|
|
Post by dionysios on Sept 19, 2015 22:50:08 GMT 1
Several Islamic books mostly written by muslim women have been written in the past decade endorsing the veil (such as 'Quiet Revolution' by Leila Ahmed among others). yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300170955
This is the women's movement in Islam (especially since the 1970's and 1980's) in countries such as Egypt and elsewhere which views the veil as a symbol of women's power and resistance to colonialism. This seems to have (finally) influenced some conservative western catholic and protestant sects.
By contrast, the white women's movement in the west views the veil as an instrument of persecution against women. However, this view is the same as the European colonialists. It would seem that the western feminist movement works hand in hand with colonialism which is self-contradictory if it promotes itself as leftist. Thankfully, the black communist (and feminist) Angela Davis long ago came to the rescue with her book 'Women, Race, and Class' which chronicles the history of the white feminist movement in the west from the nineteenth century onwards characterizing it as a part of the racist American establishment.
'Women, Race, and Class' By Angela Davis
www.amazon.com/Women-Class-Womens-Press-Classics/dp/0704346907 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Davis
This brings to mind the fact that the American feminist movement has always supported Planned Parenthood and its founder Margaret Sanger who was a fascist, eugenicist and open ally of Adolf Hitler. Planned Parenthood has always targeted black and poor populations for birth control, and american feminists have historically ardently defended it. |
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Sept 19, 2015 22:53:22 GMT 1
Although you would never guess it from the fascist western press, Moammar Khaddafi of Libya was a great advocate of women's rights. I have some of his books, and he severely criticized some eastern societies for brutal mistreatment of women. However, he also criticized the west for mistreatment of women inasmuch as it forces them primarily through economic means into unnatural positions to survive and function.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 23:19:12 GMT 1
Yes, I don't want to add anything superficial and make people lose sight of your posts, so I usually don't reply, but for once I will reply, although I have no specific knowledge on these subjects. I agree with what you say, and find it interesting and I'l like to add that, in my opinion, Khaddafi, despite his many good values, was still a dictator, and I think that democracy in itself is far superior to dictatorships, as a rule, so he might have been a good dictator, but in general dictators are not as good a democracies, from my little experience and personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dionysios on Sept 19, 2015 23:30:29 GMT 1
I have long since concluded the American republican and democrat parties are both fascist. These days the difference is that the republicans are cruder whereas the American (so-called) Democrats are more intelligent and disguise their nature much more cleverly. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2015 23:39:13 GMT 1
Yes, I expected this objection, but I have a counter-objection. Even if we have a fake democracy, with manipulated elections, with ballot fraud, as we have in the USA, there is still the advantage that not all power is the hands of one person, and that person cannot stay in power for longer than 8 years. We might have 8-year Hitlers (but we know they are not as powerful), we might have evil powers that be, but we are not going to have another Hitler.
|
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 25, 2015 8:56:19 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 25, 2015 8:56:19 GMT 1
Hitler was a pawn (primarily of the German industrialist Fritz Thyssen) just like the Weimar and monarchist governments that preceded him. The same class ruled all these occupiers of the throne. In the USA, it is the same way.
"The Kings of the Gentiles have rulers over them, and those who have authority over them are called their sponsors."
- Isus Christ
|
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 25, 2015 9:03:37 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 25, 2015 9:03:37 GMT 1
As to substantiation that Hitler was a pawn, the German writer Rudolf Olden exposed Fritz Thyssen in his classic 1930's book 'Hitler the Conqueror: The Debunking of a Myth' (translated into English as 'Hitler the Pawn'): en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Olden |
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 25, 2015 9:29:24 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 25, 2015 9:29:24 GMT 1
That Hitler was a pawn subservient to the financial rulers of Germany who put him in power is also testified to by the German Jewish communist Albert Norden (of whom I have mentioned elsewhere) in his 1942 book describing the financial powers of Germany entitled 'The Thugs of Europe' which is online: archive.org/details/TheThugsOfEurope I think everyone agrees that Hitler was a dictator, but to think the US cannot become that way is wrong thinking. It is very much that way, and the two are made of the same stuff. It is significant that Hitler did not come to power by means of a revolution as the Bolsheviks did. What does it signify? This signifies that Nazism and the Weimar Republic worked for the same master. They were both anti-communist and were each put in power with the same objective against communism in Germany and elsewhere. Hitler's administration was put in power because Weimar failed to do what the German industrialists wanted. West Germany was the organ of how these industrialists continued in power. East Germany in its founding and earliest years did remove their power which was a step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 25, 2015 9:38:53 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 25, 2015 9:38:53 GMT 1
The essence of fascism is rule through terror and raw force by the pawn or pawns of an oligarchy when a fake democracy or other more benign form of government can no longer maintain the extent of its master's hegemony. Fascism is a weapon of last resort when other means of exploitation have failed.
|
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 29, 2015 5:50:48 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 29, 2015 5:50:48 GMT 1
I think that my perspective in this difference of opinion with Acenci has been more eloquently stated by Lenin in his greatest book, 'The State and Revolution', which is succinctly described here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_and_Revolution |
|
|
|
The Veil
Sept 29, 2015 6:22:01 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by dionysios on Sept 29, 2015 6:22:01 GMT 1
The capitalist state has become increasingly the instrument of choice for suppression of underclasses, and this book insists on the need for its overthrow. Thus, it brutally explains relations of its internal structure at all levels including the mafia, police, military, banks, and bureacracy, and the rest of it. Along the way, Lenin refutes "leftists" of various stripes including pacifists, anarchists, reformists, and others who have well intentioned but misguided views that handicap the movement and thereby serve our common enemies.
At this particular time, the forceful overthrow of the American state and more significantly its ruling class is a thing of the future. The need of the moment is education as it's necessary for people to have knowledge and understanding and thus vision which is why books like Lenin's 'State and Revolution' should be read.
|
|
