babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Doctor, lawyer, corporate thief ....

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Doctor, lawyer, corporate thief ....
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 19 August 2005 11:00 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Big nurse, bad mother, political chief.

How do we really really feel about powerful women? On this thread I said, regarding MichaŽle Jean,

quote:
Just think ... the last time there has been such a media feeding frenzy and general irrational outpouring of outrageous speculation, the woman at the centre of the brouhaha was Karla Homolka.
quote:
then skdadl responded:
I think I know what you're implying about the special fuel that seems to get added to political commentary when the public figure we're commenting on is a woman. I sometimes even wonder about my own intense reactions to women I know I'm criticizing fairly -- ie, in ways consistent with my overall political views and principles. Anne McLellan, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, eg -- are there special goads in my reactions to them beyond what I feel about their male counterparts, usually their bosses? I hope not, but I often wonder, and of course I'm sure that I detect sheer misogyny in the reactions of many others to them.
Here is the place to consider and to express our anger, our disappointment, our ambivalence and many other complex emotions and thoughts about the likes of Mary Magdalen, Martha Stewart, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Florence Nightingale, Marilyn Monroe, and other famous/infamous women.

[ 19 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
steffie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3826

posted 20 August 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for steffie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, it all started with Mary Magdalene, didn't it. Or rather, Eve. No wonder there is such a prevalent fear/loathing directed towards prominent or powerful women!

In my view, male insecurity (and often, aggression) develops in direct proportion to women's empowerment, as Cartman suggests in his opening post here.


From: What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow / Out of this stony rubbish? | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 20 August 2005 03:51 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you, deBeauxOs. This is a very timely topic.

There are some similarities between the way Michaelle Jean has been treated in the last several days and the way Belinda Stronach was treated three months ago when she joined the Liberals. And I don't just mean the way they were treated in the mainstream media and by the political right, but also the way they were treated by many people posting on Babble (both women and men). I'm not sure I'd want to compare Jean and Stronach to one another, but the responses to Stronach's actions and Jean's past statements have some parallels, some but not all of which I think can be attributed to their both being female.

In response to some of the comments made on what may have been the busiest day on this message board so far, certainly the busiest in the six months I've been here, Skdadl started a thread in the Feminism section along similar lines to this one, entitling it Stronach, Thatcher, Meir, Clinton, Gandhi. Worth checking out. It started out as a general discussion about female politicians, then devolved into being primarily about Stronach.

[ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: obscurantist ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
catje
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7841

posted 20 August 2005 03:53 AM      Profile for catje     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Martha Stewart, huh? This'll be fun.
I must admit that, originally, I made fun of her on principle. Anyone rich and famous who isn't Noam Chomsky is fair game as far as I'm concerned.

I once moved into a house which for some obscure reason came with a subscription to Martha Stewart Living [has anyone out there come up with a zine called Martha Stewart Dead?], which I found to be as crashingly dull as one might expect. It mostly consisted of mind-numbing crafts professionally photographed in one of her numerous houses for that lifestyles-of-the-rich-and-famous supermarket-aisle glam, with the occasional recipe. But I'm not a huge fan of magazines in general, and couldn't follow a recipe if I tried. [Which is not to say I can't cook. Quite the opposite- that's why I can't follow other people's recipes.]

Then a friend of mine pointed out that dear old Martha really has done a lot to elevate, well, domesticity. The arts of cooking, decorating, entertaining etc really are arts, often brought to great heights of the sublime by underappreciated domestic goddesses whose culture belittles their efforts as trivial. I wouldn't call her the originator of the current deluge of weird cooking and decorating shows and hip furniture stores, but she does sort of symbolize this re-valuing of homemaking.


From: lotusland | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 August 2005 09:07 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I first saw the Martha Stewart magazine while sitting in the waiting room of our Clinic (recycled from someone in our village). I got some interesting recipes, along with some gardening ideas (I don't have a garden yet, but someday...). I wouldn't pay to subscribe to the magazine, but I'm contented to browse through it if it's free to look through at the clinic or from neighbours finished with their copies. What's not to like?
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
kuri
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4202

posted 20 August 2005 09:34 AM      Profile for kuri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've often thought that Dr. Rice has had her accomplishments trashed in ways that her male counterparts have not. No, I don't like her politics at all, but I'm not going to put her down or call her a token just because of that. Why are her male counterparts most often described as cognisant and evil while she's described as unintelligent and unquestioning? Is she somehow unable to be knowingly evil because she's female and black?

I'm probably guilty of this myself, but I think the left has such a cynicism when a woman or a person of colour is a rightest that some of our older prejudices come out sometimes. We, somewhat correctly, considered promoting equality as "our thing", so it's kind of an insult of the people we think ourselves "protecting" turn out to have a different political orientation. But we must remember, "we" as benevolent people of privilege didn't "give" Dr. Rice or any other person of colour the opportunity to have the position of power she know occupies. Black activists and feminists fought for those opportunities. Therefore, they don't owe "us" anything other than what every individual owes everyone else: humanity. Dr. Rice fails on that account just as Dr. Kissenger did. But she shouldn't either have any special responsibilities as a woman or a person of colour that Kissenger didn't have as a white man.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear above. >__<;; Anyway, yes, I think there is still a special viotrol aimed at women in power across the political spectrum that doesn't exist in the same for men. And I think the same can be said for other dimensions of privilege as well.


From: an employer more progressive than rabble.ca | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 August 2005 09:44 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[Edited to say that I started off replying to Boom Boom.]

And we can all do with a jog or a nudge about new colour schemes once in a while, can't we.

Big Nurse! deBeauxOs, that expression means something to me, so I am maybe going to play devil's advocate here for a moment, thinking about my resentments of Big Nurse ... in all her manifestations.

I don't deny the misogyny that is inevitably directed towards strong women. Sex is still such a marker in public life -- we're still not past that, so whether a woman who goes public is a good guy or a bad guy, she is going to have to steel herself for all kinds of inappropriate curiosity and criticism. Wrong but still true.

However, way back in the early days of the women's lib groups I knew, it was generally accepted that we weren't just cheerleading for ourselves and other women, that we had some self-criticism to do, that traditional women's culture had had both strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes our weakness had led us to enshrine as paragons certain types of women who aren't, in truth, good for themselves or for anyone else. And to me, those troubling types are all summed up in ...

Big Nurse! Nurse Ratchit, for those who have read Ken Kesey's One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest. (Sure, Kesey was a guy, but I still think that he nailed the type.)

She doesn't have to be a nurse. She just has to be a believer in and an enforcer of All that is Right and Proper, with an emphasis on the Proper.

I sometimes think that centuries of subordination drove many strong women to bitterness, to revenge upon the young -- "I suffered through this, so you can suffer too" sort of thing. Some of the smartest older women I've known -- and I've known a bunch -- have been like that, super-punitive. They punish themselves and they punish others. The one form of power that was open to them, usually in the home but also in a few kinds of work outside, was as enforcers of the bourgeois proprieties, so often the smartest women took to that role with a vengeance.

The myth is that their public roles -- mother, teacher, nurse -- were essentially "caring" roles. The truth is that many of those women were li'l sergeant-majors, wee tyrants. And we still often pay tribute to bossy, tyrannical women as great caregivers when in fact they are often petty and vengeful.

I'm not saying all. I'm saying this was a dangerous dynamic, the logical result of restricting intelligent adults to very narrow roles. As I write, I have before me the image of a pursed-lips senior editor ordering me not to think so much as I work ...

[ 20 August 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 August 2005 09:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But we must remember, "we" as benevolent people of privilege didn't "give" Dr. Rice or any other person of colour the opportunity to have the position of power she know occupies. Black activists and feminists fought for those opportunities. Therefore, they don't owe "us" anything other than what every individual owes everyone else: humanity. Dr. Rice fails on that account just as Dr. Kissenger did. But she shouldn't either have any special responsibilities as a woman or a person of colour that Kissenger didn't have as a white man.

That is admirably clear to me, kurichina, and I agree.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 20 August 2005 01:23 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by steffie:
Well, it all started with Mary Magdalene, didn't it. Or rather, Eve. No wonder there is such a prevalent fear/loathing directed towards prominent or powerful women!
Athough I am a recovering Catholic, I am vicariously titillated by the ongoing debate regarding the ordination of women as priests. The most interesting idea that I heard in support, years ago, was by Dr Elisabeth Lacelle. She advanced a compelling argument, based on original research that she and other thealogians have done.

Essentially, she argued that MM was personally selected by JC as disciple, as were the others. As the men were anointed into a special role, so was she. This approach deconstructs the traditional interpretation of the founding of the Church; it challenges the sexist assumptions made by male-centered doctrine as well as the classist hierarchal structure of the Catholic Church.

Here are but a few links to the 3500 Google entries offered up when you enter Mary Magdalen + ordination, Mary of Magdala and women priests.

What I found empowering in much of the writing by feminist scholars and religious thinkers is their nuanced and complex development of MM as an individual, an historical figure, an icon and a significant element in the development of the Christian faith.

There is much discussion regarding her portrayal as a 'fallen woman' or a prostitute and how that has deeply influenced church dogma and the choices available to women. Many of the researchers are fairly candid about their own ambivalence with MM and the "temptation" of rehabilitating her into a spiritual heroine.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 21 August 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bad mother. That one pushes a lot of buttons, doesn't it? And strangely enough, the nastiest rumour or innuendo that popped up in the media when Adrienne Clarkson was appointed GG. Do you remember the disinformation about her daughters being 'estranged' from her?

Calling a woman a bad mother (NOT in the American urban slang meaning, of course ) is just about the worst slur you can throw at her, IMHO, far worse than calling her a bitch or a whore.

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 21 August 2005 07:37 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Big Nurse also = English nanny. JR Saul (and maybe others?) have compared Margaret Thatcher to a nanny.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 21 August 2005 11:11 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Contrarian:
Big Nurse also = English nanny. JR Saul (and maybe others?) have compared Margaret Thatcher to a nanny.
That comparison, which rings true because of her leadership style, is particularly ironic when you consider these quotes from the PBS series Commanding Heights.

quote:
Margaret Thatcher knew exactly what she thought. Government was doing too much. "We should not expect the state," she declared not long after taking office, "to appear in the guise of an extravagant good fairy at every christening, a loquacious companion at every stage of life's journey, and the unknown mourner at every funeral." She wanted to replace what she called the "Nanny State" and its cradle-to-grave "coddling" with the much more bracing risks and rewards of the "enterprise culture."

[ 21 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 22 August 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The myth is that their public roles -- mother, teacher, nurse -- were essentially "caring" roles. The truth is that many of those women were li'l sergeant-majors, wee tyrants. And we still often pay tribute to bossy, tyrannical women as great caregivers when in fact they are often petty and vengeful.

quote:
We, somewhat correctly, considered promoting equality as "our thing", so it's kind of an insult of the people we think ourselves "protecting" turn out to have a different political orientation.

skdadl, kurichina, I would like to respond to your comments quoted above.

First, skdadl, your words imply a specific kind of woman, specifically, a middle class white woman. Even thought it's true that women of colour have had similar stereotypes ("nanny", "Aunt Jemima", "Dragon Lady") they have also had some very different stereotypes foisted upon them.

It's white women who have been shouldered with the "caring and compassionate" stereotype the most. Being called a "bad mother" happens to poor women of colour all the time. And single moms from all cultural backgrounds.

As for the "tyrant" as the flip-side, Woman-as-Dominatrix is also an image of women that has a great deal of cultural currency in some circles.

kurichina, you have written something so eloquent and beautiful, I want to clap and cheer for you! Thank you!

What you described happens on the (white) left all the time, and when it comes to issues of race (my pet issue wrt the left as you can probably tell ) the left can often get all fucked up in wanting to criticize, but not wanting to seem racist, then criticizing anyway, and not seeing how much harsher the criticism is of women in general, and men of colour.

Let's compare the argument about crticism of women as mothers (well-articulated in posts above)to George W. and how he's perceived as a father, with his frat-girl daughters, never mind his own substance-abuse history.

And that train of thought always takes me to Ralph Klein. (ugh)


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 25 August 2005 02:27 AM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by bigcitygal:
... Even though it's true that women of colour have had similar stereotypes ("nanny", "Aunt Jemima", "Dragon Lady") they have also had some very different stereotypes foisted upon them. ... Being called a "bad mother" happens to poor women of colour all the time. And single moms from all cultural backgrounds.
This just jogged my memory regarding the origins of the 'black matriarch' concept - was it not developed by mainstream economists and policy analysts to rationalize high unemployment rates among black men?

Wasn't that stereotype used in the Black Power movement to keep 'uppitty' women down? - the accusation being that women drove their partners/lovers away by being too demanding, and emasculating men whenever they expressed their intelligence and self-sufficiency.

What a catch-22 tour-de-force!! On one side, black women are punished for their strength and their will to survive social conditions that they did not create; on the other, they are blamed for a label that was attributed by white do-gooders.

[ 25 August 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]


From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
KMP
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10391

posted 12 September 2005 04:58 PM      Profile for KMP     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
MichaŽle Jean.

The issue is not that she is a woman. There was no problem when Adrienne Clarkson was appointed. There are big problems now:

MichaŽle Jean and her husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond, are close friends of members of the FLQ, wihch seeks the destruction of Canada and the emergence of an independent Quebec state by force. That organization whose ringleaders planted bombs in mailboxes in the 1960s, and who kidnapped and murdered British Diplomat James Cross and kidnapped Pierre Laporte during the War Measures of 1970 has been reincarnated by convicted terrorist Raymond Villeneuve in the 1990's and he has been back in court for using his web site to incite the procurement of hunting rifles to go after an English rights lawyer, Brent Tyler. Villeneuve got a slap on the wrist, as the Quebec legal system is pro-Separation and pro-Terrorist.

The situation was so explosive in 1970 that there was talk of establishing a "parallel government" of famous Quebec personalities to run things because Trudeau and his cabinet were perceived as not getting the job done, and perhaps losing the country.

MichaŽle Jean and her husband, Jean-Daniel Lafond is reported BY SEPARATISTS themselves as being very friendly with and having hired the FLQ kidnap-murderer, Rose, who also did pathetically little jail time, to build Lafond a piece of furniture. Rose "charmed" Lafond by showing him that he had built a double-false-bottom into the furniture, a compartment to conceal a weapon.

MichaŽle Jean has been FILMED in pro-separatist films as stating "Independence is not given, it is taken."

Separatists in the French Internet refer to MichaŽle Jean as their "angel" and "want her back" from the federalist post of Governor General, equating her to a lost sheep for the separatist cause.

In fact, however, MichaŽle Jean, in the post of Governor General, is the Commander-in-Chief of Canada's armed forces. It will be this woman, a devoted SEPARATIST who has proclaimed the method for obtaining independence is to "take it", who will command Canada's military should there be an insurrection or a civil war in Quebec pursuant to another sovereignty referendum.

In fact, MichaŽle Jean is like her husband's bit of furniture, nothing but a "double false bottom" to conceal a secret weapon: the secret weapon of the separatists, her husband, who surely will be dictating to MichaŽle Jean the commands to be given to the Canadian armed forces, particularly those in Quebec, in the event of an insurrection or forced secession. He will be GETTING those orders from the close friends of MichaŽle Jean and himself in the FLQ, the most hard-core separatists who are willing to shed blood here in Quebec and also to destroy the homeland of 33 million Canadians to get their way.

MichaŽle Jean is dangerous. Separatists themselves exposed her to the press AS a hard-line separatist, exposed her participation in films on Quebec independence, and themselves pointed out that she and her husband are a high-level off-the-Richter-scale security risk to Canada.

In addition, MichaŽle Jean is a citizen of FRANCE. The Constitution Act, 1867 of Canada makes it perfectly clear at sections 31, 41 and 129 that no one may hold office as a Senator of Member of Parliament (including Cabinet) who does not bear "TRUE allegiance" to Canada and who IS or BECOMES or does any ACT TO BECOME a citizen or subject of a Foreign Power. France is a Foreign Power. France LOST its claims in British North America in 1760 by the Treaty of Paris. France LOST Quebec; and has been repeateldy COURTING the return of Quebec to its fold, thus also clearly violating this Treaty which has never been nullified.

In addition, MichaŽle Jean as a citizen of France may prove a further danger, as the Quebec Separatists, in particular Daniel Turp, envision a post-Independence Canada with QU…BEC IN CHARGE, and in the form of a European Union. The European Union is highly socialist and appears to be increasingly fascist. British Member of the European Union Parliament, Mr. Ashle Mote, warns that all should "Beware the Secret Heart of the European Union": its member countries have NO IDEA who is running it, and elected representatives have NO LEGISLATIVE POWER.

If you will take a spin over to Canada's Parliamentary web site and put the term "deep integration" into the search field, you will find that so-called Prime Minister Paul Martin appointed John Manley to NEGOTIATE DEEP INTEGRATION of Canada into the United States and Mexico. This entails REMOVING the Canadian border, bringing in American military to replace civil authorities in Canada, and throwing a military perimeter known as NORTHCOM around all of North America, including Canada. This is TREASON, as nobody is elected to office in this country to preside at the dismantling of it and its hand-over to George Bush for annexation.

If you have not heard of the BILDERBERG GROUP, search for Paul Hellyer's book online, Goodbye Canada, available in French as Adieu Canada, where he explains that our political leaders are for the most part members of BILERBERG, and have been for the most part trained by these proponents of a One-World Government to implement NOT the democratic wishes of the Canadian electorate, but the secret agenda of the Bilderberg Group. Our leaders, as members of Bilderberg, and those of our media who are permitted to attend its clandestine meetings, are required to swear an oath of SILENCE. This is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada's Reference re Alberta Statutes contains a fundamentally important obiter dictum stating that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the Constitution.

After all, without it, we have no guard against tyranny. Our leaders could be anybody, could do what they want, get into office, and pervert their office in our country to aid a foreign power.

BILDERBERG and its related organizations, Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations ARE just such a Foreign Power: they are a supranational, transnational self-appointed government who have placed themselves above all sovereign nations with intent to dissolve them and their constitutions. Their object is to impose, by stealth and force, a One World Government under THEIR rule in which nobody else gets a vote. Their agenda includes MERGING these dissolved nations under their control. Canada-USA-Mexico is slated for dissolution and merger into simply "North America". There will be no more Canada, no more Canadian citizenship, and Canadians will be forced to serve in the American war machine.

The purpose of the merger of North America is to throw a military perimeter (NORTHCOM) around the continent. This is also called "North American Fortress". There is no need to build a fortress unless you are planning a war.

Paul Hellyer, former Minister of National Defence for Canada, when interviewed on the Internet concerning 9/11, is of the opinion that George Bush KNEW about 9/11 and deliberately did nothing about it: he let it happen as a PRETEXT to take us into World War III. There are other people who think Bush DID it. If you consider that Canada's assets have been steadily sucked into the USA for decades by NAFTA, which is NOT a free-trade agreement but an annexation agreement placing Canada in US military control, and that somebody keeps trying to break up this country along the fault lines of language politics, and that the YES vote in Quebec would very seriously risk leading us into a civil war... which in turn would give the US a pretext to send in their military to control this, and at the same time conduct the final take-over of Canada, MichaŽle Jean is DANGEROUS, because the FLQ, through her separatist husband, through HER, now controls the entire Armed Forces of Canada.

War in Canada is what we are looking at.

Paul Martin, our so-called Prime Minister, is actively annexing this country to the United States as this is being written. They need an EXCUSE to finish the job with a bang: that excuse is the break-out of Quebec, and civil war in Canada.

The "North American Fortress" is essential to the plans for imposing One-World Government under a high-tech feudal system which will include BIOMETRIC monitoring of citizens. North America, under US control, is slated to be THE MILITARY arm of the new One-world Government, which is also absorbing the EU and other parts of the globe. With USA-Canada-Mexico absorbed inside a military perimeter that will be IRREVERSIBLE, the same hidden global power that is now secretly running the EU will be warring on any part of this planet that does not want to be absorbed.

This is NOT science fiction, it is science fact and political reality. The Bilderbergs have extracted oaths of allegiance and silence from people who are supposed to be our leaders. This VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA which requires that these people NOT have any conflicting oath which compromises their elected office and allegiance. Elected officials MUST TAKE THEIR MANDATE AND AGENDA solely from the electorate, not from outside powers or other influences. Enemies of the State may not occupy sworn office, may not sit and vote in Parliament or the legislatures, may not dispose of the assets of the state or assess and levy taxes.

Paul Martin received his steamship line in his youth as a GIFT from Paul Desmarais of Power Corp., a company associated with the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and which has trained and placed several prime ministers into office in Canada, while Canadians have been kept ignorant of the Bilderberg objectives due to imposed MEDIA SILENCE.

Our leaders are not our leaders. They are operatives of a Foreign Power, a supranational, transnational Foreign Power of elite multi-millionaires and billionnaires who covet the natural resources of Canada and the cheap labour of a captive socialist-style labour force. Paul Martin and his legislature are not in office, they are a usurper government taking their marching orders from Bilderberg, and are RIGHT NOW ANNEXING CANADA to the USA behind the backs of Canadians.

It will be too late to stop it once civil war breaks out in Quebec and America's troops march in. The removal of the Canada-US border has also started: in about 2001-2001, some one thousand RCMP were REMOVED without credible explanation from the Quebec-US border and re-assigned "inland".

We are being TAKEN DOWN. MichaŽle Jean and her FLQ-friendly husband are part of the plan.

MichaŽle Jean is INCAPABLE OF TAKING AN OATH OF TRUE ALLEGIANCE TO CANADA. She is incapable of holding that office because she is a citizen of at least ONE Foreign Power, France; and clearly bears TRUE allegiance to another "Foreign Power" within our borders, the incipient Independent State of Quebec. She may ALSO bear allegiance to Bilderberg and other similar organizations and she may support a One-World Government, which in order to come into full existence, requires the destruction of Canada.

http://bilderberggroup≠.tripod.com/


From: Montreal, Canada | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 12 September 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole "Michaelle Jean is a separatist Trojan Horse" deal is so last month.

As for the Bilderbergers... hey, at least they bild great bergers. Better than McDonald's, that's for sure.


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 12 September 2005 05:16 PM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I think the generous use of CAPITALIZED WORDS has kind of shaken me up. So when will CANADIANS learn about MichaŽle Jean's "DOUBLE FALSE BOTTOM?" HUH? WHEN? And where can I GET one of THOSE BURGERS? HUH? WHerE?

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]


From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 12 September 2005 05:27 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, I think KMP did very well, blurting all that out in her very first post. I imagine she will retire exhausted now and we will never know whether she just quit posting or some conspirators have her locked away in a grotty little basement suite.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 12 September 2005 05:32 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by KMP: ... In fact, MichaŽle Jean is like her husband's bit of furniture, nothing but a "double false bottom" to conceal a secret weapon: ... her husband, who surely will be dictating to MichaŽle Jean the commands to be given to the Canadian armed forces, particularly those in Quebec, in the event of an insurrection or forced secession. ...
Sorry, this thread is about women, not double false bottoms or conspiracy theories. Take a hike, hein?

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rambler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10194

posted 12 September 2005 07:59 PM      Profile for Rambler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How do we know that the conspiracy isn't BEING engineered by a matriarchal secret society that is determined TO reassert females as the dominant sex in all matters OF importance? THEY SOON WILL be coming for us male types to lock us away in harems where our only task in life will be to please THE voracious appetites of our NEW overlords. (Alright the last part is more of a fantasy then a conspiracy, but the rest is so going to happen. I totally read it on the internet somewhere.)
From: Alberta | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
deBeauxOs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10099

posted 12 September 2005 08:44 PM      Profile for deBeauxOs     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
posted by Rambler: How do we know that the conspiracy isn't BEING engineered by a matriarchal secret society that ... SOON WILL be coming for us male types to lock us away in harems where our only task in life will be to please THE voracious appetites of our NEW overlords.
Overlords ??? In MY OWN fantasy, my title is TOP bitch.

From: missing in action | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 12 September 2005 09:04 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tuff fer alla yaz: I'm waiting to be recognized as Queen Of The World. You may call me Kwin. When I am Kwin, things will change. All technology will be easily compatible with all other technology, no need for scuzzy cords or rah rah or three bags full. Males will be kept at stud farms. Artificial insemination will be freely available. Any woman who wants to keep a fertile male as a pet (for whatever reason) will be required to purchase, yearly, a special license which he must wear at all times and if he is found unaccompanied by her, or found not to be in possession of a special permit, BOTH the errant pet and the errant-er pet owner will be turned over to Super Bitch, for Discipline. As for bergers, burgers, birgers or berghers...two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, onions, pickles on a sesame seed bun with grilled hot dog, melted cheese and fries on the side. Malt vinegar. Ketchup. NO SWEET RELISH...

and across the nation, available at kiosks and news stands, little dolls of Dubya (stuffed with what else pure unadulterated bull dung)((well, maybe a bit adulterated, eh)), and long sharp hatpins for the poking thereof...

I mean, such fekkin' tripe! Michaele Jean is a figurehead. Is there one sane person in this entire country who seriously gives a shit? She is a figurehead who purportedly represents the Queen. I, Kwin, am the Queen. I'll keep'er in line. And she'll need a license for her import drone, same as anyone else.

And on Tuesday............


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 12 September 2005 09:29 PM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hail Queen Anne!! huzzah
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca