The Abominable No-Man

In a moment of weakness at Christmas, I said Feminism was 90% scam and 10% honest feeble-mindedness. I said a retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality. Let's expand that point.

Feminists expect half the staff in the CBC to be women. They never object that half the taxi drivers should be women; or the media should be 1% Jewish, at most. Currently there are 100 vacancies in the Vancouver police force. If 5000 qualified men apply for those jobs, and 50 women: What's the betting all 50 women would get jobs, and 50 of the 5000 men? Do the math. 50:50. Equality. 100%=1%. Feminist mathematics.

The Sun Newspaper here in Vancouver went on strike in 1978 (if memory serves. It was over-shadowed by the brewery strike.) In retaliation, management employed hordes of female eunuchs as scabs. It was the most blatant use of black labour I have ever encountered. And as cover, management and the Feminists argued that women compose 50% of the population: So Why Not?

We need a clear rationale why Jews and Blacks should be proportionately represented in the CBC for example but not women or children. And a really strong case is needed, because men are programmed to yield to women, no matter how unreasonable.

Let's start with the obvious. A married black man, with a wife and kids to support, should be able to bump a single white girl out of some dumb govt job: the post office or LCB. There is a clear moral need for equality between racial groups in a society. Black men = white men. Black women = white women. Black children = white children. But it is absurd to suggest that black men should have parity with white children; or white women with white men.

It abominates me when Feminists argue that single white women should be preferred before married black men. Racist white males love that one! They would rather a good job go to a single white female than to a married black man. Feminism is music to the corporate ear.

There is a clear moral imperative for parity between racial groups in a society. Races are whole populations, whereas genders are parts of a population. Racial differences are to be eliminated: gender differences should be rationalised. In the Richmond fire dept for example (a big issue in Vancouver) there is every reason to expect more Chinese firemen (Richmond being heavily Chinese). But it is absurd to suggest half the firefighters should be female. And if not half, Why any? Equality for women in the workplace only means when a woman is the best 'man' available. That is all that was ever assented to. Equality does not mean that anything should be half female.

Employment masculinises remember. Universally, it tends to turn boys into men, but girls into 'female eunuchs', as they have been called. Frontline employment is good for men, but problematic for women. Athletic men are handsome studs, meaningful approximations to the male ideal. Athletic women are meaningless: The comparable ideal for women would be something like Marilyn Monroe, pregnant.

The whole point is the realisation of the potential in people, as individuals and populations. Racial and religious groups fully realised would achieve comparable distributions. If 1% of the country is Jewish, 1% of the media would be Jewish. If 5% of whites have degrees, 5% of blacks would have degrees. With men and women however, most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs; and most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs. That is the social ideal of maturity and partnership. The anti-social alternative, promoted by the corporate media, is a world of pre-sexual types in an arms-length relationship.

The central meaning of Equality remember is a world of private farms, each worked by a farmer and his wife, with little room for landowners and peons. In practical terms, we must choose between single-income couples, and working couples. Promoting the one means marginalising the other. Which is more important? Nice homes, or cheap labour? Stay focussed!

An Open Letter To Noam Chomsky

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? You really had it in for the New York Times in that lovely film of yours Manufacturing Consent. You held the NYT was the locus of a conspiracy to rig the agenda and subvert democracy. Which I thought excessive. But you know more about these things than I do. Mr Chomsky: Was the New York Times responsible for the Holocaust? in large measure.

Let's recap a few things. Possibly the most problematic event of the 20th Century was the American entry into the First World War, which altered the outcome of the war, necessitating a Second World War. The Holocaust was a prime result of that American intervention.

And there was a Jewish interest in America's entry into WW1. Specifically the Balfour Declaration, committing Britain and France to a Jewish homeland in Palestine, was worked out in 1916 and shown to Jewish leaders for feedback, but not published until 1917 after the American intervention. It is difficult not to see that as a bribe: You get America into the war, and we'll give you Israel.

There were other factors involved of course. But the war hysteria, that led to the American intervention in April 1917, was fanned by the eastern (Jewish) press; unlike the earlier Spanish-American war which was whipped up by the western (Hearst) press. Mr Chomsky: Did the New York Times play a leading role in suckering America into the First World War?

It was so obvious America was suckered into the current Iraq war at least partly in the Jewish interest. There were no weapons of mass destruction. A big part of that intelligence cock-up was due to Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, on whom the Americans rely for Middle-East intelligence. And something similar happened in the First World War.

All I know for sure is the media focus on the Second World War gets on my nerves. The Holocaust is not settling down as an historical event. There are pieces missing concerning Jewish guilt and responsibility. What were the million+ assimilated German Jews doing? The inventor of Zyklon-B was a Jew. The admiral of the Bismark was a Jew. The prime architect of the Holocaust, Himmler's right hand man, the head of the SS, the uber-Nazi who planned the death camps, the magnificent blond brute with the hips of a woman, Heydrich was a Jew. So many Jews dodged military service in WW1, in popular belief at least, the kaiser government ordered a review. (It's findings were never published. Thanx Amos Elon~The Pity Of It All~a lovely account of German Jewry to 1933.) The German Jews always disowned the ghetto Jews of eastern Europe, who bore the brunt of the Holocaust, while German Jewry came through the Hitler period relatively unscathed.

I would love to see an account of the Jewish-Germans under Hitler. There is so much guilt in the Jewish world today. They are not going to Israel as promised. Hundreds of thousands of Jews got out of Russia in the Brezhnev era saying they wanted to go to Israel~Which everyone respected!~but went to America instead. The Jews in the media are an outrage. And always the Holocaust is played to the last cent. I feel I must stand up to their bullying and manipulation. I hope you're not offended.

When Hitler floated the idea of resettling European Jewry in some gash part of the British Empire, western Canada or western Australia wherever, the Canadian govt did not offer Saskatchewan as a homeland. Even with the benefit of hindsight, we were not in the slightest obliged to offer Hans Island even, not even as a lease. If Jews couldn't help themselves, no power on earth could help them. Which may not be the whole story but it's a big part of it.

Over to you.