F E M I N I S M
The whites and especially the white males seem not to need foreign
race or all females for their genocide because the whites do it
Sally M. Gearhart said: The proportion of men must be reduced
and fixed at approximately 10% of the human race. **
A liberal professor has called for genocide, says white
males should commit suicide. **
That liberal professor is white and male.
Do you have any question?
Affirmative action is racism and sexism, the increased
form of racism.
Affirmative action has such results (**|**|**|**).
SCUM means Valerie Solanas manifesto, SCUM
Manifesto. And it's evident what killallmen means.
And if you want to get of the top of racism and sexism, you only
have to observe the white autoracism and male autosexism (the increased
form of autracism), thus the autoracisms and autosexism of the male
whites. Funny? No! Dangerous!
Are antifeminists called afeminists? What do antifeminists
do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism,
so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the feminists.
Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. masculinists)
that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with
the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call
opposition or fighting against. Feminism,
militarism, theism, ... and so on (there is just no end ...) - they
are all part of Hegel's Dialektik, so they develop according to
Hegel's dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.
The logical continuation, culmination, and completion of the so-called
revolutions: French revolution, Communism,
Nationalsocialism, and now the Feminism
as hell on earth.
In comparison to that which follows they always start harmlessly.
(Swedish Extreme Feminists Want To Exterminate All Men).
(Soldiers Want To Kill All Men).
(KILL EM ALL!Feminists Call For 90% Male Population
Reduction In Order To Achieve Global Utopia!).
All these projects end in hell.
Read Valerie Solanas or Sally M Gearharts or other
femninistic books or watch more femninistic
videos. Femninism is the same terrible, horrible totalitarianism
that we have been knowing for so long.
To say that were promo, or satire, or irony
is a bad, mad, evil rhetoric in order to define down and to play
down the reality of that terrible, horrible feminism
(sexism as racism).
Read Valerie Solanas or Sally M Gearharts or other
femninistic books or watch more femninistic
videos. Femninism is the same terrible, horrible totalitarianism
that we have been knowing for so long.
If we do not defend ourselves against that evil development their
dreams will come true: all males will be killed.
Real Woman = what 21st century modernity is attempting
to train and condition all human females to NOT be. **
Real Man = what 21st century modernity is attempting
to train and condition all human males to NOT be.
* Note: 21st century means arithmetically
2000-2099, but historically 1990-.?..; 20th century means
arithmetically 1900-1999, but historically 1914-1989;
19th century means arithmetically 1800-1899, but historically
There are more differences between male and female than you think
- confused by the political correctness. Those differences are very
important when it comes to develop successfully. People who want
to reduce those differences are people who want to reduce humans.
Six situations are possible relating to a mother and her feelings
she holds towards her husband and / or children:
1.) She holds his feelings equally to her husband and to her children.
2.) She holds his feelings more to her children than to her husband.
3.) He holds his feelings only to her children, thus not to her
4.) He holds his feelings more to her husband than to her children.
5.) He holds his feelings only to her husband, thus not to her children.
6.) He holds his feelings neither to her husband nor to her children.
The same applies analogously for a father.
In modern times that normal sequence (1 to 6) stands on its head
(6 to 1).
The so-called feminism does not do anything for female
humans - the reverse is true. If there were no or almost no abortion
the reproduction of the Europeans in the whole world would be exactly
1 (that means ideal because both no growth and no shrinkage). With
the abortion that reproduction is about 0.4. Who benefits from the
abortion? Cui bono?
Feminism is one of the means of controlling human reproduction.
Feminism goes hand in hand with eugenics.
If the government did not use the abortion through feminism for
its own goals or the goals of the global rulers, then it would be
a very ignorant, a very stupid government which is not wanted by
the global rulers.
Feminism is our invention for two reasons. Previously, only
paid half the population taxes, now almost all of them because the
women go to work. In addition, so that the family has been destroyed
and we have thus obtained the power over the children. They are
under our control with our media and get our message drummed, no
longer under the influence of the intact family. By incite women
against men and destroy the partnership and the community of the
family, we have created a broken society of egoists who work, consume,
thus are our slaves and then also find it good. - Nicholas
Feminism was created to destabilize society, tax women and
set up the NWO. - Aaron Russo. **
Feminism is an excellent example of how the global rulers as a
global mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e.
propaganda.) to control society.
See more at:
- http://www.savethemales.ca/001904.html# ... zM83X.dpuf
- http://www.infowars.com/10-ways-true-fe ... er-attack/ **
- http://www.henrymakow.com/200202.html **
- http://www.newmenstime.com/index170-001.html **
Femi-Nazi is the last attempt of dead social-philosophy.
- Newmenstime.cm. **
You are not a feminist? Then you are probably not stupid.
The right to vote, that women got (**)
can also be interpreted as duties. Nicholas Rockefeller said
it, and in that case: he is right.
The truth is that they were and are not able to do that donkey
work that men did and partly still do. Most part of this work
has been becoming a work of machines, and in future it will be not
only most but probably all of this male work and perhaps even of
all human work (**|**|**|**).
I estimate that the probability that machines replace all humans
is about 80% (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**).
Hard work is the work of male humans, oxen, horses, and - of course
- machines. Machine work has replaced oxen work, horse work, and
most of the typical male human work. If it had not, then there would
still be more male work than female work. We have more female work
than male work because of the fact that male work is almost completely
replaced by machine work.
Feminism uses equality as an excuse to bring power to their
Yes, and the result is that the unequality is greater than before
because this group has got more power. Feminism as an egalitarianistic
group is like communism, socialism, thus: egalitarianism . They
all use equaliy as an excuse to get power. Feminism as an inegalitarianistic
group is like fascism. Both use inequality and have less success
than the egalitarianistic groups. The egalitarianistic groups have
much more success because they lie much more. Lies, hypocrisies,
victimology or victimism are the best and safest tools or means
in order to get and to keep success and power.
Women are and should be different from men, and men are and should
be different from women. They are and should be different in order
to prevent the extinction of homo sapiens.
The need of the difference between males and females is to prevent
the extinction of homo sapiens.
And the free will is merely a relatively free will.
If humans will not have any difference, they will either create
differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able
to win any fight.
In the following animation the different one is not an human but an
If sex and gender belong together, then: A person's sex
is not assigned at birth but long, long, long time before the birth.
A person's gender ... doesn't fit is as long nonsense
or even a lie as this person has the same sex that he/she had long
time before birth. A person's hormone therapy does not
change the sex of this person. This person merely thinks that his/her
role does not fit and perhaps wants to change this role. That's
all. This person can do it; so there is no problem at all. If you
are a man and want to behave like a woman: okay, just do it! But
your sex can merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs
in order to get the new (female) sexual organs. If you are a woman
and want to behave like a man: okay, just do it! But your sex can
merely change, if you eliminate your sexual organs in order to get
the new (male) sexual organs. But this is what 99.99% of this male-female
and female-male persons do not want.
There are many aspects which refer to the human reproduction: biological
differentiation (for example: pregnancy), other differentiations,
for example in the sense of specialisation or division of labor
(for example: homework versus other works, gathering versus hunting,
... and so on ....), ... and so on ....
The evolution of the human beings implies the differentiations
/ specialisations. If there had not been such a specialisation,
there would never have been any human being.
When these human differentiations / specialisations will vanish,
then the human beings will vanish. That's clear.
Males and females should be different in order to prevent the extinction
of homo sapiens. Without their differentiations / specialisations
they would never have become humans and will never survive.
Is the difference between sex and gender already
completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind
the word gender?Gender is a word
of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.
Gender is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy,
I mean that we need merely one word for it. What
counts the most in this case are the biological facts, because biology
is the begin and end of life. If a male wants to be a female, then
he can go to a surgeon who changes his male sexual organs into female
sexual organs; if a female wants to be a male, then she can go to
a surgeon who changes her sexual organs into male sexual organs
. If a male wants to behave like a female, then he can do it and
is called a gay; if a female wants to behave like a
male, then she can do it and is called a lesbian. So
there is no problem at all.
Or are you of the opinion that we should worship them?
Which of the fwo words was the first one in the English language:
sex or gender?
One word is used in a biological (especially: physiological)
sense, the other word is used in a psychological/sociological (especially:
Politicians and media folks create a problem in order to
manage this problem, thus to control the people according
to the slogan divide and rule (divide and conquer).
Obfuscating differences is also a huge problem, but in the case
we are talking aboout the problems are invented, produced,
created in order to manage them, and to manage them
means to control people.
At first it is said that there are many problems because of diffenrences,
then it is said there should be no difference and therefore i.e.
gender mainstreaming must be established.
The differnce between sex and gender is
not comparable with differences like left and right,
up and down, and other opposite relationships,
because there is no opposite relationship, and there is no difference
but the difference between biology/physiology and politcs/media.
The meaning has been another one than today. All Englsih speakers
have used the word gender in a different sense than
it should be used according to the current politicians and media
folks. Since politicians and media folks dictate the gender
mainstreaming the English speakers have to - and most of them
do (!) - use the word gender in a different sense than
So it's not me who wants to steal your word gender,
but it's the rulership that has already stolen it, at least it original
meaning.The control is the main problem.
The rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled
need the lie in order to not tbe pushed over the edge. The truth
is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth
in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if
yes, when they will fully overcome the lie.
»All problems in the West are due to males .. especially
white males. Thus soon there shall be none. All problems in the
East can be resolved by not having so many females. Together they
will eternally chase each other.« (**).
You mean that the survived white females and the survived non-white
males will eternally chase each other?
I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of
a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally
the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological
basis too, and this basis is most important.
The pro-immigration activists and women's right activists contradict
each other, because the immigrants rape women wherever it is possible.
The current situation is that 99% of all humans lose; so: when
99% of all humans lose, all women lose!
Feminism is merely another means for the 1% of the humans to become
richer and richer, thus more and more thus more and more powerful
(mighty), whereas the other 99% become poorer and poorer, thus less
and less powerful (mighty).
I am sure that feminsm is against
women. Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from feminism
were and are men, and those few women who also
benefitted and benefit from feminism were and are mostly masculinized,
thus no real women. You may compare feminism and its
women with the so-called communistic socialism and its
so-called proletariat. This communistic proletariat
did never have any power, at least less power than in the societies
of the so-called class enemy, the so-called capitalism.
Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from communistic
socialism were and are no proletarians, and those few proletarians
who also benefitted and benefit from communistic socialism were
and are mostly sponsored, thus no real proletarians.
The communistic oppressors of the proletarians merely want the
proletarians to work for them and to love them as their good leaders.
You can find the same situation on the feministic side. The feministic
oppressors of the women merely want the women to work for them and
to love them as their good leaders. Both communism (communistic
socialism) and feminism (also genderism and similar isms) are merely
different versions of the same totalitarianism. The goal of this
totalitarianism is the total control of its people (about 99% of
all humans) by several means (divide et imperea, panem et circenses,
cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism,
fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail,
extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so
on); so dysgenics is one of them.
Moreover: machines are cheaper than humans; so - sooner or later
- humans will not be needed anymore.
Feminism is the means that makes the control much easier.
Feminism is just one (but a very efficient one!) of the isms, and
isms are ideologies. .... One should know the purpose(s) or goal(s)
of ideologies. Feminism, sexism, genderism function like all other
isms: a very few people ascend from the upper to the middle class,
if there is one, but most people descend either from the middle
class to the lower class or within the poorer becoming lower class
to those who have nothing to eat, whereas the very few of the upper
class become richer and richer, thus more powerful and more powerful.
So feminism, sexism, genderism - like all other isms - serve the
rulers and obey the orders of the rulers who want to become richer,
thus more powerful than they already are.
Maybe the following chart can illustrate the prospective
ratio of the TFR and the GDP per capita:
The poor people in Occidental countries and almost all people in
Non-Occidental countries are obviously not much or even not at all
influenced by feminism. So poorness and feminism seem to be mutually
exclusive, whwereas relative richness (richness of the middle class)
and feminism seem to not be mutually exclusive.
If you are poor or economically supported by a social state (see
also my text below), then you have enough time to reproduce yourself.
If you always work and make a career all day long, then you have
not much time to reproduce yourself. If you are rich, then you can
choose whether you are industrious (diligent, hardworking, busy)
or lazy, so also being rich in spite of having much time can but
does not have to mean the lack of reproduction, because reproduction
depends on the interest in it. So most of those who have no or almost
no offspring are those who are very industrious (hardworking and
making a career all day long). Who are very industrious (diligent,
hardworking, busy) and very career driven? .... Of course: the occidental
humans. That is why they can be found at the bottom on the right
in the respective chart (**).
It is not merely industriousness (industry, diligence, smartness,
business acumen) that works against the reproduction and especially
against the interest of reproduction; it is also, for example, feminism
(including sexism, genderism). Isms are modern ideologies, and almost
all modern ideologies are based on main modern ideologies like cynicism
and techno-creditsm (formerly known as capitalism) that
are based on the machine revolution (formerly known as industrial
revolution). The machine revolution did not cause the first
cynics (cynics are much older) but cynicism (cyn[ic]ism) in combination
with the techno-creditism, which both led to all other isms we had,
have, and will have for a while. (Please note the suffix ism!)
So the machine revolution caused what we can call occidental
moderinity in the narrow sense of the word, and - insofar
as reproduction is concerned - modernity means a shrinking interest
in reproduction. Feminism is just one of the great many cultural
consequences of a great technical invention (which is certainly
based on cultural skills, by the way). We should not overestimate
but also not underestimate all this isms.
So the interest in reproduction can be influenced by many
Without feminism the European numbers of the birthrates would be
optimal (about 2,13 children per woman), but in reality they are
suboptimal, disastrous: very much too low. In Europe very much too
low, in the so-called Third World very much too high.
These they are only a few, and they are men. A few
men have won that game.
The winner have always been a few - a few men.
Have the citizens won? No.
Have the workers as the proletarians won? No.
Have the women won? No.
A woman needs to re-learn what it means to be a woman again ...,
and the rest will follow.
It would not make much sense, if only men re-learned
what it means to be a man again or if only woman re-learned
what it means to be a woman again. If both sexes did this, then
(and only then) the re-learning would be successful.
But there is another problem: Those who are powerful do not
want men and women to re-learn what it means to be a
man and a woman. They rather want the Eloi.
Both human sexes will either re-learn or become the
What about the islamic world where the sexes are segregated
and men protect their women (as it was in the western world
too before all this modern civil revolutions occurred)
- would that be an option?
The reasons for the non-sex-segregation, feminism, genderism, ....
(and so on and so forth) are not only the sexes themselves but also
and especially the interest in the human resources.
If the societies of the west do not stop using the human resources
like a common property, then the Tragedy of the Commons will
go on and lead to the death of that societies.
The meaning of feminism has not to do with females but with female
work, which means the replacement of expensive male work by cheap
female work. If you compare feminism and immigration with the machine
revolution we have been experiencing since the last third of the
18th century, then you will see that both feminism and Immigration
have the same economical and demographical function as the machines
have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers by cheap workers,
destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus destroying the occidental
families and reducing the occidental birthrates.
Maybe we should or we should not tolerate this till the castrophe,
the great chaos.
The meaning of feminism has not to do with females as such but
with cheap wages, which means the replacement of expensive male
work by cheap female work. If you compare feminism and immigration
with the machine revolution we have been experiencing since the
last third of the 18th century, then you will see that both feminism
and Immigration have the same economical and demographical function
as the machines have: replacing the espensive occidental male workers
by cheap workers, destroying the occidental patriarchalism, thus
destroying the occidental families and reducing the occidental birthrates.
Feminism is a product of the Occidental culture, whereas islamism
is a product of the Arabic/Islamic culture. Although they contradict
each other, they can and do, as we can currently experience in Europe,
also complement each other (unfortunately).
Both are totalitarian, but totalitarianism is a product of the
Occidental culture too. So islamism in a reaction to many Occidental
phenomena is not only their contradiction but also their antithesis
in the meaning of Hegels dialectic. Thus islamism has indeed
become a part of the Occidental historical process.
And (because of: Cui bono?): Are globalists Hegelians (namely
both Left-Hegelians and Right-Hegelians)?
Are feminism and islamism compatible?
»In Sweden at first I was appalled by all the rapes
of us Swedish women especially as a feminist but later I discovered
that these rapes are justified in that it makes up for the white
guilt of us Swedes where possibly it might be morally justified
on the part of Muslim men. Now I've converted to Islam and wear
a Hijab everyday. Everyday is a real struggle reconciling my western
feminist beliefs with Islam but slowly I am being able to. Down
with the sexist white Christian Swedish patriarchy! Allah Akbar!«
). The one who said that seems to make money (thus: to get recognition
and power) out of that politically correct text or/and to suffer
from the Stockholm syndrome. Another politically correct text with
the following question as its title: Why are there high rape
crimes in Sweden, Norway and Denmark compared to the rest of the
One of the politically incorrect and thus forbidden questions is:
Why are Vikings no longer allowed to be Vikings?
Feminism is another religion of hate, a modern religion
of hate and other modern and ancient religions of hate threaten
an ancient religion of love (that has more than 2 billion believers
and a whole culture (of about 1 billion people). This threat is
part of what Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) predicted and called Farbige
Weltrevolution (Colored World Revolution).
Do not forget that feminism does not automatically stand for all
women. Moreover: not all feminists are women, and not all women
But what about Islamism? For what does Islamism not automatically
stand? Moreover: are not all Islamists Musllims, and are not all
In this case we probably have to adjudicate on both islamism and
feminism in the same manner.
The more globalism - materialism in the sense of both techno-creditism
(formerly known as capitalism) and socialism (formerly known as
communism) - expands, the more forms of reaction and resistance
it gets until the great chaos. Feminism and Islamism are religious
ism examples for those forms of reaction and resistance.
I would like to know what you think about the following videos
- »Feminism was Created to Destabilize Society, Tax
Women and Set Up the NWO.« - Aaron Russo. **
(Full interview: **)
- »Feminism is a Terrorist Organization.« - Erin
Henry Makow wrote:
People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination
because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.
Henry Makow wrote:
The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which
interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include
depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role
of providers also destabilizes the family. **
Write me your thoughts into my guestbook.
If feminism weakens the West for Islamic conquest (**),
we have also to mention that Islamism weakens the West for Islamic
conquest, because its terrorism weakens the West, at least currently.
There is still no real Western resistance to Islamism. There is
more and more Western weakness. And furthermore: there is also much
Western conversion to Islam, especially to Islamism.
So if both feminism and Islamism weaken the West, then they are
strategically compatible for those who benefit from this
development, because actually feminism and Islamism are not
Europeans find themselves in a dilemma. If they refuse feminism,
they (actively or passively) support Islamism; if they refuse Islamism,
they (actively or passively) support feminism; and if they refuse
both, they are suspected of being both islamophobic racists and
misogynistic sexists - regardless of the fact that it is almost
always known that they are neither islamophobic racists nor misogynistic
sexists. This is how Globalism works, because Globalism is much
more socialistic than market based. The Globalistic socialism is
an anti-national-socialism resp. inter-national-socialism (as long
as nations are needed, because nations shall disappear in the medium
to long term).
If one has no chance of getting out of the feminism/islamism dilemma,
then this means, at least to those who control this dilemma, that
feminism and islamism are compatible, at least temporarily.
Females are no longer required for the reproduction then. It will
become more factual / practical than it is today (technically it
is already possible).
There is still a huge interest in feminism (comparable with all
kinds of socialism). If feminism get's lost, a certain power get's
lost too, albeit this power is not and has never been a female power.
The so-called values can be used/misused by almost
everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation
can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists.
Think of the current leftist dictatorship of political correctness
which requires from the children to think and say, for example,
that non-whites are good and or even because whites
are evil, that it is everyones responsibility
and honesty to think and say this over and over again,
also to do this in cooperation over and over again.