Although we rarely outsource material, and don’t agree with every last word penned in the following article, this is a splendid piece on what’s happened to modern women we felt needed sharing with our audience.
Firstly I would like to ask everyone if they would picture a young woman that had grown up in the 1930′s, 40′s or 50′s-well spoken, moral, staid, sober and calm. She’d enjoy life, without having to show everyone she was having a good time as modern exhibitionists do. She could enjoy a drink, without having to consume so much she’d vomit it all out at the end of the evening. She was elegant, kind and a good citizen.
In South Africa this meant she did her chores, prayed, loved her parents, cared for her family and peers, and respected nature & animals.
Now picture today’s brutish western women-women impacted by cultural Marxism. Envision how they dress, act, think and comport themselves. In fact this is why we decided to use a photo of a traditional Asian woman for this story and understand why these women are slowly replacing ours, as the global ideal. Sadly women that hold themselves in this manner are few and far between in our societies.
Our girls watch porn (to meet the evil anti-Western men and women behind the porn industry, please see this story), abuse alcohol and drugs, pursue men like predators and kill animals during sexual relations.
As seen by the coup of 1994, we are susceptible to Marxism. Our youth, the most vulnerable to this poison, are almost unrecognisable. I can attest firsthand to the changes we have seen in our national mentality since the Marxist ANC took over. There’s no denying that in South Africa, a deeply conservative Christian nation through the fall of Apartheid, that the impact of cultural Marxism has been swift and brutal.
While nations in Western Europe have seen a gradual move to degeneracy from a slow and steady stream of American neo-liberal influence, the impact the left and their virulent propaganda machine, the media, have had on our society, as well as nations in Eastern Europe, has been fast moving and destructive. And that’s not counting the impact the rapes, incest, sexual savagery, millions of instances that men have had sex with children for pleasure, sport, even imagined HIV inoculation, have had on the population!
South Africa has always been a savage land that’s teetered between civilisation and darkness. Since 1994 it has been entirely eclipsed by darkness.
At this point, that’s undeniable.
The questions we must now ask is how do we reclaim our land? and from whom must we reclaim it?
Firstly, we need to understand that this has all been done by design, by a force that has been hell bent on destroying all that is decent and holy in our culture since time immemorial. Marxist subversives-this force’s newest henchmen, by way of Hollywood, American consumerism and neo-liberalism, is merely the latest mechanism they are using to ruin us. They attack all that is sacred to our societies-the bond between parent and child, father and son, male and female, children and their innocence, now even children and their pets, through mechanisms that appear to have been created for our own good-when they’re anything but.
This evil force derives sadistic pleasure from seeing us dig our own graves. It brought Bolshevism to Europe, the Frankfurt School to Germany then America, gay marriage and adoption to the west, destructive cultural influences to our poorest white and black communities, feminism to our women and democracy to South Africa. This sick force always corrupts the weakest elements of our societies first. The morally weak, with a predisposition to criminality, the intellectually weak- because of genes, race or education, the spiritually weak and of course the fairer sex, as is seen in this instance.
Although women see themselves as liberated today they are in fact slaves to a people far worse than the men that have supposedly been liberated from-Marxists. This is the same source that decimated South Africa and left Zuma, Modide and Malema in its wake. I often ask my female friends who say they’ve been liberated by feminism-what exactly they’ve been liberated from? decency? happiness? or Apartheid? to which they typically have no sane response.
The following story, sourced off Andrew Anglin’s site, seeks to answer these questions and sheds some light on how we arrived in the mess we are in.
Be warned, you are going to see Jewish people referenced a lot in this piece-not because the author is anti-Jewish, but because Jews were and are the people behind Marxist feminism, as they were the men and women behind the terrorist ANC. There’s no point in giving half-truths. So if you’re from the Zionist/Marxist Censor Bug Bear, I’d suggest you start speed-dialling the Anti Defamation League now.
The Marxist War on Western Femininity
by A. Anglin
Through Feminism, the Marxist attacks the core, primal identity of the female, weakening society by disallowing women to be who and what they are: caregivers.
Though weak natured and pathetic men have often framed feminism as an attack on males and masculinity, I assert that it is in reality a direct attack on femininity and the female identity. The very core nature of the human female has been obscured and vilified by the Marxists who conceived and led this movement, and this has been one of the largest factors contributing to the fallout of Western civilization. In order to restore natural law to society, the female will have to be strengthened, and the only possible way to do this is to reestablish the feminine identity by dissolving the Marxist doctrine of feminism.
The premise of feminism is that females had been oppressed by males throughout the entire history of the human race. This should have struck all people as patently absurd, but through clever, emotion-based propaganda, Marxist propagandists were able to garnish wide support for this insane assertion. The Marxist racial “equality” movements were based on the ridiculous concept that “race does not exist,” just so the gender “equality” movements asserted that “gender is a social construct.” This Marxist doctrine cannot be viewed as anything other than a war on the Natural Order.
What is a Woman?
The human species, not too terribly long ago, existed in balance with the natural world. We lived in tribes, hunting and farming our food. Like all other species on the planet, the most base drive, beyond self-preservation, was the propagation of our genes. Within this order of nature, it was necessary for males and females to take on variant roles in society, due to their variant physical forms. It was impossible for a man to birth a child, just as it was impossible for a woman to spend days fighting the elements hunting, or fighting in a war over resources with a neighboring population. Because of these variant roles, which resulted from the variant physical characteristics, the sexes maintained variant psychological make-ups and definitively variant identities. Absolutely nothing about our biology has changed, but still the propagandists, with their doctrine of cultural Marxism, actually expect us to believe that none of this matters anymore, simply because it is now possible, due to technology, for a woman to provide herself with food and shelter without the assistance of a man.
It is the biological nature of a man to feel a need to protect and care for women, given that it is the woman that ensures his genes are passed on. The biological nature of a woman includes a desire to be cared for and protected by a man. The woman, having a much higher level of estrogen than a man, has an entirely different psychological make-up, and is much more driven by emotion – she is designed this way, because it is this orientation which allows her to properly nurture children. Because of this much higher level of emotion which exists in her psychological processes, it is clearly only sensible for her to allow men to make the major decisions about issues of key importance, at least those which do not involve children. Because in the natural world, the man, due to his own psychological drives, is always going to be driven to do what it best for the one who births and cares for his progeny, he will make these decisions with the good of his women in mind.
I will note here that a post-menopausal woman, whose psychological make-up changes due to a rebalancing of emotions, is often able to think much more like a man, and thus we have the the archetypal image of the “wise old woman.”
Both men and women posses a base, animal drive to reproduce. This is what hornyness and sexual attraction are. Regardless of popular Marxist doctrine, the reason that the sex act exists is to make babies; this doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be enjoyable, but the fact is, if we were capable of producing offspring through binary fission, we would not have sexual organs at all. The reason sex is enjoyable is the same reason a steak tastes good – when you see a juicy piece of meat, you don’t say “I need to consume this source of iron,” you say “that looks delicious”; in the same way when you see an beautiful woman, you don’t say “I would like to use this person as a means to reproduce my genetics,” but instead feel emotions and physical urges.
The difference between men and women is that the man’s body does not know whether or not he has produced children. Though I think a man can consciously develop a desire to produce children, even within a cultural paradigm that tells him this is unnecessary and simply a burden upon him, a woman’s body knows that she has not produced a child, and this can lead to psychological unrest and ultimately a form of mental illness.
A woman is by nature designed to focus on producing and nurturing children, as well as caring for the emotional needs of her male partner. She is not designed to bring home food, even when bringing home food amounts to acquiring monetary notes, rather than hunting or working a field. When we as a society force a woman into the work place, we are robbing her of her most basic identity. Women are either forced to forgo producing children in order to allow them to pursue a “profession,” or they are expected to perform the nigh impossible feat of raising and caring for children while holding a job. In maintaining this feminist ideal as a foundational aspect of our modern society, we are destroying the right of women to develop and maintain the identity that nature bestows upon them.
In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir published The Second Sex, which is considered to be the dawn of the “second wave” of feminism (the “first wave” had been much more reasonable and was not even called feminism, and though it may ultimately not have been totally positive, it won’t be discussed here). She herein made the insane assertion that the entire history of our species was a history of “female oppression,” argued that gender was a social construct and coined the term “reproductive slavery” to describe the female role as life-giver. Though de Beauvior was ostensibly not a Jew herself, the entire basis of her argument was drawn from predominantly Jewish sources, including Freud and Marx.
At the time she wrote the book, she was having an affair with the Jewish novelist Nelson Algren. Many Jewish radials have asserted that he was the entire inspiration for the book, as she stated that before she met him, she had never perceived any inequality between men and women. We may note that Simone’s long time boyfriend, the confusion artist, communist Jean-Paul Sartre, was having an affair with his adopted daughter, an Algerian Jewess named Arlette Elkaïm, while de Beauvior was sleeping with Algren.
The Marxist, predominantly Jewish plot to destroy the western female, really picked up speed in the chaos of the 1960s. Jewish psychologist Betty Friedan (born Bettye Naomi Goldstein) published the book The Feminine Mystique in 1963, where she presented the the bizarre assertion that virtually all American housewives were unhappy with their lives, and backed it up with faked studies. She said that most if not all women were wasting their lives on children, while harboring the secret desire to be careering intellectuals and called this baseless claim “the problem that has no name.”
Following the faked research of Alfred Kinsey, Friedan also claimed that most housewives were sexually perverse, having an obsession with sexual gratification due to their inability to be fulfilled by the thing that has fulfilled all female mammals since the beginning of existence: children. She again use faked studies, which no other researcher was ever able to confirm or reproduce, to back up this scandalous assertion.
In promoting the insane fantasy that most housewives were sexual perverts, having constant affairs with anyone they could find, she made the impressionable housewives who read the book feel like they should also be doing this type of thing. This process of indoctrinating women into the world of sexual perversion was later streamlined by Ms. Magazine. Note that the Jewish race, and this is not an anti-Semitic canard, has a completely different set of values than White Europeans, and they have traditionally been much more sexually perverse. Jewish women probably do tend to cheat on their husbands, and thus this is yet another example of Jews rewriting our cultural heritage and value system with their own.
With The Feminine Mystique, the sickening Betty Friedan laid out a blueprint for the collapse of the ancient European social order. The weird advocate of the destruction of all society and its replacement with an insane science fiction nightmare world, Alvin Toffler, correctly called it when he declared that this book “pulled the trigger on history.”
Friedan later went on to found the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), one of the most influential forces in the fight to legalize the murder of unborn children in America, with fellow Jew Bernard Nathanson. The organization still exists as an advocacy group for the more extreme forms of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion, where the doctor waits for the baby’s head to start crowning and then drills a hole in his or her skull and sucks the brain out, as well as the “right” of high school girls to have abortions without their parents consent. The organization is still run by Jews.
Additionally, though the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was allegedly not Jewish, her husband was. After Sanger stepped down as the head of said organization, she was succeeded by Alan Frank Guttmacher, the son of a Rabbi. Like the larger movement of feminism, the movement to psychologically manipulate fragile women into murdering their own children has been an almost entirely Jewish affair.
Gloria Steinem, the Radical Jew Culture Destroyer
In 1969, the Jewish abortion promoter Gloria Steinem published the essay After Black Power, Women’s Liberation (note the direct, shameless piggy-backing onto the Black rights movement – Jews have continually exploited Black people as a means to promote their own goals), where she just repeated everything that Friedan had said in a more extreme manner. The Jew-dominated media catapulted this into the public mind, awarding it with relevance by pretending to be opposed to it, rather than tossing it aside as utterly irrelevant pseudo-intellectual communist revolutionary gibberish. This is yet another example of the media deciding what matters, while being able to promote it on any grounds they wish.
In the essay, she hailed a new dawn of sexual promiscuity and divorce as a positive social development. She did not simply push the idea that women have a right to choose how they live their lives, but demanded that women who desire a traditional lifestyle be attacked and terrorized, calling them “Uncle Toms.” She directly implied that abortions are great, and every woman should have one. She openly declared communism, and cited her racial brother and comrade, Karl Marx, as a source of her opinions.
She was promoting a Big Lie in the way only a Jew could.
Speaking on the issue of forming a radical “women’s rights” movement within the existing chaos of the wider Marxist-driven cultural revolution raging through traditional American society, she says:
[Women] couldn’t become black or risk jail by burning their draft cards, but they could change society from the bottom up by radicalizing (engaging with basic truth) the consciousness of women; by going into the streets on such women’s issues as abortion, free childcare centers, and a final break with the 19th century definition of women as sex objects whose main function is to service men and their children.
Let’s think about what this means. We first notice that she is promoting radicalization of consciousness, which is Jew-speak for inciting hysteria. She claims that American women are going to do this “from the bottom up,” which is interesting coming from a public figure who belongs to an alien race and is setting herself up to be the leader of this movement. She then goes on to claim that women should no longer bear responsibility for their own actions, instead the government and society should, before claiming that being a mother amounts to de Beauvoir’s “reproductive slavery.”
The interesting thing here is that the exact situation that we have now could have come about by exciting White men to radicalization. A Jewish man could have popped up and been promoted by the media, claiming that White men were sick of working to support their families, that having to pay for food and a house for a woman and her children to live in was slavery to women, that women only wanted them for their sperm and they were demanding the right to divorce their wives and force their girlfriends to have abortions, and if there were children around they wanted the government to raise them for free.
The reason cultural Marxists did not launch a masculinist movement declaring that women were leeches that needed to get jobs and pay for their own needs and children has to do with the above mentioned issue of the differences between male and female biology. Women are much more volatile and susceptible to emotional propaganda. If the Jew would have come out with a radical men’s liberation movement, men would have laughed and dismissed it as ridiculous, with even the most feeble-minded of them saying to themselves “well, not having a wife and kids would allow me more free time and a lot of extra spending money, but I kinda like my wife and kids” – because for men, logic will trump emotion, all things being equal.
Marxist fiend Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine and author of the influential 1970 radical feminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful, was a founding member of W.I.T.C.H. (Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell); in 1969, this Jewish terrorist group staged a protest at a bridal fair, chanting “here come the slaves/off to their graves” at the goyim women who wanted to get married and live happy lives.
Jews play on weakness. These victors of World War Two began destroying the foundations of our society as soon as they were finished with Hitler’s Germany, and they did this by attacking weaknesses and exploiting them. They used Blacks – a genuinely disenfranchised group – as a battering ram against traditional White society, stirring up violence on both sides and making the situation unworkable, they stirred up the idealism of youth against their own war in Vietnam, the exploited the teenage sex drive and desire to release energy with their free love and drugs. And they attacked the emotional vulnerability of women with the feminist movement.
Steinem later went on to found Ms. Magazine, a radical feminist publication that encouraged women to have sex with as many strangers as possible, have regular abortions, fight with their husbands and complain constantly. It played up this imagined victimhood, claiming that traditional gender roles amounted to some kind of a holocaust.
The fire that these Jews lit in the 1960s has just kept on burning. It isn’t going to go out until there’s no more fuel – meaning that our traditional culture has been completely exterminated – or until someone stands up and puts it out.
The Here and Now
The effects of the Marxist feminist movement that began in the 1960s have been staggering. We are now living in a world where females literally have no idea what they are, and are forced at every stage of their life to be something different than what their biology is demanding that they be.
Whereas the Jews demanded that it was a “right” of the female to work, it very quickly changed into a duty. A traditional single-income household is now almost entirely a thing of the past. This was no doubt a part of the Marxist feminist agenda, as given that when you add women to the workforce, you double the amount of available labor, and thus labor itself is only worth half as much in this unregulated capitalist system. This has put a tremendous burden on those families still existing the West. I wonder what percentage of women today would be willing to go back and trade abortion rights, “freedom from reproductive slavery” and all of the rest of the incomprehensible, sentimentally romanticized Jew gibberish that the baby-boomer generation bought into for a chance to live a traditional lifestyle. Surely, whatever perceived oppression women felt they were suffering under in the post-war period couldn’t have been as bad as this.
Enemy Jew Naomi Wolf leads the new feminist movement.
Enemy Jew Naomi Wolf, once married to Bill Clinton’s Jew speech writer and New York Times editor, David Shipley, leads the new feminist movement.
Like the ground-breaking feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, the modern feminist movement, often referred to as the “third wave,” is totally dominated by Jews. The entire media apparatus, even that which claims to be conservative, has embraced the doctrines of feminism. Promiscuity is now promoted in schools, with marriage largely having become a thing of the past. Forty percent of children are born out of wedlock. The entirety of the Jew-run entertainment media apparatus promotes all of this, endlessly churning out more and more degrading material to force down the throats of the proles.
Presently, one in three pregnancies in this country ends in abortion. I do not think the statistics are available on what percentage of these babies are White, but it is rather obvious that it would be the vast majority. Because of the death of morality – brought to you by the Jews who crushed Christianity by turning it into a religion of soulless material pursuits and spinning it into the realm of science fiction – you now have teenage girls getting pregnant in high school; 50 years of feminism have convinced a large percentage of people in this country that it is then her “right” to murder the child without even telling her parents. Schools are known to have feminist guidance counselors who encourage them to make this decision.
Even if one were to make the argument that abortion is a morally sound form of birth control, it is a known fact that women who kill their babies develop life-long psychological problems because of it. Killing ones own children is one of the most blatantly deranged and insane aspects of this hellish Jew-ridden society we live in. Can you imagine a monkey or a wolf killing her own children because “they have other things to do with their life?” This is not simply murder – it is an attack on the most fundamental aspect of all life on earth – the desire to reproduce.
How much more of this are we willing to take from these sickening Jews? When is enough going to be enough?
I am not arguing against feminine strength. I am not claiming that every single woman should be doing nothing but cooking and making babies. I am simply saying that the vast majority of women have a deep-rooted desire to be protected by men so that they are free to focus on producing and raising children. This does not mean that some special individual females won’t decide to engage in intellectual pursuits, and certainly doesn’t mean that women are incapable of engaging in intellectual pursuits. The reality is that women do very well working in a lot of different fields, as long as they are not placed in positions of authority, but the fact remains that this is not generally what women would choose for themselves if they were given the choice, as it leaves them either absolutely emotionally and physically drained as they attempt to do careering along with raising children, or leaves them hollow and unfulfilled if they forgo raising children in favour of pursuing a career.
We should also be thinking about the children themselves – could any of this possibly be good for them?
It is my contention that women should be able to choose for themselves what kind of life they want to live, but the default position of society should be to provide a climate where women are encouraged to birth and raise children. All throughout history we have had scenarios where exceptionally strong women have played major roles in the larger whole of public society. However, for most powerful, intelligent and passionate women, the old saying that “behind every great man, there is a great woman” has held the truth of the matter. Women, as wives and mothers, provide the home environment within which men are capable of becoming successful in their endeavours.
The hard reality is that the feminist movement is not a product of Western civilization; it is, like every other major change our society has underwent in the last 100 years, a creation of the Jew. It is impossible that without the Jewish influence, White society would have embraced these radical changes to the social order.
If men are to become men again, and rise up with strength and fury and take back their society, it must follow that women also become women again, resuming their role as the backbone of our society, taking care of the home, raising healthy children and providing emotional respite for their husbands.
What we seek to do is restore the natural order which the Jew has upset with his lies and manipulation.