Tag: state control

The Truth About Feminism: Destroying the concept of the American family through the currency of sex

At least we are getting to the truth of the matter of communism, finally, after decades of debate.  Communism was never a political ideology of fairness, but it was a military strategy by globalists who sought to weaponize disenfranchisement to topple governments into one world rule.  It has been going on all over the world for the last century in abundance, which is the theme of the new book by Jack Posobiec called Unhumans.  Of course, I recommend the book; it’s a good read and very educational.  There wasn’t much new for me because I have studied this subject extensively over the years.  But I think most people who haven’t been thinking about communism much will be shocked.  I’m the one who, early in my life, said that communists built our public education system for communism, and it has taken everyone three decades to catch up.  The fact isn’t any truer now than it has been.  All that has changed is that people are finally admitting to it.  And that is the same thing regarding feminism, all aspects of it, which I was reminded of while reading Jack’s book recently.  What communists do is they find some topic of contention, such as the right to vote or the ability to own property as the gateway to undermine it completely in social structure.   Such as, with women’s rights, the goal for communists was never to free women or enslaved people but to weaponize them in a way that topples the social structure of the nation they wished to bring down.  Communists don’t fight with troops; they fight by corrupting ideas and destroying society.  That was what they had in mind when they designed feminism.  And their target was the American family home-to-home.  Why would communists ever need a military force when they could destroy every family door to door without firing a shot?  Don’t forget, China is a communist state that is the model for all globalism.  They don’t call it out by name in America.  But that’s what we have been dealing with.

And to the point of feminism and women’s rights, we need to understand Karl Marx himself when he proposed the role of women in society, which was reflected in the free love hippie movement in America and even in every music concert we see where women show their breasts to the mass crowd in rebellion to the standard norm.  Those are communist influences that have migrated into our thought process starting in the mid-1850s.  And it was all purposeful poisoning meant to destroy our nation, our borders, and our sense of self.  So that a global, centralized government could rule us.  And back to the point of Karl Marx, who started this process by spending countless hours at the British Museum writing his books on communism, his wife and children rotted away in poverty at home.  I would know that, because I visited the spots in London where Marx did his work for my perspective on the matter, to put myself in his shoes so I could understand what he was thinking and why.  As a lazy person, Marx hated people who did work, which was much of the fuel behind his concept of abolishing private property and, therefore, the value of nations themselves.  And like every pervert male who is tired of their wife and kids, he built an ideology of justification to cheat on them with other women.  So, masking carefully his thoughts on private property was the desire to sleep with other women outside of his marriage, which was a goal of the communist movement. 

For those new to the class, communism is a term from The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and others.  As I said, China is the kind of communism that the world and financial markets have been proposing to the rest of us presently.  When discussing Marxism, we discuss various degrees of socialism and communism.  The president of Mexico is a socialist.  So is the president of Canada.  They just had elections in Venezuela, and that guy, Moduro, is a socialist.  So is the new president of Brazil.  Socialism and communism are all over Europe, most represented by the Labour Party in England.  Communism has spread all over Africa, and when you hear about anything Palestinian behind their movement, it’s all about Marxism.  So we’re not talking about speculation here; it’s a reality and poison behind our times.  In America, communism is represented by the Democrat Party.  They changed the name to avoid the historical stigma and make it so Americans won’t reject it at the door.  Feminism was proposed to erode the Christian institution of marriage.  Marx proposed a community of women who would serve male needs without any ownership of the sexual privilege of a woman to a man.  The proposal of this community of women was masked as a means to free women, but the truth was to destroy value so that a pretty woman could no longer encourage an aggressive man to achieve more in the world through sexual rights because everyone would have a right to the same sexual privileges.  You can see every day what a mess this concept has brought to our society.  But it was by design and was a military action against our nation disguised as free rights when the truth was tyranny and social collapse. 

By taking all women, pretty and not pretty, and taking away their powers of sexual currency, for instance, a beautiful woman wouldn’t be able to drive successful men to work hard and marry them over the advantages of not-so-pretty women, which would take away the incentive to be a capitalist.  In frustration, the state would gain control of production because the main motivating factors of sex would be removed from society. After all, all men, lazy and hard-working, attractive and ugly, wealthy or not, would have access to the same women as everyone else.  That was the purpose of feminism.  Not to free women, but to take away any advantages they might have had in life by marrying men who might beat other men in capital markets for the exclusivity rights to sex with a woman.  In so doing, the idea of creating a family was destroyed, allowing for complete devotion to the state, which is common worldwide, except in the United States.  So, for all those feminists out there, that is the history of your movement, and it was never about freeing people from men.  But in destroying the structure of a family to serve centralized authorities.  And for all the ugly and lazy men out there who suddenly would have easy access to sex with anybody anywhere, anytime, the motivations for success in life were taken away for communist strategies.  And it’s been going on since the late 1840s and into the 1850s, ahead of the American Civil War.  It grew as a movement after Reconstruction and the Civil War, as usually happens after most wars and the chaos that follows.  It was introduced as a forward-thinking concept, but the goal was destruction, which is what we see happening today.  If anybody needs a reminder or more facts, I suggest starting with Jack’s book, Unhumans.  It’s an excellent, well-researched book, and it’s the truth behind most of our global misery today.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Ron Howard and Klaus Schwab Attack Boeing: A new Netflix documentary exploits people to attempt to kill American capitalism

With all the talk against Boeing, the great American airline manufacturer that the liberal Ron Howard directed hit piece tried to utilize from the high moral ground, the effort has one central message. The world needs to convert its values from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism the way the Desecrators of Davos view it. The new Netflix documentary that is now streaming that tells a story of Boeing’s 737 MAX safety concerns is all about painting Boeing as a company that fell from grace due to its greed in trying to stay competitive with the Airbus A320 and that its focus on short term profits was what killed hundreds of people in two crashes that occurred in the new plane, one in Indonesia, and another in Ethiopia. The Hollywood hit piece comes at the problem from a political point of view. It attempts to exploit the deaths of innocent people in a way that sells the Klaus Schwab view of the world from the Desecrators of Davos and not the get it done mentality of American manufacturing. It’s really a disgusting movie made by people attempting to apply Covid safety rules to the stock value of Boeing and shove them into the woke world of progressive logic as only radical leftists understand them. A lot is going on in what went on with the Boeing 737 MAX and the world of safety surrounding it. But remember what I say all the time, the rules of the world are made by the losers, meaning, those who can’t compete with the good in the world make rules for themselves to penalize the best and make them more equal to the lazy, the timid, and the socially awkward. 

Boeing and Airbus have a problem when it comes to making plans for a newly created for a smaler world where air travel to even far-flung places in the world is suddenly possible, in a relatively short period. This has pushed all these plane manufacturers to massively automate these fancy new planes in ways that wouldn’t even be conceivable a few years ago. Traditionally, a company like Boeing almost exclusively had pilots flying their planes from military backgrounds. Their pilots had been flying planes for decades in the military dime, so when there were continuous improvement opportunities, pilot feedback with the engineering staff allowed for adjustments as a plane matured in a program. But these days, with all these new planes entering the market, the pilots from places like Indonesia and Ethiopia are coming from backgrounds where flying planes weren’t a reality. So the training of new pilots has to be significantly simplified, and every possible contingency needs to be worked out that takes away the possibility of pilot error. That is how the anti-stall system was put on these new MAX jets from Boeing so that new pilots without the benefit of years of training could fly these planes much easier. In the case of Boeing, their anti-stall system malfunctioned, which contributed to the crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. When sensors on the plane detected a stall condition during flight, the system took over the pitch from the pilots and pushed the nose down. The pilots, unsure how to deal with that condition, fought the flight controls, but the planes nose-dived from the air into a crash because of all the robust automation they didn’t know how to override. It’s kind of ridiculous that their expert for this film to establish moral character as if he spoke for all pilots is a guy who crashed his plane in New York.

The real problem was automating the flight systems due to pilot training limits. In the great race between Airbus and Boeing between these new fuel-efficient planes, Airbus has had better luck at adopting their aircraft to the needs of automation. Boeing, used to a significant relationship between pilots and engineers built on American military experience, had engineered some single-point failures that have proven to be costly. It certainly wasn’t on purpose. But the point of the Ron Howard documentary wasn’t to see the situation as an accident in a rapidly changing marketplace, but an intentional killing of innocent people because Boeing was too interested in profits. And that if only we had a society that didn’t worry about shareholder value as much as they do, those people would still be alive. The movie written in the way that all communists think assumes that if there were more employees in the labor union at Boeing, that if there were more quality inspectors, and if Boeing had been willing to ground the MAX jet instead of competing with Airbus for market share, that all those lives would still be with us. The assumption was that Boeing killed those people in their airplanes because they were greedy and only cared about their company’s stock value. The other assumption which wasn’t said but was heavily implied was that in a world of stakeholder capitalism, which is essentially state-controlled communism where a strong central authority runs everything, lives would be saved, and everyone would live happily ever after. 

Even more than that, this movie, Downfall: The Case Against Boeing, is an attack on great American industry and a swipe at the traditionally get it done mentality of enterprise. As liberals who do everything in life behind the safety blanket of armchair quarterbacking, they never plan to take responsibility for anything, as all liberals are prone to do. They are the first to preach about the morality of something, but when their side is guilty of sex trafficking, or drug abuse, they point to institutional failure and not themselves. In the case of Boeing, they want to bring down the concept of the CEO with large salaries and to replace them with state central control, to federalize big companies like Boeing so that safety can be imposed, and the temptations to play with people’s lives will be averted. They don’t tell you that their solution to the problem is not to build the planes. They plan to let the market rot and to use safety to hide the incompetence of all involved. To use rules and regulations to protect the inefficient from any expectation that might come from competition. To bend the world to the limits of the slow, the not very smart, and the timid. Boeing was a company built on risk, on American innovation, and when you didn’t get it right the first time, horse sense allowed you to survive to the next day, and everyone worked together to make things better. But when dealing with a global enterprise, which is what aviation is these days, we deal with people from all kinds of backgrounds. And the challenge is to simplify everything for them by making everything more complicated at the end of the system. And when you don’t figure everything out the first time, bad things can happen. Yet instead of understanding that, Ron Howard and the gang are more interested in introducing the Klaus Schwab view of the world, removing shareholder capitalism from consideration and replacing it with stakeholder capitalism. Because when the state controls Boeing, as liberals plan to impose on them, there won’t be any expectation of profits from a Boeing stock. Instead, the value will be that people are working, subsidized by the state, of course, and that safety will be first, even if that means not building and delivering the planes to the market. To the socialists and communists of the world, the market can wait. After all, safety is the most important thing, even if that means that the rest of the world has to slow down to those limits and that they will learn to like it. Whenever a lefty suggests that Americans do things too fast and too recklessly, that is what they are really after. In the case of American business, it should make us all sick to our core because it’s not just an assault on a great American company, but an assault on us all and the greatest country on earth and their core beliefs. 

Rich Hoffman

Click to buy The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business