Activism Discussion: Feminism

Feminism
Posts: 11

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)

Topaz
2007-03-25 12:35:42 EST

Feminism Destroying America
by Chuck Baldwin

March 23, 2007

When one searches to find the causes for America's rapid
deterioration, there is no shortage of suspects. However, my
thirty-plus years experience as a pastor, counselor, and researcher
has convinced me that there is no greater threat to America's future
survival than the overall negative effect that modern-day feminism has
had, and is having, upon our homes and churches.
In just over three decades, the feminist movement has completely
uprooted and rewritten the norm for American family life. No longer
are women seen as nurturers and helpmeets. The push for "equality" has
done much more than move America's women from the kitchen to the
boardroom; it has moved them from under the arm and next to the side
of their husbands to, in many cases, a place of independence from, and
lordship over, them.
Wives and mothers today seem to take pride in their ability to
"control" their husbands. At the same time, however, they seem to be
oblivious to the fact that they have absolutely no control over their
children. But neither will they allow their husbands (or anyone else)
to discipline their children. As a result, today's kids are growing up
mostly undisciplined, unrestrained, and uncontrollable.
Ask any teacher, Sunday School teacher, coach, or youth worker, and
they will tell you the same thing: today's children are out of
control! Many people have far more control over their pets than they
do their own children.
Sadder still is the fact that the only answer anyone seems inclined to
proffer is to put these kids on behavior modification drugs, which, as
almost anyone knows, only exacerbates the problem. The problem with
most children is not an inability to sit still and learn; it is the
inability of parents to make their children sit still and learn. When
it comes to making children mind, many parents today seem to be
absolutely and totally helpless. I have never seen anything like it.
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not one who believes that all of
our marital and family problems are due to women working outside the
home. I don't believe that at all. However, I do believe that any
couple that places their personal careers or ambitions above their
primary responsibility to raise respectable, honest, obedient children
is not only failing their children; they are failing our country.
Selfish, materialistic, egocentric children do not make good citizens.
They don't make good employees, good policemen, good teachers, good
judges, good pastors, good congressmen, good physicians, or good role
models. In fact, they don't make good anythings.
Ever since our politically correct society decided that America's
fathers and husbands were no longer qualified to be the heads of their
families, our society has fallen into chaos. America's dads are
reduced to being the butt end of every comedian's joke, the fall guy
in every sitcom, and the stupid buffoon in every television
commercial.
However, it does not matter what Gloria Steinem and her feminist
friends think about it, there is an established natural order for
healthy, productive family life. Man has a natural headship
responsibility to both his family and his community. When men
surrender this responsibility, or when women wrestle it away from
them, the entire family and social structures collapse. And that is
exactly what is currently happening.
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20070323.html
Is there a certain ethnic group which has been at the
forefront of creating and promoting the scourge of
feminism? What was the ethnicity of many of the best
known feminists? What ethnic group dominates the
mass media - television and movies in particular -
which has widely touted feminism? Does that ethnic
group have a history of hostility to traditional
American culture and values? More here
http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/books-Preface.html

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

Tim Howard
2007-03-25 23:56:40 EST
Topaz wrote:
> Feminism Destroying America
> by Chuck Baldwin
>
> March 23, 2007
>
> When one searches to find the causes for America's rapid
> deterioration, there is no shortage of suspects.

What "rapid deterioration"?

> In just over three decades, the feminist movement has completely
> uprooted and rewritten the norm for American family life. No longer
> are women seen as nurturers and helpmates. (your spelling corrected)

No, they are just no longer seen a subservient and weak.

The push for "equality" has
> done much more than move America's women from the kitchen to the
> boardroom; it has moved them from under the arm and next to the side
> of their husbands to, in many cases, a place of independence from, and
> lordship over, them.
> Wives and mothers today seem to take pride in their ability to
> "control" their husbands.

Total BS that is too obvious to have to refute.

At the same time, however, they seem to be
> oblivious to the fact that they have absolutely no control over their
> children. But neither will they allow their husbands (or anyone else)
> to discipline their children.
As a result, today's kids are growing up
> mostly undisciplined, unrestrained, and uncontrollable.
> Ask any teacher, Sunday School teacher, coach, or youth worker, and
> they will tell you the same thing: today's children are out of
> control!

Simplistic, but lets say there are many undiciplined children causing
trouble... What ever reasons for children being "out of control" have
nothing to do with feminism. Where is his link?

Many people have far more control over their pets than they
> do their own children.

Pets are easy to control.

> Sadder still is the fact that the only answer anyone seems inclined to
> proffer is to put these kids on behavior modification drugs, which, as
> almost anyone knows, only exacerbates the problem. The problem with
> most children is not an inability to sit still and learn; it is the
> inability of parents to make their children sit still and learn.

There may be lack of discipline in some cases, but illnesses like ADD
are real and medically proven.

> Please don't misunderstand me. I am not one who believes that all of
> our marital and family problems are due to women working outside the
> home. I don't believe that at all.

Topaz does...

However, I do believe that any
> couple that places their personal careers or ambitions above their
> primary responsibility to raise respectable, honest, obedient children
> is not only failing their children; they are failing our country.

Most parents have to work because of the cost of living. It is a
necessity, not always a choice.

> Selfish, materialistic, egocentric children do not make good citizens.
> They don't make good employees, good policemen, good teachers, good
> judges, good pastors, good congressmen, good physicians, or good role
> models. In fact, they don't make good anythings.

If there are children like that, they are usually in rich or
upper-middle class families. Poor families don't get to experience that
materialism. This is a problem caused by capitalism, not feminism.

> Ever since our politically correct society decided that America's
> fathers and husbands were no longer qualified to be the heads of their
> families, our society has fallen into chaos. America's dads are
> reduced to being the butt end of every comedian's joke, the fall guy
> in every sitcom, and the stupid buffoon in every television
> commercial.

There does seem to be a lot of this. But is this feminism or
reverse-chauvinism? True feminists believe in equality and mutual
respect between couples. Just because some women did not get the
concept right does not mean feminism is a bad idea. Few women today
would call themselves feminists btw.

> However, it does not matter what Gloria Steinem and her feminist
> friends think about it, there is an established natural order for
> healthy, productive family life. Man has a natural headship
> responsibility to both his family and his community.

Natural, or forced upon women by force back in ancient times?

When men
> surrender this responsibility, or when women wrestle it away from
> them, the entire family and social structures collapse. And that is
> exactly what is currently happening.

So Topaz, this guy agrees with me when I told you before that men have
an equal responsibility to raise children and you said no, it is women's
responsibility to do it while men should have the jobs and earn the
money. It is you who think men should not have to raise the children
along with their partners.

Topaz
2007-03-26 20:55:38 EST
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:56:40 -0700, Tim Howard
<*d@suddenlink.net> wrote:


>
>What "rapid deterioration"?

"Notice to all Men, wake up and smell the Coffee..
*The government has pressured most large organizations into giving
women preferences in hiring and promotions.
*Men and Boys are being driven out of the University's, Public
Schools, which have been re-designed solely for girls' way of
learning. And Men are starting to avoid college because of the hostile
feminist climate. So women are moving ahead of men in getting advanced
degrees. More promotions for women.
*The IRS code provides at least six subsidies encouraging women to
divorce their husbands when the excitement wears off. (Around
three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women.) This has destroyed
the Family as we know it.
*Family courts (under the legislature's standards) routinely deprive
fathers of their children. When the Courts say Fathers have no Rights,
Furthermore, the courts normally refuse to enforce even minimal
visitation rights when mothers prevent fathers from seeing the
children, and refuse to do anything to stop false Allegations.
*Family violence protective orders are widely used to get fathers out
of the house so that women can get sole custody more easily, all based
on false information and again false Allegations, because the laws
want it that way. *Court-ordered payments to ex-wives are exorbitant,
typically one-third or more of a father's take-home pay. (My own son
was ordered to pay almost two-thirds of the income from his first,
low-paying job.) *Courts often refuse to lower so-called child-support
amounts when fathers' income drops. When fathers become delinquent,
they are publicly smeared as "deadbeats," and often jailed. In fact,
the Bradley Amendment prohibits any reduction in "child-support"
arrears, even if the father is totally disabled, So men's suicide has
rising even more so, because that is the goal of the Feminist to keep
men beaten down.
*Courts order men to pay "child support" even when the children aren't
theirs. And this may be a far-from isolated problem in an age where
DNA-testing companies say that up to one-third of all children are not
sired by the man named by the mother, but at the same time mothers can
refuse fathers the right to have fathers names on the birth
certificate, which is back up by the courts.
*.. Men are often arrested when neighbors, or a ex-wife or girlfriend
calls the police, regardless of the evidence at the scene when
officers arrive, because that is what the police have to do, when the
laws of the Country state them to do just that.
We are living in a New Age, where a New Order has been put in place on
Men, Children, all for the Sake of Money, and Radical man hating
Feminism.
Stand up Men and say "No more", this has to stop."
Baze

>
>No, they are just no longer seen a subservient and weak.

The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.

In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.

The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.

Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:

Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.

"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio

# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)

Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria, Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl
Friedan, the mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist,
best-selling author, professor, a founder of the National Organization
for Women (NOW), the National Women's Political Caucus, and the First
Women's Bank, researcher, journalist, Democrat, clinical psychologist,
and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the most influential feminist of
the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and others as an "initiator
of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and lectures,
including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live and work... When the war against fascism ended two decades
later, four million women lost their jobs to returning GIs. Women were
again told that their place was in the home. The freedom to work to
build up and defend their nation was over. Men would earn the family's
bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to come home to every
night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of the values
toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) as
the Nazis they thought they had defeated...


>Total BS that is too obvious to have to refute.
>

>Simplistic, but lets say there are many undiciplined children causing
>trouble... What ever reasons for children being "out of control" have
>nothing to do with feminism. Where is his link?
>
>
>Pets are easy to control.
>
>There may be lack of discipline in some cases, but illnesses like ADD
>are real and medically proven.
>
>
>Topaz does...
>
>Most parents have to work because of the cost of living. It is a
>necessity, not always a choice.

Due to Jewry.

>
>If there are children like that, they are usually in rich or
>upper-middle class families. Poor families don't get to experience that
>materialism. This is a problem caused by capitalism, not feminism.
>
>
>There does seem to be a lot of this. But is this feminism or
>reverse-chauvinism? True feminists believe in equality and mutual
>respect between couples. Just because some women did not get the
>concept right does not mean feminism is a bad idea. Few women today
>would call themselves feminists btw.
>
>
>Natural, or forced upon women by force back in ancient times?
>
>
>So Topaz, this guy agrees with me when I told you before that men have
>an equal responsibility to raise children and you said no, it is women's
>responsibility to do it while men should have the jobs and earn the
>money. It is you who think men should not have to raise the children
>along with their partners.

"Father" should not be a paid occupation, but "Mother" should be.
I'm sure he did not mean that fathers should stay at home.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

Tim Howard
2007-03-28 03:32:00 EST
Topaz wrote:

> "Notice to all Men, wake up and smell the Coffee..
> *The government has pressured most large organizations into giving
> women preferences in hiring and promotions.

The Government does not enforce civil rights laws nearly as much now as
years ago. The decline in the Justice Dept. persuing civil rights cases
like racial and gender discrimination started declining in the
*Clinton* years. If there is any "pressure" it is not to give
"preferences" so much is it following civil rights laws that prohibit
discrimination. The trouble with you sexists is that you have the false
premise that in the olden days that all those men who got promotions
were the most qualified, and so, if the % of men in those positions goes
down at all, it must be because of evil leftists and feminists pulling
the strings.

> *Men and Boys are being driven out of the University's, Public
> Schools, which have been re-designed solely for girls' way of
> learning. And Men are starting to avoid college because of the hostile
> feminist climate. So women are moving ahead of men in getting advanced
> degrees.

Again, are the schools being designed totally for woman, or is their
design just changing to accomodate woman as well as men? Are women
getting degrees unfairly, or just because they are given an equal chance?

> *The IRS code provides at least six subsidies encouraging women to
> divorce their husbands when the excitement wears off. (Around
> three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women.) This has destroyed
> the Family as we know it.

List me those subsidies and how they deliberately target men.

> *Family courts (under the legislature's standards) routinely deprive
> fathers of their children. When the Courts say Fathers have no Rights,

If this was going on for a period of time, it is changing. Joint
custody is the norm now, and mothers don't always automatically get full
custody, if the man wants to be a part of his children's lives.

> Furthermore, the courts normally refuse to enforce even minimal
> visitation rights when mothers prevent fathers from seeing the
> children, and refuse to do anything to stop false Allegations.

Show me the stats.

> *Family violence protective orders are widely used to get fathers out
> of the house so that women can get sole custody more easily, all based
> on false information and again false Allegations, because the laws
> want it that way.

That is a rather sweeping generalization. You say there are not abusive
husbands?

*Court-ordered payments to ex-wives are exorbitant,
> typically one-third or more of a father's take-home pay. (My own son
> was ordered to pay almost two-thirds of the income from his first,
> low-paying job.)

You quote so many others I cannot always tell if these are your words or
someone elses. In most states, few women get spousal support and you
know it! I do not claim, from what I know, that all spousal and child
support is fair. Nothing is perfect.

*Courts often refuse to lower so-called child-support
> amounts when fathers' income drops. When fathers become delinquent,
> they are publicly smeared as "deadbeats," and often jailed.

That is rare.

In fact,
> the Bradley Amendment prohibits any reduction in "child-support"
> arrears, even if the father is totally disabled,

But not new child support...and good luck to those mothers trying to
collect.

So men's suicide has
> rising even more so, because that is the goal of the Feminist to keep
> men beaten down.

Again, show me your stats!

> *Courts order men to pay "child support" even when the children aren't
> theirs. And this may be a far-from isolated problem in an age where
> DNA-testing companies say that up to one-third of all children are not
> sired by the man named by the mother, but at the same time mothers can
> refuse fathers the right to have fathers names on the birth
> certificate, which is back up by the courts.

Those two issues are not connected. But re: the first one--this
happens sometimes when a man has been living in the home helping support
the family. So he becomes like their father.

> *.. Men are often arrested when neighbors, or a ex-wife or girlfriend
> calls the police, regardless of the evidence at the scene when
> officers arrive, because that is what the police have to do, when the
> laws of the Country state them to do just that.

Police need to see evidence in every one of those laws that I have heard
of. Show me the text of a state leglislation that says what you have
described.

> The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
> for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
> manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
> are different.

Most leftists agree with those statements. We do not want unisex, we do
not want to get rid of manhood and womanhood--we do want to fight sexism
though.

> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.

You think that was a good thing?

> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
> to be protected by female policemen.

Oh will you quit with this obsession already?

> The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
> and nationalism.

As I said, liberals and leftists do not want that kind of society, but
we should also reject religion and nationalism. These things are
opposed to justice.

There certainly
> wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
> it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan.

We bombed them because Osama Ben Ladin was hiding there.

Again, you show how you really feel about woman by supporting the
Taliban. You must hate women to think they were great. Even Hitler
would not have supported such a state. You have claimed that Hitler
respected women. Do you think it was good that the Taliban beat women
in public and forced them to beg in the street for money? Do you think
it is good that they would execute women if they had their hair or nails
done in a salon? Do you think it was good that women and their children
starved to death because the Taliban killed their husbands and forced
them to give up their jobs?

The USA and its
> masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
> be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
> Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
> leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
> were.
>
What about the "cold war" where the USA was opposing the Soviet Union
and all its satellite countries? What about our wars with North Korea,
Vietnam, etc. What of our CIA overthrowing leftists leaders? What
about our proxie wars in the 80s in Nicaragua, Angola, and yes,
Afganistan. The USA was fighting Communism for decades around the
world. We did not care what Afganistan was doing to women when we
invaded, as long as they were not Communist. We only invaded because of
9/11.

> Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
> man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad.
>
You seem to consider women the enemy. Maybe you have gone mad.
>
> "Father" should not be a paid occupation, but "Mother" should be.
> I'm sure he did not mean that fathers should stay at home.

No but they should not be gone all the time fighting for White
Nationalism while leaving the mother with all the responsibility of
caring for the children like you seem to want.

Info
2007-03-28 05:44:21 EST
Topaz wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 20:56:40 -0700, Tim Howard
> <tim.howard@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >What "rapid deterioration"?
>
> "Notice to all Men, wake up and smell the Coffee..
> *The government has pressured most large organizations into giving
> women preferences in hiring and promotions.
> *Men and Boys are being driven out of the University's, Public
> Schools, which have been re-designed solely for girls' way of
> learning. And Men are starting to avoid college because of the hostile
> feminist climate. So women are moving ahead of men in getting advanced
> degrees. More promotions for women.

The corporate run American government has been doing that for many years now.
Trying to convince women to act like men. It doesn't work. It doesn't make
women happy.

It results in fewer marriages, more divorces and fewer babies being born.
The Federal Reserve and the NSA it runs has instead decided to allow millions
of Mexicans and Indians into America to for more economic growth and higher
profits.


> *The IRS code provides at least six subsidies encouraging women to
> divorce their husbands when the excitement wears off. (Around
> three-quarters of divorces are initiated by women.) This has destroyed
> the Family as we know it.
> *Family courts (under the legislature's standards) routinely deprive
> fathers of their children. When the Courts say Fathers have no Rights,
> Furthermore, the courts normally refuse to enforce even minimal
> visitation rights when mothers prevent fathers from seeing the
> children, and refuse to do anything to stop false Allegations.
> *Family violence protective orders are widely used to get fathers out
> of the house so that women can get sole custody more easily, all based
> on false information and again false Allegations, because the laws
> want it that way. *Court-ordered payments to ex-wives are exorbitant,
> typically one-third or more of a father's take-home pay. (My own son
> was ordered to pay almost two-thirds of the income from his first,
> low-paying job.) *Courts often refuse to lower so-called child-support
> amounts when fathers' income drops. When fathers become delinquent,
> they are publicly smeared as "deadbeats," and often jailed. In fact,
> the Bradley Amendment prohibits any reduction in "child-support"
> arrears, even if the father is totally disabled, So men's suicide has
> rising even more so, because that is the goal of the Feminist to keep
> men beaten down.
> *Courts order men to pay "child support" even when the children aren't
> theirs. And this may be a far-from isolated problem in an age where
> DNA-testing companies say that up to one-third of all children are not
> sired by the man named by the mother, but at the same time mothers can
> refuse fathers the right to have fathers names on the birth
> certificate, which is back up by the courts.
> *.. Men are often arrested when neighbors, or a ex-wife or girlfriend
> calls the police, regardless of the evidence at the scene when
> officers arrive, because that is what the police have to do, when the
> laws of the Country state them to do just that.
> We are living in a New Age, where a New Order has been put in place on
> Men, Children, all for the Sake of Money, and Radical man hating
> Feminism.
> Stand up Men and say "No more", this has to stop."
> Baze
>
> >
> >No, they are just no longer seen a subservient and weak.
>
> The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
> for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
> manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
> reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
> are different.
>
> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
> to be protected by female policemen.
> We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
> government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
> enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
> changed.
>
> The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
> and nationalism. There certainly
> wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
> it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
> masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
> be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
> Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
> leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
> were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
> the ones pushing unisex culture on us.
>
> Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
> man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
> be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
> symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
> And feminism is Jewish:
>
> Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
> a Jew.
>
> "THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
> By Michael Shaprio
>
> # 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)
>
> Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
> Peoria, Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl
> Friedan, the mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist,
> best-selling author, professor, a founder of the National Organization
> for Women (NOW), the National Women's Political Caucus, and the First
> Women's Bank, researcher, journalist, Democrat, clinical psychologist,
> and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the most influential feminist of
> the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and others as an "initiator
> of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and lectures,
> including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE and THE
> SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
> to live and work... When the war against fascism ended two decades
> later, four million women lost their jobs to returning GIs. Women were
> again told that their place was in the home. The freedom to work to
> build up and defend their nation was over. Men would earn the family's
> bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to come home to every
> night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of the values
> toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) as
> the Nazis they thought they had defeated...
>
> >Total BS that is too obvious to have to refute.
> >
>
> >Simplistic, but lets say there are many undiciplined children causing
> >trouble... What ever reasons for children being "out of control" have
> >nothing to do with feminism. Where is his link?
> >
> >
> >Pets are easy to control.
> >
> >There may be lack of discipline in some cases, but illnesses like ADD
> >are real and medically proven.
> >
> >
> >Topaz does...
> >
> >Most parents have to work because of the cost of living. It is a
> >necessity, not always a choice.
>
> Due to Jewry.
>
> >
> >If there are children like that, they are usually in rich or
> >upper-middle class families. Poor families don't get to experience that
> >materialism. This is a problem caused by capitalism, not feminism.
> >
> >
> >There does seem to be a lot of this. But is this feminism or
> >reverse-chauvinism? True feminists believe in equality and mutual
> >respect between couples. Just because some women did not get the
> >concept right does not mean feminism is a bad idea. Few women today
> >would call themselves feminists btw.
> >
> >
> >Natural, or forced upon women by force back in ancient times?
> >
> >
> >So Topaz, this guy agrees with me when I told you before that men have
> >an equal responsibility to raise children and you said no, it is women's
> >responsibility to do it while men should have the jobs and earn the
> >money. It is you who think men should not have to raise the children
> >along with their partners.
>
> "Father" should not be a paid occupation, but "Mother" should be.
> I'm sure he did not mean that fathers should stay at home.
>
> http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com
>
> http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/
>
> http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/


Topaz
2007-03-28 20:07:56 EST
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:32:00 -0700, Tim Howard
<*d@suddenlink.net> wrote:

>
>The Government does not enforce civil rights laws nearly as much now as
>years ago. The decline in the Justice Dept. persuing civil rights cases
> like racial and gender discrimination started declining in the
>*Clinton* years. If there is any "pressure" it is not to give
>"preferences" so much is it following civil rights laws that prohibit
>discrimination. The trouble with you sexists is that you have the false
>premise that in the olden days that all those men who got promotions
>were the most qualified, and so, if the % of men in those positions goes
>down at all, it must be because of evil leftists and feminists pulling
>the strings.

The main problem with America is that it is based on the falsehoods
that the races are the same and the sexes are the same. America is
based on lies.

Here are some quotes from Brain Sex, the Real Difference between men
and women
By Anne Moir And David Jessel

They are equal only in their common membership of the species,
humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or
behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific
lie.

The sexes are different because their brains are different. The brain,
the chief administrative and emotional organ of life, is differently
constructed in men and in women; it processes information in a
different way, which results in different perceptions, priorities and
behavior.

Until recently, behavior differences between the sexes have been
explained away by social conditioning - the expectations of parents,
whose own attitudes, in turn, reflect the expectations of society;
little boys are told that they shouldn't cry, and that the way to the
top depends on masculine assertion and aggression. Scant attention was
paid to the biological view that we may be what we are because of the
way we are made. Today, there is too much new biological evidence for
the sociological argument to prevail.

The biggest behavioral difference between men and women is the
natural, innate aggression of men, which explains to a large degree
their historical dominance of the species. Men didn't learn aggression
as one the tactics of the sex war. We do not teach our boy children to
be aggressive - indeed, we try vainly to unteach it. Even researchers
most hostile to the acknowledgement of sex differences agree that this
is a male feature, and one which cannot be explained away by social
conditioning.

There has seldom been a greater divide between what intelligent,
enlightened opinion presumes - that men and women have the same brain
- and what science knows - that they do not.

It cannot be stressed often enough that this book concerns itself
with the average man and the average woman.

The area where the biggest differences have been found lies in what
scientists call 'spatial ability'. That's being able to picture
things, their shape, position, geography and proportion, accurately in
the mind's eye - all skills that are crucial to the practical ability
to work with three-dimensional objects or drawings. One scientist who
has reviewed the extensive literature on the subject concludes, 'The
fact of the male's superiority in spatial ability is not in dispute'.
It is confirmed by literally hundreds of different scientific studies.

99 per cent of all patents applied for today are registered by men.

Scientists know that they walk on social eggshells when they venture
any theory about human behavior. But researchers into sex differences
are increasingly impatient with the polite attempt to find a social
explanation for these differences. As Camilla Benbow now says now says
of her studies showing male superiority in mathematically gifted
children, 'After 15 years looking for an environmental explanation and
getting zero results, I gave up.' She readily admitted to us her
belief that the difference in ability has a biological basis.

The differences are apparent in the very first hours after birth. It
has been shown that girl babies are much more interested than boys in
people and faces; the boys seem just as happy with an object dangled
in front of them.

Embryonic boy babies are exposed to a colossal dose of male hormone at
the critical time when their brains are beginning to take shape.

The brains of male and female mammals, from rodents to primates,
exhibiting hormonally mediated differences in neuro-transmitter
levels, neural connections, and cell and nuclear volume, strongly
suggests that similar sexual dimorphism of structure and function
exists human brains as well.

In women the functional division between the left and the right sides
of the brain is less clearly defined. Both the left and the right
sides of the female brain are involved in verbal and visual abilities.
Men's brains are more specialized.
The left side of the brain is almost exclusively set aside for the
control or verbal abilities, the right side for visual.

And the latest research had shown that the more connections people
have between the left and right hemispheres, the more articulate and
fluent they are. The finding provides a further explanation for
women's verbal dexterity. But could the corpus callosum provide the
answer to another mystery, could it provide a somewhat solution to the
secret of female intuition? Is the physical capacity of a woman to
connect and relate more pieces of information than a man explained not
by witchcraft, after all, but merely by superior switchgear? Since
women are in general better at recognizing the emotional nuances in
voice, gesture and facial expression, a whole range of sensory
information. They can deduce more from such information because they
have a greater capacity than men to integrate and cross-relate verbal
and visual information.

A woman may be less able to separate emotion from reason because of
the way the female brain is organized. The female brain has emotional
capacities on both sides of the brain, plus there is more information
exchanged between the two sides of the brain. The emotional side is
more integrated with the verbal side of the brain.

These discernible, measurable differences in behavior have been
imprinted long before external influences have had a chance to work.
They reflect a basic difference in the newborn brain which we already
know about - the superior male efficiency in spatial ability, the
greater female skill in speech.

Boys want to explore areas, spaces and things because their brain bias
predisposes them to these aspects of the environment. Girls like to
talk and to listen because that is what their brains are better
designed to do.

Even in the Israeli kibbutz, where deliberate attempts have been made
to play down the differences between boys and girls, and where the
engineered society proclaims a virtual interchangeability of the
sexes, it was found that in all age groups, while girls cooperated,
shared and acted affectionately, boys engaged in more acts of conflict
such as seizing other children's toys.

The manifestation of masculine behavior in otherwise fully female
women is a much-debated subject. There are, however, clinical findings
which point the way to a possible explanation. Most of them concern
women who have been exposed to an abnormal level of male hormone in
the womb during the critical period of brain development.

The pursuit of power is overwhelmingly and universally a male trait.

On the math part of tests, boys do significantly better, and the
success ratio of boys to girls increases with the level of difficulty.
On a score of 420+ out of a possible 800, boys beat girls 1.5 : 1. At
500+, the ratio is more than 2 : 1. At 600+ it is over 4 : 1. At the
highest range, of 700+ the ratio is 13 : 1.

Greater freedom of expression has led to a greater awareness of our
differences…how long will it be before we revert to type, how long
before those same magazines are talking of the New Romanticism - 'At
Last, We Can be Feminine Again' - or running features on the 'Return
of the Macho'?

Diversity is a biological fact, while equality is a political,
ethical, and social precept.

Liberation condemns the sexual double standard - why should sex
outside of marriage be 'all right' for men, all wrong for women? The
standards are indeed double, in that an extra-marital affair does mean
different things, and has a different level of importance, for men and
women. 'It didn't mean anything', mutters the man, when his
indiscretion is revealed - and it almost certainly didn't. He says
that he loves her just as much as ever, and he probably does. But the
wife sees his affair as an assault on what is to her most precious -
intimacy and fidelity. If she were to embark on an affair, you can
bet that is would 'mean' a lot to her. She cannot forgive him; for she
cannot even understand him. Their brains and their hormones have made
them strangers to one another.

The difference between the attitude and proficiency of men and women
as parents again reflects those basic differences of the brain. In
this most intimate of relationships, between parent and child, it is
the mother rather than the father who is more alert to the nuance and
the non-verbal hint, more naturally responsive to a baby's needs.

The Israeli kibbutz was not designed specifically to abolish the
Jewish mother. But in these forcing-houses of social engineering,
girls and boys grew up with virtually interchangeable roles. Children
were reared communally, and the household duties of cooking and
laundry were a community, rather than a family responsibility. The
expectation was that, with the passing of several neutral generations,
sexual differentiation would evaporate, and sexist stereotyping would
become a memory as remote as slavery is to the newest generation of
America's blacks.
But that is not what happened. Three of four generations later, the
children of the kibbutz are still clinging to their traditional roles…
again looking at the experience of the Israeli kibbutzim. Social
engineers worked hard to iron out classic gender stereotypes at an
early age: 'All children are dressed in the same work-clothes… there
is no sex difference in the style of haircut…' Even so… The boys went
on to study physics and become engineers, the girls to study sociology
and become teachers. It is telling proof of what we now know - that
the minds of men and women are different, that ultimately boys and men
live in a world of things and space, girls and women in a world of
people and relationships.

Nobody gets paid without performing. Because men try harder more
often, they will, if not forcibly prevented, succeed more often than
women in attaining highly-paid positions.
Little of this is surprising in the light of what we now know about
the biological springs of aggression and dominance.

Just as there are physical dissimilarities between males and females
(size, body shape, skeleton, teeth, age of puberty, etc.) there are
equally dramatic differences in brain functioning.

There is solid and consistent evidence from scientists all over the
world that a biochemical influence in the womb determines and directs
the structure and function or our brains. Through the influence of the
hormones the brain cells 'acquire a "set"… highly resistant to change
after birth'. Male hormone organizes the developing brain into a male
pattern which leads to male behavior. Absence of the male hormone
means that the brain persists in a female pattern, resulting in a
female pattern of behavior. This organization of the brain into a male
or female neural network is permanent; it can only be modified by
altering the hormonal milieu of the womb.

We can hope for an end to the slogans, for slogans do not change
facts, and an end to the sterile pursuit of artificial equality; an
abandonment of the arduous and unnatural process of denial and ,
instead, the enjoyment of our natural selves; the greening of a new
relationship between men and women; a celebration of the difference.

>Again, are the schools being designed totally for woman, or is their
>design just changing to accomodate woman as well as men? Are women
>getting degrees unfairly, or just because they are given an equal chance?

Everything is for women and minorities. Liberals who pretend this
isn't happening are just being more subtle than others. They are all
really against the White man, and against themselves in many cases.

>
>List me those subsidies and how they deliberately target men.
>
>
>If this was going on for a period of time, it is changing. Joint
>custody is the norm now, and mothers don't always automatically get full
> custody, if the man wants to be a part of his children's lives.
>
>
>Show me the stats.

Divorce courts are run by anti-man people. Men get taken to the
cleaners all the time. Liberals will deny everything and demand stats.
They probably also demand stats that White neighborhoods are safer
than Black neighborhoods. Where do they think their listeners are
living? Everyone with their eyes open can see these things.

>
>That is a rather sweeping generalization. You say there are not abusive
>husbands?
>
>
>You quote so many others I cannot always tell if these are your words or
>someone elses. In most states, few women get spousal support and you
>know it! I do not claim, from what I know, that all spousal and child
>support is fair. Nothing is perfect.

Nothing is perfect. Is that how liberals talk when they want something
for women and minorities.

>
>That is rare.
>
>
>But not new child support...and good luck to those mothers trying to
>collect.
>
>
>Again, show me your stats!
>
>
>Those two issues are not connected. But re: the first one--this
>happens sometimes when a man has been living in the home helping support
>the family. So he becomes like their father.
>
>
>Police need to see evidence in every one of those laws that I have heard
>of. Show me the text of a state leglislation that says what you have
>described.
>
>
>Most leftists agree with those statements. We do not want unisex, we do
>not want to get rid of manhood and womanhood--we do want to fight sexism
>though.


>
>> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>
>You think that was a good thing?

It was good at the time. There was a different (non-Jewish) culture.

>
>> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
>> to be protected by female policemen.
>
>Oh will you quit with this obsession already?

Why don't you quit whatever it is you want.

Here are some quotes from the account of the women's rally at the 1936
Nuremberg Rally, taken from the official party proceedings. The
speakers were Gertrud Scholz-Klink, the head of the Nazi women's
league, and Hitler himself, who outlines the Nazi view of the role of
women.
The enormous hall was filled two hours before the meeting began. Many
thousands of women were unable to enter, and gathered outside to hear
the proceedings over loudspeakers. The leaders of the women's labor
service and those of the League of German Girls took their places on
the platform, and the officials of the NS Women's League and the
German Women's Work filled the seats. To the side one could see
numerous representatives of German women's groups from abroad in
colorful and elaborate costumes. The farmers among the participants
also wore their beautiful traditional costumes. After a piece by the
Reich Symphony Orchestra, Hilgenfeldt opened the meeting and greeted
the participants and foreign guests in the name of the National
Women's Leader. The 20,000 women rose to sing "Our Fate was to be a
Free People."

Speech by Gertrud Scholz-Klink:

"The Soviet Union declared the legal equality of men and women in all
areas in a law of 18 November 1918. That meant the same right to work,
the same duty to support oneself, the right of control over one's own
body, which for the woman meant the right to abortion. The view was
that men and women had full freedom only when the state stayed as far
as possible form personal relationships. The state provided no legal
rights in marriage, which meant that there were only two forms of
marriage. One could register a marriage before a government office, or
one could be married without virtue of state ceremony.
The result was that, even when one had been married officially, the
individual partners had the right when they were unhappy to go to the
same office and, for a very small fee, dissolve the marriage. Should
there be children, they would be housed in collective homes, since
both father and mother worked and housing was in short supply, given
the migration from the countryside to the cities. The absence of
resources in such homes led of necessity to demanding money from the
economically stronger partner. The result was constant legal battles
and enormous misery for the children.
Simultaneously, women were increasingly absorbed in industry and the
military. In 1918, 24 of every 1000 miners were women. By 1932, 153 of
1000 were women, a number that had grown to 321 by 1935! In automobile
and tractor manufacturing, women are 30.4% of the work force, 63.5% of
the drilling industry.
The full equality of the sexes had the further result that girls are
given the same military training as boys in the communist youth
organization and schools. The Red Army is the only army in the world
in which both men and women are trained as soldiers and officers to
wage aggressive wars...
We Germans had 14 years under an attempt to impose Bolshevist
principles on us. The German woman took her place alongside the German
man when she realized that a struggle was going on between God's order
for earthly affairs and universal apostles of humanity who wanted to
replace these eternal laws. It was a battle between good and evil.
Good and evil are equally strong forces in life. They find visible
form in National Socialism and Bolshevism. National Socialism is good
become visible for we Germans. It respects the earth from which our
people have grown. Bolshevism is absolute evil because it is a
universal approach that rejects the eternal laws of nature. "Good" and
"evil" have never stood in such stark contrast before all the world as
they do today in these two forces...
Our work is to spread this idea. It is nothing other than a daily
struggle between these two forces. It is not ultimately a battle of
means or of money, that is of perishable things, rather it is ennobled
by the spirit in whose service we stand: In the battle between good
and evil, we are the obedient servants of the good."
Speech by Adolf Hitler:
Those abroad may say 'That is fine for the men! But your women cannot
be optimistic. They are oppressed and dominated and enslaved. You give
them no freedom of equality." We answer: What you see as a yoke others
see as a blessing. What is heaven to one is hell for another...
As long as we have sound men-and we National Socialists will see to
that-there will be no women throwing hand grenades in Germany, no
women sharp-shooters. That is not equality for women, rather their
debasement...
Women have boundless opportunities to work. For us the woman has
always been the loyal companion of the man in work and life. People
often tell me: You want to drive women out of the professions. No, I
only want to make it possible for her to found her own family and to
have children, for that is how she can best serve our people!...
If a woman jurist does the best possible work, but next to her lives a
woman who has given birth to five, six or seven healthy children who
are well educated, I would say the following: From the standpoint of
the eternal values of our people, the woman who has borne and raised
children has done more, given more, accomplished more for the future
of our people!...
Real leadership has the duty to enable every man and woman to fulfill
their dreams, or at least to make it easier for them to do so. We seek
this goal through laws that encourage the healthy education of
children. But we have done more than simply pass laws. We are
educating for German women and girls a manly youth, the men of
tomorrow!"
"I believe we have found the right way to educate a healthy youth. Let
me say this to all the literary know-it-alls and philosophers of
equality: (laughter) Do not deceive yourselves! There are two separate
arenas in the life of a nation": that of men and that of women. Nature
has rightly ordained that men head the family and are burdened with
the task of protecting their people, the community. The world of the
woman, when she is fortunate, is her family, her husband, her
children, her home. From there she can see the whole. The two arenas
together join to form a community that enables a people to survive. We
want to build a common world of both sexes in which each sees its own
tasks, tasks that it alone can do and therefore can and must do
alone."
"When I see this wonderful growing youth, my work becomes easy, I
overcome every weakness. Then I know why I do everything. It is not to
build some miserable business that will perish, rather this work is
for something lasting and eternal. A vital part of this future is the
German girl, the German woman, the German woman, and thus we meet the
girl, the woman, the mother."
"I do not measure the success of our work by our roads. I do not
measure it by our new factories, or our new bridges, or the new
divisions. Rather, I measure our success by the effect we have on the
German child, the German youth. If they succeed, I know our people
will not perish and our work will not have been in vain."
"I am convinced that no one understands our work better than the
German woman. (long-lasting, jubilant applause) Our opponents think
that Germany has tyrannized women. I can only reply that without the
support and true devotion of the women of the party, I could never
have led the movement to victory." (renewed enthusiastic applause)
The Reich Women's Leader thanked the Führer after the jubilation at
the end of his speech had calmed down. In the name of all German
women, she promised to work hard to ease his concerns. Not only the
Reich Women's Leader's words, but also the jubilation of the crowd
followed the Führer as he left the hall.

>
>As I said, liberals and leftists do not want that kind of society, but
>we should also reject religion and nationalism. These things are
>opposed to justice.
>
>
>We bombed them because Osama Ben Ladin was hiding there.


The West is the White race.

The goal of America is to destroy the White race. The
multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
anyplace but on the Whites. And they promote racial intermarriage.
If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.

And who is doing all of this? It is the USA government and the
media, in other words the Jews.

Many Whites are traitors. They support the USA government and their
own destruction. We should look for allies. And anyone who wants to
remove the Jews from power is our ally. In the past the Japanese were
our allies. Today it is the Muslims.

Osama bin Laden
September 24th statement published in Pakistan

"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We
are against the system, which makes other nations slaves of the United
States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic
freedom. This system is totally in control of the American Jews, whose
first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is simply that the
American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced
to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the
punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it
is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the
U.S. is not uttering a single word."

>
>Again, you show how you really feel about woman by supporting the
>Taliban. You must hate women to think they were great. Even Hitler
>would not have supported such a state. You have claimed that Hitler
>respected women. Do you think it was good that the Taliban beat women
>in public and forced them to beg in the street for money? Do you think
>it is good that they would execute women if they had their hair or nails
>done in a salon? Do you think it was good that women and their children
>starved to death because the Taliban killed their husbands and forced
>them to give up their jobs?

I'm for National Socialism, not Islam. But Islam is not an enemy.
The Jews who rule the USA are the enemy.

>>
>What about the "cold war" where the USA was opposing the Soviet Union
>and all its satellite countries?

By William Simpson,

The "Communist" despotism over Russia, which in 1917 had been set
up by Jews, financed by Jews, and ever since perhaps been manned
either by Jews of gentile "fronts" for Jews, from the beginning even
until now [1977], had always been under the control and direction of
Jewish International Finance, centered in Wall Street, New York.
Jewish Finance is as much the master of Moscow as it is of Washington,
D.C.- in both cases of course , secretly. Both serve one head as
certainly as a man's two arms and hands serve one will. The Wall
Street Money Power, which has given orders to Moscow, through many
channels but principally through the Council on Foreign Relations, the
"C.F.R."…

The saber-rattling between the US and Russia, played up in the press
and on the radio and TV the world over, has provided the justification
and the cover for pushing through one Jewish design after another.

All the present international fuss over Soviet "anti-Semitism,"
alleged Soviet persecution of Jews is nothing more than deception…

Hostility to Jews simply because they are Jews, on the part of the
Soviet Government, does not exist…

In Czechoslovakia the Minister of Justice who ordered the execution of
nine Communist Jews was Stefan Reis, recognized by the Jewish
Chronicle, a leading Jewish periodical of England, of 5th May, 1950,
as a Jew himself.

In Rumania, the Jewess Anna Parker was replaced by another Jew, A.
Bughici…

It has been the Jew-controlled U.S.A. that is chiefly responsible for
having built up the Russian regime, prevented its collapse, and
maintained it in power. Most recently, when the last Soviet famine
threatened as the result of yet another failure of collectivized
agriculture, Dr. Kissinger [himself a Jew born abroad], whose power
base is the international financial groups whose interests he has
faithfully served, rushed to Moscow to offer the necessary credits to
enable American wheat to be shipped to the Soviet Union. 700 million
dollars were provided…

American finance and industry and the American government itself (all
of which have long operated within the framework of what in the final
analysis is a Jewish Money System, and under Jewish direction), from
1918 to the present, without interruption, have contributed heavily to
the creation and the maintenance of Soviet technology, and have alone
made its development possible, and perhaps therefore even enabled the
survival of Communism itself. "There is no such thing as Soviet
technology - only American technology on Soviet soil."…

(There is much more on this in the book "None Dare Call it Treason"
which sold millions of copies in the 1960's)

Many people the world over were beginning to suspect the fact that
the Russian despotism was Jewish and pro-Jewish. And on this account,
in the stupendous climax that we are now approaching, it became of
crucial importance for the realization of Jewish aims that this
mistrust should be allayed and that world opinion should settle down
in the conclusion that Russia's Government was -anti-Jewish.


> What about our wars with North Korea,
>Vietnam, etc. What of our CIA overthrowing leftists leaders?

"Our". You mean the Jews.

> What
>about our proxie wars in the 80s in Nicaragua, Angola, and yes,
>Afganistan. The USA was fighting Communism for decades around the
>world. We did not care what Afganistan was doing to women when we
>invaded, as long as they were not Communist. We only invaded because of
>9/11.


"Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
they did
it is even more important to us.

Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
reason for the attacks.

We have been told that the attackers were simply crazy, cowardly men
who committed a quote "unprovoked attack." Media and government
spokesmen repeatedly assured us that these attacks had "nothing to do
with America's support of Israel." The official view, as expressed by
the President to the U.S. Congress, was that the terrorists attacked
us because they hate our freedom! Here is an excerpt of his remarks
before Congress

"Americans are asking, "Why do they hate us?"

"They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically
elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our
freedoms."

I am not trying to be disrespectful, but what he said is so ridiculous
that even this intellectually challenged President cannot really
believe it. Does Bush really think that a bunch of young men would
give up their families, their homes, and immolate themselves in a huge
ball of fire simply because they hate our democracy! Right on Mr.
President! Next week, will we will hear about Islamic kamikazes
crashing planes into Iceland, the oldest enduring democracy on earth.

Mr. Bush is asking America to support a massive war over the next ten
years. We are being asked to support a massive conflict whose huge
costs could well bankrupt America and cause the loss of great numbers
of American lives. Before we can make such a crucial decision, we
deserve to have the whole truth concerning this cataclysmic event.

Of course, Mr. Bush did not tell us the truth; he simply repeated the
Big Lie put out by the American mass media.

Saying that these acts were born out of hatred for freedom is a
calculated lie to divert us from associating this disaster with our
support for Israel.

You see, associating the attack with our Israeli policy would be bad
public relations for Israel and the Jewish Lobby. The last thing they
want is for the American people to realize that our unconditional
support of Israel has directly led to this disaster.

If the American people clearly understand that fact, people might
begin to ask a similar question to the one asked by Leslie Stahl, "Is
our support of Israel really worth it?"

To keep people from asking that obvious question, the media made up
the Big Lie that the men of October 11 were simply crazy, cowardly
people who hated freedom and democracy!

The real reason for the attack

Even the date the terrorists chose for this attack shows their true
motivation.

The attack occurred on September 11. That is the anniversary of the
League of Nations proclaiming in Palestine the British Mandate in
1922. The date represents the first physical step toward the
implementation of the Balfour Declaration and the establishment of
Israel.

Why has the mass media kept this important fact from the American
people?

Frankly, this fact has been suppressed because the American media are
thoroughly dominated by Jews. Many Americans suspect that Jews have
disproportionate influence in the press, but their actual power is
more than most people imagine. If you want documented proof of their
enormous media power, just go to my web page, www.davidduke.com and
read the "Who Runs the Media?" chapter from my book, My Awakening.
(Located at http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/chapter19_01.html)

Just as Jewish Israel-Firsters dominate the mass media, so the Israeli
Lobby afflicts Congress and the President. It should anger every
American to think that the most powerful lobby in Congress is in the
service of a foreign nation. Yet, the immense power of the Jewish
Lobby is a proven fact, and nobody on Capitol Hill will dare defy this
all-powerful lobby. Even one of the most powerful U.S. Senators in
American history, William Fulbright, bluntly said on CBS's Face the
Nation, that, "Israel controls the U.S.
Senate."

Recently, a Hebrew Israeli radio station, Kol Yisrael, on October 3rd
reported that during an argument in an Israeli cabinet meeting, Shimon
Peres warned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that unless he would heed
American requests for a cease fire with the Palestinians, he could
cause America to turn against Israel. In a fit of anger, Sharon
responded to Peres:

"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will
do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry
about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control
America, and the Americans know it." (2)

The media bosses and the Israel-bought politicians know the real
reasons behind this terrorism. They have read the interviews of Osama
Bin Laden. He and almost every other Islamic opponent of America has
put support for Israel at the top of their top ten reasons for hating
America. Bin Laden and countless millions in the Muslim world regard
the attacks on Lebanon, on Iraq, on Libya, on Iran, on Afghanistan and
on Sudan as a direct result of Israel's control over America.

They point out that the many Israeli massacres of Palestinians, the
ongoing torture of thousands of prisoners, the use of assassination of
political enemies, the bombing of refugee camps, and the expansive
wars launched by Israeli's against their Arab neighbors; that all
these Israeli crimes are completely dependent on unconditional
American aid. They also see the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children,
as admitted by our former Jewish Secretary of State, as a direct
result of Jewish control of America.

The American people, who are under the bombardment of a biased
multimedia, might not realize the Jewish control of American foreign
policy, but the Palestinians and their allies such as Bin Laden, all
understand it; and they hate us for it.

In fact, the same mass media that are giving out the Big Lie that the
terrorist motivation is "hate for freedom," are clearly aware of Bin
Laden's real motivations.

I can easily prove the true motivation of bin Laden and I can prove
the media has known the truth all along. In May of 1998 reporter John
Miller of ABC interviewed Bin Laden. Bin Laden talks about why he
seeks to attack America. You can find it on the ABC and the PBS web
sites. Here are excerpts of bin Laden's own words.

"For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered
and assaulted and robbed of their honor and of their property. Their
houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.

"This is my message to the American people: to look for a serious
government that looks out for their interests and does not attack
other people's lands, or other people's honor. And my word to American
journalists is not to ask why we did that but ask what their
government has done that forced us to defend ourselves."

"So we tell the Americans as people, and we tell the mothers of
soldiers and American mothers in general that if they value their
lives and the lives of their children, to find a patriotic government
that will look after their interests and not the interests of the
Jews."

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal
government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We
believe that this administration represents Israel inside America.
Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the
upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans
for the world.

In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So,
now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he
"hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses
America to attack his people."

David Duke

(1) THE SUNDAY MAIL (2001) Sept. 16
(2) Israeli Hebrew radio, Col Yisrael Wednesday

---------------------------------------------------------------

Your support makes our work possible. We need your help now more than
ever.
Please help our efforts with an online donation today.

Make a donation today by clicking here:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/donate.shtml


IMPORTANT ONLINE LINKS

Learn more about EURO at: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/faq.shtml
How to join EURO online: http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
How to download an application and mail it in:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/join.shtml
Where to find local EURO Chapters:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/ero_contacts.shtml
Where to read our press releases:
http://www.whitecivilrights.com/news/
Watch news clips and interviews:
http://www.davidduke.com/video/index.html
Where to buy books, tapes or stickers: www.davidduke.net
Read sample chapters online from David Duke's book "My Awakening":
http://www.davidduke.com/awakening/toc.html
>
>You seem to consider women the enemy. Maybe you have gone mad.

Liberals always twist what non-liberals say. They pick up the habit
from their Jewish controlled media and think it's normal.


>No but they should not be gone all the time fighting for White
>Nationalism while leaving the mother with all the responsibility of
>caring for the children like you seem to want.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

Topaz
2007-03-28 20:23:29 EST
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:44:21 -0400, Info <info@info.nospam.com> wrote:


>The corporate run American government has been doing that for many years now.
>Trying to convince women to act like men. It doesn't work. It doesn't make
>women happy.
>
>It results in fewer marriages, more divorces and fewer babies being born.
>The Federal Reserve and the NSA it runs has instead decided to allow millions
>of Mexicans and Indians into America to for more economic growth and higher
>profits.
>
They do pretend that men and women are the same thing and strive for
that sort of thing all the time.

And you are right that America is corporate. In the 1950's one
paycheck per family was plenty of money. Getting the women to do
outside work brought the wages down, according to their supply and
demand, more workers mean they are worth less and wages go down. And
they want Mexicans and others who will work for less than most
Americans.

http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/

Tim Howard
2007-03-29 03:20:08 EST
Info wrote:
>
> The corporate run American government has been doing that for many years now.
> Trying to convince women to act like men. It doesn't work. It doesn't make
> women happy.

I just don't see how the American Gov. is doing this. Women want
equality--I don't see lots of women trying to act like men--how do you
define that anyway?
>
> It results in fewer marriages, more divorces and fewer babies being born.

I won't try to convince you the Gov. does not want those things, but
there are not fewer marriages, people are just waiting longer to get
married. As for divorces, the USA has led the Western world in divorce
rates since the post-WWII era. It did not start in the 60s with
feminism. Buy why do you blame bad marriages all on the woman? Anyway,
if women (and men) do not want to have children or not get married it is
their choice. Who are you to tell us what to do with our lives?

> The Federal Reserve and the NSA it runs has instead decided to allow millions
> of Mexicans and Indians into America to for more economic growth and higher
> profits.
>
I don't think those two things are related. Wouldn't they rather have
lots of domestic babies being born that they could indoctronate from
birth instead of going to the trouble of bringing in foreigners?

Tim Howard
2007-03-29 03:51:23 EST
Topaz wrote:
> The main problem with America is that it is based on the falsehoods
> that the races are the same and the sexes are the same. America is
> based on lies.
>
There is no such falsehood being told. We are not all the same, but
that does not mean we cannot have social, political, and economic equality.

> Here are some quotes from Brain Sex, the Real Difference between men
> and women
> By Anne Moir And David Jessel
>
> They are equal only in their common membership of the species,
> humankind. To maintain that they are the same in aptitude, skill or
> behavior is to build a society based on a biological and scientific
> lie.
>
Again, what I said above.


>> Show me the stats.
>
> Divorce courts are run by anti-man people. Men get taken to the
> cleaners all the time. Liberals will deny everything and demand stats.

Yes, facts are a problem for you bigots.

> They probably also demand stats that White neighborhoods are safer
> than Black neighborhoods.

Since the bigot can't answer the question, he tries to change the argument.

>> That is a rather sweeping generalization. You say there are not abusive
>> husbands?
>>
>>
>> You quote so many others I cannot always tell if these are your words or
>> someone elses. In most states, few women get spousal support and you
>> know it! I do not claim, from what I know, that all spousal and child
>> support is fair. Nothing is perfect.
>
> Nothing is perfect. Is that how liberals talk when they want something
> for women and minorities.
>
No more so than how you talk.

>>> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>> You think that was a good thing?
>
> It was good at the time. There was a different (non-Jewish) culture.
>
Really? So you don't think women should wear pants. What does that
have to do with harming men? Fashion changes. Look at the ancient
Romans and Greeks--they all wore robes and togas. Personally, I think
women look good in pants as well as dresses. I especially like women
who wear slacks if they are tailored right for their form. Black is my
favorite color for slacks on a women, I think it is very figure
flattering. Err sorry, I digress...
Anyway, back to the debate.

>>> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
>>> to be protected by female policemen.

>> Oh will you quit with this obsession already?
>
> Why don't you quit whatever it is you want.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

>> As I said, liberals and leftists do not want that kind of society, but
>> we should also reject religion and nationalism. These things are
>> opposed to justice.
>>
>>
>> We bombed them because Osama Ben Ladin was hiding there.
>
>
> The West is the White race.
>
> The goal of America is to destroy the White race.

Our White population has not gone down, just the percentage.

The multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
> Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
> anyplace but on the Whites.

I wouldn't tell the Koreans that who have suffered discrimination in
those countries, esp. in Japan. They are fighting for their rights.

And they promote racial intermarriage.
> If things continue as they are the White race is doomed.
>
Show me a government law or regulation that says it supports
intermarriage. The government does not prohibit it anymore, but that is
not the same as promoting it. I suppose you do not find any non-white
women attractive? I doubt they would find you attractive so you need
not worry about being tempted by their evil charms.
>
>> Again, you show how you really feel about woman by supporting the
>> Taliban. You must hate women to think they were great. Even Hitler
>> would not have supported such a state. You have claimed that Hitler
>> respected women. Do you think it was good that the Taliban beat women
>> in public and forced them to beg in the street for money? Do you think
>> it is good that they would execute women if they had their hair or nails
>> done in a salon? Do you think it was good that women and their children
>> starved to death because the Taliban killed their husbands and forced
>> them to give up their jobs?
>
> I'm for National Socialism, not Islam. But Islam is not an enemy.
> The Jews who rule the USA are the enemy.
>
>> What about the "cold war" where the USA was opposing the Soviet Union
>> and all its satellite countries?
>
> By William Simpson,
>
> The "Communist" despotism over Russia, which in 1917 had been set
> up by Jews, financed by Jews, and ever since perhaps been manned
> either by Jews of gentile "fronts" for Jews, from the beginning even
> until now [1977], had always been under the control and direction of
> Jewish International Finance, centered in Wall Street, New York.
> Jewish Finance is as much the master of Moscow as it is of Washington,
> D.C.- in both cases of course , secretly. Both serve one head as
> certainly as a man's two arms and hands serve one will. The Wall
> Street Money Power, which has given orders to Moscow, through many
> channels but principally through the Council on Foreign Relations, the
> "C.F.R."…
>
> The saber-rattling between the US and Russia, played up in the press
> and on the radio and TV the world over, has provided the justification
> and the cover for pushing through one Jewish design after another.
>
I remember the Reagan-era Cold War a little differently. It was not a
Jewish fraud.


>> What about our wars with North Korea,
>> Vietnam, etc. What of our CIA overthrowing leftists leaders?
>
> "Our". You mean the Jews.
>
If you can't answer the question...
>> What
>> about our proxie wars in the 80s in Nicaragua, Angola, and yes,
>> Afganistan. The USA was fighting Communism for decades around the
>> world. We did not care what Afganistan was doing to women when we
>> invaded, as long as they were not Communist. We only invaded because of
>> 9/11.
>
>
> "Knowing who did the terrorism of September 11 is important, but why
> they did
> it is even more important to us.
>
> Yet, strangely, there has been little discussion in the mass media on
> why the attack occurred. Politicians and media personalities have
> given us completely inadequate explanations why a couple of dozen
> young men would blow themselves up to get at us. In fact, they have
> told us absurd lies to keep Americans from understanding the real
> reason for the attacks.
>

Still cannot answer the questions...

> In the interview, bin Laden never said one word about opposing
> democratic principles, nor has he ever done so in his lifetime. So,
> now we know Laden's true motivation. He attacked us not because he
> "hates democracy", but because he thinks Israel controls and uses
> America to attack his people."

No one asks him questions like that unfortunatly. But you don't believe
in democratic principles either, so what are you going on about?

Topaz
2007-03-29 18:16:43 EST
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:51:23 -0700, Tim Howard
<*d@suddenlink.net> wrote:


>There is no such falsehood being told. We are not all the same, but
>that does not mean we cannot have social, political, and economic equality.

The leftists who rule America are for having a unisex country and
for fighting "sexism". This should be replaced by a nation that is for
manhood and womenhood. Not only are the sexes different, but the
reason we are attracted to the opposite sex is precisely because they
are different.

In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
to be protected by female policemen.
We don't have to have the kind of society we have now. The
government, and the media, and the schools, may all be leftist
enemies, but their ways are so contrary to human nature that it can be
changed.

The two main forces that reject the unisex society are religion
and nationalism. There certainly
wasn't much feminism going on in a Muslim country like Afganistan. And
it is no coincidence that the USA bombed Afganistan. The USA and its
masters the Jews are the enemy and that is the first thing we need to
be clear about if we are going to change things. There were also
Nationalist countries that were also bombed by the USA and the other
leftists. The media will tell us how terrible they say these countries
were. We must always remember that the media is the enemy and they are
the ones pushing unisex culture on us.

Feminism is something we must always fight against. But a normal
man who considers women his enemy must eventually go mad. Feminism may
be a major symptom of what is wrong with this country but it is only a
symptom. The Jewish control of the media and society is the disease.
And feminism is Jewish:

Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was
a Jew.

"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"
By Michael Shaprio

# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)

Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in
Peoria, Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl
Friedan, the mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist,
best-selling author, professor, a founder of the National Organization
for Women (NOW), the National Women's Political Caucus, and the First
Women's Bank, researcher, journalist, Democrat, clinical psychologist,
and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the most influential feminist of
the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and others as an "initiator
of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and lectures,
including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE and THE
SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how
to live and work... When the war against fascism ended two decades
later, four million women lost their jobs to returning GIs. Women were
again told that their place was in the home. The freedom to work to
build up and defend their nation was over. Men would earn the family's
bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to come home to every
night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of the values
toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) as
the Nazis they thought they had defeated...

>Again, what I said above.
>
>> Divorce courts are run by anti-man people. Men get taken to the
>> cleaners all the time. Liberals will deny everything and demand stats.
>
>Yes, facts are a problem for you bigots.

So why don't you look up the stats and prove that men are not taken
to the cleaners in divorce courts, even though everyone knows they
are.

>
>> They probably also demand stats that White neighborhoods are safer
>> than Black neighborhoods.
>
>Since the bigot can't answer the question, he tries to change the argument.

Definition by John "Birdman" Bryant

Bigot: One who disagrees with a liberal.

>>
>> Nothing is perfect. Is that how liberals talk when they want something
>> for women and minorities.
>>
>No more so than how you talk.
>
>>>> In 1852 Emma Snodgrass was arrested in Boston for wearing pants.
>>> You think that was a good thing?
>>
>> It was good at the time. There was a different (non-Jewish) culture.
>>
>Really? So you don't think women should wear pants. What does that
>have to do with harming men? Fashion changes. Look at the ancient
>Romans and Greeks--they all wore robes and togas. Personally, I think
>women look good in pants as well as dresses. I especially like women
>who wear slacks if they are tailored right for their form. Black is my
>favorite color for slacks on a women, I think it is very figure
>flattering. Err sorry, I digress...
>Anyway, back to the debate.
>
>>>> Today women are allowed to be policemen and soldiers. Men don't need
>>>> to be protected by female policemen.
>
>>> Oh will you quit with this obsession already?
>>
>> Why don't you quit whatever it is you want.
>
>I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
>
>
>Our White population has not gone down, just the percentage.
>
>The multi-culture and pluralism they push is only at the expense of
>> Whites. No one is trying to push multi-culture in China or Japan or
>> anyplace but on the Whites.
>
>I wouldn't tell the Koreans that who have suffered discrimination in
>those countries, esp. in Japan. They are fighting for their rights.

If they aren't welcome there they should go back to Korea.

>>
>Show me a government law or regulation that says it supports
>intermarriage.

There is no law that prevents the Jews from controlling the media
and all you have to do is turn on a TV.

> The government does not prohibit it anymore, but that is
>not the same as promoting it. I suppose you do not find any non-white
>women attractive? I doubt they would find you attractive so you need
>not worry about being tempted by their evil charms.

Liberals pull the wool over the eyes of the public. This one says
the government doesn't promote race mixing. Just go to a school and
look the pictures on the walls.
>
>I remember the Reagan-era Cold War a little differently. It was not a
>Jewish fraud.

You mean they didn't say it was a Jewish fraud on your TV.
>
>
>>> What about our wars with North Korea,
>>> Vietnam, etc. What of our CIA overthrowing leftists leaders?
>>
>> "Our". You mean the Jews.
>>
>If you can't answer the question...

My observation was better than the question.

>
>Still cannot answer the questions...
>
>
>No one asks him questions like that unfortunatly. But you don't believe
>in democratic principles either, so what are you going on about?

Democracy is a cruel joke when the Jews control the media.

"Jewry rules from behind the mask of democracy. What one calls
democracy today is concealed Jewish domination. Jews determine what
happens in the democratic states"
Julius Streicher, Der Stürmer, #34/1939.

"A couple of weeks ago I quoted a few sentences from a book published
in 1928 titled Propaganda, by ... Edward Bernays. Today I'll read to
you an expanded set of excerpts from Bernays' book to give you a
little more of the gist of his message. I quote:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life." -
end of quote -

I should mention that Bernays' book is not profound or especially
valuable in itself. It merely states a few self-evident facts about
the way in which a modern society works. For the person interested in
propaganda, far more useful books are available. The fact that Bernays
was a Jew is not even especially relevant here except to emphasize
that propaganda, the mass media, psychology, and the manipulation of
others always have been subjects of special interest to the Jews. It
is not for nothing that they are as thick in these fields today as
they were in the time of Bernays and Freud. The reason I chose
Bernays' book to quote is that it provides a more concise and clear
summary, in a few quotable paragraphs, of the role of propaganda in
modern life than most other
books on the subject.

If I were you I wouldn't even waste time trying to hunt down a copy of
Bernays' book. Although it is available in larger libraries, it's long
been out of print, and all it does is state the obvious: namely, that
the whole concept of democracy is meaningless in an age where a few
people have in their hands the mechanism for controlling the attitudes
and opinions of a majority of the electorate. And Bernays also takes
the disingenuous position that not only is this control a fact of
life, but it is a good thing; it is necessary to control and regiment
the thinking of the public in order to avoid chaos, and it can only
lead us to greater progress and prosperity. He simply glosses over the
question of
who should exercise this control and what their motives should be.

If you really want to study the subject of propaganda, a good place to
start is with the 1962 book, also titled Propaganda, by the Frenchman
Jacques Ellul. That book is still in print and is available from the
sponsor of this program, National Vanguard Books. Professor Ellul
deals with the subject in much greater depth and with much greater
honesty than Bernays does, but he agrees with Bernays on the most
obvious and
fundamental conclusions: on the irrelevance of the idea of democracy,
for example. I quote from Professor Ellul's book:

"If I am in favor of democracy, I can only regret that propaganda
renders the true exercise of it almost impossible. But I think that it
would be even worse to entertain any illusions about a coexistence of
true democracy and propaganda." -- end of quote --

To me it is frustrating that a conclusion that seems so obvious is
nevertheless resisted by so many otherwise intelligent people.
Democracy has become almost a sacred concept to them, this idea that
the policies guiding our nation should be decided by counting the
votes of every featherless biped who has reached the age of 18. It's
like motherhood:
they're almost afraid to question it.

This seems to be as true of intellectuals in our society as it is of
Joe Sixpacks. The fact is that intellectuals are no more likely to be
independent-minded than people who work with their hands; most
intellectuals, just like most Joe Sixpacks, are lemmings. In fact, as
Ellul points out, it is precisely the intellectuals who are most
strongly controlled by propaganda, because they are more open to every
medium of propaganda.

And I must admit that it took me a long time to overcome the ideas
drummed into me when I was in school that under a democracy people are
more free than under any other political system, that under a
democracy we are all free to think and say whatever we want, and that
we have a greater responsibility as citizens of a democracy to make up
our own minds about things independently, and so on. Actually, we
still have some degree of individual freedom in the United States
today because more than 200 years ago men whose temperament was far
more aristocratic than democratic in the modern sense of the word were
willing to go to war against their legitimate government in order to
secure that freedom for us, and people with a truly democratic
temperament, who have been
gnawing away at that freedom ever since, haven't yet succeeded in
suppressing it completely.

Well, it should not be surprising to us that although books such as
Professor Ellul's Propaganda - and many others - are readily
available, almost no one has heard of them. Keeping the public
believing in the myth of democracy is an important element in
maintaining control over the thinking and behavior of the public. It
is simply immoral and
scandalous to question the reality of democracy. It's like questioning
the truth of the "Holocaust" story. And for that reason we're not
likely to be taught in our social studies classes in school or to read
in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal even the most obvious
and self-evident conclusions presented by Bernays or Ellul. We're
still
taught how democracy safeguards our freedom, even while those who
control the mechanism of propaganda in our democratic society are
working day and night to eliminate that freedom."

The text above is based on a broadcast of the American Dissident
Voices radio program sponsored by National Vanguard Books. It is
distributed by e-mail each Saturday to subscribers of ADV-list.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

==> To subscribe send an e-mail message to:
adv-list-request@NatVan.com
The subject of the message should be: Subscribe


http://www.nationalvanguard.org http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.ihr.org/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html http://www.nsm88.com/
Page: 1 2   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron