Those with scant respect for history are condemned to repeat it. Those who learn no lessons from past issues are the truly ignorant and this is compounded by the passing of time. Which is why a comprehensive education, not an ideological, should be given to every child, first from the parents and filled out by the schools.
Generations come and generations go and what concerned our fathers’ generation and their fathers’ seems no longer relevant to us – the revisionists have come through and rewritten not only what did happen … but why.
And it is a faux memory which is now taught to the new generation in schools and universities – this is the crime of generations and those criminals are in sinecures within academia. One of the more egregious, posted on at OoL some years back, was Eric Foner in the States, a man who scooped every award going and was seen as a great man. He was a criminal in what he pushed onto students and the fork-tongued way he did it.
We see the very same thing on campuses across the US now, we see it at Goldsmiths in London – in fact, it made the latest Yougov survey.
Going back a century, WW1 for example [there was nothing “great” about it] was very much a question of treaties but there is an added history and that is who caused those treaties to be signed and why. Obviously people such as von Baden and Clemenceau were part of it but it’s just as vital to know the history behind those people – of what stock they were, what that stock actually believed in, who they were.
Because if you delve, you see the old money of Europe, money with no nation and no conscience, the men in clubs – this was referred to in John Buchan’s book The Thirty-Nine Steps. This old money serves a Black Nobility and this Black Nobility has its henchmen who rise to the top, e.g. von Baden and Clemenceau and these people will make war because it is a warrior class they represent, just as the Muslims will make war because it is in their nature and their Book to do so, just as the CFR and its offshoots will also do so in the States, because of, in part, the guff believed in at the Temple of Alexandria. He who has eyes …
Which makes Trump’s comments far from extreme, though extreme they seem. The old money, the old organizations such as Coleman’s C300, the round tables, they know it full well but the ordinary person knows nothing of all this. Plus the revisionists have been in.
If a bull is charging you in the field, you need to shut that bull out at the gate or you’ll be in dire trouble. And the reason you know you must is past history in every field wherein one finds bulls.
We come full circle – past history, what happened last time a people dropped its guard and allowed quisling politicians to emasculate a nation.
The difference between this attitude and the attitude of a Clemenceau is the difference between defence and warmongering. Only a fool does not defend himself. Yet look at the UK, through its quislings Blair, Brown, Cameron, in thrall to Brussels which is in thrall to the same old same old referred to above – to money with no nation and no conscience, the men in clubs. And the gate has been forcibly held ajar against those of us who do have a sense of history.
One of the major movements, ranked alongside Agenda 21, communism, the French revolutionary spirit of 1776 – Churchill wrote of precisely this sort of thing, has been feminism. Look up Friedan and not in sanitized Wiki which is edited by the left but in alternatives. Google Friedan and then attach words such as socialist, communist, damage and you get a different history altogether but even that does not tell you the whole story.
It’s all in the search terms
Look up Gloria Steinem and add CIA to the search terms. Then google Laurel Canyon and CIA. Beware of Rense too – he has his own agenda but much of what he writes does fit history. Beware of any site in the first three pages of Google search – they’re there for a reason.
Quite a different view of history and one which accommodates all that did actually happen. It’s no insult to suggest that most people have neither the time nor know the right questions to ask Google search. Why would they? This is why we all go to blogs and online knowledge stores which can broaden our reading.
The other day, someone wrote on Twitter that “gun control” has nothing to do with guns – it’s all about control. The state cannot control though if people have guns or can defend their families some other way.
In a similar way, feminism had little to do with improving the lot of women – it used that as a vehicle, just as the gun control lobby uses guns – Manchurians and known nutters still go out and kill to turn people against home-defence. In the same way, when Flint and Harman had their meeting in reaction to Gordon Brown and spoke in high terms about “improving the lot of women”, that was guff – it was about improving the lot of Flint and Harman.
The agenda behind the agenda
The primary concern in 2007, when the reposted compilation below first appeared, was what feminism was doing to marriage and the family and then specifically to men. Gradually though, it dawned on an increasing number of women that feminism was doing far worse than that, it was blighting women themselves, wrecking their lives.
And there are cogent reasons why it did that, it was intended to do that. Do that Google searching and do put those search terms in, it then becomes quite clear what the hardline feminists were really about, who they were, who was backing them, who was funding them, why they formed the alliances they did.
Sadly, the new victims today, the new naive in and just out of university, are why we’ve seen that insanity across American campuses of late. As various pundits have pointed out, it was not actually the students who were the most vehement – it was the staff who were goading them.
And those saying things like “kill all white men” are allowed off with no penalty, even though it was every bit a hate crime according to the very terms imposed by the left. How does that young woman get off free of any penalty, while Trump is having petitions of 300,000 against him for suggesting how the nation defend itself?
Do we begin to see what is going on here, the collusion of media, state and those inventing and pushing these agendas? Readers of these sorts of blogs of course know – does the average person in the street?
The greatest feminist lie of them all
Feminists are quick to wrongly claim victories from the past, when most of those victories were because men finally saw that things needed to change and so accommodated women where once they had not. Sure the suffragette marches brought issues to the fore and the attitudes of males now is not as it was in Victorian times … and yet it was only the changed attitudes of males which allowed feminism to get the grip it did on so many naive women’s minds.
A woman writes below of the falsehood of today’s perception of general domestic violence in the 50s – it was simply not as some 23 year old feminist writes in a long tome the media immediately print – I mention one of those organs further down. It was not statistically so and women from that era have attested that, though every age has its proportion of domestic violence and looking at women today – there are reasons why it’s certainly increased.
Feminism has much to answer for.
Also, trying to create a distinction between different schools or waves of feminists or trying to distinguish between “radical” and “mild” feminists is like distinguishing between “partly pregnant” and “wholly pregnant”, “a little bit dead” and “a lot dead”. The movement was a political agenda which incorporated feminism as one of the ways in, that was all.
It had very little to do with improving the lot of women, quite the opposite – it was intended, not by its devotees but by the evil muvvers who hijacked the suffragettes, to bring women to a state of being unsafe and unhappy, unable to cope with demands and thus reverting to pills, self-harm, killing their infants, all the things we increasingly see today.
We really need to lift the scales from our eyes. Pity I’m a man because many will not accept a post by a man on this, which is why I quote women below as far as I can.
Destroying marriage and the family
Dale O’Leary, in The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality, p. 24, defines that which men and women should TOGETHER be protecting instead:
The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities—such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations—grow.
F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p.75), state:
Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics”, since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed.
This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step further. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.
Alison Jagger, in Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy(Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977) made the need for the destruction of the family clear:
“The end of the biological family will also eliminate the need for sexual repression. Male homosexuality, lesbianism, and extramarital sexual intercourse will no longer be viewed in the liberal way as alternative options… the very ‘institution of sexual intercourse’ where male and female each play a well-defined role will disappear. Humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphously perverse sexuality”.
Feminism, by definition, is anti-family and anti biologically defined roles, i.e. man has a willy and woman – the place it goes. The fact that other forms of interaction require Vaseline show them to be deviant. If one definines sanity as adopting modes of behaviour which will not in themselves and in the long term, to the exclusion of other modes, destroy the fabric of society, then unsustainable modes are therefore insane.
Getting women to hate men for imagined historic wrongs
Rabid Feminism is insanity taken to extremes, for example the oft-quoted Marilyn French:
All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.
… or her own desire to dominate men is explained here:
Men’s need to dominate women may be based in their own sense of marginality or emptiness; we do not know its root, and men are making no effort to discover it.
The sweeping, all-encompassing generalizations aside, these statements can have no other effect than to marginalize men, one half of humanity and are fundamentally insane. Minette Marrin stated in her article on rape that it could only lead to misogyny.
And that harms women themselves. It also destroys the family.
Melissa Scowcroft asks the question – who is responsible for the breakdown of society:
So, who or what is culpable? Well, feminism, of course – specifically ideological feminists, who, with their “relentless hostility towards men as a class of enemy aliens,” have brainwashed the populace into the belief that “the only good man is either a corpse or a woman.” The result, Nathanson and Young contend, is a level of anti-male sentiment that justifies comparison to Jewish persecution.
Ex-blogger Kelly Mac [and I admit she was vehemently anti-feminist] reflected on the early years of feminism:
Namely, where were all the “good” women when feminism started? Why didn’t the women who knew they were not being abused do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these women just as deserving of men’s contempt as the hardcore feminists who started it all?
Ruth Malhotra got down to specifics:
The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment.
Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.
In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”
The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.
The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese saw it this way:
It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons. Like countless others, I was seriously misled.
In practice, the sexual liberation of women has realized men’s most predatory sexual fantasies. As women shook themselves free from the norms and conventions of sexual conduct, men did the same.
There can be no doubt that women’s situation has demanded improvement — and continues to do so throughout much of the world. But the emphasis upon individual rights at the expense of mutual responsibility and service is not the way to secure it.
Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well. A Danielle Crittenden has noted, the family “has never been about the promotion of rights but the surrender of them — by both the man and the woman”.
Kelly Mac agrees:
It’s about the fact that dating today has become nothing but a series of pick-ups and one-night-stands (thank you sexual revolution).
Another nail in the coffin of any meaningful relationship. Time to write of myself, the author. For years, one of my prime tasks at work was getting girls to believe in themselves, to get them to realize their potential. Boys also needed this but it was more difficult with girls.
I’m also a sucker for wimmin and cannot imagine life without them, not doing my will – that has never been my bag. Being truly equal and opposite, complementary and mutually complimentary – that has always been my aim. If anything, as my ex-gf would say, I concede too much power to the female in the relationship.
So it’s no woman hater who writes here, it is someone deeply concerned about what the feminists are actually doing to women, especially the new generation, the Laurie Pennys and Charlotte Churches, abetted by the old harpies in universities, not least in what they are causing men to do through this polarization.
In the same way people are turning against Muslims because we were intended to, so the self-loathing of feminists first swept up women – the PTB picked their dysfunctional women well – and then polarized men into strongly anti views, opposed by wimpish metro men who support the narrative.
Feminists have betrayed women themselves
Christina Hoff-Sommers argues, in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, that feminist misandry leads directly to misogyny by what she calls “establishment feminists” against (the majority of) women who love men.
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese again:
“Sad as it may seem, my experience with radical, upscale Feminism only reinforced my growing mistrust of individual pride.”
She argued for common sense values between men and women.
Camille Paglia was described as one of the world’s top 100 intellectuals by the UK’s Prospect Magazine, and is a strong critic of much of the feminism that began with Betty Friedan‘s 1962 The Feminine Mystique, and compared Feminists — whom she considered to be victim-centered — to the Unification Church.
Judith Levine, in My Enemy, My Love commented:
Man-hating is an emotional problem inasmuch as it creates pain and hostility between women and men. But it is not an individual neurosis à la ‘Women Who Hate Men and the Men Who…’ Man-hating is a collective, cultural problem — or to refrain from diagnosing it at all, a cultural phenomenon — and men, as the object of man-hating, are part of it too.
And this is the essential problem with all Feminism because it distances one half of the partnership from the other, creating confrontation when the logical and generally accepted efficacious method is consultation and dialogue.
Lillian Csernica puts it more strongly:
There’s a certain school of thought among feminists which preaches the unbridled hatred of men. This attitude really bothers me. Adherents of this school insist men are all would-be rapists and sadists just waiting for the chance to throw off their civilized masks and torture their wives and daughters. Since many feminist attitudes are taken as matriarchal gospel, it follows that all men should therefore be distrusted and despised.
This is insane. This is like saying all women should be suspected of keeping an ax in the broom closet just because Lizzie Borden allegedly hacked her parents to death.
Then she says something even more interesting:
I have always preferred the company of men. If that makes me a traitor to my own sex, that’s because my own sex isn’t such great company these days.
Feminism is a subset of neo-Marxism
And that’s the thing. Feminism, in its underlying humanistic Marxism is, by definition, humourless. There is a serious agenda of the destruction of society to achieve and there is no place in this for fun. Ms Csernica is quite right when she says that such women are no fun – who would want to spend 30 minutes with such as them being earbashed on how women are so much better than men?
Feminism runs hand in hand with political correctness and Diane Ravitch, in 2003, quoted guidelines by New York publishing houses for prospective writers:
“Topics not to include are: abortion, death or disease, criminals, magic, politics, religion, unemployment, weapons, violence, poverty, divorce, slavery, alcohol or addiction. Women cannot be depicted as mothers or caregivers or doing household work. Men cannot be depicted as lawyers, doctors or plumbers. African citizens are not to be portrayed in a negative light. None of these things can be themes in any publications handled by us.”
It’s not just the insanity – it’s also unmitigated arrogance which produced this introduction to A Feminist Companion to Shakespeare by Dympna Callaghan:
The question is not whether Shakespeare studies needs feminism, but whether feminism needs Shakespeare. This is the explicitly political approach taken by all-women team of contributors toA Feminist Companion to Shakespeare.
Choice magazine, who should have known better, called it a classic of Feminist Shakespeare criticism.
This is also the current story of higher education. Heather MacDonald, for example, at City Journal, wrote: “The Feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent,” striking fear in the hearts of all right-thinking women (and men).
Blogger Sisu, of Harvard, commented:
Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of Feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country. You can count on the Radcliffe Institute’s fellows and invited lecturers to proclaim the “constructed” nature of knowledge, gender, and race, and to decry endemic American sexism and racism.
Fellow blogger Teresa summed up such people this way:
The very fact that rabid feminists (like any other rabid political type group) believe they know what’s better for us and want to manage our lives, should make any educated person cringe.
Because she is so enamored of her own world view, she wants to “make” people see the world as she does. This precludes any rational discussion over whether her views are valid or not. Why should such a person be leading an institution where the primary goal should be rational inquiry?
The second to last word will be Dale O’Leary’s from The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality (p. 23):
Whatever positive image the word feminist may have had, it has been tarnished by those who have made it their own, and I, for one, am content to leave the militants in full possession of the term.
I agree wholeheartedly. That is what Feminism really means – a socialistic, mediocracy-tending, prescriptive and proscriptive, one size fits all, destroyer of families and of the fragile relationship between men and women which has its own problems without these piranhas gnawing at its flesh.
Juliet Pain wrote the following in general terms, not specifically about feminism but it still holds true:
Relationships forged out of this obligatory and mutual distrust are so often going nowhere, right from the start.
Joy, fun, laughter, mutual respect and happiness have no place in the Feminist dystopia – only gloom and hatred. They need to be quietly and impacably opposed in their destructive agenda by sane people, while there’s still hope.
One of the new incubator sites
That was written in 2007 … it’s only got worse with the almost total takeover of academia by the type. There is nothing these demi-women and metro-men have not touched and therefore blighted. To that must now be added unreasonable expectations forced on even young girls, plus promotion of the hook-up culture among women, euphemistically labelled “empowerment”, which in turn has caused young men to alter their behaviour, along with the porn factor.
The chief casualty is respect for all women, including, if not the good ones who refuse to put up with feminist guff, then the basically neutral and apolitical who would have no way of understanding what is going on, just as the feminist author below noted.
One of the core feminist propaganda sites ran an article on how they brainwashed seventy odd graduates in English, under the risible title “scholarly articles”:
I was moved to comment:
This is dishonest for a start. I had to do my own research on Lisa Ruddick, Angelika Bammer and Ruth-Ellen Boetcher Joeres, the latter associated with this:
Radical feminist and lesbian theory is passionate
… which is a bit of giveaway. It’s dishonest because readers of the article have no way of knowing they’re dealing with hardcore feminists in academia, an egregious bunch to be sure. I was always taught that one had to attach one’s bona fides and date articles in order for the reader to know where the author was coming from.
My own background is education and my last position tutor in English in Sicily, before that Professor of English in Russia, previously in the UK. I’ve been to US colleges on visits.
The current struggle on all campuses is the social justice lunacy imparted to students by global left academics and alumni – I’ve written copiously on it at two sites. It was something I personally came up against in faculty and what distressed me the most was the dishonesty.
Fine having irrational leftwing views but to impose them on students, allowing no chance of counterpoint or debate, betrays the whole purpose of colleges and the free dissemination of information. With the rise of Common Core and World Core Curriculum, plus IB, the situation has almost reached the state of irrecoverable.
And looking at the backgrounds of these three women, plus reading some of their work, all are deeply into the social justice warrior malaise. Suspicion was immediately aroused, alarm bells went off, when reading, above:
I’ve encountered two types of people who are having trouble adapting to the field. First, there are those who bridle at the left-political conformity of English …
Meaning political hijacking of language – I write on this topic primarily.
… and who voice complaints familiar from the culture wars. But a second group suffers from a malaise without a name; socialization to the discipline has left them with unaccountable feelings of confusion, inhibition and loss.
Unaccountable? We of the sane can account for it quite easily, it is that which has been engendered by just such people as the three named in this comment. My disadvantage is that I cannot post the 13,000 or so posts and the various works I’ve written on this matter in one comment, nor can I quote Camille Paglia in depth, nor Christina Hoff-Sommers.
There is nothing wrong with these three women associated with this article secreting themselves away in some room and debating all this – the only thing they must not do under any circumstances is drag starry-eyed students into it because then it becomes propaganda.
Naturally, my comment was quickly deleted.
A few years old now but well worth your time