard for women's conduct, is somehow a pro-woman movement. Making a living baking pastries, or child rearing, is frowned upon. A woman should want a career in an office cubicle or roasting in the summer heat as a roofer; because that's what men do. No regard is given to whether or not mention actually like or want to do such things, or merely do them out of obligation, or accounting for the evidence that such presumptions are having a deleterious affect on women.
Turns out a great many women are apparently unhappy trying to be like men, and that the perhaps most significant contribution of "feminism" to women, is redistributing the discontentment of men trapped in dreary and monotonous perfunctory labor for life to women (along with their vices).
The problem with the notion that women should compete with men is that they can't, or refuse to, often because they simply have differing interests and wants in life than men (god forbid). So "feminists" seek to restrain the latter, often through government regulation, to the benefit of the former in typical Socialist fashion. You see, a woman even on her best day can only ever hope to be an inferior man (and vice versa), and therefore "feminists" (Socialists) seek to elevate the former and diminish the latter through the state. Which, to any thinking person, is an inadvertent admission of inferiority. If you need "assistance" to be competitive with men you are necessarily "unequal" to them.
As I've observed for many years, and posted on my social media even recently.
"I love how leftists accuse Conservatives of looking down on women and ethnic minorities, when virtually all leftists overtly believe that being female or black is a type of disability." - Me, October 18, 2017.And wouldn't you know it, not long after posting this, I was once again vindicated.
That, right there, is the fruit of modern "feminism." Women, like black Americans, being imbrued with an intransigent inferiority complex. But what should be more concerning to us all is to whom they look to mitigate and abolish this perceived inequity.
The (often oblivious) empowerment of the state as a means of empowering themselves is one of the most conspicuous signs of a Socialist endeavor. As is the focus on group rights over individual rights, and the argument "inequality" persists perennially as a result of "institutional" prejudice. I've said for years that the parallels between "feminism," the modern day black, and "homosexual" rights movements plainly illustrate the Socialist origin and/or nature of each. They all organize, galvanize, and subsume the individual into a hyper political group or party in which individualism is profoundly diminished (if not effaced). There is no individual "woman" any longer, entitled to individual rights, upon acceding to the "feminist" ethos. There is only the Socialist collective of "women." And if you deviate from the ideological homogeneity of said collective you're womanhood itself is questioned, and even your humanity, as grounds for treating you as though you have no rights. You will either adhere to the Socialist women's platform, and adhere to its codes of acceptable conduct and speech, or you will be excommunicated, denied the privileges of membership, and subjected to the full brunt of its ire. Period. You see the same thing happening to black Americans who deviate from the Socialist platform on "race;" they're shunned and ruthlessly harassed and attacked as not "really black."
My allusions to religion above are not unintentional. Any thinking person would see the abject similarity between these so called "modern," and "secular" movements ostensibly fighting the antiquated bigotry and intolerance of Judeo-Christian gender roles, and be nauseated by the irony.
All leftists are the epitome of that which they purport to oppose, and as we see here, "feminists" are no different. They're opposed to "misogynistic" theism, at least when they're not supporting it.
Women now have all the rights enjoyed by men, as do black Americans have all the rights of white Americans. So why then do these movements still exist? Simply, to empower government; perhaps the most flagrant evidence of its Socialist origin and nature. Everywhere you see "equality" movements, whether it be for blacks, women, or sexual deviants, the primary means by which they seek and impose their notion of equality is through (typically unconstitutional) legislative or judicial action. Far from these movements dissipating, and eventually expiring after achieving their ostensible goals, they simply began finding more, new, and ever more frivolous things as "proof" of inequity and justification to continue their crusade for "equality" ("equality," as seen above, being an inherently Marxist concept.); e.g., the illusory gender "pay gap."
As long stated, by me, no two men queried on the street would have the same pay. There's no such thing as parity in pay even among men. The notion that entire groups of people would have economic parity is farcical, Marxist drivel, explicitly proclaimed by the Communist party's own website.
"The Communist Party has made key contributions to the working class struggle of the United States, building industrial unions, organizing for rights on the job and for a social safety net, opposing racism and bigotry and pointing the way toward full political, social and economic equality, upholding democratic rights against the threat of fascism and the far right-wing, and supporting international working class solidarity against imperialist globalization and for peace." - Communist Party USA, The Road to Socialism USA, unity for peace, democracy, jobs and equality.
Hmmm. Notice anything? So, basically, "feminism" is Marxism.
Now listen to imbecile Katie Couric on "feminism."
One can only marvel at the irony of a woman worth 55 million dollars, more than 99% of humanity, speaking about "economic equality." But such is the abject stupidity endemic to "feminism" and all subsets of the Socialist agenda. Katie Couric, just like Colin Kaepernik, actually thinks she's oppressed. I would like for Katie and the morons like her, to explain to me why she is worth twice as much as Colin, in a society in which women are not paid as much as men. They would no doubt respond with intimations of racial disparity, ignoring the fact Katie makes more than most of the white men on the planet also.
This is now a common thing in America. Most American women have been intellectually subverted, and it's repugnantly common to hear American women puking the Communist platform, and referring to it as "feminism." For a woman to say "I am a feminist," is tantamount to saying "I am a Socialist." And rather than being confronted and corrected, it's simply tolerated by emasculated or profligate men, in the hope that coddling this insidious stupidity and perfidy will be rewarded with a relationship or sex.
The argument from female Socialists they want equal pay for the same work is fallacious tripe. Federal law already generally proscribes "discrimination" based upon sex (which precludes disparate pay rates based upon such), and these lot invariably fail to account for the disparity in hours worked by men and women or the discretion employers have in raising pay. It's well known that women on average work less hours than men and as such make less money overall. It's natural to assume as such that men, typically putting in more hours, will on average more often receive raises and bonuses in addition to greater base pay.
In a free society what an employee is paid would be strictly between himself and his employer, predicated upon a slew of factors such as education, experience, ability, etc. But for "feminists" there's only one factor for determining pay; gender. And to whom are "feminists" looking for a solution to the imaginary "pay gap?" The state. Neither employers are employees are empowered. Rather, government is empowered under the pretext of mitigating or abolishing illusory inequities, in perfect conformity with the Marxist paradigm illustrated above.
The gender "pay gap" is proof that if no legitimate example of inequity exists Socialists will simply will fabricate one. (Just as groups like BLM fabricate false examples of "racism" to the same end.) Because the true goal was always empowering government. That's why these movements persist based upon progressively more tenuous, if not farcical pretexts, long after their nascent rhetorical goals were met, and will continue to persist, forever, so long as they're tolerated. The people in them are merely pawns, sold the lie of "equality" by Socialist subversives, whose agenda is directly facilitated by the myopic pursuit of privileges exclusive to their own group. Each group looks to the state, and the Socialist bureaucrats who pander to them as the means to reify their psychotic world view, and interminably confer to it and them ever more power to that end. And none of these groups care about the liberty of the others, and least of all, the individual.
Daisy Cousens gives a superb account of the intellectual dishonesty and abject hypocrisy inherent to the "feminist" (Socialist) movement. Daisy's crime is being an individual, i.e., nonconformity with the Socialist platform, and choosing her worldview and affiliations based upon existential, objective, and physiological truths, as opposed to rhetorical, subjective, and quixotic ideals that benefit a group and the state. Daisy may not judge, or shame women in the "feminist" movement, because these are rights Socialists/feminists reserve for themselves exclusively. If Daisy does these things she's a terrible human being, but when a "feminist" (Socialist) does it - and often do they do it - they're by contrast freedom fighters; so it's okay. It's abhorrent for someone to "body shame" or "slut shame" others. But the same people who construe such as a form of social atrocity have no qualms whatsoever about judging and shaming those in disparity with their own ethos, socio-political, and physical standards for what's acceptable.
So again, in closing, I ask. Being that "feminists" are not "pro-femininity" in any way, but rather aggressively promote androgyny (the assumption of masculine attributes by women), and even regularly exhibit an almost palpable loathing of femininity. Why are they incessantly called "feminists" by the those who claim to be on the right? What good does it do us, or anyone, to euphemize Communism and do the Communist party's propagandizing for them?
No comments:
Post a Comment