The Hate Mongers – Hatred spread through propaganda

Update 2018 07 11: Added preamble

THE HATE MONGERS

From THE CASSANDRA PAPERS : why Canada’s Economy Doesn’t Work (1998), by Andy Turnbull

Neo Nazis and other overt hate groups are amateurs. THE HATE MONGERS explains how some elements of the women’s movement use lies and hate to make big money for themselves, and how they harm our culture and our economy.

–Andy Turnbull


Preamble (2018 07 11)

Norton Antivirus provides a warning, that the website containing the text  of ‘The Hate Mongers’ should not be accessed, at http://webhome.idirect.com/~andyt/hate.html, for which reason I identified the URL  without making it a functioning link.

I downloaded the text, checked it, to make sure that it is safe, and posted it after this preamble.  Norton Antivirus states that the downloaded text file of ‘The Hate Mongers’ contains no threats.

Andy Turnbull’s article contains a couple of typos. I corrected those (indicated in brackets [ ]).  One of them is a persistent misspelling of Betty Friedan‘s name, namely “Frieden”.  “Frieden” (meaning “Peace”, in German) is a common Jewish name.  “Friedan” is an anglicized version of that name, whose pronunciation is close to that of “Frieden”, but I have not been able to determine whether or if Carl Friedan had ever changed the spelling of his name on that account.  “Friedan”, at any rate, is the name Betty Friedan went under, after she married Carl Friedan.

The links to pertinent sources shown in the article are not contained in the original but were added by me.

Here is the article (1998, links inserted 2018 07 11):

THE HATE MONGERS

By Andy Turnbull

(6,000 words, all very much worth reading —WHS)

The biggest and the richest of the propaganda-based movements in Canada is the women’s movement. It actually started in 1963, when Betty Fried[a]n published her book {The Feminine Mystique}, but it took a while to get rolling.

Fried[a]n was a former magazine writer who watched the rise of the advertising agencies and the decline of the women’s magazines she wrote for. In the 1930’s and 40’s the good women’s magazines offered a high-quality mix of fiction, articles about career women and some home-oriented service articles. In the 1950’s they began to concentrate on service articles and housewives.

Fried[a]n blames the change on the move from mostly-women to mostly-men writers and editors, but she misses the point. She herself admits than women worked cheaper than men, so the magazines didn’t save money with the change. In fact it was part of the take-over of American media by the advertisers.

The readers were seen only as consumers, and the magazines were changed to encourage them to consume more. Some women, like Fried[a]n, reacted against the change but most didn’t and it’s a safe bet that even the women who reacted also consumed more.

Fried[a]n’s book reached relatively few women but it converted them to the cause and, slowly, they spread the word in face-to-face contact with others in what psychologists call a two-step or multi-step flow of communication.

The movement hit the big time when Australian writer Germaine Greer’s book {The Female Eunuch} was published in the early 1970’s. The book itself was not great but it came just when feminists who had been converted by Fried[a]n were ready to apply the techniques of persuasion that were now coming into common use.

It may be natural that feminists developed an aggressive and man-hating attitude because the face-to-face part of a two-step process is enhanced when the attitudes to be transmitted are conspicuously displayed for all to see. It was partly because the most radical of the feminists wore masculine clothing and displayed public hatred for all men that they stood out, and thus publicized the movement.

As the word spread feminists gained considerable support from business, possibly because of the promise of bigger profits. Whether it began with the feminists or with business one of the tenets of feminism was that women should work for a living, and the benefits to government and business are obvious.

One is that traditional women are producers, but most working women are consumers.

In the very early days of humanity our male ancestors hunted and our female ancestors gathered food, and the gathering was usually more productive than the hunting. Gatherers are vital to a hunter-gatherer society because hunting alone can’t supply enough food and because men can’t live well on just meat.

Even among Mongol herdsmen and Eskimos — both of whom are generally considered to be meat eaters — the diet includes berries and teas or soups made of bark, lichen, berries and grasses.

In most tribal societies women own the farms, until the farming turns to grain. At that point men may take over the farms and women stay home, partly because grain takes a lot of preparation before we can eat it. While men worked the fields women worked the grain, cleaning and grinding it at home, and baking bread. In most societies they also dress hides, collect fibers, weave cloth and make clothing.

Even in industrial times women made, washed and repaired clothes, baked bread and prepared other foods. Our modern society thinks a woman at home is a non-producer, but through most of human history the home has been the center of production.

Most important, of course, is women’s role in raising children. That is beyond measure, and any society that thinks another job may be more important has obviously lost touch with reality.

But women working at home also produce tangible wealth. When my mother was a child, early this century, her family never bought women’s clothes. Instead a professional seamstress came to the house for one month each year, and she helped my grandmother and her six daughters make all their clothes.

When I grew up in the 1940’s my mother still made most of her own clothes, my father’s shirts and most of the clothes for her younger kids — including me. Her work did not show on the GNP but the clothes she made were much better quality than we could buy, and they were worth a considerable amount of money.

My mother also made most of the family meals from scratch and during the war she grew much of the family food in a “Victory Garden”. We were not poor, but that was the way people lived in those days.

Today’s working women are more likely to buy clothes than make them, and to buy prepared food and restaurant meals rather than cook their own. Further, working women need more clothes, cars and services than women who stay home, thus creating more consumption for the business community and more taxes for government.

As women were encouraged to either not marry or to break up existing marriages they even increased the need for living space, because men and women who need only one apartment as a couple need two if they live apart.

Lawyers, real estate agents, “therapists” and psychiatrists benefited from the break-up of families, there were more jobs for social and child care workers and other government employees, and the whole new industry of day-care for children was established. Partly because mothers who did not care for their own kids felt guilty and partly because kids who were not cared for by their mothers were more demanding, sales of toys soared.

Business also benefited in several ways from the “meat rack” bars that opened as meeting places for singles. One was the business of the bars, of course, and another from the liquor and food sold and consumed there.

More important was the need by both men and women for expensive and impressive cars to drive to the bars where they hoped to pick up dates, and for clothes to wear. The mating period, when both men and women do their best to look impressive, was extended indefinitely.

And the flood of working women put a cap on wages. Whether they were paid as much as men or not the new workers increased the size of the work force, thus creating unemployment and a lever to keep wages down. That’s one of the reasons the average Canadian has lost about 20% of real purchasing power since the mid-1970’s.

But bringing women into the work force did not increase production. For all the talk about women being the same as men most women did not look for jobs in factories in mines or on construction. They wanted to be lawyers or media personalities or bureaucrats.

In a world that accepts Marshall’s fallacy those are considered to be productive jobs and governments responded to the demand by creating some jobs and the need for others.

The Ontario government, for example, created 1,500 new jobs they called “bridging positions.” These were frankly make-work jobs, and their sole purpose was to put women into “executive” positions. Given that the first job of a civil servant is to find something to be seen doing, most of these jobs soon appeared to be an integral part of the machine of government.

It’s probably a safe bet that by now most of the original “bridging positions” are established jobs, and that the people who fill them have private offices, secretaries and assistants.

The first feminists may have been looking for equality but any movement that succeeds carries within it the seeds of perversion. Just as the peaceful doctrine of Christ was used to justify the horrors of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and Mahommet’s respect for Jews has been perverted by the intolerance of fundamentalist mullahs, some parts of the women’s movement have been taken over by professional hate-mongers.

Militant feminists may not hate men but it’s much easier to control people if you give them an enemy to hate. World history and current news offer dozens of examples of hate campaigns that are used to control the people who are being driven to hate.

The hate side of the women’s movement got it’s biggest boost with a 1980 report on {Wife Battering in Canada} prepared for the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and a follow up report on {Violence in the Family} presented to the Commons Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in May of 1982. The cover of the report to the House of Commons featured a drawing of a man beating a woman and the introduction to the report contains the statement “We have been given good reason to believe that every year in Canada one tenth of the women who live with men as a couple are battered.”

The report admitted that the famous 10% figure was “an estimate”, but in fact there were hard numbers available at the time. As part of the Solicitor General of Canada’s {Canadian Urban Victimization Survey} more than 61,000 Canadians in seven cities were interviewed and the survey results — published in 1983 but available earlier — showed that only 70 women per 1,000 of population, or less than 7%, were involved any form of violence in the year before the survey.

Because of the fuss caused by the 10% estimate the Solicitor General’s next survey, published in 1985, went into more detail. It found that 39 women per thousand, or less than 4%, were victims of assaults in the year, and that 35 of the 39 assaults were by persons other than spouses.

In the year of the survey four women per thousand, or 0.75% of the population, were assaulted by spousal partners.

The difference between the results of the scientific survey and the 10% estimated by the pressure groups is easier to understand if you recall that the women were lobbying for a $20 million grant to open “shelter houses” for battered women. It’s much easier to get a grant for a facility needed by 10% of all women than for one that might be needed by 0.75%.

The figures were fudged so the women who wrote the report could raise money. If it were just money we might laugh it off — other groups have tapped the government for more than $20 million on false pretenses — but in this case the problem goes farther. Most Canadians laughed when the 10% figure was first quoted — even in the Commons some members laughed out loud — but the women’s groups had learned Hitler’s technique. Through the media they hammered the figure home until it was finally accepted.

And that created a problem, because of the phenomena some psychologists call a “self fulfilling prophesy”. I call it “Barnum’s law” in honor of Phineas Taylor Barnum, one-time showman and one of the great salesmen of history.

In the 1800’s Barnum made a fortune with two commercial museums in New York and his own circus, which was the first to travel with its own train. Barnum’s Circus was later merged with another to form the Barnum and Bailey Circus, and merged again to form Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey which was billed as “the greatest show on earth”.

Barnum was famous among reporters for the way he co-operated with the press. Most businessmen will co-operate on a story that reflects credit on them but Barnum would help reporters on any story. When people asked him why he stated his principle — which I consider one of the great laws of salesmanship — “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”

Barnum knew that whatever the story, and whatever the public reaction to it, people would soon forget the story but they would remember the name.

A friend of mine saw Barnum’s Law in action when she worked for a driving school in Hamilton, Ont. One of the school’s instructors got drunk and drove one of the school’s cars off Hamilton Mountain. The local press named the school in their stories and business dropped for a couple of weeks.

But then it came back, and it boomed for a couple of months.

When an instructor gets drunk and wrecks a car it’s not good publicity for a driving school, and while people remembered the accident they stayed away from the school. But after they forgot the accident they still remembered the name, and when they looked for a driving school one name was more familiar than others.

Modern salesmen may not admit that they believe in Barnum’s Law but we see it in action every day. Think of all the TV commercials that are famous because they are “dumb”, and because people resent them. The people who run those commercials measure their results, and they know that most people will remember the name long after they forget the commercial.

The same effect applies in other fields. More Americans probably drank more hard liquor during prohibition than they do now that liquor is legal. During prohibition, news stories about rum running and gangsters were the best possible advertising.

The use of illegal drugs is increasing in North America partly because the US government advertises them with so-called “anti-drug” campaigns. Drug users believe the message about the danger of drugs about as much as any of us believe anything the government tells us, but the message that drugs are available and desirable gets through very clearly.

In the same way, media and government campaigns against imaginary cases of wife beating help create real cases. If it’s unthinkable to hit my wife I won’t do it, but if 10% of men beat their wives it can’t be all that bad. Meanwhile the propaganda teaches women to expect to be beaten.

That’s bad news for women but it’s good news for the hate mongers. By the early 1990’s the federal government was spending about $70 million a year on shelter services, counselling, police and education programs in support of “abused women”, and planning to increase the total to $136 million a year.

As might be expected, home violence has increased to keep pace with the bigger grants and the hate-mongers still indulge in poetic license when they quote or interpret the numbers. When a Statistics Canada paper issued in the summer of 1997 reported a decline in wife-beating, women’s groups said that meant women were no longer reporting assaults.

In 1992 then-Ontario Minister of Women’s Rights Marion Boyd claimed that “research” showed that one man in five, or about 20%, admit to using violence against the women they live with. Presumably the rest of us deny it.

Actually the number Boyd should have quoted was 12%, as revealed by a study by University of Calgary sociologist Dr. Eugen Lupri in the Statistics Canada publication {Canadian Social Trends}.

Dr. Lupri found that 12% of men interviewed admitted that they had pushed, grabbed or shoved their partners at least once in the preceding year.

The study was based on questionnaires distributed to 471 men and 652 women but Stats Can chose to publish only the numbers on male violence. For the record, here are some of the numbers contained in the full report.

— 9.1% of husbands had threatened to hit or to throw something at their mates in the previous year, and 15.9% of wives had done the same.

— 11.9% of husbands and 13.1% of wives had pushed, grabbed or shoved their mates, 5% of husbands and 7.6% of wives had slapped, 5.4% of husbands and 7.6% of wives had hit or tried to hit, 6.4% of husbands and 6.3% of women had kicked, bit or hit with a fist, 2.5% of men and 6.2% of women had physically beaten up a partner

— 2.1% of men and 3.6% of women had threatened their partner with a knife or a gun. One half of one per-cent of men and 0.8% of women had actually used a weapon.

All this makes it sound as though women are violent and they are, but there is a reason.

For years professional hate-mongers have been whipping up women’s anger, and warning them that men will be violent. They will, if they are pushed far enough.

Hate bounces, and if I hate you the chances are that I will make you hate me.

Years ago there used to be a joke about how the office manager finds fault with his assistant, the assistant takes it out on his secretary, the secretary gets revenge on the office boy and the office boy kicks the cat.

In real life a professional hate-monger spreads her poison through the media. A career woman in an office hears the message and is rude to a messenger. The messenger deliberately cuts off the first woman driver he meets on the street and at some point a man punches a woman — or perhaps hits back after she punches him.

And this is one area in which Canada can boast of world-class numbers. A study by Lupri and Elaine Grandin, also of the University of Calgary, (reported in the {Journal of Family Violence Vol 12 #4}), found that the incidence of most violent crimes is about five times as high in the States as in Canada but that the incidence of family violence is much higher in Canada. Canadian men “kicked, bit or hit with a fist” their mates about ten times as often as American men, and Canadian women attacked their mates several times as often as American women. The only area of family violence in which Americans lead is in the use of guns.

The hate mongers who whip up the violence are financed by governments and by voluntary contributions to campaigns “dedicated to the fight against violence.” People who contribute to the campaigns don’t realize that their money will be used for programs that will in fact increase the incidence of violence against women.

Many of the people who run hate campaigns know enough about human nature that they should understand what they are doing but they may be blinded by hatred, self interest and their own propaganda.

For most of the past ten years the growth sector of the hate industry has been the sexual harassment business, which got it’s start in 1987. That year the British Columbia Public Interest Research Group, a student organization at Simon Fraser University, published a {Report on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at Simon Fraser University}.

The original plan was to survey all female students at the university and the first questionnaire was published in a student newspaper called {The Peak} but the newspaper survey produced, in the words of report author Anne Burger, “negligible” returns.

Less enthusiastic researches might have taken this as a comment on the women’s perception of sexual harassment but Burger was not to be daunted. As an alternate strategy her researchers gave the questionnaire to a selected group of 350 undergraduate women, watched them complete it, and then took it back. Working this way they got 346 completed questionnaires for a response which the report interprets as 98%.

The report does not say how the participants in the group were selected, but it is reasonable to assume that they were not chosen for their opposition to radical feminism.

Burger also placed questionnaires and letters explaining the project in the mail boxes of 444 graduate students, and got back 98 of them for a response the report describes as 20%.

The total sample was 794 of a total of about 4,700 women students in the university. The report says the respondents were randomly selected but that’s obviously not true. The sample included more graduate students than undergraduates, and almost all the undergraduates were freshmen who had enough interest in the project to fill out a questionnaire under supervision. Undergraduate second, third and fourth year students, who between them make up the majority of all students in the university, were not represented.

Within the selected group a total of 237 respondents were judged to have been sexually harassed. The research group interprets this as 53%, because they counted only the questionnaires that were returned. If we interpret the 80% of questionnaires not returned by graduate students as a “no” answer, the percentage who have suffered harassment drops to about 30%.

But even that number may be open to question because when we look at the questions we find that a wom[a]n has been “harassed” if she has ever heard a discriminatory remark, including a joke, in a classroom. The way the question was worded the joke or the remark did not have to be directed at a woman. If a woman overheard one man tell another an off-color joke, or comment about some feminine characteristic, the woman was “harassed”.

Several women were “harassed” because they were afraid to move around the campus at night and one was “harassed” because she felt she had to be “un-naturally unfriendly” to men. She did not say whether it was men or women who convinced her that she had to be unfriendly to men.

Most of the students who were “harassed” did not seem to consider the incidents serious. Of the 235 who said they had been harassed more than half — 144 of 235 said “does not apply” when asked if they reported it. The report says it assumes the students did not consider the incidents to be important. Every incident had to be important to Burger, of course, because without them she would have had no report.

Other researchers appear to be willing to tolerate sexual harassment, provided it is men who are harassed. In 1987 — the same year as the BCPirg report — Ontario Institute for Studies in Education doctoral candidate Gina Fisher studied sexual harassment at the institute.

She mailed questionnaires to all the 527 women and 235 men students at OISE and got responses from 239 women, 83 men and 30 people who did not identify their sex. The ones who did not specify their sex were not considered in sex-difference analyses.

The returns indicated that 56% of male respondents thought they had been harassed, compared with only 51% of women. More men than women reported harassment in the sense of being pressured for dates, but Fisher chose to explain the figures away.

“It was speculated”, she says in her report, “that the men in this study may have misinterpreted nonsexual behaviors by female students as sexual in nature. Hence males’ tendency to oversexualize women’s friendly overtures may have led male students to report high rates of sexual harassment.”

After discounting the men’s complaints, Fisher found “no sex difference in reported sexual harassment incidence rates”, thus demonstrating one female researcher’s tendency to make the facts fit her theory.

But Fisher did find that “a significantly greater number of women than men defined 15 of the 20 unsolicited sexually-oriented kinds of behavior presented to them as sexual harassment.

One difference was that men were likely to consider even an unwanted proposition as flattering, but most of the women considered it an insult. The report says that 38% of women rated personal invitations — like a request for a date — as offensive and interfering.

Fisher found that women were less tolerant of harassment by professors than were men, and she admitted that some women were offended by “even behaviors that may seem relatively benign”.

Men are more tolerant than women, in other words, but even so they complain of more harassment. A researcher other than Gina Fisher might have concluded that men suffer more harassment.

The fact is that years of hate propaganda and mock science, like Burger’s and Fisher’s reports, have made a lot of women fear men, and for these women the existence of men is seen as harassment.

Despite the evidence of her own study Fisher’s report, which started with the premise that women need to be protected from harassment by men, ended with the conclusion that women need to be protected from harassment by men.

And women are now protected, as Professor Richard Hummel of the University of Toronto discovered. In the fall of 1988 a female part-time student complained that 60-year-old Hummel “stared at her” while they both swam in a pool at the University of Toronto.

The university’s official policy on sexual harassment requires mediation of such complaints but this student demanded a formal hearing with no attempt at mediation, and Sexual Harassment officer Nancy Adamson complied. It has been suggested that the reason she skipped a few steps of the required procedure was that her first annual report was nearly due, and she had no other activity to report.

Whatever the reason for the hearing Hummel was convicted, barred from the university’s recreation complex for five years, and ordered to counselling approved by the sexual harassment officer.

The case became a laughing stock because the student had charged that Hummel stared at her while they were both swimming, which is obviously impossible, but the effects were not funny.

Hummel’s name had been smeared and he was the victim of a hate campaign which included vicious graffiti (one said “poke his eyes out”) and someone stuck pins in the tires of his bicycle. He tried to take his case to a real court but when the court date approached Adamson took a six-month vacation in Tahiti and was not available to testify.

As Hummel fought to regain his reputation the University of Toronto administration fought back. After several years of bitter feuding Hummel accepted early retirement. The case cost the university hundreds of thousands of dollars — perhaps millions — and the services of a senior professor.

And the Hummel case is just one of many. The Ontario Human Rights Commission alone held 139 hearings in 1990, and Ontario is only about a third of Canada — which in turn is about one tenth of North America. When you consider cases like Hummel’s — which was tried in secret by a panel at the university and which does not show in the official figures — the total number of hearings and trials in North America may be in the thousands.

But the prohibition against harassment works only one way. At Ryerson University, where posters advise women to complain of any comments they don’t like, the campus bookstore featured {The Dumb Men Joke Book} prominently displayed beside the cash registers. If the sex were changed, any one joke in that book would be cause for a major demonstration by women.

{Maclean’s Magazine} reported the case of Carleton University first-year psychology student Lyle Burwell, who complained about offensive cartoons in the student newspaper. University associate vice president Marilyn Marshall, who handled the complaint, explained that the cartoons — including one in which a smiling woman with a knife asks women whether their lives would be helped by the “total elimination of penises” just illustrate female fantasies, and they are “not the same as endorsing or promoting the fantasized action”.

That could be interpreted as an invitation for men to draw cartoons of a naked Marilyn Marshall tied to a whipping post, but perhaps that kind of fantasy would not be so acceptable.

Sexual harassment is now a business, based on hate and propaganda. It provides hundreds of well-paid jobs for sexual harassment officers and staff at nearly every Canadian university and community college, millions of dollars worth of business a year for lawyers, and something for the media to report, but like many modern businesses it produces nothing of value to society. In fact it probably does serious harm.

It may well produce more sexual harassment, or sexual harassment where there would otherwise be none. Let’s not forget that most students ignored Burger’s first questionnaire, published in the student newspaper, and the only way she got the results she wanted was to have selected students fill out questionnaires under supervision.

That does not mean there was no behavior in those days that would be considered sexual harassment today, but it implies that the problem was not serious. When comments were made, women were not sensitized to react. Perhaps they laughed them off, the way Carleton’s assistant vice president expects men to laugh off cartoons that depict her fantasies of mutilating men.

But women don’t laugh off insults now, because the hate propaganda sensitizes them; and they probably get more insults and other forms of harassment than ever before because, consciously or not, men resent the hate propaganda,

“After an experience of sexual harassment/assault with a particular man”, Burger wrote in her report, “respondents invariably adopted negative feelings toward men in general.” Burger and other militant feminists seem to ignore the possibility that after being nagged for years on end by professional man-haters, some men may be less than sympathetic to women’s noble cause.

The hate business makes money for some, but it damages society as a whole. It damages the men who are victimized too, but neither the Canadian government nor the women’s movement seem to care much about them.

They should though, because human males are the most dangerous animals on earth — so dangerous that they have literally wiped out some other species of animals. Men are genetically programmed to tolerate a lot from women but they are not and will not be infinitely patient. The figures are spousal battering, some of which are now real, are one evidence.

And some may go beyond battering. On Dec. 6 of 1989 Marc Lepine took a semi- automatic rifle to the Ecole Polytechnique engineering school in Montreal, where he shot and killed 14 women. Lepine avoided shooting men, and he screamed his hatred of women as he shot them.

On Sept 26/97 23-year old Charlene Minkowski died after she was pushed off the platform in front of a Toronto subway train. Police said an unemployed man, who apparently hated women, had attacked Minkowski because she was available.

The next day the {Toronto Sun} listed seven people who had been attacked in Toronto subway stations since 1978. Four women and two men were pushed onto the tracks, and one woman was able to fight off a man who dragged her to the side of the platform and tried to push her onto the tracks.

In the summer of 1997 we had several cases in which men who were apparently depressed either killed or tried to kill their families, and then killed themselves. Nobody has any doubt that something drove these men over the edge of sanity, but it would not be good business for women’s groups to consider whether their activities could be a contributing factor.

Part of the rage that is now building up throughout Canadian cities is men’s reaction to the anti-male hate literature, some of it funded by federal, provincial and civic governments, that some sectors of the women’s movement spew out.

Consciously or not, men probably also resent the obligatory anti-male stereotypes found in many TV commercials and other advertisements.

You know the ones. The woman salesman in the Saturn car commercials who likes to show men the vanity mirror. The patent medicine commercials that fake a class in medical school, with dumb men and bright women students. Apparently some advertisers think that anything that disparages men with the stereotypes that professional man-haters seem to like will sell to women.

Maybe they do, and maybe the advertisers don’t want to sell to men, but the effect goes beyond sales. If men are nagged long enough they may react with resentment.

That’s probably good for the man-haters, because they make their living off stress and tension in society, but it’s not good for the society they prey on.

Beyond the few cases of violence the real cost of tension is buried in other figures. Because a driver tries to work his tension out on the road two cars collide, and perhaps someone is killed. Safety officials call that “road rage” and they estimate that it now kills about 200 Americans a year — an increase of 51% since 1990. An Australian study estimates that road rage causes about half of all traffic accidents.

Rage causes other problems too. Because someone is tense and consumed with hate a machine is not serviced properly, and it breaks down. Because someone is tense a marriage breaks up, and a child who might have been productive grows up to be a drain on society.

And because of the hate campaign we are now more likely to see fellow citizens as enemies than as friends. Most men now know better than to expect even common courtesy from a strange woman and, because they don’t expect it, they don’t offer it.

It’s a brave new world we live in now, but it’s not one that many people like. Even the hate-mongers who made it and who profit from it probably don’t like it but, perhaps like some of the Nazis who helped Hitler destroy Germany, they may be among the victims of their own propaganda.

Some of the fury has died out of the women’s movement now, but the furies still have power and men have their memories. For the past 20 years professional harridans have screamed their hatred of life and of men over the public media, and for 20 years they created what, in another context, they call a “poisoned environment.”

Men’s rage has been building for 20 years, and is now very close the surface. In some cases it is breaking through, and for at least the next 20 years some women will pay the price for 20 years of public hate. As we might expect, the women who did most to create the hatred are already well insulated from it with comfortable sinecures and fat bank accounts.

But hatred and rage are now major factors in our economy and our politics. They are good business for some, but they are a disaster for the economy as a whole. Hate mongers are hard to fight, partly because most of them are probably victims of their own propaganda, and they may actually believe that they are right.

Many of the people who run hate campaigns know enough about human nature that they should understand what they are doing but they may be blinded by hatred, self interest and their own propaganda.

A Somali proverb says “you cannot wake a man who is pretending to be asleep.” One assumes that it would be even harder to wake a man who has found a way to be paid for sleeping.


#HateMongers #Propaganda

See also:

This entry was posted in Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.