Author Topic: How Fisheaters is Communist (Read 2297 times)

Augstine Baker · « **on:** December 15, 2011, 10:57:48 AM »

I don't think it's too controversial to say that Fisheaters is a Feminist forum that claims to be an authority on things Catholic. I don't post their any more because of toxic personalities who are allowed to derail any meaningful discussions on the topic. In point of fact, even the forum owner and several of her partners there insist that they are "feminists" and even drink from the trough of feminist ideology, swallowing it whole. I have to question something that, however good it may appear in other respects, is so thoroughly and uncritically, inmho, devoted to an ideology that is a handmaiden to Communist demoralization and restructuring of target societies.

If Fisheaters is Feminist and Feminism is a Communist ideology, than Fisheaters is an alleged Catholic forum which promotes Communist agitprop conceived to alienate men from their wives and children and thus destroying the family.

:fryingpan:This article from Corneilia Feirrera shows how feminism was part of the Communist's agenda to destroy the family, which was important in establishing the rule of Communism.

It won't let me cut and paste, oh well.

You'e come a long way baby.

http://canisiusbooks.com/articles/feminism_russian-weapon-against-family.htm#.TuoYeue-f5c.facebook

nadieimportante · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2011, 12:37:09 PM »

I think it's a big mistake for the owners of Forums to push an itinerary. I do think they should strive to develop the best environment for debating truths.

In his sermons at chapels that I and others have heard personally, Bishop Williamson said many times that we don't follow the SSPX, we don't follow Abp. Lefebvre, or any personality, we follow truth. He warned that there may come a day when even the SSPX turns away from truth, and when that happens, we are to follow truth.

As an example: I am a believer in EENS as it is written. Yet, I am always open to discussions on the subject with BODers of every stripe, the more educated they are on the subject the better. It is a pleasure to debate with the learned. This is the mindset that a forum owner should have. anything that they can do to promote this environment is a step in the right direction.

All that said, I once suggested on AQ, that the members should identify themselves as male or female. There is a big difference in the way that women and men analyze things. You can save a lot of wasted writing by knowing the gender of the person. Women generally are feelings oriented, and men generally are cold hard facts oriented. Of course, a few men reason like women, and a few women reason like men.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2011, 01:28:54 PM »

Quote from: nadieimportante

I think it's a big mistake for the owners of Forums to push an itinerary. I do think they should strive to develop the best environment for debating truths.

In his sermons at chapels that I and others have heard personally, Bishop Williamson said many times that we don't follow the SSPX, we don't follow Abp. Lefebvre, or any personality, we follow truth. He warned that there may come a day when even the SSPX turns away from truth, and when that happens, we are to follow truth.

As an example: I am a believer in EENS as it is written. Yet, I am always open to discussions on the subject with BODers of every stripe, the more educated they are on the subject the better. It is a pleasure to debate with the learned. This is the mindset that a forum owner should have. anything that they can do to promote this environment is a step in the right direction.

All that said, I once suggested on AQ, that the members should identify themselves as male or female. There is a big difference in the way that women and men analyze things. You can save a lot of wasted writing by knowing the gender of the person. Women generally are feelings oriented, and men generally are cold hard facts oriented. Of course, a few men reason like women, and a few women reason like men.

Yeah, people get too tribal on these boards.

That is, after all, pretty much all that modern life has to offer are these disparate tribal groups with their particular identities, taboos and rituals, whether you're talking about the various adolescent peer groups or even political parties. The same holds true for religious entities without a clear benefaction from the Church. They just become another peer group.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2011, 01:35:29 PM »

Feminism and Communism have always maintained the pretense that they are about human dignity, especially as it pertains to the dignity of labor, and of the "productive member of society." Woman become free to enter into the world of men. Haha.

Of course, the reality is that feminism is all about sex. As Communism is about atheism and non serviam, feminism is about social support for the moral irresponsibility of women. The reason women are told they must have careers is to remove their dependence on their husbands. To remove the economic basis of monogamy.

No better illustration of the absurdity of feminism can be seen than in the popular caricature of the "home front" during the "good war" - WWII. (As for myself I have a feeling German leaflets much better reflected the reality at home than posters of "Rosie the Riveter.") So why do I say it is an illustration of the absurdity of feminism? Because nothing can be more absurd than to suggest that the survival of the US depended on women working in munitions factories. The survival of every state at war has only ever depended on the sacrifices of mothers risking the lives of their sons. It was the fecundity of Russian women that was the basis of their huge armies and their huge economy, not the fact that women were pressed into munitions work.

And in a broader sense, it is patently obvious that society never has and never will depend on the accomplishments of career women. It will only ever depend on motherhood. The integrity of motherhood will always depend on the unity of family life. And the unity of family life will always depend on the innocence of love.

And is there not a war on innocent love?

Feminism is the refusal of moral responsibility. The rejection of the ideals of love and family. Those ideals are rejected for vanity and pleasure. The fallen woman must despise the innocent woman or else she must despise herself. The rake must despise the man who believes in the innocent bride. The three pillars of feminism are fornication, contraception, and abortion.

Catholics, in order to remain Catholic, cannot allow their sense of worth to be dictated to them by an anti-Christian society.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2011, 01:58:55 PM »

It's like Yuri Bezmenov says, it's more valuable to wage war without having to fight a single battle or fire a single shot. Feminism is a significant part of winning the war without fighting the battle, by destabilizing the power of your opponent, even instilling institutions that are friendly to you; there are things like feminism for example.

Part of winning the war is demoralizing your enemy so you don't have to fight him.

Wessex · « **Reply #5 on:** December 15, 2011, 04:56:13 PM »

Feminist ideas are rife among well-off families in the West which think their is something moral in being liberal. While enjoying comfortable fairly conventional lives within family units, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction against any restriction imposed on women and woe betide any male that thinks so! The problem with these familes though seems to be the next generation. Girls have been conditioned into believing that careers are the reason for existing and boys are leaving home to live with their mates and some have boyfriends instead of girlfriends! The grandchildren count is going to be greatly reduced. The short-fall of course will be met by childbearing immigrants.

Someone1776 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2011, 07:46:01 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

I don't post their any more because of toxic personalities who are allowed to derail any meaningful discussions on the topic.

I thought you don't post there anymore because you were banned?

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2011, 08:35:18 PM »

Quote from: Someone1776

Quote from: Augstine Baker
I don't post their any more because of toxic personalities who are allowed to derail any meaningful discussions on the topic.

I thought you don't post there anymore because you were banned?

You're one of the toxic personalities I'm talking about.

I provoked the ban, actually.

Roland Deschain · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2011, 06:07:02 AM »

Quote from: Someone1776

Quote from: Augstine Baker
I don't post their any more because of toxic personalities who are allowed to derail any meaningful discussions on the topic.

I thought you don't post there anymore because you were banned?

Not sure how you have avoided banning since you don't seem to ever contribute anything to any discussion over there. Now that you can't be scipio's yes-man anymore I suppose you can devote your time to full-time thread derailing.

Canute · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2011, 03:57:34 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Yeah, people get too tribal on these boards.

That is, after all, pretty much all that modern life has to offer are these disparate tribal groups with their particular identities, taboos and rituals, whether you're talking about the various adolescent peer groups or even political parties.

If you want a good example of how one of these cliques operates here, take a look at what immediately happened with the thread I started over on the "Crisis in the Church" board.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Latest-in-Fr-Ramolla-Story-How-God-Punishes-Spreading-Hatred

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2011, 05:48:18 PM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Yeah, people get too tribal on these boards.

That is, after all, pretty much all that modern life has to offer are these disparate tribal groups with their particular identities, taboos and rituals, whether you're talking about the various adolescent peer groups or even political parties.

If you want a good example of how one of these cliques operates here, take a look at what immediately happened with the thread I started over on the "Crisis in the Church" board.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Latest-in-Fr-Ramolla-Story-How-God-Punishes-Spreading-Hatred

Yeah, those guys are nuts.

TKGS is right, there's enough to condemn those two without referring to completely baseless and unsubstantiated charges of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity.

Canute · « **Reply #11 on:** December 18, 2011, 01:27:04 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

I don't think it's too controversial to say that Fisheaters is a Feminist forum that claims to be an authority on things Catholic.

In point of fact, even the forum owner and several of her partners there insist that they are "feminists" and even drink from the trough of feminist ideology, swallowing it whole.

For awhile I used to visit FE every day, but I never noticed this. I know the owner had a dispute with his wife and she wrote about it quite a bit, which struck me as odd, but I know that marital strife brings out the worst in both men and women.

Is this what you meant? Or are there some threads in particular on FE that reflect feminism? I think that in theory most people who identify themselves as traditional Catholics would say that feminism in the sense of the modern ideology is wrong.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:22:56 PM »

Quote from: Canute

Quote from: Augstine Baker
I don't think it's too controversial to say that Fisheaters is a Feminist forum that claims to be an authority on things Catholic.

In point of fact, even the forum owner and several of her partners there insist that they are "feminists" and even drink from the trough of feminist ideology, swallowing it whole.

For awhile I used to visit FE every day, but I never noticed this. I know the owner had a dispute with his wife and she wrote about it quite a bit, which struck me as odd, but I know that marital strife brings out the worst in both men and women.

Is this what you meant? Or are there some threads in particular on FE that reflect feminism? I think that in theory most people who identify themselves as traditional Catholics would say that feminism in the sense of the modern ideology is wrong.

No, the forum owner is a feminist [One of her favorite books is by the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ Camille Paglia and she tolerates the females, and whomever agrees with the feminist ideology, perpetuating the same hostility and engaging in contumely and vulgarity which gets them banned here.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:22:57 PM »

Quote from: Canute

I think that in theory most people who identify themselves as traditional Catholics would say that feminism in the sense of the modern ideology is wrong.

Feminism has to be defined as Catholics have historically defined it, not as modern liberals define it.

Feminism is not the province of deranged freaks, but it is the foundation for the views on the relation of the sexes for the majority of society in the western world.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #14 on:** December 18, 2011, 02:28:02 PM »

It's best to look at the etymology of the term and spot its hidden premisi.

The article above shows how feminism came out of the ideological framework of Communism and how various regimes have used it to create hostility between men and women, destroying the family and erasing any intervening steps between the individual and the Party.

Look for a source on it in Engels', "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State."

From Wiki: He claims that a woman's subordination is not a result of her biologic disposition but of social relations, and that the institution of family as it exists is a complex system in which men command women's services.