The Soviet Union as suspected matriarchy.

Welmar's site(an anti feminist "magazine") has a thread about Soviet Russia.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/24/life-in-the-nkvd/#comment-114985

Typically the anti statist obsessoids pipe up claiming that Soviet Russia is a matriarchy. They present "evidence" of "totalitarianism" and --to them-- that translates into so called "matriarchy." (In my matriarchy section --top right-- I talk about "this means therefore that" logic.)

I have posted numerous responses to the thread. All but one small one have been censored by that insufferable cowardly git welmar.

I post the  censored responses here...

=====================

This first one is my response to a litany of copied statements from early communist revolutionaries and breeding data from modern Scandinavia and Iceland.


SM October 26, 2011 at 21:02
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


Everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism –-you are not enlightening anyone by quoting pages from books and documents [eye roll].

I know far more about it than you: welmar simply keeps censoring my posts(3 now) to quash my supposed antisemitism.

(Again, everyone knows that early communism’s goal is liberalism and feminism. But that begs a question: why does american capitalist democracy fight the wars that put communism in power over countries? And two: why did the west allow the “communist fellow travelers” to infiltrate and take over american media, “civil rights” pressure groups(race and gender demagogues), law and academia if capitalist democracy is a system that prevents matriarchy?)

And _everyone knows_ that non Russian countries after WW II –eg Iceland, Sweden etc–that are “socialists democracies” [ie capitalist democracy liberal-states] are way liberal.

That doesn’t AT ALL demonstrate that Russia (or china etc) _turned out_ to be more to the left (on race and gender issues) than the west did.

You have a western/american anti government cold-war obsession and that’s what it all comes down to. You are not looking at reality; you are looking at propaganda and pages of old books which do not denote reality accurately.

Showing –-in your copied documents-– that a country has state sponsored chivalry doesn’t mean that that country is more of a matriarchy than ours with our conventional/traditional(non govt based) chivalry for dames --especially since our conventional chivalry has long since been codified/institutionalized into law anyhow –right under the nose of the capitalist democracy[eyeroll]. It simply demonstrates that other countries have a “state”.

That is your real sticking point and all the matriarchy vs patriarchy stuff is just mis defining of terms motivated by your american anti statism.

(Note that Christianity demands largess towards the poor, weak and feminine too.)

And while you didn’t post this next stuff explicitly it is important to cut you off at the pass before you regurgitate out more pages from more decades old books…

Capitalism beats communism at creating more stuff(tm), true. Again _well known._ BUT THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF MATRIARCHY VS PATRIARCHY.

Also putting men in gulags, and having spys vs spy shenanigans is not the definition of matriarchy and patriarchy. I don’t care if life was harder for men in the soviet system than western democracy. That is not the definition of matriarchy vs patriarchy. Life is harder for men in the Amish system too.

And a novelist (gorky) can “acknowledge” what ever he wants in the 30s. It tells us nothing at all.

——------------

And to "Anonymous Reader"…

1) – Sticking point. East Germany was an occupied zone of hated enemies. That must be kept in mind when pointing to it as example of Russian communism (no less Chinese et al communism).

2) None of that spy vs spy /stark winterscape-living scene is germane to matriarchy/ patriarchy definitions.

You are obsessed with cold war western propaganda that has blinded you. It is some kind of clinging to masculinity through being good western patriots (and the anti state zealotry).

Again…
Nobody denies that the red revolution –starting in 1850– was liberal demagoguery (matriarchy sophistry included).

BUT after the MILITARY COUP to achieve it in Russia and the patriotism or death of the WWII period, the soviets had done away with those crackpots.

Somehow you missed that trend.

—————

Nobody is denying matriarchy. I am saying that you mis-defined it.

I define it again:

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break–or has something called “growth”.

Or whether there are spies in occupied zones ratting each other out (if that is even true), with bleak winterscape backdrops.

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened and beaten. Males –for biological reasons– will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

_The definition is in part ‘are the females enhareming males’; polyandry or polygyny? Who’s racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking._

——–
And finally, again, if liberal communism is so odorus to you, stop fighting wars to put america into power everywhere. America –by your ilks own testimony–was infiltrated and subverted by “communists” in the early and mid 20th century through their control of media,”civil rights” activism, academia and law. That cabal there defined the american value set (affirmative action, homo politics, feminism, immigration, race politics, etc) not some half baked notions about apple pie, frontiersmen-ship and individualism from the sticks.




====================
SM October 25, 2011 at 20:09

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

PeterTheGreat, et al, you understand that the west has long since been taken over by these, ahem, infiltrating "communists" right? That most western social patterns were and are created by the western media and civil rights groups which are the, ahem, "communists"?

If capitalism and or democracy is good at preventing the "communist way" than how come it let it take over without a fight in the west?

How come capitalism fought and still fights to put western style media, civil rights groups and "values"(which are media and pressure group created) in to power over other countries?

When is capitalist democracy going to fight the, wink wink nudge nudge, "communists" who have long since migrated into and infiltrated most american institutions such as media, law, academia, politics and-- hypocritically-- the Hamptons and Californian hills and coastlines?


Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

----------------------------- 

SM October 25, 2011 at 15:14
   

PeterTheGreat October 25, 2011 at 10:03

    SM @
    “From the review by WFPrice:

    “there was no matriarchy in the Soviet Union. Feminism played no part in Soviet power politics, and it appears that nobody took it seriously in any event. “”


       [PeterTGreat:] As I stated, feminism was the defacto family state, even if the Soviet State itself was primarily male, due to the loss of so many men to liquidation and gulag imprisonment.

        feminism was part of the Bolshevik program, but rescinded in the Soviet Union BUT NOT OUTSIDE OF IT. It remained a part of the Communist/Bolshevik program to undermine other States – which it has done in much of the West.

''''''''''''''''''''''

I understand very well that the migrant jew liberals--what you call "communists", the so called "fellow travelers" and "red diapers"-- are feminist activists (along with other forms of revolutionary activism). (I also understand that liberal agitation is, in part, a tactic by them--the migrant liberals-- to destabilize the host cultures cohesiveness. [The other part is it might be unwitting that it is their tactic to destabilize --jews might just be more liberal by their natures. ...Bio natures _selected_ by a history of migration and expulsion.])

I understand that they first took over media and law in Manhattan and then NY state in the early 20th century and then spread.

I understand that they are the backbone of most liberal revolutionary movements, including feminism, "Civil liberty unions", academic professoria and both lawyers of defense (with extremist cockeyed sophist arguments) and now, hypocritically, prosecution. Hypocrisy because the old civil liberty defense arguments they use to make demonstrated that relativist prejudice is inherently rife in state run and social institutions. ...But now as men are railroaded its cricket silence. (Also silence by the "Civil liberty unions" and academic professoria as men are demonized by society at large.)

I understand that the "labor protectionist" wing of the fellow travelers is hypocrisy: Once in power over a host culture's nodes of influence the 'communists' (ie jew liberal activist types) advocate and impose things which are in visceral opposition to host culture laborites (though laborites are too stupid --and thus easily distracted-- inherently to get that).

But that does not demonstrate that the communist states (most of which are actually non-white nationalist movements rallied around expelling Euro colonizers: eg cuba, vietnam even china to certain degree) are actually more matriarchal than western democracy turned out to be.

1) If jew liberal philosophy --so called communism-- is so odorous to you STOP FIGHTING THE WARS TO STRENGTHEN IT. Every time america fights another country it is on behalf of those that have defined america for a century. The jewish media and pressure groups ("civil rights" umbrella) have been that defining force for a good 50 to 75 years; more in certain urban areas (more important than rural areas).

The definition of matriarchy is not whether or not a country offers a tax break--or has something called "growth".

Nor is it whether or not men are burdened. Males --for biological reasons-- will always have more burden than females until if and when gender is eliminated.

The definition is in part 'are the females enhareming males'; polyandry or polygyny? Who's racking up lovers? And how easy it for the respective genders to achieve that racking.


///////////////////////////////
================
To welmar:

GROW A PAIR.