How Feminism, aka worthless feminazi scum is funded
zen at freedbms.net
Mon Jan 7 15:30:48 PST 2019
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 04:14:59PM -0500, John Newman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 05:31:26PM -0300, Punk wrote:
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 10:38:22 -0500
> > John Newman <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
> > > > ...Feminism is conceptual nonsense. If there are legal restrictions placed on women those have to be abolished based on the principle of equality before the law, but that's a *liberal* tenet not a 'feminist' one. In other words 'feminism' is not needed. And no wonder in practice feminism is just another tool of oppression.
> > >
> > > I have a girlfriend that would disagree with you, at least from a
> > > pragmatic point of view. On the way to "true liberty" (i.e anarchy),
> > > isn't it appropriate to fight for such things as suffrage, equal pay for
> > > women, abortion rights, etc ?
> > abortion rights, yes, unless by that you mean government run 'medicine' in which case the answer is no.
> > female suffrage? No. Of course, there must not be any 'male' suffrage either.
> > http://www.readliberty.org/liberty/1/22
> > "Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. "
> > equal pay? In a free market? Different people get paid differently. Wanting to create 'economic equaity' by law is the non-plus-ultra of commie statism. It has exactly nothing to do with anarchy.
> Equal pay for equal work seems fair. For instance, America is built on
> slavery. Eventually, within the confines of the statist system (and a
> pretty fucking ugly war), this was (sort of) ended. Actually, it
> was more or less replaced with Jim Crow, and the "war on drugs",
> and mass incarceration, and, umm.. well, yeah. So that's not a great
> example, but my point is that as much as America is built on slavery,
> it's built on misogyny,
Well, obviously already!
2 + j = "misogyny is necessary to build a nation"
> although I obviously had trouble squaring
> the circle there at the end..
> Anyway, she doesn't read this list :P
> > >
> > >
> > > I suppose she would say you have to get your hands dirty in the
> > > existing system sometimes to accomplish anything, which admittedly
> > > is a thin fucking tightrope to balance.
> > The idea that you can get rid of tyranny by voting is just too ridiculous. Actually you can have your 'female suffrage' if you want and see how women vote for tyranny exactly like they did.
> In the modern oligarchic surveillance-state technocracy in which
> we live, I don't see any way to get rid of tyranny altogether,
> practical, or otherwise.
Recreational nukes? The dems might even be in favour of this one :D
Democrat Threatens To “Nuke” American Citizens Who Won’t
Give Up Guns
> In any case, it's enough to just make one want to live life as best as
> one can and let the fucking apocalypse
Is that an "apocalypse of no fucking" or something more wierderer?
> sort itself out. Also: don't
> have kids.
Oh. Dear me. I really do feel sorry for you sheeple types - always
one meal away from sheer insanity. Always remember, Jon, CNNPC and
MSNPC have your back... which is important since just because you're
paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
> Resistance may or may not be futile, but it fucking feels that way.
You Dems are the "resist miscegenation, stop having children today"
Really, I do know a good psychiatrist who might even tolerate you for
an hour a week.
> > This argument isn't related to 'feminism' per se anyawy. It's the typical position argued by 'practical' people of different backgrounds - commie, libertarian etc. Except social democrats I guess since gradualist tyranny by voting is a basic strategy used by them.
More information about the cypherpunks