Listen while you read:

AVRO Baroque around the Clock
Non-stop barokmuziek
Free 256k audio stream


Sleep is a Beautiful Thing

Sleep is a beautiful thing

... it is the place where the blind can see, the lame can walk, and the dead can dance.


Why Gender Inequality Exists; What Conservatives Don't Want You to Know!

Share this article!

The True Reason For Women's Oppression

(hint, it's not biological)

With the current Republican, 'War on Women' being waged, this article seems timely. Often you will hear, amongst the many right-wing advocates, the need for a return to, traditional, values; almost always patriarchal in nature.
They often argue that the inferiority of women arises out of the biological dictations of nature. However, there is no evidence of this, when we explore the earliest signs of women's oppression in ancient society.

In fact, the patriarchal society arises out of an ideology and a class system. Ultimately women's oppression became a natural form of societies following the patriarchal function (note: form follows function).

Women's oppression began when ancient societies shifted from horticulture (a communal based method of farming) to agriculture (which became a more individual based system of farming). The important thing to note here, is the shift from communal property, towards individual property. And by property, I do not mean that private property did not exist in horticultural societies (because it did), but rather, the private ownership over the major sources of production (primarily food production).

I think it's high time we began bringing back the classics. I strongly suggest everyone read Friedrich Engels'  The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. A sample of the preface by Pat Brewer is included below,

The shift into intensive agriculture both for food and secondary products became increasingly important. Men abandoned hunting and were absorbed into the new tasks in agriculture and herding.
This shift was also characterised by social and economic divisions which were much more significant than previously — divisions of wealth and poverty as well as land ownership.
Ehrenberg outlines five significant factors and implications of this shift.7
1. Once large-scale herding was established then cattle-raiding as a variation of hunting developed. This was the origin of warfare. For the first time there existed ownership of a resource which was both worthwhile stealing and easy to steal.
2. Individual plough agriculture heralded the shift in gender control of farming. Men controlled the agriculture and herding and women spent more time in food preparation, making craft products like textiles and child rearing.
3. Although less land was need for the same amount of production than horticulture, plough agriculture is far more labour intensive especially where the land is of poor fertility and the question of population growth pressured the most arable land available. Therefore women need to produce more children for more workers and this would put more emphasis on what was seen as their major role. This would also lead to greater value beginning to be put on male children as women withdrew from farming activities and contributed less to the daily production of food which had been their major role and the basis of their equal social status.
4. This had implications for the social organisation of communities and a shift from matrilinial and matrilocal organisation to patrilineal and patrilocal organisation which laid the basis for the replacement of the clan system by individual and husband-headed family units. Male farmers and herders would teach their sons the necessary skills and techniques in the process of intensive farming. This would pressure the inheritance through sisters’ sons of the matrilineal system. In women-dominated horticulture, women teach their daughters who stay with them so inheritance is not a problem. In horticulture property is communally owned and less tools and equipment is needed therefore there is less at stake in inheritance. The dominance of men in production of food and secondary products becomes a source of contradiction to matrilineal and
matrilocal systems of social organisation. Pressure builds up on communal ownership when communal methods of collective labour are broken down by the more individual labour of men in plough farming and herding.
5. Large increases in related tasks and the growth in the range of material possessions through intensive farming and food preparations over time leads to craft specialisation and exchange. In the first instance these were part of the normal range of settlements but given the time and energy involved and the growth of food surpluses, specialisation and exchange occurred, increasing the division of labour.
Trade and commodity exchange were mainly carried out by men on behalf of the household or clan. Increasingly this would put pressure on them to subsume the products of their own agricultural work with the products of the household and would add to the tendency to shift to individual ownership and control over all products.
Material possessions and inheritance led to accumulation generationally which increased wealth and social hierarchy of class, status and power. The wealthy became powerful by lending to poorer clan families who in return gave services such as labour or combat duties. The divide between wealthy and poor widened with the poor becoming more indebted and having less time to spend in the production of their own subsistence. This context sets the framework where people as well as products, animals, goods and land become objects of value for exchange. In this context children or women could be given for labour or reproduction to pay off obligations incurred by the poor.

So while Engels’ theory has had some of its assumptions shaken by the expansion of evidence available today, the overall thesis of a social explanation of the oppression and exclusion of women stands the test of time and evidence well.
A Marxist explanation of the social development of private property and the oppression of women makes sense of the data. There is no evidence to back up biological determinist theories, nor do they rely on evidence. Such theories are ideological, given credence in order to distort, undermine and discourage attempts to eliminate gender inequalities.
It is extremely useful for anyone who is committed to the elimination of gender and class inequality to understand the social basis for such inequality. Engels’ classic work is essential in developing such an understanding. It helps show us the way to advance today’s struggles and move ahead to the liberation of women and society.

It's funny to think but, after reading this, you can't help but just see this theory emphasized and reenforced in just about every traditional social, religious, economic, way of living.

Until then, do all you can to share this book with as many people as you can.


New Bill CISPA Will Destroy Interent As we Know it

New Bill CISPA Will Destroy Interent As we Know it. Allows FB & Gmail to Give Your Private Information To Unkown Parties.

Any Excuse to Start a War: Human Rights

Just Another Invasion

What's that over there? It's a bird! It's a plane? Oh, nevermind, it's just another goat farmer who makes his wife wear a head covering. Everyone, gather up your troops and pitchforks, a 3rd world hunting we will go.
♫ Hi, ho, the drones will go, a hunting they will go. ♫

There may be a slight ringing in your ears, as TV talk show pundits pretend to care that a fat middle-aged Arab somewhere is practicing poor leadership skills. This is normal, and will soon pass with the next election.

Daily dose of reality, incoming -
Since the end of the Cold War in the late 20th century, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention was a hallmark of liberal and left opinion on international affairs.
The enemies of human rights were rogue states and left-leaning, democratically elected “autocracies”. In the Balkan war the Kosovo intervention became the model for humanitarian intervention.
Jean Bricmont wrote a powerful polemic against humanitarian intervention, renamed humanitarian imperialism.
Western powers used human rights as a justification for intervention in countries that were vulnerable to their attacks. The criteria for such intervention had become more arbitrary and self-serving,
After the fall of the Soviet Union, human rights, especially the rights associated with liberal democracy, moved into the vacuum left by the absence of a Left alternative.
There was no challenge to capitalism. As a result, the free market and representative democracy were embraced not only by mainstream liberals as they always had been but by large segments of the Western Left.
In the process, the defense of human rights became an occasion for the display of First World arrogance. This defense supplied the rationale for military intervention.
All wars need a legitimating ideology.
Very few on the political left at that time saw the need to be wary of human rights arguments as a defense for humanitarian intervention. They failed to understand that it was doublespeak for western neo-imperialism.
Politicians routinely attached the word “humanitarian” to political or military causes that needed a wider moral justification.
It is a truism today that war propaganda means uses journalists to repeat ‘acceptable’ terminology.
Part of the indoctrination process that primes the population to support a war persuades them of the ‘just cause’.
Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War


Destroy the Holy Land - Bring Peace

Destroy The Holy Land

Is this post going to be offensive? Probably. Will I regret posting it later? Who knows. But I'll tell you one thing... on paper, sure looks like a nice solution.

Christ, Moses, Islamic Prophet Muhammad, gave a message of peace.
Now look at us. Forgot about who started it for a moment (even though we all know who started it), look at what we're doing. We're fighting, killing each other and corrupting our politics over what?
Yes, yes, some people call it The Holy Land, but what is it? I'll tell ya, land. We're fighting over, dirt, some scattered rocks and boulders... a few foothills, and some old historical sites. That's it. That's why millions of people in Gaza are dying while Israelis take trips to go sign the missiles that kill them.

It's all over fucking dirt and sand.

 That's all the Holy Land is... just a bunch of fucking dirt and sand. That's it. Oh, right, how insensitive of me; It's a bunch of fucking dirt and sand that's been there for a long time. Really, who gives a fuck?

When Jesus was born in Bethlehem, do you think He intended for us to revere the spot in Jerusalem where we think He might have been born, even more than any of His Teachings?
Do you think Jesus' message was to defend the exact spots of land that he stood on, by building a giant fucking nuclear warhead to keep out all the non-Christians? Was that His message?

I'm tired of 6 BILLION dollars of our fucking tax money going to defend a bunch of wealthy sick-o's in the middle east who are one some religious ego trip and think they gotta be on the same spot of dirt they think Moses might have wondered on. Who gives a fuck where Moses lived? Or where he parted the red sea. Did he even? I don't fucking care! Because I'll tell you one thing, I don't think Moses was thinking, 'Oh, better mark this spot on a map, so that 2,500 years from now some rich Europeans can come and kill off all the Arabs that live here'. I'm sure Moses would be just as proud to find a shrine for him, protected by the KKK as he is to see his land being courageously defended by Israeli soldiers who aren't afraid to shoot at unarmed pregnant Palestinian women.

Look, what do you do when you got 2 kids, fighting over a toy, one kid says,
"I got it!"
"No, it's mine, give it back."
"I had it first!"

What do you do? Do you pick sides and say, 'Oh, I gonna side with little Billy here.' No! Kids are fucking annoying. When 2 kids fight, you don't join in, you tell to shut the fuck up!

So SHUT THE FUCK UP! I don't give a fuck, if Jesus was born there. I don't give a FUCK if you think that's where Moses lead your people. You're NOT getting my tax dollars, so you can go on some Holy endeavor.

Look, as a Christian, I believe those sites are Holy too. But I also know what Jesus taught. And the Bible doesn't say, Jesus took a stick and marked out where we should install our perimeter defenses (courtesy of US taxpayer), and here is where the holy missile base should be (again, US tax payer)...etc. Fuck it. The Holy Land is already desecrated by all the fighting that's going on there.

So back to the two fighting kids. They won't shut up, they're fucking annoying, and the toy is fucking expensive on, and you know they're going to break it. What do you do? You take it away!

If you can't stop fighting over the Holy Land, if you can't share it, then don't fucking live there!
And that's not a suggestion.
Fuck, I think we should pull our Military out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and move them straight into the Holy Land. Then evacuate it! Everybody out! Jerusalem - empty, no people, notta. Everyone, go live somewhere else, move to some other country, can't stay here.

Then, when it's totally empty, and devoid of all residents. We fire bomb it. Fucking burn that whole fucking city to the ground. I don't care about all the historical Churches or whatever. If we can't share it peacefully, then NOBODY can have it.

And you know what I think we should do then? Convert it into a wasteland. Imagine, the world's dump. We would pay all the people who lived there (used to) a $HIT load of money, to use that whole land, as the world's dump. Nuclear waste, garbage, decommissioned junk, whatever, Jerusalem is the perfect place for it.

And that's the solution folks.


Not, 'take back the Holy Land'. Not, kick out all the non-believers. No. Just fucking Firebomb it. Would that desecrate the place of Jesus' birth? Maybe, but only about as much as all the racism and fascism that's going on there right now. The Holy Land is already desecrated. It's a land of death, of children signing missiles, or terrorism, of racism, of prejudice.

And the sooner we wipe the Holy Land off the face of the earth, the better, and the sooner we'll have peace. You want the path to peace? That's it. We can't share it. Israel won't share with Palestine, and I'm sure the reverse would be true if Palestine had any of the Holy Land left under it's control. So fuck it. Nobody gets the Holy Land.

When there is no more Holy Land, there will be no more Palestine and no more Israel. Instead it will be the fucking world dump. And all the people who go there can tour the world's largest assortment of junk that all the nations didn't have room to store. And we do need a place to store our nuclear waste, btw.

I'm tired of giant Pro-Israel lobbies buy up our politicians. I'm tired of angry mobs of 'christians' talking about how they're not giving a damn penny to our 'socialist' public schools, but suddenly when Israel thinks that Iran may or may not develop a nuclear mission in 60 months (5 years), the pocket books go flying open. What happened conservative America, I thought the government took all your money? Now you're telling me you got like, $100, or $400 in your pocket to give to a foreign country's military? Oh fuck that shit! Ever heard of the USS Liberty? Of course not.

If keeping the Holy Land around, means more of this,

Then leave a pacifist like me the fuck out of it.
Fight your own damn war.

Kick everyone out of the Holy Land. Leave the whole fucking dirt wad, deserted. Then, FIREBOMB IT! Or Nuke it from orbit, whichever. Just destroy it already so we can stop all the racism, the Islamophobia, and all the killing.

Zionists will stop fighting their wars and rampaging across our politics once we take away what they have to fight for. If that land is reduced to a nuclear wasteland they'll have nothing left to defend, nothing to lobby for, unless they want to start a new Israel up the Antarctic somewhere, in which case, have at it! It's a few miles of from where Moses found himself but whatever.

Now, if some religious psycho, wants to go dig through all that garbage and go live down by the nuclear waste, because he thinks that, 2,000 years ago, his uncle Larry lived there, or because his family has been there for generations; let 'em. But, document them on film when they do go, because that's the closest thing to insanity that you'll ever see.