Often I wondered why the tactics and strategies of feminism that concern us as men's activists or as people who worry about
issues of discrimination against men and about the destruction of our families looked so familiar. The familiarity that I see extends even to the mannerisms and hair styles of many feminists, especially many of those who are judiciary activists. Similar concerns must have come to those people who saw similarities between fascism and feminism and coined the expression feminazis
to label the more radical and ruling factions of feminism.
Fascism applies not only in the promotion of excessive nationalism or of a
specific race, it applies when a ruling political philosophy, movement or regime
promotes one gender to the detriment of the other, or even if the promotion
favours one ideology, religion, economic theory, or even a sexual orientation to
the detriment of all others. In a free and democratic society there is no
regimentation, no use of force, no coercion to make people comply with one or
another idea. If social evolution is left to run its course, it will soon
reflect the consequences of how good ideas and intentions prove themselves and
that non-constructive ideas in the economic, political, social and biological
sectors fall by the way-side because they are quite simply evolutionary
Given the communist roots (see Matriarchy in the
USSR — off-site) of the ideology of radical feminism and the fact that
virtually without exception lecturers in women studies programs call themselves Marxist, a more appropriate term to identify radical feminists would be femicommies or, better yet, redfems.
In her article The Planned Destruction of the Family, Erin Pizzey touches on the fact that the rhetoric and tactics of radical feminists are firmly rooted in communist ideological traditions (including terrorism - that includes terrorist bombings). In my mind the tactics and strategies of the radical feminists differ little from those used by the Nazis in the twenties and the early thirties,
when they squelched their political opponents in their quest for power.
However, Erin Pizzey also described that posters of Mao and Guevera were featured prominently in the living rooms of the middle-class, white, radical feminists who eventually usurped her Chiswick women's refuge and that these women liberally used communist phraseology in their rhetoric, even to the extent that they distributed copies of "The Little Red Book."
Christina Hoff Sommers, in her book "Who Stole Feminism?", compared some of the excesses of feminism that affect academe to Maoist purges to the extent that they now dominate all of our universities.
Is it an accident that Betty Friedan has a background as a long-time functionary of the communist left, as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book "Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique"? As per a book review by professor David Horowitz (no relation), published in Salon Magazine Jan. 1999, "the author of that book establishes beyond doubt that the woman who has always presented herself as a typical suburban housewife until she began work on her groundbreaking book was in fact nothing of the kind. In fact, under her maiden name, Betty Goldstein, she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communist left for over a decade before the publication of "The Feminist Mystique" launched the modern women movement." (full review )
The review by Professor Horowitz states further:
"Professor Horowitz documents that Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America's Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley's radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer. Her famous description of America's suburban family household as "a comfortable concentration camp" in "The Feminine Mystique" therefore had more to do with her Marxist hatred for America than with any of her actual experience as a housewife or mother. (Her husband, Carl, also a leftist, once complained that his wife "was in the world during the whole marriage," had a full-time maid and "seldom was a wife and a mother").
It is fascinating that Friedan not only felt the need to lie about her real views and life experience then, but still feels the need to lie about them now. Although Horowitz, the author of the new biography, is a sympathetic leftist, Friedan refused to cooperate with him once she realized he was going to tell the truth about her life as Betty Goldstein."
At the roots of the feminists' wish to "liberate" women, Chairman Mao had earlier said that women are an untapped resource that must be liberated from the ropes of authority, clan, family and religion that bind them, so that they can be included in the labour force; thereby increasing his country's productivity for the greatness of the State. ("Women," chapter 31 in "The Little Red Book,")
Is it an accident that NAC (the Canadian National action Committee for the Status of Women) receives honourable mention at the meetings of the Canadian Communist Party?
Michael Weiss and Cathy Young, in their Cato Institute policy analysis paper "Feminist Jurisprudence," state:
"...today, the broadest and most relentless assaults on free speech come from radical feminists determined to quash "harassing" or "degrading" speech. Through the use of civil rather than criminal law for purposes of censorship, and under the guise of legislating equality, large areas of speech are becoming per se illegal, unbeknownst to the majority of Americans. The target this time is not a pervasive Communist conspiracy but a collection of far more ubiquitous enemies: the sexual harasser, the insensitive college student, the consumer of pornography."
Even though their methods reek of a communist conspiracy, most, if not all, feminists object strongly to any accusations of being communists. Does a leopard change its spots?
He would still be a leopard even if he could. Are communist ideologies no longer communist just because they are now encompassed under the all-embracing term feminism? 
Many people said that "The end justifies the means." If the means used by feminism are the same as those that communism, fascism, or any other extremism use to achieve their ends, and if the ends that will be achieved are the same, the domination of society and indeed the domination of the world and the planned destruction of our families and moral traditions by a group of like-minded extremists, how can anyone then claim that feminism is any more benevolent to society than any of its related ideologies are? 
Prof. Daniel Amneus, devoted his book "The Garbage Generation" to the description of the consequences of feminist extremism and how little there is about the outcomes of communism and feminism that can be used to tell them apart. On page 64 to 66 he says:
According to feminists Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin:
"The matriarchal mode of child-rearing, in which each individual is nurtured rather than dominated from birth provides the rational basis for a genuinely healthy society, a society of self-regulating, positive individuals."
Things are this way in the ghettos, where half of the young bear the surnames of their mothers, and where the proportion of such maternal surnames increases every year, along with crime and the other accompaniments of matriarchy.
"You Frenchmen," said an Iroquois Indian three hundred years ago to the Jesuit Father Le Jeune, "love only your own children; we love all the children of the tribe." In a promiscuous matriclan this is the best way to see that all children are cared for; but it will not create the deep family loyalties needed to usher a society out of the Stone Age. "At the core of patriarchy," says Adrienne Rich, "is the individual family unit which originated with the idea of property and the desire to see one's property transmitted to one's biological descendants." This creation of wealth cannot be motivated by a desire to transmit it to an ex-wife or to a welfare system which undermines the families whose resources it feeds upon.
The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal. What feminist Marie Richmond-Abbott says of men in general is especially true of men in capitalist patriarchy:
"A man's life is defined by his work, his occupation. The first question a man is usually asked is, "What do you do?" People shape their perception of him according to his answer."
A man's life may be defined by his work even under matriarchy, but it is only loosely defined. Here, described by the 19th century German explorer, G. W. Schweinfurth, is the way males perform when females regard them as inessential. The tribe described is the Monbuttu:
"Whilst the women attend to the tillage of the soil and the gathering of the harvest, the men, except they are absent either for war or hunting, spend the entire day in idleness. In the early hours of the morning they may be found under the shade of the oil-palms, lounging at full length upon their carved benches and smoking tobacco. During the middle of the day they gossip with their friends in the cool halls."
Similarly, under communism, the state's guarantee of economic security weakens the male's commitment to work and undermines his productivity. "The other day," writes Eric Hoffer,
"I happened to ask myself a routine question and stumbled on a surprising answer. The question was: What is the uppermost problem which confronts the leadership in a Communist regime? The answer: The chief preoccupation of every government between the Elbe and the China Sea is how to make people work how to induce them to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines, and so forth. It is the most vital problem which confronts them day in day out, and it shapes not only their domestic policies but their relations with the outside world."
Who wants to plow, sow, harvest, build, manufacture, work in the mines unless the work, unsatisfying and unfulfilling in itself, is made meaningful by a man's knowledge that it must be done if he is to provide for his family?
The Garbage Generation, by Daniel Amneus, pp. 64-66
Extensive sociological changes like those brought about by the ideologies of communism, Nazism and by feminism don't just happen. They evolve. However, they don't just evolve on their own. They are brought about by changing the attitudes of populations. Those attitude changes must be nurtured, propagated, instilled in people, and often they are forced upon them. Even if the people in the end fully embrace and support them, these radical ideas still originated somewhere, and the impetus to make them generally accepted has to come from somewhere and someone.
The time and place of my birth was 1936, Nazi-Germany, and on account of that, even though I had still only been a child at the end of the Second World War, I have had first-hand impressions of the extent to which a radical, extremist ideology can dominate and shape a society that at one time prided itself for its moderation and conservatism.
Today there are still many people who wonder how it was possible for the ideological changes in the first few decades of the 20th century to take hold in Germany. I still wonder and search for clues. The more clues I find, the more I get the impression that the Nazis had no monopoly on extremist radical tactics, that little, if anything, in their tactics differentiates them from those used by the communists or other radical elements in the world over time, and that the tactics of the Nazis and the communists of the 20th century are being emulated, if not imitated, by many feminists.
From the website of the
The Soviet Story:
The film tells the story of the Soviet regime and how the
Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust.
“The Soviet Story” is a story of an Allied power which helped the Nazis
to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale.
Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were
made taboo, and the complete story of Europe’s most murderous regime has
never been told. Until now…
DVDs of the documentary can be
purchased through Amazon.com, but the documentary is also accessible
See a review of
the documentary on the soviet holocaust
or democide, the definition of democide being the extermination of a
people by its government. It is estimated that during the height of the
men comprised 98 percent of the 8-million people that were being exterminated
in just two years, 1937 and 1938.
A few weeks ago I received a copy of a book, "Politics of Transformation Nazi-Elites in the West-German Post-War-Society"  The book is in German and I doubt that it has been translated into English. It is a collection of essays by a number of historians and sociologists about various aspects of society, mostly as related to
Academe, that explore the role of Academe and its products in the ascent and consequences of the Nazi-regime. It becomes quite clear from the various views presented in Politics of Transformation that Academe actively collaborated in not only helping the Nazis to become firmly established but also in participating in and benefiting from Nazism.
Politics of Transformation examines such issues within the context of one of literally more than 60,000 such cases in post-World-War II - Germany [according to a 1954 estimate by the German Federal Ministry for Families. Source on p. 175 WHS], when former functionaries of the Nazi-Party submerged, to re-surface with new identities that provided them with an "immaculate" past. Some of them were found out later, as in the case of the Austrian Kurt Waldheim, formerly UN Secretary General, and before that, in his former life, a high-ranking SS officer who was responsible, although he vehemently denies that, for rounding up Jews in parts of Europe and having them shipped to concentration camps.
Another prominent case was that of Hans Ernst Schneider (no relative of mine, although I do have a brother whose name is Hans Schneider), who was a leading member of the Genetic Heritage Department of the SS, reporting directly to Himmler. In that capacity he was active until 1942 in the "Germanisation" of the Netherlands and Flanders. During the collapse of the Nazi-Regime in the last weeks of World War II, he assumed a false identity under the name of Hans Schwerte (that's German for swords), had his wife declare him dead, remarried her under his new identity, and then made a new career for himself in
It is extremely likely that he had help in that from other former members of the SS or other Nazis who resumed their careers in
Academe. Nevertheless, under his new identity Hans Schwerte eventually became rector of the University of Aachen in the West-German State of North Rhein-Westphalia. What brought him to that position was his ostensible background in Germanistics, which, of course, was exactly what got him his superior position in the SS, only in that case his views were adapted to Nazi ideology. He was found out by a man in Holland who recognized him from a news photo and in April 1995 he openly announced that Hans Ernst Schneider and Hans Schwerte were one and the same.
One of the essays in Politics of Transformation is by Bernd-A. Rusinek, Ph. D., appointed by the Commission for History to investigate the Schneider/Schwerte case. In his essay "From Schneider to Schwerte, Anatomy of a Change" (p. 143) Bernd-A. Rusinek explores the question of how it is possible for any intellectual in
Academe to align himself with the radical ideology of the Nazis. One example that he uses to give an assessment of the attitudes of intellectuals in 1945 is that of Gottfried Benn, who was involved in Nazism on account of his essays on "selective breeding" (of humans, of course!).
A translation of an excerpt from the observations by Bernd-A. Rusinek in that respect is as follows:
"[Gottfried Benn] experienced the "second phase of his fame" in post-war times. His autobiography "Double-Life The life experiences of an intellectual," was published in 1949. The author declared himself in that to be contemptuous of the historical world and to be a theoretician of double-life. That the integrity of a person were a questionable matter; that our cultural cycle had begun with dual-figures: Sphinx figures, centaurs, dog-headed gods; that he now finds himself at the culmination of leading a double life. And, with slogans that remind one of the factual discourse of the 'twenties, Benn delivers a vade mecum [sic] for perpetrators and collaborators. "Double-life, in the theoretical meaning claimed, and as executed by me," so Benn, "is a deliberate splitting of the personality, a systematic, tendentious," an "inner self" with its own convictions, and an outer self that gives the applicable contemporary system what is due to the system. About the main maxim of his "Ptolemarian" Benn explains:
"Recognize the situation that is, adapt to the situation, camouflage yourself, no convictions at any price (...) other than that, go calmly along with convictions, world views, syntheses in any direction of the compass, if institutions and offices demand it so, only: keep your head free, it must always leave space for [objectively
People managed to live with such attitudes after 1945 once they escaped from denazification and the court rooms without being embarrassed at all. [p. 167]
Above I mentioned that Hans Schneider/Schwerte must have had the help of people in
Academe who were accessories to his deception. Bernd-A. Rusinek addresses that aspect of the case by explaining:
"One must consider, with respect to the question of the accessories in the Schneider/Schwerte case as well as in others, that first universities are factories of rumors and intrigues that are comparable to the societies of courtiers, where the multitude of the rumors weakens the ability of the individual to perceive the truth; that it second is possible to assemble a collage of rumors about ostensible SS-memberships of scientists and their participation in the crimes of the regime that cannot be substantiated; that there third was the opinion that the time to denounce anyone was now gone; that one fourth loved to play a trump card relating to news about a national-socialistic former life or expressions of Nazi-suspicions during the post-war years, and on this card there stood: "East-German propaganda"; fifthly, however, a warning is in order about false trails regarding all conjectures concerning any accessories, in the Schneider/Schwerte as well as other cases: with our knowledge about the former life of Schwerte the sources are beginning to twinkle, and everything that hasn't got a clear meaning becomes ambiguous. It is the bad luck of Hans Schwerte that aside from him there may well not be another living Germanist of his generation whose scientific and production and output of essays during the last fifty years experienced such critical examination.
Nevertheless, just like the kind of intellectual prostitution by which many intellectuals lent their support to the Nazis then, so there are intellectuals today who are not embarrassed at all to lend their support to the efforts of redfems. Just as there were intellectuals under the Nazis who were eager to become Nazis themselves, so are there today countless intellectuals who have no qualms of being redfem extremists themselves. Consider the quote from Gottfried Benn about the need for an intellectual double-life and use that as a measuring stick by which to assess whether today's community of social engineers doesn't have its own successful Gottfried Benns in the millions, in
Academe, in publishing, in broadcasting, in the press, in politics and in the bureaucracy.
Jochen H—risch, professor for Germanistic and media analysis at the University of Mannheim, made a contribution to Politics of Transformation, through an essay titled Arrest the usual people under suspicion, Sinister Dimensions in the Cases Schwerte/Schneider, de Man, Jau—. In that essay he writes about three left-liberal and much-honoured researchers of literature of the '60s and '70s (Hans Schneider/Schwerte amongst them) who were given international recognition and who, over and above that, shared another terrible aspect: they were Nazi-collaborators or even members of the SS terror-organization. The last two paragraphs of his essay state:
"...Artists are semi-exceptions like Storm and Fontane, B—ll and Lenz may confirm the rule with respect to demands for moral integrity, significantly inferior to the average population. 4 As a rule they are more egotistic, egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant, and ruthless than the likes of us.
In short: the moral integrity of artists and theoreticians is a bonus-achievement that hasn't got anything to do with the internal constitution of their artistic or theoretical works. There is a theory, which well may be frequently viewed with hostility on account of that, because it comprises and expresses this simple insight: the deconstruction. In short: de Man is the theoretician amongst the three literature researchers that were discussed here, who after 1945 didn't pick up anymore on the traditionalist rhetoric of the relationship between the beautiful, truth and good. That makes his writings more interesting and informative than those of Schwerte and Jau—." [p. 195]
The clincher comes in the footnote indicated in the first paragraph of that quote shown above. It should dispel the illusions of anyone who thinks that intellectual prostitution is an aspect of
Academe that existed only during the totalitarian regime of the Nazis. Here is the translation of the footnote:
4 Joachim Walther: "In the Stinking Underground" - The GDR-author Joachim Walther about the total control of the GDR-literature through the Stasi [State Security Service]; in: Der Spiegel 39/1996, p. 231: "The astoundingly high readiness especially by authors to collaborate with the State Security Service can be explained only with the capability of intellectuals to ennoble historic-philosophically even the betrayal of close friends." Of the 123 co-workers of the central management of the GDR-Authors-Association, only 19 were not connected with the Ministry of the State Security Service. 49 had become stoolies for the Stasi, as opposed to 17 who were under surveillance. And again, of the 19 members of the directorate, 12 had sold themselves to the Stasi amongst them, naturally, the Association President Hermann Kant. But the various GDR districts too were under the control of the IM [sic, I assume what is meant by that is the Ministry of the State Security Service; it is not clear whether IM stands for Minister of the Interior or that of the State Security Service, or whether the terms are interchangeable. WHS]: In Halle, 39 authors who were members of the association opposed 14 unofficial co-workers." (K. Welzel: The Literature of the GDR-Turning Point, Siss Mannheim 1997, p. 57).
It should be clear by now that intellectual prostitution of moral integrity and the collaboration of intellectuals with totalitarian regimes or ideologies is far more often the rule than the exception.
However, the intellectuals aren't the only ones with profit motives. For example, just as the SS and German business profited from slave labour during the Third Reich, so today's governments and many other agencies benefit and scavenge from the ruins of our broken families. The largest and growing identifiable group of welfare recipients these days is comprised of single mothers and their children. Child support collections, mostly from disfranchised non-custodial fathers that are just a step away from financial and emotional ruin and suicide, have become big business. The State of Florida spent more than $20 for every $0.05 collected in child arrears in 1998.
Child support payment enforcement schemes are being implemented at a cost of many billions of dollars throughout the world (at last count $2.7 billion in the US alone), with very little evidence to show that these schemes serve any practical purpose other than to make some of the contractors who design, install and operate them very rich. Just as there was no going back for Hitler who almost literally succeeded in his promise to fight until the last bullet, so today's governments are playing their parts in the global war against the family, and fight until the last dollar, mark, or any other currency unit of your choice. Just like Krupp and other industrialists emerged a few years after the war, almost unscathed and stronger than ever before in spite of the terrible destruction in Europe so there'll be some individuals and corporations who'll be at least relatively richer from the planned destruction of our families of human society when the war against the family is over and no more families exist or don't exist any longer in sufficient numbers to fund their own destruction.
Politics of Transformation explores the role of
Academe in the ascent of extremist ideologies, but it offers nothing to explain where the funding for the realization of ideological changes in Germany came from. Radical and extensive changes like that require an enormous amount of funding, especially to bring them about in the span of a mere 15 years through which the Weimar Republic existed from the time of the abdication of the Kaiser at the end of World War I to the power-grab by the Nazis in 1933. For an analysis of the circumstances of the sources of funding for the Nazi Party one has to go to different sources.
An apparently fairly reliable one, citing many sources of pertinent information, is The Arms of Krupp 1587 to 1968 (by William Manchester, Bantam Books, 1970, 1068 pages). It contains a very comprehensive subject index as well as an extensive bibliography. For excerpts from and comments about that book refer to Trusts: men = cannon fodder = big profits (that page contains links to other, more recent sources).
Just as the German industrialists provided generous funding for the cause of the Nazis when the latter needed it, so there is funding today for the cause of the feminists and none for today's opponents to feminism or for any other political organizations, groups, or individuals who don't toe the politically-correct line of the Liberals and feminists alike (it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell them apart). Not only is there no funding for them, but the governments of the world promote the "liberation of women" by making marriage increasingly more of an unattractive proposition for anyone contemplating it or remaining in it.
Punitive taxation is not the least of those tactics and schemes. In Canada, for example, the difference in total net income for families with equal and average gross annual earnings is up to $13,000 in favour of two-income-earner families, caused by tax advantages and child
daycare allowances to which single-income-earner families with two parents have no access. However, the principle of punitive taxation is also being quite liberally applied (pun intended) to religious organizations who find themselves at odds with the Liberal's agenda for the abolishing and altering of traditional Canadian moral standards that leads to the escalating destruction of Canadian families and other traditional social values. In that area too, Canadians have no monopoly.
May 1, 1999, Bruderheim, Canada
- Neutralizing Hostility between the Sexes : Solving the Problem of Domestic Violence with the Bigger Picture
Transcript of speech by Chris Erickson honouring Erin Pizzey at Toronto Mensa's Annual Regional Gathering, October 19, 2002
Feminism and Society As seen through feminists' eyes (and as seen through the eyes of others who still use common sense), a collection of quotes by feminists and about feminists, e. g.: Feminism - Roots in Communism
Wilfried Loth, Bernd-A. Rusinek (Hg.) — Politics of Transformation: NS Elites in the West-German Post-War Society (In German: Verwandlungs-Politic: NS-Eliten in der Westdeutschen Nachkriegs-Gesellschaft; Wilfried Loth, Bernd-A. Rusinek (Hg.); Frankfurt/Main; New York: Campus Verlag; 1998; ISBN 3-593-35994-4) Comments and excerpts (in English)