>
>It scares me to think that people like Chris probably think that
>anybody to the left of Shrub is a "liberal".
>
>Miles
well, matt did acknowledge that he'd never heard of or didn't know particularly well how to conceive of the difference between lefties and liberals, let alone the difference between lefties and marxists (and all the distinctions within marxism). unfortunately miles, this failure to understand the difference, the assumption that calling people here liberals is some sort of flame is very much a part of cyberculture, as far as i can tell.
if this scares you, here's one for ya. NOW is a commie front. i wet myself when i read this. take care. this guy is a smart guy. pursued grad work in anthro, physics, chemistry. retired air force. very learned. had some sort of speciality in the former SU, hence intense interest in things russian.
> > A. W's Understanding of Feminism in Seven Points (WUFISP):
> > >1. It promotes sexual libertinism
> > >2. It promotes homosexuality
> > >3. It promotes integration
> > >4. It argues that women must be subsidized to enter the armed forces
> > >5. It promotes "family-friendly" environments like state-funded daycare
> > >6. It promotes Public schools
> > >7. NOW is the only organization which represents feminist beliefs
> > --------------
>
>
>No, this is not my description of feminism. It is a list of certain
>features of feminism relevant to a discussion of feminism as an
>unwitting mass movement of useful idiots under Marxist control.
>These features were mentioned as *some* of the unchanging goals of
>feminism, i.e. as features of the "fixed [distorting] mirrors" of
>the kaleidoscope, rather than the movable bits. ("Whack the
>patriarchy", "Abstain from sex a la Lysistrata", "Burn your bra",
>"Equal pay for equal work", "be a Lesbian", "all men are rapers")
>Contrast with more enduring themes like "get a job", "divorce your
>husband now", "turn your children over to the state", "have a
>bastard", "vote Democrat".
>
>Some of this 1-7 list are doubtless issues that will be discarded
>once their *effects* are achieved, i.e. forced induction of women
>into the armed forces will be dropped when the armed forces are
>weakened enough, not when there is gender-parity [sic]. Gender-parity
>[sic] will be defined to be the condition obtaining when the military
>is sufficiently weakened. The proper role of male homosexuals in
>the military will be defined after experiments have shown what the
>best level for the strategic goal seems to be. This is why neither
>gender-parity nor queer-parity has a "correct", "theoretical", and
>"consensus" meaning. Likewise for "racial-parity" a similarly
>manipulated concept outside the military. When a social engineer
>proposes some sort of scheme, and refuses to define a clearly
>structured goal (e.g. "equality of blacks and whites at law",
>"reduction of the illiteracy rate to 5%", "old-age pensions as
>an entitlement with 86% of the minimum wage as parity"),
>be certain that the engineer has a secret goal. Someone who
>says "justice for oppressed blacks" is seeking to stir up racial
>conflict. Someone who says "more money for skools, and independence
>from meddling parents and skool boards for teechers" is seeking to
>warp the skool system further. Someone who says, "Our old people
>are starving and are being victimized by the corporations" wants
>to intensify ageism, and exacerbate "generation gaps".
>
>By "subsidized" I mean both money and the use of law. Since I do
>not have access to the inner party meetings of the feminist
>internationale, I cannot say with certainty which features are
>tactical, which are core. I do know that core features will be
>enduring. Snit recently snat that the "attack on patriarchy" phase
>is temporary, since activists are now being prepared with a different
>line. This implies planning for an abanonment of the "attack on
>patriarchy" in a few years, probably assuming a Gore victory. This
>would amount to a mini-perestroika in feminism, in which conciliatory,
>"dissident" feminists with "new ideas forged in realism" [whatever],
>would appear to seemingly "moderate" and "mainstream" feminist
>policies as part of a parallel period of "convergence", as part of
>a struggle with a so-called group of "hardliners". At some point
>the phrase "Feminism Comes of Age" will become a popular meme. A
>parallel in world communism was the abandonment of the phrase
>"dictatorship of the proletariat" from public view after 1953.
>The development of a theoretical thread abandoning the "patriarchy"
>line is a sign that the feminists smell blood, i.e. victory. If
>Gore and the Dems fail, and if Bush et al initiate policies contrary
>to international communism (not necessarily against feminism per
>se), this "anti-anti-patriarchy" thread will silently disappear.
>Closer alliance of feminist and "third-world" thugs would be
>expected during a Demo failure, with the public perception of
>renewed feminist hard-core positions and strength. Internally
>it would be another story.
>
>"Family-friendly" is quoted for two reasons: the feminists use the
>term, and it is meant cynically by them. Support of the family as
>an independent sorce of social cohesiveness and power is the last
>thing on their minds. The Communists have a positive genius for
>using the precise antonym of the goal of a line as its name.
>"Soviet-American Friendship League" -- an organization designed
>to destroy the US.
>
>NOW is not the "only" organization, it is the only *mass* organization.
>
>When single-issues are important tactically for a short time only
>(gun-control, e.g. simply an election ploy for Gore and Co.), NOW
>will hive a throw-away front, e.g. "Million Mom March". This
>provides a certain degree of deniability. Re MMM. Is Ms Thomases
>a Venceremos Brigade vet? What are her contacts with international
>communist organizations?