Ronnie Harmon Fumbles Four Times in the First Half!!!!

This isn't an article about football. This is an article to test your thinking skills. I know some of you don't like sports, but I want to use a past football game to highlight a few lessons applicable to matters involving feminist women. Starting with the important lesson that I want you to think carefully about all of the following numerous facts and details, because you will need to think carefully when dealing with all of the almost unlimited deceitful and manipulative tricks feminist women use.

The central question is, did Ronnie Harmon intentionally lose a football game?

It was the January 1, 1986, Rose Bowl. The University of Iowa Hawkeyes versus the UCLA Bruins. Iowa lost 45-28.

Iowa's running back, Ronnie Harmon, fumbled four times in the first half of the game. All four fumbles were recovered by UCLA.

Was the weather bad? Maybe Harmon fumbled so much because the weather was cold and icy. No. The temperature in southern California was 71 degrees. The sky was described as overcast on Wikipedia. On YouTube videos, the weather looked pretty good to me.

Was Harmon a freshman? Maybe he fumbled so much because he was weak, inexperienced, and nervous, playing in his first big college game. No. He was a senior playing in his last college game. He played a lot for Iowa in his junior and senior seasons.

Was Harmon a fumbler? Maybe he fumbled so much because he was prone to fumbling in every game. No. Harmon fumbled just once, and only once, his senior season.

Was Harmon up until that point in time an unknown fumbler? Maybe UCLA discovered his potential weakness was fumbling while all other opposing teams failed to see it throughout Harmon's entire college career. No, and here the statistical evidence is overwhelming. According to NFLdotcom, Harmon fumbled just seven times in his entire, 12-year, NFL career. In the NFL, he ran the ball 615 times and caught 582 passes. According to Wikipedia, Harmon is “one of only five running backs to ever gain over 10,000 all-purpose yards and have less than 20 fumbles”. Harmon was known for not being prone to fumble, in college or the NFL.

Was Harmon injured? Maybe he fumbled so much because one of his arms was broken. No. I didn't see any casts on his arms in the YouTube videos, and there were no reports – then, or since then – of Harmon having any injury of any kind for the game.

Was Harmon tackled hard? Maybe he fumbled so much because he was blindsided and knocked almost unconscious on all four fumbles. No. Here, I will give some details of each play when he fumbled the ball. I feel I need to state that Harmon didn't fumble every time he touched the ball in the first half. I am omitting those plays.

Harmon fumbled on Iowa's very first offensive play of the game. UCLA got the ball first and had to punt on their first possession. UCLA's punter couldn't catch a high snap which allowed Iowa to start their first offensive drive on the five-yard line. That's right, Harmon fumbled on Iowa's very first offensive play of the game, on the very next play following UCLA's botched punt, on the five-yard line. After taking a hand-off, he ran to the right. He was barely touched and fumbled to UCLA.

Iowa scored first, but after UCLA tied the game at 7-7, Harmon fumbled the first time he touched the ball on Iowa's next offensive drive. It was just the third play of the drive. He was dragged down from behind by a routine tackle and fumbled to UCLA.

After UCLA kicked a field goal to make it 10-7, Harmon fumbled on Iowa's very first offensive play of the next drive. He caught a pass and it was another routine solo tackle and he fumbled to UCLA. It isn't just the total number of four lost fumbles that is suspicious, it is the unlikely timing of the fumbles that is even more suspicious. Consider the following facts that Harmon fumbled the very first time he touched the ball on three of Iowa's drives. He fumbled on Iowa's very first play of the drive twice. Harmon fumbled three times in the first quarter!!! Harmon's fumbling early in the drives gave UCLA better field position than if he had fumbled later in the drives. The fumbles were timed to offer UCLA maximum help.

Later, Iowa scored a field goal and then UCLA scored a touchdown to put UCLA ahead 17-10. So, after three fumbles by Harmon, Iowa trailed by just one touchdown.

Harmon fumbled for the fourth time after catching a pass at about the 50-yard line with about two minutes remaining in the first half. If Iowa had scored on that drive, they might have gone in at halftime with the score tied at 17-17, or maybe trailing 17-13 after kicking a field goal as time expired, or maybe still trailing 17-10 as time expired. Instead, UCLA, with good field position, scored a touchdown and held a 24-10 lead at halftime. Do you see how costly the four fumbles were?

***

I must not be very good at making devious schemes. Devious, deceitful, and manipulative people (especially feminist women) use this type of naivete to their advantage because honest people aren't accustomed to dealing with them. When I first started analyzing what Harmon did in this game, I thought to myself: See, if I had to tell a running back to intentionally lose a game by fumbling the ball, I would tell him to try to make it look good to minimize suspicion. Only fumble when you run up the middle. Fumble after you get hit by a 275-pound defensive lineman and then maybe wait until after a linebacker slams into you. People will more readily believe fumbling after this type of collision.

Then, I started thinking about it from the standpoint of an actual player on the field. The problem with my plan above is that there are several teammates in that area: the offensive linemen and the quarterback. Any one of them could fall on the ball and recover it for our team. If that happens, then the running back will have to fumble the ball that many more times for the opposing team to recover it. Harmon fumbled four times in the first half as it was. If his teammates had recovered a couple of them, would he have had to fumble a massive total of six times, or more, to affect the outcome of the game? It would have been even more obvious.

There is another problem with my plan above. If our team recovers the running back's fumble(s) it might be an unproductive down – or if it's third down we will probably have to punt – but there is still a chance our team makes a first down or pins the other team deep in their territory with a good punt. If that happens, the running back might not succeed in losing the game because other players on our offense might make a first down, or score, and our defense might be too good.

Harmon wasn't taking any chances. He fumbled in situations where UCLA was almost guaranteed to recover the ball. In fact, he appears to pitch the ball to them in the air on his first fumble. Why is this significant? Because the rule back then was a fumble could only be advanced by the recovering team if the ball was caught in the air. The UCLA player actually catches the ball in the air, but it was a diving catch and by college rule a player is down after hitting the ground. If the UCLA player had stayed on his feet there was a good chance he could have returned it 95 yards for a touchdown. A touchdown for UCLA would have been an even bigger gift from Harmon than just ending Iowa's first offensive drive.

Think carefully about the implications of this rule and Harmon's fumbles. Harmon, of course, knew full-well a fumble couldn't be advanced after hitting the ground. Because of this rule, he knew UCLA couldn't pick up a fumble and score a touchdown or even advance the ball for better field position. He knew UCLA would have to take the ball where it hit the ground. This explains why he fumbled as soon as possible in the drives. This was the most help he could offer UCLA for field position since they couldn't pick up a fumble and advance it had he fumbled later in the drives.

Harmon did catch 11 passes in the game, but two of them ended in fumbles which more than cancels out the benefit of two of the catches. Fumbles do so much damage that Harmon's four fumbles offset a lot of any benefit of passes he caught or yards he gained. He couldn't be too obvious and drop every pass any more than he could fumble every single time he carried the ball.

In addition to all of the fumbles, Harmon dropped a perfectly thrown touchdown pass in the fourth quarter. He was perfectly in stride and the pass perfectly hit both of his hands. Remember, Harmon was a great receiver and running back who played in the NFL for 12 years. And, he is still among Iowa's top ten in several offensive statistical categories 34 years after playing for the Hawkeyes. Iowa kicked a field goal on that drive to trail 38-20. Then, UCLA scored to make it 45-20. Iowa would score one more touchdown and successfully go for the two-point conversion. It was Ronnie Harmon's younger brother Kevin Harmon who scored the two points. Ronnie Harmon didn't score in the game.

***

Hayden Fry was Iowa's head coach in 1986, Fry wrote in his book, A High Porch Picnic (1999), “Harmon took a lot of heat because he lost four fumbles, all in the first half. That was uncharacteristic of him; I think he fumbled once during the regular season. The game film reveals that every fumble he lost was caused by a UCLA defender making a hard hit. They just knocked the ball loose. They did a great job of tackling. UCLA made bad things happen to Iowa; Iowa didn't self-destruct.”

Fry is wrong about the tackles. They weren't hard hits. They were routine tackles. Judge for yourself, you can find videos of NBC's broadcast of the game on YouTube, several of them. There is a “1986 Rose Bowl (First Half)” video that condenses the first half into about eight minutes of highlights. There is also a condensed complete game “1986 Rose Bowl UCLA vs. Iowa” video of a little under two hours if you want to see everything in context.

Fry is correct that “Iowa didn't self-destruct.” Iowa didn't, but Harmon did self-destruct and in turn sabotaged Iowa. If you had to point to one player that cost Iowa the game, it was Harmon and his four lost fumbles in the first half and no points in the game. I think Fry was just being loyal to his former player and giving a we-were-beaten-by-the-best type of explanation.

***

I'm not contesting the outcome of the game. UCLA will always be considered the winner and I am okay with that, but I do believe in thoroughly covering an issue. So, I will teach a few sports-related lessons along with lessons applicable to feminism.

Harmon's first fumble cost Iowa at least three points, but it wasn't just all of the points that were lost because of Harmon's fumbles, it was the lost momentum, physical energy, and enthusiasm. Momentum in sports can be difficult to define, but I think it is a few players making some nice plays and the rest of the team trying hard (physical energy) and believing in the possibility of victory (enthusiasm).

The fumbles were not only momentum killers and demoralizing, but Iowa's defense had to go right back onto the field after three of Iowa's offensive drives – consisting of a grand total of just five plays – ended with a fumble.

There is a dynamism to sports. It isn't just lost points, lost momentum, field position, or that a defense gets tired, it is also how an opposing team deals with the nearly opposite set of circumstances. If Iowa's offense is on the field and not getting cut short with fumbles, then it is UCLA's defense that is getting tired. Iowa's offense keeps UCLA's offense off the field, and if it is Iowa that is playing with momentum and a lead, then it is UCLA that might be forced to change offensive strategies.

There is also a dynamism involved when dealing with feminist women that I will explain in future articles.

It isn't possible to perform an experiment in this case. An experiment to test whether a different running back would fumble as many times against UCLA as Harmon did would require replaying everything in the game exactly the same way except for Iowa's running back. It would have been theoretically possible to stage a rematch the following week with a different running back for Iowa and then seeing how many times that running back fumbled. The weather conditions would be similar and all of the same players would be the “control group.” Some things would be different, such as the absence of any injured players and the game plan by the coaches might be different after playing the same team just a week earlier. These are only some of the reasons why an experiment isn't always possible.

However, there were some other Iowa players to compare to Harmon. Another Iowa running back, David Hudson, ran the ball several times in the Rose Bowl and scored Iowa's first touchdown. Quarterback Chuck Long was tackled a few times and scored a touchdown running the ball. Several other players for Iowa caught punts, passes, and kicks, and none of them fumbled against the very same UCLA team.

In this case, it is possible to study facts, evidence, and statistics, as I presented earlier. From here, logic and rationalism – thinking skills – are necessary.

When dealing with feminist women, we need to use experimentation, empiricism, rationalism, and morality, among other things.

Logic can be put to good use even about a football game such as this one. There is one glaring logical error in what coach Fry wrote. Even if the tackles were hard hits (and they weren't), it's football. The tackles are supposed to be hard. I'm sure Harmon – like every other player who handles the football – was tackled hard a lot in college and in the NFL and still he rarely fumbled. So, the thought that Harmon was tackled hard (and he wasn't) in this game is still not a satisfactory logical reason for fumbling four times in a half. What was Harmon expecting, two-hand touch?

***

I want to show you a few comments about Harmon's performance that I found in a couple of Internet forums. Although you already know the comments are going to be stupid, they do offer the opportunity to practice thinking skills.

Here is a comment by “Hawknick” who is skeptical about the idea that Harmon intentionally fumbled – or was “point shaving” – while referring to the fact that Iowa was favored to win the game by 2.5 points:

“I wish he would have benn [sic] better at point shaving if that was the case. He could have just fumbled once so Iowa could have won by a point or two.” hawkeyenationdotcom. Oct 28, 2013.

So, if everything works out according to “Hawknick's” plan, everyone is happy. Iowa wins the game by “a point or two” and a bet on UCLA still pays off.

But, I hope you caught the absurdity of his comment and the flaw in his plan. Does he think Harmon could have come up with a plan before the game?: Let's see, I think it will be a defensive battle with maybe a safety or two, so if I fumble just once that should be enough to give us a one point, 16-15, victory. Or, maybe he thinks Harmon could have watched how the score was going and then fumble once later in the game: Well, we're playing with a one-point lead, so I better fumble now so we don't win by eight and then hope our defense holds so we don't lose by six.

Harmon couldn't take that chance. What if the Hawkeyes had scored on the first drive that started on the five-yard line? Iowa held an early 7-0 lead as it was. If Iowa had scored on that first drive they might have had an even bigger lead early in the game.

What if it had been Iowa, instead of UCLA, with a 21-point lead in the second half? How many times would Harmon have had to fumble then? What if coach Fry, with a good lead, started taking his starting players out of the game to give other players a chance to play in the Rose Bowl? Harmon would have completely missed his chance(s) to fumble and Iowa would have won. Harmon couldn't take that chance, so he fumbled early and often to UCLA.

“… Ronnie Harmon was probably the greatest Iowa player I have seen, and so I remember the other games. He may have been out on the town the night before.” “Guest”. tapatalkdotcom. Feb 20, 2002.

Note how many of the comments mention what a great player Harmon was. Great players don't fumble the ball four times in a half unless it is intentional. Did I mention that Harmon was a first-round draft pick entering the NFL? The commenter suggests Harmon “may have been out on the town the night before” the game. The presupposition here is that Harmon genuinely wanted to perform well and win the biggest game of his life up to that point, but was so stupid that he partied to the extent that it still adversely affected him by game time. There have been no reports – then, or since then – that Harmon was drunk, on drugs, or broke curfew the night before the game.

Harmon has been accused of intentionally losing the Rose Bowl. Admitting his poor performance was because he was drunk, on drugs, or broke curfew, would be less dishonorable, but he can't use any of these for an excuse because they are disprovable. His former coaches and teammates could verify that he was in bed by curfew and sober for the game.

“The defense didn't stop UCLA enough. Cause we certainly scored enough points to win.” “Birds of Fire” Apr 25, 2002.

This commenter isn't accounting for dynamism. Iowa's defense was on the field for a longer period of time than they would have been if Harmon hadn't fumbled the ball four times. In turn, UCLA's offense was given more possessions with good field position due to Harmon's four fumbles.

“that [sic] Ronnie Harmon seems to be in good standing with the Hawkeye family and Hayden Fry well since that fateful day. I remember he was honored before the 1995 spring game, and the crowd respectfully applauded him. I doubt he would be so honored if Fry even had the slightest suspicion that he threw the game. I simply had to forgive the guy for having a bad day. I also remember the defense having a worse day than Harmon did. We gave up over 500 total yards and three long touchdowns to Freshman RB Eric Ball. UCLA would have scored another TD had they not mercifully ran out the clock. Each team also fumbled five times. If I recall, wasn't it an unusually hot and humid that day?” “Guest” Feb 21, 2002.

This comment is factually and materially inaccurate. It is worse than a dog's breakfast of bad ideas, it is grasping at straws. Researching, writing, and thinking, takes effort. Don't just go off the top of your head.

“[T]he crowd respectfully applauded him.” So what? You could have a dog wearing the home team's jersey run out on the field and the crowd will cheer for it. A “bad day”? Harmon somehow forgot how to hold on to a football! The defense gave up a little under 500 yards from scrimmage, but that was due, at least in part, to Harmon's four fumbles. Running out the clock when a team has a lead is commonplace and that lead was due, at least in part, to Harmon's four fumbles. “Each team also fumbled five times.” False! Harmon fumbled four times all in the first half and UCLA recovered all four of them. Iowa's quarterback, Chuck Long, threw one interception.

UCLA's four turnovers were more random and typical of a football game. Their running back fumbled once and that fumble was recovered by UCLA's quarterback. The high snap UCLA's punter couldn't catch was recovered by another UCLA player. Since it was fourth down, it was considered a turnover on downs. UCLA's quarterback threw one interception and fumbled once to Iowa while scrambling to his left. So, UCLA had three fumbles and actually covered two of them. Only one of the three fumbles was a fumble that Iowa recovered. That Harmon lost all four fumbles to UCLA is, in and of itself, suspicious.

A quarterback's fumbles are a little more understandable. They get blindsided while looking down field to pass. When scrambling, they tend to run with the ball held out in front of them in both hands or even just one hand as they continue to look down field to pass. It is a running back's job to hold on to the ball.

The weather that day was just fine for football. But even in hot or cold weather, one player rarely fumbles four times in a half. Harmon, by that time, already had experience playing in all types of weather. His fumbles weren't caused by the weather.

“I do not believe it for a second. I remember watching a special on that game and the UCLA coaches said they spotted a certain way Harmon carried the ball. The [sic] knew they could strip it pretty easily. Thats [sic] what they did. Ronnie was such an exciting player (both as an RB & WR) I just cannot accept it. Remember as a WR he would go up in a crowd and always(it seemed) come down with the ball. What a player” “dbqhawk2” Feb 21, 2002.

Notice the commenter admired Harmon's abilities as a player yet could fumble “pretty easily” to UCLA if anyone sneezed on him. Harmon so readily fumbled on routine tackles by UCLA that other teams would have discovered his propensity to fumble on routine tackles by accident, if nothing else, during his junior and senior seasons. Causing fumbles and other turnovers is something every team tries to do. So, of course, the UCLA coaches are going to say it was all part of their plan. Had Harmon always been so loose with the football, his own excellent coaching staff (Hayden Fry, Barry Alvarez, Bill Snyder, Kirk Ferentz, Dan McCarney, and Bob Stoops, among others) would have seen it immediately and taken measures to correct it his freshman year.

“fumbling [sic] tendency, and it was only the UCLA coaches for that one game that picked up this tendency.” “deepsouthdoug” Feb 21, 2002.

I wrote in the first paragraph to think carefully about all of the facts and details. This commenter doesn't take into account any of the facts and details. The comment is incorrect insofar as Harmon didn't have a tendency to fumble at all. The very opposite is true. Harmon rarely fumbled in college or the NFL. This comment is a solipsistic, self-contained, circular argument, which is the beauty of it for a simple-minded person. There is no need to consider any of the facts, statistics, evidence, and logic. All that matters to such a person is what they see in that one moment in time and everything can be explained from there. Why did Harmon fumble four times in the Rose Bowl? Because UCLA's coaches saw that he would fumble pretty easily. Then why did Harmon fumble only once during the 11-game regular season? Because all of the other coaches must not have seen his fumbling tendency. Then why didn't he fumble later in the NFL? Because NFL coaches didn't see it or because Harmon remembered how to hold on to a football.

You don't need to know anything to play the solipsism game. It is similar to what we face when arguing with feminists about the wage gap. They argue out of ignorance based on solipsism, deceit, dissembling, temporizing, and appealing to the Feminist Media. There is a wage gap, but there is no discriminatory wage gap. (See my entry in The Daily Vos page: “The Gender Wage Gap Is a Myth”.)

“I remember thinking that at least one of his fumbles should clearly have been ruled down. I also remember Ronnie seemingly pulling his hands away from a would be touchdown pass that hit him practically in the numbers. That, more than the fumbles, left me thinking he was on the take. A point about UCLA's coaches. Supposedly, they also figured out from game film that one of our offensive linemen always put one foot further forward when we were going to pass (or vice versa), so they pretty much knew on each play whether to defend the pass or the run. If they could figure that out (which presumably the Big 10 coaches had not), then maybe they did see something about the way Harmon carried the ball.” “MplsHawk” Feb 21, 2002.

If Iowa's offensive linemen had been giving away that many signals, Iowa's record would have been closer to 2-10 for the year instead of 10-2. Iowa finished the prior year by defeating the Texas Longhorns in the Freedom Bowl 55-17. Surely, if Iowa's football program had been that sloppy and poorly coached, the Texas coaching staff and the Big Ten coaching staffs would have also seen such simple signals. Teams already have some idea of what an opponent is going to do. For example, if it is third down and long, teams are more likely to throw the ball. Iowa's offensive line was the same offensive line that went 10-1 up until the Rose Bowl. Harmon's four lost fumbles in the first half were what really hurt the Hawkeyes.

The following is a comment by someone who understands a few things. Here is a portion of his comment.

“Something was rotten in Pasadena. Harmon was never a fumbler. And I seriously doubt that the UCLA coaches – after four years of teams watching tape of Harmon – suddenly found a magical flaw in the way he carried the ball that made him prone to fumble. You don't think a coach like Bo Schembechler, or even Hayden Fry, would've noticed it a couple of years sooner?” “Guest” Feb 21, 2002.

Exactly. Michigan's Glenn “Bo” Schembechler was one of the best coaches in college history. Michigan's only loss during the 1985 season was at Iowa 12-10. Michigan had one game end in a tie against Illinois. Do you really believe Schembechler – and every one of the coaches whose teams played, and lost to, Harmon and the Hawkeyes – was thinking about the missed opportunity: Force fumbles? Create turnovers? Study game tape? Gee, I never would've thought of that in a million years!

Coaches and players always want to believe it is their clever strategy and great play that causes them to win and causes the other team to commit turnovers and lose. So, of course, the UCLA coaches are going to say it was all part of their plan.

***

I saved an important piece of information for the end. In 2002, there was an episode of HBO's Real Sports that covered this same subject. The episode was hosted by Bernard Goldberg.

The following article is a summary of that episode on HBO in which it is stated that Harmon admits to accepting money from sports agents while playing college football.

“Hawkeye Past and Hawkeye Future”. By Barry Crist. 247Sportsdotcom. July 24, 2002.

More than 16 years after Ronnie Harmon's final football game for Iowa, people are still saying he threw the 1986 Rose Bowl. Harmon, a standout running back and pass receiver who lettered as a Hawkeye from 1982-85, is featured on the Real Sports show on HBO. Michael Franzese, a thug who was associated with sports agent Norby Walters, said on the show that evidence points to the belief that Harmon threw the Rose Bowl game against UCLA. That is not a new thought. It's been debated for years. Harmon, who had lost only one fumble during Iowa's 10-1 regular season, coughed up the ball four times in the first half against the Bruins, who won the game, 45-28. Tape of the game is shown as Franzese is interviewed by correspondent Bernard Goldberg. “I can't honestly say because I was away in prison at the time,” Franzese said. “It doesn't look good, that's for sure. And I would certainly have my suspicions.” “Which are?” Goldberg asks. “He threw the game,” Franzese answers. Goldberg then says Harmon, “who admits he took $50,000 from Walters and Franzese, denies he threw the Rose Bowl game.”

Barry Crist then writes:

When I was at the Chicago Bears' preseason training camp four years ago, I interviewed Harmon and asked him about the controversial Rose Bowl game. He told me he didn't fumble intentionally.

I wish Crist would have pressed Harmon to fully explain in his own words his torrent of four fumbles in a half instead of just accepting Harmon's denial.

Dan McCarney, then Iowa's defensive line coach and now Iowa State's head coach, said Harmon's four fumbles in the Rose Bowl game still puzzle him. “It was so uncharacteristic of him,” McCarney said. “It was a shock to all of us on the sideline. Harmon had great ball security, tremendous speed and his hands were as great as anyone I've seen in a collegiate running back. To this day, I can't figure it out.”

“Harmon had great ball security”… “I can't figure it out”… “his hands were as great as anyone I've seen in a collegiate running back”… “I can't figure it out.” Oh, I think McCarney has it figured out. In football terminology, McCarney is attempting to punt with his answer.

After fumbling once all season, the senior and future NFL first-round draft pick fumbled four times in the first half…he lost all four fumbles...he fumbled three times in the first quarter...he fumbled the first time he touched the ball on three different drives…on two of those drives he fumbled on the very first play of the drive…and on one of those drives it was Iowa's very first play of the game. It is all just too many coincidences and too non-random for it to have been unintentional.

On the HBO show, Franzese said Walters “recruited top (NFL) draft choices to be part of his agency. If, in fact, he did that, we would be able to influence the outcome of some games. That's what we had planned.” Goldberg said Walters and Franzese “paid to get that talent. From 1985 to 1987, even when Franzese was doing time for a racketeering conviction, the pair built a virtual all-star team of players paid under the table and signed to illegal post-dated contracts – players like Ronnie Harmon, the star running back at Iowa.” As Goldberg speaks of Harmon, tape is shown of the former Hawkeye playing. Goldberg said Harmon and his father secretly taped a conversation they had with Walters, in which the agent spelled out the financial arrangement he was planning with Harmon. Goldberg said “Harmon signed and the checks began rolling in – part of the $800,000 Harmon and 57 other college stars were to get them to sign with Walters and Franzese. Then strange things began happening in college football – like the 1986 Rose Bowl” Tape of Harmon's fumbles and a dropped pass from quarterback Chuck Long that would have given Iowa a touchdown against UCLA followed. On the show, Franzese is called “a big mobster – one of the most powerful in the country. Sports was his passion, and he got some of the biggest athletes on his side.”

***

Does this HBO episode increase your suspicion that Harmon tried to intentionally lose the Rose Bowl? Did you catch the part where Harmon and his father actually secretly recorded the conversation they had with the sports agent? The Harmons had at least an inkling that what they were participating in was wrong, but they went ahead and accepted the money anyway. That Harmon was greedy enough to accept the money and break NCAA rules says something about his character. Harmon no longer gets the benefit of the doubt about whether he intentionally lost the game.

Why not just wait until he entered the NFL to enjoy making millions of dollars? For the same reasons some people think college athletes should get paid in today's debate. They think college athletes shouldn't have to wait until they become professional athletes to get paid and they shouldn't have to wait until they graduate to get real jobs like other college students.

The scheme described on HBO broke NCAA rules, although it might not have broken any U.S. laws. This is why Harmon can openly admit he accepted money. Legally, he is in the clear. He can admit to taking money because all of us have money. You have money, I have money, and Harmon made lots of money in the NFL. The money doesn't stand out as categorically different, it is just different in amount.

The only piece of the puzzle missing from all of this is an admission from Harmon that he intentionally fumbled. The picture is clear. But admitting that he tried to intentionally lose a football game would tarnish Harmon's football reputation forever, which is why he can admit to taking money but can't admit to intentionally losing the Rose Bowl.

All of the people mentioned so far, except for Bernard Goldberg, are biased out of their own self-interest for various reasons. Iowa's coaches don't want to admit Harmon was corrupt because it might taint the entire University of Iowa football team during that period of time. College coaches are some of the highest paid public employees in every state. They are under pressure to be shrewd and politic. UCLA coaches and players don't want to admit their Rose Bowl victory was tainted. They want to believe they earned their victory and that it wasn't given to them by Harmon. Organizations, such as the NCAA, didn't want to discover that so many top teams were involved in this scandal and had a few of these players on their teams. The NCAA didn't want so many top teams to get a 1980s, SMU-style, football “death penalty.”

This article stretches ten pages and over 6,000 words worth of research to cover a pretty simple matter. Imagine what it takes when the entire Feminist Media is doing everything it can to spread lies and cover-up the truth. Feminism is 1,000 times more devious and deceitful which is why I needed this entire website to begin to explain it.

I don't know the exact reason why Harmon intentionally fumbled the ball, only that I am pretty sure that he did. The most likely reasons are financial or personal. Harmon and/or the sports agents had a financial stake in the outcome of the game. The sports agents' scheme was to control Harmon (and other players) to the extent that they were going to take a percentage of Harmon's future NFL annual salary in exchange for the money they gave to him in advance while in college. So, another corrupt financial deal involving the outcome of the game is a possibility.

It could be that money had nothing to do with it. It could be that Harmon thought he should have been promoted as the star of the team and was jealous of Heisman Trophy runner-up Chuck Long, or he was mad that he didn't get the ball more during the season. It could be that he had a disagreement with the coaches or his teammates and decided to sabotage them in the last game of their college career.

I could be wrong, but if Harmon didn't try to intentionally lose the 1986 Rose Bowl, his four fumble performance in the first half is one of the biggest statistical anomalies in sports history.

Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy

I had the following debate regarding matriarchy vs. patriarchy with a woman known as “BetterPro ThanCon”, in the “Disqus” comments section, following this article by Sheriff David Clarke: “This is a war, and Black Lives Matter is the enemy”. The article can be found on Thehill.com on July 18, 2016.

“BetterPro ThanCon” is a play on words, I presume, involving pro-gressive and con-servative. But think about that same wordplay and the Constitution and you get a sense of what feminism is really about.

The Socialist Party USA's platform in the “Women” section says, “We call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services.”

My name on Disqus is Craig. Here is my initial comment:

“Craig”

Underclass culture (of all races) is Feminism fully applied to society. If you want to see what all of society would look like under authoritarian Feminism, just observe the Underclass: Unwed mothers and unwed fathers, illegitimacy, poor education, crime, drugs, divorce, gambling, poverty, dependency, prostitution, abortion, and unemployment.

Even revolution and “war”, as sheriff David Clarke describes it, is part of the feminist plan. Feminists are preparing for a violent revolutionary period. But don't take my word for it. Here is an excerpt from socialist feminist Alison Jaggar's book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature: “Socialist feminists, by contrast, are sufficiently MARXIST to be skeptical that the white male ruling class would give up its power without a VIOLENT STRUGGLE; however, they are confident that such a struggle could be won by the overwhelming majority of the population whom they see as their potential allies. Socialist feminists EXPECT that there will be a DISTINCTIVE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD, characterized by ACUTE SOCIAL TURMOIL, but they also expect THAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS TURMOIL WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE KIND AND QUALITY OF THE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY ACTIVITY THAT HAS PRECEDED IT. To this extent, they see themselves not so much as living the REVOLUTION as PREPARING FOR IT and attempting in limited ways to PREFIGURE IT.” [Emphasis added.]

For a lot more on the Marxist ideology underlying the three major branches of feminism: liberal, radical, and socialist, go to website: CenterRightAmerica.SquareSpace.com

You can find the quote above in the entry “Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary” in “The Daily Vos” page.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

In patriarchal societies, some people do well but in matriarchal societies, EVERYONE does well. So there goes that stupid theory of yours.

No, you didn't miss anything, this debate was off-topic from what Sheriff Clarke wrote about.

Her reply was in response to my first paragraph and the list of problems among the underclass. The problems of the underclass are caused by failed feminist alternatives to “patriarchal” institutions that help everyone who uses them.

Her reply would be an applause line on every feminist-oriented TV show from Donahue to Oprah. It is a good example of Guideline 5c: feminists can say whatever they want to about women – even if it is a lie – as long as it builds up women everybody is expected to cheer wildly. She wrote, “EVERYONE does well” in matriarchal societies, but is her assertion true?

“Craig”. I replied to her:

In Marxist societies (and feminism is based on Marxism) EVERYONE is equally poor. North Korea, for example.

Here are some statistics for perspective and to support my reply: the U.S. economy (gross domestic product) is $18 trillion per year. Japan's is $4.5 trillion. Mexico's is $1 trillion. Nigeria's is a half trillion dollars. North Korea's economy is just $17 billion.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

Feminism is NOT 'marxism' and clearly you have no idea what either word means. Besides, it doesn't refute the facts I provided.

If you are on my website right now, I think you will agree that I know a lot about the three major branches of feminism and their Marxist foundations.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

Feminism is based on Marxism. My website, CenterRightAmerica.SquareSpace, is chock-full of proof of that. In the quote above, a socialist feminist says socialist feminists are Marxists. And you didn't provide any facts in your comment to me.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

I don't care what one woman thinks, most women disagree and I am a woman.

[I, CenterRightAmerica, will provide the specific titles, sources, and dates, of the two actual articles the links go to. “BetterPro ThanCon”'s links are nondescript.

1. "Five Things We Know About Societies Run By Women". Jill Hamilton. damemagazine.com. 05/10/2013.

2. "Matriarchy vs. Patriarchy". AKBear. dailykos.com. April 11, 2015.] 

Her reply using links to articles is her attempt to provide facts. The articles are about the supposed benefits of matriarchy.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

The link to dame magazine actually supports my points. One of the section headings is: “Marriage Is Less Binding (If It Exists At All)”. The two examples of matriarchal societies in the link are “the Aka tribe of Africa” and “the Khasi of northeast India.”

I was referring to the points in my initial comment at the top about unwed mothers, unwed fathers, and illegitimacy.

The Aka and Khasi are very small tribes and extremely poor. The Aka “are a nomadic Mbenga pygmy people.” The entire population of Akas is just 30,000 people. “As a result of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, which frequently exposes them to the blood of jungle fauna, they have among the highest rates of seropositivity for Ebola virus in the world.” (Source: “Aka people”. Wikipedia. The page was last modified on 13 February 2017.)

“While the women hunt, the men look after the babies – even letting them suck their nipples.” “If it all sounds like a feminist paradise there is, alas, a sting in the tale: Hewlett found that, while tasks and decision-making were largely shared activities, there is an Aka glass ceiling. Top jobs in the tribe invariably go to men.” (Source: “Are the men of the African Aka tribe the best fathers in the world?” theguardian.com. 15 June, 2005.)

So, if you like pygmies and don't mind Ebola, extreme poverty, and the mosquito-net ceiling preventing you from becoming the tribe's shaman, then it is, indeed, a feminist paradise.

The Khasi people of India do have one idea that I think you will like. Traditionally, in their culture you could divorce your (in my mind feminist) wife just by throwing away five seashells.

To be fair, some patriarchal countries are poor too, Marxist countries such as North Korea, for example. But this, too, portends economic trouble caused by liberal, radical, and socialist feminism because they are based on Marxism.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

No, the link does NOT support your point and there are more examples of matriarchal societies if you look. Stay benighted Craig!!

She is certain there is no evidence contrary to what she wants to believe and certain that she is the enlightened one.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

Give us a list of matriarchal societies.

Here, I am doing something very important. I am asking her to provide information in support of her assertions. The burden of proof is on her.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

Google it junior, I'm not your mommy.

I anticipated she might respond like that and I stayed on her.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

I'm just asking for a few examples, it doesn't need to be a comprehensive list.

It is important that it is her list of examples. If I had searched Google and found a couple of examples of poor matriarchal societies, she could just repeatedly tell me to continue looking for successful matriarchal societies (which don't exist) -- putting the burden of proof on me to, perversely, prove her point.

“BetterPro ThanCon” replied to me:

[I, CenterRightAmerica, will provide the specific titles, sources, and dates, of the three actual articles the links go to. “BetterPro ThanCon”'s links are nondescript.

1. “List of matrilineal or matrilocal societies”. Wikipedia. The page was last modified on 14 November 2016.

2. “6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule”. Laura Turner Garrison. Mentalfloss.com. This post originally appeared in 2012.

3. “Where women rule the world: Matriarchal communities from Albania to China”. Christian Koch. Metro.co.uk. 5 March 2013.]

Here is one example from the third source listed above. “Welcome to America's Womyn's Lands. These largely lesbian communities… Today, one of the largest Womyn's Lands is found in rural Alabama, in a camp called Alapine Village. Here 13 women (most aged between 50 and 80) co-exist, working the land by day and meeting for 'community full moon circles' (activities: singing and reading poems) by night.”

Just 13(!) old lesbians is an example of “one of the largest Womyn's Lands”? This is too easy.

These societies “where women rule” are some of the poorest people on earth and are on the verge of extinction. An essential component of effective argumentation is to know your opponent's arguments as well as your own. “BetterPro ThanCon” had links with examples of matriarchal societies but it seems she didn't even bother to read her own links.

“Craig”. I replied to her:

These examples refute your point, which was, “in matriarchal societies, EVERYONE does well.” The people in your examples are much poorer than America's working-class.

That is where the exchange about matriarchy ended. “BetterPro ThanCon” has mastered the technique of providing links even if she doesn't read them herself. I will let you decide who won the debate and which one you think is better, matriarchy or patriarchy.

Cast a Protest Vote

Here is something I want all of us to consider doing if a sellout politician gets the Republican Party nomination to run for president: Get out and cast a protest vote against the sellout Republican nominee by voting for a third party candidate.

Let me clarify the terms in this plan. By sellout, I mean the type of politician that some of you call RINOs (Republicans-in-name-only), Demicans or Republicrats, establishment types, compulsive flip-floppers, and many other less polite words.

Specific examples include John Ellis Bush and Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio, but there are many others. Senator Graham is a lot like Senator John McCain. Graham, Rubio, and McCain were part of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators pushing for so-called comprehensive immigration reform, along with Democratic feminist Senators Schumer and Durbin.

Examples of third parties are the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and Conservative Party.

The point is not to win with any of these parties, it is to show our contempt for sellout Republican politicians, and for the Republican establishment like the Republican National Committee, and for advisers such as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist among many others.

Here are a couple of paragraphs about John Bush's anti-American borders and anti-traditional marriage positions. “Top GOP donors, in a conference call organized by Grover Norquist, who has pushed comprehensive amnesty legislation, and Michael Bloomberg's pro-amnesty Partnership for a New American Economy, praised Bush for his pro-amnesty views. Spencer Zwick, who led Mitt Romney's fundraising efforts, went as far to say that any serious GOP contender should share Bush's pro-amnesty views.”

“Bush has hired Tim Miller...who is gay; longtime aide Sally Bradshaw, whose support for her pro-gay preacher...and Mike Murphy...[signed] a 2013 brief calling on the Supreme Court to overturn California's same-sex marriage ban”. (“Pro-Amnesty, Pro-Gay Marriage, Pro-Abortion Donors Fueling Jeb Bush's Fundraising”. Tony Lee. Breitbart.com Big Government. 26 Feb. 2015.)

What advice do you think all of the above people will give to John Bush about abortion?

John Bush is a rabid supporter of Common Core. Do a search on Breitbart.com for “Bush Common Core” and you will be surprised. Or, if you know anything about Bush, you won't be surprised at all.

We shall refuse to be complicit in such treachery!

I don't have anything personally against John Bush et al. Nor, am I a shill for any of the third parties listed above. I am actually registered as a Republican, so I don't care which third party you cast a protest vote for. What I can't do any longer is watch silently while the political class play us for fools.

John Bush et al. -- and their advisers and consultants -- think we will vote for any Republican out of mindless habit. The vast majority of voters do exactly that, politicians of both parties count on it, and the lemming concept behind it is taught in political science courses. (The concept is typically analogized, if the Democrats ran Daffy Duck, he would get 47% of the vote. If Republicans ran Donald Duck, he would get 47% of the vote. They compete over the small percentage of remaining voters.)

But this could work just as well in our favor. If the political class encouraged principled, patriotic, Republicans to run for office, the vast majority of Republican voters would vote for him and the base would be energized which in turn would help drive up more voters.

So why don't they encourage such Republicans? The one-party system of Demicans-Republicrats won't allow it. It has gotten to the point where it's like voting in a communist country. The communist party hand-picks five communists and then they allow you to vote for one of the five communists. To be precise, our nation is sinking deeper and deeper into authoritarian socialist feminism.

We need to stop looking for just any Republican contender to throw our votes at and start waiting for a Republican contender willing to continually earn our votes. Until then, I think we should cast our votes for third parties.

Imagine the following result in the next presidential election: Democrat 46%, Bush 42%, and right of center third parties a combined 10%. I'm accounting for communist and socialist parties taking 2% from the Democrat in this scenario.

Now, I want to stress a few points and address some potential questions and concerns.

It is critically important that you get out and actually cast a protest vote. We need to show the political class how many votes they aren't getting. Don't stay home on election day! It's what both political parties want. They would rather spend $1,000 per vote on just one million voters than spend $10 per vote on 100 million voters. It is easier for both parties to pander to fewer voters rather than more voters.

Not voting at all actually makes Republicans go to the left. Not voting means the remaining voters are now more liberal as a group because some right of center voters are absent. Republicans then campaign to that smaller group.

Isn't voting for a third party candidate just wasting my vote? No. Staying home and not voting at all is wasting your vote! This plan will show the politicians just how many votes they're missing.

Isn't voting for a third party really just a vote for the Democrat? No! We aren't voting for the Democrat. In fact, in a way, we are casting a protest vote against both parties. Voting for John Bush is a vote for a liberal Demican.

If I vote for a third party, do I need to memorize the complete history and philosophical underpinnings of that third party? You can if you want to, but we are casting a protest vote against the Republican sellout, not so much for the third party, so you don't need to.

Don't entertain anybody's ideas about starting yet another third party. We already have several third parties.

Why not spend all of our time, energy, and money, in a futile attempt to pass a constitutional amendment ending the Federal Reserve or something? Let's try to do what is possible and easier first.

This plan is limited to presidential elections. Continue to vote for good Republicans (if any) in congressional and state races.

If Mr. Bush is elected he will reward his cronies and if Mrs. Rudebush is elected she will reward her cronies, but that doesn't make any difference to, us, regular people either way. We aren't asking for much. The three issues I want emphasized are: balance the budget, end affirmative action – except for the disabled and veterans, and put a moratorium on all immigration for a while. I like Ron Paul's budget “Plan to Restore America”. Of course, the socialist feminists' government, legal system, economy, and culture, would never allow these solutions because the problems are their goal: money, power, control, and culture.

I think you can tell by the content on this website that I give these things a lot of thought. I even have the psychology of women figured out which is an enigma to most men. So, put some thought into this plan and if you can't stomach voting for a sellout Republican candidate, make sure you go out on election day and cast a protest vote for a third party candidate.

Book Review: Takedown: From Communists to Progressives...

Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage. By Paul Kengor, Ph.D.

I understand how radical feminists plan to control the culture, how liberal feminists plan to control politics and legislation, and how socialist feminists plan to control the government and economy. And, I already know feminism is saturated with references to its patriarch Karl Marx, Marxism, and, of course, socialism. In my opinion, nothing sold socialism to the unsuspecting masses in America more than feminism. Therefore, I completely understand how we got to this point from the 1960s. The 1960s is the decade that gave birth to the second wave of feminism.

However, I had no solid answers to fill the gap between the ideas and life of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and the rise of 1960s feminism. How, when, and where, exactly, did Marxists break into our universities? How did Marxists gain political influence that goes all the way to the top? How did Marxists plan to control the culture?

Dr. Paul Kengor's book Takedown far exceeded my high expectations. The primary focus of Takedown is the Left's sabotage of family and marriage, but it could just as well be used as a guide for studying how Marxists sabotaged all of America's institutions. Thanks to Dr. Kengor, Takedown makes it easy to connect the names, places, and dates.

For example, Jewish Marxists escaped National Socialism in 1930s Germany for the U.S. They were hired as professors at prestigious Ivy League Columbia University in New York City where they began plotting international communism. How did they get hired? It's connections and who you know. They had help from American comrades already on the inside such as John Dewey. Dr. Kengor provides plenty of evidence that “founding father of American public education” Dewey was communist except for being a “formal Party member”. Columbia “housed the nation's top teachers' college”. The Marxist professors taught future teachers and professors and they fanned out from there.

Takedown includes a chapter about a Marxist named Wilhelm Reich. The English title of one of his books is The Sexual Revolution. The German title is Die Sexualitat im Kulturkampf, which translated means, “sexuality in the culture war,” and it's subtitle is, “for the socialist restructuring of humans.” That was back in 1936! It's ironic because Reich also had to escape from Germany's National Socialism but he was every bit as much a socialist, Marxist, and Communist Party member. Reich hated marriage, family, and parental authority.

Dr. Kengor quotes from Marxist Herbert Marcuse who urged, “intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.” So now you know of at least one name behind the concept of selective toleration.

Takedown is a “who's who” of Marxist progenitors of every type, from Marx, to communist feminists Clara Zetkin and Aleksandra Kollontai, to Marcuse, to today's feminists. It's all there in Takedown.

Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 5)

It is important that you understand the concept of a “zero-sum game.” It is a circumstance where someone's gain is the direct cause of someone else's loss, and someone's loss is the direct result of someone else's gain. A criminal stealing money from you is an example of a zero-sum game. He should get a job.

Socialist feminism is a zero-sum game mostly between females and males, but it is used to sort and divide other groups too. The socialist feminist U.S. is in conflict with the democratic and free-market U.S. They are in conflict on every level of our existence.

People in control of zero-sum games want tightly controlled parameters. There is now a governmental and non-governmental unicursal labyrinth created to help females with the complete exclusion of males.

Here is proof of that discrimination against males. The following excerpts are from the article, “22 States Committed to Mentoring 140,000 Girls in STEM Skills”. Business Wire. July 28, 2014. Notice how the Feminist Media portrays all women as victims of discrimination, meanwhile, liberal, radical, and socialist feminists are rigging the government, economy, political system, legal system, and school system in favor of women.

“The goal of the movement is to garner one million mentors in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) professions over the next four years, to collectively increase the interest and confidence of girls and young women in these academic areas.”

[Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa said,] “Mentors will be able to guide, encourage, and open doors for young women to be fully equipped for the great jobs of tomorrow in STEM-related careers.”

[Lt. Gov.] “Reynolds announced a national public-private model on ways to engage thousands of mentors for young girls and women to actively pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) education and careers.”

[Edie Fraser, CEO of STEMconnector and Million Women Mentors said,] “We expect big corporate and government pledge announcements in the fall.”

Do you see the blurring of the “public-private” distinction? It should sound familiar to you. It is straight out of the socialist feminist agenda. “Socialist feminists argue for abolishing the public/private distinction entirely.” (See entry “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism” Part 4.)

The “movement” is the “collective action” of government bureaucracies on many levels, corporations, and the socialist feminist government school system. If you go to the STEMconnector.org website and click on “STEM Directory” you will see over 400 corporations listed (as of the date I posted this). The list includes: Ford, General Motors, General Electric, Facebook, Google, IBM, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, Novartis, and Verizon.

“About Million Women Mentors: Launched on January 8, 2014, MWM is the collective action of over 54 national partners and 22 corporate sponsors (as of July 2014) designed to increase the number of girls and women within the high school to work age continuum that persist and succeed in STEM programs and careers.” [Italics in original.]

“About STEMconnector: STEMconnector is a consortium of over 110 companies, associations, academic institutions and government entities concerned with STEM education and the future of human capital. STEMconnector focuses on the STEM workforce and jobs, with a particular emphasis on diversity and women. Our work spans the entire pipeline (K-J—Kindergarten to Jobs) and how STEM education experiences translate into careers.”

Did you catch the phrase “with a particular emphasis on diversity and women”? Now you know why so many groups are for open borders and more and more H-1B visas. It is straight out of the socialist feminist agenda.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's document “Where We Stand.”

Section 4:

“New labor leadership has pledged to organize a workforce increasingly constituted by women, people of color, and immigrant workers.”

Socialist Party USA.

Their Platform page. Immigration:

“The Socialist Party works to build a world in which everyone will be able to freely move across borders, to visit and to live wherever they choose.”

“We call for full citizenship rights upon demonstrating residency for six months.”

Here is another excerpt about the same STEM program from a different source. “Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds announces Statewide STEM Female Mentoring Effort.” governor.iowa.gov. September 25, 2014.

“About Million Women Mentors (MWM)-Iowa. Million Women Mentors brings together leaders in business, government, and education to engage girls and young women to understand, develop interest and gain confidence so they can pursue and succeed in STEM courses, degrees, and careers. Created as part of the national Million Women Mentors movement in 2014, the MWM-Iowa initiative seeks to register 5,000 women (and men) in all 99 counties by 2018 to serve as mentors to achieve these three goals: Increase the percentage of high school girls planning to pursue STEM careers; increase the percentage of young women pursuing undergraduate degrees in STEM fields; and increase the percentage of women staying in STEM careers.”

All of the above is more of the socialist feminists' “Life of Julia” plan where girls and women are taken care of by Big Mother government in every way.

But why won't they even allow some male students into the mentoring program so that the mix is 75% female and 25% male? Here's why. In a zero-sum game, socialist feminists see that 25% as more resource that could be taken from males and given to females. In a zero-sum game, where feminists have total control, they leave nothing to chance or freedom. All of the resources go to females.

It is noteworthy that Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa is a Republican. Federal money to the states is probably involved. I don't mind that Democratic Socialists and Republicans want to make a buck. But I do mind that they are selling-out patriotic Americans, and I do mind that they are undermining every American institution, and I do mind that socialism comes at the expense of democracy and the free-market system.

The only way this STEM mentoring program should continue is without any government role or money in it. The free-market system isn't perfect, but it is more meritocratic, innovative, and bountiful than socialism. We need to end affirmative action and we need mentors to “guide, encourage, and open doors” for young American males too.

Here is some advice for men. Don't just complain about discrimination and think women will acknowledge the complaint. Feminist women will deny your complaint and almost all other women will ignore it. Everything--including lodging complaints--is a zero-sum game to feminists. It is important to carefully point out examples of how feminism adversely affects men to make it difficult for feminists to deny. Our goal isn't to increase male complaining, it's to reduce female complaining. However, it is okay for men to complain if it is a valid complaint.

Do offer solutions to the problems feminism causes. I think this should be our plan regarding the STEM mentoring program.

Feminist Gloria Steinem started Take Our Daughters to Work Day, expressly excluding boys. From 1993 to 2003 it was Take Our Daughters to Work Day, as if 10-year-old boys have an innate sense of how corporations operate. Then, parents decided they didn't want their sons excluded any longer and demanded change. Now the day is known as “Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day.”

We will take the same action now. Check to see if your state government is involved in the STEM mentoring program. Check with your place of employment too. Check with the school where your children are enrolled. If any of the above are participating in the program, demand(!) that your sons--and boys and young men in general--are participating in the program too.

Feminist Flattery

Here are a few excerpts from Josef Pieper's book, Abuse of Language—Abuse of Power:

“Human words and language accomplish a two-fold purpose...First, words convey reality...the second aspect in question, the interpersonal character of human speech.”

“A lie is the opposite of communication. It means specifically to withhold the other's share and portion of reality, to prevent his participation in reality.”

“From that moment on, to be precise, all conversation ceases; all dialogue and all communication come to an end. But what, then, is taking place? This very question is answered by Socrates with an old-fashioned term: flattery.”

“What, then, is flattery?” “The decisive element is this: having an ulterior motive.”

Flattery with an ulterior motive is similar to deceit and manipulation. (Guidelines 1b and 1c.)

Feminists use deceit and manipulation against men and use flattery with an ulterior motive against women. Men have been remarkably resistant to feminist deceit, but women have been almost completely dominated by feminist flattery.

When feminists attempt to use flattery against men, they not only fail, their ulterior motive is obvious. For example, We, feminist women, know that you, men, are jealous of women because they can get pregnant. We know that what you, men, really want is to be able to breast-feed your babies. So, it behooves men to become radical feminists so we can help you with your dream.

Pieper:

“'The world wants to be deceived', the saying goes; mundus vult decipi. This is indeed true, yet at the same time too narrow. What the world really wants is flattery, and it does not matter how much of it is a lie; but the world at the same time also wants the right to disguise, so that the fact of being lied to can easily be ignored. As I enjoy being affirmed in my whims and praised for my foibles, I also expect credibility to make it easy for me to believe, in good conscience or at least without a bad conscience, that everything I hear, read, absorb, and watch is indeed true, important, worthwhile, and authentic!”

If the saying goes, “feminist women want to be deceived by flattery,” it approaches 100% accuracy. Feminist women want to believe in their deceptive mantra: “We're oppressed. We're victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else's fault but ours.” By complaining about a false problem (oppression), women get fem-flattery (undeserved pity and sympathy), and feminists get more of what they really want, their ulterior motive (money, power, and control), to solve their nonexistent problem.

Men are too honest to play that game. And, if men tried it and said, All men are oppressed, so since all of us, men, are oppressed, all of us, men, should get more money to make us happy, it wouldn't work. Men don't practice flattery with a self-serving ulterior motive, but that is almost the entire method of operation for today's pop-feminists.

Crucially important to feminist women, is the “disguise,” that the deceit can “easily be ignored”, that feminists can believe in the grand lie “in good conscience or at least without a bad conscience”. The “disguise” can take the form of complaining about something from 100 years ago. The attempt to fool their consciences can be seen in their belief that their deceit serves their legal moralism.

Pieper:

“Public discourse itself, separated from the standard of truth, creates on its part, the more it prevails, an atmosphere of epidemic proneness and vulnerability to the reign of the tyrant. Serving the tyranny, the corruption and abuse of language becomes better known as propaganda.”

“At the same time, those for whom the menace is intended must nevertheless be led and eased into believing (and that is the true art!) that by acquiescing to the intimidation, they really do the reasonable thing, perhaps even what they would have wanted to do anyway.”

The Feminist Media is a huge propaganda machine. Someone once made the keen observation that a conspiracy theory is the sophistication of ignorance. I believe feminism is the sophistication of deception. Sophisticated deception is the true art of feminist language and the Feminist Media.

Feminists know that women are easy to manipulate with fem-flattery. Tell women that they are beautiful and they believe it. Tell women that they are smart and they really believe that. Offer to pay women $100,000 a year and they will do anything you want them to do.

So, feminists use flattery (constant pity and constant praise) to advance their agenda. Feminists know that the vast majority of women won't oppose socialism (their ulterior motive) as long as women are the beneficiaries of their redistribution-of-everything plan; even if their gain comes at the expense of others and even if it comes at the expense of our nation's entirety. A socialist feminist government that robs Peter to pay Pauline, will always have the support of Pauline.

Therefore, feminists know that women make excellent government stooges. Billionaire Ted Turner has been quoted saying, “I think men should be barred from holding public office for a hundred years. The men have been running the world for the last thousands of years and they've mucked it up something awful.” If women were in control, “it would be a much more peaceful, prosperous, equitable world in a very short period of time. You'd have a huge shift away from military budgets and into education and health care.” (“Ted Turner touts new female-dominated board at his U.N. Foundation.” Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer. Siouxcityjournal.com. November 24, 2003.)

Did you catch the fem-flattery? The compliment is obvious, it's a basic men bad/women good, play. The ulterior motive is a little more difficult to see. It is not surprising that Turner praises what he thinks is a “women's agenda.” It is exactly his agenda and he needs stooges to implement it. Women are easy for powerful, prosperous people--such as Turner--to control.

More peaceful? Except for 50,000,000 abortions the past several decades in the U.S. alone. More prosperous? Men have invented, designed, developed, built, and created the vast majority of U.S. prosperity. More equitable? I don't mind that Turner is a billionaire, but he wants to make the rest of us equally poor. You can only equalize downward.

An article from Canada's The Globe and Mail says Turner is, “a long-time advocate of population control” and that Turner endorses China's one-child only policy and that Turner, “urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth's environment.” (“Ted Turner urges global one-child policy to save planet”. Shawn McCarthy. theglobeandmail.com. Dec. 05, 2010.)

Do you women see how international totalitarian socialist feminism might affect you? Now is the time to start speaking out.

Popularity vs. Principle

Part three of three.

Feminists feel women deserve constant pity because they are “victims” of “oppression,” but they also feel women deserve constant praise because they are just so doggone perfect.

In addition to offering constant pity and praise, feminist culture appeals to old-fashioned female vanity. Women love to believe that they're smart. The pride they take in their physical beauty pales in comparison to the pride they take in their intellect.

For just one example, actress Danica Mckellar is known for her math skills, but to what end? What is her proposal to balance the budget? She could at least endorse Ron Paul's budget proposal “Plan to Restore America”.

Mckellar has written a few math books for girls. See, a math book for everybody is just a math book, but writing a book for just girls implies that the book has goodness and ensures a preening Feminist Media. I will always love Winnie Cooper, but writing a book that excludes boys is more proof that every critical thing I say about feminism is true.

“Our Progressive opposition draws its power from peer pressure and popularity. That's the advantage afforded to them by leftist domination of the press and the university.” (“You Can't Change Anything From Your Living Room.” Leslie Loftis. thefederalist.com. October 3, 2014.)

Women almost always prefer popularity over principle. The only time they do the principled thing is if it also happens to be the popular thing. Maybe women stood on principle in the past, but they don't anymore. It shows just how much feminism has abolished womanhood.

In a woman's mind, taking a stand on principle, just to take a stand on principle, is pointless. There is no reward in it. Which partly explains why female Democrats outnumber female Republicans 14 to 6 in the Senate and 61 to 23 in the House.

Then why do female Democrats take a stand? The Feminist Media and Marxist materialism. Imagine what it would be like to be Wendy Davis. After a filibuster against an abortion bill, she became an overnight ubermensch. Imagine if the Feminist Media minimized your flaws and maximized your strengths by a factor of ten and did the opposite to your opponent. It is difficult for us to even imagine such an advantage.

Feminism is Marxist to its core. Think of Marxist materialism as the amalgamation of the three main branches of feminism. Socialist feminists want to control the government and economy. Liberal feminists want to control the political and legal systems. Radical feminists want to control society and culture. Institutions they can't fully control they want to abolish and destroy, such as religion, marriage, and family. All of this is omni-directional and interlocking. Finally, they hope that by controlling all things they can control your consciousness.

The Democratic Party is the party of ever bigger and bigger government – the fourth branch of government. Bigger government is the materialist reward for the left. Briefly, it's more money, power, and control.

Imagine if only lottery employees could win the lottery and that lottery prizes came from taxes. Everyone would want a job at the lottery and after getting a job would want regular increases in taxes. That is the Democrats' relationship with government in a nutshell.

The following is a paragraph about the concept of “mass society” from Wikipedia. My comments are in brackets.

“Mass society as an ideology can be seen as dominated by a small number [and populated by an enormous number of government bureaucrats] of interconnected elites [feminists, liberals, and socialists] who control the masses, often by means of persuasion and manipulation [and deceit through the Feminist Media]. Mass society theorists are advocates of various kinds of cultural elite [ubermenschen] who should be privileged and promoted over the masses, claiming for themselves both exemption from and leadership of the misguided masses.”

The following is from an article by Peter Berkowitz about philosopher Leo Strauss. (“Leo Strauss' Political Philosophy: Reviled But Redeemed.” Realclearpolitics.com. August 17, 2014.) Strauss observed that, “Mass society fosters political disengagement, narrow specialization, and preoccupation with creature comforts and shallow entertainment at the expense of the claims of conscience, duty, and virtue.”

That is exactly what has happened to America's women. Men have their bad habits, diversions, and vices too, but they still get a lot done for the good of everyone in the country.

American women were never expected to defend their country and they were never expected to risk their lives for strangers. There is a small percentage of women in the military as tokens and there are some women first responders due, at least in part, to affirmative action.

Do we expect women to do their political duty? Public political participation has a cost. It seems women won't even use their communication skills to speak out for their country because it might cost some popularity. Women have learned that if you don't click with the feminist clique, they will destroy you. Feminists use intimidation to silence women.

Do we expect women to do their moral duty? Remember what Ann Coulter wrote about women in part one, “It is not an accident that the relentless attacks on morality spring from America's women.” And, “Obligations to family, children, and God mean nothing.”

Do we expect women to do their marital and familial duties? Women have almost completely abandoned their roles and responsibilities of adulthood. To the point that Dr. Laura Schlessinger felt it necessary to write a book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands. Feeding their families is the only somewhat selfless thing women do for men. I say somewhat selfless because women like to eat too.

The Underclass is what feminism looks like when fully applied to society. Underclass women and men take little accountability for themselves and little responsibility for their families, jobs, and communities. There is a lot of bad attitude, sexual promiscuity, abortion, illegitimacy, adultery, divorce, unwed mothers and unwed fathers, poor education, unemployment, welfare, crime, drugs, and prostitution. This is your dismal future, America!

Feminism has been a major cause of the social problems listed above. From promoting bad attitude and sexual promiscuity, to abolishing the “nuclear family”, to policies supporting abortion and prostitution. The Socialist Party USA's platform in the “Women” section says, “We call for the decriminalization of prostitution and demand that sex workers, just like all women workers, are guaranteed a full range of health, social, and legal services.” The only difference between a feminist and a member of the Underclass is that a feminist has a job.

Our side is losing. But we aren't losing because right of center men aren't speaking out. We are losing because right of center men are the only ones speaking out. Not to be too bleak, there are more Ann Coulter-types than ever. But if right of center women don't start speaking out on principle, we will continue to lose.

A Friendly Disagreement With Naomi Schaefer-Riley

Part two of three.

I like Naomi Schaefer-Riley and she is on my list of Ann Coulter-types, but I disagree with a few points she makes in her article, “Where have all the gentlemen gone?” nypost.com. September 7, 2014.

Schaefer-Riley's one-sided article criticizing men is exactly like the countless thousands of articles that appear in the Feminist Media. It puzzles me how someone can write about one of just two sexes and somehow completely overlook the other sex. Especially when Schaefer-Riley knows full-well that men already take a staggering amount of criticism compared to women.

Her criticism of men is valid, but nowhere in her article does she so much as perfunctorily note that women aren't perfect either. When, in fact, there is plenty of room to criticize women and their behavior.

“Are there any gentlemen left out there?” she asks. Yes, as Ann Coulter points out, there are millions, if not tens of millions, of good men in our country. A much more pressing question is, are there any full-grown adult ladies out there? There are, statistically, zero Ann Coulter-types in this country.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “Maybe there was an advantage to having women teach men how to behave at a younger age. Fatherhood, which tends to make men kinder and a little more aware that they are not the center of the universe, has been delayed as well. Now the man-child stage can last well into a guy's 40s.”

The condescension in that paragraph is enough to make the likes of Ann Coulter do a spit-take. “Center of the universe” compared to whom? Some men might be self-centered compared to other men, but when comparing the two sexes, women are much more self-centered than men.

For just one example, men risk sacrificing their lives for complete strangers. Don't tell me feminists sacrifice as mothers. Feminists bitterly complain about the role and responsibilities of motherhood. Their hatred for motherhood explains why they like abortion so much and why they would like to separate babies from their parents. (See entry “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism Part 4”.)

And, she should have written “parenthood for both sexes” instead of “fatherhood” -- unless she believes women achieve perfect maturity by the time they're 18-years-old. Why doesn't anybody ever say that women also do a lot of maturing and learning after becoming parents? Because to say women need to mature and learn, implies that they weren't perfect in the first place. Feminists want us to believe that women can't be criticized because women are perfect.

What about the woman-child stage? Knowing that there are only two sexes, I think whenever someone uses a sex-specific phrase such as “man-child”, it screams out for at least a quick look into the possibility of a matching “woman-child” phenomenon. Does she not find rich, well-fed feminists constantly complaining about “oppression” childish? If your own kids took that same lousy attitude and complained as much as feminists complain, you would send them to their rooms.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “On college campuses, there is currently an official campaign now called 'bystander intervention' that asks young men to step in if they suspect their friends are going to sexually assault a woman. Is this something that men needed to be told 50 years ago?”

Of course not, that was before feminists, liberals, and socialists started abolishing morality, virtue, womanhood, and manhood.

What we really need is bystander intervention for women so that they step in if they see feminist women are going to deceive, manipulate, and mistreat men. We need women to use their biggest weapon, their mouths. Why can't women stand up for men for once?

Schaefer-Riley writes, “What we don't tell boys is to respect girls.” We don't tell girls to respect boys, either. In fact, in the feminist culture we live in, women have been taught since birth to complain about everything.

There is nothing more disrespectful to men than for feminist women to complain about nonsense such as “oppression.” But feminists oppose teaching two-way respect because it borders on character which is adjacent to virtue, which in turn comes close to Judeo-Christian morality. Feminism is the absence of morality. Feminists want one-way legal moralism. Feminists want men to have more respect for women, but feel there is no need for any improvement among women because women are already perfect.

Schaefer-Riley writes, “It's gotten so bad that a group called the Network of enlightened Women (NeW), founded by Karin Agness, hosts an annual 'Gentlemen's Showcase,' a nationwide contest to identify and honor college gentlemen. Just to encourage such behavior.”

Here, Schaefer-Riley completely misses the tectonic cultural point. It is not at all remarkable that there are gentlemen to honor – we still have millions, if not tens of millions, of good men in this country – sociologically, what is truly remarkable is that there are any ladies remaining in our country to honor them.

Doesn't she understand that men need encouragement too? After feminists have done nothing but tear down men the past several decades, I'm not exaggerating when I say I didn't think I would live to see the day when an organized group of women would put effort into showing respect toward men by honoring us in any way.

Schaefer-Riley notes some problems in the culture and asks, “But is there a way to escape this kind of sliminess in one's own life?” Yes, but it requires women to help fight the “war at home” against feminism.

What did she expect would happen? When the female half of the adult population, plus half of the adult male population that is left of center, either fails to take a stand for a virtuous culture – or is outright hostile toward it – then the culture will be abolished. You cannot escape the problem by ignoring it. Socialist, liberal, and radical feminists have every intention of bringing sliminess into every facet of your life.

(Almost) all of Schaefer-Riley's articles are really, really great and she has criticized the excesses of feminism in the past. I needed to criticize this one, but I won't hold it against her. You should start reading through her entire archive of articles.

America's Feminies

Part one of three.

Ann Coulter-types are the type of people every American should aspire to be. They are honest, virtuous, intelligent, full-grown adults. (Terminology 210: Ann Coulter-types.)

Ann Coulter is a perfect example of the type of woman feminists fear most. Too honest to deceive, too female to manipulate, too smart to fool, and too strong to intimidate.

I make a distinction between Ann Coulter-types and honest, virtuous women. The best thing that can be said about honest, virtuous women is that they are not feminists. The worst thing that can be said about honest, virtuous women is that they are not Ann Coulter-types. Too many honest, virtuous women are mute on civic matters. (Guideline 1b: distinctions among women.)

It is time to update the quote attributed to Edmund Burke: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good women do nothing.

The only people waging a “war on women” are feminists. They are trying to abolish womanhood. (See entry “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism Part 4”.)

Here is an insight into human nature: Good men defeat bad men, but bad women (feminists) easily defeat good women, and feminists know it.

Except for Ann Coulter-types, feminists win.

In her book, Treason, Ann Coulter writes, “Our men are up to the job of protecting us from foreign enemies, but our women are losing the war at home.”

***

Which sex is more selfless, males or females?

First, let's play the game of political correctness (which is the feminist approved of lie). If ever there is a question about “which sex” has “more” of a virtue, feminists pretend as if they are actually thinking about it, but of course their answer is always, females.

But, in this case, that answer is wrong.

Men are much more selfless than women. (Terminology 208: Soft-Core-Selfishness Feminists.)

Men in the military have made at least 99% of the sacrifice to defend our country. This is what Coulter means by, “Our men are up to the job of protecting us from foreign enemies.”

Men risk their lives to save people within our country too. Firefighters and police officers risk their lives to save complete strangers. Also, there are men who aren't first responders who risk their lives to save complete strangers.

There is almost nothing similar among women. If you observe closely, you will see that the only time a woman might risk her life to save her own kids is when there isn't a man around to risk his life to save her kids. A woman might risk her life only if there aren't any men around to risk their lives.

If you think feminists are selfless as wives and mothers, then you don't understand feminists. There is no virtue within the hearts and minds of feminists regarding motherhood. Traditional marriage, family, childbearing, and childrearing, are the things feminists bitterly complain about the most. The last few things are why they like abortion so much.

Feminists will be damned if they give men any credit for their heroism. Why? Because feminists know that to acknowledge men for their courage is to implicate women for their lack of courage. Giving men credit indicates a difference between men and women, and what's worse, the difference is that men are much more heroic than women.

And, if you don't think feminists are that devious in their communication habits, then you don't understand feminists. Here is proof: Feminists can't even admit that men are better comedians than women. (See entry “Stupid, Sexist, Sourpuss, Jenna Goudreau Insults Men”.)

Another example showing feminists are flint-hearted with their gratitude toward men, is a quote from Kathleen Parker's book, Save the Males, about how the feminist culture is hostile toward males. “First responders don't count, as it's accepted wisdom post-9/11 that rescue-men are good, but only in a severe pinch and as long as they disappear after the flames are doused. Nice job, boys, now go home and shut up, and no pinups in the firehouse.” [Italics in original.]

***

Which sex is failing our country, males or females?

First, let's play the game of political correctness (which is the feminist approved of lie). If ever there is a question about “which sex” is worse, feminists pretend as if they are actually thinking about it, but of course their answer is always, males.

Coulter makes the case that it is women who are failing our country.

She writes about how Alexis de Tocqueville thought American women, in the early 1800s, were better than European women. From Treason:

[Most important, de Tocqueville said women were the keepers of religious faith. “No free communities ever existed without morals,” he said, “and morals are the work of women.” Not anymore.]

Here are some more Coulter quotes to hit you even harder. From Treason:

“Exhibitionism, promiscuity, sex toys, and adultery. This is women's liberation.”

“It is not an accident that the relentless attacks on morality spring from America's women.”

“Obligations to family, children, and God mean nothing.”

Here is a Heather Mac Donald quote about libertine women. “And the pro-promiscuity feminists have been behind [the] campus sex-promotion crusade 100 percent.” (“The UCSB Solipsists.” realclearpolitics.com. June 1, 2014.)

It isn't men who are failing us, it is women. As Coulter explains we still have millions, if not tens of millions, of men who are ready, willing, and able, to take a stand as patriotic Americans.

I want to be clear. Both sexes have a lot of room for improvement. We need women and men to do more to save our nation from socialist feminism.

I spend a lot of time on this website explaining feminists' deceit and manipulation. However, it is wrong to say lying is every feminist's second nature. It is every feminist's original nature. In a feminist’s mind, if the only thing it takes for you to get your way is to lie, then it would be stupid not to lie. Do you think I'm laying it on too thick?

Think carefully about this last quote by Coulter from Treason, “America's enemies, from Soviet spies to terrorists, have been defined by their effortless ability to lie.”

Geopolitics: The South Korean/North Korean Border

A key point to remember: Generally speaking, the more the U.S. spends on national defense, the fewer Americans killed. Expensive weapon systems give our soldiers an advantage.

This is not the definitive word on the subject of the South Korean and North Korean border. People in the Pentagon and military academies spend their careers strategizing for these contingencies. This is a review of the basics. And, no surprise, socialist feminists have some bad ideas about this issue further below.

There are at least six countries involved concerning the Korean border: the U.S., South Korea, and Japan; and North Korea, China, and Russia. Four of the ten biggest economies in the world: the U.S., China, Japan, and Russia. And, six of the ten biggest militaries in the world.

There is a known peacetime cost for the U.S. to maintain a military presence in South K. There are unknown, potentially high, costs for us if we help South K. in a war with North K. There are potential economic costs for us even in neutrality or in our absence from South K. should a war occur.

Peacetime Cost for U.S.:

“U.S. military non-personnel costs in South Korea totaled about $1.1 billion in 2012.” (“Time for U.S. Forces to Leave South Korea.” Christopher Lee. Warontherocks.com. July 24, 2014.)

I am going to estimate a higher figure of $5 billion to account for both the non-personnel and personnel costs to keep 28,500 U.S. soldiers in South K.

If we bring all of them home the U.S. could save $5 billion per year.

Wartime Cost for U.S.:

If we bring all of our soldiers home, and North K. attacks South K., does the U.S. put all of those 28,500 – plus many more – soldiers back in there to save South K.? I don’t know what another Korean war would cost, but can we agree the warfare cost would be far more expensive than what we are currently spending on the peacetime cost? It would have been better to keep 28,500 soldiers there in the first place. U.S. soldiers are there to deter an act of war by North K., China, and Russia.

In my estimate, the cost to the U.S. of another Korean war is at least hundreds of billions and possibly one trillion dollars or more.

Economic Cost for U.S. Neutrality or Absence During a Korean War:

If we bring all of our 28,500 soldiers home, and North K. attacks South K., and the U.S. is neutral or absent in the war.

There would be an economic cost to the U.S. for doing nothing. South K. has the 15^th biggest economy in the world. The U.S. annually trades $100 billion with South K. Compare the size of their economies, South K.'s GDP is $1.1 trillion, North K.'s GDP is a tiny $14 billion.

South K., alone, will lose in a war with North K. How can I be so sure?

North K. will get help from China and possibly Russia, each has a border with North K.

South K. will be in much worse shape afterward because South Koreans have so much more to lose. Even if they fight to a geographical draw, with the borders exactly where they are now, they will lose so much more in their economy. If they are defeated and annexed, their economy will go the way of communist North K.

The U.S. and other countries lose a big trading partner if South K. is defeated.

Rebuilding and Refugee Cost for U.S.:

If we bring all of our 28,500 soldiers home, and North K. attacks South K., and we are absent, and we are willing to accept the economic cost, is the U.S. still expected to pay South K.'s rebuilding costs?

The answer is, yes. This assumes that South K. can fight to at least a draw and not surrender to communist North K. Americans are very generous and always fall for a hard luck story. We will be expected to help in every way – individually, organizationally, and through the U.S. government – with money, food, goods, and services. Ironically, the rebuilding cost would be less expensive if North K. won outright, but the U.S. would lose economic trade with South K.

The cost to rebuild South K., should they fight to a draw, would be as costly as the warfare cost.

The Socialist Party USA's 2012-2013 National Platform. International section:

We call for an end to U.S. arms sales throughout the world.

We call for the disbanding of NATO and all other aggressive military alliances, and the closing of all overseas bases.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you don't have any enemies. And, just because you're a naïve, hippie, peacenik doesn't mean you don't have any enemies. Communists still might attack you or your allies.

We call for an immediate 50% cut in the military budget, followed by additional cuts, with the aim of rapidly reducing the military budget to less than 10% of its current level,...

So, socialist feminists want to cut military spending by more than 90%, but if you think they will wisely balance the budget, guess again.

...with the “peace dividend” directed to essential social services and to the cost of cleaning up contaminated military sites.

Yes, socialist feminists want to blow even more money on welfare.

Korean Reunification:

The U.S. and some Koreans on both sides would like Korea to reunify the way East and West Germany did in 1990. Germany reunified in the direction of the West.

The South Korea/North Korea standoff is a geopolitical battle between democracy and communism.

For all of the headaches, the U.S. doesn’t want to lose the South to the East, and China doesn’t want to lose the North to the West.

Geopolitics is complicated. Just when you think you have it figured out, other unforeseen complications can arise. Conditions change and plans need to be constantly reviewed.

For national defense planning, we need to have a vision for the future and the generations that follow. We need to think in terms of decades, not years. We have to consider all other countries involved, not just the U.S., because other countries can have a direct and indirect effect on the U.S. We also need to avoid a one-size-fits-all mentality. Just because we should stay in South K. doesn't mean we have to keep soldiers everywhere.

In the context of a balanced budget amendment, I think we could cut military spending by 10%, close a few bases, and still protect ourselves and help our allies.

However, South Korea shouldn't be forfeited because of a short-sighted decision to leave.

Fully Understand Women

Dave Barry wrote an article on realclearpolitics.com, “What I Learned From Reading '50 Shades of Grey'” March 6, 2014. He says he is “sincerely trying to understand women.” Barry is a humorist, but it is 2014 and we, men, need to finally understand women.

Women are actually quite easy to understand once you get the hang of it. Understanding women doesn't mean they will be much easier for you to deal with, but it does mean that you will understand why they are being so difficult.

One thing is for certain, you won't be able to fully understand women if you don't account for their personality flaws. The only way to fully understand women is to fully understand women, and that means understanding their flaws. You have to get rid of the notion that women are perfect. They are not.

Women should welcome this too, fully understanding your personality flaws will enable men to walk on eggshells and tip-toe around you if (strike the word if) when necessary. Of course, there is a difference between a valid flaw or valid complaint and feminists complaining about nonsense such as “oppression.”

If you like the idea of “mysterious” and “complicated” women (Style of Argument 303) and you like to put them on a high pedestal of perfection (Guideline 27a), you should stop reading this website. Because once you see feminists for what they really are, it is something that you cannot un-see.

We need to tolerate some flaws women have as part of human nature – just as we need to with men – but we need to oppose the effort feminists are making to exacerbate their flaws.

It is important to remember that we must make a distinction between feminist women and honest, virtuous women (Guideline 1b).

Pre-relationship experts, such as Erik “Mystery” von Markovik, have done a lot of good helping men understand women's tendencies during their first encounters. What we need now are non-feminist experts helping men understand women during dating relationships, marriage relationships, and even during divorce and post-marriage relationships. We need more experts, such as Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who wrote the excellent book, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands, and Dr. Helen Smith, who wrote the excellent book, Men on Strike.

Unlike feminists, Drs. Schlessinger and Smith actually have expectations for what wives and mothers should do for their families.

We need to oppose feminism in interpersonal relationships. I am looking for help from all of you in analyzing and opposing feminism on all levels: socialist feminism in the government and economy, liberal feminism in politics and legislation, and radical feminism in schools, news/entertainment media, and culture. Of course, there is a lot of overlap in all of these types of feminism.

The Gender Wage Gap Is a Myth

“Women think the workplace is unfair...this is why they're wrong.” Naomi Schaefer Riley. nypost.com. December 16, 2013.

“The Gender Wage Gap Is a Myth.” Christina Hoff Sommers. RealClearPolitics.com. February 1, 2014.

“As the Wages of Men Fall, Female Wages Are Rising.” June O'Neill. RealClearMarkets.com. February 5, 2014.

There's a wage gap, but it is not a discriminatory wage gap. It is a fair wage gap that is the result of many factors.

The “wage gap” is a favorite of the predictable Feminist Media because it touches several of the deceitful things they like to complain and nag about. They claim it's due to “discrimination” or that it's part of a “war on women”. They use it to try to portray women as “victims” of “sexism”, etc.

I hear people call into talk-radio shows asking what they can do to save the United States. Here is one no-cost thing you can do: Help spread the message. New media gives us the capability to spread our message as quickly and as far and wide as the Feminist Media.

Spread the message that there is no discriminatory wage gap by copying and pasting the articles above and below and put them on your websites and Facebook pages. Create links for them and then put them in the comments section below articles in the Feminist Media. Send the links through Twitter, text message, or email, and any other way you can think of.

“The Gender Wage Gap is a Myth.” Diana Furchtgott-Roth. Manhattan-institute.org. July 26, 2012.

“Wage gap myth exposed – by feminists.” Christina Hoff Sommers. AEI.org. November 04, 2012.

“There Is No Male-Female Wage Gap.” Carrie Lukas. Wsj.com. April 12, 2011.

“Why the Gender Gap Won't Go Away. Ever.” Kay S. Hymowitz. City Journal. Summer 2011 Vol. 21 no. 3. RealClearPolitics.com 8/4/2011.

UPDATE: TV -- The Sewage Pipe

I bought a new television in October of 2013 after living without one for about one and a half years. It is a 32-inch HD-LED and cost $189.99. I also bought a good indoor antenna for $40.99 and the signal has been strong.

The first day I watched TV – mostly in reaction to the commercials – I said to myself, “I’m sick of it already.” I thought about returning it to the store, but I kept it.

I get nine channels. I only watch TV on Saturdays and Sundays. I made an exception in December and watched a country music awards show on a weeknight.

I want to encourage all of you to cut back on how much TV you watch for your own mental and physical health, and to reduce the bad influence of the Feminist News/Entertainment Media sewage pipe.

Turn off the TV,

Tune in to talk radio, and

Drop your subscriptions to the Feminist News/Entertainment Media.

The Mission Statement of Socialist Feminists

This article further highlights the socialist feminists’ idea that “freedom is a social achievement” mentioned in the previous two articles, “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 4)” and “Book Review: Manning Up”. 

I heard a talk-radio host once demanding to know what the liberals’ blueprint is for the future. The last thing liberals want to do is reveal the details of their plan. Why? Because they know you won’t like it.

Socialist feminist Alison Jaggar describes how the means is the ends a couple of times in her book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Socialist feminists focus more on what they are changing away from, not on what they are changing to. The following is as close to a blueprint as you’ll find. 

Jaggar:

“The emphasis on the process of struggle rather than on its ends relieves those who advocate liberation from the need to attempt a complete characterization of the end at which they aim. It weakens the temptation to plan utopias by the recognition that our conception of what it is to be liberated must be subject to constant revision. As human knowledge of nature, including human nature, develops, we gain more insight into possible human goods and learn how they may be achieved through increasing control both of ourselves and our world. Through this process, the sphere of human agency is constantly increased. Drought is no longer an act of God but the result of failure to practice suitable water conservation measures; disease and malnutrition are no longer inevitabilities but the results of social policy. Consequently, constraints that once were viewed as natural necessities are transformed into instances of oppression; simultaneously, the possible domain of human liberation is constantly being extended. In principle, therefore, liberation is not some finally achievable situation; instead, it is the process of eliminating forms of oppression as long as these continue to arise.” Page 6. [Emphasis added.]

The mantra of feminists is: “We’re oppressed. We’re victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.”

Here is their mission statement:

Jaggar:

“For socialist feminism, freedom consists in transcending the realm of necessity in every area of human life, including sexuality and procreation. Freedom is a social achievement and cannot be achieved by isolated individuals in the absence of a general reordering of society.” Page 306.

Jaggar mentions the alternative of “test-tube babies” a few times in her book. Feminists want to transcend the necessity of the uterus in procreation. Consequently, the awful natural necessity of pregnancy is transformed into an instance of “oppression”. Now you know why abortion is considered sacred within the religion of feminism. Pregnancy reminds feminists that men and women are different and they see abortion as a solution for the “oppression” of pregnancy. 

To feminists, marriage, family, pregnancy, and the uterus are sooo 1950s. Feminists want to abolish every American institution and transform “every area of human life, including sexuality and procreation”, replace them with Government, and render the uterus useless.

Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 4)

“One institution to which some socialist feminists are seeking immediate alternatives is the stereotypical 20^th-century nuclear family.” That is a quote from socialist feminist Alison Jaggar’s book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Page 336.

Feminists are trying to radically transform the institution of the family. One of their present plans to break the family is to literally separate parents and children.

Here is an excerpt from Jaggar’s book:

For example, both Onora O’Neill and D.A. Lloyd Thomas argue that genuine equality of opportunity would require that children be removed from their parents’ care and control to be reared in state nurseries. Only in this way, they argue, would it be possible to guarantee to each child the equal “distribution of health care, diet, socialization, consideration and respect, as well as of schooling, which would ensure the same distribution of competencies.” Page 195. [Emphasis added.]

How long will it be before socialist feminists require that your children be removed from your care? Their plan is to first force all of us taxpayers to fund a Government childcare program and hope parents voluntarily give up responsibility for their children.

It is what Jaggar meant when she used the word “prefigure” in the third paragraph in the Daily Vos article, “Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary”. “Prefigure” means prototype, so, for example, welfare is just the prototype for the socialist feminist’s complete redistribution of the wealth plan.   

Jaggar:

“It [socialist feminism] calls for economic security for women, for paid maternity leaves and for the provision of publicly funded and community-controlled childcare.” Page 321. [Emphasis added.]

The Socialist Party USA Platform:

“We call for 16 months paid leave to be shared by new parents or in its entirety by a single parent, and the expansion and full-funding of high-quality child care facilities.”

“We support public child care starting from infancy, and public education starting at age three, with caregivers and teachers of young children receiving training, wages, and benefits comparable to that of teachers at every other level of the educational system.” [Emphasis added.]

That is what socialist feminists and the Socialist Party USA want to happen. It is no surprise Liberal Democratic Party politicians want the very same thing.

From The Washington Post, “Obama touts plan for universal preschool.” By Zachary A. Goldfarb. February 14, 2013:

Barnett said that it would be better to provide universal preschool education starting at age three or two, but it makes sense to start at 4 given the available resources. “It makes sense from a purely practical point of view to consolidate 4-year-olds before you move on to three,” he said. [Emphasis added.]

Here is what Liberal Democratic Party politician Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had to say in an article in Thehill.com. “Pelosi: We can win” By Mike Lillis. 10/28/13: 

Atop her priority list as Speaker [should the Democrats win back the majority in the House of Representatives], she said, would be “comprehensive affordable, quality childcare” for working mothers, which she sees as a natural extension of ObamaCare.

Of a federal childcare law, she said: “This is the missing link in so many things that we’ve talked about. It is not exhaustive of all the things we want to do or have done with regard to women, but I do think it would unleash the power of women.”

Pelosi, for one, can barely disguise her delight at the thought of a Hillary Clinton White House. It would align the first female president with the Democrats’ women’s empowerment agenda.

The more feminists try to “unleash the power of women”, the deeper in debt we, all, get.

Please, don’t think that the symbiosis among FLSUGbDpp is just an eerie coincidence. There is nothing coincidental about it. And, don’t think that this is just a crazy conspiracy theory. There is nothing conspiratorial about it. It is exactly what the Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists have had planned for the past several decades and the Democratic Party politicians and Government bureaucrats are carrying it out. The status of the Underclass is the result of all of the above. The Underclass is what happens when socialist feminism is applied to society.   

Socialist feminism’s goal is to make women independent of men, and men independent of women, and parents and children independent of each other. They want every individual completely independent of family but completely dependent on the Government, which is controlled by the FLSUGbDpp.

For women it means, if you get pregnant, you may “choose” whether your baby dies or lives. If you “choose” life for the child, then you get paid leave. Then, the Government takes your infant into childcare. Then, the Government takes your toddler into early preschool and then through high school and college. If the student is female, she will get a job because of affirmative action. If she doesn’t want to work, she will be taken care of on welfare. Farfetched? It is President Obama’s “Life of Julia” plan.

I include several quotes here from Jaggar’s book to show I’m not taking anything out of context.

Jaggar:

“The socialist feminist conception of procreation as part of the economic foundation of society has carried forward the radical feminist challenge to the traditional distinction between public and private life.” Page 143.

Jaggar:

“Socialist feminists argue for abolishing the public/private distinction entirely.” Page 145.

Abolishing everything is a big part of what socialist feminists do. They want to abolish the family, womanhood, manhood, childhood, the economy, Democracy, and the “public/private distinction”, among other things. There isn’t one aspect of human nature, or one institution in the United States, that feminists don’t want to abolish, transform, or destroy.

Jaggar:

“It may be that such reflections will lead to the conclusion that it is necessary to abolish the entire status of childhood.” Page 343.

Jaggar:

“Just as socialist feminists are committed to abolishing workerhood and womanhood as social categories, so their political values and their conception of human nature may require them also to abolish childhood.” Page 343-344.

Jaggar:

“Socialist feminists charge that, by accepting even a modified version of the public/private distinction, traditional Marxists are accepting a basic feature of capitalist ideology.” Page 146.

Traditional Marxism isn’t radical enough for socialist feminists.

Jaggar:

“On the socialist feminist view, therefore, the abolition of male dominance requires a transformation of the economic foundation of society as a whole. It is necessary to transform not just education, nor simply work, nor sexuality, nor parenting. We must transform everything.” Page 147. [Emphasis added.]

Radical enough for you?

“We must transform everything” gives away the answer to Challenge #2 in The Challenges page.

It is important for you to keep in mind that when socialist feminists talk about “democracy”, what they really mean is radical collectivism.

Jaggar:

“Democracy in procreation will come to pass only when every member of society is able to participate fully in decisions over how many children are born, who bears them, who cares for them, and how they are reared.” Page 148.

Jaggar:

“In developing new conceptions of freedom, equality and democracy, socialist feminism should not fail to question why young people are excluded from these in almost every society. If democracy in procreation requires that every member of society should participate fully in decisions over how many children are born, who rears them and how they are reared, socialist feminists should not forget that young people too are members of society.” Page 154.

Jaggar:

“If this goal were achieved, and if the community as a whole came to assume responsibility for the welfare of children (and mothers), then the birth or non-birth of a child would affect the community in a much more direct and immediate way than it does at present. In this case, it would seem reasonable to allow the community as a whole to participate in decisions over whether children were born and how they should be reared. In these changed social circumstances, it would no longer be even plausible to interpret reproductive freedom as a “right” of individual women. Instead, reproductive freedom would be seen clearly to be a social achievement and something to be shared by the entire community, men as well as women.” Page 320. [Emphasis added.]

What if a woman has had two babies already? This is where the “community” would vote on whether she should be forced to abort any more pregnancies. If a woman has more than two children, her children will use more Government resources, so people might be more inclined to vote for abortion. Abhorrent, but that is exactly what feminists plan to make happen. They have already prefigured it. Feminists already have the prototype in place: low, or no, ethical standards for women, Planned Parenthood, and tens of millions of abortions over the past several decades.

Book Review: Manning Up

Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys. By Kay S. Hymowitz.

My opinion of Manning Up is it’s mostly old-fashioned feminism with a few non-feminist thoughts thrown in. Similar to the way a band releases a greatest hits compilation with one new song on it to help boost sales.

In her book, Hymowitz finds some women who enjoy complaining about men, goes on and on about the success of women, and spares no adjective describing maladaptive male behavior. If it sounds like you’ve heard all this before, it’s because you have.

Hymowitz:

“They [women] are aggressively independent; they don’t need to rely on any man, that’s for sure…By contrast, men can come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks, or unwashed slackers.”

This is a common double standard. Unmarried women are described as “independent”, whereas unmarried men are insulted and portrayed as afraid of commitment. It could be that both sexes are independent.

Hymowitz quotes from a book about men by comedian Julie Klausner:

“They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home.”

Can you imagine the reaction if a man said women act more like kids than the warm, caring, moms we knew at home? I think everybody – people of both sexes and all races -- needs to do some growing up in this country.

“Feminist-influenced mothers and fathers began grooming their daughters for the workplace like prize horses.”

The content of the statement is difficult to measure scientifically, but Hymowitz sees what a lot of men have been seeing for a long time now – girls and women get an enormous amount of attention and encouragement and not just from parents.

Hymowitz makes a few non-feminist observations. She briefly states that capitalism helped women. She also includes some facts that paint a different context of an era feminists usually portray as the Dark Ages.

“In 1960, barely 8 percent of the population had a bachelor’s degree. For that matter, nearly 60 percent of American adults lacked a high school diploma.”

Women weren’t “oppressed”. Life was different for everybody.

“In 1970, women earned 40 percent of college degrees. By 1980, they had reached a par with men, and by 2006, they had catapulted ahead, earning 57 percent of the four-year degrees in the United States.”

Hymowitz spends a lot of time in her book detailing the success of women compared to that of men. She hints at a few explanations, but she never commits to cause and effect. I guarantee most of her feminist readers -- and probably most of her female readers -- won’t make the connection. Let me bring it into focus. Girls and women get a truly staggering amount of help.

The entire government school system as described in Christina Hoff Sommers’ book, The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.

Surely, that partly explains the success of women.

The government’s affirmative action program of which white women are the biggest beneficiaries.

Surely, that partly explains the success of women.

The entire Feminist News/Entertainment Media culture that favors women.

Surely, that partly explains the success of women.

Hymowitz:

Here’s University of Michigan economist Mark J. Perry after chronicling the college and postcollegiate gender gap: “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of University and College Women’s Centers across the country….A Google search of ‘College Women’s Centers’ finds almost 6,000 links on the Web. A Google search of ‘College Men’s Centers’ finds almost no links on the Internet (fewer than 10), and asks the question: Did you mean: ‘College Women’s Centers’?”

The female to male ratio of these college centers is 600 to 1! You would think even the most clueless feminist could see the difference.

Surely, that partly explains the success of women.

If you’re wondering why men don’t have very many college centers it’s because of a lack of money. Also, men’s centers offering help to men would get sued for discrimination against women. Men are expected to help everybody, but feminists are only expected to help themselves.

In an article titled, “How to Make School Better for Boys” Christina Hoff Sommers says in a few paragraphs what Hymowitz fails to say in her entire book -- that in almost every way, and on every level, the game is rigged in favor of girls and women. The article can be found at realclearpolitics.com on September 14, 2013. 

Christina Hoff Sommers:

Because of decades of successful lobbying by NCWGE [National Council on Women and Girls Education] groups, high school and college career and technical training programs face government sanctions and loss of funds if they fail to recruit and graduate [Emphasis in original. All other emphasis added.] sufficient numbers of female students into “non-traditional” fields. Over the years, untold millions of state and federal dollars have been devoted to recruiting and retaining young women into fields like pipefitting, automotive repair, construction, drywall installing, manufacturing, and refrigeration mechanics.  But according to Statchat, a University of Virginia workforce blog, these efforts at vocational equity “haven’t had much of an impact.”  Despite an unfathomable number of girl-focused programs and interventions, “technical and manual occupations tend to be dominated by men, patterns that have held steady for many years.”

In March 2013 NCWGE released a report urging the need to fight even harder against “barriers girls and women face in entering nontraditional fields.” Among its nine key recommendations to Congress: more federal funding and challenge grants to help states close the gender gaps in career and technical education (CTE); mandate every state to install a CTE gender equity coordinator; and impose harsher punishments on states that fail to meet “performance measures” –i.e. gender quotas.

Instead of spending millions of dollars attempting to transform aspiring cosmetologists into welders, education officials should concentrate on helping young people, male and female, enter careers that interest them. And right now, boys are the underserved population requiring attention.

In the U.S., a powerful network of women’s groups works ceaselessly to protect and promote what it sees as female interest. But there is no counterpart working for boys—they are on their own.

The reluctance to face up to the boy gap is evident at every level of government. In Washington, President Obama established a White House Council on Women and Girls shortly after taking office in 2009, declaring: “When our daughters don’t have the same education and career opportunities as our sons, that affects…our economy and our future as a nation.” On the other hand, the proposal for a Council for Boys and Men from a bi-partisan group of academics and political leaders has now been languishing in Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s office for two years.

Surely, all of that partly explains the success of women.

The above is just the tip of the iceberg of the help women get. No wonder women seem so “independent”; but they are becoming completely dependent on the government for help. That degree of dependence on the government is what socialist feminists mean when they say freedom is a social(ism) achievement that cannot be achieved by individuals or families. (There will be more about this in the next article, “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism Part 4”.)  

Hymowitz calls the stage of life in between college and marriage “preadulthood”. She spends a lot of time describing men in this stage as “child-men”. Knowing that there are only two sexes, I think whenever someone coins a sex-specific phrase such as “child-man”; it screams out for at least a quick look into the possibility of a matching “child-woman” phenomenon. But Hymowitz fails to pursue it. Does she not find full-grown adult women constantly complaining about “oppression” childish? If your own kids took that same lousy attitude and complained as much as feminists do, you would send them to their rooms.

I will take back my criticism of Hymowitz if her next book is entitled, Womanning Up: How America’s Childish Women FAIL to Live Up to Even Half the Hype. The word “childish” should be in Comic Sans and the word “fail” should be in red and all caps.

Worst of all, Hymowitz fails to offer any advice to men. Well, that’s not quite true. The last two sentences of her book are, “And young men? They’ll need to man up.” Gee, thanks for all the help, Hymowitz.

Don’t bother reading this book. It wasn’t so much that it was incorrect, as it was just so incomplete and pointless. 

Instead, read everything you can by Christina Hoff Sommers.

Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 3)

Socialism has many characteristics; one of them is its economics:

Capitalism bad/socialism good.

National Socialism was a form of socialism based on race:

Jews bad/Germans good, regardless of socio-economic class.

International socialist feminism is a form of socialism based on sex:

Men bad/women good, regardless of socio-economic class or race.

Socialist feminists are explicitly anti-capitalism and anti-male. (See the quotations in the Daily Vos article, “Feminism Is Liberalism Is Socialism (Part 1)”. Part 2 of this series is in the Feminist Media bias article, “Kill the Babies No Apologies”.)

Eventually, if everything goes according to their plan, socialist feminists will attempt to destroy womanhood and the wealth women have too. “Socialist feminism makes an explicit commitment to the abolition of both class and gender.” 

In addition to the need for a common enemy, another characteristic of socialism is the need for a common grievance. Which is why no one in the FLSUGbDpp finds it at all strange that rich, well-fed, white women complain about “oppression” as much as the poorest members of the Underclass. It’s how the game must be played. A key component of the grievance is that it must be easy enough to formulate (“we’re oppressed”) that everyone can play.

The philosophy of socialist feminism is romanticism, in contradistinction from rationalism or empiricism. (We, center right Americans, need all of you who majored in philosophy to fully explain the relationship between romanticism and FLSUGbDpp on your websites.)

At what point does Liberalism diverge from Feminism and Socialism? Liberals have exactly the same goals as the National Organization for Women, as listed in Part 1 of this series.

[This article is based on the entry “National Socialism” from the Encyclopaedia britannica.com.]

Leaders Take Action

In the last article, “Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary”, you read a couple of paragraphs about socialist feminists expecting and preparing for revolution. It won’t happen. They came up with a different plan – a cold-revolution. Their plan is to legislate, regulate, litigate, and tax their way to more power and control.

Feminists, Liberals, and Socialists have already undermined and now mostly control four major institutions: the Government, Feminist News/Entertainment Media, Democratic Party, and Government school system. (See Political Matchups page.) From here, they will try to undermine and control all of our other institutions: the Constitution, democracy, military, free market economy, borders, language, culture, religion, marriage, and family, to name just a few.

Don’t let fatalism be an excuse for laziness. In other words, don’t idly wait for a revolution that will never happen – at least not for a few decades. Don’t just talk tough about our nation’s condition but then refuse to take action to help right now.

It’s true that “knowing is half the battle.” It explains why feminists deceive so much. (See Guideline 1b: Omni-Deceit and Manipulation.) Feminists understand that if you know what they are trying to do, then you can take action to defeat them. So they try to confuse you by adding as many layers of deceit as possible. (See Style of Argument 303: “complicated” and “mysterious”.)

We know the whom – feminists. We know the what – socialist feminism. We know the when – now. We know the where – everywhere in the United States. We know the how – by destroying all of our institutions through legislation, regulation, litigation, and taxation. 

Now that we know something about socialist feminism we can take action to defeat it.

Some of our goals -- such as a balanced budget amendment, ending baseline budgeting, ending affirmative action, and stopping illegal immigration -- we can only achieve as an organized group of compatriots.

Here are a few simple actions every Center Right American can, and should, take right now.

Cancel your subscriptions to the Feminist News Media.

For those of you who still subscribe to a newspaper or magazine, get your money back. Cancel now before any more of your subscription money is used up. Make paid print media go the way of the Dodo bird.

Won’t the print Feminist Media just move their writers’ articles to the Internet? Yes, but here is the difference. The average person has a limited amount of time and reads just a few articles. So even if feminists have 100 articles about a topic while conservatives have only 10, the Internet is essentially even.  

Watch less TV – the Feminist Entertainment Media.

I covered this one in the article, “TV – The Sewage Pipe”. It’s how feminists attack culture, religion, marriage, and family.

Stay informed.

There are many good places on the Internet for news, analysis, and commentary. A site I go to almost every day is realclearpolitics.com. Also, I like to go to breitbart.com, bernardgoldberg.com, mediaresearchcenter.org, and anncoulter.com. I check the headlines on yahoo.com and msn.com.

Concentrate our resources.

The best defense is a good offense. Contribute $100.00 per year to groups that share your principles. Contribute $100.00 to just one group, or $25.00 to four groups. A few good examples are Second Amendment rights organizations, tea party groups, and conservative women’s groups, such as the Network of enlightened Women.

I’m not saying you should contribute to a political party or to politicians. In a lot of ways politicians are followers not leaders. If we, all, contribute to organizations that share our principles, the politicians will follow.

Pulling your weight is vital to our success. I’m going to use a football metaphor. The other side has 110 players and we have 11 players. Only 11 can play at a time, but our players have to play on offense and defense and special teams. Each additional player helps our team a lot more than each additional player helps the feminists because feminists are already at the saturation point with money, media, and payments-in-kind.

Contribute and then rest easy knowing that you are doing something to help.

Have your own template website.

We need to stop reacting to the Feminist Media and start leading the conversation ourselves. Conservatives have achieved radio airwave superiority, but radio is like high-altitude bombing. It can only do so much. We need people on the ground to communicate with people and to follow up with face-to-face interaction.

Some of you are already doing this but we need a lot more. A few ideas for a template website: analyze the Feminist News/Entertainment Media, extol the virtues of homeschooling, explain small business ownership, specialize in a political issue, or several issues if you are ambitious.

The Internet gives us the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against the Feminist Media. We must not let this opportunity go to waste. We must reduce the feminists’ 10 to 1 media advantage. We need new media. We are the new media! 

Please don’t just sit there, do something – take action.

Post-Constitutional and Pre-Revolutionary

Mark Levin says we are living in a post-constitutional America.

At the same time they are undermining the Constitution, feminists are preparing for a violent revolutionary period. But don’t take my word for it; here is an excerpt from socialist feminist Alison Jaggar’s book, Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Page 339-340:

“Socialist feminists, by contrast, are sufficiently Marxist to be skeptical that the white male ruling class would give up its power without a violent struggle; however, they are confident that such a struggle could be won by the overwhelming majority of the population whom they see as their potential allies. Socialist feminists expect that there will be a distinctive revolutionary period, characterized by acute social turmoil, but they also expect that the outcome of this turmoil will be determined by the kind and quality of the pre-revolutionary activity that has preceded it. To this extent, they see themselves not so much as living the revolution as preparing for it and attempting in limited ways to prefigure it.” [Emphasis added.]

Regarding their expectation of “violent struggle”, “revolution”, and “turmoil”, the key point to understand is socialist feminists are currently trying to rig the outcome in their favor through “pre-revolutionary activity”. That activity involves undermining all of our institutions: the Constitution, democracy, military, free market economy, borders, language, culture, religion, marriage, and family, to name just a few.

Feminists know what I am explaining to you now, undermining all of our institutions is to undermine men, and undermining men is to undermine all of our institutions. Thus, their strategy is, simultaneously, to undermine men and to destroy all of America’s institutions and replace them with totalitarian socialist feminism.

Violent revolution initiated by socialist feminists is unlikely to happen any time soon. The Feminist Entertainment Media’s George Carlin gives away the reason and their plan. “I’d like for people to feel better and have better lives, but I don’t think that’s in the cards through political action. I think bloodshed is still the way you get dramatic change. That’ll never happen because they’ve got all the guns now.” Interview with Ricky Young. Motherjones.com. March/April 1997.

To have any chance of winning a violent revolution, they know they still need to spend the next several years and decades rigging the outcome in their favor through gun control, destroying our institutions, and more legislation, regulation, litigation, and taxation.

In the same interview, Carlin explains the two things that went wrong with people. “The two big mistakes were the belief in a sky god…and private property, which I think is at the core of our failure as a species.” His big-guy-in-the-sky gag is mildly amusing, but then he adds a powerful dose of communism by disapproving of private property. 

Won’t a lot of these feminists be deceased (Carlin died in 2008) long before socialism’s goals are achieved? Yes, but they enjoy being filthy rich in the meantime. University professors and comedians, such as Jaggar and Carlin, earn a lot of money. So do Government bureaucrats and Feminist News/Entertainment Media personalities. They are living the high-life while trying to force the rest of us into socialism.

If revolution is afoot, then why don’t we hear more about it from more people than just an obscure socialist feminist and a comedian? For the same reason the Democratic Party politicians don’t campaign telling you they want to raise your taxes and take away your guns. They know you won’t like it.

The Feminist Media is a huge propaganda machine trying to fool as many of you, as much as they can, for as long as they can – don’t wait until it is too late.

In the next article, “Leaders Take Action”, I suggest a few things we, Center Right Americans, can do to defeat the socialist feminists.

Take Juan Williams' and Don Lemon's Advice

This article highlights the Underclass component of the FLSUGbDpp initialism as explained in the Political Matchups page.

Fox News Channel’s political analyst Juan Williams offered the following advice to the black community: stay in school, take a job and hold it, and don’t have children until you are married. The rest of his advice can be found at Realclearpolitics.com. “Calling Out the Race Hustlers.” August 11, 2013.

CNN anchor Don Lemon offered similar advice to the black community: dress appropriately, finish school, and stop having children out of wedlock. The rest of his advice can be found at Realclearpolitics.com. “Attack the Problem, Not the Messenger.” August 12, 2013.

Their advice is absolutely necessary for the Underclass of all races and everybody else.

All of us – from the political left to the right – need to help the Underclass become part of regular society. We need to help them, not through welfare, but through leadership of the type shown by Williams and Lemon. 

Helping the Underclass is a long-term problem. What I really want to do here is focus on how Feminists play the game to keep the Underclass where they are. I want to show the context and dynamic subtext of the FLSUGbDpp that will do everything they can to prevent Williams and Lemon’s advice from helping the Underclass.

The mantra of Feminism is: “We’re oppressed. We’re victims. Life owes us a living. This is all everybody else’s fault but ours.” Feminists try to teach the Underclass to hold the same attitude.

Williams and Lemon are hardly asking for the moon. But by saying, “You pull up your pants. You graduate from high school. You get a job,” they violate the mantra. It puts the locus of control – the accountability and responsibility – on the Feminist Underclass instead of on everybody else.

Their advice has the taste of personal responsibility, which is adjacent to virtue, which in turn comes frighteningly close to Judeo-Christian values, all of which are in direct opposition to the religion of Feminism and the cultural, political, and economic goals of the FLSUGbDpp.

Government bureaucrats provide the infrastructure for welfare dependency. The Feminist Media pumps out daily propaganda to support it. Liberals give it a thin veneer of legal moralism: if you support welfare, then you are non-racist and have compassion. If you are against it, then you are racist and lack compassion. Democratic Party politicians keep the welfare spending flowing. The Underclass is dependent on all of the above. What role do you think the Government school system plays in this?

Underclass culture is Feminism fully applied to society. If you want to see what all of society would look like under totalitarian Feminism, just observe the Underclass: Unwed mothers and unwed fathers, illegitimacy, poor education, crime, drugs, divorce, gambling, poverty, dependency, prostitution, abortion, and unemployment.

Have you ever noticed how the Underclass and Hollywood share the same values?

The Feminist Entertainment Media (Hollywood) aren’t big on marriage (Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn), have lots of illegitimate kids, talk a good game about Government schools (Matt Damon), commit crime (Winona Ryder’s shoplifting), and smoke a lot of marijuana (take your pick).

But aren’t celebrities totally cool and successful? Yes, because they have enough money to paper over all of their faulty lifestyle decisions.  

If Feminism is so maladaptive, then why are so many average white feminists (non-Underclass and non-Hollywood) comfortable with families, jobs, and nice homes? Because most white feminists know the whole mantra is a joke. It is just a game they play to deceive and manipulate people in their personal lives.

Many white feminists follow Williams and Lemon’s advice.

Teaching the Underclass to have an internal locus of control – personal accountability and responsibility – is a good thing. It means that it is within their control to graduate from high school. 

However, as long as the Feminist News/Entertainment Media and the rest of the FLSUGbDpp refuse to help, all of the advice and effort, to aid the Underclass, will fail.