printer-friendly version

Women's March 2017: The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

by John Spritzler

January 22, 2017

The people attending the huge Women's March against President Trump yesterday were clearly motivated by good and noble intentions. They wanted a world without prejudice because of a person's race or sex or religion or nation of birth, and without hate. What's wrong with that? Here's an official poster made for the march:


Here's what's wrong. The people at the Women's March did not know that they were being played--big time!--by the very ruling class elite who deliberately foment prejudice against people because of their race or sex or religion or place of birth.

It's not a crime to be duped. One should not feel guilty for being duped; one should feel angry.

I am hoping that those who attended the Women's March will, after reading this article and others, feel angry at having been played by the very people they thought they were opposing at the march--the people who use their great power over us to make the world very unequal and undemocratic.

I posted about the Women's March earlier and wrote this article to explain why I said what I said in that post, which is included below for your reference.

The Purpose of the Women's March from the Point of View of the Ruling Class was DIVIDE-AND-RULE; Pit Good People who Voted for Trump against Good People who Voted for Clinton

The Women's March was attended by lots of ordinary well-intentioned people, but it was organized by the ruling class, in particular by the liberal wing of the ruling class (part of the very same bird that has a conservative wing, by the way). The liberal wing of the ruling class is the Democratic Party leadership. The Women's March thus had Democratic Party leaders and faithful pro-Hillary supporters giving speeches, and the theme was that the Democratic Party is the party with good moral values that appeals to people on the basis of these good moral values, whereas the Republican Party of Donald Trump is the party with immoral values that appeals to people on the basis of their immoral values.

The liberal leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Hillary Clinton and Obama and Bill Clinton, are, literally, mass murderers and overt racists. If you don't understand why this is true then please read The U.S. Government Is Run By Mass Murderers and Drones Create Hatred of the U.S., Which Is Their Real Purpose and, regarding racism against Palestinians that Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren (a speaker at the Boston Women's March) support 100%, The Media Don't Tell the Real Reason Israel Kills People in Gaza. Not surprisingly, even if one had a full transcript of all the speeches at the Women's March, one would not be able to read even a hint of this Big Truth; the march was a cover up, a Big Lie, a giant propaganda event asserting that the Democratic Party is the champion of morality. This remains true regardless of the good intentions of those who joined the march.

Liberal Democratic Party supporters have been spreading the word during the entire recent election campaign that Trump suppoters are very bad immoral people. Hillary Clinton did this with her "deplorables" remark. Meryl Streep did it by wrongly (whether she knew it or not) asserting that Trump had mocked a disabled reporter with his hand gestures and that Trump supporters have no problem with such mocking and bullying.

What about Trump's Wall?

Liberal Democratic Party leaders, for decades now, have been doing their utmost to make Americans fear illegal immigrants (as criminals who are taking away jobs) and to fear Muslims as terrorists. Thus the ultra-liberal Boston Globe several years ago ran a whole series devoted to explaining to African-Americans that illegal Hispanic immigrants were taking away their jobs. One Boston Globe column said:

"It is extremely difficult to argue that the bulk of the 2.7 million jobs obtained by new, young immigrants in 2005 were not acceptable to native-born young workers who held similar types of jobs in large numbers in 2000," Sum and his colleagues wrote in a study two years ago. "The critics of job displacement are ignoring the ugly realities of American labor market operations over the past five years."

Have these liberal leaders ever advocated working class solidarity with illegal immigrants to make a much better world for all (as discussed here) instead of the nightmare of class inequality imposed by the plutocracy these liberal leaders serve? Hardly!

The reason Trump's wall appeals to Trump supporters is because people like Bill and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party leadership have persuaded them to view illegal immigrants as a threat to their well-being. Watch Bill do it here. Watch Hillary do it here. And watch Obama do it here.

What about Trump's Ban on Muslim Immigration? What Does it Mean to "Resist Xenophobia"?

Liberal politicians have gone along completely with the conservative politicians in covering up the truth about Islamic terrorism: that 9/11 was obviously a false flag inside job, that the FBI has orchestrated almost all of the subsequent domestic terrorism plots, and that the ruling class (liberal Obama) uses drones that target and kill innocent Muslims to help Islamic terrorists recruit so that there will be a credible bogeyman enemy to keep Americans fearful and obedient to the American plutocracy-controlled government, and that the U.S. government supports Israel's ethnic cleansing of non-Jews (Palestinians) not because this makes life better for Israeli Jews (in fact it makes life worse for working class Israeli Jews as discussed here and here) but because it provides a bogeyman enemy for the Orwellian War on Terror (as discussed here.)

At the same time, the liberal Democratic Party leaders urge progressives to denounce, as racists, those Americans who are now afraid of illegal immigration and Muslim terrorism and want policies to protect them. Oh! How rich!

Would the ruling class allow any speaker at the Women's March to tell the truth about this, as spelled out in Inventing the Enemy or (regarding Muslim immigration into the U.S.) as spelled out in What About the Mass Muslim Immigration of Refugees? Of course not!

What Does it Mean to "Resist Racism" Today?

"Resisting racism" today does not mean the same thing that it meant in 1964. And understanding this is key to understanding how the people at the Women's March were duped.

In 1964 there was a Civil Rights Movement against racism, understood to be a movement against racial discrimination, and in particular against the racist Jim Crow laws of the South. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously galvanized enormous support from ALL races of Americans for the anti-racist Civil Rights Movement with his I Have a Dream speech in which he said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Most white working class people agreed with this aim. They opposed racial discrimination. They viewed "anti-racism" as a morally right principle. Even in the Deep South, where a white person risked violence at the hands of the KKK for openly opposing the Jim Crow laws, the fact is that in the 1930s the poor white tenant farmers throughout the South's Cotton Belt joined in huge numbers with black tenant farmers in the illegally integrated Southern Tenant Farmers Union to wage big and successful strikes against the large land owners, and this despite being attacked by the KKK because their union meetings were integrated in violation of the Jim Crow laws. Once it became safe for working class white people in the South to say they were opposed to Jim Crow, most of them said so. That's what "anti-racism" meant back then.

Fast foward more than four decades. The ruling class went on the offense to destroy the solidarity between white and non-white working class people that existed in the 1960s. The ruling class killed MLK, Jr. and pressured the remaining Civil Rights Leaders to change the goal of the "anti-racist" movement to be Affirmative Action--judging people by the color of their skin and NOT the content of their character (or appropriate level of skill or knowledge.)

Affirmative Action policies were established for hiring and school admissions, initially due to behind-the-scenes pressure from President Nixon. Subsequently liberal Democratic Party politicians defined support for Affirmative Action as "anti-racism" and opposition to it as "racism."

For decades white working class people applying for a job or admission to a school were told, "We're sorry. We cannot offer you the position you applied for because we had to give it to a less qualified minority person." Job and school admission qualifying exams routinely and openly required a higher score for a white person than for a non-white person to qualify.

The result was exactly the intended result: white working class people felt that THEY were being discriminated against because of the color of their skin; white working class people who wanted all races to be treated the same heard themselves described as "racist" for this belief and concluded that now "anti-racism" was code for anti-white.

The fact that this was the result INTENDED by the ruling class is discussed further in We Need THIS, Not Affirmative Action. Please read it if you are not yet convinced.

As Affirmative Action policies began to recede due to law suits, the ruling class came up with a new way to make sure that white working class people would perceive "anti-racism" to be code for "anti-white." The ruling class orchestrated (read the hard evidence for this at Why and How Big Money Promotes "White Privilege" Rhetoric) a great cultural change: replacing the very good phrase "racial discrimination" (which points the accusing finger at the person or organization doing the discriminating) with the very awful phrase "white privilege" (which points the accusing finger at ordinary white people just because of the color of their skin.) Please--I beg you!--note that the issue is not whether non-whites are on average worse off and treated worse than whites today; they are. The issue is "WHO BENEFITS from this racial discrimination against non-whites?"

The fact of the matter is (as the poor white tenant farmers in the Deep South of the 1930s knew perfectly well, but as progressives in 2017 typically do not understand) that racial discrimination harms working class people of ALL races; it destroys solidarity between people of different races by fomenting mistrust and resentment and sometimes even mutual fear, and by destroying solidarity it destroys the only thing that enables working class people to improve their lot against the ruling class's oppression of them ALL. Racial discrimination against non-whites does not benefit whites. The word "privilege" means, by definition, a benefit. It is NOT a benefit--a "white privilege"--to a white working class person to have his solidarity with non-whites destroyed by racial discrimination against non-whites.

If you don't understand this, then please, PLEASE, read Racial Discrimination Against Non-Whites is Rampant and Harms Working Class People of ALL Races or at least the shorter Is it a 'Privilege' Not to be Discriminated Against? .

Today, progressives (especially young ones) have been conditioned to use the word "white privilege" to refer to what once was called racial discrimination. They have no clue that An Injury to One is an Injury to All; they think that ordinary white people BENEFIT from the fact that non-whtes are worse off and treated worse than whites today. The "logic" (of "white privilege") that progressives have adopted implies that ordinary white working class people who don't (wrongly!) admit they are guilty of benefiting from racial discrimination (i.e., who don't "check their privilege" and, I suppose, seek to be treated as badly by the police and department store security as blacks are) are racists--the enemy. This is what motivated a bunch of progressives to literally attack white working class commuters entering Boston on I-93, just because they were white!

Now, if you've followed the above, you may see exactly WHY the ruling class wanted progressives to march with "anti-racism" signs. The ruling class wants half the population (the progressives who listen to NPR) to declare their "opposition to racism" and their disgust with those who don't stand with them, and the other half of the population (who don't listen to NPR) to perceive this as an attack on them for merely wanting people to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

What Does it Mean to "Resist Sexism" Today?

Once upon a time many decades ago, if a woman said she was a feminist it meant she wanted women to have the same rights as men and not to be discriminated against for being female. Most people agreed with this goal.

But like "anti-racism," "feminism" (a.k.a. "resisting sexism," etc.) has been hijacked by the ruling class to mean something very different, something that most people find offensive the more they learn about it. This is discussed in great detail in my article, Misandry: An Obstacle to Solidarity Between Men and Women. In this article one can read about how Gloria Steinem, a speaker at the Women's March, was used (perhaps unwittingly, who knows?) by the CIA to change the meaning of feminism to be virulently anti-male (which is what "misandry" means). One can read this too:

This Boston Globe article is about how Gloria Steinem joined former Secretary of State Madeleine "Yes, killing 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it" Albright in scolding women for backing Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton, asserting that young women were doing that just because "When you’re young, you’re thinking, ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’ ”

and this:

Steinem was so comfortable associating with America's ruling elite that she was photographed with Henry Kissinger in a way that made her think it necessary to publicly deny she was dating him.

What the ruling class has done to feminism, to make it abhorent now to many MANY good and decent people, is illustrated by this fact, taken from the same article:

The acceptance of violence against men is not confined to extremists groups like the Revolutionary Students Movement. It can be seen in one of the most mainstream T.V. shows--CBS's "The Talk"--during which (see the video here) celebrity women talked and joked about a woman's cutting off her husband's penis and putting it in the garbage disposal because he was going to divorce her. Sharon Osbourne says (beginning at time point 6:07) on the show, amidst the laughter and joking of others, that while she doesn't know anything about the circumstances that led the woman to do this or why the man filed for divorce, "However, I do think it's quite fabulous." The extent of the influence of vicious misandry can be gauged by comparing the reaction to this "The Talk" show with what the reaction would have been if instead it had consisted of a bunch of male celebrities laughing and joking about, and describing as "fabulous," a man's cutting off his wife's breasts and putting them in the garbage disposal because she was divorcing him.

Feminism today--as taught at Women's Studies centers on countless colleges, courtesy of Big Money funding--means viewing society as a "patriarchy"--the rule by males as the oppressor over females as the oppressed. Feminism today means that men are the enemy simply because they are men. Some progressive women may say they are a feminist but don't believe men are the enemy, but the fact remains that our society is controlled by a ruling class that defines feminism to mean viewing men--the "patriarchy"--as the enemy just because they are men, and this is what the non-NPR-listening half of the population is told (by right-wing radio talk show hosts and media) that it means. A progressive woman who identifies as a feminist and who carries a sign saying so is thus USED by the ruling class for the ruling class's purpose, no matter the good intentions of the woman.

The ruling class wants the NPR-listening half of the population to view the non-NPR-listening half as people who love it when a man "grabs a woman by the pussy." And the ruling clss wants the non-NPR-listening half to view the progressive half as people who think it is "fabulous" when a woman mutilates a man with a garbage disposal.

Given what feminism has been turned into by the ruling class (parallel to what "anti-racism" has been turned into) it should start to become clear exactly why the ruling class wants lots of progressive pro-Clinton pro-Democratic Party women to march with signs declaring their "Resistance to Sexism," right? I certainly hope so.

What Does it Mean to "Resist Homophobia"?

The ruling class wants the half of Americans who listen to NPR to believe that the Americans who voted in the majority to ban same-sex marriage in thirty-two state referenda could have had only one reason for doing that: homophobia, in other words bigoted hatred of homosexuals. But this is patently untrue. If you don't understand why it is untrue (and you may not if you get your information only from liberal sources such as NPR) then please--I BEG of you--go here and educate yourself (or remain a dupe of the ruling class.)

When people march with signs condemning "homophobia" they declare their contempt for the many good and decent people who have good and decent reasons for opposing same-sex marriage. People carrying such signs may not have a clue how they are playing into the hands of a ruling class divide-and-rule strategy, but they are doing so nonetheless.

Ditto regarding "transphobia" and bathroom laws, as discussed here.

People! We are being played by the ruling class, manipulated with lies about each other. Learn about this so you can avoid being used this way.

Who's Anti-War Now? Progressives or Conservatives?

Progressives like to think of themselves as being anti-war. Progressives were opposed to the Vietnam War (at least many of them.) But now what's going on? The Women's March was pro-Hillary, and Hillary Clinton is a strident warmonger who led the totally unjust war on Libya and who laughed at the cruel torture and killing of Muammar Gaddafi. Hillary Clinton is the chief advocate for escalating a totally unjustified war on Russia.

The entire political elite of both parties was on board with the warmongering against Russia--all except Donald Trump. At the first GOP primary debate, when Trump was behind Ben Carson in the polls, all of the Republican politicians vying for the GOP nomination tried to out do each other in declaring how hostile their administration would be to Vladimir Putin; Carly Fiorina even declared she would not even speak to Putin and would direct the U.S. Navy to threaten Russia.

Trump disagreed, and he was the only one to do so. He said he would get along great with Putin and that he had no problem with Putin fighting ISIS in Syria. Trump made himself the anti-war candidate. Immediately the right-wing talk radio hosts totally agreed with Trump; I heard the Boston host say that for threatening war with Russia as she did, Carly Fiorina should not even be allowed to enter the White House as a tourist! Trump's poll numbers shot up right after this debate and stayed there. People supported Trump in large part because they did not want to go to war against Russia. People were sick and tired of the warmongering. They loved that Trump said the Iraq war was based on a lie and was a horrible mistake. Trump was the anti-war candidate in the last election. But you would never know it from the speeches at the Women's March, would you?

Oh no! Progressives are the only good guys. Progressives are against xenophobia and they are for peace and love and against hate and war. And those mean and nasty Trump supporters: they're the xenophobes and haters and warmongers, right?

Please, progessives, look at what is going on. You are being played. You are being made to view good and decent Americans as the enemy, and view mass murdering warmongering agents of the American plutocracy as your friends and noble moral leaders. WAKE UP!

Who Was NOT Invited to Speak at the Women's March?

The Women's March was supposedly for all who were for its noble goals. So why, then, were no speakers invited who had voted for Trump? Why were people who oppose racism and bigotry and so on but who oppose abortion not allowed to speak at the march or display their viewpoint at it?

The reason is this: The purpose of the march was to cement the Big Lie that the half of the population that voted for Trump is an immoral ugly enemy of decency. The purpose (unbeknown to the marchers) was to implement the ruling class's divide-and-rule strategy. And unfortunately for all of us, it worked. We cannot let the ruling class keep getting away with this, folks.


Last July I went to a big rally of Trump supporters at the State House in Boston. The rally was focused on defending the 2nd Amendment. The sponsor of the rally was the Gun Owners Action League--an affiliate of the NRA. Almost everybody at the rally was wearing Trump "Make America Great Again" caps and/or NRA shirts, etc. Lots of people were carrying an American flag. Everybody was white.

I went to the rally to find out what people at it thought about the message on the PDRBoston button that reads: "Let's remove the rich from power; have real--not fake--democracy with no rich and no poor."

I asked 50 random people. Of these 50 people forty-three (86%) loved the button and took one when I offered it to them and many pinned it on themselves right on the spot. One woman offered me a bottle of cold water (it was a very hot day) and others who liked the button were very friendly. At the same time, four peope (8%) were verbally very hostile, defended the "right to get rich" and loved capitalism, etc. The remaining three people (6%) said they didn't know what they thought of the button.

There you have it. Eighty-six percent of Trump supporters were strongly in favor of an egalitarian revolution (which is what the button means.)

Maybe instead of joining demonstrations designed to demonize Trump supporters we should be reaching out to them (the 86% of them) around shared egalitarian values, uh?


The way to build a real movement for genuine equality and democracy is, first, to understand how the ruling class tries to enlist us in a counterfeit movement for the opposite goal of divide-and-rule. We need to THINK about what the ruling class is up to far more critically than many of us are accustomed to presently. is about building a real movement--an egalitarian revolutionary movement--for genuine equality and democracy. I hope you will visit it and think about what is there.


My earlier post about the Womens March:

The Women's March: A Show of Great DISUNITY

The "Women's March" today shows that perhaps half the American public (liberals) thinks (wrongly!) that the other half (Trump supporters) are the enemy in supporting racism and fascism and hatred etc. The signs of the marchers are all about how they are not for racism and fascism and hate; the understood meaning is that those who voted for Trump ARE for racism and fascism and hate.

This march is organized by the Democratic Party leadership; the march thus does not identify the leaders of the Democratic party as part of the enemy. Hillary Clinton publicly expressed support for the march, which she would never have done, obviously, if the march had properly expressed any anger at the ruling elite's horrible crimes against people around the world AND anger at the people, such as Hillary Clinton, who have carried out these crimes. In fact the Women's March invited Democratic Party big shots to be its speakers--for example Senator Elizabeth I-support-Israeli-ethnic-cleansing-100%-Warren was the big speaker at the Boston rally (along with Democratic Party Boston Mayor Walsh who praises Boston's Police Commissioner Evans who violently removed the Occupy Wall Street people from Boston's Dewey Square not too long ago.)

Women who are against racism and against hate and against fascism but who also oppose abortion were denied permission to be in the march.

The people at the Women's March mostly, no doubt, do in fact want an end to class inequality and do in fact want an egalitarian world with no rich and no poor, but this march was organized by people who do NOT want this fact to be shown by the march. On the contrary, this march was organized to express a Big Lie, that being against racism and fascism and hate means viewing half of the American population as the enemy. The large size of the march shows that indeed lots of people have been persuaded that half of Americans want racism and fascism and hatred. The march also shows that lots of Americans think the Democratic Party leaders are the "good guys." This is what the ruling elite want half of Americans (the liberals) to believe. It wants the other half (Trump supporters) to believe that they are wrongly despised by liberals. This is divide-and-rule; it is what the election was all about, right from the start.

This march was thus a show of DISUNITY, not unity around shared egalitarian values.


Postscript: (h/t to K.F.) "Billionaire George Soros has ties to more than 50 ‘partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington"




This article may be copied and posted on other websites. Please include all hyperlinks.