Women today (and many men: the so-called ‘White Knights’ and ‘Man-ginas’) should be in no doubt that the feminism they espouse is not going to liberate them. In fact it seeks to enslave them, and destroy them.
With its emphasis on ‘sisterhood’ and solidarity, and the alleged objectification of women by men (that, they say, fails to recognise the worth of women beneath their looks), do they know that the movement they are following grew out of the radical political culture of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, August Bebel and their 20th century heirs such as Herbert Marcuse?1Celebrated as the “Father of the New Left”, his best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and ’70s, both in the U.S. and internationally. SOURCE: Wikpedia And from the concomitant principles of the existentialist movement, also of the 20th century, principal amongst whom were Jean Paul Sartre and his (literal) bedfellow, Simone de Beauvoir?
Do they understand that modern feminism grew out of this left-wing revolutionary culture, and that the most obvious proof of this is its wilful redefinition of patriarchy to mean control of women by men? In fact the fight against patriarchy is one of the cornerstones of Marxism, and has been since its inception. It was around long before feminism started articulating it, and it means the rule of the father not the rule of men. (‘Patr’ is an ancient Sanskrit word for father, and ‘archon’ means ruler in the Greek.)
In fact, patriarchy was a benign rule, better defined as ‘patrimonialism’ – a term first coined by Max Weber in the early 20th century.2Adams J. (2005) The Rule of the Father: Patriarchy and Patrimonialism in Early Modern Europe. Russell Sage Foundation. New York It was an expression of the protective love that fathers have for their children and their families, that found its ultimate expression in the patrimonial love of monarchs for their people.3Adams ibid. Marxism stands implacably opposed to the rule of the father, which it sees as the cornerstone of the ‘bourgeois’ family.4Bourgeois simply means ‘middle-class’, that social group to which, as the result of the prosperity gained through capitalism, the vast majority of people in the developed world belong.
Feminism’s version of the evil hegemony of patriarchy, purports to show that our social systems have been constructed by men who have an implicit vested interest in keeping women in submission – to their advantage. This is utter nonsense. The facts speak for themselves.
Society has grown and evolved for millennia out of the need for security and economic prosperity in order to stave off intermittent starvation and the threat of invasion. Social organisation evolved for the betterment of everyone. Men played their protective part in its development, and women played their part in a complementary role in the home as homemakers and child rearers (although history shows us that there were some very powerful women leaders of ancient societies, which even further gives the lie to feminism’s evil patriarchy).
It is only in recent centuries that the increase in economic wealth in developed nations, gained by this social development, has given women the freedom to take a higher political profile. It is only the freedom from grinding poverty and the threat of foreign invasion, and the rule of law developed by social evolution, that has allowed that.
And in case anyone forgets, this has also been the case for men. Men in general have never had any social power either. They too were slaves to their families, responsible for their wellbeing. They too were the vassals and serfs. They too were freed from the grinding subsistence that has characterised most of human society from time immemorial. Men and women both have had a rough time throughout history on the long walk to freedom through social and economic development.
Yet, based on the false feminist redefinition of patriarchy, what is now happening is a fight for control of society by women. There is a war going on – a class war – where the classes that are being set against one another are women and men. Women are invading every male space and threatening men’s sanctuaries – just because they can. Society is being divided along the fault-line of gender by women, who have, lock, stock and barrel, bought an alien, divisive ideology – feminism – which is a puppet of Marxism that seeks to divide and rule us all and conform us to its way of life.
Feminism’s true purpose is political power and influence, not liberation of anybody – least of all women. It’s adherents talk about the hegemony of patriarchy (aka men), but it is they who are intent on hegemony. It is they who have redefined egalité – social or political equality – that cry of true 18th century revolution, to mean equality qua sameness (and now parity of numbers in all walks of life, which really is nonsense). It is the women feminists who want to impose an alien political ideology on us all, one that is built on hatred, social upheaval and revolution, and which is anathema to everything western capitalist democracies stand for.
Feminism is not a liberal movement. Its roots do not lie in the European Enlightenment ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It draws its sustenance from the ideals of communism and the submission of people to the collective (the ideas of sisterhood and solidarity of women expose this).
Put simply, feminism is communism in a skirt, and it is fundamentally against the grain of modern capitalist societies such as we have in America, Canada and Britain: these are the prime targets of its undermining infiltration because they are quintessential examples of capitalism – yet the women of these societies, who are its main beneficiaries, are giving it oxygen, and even promoting it.
One after the other, in the 20th century, we saw Marxist/communist states fail. Those states dismantled the private family. They brought women out into the work force as equal units of economic production rather than as creators and curators of the social capital: the family and children; and they took those children into collective state guardianship, supplanting the parents’ authority, especially that of the father.
Those states fell because their underpinning ideology simply didn’t resonate with the spirit of ordinary folk, who wanted freedom and individualism – and, yes, capitalism, consumerism and private family life: that framework enshrined in western capitalist democracy in which life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be expressed.
Today, in America, Canada and Britain, this angry communist creed is coming up hard against capitalist democracy. With feminism amongst us, women are threatening men, and they are tearing their own society apart. All the aggression is coming from women toward men, and I fear that a time is coming when men will turn and say enough is enough, and when that happens, battle really will be joined.
I am prepared to bet that most women today in the developed world would declare themselves in favour of feminism without realising that they are espousing an ideology that seeks to enslave them, not liberate them; and is breaking up their families, removing fathers from their children’s lives, and alienating their menfolk whom they need as husbands, fathers, brothers, supporters and protectors.
In the Trojan War, when the Greeks managed to get the infamous wooden horse holding soldiers into Troy, those soldiers sneaked out in the night and opened the gates to the enemy. The city was sacked and Troy was defeated. The men and boys were put to the sword, and the women and girls carried off into enforced slavery.
Women today are opening the gates of our society to the social enemy of feminism. They will have a lot to answer for one day – and that day might be sooner than they think (if they think at all, that is.)
[ + ]
|1.||↩||Celebrated as the “Father of the New Left”, his best known works are Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964). His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and ’70s, both in the U.S. and internationally. SOURCE: Wikpedia|
|2.||↩||Adams J. (2005) The Rule of the Father: Patriarchy and Patrimonialism in Early Modern Europe. Russell Sage Foundation. New York|
|4.||↩||Bourgeois simply means ‘middle-class’, that social group to which, as the result of the prosperity gained through capitalism, the vast majority of people in the developed world belong.|