Posts Tagged ‘Gloria Steinem’

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Saddam shortly after capture by American force...

Saddam speaks from his grave " they came to cover up the CIA paper trail. Control the body, control the narrative. But some bodies--bodies of damning evidence of US war crimes--must be disposed of quickly..."

UPDATE: The United Nations and Libyan Rebels summarily executed Muammar Gaddafi October 20th, 2011, after he was in their custody. He was the longest serving U.S. and Europeasn “partner-dictator” in history, ruling Libya and it’s oil fields for 42 years. END.

Discovered Files Show U.S., Britain Had Extensive Ties with Gaddafi Regime on Rendition, Torture.

Human Rights Watch has uncovered hundreds of letters in the Libyan foreign ministry proving the Gaddafi government directly aided the extraordinary rendition program carried out by the CIA and the MI6 in Britain after the 9/11 attacks. The documents expose how the CIA rendered suspects to Libyan authorities knowing they would be tortured.” More here…

Dictator good if dictator help CIA torture ‘bad men’. Dictator bad if dictator threatens to tell. Good men torture, bad men tell. Got it.I am a feminist now–I understand the pardaigms of power over the human body.

So naturally, we bomb his country, and cover-up all evidence of United States war crimes that were perpetrated there, and talk about how evil patriarchy did it all. Have you noticed how every dictator that collaborates with the CIA  and America’s dirty war crimes, ends up dead after we invade his country?Control the body, control the narrative.

To the victors go the hidden war crimes.

Men might just need some cultural, or erotic capital to combat being turned into the war pornography that the powerful jerk off to, and swap over the Langley servers.  But one thing for sure: war kills mangles and tortures male bodies.

Gnu-feminism 101: Down with Patriarchy! Up with CIA exploitation of the third world! [following Gloria Steinem and Henry Kissingers model of feminism]

Or, like this ass fungus internet troll Raging Bee says about American foreign policy of installing and assassinating dictators “It’s way more complex.”

Yeah–torture, and violations of International treaties, and international law are complex and exceptional when YOU, or your country do it, but a simple matter of rendering “justice” when the other guys do it.

That is so reminiscent of Saddam being hanged–so Hitler hunkered in a bunker…killed himself? Um, right. I get it now. Collaborators must be shot…!

And I am no longer buying in to the paradigm of this mis-use of state power.

No, Hitler’s not dead : he is alive and well in America–I hear he became a DNA sample and donated himself  to the CIA; or he’s been cloned as Dick Cheney’s stoney heart…or is he actually Henry Kissinger...or Hillary Clinton?!

War crimes trials? That’s for the little guys who mess with the big diamond brokers to deal with, not U.S.

And Holocausts? Who cares about those, as long as they happen to othered people, a few thousand here, a few hundred thousand there?

Those tricky murderous spooks always keep us guessing! But one thing is certain: United States Foreign policy has taken on a distinct flavor of illegal and unconscionable covert activity that destroys evidence of war crimes, and is against the law.

And that hurts every body.

[Christopher Hitchens‘ trial of Henry Kissinger here.]

I recently fell into a shitstorm, and was tossed around and swirled and dunked until my underwear was in knots–no, it wasn’t my eighth grade prom swirlie-it was a discussion over feminism-isms.

And white female privilege.

Is it anti-feminist to call a trade “a trade”? Some think so, but I think real feminism is all about trade-offs, and bartering.

But who can one ask about that? Radfems are so busy trying to grow dicks that they cannot be reached; standard issue fems are confused about their massive power, and how to hide it from the truth; and young, nubile gnu-fems are still locked up in the bedrooms, or chained to the toilets of both of the above named suspects.

So who to talk to?? I asked the monolith.

Who knows about feminism more than Gloria Steinem?  It replied.

But she is such a relic, says I, a sellout, and not a real feminist.

Well, sure, there is the CIA, and it’s publication “Ms.Magazine” which never ran advertisements— a social engineering experiment in mass market subversion of dissent, rather than creation of dissent, said the monolith.

It was also controlled opposition, and Steinem was its editor in chief. I think it was perhaps one of the most successful campaigns to divide and conquer grassroots dissent ever.

But that doesn’t mean she can’t tell you the answer you are looking for, said the monolith. And so on.

And my oh my is it hard to talk about, or ask about white female privilege! So I will let a white, privileged women tell you about it instead.

Here’s Gloria Steinem on Charlie Rose August 11th, 2011, running many of the same feminist claims/myths/statistical conflations around:

1)The U.S. is number 70 [in the world] with women representing in national government–but once again failing to note that women in America are entitled to live off of men, and/or choose professions that PAY MORE than government service..

2) ‘women have affected the workplace only ‘by flooding into the workplace’, but real change is still to come, apparently. She forgets to mention that busting the unions, and women flooding the workplace were by design, as women were willing to work for less than the men who fought to create unions.

3) Comparing a a man with a BA degree and a woman with a BA  degree, she notes  “over life time man will earn 2 million more,” but forgets that a woman will get the mans paycheck regardless of her choice to stay or not stay at home and sit on her BA. A woman will also get the kids, the house, and spousal support if they divorce.

Interesting facts coming from a woman who was married by another woman named “Mankiller.” ( I am not making this shit up! Steinem married a South African who died of brain cancer, and their pastor was Wilma Mankiller)

But the real meat of the interview is how she notes that Betty Friedan‘s  book “The Feminine  Mystique” was really directed towards “helping well educated white women in the suburbs come into the labor force and play the role they were entitled to play.”

Ahhh, so white female privilege–an entitlement–does exist after all. Time to edit the Wikipedia white female privilege page in progress…

Cover of "I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)"

Cover of I AND THOU (Scribner Classic)

Ich-Du: I and it; I and Thou by Austrian philosopher Martin  “Mordechai” Buber, is a book about object relations. I think he was talking about objectification more profoundly than Freud, and more clearly and intuitively than any feminist, ever, with the possible exception of Julia Kristeva–who also ‘get’s it,” when she manages to extricate herself from the word mangler.

The major theme of Buber is that humans find meaning in relationships. As a religious person, he felt that all relations could be understood from an object, subject perspective, “I’ and “It”, whatever that it may be to the one defining or discerning the relation,  and that the final unknowable, infinitely incomprehensible relationship was one with G-d, or “I” and “Thou.”

His G-d was a patriarchal G-d, one that could easily be understood by anyone; his paradigm a simple paradigm: I understand what I can understand, and once named or understood, the I becomes an it. In I to thou, however, thou can never be understood fully, and thus never fully objectified.

The last several decades have us wondering about the ‘objectification of women’ due in large part to feminist theory. My personal illusion of their ‘objectives’ was once that I envisioned feminists as human rights advocates, and companions in a struggle for equality, rather than as cold blooded murderers, collaborators with International banksters, and imprisoners of male bodies.

I was wrong, but not their fault–my own, for I trusted their cause, blindly.

Like it or not, want it or not, we have all been ‘subjected’ to the feminist ‘object’ paradigm by women who “object” to what they see as a patriarchal society. Yet their objection is/was notably silent about kyriarchal relations, and the paradigm I was presented of patriarchy is inherently–deceptively flawed.

Or, in simple terms, by co-opting, and ‘naming’ patriarchs and patriarchal concepts, feminism renders patriarchy as an “it” rather than as a “thou”, while rendering the world in reverse.

In simpler terms, objectifying men.

And in this generation, the kyriarchs were marching on your perceptions before you even knew what hit your father–your patriarchal Saint Not-Present-Enough (so they tell you-ever-wonder-why?), dearest Dad. They were all sleeping with your mother while he was away. But  patriarchs like Martin Buber, und Sigmund had been busy not long before– busy defining object relations, rather than being merely subjected to them.

And if feminism got one thing right about waging brutality, it was in that co-option of the power of naming, and in thus ‘taming’ of what they felt ‘objectified them’ and rendered them as “it’s” instead of “thou’s”. And it gave them the basis to wage war as women. And no century, ever, has seen more war or death than the last one.

So, no matter how smarmy, mid-to-late-month funky, or how finally fragrant or chastened that paradigm is to you, it is a paradigm that you have been face to face with, whether you know it, wanted it, or not. Think “Oprah Winfrey,” and discussions about the privilege of excess fatness; or the View, and the letter V, on “V-Day”. They are the matriarchy TO the patriarchy, the other half of war and death–that other V-Day.

Men as subjects to objectified women; subjective reality versus objective reality. Objectified realities, subjecting subjects to objectification. Subjectively, I object…

Shit–even I am confused. Maybe I, too, schlepped[sic] with my mother too long??

It’s in your face one way or another, and not because you asked for it. It’s there because you have been subjected to it, beyond your powers to just “turn it off,” because it’s everywhere.

It is an object lesson gone wild.

Having the big V in your face is not necessarily a bad thing, if that’s what you go in for, and Oprah–even with her billions–is kind of-?- vagiriffic- except the part where she and they all conveniently left out any mention of kyriarchy, and consent–yours; for your child’s future or present. And all that before you even know what hit you.

Now there’s a paradigm that has some teeth–and not just the kind of tooth that craves fresh chomped testicle, either, because after all, they are using your kids in wars all over the world ( I don’t have stats, or facts and figures about Oprah’s money–if anyone has that I would kiss your belly button for them).

Kyriarchy suggests that all people have relative power–some women have more power than some men; some men with massive cash have less power than women with big…big…umm, ideas, for instance.

Throw out patriarchy! Throw out oppression! Throw out…morality( a construction of patriarchy…)?!

Big ideas like waging illegal war in Libya under the foreign policy of single mother raised Barak Obama, and his foreign policy wonk, Hillary Clinton–after all, the patriarchs do it too! Never mind higher ground, or silly morals. Kyriarchy demands that we get to the top of the pyramid, using whatever tools are required to get there–power is not centered at the top.

Jennifer Lopez, and her war against sperm donor Mark Anthony, for instance, is an object lesson in kyriarchy, as the two are divorcing.  Who couldn’t have predicted that preying mantis to mantis outcome? After all, any man worth his beans wouldn’t have knocked her up except for the money–she’s worth twice as much as he is, and her sexuality is inherently more marketable.

The paradigm of patriarchy does notapply, as she likely has more power in one phone call to her sugar daddy than Anthony could ever have in a Mexican disco.

A crippled person from any American suburb on television talking about the disabled has more power than a legless boy on a push scooter who sells Chicles’ in Juarez, Mexico,or Oaxaca for example.

A woman–a white housewife in the suburbs of America has more security than say a little Latino boy whose sole caregiver is a crack-head mom.

In kyriarchy, power is flexible and situational.

Some illicit channels of communication have more direct access or control over power than other, traditional, accepted forms of communication; think Gloria Steinem licking Henry Kissinger‘s balls in her posh town-home in New York, as she prepares for another CIA-feminism funded blitzkrieg of the airwaves to convince all the young girls that she is some sort of Che Guevara, rather than a CIA operative who has lived a posh life-with Henry Kissinger as a consort.

Matriarchy in bed with patriarchy is not feminism.It is kyriarchy.

Think male drug crime convict, or prisoner has less power to speak out than any white female at a drug addicts shelter who he once ‘dated’, or anyt creature with a vagina having more credibility in a court-room in a domestic violence hearing.

She, and object of pity, and achieved victim status–an addict, an understandable “it.” But the prisonewho once dated her? A double and unspeakable “it.” Worse than an it–in fact, an “other than it.” because ‘we don’t know what he is capable of’. And certainly not a thou.

I personally give the credit to Martin Buber in this dialogue, because he was the first who ever explained to me the importance of object relations.

And I think feminists have selfishly inserted their object reality into the reality of others. They are like big dicks, raping dialogues.

“I and Thou,” he told me.* You’re an “it” they told me.

I–conceivable self-object–product of the nearly inconceivable, but approachable all powerful subject. That, pendant only upon my disbelief, or the needle in my own hand at the ballocks.

But here below are some notes attempting to point out the shifting sands of the heirarchy of kyriarchy, messed up even by Mazlows standards of order, and certainly in the feminist paradigm, it seems they missed a few details, or just skipped to the front of the line when it comes to the rank order of objects.
1)non-objects, yet to be realized.
2)manifestation of object, percieved through abject  (as per Kristeva for instance) into recognition of physical object
3)gendered/classed/racialized/sexualized object
sex object: does ex come before the staus of sex? or for that metter, the violence inherent in sex? Violence, a pendulum from genetic material/entrapment of men to rape of women?
4)status object: status can be from multiple sources, and symbolized in multiple ways
5)ritual object: objects given meaning or ascribed meaning by the hoi polloi, those objects sacred, sometimes above indivdual objects or individual relations.
6) violence object: male bodies and tools used against life
music/art/object; status symbols or internal devices mad external? Or, are these objects
7) object object [first? reverse the order?]

8)?????

=====================================================

FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Buber’s main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
that of the “I” towards an “It”
, towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience;
and that of the “I” towards “Thou”, in which we move into existence in a relationship without bounds.

From 1910 to 1914, Buber studied myths and published editions of mythic texts. In 1916 he moved from Berlin to Heppenheim. During World War I he helped establish the Jewish National Commission in order to improve the condition of Eastern European Jews. During that period he became the editor of Der Jude (German for “The Jew“), a Jewish monthly (until 1924). In 1921 Buber began his close relationship with Franz Rosenzweig. In 1922 Buber and Rosenzweig co-operated in Rosenzweig’s House of Jewish Learning, known in Germany as Lehrhaus.[6]

In 1923 Buber wrote his famous essay on existence, Ich und Du (later translated into English as I and Thou). Though he edited the work later in his life, he refused to make substantial changes. In 1925 he began, in conjunction with Franz Rosenzweig, translating the Hebrew Bible into German. He himself called this translation Verdeutschung (“Germanification”), since it does not always use literary German language but attempts to find new dynamic (often newly invented) equivalent phrasing in order to respect the multivalent Hebrew original. Between 1926 and 1930 Buber co-edited the quarterly Die Kreatur (“The Creature”).[7]

Cover of "Mercy"

Cover of Mercy

Andrea Dworkin‘s Fiction 101: “Lie, for effect.”

The roots of the feminist ‘men are doormats’ dilemma, and why nice guys lose, finally, and always, in feminist theory. They can’t help  themselves–literally! They are dependent upon female narratives.

UPDATE: As predicted, DSK was found innocent and absolved of any wrong doing in this matter, and currently, Naffisatou Diallo is ‘seeking a confrontation’ to avoid being deported, and to vindicate her untenable position.

I am trying to track down this odd obscure detail about Andrea Dworkin, which is probably going to be harder than explaining why the wage gap between men and women is either a  clever falsehood, or a mis-representation of women’s choices.

And even harder than trying to explain why hiding the identity of Dominique Strauss-Kahn‘s rape-accuser, Nafisatou Diallo, is the western version of ‘putting a veil on women.’

Here is Naffisatou Diallo below– false rape accuser, and drug money courier. Her false accusation against Dominique Strauss Kahn could throw the French presidential election.

Tolerating One Lie, Leads to Generations of More Lies: Naffisatou Diallo, false rape accuser

But back to obscure facts for a minute. It seems that John Preston, gay activist, author, and founder of the now-defunct Gay House, Inc. in Minneapolis, remembers Andrea Dworkin being in Minneapolis sometime in 1971.

She claimed she was in Amsterdam at the time as a “battered wife.”

I haven’t the time or the resources to track down everything that feminists claim as truth, and I have learned the hard way that truth to them is not factual, or even ascertainable by standard methodology. Truth is monolithic, not individual, and collective, not personal, so collective lies become truths, and personal truth becomes a lie.

Such is the case in the genesis of Dworkin’s work Mercy, which I will address below. Mercy is also a great part of Dworkin’s belief in lying as an imperative to creating new truths, which is not necessarily ignoble when old truth constructions don’t work anymore but it IS dubious and non-factual nonetheless.

Nor do I want to waste too much time on tracking down one attention getting manipulation of facts, or conflations of statistics after another, like the latest inflation of statistics, or sketchy evidence on sex trafficking by the now soundly debunked Schapiro Group.

But I have a hunch I can find some data about this one claim. After all, Gay House was right up the block from one of my homes.

I am seeking the data because I have a theory that modern feminism is a co-option of womens voices, and a product of CIA social engineering. Sounds all hoolie boolie, huh?

But not so hoolie boolie when you think about a few things:
1) it is now well known that Gloria Steinem was a CIA operative—so much so that Betty Friedan questioned CIA involvement in the women’s movement, and

2)  Dworkin herself was a curiously mobile, though rather penniless  individual who crossed borders, and crossed gender identities so fluidly: not bad for an uneducated girl, until you take into account her affiliation with Steinem[…]; and

3) modern feminism is so deeply allied with the subversion of domestic discourse, and allied with police power that falsehoods are widely circulated as truths—subjectivity has overcome objectivity in truth telling, so much so that the latest ‘study’ of the exploitation of teen prostitutes need only base its assertions on “lookism,” rather than hard data, or what the rest of us know as “facts”.

And then, when you realize that the false rape ideology that drives them, and is popping up all over the media [Assange, DSK , etc.] became a memetic device around the same time that Steinem was sleeping with the CIA chief, and also running around with Henry Kissinger, the great war chief who brought us the severed ears fingers and  hands of Viet Nam, and the sawed off feet of Guatemalan Indians some years later.

Together, they devised perhaps the most clever plan ever of capitalist imperial conquest; and devised one of the best smokescreens against truth in history–next to the bible, of course.

Here, have a look yourself: the word rape is a very popular adword, and a cash cow for bloggers.

Rape is a popular Google Adword--bloggers make money with rape!

But the weight of just one lie can wear you out, and make you feel like nothing is worth it—that life itself is not worth living if lies are the vehicle to truth, or as truth is more commonly known in feminist circles, consensus, monolithic, collective female consensus. And that version of truth is even heavier with the agency of the state behind its telling.

Even so, I am trying to lift Andrea off of my shoulders, and get to the bottom of a simple fact.

More later….