Friday, 24 October 2014


You’ll have seen the now ubiquitous F-Bombs for Feminism video that has predictably gone viral – yawn! – and is now quickly swishing its way round the amnesia U-bend of the great internet toilet.

It was designed to get a lot of attention by triggering people and of course it has. Congrats to whichever low-rent genius conceived it (probably a guy BTW).

The central message is the usual feminist bundle of crap that women should be paid more than they deserve (the unequal pay thing is a myth) and be allowed to behave any way they want (i.e. dress like tramps and go out and get stoned and pissed) and still have the most feral elements of the male population respect them. This last point may be more of a race issue than a gender issue, but don’t go there.

The video has been praised by the usual suspects and criticized by almost everybody else. Here is a typical well-meaning counterblast:
“Using kids as props in ideological propaganda videos is disgusting. It's inherently exploitative, since there is little chance the youngest of the girls understands a thing about the perspective she's selling. Worse still, the girls are being taught that screaming expletives at people who disagree with them is an effective or praiseworthy form of advocacy. As someone who frequently writes about women's issues relating to campus due process, I can say for a fact that the current debate between far-left feminists and their critics does not need any additional hysterics. And while I would never deny that a well-timed fuck or two can help get a point across, cursing shouldn't be an 11-year-old's crutch in a public policy debate.”
Some articles, including the one just quoted from, also make an effort to debunk the stats used by the potty-mouthed princesses. But essentially it’s a case of someone counting the deck chairs on the Titanic to see if any of them are missing while the ship slips beneath the waves.

In other words, most critiques focus on the trivial by accepting the basic premise that women should have something called “equality” and that it is only the details of the debate – the style and stats – that need to be hammered out.

The essential problem here is that the precondition of “equality” is division and atomization. You can only talk about equality once you have “inequality” and you can only have “inequality” once things that are whole have been broken apart.

The first big “equality” issue was class inequality. That only became an issue when classes were divided from each other and conceptualized as class war by the divisive critique of the Old Left (remember them?).

That, of course, fundamentally threatened the power of the rich, so in short order, other divisions were activated, mainly state nationalism, with horrific results starting one hundred years ago. After that experiment, the ruling elites were forced to compromise to a certain extent with the Old Left critique, with the result that conditions for the common man greatly improved.

But the elites soon found a way to nullify the Old Left critique by creating what can best be described as a “new divisionism”: From the 1960s onwards, multiculturalism/ anti-racism, feminism, and gay rights started to emerge as ways to create new, less threatening divisions to obscure the Old Left’s economic-based critique. This is essentially what this FCKH8 video is – a mere slime encrusted tendril of that New Left project, which, in essence, is not an ideological movement at all, but simply a tactical form of social control by elites.

Feminism seeks to disrupt a class-based critique by dividing men from women, by breaking down the family, the unit that matches and unifies the radically different but ultimately complementary attributes of male and female. In this way the New Leftist serves his or her elite masters by creating new social divisions that deflect attention from their accumulation of ever-greater wealth and power. The negative effect of this on society, however, is immense, and can be seen in the demographics of the West, which are genocidal and suicidal.

This is only feasible when a particular society has no serious rivals, so toxic feminism is essentially a luxury that a triumphant West could only afford between the fall of Communism (1990) and the point at which Whites are directly threatened by demographic displacement in their own homelands, which is about now. Before the fall of Communism, all Western societies had to be prepared, to some extent, to fight total wars and therefore needed to keep the new divisionism relatively confined.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, meant that the new divisionism could be fully unleashed, completely nullifying the class injustice critique of the Old Left that all western societies had been paying some lip service to. This is why the super rich have astronomically increased their wealth and dominance of society in the last 20 years at the expense of everyone else.

We are now entering a period where the new divisionism is now seriously undermining the power of the West itself. The ruling elites, however, are naturally reluctant to rein it in, as it neutralizes the Old Left’s critique on their power. For this reason, rather than curtailing it, they are looking at whether they can weaponize it for export against their main rivals – Russia, China, and even India and the Islamic World.

This is the nature of the global culture war that is now being fought. If these societies resist the new divisionism then the deleterious effects of that system will rebound on the West and either destroy it or force the severe curtailment of the new divisionist narratives.

If it does destroy the West, which is definitely one possibility, then the “little princesses” in this video may grow up to face rape and sexual assault statistics a lot worse than the fake ones cited in the video. They may also find themselves in a much more vulgar and profanity-rich environment, ironically one where the swearing and baboon-like body language they were trained to use in the video will help them to navigate the low-level chaos and constant petty squabbling (over crusts of bread, etc.) that make up the texture of collapsed and dysfunctional societies.

Where feminism ultimately leads.

No comments:

Post a Comment