Thursday, August 15, 2013

Feminism Ain't Rebellion... Lady, You're Drinking What They're Selling

Here's another distasteful (pun intended) slice of evidence of the corporate promotion of "women's liberation" during its formative years. The oversized companies that profit from selling cheap, nutritionally-worthless "food" were openly encouraging and promoting working mothers back in 1981, just as they were really starting to hit the mainstream.


It certainly had nothing to do with "fulfilling" women.

It had everything to do with increasing profits.

The makers of this horrific dreck (Ever try one? Like eating a tennis ball covered in ketchup. LOTS and LOTS of ketchup.) were willing to destroy an entire nation's future health just to increase their 1981 sales.... and they did.

This ad aired one year after the makers of Steakumm were bought out by food processing giant Heinz. Heinz paid handsomely for the Steakumm brand and wasted no time in honing in on the perfect target for its junk product... the emerging majority ("over 50 percent") of working women, many of them mothers.

Not surprisingly, this rubbery, processed meatbrick is still made today. And was the subject of recent controversy:

[I]n a trademark-infringement suit [in 2012] that pitted Steak-umms owners against a South Philly cheesesteak and pizza shop named Steak 'Em Up, the ugly truth of the mass-produced sandwich steak was revealed. And the details are pretty bleak.  
In courtroom proceedings, the composition of the meat came to light. The [Philadelphia] Daily News reports that the stuff is:
[C]hopped and formed emulsified meat product that is comprised of beef trimmings left over after an animal is slaughtered and all of the primary cuts, such as tenderloin, filet, and rib eye, are removed ... The emulsified meat is pressed into a loaf and sliced, frozen and packaged.

Amoral capitalism truly is every bit as evil as communism.

One look at the health profile of the typical American adult today, most of whom were raised on fake corporate garbage such as this, should be all that is needed to drive that message home. Processed foods have wreaked havoc on the vitality of this nation's citizenry.

Any honest appraisal of the modern feminist movement must conclude that its most meaningful "achievement" by far was cementing the dominance of toxic corporate food items in the American kitchen.

Here's one feminist smart (or honest?) enough to put 2 and 2 together yet still unwilling to admit what she in fact knows... that it adds up to 4:

So here’s the conundrum. Processed foods are bad for us. But there’s also something that seems, well, liberating about them . Easy-to-prepare processed foods free up some serious time on the domestic front. And less time in the kitchen means more time for people—and especially women, who still do most of the cooking—to accomplish other things in their lives.
So are processed foods feminist?
I am certainly unwilling to answer yes to this question in an unequivocal way. Processed foods weren’t created for the purpose of liberating women from their stifling domestic duties. They were created by corporations for the purpose of making money—and those same corporations certainly didn’t want the lucrative market of homemakers to leave the domestic front. But nonetheless, processed foods have contributed to the liberation of women from compulsory domestic duties.

Large, exploitative companies like Heinz knew over 30 years ago that stay-at-home mothers from intact families who have time to cook real meals were bad for their mass-produced business. They happen to be great for the nutritional health of the children they raise, but that doesn't up the stock price for MegaFood, Inc., does it?

Ah, to hell with the kids, Heinz had 1981 revenue projections to meet.

We are all paying the price now.

Oh, and... using little Ralphie from "A Christmas Story" as a pawn in their evil game? That really hurts.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

How a New England City Became Mogadishu On the Connecticut River

Just caught a summer repeat of this 60 Minutes feature on a Massachusetts state cop and Iraq war veteran's "brilliant" idea to police the city of Springfield just as his military unit policed hostile cities in occupied Iraq:

Our intrepid CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl breathlessly reported this wonderful new police enforcement concept in a manner that unflinchingly portrayed the police as white knights coming to the rescue. There is brief mention made of concerns about using military tactics in domestic policing but the oversized elephant in the room is never mentioned: We have gotten to the point now where an American city is being treated in the same way that our military treats foreign-occupied territory. The gangs and other associated criminals in the story were compared to Iraqi insurgents but the sad reality of what causes police officers to go into the third-largest city in the state of Massachusetts with the same wariness and tactical concerns that an army unit has when entering a war-torn foreign village was never touched upon.

The state cop who came up with the Counterinsurgency-in-Mayberry plan openly compares Springfield to Mogadishu and Kandahar City, yet of course there will never be a real effort by CBS to explain just how an American city that is located over 2,000 miles from the Mexican border had become so overrun by hostiles forces.

This did not just happen overnight. It was the result of a deliberate attempt to destabilize and balkanize a cohesive nation of citizens bound by a common culture through neighborhood breaking and massive non-European immigration.

I personally witnessed a key moment in the destruction of Springfield, Massachusetts. You see, I lived there for a time as a small child, from 1972-75, and have vivid memories of the takeover of the working-class Irish neighborhood where we resided.

It all started with a wave of Puerto Rican immigrants into the city in the late '60s and early '70s who arrived in the immediate wake of Ted Kennedy's disastrous Immigration Act of 1965, which specifically mandated a national preference for Third World immigrants instead of the more assimilable Europeans in our immigration policy. This undoubtedly created an encouraging environment for the massive and nonstop influx of Puerto Ricans, whose rights to move to continental America were of course not dependent on the 1965 law, into cities such as Springfield:

Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts have both a large Puerto Rican population and an extremely high proportion of Puerto Rican among the Hispanics, making these metro areas valuable for study of the distinctive impact of Puerto Rican presence. Between 1990 and 2000, non-Hispanic Whites in these metropolitan areas were moving away from towns and cities where Hispanics were concentrated and growing. Such population separation may in part be attributable to the relatively high-poverty level among Hispanics. Multivariate analysis applied to data for 38 metro areas with varying levels of Puerto Rican predominance among Hispanics shows, however, that ethnic group segregation was influenced by Puerto Rican presence even when controlling for the economic status of Hispanics. The “Puerto Rican effect” may stem from the greater racialization of Puerto Ricans. By contrast other Hispanic groups may have benefitted from an immigrant identity that has now become more of a liability.

Even as a 6-year-old, I could see the effect this had on one neighborhood in Springfield. The Hungry Hill section was a longstanding Irish enclave. We lived on the bottom of the hill on our street, with old Mrs. Shea next door and a childhood friend whose last name was Murphy all the way at the top. Every day my brother, sister and I would run up the hill to play with our pal, whose dad was a Springfield cop.

Like so many white families in the face of the Puerto Rican invasion, we moved out to the suburbs as soon as we could. Our parents saw which way the wind was blowing. But we came back to visit our friend only a year or two later and I recall him pointing out the houses on the street that we had run past so many times on our way up and down the hill. "Oh, that one's a drug dealer. Oh, the cops raided that place the other day." Etc. etc. Our childhood friend was all of 8 years old as he gave us this rundown. My memory of my reaction to that experience was hoping the Murphy family would be able to escape too before it was too late.

That it was all an intentional effort to destroy white city neighborhoods surely escaped our young minds at the time. But the evidence is out there today for those who care to look back, and massive immigration was not the only weapon used.

"The Six-District Plan - Integration of The Springfield, Mass. Elementary Schools," an official 1976 report from the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, spotlights the use of busing as one way to destroy the old neighborhoods. This whole paper reads like a Soviet plan to transfer native Ukrainians to Siberia and replace them with some bizarre minority from the steppes of Asia.

The strong-arm tactics and eager desire to use force are not even disguised. Homogenous neighborhoods are seen as a threat. All local concerns are dismissed out of hand.

This quote on the top of page 24 from Dr. John E. Deady, Springfield's superintendent of schools, is downright Orwellian:

"I sympathize with the man who wants his neighborhood school. However, I believe that the majority must sacrifice that neighborhood school in order to create the integrated society which in the long run will benefit us all. In Springfield, busing became unavoidable."

Also note how the churches, with the Catholic archdiocese squarely at the fore, enthusiastically volunteered to help force The Plan down residents' throats (page 34):

At the request of the council of churches and the Catholic Diocese, many ministers of all denominations and priests talked about the Six-District Plan and the importance of integration from the pulpit the Sunday before the opening of school and urged their parishioners to obey the law.

People see the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in recent decades and think that is the only damage these treacherous shepherds were inflicting on their naive flocks at the time. Little mentioned is how these same corrupt clerics were actively conspiring in the destruction of their very own parishes.

I vividly recall the Catholic education I received in the 1970s and '80s, first in the suburbs and then back in Springfield itself for high school. The Catholic duty to support open and widespread Third World immigration was constantly pushed on us from an early age, along with the usual wooden and overblown Civil Rights movement badgerings that portrayed white males as the great evil of the 20th century.

Even as kids and early teens, one could sense that we were being manipulated. I remember our class being forced to watch a pro-Sanctuary Movement PBS propaganda film that featured a memorable scene where two brown-skinned kids trying to sneak into America are attacked in a sewage tunnel by a pack of rats:

101:45 mark:

We were supposed to be horrified by this and confused and angry at our government for making poor unfortunates like this have to undergo such trauma when they were only trying to improve their lives. But kids know better. Kids have an inherent sense of right and wrong that they don't need to learn from their elders. When a group of kids is playing with the ball you brought along and somebody runs off with your ball and won't give it back, you don't need an adult to tell you you've been wronged. And that is how I remember feeling watching that scene. Remembering that Irish neighborhood that had literally gone to Hell, the instinctive response I had to this scene was that these people were trying to take something that was mine. I didn't need to have a political orientation to instinctively see the rats as a last line of defense and cheer them on as they attempted to thwart the intruders who were trying to take something away from me. Sounds cruel, and as an adult I wouldn't be as immature and callous, but it was a basic honesty that comes with childhood that told me that I was being played here by those who were trying to use my own emotions against me. They were trying to brainwash me against my own home and hearth, and I wasn't buying it. Go Rats!

Six-district plans, bald-faced propaganda at parochial school and at Sunday Mass, what did it all lead to? The conclusion could not be more pronounced yet nobody seems to want to tot up the score and mark accounts. It is an unavoidable fact that the result of all that pious preening and white guilt trips is a smaller Detroit on the Connecticut River... an uninhabitable, crumbling ghetto of a city marked by violence, racial strife and squalor to such an extent that the police openly regard it as another Mogadishu or Kandahar City.

The non-assimilable immigration, the forced "integration" of the neighborhood schools... the whole effort is a total and complete failure if you accept the notion that these 1970s multicultural progressives were really attempting to do good. Of course, that is not what they were attempting to do at all.

The common threads have been broken. Neighborhoods have been destroyed. The once-dominant citizenry is rootless and isolated. And the era of progressive collectivism on a total scale is one giant step closer.