capitalism,patriarchy,eugenics ,forced birth ,it is all part of a bigger lie.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So many people are still are imprisoned by an anti human socio-economic-patriarchical family co-dependancy mind trap system that undermines their mental health and maintains thier misery.



What concerns me is that economists, sociologists, public policy experts, and ecologists seem to have overlooked one of the most pressing issues of our time: the mutual exclusivity between capitalism and overpopulation.

Capitalism replaced mercantilism as a natural evolution. Socialized democracy will replace capitalism. It is the inevitable evolution of economic systems. Marx was correct when he said that the seeds of destruction were built into capitalism because he knew that greed or limited resources would eventually cause its demise. Socialism failed in the Soviet Union for the simple, but tragic fact that its male leaders were fascists who were only interested in feathering their own beds while ignoring the good for the all. They were narcissists, sociopaths, and psychopaths and, thus, fell somewhere on the spectrum of masculine pathology. Capitalism will fail for those same reasons and because our planet cannot tolerate unfettered consumerism. Capitalism is predicated upon the theory of “unlimited growth.” Unlimited growth is based on unbridled consumerism. Unbridled consumerism is based upon a theory of unlimited natural and mineral resources. And so here we find the end of capitalism.

Let us state what no economist, ecologist, sociologist, or public policy expert has yet to acknowledge: Capitalism and overpopulation are mutually exclusive. In fact, overpopulation is mutually exclusive with oligarchies, plutarchies, and monarchies because, in these systems, the few who have everything in excess can pay for water, food, privacy, safety, and security while the remaining masses are at risk for abject poverty, disease, hunger, and death. As more billions are added to the global population, this disparity grows and, more importantly, it becomes more obvious to more people. The masses of people on this tiny planet will, at some point, connect the dots and realize that either hundreds of millions of people must die or capitalism must die. When that realization dawns is unknown, but it will occur.

http://www.countercurrents.org/woodward210308.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In relatively recent history in America there were "schools" that forced abortions and sterilizations of the poor,mixed race, any people who were deemed "unsuitable to reproduce"(even children) to the white conservative types that invented eugenics.

Eugenics used the cover of science to blame the victims for their own problems.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have been confronted with the reality of crony, survival of the richest capitalism, a system where only those with money escape and thrive, and those without remain and perish. For years we are conditioned with this capitalistic fiction, the American Dream it is called, a fallacy that creates fantasy-filled thoughts out of socially engineered subsistence, fabricating worker bees and soldier ants out of human flesh, molding automatons and slaves from the womb, forever destined to serve the exploiters and subjugators of humanity, those Bush calls his base and we call capitalists and exploiters of human beings.

http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Valenzuela0911.htm

The ruling class began to realize that with all the changes of the era, the working class had become less easy to exploit. In other words, the disorder of the urban migration, that helped begin the industrial revolution, was incompatible with the model for smooth running industries and families. Facing this problem, the State thus began to demonstrate its ability to manipulate society.


The bourgeois family model dictated that a woman's primary and natural role was that of wife and mother. The ruling class viewed this system to be a guaranty of prosperity and social order.

The "privatization" of the family, and the model for the bourgeois family, were enforced by the State. Indeed, the State implemented laws and policies that worked directly to mold families. These policies were put into practice by the government, and public, private, secular, and religious agencies who were all directly influenced by the State. The State functioned as a centralizing force (and also as a source of funding and services for those private organizations). All these resources were provided to regulate, supervise and control the working class.

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:UUOUnvwNMNcJ:www.nefac.net/node/846+forced+birth+model+family+patriarchal&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The traditional view of the family was founded on a somewhat naive and one-sided conception of history.
The family, as we understand it, owes nothing to biological or sexual causes, but is an economic institution arising from the development of private property and the consequent domination of women by men. It is "but a euphemism for the individualistic male with his subordinate dependents."
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0060.html

There they SAY it,Why the right wing sees family as man,woman kids and more kids,and hates gay marriage..Because is an INVENTION of an **economic institution !**
And the rich and conservative and control freaks among us are scared shitless that women might actually TAKE CONTROL of their bodies and redefine family taking it all away from the so called economic institution to find happiness.Remember the rich are the true predatory parasites upon this nation's people.
http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/patriarchy-and-marriage-i-dont/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One evening my brother was given permission by Dad to bring out the tin of marbles. I announced my desire to play and was told by my brother that "girls did not play with marbles," that it was a boy's game. This made no sense to my four- or five-year-old mind, and I insisted on my right to play by picking up marbles and shooting them. Dad inter vened to tell me to stop. I did not listen. His voice grew louder and louder. Then suddenly he snatched me up, broke a board from our screen door, and began to beat me with it, telling me, "You're just a little girl. When I tell you to do something, I mean for you to do it." He beat me and he beat me, wanting me to acknowledge that I understood what I had done. His rage, his violence captured everyone's attention. Our family sat spellbound, rapt before the porn ography of patriarchal violence. After this beating I was banished-forced to stay alone in the dark. Mama came into the bedroom to soothe the pain, telling me in her soft southern voice, "I tried to warn you. You need to accept that you are just a little girl and girls can't do what boys do." In service to patriarchy her task was to reinforce that Dad had done the right thing by, putting me in my place, by restoring the natural social order.

I remember this traumatic event so well because it was a story told again and again within our family. No one cared that the constant retelling might trigger post-traumatic stress; the retelling was necessary to reinforce both the mes sage and the remembered state of absolute powerlessness. The recollection of this brutal whipping of a little-girl daughter by a big strong man, served as more than just a reminder to me' of my gendered place, it was a reminder to everyone watching/remembering, to all my siblings, male and female, and to our grown-woman mother that our patriarchal father was the ruler in our household. We were to remember that if we did not obey his rules, we would be punished, punished even unto death. This is the way we were experientially schooled in the art of patriarchy.

Patriarchy is characterized by male domination and power. He states further that "patriarchal rules still govern most of the world's religious, school systems, and family systems." Describing the most damaging of these rules, Bradshaw lists "blind obedience-the foundation upon which patriarchy stands; the repression of all emotions except fear; the destruction of individual willpower; and the repression of thinking whenever it departs from the authority figure's way of thinking."
http://theuniversalzulunation.tribe.net/thread/4cb0299e-a03a-4bc2-a7d1-3d1b6c7d82c9

More on this
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/patriarchy,2.html

A Republican introduced the so-called “Family Protection Act” in the House of Representatives. Among other things, that act would have eliminated federal laws supporting equal education of boys and girls; and it would have required “marriage and motherhood to be taught as the proper career for girls.”It also proposed to give tax incentives to women who had babies – IF they were married and IF they did not put their children in childcare but stayed at home to raise them.

http://www.the-spark.net/csart502.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A few scientific researchers such as psychologist Richard Lynn, psychologist Raymond Cattell, and scientist Gregory Stock have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology, but they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles.<114> One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donors were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson). In the U.S. and Europe, though, these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s. Because of its association with compulsory sterilization and the racial ideals of the Nazi Party, the word eugenics is rarely used by the advocates of such programs.

Charles Davenport, a scientist from the United States stands out as history's leading eugenicist. He took eugenics from a scientific idea to a worldwide movement implemented in many countries.<28>. Davenport obtained funding to establish the Biological Experiment Station at Cold Spring Harbor in 1904<29> and the Eugenics Records Office in 1910, which provided the scientific basis for later Eugenic policies.<30> He became the first President of the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) in 1925, an organization he was instrumental in building.<31>.

In 1932 Davenport welcomed Ernst Rüdin, a prominent Swiss eugenicist and race scientist, as his successor in the position of President of the IFEO.<32> Rüdin worked closely with Alfred Ploetz, his brother-in-law and co-founder with him of the German Society for the Racial Hygiene.<33> Other prominent figures in the Eugenics included Harry Laughlin (United States), Irving Fischer (United States), Eugen Fischer (Germany), Madison Grant (United States) and Lucien Howe (United States)<34>.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This paragraph takes the republican health care plan of don't get sick...if you get sick die quickly to it's source...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sir Francis Galton initially developed the ideas of eugenics using social statistics.

Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin during the 1860s and 1870s. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean"

Eugenics is superficially related to what would later be known as Social Darwinism. While both claimed intelligence was hereditary, eugenics asserted new policies were needed to actively change the status quo towards a more "eugenic" state, while the Social Darwinists argued society itself would naturally "check" the problem of "dysgenics" if no welfare policies were in place (for example, the poor might reproduce more but would have higher mortality rates).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Modern_eugenics.2C_genetic_engineering.2C_and_ethical_re-evaluation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Supreme Court case that effectively deemed forced sterilization illegal was Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) and the opinion was written by Justice William O. Douglas. He highlighted the inequity of Oklahoma's law by noting that a three-time chicken thief could be sterilized while a three-time embezzler could not. This clearly shows the bias of the eugenics laws against the poor.
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/194188-America-s-Unknown-Forgotten-Eugenics-Program
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During the first decades of the twentieth century public health officials in Virginia placed a large number of "feeble-minded" women of child-bearing age in state mental asylums, causing such institutions—including the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded in Lynchburg, Virginia—to be seriously overcrowded. In June 1922 the Virginia General Assembly passed a statute that permitted the involuntary sterilization and subsequent release of female inmates who seemed otherwise likely to require permanent confinement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The reproductive choices that women confront are shaped by race, class, and ethnicity; thus, for many women of color, reproductive freedom was part of their struggle for racial equality and economic justice.

In 1961, civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer was sterilized via hysterectomy when she entered Sunflower County Hospital in Alabama to have a uterine tumor removed. The operating physician performed a "Mississippi appendectomy." He removed her uterus without her knowledge during abdominal surgery. White physicians practiced "Mississippi appendectomies" in Southern black communities in the 1950s and early 1960s, particularly communities with active civil rights traditions. For black women in the South, sterilization abuse was a civil rights issue.

While white feminists organized around abortion, many Chicana and Native American activists organized around the issue of ending sterilization abuse. Chicanas in western states and Native American women on reservations experienced forced sterilization in the late 1960s and early 1970s that involved white physicians targeting them for "elective" tubal ligation when they entered hospitals in labor. As with black women, Chicanas and Native American women were targeted because of their race and class status.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/04/demanding-right-reproduce-voluntary-and-forced-sterilization-america
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was only in the 1920s that, for the first time, a majority of American families consisted of a breadwinner-husband, a home-maker wife, and children attending school.
The most rapid increase in unwed pregnancies took place between 1940 and 1958, not in the libertine sixties.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States had the highest divorce rate in the western world, and one child in ten lived in a single-parent home. Hundreds of thousands of children spent part of their childhood in orphanages, not because their parents were dead, but because their mother and father could not support them. Infant mortality, orphanhood, and early widowhood affected a distressingly high proportion of families. Between 35 and 40 percent of all children lost a parent or a sibling before they reached their twenties.
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/mintz.html


This makes me ask since "family" is an economic institution ..what else was happening at the beginning of the 20th century economics wise,what stressors were affecting society? And in the 1920's?

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:I0z1XUUhBjsJ:www.sherwood.k12.or.us/public/Roaring20sToDepression.pdf+1920+hardships+american+families&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNE_aHXPXlVMhCWDHkZOcktZp9K94Q
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The early modern household represented the basic unit of residence, production, and reproduction in the city and country alike. Its common interchangeability with "family" throughout the period had deep and ancient roots. Almost all modern European languages trace their words for "family" back to the Latin famulus, 'slave',


Most notably, historians detect a discernible increase after the sixteenth century in the desire for privacy, resulting in somewhat larger and more compartmentalized residences among the middle and upper classes. The idea of "home" itself took on a form of separation from society, a haven in a tumultuous world. By the eighteenth century a new "cult of domesticity" was growing, and by the following century it spread to lower-middle-class and working-class cultures

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404900366.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the population-control frame, the number of people and their placement on the planet is the root problem that needs to be solved. But is that really the problem? Family planning has succeeded only where economic security has been improved for women, including access to food and shelter, health care, and education. With this as background, the real population problem may be the treatment of women on the planet.

A related challenge is to reject the Malthusian premise that more people will necessarily deplete resources and lead to human and ecological ruin. As technology and human understanding evolve, it is possible to sustain a large population with decent living standards, and without plundering the planet -- but not if billions of poor people are left to scratch out a living in dwindling rain forests and expanding deserts doubly threatened by the desperation of the poor and the rapacity of the rich.

Here’s the paradox: If we reject the population-control frame in favor of the goals of women’s emancipation and sustainable development, we may achieve a healthier and more stable population, without inviting the unwelcome embrace of ugly exclusionists. It’s an ideal time to make the change: The global population growth rate peaked more than a decade ago and is now declining. The annual growth rate in 1963 was 2.2. percent; today it’s closer to 1.2 percent. Today’s population of 6 billion people will become 9 billion people in the next 50 years, and then it will begin to decline.

http://www.pelicanweb.org/solisust06supp.html

Speaking at a 1993 camp organized in Indiana to train religious zealots how to attack women’s clinics, Randall Terry, the head of “Operation Rescue,” had this to say: “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good.... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty; we are called by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.” At another session, speaking of doctors who perform abortions, he commented: “Intolerance is a beautiful thing. We’re going to make their lives a living hell.” (Both of these comments were reported in the Fort Wayne, Indiana News-Sentinel.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Follow the money follow the"inheritance" Follow the family..it leads to the same thing..Haves hoarding what they've stolen and keeping it in thier family.and everyone else just work until exhausted than,get sick and die quickly...*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For as long as human societies have been divided in classes, they have this in common: they are based on the exploitation of one class or classes by another. Exploitation leads inevitably to oppression and injustice of all kinds, and not just against the exploited class. And this includes the oppression of women, who are oppressed simply because they are the ones to bear children. The existence of classes requires the ability of the ruling class to at least transmit the wealth accumulated through exploitation to the next generation, and that has brought into existence all those practices aimed at assuring paternity: that is, the insistence on virginity, the repression of “adulterous” women (but not of men). It’s what led to “keeping women in their place,” that is, confined closely within the home and the family. And that is still true, today, in the capitalist epoch, where inheritance still defines class.

http://www.the-spark.net/csart502.html

, Hanafin argues that “the regulation of human reproduction is intimately linked with the question of the relation of the citizen to the state”.Emerging from patriarchal discourses and law, he argues that women’s bodies within democracies are sites of ideological contestation regarding the nation, community, and identity.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/hanafin0209.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Miller said...
I remember a joke an Economics professor told us:

"Poor people have more children, on average, than rich people. Since the number of children decreases with income, children are therefore an inferior good."

We laughed.
Of course, it doesn't work that way. You can't make interpersonal comparisons of utility, wealthy people have greater opportunity costs of their time, the rich don't need children as a retirement plan, and poor people have nothing better to do than F around all day.
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2009/08/children-cause-poverty.html

This link shows how rich people imagine the lives and realities of poor people,they haven't got a clue..and yes they display a disdain for poor people.

Capitalism breeds greed narcissism and psychopath'values'.


Psychopathy: The word antisocial does not describe someone who prefers to sit at home rather than attend gatherings. More accurately it means antihuman


http://books.google.com/books?id=-UbLNUqQMacC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=capitalism+psychopathy+nation&source=bl&ots=XT-p4xvoQL&sig=fpweBYEvMB27Ptl80QktkxCFleo&hl=en&ei=C6LHSqrPApLS8AaoyZDiCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://aradicalblackfoot.blogspot.com/2007/02/capitalism-system-run-by-and-for.html

"The typical person, of whatever nationality, wants only to enjoy success in his job, to be able to afford a reasonably high standard of living complete with leisure and travel," describes Gary Allen. "He wants to provide for his family in sickness and in health and to give his children a sound education. His ambition stops there," says Allen. "He has no desire to exercise power over others, to conquer other lands or peoples, to be king."

He continues, "Since he has no lust for power, it is difficult for him to imagine that there are others who have who march to a far different drum." He asks, "Why should we assume there are no such men today with perverted lusts for power?" In my opinion, we shouldn't because we know that they do exist, and consist of about 4% of the population during any period. "And if these men happen to be billionaires," ponders Allen, "is it not possible that they would use men like Hitler and Lenin as pawns to size power for themselves?" As I've demonstrated, true history supports this claim exactly.

Dr. Hare refers to them as "intraspecies predators." "There is a class of individuals who have been around forever and who are found in every race, culture, society and walk of life," he says. "If you think about it," he adds, "you will realize that what is missing in this picture are the very qualities that allow human beings to live in social harmony." "It is not a pretty picture," he warns, "and some express doubt that such people exist."

http://thehiddenevil.com/psychopathy.asp

And what are reproductive rights but the RIGHT of a WOMAN TO CONTROL HER OWN BODY!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The U.N. estimates that the additional cost of achieving and maintaining universal access to basic education for all, basic health care for all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food for all, and safe water and sanitation for all is roughly $40 billion a year. That is a lot of money. But it is just 4 percent of the combined wealth of the world’s richest 225 individuals.

Capitalism today makes no sense. It is only the ideological power of romance, coupled with the functional power of money, that enables the system to survive. Central to that power is most men’s inability to imagine what on earth they would ever find to do in a world not centred on paid work and production.

As well as the necessities of life, and a share of its luxuries, there must be meaningful activity and a sense of belonging. There is no shortage of any of these goods. There is only a shortage of jobs, along with a glut of production for profit. The sooner we reject the fantasy that market jobs are the answer and that untrammeled private investment will somehow create them, the sooner we may be able to start building a much more down-to-earth, equitable, sustainable way of life.

http://www.ru.org/91endof.htm


It is time for those who control others and seek power for power's sake to either learn control themselves,and step away from places of power or be stopped by an even bigger force(humanity) to control them or make them powerless, before the psychopaths abusing humanity destroy everything and take as many people as they can drag down with themselves when humanity realizes it has been conned into living a life they were told they wanted and must have or else.. by psychopaths.

For some people, like me, family's all they have.

with no critical thinking involved. Flipping through the channels of TV, for example, it's more than obvious...

A world being run by psychopaths

There are so many lobbyists and special interest groups those with the finest ideas get drowned out. And as we know money, greed, power and politics combined don't make for the best of worlds for the majority. We used to have a democracy, but that's long gone.

We begin to question our own previously accepted assumptions. It's a process, not an event.

edited for spelling