Feminist Guilt
For distribution anywhere and everywhere, on the web or off.Now, you might ask, "what guilt are you specifically talking about? Guilt for what? Guilt about what?
And I would say "who the hell cares?" It suffices to instill the vague, abstract suggestion that they are "guilty", and in this manner gradually poison the mental environment against them, the very same way that they have always treated US!!
Make it cling and burn like psychic napalm.
Juxtapose the word feminist and the word guilt, and let the power of suggestion take over from there. Get the world used to the bare idea that feminism might be guilty of something. And in time, gradually, information will trickle in to fill the blank.
But for now, we are farmers preparing the soil for the seeds that will be planted. This is psy-ops. . .
Now try to imagine how it would play, if they attempted to counterstrike with the phrase NON-FEMINIST GUILT. . .
Forget it! That won't work. It is futile. You will never convince the world at large that non-feminists are "guilty" of anything. The concept is a dud. A damp squib. A non-starter. It simply does not resonate.
Because plenty of people know perfectly well, in the obscure corners of their minds, that feminism is guilty as hell. All they need is to be reminded of this.
Feminist Guilt! Ahh...yes! That has a ring to it!
posted by Fidelbogen at 12:00 AM
31 Comments:
Yep, I see where you are coming from.
Hey, (that's short for CF) (wink) .. do you remember a site solely made up of false rape reports? I could sure use it.
Also, if you have a moment spare to idle, you might like to check these comments out.
I am dumbfounded as to whether these people are leftie, rightie, either or neither. I mean either and neither. No, I don't mean that either. In fact, I don't mean neither, either.
http://tinyurl.com/8pshn3
Julie...
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
CF - Convincing feminists that they are guilty of something will require them to feel guilt...and you need to have a conscience...and I'm not sure that most feminists have that.
So while convincing others that feminism is guilty of something....no problem. The difficulty will be to convince feminism to change due to that guilt.
@wolfboy:
Agreed that your typical feminist has a vestigial conscience at best. But Wolfboy, they DO have enough 'animal cunning' to know when they are in trouble. They know when the heat is on. And that is what I am aiming for: to put the heat on.
I have no illusions that feminists will ever change. I would just like to drive them back under their rock.
@Julie: Today, you sparkle like champagne! ;-)
I like the way you think. And you're right. Instilling a vague sense of Feminism being guilty of something in the public consciousness is a great idea.
So...idea adopted.
:)
Thank-you wolfboy69 for the link.
I have just discovered it on the blogroll also. The colour stands out but somehow I missed it.
CF, thank-you for the nice words. I know what they mean.
Also, about that link for false rape.... it has been there for a while hasn't it?
(A bit embarrassing)
@Julie: Yes. . it has been there for a while.
Hi CF, What's new?
What book are you reading at the moment?
Why Jules, I have been reading a 400 page PDF book about diplomatic relations between England and the USA during the American Civil War. I just LOOOOOVE to study history, you know. History has "got it all"!
The book is called Great Britain and the American Civil War. Here is a sample:
"In spite of this decided opposition by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs it is evident that one ground for renewed Southern hopes was the knowledge of the Emperor's private desires. Lindsay chose his time well for on July 16 the first thorough report on Lancashire was laid before Parliament, revealing an extremity of distress not previously officially authenticated, and during this week the papers were full of an impending disaster to McClellan's army. Lyons, now in London, on his vacation trip, was concerned for the future mainly because of cotton, but did not believe there was much danger of an immediate clash with America. But the great Southern argument of the moment was the Northern military failure, the ability of the South to resist indefinitely and the hopelessness of the war. On the morning of July 18 all London was in excitement over press statements that the latest news from America was not of McClellan's retreat but of the capture of his
entire army."
Cool, eh?
Is the book written by E. D. Adams?
Yes, it does sound cool. There was a lot involved in the Civil War.
What page are you up to?
I have been reading famous women quotes. And about women in the wars.
@Julie:
Yup. That's who it is written by.
You are a quick researcher!
And I would guess I'm about halfway
through the book, although it is hard
to say exactly, since I tend to skip around so much.
@Julie:
Have you read about the Suffragettes supporting World War One, and the 'white feather campaign.'?
@CF:
You are a quick researcher!
So I guess I can't con you into thinking I would have read the book before you, huh? (wink)
Yes,.. well,.. I have to keep up with you somehow.
Have you read about the Suffragettes supporting World War One, and the 'white feather campaign.'?
NO! I sort of sidetracked with Marilyn Munroe.
I would read about suffragettes. But I don't want to be buying all these books through Amazon. Do you know of something worthwhile online?
@Julie:
Yes,.. well,.. I have to keep up with you somehow.
Oh hey, you don't need to be reading that particular book just because I'm reading it! ;-)
As for the Suffragettes and the white feather campaign. . . I recollect that Angry Harry has posted a thing or two about that, somewhere on his site.
By all accounts, the suffragettes were just as whacked-out as the radFems of today. Also, "they" don't tell you that back in the bad old days, most MEN couldn't vote either. Men got the vote gradually, by stages, during the 1800s, and women's suffrage lagged behind universal manhood suffrage by only a few short years.
Also, it is not true that women "couldn't vote". They could indeed vote in various local elections, just not the big national ones.
Also, society had a different concept of voting back then than now. Voting was done by HOUSEHOLD, and the "man of the house" was naturally the one to cast the vote. Makes sense in a way: bringing electoral politics into the family might create divisions. Why should husband and wife be political adversaries under the same roof?
Nowadays, thanks to feminism, men and women are separate political interest groups. The wedge goes deeper and deeper. . .
Oh hey, you don't need to be reading that particular book just because I'm reading it! ;-)
I know this. I wouldn't be able to take in some or many (not sure) things you read.
But I do enjoy to learn and understand, so I just gain an overview through a site or two. Much like the time you spoke of the French revolution.
I think I shouldn't be asking so many questions any more. There are many things I can work out and I like that new comers get more attention.
......... Also,
I know about the vote and I have heard (read on site) that women gave out a white ribbon during WWI.
We live in a completely different world than the 1850s-1930s. Our homes, our work, our socialising.
But it is nice to understand how this all came to be.
@Julie:
Have you ever read the Unabomber Manifesto?:
http://tinyurl.com/7pcsn9
CF, thank-you for sharing the manifesto. It is well put together and as it happens, I can use some of it's wording right now for debate.
We need a new site for you called:
"What Fidelbogan finds and reads"
@Julie:
You know, it's funny. I find very little in the Unabomber Manifesto to argue with, and yet....
We must not forget that the Unabomber was a KILLER. :(
And a very stupid killer, too! The rationality of his intellect and the irrationality of his behavior is truly something to think about ....
So I would be careful about quoting him. I would recommend paraphrasing, and not mentioning the source.
I would also recommend THIS:
http://tinyurl.com/e7rfo
. . . in order to get a basic view of the subject.
:)
CF, very interesting link. Lucky you told me about him else I wouldn't have known.
Here is something strange.
I wrote a post because Glenn Sacks wrote a post about a rape case in NZ. (informed by e-mail) But on mine I added the way the social system is being worked.
http://tinyurl.com/9dftgm
Then a few days later this is written by our main newspaper.
http://tinyurl.com/9b7445
They seem to be similar. You never know if something you write is picked up.
..........
Gosh, we have a lot of work to do if we are serious about all this.
..........
Another thing. I asked the library about books because I don't want to buy them. There are so many even from women about women that I would like read and see mainstream.
It is easy to get libraries to buy books. There is no "Feminism Governance" in libraries.
Maybe that could be on the list of things to do. You can lobby libraries and several e-mails would help.
"Derailed the thread", I did.
Sorry about that CF.
@Julie:
Oh. . that's all right. It was never railed in the first place. ;-)
Feminism is guilty of promoting a cursory, superficial understanding of the world past and present. It's imputation of men comes in cursory form -- books, plays, movies, news weeklies. When these same women make attempts at serious scholarship they produce bad social theory: that is, feminist theories provide a wrong diagnosis of social ills. Feminism's alleged tendency to go too far is therefore itself something of a misdiagnosis: it does not so much go too far as go astray. Feminist attempts at research make for bad social science. This in turn is used to argue for bad legislation. Feminist attempts at philosophy deconstruct everything except feminism and thus report about the hegemonic, white, phallocentric slant to natural and social science. . Worst of all, the polarizing effects of ideological feminism have been blatantly misandrist to all but the blind.
So maybe a new post is in order just to let the gossip go down the page? Yes/No?
@Julie: You have anticipated me. It just so happens that I have a new post in the works. (Actually, several. I tend to get ahead of myself!) But, this post will be a long-ish one. . . and might even break some new-ish ground.
@MartyLee: Excellent comment you have made; crafted of teak and mahogany! :)
I feel bad at the moment. A guy, possibly a young man left a comment about the men's movement not being radical enough. That the men's movement should be just like the unions movement for workers.
It just means the children belong to the state but he said, "The community".
I know that won't work. But who am I to judge the way young men want to move.
Hey, most aren't going to have kids and get married and if they do, it won't be until they are in their 30's, 40's or 50's.
Their biological clock to want children will affect them just as it affects women. And really that is why they want everyone to get a good education. So that the lower class who are having babies in their teens can be picked up.
It is Stalin communism that lefties want. But they think they can improve as time goes on. Theories everyday are created.
But, getting back to the point.
Young men are brainwashed in schools to go for the NWO of globalisation. It is real in their day. And they do know that the superpowers need to be held accountable.
But also young men's world is different to older men's world. They don't care to take down feminism. They are mostly sold on the idea of socialism.
What they want is their piece of the pie.
Progression is long down the track. Evolution if it is real is stagnant now.
What to do? What to do?
Society has run amock. I worked it out at the beginning that socialism won't work unless the men's movement falls in place.
This is my sad rant. Had to place it somewhere and hope it doesn't drain you.
But what are your thoughts on this? I feel like the family movement is different and religion movement is different.
julie - But I don't want to be buying all these books through Amazon.
Wasn't sure if you are looking for a place to buy online or just read. If you are looking for a place to buy, try:
alibris.com
I order all of my books there (mostly used - but it's cheaper). :)
Sorry to keep things off topic. :(
Thanks wolfboy69. Books are an expense but necessary to learn from.
CF, do you know something online that explains the peasants in Russia and why they were attacked?
I wrote something of it which was totally wrong but I am finding things a bit difficult to understand. Were they slaves?
Sites I find don't give much of what I want.
@Julie:
A lot (but not all) of the peasants in Russia,in Czarist times prior to about 1862, were "serfs" — under the control of the landed gentry. Not technically "slaves", but close enough. . .
http://tinyurl.com/bqjja3
http://tinyurl.com/adgm6l
http://tinyurl.com/afkyse
I'm sure that the peasants were "attacked" many times in many ways in the course of Russia's tortured history. I'm not sure which episode you are referring to . . .
Perhaps you are thinking of the KULAKS . . .
http://tinyurl.com/65ub58
http://tinyurl.com/ck4rpw
http://tinyurl.com/bcrgg6
. . . who were considered 'class enemies' of the communist revolution and needed to be "liquidated as a class"?
Thanks CF. I was referring to the "class enemy".
OK, so I want to know more. The left wing (feminists) want the state to own everything and everyone. (1970's onward)
And they promise health, homes and jobs for everyone.
But didn't Russia communist also promise this? And didn't they chose the jobs everyone would do from birth (or sometime in early years).
They also had babies raised by the state under their qualified people. But those babies were left without even being held and they didn't even leave their cots.
Do you have a neat page or 2 to research this?
Rob Fedders had a post on feminism in Soviet Union. You could check his blog.
Thanks anon.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home