The ideologies of Socialism, National Socialism and Marxism are quite bigoted, hypocritical, illogical and evil in nature, however the concepts have been supported and implemented across the continents of Europe, Asia, Australia and North America.
The implementation of National Socialism in the Germanic states led to the persecution of the Jews and Slavs. Eventually, the Germanic populace believed that the past sins that were committed by the Jews meant it was justifiable to murder anyone who was a member of the Jewish community. The ideologies of National Socialism basically referred to the Jews and Slavs as an *Inferior Race*, who were to be subjugated to the Germanic states at all times.
The socialists believed that it was acceptable for the state to collect the money that was earned by the working class people, and then redistribute it to the demographics that supported their agenda.
- The majority of persons who supported and still support the ideology of *Socialism* happen to be female, as they like the idea of the state collecting the money that is earned by the men, and then redistributing it to the women.
- National Socialism in Germany was supported in a keen manner by the female populace.
Lenin was aware that the main supporters of *Socialism* were the women of society, so he used a wide range of fallacious claims and unsubstantiated theories in order to brainwash the female populace into thinking they were *oppressed*. Of course he succeeded, and the women rebelled against the men, and it led to the almighty U.S.S.R de-evolving into a third world nation, where the average life span between the sexes is so disperse, the women tend to live at least 10-15 years longer than the men.
During the year of 1848, a group of socialists held a "Women's Conference" in Seneca Falls, New York, USA. During the event, the socialists decided to diverge from socialism, and create a new movement known as *feminism*. The two ideologies shared an abundance of similarities and were based on the same principles. The divergence of Marxism from socialism took place in Germany during the year of 1848, when Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Karl Rodbertus-Jagetzow articulated the Manifesto of the Communist Party.
A socialist utopia began to infiltrate the world by the end of the 19th Century, and this led to the implementation of a feminist-indoctrinated legal system that favoured women over men in many areas of life. The privilege and legal impunity that women were granted during the late 19th Century has been documented by E. Belfort Bax in a book known as "The Fraud of Feminism" which was published in 1913. A transcript of the editorial can be viewed by Clicking Here.
The problem with feminism is it is merely a derivation of socialist ideology, so it appeals to a large group of people (women) who are looking to retain the privileges that are correlated with chivalry and Old English Law, however they wish to obtain the same status as the demographic who are required to perform the more uncouth and unrewarding jobs (men) that ensure the continuation of industrialisation.
Feminist/Socialist Ideology Is Corrupt
The feminists/socialists are successful as they use fraudulent and immoral tactics to deceive their supporters into believing that they're an oppressed minority; even if they are the bulk of the entire population. Second-Wave-Feminists as well as the socialists who appeared at the Women's Convention at Seneca Falls, New York, USA in 1848 were able to gain a LOT of support by distorting the truth of the Old English Law, as doing so would allow them to convince the populace that there was a need for a legal reformation.
The socialists and feminists from the 19th, 20th and 21st Centuries have tried to insinuate that the Old English Law allowed the men of society to batter their wives with legal impunity, however there is an abundance of evidence that proves the claim is a fallacy.
Official documents from the 18th Century have shown that the concept of *Wife-Battering* was prohibited in England and the USA. If a man were to batter his wife,then he would face prosecution from the state. The concept of *Old English Law* ensured that the husbands were required to answer for the misbehaviour of their wives, so the system allowed the men to use *moderate correction WITHOUT the usage of violence* in order to control the women from engaging in unlawful activity (IE. They were allowed to discipline their wives and children in a similar manner).
Punishments for wife-battering were severe, with some of the American states such as Maryland and Delaware enforcing the flagellation at the whipping post of any man who performed the act. Some of the other states issued heavy fines and imprisonment for the men who performed the act of *wife-battering*.
The feminists have tried to refer to the *Rule of Thumb* metaphor as the legalised battering of women, however the phrase does not even originate from the legal documents of the Old English Law system.
Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock stated the following: "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers ... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. Instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs."
According to Philip Hiscok, the phrase came into metaphorical usage by the late 17th Century.
Christina Hoff Sommers wrote a detailed editorial on the subject in the book "Who Stole Feminism?" (Simon & Schuster, New York 1994). An actual except from her book (Chapter 9 "Noble Lies" pp.203-208) can be viewed by Clicking Here
False Claims of Female Oppression
The feminists and socialists are trying to enforce the ideology that the injustices of the past (most often they are imagined or untrue) can only be corrected through the following:
The feminists and socialists have spread their ideology via the media and the education system. As a result an entire generation of boys have been brainwashed into believing that there sex has oppressed women for thousands of years - although there is not a single shred of evidence to prove that the women of the Western world have endured any form of oppression - therefore it is the *duty* of the current generation of men to subjugate themselves to the female populace. In other words the feminists are trying to cause the men of today to feel guilty for a list of imagined acts that were supposed to have occurred prior to the 20th Century.
The concept of *oppression* is defined by the instance in which an individual is weighed down in a psychological and physiological manner. Such a concept is derived from the implementation of an unfair and cruel punishment that is only performed against a person and those from his/her demographic. An uneven quota between the sexes cannot be referred to as an example of *oppression*, as there are a number of variables that lead to a differing ratio of men to women in most areas of life, (IE. The fact that men are physiologically and intellectually superior to women means that the former are more able to lift heavy objects and analyse and interpret the data from the outside world.)
The primitive state of technology during the 19th Century meant that the physiological and intellectual inferiority of women COULD NOT be neutralised by machinery and artificial intelligence. The lack of advanced technology meant that the state were unable to implement a wide range of *programs* that would have *evened the quotas between the sexes*. Only the ignorant are unable to understand the reasoning and logic behind the lifestyle of the 19th Century.
Rights and Responsibilities
The feminists and socialists are unwilling to acknowledge that the women of the 19th Century were not required to take responsibility for a great deal of their actions as they did not enjoy the full spectrum of rights, so they were entitled to a large degree of legal impunity that was unavailable to the men. For example, if a woman were to clean out her husband's bank account, then he would be the individual that was required to spend time in debtor's prison.
The amount of privilege that the female populace enjoyed during the 19th Century was quite abundant, as a lot of female criminals were able to obtain impunity from the law system due to the implementation of chivalry and the fact they did not enjoy the full scope of rights and therefore had no responsibilities.
A woman who committed an unlawful act may have been held accountable for her actions on certain occasions, however if she was prosecuted, the punishment that she received tended to be rather lenient in comparison to the sentence that was handed to the men who committed the same crime.
A demographic that does not have any responsibilities cannot endure any form of oppression. The *oppressed* are forced to compel to a variety of standards that the rest of the populace are not required to meet; how can an entire demographic claim to be oppressed when they are offered a great deal of legal impunity?
During the 19th Century, the Government introduced a variety of laws that prohibited the women from performing in any field that was hazardous in nature or required a great deal of physiological strength, as the state believed that such work was too dangerous for women. In other words, the implementation of such laws was based on the theory that such a system would protect the women. The feminists are keen to refer to this as a form of *oppression*, however they fail to acknowledge that the implementation of such a system ensured that the women were offered a greater amount of privilege and safety than the men.
