Saturday, 23 July 2011

Radical Feminism and Political Correctness

Perhaps no aspect of Political Correctness is more prominent in Western European life today than feminist ideology. Is feminism, like the rest of Political Correctness, based on  the cultural Marxism imported from Germany in the 1930s? While feminism’s history in  Western Europe certainly extends longer than sixty years, its flowering in recent decades  has been interwoven with the unfolding social revolution carried forward by cultural  Marxists.

Where do we see radical feminism ascendant? It is on television, where nearly every  major offering has a female “power figure” and the plots and characters emphasise  inferiority of the male and superiority of the female. It is in the military, where expanding  opportunity for women, even in combat positions, has been accompanied by double  standards and then lowered standards, as well as by a decline in enlistment of young  men, while “warriors” in the services are leaving in droves. It is in government-mandated  employment preferences and practices that benefit women and use “sexual harassment”  charges to keep men in line. It is in colleges where women’s gender studies proliferate  and “affirmative action” is applied in admissions and employment. It is in other  employment, public and private, where in addition to affirmative action, “sensitivity  training” is given unprecedented time and attention. It is in public schools, where “self  awareness” and “self esteem” are increasingly promoted while academic learning  declines. And sadly, we see that several European countries allow and fund free  distribution of contraceptive pills combined with liberal abortion policies. 


While the radical feminist movement is embraced by present day Political Correctness  ideology, derived from cultural Marxism, feminism as such does have earlier roots.  Feminism was conceived and birthed in the 1830s, in the generation experiencing the  first stage of the industrial revolution. Women, who for centuries had shared the challenges of surviving in an agrarian life, were becoming part of a middle-class gentry  with more time and energy to spend writing newspaper articles and novels for their  “sisters.” The initial stages of the feminisation of European culture had started.

Today, the feminisation of European culture, moving rapidly since the 1960s continues to  intensify. Indeed, the present-day radical feminist assault through support for mass  Muslim immigration has a political parallel to the their anti-colonial efforts. This current  assault is in part a continuation of a century-old effort to destroy traditional European  structures, the very foundation of European culture.

There is no doubt in the media that the “man of today” is expected to be a touchy-feely  subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda. He is a staple of Hollywood, the  television network sitcoms and movies, and the political pundits of talk shows. The  feminisation is becoming so noticeable that newspapers and magazines are picking up on  it. For example, the Washington Times and National Review magazine combined to tell us  that “behind the breezy celebration of ‘guy stuff’ in today’s men’s magazine lurks a crisis  of confidence. What does it mean to be masculine in the 90s?” It is revealed that today’s  men’s magazines (Esquire, GQ, Men’s Health, Men’s Fitness, Men’s Journal, Details,  Maxim, Men’s Perspective)”are all geared to a new feminised man….” Some examples?  The old masculine attitude toward personal appearance is disappearing. If memory  serves, our fathers’ acts of personal upkeep were mostly limited to shaving and putting  on a tie. According to Lowry:

It’s hard to imagine [them] interested in articles on ‘A Flat Belly for the Beach’ (Verge), or the three new men’s fragrances for the fall season (GQ), or even ‘The New Fall Suit’ (Esquire). But somewhere along the line men became less concerned with being strong and  silent, and more worried about making themselves pretty.

Indeed the feminisation of European culture is nearly completed. And the last bastion of  male domination, the police force and the military, is under assault. If this “feminisation” trend were driven only by radical feminists seeking to pull down a perceived male-dominated hierarchy, there would be more hope that the cycles of history  would move Europe toward a stable accommodation between men and women. But the  drive is deeper, and it will not be satisfied by any accommodation. The radical feminists  have embraced and been embraced by the wider and deeper movement of cultural  Marxism. For dedicated Marxists, the strategy is to attack at every point where an  apparent disparity leaves a potential constituency of “oppressed” victim groups –  Muslims, women etc. Cultural Marxists, men and women, are making the most of it, and  the theory developed by the Frankfurt School provides the ideology.

The Frankfurt School theorised that the authoritarian personality is a product of the  patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Engels’s The Origins of the  Family, Private Property and the State, which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was  Karl Marx who wrote in The Communist Manifesto about the radical notion of a  “community of women.” He also, in 1845, wrote disparagingly in his The German  Ideology of the idea that the family was the basic unit of society.

The concept of the “authoritarian personality” is not just to be interpreted as a model for the conduct of warfare against prejudice as such. It is a handbook for psychological  warfare against the European male, to render him unwilling to defend traditional beliefs  and values. In other words, the aim was to emasculate him. Undoubtedly the Institute for  Social Research at Frankfurt University meant this, as it used the term “psychological  techniques for changing personality.”

The “authoritarian personality,” studied in the 1940s and 1950s by Western Europeans  and American followers of the Frankfurt School, prepared the way for such psychological  warfare against the male gender role. The aim was promoted by Herbert Marcuse and  others under the guise of “women’s liberation” and in the New Left movement in the  1960s. Evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality are intended to  focus in particular on the emasculation of the European male has also been provided by  Abraham Maslow, founder of “third force humanist psychology” and promoter of  psychotherapeutic techniques in public school classrooms. He wrote that “the next step in  personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general  humanness.”

Cultural Marxist stalwarts apparently know exactly what they want to do and how they  plan to do it. They have actually already succeeded in accomplishing much of their  agenda.

How did this situation come about in European universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has  observed that it slipped past traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too  late. It occurred so “quietly” that when they “looked up”, postmodernism was upon them  with a vengeance. “They were surrounded by such a tidal wave of multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses” which undermine the perpetuation of Western civilisation. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just  as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned – a quiet revolution  propagating a European hate ideology with the goal of destroying Western civilisation and  which was: anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti-conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition, and anti-morality. “Cultural Marxism,” as preached by the Frankfurt School has thus spurred the widely popular and destructive concepts of “affirmative action,” “multiculturalism” and “diversity.” One can’t escape these terms today. These concepts have destroyed every defensive structure of European society which has laid the foundation for the Islamisation of Europe.

Conclusions

Critical Theory as applied mass psychology has led to the deconstruction of gender in the European culture. Following Critical Theory, the distinction between masculinity and femininity will disappear. The traditional roles of the mothers and fathers are to be dissolved so that patriarchy will be ended. Children are not to be raised according to their biological genders and gender roles according to their biological differences. This reflects the Frankfurt School rationale for the disintegration of the traditional family.

Thus, one of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the traditional family. The Frankfurt School scholars preached:
Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the
readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.
The transformation of European culture envisioned by the cultural Marxists goes further than pursuing gender equality. Embodied in their agenda is “matriarchal theory,” under which they purpose to transform Europeanculture to be female-dominated. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt Schoolmember who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in “The Mass Psychology of  Fascism” that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of “natural society.”  Richard Bernstein has written in his book on multiculturalism, “the Marxist revolutionary process for the past several decades in Europe and America has centered on race and sex warfare rather than class warfare” as in earlier times. This reflects a scheme more total than economics to restructure the society. As the social revolutionaries readily proclaim, their purpose is to destroy the hegemony of white males. To accomplish this, all barriers to the introduction of more women and minorities throughout the “power structure” are to be brought down by all means available. Laws and lawsuits, intimidation, and demonising of white males as racists and sexists are pursued through the mass media and the universities. The psycho–dynamic of the revolutionary process aims for psychic disempowerment – decapitation – of those who oppose. The US’s founders recognised three primal values in the Declaration of Independence, and they ranked them properly: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the order of these fundamental human rights is switched – with happiness before liberty or liberty before life – we come to moral chaos and social anarchy. This verycondition is what Judge Robert Bork describes as “modern liberalism.” He defines its characteristics as “‘radical egalitarianism’ (equality of outcomes rather than of opportunities) and ‘radical individualism’ (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification).”

Judge Bork also identifies radical feminism as “the most destructive and fanatical” element of this modern liberalism. He further describes radical feminism as “totalitarian in spirit.”

Most  Western   Europeans   and   Americans   do not   realise   that   they,   through   their institutions,   are   being   led   by   social revolutionaries   who   think   in   terms   of   the continuing   destruction   of   the   existing   social order   in   order   to   create   a   new   one.   The revolutionaries   are  New  Age   Elite  Boomers. They   now   control   the   public   institutions   in Western Europe and the United States. Their “quiet” revolution, beginning with the counter-culture   revolution of   their   youth,   is  nearing  completion. 

A  key,  or   even a dominant element because purportedly it represents that largest political and social constituency among their potential followers, is feminism. The Marxist movement in its “quiet” cultural latter-day phase is seemingly sweeping all before it. With its sway over the media, fully in the grip of feminism, it is hard to discern the stirrings of a counter-culture. The current cultural  Marxist/multiculturalist   elites,   the New Totalitarians,  are  the  most  dangerous generation  in Western history.  Not  only  have   they managed  to  destroy   fundamental structures of European society. They are allowing millions of Muslims to colonise Europe. In  just  five decades Muslim populations have  increased  from a  few  thousand  to more than 25 million.

Who will rise to challenge Political Correctness? The fate of European civilisation depends
on European men steadfastly resisting Politically Correct feminism. Even more, they must
resourcefully oppose the wider grip of Political Correctness, the cultural Marxism for
which radical feminism is only one avenue of attack.

No comments:

Post a Comment