QUOTE: “Feminism is a problem with a built-in cure: it kills itself.”

This is true. And perhaps the Amanda-Marcotte-feminists of the world are just Useful Idiots… but Hillary Clinton sure isn’t as dumb as Amanda Marcotte. Hillary Clinton exported feminism globally when she was First Lady, and now she’s back in the halls of power, promoting it globally again.

Marxists understand the inherent problem with their socialist ideologies. They know socialism weakens the state until it either gets conquered or gets absorbed by a superior competing system.

So, the only way to stop being overtaken by such societies, is to have only one society – so there is no competition. This way, they can run their global state at 50% capacity, or 30% capacity, or whatever, because it simply won’t matter. Who are we gonna compete with? The Martians? Once this is in place, the real social engineering can begin. Both Marxists and Feminists want to create a Utopia by evolving people into a new form of human – and using state force to do so.

“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.” — Karl Marx

“[After Communism succeeds] …then, there will come a peace across the earth.” — Josef Stalin

This is why Marxist theory demands that once a global structure is in place above the level of the “state,” they will use socialism to collapse all the states around the world. (This was supposed to happen during WWI, but didn’t, thus the creation of Cultural Marxism). Once that happens, things will “pop up” to the next level, which will be a global government operating as a Communist dictatorship, with no individual states below them.

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.” — V.I. Lenin

The world once looked like this (how we identify ourselves):

Individual –> Family –> Community –> Region/State/Province –> Nation –> World

If you destroy the family, the individual will “pop up” to identifying with the community, and if you destroy the community, they will “pop up” to their region and so on.

What they are after creating is a world that looks like this:

Individual –> World Government

One of the things they have been doing is called “trans-valuation.” (I believe the notion came from Neitzche as a way to discredit Christianity). What trans-valuation means is taking the “bottom” value and placing it on the top. You can see this done with homosexuality in our society, where the values of homosexuals (who have at best, neutral survival value to society) are placed above the values of heterosexuals who have positive survival value.

Feminism has done this in regards to men and women. The man should lead. The man has always led. The “hierarchy” works like this:

Men –> Women –> Children

Now, also, keep in mind that just because men are the “top” in the hierarchy, in terms of who is the most valuable humans, things work in the opposite direction. Children are preferred over women and women are preferred over men (we think it right for a mother to die saving a child, but not a child dying to save a mother).

What has happened with Marxist manipulations is we now have a society in which the hierarchy looks like this:

Women –> Men –> Children

The next step in transvalueing the family is to make it look like this:

Children –> Women –> Men

And how will this come about, you ask? All you have to do is give children more rights over their parents than their parents have over the children. This is exactly what feminism did with men and women, and the next step in destroying the family is putting children’s rights first. (Ahem! Hello shared-parenting advocates!) Don’t forget, it takes a village. Hillary Clinton’s thesis was on this very subject, where she compared children in families suffering abuses similar to the Indians living on the reserve. She claims that children’s rights are ignored in favour of parental rights. She recommends that a government bureaucracy ought to be created to ensure children’s rights separately from their parents.

And they are doing it globally, right now, with the United Nations’ CEDAW agreement. (Covenant to End Discrimination Against Women). The CEDAW has within it, the declared “Rights of the Child.” In it, you will find things like children having the “right” to choose their own religion and having the right to all forms of media/communication etc. etc.

The thing about these international treaties is they supercede national constitutions. If the CEDAW disagrees with the US Constitution, it is the CEDAW that wins. I believe there are only seven countries left in the world who have not signed it – the USA being the most notable hold-out, simply because Americans value their Constitution so much – with good reason.

Canada signed it several years back, and a few years ago, a father in Ontario got taken to court by his teenage daughter, funded by legal aid. The girl was using the internet in her bedroom to communicate with her friends and sneak out of the house in the middle of the night. The father found out and grounded her from the computer, taking it completely out of her room. Well, legal aid took the guy to court to show he had violated “The Rights of the Child” under the CEDAW Canada had signed, because by removing access to the computer, he had violated her right to freely use all forms of communication etc.

How can you run a family in such a way?

You can’t.

What are you going to do when you are a devout Catholic, but your 8 year old child comes home from a screwed-up school system that brainwashed him into becoming a Muslim or a Wiccan? Are you gonna drop him off at the church of Satan on your way to Mass? The CEDAW says you must.

Many shared-parenting advocates as well are talking about “the rights of the child.” It should make everyone stand up and take notice. What kind of rights are we talking about here?