Saturday, March 01, 2008

Globalization: The Death of Feminism

Others before me have described the origins of cultural Marxism, of which feminism and political correctness are the most dominant contemporary forms. I have already listed the Free Congress Foundation's excellent documentary on the subject, and another excellent source is Gross and Levitt's 'Higher Superstition'

As they argue, what the revolutionaries of 1968 failed to achieve on the barricades, they continued in their professional lives, and particularly in the academic classroom.

Twentieth century Marxists realized that classical Marxism wasn't working, and that Marxist economics was a failure, so they switched their attention to culture instead, attacking marriage and the family, and penetrating education, the media, the civil service and the charity and voluntary sectors, even the churches, in order to promote their agenda, by undermining all the principal institutions of Western society.

Today, sectors traditionally regarded as 'women's issues', such as child protection and domestic violence, are substantially under the control of radical Marxist-feminists, with catastrophic consequences. Divorce has been promoted as a form of revolution. Every family they break up, every man they destroy, is another blow for the cause.

Margaret Thatcher, whom I hated at the time, but respect more on hindsight, did a lot to undermine classical Marxism in Britain, by confronting the Marxist-dominated trade unions. Unfortunately, though, she did very little to combat cultural Marxism. Like most people, she was probably largely unaware of it, while living in the middle of it. Perhaps we need another leader like her to take on the anti-family movement. I don’t see any sign of that happening in the immediate future though.

My own view is that cultural Marxism will be killed off in the end by globalization.

Middle-class women in this country have been trained from birth to despise men, and to regard marriage as slavery. They are refusing to get married and have children. We are short of workers, and so we have large numbers of immigrants from places like Poland and Eastern Europe. These people lived under Marxism and hated it. They are now re-embracing religion, getting married and having families. These immigrant communities are an enormous asset to us in combating cultural Marxism.

At the same time, many western men, such as myself, have given up on western women altogether. The 'marriage strike' is a growing concept in the men's movement. They have created a situation in which getting married is just not worth it for men. No doubt they did this deliberately; providing economic and cultural disincentives to marry is a very effective way of undermining marriage. However, they reckoned without the effects of globalization. The marriage strike should only apply to Western women in my view. We should be actively seeking foreign brides, who will give us the kind of marriage we want.

Of course there is a movement against this, by decrying any man who takes a foreign wife as desperate, or a sexual deviant. The US has even enacted a law called IMBRA to try to prevent American men taking foreign brides. The feminists can already see the danger that the marriage strike and globalization present.

It won't be long before these feminists realize that for all their big offices and power-suits, they are going to die alone and childless. It is an evolutionary dead-end.

Young women are already saying that they aspire to be footballers' wives or glamour models rather than captains of industry.

Meanwhile, science is progressing rapidly in evolutionary theory and life-sciences, and the dogma of the 1960s, that everything is socially constructed, is fading fast, both in academia and in popular culture.

This century is going to see the rise of China and India as major powers, and we will be competing with them in a global economy. Cultural Marxism will not be at the top of their agenda. Making money will. We are being crippled by cultural Marxism, and we either confront it or we lose out to other countries.

Feminism is based on Marxism, and on the politics of envy, and sustains itself by lies and deception. It cannot last forever. Feminism is doomed in the long term, a historical flash in the pan, just like the Soviet Union.

They dream of bringing about a global revolution, but this is simply not going to happen. The factors I have described will come together within the next generation or so, and that will be the end of it, one way or the other. Western society will either recover itself in time or disappear forever, but whichever way it goes, and although it may be too late for you and I, human life will continue just as it always has.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am overseas seeking a foreign bride for many of the reasons mentioned here, and my personal dislike of Western Women.
( this won't be a difficult job or unpleasant as I've found out )

I'm starting to believe that our women were the reject native stock of other countries and exported out to our nations. That explains their generally unattractive appearance and demenour.

Compared to the women here which are feminine, attractive, and welcoming of relationships; these decendents that were kept under control by societal mechanisms are free to expose their genetic inferiority.

And they are inferior. All men have to do is travel and it becomes Glaringly obvious.

pjanus said...

Oh, how I would love to agree with you.

However, the indicators, I believe, say otherwise.

India has already introduced draconian family law that favours wife/previous girlfriend.

Feminists have made their next move with this...

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14607377


Women ask for gender sensitive budget

Tuesday, 19 February , 2008, 20:02

New Delhi: A delegation led by Women And Child Development Minister Renuka Chowdhury has met Finance Minister P. Chidambaram demanding the 2008-09 budget be gender sensitive with special focus on health and women empowerment


Women representing the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) said there should be concessional loans for entrepreneurial women and that a business training college for women should be set up.
"We also suggested allocation for the implementation of various laws that protect the rights of women, such as for the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act," Kumari said.
"The Domestic Violence Act requires that the central and state governments share the allocation on a 20:80 percent basis. It is essential that the allocation made by the central government be no less than Rs.300 crore (three billion)."


The feminist lobby at the UN is very powerful. The aid they offer third world countries comes with a catch, feminism.

Meanwhile, the US & the UK seem intent on bringing democracy to the muslim world. If that happens it will be game set and match.

Globalization will mean global feminism.

I agree with you that the marxist/ feminist lie is, or should not be sustainable. However, this appears to be what the powerful of this world want and if everyone is in the same boat...

Still, when the trap finally closes we can keep a seat warm for dear sisters.

Anonymous said...

For people in developed countries (like the US and UK) globalization means a loss of manufacturing jobs, growth in the service industry, and a general shift away from jobs that rely on physical strength to those that rely on education and intelligence. All those trends favor women and indicate that globalization is going to further the decline of men, not stop it.

Regardless of what percentage of young UK girls want to be glamor models, do you honestly not think that an even larger percentage of young boys have an even stupider and less healthy goal for their life? In the UK, Just like in every other developed country, young girls outperform young boys on any broad measure of mental health or academic performance.

I dont think gender is entirely societally constructed, but I don't see how that idea is somehow antithetical to our position. It actually makes it much easier to prove that society is biased against men and in favor women. Because all you have to do is show that, by basically any rational measure, the average women enjoys a substantially higher quality of life than the average man. You don't have to then prove that it stems from society rather than biology.

The problem is that noone actually thinks that gender is socially constructed, what they really think is that all the ways men outperform women are societally constructed, while all the ways women outperform men are just evidence that they're innately superior. Thinking there are no innate differences between the sexes is just naive, the reality of what we're dealing with is bigotry.

Heretic said...

"what they really think is that all the ways men outperform women are societally constructed, while all the ways women outperform men are just evidence that they're innately superior."

Very well put.

"Globalization will mean global feminism."

Well, I hope not, and I don't think people around the world will put up with this kind of double standards forever.

The feminists are running a racket, pure and simple. More people are waking up to this.

Davout said...

Pinker in "The Blank Slate" succumbed to the wiles of equity feminism, failing to realise that free market economics (FME) already provided a much better merit based solution to the problem of bored middle class women.

To lump equity feminism on top of FME is to advantage women at the expense of men.

He held back from eschewing all feminism, instead singing the praises of equity feminism. While this approach may be strategic to pacify the feminists/get women to read his book, one gets the feeling that he is elevating emotion above logic at some point.

Anonymous said...

Heres a very interesting take on the future that argues that men will return to prominence and importance. Its fairly long but I recommend reading the entire thing.

http://tinyurl.com/3ykeej

"The feminists are running a racket, pure and simple. More people are waking up to this."

The problem is we're at the point where women are going to beat men even without the racket because they're so much better adapted to the modern world than men are. We've spent the last 40 years calibrating and fine tuning the way we raise girls, while men are basically being socialized to go work in factories that don't exist anymore.

And, just for the record, i condemn comment #1.

BrusselsLout said...

Great post and great responses.

I have to admit though, I still have a problem with Thatch.

Leaving economics aside for a mo, she began the trend of using the criminal law to solve social problems. She was the first prime minister (certainly in my life-time and to my knowledge) to use the police for political reasons. This was unheard of before. She was the first prime minister to talk of extending police powers and lengthening prison sentences, and even to go far as using these as a campaigning issue.

It was the Conservatives who introduced the mandatory minimum sentence for rape of 5 years.

These spread cynicism and fear of men. (Thatcher was not a man-hater, so this was more cock-up than conspiracy.)

The Blair and Brown governments followed this trend, because there are genuine man-haters on the Left.

On the Right, however, they simply despise "losers". But as female losers are invisible, it was the male ones who bore the brunt. (A female loser will always find a man to rescue her. The better looking she is, the more successful a man she will find. In this sense, a woman cannot be a loser.)

Michael Howard, former Conservative home secretary, campaigned on building more prisons. Labour are now copying this.

And we know what this means. It means more prisons for MEN. (The present Brown government wants to shut down women's prisons.)

Thatcher allowed Murdoch to take over The Times, and add more tabloid culture to the press. And therefore instill more cynicism towards men.

Thatcher abolished the GLC because it was a source of political opposition. This was anti-democratic: her government replaced it with nothing. London became the only city in the industrial world without its own elected government.

Result? Transport became run down and unreliable. The city became gridlocked with cars and trucks. The air became unbreathable. Homelessness became a serious problem since Dickensian times. And, of course, it was men who bore the brunt of this as well: 90% of homeless people are men.

Now economics. Thatcher encouraged companies to locate to out-of-the-way locations, that you could only reach by car. She gave companies generous tax allowances for company cars to allow this to happen. (She had a personal dislike of trains.) This encouraged greater and greater use of cars. More gridlock, more polluted air.

Solution? Build more roads. Consequence? More roads that rapidly became congested.

And more stress. For people in work and for people struggling to find work. Crime started to grow, as the social pressures on men grew.

Hence the acute irrational man-hatred we see today. As far as Thatch goes, it's the law of unintended consequences. She did not hate men, but she clumsily started the trend culminating in today's man-hating culture in the UK.

Heretic said...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Thatcher. :-)

Anonymous said...

Three points Heretical.

1. The following statement in your piece is decidedly ambiguous. LOL!

"Every family they break up, every man they destroy, is another blow for the cause."

Perhaps the word "triumph" rather than "blow" would be better.

2. Yes, Margaret Thatcher and her government did many things that were bad for men; BUT she could NOT do otherwise!

I remember those days very well.

And what Mrs T and her government had to cope with was the almost unbelievably huge power of political-correctness and man-hatred emanating from the feminist-dominated press and the BBC in those days.

The Tories became extremely fearful of talking about any issue in a manner that offended the feminists.

For example, I remember them once trying to talk about the 'single-mother problem'. My goodness, what a furore this caused the following day.

And they soon learned to shut their mouths over such issues.

In other words, they became like the rest of us - too fearful to say anything.

Mrs T could not take on the unions etc etc AND the feminists. It was just not possible.

It's bad enough now to do so. It was far worse then.

3. I agree with Brusselslout's statements about Michael Howard. I hated so much his rhetoric about men and prisons that I wrote a flaming letter to about 50 Tory MPs over the matter.

In my view, MRs T was the greatest PM of the last century, at least, for most of her time in office.

And during her long reign, she made many mistakes, but you must try to remember the positively huge forces that she was up against.

4. Around 1996, John Major gave a well-publicised speech to a Tory conference. As usual, it was pretty dull.

Somewhere in the speech, however, he said something like, "And we must get away from all this political correctness and deal properly with the problems that beset our country."

The audience exploded into applause. The ONLY mid-speech applause that he aroused.

I was so delighted. Firstly, because it demonstrated to me that I was not alone in feeling hostile towards political correctness. On the contrary, it now seemed as if the whole audience felt the same way. And, secondly, because the applause was giving John Major the green light to talk about political correctness in a negative way.

It was CLEARLY a popular view.

I eagerly watched the media over the next few weeks to see how Major would play on this.

And he did NOTHING.

Despite his statement bringing about rapturous applause he **never** brought the issue up again.

I was mortified.

And I can only presume that his advisers told him to steer clear of such sentiments.

AH

Anonymous said...

I endorse comment #1. Take a look at the Polish girls who emigrate to the UK, the Columbian and other Latina girls emigrating to the US, and compare them to the sweatpants wearing, belly-roll laden local girls. They're beagles!

Feminism will collapse like all unnatural conditions. Western society may collapse with it, but so what. All cultures/empires have collapsed over time. Language, culture, etc - THAT is the true "social construct". Men dominating women and not cow-towing to them is the natural order of things, b/c all men really want from women is a piece. Also, men, who are full of testosterone, are motivated and are the EARNERS. Women are the CONSUMERS. THus, they need us to survive, to subsidize their lifestyle. For 10,000 years, women have traded regular sex for men's support. But modern society has short-circuited this by STEALING men's money and GIVING it to women, for 18 yrs, no sex required. It's like getting a pyahceck without a job! This child-support induced 18 year slavery is an UNNATURAL, and therefore unsustainable, condition.

Richard Ford said...

Globalization makes it impossible to pay somebody more than the global rate for the job. Such a person would find themselves out of a job.

This is true of uncompetative industries and it is also true of women. Most (not all) westen women are simply uncompetative on the world market. Too expensive. Too much trouble.

The state is subsidising the product at present- but it cannot go on for ever.

Anonymous said...

Please, please, all of you please never have children. I don't want my children to be exposed to your particular form of ignorance.

Heretic said...

Dear Anonymous,
We are the pro-family movement. We are more likely to have children than you are. And although we may disagree with you, no-one could really call us ignorant.

Anonymous said...

Feminism and Feminists are going to die a brutal death in the coming days...prepare for socio-economic disaster you bitchez!