I've got a topic that's been on my heart for a long time. Perhaps it's a topic that you men have been too shy to bring up. Perhaps we women haven't been bold enough to bring it to the table. It's a topic, that from where I sit, plays a huge part in how the Grand Conspiracy is played out. The topic is the women's liberation movement.
Oh asked me a week or so ago, "So, Donna, who has formed your frame of reference?" I'm not sure it was a rhetorical question or if he anticipated an answer. I had no quick answer, because I knew I, like y'all, had influences that made me "Me," influences that ran deeper and wider and broader than I realized on the surface. So I began to ponder that question.
Oh also produced some precious letters, thoughtfully written and pregnant with content, written by Fritz Springmeier during the early days of his incarceration in the federal "gulag." Springmeier wrote that George Orwell's allegory, Animal Farm, was coming true in America before his eyes in 2003, and we are the animals. He spoke of "incentives" used to drive the old sow into the back of the trailer to take her to the butcher's. Springmeier said we were like cows on the farm, but every once in a while, a cow gets out and strays. What Springmeier calls cows, we call sheeple. Once on the other side of the fence, a cow/sheep sometimes starts to think for himself and rejects the system (farm) he has been raised on. If he continues to think critically like this (both defintions applied), he develops an analytical mind and can become quite a threat to the farmers in command.
The farmer must use incentives to bring the stray back into the herd/fold. One effective incentive I considered is to place a female "in season" in front of him. With this transition I turn to the body of this post.
There is some sexual content in the body of this text. Please be advised.
I have the pleasure of introducing the great early nineteenth century British author Jane Austen to my daughters. As a rule, I insist that my sons read ONE Jane Austen novel just so they get the style and appreciate Austen as an author (or not!!), but by the time they get through one of her novels, my sons beg me to never make them go through an experience like that again. :-) My girls ADORE Jane Austen, and, in fact, at a recent birthday party for a friend, the theme was Jane Austen and we all dressed up in period costume, had a high tea, a formal five course dinner, and participated in period English country dancing- gloves, fans, and all.
In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth fall in love, but the fascinating study is how the courtship progresses according to Edwardian custom (backdrop: England during the War of 1812). Back then, a gentleman "discreetly considered the physique" of a young lady, and her "pleasant countenance." Men and women wore gloves in social settings because it was deemed inappropriate for a man to touch a single woman's skin. A lady never disclosed her feelings for a man to him directly. The art of discovery was a course in itself. A young man had to go through the lady's father to ask permission to court, and there might be several "dates" with the father before a father would let a young man be alone with his daughter. Even during Victorian times, literature reveals that "the gentle turn of a lady's ankle peeping from underneath a skirt" was enough to get the attention of a man.
Women were romanced, with their suitors doing all kinds of things to only hope to please the women of their intentions. Men were definitely the givers and the initiators, while women demurely waited at home to receive the gifts and attentions of suitors. Men were the "thinkers;" women, the "feelers." Men were the "protectors," women were the "nurturers." They complemented each other, as neither was complete without the other. Together, a married couple was a force to be contended with.
Contend "they" did. We on this forum have discussed the Hegelian Dialectic at some length, and the Yalies who brought this scheme home to America. One plot to set this plan into motion was to attack the family from within by doing the same thing Lucifer did to Eve in the Garden: convince the wife to do the unthinkable- go against her husband's lead. During the 1870's we begin to see in literature targeted to the female market in such children's novels as Little Women and Anne of Green Gables, a much more capable and progressive heroine. Victorian women championed the suffragette movement which led to a woman's right to vote. Some women tossed their corsets, smoked cigarettes, and drank like men. By the 1920's, "loose" women met men in "speak-easies" and bars. Marriage and family were threatened.
By World War II, women were strongly encouraged to leave hearth and home and work in factories "to support the war effort." After the war, women came back home but were told to demand household appliances and ranch style homes with three bedrooms and two indoor bathrooms. Through effective multi-media manipulation, women became consumers, while men continued to be providers. Only this time, the men were corporate slaves.
When the elite figured out the Fed would get twice as much income tax with women working, up came CIA approved Gloria Steinhem to champion the Women's Liberation Movement. Suddenly, according to ladies' magazines, being a homemaker was unfulfilling. Husbands, wanting to please their ever demanding wives, consented to their wives "bringing in more income (tax)." Kindly, it seemed, the federal government stepped in to offer pre-school and state supported daycare. In addition, "free love" was promoted to distract young men who might otherwise think for themselves and figure out that all of this was a really bad idea.
Television didn't help men at all. Remember "I Dream of Jeannie...'s navel?" She never showed it, and yet, today, thanks to Britney, there's hardly a girl who keeps hers covered- or anything else, for that matter. It's a far cry from a velvet glove on a slender hand, is it not?
Of course, healthy men don't mind so much. :-) However, the analytical thinker must realize what is being done to him and resist.
Men adore women, and naturally will do anything to please the women they love. Women, being the daughters of Eve we are (our bad), are highly intuitive, "feeling" creatures. The elite know this, and get us to "feel" discontent. We complain to our male partners, who HATE it when we're upset. Rather than think analytically, which is their God-given gift, about how the elite is manipulating them, they give in to their females in hopes for sexual pleasure: the incentive.
Further and further the male is being emasculated. Boy-men, gay love, transvestites on TV, and dare I mention, the specter of a woman for President. Rather than mustering a militia of brave men to fight off evil monarchies and other forms of overpowering governments with their own blood or ink, men have been banished to the basements and garages of America to play with their power toys, er- tools.
Women are now what men once were. Presently, we are being told to cat call, to ogle, to cheer when a man takes his shirt off and shows off his deeply tanned, well-oiled and hairless six-pack. We are even encouraged to lap dance in public (a good wife will certainly please her husband in the bedroom, but a lady has far better sense than to do anything like this in front of an audience). Single women are being told to email first, make the phone calls, initiate the contacts, ask men on dates. The message this year is "men are the new women." Men may sit back and enjoy the attention, but it just isn't right. I'm sorry, men are not women, and never will be. Not real men, anyway.
Please realize what "they" are doing to us. Please don't be the sheep who gets led back to the pen with a bucket of Ewechow. Now more than ever, resist evil, flee from youthful lusts, and act and think analytically. This country needs thinking men, and women who let them lead.