Cruel Hoax Read online

  Lament

  "My Inner Feminist is Hurting"

  Last week, a young feminist mentioned my web site in her web journal. A traditional woman recommended it to a friend who told her about it.

  "It seems to be a bunch of paranoid, ranting conspiracy theories about feminism and communism." This didn't faze her.

  What bothered her was that the woman "has a boyfriend who agrees with much of the site...She now also subscribes to these beliefs."

  The woman told her friend she is now "living the 'ideal' life described by that site, as she moved across the country to be with her boyfriend, stays at home and cleans, while he works and brings home the income."

  She also encouraged the friend to have children explaining, "why not wanting to have children is wrong."

  This "hit a nerve" because "people in my family give me a hard time for not being in a hurry to find a husband and breed, as if it is something I am obligated to do."

  She is saddened that the traditional woman's son will grow up with these values and be deprived of the company of "some really wonderful and smart, independent women."

  Even worse, if this woman has daughters, "they will be raised to believe that their entire role in life is to get married, have babies, and 'serve their husbands' ...that girls weren't supposed to show their intelligence...be outspoken, opinionated, funny etc. That it wasn't 'feminine' to be all these things."

  Our young feminist has had some "self esteem problems, but I can't imagine spending my life being ashamed of, well, being a real person."

  She used to feel guilty for being the "bright, sarcastic, creative girl I am. It's times like these when I'm really glad I embraced those qualities...some really wonderful people are my friends because of those qualities."

  She concludes: "So yeah. My inner feminist hurts. But at least I love myself."

  THIS GIRL HAS BEEN BRAINWASHED

  This girl is a typical of millions of young women who have been psychologically neutered by feminism.

  Homosexuals refer to heterosexuals as "breeders." Here is a once normal heterosexual woman using the same term: "find a husband and breed."

  She expects to be loved for being " bright, sarcastic, creative, intelligent, outspoken, opinionated, and funny."

  All that's very good but wake up girl! A man isn't looking for a "really wonderful and smart, independent woman" who is focused on herself. ("At least I love myself, " this one says.)

  People love people who love them. People love people who sacrifice themselves for them. You don't get permanent love for having a witty comeback. You get it for keeping the faith even when your lover is in the dumps, for not asking about disappointments.

  THE FEMINIST PARODY OF MARRIAGE

  Since when is a wife and mother not a "real person?"

  No one is suggesting that a woman should devote her life to just any man. She chooses a man worthy of her, someone with ability and vision. She gives up her "independence" in exchange for his love. This is how she expresses her love, and how two people become one.

  He must be loyal and devoted or the deal's off. A lengthy courtship is necessary to ensure she makes the right choice.

  When you love someone, having a baby feels natural. Both mother and father get immense pleasure from raising this new being.

  Believe me there is nothing sexier than intelligence in a woman. When she doesn't compete with him, a man naturally wants his wife to express herself. I love that my wife is so intelligent and capable. Why wouldn't I? She is my right arm.

  I do not dominate my wife. She doesn't even read my writing. Naturally I try to nurture and see her thrive. "Independent" women are missing this male nurturing.

  Is this girl a slob? Doesn't she clean for herself? Then why is it such an ordeal to do it for her family? Making your home comfortable and inviting is not demeaning. It's uplifting. I'm not saying women can't have careers; just that family is more important.

  Only a tiny minority of careers are truly satisfying. Feminists assume women are too vacuous to live rich and rewarding lives unless they have a job. This is very Communist. Most women work to support themselves not to find fulfillment. They find fulfillment from their family lives.

  CONCLUSION

  "My inner feminist is hurting," this girl says. Don't be a martyr.

  You are not sacrificing yourself for a better world. You are ruining your life.

  Instead of listening to your "inner feminist," listen to your own soul. If your ideology is making you miserable, it's time to change it. Your soul doesn't lie.

  Feminism Can be Cured

  If Diagnosed Early

  I've had many emails from young feminists cussing me out for things I never said. So I was surprised to hear from "Meaghan" who actually read my web site and understood it. She realized feminist indoctrination had made her dysfunctional and she wanted help.

  "I am a woman, 20 years old, who is grossly independent, and grew up with a "no boy can be better than me" complex. I was very capable in school, which my environment encouraged, pushing me to always be smarter, better, faster; having heard all this from such a young age, nothing seemed out of place. An eating disorder, troubled marriage, broken relationship with my mother and other problems later (which the few female friends I have managed to keep also share), it's obvious I need to rethink certain elements of my life: your work has found words for the silent, internal chaos which plagues especially my generation.

  It is ironic to think that people, after having reached full physical maturity, could still need to READ to learn to become something as basic as the gender they were born with--but if we've been raised to be broken, we have to start somewhere.

  I've noticed that ... you say [feminists] are lost causes. For all of the lost causes out there, you may want to consider publishing an essay or some material which points to the road of redemption: God knows there are a lot of us, and I'd hate to have the opportunity to heal, written off as "too late," and nothing more."

  Meaghan, congratulations for being so wise and articulate for your years. Here are some ideas:

  Find a feminine woman, a wife and mother, who is willing to act as your role model. This is a woman who has built her life around her husband and children and is glad she did. You might find such a woman in traditional settings, church or ethnic community centre. This may be an opportunity to learn about Islam or Hinduism or Christianity. Get the pastor-person to help you find a role model. Obviously you will decide whom you like.

  My mother-in-law advised my wife: "Find a man to look after you, but be able to look after yourself." In other words, make husband and family your first priority while pursuing your career interests. If you go to university/college, focus on acquiring marketable skills. Humanities are indoctrination in feminist Masonic dysfunction. Ideally you will marry and start a family before going to university, if you go at all.

  Don't sleep with anyone unless you are in a loving long-term relationship hopefully leading to marriage. Consecrate yourself to your future husband and children. Date men five-or-more years older who want to get married. For intimacy you must have exclusivity and permanence. Sex is an act of possession. You cannot be possessed by many men and ever belong to one. The ability to love/trust dies. Your womb is not some stranger's sperm-urinal.

  Stop being "smarter, better, faster" than the men you meet. To some extent, a woman self effaces and lives through her husband and children. Find a man you naturally look up to, respect and trust. Don't waste time with boys. Men want power; women want love. Heterosexual union involves the exchange of the two: female power (in the worldly sense) for male love (his power expressed as love.) A woman loves a man by acquiescing and trusting, not challenging and competing. She gives him the power to grant her wishes (i.e. love her). Of course he will consult her. Find a man with a powerful positive vision of life with a central place for you. There is an implied message here for men. Men have to know what they want, provide leadership and earn trust.

  Two
people don't become one by fighting over the same territory. Generally speaking, the man "makes the house, the woman makes the home." This division of labour is natural and complementary. Women are designed to have and nurture children. They need men to support them. Learn how to be a homemaker and mother. Develop your personality and skills to be more desirable as a wife and companion.

  Once the power-for-love arrangement is established, sex roles don't have to be rigid. The key is that a wife is willing to be First Mate to her Captain because he loves her, looks after her interests and is totally loyal. After that, who does what can be dictated by respective preferences, abilities and practical considerations.

  Check out Helen Andelin's book "Fascinating Womanhood" which reminds you that femininity is an art. Not everything will be relevant to you, but it has many useful hints. Also check out sites like "Surrendered Wife" and "Ladies Against Feminism." See also this website about healthy womanhood and homemaking. (www.homeliving.blogspot.com) There are a dozen more here: http://www.outofthenestandbeyond.com/links_womens_interest.htm

  In conclusion, the Rockefellers trick women into forgetting that they are part of a natural cycle, and the ages of 18-25 are critical to starting a family. In the same way as the apple tree blossoms in the Spring, young women need to marry and have children when nature intended. The Rockefellers want women and men to miss the opportunity to start strong families that will protect them from enslavement.

  * * *

  See ten pages of feminists vomiting over this article at http://feministing.com/2006/11/21/theres_hope_yet_ladies/ ...proof that once neutered, there isn't a cure for most.

  Book Two

  HOMO & HETERO-HOMOSEXUALITY

  Fooling Themselves & Us

  Is this Gay Behaviour Sick?

  Imagine that an organism is sick. Imagine that the sick cells convince the organism that they are healthy, and the healthy cells they are sick. The gullible organism would just get sicker.

  This is the relationship between society and homosexuals today. Gays argue that same-sex behaviour is no different than being left-handed. On the other hand, they say heterosexual behaviour is not natural, but socially conditioned and "oppressive for women."

  Heterosexual society and family are taking heavy casualties. Our opportunistic and craven leaders have betrayed us. We don't even know we are under attack.

  Let's decide who, in fact, is sick.

  Let's look at gay behaviour as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of "After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's." (1989).

  In Chapter Six, they outline "ten categories of misbehaviour," drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays. Their contention is that the gay lifestyle, (not gay sexuality mind you), "is the pits." They want gays to improve their image by addressing "what is wrong with a lot of gays." (276)

  What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if heterosexuals haven't caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.

  The authors say "a surprisingly high percentage" of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one's own gayness and its implication.

  They say gays tend to reject all forms of morality and value judgments. Gay morality boils down to "I can do whatever I want and you can go to perdition. (If it feels good, I'll do it!)" If a gay feels like seducing a trusted friend's lover, he'll do it, justifying it as an act of "sexual freedom" and the friend be damned.

  They say gays suffer from a "narcissistic" personality disorder and give this clinical description: "pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation." As an example of this narcissism, the authors say "a very sizable proportion of gay men" that have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.

  They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such "forbidden" aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism including violence.

  They say many gays have sex in public bathrooms and think it is anti-gay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to pursue straight males, including children.

  Many gays are "single minded sexual predators" fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are "the real queer bashers." Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.

  "Relationships between gay men don't usually last very long." They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The "cheating ratio of 'married' gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%."

  Even friendships are based on the sexual test and are hard to sustain. Unattractive gay men find it nearly impossible to find a friend, let alone a lover.

  The authors say gays tend to deny reality in various ways: wishful thinking, paranoia, illogic, emotionalism and embracing crackpot ideas.

  Is there any doubt that this behaviour is sick? I feel no malice toward gays. I feel the same way about people who have the flu. I want them to get better and I don't want it to spread.

  Unfortunately, even the authors of this book are deceiving themselves. They claim that it is the gay lifestyle and NOT gay sexuality that is "the pits." Who are they kidding? The two are inseparable. Again, whom are they kidding? The problem isn't image.

  The book details "a comprehensive public-relations campaign that should go a long way towards sanitizing our very unsanitary image:

  "Desensitization": flooding straight America with advertising presenting gays in the "least offensive manner possible."

  "Jamming": Advertising that equates fear of gays wit hatred of Jews, Blacks and women.

  "Conversion": Presenting images of gays that look like regular folks. "The image must be the icon of normality."

  They say "it makes no difference that the ads are lies" because "we are using them to...counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies." Huh? They just said the truth was even worse than the stereotypes.

  This book was written in 1989 and obviously this campaign has taken effect. Read what the authors say about it:

  "By Conversion, we mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life [than subversion] ...We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean...to turn their hatred into warm regard whether they like it or not." (My emphasis, 153)

  Thus gay activists want Americans to learn that something they naturally and justifiably regard as a disorder is in fact healthy. Thus Americans will be less able to resist their overtures whether in parks, barracks, bathrooms, classrooms or legislatures.

  It is a measure of the authors' cynicism and self-deception that THEY quote psychologist M. Scott Peck, who in "People of the Lie" characterizes people who suffer from extreme or "malignant" narcissism simply as "evil."

  Evil people, Peck says, have "an unshakable will to be right and will not consider the possibility that they are wrong...Their main weapon, interestingly enough is the lie with which they distort reality to look good to themselves, and to confuse others." (297)

  Gays can continue to fool themselves. But they won't fool us. Some of these people are evil. Their behavior is sick. And it's contagious.

  Arrested Development

  Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution

  What kind of man reads Playboy
? He is fastidious about his appearance, his home and his possessions. He wants as much sex as possible and chooses sexual partners mostly on the basis of appearance. He is self-absorbed and doesn't want emotional involvement or commitment. He thinks a woman and children would be a burden.

  Does this sound like many gays? It is also the masculine ideal purveyed by Playboy magazine to men since the 1950's.

  The essence of manhood is to lead and support a family. But in 1972, three out of four male college students got their ideas about masculinity from Playboy, at an incalculable cost to themselves, women, children and society.

  The similarity between the Playboy and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. "The Kinsey Report" (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counterculture. It inspired Hugh Hefner to start Playboy in 1953.

  Essentially "The Kinsey Report" said that aberrant sexual behaviour was so common as to be normal. Thanks to Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey was a homosexual and the "Kinsey Report" was based on fraudulent data.

  He cruised Times Square looking for subjects. More than 25% of his sample consisted of prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey said 10 per cent of American men were gay when in fact only two per cent were.

  To prove that children have legitimate sexual needs, Kinsey and his fellow pedophiles either abused 2,000 babies and children themselves and/or relied on data obtained in Nazi concentration camps. (Judith Reisman, "Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences," 1998, p. 312)