Our radical feminist betters call for killing of 3 billion men September 15, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster

Like it or not, radical feminists make up a highly influential part of that nebulous coalition of self-anointed elitists (incl: academics, media, politicians, leading businessmen, left wing advocacy groups, etc) who have arrogated to themselves the right to determine what the rest of us should think, say, and do. Feminism, the perverse marriage of lesbianism and marxism, is a hugely influential force in Western “culture.” I have personally seen how even many individuals striving to be faithful Catholics have, through absorption of the dominant cultural mores, adopted many quite radical beliefs derived from feminism (radical in the historical or traditional sense. They may be quite “conservative” views today, but they would have been radical 50 or 100 years ago. A few of these are innocuous. Most are not, and have helped spread a great deal of misery and resulted in more than a few broken marriages. Both men and women can fall victim to this type of thinking). Feminism – marxist lesbianism – is part of the wicked broth in which we stew in this decadent and fallen culture.

How sick are radical feminists? Robert Stacy McCain has essentially written a book in the past 6-8 months documenting the near total insanity – and hatred of any traditional moral order – espoused by virtually every marxist lesbian/feminist. There are too many examples to list, and I don’t recommend McCain’s site overall due to immoral material he posts with some regularity, but perhaps one example may serve as an indicator of all the rest. In this particular example, an elderly marxist lesbian who lives alone with her cats*has been a long time advocate of the systematic murder of 90% of the world’s male population, the better to demonstrate her careful reasoning and general charity towards souls unhinged hatred towards everything male (I add emphasis and comments)

At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we are to create and preserve a less violent world. I) Every culture must begin to affirm a female future. II)Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture. III) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race. . . . [First of all, the idea that a female dominated world would be one of enlightened virtue and peace is utterly unsubstantiated. There isn’t much historical precedent for such, but the underlying assumption of these man-hating lesbians is that woman = good, man = utterly evil. Therefore, anything can be justified in the pursuit of the destruction of the male half of the species]

To return species responsibility to women means in very practical terms that erotic and reproductive initiative must be restored to women all over the globe. . . . Make the decision entirely that of the woman as to how she will be impregnated and how often, if indeed she chooses to be so at all, and whether by heterosexual intercourse, artificial insemination or a form of ovular merging. Restore to each woman the inalienable right to say what shall become of any fertilized egg and to control absolutely the number of children she wishes to emerge from her body. . . . Make nonexistent any male’s say-so in the process of reproduction. [Because, according to this creature of pure hate, men have absolutely no rights and exist only at her pleasure. This is the ranting of someone who is clinically insane, and yet this individual, Sally Miller Gearhart, has been a highly influential professor and created one of the first “women’s studies” programs in the nation. Her work is highly influential in marxist lesbian circles] Create and protect alternative structures of economic and psychological support for independent women — women not attached to men — who are child-bearers and child-raisers. . . . [She means state funding of women because they are women. But when women make up 90% of the population, will some women want to be taxed to pay for the lifestyles of others?]

Women will bear the number of children they know can be sustained not just by their own social group but by the wide ecological system. [Is this because women are so intuitively brilliant they simply know how many people the planet will bear, or will their marxist lesbian overseers dictate to them what is acceptable? Who has money on the latter?] They will not bear the children that some man wants only to perpetuate his name or the family possession of his property; they will not bear the children they presently convince themselves they must have because their only role is obedient wife and mother; [For how many women does this kind of thinking even remotely apply at this point?] women will not have the children men think are necessary to perpetuate the tribe or the religion or the specific culture. Instead they will bear the children that they want, that they can care for, and that they assess are needed by the specific group and the entire species. . . . [This means central planning and regulation of procreation. Brave New World, the marxist dystopia, yet again]

In every culture it must be women in charge of the changes: [Because she says so! No authoritarianism, no will to power here!] women-identified women, no women who are pawns of men, no women who out of their fear of losing their lives or those of their children, still hold to the securities of that dangerous patriarchal culture, [It doesn’t seem so dangerous compared to your unhinged self-pleasuring fantasy. I don’t know many men calling for the murder of 3 billion people] but women utterly free of coercion, free of male influence and committed to the principle that the right of species regulation is their own, and not the prerogative of any man. I suggest that lesbians and other independent women are already moving in this direction. . . . [Pity them. If we needed an example of how truly sick perverse sexual desires and acts can make someone, I think we’ve just gotten an object lesson]

To secure a world of female values and female freedom we must, I believe, add one more element to the structure of the future: the ratio of men to women must be radically reduced so that men approximate only ten percent of the total population. . . . [Of course! What marxist program would be complete without the wholesale slaughter of billions! That’s how all marxist stories end!]

We now come to a critical point: how is such a reduction in the male population to take place? One option is of course male infanticide. It differs very little from the female infanticide that has apparently been carried out even into the twentieth century by some cultures. Such an alternative is clearly distasteful and would not constitute creative social change. . . . [But I doubt she’d be very much opposed if push came to shove. I would ask this poor sick soul, who is fighting the most against female infanticide? It is surely not the marxist feminists, who cannot criticize the practice, because to do so might weaken support for their most sacred shibboleth, abortion on demand and without apology. No, it is the hated, patriarchal pro-life movement! But irony is utterly lost on leftist ideologues]

[I]f women are given the freedom of their bodies then they may well choose [experimental “ovular merging” technology that produces only female embryos] in great enough numbers to make a significant difference in the sex ratio of women to men. A 75% female to 25% male ratio could be achieved in one generation if one-half of a population reproduced heterosexually and one-half by ovular merging. [And here the fantasy truly reaches insane dimensions, dreaming about a world where females can reproduce absent the contribution of men. There is absolutely no evidence to substantiate this concept of rubbing two eggs together to create a new person. Even the thought is offensive to reason and just. plain. nuts.]

Such a prospect is attractive to women who feel that if they bear sons no amount of love and care and nonsexist training will save those sons from a culture where male violence is institutionalized and revered. These are women saying, “No more sons. We will not spend twenty years of our lives raising a potential rapist, a potential batterer, a potential Big Man. [So, according to marxist lesbian Gearhart (boy, is that name apropos), ANYONE who has the potential to grow up to be ANYTHING evil should be wiped out before they are born. Why doesn’t this woman address the skeleton’s in her own movement’s closet, like the extremely high rates of violence in lesbian relationships? Oh, yes, I forget…facts are inconvenient.]

————End Quote———–

This post is a bit off topic, perhaps, but it’s important to know just what “feminism” is. McCain has proven quite conclusively to this blogger that feminism is the product of marxist man-hating lesbians, whose “utopia” is a world of savage cruelty and complete disregard for one half of all humanity – and their total authoritarian control over the remaining half. It is also another manifestation of leftist God-hatred, as this woman’s resentment towards God’s creating us male and female is palpable in every word. Thus her wild eyed rantings about asexual reproduction and magical self-reproducing eggs. This excerpt may seem extreme, even ludicrous, but such writings are taken very seriously within the “feminist” movement. Unhinged diatribes like this are not at all uncommon, and writings from women like this feature prominently in women’s studies programs at colleges across the country, programs that are oriented towards only one thing: generating more man-hating marxist lesbians.

“Feminism” is one of the most noxious and destructive of the leftist errors that have afflicted Western (ahem) civilization in the past 100 years. Distilled to its essence, it provides a cover and refuge for the hateful fantasies (which would be acted out if they ever got the chance) of very lost and disturbed sexual deviants. Do not let your daughters (or sons) fall prey to its seductive claims of victimhood and its pretensions toward power! Feminism is already directly responsible for the deaths of at least 1 billion children through direct abortion, and who knows how many billions prevented from seeing life through contraception. It is a philosophy, like all leftism, straight out of hell and something to be opposed at all turns.

There is a bit of humor in all this. I can’t quite escape the notion that what really drives women like this nuts is precisely the fact that they are not a man. And they are so very, very angry with God over that fact. Perhaps I’m off, but it seems very likely to me………

*no joke