Tonight's program is the next-to-last of the season. We span the scientific to the esoteric to the social-political in one short program. Next week's season finale is called A Sort of Homecoming.
Thank you for another brilliant segment on Planet Waves FM tonight. Thank you for some balance, history and perspective on this issue, I didn’t realise patriarchy is a Marxist term.
I feel like I’m drowning in the word patriarchy! It’s used as a lazy catch phrase/coverall for almost every situation where women don’t want to take responsibility for their choices let alone celebrate them.
I know I’m sounding pretty fired up about this and it’s because I’ve just finished reading a really well feted book called Wifedom by Anna Funder which manages a take down of George Orwell and a promotion of patriarchy in one book. The really sad thing is most people’s take away from the book is patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarch and George Orwell is an asshole – neither of which sentiment is needed at the moment. I said to a good friend who was buying into the patriarchy angle that no matter what we might think we know about Orwell as a person, we need, more than ever, to understand what he was communicating. By the way Funder is a Rockefeller Foundation fellow.
And then there’s the Barbie movie ……… Some of my friends’ boys are being indoctrinated to feel bad because they’re part of the patriarchy just for being male. This makes me so very sad as it producing a swathe of people who are being taught to dislike themselves.
So far an hour in. I'd say this about Kate Bush's Them Heavy People. Earlier this evening i peeked into a couple of EPIC journeys in the Grateful Dead's log, 9/16/78 at the Pyramids and 9/12/90 in Philly. So it's something that Kate Bush piqued my interest.
Regarding the return of the virus demon: Problem is, lots of people WANT to believe the fairy tales. Gives their lives meaning, and they don't wanna have to question the last three and a half years. Many of them need it to have been true for their political sense of the world, including people whom i had remained friends with for almost thirty years. Digiltalitis, inflammation of the sense of being.
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the momnt I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
After listening to your segment on your "Journey Through Feminism", I was reminded of an interview on Jerm Warfare with Rachel Wilson, author of "Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation". Her well researched work jumps into the circle through a Christian perspective, but uncovers a plan that once again goes back further and further in time, and encompasses even the suffragette movement. As always, I am left with the conclusion that we've been "had", and in this case, the plan was to take out men and replace them with the State.
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes she provides excellent history, such as the fact that most men did not vote either and the Suffragist struggle was largely among women.
Her review of "occult influences" is biased in several ways, mainly in that she considers the Christian teachings inherently correct! And anything else is incorrect. She shows no sign of critiquing Christian ideas, nor that she is open to the possibility that alternatives are both viable and humane.
Tarot cards and satanism have nothing to do with one another. I don't know what Crowleyism really means to her but his teachings are not "satanist" and also, he was a satirist — a prankster and also extremely famous and wanted to stay that way. He was not occult in that he REVEALED many secrets rather than concealed them.
That Suffragists and some modern women's libbers are focused on woman-centered practices like "witchcraft" is in itself irrelevant. It's what one does with those tools that counts. The user can be guided by love, or the desire to manipulate. They can be more or less truthful; more or less competent.
Using tarot cards as an example, they are a set of symbols that contain most possibilities; it's what source you connect them to that matters. They are for divination; when one casts cards or yarrow sticks or coins, of whom is one asking the question?
This is well after the expiration date of your post with the segment on feminism. I am a slow responder and on route.
I have not pursued feminism in academe and have no personal connection to any distinguished feminist, but I have lived as one, as I understand it, most of my adult life.
To my knowledge you’re right, I can’t remember any major written work on boys & men, except dim recollections of discussions on socialization and the existence of Robert Bly’s men’s’ movement.
For me personally “the personal is political” had to do with growing up a girl; actually being born a girl where a boy was greeted with “it’s a boy! It’s a boy!” And a girl was greeted with “it’s a bitch” and from there onwards...
As to war & peace. We can go back Antigone or jump ahead to WW1 to Rosa Luxemburg & Clara Zetkin both out agitating against the impeding world war, bringing Luxembourg to prison, Zetkin defined herself a feminist. Here’re Rosa Luxembourg words prescient today: “The West has been preparing for decades, in broad day-light, in the widest publicity, step by step, and hour by hour, for the world war.” The Junius Pamphlet. (Of course today they are both anathema being both Communists and Jewish.)
Otherwise I personally participated and have known, for years on end, feminists standing and acting against war and occupation in Israel Palestine, like the “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo” and countless (!) other women’s groups around the world. Since the 2nd intifada 1987, “Women in Black” were and still are standing weekly (!) against the occupation. From them spawned groups such as “checkpoint-watch” “coalition of women for peace” and “who profit.”. All the way to “Code Pink” in the USA.
As to Abortion here’s my take today:
Compartmentalism, the ‘Scientific Method’ of atomizing all life has given us ‘Abortions’ — ‘A Thing’ — to debate, diagnose, legislate... all but to return it to where it belongs, to the female, woman’s body in it’s autonomy, processes and symbioses with her social environment.
As to “Patriarchy”, one cannot possibly quote the Bible as it is itself within the Patre-arch matrix To understand anything about that concept one has to step outside it, into an extinguish territory, where it’s very easy to get lost and even easier to be mis-led...
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the momnt I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the moment I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
They should have told sexually active gay men that virtually 100% ((Drew / CDC KSOI task force) of them were infected with a potentially lethal virus, CMV, which:
- was associated with a reversal in the normal ratio of helper to suppressor T lymphocytes with relative and absolute decreases in T helper cells and corresponding increases in T suppressor cells - (the key immunological marker of AIDS patients) Carney, 1/6//81 Analysis of T lymphocyte subsets in cytomegalovirus mononucleosis- 4 days before the original MMWR 'AIDS' bulletin
-had been closely associated with PCP pneumonia (one of the two key medical diseases associated with AIDS in 1981) since the 1950s - Williams et al, October 1960 'Cytomegalic inclusion disease and Pneumocystis carinii infection in an adult' (Not uncoindentally but bizarrely, the paper outlining the first UK AIDS patient was titled 'Primary Pneumocystis Carinii and Cytomegalovirus infections' 12/12/1981
- the Williams paper included an AIDS prophecy - 'It is important to recognise their (CMV and PCP pneumonia) potential pathogenicity and their ability to produce, either alone or in combination, fatal infections in man. There is some evidence that this danger is increased by prolonged treatment with steroids and antibiotics. Possibly more cases will occur because of the increasing use of these drugs.'
- the same Williams paper also noted the association between CMV and toxoplasmosis
- the assocation between PCP, toxoplasmosis and CMV was wrttten up in a 1979 paper 'Pneumocystis carinii, Toxoplasma gondii, Cytomegalovirus and the compromised host'
- the association between CMV and Kaposi's sarcoma, the other main 'AIDS' marker disease in 1981) was noted in 1972 - Giraldo Kaposi's Sarcoma: A New Model in the Search for Viruses Associated With Human Malignancies
- in early 1981 Bijan Safai Chief, DermatologyService, Department of Medicine,Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,NewYork wrote: a specific association exists between cytomegalovirus(CMV) and KS
-in 1977 RH Rubin wrote in a paper titled 'Infectious disease syndromes attributable to cytomegalovirus and their significance among renal transplant recipients': 'The major infectious disease importance of CMV appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection' (AIDS in a nutshell)
- in 1974 Simmons wrote: 'two paradoxical responses to CMV infections are seen in transplant patients: In the relatively immunocompetent patient, the infection is associated with renal allograft rejection, a prompt antibody response to the virus, and recovery. The severely immunosuppressed patient cannot make an antibody response... may be further immunosuppressed by the viral infection, and is susceptible to sequential opportunistic infections leading to death.' (Also AIDS in a nutshell)
-In this paper - Cytomegalovirus: Clinical Virological Correlations in Renal Transplant Recipients - Simmons also described 'the course of a typical lethal CMV infection'. Over the course of 4-6 weeks these transplant patients basically died of an aquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Also in 1974 Coulson wrote: 'An epidemic of cytomegalovirus disease (CMV) occurred in 38 percent of 34 renal transplant recipients during an 18-month period (1970-71). A characteristic clinical pattern was noted: 40 days following transplantation, daily fevers recurred for periods of four to six weeks. This fever in conjunction with a diffuse interstitial pneumonitis and impaired hepatic and renal function constituted a diagnostic tetrad.'
'Forty-day fever. An epidemic of cytomegalovirus disease in a renal transplant population'
I could go on, but basically, almost 100% of sexually active gay males were infected with a potentially lethal virus, some of them, as the CDC knew by the end of 1981, with multiple strains of this virus, but the KSOI task force report did not come out until August 1983. Part one the epidemiological report did not mention CMV at all, and the laboratory report received virtually no publicity.
That is just one of the many scandals concerning the Public Health system's response to AIDS. I have written one book and am now writing a second about AIDS, and would love to talk to you about them on one of your shows.
Paul
Incidentally, Harry Haverkos who produced the first CDC 'AIDS' case definition, stated that Kaposi's sarcoma was seen in gay male AIDS patients because of 'poppers' but Jim Curran told him to keep this quiet as the CDC had already stated poppers weren't to blame.
History has recorded, and been verified many times, that CDC specifically knew THERE WAS NOT a virus, particularly on April 24, 1984 when they said there WAS a virus but also knew that there was not. The false claim of a virus, and the subsequent use of "anti-viral" medication, is at the very heart of this scientific scandal.
Can you please show me the links to where the CDC state there was no virus, please.
I agree with you, my research has shown that the scientific evidence for the existence of T-cell killing virus called HIV-1 is paper thin, non-existent, fabricated.
My research has also shown me that the CDC were fully aware that gay males, IVDUs and haemophiliacs were infected with a common virus called CMV. CMV is generally harmless but in the immunocompromised adults and babies it can be deadly.
I have many sources of evidence to back up my assertion but I will focus on this one from the CDC:
The paper 'National Case-Control Study of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia in Homosexual Men: Part 2- Laboratory Results' showed that
-165 out of 167 AIDS cases (the original 50 cases that were still alive) and controls (all homosexual males) were infected with CMV
- the amount of CMV in the blood was significantly higher for cases than controls (Viral load is the crucial determinant of whether CMV disease will occur)
-Cultures of patients' urine and throat swab specimens yielded cytomegalovirus more frequently (three times more frequently) than those of the combined controls, 13 (25%) of 52 patients having an isolation made from one or more sites, versus 9 (7%) of 124 combined controls
-The DNA restriction endonuclease analysis was done on DNA isolated from human-embryonic-lung fibroblasts infected with cytomegalovirus isolates obtained from ten patients and ten controls. Different restriction endonuclease digestion patterns were obtained for each
isolate, suggesting that each isolate contained unique BamHl restriction sites and presumably represented different strains of cytomegalovirus - 20 CMV isolations / 20 different strains of CMV!
The CDC paper states that 'cytomegalovirus can cause depression of cellular immune function, including skin test anergy and decreased lymphocyte responsiveness to mitogens and antigens, and cytomegalovirus can cause reversal of the T-helper to T-suppressor cell
ratio' - that was the key immunological marker of AIDS.
So, I will say again that the CDC knew by the end of 1981 that almost 100% of sexually active gay males were infected with a virus whose 'major infectious disease importance appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection.' RH Rubin 1977, 'INFECTIOUS DISEASE SYNDROMES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CYTOMEGALOVIRUS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AMONG RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS'. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/infectious_disease_syndromes_attributable_to.10%20(4).pdf
The scandal is that thanks to Don Francis and Jim Curran the CDC tied itself completely in 1982 to the 'retrovirus causes AIDS' bandwagon, doing what Sherlock Holmes warned investigators not to do -
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'
CDC never said that. They claimed there was a virus, but without a shred of paper to demonstrate even the suspicion. This was the infamous Heckler/Gallo press conference in April 1984. The press ran with it, and HIV-AIDS was born.
We may investigate CDC FOIAs in recent years; I will check with Christine Massey.
'History has recorded, and been verified many times, that CDC specifically knew THERE WAS NOT a virus' - I just wanted know your evidence for this sentence.
Incidentally, the CDC should also have told sexually highly active gay males (SHAGS) that CMV a virus whose 'major infectious disease importance' was its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection - ie opportunistic infections - could be transmitted via: semen; urine; saliva; blood and faeces....
I agree with you, yet, she came up with some really good stuff that I didn't know while following her bias. I did mention her Christian "perspective":)
Regarding abortion, on which she is pretty gung ho. I know you mentioned these "christian" values...
(Addressed to Jeff —) it is my perspective that abortion has been badly abused. And it also must be a legal right WITH RESTRICTIONS, even if that right is abused, but the karma is then individual and there is plenty of karma from abortion -- especially if it becomes a habit. Few pro-choice people talk about the terrible regrets many women feel even years or decades on.
However, one cannot reasonably be against both abortion AND birth control AND basic sex education AND masturbation (the Fundamentalist Christian position). This is nothing more than a trap and a social game which cause real damage.
It's insanity to oppose abortion in the cases of rape and incest, which has long been the position of many anti-abortion people.
Adoption (the usual "christian" alternative to abortion) is not an answer to much of anything. Few anti-abortion people talk about the damage that it does to both the parents and the child.
In fact the practice of the Church of Rome is infanticide. So these Christian anti-abortion activists who say that babies are being killed and who do not admit that the Church itself killed a lot of babies, are hypocrites.
Finished the program. Rebecca Culshaw is a wonderful guest, i wouldn't mind having her on every month! Extremely informed and informative. BTW, the New York Times reporter who wrote about the fake 2007 pandemic was Gina Kolada, i remember her name as being similar to a drink. :-)
The Mallory Millet segment was horrendous. Do you really need to embrace utterly reactionary politics in order to grind an anti-feminist ax? So much information and disinformation. Marx did not invent the term "patriarchy," nor did he even commonly employ it. In terms of using the term in social analysis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton initiated such usage in the US in the mid-19th Century.
You confuse Engels with Marx. Engels wrote Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, in 1884, after Marx's death. I would not stand 100% behind the book, but he made good points about the similarity between the family structure and the structure of capitalist society. Engels and Marx are not the same person at all.
Do you really think male domination was universal through history, and not an artifact of the rise of centralized states only a few thousand years ago? Evidence for the latter is pretty overwhelming. Or are you arguing that there never was male domination before "feminists" started talking about it in the Sixties? If so, why was an Equal Rights Amendment necessary?
You pose Wilhelm Reich in contrast to "Marxism." Do you not realize that Reich came out of the Marxist tradition, and in fact was a member of the German Communist Party into the '30s? Are we supposed to ignore essays such as Sex Pol and The Mass Psychology of Fascism? Reich was quite explicitly anti capitalist.
Reich was expelled from the Party because of the Party's rather uptight and repressive attitudes about sexuality, but this does not negate the very political nature of his analysis. It's not a coincidence that one of the best discussions of Reich's analysis of sexual repression was written by British libertarian socialist Maurice Brinton,https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm The same Brinton also wrote Bolsheviks and Workers' Control http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/ about how the "Communist" Party under Lenin's totalitarian control proceeded to implement total control of Russian (and then USSR) society, doing away with attempts to actually implement socialism and direct control of social resources by society as a whole.
Mallory Millet pushes notions such as "cultural Marxism," commonly used by right wing analysts, utterly wrong in the context used, as the people they criticize are actually post modernists such as Foucault. They fundamentally disagree with Marx on such matters as the very idea of a systemic view of society and history, arguing against any systemic analysis. "Marxism" simply becomes "something i don't like." Mallory Millet puts forth NOW as a "Marxist" organization. What claptrap! It was dedicated to preserving the capitalist status quo and the corporate ladder,wishing only to open it more to striving women.
Mallory Millet opposes not only abortion, but the entire sexual revolution of the Sixties. Eric, are you now turning against that revolution, in an effort to attack "feminism"? Do you think sexual intercourse should be limited to married heterosexual couples? I'm afraid i see you embracing a lot of reaction and confusion here.
PS -- I don't think there was a sexual revolution in the 1960s. I think there was the birth control pill and lots of great drugs going around and that helped people be less uptight and gave women the occasion to take a little more freedom. But none of that was revolutionary and there was no lasting social change, only the unleashing of chaos.
To the extent there was a sexual revolution, Betty Dodson provided its one and only actual revolutionary idea.
You were born in 1964. You did not experience the repressive period which came before the mid '60s. I have to say you are profoundly wrong . More than just "a little more freedom." "Good girls" just did not have sex before and outside marriage, married women may have done so here and there but certainly did not talk about it. Non-monogamy? FORGET IT!! You betray a lack of actual experience of the times vs reading about them or seeing movies about them.
I agree that more liberal ideas and experiences emerged in the mid-1960s, which were a transient turning point.
But a LOT of this had to do with the pill and with other drugs. And you have never once hard me say that this was essentially wholesome, or that it had a good outcome. I am much more sexually conservative than I am made out to be, because anyone who says anything good about sex is presumed to be a libertine or pervert.
There was no **fundamental change in values**. There was a temporary change in some behaviors. And then there was a mess, and the mess has not been addressed, then or now. Borrowing from Emma, if there is no Saturn, then it's not my revolution. There was no Saturn. There was no "free love." There was just more sex, for some people. To me, what you are describing as a revolution was not one.
IMO there was just one revolutionary idea: YOUR FUNDAMENTAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS TO YOURSELF. And it was not popular. Footnote Betty Dodson.
I disagree, Again, if you didn't go through the changes, it's just impossible to appreciate the change. Just like Jim Crow, for that matter, same period. Or the idea that one would dare openly oppose a war pursued by the US government.
The real "mess" happened as the result of the counter-revolution which was iniitiated in the early '70s by the control apparatus, detailed in books like The Cancer Stage of Capitalism by John McMurtrey (a strong supporter of non-monogamy, BTW) and Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney, both of which came out in .. 1999. And this included the entire Operation AIDS "pandemic."
No I didn't go through the changes, except as a small child with my parents in bloody battle, and then taking the brunt of "women's lib" in the form of constant references to all those male chauvinist pigs. Then I lived through the "liberation" part of both of my parents, newly divorced and liberated, going through a partner every six months. So their liberation meant I had no stability, and was never able to say goodbye to many people about whom I cared and who cared about me. I was a child — and I was there. And I ask you Jeff, where are you, today, thanks to all this "women's liberation"?
I was able to experience relationships without having to commit myself to a monogamous marriage before i had any experience. I am EFFING glad that this was possible. Sorry for the instability in your life, though this happened in divorces long before the Sixties.
Growing up, i had all the "stability" of a couple which engaged in constant fighting, at times outright physical (with my brother getting involved from the time i was 14 and older), then making up and staying together for the sake of the children. After my father died, my mom spent the remaining 39 years of her life (died at almost 98) saying what a horrible person he was.
I state my ideas explicitly, and do not covertly signal any "turning toward" or "turning away" and you will never hear me preach monogamy or the supremacy of the "nuclear family."
I continue to present my ideas while I am in the process of learning, and as you know, I avoid being resolutely conclusive. I am in a learning process and I take my listeners with me.
Regarding sex and relationships, I am pretty much where my bibliography says I am, consistently. I have always supported the choice of people to be monogamous householders if that is right for them. But that's it.
Unfortunately, there are no pure thinkers, and you have people on opposite ends of the spectrum of any issue critiquing and attacking one another. There is exceedingly little objectivity or balance. So when looking for a way to unravel ideas, you sometimes have to use "the oppressor's language" as Adrienne Rich said. "I need it to speak to you."
As for Wilhelm Reich, I don't think his being a Marxist who notably was thrown out, detracts from his analysis of the political use and implications of sexual repression. I am not saying that all of Marxism is wrong or useless. I am not saying it's wonderful.
I am interested in agendas, and the means of attaining them.
Currently I'm watching this video, which is deconstructing feminism as an "occult institution" and is concerned that the fact that the Suffragists were into tarot cards and that meant they were "anti-Christian" and that's seen as a bad thing.
She is missing all kinds of nuance, for example, insinuating that everyone into "the occult" i.e., tarot card readers, are "satanists" etc etc.
Apart from matters of factual truth, I think is way to ideological to be helpful. I may be Quaker and I am aware that 99% of what passes for "christianity" has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
But I continue to put you on notice that I do not participate in ideology. Nor am I a purist.
By the way the feminists I knew at SUNY Buffalo were pseudo Marxists, but they did not say so. So were many of their friends, and the people I worked with politically. I am not a Marxist in any way shape or form; but we had enough actual values in common that I could work together, and frankly I was interested only in publishing my magazine on my own terms -- and they never interfered -- and always protected my right to say whatever I wanted. There was a libertarian bent to whatever this Marxism was.
Marx famously stated that he was not a Marxist. Actually, he said "Je ne suis Marxist," in a letter to a friend, commenting on material sent him by people who claimed to be "Marxists." The vast majority of people who call themselves Marxists nowadays, in fact since the early 20th Century, have near zero to zero affinity to anything Marx stood for.
Quoting from my web page, The Daily Battle, an editorial i co-wrote with Tod Fletcher when he and i revived the page after it went moribund in the wake of 9/11 and the split up of the group which initiated it.
"The most profound theorist of genuine socialism was Karl Marx. He was the first to develop a rational critique of capitalism, and the discoverer of the secret source of capitalist profit, surplus value. A great scholar, artist and humanitarian, Marx has continued, through his writings, to threaten vested power to the present day. As a result his work has been either suppressed, vilified or wildly distorted by ideologues of capital, including those of totalitarian state-capitalist nations such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Marx has been successfully smeared by claims that he is somehow responsible for the monstrous atrocities of "actually existing socialism."
In fact his writings are formally and concretely the antithesis of all forms of capitalism and capitalist ideology. They are a powerful source of illumination of this highly opaque system of social relationships, to which we unapologetically look for assistance in our efforts to understand the beast and bring it down. We reject the jargon-laden and in-grown discourse of academic "Marxism," however, as did Marx himself (see banner above). "Marxism" today in almost all of its forms, academic or political party, is a distortion of the man's work. There is no better way ahead than to undertake one's own close reading of his works themselves."
t's totally logical that the German Communist Party expelled Reich, because that party was NOT "Marxist," it gave up any such notions when it expelled the people known as "left communists" in the early 1920s upon orders from Lenin in Moscow, after he authored his book "Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder."
This book was in response to criticisms from left wing communists about the growing capitalist and authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union, the stuff Brinton wrote about in Bolsheviks and Workers Control which i refer to in my comment. All parties calling themslves "Communist Party," including the one in the US, basically became by 1923 or so nothing more than fronts for the Soviet Union government and its policies.
"But I continue to put you on notice that I do not participate in ideology. Nor am I a purist." Excellent!!
Also though I have not read them, I've heard lectures, both Keynes and Smith understood that capitalism would create problems that had to be addressed. As with most things, Marx, Keynes, Smith et al are held up as straw men.
As you know, my direct experience of "feminism" in 2018 was pure Maoist Cultural Revolution. And at first, I thought that whole trend was departing from feminism. Then I realized no, that is the natural outcome of this whole milieu of "personal is political."
Mao was not a Marxist, but an adherent of Lenin and (even more) Stalin. And NOW and the "feminism" of 2018 were/are way different from Red Stockings and the like of 1969.
Yes they were different. Women's Lib was driven by television conditions, which provoked action. Today, these types of "movements" are driven by digital conditions and the aggression is bald. The action is all "involvement" in digital space till the hostility boils over.
Feminist movements have always been anti-sex and in particular, anti-heterosexual. Today's queer queer queer trans trans trans on every channel, and the disdain even for so much as male attraction to women, finds its roots right in Adrienne Rich, Laura Mulvey, and Andrea Dworkin.
Betty described many times how — contrary to the claims of Mallory Millet — feminism was and is inherently anti-sex. She should know; she was the first to pioneer feminism in that era that was embracing and inclusive of sex; in another era, Victoria Woodhull advocated what she called free love. But nobody knows who she is except a few PhDs here and there.
I will tell you what I mean by "they were the same." The movements during Second Wave and what we see today are socially hostile to men. Neither makes any attempt to understand male experience, both blame men for everything, and neither takes any responsibility for the conditions of women. The change, the solution, the sacrifice, must always come from men.
Neither expresses any gratitude for what men do for women.
Neither admits, "We raised these boys into men. What went wrong?"
Neither takes a stand against war, or the conditioning of men to be "warriors."
Neither subjects itself to critique for the damage that it does. Neither aspires to find a common language and a common base of experience. Both insist that men and women live as if in two different universes, instead of on the same planet at the same time.
Neither has the meekest hint of a sense of humor.
Neither is about equality. They just say they are.
It's all about power and disruption and not building anything new. There is no new vision; there is no future, only the past for which retribution must be sought.
I hear where you're coming from. But the large majority of feminists in 1969 and early '70s whom i encountered were not remotely anti-sex or hostile to men per se. They hated not being treated as equals. Can't blame them for that.
Some men reacted with resolute rejection of any notion that there should be equality, men who themselves had been waxing on about how they weren't being treated with respect by society because they were young and dissidents, or how black people were being treated as unequal, and sure, that caused an overreaction on the part of some feminists.
And yes, there were some "feminists" who pushed a hateful agenda, as happened with the civil rights movement. As happened with Gay Liberation. The forces of the counter-revolution incorporated all that tension into the repression/co opting efforts, used it to the max. As you can tell, that worked very well.
Much gratitude to you Eric for your outstanding work and report. I finished the first section last night. I pray it reaches endless ears, and only wish we could hog tie people and make them listen. Excellent point on the weight it carries for those docs reporting to VAERs. As I was alerting some people when the numbers were climbing in beginning, I was blown off by some saying its just non validated reports. Now I have more to add. Was it the H1N1 jab that they stopped after something like 100 deaths? It's not even mandatory to report I understand. And yes yes yes accountability of the media, when will it ever happen? I had checked in with Amy every once in a while in the past as she was held in high regard by some, waiting to hear something, and finally saw the whole light during Conjob 19 when I was thouroughly disgusted with her hawking the narrative. I realized then that one of the reasons it had never set all that well with me, was her title " The War and Peace Report". She is normalizing war every time she speaks it Was she always controlled opposition? I think your thoughts were beautiful on September, and "one thing becoming the next".
Fantastic stuff - Eric and guests - listening in from West Coast Australia - feels like 'community' - lots of well informed content - especially your diligent work on the PCR Eric - expose on the use of a Test that doesn't work looking for a virus that doesn't exist - And can you believe how sheeple clamored in line to have this intrusive rubbish shoved into their sinus cavity and beyond ??? Bravo Thanks for the
Well said. A test that creates false positive is the perfect counterpart for a virus that does not exist. The PCR was waiting for this job, and was battle-tested in three false pandemics: to conjure millions of phony cases from nothing at all.
This letter to Denis Rancourt establishes what was known on Jan. 1, 2020 — that what the medical establishment knew could never happen, but then said happened.
Thank you Eric - and I fancy myself (really ha) as a writer - And i' really into Chiron and if I can offer my services - you mentioned your load of work and lack of time - I am happy to volunteer my services - my email address emmettpeels@bigpond.com should you want to follow -up I'm West Coast Australia and a regular follower of Sam Bailey and The Perth Group Regards Emmett
That was a great interview. I had heard him interview Dr. Sam Bailey and found him interesting to listen to. The interchange between you two was captivating and had a great flow in the conversation.
We have great rapport and similar communication styles. But I think the most important common value is our work ethic, which we get into the last five minutes.
I have also had login issues- it occurs if I use the link from Substack; however, if I open my browser fresh to log in by typing planet waves.net into the browser, then I have had no problem with logging in.
I had an issue with where I was directed via sun stack to log in- I have a paid planet waves account. However I had no problem logging in to the PWFM/ PW dot net account using my web browser.
Can't speak for Truthburd, however, I imagine using a link from Substack as opposed to in- web browser may account for their issue, if they have an account yet have been told invalid credentials- this was my experience too on clicking link 🔗 on here on Substack, I think it's was the Planet Waves show ago where Naiad (?) was conjunct Instagram? 🤣 epic and apropos.
These systems are all separate. **I have not directed anyone to PlanetWaves.net relative to anything on PWFM (which has no login) - they are separate companies.**
Substack's system is not integrated with either. Please learn your way around these services, and know your logins, and know when you are and are not logged in to any system.
Also, IMO when you are reading on Substack, you should always be logged in, or you cannot comment, and you can't access your subscription on Stacks where you pay.
I see the absence of context and confusion; the comments response I was replying to had been deleted. The non-issue was device-dependent, a by-product of a creepy auto-fill feature on some devices being extra helpful, ultimately misleading and confusing all!
Anyway, moving swiftly on from digital conditions-related confusions.
Thank You so much for the Libra reading issued here- much appreciated listening yesterday evening in the UK. I have Libra rising. My Mother is Libra Sun sign.
Have found that reading, and many ones recently of a lot of use in considering how and when to make contact with her and my approach- or perhaps just found it a nudge towards more consideration. Something prized in my family yet easy to forget in moments that can feel stressful.
Also, “you don't know what it is that you do not know” has been very useful to me/ Especially in a recent time, which I could have chosen to assume to be a spate of bad fortunes, there were extraneous variables which denote that it may have been good luck all told, emotionally and psychologically, a much smoother process to navigate for keeping that in mind. Thank you; your work is much appreciated, Eric.
VIA EMAIL
Dear Eric,
How are you?
Thank you for another brilliant segment on Planet Waves FM tonight. Thank you for some balance, history and perspective on this issue, I didn’t realise patriarchy is a Marxist term.
I feel like I’m drowning in the word patriarchy! It’s used as a lazy catch phrase/coverall for almost every situation where women don’t want to take responsibility for their choices let alone celebrate them.
I know I’m sounding pretty fired up about this and it’s because I’ve just finished reading a really well feted book called Wifedom by Anna Funder which manages a take down of George Orwell and a promotion of patriarchy in one book. The really sad thing is most people’s take away from the book is patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarch and George Orwell is an asshole – neither of which sentiment is needed at the moment. I said to a good friend who was buying into the patriarchy angle that no matter what we might think we know about Orwell as a person, we need, more than ever, to understand what he was communicating. By the way Funder is a Rockefeller Foundation fellow.
And then there’s the Barbie movie ……… Some of my friends’ boys are being indoctrinated to feel bad because they’re part of the patriarchy just for being male. This makes me so very sad as it producing a swathe of people who are being taught to dislike themselves.
Best wishes from the rather strange land of oz!
Penny
So far an hour in. I'd say this about Kate Bush's Them Heavy People. Earlier this evening i peeked into a couple of EPIC journeys in the Grateful Dead's log, 9/16/78 at the Pyramids and 9/12/90 in Philly. So it's something that Kate Bush piqued my interest.
Regarding the return of the virus demon: Problem is, lots of people WANT to believe the fairy tales. Gives their lives meaning, and they don't wanna have to question the last three and a half years. Many of them need it to have been true for their political sense of the world, including people whom i had remained friends with for almost thirty years. Digiltalitis, inflammation of the sense of being.
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the momnt I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
After listening to your segment on your "Journey Through Feminism", I was reminded of an interview on Jerm Warfare with Rachel Wilson, author of "Occult Feminism: The Secret History of Women's Liberation". Her well researched work jumps into the circle through a Christian perspective, but uncovers a plan that once again goes back further and further in time, and encompasses even the suffragette movement. As always, I am left with the conclusion that we've been "had", and in this case, the plan was to take out men and replace them with the State.
edited my comment...
Thanks for pointing this out. Yes she provides excellent history, such as the fact that most men did not vote either and the Suffragist struggle was largely among women.
Her review of "occult influences" is biased in several ways, mainly in that she considers the Christian teachings inherently correct! And anything else is incorrect. She shows no sign of critiquing Christian ideas, nor that she is open to the possibility that alternatives are both viable and humane.
Tarot cards and satanism have nothing to do with one another. I don't know what Crowleyism really means to her but his teachings are not "satanist" and also, he was a satirist — a prankster and also extremely famous and wanted to stay that way. He was not occult in that he REVEALED many secrets rather than concealed them.
That Suffragists and some modern women's libbers are focused on woman-centered practices like "witchcraft" is in itself irrelevant. It's what one does with those tools that counts. The user can be guided by love, or the desire to manipulate. They can be more or less truthful; more or less competent.
Using tarot cards as an example, they are a set of symbols that contain most possibilities; it's what source you connect them to that matters. They are for divination; when one casts cards or yarrow sticks or coins, of whom is one asking the question?
This is well after the expiration date of your post with the segment on feminism. I am a slow responder and on route.
I have not pursued feminism in academe and have no personal connection to any distinguished feminist, but I have lived as one, as I understand it, most of my adult life.
To my knowledge you’re right, I can’t remember any major written work on boys & men, except dim recollections of discussions on socialization and the existence of Robert Bly’s men’s’ movement.
For me personally “the personal is political” had to do with growing up a girl; actually being born a girl where a boy was greeted with “it’s a boy! It’s a boy!” And a girl was greeted with “it’s a bitch” and from there onwards...
As to war & peace. We can go back Antigone or jump ahead to WW1 to Rosa Luxemburg & Clara Zetkin both out agitating against the impeding world war, bringing Luxembourg to prison, Zetkin defined herself a feminist. Here’re Rosa Luxembourg words prescient today: “The West has been preparing for decades, in broad day-light, in the widest publicity, step by step, and hour by hour, for the world war.” The Junius Pamphlet. (Of course today they are both anathema being both Communists and Jewish.)
Otherwise I personally participated and have known, for years on end, feminists standing and acting against war and occupation in Israel Palestine, like the “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo” and countless (!) other women’s groups around the world. Since the 2nd intifada 1987, “Women in Black” were and still are standing weekly (!) against the occupation. From them spawned groups such as “checkpoint-watch” “coalition of women for peace” and “who profit.”. All the way to “Code Pink” in the USA.
As to Abortion here’s my take today:
Compartmentalism, the ‘Scientific Method’ of atomizing all life has given us ‘Abortions’ — ‘A Thing’ — to debate, diagnose, legislate... all but to return it to where it belongs, to the female, woman’s body in it’s autonomy, processes and symbioses with her social environment.
As to “Patriarchy”, one cannot possibly quote the Bible as it is itself within the Patre-arch matrix To understand anything about that concept one has to step outside it, into an extinguish territory, where it’s very easy to get lost and even easier to be mis-led...
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the momnt I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
Re AIDS. It is crystal clear the CDC in 1981 had all the evidence it required to tell the sexually active gay male communities what was causing their illnesses but it chose not to do so. In this respect, the CDC was crminally negligent. I have written a thriller called 'A Dive Into Darkness', set in Paris in 2027, based upon 3 years research into HIV/AIDS and the manuscript is available for free until the moment I sign the publishing contract at the end of this month. Please reply here or to paulfranks99@hotmail.com .
Paul, and in 1981, what should they have told sexually active gay men?
Eric.
They should have told sexually active gay men that virtually 100% ((Drew / CDC KSOI task force) of them were infected with a potentially lethal virus, CMV, which:
- was associated with a reversal in the normal ratio of helper to suppressor T lymphocytes with relative and absolute decreases in T helper cells and corresponding increases in T suppressor cells - (the key immunological marker of AIDS patients) Carney, 1/6//81 Analysis of T lymphocyte subsets in cytomegalovirus mononucleosis- 4 days before the original MMWR 'AIDS' bulletin
-had been closely associated with PCP pneumonia (one of the two key medical diseases associated with AIDS in 1981) since the 1950s - Williams et al, October 1960 'Cytomegalic inclusion disease and Pneumocystis carinii infection in an adult' (Not uncoindentally but bizarrely, the paper outlining the first UK AIDS patient was titled 'Primary Pneumocystis Carinii and Cytomegalovirus infections' 12/12/1981
- the Williams paper included an AIDS prophecy - 'It is important to recognise their (CMV and PCP pneumonia) potential pathogenicity and their ability to produce, either alone or in combination, fatal infections in man. There is some evidence that this danger is increased by prolonged treatment with steroids and antibiotics. Possibly more cases will occur because of the increasing use of these drugs.'
- the same Williams paper also noted the association between CMV and toxoplasmosis
- the assocation between PCP, toxoplasmosis and CMV was wrttten up in a 1979 paper 'Pneumocystis carinii, Toxoplasma gondii, Cytomegalovirus and the compromised host'
- the association between CMV and Kaposi's sarcoma, the other main 'AIDS' marker disease in 1981) was noted in 1972 - Giraldo Kaposi's Sarcoma: A New Model in the Search for Viruses Associated With Human Malignancies
- in early 1981 Bijan Safai Chief, DermatologyService, Department of Medicine,Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center,NewYork wrote: a specific association exists between cytomegalovirus(CMV) and KS
-in 1977 RH Rubin wrote in a paper titled 'Infectious disease syndromes attributable to cytomegalovirus and their significance among renal transplant recipients': 'The major infectious disease importance of CMV appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection' (AIDS in a nutshell)
- in 1974 Simmons wrote: 'two paradoxical responses to CMV infections are seen in transplant patients: In the relatively immunocompetent patient, the infection is associated with renal allograft rejection, a prompt antibody response to the virus, and recovery. The severely immunosuppressed patient cannot make an antibody response... may be further immunosuppressed by the viral infection, and is susceptible to sequential opportunistic infections leading to death.' (Also AIDS in a nutshell)
-In this paper - Cytomegalovirus: Clinical Virological Correlations in Renal Transplant Recipients - Simmons also described 'the course of a typical lethal CMV infection'. Over the course of 4-6 weeks these transplant patients basically died of an aquired immune deficiency syndrome.
Also in 1974 Coulson wrote: 'An epidemic of cytomegalovirus disease (CMV) occurred in 38 percent of 34 renal transplant recipients during an 18-month period (1970-71). A characteristic clinical pattern was noted: 40 days following transplantation, daily fevers recurred for periods of four to six weeks. This fever in conjunction with a diffuse interstitial pneumonitis and impaired hepatic and renal function constituted a diagnostic tetrad.'
'Forty-day fever. An epidemic of cytomegalovirus disease in a renal transplant population'
I could go on, but basically, almost 100% of sexually active gay males were infected with a potentially lethal virus, some of them, as the CDC knew by the end of 1981, with multiple strains of this virus, but the KSOI task force report did not come out until August 1983. Part one the epidemiological report did not mention CMV at all, and the laboratory report received virtually no publicity.
That is just one of the many scandals concerning the Public Health system's response to AIDS. I have written one book and am now writing a second about AIDS, and would love to talk to you about them on one of your shows.
Paul
Incidentally, Harry Haverkos who produced the first CDC 'AIDS' case definition, stated that Kaposi's sarcoma was seen in gay male AIDS patients because of 'poppers' but Jim Curran told him to keep this quiet as the CDC had already stated poppers weren't to blame.
(See https://www.globalhealthchronicles.org/items/show/6897 50 mins)
History has recorded, and been verified many times, that CDC specifically knew THERE WAS NOT a virus, particularly on April 24, 1984 when they said there WAS a virus but also knew that there was not. The false claim of a virus, and the subsequent use of "anti-viral" medication, is at the very heart of this scientific scandal.
Hello Eric.
Can you please show me the links to where the CDC state there was no virus, please.
I agree with you, my research has shown that the scientific evidence for the existence of T-cell killing virus called HIV-1 is paper thin, non-existent, fabricated.
My research has also shown me that the CDC were fully aware that gay males, IVDUs and haemophiliacs were infected with a common virus called CMV. CMV is generally harmless but in the immunocompromised adults and babies it can be deadly.
I have many sources of evidence to back up my assertion but I will focus on this one from the CDC:
The paper 'National Case-Control Study of Kaposi's Sarcoma and Pneumocystis carinii Pneumonia in Homosexual Men: Part 2- Laboratory Results' showed that
-165 out of 167 AIDS cases (the original 50 cases that were still alive) and controls (all homosexual males) were infected with CMV
- the amount of CMV in the blood was significantly higher for cases than controls (Viral load is the crucial determinant of whether CMV disease will occur)
-Cultures of patients' urine and throat swab specimens yielded cytomegalovirus more frequently (three times more frequently) than those of the combined controls, 13 (25%) of 52 patients having an isolation made from one or more sites, versus 9 (7%) of 124 combined controls
-The DNA restriction endonuclease analysis was done on DNA isolated from human-embryonic-lung fibroblasts infected with cytomegalovirus isolates obtained from ten patients and ten controls. Different restriction endonuclease digestion patterns were obtained for each
isolate, suggesting that each isolate contained unique BamHl restriction sites and presumably represented different strains of cytomegalovirus - 20 CMV isolations / 20 different strains of CMV!
The CDC paper states that 'cytomegalovirus can cause depression of cellular immune function, including skin test anergy and decreased lymphocyte responsiveness to mitogens and antigens, and cytomegalovirus can cause reversal of the T-helper to T-suppressor cell
ratio' - that was the key immunological marker of AIDS.
So, I will say again that the CDC knew by the end of 1981 that almost 100% of sexually active gay males were infected with a virus whose 'major infectious disease importance appears to be its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection.' RH Rubin 1977, 'INFECTIOUS DISEASE SYNDROMES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CYTOMEGALOVIRUS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE AMONG RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS'. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/infectious_disease_syndromes_attributable_to.10%20(4).pdf
The scandal is that thanks to Don Francis and Jim Curran the CDC tied itself completely in 1982 to the 'retrovirus causes AIDS' bandwagon, doing what Sherlock Holmes warned investigators not to do -
'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.'
Paul
CDC never said that. They claimed there was a virus, but without a shred of paper to demonstrate even the suspicion. This was the infamous Heckler/Gallo press conference in April 1984. The press ran with it, and HIV-AIDS was born.
We may investigate CDC FOIAs in recent years; I will check with Christine Massey.
'History has recorded, and been verified many times, that CDC specifically knew THERE WAS NOT a virus' - I just wanted know your evidence for this sentence.
Anyway, we both agree HIV did not cause AIDS.
Incidentally, the CDC should also have told sexually highly active gay males (SHAGS) that CMV a virus whose 'major infectious disease importance' was its effects on the respiratory tract and systemic host defense in predisposing to fatal superinfection - ie opportunistic infections - could be transmitted via: semen; urine; saliva; blood and faeces....
I agree with you, yet, she came up with some really good stuff that I didn't know while following her bias. I did mention her Christian "perspective":)
Same with Mallory Millett.
Regarding abortion, on which she is pretty gung ho. I know you mentioned these "christian" values...
(Addressed to Jeff —) it is my perspective that abortion has been badly abused. And it also must be a legal right WITH RESTRICTIONS, even if that right is abused, but the karma is then individual and there is plenty of karma from abortion -- especially if it becomes a habit. Few pro-choice people talk about the terrible regrets many women feel even years or decades on.
However, one cannot reasonably be against both abortion AND birth control AND basic sex education AND masturbation (the Fundamentalist Christian position). This is nothing more than a trap and a social game which cause real damage.
It's insanity to oppose abortion in the cases of rape and incest, which has long been the position of many anti-abortion people.
Adoption (the usual "christian" alternative to abortion) is not an answer to much of anything. Few anti-abortion people talk about the damage that it does to both the parents and the child.
In fact the practice of the Church of Rome is infanticide. So these Christian anti-abortion activists who say that babies are being killed and who do not admit that the Church itself killed a lot of babies, are hypocrites.
Hypocrisy is a drug.
Finished the program. Rebecca Culshaw is a wonderful guest, i wouldn't mind having her on every month! Extremely informed and informative. BTW, the New York Times reporter who wrote about the fake 2007 pandemic was Gina Kolada, i remember her name as being similar to a drink. :-)
The Mallory Millet segment was horrendous. Do you really need to embrace utterly reactionary politics in order to grind an anti-feminist ax? So much information and disinformation. Marx did not invent the term "patriarchy," nor did he even commonly employ it. In terms of using the term in social analysis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton initiated such usage in the US in the mid-19th Century.
You confuse Engels with Marx. Engels wrote Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, in 1884, after Marx's death. I would not stand 100% behind the book, but he made good points about the similarity between the family structure and the structure of capitalist society. Engels and Marx are not the same person at all.
Do you really think male domination was universal through history, and not an artifact of the rise of centralized states only a few thousand years ago? Evidence for the latter is pretty overwhelming. Or are you arguing that there never was male domination before "feminists" started talking about it in the Sixties? If so, why was an Equal Rights Amendment necessary?
You pose Wilhelm Reich in contrast to "Marxism." Do you not realize that Reich came out of the Marxist tradition, and in fact was a member of the German Communist Party into the '30s? Are we supposed to ignore essays such as Sex Pol and The Mass Psychology of Fascism? Reich was quite explicitly anti capitalist.
Reich was expelled from the Party because of the Party's rather uptight and repressive attitudes about sexuality, but this does not negate the very political nature of his analysis. It's not a coincidence that one of the best discussions of Reich's analysis of sexual repression was written by British libertarian socialist Maurice Brinton,https://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/irrational-politics.htm The same Brinton also wrote Bolsheviks and Workers' Control http://www.marxists.org/archive/brinton/1970/workers-control/ about how the "Communist" Party under Lenin's totalitarian control proceeded to implement total control of Russian (and then USSR) society, doing away with attempts to actually implement socialism and direct control of social resources by society as a whole.
Mallory Millet pushes notions such as "cultural Marxism," commonly used by right wing analysts, utterly wrong in the context used, as the people they criticize are actually post modernists such as Foucault. They fundamentally disagree with Marx on such matters as the very idea of a systemic view of society and history, arguing against any systemic analysis. "Marxism" simply becomes "something i don't like." Mallory Millet puts forth NOW as a "Marxist" organization. What claptrap! It was dedicated to preserving the capitalist status quo and the corporate ladder,wishing only to open it more to striving women.
Mallory Millet opposes not only abortion, but the entire sexual revolution of the Sixties. Eric, are you now turning against that revolution, in an effort to attack "feminism"? Do you think sexual intercourse should be limited to married heterosexual couples? I'm afraid i see you embracing a lot of reaction and confusion here.
PS -- I don't think there was a sexual revolution in the 1960s. I think there was the birth control pill and lots of great drugs going around and that helped people be less uptight and gave women the occasion to take a little more freedom. But none of that was revolutionary and there was no lasting social change, only the unleashing of chaos.
To the extent there was a sexual revolution, Betty Dodson provided its one and only actual revolutionary idea.
You were born in 1964. You did not experience the repressive period which came before the mid '60s. I have to say you are profoundly wrong . More than just "a little more freedom." "Good girls" just did not have sex before and outside marriage, married women may have done so here and there but certainly did not talk about it. Non-monogamy? FORGET IT!! You betray a lack of actual experience of the times vs reading about them or seeing movies about them.
I agree that more liberal ideas and experiences emerged in the mid-1960s, which were a transient turning point.
But a LOT of this had to do with the pill and with other drugs. And you have never once hard me say that this was essentially wholesome, or that it had a good outcome. I am much more sexually conservative than I am made out to be, because anyone who says anything good about sex is presumed to be a libertine or pervert.
There was no **fundamental change in values**. There was a temporary change in some behaviors. And then there was a mess, and the mess has not been addressed, then or now. Borrowing from Emma, if there is no Saturn, then it's not my revolution. There was no Saturn. There was no "free love." There was just more sex, for some people. To me, what you are describing as a revolution was not one.
IMO there was just one revolutionary idea: YOUR FUNDAMENTAL SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP IS TO YOURSELF. And it was not popular. Footnote Betty Dodson.
I disagree, Again, if you didn't go through the changes, it's just impossible to appreciate the change. Just like Jim Crow, for that matter, same period. Or the idea that one would dare openly oppose a war pursued by the US government.
The real "mess" happened as the result of the counter-revolution which was iniitiated in the early '70s by the control apparatus, detailed in books like The Cancer Stage of Capitalism by John McMurtrey (a strong supporter of non-monogamy, BTW) and Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert McChesney, both of which came out in .. 1999. And this included the entire Operation AIDS "pandemic."
No I didn't go through the changes, except as a small child with my parents in bloody battle, and then taking the brunt of "women's lib" in the form of constant references to all those male chauvinist pigs. Then I lived through the "liberation" part of both of my parents, newly divorced and liberated, going through a partner every six months. So their liberation meant I had no stability, and was never able to say goodbye to many people about whom I cared and who cared about me. I was a child — and I was there. And I ask you Jeff, where are you, today, thanks to all this "women's liberation"?
I was able to experience relationships without having to commit myself to a monogamous marriage before i had any experience. I am EFFING glad that this was possible. Sorry for the instability in your life, though this happened in divorces long before the Sixties.
Growing up, i had all the "stability" of a couple which engaged in constant fighting, at times outright physical (with my brother getting involved from the time i was 14 and older), then making up and staying together for the sake of the children. After my father died, my mom spent the remaining 39 years of her life (died at almost 98) saying what a horrible person he was.
I state my ideas explicitly, and do not covertly signal any "turning toward" or "turning away" and you will never hear me preach monogamy or the supremacy of the "nuclear family."
I continue to present my ideas while I am in the process of learning, and as you know, I avoid being resolutely conclusive. I am in a learning process and I take my listeners with me.
Regarding sex and relationships, I am pretty much where my bibliography says I am, consistently. I have always supported the choice of people to be monogamous householders if that is right for them. But that's it.
Unfortunately, there are no pure thinkers, and you have people on opposite ends of the spectrum of any issue critiquing and attacking one another. There is exceedingly little objectivity or balance. So when looking for a way to unravel ideas, you sometimes have to use "the oppressor's language" as Adrienne Rich said. "I need it to speak to you."
As for Wilhelm Reich, I don't think his being a Marxist who notably was thrown out, detracts from his analysis of the political use and implications of sexual repression. I am not saying that all of Marxism is wrong or useless. I am not saying it's wonderful.
I am interested in agendas, and the means of attaining them.
Currently I'm watching this video, which is deconstructing feminism as an "occult institution" and is concerned that the fact that the Suffragists were into tarot cards and that meant they were "anti-Christian" and that's seen as a bad thing.
https://jermwarfare.com/conversations/rachel-wilson-on-the-occultic-roots-of-feminism
She is missing all kinds of nuance, for example, insinuating that everyone into "the occult" i.e., tarot card readers, are "satanists" etc etc.
Apart from matters of factual truth, I think is way to ideological to be helpful. I may be Quaker and I am aware that 99% of what passes for "christianity" has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus.
But I continue to put you on notice that I do not participate in ideology. Nor am I a purist.
By the way the feminists I knew at SUNY Buffalo were pseudo Marxists, but they did not say so. So were many of their friends, and the people I worked with politically. I am not a Marxist in any way shape or form; but we had enough actual values in common that I could work together, and frankly I was interested only in publishing my magazine on my own terms -- and they never interfered -- and always protected my right to say whatever I wanted. There was a libertarian bent to whatever this Marxism was.
Marx famously stated that he was not a Marxist. Actually, he said "Je ne suis Marxist," in a letter to a friend, commenting on material sent him by people who claimed to be "Marxists." The vast majority of people who call themselves Marxists nowadays, in fact since the early 20th Century, have near zero to zero affinity to anything Marx stood for.
Quoting from my web page, The Daily Battle, an editorial i co-wrote with Tod Fletcher when he and i revived the page after it went moribund in the wake of 9/11 and the split up of the group which initiated it.
"The most profound theorist of genuine socialism was Karl Marx. He was the first to develop a rational critique of capitalism, and the discoverer of the secret source of capitalist profit, surplus value. A great scholar, artist and humanitarian, Marx has continued, through his writings, to threaten vested power to the present day. As a result his work has been either suppressed, vilified or wildly distorted by ideologues of capital, including those of totalitarian state-capitalist nations such as the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Marx has been successfully smeared by claims that he is somehow responsible for the monstrous atrocities of "actually existing socialism."
In fact his writings are formally and concretely the antithesis of all forms of capitalism and capitalist ideology. They are a powerful source of illumination of this highly opaque system of social relationships, to which we unapologetically look for assistance in our efforts to understand the beast and bring it down. We reject the jargon-laden and in-grown discourse of academic "Marxism," however, as did Marx himself (see banner above). "Marxism" today in almost all of its forms, academic or political party, is a distortion of the man's work. There is no better way ahead than to undertake one's own close reading of his works themselves."
t's totally logical that the German Communist Party expelled Reich, because that party was NOT "Marxist," it gave up any such notions when it expelled the people known as "left communists" in the early 1920s upon orders from Lenin in Moscow, after he authored his book "Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder."
This book was in response to criticisms from left wing communists about the growing capitalist and authoritarian nature of the Soviet Union, the stuff Brinton wrote about in Bolsheviks and Workers Control which i refer to in my comment. All parties calling themslves "Communist Party," including the one in the US, basically became by 1923 or so nothing more than fronts for the Soviet Union government and its policies.
"But I continue to put you on notice that I do not participate in ideology. Nor am I a purist." Excellent!!
So we are in a similar situation — nothing about Jesus bears any resemblance to most Christianity.
Also though I have not read them, I've heard lectures, both Keynes and Smith understood that capitalism would create problems that had to be addressed. As with most things, Marx, Keynes, Smith et al are held up as straw men.
As you know, my direct experience of "feminism" in 2018 was pure Maoist Cultural Revolution. And at first, I thought that whole trend was departing from feminism. Then I realized no, that is the natural outcome of this whole milieu of "personal is political."
Mao was not a Marxist, but an adherent of Lenin and (even more) Stalin. And NOW and the "feminism" of 2018 were/are way different from Red Stockings and the like of 1969.
Yes they were different. Women's Lib was driven by television conditions, which provoked action. Today, these types of "movements" are driven by digital conditions and the aggression is bald. The action is all "involvement" in digital space till the hostility boils over.
Feminist movements have always been anti-sex and in particular, anti-heterosexual. Today's queer queer queer trans trans trans on every channel, and the disdain even for so much as male attraction to women, finds its roots right in Adrienne Rich, Laura Mulvey, and Andrea Dworkin.
Betty described many times how — contrary to the claims of Mallory Millet — feminism was and is inherently anti-sex. She should know; she was the first to pioneer feminism in that era that was embracing and inclusive of sex; in another era, Victoria Woodhull advocated what she called free love. But nobody knows who she is except a few PhDs here and there.
I will tell you what I mean by "they were the same." The movements during Second Wave and what we see today are socially hostile to men. Neither makes any attempt to understand male experience, both blame men for everything, and neither takes any responsibility for the conditions of women. The change, the solution, the sacrifice, must always come from men.
Neither expresses any gratitude for what men do for women.
Neither admits, "We raised these boys into men. What went wrong?"
Neither takes a stand against war, or the conditioning of men to be "warriors."
Neither subjects itself to critique for the damage that it does. Neither aspires to find a common language and a common base of experience. Both insist that men and women live as if in two different universes, instead of on the same planet at the same time.
Neither has the meekest hint of a sense of humor.
Neither is about equality. They just say they are.
It's all about power and disruption and not building anything new. There is no new vision; there is no future, only the past for which retribution must be sought.
Not my revolution.
I hear where you're coming from. But the large majority of feminists in 1969 and early '70s whom i encountered were not remotely anti-sex or hostile to men per se. They hated not being treated as equals. Can't blame them for that.
Some men reacted with resolute rejection of any notion that there should be equality, men who themselves had been waxing on about how they weren't being treated with respect by society because they were young and dissidents, or how black people were being treated as unequal, and sure, that caused an overreaction on the part of some feminists.
And yes, there were some "feminists" who pushed a hateful agenda, as happened with the civil rights movement. As happened with Gay Liberation. The forces of the counter-revolution incorporated all that tension into the repression/co opting efforts, used it to the max. As you can tell, that worked very well.
Much gratitude to you Eric for your outstanding work and report. I finished the first section last night. I pray it reaches endless ears, and only wish we could hog tie people and make them listen. Excellent point on the weight it carries for those docs reporting to VAERs. As I was alerting some people when the numbers were climbing in beginning, I was blown off by some saying its just non validated reports. Now I have more to add. Was it the H1N1 jab that they stopped after something like 100 deaths? It's not even mandatory to report I understand. And yes yes yes accountability of the media, when will it ever happen? I had checked in with Amy every once in a while in the past as she was held in high regard by some, waiting to hear something, and finally saw the whole light during Conjob 19 when I was thouroughly disgusted with her hawking the narrative. I realized then that one of the reasons it had never set all that well with me, was her title " The War and Peace Report". She is normalizing war every time she speaks it Was she always controlled opposition? I think your thoughts were beautiful on September, and "one thing becoming the next".
Fantastic stuff - Eric and guests - listening in from West Coast Australia - feels like 'community' - lots of well informed content - especially your diligent work on the PCR Eric - expose on the use of a Test that doesn't work looking for a virus that doesn't exist - And can you believe how sheeple clamored in line to have this intrusive rubbish shoved into their sinus cavity and beyond ??? Bravo Thanks for the
Well said. A test that creates false positive is the perfect counterpart for a virus that does not exist. The PCR was waiting for this job, and was battle-tested in three false pandemics: to conjure millions of phony cases from nothing at all.
This letter to Denis Rancourt establishes what was known on Jan. 1, 2020 — that what the medical establishment knew could never happen, but then said happened.
https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-prof-denis-rancourt
Thank you Eric - and I fancy myself (really ha) as a writer - And i' really into Chiron and if I can offer my services - you mentioned your load of work and lack of time - I am happy to volunteer my services - my email address emmettpeels@bigpond.com should you want to follow -up I'm West Coast Australia and a regular follower of Sam Bailey and The Perth Group Regards Emmett
That was a great interview. I had heard him interview Dr. Sam Bailey and found him interesting to listen to. The interchange between you two was captivating and had a great flow in the conversation.
Thanks Christopher -- which interview?
OH sorry, the one with Rebecca Culshaw Smith.
We have great rapport and similar communication styles. But I think the most important common value is our work ethic, which we get into the last five minutes.
Hi, can you point me to a link of the interview with Sam Bailey?
https://chironreturn.org/eric-francis-on-sam-bailey-channel-how-full-digital-conditions-influenced-the-lockdown-crisis/
Thank you
I like the part about having separate rooms.......
I have also had login issues- it occurs if I use the link from Substack; however, if I open my browser fresh to log in by typing planet waves.net into the browser, then I have had no problem with logging in.
what do you mean logging in? No PWFM publication or program is behind a paywall or login device.
I specifically mean my Planet Waves (dot net) astrology account.
I’d undoubtedly want to know if you weren't getting the humble proceeds from that subscription.
True, Planet Waves FM and your email contact are not behind any paywall.
I had an issue with where I was directed via sun stack to log in- I have a paid planet waves account. However I had no problem logging in to the PWFM/ PW dot net account using my web browser.
Can't speak for Truthburd, however, I imagine using a link from Substack as opposed to in- web browser may account for their issue, if they have an account yet have been told invalid credentials- this was my experience too on clicking link 🔗 on here on Substack, I think it's was the Planet Waves show ago where Naiad (?) was conjunct Instagram? 🤣 epic and apropos.
Loved that slip 🤣
All the best Eric.
Warmly, Krys
These systems are all separate. **I have not directed anyone to PlanetWaves.net relative to anything on PWFM (which has no login) - they are separate companies.**
Substack's system is not integrated with either. Please learn your way around these services, and know your logins, and know when you are and are not logged in to any system.
I can do little more to explain.
Thank you for your business and your trust.
Also, IMO when you are reading on Substack, you should always be logged in, or you cannot comment, and you can't access your subscription on Stacks where you pay.
I see the absence of context and confusion; the comments response I was replying to had been deleted. The non-issue was device-dependent, a by-product of a creepy auto-fill feature on some devices being extra helpful, ultimately misleading and confusing all!
Anyway, moving swiftly on from digital conditions-related confusions.
Thank You so much for the Libra reading issued here- much appreciated listening yesterday evening in the UK. I have Libra rising. My Mother is Libra Sun sign.
Have found that reading, and many ones recently of a lot of use in considering how and when to make contact with her and my approach- or perhaps just found it a nudge towards more consideration. Something prized in my family yet easy to forget in moments that can feel stressful.
Also, “you don't know what it is that you do not know” has been very useful to me/ Especially in a recent time, which I could have chosen to assume to be a spate of bad fortunes, there were extraneous variables which denote that it may have been good luck all told, emotionally and psychologically, a much smoother process to navigate for keeping that in mind. Thank you; your work is much appreciated, Eric.