Feminism: A Jewish War on Femininity – Andrew Anglin

Through Feminism, the Jew attacks the core, primal identity of the female, weakening society by disallowing women to be who and what they are: caregivers.  Through Feminism, the Jew 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 Jews 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 Jewish 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, the Jews were able to garnish wide support for this insane assertion.  The Jewish 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 Jews, 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.

Filipina women are not susceptible to Jew feminism: "I'm sorry sir, we are very busy holding babies and cooking noodles.  Please do not ask us our opinions on politics."
Filipina women are not susceptible to Jew feminism: “I’m sorry sir, we are very busy holding babies and cooking noodles. Please do not ask us for our opinions on politics.”

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.”

The Jew has preyed on the weakness of the woman, and drawn her into his sickening game.
The filthy Jew has preyed on the weakness of the White woman, and drawn her into his sickening game.

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.

What the Jew has Done to Her

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.

Simone de Beauvoir conceived her attacks on the female sex while fornicating with enemy Jew Nelson Algren.
Simone de Beauvoir conceived her attacks on the female sex while fornicating with enemy Jew Nelson Algren.

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 Jewish sources, including Freud and Marx.

At the time she wrote the book, she was having an affair with the Jew novelist Nelson Algren.  Many Jews 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 and Jew-lover (possible crypto) Jean-Paul Sartre, was having an affair with his adopted daughter, an Algerian Jewess named Arlette Elkaïm, while de Beauvior was sleeping with Algren.

Betty Friedan and the Dawn of Jew Feminism in America

The Jewish plot to destroy the western female really picked up speed in the chaos of the 1960s.  Jew 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.”

Enemy Jew Betty Friedan was said by her fighting comrade, the Jew Alvin Toffler, to have "pulled the trigger on history."
Enemy Jew Betty Friedan was said by her fighting comrade, the Jew Alvin Toffler, to have “pulled the trigger on history.”

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 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 Jewess Betty Friedan laid out a blueprint for the collapse of the ancient European social order.  The weird Jewish 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.”

Enemy Jew baby-killer Bernard Nathanson founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws with a bunch of other Jews.
Enemy Jew baby-killer Bernard Nathanson founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws with Betty Friedan. The Jewish modern Jewish obsession with promoting abortion among their host populations definitely puts the historical allegations of Jewish ritual baby sacrifice in context.

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 Jewish 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 October 2006, the used up commie Jew slut Gloria Steinem, in her Ms. Magazine publication, printed the names of  5000 women who were proud they had abortions, putting her own name on the list.
In October 2006, the used up commie Jew slut Gloria Steinem, in her Ms. Magazine publication, printed the names of 5000 women who were proud they had abortions, putting her own name on the list.

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 Jewish-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 that the Jew 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.

Jew Robin Morgan, an editor of Ms. Magazine, had her 1970 feminist anthology Sisterhood is Powerful
Enemy Jew 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 Jewish 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 Jewish 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?

Conculsion

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 favor 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 endeavors.

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.

Source: Total Fascism

  • Brilliant article Andrew. Would you be kind enough to permit me to publish this on my website? http://www.europeanknightsproject.org
    Sincerely,
    Gio

  • John

    Excellent article..

  • Boersniper

    What an excellent article reflecting the “attack” on family values. This diabolical thrust from Zionists is actually felt in western societies, eliminate the family, and thereby destroying the potential for birthing educated, strong, dedicated, and nationalistic future leaders that would set their nations free from the yoke of Zionist oppression.

    We have and is currently experiencing this in South Africa – women must occupy majority of “management” positions in government & also in private companies. We regularly hear & read of the libtart / Zionist wailing about the “injustices” practised against women.

  • JP

    Still feel the same about Anglin and how he views women, EndofZion?

    • EndZion

      Yes I agree with his views on women.

      I take it you don’t?

      • JP

        Nope. Another pro-White site off my list.

      • Daisy

        His views that they are all “sluts”? Those views?

  • SpinSpear

    WOW!!!
    This is excellent article produced by the knowledgeable, intelligent and open-minded human being. I’ve first hand experience with the Judeo-Communist-lesbian-feminist totality in Eastern Europe and the above narration brings back the unhappy memories. I was young at that time, and had not fully understood the older men that insisted that the socialist system and even the Judeo-Communist system wouldn’t be so bad, if it won’t be screwed by the greedy Jews and wicked women. Now, I’m 72 and the current Judeo-lesbian-feminist totality in the United States is a painful déjà vu to me.

    IT IS MY OPINION THAT MEN AND WOMEN ARE TWO MOST PRODUCTIVE BUT ALSO MOST DESTRUCTIVE SPECIES WALKING ON THIS PLANET. WHY WE ARE HERE, AND HOW WE GET THERE IS THE AGE-LONG SUBJECT OF MANY SPECULATIONS AND RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS OFTEN CAUSING THE MOST BLOODY WARS.
    BUT IT IS IRREFUTABLE THAT WOMEN NEVER BEEN A PROGRESSIVE BUT ALWAYS REGRESSIVE FORCE NEEDING PROTECTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY NURSE CHILDREN. THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY, WHENEVER THEY CAME TO POWER THEIR REGENCY NEVER LASTED TOO LONG, AND ALWAYS MARKED THE END OF THEIR KINGDOM, EMPIRE, AND EVEN ENTIRE CIVILIZATION. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE CRASH ALMOST NEVER HAPPEN DURING THEIR REGIME, BUT SHORTLY AFTER. TO THESE DAYS, HISTORIANS COULDN’T COME TO THE CONSENT WHETHER WERE THE WOMEN WHO RAN THEIR DOMAINS DOWN, OR WHETHER THEY CAME TO POWER DUE TO GENERAL DECAY AND THERE WAS NOT MUCH LEFT FOR THEM TO SCREW.
    HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE EGYPTIAN, EUROPEAN AND CHINESE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WOMEN TYPICALLY CAME TO POWER DUE TO GENERAL CORRUPTION STEAMING FROM THE PREVIOUS RULER(S) INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE MALE HEIR. THEN, THE RULING WOMEN GAVE THE FULL EAR TO THE FALSE BUT GOOD SMELLING AND SMOOTHLY SPEAKING ADVISERS, OVEREXTENDED ALL POSSIBLE RESOURCES AND THUS SET THE STAGE FOR POPULAR UNREST. ON TOP OF THAT, THEY MADE SURE THAT THEIR SUCCESSOR WOULD BE EITHER THEIR INCOMPETENT SOON OR NEPHEW, OR SOME OTHER GOOD LOOKING AND SMELLING RELATIVE THAT WOULD SATISFY THEIR FEMININE VIEWS AND PHILOSOPHIES. SINCE THE PLANET EARTH WAS NEVER A PEACEFUL PLACE, THERE ALWAYS WAS A NEIGHBORING KING, SULTAN, OR EMPEROR READY TO EXPLORE THE RESULTING WEAKNESSES. NOW, SINCE THE CURRENT JUDEO-LESBIAN-FEMINIST TOTALITY LEADING TO THE REINVENTION OF THE EVER-CRASHING MATRIARCHY COVERS THE ENTIRE WESTERN HEMISPHERE, WE ARE YET TO SEE HOW IT WOULD END AT THIS TIME.

    AMERICAN FEMINISTS PROUDLY CLAIM THE CREDIT FOR ENACTING OF GREAT NUMBER OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS AND OTHER OPPRESSIVE LAWS.  IN FACT, THEY BECAME THE LAW, JUDGE, AND JURY, AND ON THEIR PHONE-CALL THE JACKBOOTED COMMANDO IS ALWAYS READY TO INVADE INTO THEIR HOME AND ON THEIR BEHALF SHOOT TO DEATH THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. REGARDLESS OF THE MONSTROSITY OF AMERICAN JUDEO-LESBIAN-FEMINIST TOTALITY, THEY FELL FAR BEHIND THE EUROPEAN AND RUSSIAN FEMINISTS THAT SHAPED THEMSELVES DURING THE OUTBURST OF EUROPEAN QUEENS AND CZARINAS IN RUSSIA. THEIR FEEBLEMINDED RULES EVENTUALLY LED TO THE WW I, AND CONSEQUENTLY WWII. THEN, THEY BECOME THE BACKBONE FOR JUDEO-COMMUNIST AS WELL AS JUDEO-CAPITALIST GOVERNMENTS THROUGHOUT THE EUROPE AND FROM THERE SPREAD TO THE OTHER COUNTRIES.
    FEMINIST GOALS AND OPPOSITION TO FEMINISM IN THE PRE-WWII EUROPE IS PERHAPS BEST ILLUSTRATED BY TWO FOLLOWING SPEECHES PUBLISHED IN THE TEXTBOOK WESTERN HERITAGE, 5TH EDITION, PAGE 1006 AND 1054, USED IN AMERICAN COLLEGES. THE FIRST CITED PHILOSOPHY WAS WIDELY ADOPTED BY THE FEMINISTS IN EASTERN EUROPE, AND TO MY PAINFUL AMAZEMENT IS IDENTICAL TO THE PHILOSOPHY EMBRACED BY THE AMERICAN FEMINISTS. 

    Communist Women Demand a New Family Life

    Western Heritage Editorial Comment:  While Lenin sought to consolidate the Bolshevik revolution against internal and external enemies, there existed within the young Soviet Union a vast utopian impulse to change and reform virtually eve social institution that had existed before the revolution or that was associated in the Communists minds with capitalist society.
    Alexandra Kollontai (1872—1952) was a spokesperson of the political left within the early Soviet Union. In Communist circles, there had been much speculation on how the end of bourgeois society might change the structure of the family and the position of women.  In the following passage written in 1920, Kollontai states the visions of this change. During the years immediately after the revolution, rumors circulated in both Europe and America about sexual and family experimentation in the Soviet Union.  Statements such as this fostered such rumors.  Kollontai herself later became a supporter of Stalin and a Soviet diplomat. 

    Here is what Kollontai said:  There is no escaping the fact: the old type of family has seen its day. It is not the fault of the Communist State, it is the result of the changed conditions of life. The family is ceasing to be a necessity of the State, as it was in the past; on the contrary, it is worse than useless, since it needlessly holds back the female workers from more productive and far more serious work….But on the ruins of the former family we shall soon see a new form rising which will involve altogether different relations between men and women, and which will be a union of affection and comradeship, a union of two equal members of the Communist society, both of them free, both of them independent, both of them workers. No more domestic “servitude” of women. No more inequality within the family. No more fear on the part of the woman lest she remain without support or aid with little ones in her arms if her husband should desert her. The woman in the Communist city no longer depends on her husband but on her work. It is not her husband but her robust arms which will support her. There will be no more anxiety as to the fate of her children. The State of the Workers will assume responsibly for these. Marriage will be purified of all its material elements, of all money calculations, which constitute a hideous blemish on family life in our days….
    The woman who is called upon to struggle in the great cause of the liberation of the workers—such a woman should know that in the new State there will be no more room for such petty divisions as were formerly under stood: “These are my own children, to them I owe all my maternal solicitude, all my affection; those are your children, my neighbor’s children; I am not concerned with them. I have enough to do with my own.” Henceforth the worker-mother, who is conscious of her social function, will rise to a point where she no longer differentiates between yours and mine; she must remember that there are henceforth only our children, those of the Communist State, the common possession of all the workers.
    The Worker’s State has need of a new form of relation between the sexes. The narrow and exclusive affection of the mother for her own children must expand until it embraces all the children of the great proletarian family. In place of the indissoluble marriage based on the servitude of woman, we shall see rise the free union, fortified by the love and mutual respect of the two members of the Workers’ State, equal in their rights and in their obligations. In place of the individual and egotistic family there will arise a great universal family of workers, in which all the workers, men and women, will be, above all, workers, comrades.
    Alexandra Kollontai, Communism and the Family, as reprinted in Rudolf Schlesinger, ed. and trans., The Family in the USSR (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949), pp. 67—69.

    * * *

    Hitler Rejects the Emancipation of Women

    Western Heritage Editorial Comment:  According to the Nazi ideology, women are indispensable for producing and rearing of children and for supporting of their husbands in their homes.  In this speech, Hitler urges this view on the role of women. He uses anti-Semitism to discredit those writers who had urged the emancipation of women from their traditional roles and occupations. Hitler returns here to the ‘separate spheres” concept of the relationship of men and women. His traditional view of women was directed against contrary views that were associated with the Soviet experiment during the interwar years. This Nazi outlook on women and the family should be contrasted with the view set forth by the young Bolshevik Alexandra Kollontai.

    Here is what Hitler says:  The slogan “Emancipation of women” was invented by Jewish intellectuals and its content was formed by the same spirit. In the really good times of German life the German woman had no need to emancipate herself. She possessed exactly what nature had necessarily given her to administer and preserve just as the man in his good times had no need to fear that he would be ousted from his position in relation to the woman….
    If the man’s world is said to be the State, his struggle, his readiness to devote his powers to the service of the community, then it may perhaps be said that the woman’s is a smaller world. For her world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home. But what would become of the greater world if there were no one to tend and care for the smaller one? How could the greater world survive if there were no one to make the cares of the smaller world the content of their lives? No, the greater world is built on the foundation of this smaller world. This great world cannot survive if the smaller world is not stable. Providence has entrusted to the woman the cares of that world which is her very own, and only on the basis of this smaller world can the man’s world be formed and built up. The two worlds are not antagonistic. They complement each other, they belong together just as man and woman belong together.
    We do not consider it correct for the woman to interfere in the world of the man, in his main sphere. We consider it natural if these two worlds remain distinct. To the one belongs the strength of feeling, the strength of the soul. To the other belongs the strength of vision, of toughness, of decision, and of the willingness to act. In the one case this strength demands the willingness of the woman to risk her life to preserve this important cell and to multiply it, and in the other case it demands from the man the readiness to safeguard life.
    The sacrifices which the man makes in the struggle of his nation, the woman makes in the preservation of that nation in individual cases. What the man gives in courage on the battle field, the woman gives in eternal self-sacrifice, in eternal pain and suffering. Every child that a woman brings into the world is a battle, a battle waged for the existence of her people….
    So our women’s movement is for us not something which inscribes on its banner as its programme the fight against men, but something which has as its programme the common fight together with men. For the new National Socialist national community acquires a firm basis precisely because we have gained the trust of millions of women as fanatical fellow-combatants, women who have fought for the common task of preserving life….
    Whereas previously the programmes of the liberal, intellectualist women’s movements contained many points, the programme of our National Socialist Women’s movement has in reality but one single point, and that point is the child, that tiny creature which must be born and grow strong and which alone gives meaning to the whole 1ife-strugle.
    J. Noakes and C. Pridham, eds., Nazism, 1919—1945, vol. 2, State, Economy and Society 1933—39: A Documentary Reader, Exeter Studies in History No. 8 (Exeter: University of Exeter, 1984), pp. 449—450.

    Alexandra Kollontai was a model for Eastern European women, and the excerpts intend to contrast two opposite social trends that continue to resonate in our time. 

  • Pingback: Mullticultural Treason: Dark Heathen Race Mixing, Pagan Theft & Indoctrination of White Protestant America. | Economic & Multicultural Terrorism()

  • Kolet OKwn

    Amazing article. I agree with every word. Thank you Andrew Anglin. And thank you “the End of Zion” for posting.

  • ryu238

    “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 Jews, 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.” Except this is wrong: http://othersociologist.com/sociology-of-gender/
    So it’s possible that you ignore the evidence when convenient.
    “Enemy Jew baby-killer Bernard Nathanson founded the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws with Betty Friedan. The Jewish modern Jewish obsession with promoting abortion among their host populations definitely puts the historical allegations of Jewish ritual baby sacrifice in context.” Christianity killed babies as well: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiElO-AmvjKAhVFeD4KHT20C4MQFghPMA0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patheos.com%2Fblogs%2Ffriendlyatheist%2F2015%2F10%2F14%2Ffaith-healing-child-killing-christian-parents-will-finally-go-to-prison%2F&usg=AFQjCNEotqKyx-6pg6dDJ57JpkRYA8q35w
    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=17&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiElO-AmvjKAhVFeD4KHT20C4MQFghYMBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2015%2F10%2F14%2Fchurch-s-faith-healing-killed-this-baby.html&usg=AFQjCNGOxiDjkBcCZp0bIS4myfaoAO1blQ
    Likewise abortions happen most often when the baby isn’t alive by any scientific measurement:

    “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). ” well I agree first wave was positive.
    “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.” Ah no. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiDo5Xqm_jKAhUCGT4KHYHAAM8QFgghMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tandfonline.com%2Fdoi%2Fabs%2F10.1300%2FJ056v18n02_04&usg=AFQjCNFDeKcL4KABR0o8Ox7jWPCm6vk77Q
    Besides, heterosexual reproduction is not efficient at all. http://homoresponse.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/calculation.html

    Also you lump all feminists into the same bunch in spite of difference: http://revisesociology.com/2015/11/28/the-liberal-feminist-perspective-on-the-family/

    • Paul Chach Mcarthy

      That’s because all feminism was spearheaded by the same small group of people, organised jewry.

  • Volkan B
  • Pingback: The Truth About Feminism & Legal Marriage – Hitler Was Right!()

  • Paul Chach Mcarthy

    Excellent article. All along, the true fascists, were the Organised Jewry. Wow, how could we all have been so blind?

  • Pingback: Jewish corrupters of White women and girls | Smoloko()

  • orthotox

    Many good ideas here but a few misnomers: “the fallout of Western civilization.” What does that mean?
    and, “ostensibly not a Jew herself’ ditto.
    Any discussion of feminism is inadequate that fails to factor in its necessary links to statism and mass immigration. By diluting and confusing the predominant stock (Whites) the feminists-cum-statists have been able to stymie any concerted resistance to their program. Whites’ objections to their genetic elimination now inevitably gets tarred as “racist” because the actual numbers of people living in Western nations is not going down but is indeed rising due to foreign influx. Thus the only way of breaking out of the left’s stranglehold is out-and-out racial self-assertion, something no white politician dares to even contemplate – so far!

  • Mousey

    My first experience with this line of thought. I’m not quite sure what to make of it.

  • Pingback: THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN WOMENHOOD – Smoloko()

  • Great piece…I hope you update…