Gay
Marriage Rights
Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Everyone should have equal rights to have their monogamous-only relationships regulated by the state and, in the event that they're not deliriously happy with that set-up; they should have equal rights to be put through the Inquisition of the divorce courts and generate more revenues for the System.
The same people who pushed the formulation of "Feminism" (Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA and Aaron Russo said shortly before he died that one of the Rockefellers told him they were behind the "Feminist movement) in order to get women into the working world and have children totally vulnerable to the system from infancy, are now running this "progressive" idea.
Emma Goldman, a woman so essentially free that women of today can't hold a candle to her, warned women not to vote saying: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." She knew women were being opted into the voting System because outside of it, they represented a real threat to the System.
Helen Keller had this to say about the vote in 1911:
"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
Goldman and Keller wanted real emancipation for Humanity. They knew that being co-opted into the System was no advance at all.
Getting women to demand the vote instead of working to change the System integrally worked so well, they did it again with "Feminism". Now they're working the same proven-effective program to get people to get behind gay marriage. They *want* gays to marry and they want it badly - lots of control and revenues.
These are all mechanisms to induct potential dissidents into the System.
If you want to see what real progressive about relationships ideas look like, I would recommend the discussion in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Everyone should have equal rights to have their monogamous-only relationships regulated by the state and, in the event that they're not deliriously happy with that set-up; they should have equal rights to be put through the Inquisition of the divorce courts and generate more revenues for the System.
The same people who pushed the formulation of "Feminism" (Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA and Aaron Russo said shortly before he died that one of the Rockefellers told him they were behind the "Feminist movement) in order to get women into the working world and have children totally vulnerable to the system from infancy, are now running this "progressive" idea.
Emma Goldman, a woman so essentially free that women of today can't hold a candle to her, warned women not to vote saying: "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." She knew women were being opted into the voting System because outside of it, they represented a real threat to the System.
Helen Keller had this to say about the vote in 1911:
"Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
Goldman and Keller wanted real emancipation for Humanity. They knew that being co-opted into the System was no advance at all.
Getting women to demand the vote instead of working to change the System integrally worked so well, they did it again with "Feminism". Now they're working the same proven-effective program to get people to get behind gay marriage. They *want* gays to marry and they want it badly - lots of control and revenues.
These are all mechanisms to induct potential dissidents into the System.
If you want to see what real progressive about relationships ideas look like, I would recommend the discussion in this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com
