Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 41

Thread: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

  1. #1
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS

    By Steven Yates
    August 1, 2006
    NewsWithViews.com

    A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one cause, ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity, naivete or inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, is credited with coining the phrase, although according to P. Boller and J. George’s They Never Said It, he—well—most likely never said it. Not even in Russian. Whatever its origins, the phrase sometimes comes in handy.

    My first two experiences with radical feminists in academia didn’t make much of an impact on me until later. The first was in Fall 1987 at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. It was my first full-time job out of graduate school, and I was making a presentation on what was then my area of expertise: theories about the conceptual foundations of science and the dynamics of scientific change. After outlining four such theories, I took questions. At one point a female graduate student put up her hand and wanted to know to what extent I could relate the scarcity of women in science to scientific method. I hadn’t thought about it. The question had never occurred to me. A few women have made major contributions to science. Madame Curie comes to mind. Their methods weren’t different than those of men, so I considered the range of methods employed in the sciences to be gender-neutral. The relative scarcity of women in science I attributed mostly to women’s overall lack of interest in science. My politically incorrect answer caused me no problems at the time. This was, after all, before the main wave of feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political correctness (speech control, thought control).

    The second incident occurred a few months later at an American Philosophical Association (APA) meeting where I had a job interview. The APA is the largest organization of philosophy professors in the country. What I saw and heard was from the hall because of an unusually large, overflow crowd. A somewhat diminutive woman was being verbally attacked—hissed at, in fact!—by an audience that seemed to be mostly women. None of the panelists (also women) came to her defense. The meeting—supposedly of adults and professionals—disintegrated into chaos. I wasn’t sure what I had seen until months later, when reports began circulating and angry letters to the editor began appearing in the association’s flagship journal.

    The diminutive woman, I learned, was Christina Hoff Sommers, a then-unknown professor at tiny Clark College in Massachusetts. She had read a paper on “Feminists Against the Family,” arguing just that to an audience unused to having its basic premises questioned. Sommers had concluded that feminists in academia were more interested in promoting revolutionary social change than in furthering a responsible exchange of ideas. Their ends justified their means. Among the ends they wanted was an end to the traditional, nuclear (two-parent) family. According to their Marxist view of things, the family is a repository of gender-oppression. Men are bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however contrived and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s.

    Sommers distinguished between “liberal” feminism and “gender” (radical) feminism. The first promoted, e.g., equal pay for equal work, and opposed discrimination. The latter is a full-fledged worldview that subjects every institution of society to scrutiny through the lens of gender. Sommers had no quarrel with the former; she had plenty of quarrels with the latter. Its influence, which puts science under the gender microscope along with everything else, explained the question from the Clemson graduate student.

    I met Sommers a couple of years later. My interests had begun shifting from the foundations of scientific method to political thought and the foundations of a free society. I was interested in libertarian ideas and was networking with other libertarian philosophers, several of whom had befriended her. We were all outsiders, after all, because we were not collectivists. Based on what Sommers had to say, and on a few of her articles, I took a look at so-called “feminist scholarship.” What I found jolted me. One radical feminist called Newton’s and Bacon’s ideas about scientific method a “rape manual” (they spoke of “penetrating” nature’s secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight dinner to prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even the weirdest (don’t ask!). Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and women a fine distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn. Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are potential rapists; women are helpless victims.

    It seemed like a sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn’t even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind! But these people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked the academic “glass ceiling,” and whose “scholarship” was “cutting edge.” They were employed permanently by their institutions and paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school to school on “visiting assistant professor” contracts or “adjunct” appointments every one, two or three years.

    It would not have been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren’t pure fantasy. There is no “patriarchy”! The courts clearly favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than men’s health issues. Men have always been the ones to fight and die in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical feminists apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as men—hence “women in combat.”)

    Radical feminist “research” on academic topics like the philosophy of science is often just silly. Some of their proposals, e.g., for “female friendly science,” seem to invite ridicule—which they sometimes receive, as when around 1990 a responsible woman philosopher named Marguerita Levin asked sarcastically whether “feminist airplanes would stay aloft for feminist engineers” (“Science and Feminism,” The American Scholar). The more I investigated affirmative action programs, the clearer it became that they explained the growing influence of radical feminism (also multiculturalism and other chicaneries of the politically correct era). At the root was the longstanding commitment to collectivism generally. Preferential hiring for “diversity” had led to a free fall in quality control. Political correctness, when it rushed across the landscape like a tornado in the 1990s, made the free fall semi-permanent. (Now to be sure, academic philosophy wasn’t setting the world on fire before this nonsense started, but that’s another article.)

    Christina Hoff Sommers went on to write Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Under sustained attack in academia, she dropped her APA membership and finally left teaching for a research position at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. There she researched and wrote The War Against Boys (2000).

    Today, the fruits of radical feminism are everywhere in evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although in fairness this is due more to the collapse of real, debauched-dollar-adjusted wages forcing both parents to work). Radical feminists dominate many academic humanities departments, including where I did my graduate work; they are well represented in many administrations at four-year research institutions; they control professional groups such as the Modern Language Association. Much contemporary “scholarship” is predictably sex-drenched and gender-obsessed.

    Meanwhile, enrollment statistics over the past few years indicate a fall-off in men enrolling in four-year institutions. This has begun to attract national attention. Recent stats indicate that the percentage of men on college and university campuses has fallen to 43 percent nationwide, with some institutions falling under 40 percent. This is treated like a great mystery: why are men falling behind? To those of us who have watched gender politics in academe since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with self-respect is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a radical feminist professor’s denunciations, if he has an alternative. With political correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking with their feet. Some are going to less-politicized technical colleges. Others are choosing occupations that don’t require a four-year degree.

    Has radical feminism helped women? A better question might be: was it intended to help women? Some think not. Many women have the careers feminism promised—but also kids born out of wedlock, from one-night stands and the feminist conviction that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” They come home from work exhausted and then have one or more kids to handle. The result: stress, exhaustion, burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper male role models. One of the effects of radical feminism is the feminization of boys and men. Masculine assertiveness is “out”; “metrosexual” sensitivity is “in”—a recipe for trouble. As Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren’t wired that way.

    Some men are consciously deciding to stay single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of fear of guilty-if-charged “sexual harassment” allegations. And with one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again, guilty if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids after watching their parents fight, sometimes for years.

    All of which presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone.

    Could it be that someone wants things this way, because when people’s—especially children’s—families are dismembered and they are psychologically cut off from the most important support network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic society, they are vulnerable? How does all this tie in with my opening paragraph?

    In a recent interview with The New American (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women’s movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: “He looked at me and said, ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways. We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”

    Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the workplace, over education, eventually over society itself. Radical feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking behind the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years. Feminism was never really about women or their opportunities, which is why its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A lot of women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still more have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has been a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least, intimidating many of them into silence. Thus today’s “feminized” order: women don’t trust men; men don’t trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children are in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination into New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men nor women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their real enemies at the top.
    Link:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven21.htm

    This is not just true for Feminism, but for other aspects of academic science as well. Especially if its about social and economic sciences.
    For all this areas, including anthropology, human biology, one thing is true, the 1990's "politically correct" movement was a major turn and finally destroyed free speech and free opinion making in the West. After the fall of Communism the plutocratic Oligarchy of the West thought that all major enemies lying on the ground and its no longer necessary to be as hypocritical any more - people have no alternative anyway. Now we are on the way to a half-totalitarian controll state under the rule of a plutocratic oligarchy and the "Fight against Terror" producing just even more "useful *****" for their interests.

    Aaron Russo, being mentioned in the text, should be heard too:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=62281
    Last edited by Agrippa; Monday, September 4th, 2006 at 06:53 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  2. #2

    Re: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Approach an academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind! But these people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked the academic “glass ceiling,” and whose “scholarship” was “cutting edge.” They were employed permanently by their institutions and paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school to school on “visiting assistant professor” contracts or “adjunct” appointments every one, two or three years.

    It would not have been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren’t pure fantasy. There is no “patriarchy”! The courts clearly favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than men’s health issues. Men have always been the ones to fight and die in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical feminists apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as men—hence “women in combat.”)
    Steven Yates would be more credible if he weren't so emotional, overtly subjective and bitter towards women (not just feminists - all women). I find it hard to take him too seriously, particularly when some of his more thoughtless speculations are so far off the mark. (See bold print above.)

    Seems to me that Mr Yates may be one of the leaders of the new "Masculinist" movement....

  3. #3
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    AW: Re: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Quote Originally Posted by Bridie View Post
    Steven Yates would be more credible if he weren't so emotional, overtly subjective and bitter towards women (not just feminists - all women). I find it hard to take him too seriously, particularly when some of his more thoughtless speculations are so far off the mark. (See bold print above.)

    Seems to me that Mr Yates may be one of the leaders of the new "Masculinist" movement....

    He is absolutely right in most of what he is saying. However, its sometimes hard to overcome a justified bitterness, staying reasonable, rational and on topic. What he said in bold print is not really wrong, he just describes it somewhat extreme. The only speculation of him is the lifespan, but oh well, we know that the relative lifespan of men and women changed over time. Simply said: Men died more often in wars, women because of childbirth.

    Other than that he is right about practically everything, especially the real purpose of Feminism, why it was allowed. Sure it had to do with the ideological foundation of "The West" too, which was highly individualistic and emancipation of everything was an implicit goal for the extreme ends of the spectrum - especially Liberals and Marxists. However, the reason why such trends were favoured was the usefulness of women as a cheap and compliant working force which even feel "privileged" because they "are allowed to work" and being easy to manipulate in the political sphere, since they identify their "relief" with a very Liberal or Marxist policy and won't go back to a more group oriented, conservative or simply non-Individualised-Liberalised policy as easy as males, since they are indoctrinated to "defend 'their Liberties'" against the "bad rollback".
    They simply adopted a fully individualised view on politics that way very easily, not to forget they think more personalised by nature. So they are an easy to control political and social force for the Liberalcapitalists which will make the control of the males of the group - which are indoctrinated themselves - even easier.

    Furthermore, as I said, not just Feminism was abused that way, other political and scientific theories as well. As he said - its just so true:

    A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one cause, ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity, naivete or inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture.
    They destroy their families, blood lines, race, ethnosocial group, social cohesion and base for themselves and their, if there are some, few children too. But oh well, they are now under the control of the corporations and policy, no longer dependent on males in a relationship which should be defined by responsibility - what a great progress that is.

    By discussing his article one shouldnt forget, that he spoke explicitly about radical Feminists, which are highly ideological and go far beyond any reasonable claims and being highly destructive with their irrational ideas - only useful for those which are able to manipulate and guiding them, today mainly Liberalcapitalists which just do the plutocratic oligarchy a favour.
    Last edited by Agrippa; Monday, September 4th, 2006 at 06:39 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  4. #4

    Exclamation AW: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Now this is an interesting piece of conspiracy theory:

    ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways. We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”

    Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the workplace, over education, eventually over society itself. Radical feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking behind the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years. Feminism was never really about women or their opportunities, which is why its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A lot of women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still more have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has been a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least, intimidating many of them into silence. Thus today’s “feminized” order: women don’t trust men; men don’t trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children are in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination into New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men nor women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their real enemies at the top.
    However, I don't believe that there was ever really much of a capitalist conspiracy behind the feminist movement. On the one hand the idea of the equality of men and women seems to be at least as old as Plato's Republic where both are subjected to the same training and selection while the children are raised by the state without even knowing who there parents are. So as a theoretical idea radical feminism goes back to the 4th century BC (invented by a male philosopher! ) and is much older than the modern 'globalized' liberal capitalism. On the other hand the political realization of the feminist idea seems to have been initiated not by capitalists but by the radical left. At the time when the Eastern Block collapsed, such things like day care and female employment were, I think, significantly more widespread in the communist east than in the capitalist west. There may be some synergetic effects between feminism and capitalism, but I don't believe they are stronger than those between feminism and communism. After all, family is not everything. There is also the nation. Some (milder, un-hysterical) forms of Feminism may be useful to loosen up clan-like family structures that have become too rigid (like in the Middle East, where there is almost no feminism and at the same time a tendency of patriarchal clan-structures conflicting with national interests).

    Rather than speculating about a possible conspiracy behind radical feminism I think we should discuss the benefits of some feminist ideas for a functioning and healthy society where everybody knows his or her place!

  5. #5
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Cole Nidray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, January 20th, 2017 @ 05:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Danelaw
    Subrace
    Nordoid
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Zug Zug
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Chicken farmer
    Politics
    Democracy
    Posts
    534
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: AW: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    "The West" too, which was highly individualistic and emancipation of everything was an implicit goal for the extreme ends of the spectrum - especially Liberals and Marxists.
    You of course mean Western revisionist Marxists, "Eurocommunist" identity politics types that rejected Marxism-Leninism which is hostile to identity politics.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    At the time when the Eastern Block collapsed, such things like day care and female employment were, I think, significantly more widespread in the communist east than in the capitalist west.
    Most women in the Communist nations had jobs - the price for a nation free of Gastarbeiter - but also extremely generous maternity leave and family loans. The GDR did 5,000 Marks per couple and each child lessened the debt by 1,000. Women were having more children in Eastern Europe than West, the FRG birthrate would have been even more behind the GDR's if not for the Turks.

  6. #6

    Re: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Seems to me that Mr Yates may be one of the leaders of the new "Masculinist" movement....
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism


    However, its sometimes hard to overcome a justified bitterness, staying reasonable, rational and on topic. What he said in bold print is not really wrong, he just describes it somewhat extreme.
    .... hmmm... defending his irrationality and bitterness.... sounding a bit masculinist yourself there Agrippa.


    By discussing his article one shouldnt forget, that he spoke explicitly about radical Feminists, which are highly ideological and go far beyond any reasonable claims and being highly destructive with their irrational ideas - only useful for those which are able to manipulate and guiding them, today mainly Liberalcapitalists which just do the plutocratic oligarchy a favour.
    I have no problem with people criticising feminism (be it radical or otherwise), nor any other "movement". I think critique is a valuable and necessary thing. I just don't like the way that he's written this, and in my other post I was merely pointing out that he would be more credible were he less anecdotal, subjective and emotional. You must admit, such characteristics detract from an article.... and the reader is left having to question the integrity, respectability and intelligence of the writer.

    In any case, he wasn't only sticking the boot into radical feminists.... he was clearly criticising and even insulting women in general.... academics, mothers (by implying that women are unjustifiably favoured in the legal system in regards to custody of children) and career women. He was also being misleading by incorporating fiction into his piece....

    Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than men’s health issues.
    Women tend to have longer lifespans than men not because women are favoured in the health care system!! (Studies have shown that men are less likely to seek medical treatment/advice when they need it due to the tendancy of men to not want to ask for help or appear weak. Men are more likely than women to suffer through something, rather than ask for support.)

    There are many theories as to why women live longer.... one being that men traditionally partook in more risk-taking behaviour (including smoking and drinking, dangerous driving etc).... now that women are catching up with the men in this risk-taking, I wonder if we'll see the life-spans of women begin to decline to match men's.

    Yet somehow, according to Mr Yates, men's shorter life-expectancies are due to women being favoured by their govt's and men being so hard done by in comparison.... awwww.... the poor little dears! Those big nasty women.... LOL


    Steven Yates is most definately a masculinist.

  7. #7
    Member
    Paul Kruger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2006 @ 09:50 AM
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    Flanders Flanders
    Location
    Flanders
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Clerc
    Politics
    Ethnocentrist
    Religion
    Atheism / Biological Materialism
    Posts
    11
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Arrow How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Islam

    Another interesting addition to this thread, this time by 'Fjordman'.
    The misandry (hatred for men) stands out among these crazied feminists, but especially their hatred for White men.
    Their gender struggle has a distinct racial undertone.

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300

  8. #8

    Thumbs Up AW: Re: AW: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    I agree with that. It also seems to me that not feminism is the problem but the overall structure of the society in which it is implemented. Extreme forms of feminism are found only in an environment where a certain amount of decadence has already taken root and public opinion is controlled by an urban intellectual "elite" that doesn't care much about "backward" issues like family values. National Socialism tried some middle way between the extremes. On the one hand it integrated the society into the basically socialist and collectivist framework of the folkish state where the solipsistic tendency of small-bourgeois (or how do you say "kleinbürgerlich" in English?) family life was broken up while on the other hand the family was strengthenes as the biological basis of the nation's survival. I like that combination very much because it enables women to be real women, not just funny-looking men (and men to be men, not just "metrosexual" eunuchs ) while at the same time leaving enough room for both women and men to develop their strenghts outside the family because the kids are taken care of by the state starting from an early age (historically from the age of ten in the Jungvolk).

    One thing I don't like, however, about the historical development of the National Socialist experiment in Germany was that the socialist/collectivist element within the NSDAP as represented e.g. by the Strasser brothers was largely discarded after '33 due to Hitler's increasing flirtation with the old Weimar capitalist system and his irrational demonization of what he called "Bolshevism". Lenin was after all much more of a fascist (in the good sense ) than most people believe (with Stalin it's another question of course, more Asiatic tyrannical barbarism than fascist collectivism ...)!

    Anyway, we should leave behind the old dichotomy of "left" vs "right" as far as the radical left and the radical right are concerned. Apart from the leftists not being interested in or being openly averse to questions of race and national identity (as far as European/Western nations are concerned, there is a large sprectrum of communist nationalisms from Cuba to Vietnam) the similarities are much bigger than the differences, and both share as a common enemy the liberalist-(pseudo-)democratic-capitalist system. ... But I have to stop this in order not to become too much off-topic ...

  9. #9
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Cole Nidray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, January 20th, 2017 @ 05:59 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Danelaw
    Subrace
    Nordoid
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Zug Zug
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Occupation
    Chicken farmer
    Politics
    Democracy
    Posts
    534
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Re: AW: Re: AW: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    (or how do you say "kleinbürgerlich" in English?)
    Petty bourgeois.
    One thing I don't like, however, about the historical development of the National Socialist experiment in Germany was that the socialist/collectivist element within the NSDAP as represented e.g. by the Strasser brothers was largely discarded after '33 due to Hitler's increasing flirtation with the old Weimar capitalist system and his irrational demonization of what he called "Bolshevism". Lenin was after all much more of a fascist (in the good sense ) than most people believe
    I agree. I am pro-National Socialist but not Hitlerist. I think the DDR was the only real NS state to exist on German soil. The Other Prussia

    the term "linksfaschismus" applies to supporters of Mao and Stalin.
    (with Stalin it's another question of course, more Asiatic tyrannical barbarism than fascist collectivism ...)!
    I disagree, in Stalin's early essays he often refers to the despotic "Asiatic Tsar" and he did not really fit such a characterization himself. He was - as a ruler - a type of relaxed grandfatherly figure undergoing the immense task of industrializing the largest nation on Earth within a few years. Some Russian historians say that after the war Red Army units brought back Ahnenerbe works from Berlin and he was influenced by these and his Anti-Jewish Nationalism took on a genetic aspect and intensified. As he was planning a new purge of Jews he died mysteriously around Purim. During his rule Stalin had also outlawed abortion.
    Anyway, we should leave behind the old dichotomy of "left" vs "right" as far as the radical left and the radical right are concerned.
    Agreed.
    Apart from the leftists not being interested in or being openly averse to questions of race and national identity (as far as European/Western nations are concerned, there is a large sprectrum of communist nationalisms from Cuba to Vietnam) the similarities are much bigger than the differences, and both share as a common enemy the liberalist-(pseudo-)democratic-capitalist system. ... But I have to stop this in order not to become too much off-topic ...
    The nation is a tool of the ruling class, for this reason until the proletariat is the only class there can be no sustainable or real national unity -- no "nationalism", only antagonistic class collaboration hinging on extraction of super profits from the third world. National pride soars after socialism because the government safeguards the well being and culture of its people, rather than the profits of exploiters.
    Last edited by Cole Nidray; Wednesday, September 6th, 2006 at 03:23 AM.

  10. #10
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    25
    Thanked in
    25 Posts

    AW: Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

    Quote Originally Posted by Pervitinist View Post
    However, I don't believe that there was ever really much of a capitalist conspiracy behind the feminist movement.
    Well, they just supported, manipulated and used it for the purposes of the plutocratic Oligarchy, thats the point, no matter how and why it was invented at it beginnings.

    On the one hand the idea of the equality of men and women seems to be at least as old as Plato's Republic where both are subjected to the same training and selection while the children are raised by the state without even knowing who there parents are.
    Well, this Republic of Plato was collectivistic, Eugenic, group oriented - and equality wasnt defined by wage labour or "liberal-individualistic life concepts". Furthermore a lot of things were thought in antiquity, so one shouldnt wonder if finding at least superficial parallels here and there. But such ideas of Plato were very different especially if its about the goals if comparing it to what the plutocracy wants.

    So as a theoretical idea radical feminism goes back to the 4th century BC (invented by a male philosopher! )
    That was no radical Feminism but rather a collectivistic concept.

    and is much older than the modern 'globalized' liberal capitalism.
    Just because you pick up some terms and ideas, this doesnt mean you are as a whole in a certain tradition. Liberalcapitalists for sure aren't with some concepts being just decades old - especially on a broader base.

    On the other hand the political realization of the feminist idea seems to have been initiated not by capitalists but by the radical left.
    They have both something in common, namely the idea of social design, the work of society on individuals and the denegation of everything truly European or traditional - everything which doesnt fit intot their ideological scheme.

    At the time when the Eastern Block collapsed, such things like day care and female employment were, I think, significantly more widespread in the communist east than in the capitalist west.
    Which shows again that this is a problem, BUT NOT THE MAIN PROBLEM. In some areas they had still sufficient birth rates, healthy families, a good common sense and group orientation, everything being in the small social structures overall more healthy than in the Western states. The destructive aspects of Liberal and Neomarxist (Western modern Marxist ideas and derivates, partly being merged with Liberal ideological constructs like in the leftist "Green movement") were not as strong. The most radical Feminists with the most destructive views on males and families were practically all in the West. Communists had it in their agenda, but they watched out for when it becomes too destructive for their own societies. This pragmatism of Eastern Communists was something most Western Feminists lacked, which didnt considered the big picture in the same way and this was what made them "useful idiots" like being described in the text above.

    There may be some synergetic effects between feminism and capitalism, but I don't believe they are stronger than those between feminism and communism.
    Western Marxist and Liberal views being crucial, but again, one has just to compare Western and Eastern Europe on that and how it worked in reality in both spheres.

    After all, family is not everything. There is also the nation. Some (milder, un-hysterical) forms of Feminism may be useful to loosen up clan-like family structures that have become too rigid (like in the Middle East, where there is almost no feminism and at the same time a tendency of patriarchal clan-structures conflicting with national interests).
    That was a rather a question of disfranchisement of the peasantry in medieval Ages and social disciplination in modernity. The extended family and social structures, the independent patriarch and free males of the tribe were being degraded to half-slaves at the beginning, socially disciplined and the standard social unit being reduced to the nuclear family. This was already a destruction of wider social structures and was both beneficial as well as very harmful for the Western world. Because of this social control of the Feudal system, the church and aristocracy, later the state and a certain moral which fought kinship and blood moral destroyed the value of bloodlines and offspring especially in the lower and middle class people. Only the aristocracy kept a certain sense for kin, blood and tradition.
    This was very harmful for the West but allowed also social innovation and a more effective and bigger social organisation. So it was at least ok or would have been great if a more rational, racial and Eugenic oriented view on kinship would have made it, would have formed a larger community which would have known more, acted better and more effective if its about biological needs and developments. But this didnt happened, the "anti-blood" ideas of the West won with Liberalism and Marxism against anything which considered kinship.
    This had not too much to do with Feminism though, which can be seen as a very late result of Individualisation. Even if the women got more opportunities through Christian and anti-clan, anti-kinship, anti-family beliefs, they also lost a lot, became somewhat degraded since their main value in a traditional society, the one as mother was degraded too.
    In the nuclear family however the male was still the dominant part, in some ways even more dominant oftentimes. So the point for social disciplination was not Feminism at its beginning, but the destruction of the patriarchy and independent extended family, clan structures.

    Compare with:
    http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40331

    This individualised subject is only good for a healthy group oriented society which balances the defects of this individualisation out - something which was never fully successful in the West so far and is a great goal to reach for.
    Such an individual without wider social networks is helpless in the face of an effective state and should therefore be better looking for the state working for him and its group, because if not, the clan societies have at least their social networks to which they can retreat to, the Western individualised subject has in the worst case nothing. Same goes for military resistance which works even without a state much better in clan based societies with a moral of blood and kinship.
    So a more rational view on "blood & kinship" so to say, being more inclusive, looking at the bigger biological picture, being necessary and in fact, thats what I want to produce and spread, my goal is not to go back to the old clan structures which simply dont work that good in a modern larger society.




    Rather than speculating about a possible conspiracy behind radical feminism I think we should discuss the benefits of some feminist ideas for a functioning and healthy society where everybody knows his or her place!
    Well, since the benefits being much smaller than the harm which was done so far, I prefer to talk about the harm first and before everything else. There is nothing positive in Feminism as it is, the idea of equality, if being not defined by "being the same" or having "the same roles" and for sure not through wage labour, being another matter.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 'Feminists Have Better Sex': Swedish Party
    By Nachtengel in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Friday, December 18th, 2009, 10:14 AM
  2. American Idiots
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 18th, 2009, 02:43 PM
  3. Nearly 40% of Europeans Are Internet-Idiots
    By Bärin in forum Internet, Security, & Privacy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, April 29th, 2008, 08:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •