The communist plan for women: Out of the house
We have established that many of today’s women are a lot crazier than nature meant them to be, and we are searching for the reason. Our thesis of course is that the disorder is not accidental, that it is the product of a carefully orchestrated plan. Let’s begin by looking at that plan and then comparing it to what we know is happening.
In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that with the introduction of Communism, “The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course.” The authors explain that the “bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child,” is “disgusting.” The Communists “desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized, community of women.”
Why have the Communists been so hostile to the family from the beginning? Because, politically, the family is a rival center of power. Communism is totalitarian and tolerates no rivals. It prefers disconnected individuals it can pick off at whim without repercussions because the victims have no backup. The stronger the families, the harder it is to impose totalitarian dictatorship. So Communism has always worked to weaken the family, if not destroy it. How could you destroy the family? How could you destroy the idea of family in the minds of the people?
How about dragging women out of the house? A woman is the heart of a family. Without a woman your house, however fancy, is a mere place to flop. Only a woman can make it a home. Yes, it’s a cliché, but remember that a saying becomes a cliché only because it makes so much sense that people keep repeating it. A cliché begins as a flash of originality, but, because its wisdom contains the seeds of its own destruction, it ends as the humdrum, as a . . . as a . . . cliché.
You could destroy the family – you could at least drastically reduce its importance – by changing women from mothers at home to women in common, in a “legalized, community of women.” How could you do that? Why not try this:
“We are immensely wealthy, powerful men, but we are not satisfied with our wealth and power. We want it all. We want total power so we can force you to do as we like. You represent a rival source of power, so we have decided to drag you out of your home, because with you gone your family would fall apart.” Hmm! Would this work? No. However crazy some women are, they are not stupid. They wouldn’t fall for it.
How about this instead? William Zebulon Foster was General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA, the number one red in this country. Foster was also one of the founders of the American Communist Liars Union (ACLU), the executive director of which for many years was Roger N. Baldwin, who said, “Communism is the goal.” Is there any part of that you don’t understand? That is why ACLU has always attacked Christianity. Communists hate God.
In Toward Soviet America (New York, International Publishers, 1932) Foster explained how this country would get there: “. . . The so-called freedom of the American woman is a myth. Either she is a gilded butterfly bourgeois parasite or she is an oppressed slave.”
This is supremely revealing. Consider that before Communist strategist Foster launched this campaign, any idea that an American wife and mother, a “homemaker,” if you will, was a “parasite,” someone who did not earn her own way, but, rather, feasted on the blood of a host, would have been labeled insane stupidity.
Remember your mother, or, if you are still wearing pigtails, your grandmother. She was an august personality with immense authority. You were a tad scared of her when you were still wearing pigtails, because her “word was law.” If you didn’t believe that and needed convincing, you could disobey, but then, like a royal, she would make a sign or maybe nod or say a word and a male fist would come out of the darkness and nail you to the wall, which brought an unbeliever to religion real quick.
Such is the status Christianity confers on a mother. It would have been inconceivable, impossible to call such a dignitary a “parasite.” Notice also in passing that a parasite is not a victim. The host is the victim, the oppressed. The parasite is the oppressor, the bloodsucker. In this case, the man would be a victim of the woman. So, this Communist jargon devised by Foster is convoluted and contradictory.
But a Communist scheme need not include logic if it inflames. Foster here introduced the crazy idea that all the things a woman does in the home are worthless, that she can take no satisfaction in them, that they are forced on her and that because she sucks the life blood from her husband she is “oppressed.” This would take some time to sell because, remember, Foster is not talking about Saudi women but about Americans, by far the freest women who have ever lived anywhere.
In the face of that happy fact, Foster sets forth in detail the arguments his Communists would use to achieve Marx’s destruction of the family. For decades they labored to “prove” that something systemic was wrong. “The life of the working class woman and poor farmer’s wife is one of drudgery and exploitation. . . . The boasted American home, enslaving the woman through her economic inferiority and her children, makes her dependent upon her husband. . . .”
If a woman cannot find satisfaction at home, then obviously, in this Communist logic, she must find it elsewhere. Foster exults: “The Russian woman is free economically, and this is the foundation of all her freedom. Every field of activity is open to her. She is to be found even in such occupations as locomotive engineer, electrical crane operator, machinist….”
Imagine! Instead of beautifying her home, raising vegetables in her garden, inculcating wisdom in her children, advancing the community (maybe sleeping in of a morning) and parasitically sucking the tired blood from her boring, old husband, she could be dressing in grungies and machining her machine. How thrilling and feminine! Just what every little girl wants to grow up to do. Notice here the unspoken assertion that the genders are the same. Remember that we have already torn the head off that preposterous notion.
“The Russian woman is also free in her sex life,” says Foster. “When married life becomes unwelcome for a couple they are not barbarously compelled to live together. Divorce is to be had for the asking by one or both parties. . . .” Wow! Free love! A lot more sex than poor, old Dad can provide, exhausted by a day’s work and then by Parasite Mom sucking his tired, old blood. No wonder Dad suffers from E.D.
But now here comes the kicker. What’s the worst thing a woman does at home, does every day? What does every woman hate? It’s housework, of course! “In freeing the woman, Socialism eliminates the drudgery of housework. . . . Great factory kitchens are being set up to prepare hot, well-balanced meals for home consumption by the millions; communal kitchens in apartment houses are organized widespread….”
Wow! Foster sure is an expert on women. Who could have guessed that because they hate housework so much, what women want are communal kitchens, in which other women would be doing the cooking while the female machinists slap on some Gunk to get rid of the grease on their fingers. I sure didn’t know that.
Foster probably figured women would jump on his idea because, however clever they are, women have not been able to get men to do sustained housework – other than take out the garbage – but recall that, since he wrote, men have invented endless labor-saving appliances for women, so house work is less of a problem.
Finally, there are the kids. Communist ACLU founder William Z. Foster says this: “To free the woman from the enslavement of the perpetual care of her children is also a major object of Socialism. To this end in the Soviet Union there is being developed the most elaborate system of kindergartens and playgrounds in the world . . . .”
Here, Foster really spills the frijoles. Notice that for a mother to take care of her own children is “enslavement.” Apparently it is not enslavement for someone else – a different mother – to take care of them, while their own mother works as a machinist. Remember, we have established with exhaustive documentation that the genders are basically different, and Foster’s Communist idea flies in the face of everything we know about women.
Yes, his idea was hard to sell, but, after decades of daily repetition by our Communist media and schools, millions of mothers have bought it. Certainly millions of others have not, but the advocates of his idea today control the culture and have put those others on the defensive. Motherhood today is running scared.
Because of his system, women no longer need stay at home. So, Foster planted the seeds of what we now call day care. Mom has nothing to worry about, he says: “While she is at work she can be sure that her child is being well taken care of, and that it is supervised by trained nurses and teachers, and gets wholesome food at regular hours.”
That was and is the Communist plan for women. Ask yourself, does any of it look familiar? Do you see any of Foster’s proposals at work on the landscape? In fact, if you go down the list of what Marx demanded in the Communist Manifesto, you will see that, without exception, we have installed it.
You are living in a Communist country.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”