Women Then and Now

The problem with feminism, I think the principal problem, is the cultivation of an attitude of victimization. Feminism tries to make women believe they are victims of an oppressive, male-dominated, patriarchal society. They wake up in the morning with a chip on their shoulder.” – Phyllis Schlafly

What I’ll write today will offend feminists; and I’m ok with that. The lyrics “if I offended you, you needed it” come to mind. Sometimes we need to be jarred awake before we realize we’re wrong. Awakening must happen before change can occur.

55555unnamed (1)

To commemorate International Women’s Day, I offer this blunt rebuke of feminists everywhere. I seek to compare what society was like before “Women’s Liberation” and after. It will be obvious by the end of this comparison that “Women’s Liberation” means world subjugation.

Feminism is a diseased mindset. It is a philosophy of perversion, selfishness, and rebellion that is eroding civilization by undermining its basic unit – the patriarchal family. But before we deal directly with feminism and the havoc it has wrought, let’s examine life before women decided to deny their nature, rebel against God’s laws, and destroy society in their quest for so-called “equality.”

Before the advent of Marxist-inspired feminism, women were treated like queens and womanhood was highly cherished. It is one of the great feminist myths that before feminism women were chattel; mere property of oppressive men. Feminists deride their ancestors by calling them “domestic servants” or “doormats.” What Marxist-minded women see as “oppression,” however, was authentic Liberty. The stark reality is that women in the past were freer, happier, and more powerful than their modern counterparts.

From the beginning of time, God designated women as wives, homemakers, and mothers. They were to submit to their husbands as their husbands submitted to God. They were to be “help meets” to their husbands, bear and raise children, and provide a loving atmosphere for growth, service, and character-building in the home. A woman’s calling, when properly understood, is the highest and holiest calling.

With this scriptural comprehension of a woman’s role and mission in mind, it is perfectly understandable that women were expected by past societies to embrace wifehood and motherhood. All of society was predicated upon the idea of the traditional home, in which the woman played a decisive role.

The Christian philosopher and author C.S. Lewis wrote in 1955 of the overarching importance of a woman’s role. His statement captures the high regard in which former societies held women. He wrote to a Mrs. Johnson the following:

[A] housewife’s work . . . is surely, in reality, the most important work in the world. What do ships, railways, mines, cars, government etc exist for except that people may be fed, warmed, and safe in their own homes? As Dr Johnson said, ‘To be happy at home is the end of all human endeavour’. (1st to be happy, to prepare for being happy in our own real Home hereafter: 2nd, in the meantime, to be happy in our houses.) We wage war in order to have peace, we work in order to have leisure, we produce food in order to eat it. So your job is the one for which all others exist.”

mother28

This was the attitude that men and women in the pre-feminist world shared. They knew that the woman’s role was central not only to the smooth flow of society, but to the very continuance of the species. Men cherished women and women embraced their nature.

Authors Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly wrote in their phenomenal book The Flipside of Feminism, from which I will quote generously in this article, that far from being oppressed, American women have been the most blessed class of people on planet earth. They wrote of the power women possessed in the past:

Women of yesteryear had enormous power, just of a different variety. Today when we talk about power, we’re referring to money and status. That makes sense, for this kind of power reflects modern values. In the past, when marriage and family took center stage, women were exalted on the home front. Husbands deferred to wives on virtually all household matters, including child rearing. Women were revered for their unique sensibilities” (Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say, 89).

These two ladies further reasoned in this way:

Despite the failures of the feminist movement, it did have one powerful effect: it eradicated the power women once had over men! Before the 1960s, Americans understood that women had something men wanted, needed, and couldn’t have without a woman’s consent: sex and his own children. By equating sex with love, as women naturally do, men become better human beings – and society is better for it. “Without a durable relationship with a woman, a man’s sexual life is a series of brief and temporary exchanges. With love, sex becomes refined by selectivity. The man himself is refined, and his sexuality becomes not a mere impulse but a commitment in society, wrote George Gilder in Men and Marriage.

Now that feminism has eliminated men’s need and desire to marry, the relationship between the sexes is unstable” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 76-77).

proud-women-thenwomen-now-men-thenmen-now-society-then-society-47908992

In former times, women held much power. As Venker and Schlafly note, however, it was of a different variety. The sphere in which women held so much sway was the most important sphere of all – the home. While men are appointed by Almighty God to be the patriarchs and heads of their homes and to take the lead in providing the necessities of life, in Gospel study, in discipline, in home defense, and so forth, women are the beating heart that keeps a family vibrant and thriving. Their tender influence is vital.

A virtuous woman who could keep house and raise orderly, respectful children was treasured and sought after by honorable men. Honorable men throughout all of human history have fought mightily to defend good women. Disney’s Mulan, though an overtly feminist tale, shared a great truth when the soldiers sang: “What do we want? A girl worth fighting for!” Women have traditionally been so highly valued that men of all races, creeds, and nations have voluntarily laid down their lives by the millions to keep them safe – and more so when they bore and cared for their children.

Our ancestors were far more committed to the doctrines of Christ than we are, which largely accounts for the unparalleled success of Western civilization. They knew of the woman’s honored role in the Gospel Plan. They knew that women are co-creators with God and that motherhood is the highest and holiest calling in eternity. Our Christian forefathers also valued good women because they read the following words in their Bibles:

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. . . .

Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. . . .

Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:10-12, 25-28, 30).

The Bible is clear that a good woman’s worth is “far above rubies.” Women who humbly embrace their divinely-appointed roles as wives, homemakers, and mothers “shall be praised” for eternity. Their children and husbands will “call [them] blessed” and praise them for their selfless service in the home, and, by extension, in society and the world.

tumblr_oam2wfbQ001sgrduho1_1280

Women of the past knew that “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.” They understood that if they wanted to change the world, they could do so most effectively from quiet of their own homes. They knew that raising good children who possess manners, character, virtue, industry, and discipline will do more to change the world than a hundred lifetimes working as lawyers, CEOs, or politicians. Feminism has robbed women of their true power and influence over society by luring them out of the home and away from their God-appointed mission.

Let’s underscore a precious truth: American women have traditionally been the most blessed, privileged, pampered, and doted upon group of women in world history. No women have ever had it better. No women have ever lived in a wealthier, freer, and more advanced society. No women have ever had a greater chance for good in the world than those who call the USA their home.

Yes, women of the past – those modest, classy, feminine, submissive, humble, home-oriented women upon whom modern feminists look with scorn – were blessed and privileged beyond measure. They were happier. They were more fulfilled by being mothers in the home than modern women are by working 9-5 desk jobs. And they were more loved, cared for, and protected by men.

Since the feminist virus infected society, the situation has radically changed. Our women have abdicated their ruby-studded thrones by engaging in demeaning and vicious conduct and entertaining anti-Christian ideals. They reject modesty, femininity, and elegance in favor of raucous immodesty and unlady-like conduct. They dress like hookers. They march nude in the streets. They act like petulant little children and screech about how they are such “victims.” In truth, they have only victimized themselves by fighting for an “equality” which was achieved on day one and embracing rebellious, unwomanly behavior.

Equality itself is a myth. It is a communist slogan designed to play upon people’s emotions. In reality, the only equality that exists is in the eyes of God and under the law. All other so-called “equality” is a lie. Achieving across-the-board “equality” has been the dream of Karl Marx and his co-conspirators in all ages. They want to make everyone equally poor, equally enslaved, and equally miserable. They do this by denying human nature and attempting to artificially force everyone to be the same, which they deem “equality.” Because their scheme denies human nature, it can never work to produce a happy, healthy, free, or successful society.

before-feminism-after-feminism-_happy-inside-_-smiles-when-someone-25922806

Let’s be honest: Some humans are better than others. Note that I did not say some humans have more value than others. We are each beloved sons or daughters of our Eternal Father and have limitless potential. I wrote an entire book, The Lineage of the Gods, to convince people that they can be far more than they think they can.

Rather, what I mean is that some people are simply more competent, more disciplined, more virtuous, more intelligent, more talented, and, accordingly, attain to a higher level of success, goodness, and greatness. There is nothing wrong with this type of inequality. It is the fruit of real Freedom. And there is nothing any government ever devised can do to thwart human nature and put every individual on par with all others. No matter how they might try, there will always be those who are lazy, inept, unintelligent, immoral, and bad – those whose aptitudes and choices earn for them a lower level of glory and reward than their fellows both here and hereafter.

Feminists exemplify this flawed Marxist attitude by always screeching about “equality.” In their book, Venker and Schlafly remarked:

Those who believe women in America have not yet achieved equality or that American women are somehow oppressed and need government intervention to level the playing field, think they’re fighting a nation that has wronged them. In reality, they are fighting human nature” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 178).

feminism14

Another time, these two observant women noted:

The problem with the sexual revolution is that it was predicated on the lies that gender differences don’t exist and that women want what men want. In fact, there was no need for a movement to make men and women equal because they already were equal – different, but equal. The real reason female Democrats tell American women “there is still much work to be done,” as Beth Frerking does in Secrets of Powerful Women, is that they refuse to admit feminism failed. When you desperately want something to happen and it doesn’t, there is always more work to be done. Women on the left are trying to force a square peg into a round hole” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 77).

Equal but different – a perfect phrase. We are each precious children of our Heavenly Father and equally loved by Him, and we are each endowed by Heaven with the equal rights, but in all other ways, we are different. Men and women have different desires. We see things differently. Our minds work differently. Our biology is different. Men tolerate pain and physical stress better than women do. Men fight better and excel more at sporting competitions. Women are naturally more nurturing and usually have a greater level of empathy and tenderness. Both genders – and there are only two genders regardless of what the mentally ill claim – are eternally different. It’s one of the wonderful things about life that while we are not the same, we are made to complement one another and make up where the other lacks. Trying to force us all to be the same is not only impossible and irrational, but at odds with nature and nature’s God.

I again draw a statement from Venker and Schlafly’s book The Flipside of Feminism. The speak about the deranged fight for impossible and undesirable “equality” and how blurring the lines between the genders creates confusion and undermines society:

When women usurp men’s role in society, as they do now, it messes up the order of things. Most men don’t want to compete with women; they want to take care of them. It makes men feel important and boosts their self-esteem. What’s more, statistics prove women want men to have the dominant role in the relationship. Recognizing this doesn’t give men carte blanche to treat women as subordinate – and most men don’t do this, or want to do this. That’s a feminist scare tactic to convince women otherwise.

tumblr_oyyceiWRbT1s9ibg1o1_1280

Today, if a person even alludes to the traditional male/female dance – especially if it’s a man – there is hell to pay. In 2006, Forbes editor Michael Noer wrote an article titled “Don’t Marry Career Women,” which sent feminists into a tizzy and prompted a rebuttal from Noer’s coworker, Elizabeth Corcoran. The point of Noer’s article was to highlight the social science research that proves career women, defined as those who work more than thirty-five hours a week, are “more likely to divorce, less likely to have children, and if they do have kids, are more likely to be unhappy about it.” Noer concedes that many employed mothers are happily married; he simply points out that studies show they’re less likely to be so than mothers who are not employed.

He also highlights a study that found both men and women are unhappy when wives make more money than their husbands. This is an inconvenient truth, to be sure; but that doesn’t make it any less true. It seems that despite women’s desire for independence, they still want to be taken care of – and money is part of that equation.

When women insist on competing with men at the same level, which is what happens when a society adopts the feminist view that men and women are the same, conflict ensues. It rears its ugly head on a logistical issues – as couples face the stress of both spouses having heavy workloads – and it rears its ugly head in the bedroom. It seems that highly educated couples who both spend their days at the office are more likely to cheat. “When your spouse works outside the home, chances increase that he or she will meet someone more likeable than you,” wrote Noer. This is not to suggest women shouldn’t be in the marketplace. But it is to say ramifications ensue when husbands and wives are both subjected to temptations on a consistent basis.

The marriages that stand the best chance of survival (and appear happiest) are those in which husbands and wives are not competing. Traditional marriages, in which wives depend on their husbands’ incomes and husbands defer to their wives on matters related to the home – including how to spend his income – are generally in harmony. Even in households in which women do work outside the home, smart wives don’t bring their professional selves home. They may wield some measure of power in the marketplace; but when they get home, these women take on a more traditional role.

The reversal of gender roles in modern America has been disastrous. It’s great that men spend more time with their kids than their own fathers did, and it’s great that modern advances have allowed women to be successful outside the home. But neither of these developments should eradicate the delicate balance between husbands and wives. They can each take part in the other’s primary role without supplanting it. That should be the goal.

Of all the ways to improve the relationship between the sexes, none is more important than accepting – and embracing – gender differences. Until we understand who men and women are as individuals and how they work in tandem, we will never be happy” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 89-91.

I concur that recognizing and embracing gender differences is one of the single most important things society can do to correct itself and stop its downward spiral. Men are men. Women are women. Why is this such a revolutionary and controversial thing to say? It’s common sense. It’s basic biology. And it’s scriptural.

tumblr_oh80n2R4Zz1vw9qr8o1_640

Society cannot survive when its families are in chaos. As goes the home, goes the society. And our homes cannot help but fracture and fall apart when women and men don’t embrace and fulfill their roles faithfully. Women, your place is in the home. Your Father in Heaven has appointed you to be a wife, homemaker, and mother. You are to support your husband, to submit to him guidance, to rear children, and to give selfless service. Men, your place is at the head of your family. You are the patriarch, provider, and defender of your home. You are to lead, guide, and discipline your wife and children. Children, your place is to honor and obey your parents.

Any other system of family order than the one outlined here is incorrect. “Alternative lifestyles” are not just different, they are wrong. True, life is not perfect and at times we have to amend our roles to fit our circumstances. For instance, at times a husband becomes injured and can’t work and the mother must leave the home to provide for the family. In this situation, this is her duty and she would be negligent not to fulfill it. Yet, the rule is that a woman should not work outside the home when there is no legitimate need – and especially not when children are at home in need of a mother’s touch.

Again I say that society cannot survive in the face of broken homes. Society is but a reflection of its homes. When we see crime, incivility, and immorality on the rise, we can be sure that the seeds of these bad habits were planted and cultivated in the home first. It is generally true that children who are raised correctly and with the Gospel of Jesus Christ as their sure foundation don’t depart from it. Those who are raised by absentee, permissive, or single parents, on the other hand, are exponentially more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, to commit crime, to rape, to murder, and to perpetuate the cycle of broken homes.

Feminism is code for selfishness. Everything feminists do and promote is selfish. Birth control – selfish. Abortion – selfish. Unnecessarily limiting the number of children in a family – selfish. Sleeping around/fornicating – selfish. Working outside the home when it is not a necessity and there are children to be nurtured – selfish. No-fault divorce – selfish. And so on and so forth.

Abortion is perhaps the epitome of feminist self-centeredness. Feminists are so selfish that they are willing to obliterate the life of a helpless, defenseless, innocent, precious baby to avoid being “inconvenienced.” How callous, cruel, and unfeeling can a person be? Abortion is pagan human sacrifice on the altar of selfishness and Marxist ideology. It is barbarism that is incompatible with a free and civil society, incompatible with the Constitution, and incompatible with the fixed laws of Eternity.

unna1234med (1)

When the hedonistic, me-centered “sexual revolution” occurred, it drastically altered the centuries-old dynamic in the home and in society. The primary consequence of the “sexual revolution” was that women and men both no longer felt the need to marry in order to engage in sexual relations. Women, in particular, no long saw marriage as a prerequisite. Venker and Schlafly have observed:

When, we might ask, did getting married and staying married become so difficult? Not surprisingly, at the same time casual sex became fashionable – the 1960s. That’s when feminists began emphasizing the individual over the family good. This shift in focus means American women no longer plan for marriage carefully, methodically, and with foresight. Rather, they are encouraged to focus solely on their identities and their careers. The notion that a woman should follow her own dreams, that she should be true to herself and not be held back by husband and children, has become a fait accompli. Women may want to settle down eventually, but marriage (and motherhood) is something that just sort of happens, as if it were a nice accompaniment to an otherwise fulfilling life. To the modern woman, work is the meat of her life. A husband is the salad.

This is a profound transformation. Married couples no longer think of themselves as one unit but as separate entities sharing space, which leads to an obscuring of gender roles and inevitable conflict as each spouse focuses solely on his or her own needs rather than the needs of the marriage. “The confusion over roles is there, as are the legacies of a self-absorbed, me-first, feminist-do-or-die, male-backlash society,” wrote Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee in The Good Marriage: How and Why Love Lasts.

Men’s reaction to this phenomenon is twofold. They either give in to the new regime feminists have created, or they give up. Those who give in generally do so because they’ve either bought into the lie that women are just like men or because it’s easier to get along with the women in their lives than to fight them.

The men who give up tend to remain silent, for if they speak out against feminism, they’ll be labeled chauvinists. Many men would like to get married, but they know modern marriages are precarious. There’s also no incentive for them to do so since they can have sex whenever they want and even live with their girlfriends with little interference from society. This was the theme of the movie He’s Just Not That Into You. Two of the main characters, Neil and Berth, have been living together for seven years, but she dumps him when she realizes he isn’t going to marry her. Rather than accept her share of the blame (by choosing to cohabitate in the first place), Beth suggests Neil is the bad guy for not wanting to get married.

image21

He’s Just Not That Into You is a splendid example of how feminism failed women. The sexual revolution was billed as something that would put women on par with men, but instead it has ruptured the male/female relationship. At first, women hesitate to get married because they think they’ll lose their identities if they do; then when they are ready to get married (because their biological clocks are ticking), the men in their lives don’t want to marry them.

That is hardly progress on the road to happiness” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 75-77.

A major part of this massive cultural shift we’re discussing was coaxing women out of the safety and comfort of their homes into the fast-paced workplace. Instead of enjoying fulfilling lives raising the next generation of leaders, businessmen, scientists, teachers, and so forth, women now waste their lives away in stale office jobs that can never offer them fulfillment or authentic happiness. I appeal yet again to Venker and Schlafly who wrote:

One of the ways 1970s feminists lured women out of the home was to demand that they focus their education on subjects that would advance their careers, rather than focus on subjects related to homemaking or teaching. Elite feminists push all women to plan their lives around careers. The result is that young women give little thought to marriage and motherhood and instead spend upwards of a decade becoming highly qualified for the workplace. Women believe this is the better life plan, since their mothers’ lives, they are told, were empty and meaningless. Women in previous decades may have had jobs, but they didn’t have careers. Like tempting children with candy, feminists assured women that there was a better life to be had. “Whether girls heard the call of independence from their family or the outside culture, they listened,” wrote Dr. Jean Twenge in Generation Me” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 51-52).

The siren song of “equality” and “independence” has gained women extra burdens and greater misery while depriving them of the love and respect of men and true happiness. Real men don’t care what a woman’s profession is. We honestly don’t. And, furthermore, a woman who intends to continue working when married, for no reason other than that she is an “independent woman who don’t need no man,” is a major turn off. Rather, men want to know whether or not a woman will be committed to her husband, home, and family; whether she will be a submissive, virtuous, and gentle wife; and whether she’s mature enough to know that motherhood is her ultimate calling.

The great spiritual leader David O. McKay once gave us a principle that applies to both men and women, but which especially applies to women who, by divine design, are supposed to be in the home more frequently:

The home is the first and most effective place for children to learn the lessons of life: truth, honor, virtue, self-control; the value of education, honest work, and the purpose and privilege of life. Nothing can take the place of home in rearing and teaching children, and no other success can compensate for failure in the home” (President David O. McKay, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Family Home Evening Manual, preface, iii).

kitchen2

Your highest calling, ladies, will be in your own home as a mother and a wife. You’re chasing a pipe dream if you expect to find happiness and fulfillment outside of the home. Though you should always expand your mind in the areas of history, politics, science, etc., you should base your education – both in and out of school – on developing the skills that will help you be a more successful spouse, wife, homemaker, and mother. You need to learn that the home is where you were designed to shine. It is the place where you can do the most good for others and where you can find the greatest measure of fulfillment. Women, society needs you to come home. We cannot survive another generation of motherless homes.

I share one final statement from Venker and Schlafly. They testified:

The truth is that feminism has been the single worst thing that has happened to American women. It did not liberate women at all – it confused them. It made their lives harder. Women today are caught between man and nature . . . Their female nature tells them sex requires love; marriage is important; children are a blessing; and men are necessary. The culture, meanwhile, tells them to sleep around and postpone family life because that will cost them their identity. And, if their marriage doesn’t work out, it’s no big deal. They can always get divorced.

Is it any wonder modern women are unhappy?” (Venker and Schlafly, The Flipside of Feminism, 55).

When you look at modern women, it is obviously they are not happy. They are bitter and caustic. They have a massive victim complex. And they lash out in disgusting ways unbecoming the “fairer sex.” And is it any wonder they’re so unhappy and riotous? They’ve denied their own nature, rejected the beautiful role God gave them, and have attempted to live like inferior men. As my Dad always said, feminists take the worst qualities of men, seek to imitate them (and fail), and call it “equality.”

I feel to address one additional aspect of the feminist nightmare through which society is passing. The “Women’s Liberation” movement is part and parcel of a much larger, world-wide scheme for the overthrow and subjugation of humanity. Yes, I’m referring to the c-word – conspiracy.

cultural-marxism-destruction

The Illuminati, whether people want to admit it or not, exited. That’s historically irrefutable. It is also irrefutable that they did not die out, as the court historians claim. Indeed, as I document in my books, you can trace the Illuminati to the birth of a particular ideology – communism. An Illuminati offshoot group, the League of the Just, hired Karl Marx to write The Communist Manifesto and changed its name to the Communist League. 70 years later, this same organization, under a new name, led the coup which conquered Russia and created the Soviet Union. Thus, communism is Illuminism. And it is a Satanic scheme that is very much alive and active in our world under a cornucopia of names and labels.

A major component of the Illuminati/communist vision was to “abolish the family.” Adam Weishaupt, the Illuminati’s occultist founder, explained their plot this way:

There is no way of influencing men so powerfully as by means of the women. These should therefore be our chief study; we should insinuate ourselves into their good opinion, give them hints of emancipation from the tyranny of public opinion, and of standing up for themselves; it will be an immense relief to their enslaved minds to be freed from any one bond of restraint, and it will fire them the more, and cause them to work for us with zeal, without knowing that they do so; for they will only be indulging their own desire of personal admiration” (John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy, 111).

Did you catch that? The Illuminati understood that men are the defenders of society. If you invade a nation, it is the men who mobilize and fight to repel you. And they fight for the purpose of protecting their women and children. These same women and children, therefore, are their weakness – their Achilles’ heel. If you can successfully manipulate the women, you can also manipulate the men and influence the rising generation. The chief way the Illuminati-communists have manipulated women in modern times is by employing the fancy slogan of “emancipation” (i.e. “liberation” from the patriarchy, “equality” with men, and “independence”).

Thus, “Women’s Liberation,” from the very beginning, had an ulterior motive – the destruction of the family unit. Later Illuminati agents, calling themselves Marxists, communists, and socialists, openly championed the Suffragette, Women’s Liberation, feminist, and LGBT movements. They are the LGBT movement’s chief sponsors and spokesmen today.

pjimage-81

Feminism is nothing but a communist front movement. Communists such as the Bolshevik Inessa Armand have boasted of this fact. She said:

If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

Yes, all feminists are default communists. They are perhaps the deadliest Marxists in the world because they target the most sensitive and important of all institutions – the home. Little do feminist women know that they are being manipulated by a small group of evil men who are using them to destroy good men and topple society. Communists are the hammer, women are the anvil, and the family unit is being hammered to pieces in between the two.

When we compare women then and women now, feminism’s destructive influence is readily apparent. We can judge a tree by its fruit. Infanticide, broken homes, failed marriages, raging selfishness, rampant hedonism, widespread victim complexes, dysfunctional children, bitter men, and unhappy women are the rotten fruits. We would be exceedingly foolish to conclude that feminism is anything but a perversion and aberration that needs to be dumped onto the ash heap of history and forgotten.

Our forefathers honored and loved their women. The “patriarchy,” so-called, understood the divine roles of men and women; that we are equal in God’s eyes, but different in our functionality. They set up society to protect women and make their careers as wives, homemakers, and mothers as easy as possible. And they cherished those good women who embraced their godly calling and fulfilled it with humility.

What feminists call “oppression” that is, patriarchal families, wifely submission, sound families, strong marriages, and happy homes – is true Freedom. And what they call “liberation” – phantom “equality,” lonely lives, 9-5 desk jobs, a lower level of competence and respect, and less admiration and devotion from men who don’t benefit at all from women’s selfishness – is hellish enslavement. If we truly want to celebrate and honor women this International Women’s Day, we will ditch the Marxist talking points, admit that feminism has corrupted women, torn apart families, and undermined society, and begin to encourage women to return to their homes where they can serve as queens, with all the honor that her lofty station deserves.

Russian105

Ladies, the home is where you were designed to shine! The home is where society needs you to be. It is where God has called you to utilize your talents for the greatest good of yourselves and society. Woman, please come home before it’s too late.

Zack Strong,

March 8, 2020

Feminism is Not Fascist – It is Communist

One of the most common errors I see swirling around the internet is the idea that the feminist movement, and its spawn the LGBT movement, is a “fascist” or “Nazi” movement. I often see feminists referred to as “feminazis” and those afflicted by homosexuality labeled “homo-fascists.” These distinctions are utterly erroneous and this article explains the reason why.

feminism2

It is an incredibly well-documented fact that the Women’s Liberation movement – the mother of all other social justice perversions – was founded by the communists. One of the longest chapters in my book A Century of Red is devoted to exposing this connection. The communists saw the traditional family – particularly the patriarchal Christian home – as their main obstacle to world conquest. The feminist movement is their chief weapon to destroy this obstacle and usher in a “new morality.”

Early on, the communists fabricated the concept of a “patriarchy” that “oppressed” women. They spread this propaganda to make women feel like underprivileged victims. Once women felt like victims of some fictitious male conspiracy, the communists then offered them so-called “liberation” and “equal rights.” These women, having developed a woe-is-me victim mentality, were naturally galvanized to work for worldwide communist revolution without knowing they did so. With women in their camp, the communist conspirators systematically destroyed the institution of the home from within. And a wrecked and decaying civilization is the direct result.

feminism7

The radical Bolshevik feminist, and mistress of Vladimir Lenin, Inessa Armand, explained how integral feminism is to the communist conspiracy. She declared:

“If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.”

Researcher Henry Makow, whose book Cruel Hoax: Feminism and the New World Order ranks as one of the best on the subject, made a similar observation. He wrote:

“It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name” (Makow, Cruel Hoax, 37).

feminism22

In accordance with their anti-family communist ideology, the Soviet Union was the first modern state to legalize abortion. The USSR was also the first nation to institute no-fault divorce. Even church marriages were outlawed. To fill the void, some people had “Red weddings” instead. The communist regime implemented a radical “family code” throughout the Soviet Empire which embodied many of these feminist talking points just mentioned. Paul Kengor’s book Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage is a fantastic exposé on the subject.

It is a sad indictment that the United States has followed the Soviet prototype and has instituted no-fault divorce, legalized abortion, altered the traditional definition of marriage, and is in the process of restructuring the family along secular lines. Misleading slogans coined by communists are now ingrained in the American psyche. Chief among them is the war cry of “equality” which ignores the fact that equality is a myth. In the eyes of God we are all equal and under just laws people are equal, but in every other conceivable way equality is a lie used to tug on people’s heartstrings and rally them to fight for “social justice” and a decidedly Marxist restructuring of society.

feminism4

Under the guise of “equal rights,” women have barged into the workplace to compete with men, leaving behind their homes, young children, and the divine calling of motherhood. Feminists have used the concept of “equality” to justify their lewd and promiscuous behavior, claiming that “if men can do it, we can do it, too.” Immorality is wrong when anyone does it, but it is more strongly felt throughout society when women abandon their virtuous nature and seek to become what amounts to inferior men. Women have ruined themselves in grasping for “equality.” One of my favorite quotes on this subject, whose authorship I am not certain, says:

“Men stopped being gentlemen when women stopped being ladies and started demanding equality in a society that treated them like queens.”

feminism1

Women of past generations were cherished for their work in the home as mothers, wives, and homemakers. They were beloved. No other member of society received as much praise and support. Yet, the feminist propagandists – most of whom were card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA – went out of their way to besmirch these women and portray them as uneducated dolts who were enslaved by the “patriarchy.” These lies were used to scare younger women into avoiding the time-tested, scripturally-approved path of marriage, motherhood, and homemaking.

Instead of being enslaved to the fictitious male cabal known as the “patriarchy,” women are now enslaved tools of the communist cause. Instead of being queens in their homes, they are drones in the workplace. Instead of being the noble, virtuous women their progenitors were, they are lewd, loud, and lust-filled. Feminism has corrupted the very essence of femininity and has severely disadvantaged American women who were once the most blessed and privileged class of people to have ever walked the planet.

feminism5

Feminists and their Social Justice Warrior cohorts are the vanguard of this worldwide revolution to destroy Christian culture and the sound foundation of society. Women and feminized men are the hammer with which the Bolsheviks have bludgeoned to death Biblical marriage, patriarchal families, healthy home life, and traditional gender roles. Everything sacred has been trampled on by these bitter, hoodwinked feminists who don’t have the mental acumen to know they are tools in communist hands.

But what of fascism? Surely the hated “Nazis” must have also tried to destroy the family and promote radical cultural ideas, right? In fact, no, they did not. Fascism and feminism have nothing in common. Fascism, particularly as practiced by Hitler’s Germany, was an enemy to everything feminism stood for.

Germany in the 1930s and 40s was the most vociferously anti-communist state I have ever studied. Adolf Hitler’s National Socialists were elected not because of their stance on Jews, as most historians have absurdly alleged, but because of their official anti-communist stance. Hitler gave his famous 1933 Sportpalast acceptance speech, after having secured the post of chancellor, in front of a massive banner that read: “Marxism must die for the nation to survive.”

communism36

German propaganda poster: “Bolshevism without the Mask.”

In Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of communism in these terms:

“[T]he original founders of this plague of the nations must have been veritable devils; for only in the brain of a monster – not that of a man – could the plan of an organization assume form and meaning, whose activity must ultimately result in the collapse of human civilization and the consequent devastation of the world” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, 63-64).

1933_Kampf_Dtl_1

1933 anti-communist poster: “The struggle for Germany.”

Hitler virulently opposed the culture-corrupting, nation-destroying Red Plague of communism. He considered it his greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of humanity. In this he was 100% correct. In May 1933, after having ascended to the chancellorship, Hitler again wrote of Germany’s struggle against communism:

“This for us is not a fight which can be finished by compromise. We see Marxism as the enemy of our people which we will root out and destroy without mercy. . . .

“We must then fight to the very end those tendencies which have eaten into the soul of the German nation in the last seventeen years, which have done us such incalculable damage and which, if they had not been vanquished, would have destroyed Germany. Bismark told us that liberalism was the pace-maker of Social Democracy. I need not say here that Social Democracy is the pace-maker of Communism. And Communism is the forerunner of death, of national destruction, and extinction. We have joined battle with it and will fight it to the death” (Adolf Hitler, Volkischer Boebachter, May 11, 1933, in Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villany, 166).

EinKampf1

From a 1933 anti-communist German book.

Hitler and his “fascists” understood the inherent evil of communism. They saw with their own eyes the damage it had done to Germany and to Europe. They understood that modern “liberal” society was a forerunner of communism, as is so-called “democracy” and “social democracy.” The values promoted by these counterfeit systems of governance are communist in origin and are inimical to Christianity and moral institutions.

Instead of following the Marxian socialists, Hitler promoted a different form of “socialism” that bears almost no resemblance to that of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. The record is clear: Hitler promoted the traditional family, womanhood, motherhood, and home life.

In 1939, the British Viscount Rothermere wrote of Hitler:

“He believes that Germany has a divine calling and that the German people are destined to save Europe from the revolutionary attacks of Communism. He values family life very highly, whereas Communism is its worst enemy. He has thoroughly cleansed the moral, ethical life of Germany, forbidden publication of obscene books, and performance of questionable plays and films” (Rothermere, in Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 161-162).

Germany5

1931 Hitler campaign poster calling upon women to save Germany: “Women! Your men without work, your children without a future. Save the German family. Vote Adolf Hitler!”

Hitler recognized that the Women’s Liberation movement was part of the communist attempt to decimate and restructure the nations of the world. He therefore opposed feminism outright. Instead, he promoted the traditional family, the calling of motherhood, and the value of homemaking. He once said:

“If I have a female lawyer in front of me these days, and it doesn’t matter how much she has achieved, and next to her is a mother of five, six, seven children, and they are in great health and well-educated by her; then I want to say, from the eternal point of view of the eternal value of our people, the woman who is able to have children – has children and raised them and thereby gave our people the ability to live in the future – has achieve more. She has done more.”

What person with any modicum of intelligence and sense can dispute the truth of that statement? Motherhood is the highest calling in eternity. Women do far more for society in the home than they ever could in the workplace. They will be remembered, respected, and cherished far more for their selfless acts in the home than they ever will be for any worldly achievement. Women, don’t abandon your homes; society needs you there now more than ever before. The future rests on your delicate shoulders.

Hitler114

In 1933, the year Hitler rose to the chancellorship, the National Socialist government officially instituted Mother’s Day as a state holiday. In fact, Germany was one of the first states to celebrate Mother’s Day. From an article on the topic, we read:

“From 1939 to 1945, Mother’s Day gained a remarkable position, where a tradition of giving The Cross of Honor of the German Mother was established. It was a state decoration conferred by the government of the German Reich in three classes: bronze, silver, and gold, to mothers who exhibited strong moral principles, exemplary motherhood, and who conceived and raised at least four or more children in the role of a parent. But this “golden era” of Mother’s Day did not last too long as by the end of the World War II Mother’s Day misplaced its Nazi elements, replaced by the more neutral elements of celebration by offering gifts, flowers and cards to mothers.”

Unlike communism/feminism which despises motherhood and the domestic life, fascism promoted it, glorified families, and honored mothers. Truthfully, feminism is anti-woman whereas fascist regimes always placed a high value on womanhood and the natural femininity of the fairer sex.

31206502_1669550123120520_1884632826305839104_n

On January 30, 1937, Hitler gave a speech commemorating four years of prosperous, successful National Socialist rule in Germany. He ended his speech with a tribute to German women. He said:

“And we, too, Men and Deputies of the Reichstag, wish to join together to thank above all the German women, the millions of our mothers who have given the Third Reich their children. For what would be the sense in all our work, what would be the sense in the uprising of the German nation without our German youth? Every mother who has given our Volk a child in these four years has contributed, by her pain and her happiness, to the happiness of the entire nation.”

Hitler121

Additionally, the Programme of the NSDAP – the official National Socialist party platform – demanded that: “The State must see to raising the standard of health in the nation by protecting mothers and infants.” One of the things the National Socialists did to protect women, apart from restricting abortions, was to ban birth control, a move I personally would love to see in the United States.

Feminism not only doesn’t protect mothers or infants, but it zealously promotes infanticide as a mother’s “right.” As noted, the Soviet Union was the first modern state to legalize child murder, also known as abortion. National Socialist Germany, on the other hand, restricted abortions for most of the population. Children were seen as the future of the German nation and the government went to great lengths to protect them. Women were also expected to engage in exercise to maintain their health, while simultaneously – thankfully – being excluded from the German military.

Hitler13

There is one additional bit of confusion I want to clear up. Far too many people think that National Socialism is the same as communism. This is not true. National Socialism was never Marxian socialism. The two philosophies, though they share a common name, are fundamentally and emphatically different.

For instance, in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the communists swear to abolish private property. The Manifesto explains:

“In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

“We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.”

communism21

Truthfully, private property is the foundation of all Liberty and in seeking to abolish property, communists seek to abolish Freedom and make men slaves. The National Socialists, on the other hand, protected private property. In The Programme of the NSDAP, we read:

“National Socialism recognises private ownership of property as a principle and protects it by law, given that it is acquired and employed honourably.”

Within the NSDAP Programme, Hitler is also quoted as saying that “the N.S.D.A.P. admits the principle of private property.”

There are numerous other fundamental differences between communism and National Socialism. It is dishonest to allege that Hitler’s philosophy and Marx’s ideology are one and the same in terms of core principles. Truthfully, their core principles are worlds apart. In an alleged 1923 interview with Hitler, George Sylvester Viereck recorded the following conversation:

““Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?”

““Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, “is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

““. . . Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

“. . . “We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.””

communism20

And again, in a December 28, 1938 article in the Guardian, Sunday Express published in England, Hitler explained:

“‘Socialist’ I define from the word ‘social’ meaning in the main ‘social equity’. A Socialist is one who serves the common good without giving up his individuality or personality or the product of his personal efficiency. Our adopted term ‘Socialist’ has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true socialism is not. Marxism places no value on the individual, or individual effort, or efficiency; true Socialism values the individual and encourages him in individual efficiency, at the same time holding that his interests as an individual must be in consonance with those of the community. All great inventions, discoveries, achievements were first the product of an individual brain. It is charged against me that I am against property, that I am an atheist. Both charges are false” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 165).

To close this point, as if any evidence is still required, I quote from Richard Tedor’s book Hitler’s Revolution:

“There is considerable difference in the socialism of Hitler and that of Marxist doctrine . . . Marx’s purely economic socialism “stands against private property . . . and private ownership.” Marx saw socialism as international, unifying the world’s working class people who were social pariahs in their own country. He therefore considered nationalism, advocating the interests and independence of one’s own nation, incompatible with socialist ideals. Die SA argued that since socialism really stands for collective welfare, “Marxist socialism divides the people and in this way buries any prerequisite for achieving genuine socialist goals.”

“Hitler saw nationalism as a patriotic motive to place the good of one’s country before personal ambition . . . Die SA summarized, “Marxism makes the distinction of haves and have-nots. It demands the destruction of the former in order to bring all property into possession of the public. National Socialism places the concept of the national community in the foreground. . . . The collective welfare of a people is not achieved through superficially equal distribution of all possessions, but by accepting the principle that before the interests of the individual stand those of the nation.” . . . .

“Hitler regarded Marxist economic policy as no less repugnant to genuine socialism as the concept of class warfare was. Marx advocated de-privatizing all production and property. State control would supposedly insure equitable distribution of manufactured goods and foodstuffs, and protect the population from capitalist exploitation. Hitler advocated private ownership and free enterprise. He believed that competition and opportunities for personal development encourage individual initiative” (Tedor, Hitler’s Revolution, 25-26).

Hitler112

To Hitler, the archetypal “fascist” and “Nazi,” Marxism was a “plague” that stifled true growth, led to societal ruin, and lowered the moral standards of the community. Hitler was as much a communist as I am. As an avowed enemy to communism, Hitler also rejected the feminist assault on traditional institutions and on the value of womanhood. Instead of bowing to the perverse social justice campaign active in his day as in ours, Hitler promoted motherhood and the traditional family.

Yes, National Socialism and Marxist-style socialism are diametrically opposed to one another and share only the most superficial similarities. I implore writers and commentators, historians and “experts,” radio personalities and internet bloggers, to cease besmirching Hitler and the National Socialists by comparing them to the communists and other anti-humanity socialists. In the same way, I urge writers to stop calling feminists and LGBT stooges “Nazis” and “fascists.” They are communists.

For all their flaws, fascist regimes were not totalitarian like communist regimes are. To call feminism “fascist” is a terrible, and inaccurate, parallel. To call the LGBT movement “Nazi” is likewise erroneous at its core. It would be far more accurate to call feminism a communist movement or to label it a communist front, which it is. Most major feminist icons have been literal communists – the avowed enemies of fascism. Communism is infinitely more totalitarian, degrading, and destructive than fascism.

Germany1

After making these controversial points, I want to make one other thing clear: I am not a “Nazi.” I don’t lionize Hitler. He was not a saint (though, truthfully, he is innocent of most of the heinous “crimes” and “atrocities” attributed to him. Most of these alleged “crimes” were inventions of Soviet atrocity propaganda). And I certainly don’t support National Socialism in its entirety, though it contained many very good points and policies, including one or two I’d love to see implemented in the United States, such as its ban on usury.

Politically, I am a constitutionalist. I believe in our unique American form of constitutionalism. I believe the U.S. Constitution was literally inspired by Almighty God and that it is the greatest form of government ever given to man. I believe every form of government that is not in strict harmony with the Constitution is, ultimately, from an evil source regardless of the good intentions of the people who promote them. On this list of anti-Constitution ideologies, to either greater or lesser degree, are: Democracy; communism; socialism; liberalism; parliamentarianism; monarchy; oligarchy; dictatorship; anarchy; feudalism; and fascism.

One more note before I close. I know that most people call feminists “feminazis” because they have been led to believe that the National Socialists were tyrants, or even totalitarians, who forced conformity to their viewpoints. By using the term “feminazis” they are trying to suggest that feminists are totalitarians who seek to force everyone into conformity to their worldview. This sentiment is correct. However, it is simply not true that the National Socialists were totalitarians, so the comparison doesn’t hold water.

feminism13.jpg

Hitler and the NSDAP were not only elected once, but multiple times. In an August 1934 national plebiscite, a year and a half after Hitler had taken power, an astounding 90% of German voters voiced their approval of his actions (Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 229). Later, in 1938, Austria voted 99.75% to join Hitler’s Germany (Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 282). Hitler received mass support from his people unlike any head of state in recent generations. And he did it through the force of his ideas, not through the force of arms.

No, Hitler did not come to power by force or violent revolution, unlike the communists. He did not, as the feminists do, seek to silence those who opposed him. He did not, as the feminist Bolsheviks do, try to bully and coerce his opposition. Rather, he used the legal process to gain influence, promote the family, defend Germany, and punish traitors and subversives.

In short, Hitler had the overwhelming support of the German people in carrying out his well-publicized agenda of restoring Germany, protecting traditional values, and destroying communism. Whether you agree or disagree with his principles is irrelevant; the fact is that he did not behave as the feminists/communists do.

feminism12

To close, I reiterate that feminism is communism and communism is feminism. They are one and the same. Women’s Liberation was founded as a communist front, as was the LGBT monstrosity. The aim of this militant movement was to destroy the traditional family, to extinguish traditional marriage, to usher in an era of depravity, to compromise men by manipulating women, and, ultimately, to restructure society. Never forget that feminism is communism. So, to take a leaf from Hitler’s book, I adapt this truism: Feminism must die for society to survive.

Zack Strong

June 1, 2018.