“ 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 themselves: auto-genocide.

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.

- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzvlQ0hy7kg (Swedish Extreme Feminists Want To Exterminate All Men).
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr_SgD5cORs (Soldiers Want To Kill All Men).
- Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSCPPkI-Ywo (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 Gearhart’s 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 Gearhart’s 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 1789-1914.

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 husband.
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 Rockefeller. **

„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 group.“ (**). 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.

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, of control.

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: political) nonsense.

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 before.

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 phenomena variously.

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 „Eloi“.

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 Hegel’s 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 world?“ (**). 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 are feminists.

But what about Islamism? For what does Islamism not automatically stand? Moreover: are not all Islamists Musllims, and are not all Muslims Islamists?

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 and texts:

- „»Feminism was Created to Destabilize Society, Tax Women and Set Up the NWO.« - Aaron Russo.“ ** (Full interview: **)

- „»Feminism is a Terrorist Organization.« - Erin Pizzey.“ **

Henry Makow wrote:

„People do not realize that feminism is mass indoctrination because they cannot identify the perpetrator, the means or the motive.“ **

„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 compatible.

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 everyone’s „responsibility“ and „honesty“ to think and say this over and over again, also to do this in „cooperation“ over and over again.

- Register -