savagesusie #fundie

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

Notice the androgyny in the manikins [at Macy's]-—Marxists want to make men and women interchangeable——so they can destroy the family unit—it is radical egalitarianism-—the State will raise the children.

Note all the push for little girls to be boys to be girls—or whatever. Confusion is forced on children so they can never be rational. They are taught truth is a lie. They are being fed moral relativism where there is no Right and Wrong except what the State tells them. They will be easily led and manipulated because they will be unable to recognize Truth.

Read Brave New World and 1984 to get a glimpse of the ugly, drab world, these Marxists and Macy’s are trying to foist on the population. This is brainwashing and conditioning into the Brave New World.

98 comments

old comment by Xotan

I have to ask what country you live in? Nay. What world?!

Even your use of language is a little odd. It is now considered quaint, even archaic, to refer to models in shop windows as 'mannikins'. that has, anyway, as its prime meaning 'little men'. Mannequin would have been preferable, although even that is dated to the 1950s.

Either way, I'm sure they, the 'manikins', have no intention of trying to destroy the family unit, as one can interpret what you say.

It beats me that so many Americans reject the great benefits that society provides for wellbeing of its citizens here in Europe. Instead, in some form of blindness they are happy that 1% hold 99% of the country's wealth, and that plutocracy is rapidly becoming the style of American society. The poor get taxed, the rich escape with paying very little, and get richer in the process. If only for the sake of the children one would expect that Americans would be up in arms to get a better deal. But no. that would be socialism. No matter that children may be harmed by the social blindness of their parents. This is the true drab world, and it is how America appears to Europe - socially benighted, with its people fighting to keep it that way. It is incomprehensible, unless a substantial proportion of Americans have been brainwashed that acting on what Jesus taught (socialism) is evil.

And before you put pen to paper, go read what Jesus taught. Think of the Good Samaritan - a prime example of socialism. But perhaps that was evil too for some in the US.

old comment by Mister Spak

"Note all the push for little girls to be boys to be girlsor whatever."

Catholic priests are going to have a problem - how will they know which ones are the boys?

"Read Brave New World and 1984 to get a glimpse of the ugly, drab world, these Marxists and Macy’s are trying to foist on the population."

I read those books. They gave me a glimpse of the world freepers are trying to foist on society. For example, Faux news appears in both novels.

@Xotan:
socially benighted, with its people fighting to keep it that way. It is incomprehensible, unless a substantial proportion of Americans have been brainwashed that acting on what Jesus taught (socialism) is evil."

You comprehend it.

old comment by KittyKaboom

Brave New World and 1984 demonstrate what the world will be like if religious nuts like yourself are allowed to control everything. There will be no freedon of thought, expression or creativity and no freedom to be the individual one was born to be. People will be told what to think, what to do, what to read, etc.

Don't pretend you wouldn't love to use your majority to stomp all over everyone else and force them to read the bible and live the way you dictate (no doubt under constant threat of execution - history has shown us what christians do to those who don't conform). You fuckers don't even make a secret of it. So don't go getting your knickers in a twist over the possibility of a society like we see in futuristic science fiction. You'd love that. To claim otherwise is a lie.

old comment by breakerslion

"Notice the androgyny in the manikins [at Macy's]-Marxists want to make men and women interchangeableso they can destroy the family unitit is radical egalitarianism-the State will raise the children."

Thanks a lot. I just pulled an Oblique muscle laughing so hard as I tried to imagine the world you live in. A world where Macy's, a public corporation with publicly traded stock, could be seen as Marxist, would make Toon Town look rational. Now I think I'll succumb to Tex Avery disease and start howling like a wolf and chasing women.

"Note all the push for little girls to be boys to be girlsor whatever."

Yeah. So much better in the nostalgic, good old Victorian days when little boys were dressed like this:

http://whowerethey.wordpress.com/category/photographer/ph-zorn/

... And then when they grew up, large armies of infantry shot at each other for days on end. Those were the days!

"They are taught truth is a lie. They are being fed moral relativism where there is no Right and Wrong except what the Church tells them."

Fixed. Example: When God slaughters Egyptian children, ... IT'S GOOD!

Go play now, SewageSusie!

Edit (for my friend John that will probably never see it):

NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!

old comment by

Really, 1984 and Brave New World are a little mutually-exclusive for that to work: the first is about a totalitarian state taking control, the second is about yielding control in the name of hedonism. Incidentally, I find the latter idea quite anti-humanist and disdainful of the unwashed hedonistic masses, not to mention simplified and unrealistic, so the idea annoys me somewhat. Although it was probably more plausible in the days it was written.

Anyway... you're presenting the typical right-wing state takeover idea: NASTY LEFTIES want to DESTROY THE FAMILY and make the state take over. Likely the poster implicitly thinks there must be somebody taking a paternalistic role, so if it isn't REAL MEN taking charge, then it must be the EVIL COMMIE STATE who takes up the paternal aspect. Interestingly we see that CONFUSING THE CHILDREN is considered the WORST THING EVER, which is commonly used as an anti-egalitarian and anti-homosexuality argument. It's that paternal thing again, I reckon. Secularism confused with moral relativity, admittedly a logically-inconsistent idea even if it helps urge caution, again, thinking that ALMIGHTY GOD has to take a paternal role to bash RIGHT AND WRONG into our heads, and aren't we seeing a pattern here today?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Marxists want to make men and women interchangeableso they can destroy the family unitit is radical egalitarianism-the State will raise the children."

Strange. I've never seen any mention of such in "The Communist Manifesto" and "Das Kapital".

And even if 'twere such thing as a 'Brave New World', Aldous Huxley's book of the same title posited the notion of a "1984"-esque warning; the diametric opposite posited by Gene Roddenberry, in that envisioned in his creation, "Star Trek": a world free of war, hunger, want, ignorance, even separate countries and governments - and freed from the yoke of Capitalism; humanity brought together under the banner of the United Federation of Planets.

...and speaking as a left-wing, Atheist, Sci-Fi nerd (and proud of it!), that's a bad thing... how? You tell me, savagesusie.

old comment by Skyknight

@Xotan: It looks like the idea is similar to the problem in "Harrison Bergeron"--they think that the only way to achieve genuine egalitarianism is to impel everyone to be at the nadir. The only reason I can think of for this is that they think some people are utterly incapable of going above the nadir, even with an infinite amount of help (read: they're innately unable to feel anything EXCEPT frustration and dolor). Hence the emphasis on "liberty" over "equality" (e.g. Dennis Prager's recent "Still the Best Hope"), "freedom to fail", etc. There's an oblique, probably unwitting, fatalism at work here, the idea of a natural aristocracy. State/society interventions can only retard ascendancy, never catalyze it, meaning that everyone should accept their place in the inborn Great Chain of Being.

It's worth noting that in these imagined socialist dystopias, the archons always seem to be hyper-wealthy anyway. I'm not sure how much of it is projection, but there is the tacit idea that the natural inclination of every person (and note the naturalistic fallacy) is to ascend as far as they possibly can. In short, the assumption is that there will always be the extra-wealthy and the extra-povertous; that's how existence works. Good is found solely in maximizing how many can reach the zenith of glory, even if it's only threefold rather than ten thousandfold.

{sigh} The precept of "the poor will always be the poor, no matter how hard they try" is much too redolent of Calvinism's monstrosities of predestination...

(You'd think they'd have heard of Take a Third Option...)

old comment by Wehpudicabok

1) Mannequins (that is the proper spelling) are made unisex to save money - they don't have to make two different versions of the same thing, so they're easier to mass-produce. This is the pinnacle of capitalism.

2) George Orwell (the man who wrote 1984) was a socialist. That tends to make fundies' (and frankly non-fundie conservatives') heads explode, so let me explain. There is a difference between socialism and communism. Communism is socialism taken to its extreme, with governmental controls replacing civil liberties. Orwell was (rightly) against this. Socialism is simply government-maintained economic equality and stability. None of the bullshit you assign to it.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

@ shykid:

Xotan is an Irishman living in France. What happens in America doesn't really affect him, which explains why he rarely brings it up. I rarely mention the faults of other, worse countries, for the same reason. But since I live in America, the antics of the GOP affect me directly. If they win in November, then ultra reactionary theocrats will be in power for 24 out of 36 years, or two-thirds of the time from 1981 to 2017. They've already nearly succeeded in making the US a Third World perversion of other Western countries, so they might finish the job if the Teabaggers win even one more time. Unfortunately, since the Democrats have no machine to keep politicians in power the way the Republicans do, even if Obama wins reelection it'll take decades for the US to have the same values of Europe, viz. universal health care, restrictions on corporate power, proportional representation, pacifism, opposition to torture, love of science, secularism (such that atheists are anything but the most hated minority) environmentalism, and equal rights for minorities in practice instead of just in theory. I cannot tolerate any more people in other countries, completely accurately, criticizing my country for being eighty years behind in the most basic of human rights, so if I am not going to live to see America improve its reputation and foreign and domestic policies, I will simply leave.

@ Mudak:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't We anticommunist? I know that Ayn Rand's ~~plagiarism~~ adaptation was explicit about that, and we all know that Susie is gay for Ayn.

old comment by Xotan

@ shykid

Kid,

It is not your country I criticise. More the systems in place that will determine what America becomes. It has changed dramatically over lifetime. It is no longer the country that was so admired when I was a kid. However, every country has the right to be as it chooses. But that does not mean I would afree with everything it is becoming. There are things that will be positive, some that will be (to me) negative. The problem is the balance between them. There is also the question of perspective - from without and within. From within there is patriotism. But the definition of patriotism can change and can be used cynically by groupings to further an agenda. Perhaps this is easier to see from without. But matters have tilted now to the point where I hold there is a social dichotomy that harks back to Europe pre WW I. Am I overstating the matter? It appears more and more that society is being divided into the haves and the have-nots: that the inherent pride and patriotism that made America great is being managed to ensure compliance with the will of the 'haves' Religion is managed. The Bush regime was a mnix of politics and religion. Is there any politician that is not rich? It's a good barometer of the social wellbeing of a nation. Or, would an atheist be elected president? Bear in mind that there is to be no religious test, and that the constitution is supposed to ensure religion and politics are separate.

Americans I know, some I am honoured to call friends, are slowly becoming aware that solutions are needed for the good of the country. I think they would agree with my analysis, but they don't seem to be able to find answers. Like Brendan, they are more negative than positive. Something needs to be done to revitalise the US and get all elements into a proper balance where no ism is allowed to override greater needs of the country.

savagesusie #fundie freerepublic.com

98 comments

Confused?