Why does Russia hate families so much?

Because the family is the seat of western power and independence.

From the earliest days lennin proceeded to make laws that would dissolute the family… but not so far as to make permanent oppositions of the people, that was reserved for the west. Centralization of schools, even here in the US is part of that process. (as are the laws we have been adopting as copied from the soviet union!)

The only real game in reality is dynasty. Families are the only units that have a higher cohesion that can oppose state power. while the schools can teach one thing, the state can say another… children believe their parents more than anyone else.

The concept is easy. Keep the public miserable and hopping from one foot to another. men will not and cant fight for whats right if their home life is in shambles, and they have nothing to fight for.


But kim, you are so used to the feminsits, that you don’t know that they are die hard communists. The leaders are VERY heavily communist.

One only needs to see some of the films of congressional testimony about the commitern and commiform, and such to find out that they ordered amercian feminism

What makes you wonder, is how come there is no feminism in russia, china, or other communist states? Easy. Communisms power dialectic has to divide an conquer. Since the enemy of the state is the people the people have to be divided.

Using the push pop thing in the west, they held men down so that women go forward… now women are a permanent and statist force – the nanny state. but now men and women in the west cant even have stable relationships. You cant put out a fire in your home if your too busy fighint your mate/enemy on the front lawn.

Look at old war movies… what were the guys fighting for? Apple pie, or their families and such? go on mens sites right now, and you can read how the men are asking for a revolution and talking about how when it comes they will sit and watch and see what the ladies do… that’s how the current young generation writes.

So the reason domestic issues are not a concern in russia is because the way they have been made a concern in the west was to destroy the west.

After all, since the feminist sexuial revoluition and the harridens in control whats been happening?

Well, we have abandoned the constitution faster and faster each year
The children are no longer being taught the wisdom of the past.
Crime is high because no one is home during the day
Family costs are higher as product costs are higher as there is no one to select better
Children raised under mothers only tend to be sociopathic and do really bad (just read the stats. Not having a birth father (step fathers are not equivalent), is the single largest indicator for droping out, crime, poor school, cviolence, early pregnancy, and more.)

Biologically a girl raised witout her blood father in the house matures faster. Her first menses can come on earlier. If there is a strange man in the house and no father the onset is even earlier. This stunts her education and potential

The division of labor at home 50/50 is a math trick that causes families to fail as that division devastates comparative advantave of our uniqueness!!!!

If you divide work 50/50, then you can never do better than the mean of both peoples ability! think of it this way.. the feminists would have a man who is a concert musician, and a woman who is a surgeon, split their work 50 50. so she plays music awfully, and he does well.. and the musician that does 50 percent of surgeries does how good? the couple are not able to be whatever they want that works better (especially if they are under classic lines), because of this game. meanwhile, eventually the woman who is hypergamous, divorces the husband because their success isn’t what It should be based on their abilities, but they dot know why. so she feels she chose wrong, and so she graps the gold (80+% of divorces are started by the women, men lose custody 95% of the time, and 50% of everyone goes through this with the state being deep in their lives)./

Gone is his ability to invest and build companies.. or hers for that matter. the minute they subscribe to this, and it works they go from being independent productive people, to state charges..

The reason that they don’t allow this is that they wont drink the poision they gave us!!!!!!!! but we gulp it down…

That’s why both countries populations are diving.. and why we are missing the 45 million children and their children aborted in the past 40 years.

All the most capable familes are under siege… after all.. read history.. families will pitch together and invest in each other, and not need banks. I know this since my wife is Chinese. But my family is old country and they are or used to be like this too. the Chinese understand dynasty.



So… rather than let the poision help destroy them, they just keep it on slow roll… that way, the men will fight if something happens… while in the west, they are not wiling to die for a bunch of people that act this way! don’t believe me, ask some guys.

The laws are now so stacked against them, that they don’t care. why should they fight? What for? For a nanny state that hates them bevacuse they are male? For a state and such that takes their children away and makes sure all are destitute unless very wealthy. How about making them responsible for the kids and not have any say in how they are REARED (not raised).



And just so someone doesn’t argue the point as to feminisms communist goals.

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

“Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behavior and lowers corruption.” -- Hillary Clinton


From another blogger introduction and link…
Here is an interesting discussion on a dating forum that I came across from my blog-stats page in which the Marriage Strike and Misandry is being discussed. It is an interesting read (this is only one page out of 50 in the thread), and I must say - the men seem to be doing pretty well at defending themselves and they seem to know their shit!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Kgfpz1UlS-sJ:forums.plentyoffish.com/4993414datingPostpage23.aspx+%22entitlement+princesses%22+%22misandry%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1




So its real easy to see how and why they don’t do anythinhg about it. prols are animals to them… who cares what animals do to each other… we only care that they produce more prols.

In the US it a bit different… the idea is to put millstones on everyone so they stiop moving and producing. Seems like its working.

Now wait till someone causes a crash… everyones disillusionment goes over the top, and the men don’t sign up to defend their broken homes, and broken families that don’t want them. then someone will say.. I will save you…

And the rest will be gloriously recorded while the steps to get there, will be Stalinized and revisionised to appear that this was the way it always was.


so they are stuck... even in the west, there were already laws on the books against hitting otehr people. from hamurabies code there were laws to protect women.. feminism was and is a sham.. it was designed to deflate the only power that could stop communism.

western family and cultural cohesian with such good sociali grease that there was a huge amount of productivity frmo honesty...

now without women at home, and men at ahome, the sins are the virtues, and soon everyone will be an orphan.

and what is an orphan?

well in todays world they are a child of the state.

isnt that how they would like it?

kids growing up in such a place will blame "family" for the problem and not blame the person. they will not look into the fact that women actually are more violent to their mates (and in a society that doestn limit things, they end up getting hit. doesnt make it right in any way shape or form, but it does instigate things. the way the west now looks at it is that nothing should happen no matter what a woman does. now isnt that a recipe for this kind of thing? just as convincing young women to dress like hookers and not care where they go, will lead to rapes. yes its wrong, but so is expecting the world to be perfect when its not)

its just one big mess... and the russians do not want to hacve to deal with another power base!!! they also, as i have said, dont drink the poison they offer others. (would you?)

artfldgr is such a funny critter.

He hates Russia, but wants the West to be like Russia (at least in this respect), whereas in fact Russia is not actually the way he imagines it to be in reality.

Carry on with the comedy dear.

Stalker, that was so uninformative and just nasty...

i dont hate russia, i hate communists...(you know, the people that claim to help but tend to kill)

and how do i want the west to be like russia? i want the west to be more like it was 40 or more years ago..

ever look at a painting by george seurat? you would think it was a fantasy painting. http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~kyunghun/seurat.jpg well its not..

one only has to watch old movies to understand how things were... while not perfect, they wouldnt have been popular if they didnt reflect many aspects of the world at the time they are shown.

as far as how i imagine it to be?

well, my family is all dead there.. grandad was eviscerated... my uncle spent years in the gulag.. other family members lost everything and fled..

kim has been nice to put up the list i provided of over 200 journalists murdered in less than 10 years...

we have posted things that are WORSE than what the US has done, but apologists like you ignore that beacuse you ahve an agenda. even if its only the agenda of a useful idiot (what lennin referred to people like you!!!).

stalker i can tell your a woman, since men dont tend to use dear at the end of their pejoratives.

sicne you couldnt address and push off my facts.. the best you can do is play gossip games. (if your not a woman, i suspect that your pretty far along on the neuter plan of our current metrosexual, gender bending system)


i think that i mistakenly left out a distinction.

and that i am not againt farness across the board and merit.. which is why i dont see modern feminism as being good... women dont need that special interest group of hariddens that hate men and set standards.

most women like men.. most men like women.. we want to have families and live our lives left alone.

that is one thing that is IMPOSSIBLE in a socialist state.

totally impossible..


right now they were arguing things in the news that would put police even more in your private life and break up families... but no one can counter the female leftist communist leaders because politics is not about merit any more but about image.

and when it comes to image, name calling liek you just did "dear", is their thing..

they are not better leaders, more honest, etc.. they are sneaker, more devious, and such since they are weaker physcially.. they are also taking advantage of some really strong biological skewings.

however, if you care to look you can find that things are not good.

socialism means that they will take what you own, and distribute itto someont that can be better off the less that they can do.

each according to their needs..

feminists are looking for the stae to fund their lives and sit polie in their lives to be protectors. except that when the stae does this, you get a prison.

well thats what we are getting..

and in about 10 years your going to hear the howl as the huge number of women walk off the game table though self immolation of their genetic legacies.

or are you sayign all those people arent worth having around anyway?

i think they are..

how many great people died out of the quarter billion murdered by socialism and its child doctrines and variations?



you dont know your history... in fact, you dont even know what the peopel you support actually say in their writings.

this is like people hearing a news report on what gorbachev said and never hearing or reading the speech in which he referres to eu as the eu soviet.

you, like most socialists, have selective hearing and simplefied thoughts. no nuance...

you can see it in how you debate..

if i was to sink to your low level

low because i can get a 4 year old to argue exactly like you. reading your comment was much like listening to pee wee rank "i know you are but what am i".

since your actually incapable of self control and cogent thought i will answer you correctly.

nyah nyah... thrfffffppppp!

sticks and stonse will break my bones but the opinions of prols will never hurt me...

did wittle artful hurt stalkers feelings with his big bad words that are meant to oppress you with his intelligence over yours?

dont cry... in a few hours you will forget and the haze will lower and you will be happy playing with your belly button again.

have a nice day!

oh.. forgot to put up

http://www.marxists.org/archive/serge/1930/year-one/ch11.htm

The Soviets instituted compulsory labour for the bourgeoisie in the form of public-service brigades. This service was, as it turned out, most successfully evaded. In late September no more than 400 fit ex-bourgeois could be found in Petrograd for `rearguard labour'. Requisitions of warm clothing were made, with each bourgeois compelled to hand in one warm suit.

The legal recognition of free union between the sexes, the easing of divorce, the legalization of abortion, the complete emancipation of women, the ending of the authority of heads of families and of religious sanctions : these did not produce any real weakening of family ties. This destruction of old impediments made private life simpler and healthier, and rarely provoked any crises. In Petrograd and Moscow, criminality (as strictly defined) was down to a peace-time level. Prostitution never disappeared completely, but the disappearance of the rich classes who were its clients reduced it to relative insignificance.




can anyone honestly say that these things put in the first years have resulted in a large healthy populatio that can renew itself, and be productive?

anyone care to check out the populations in the countries that have accepted this doctrine?

by the way.. abortion alone lowered the US population by 40 million.. and now the ones left will not afford to pay fot the elderly socialist programs.


http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0324roberts.html

Men generally don't like to complain. A man will endure ridicule and abuse, and then move on with his life. But abuse him once too often, and he will vote with his feet.

And one day, men woke up to the fact that marriage was a losing proposition. The math was hard to refute: Half of all marriages wind up in divorce. In 85% of cases, mothers gained custody of the children. And sometimes, bitter ex-wives would try to turn the children against their father, what psychologists call Parental Alienation Syndrome.

In the face of such dismal odds, men decided to go on a Marriage Strike. By the millions, men opted to remain single. In 1990 the U.S. marriage rate was 9.8 [per 1000]. By 1998 it had plummeted to 7.4. That's a huge drop in eight short years. And women became desperate.

So for men, the political was indeed personal.

http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2002.htm
The State of Our Unions

The Social Health of Marriage in America / 2002 / Why Men Won't Commit


and here is a paragraph:

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

That chilling commentary comes from fem-socialist Simone de Beauvoir, in her famous 1974 interview in The Saturday Review.

So what happens when the radical feminist agenda becomes the law of the land?

That is not a mere hypothetical question. It can be answered by turning the pages of history back to the tragic early days of Soviet Russia.

When Lenin’s Bolsheviks seized the levers of power in 1917, Lenin faced the daunting challenge of jump-starting agricultural and industrial production. So he cast his eye on a vast, untapped workforce: peasant women.

Parroting the Marxist line on female oppression (www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html ), Lenin incited women to action at the First All Russia Congress of Working Women: “The status of women up to now has been compared to that of a slave; women have been tied to the home, and only socialism can save them from this.” (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/nov/19.htm )

In short order, Lenin pushed through laws assuring women equal pay for equal work and the right to hold property.

But as Simone de Beauvoir pointed out, many women would be tempted to go back to the old ways to tend to hearth and home. So the traditional family would need to be abolished. Lenin understood that fact, as well.

So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries, and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce simplified (www.newyouth.com/archives/theory/women/women_in_soviet_union.asp )

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that “in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law.” (www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/mar/04.htm )

But Lenin’s dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties (www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm ).

Not surprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and the factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history (www.rand.org/publications/CF/CF124/CF124.chap2.html#history .

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common thieves or prostitutes (http://texts.cdlib.org/dynaxml/servlet/dynaXML?docId=ft700007p9&chunk.id=ch4 ).

In his recent book Perestroika, Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: “We have discovered that many of our problems -- in children’s and young people’s behavior, in our morals, culture and in production -- are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.”

Fem-socialists, hell-bent on achieving a genderless society, are now scheming to repeat the same disastrous experiment in Western society. Naturally, they are hoping that you not hear the story of family destruction in Soviet Russia.

But the truth is there, waiting to be grasped by anyone who cares to see.





In the 1840s, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: “What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property...The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production.”

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression:

“The overthrow of mother right was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”

These claims are preposterous.

If women were more oppressed than men, then women’s lifespans would have been shorter. But the reverse was true -- in the second half of the 1800s, men’s life expectancy in Russia and Europe was 2-3 years shorter than women’s (www.hsph.harvard.edu/hcpds/wpweb/97_01a.pdf ), partly due to their responsibilities as primary breadwinners.

And Engels’ claim that women had become a “mere instrument for the production of children” is patently absurd. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, female fertility had already begun to fall in Europe in the mid-1800s (www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtran.htm ).

So Engels’ assertion was ridiculous as it was specious.

And 156 years after publication of the Communist Manifesto, what is the verdict of history?

The simple fact is, over 100 million persons have been killed under regimes calling themselves Socialist. Ironically, almost all of the victims were members of the working class. Marx did not care about the proletariat, he only cared about his pipe dream of achieving a socialist utopia.

Likewise, it is questionable whether Marx really cared about helping women. Always mindful of the fact that women represented half of the population, he and his minions schemed to exploit their largely untapped labor.

Chairman Mao said it best: “Many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labor. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labor front.” (www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch31.htm )

Karl Marx also viewed women as effective agitators to overthrow capitalism. As he admitted in a 1868 letter, “major social transformations are impossible without ferment among the women.”

But if there are any lingering doubts about Karl Marx’s real attitudes towards women, just examine his personal life.

According to Joshua Muravchik’s brilliant book, Heaven on Earth, Marx disdained the responsibilities of a husband and father of three girls. He was inept in managing the household finances. He never even tried to get a job. Instead, he lived off of his inheritance and a monthly stipend from Engels.

Nonetheless, Marx did indulge in the bourgeoisie custom of hiring a household maid. Her name was Helene Demuth.

In 1851, Demuth bore an illegitimate son, Henry. Federick Engels soon admitted his paternity.

Lying on his deathbed in 1895, no longer able to speak, Engels took a chalk and slate in hand to reveal a well-guarded secret. The father of the bastard-son was Karl Marx himself.





i hope your laughing...

and if kim will graciously tolerate me a bit more:

Women's Birth-Right Under Attack by Fem-Socialists



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Socialist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, once made this cold-blooded remark, “The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it." And when asked about China’s policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard, former head of the NOW, admitted in a 1989 interview, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world."

So the disclosure of secret documents from the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), recently published in the federal Congressional Record (www.c-fam.org/pdfs/SecretProabortionInternationalLitigationStrategy.pdf ), only confirms our worst fears.

Fem-socialists have long believed that childbearing is the linchpin of female oppression. As Frederick Engels wrote, “the first expropriation of labor was that between the sexes, in the reproduction of the human species.” To the radical feminist mind, the solution to this exploitative arrangement is to prevent reproduction.

But women in free societies fiercely object to being told whether they can have children. So radical feminists have devised a variety of covert strategies to overcome these objections.

These tactics were outlined in a series of secret strategy meetings held this past Fall. Copies of these 3 memos and other reports were recently obtained by the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

Most troubling is how the memos reveal the close working relationships among the CRR, the ACLU, and a variety of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that work with the United Nations. The word “conspiracy” certainly comes to mind.

The memos show how the United Nations has been co-opted to support the abortion crusade. One document provides a laundry list of the UN-backed treaties -- including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) -- that are being used as a platform to strengthen abortion services.

One document recounts how the International Women’s Health Coalition has focused on “inserting a gender perspective into international policies and agreements.”

The documents provide many other examples of the subversive feminist-socialist agenda:

1. One memo claims that treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantee women’s right to “reproductive health,” which is a well-known code phrase for “abortion on demand.” Clearly, there is something frightening about claiming a treaty designed to protect human rights provides the legal justification for the elimination of life.

The memo also admits the deceptive nature of the pro-abortion lobby: “there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition.”

2. A second memo specifically targets under-age girls. The CRR advocates provision of reproductive health services for girls without parental knowledge or consent, and admits this “has always been one of our priority areas.”

3. One secret planning document admits the existence of “hostile majorities” in most states, so the “protection of the judiciary” will be needed to thwart the will of the people.

4. One paper outlines recommendations from the CRR directors. One unnamed director ordered that CRR programs be “ruthlessly prioritized.” Another admonished, “We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier.”

The objective of the abortion advocates is not to protect women’s human rights. Rather, as revealed by the comments of Margaret Sanger and Molly Yard, their ultimate goal is to progressively restrict women’s reproductive choices, that is to take away their birth-right.

In entering these documents into the Congressional Register, representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey commented, “It is especially important that policy makers know, and more fully understand, the deceptive practices being employed by the abortion lobby...These papers reveal a Trojan Horse of deceit.”

Indeed.






do note that i have provided links and have backed up everything i have said..

this is not a comedy, this is a trajedy. (or in case you havent noticed, the ones following the program and offing their lines are the ones who are smarter and have more and can contribute more to the wellbeing of everyone rather than being a parasitical drain because thats better than work with merit)