…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger
We live in dark, chaotic times now, just as our fathers were living in the forties of the last century. According to Wikipedia “Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.” I would quibble with the word “equal”, as I have not seen any evidence of that feminists would wish to limit themselves so. The feminists fight for power. For them “equality” means exactly as much as “peace” meant to Hitler, i.e. a breathing space prior to expansion and domination.
The younger friends sometimes question me about a difference, if any, between communism and fascism. My response firstly points out the number of deaths. Just to refresh your memory, National Socialists are responsible for 21 million, more successful International Socialists for 140 million and, thanks to China, North Korea and Cuba, we are still counting. (Fog of Chaos – Left perspective.) In view of the deliberate leftist fog in what passes for history education in Australia, not to mention many apologists for communist crimes, of whom Gough Whitlam, a socialist politician, and Manning Clark, a socialist historian, are the just two particularly opprobrious examples, I feel obliged to repeat those numbers.
There are some slight ideological and practical differences between fascism and communism, just as there are between fascism and Nazism but I’ll leave it for another time in order to return to the one aspect of the power struggle, namely feminism. That takes many forms, which, when subtle and insidious are mostly successful; while the other, unintelligent and shrieking, are mostly counter productive. I do not know how many women were put off by feminism in its many forms for ever after reading the misandric ramble The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer. I would guess that many, for women are not as primitive and promiscuous as she imagines in her dry dreams.
Ms Gillard, with her already famous “blue tie’ speech, obligingly provided an up to date example of the counter productive form. On 11th June she held “Women for Gillard” gathering and she wisely banned media from it. In her speech [here in full] she blamed men in blue ties for just about all women’s suffering. The whole shebang perhaps could have been called “The Blue Tie Hen Night”. As somebody immediately commented, it is not the men in blue ties our Prime Minister ought to be worried about, but men in white coats.
Attendees were carefully selected and perhaps even coached. Note, when watching the video of her speech, how the poor props behind her wait for some indication whether they should laugh when those blue ties were mentioned. One whistle blow laugh, two whistle blows cry? It is not know at this stage whether the elite Victorian artists were present. I have in mind Ms Dwyer and her Balletlab ensemble (Difficult territory is a cornerstone of the visual arts – so artist Mikala Dwyer knew it would be confronting last night when she invited Balletlab dancers to empty their bowels as part of a performance at the Australian Centre for Contemporary Art.
The two-hour act saw the six dancers, masked but naked beneath sheer garments, move around a room in the gallery before sitting on transparent stools and performing – only if they were moved to do so – what is usually one of our most private and rarely discussed daily acts.) in which case three whistle blows could lead to the appropriate finale.
Leaving the Victorian, taxpayers financed, peak (or should it be a heap?) of the high culture aside, the point of Ms Gillard latest misandric outburst was, I guess – men bad, women good, me woman, so help me and I’ll help you, however hopeless you are, as long as you do not have penis.
Margaret Thatcher would undoubtedly treat with scorn any gender quota “assistance” from the fifth class politician and no class human being Julia Gillard, though the Labor coven of incompetents, i.e. Roxon,Wong, Peris, Collins, Lundy, Plibersek, Ellis, Malkin et al, is duly grateful. But then Thatcher did not need any quotas. They do.
I started reading Letters to Hitler, edited by Henrik Eberle, English edition by Polity Press, 2012, 259 pages, in order to look for possible similarities to Letters to Obama or Letters to Whitlam, neither to the best of my knowledge as yet published. Pages 34-43 deal with thirty-two-year-old Elsa Wagner, from Karlsruhe in Baden, southwest Germany, who for Christmas 1930, sent Hitler a book. A part, eighty pages, was entitled ‘The German Woman’.
While there are not immediately obvious similarities between Wagner and Gillard, both are presuming to talk for women and both apply the same logic or more accurately, the lack thereof. Their rhetoric appears to be diametrically opposite, but the ultimate goals are identical. I had to cull Ms Wagner’s writing significantly, but I hope I preserved the gist. Just in case that somebody would be inclined to dismiss it a priori because of some implied antisemitism, I kept the following bit. Ms Wagner seems to had been far less anti-Semitic then most Germans at the time:
“But if you were to ask me, Adolf Hitler, what my position with regard to the Jewish question is, I would tell you unhesitatingly, in a genuinely womanly way: I pity the Jews, who are undeservedly abused in moral and spiritual ways.”
This is the main part:
“What ails our dear Fatherland? In particular its women, and a woman is the soul of the house and of the country. That is why our people’s soul is hurting, since the greater part of the German women’s world has abandoned its divinely ordained place. Woman is man’s complement, his relaxation, in whose nature he can refresh and elevate his heart and mind after the struggles and efforts of everyday life, with innermost love and respect.
Woman should lean on man as her strong protector and guardian in the hard battle of life, full of devotion as his spouse and the mother of his children. That is the divinely ordained calling of woman, and deviating from this path results in her forfeiting her most essential purpose. Countless women of ‘today’ regard their most essential task as out of date and cast it away with a negligent wave of the hand and a deprecating smile, and compete with men in all areas, blind to the fact that it is precisely the tender, vulnerable, gracious woman who is attractive to man. Most women and girls of ‘today’ hustle and bustle about in blind madness, nervous and overexcited, instead of being a place of repose for the man who fights. The modern athletic girl must not remain the German model for women, woman’s strength must reside in the soul not in the muscles!”
“Now why, in order to prove our intelligence in relation to man, to shunt him aside, should we impress on him the idea that he is superfluous? No matter what the motive, that is a mistake. Woman’s greatness lies not in her brain, but in her heart, not in the power of her will but rather in the power of her soul.”
Obviously feminism, the desire by α-women to control, exhibits itself differently in different times, but always to the detriment of women and mankind generally.