- From 'Paleoconservative Thoughts To Ponder'...
-
-
- Feminism CAUGHT ON TAPE in Linden, Texas As reported
by news anchor Dan Rather, CBS Evening News, May 20, 2003:
-
- Petite and blonde police officer Gillespie has her video
camera running in her patrol car, capturing yet another example of why
women carrying guns and playing cops 'n' robbers is deadly for all concerned,
as she tries to cuff a large black man, whom she has ordered to lean against
a car. But he does what he'd never do in the presence of a male officer:
reaches and grabs her gun.
-
- Miraculously, a large white man runs up and wrestles
the gun away, pointing it at the perpetrator, who immediately dives toward
the ground in fear. He's still resisting officer Gillespie, who is struggling
there on the ground next to him, still trying to put on the cuffs. And
she succeeds, after a large white women runs up and sits on him.
-
- This is a very telling news report, immediately followed
by Dan Rather asking this ironic question for the next segment of the newscast:
-
- "Stay tuned, and learn about a woman (32-year-old
Annika Sorensen) who is about to challenge the top men in golf. Can she
do it?"
-
- Note: Recall that it was officer Melanie Singer who couldn't
handle Rodney King wiggling his butt at her, in defiance of her feminism
and the law, and which fantasy-meets- reality case eventuated a national
crisis of confidence in law enforcement, then deadly riots.
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Alex
- forest215@juno.com
- 5-21-3
-
- "But he does what he'd never do in the presence
of a male officer: reaches and grabs her gun."
-
- If you go to Google and type "grabbed the officer's
gun," you'll find more than 125 hits, most of which prove how incorrect
that statement is.
-
- To imply that a female officer "who couldn't handle
Rodney King wiggling his butt at her" was the root cause of the riots
over police brutality is equally ignorant.
-
- I suggest that the writer of the commentary seek help
for his fear and loathing of strong women.
-
- Alex
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Sheryl Jackson
- 5-21-3
-
- I want to clarify the definition of Feminism. It means
to be beholden to none. Not dependent upon. Not a burden for man or child.
To express one's feelings openly and wisely without fearing reprisal for
speaking up. To be able to hold jobs when you are qualified to do so, not
to be eliminated because you are female. To have the right to be without
having to make excuses for actions that men are allowed to pursue without
fault. To be trusted, respected, heeded when sound advice is given. To
be able to make a difference in the world without too much fuss. To hold
government office because you were the best person for the job. To stand
next to the partner of your choice and make plans and carry them through.
To seek and find happiness bringing harm to none. Being able to dress as
one wants without judgment or recrimination and to be able to live alone
without benefit of marriage, children or mates without having to join a
convent. To be able to walk alone without being accosted for one's austerity.
-
- Nowhere is the desire to subjugate men. Not to tell them
what to do, not to make them behave. Men should behave because it is the
right thing to do. To have our own bank accounts or children and not have
to seek a man for the completion of life. To not be a burden to men with
our own reckless abandon and bad choices. Just to be. To love. To give
and receive from others. To be able to fix the pipes, climb a telephone
pole or race a car without being thought of as Lesbians. Too many men,
want to believe that if wymyn want nothing to do with them that we are
"dykes on bikes". No, we just don't need or want most of you
in our lives. We merely want what men want. Why is that asking so much.
If we are better and stronger doesn't that give men a chance to be better
also? Why is mopping, cleaning the bathroom and changing dirty diapers
"womyn's work"? Don't you live in that house also? Why should
wymyn continue to carry the responsibilities of cleaning, raising the children
and organizing the household along with being good employees. Why do we
want to perpetuate the addage: A man's work is from sun to sun, a womyn
's work is never done?
-
- That is what being a feminist is about. Not taking over
from the men and castigating the men. It is about equality.
-
- I think you men should have equality with us wymyn whether
you want to be that responsible or not.
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Alex
forest215@juno.com
5-22-3
-
- Hello, and thank you for your analysis.
-
- I do suggest going to the dictionary and looking up the
proper definition of feminism -- the proper definition, not the sick distortion
cited below.
-
- Alex
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Richard
foundersamerica@att.net
5-21-3
-
- Alex -
-
- Regarding your point: that male officers have their guns
grabbed, too. Well, my point is this: A perp is FAR, FAR LESS likely to
physically challenge a MALE police officer than a FEMALEone.
-
- Women are weak links in both fire and police departments,
unless they are work- ing behind a desk.
-
- Here's my take on feminism:
-
- TWO LEGS OF THE SAME WH_RE ©1994
-
- Physicality doesn't necessarily reveal the psycho- logical
sex of an individual; ergo, many male Democrats in Congress are effeminate
pimps for feminism.
-
- America is gripped by the emoting feminine mind of feminism,
which seduces the unwary by appealing to human weakness:
-
- - rejection of moral imperatives,
-
- - hunger for sexual arousal and orgasm,
-
- - immediate gratification of material needs,
-
- - denial of personal responsibility,
-
- and
-
- - reliance on something-for-nothing welfare benefits.
Feminism is narcissism, demanding that we become dependent and worship
her for providing for our every need, until all of us meet her standard
as set by the lowest common denominator among us. She beckons all within
her reach to worship at her feet. She promotes socialism and communism,
and she rigidly extols egalitarianism in her politics while being promiscuous
and indiscriminate in her breeding. She is sedentary and lascivious, and
she plies her sexuality and emotions to catch her prey. Her seeming passivity
is disarming, so that by the time society is alerted to her choking embrace
good civil order is destroyed, and any hope of recovery - of escaping her
seduction - is lost. Feminism's purpose-to-destroy is ancient and relent-
less, and requires a philosophy or mantra which appeals to the heart; especially
one that is impossi- ble to defend against without appearing cold and ruthless,
unfeeling and uncaring. "All men are created equal" is one such
mantra (she has many others), which now drives all of America's institu-
tions to destruction by demanding equal outcomes between men and women
and between racial groups, and through such sinister means as affirmative
action, proportionalism, and quotas.
-
- She uses feelings most artfully to seduce us, appeal-
ing to our emotions while inviting us to follow her path in rejecting reason,
science, and historical lessons--all of which undermine her purpose and
set us free. And although her sexuality has been subdued in the past by
the rational masculine mind, to keep her from destroying civil society,
she never loses command of it as means to control her victims and advance
her purpose when on the march.
-
- Her political philosophy is always left-wing. Liberalism
(non-classical), which she owns, is freedom from any moral and authoritarian
restraints--from the rational masculine mind of self-control, personal
responsibility, good social order and human progress. And her lusting heart
beats most rapidly in liberal Democrats, who garner political power by
redistribut- ing the hard-earned wealth of productive citizens to an ever-growing
dependent class, both indigenous and foreign.
-
- Liberalism necessarily rejects history and science because
both expose the folly of her works, teaching us lessons she would keep
hidden. History records the fall of both Greece and Rome by her hand, and
science instructs us in the art of inductive and deductive analyses which,
when applied to feminism, invariably refute her premises and conclusions
as unsound and destructive to civil society.
-
- Her fascination with youth calls her to give special
attention to public education in America, where opportunities for plying
her trade and recruiting new soldiers abound. She extols her feminism and
deni- grates the rational masculine mind by propagandizing her message,
usually cloaked in a sexual tease. And she disseminates it most effectively
through Holly- wood's television and movie industries and the dominant
news media, the latter of which are controlled by glorified gossipers and
would-be actors who champion the feminists' cause (to a lesser degree she
employs book publishing, especially novelists' works, and left- wing "liberation"
churches).
-
- She offers only emotional stimulation and sexual grati-
fication as gifts for abandoning America's traditional values of hard work,
delayed gratification, personal integrity and moral certitude--all requisite
means for building grand societies. Evil fascinates her, and her attraction
to it stems from her desire for the emotion that chaos engenders.
-
- She has all but destroyed the soul of this once-great
nation by guile and intimidation; a nation now in rapid decline. Her means
for seduction in capturing the minds of the body politic are entertainment
and news, two legs of the same wh_re: the EMOTING FEMININE MIND of Liber-
alism.
-
- -Founders' America
-
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Horst
horst@nakis.gr
5-22-3
-
- 'Paleoconservatives' really DO NEED a policestate! In
Germany, where apparently there are much less 'paleoconservatives', they
introduced female cops some THIRTY years ago. And it was immediately a
big success! Why? - Because women don't tend to bullying as men do. Women
cops have retained some ability to communicate with their victims instead
of brutalizing them.
|
