5 Critiques of Internet Feminism (Guest Post)

By 5 Comments 2,122 views

Internet feminists are generally a very prickly, insular group. As far as the ideological groups I’ve participated in (from Fascists, Communists, Anarchists, etc.) I’d say they are by far the most unwelcoming and unwilling to talk about their beliefs on a level beyond five minute sound bites (wage gap, rape in colleges, etc.). For the most part, fringe ideological groups are very tight nit and insular, but they will surprise you by being very eager to discuss their beliefs on a deep, atomic level.

Feminism is not a ‘fringe ideological’ group. They are very close to becoming mainstream and accepted in popular culture. As a result they feel as though any discussion on the basis of their movement makes you an enemy, I.E. a bigot, a racist, a misogynist, or a man’s rights activist. Internet feminists believe that the pre-suppositions of their political world are axiomatic; I regret to inform them that they are certainly not. They have to participate (on equal footing) with all other competing ideological groups.

To expand on this a little bit, all ideologies have a few things in common, they

Establish some base assumption of human nature
Identify important societal issues
Propose a solution for going forward

Of course, feminism is a broad set of differing ideologies. It isn’t something we can just tackle. The term feminism is a big bucket that all the feminist ideologies can be categorized in. But in the same way that Communism has multiple variants (Stalinism, Marxism, Anarchist, etc.) and how Classical Liberalism is multi-faceted (think modern day political parties), they all share some core fundamental beliefs. It is on those core values that I go forward with my critiques.
1. Alliance with the political ‘left’

Feminism is a movement about empowering women, as a result, every woman should theoretically be a feminist. And yet, they are not. To go forward we need to look at some polls to see how females (and the general populace) consider the feminist label.

Prior to definition of feminism given:
38% Females consider themselves feminists
28% of the population consider themselves feminist

After definition given:
67% Females consider themselves feminists
57% of the population consider themselves feminist

Prior to definition of feminism given:
55% Females consider themselves feminists

After definition given:
68% Females consider themselves feminists

So even in the best of times, only about 38-55% of females identify with the label without a primer. Once primed with the definition (which side steps all the political arguments feminists/anti-feminists make) the number jumps to around 68%.

So why are there so few Feminists?

I think a lot of the reason is because American Feminists have aligned themselves with the political left. As a result of this, feminism has lost control over their image; they are now democrats and liberals, the arguments of feminism are now drowned out in our binary political world. If you are a feminist now you are a supporter of unions, a supporter of a welfare state, a supporter of tax increases, and a host of numerous other negative associations (to our ‘right’ wing friends).

It no longer matters what you believe in anymore, or even, what feminism actually is. All of that is irrelevant. The political reality is that now feminism = liberal, and to 95% of the voting populace this is all that counts.

If democracy is about stealing from group A so group B can benefit (and our good friend Plato was right) then feminists have played right into the dichotomy. Now when feminists go to the polling station they have no choice but to vote democrat since they’ve alienated the other party. There will never be a candidate that has a ‘feminist’ platform because those issues are now a whisper in the loud echo chamber of competing interests in the Democratic Party.

Feminists are now captive votes and any change they want will come much slower because they have neutered any bi-partisan support.

And I think internet feminists are partially to blame here for its continued movement leftward. There isn’t a feminist blog out there which doesn’t try to infuse the feminist message with leftist ideologies, the necessity of strong welfare for mothers being key. In doing so they give their enemies all the fodder they need to combat feminism, by simply ignoring a feminists arguments about gender equality and attacking their liberal stance.
2. Lack of focus and 3. Insular tendencies

There is a growing trend in feminism to deal with questions of race and class. Historically feminists have been (like many groups who sought political change) of the majority race (white) and the most politically active class (middle class). Since feminism has aligned itself with leftism then it has been muddling itself in the questions of race politics and economic inequality (I am referring to upper/middle/poor economic classes not male/female economic subjugation). This has grown full force into an addendum to feminism known as “intersectionalism” which claims that the oppression of an individual is not equivalent to it’s parts; it’s worse.

As an example, a black poor female has a different experience with oppression than a white poor female, or a black rich female, or a black poor male, etc. They state that you cannot simply take each piece of the oppression pie (say, you are black so xyz occurs, you are poor so abc happens), you have to appreciate that it compounds upon itself exponentially.

I think the implications of this are so foolish that I need to break this into two parts.

It has encouraged feminist ideologues to start censoring discussion among themselves based on racial, economic, or gender characteristics of the writers.
As if the alliance with leftism wasn’t difficult enough for a clear universal feminist argument, now it has to fight for the elimination race AND economic inequality.

2. So let’s target the insularity first.

Here is an article that I feel epitomizes the attitude of internet feminists

The argument being made is that certain forms of argument are not valid. Not only are they invalid because of the method in which they are proposed, they are also invalid because of the economic, racial, or gender of the individual presenting it.

Additionally, any skim on a feminist blog and you’ll see plenty of articles telling you hey, you don’t get to talk about race unless you are [insert a non-white race here]. In any other ideological group I have yet to come across people who self-discourage discussion so freely.

Why White Feminists Need To Shut Up & Listen When It Comes To Race

8 Things White People Really Need to Understand About Race

5 Ways White Feminists Can Address Our Own Racism

I am of the opinion that stupid opinions need to be said out loud, not quietly maintained. When people interact and communicate with each other both parties change in very slight, but important ways. Will you ever convince your Libertarian friend to become a Communist? No. But you can sink some doubt into a Communist’s mind that socialism can create a “new man.” And that is progress.

Racism is a universal human constant. It has been with as long as we have had two tribes competing for resources. Racism does not go away when a dominate race stops talking about subordinate races; under the assumption that subordinate races are valued enough to even be listened to (by definition of being subordinate: unlikely).

All this toxic racist feminism does is keep people from discussing feminism and race. Although, feminists shouldn’t be talking much about race anyway and we will get to that now.

3. Lack of Focus

The more ‘fights’ you tack onto a movement the more diluted it becomes. Feminism is evolving to try and re-define the American liberal party by fighting for economic, gender, and racial equality. It will succeed in integrating these platforms, eventually, but it will be slow going.

Look, there will always be racists and sexists, but for the most part, the majority of the population doesn’t think they are racist or sexist. They are awaiting for the dominate culture of their society to tell them what racism and sexism are.

This is why narrative is so essential in ideology. By aligning feminism with leftism then the ‘right’ must be opposed to it. As a result, the dialogue the right will send to its members is that they are not sexist or racist (as the norm) via ignoring the issue all together or tackling peripheral pop-culture issues (are yoga pants rape culture, court cases, racist cop killings, etc.) and discussing the details of the case rather than the magnitude of the situation.

As a result, feminism is a large mixture of ingredients that feminists desperately want to blend together. They want this blend so badly that they are truncating their prior arguments and obscuring their message. Fighting for gender equality in our culture is difficult enough, adding on racism and economic inequality is another.

Each of these three topics constitutes entire academic areas of study and they want to truncate these thoughts into sound bytes. But unfortunately they are no longer feminist sound bytes, they are Democratic party sound bytes. Finally, when I read a feminist blog I feel like I’m reading a leftist blog instead. What makes them distinctly feminist anymore? When you decide to downgrade the patriarchy question you run the risk of essentially being a carbon copy of other leftist groups who argue for the exact same thing.

As an example, Communists have been arguing for gender, class, racial equality since before feminism existed. What made feminism unique from communism was the focus on patriarchy rather than the class dialectic. Therefore the feminist focus is lost and as a result their message no longer resonates as true as it once did.

4. Confusion between legal and cultural oppression.

Again, this is a consequence of feminism aligning itself with leftists. It is one thing to say that females are oppressed, it is another to say that this oppression is legally enforced.

There are clearly some sexist laws (marriage is a prime example), but for the most part our laws are gender neutral. What is not gender neutral is the application of the law by sexist/racist people. One school of thought is to enact laws forcing people to not be racist or sexist. Another is to change the culture of the society we live in such that these evils are mitigated.

A great example is the wage gap. Feminists say that females are paid far less than their male peers for equivalent jobs. This may be true, but I ask why? A feminist will say it is because employers are sexist and in spite of a hard working female they will always be paid less.

1)This is not legal oppression, this is cultural oppression. Wanting to solve this issue through legal means is an entirely different argument. I want people to be judged on the basis of their objective work, but the fact is that most of corporate work is based on a large series of intangible things. Before we start resorting to the threat of violence to solve our issues (i.e. using the government) lets first make it clear exactly what you think the origin of those issues are and alternative solutions going forward.

The data I’ve seen is that the wage gap is closing between females and males, so why do we need the threat of violence to fix it?

5. Rampant Ad Hominid Arguments

This is just a short rant. Every discussion with an internet feminist I have had has resulted in them bringing up my perceived race/gender and how this is a serious factor in the validity of my argument about feminist philosophy. Honestly, if the basis of your arguments are grounded on the race of the individual making the comment (on the theoretical nature of feminism mind you, not the impact that being black has on American justice) then you are no better than the Storm Front neo-nazis. I’m being serious, you can go check them out.

And you should be disgusted with yourself that such discourse is allowed and accepted. Any of the comments of the blogs I have posted in this article are riddled with this sort of ad hominid foolishness, and applauded by the authors. All of this is under the false pretension that you are a crusader for racial equality and all who disagree are racist misogynists. I applaud you for your zeal but have some unfortunate news for you, every single modern (1800+) political ideology ever conceived is concerned with the ‘equality’ of its adherents and claims to do exactly what you are doing. Just because you are ignorant of this truth does not mean it doesn’t exist.

You are not the gate keeper of this sacred charge to emancipate your ‘people’ and you are on ground that has been trodden on so thoroughly that the path doesn’t even exist anymore. You are so lost in this swamp that if you could just look ahead you’d see the giants who had left this path behind long, long ago.

If you want to rise above the fray, attack the content of the argument not the character of the creator.

5 Responses to “5 Critiques of Internet Feminism (Guest Post)”

  1. 1


    I think the author is not cognizant that the original feminist movement was co-opted by communists a long while back. IF you read people from the early movement of the modern wave, you will find that this is the case. which is why if you compare early feminists points with later ones, you often find them at opposites.

    read Erin Pizzy, who started the worlds first shelters for domestic violence, however, she was more reasoned and less ideological, and her shelters recognized that either side could abuse the other (to which the victim may not fight back), and that some women (she said) had a mentality where they gravitated to this kind of relationship and it was critical to recognize this and help them not do so. all reasonable… that is until the socialists arived and big hulking lesbian bulls threatned her and her family and took over her organization, erased her name, and forced her to flee england for the sake of her safety and families safety.

    or read the now more open history of naomi goldstein (of which i knew people who knew her husband and were friends with him), as a communist writier who was tagged by others to write a new book under a new name, betty fridan, and the book was the feminine mystique

    or even the horrid work of kinsey with the work of another feminist who got her chops from franz boas… they both worked to sexualize everything claiming women were more like men and that in the island cultures women would just lay down and have sex with anyone… and they pushed the soviet free love idea on the US with its basis of coming from Kolontai. kinsey had pedophiles sexually abuse babies and children so as to prove that babies can orgasm and so children are sexual beings. (miley, laddettes, and on and on are the result of this, with high rape count, high deseases, low fecundity to the point of self extermination and need to open up the borders to hide the decline)

    the history is ther,e but dont wait for them to tell you any more than the third way politicians would tell you that that was and still is fascism by another name..

  2. 2




    Hello Artfldgr,

    I appreciate your comment. I’ll try to defend myself briefly. Primarily I think your issue is that you are claiming Communism contains Feminism (by stating that feminism was co-opted long ago). I want to iterate my stance on political ideologies in general so that my statements in the post become more clear.

    I do not think that ideologies fit in neat categories. What I attempt to show through my writings is that the principal arguments of all our major ideologies (fascism, anarchism, communism, classical liberalism, etc..) mix and intertwine. To be a political conservative in the 1700s is not the same as a conservative in 2010. The same can be said for claiming to be an American liberal. Ideology is in continuous flux depending on the time period, culture, and predominate social structure which it exists. Feminism may not stand on its own feet with the same strength and vigor as Fascism/Communism/Classical Liberalism did in the 1900s (we will never see a ‘feminist’ state), but it still brings with it viewpoints and arguments which will infect and change all future political thought. These viewpoints, I argue, are unique enough to give it it’s own ‘box’, no matter how bent and broken the edges of those boxes may be.

    For that reason, I would agree that there are large swaths of internet feminists who would find themselves heavily aligned with Communists, but that isn’t really the point here. Internet Feminism is aligning itself with Leftism, sure some feminists are ‘dismantle the capitalist oppressor state’ flavored, but not all. I would argue that the majority of internet feminists (not just the most vocal ones) are more like Social Democrats than traditional Communists.

    Of course, feel free to disagree. I appreciate your time.


  3. 3


    Not only are feminists leftist, but it is impossible, by definition, for a feminist, today, to be anything but. Feminists self-regulate and self-police this truth. If feminism is fighting for feminine equality and rights, then it should know no ideological bounds yet “feminists” will turn on any woman, white, black, Hispanic or any other, that does not toe the “feminist” (far left) line.

    Would Sarah Palin have hurt women’s causes? Will Carly Fiorina cause the enslavement (or, by the feminist argument, RE-enslavement) of women? Is it not a fact that ANY woman that succeeds and wields power would enhance the position and goals of women?

    No, to promote women’s issues, one HAS to be liberal. Hillary, the confirmed liar and arrogant elitist, can represent women better than an accomplished politician woman such as Palin or business woman such as Fiorina. Hillary, who herself viciously attacks WOMEN who dare to displease her (by being accosted by her husband, for instance) is somehow the ideal woman that all women should aspire to become.

    If so, God help us.

  4. 4


    gonna try this a second time.

    @PlatoShrugs: Of course, feel free to disagree. I appreciate your time.

    That may be how you see it, but the point of that view (not expressed) is to miss the fact that regardless of the second word in the series, even if a contradiction (feminists for porn, feminists agianst porn) you still are stuck under the umbrella, which is the point of gaining power from both sides withot opposition.

    put another way: the leaders have groups that cover any answer they want, and so they dont ahve to serve their constituency, they do what they like and then point to a group to validate why. they are not beholden to anyone.

    [do note that very few people actually know even why they use certain terms, and the correct answers not the answers from the zietgeist which seem correct becausde ones nature is to think eveyrone cant be wrong].

    what here we call co-opting, was a strategy by the Trotskyites called Entryism.

    Entryism (also referred to as entrism, occasionally as enterism) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program. In situations where the organization being “entered” is hostile to entrism, the entrists may engage in a degree of subterfuge to hide the fact that they are an organisation in their own right.

    When we or others mention RINOs what they are mentioning is the product of entryism.

    this is how the nature of feminism changed from women first to the trotskyite leftist label. now the left, right dichotomy, has nothing to do with the french court as the zeitgeist would say, it has to do with “Right Opposition” [Правая оппозиция, Pravaya oppozitsiya] from the lenin, stalin, trotsky periods of soviet union.

    the name given to the tendency made up of Nikolai Bukharin, Alexei Rykov, Mikhail Tomsky and their supporters within the Soviet Union in the late 1920s. It is also the name given to “right-wing” critics within the Communist movement internationally, particularly those who coalesced in the International Communist Opposition, regardless of whether they identified with Bukharin and Rykov. Note that the designation “Right Opposition” refers to the position of this movement relative to the other Communist movements on the traditional spectrum. Relative to contemporary political centrism, the Right Opposition is still very firmly on the Left.

    People pretend to be smart by using these terms but have no idea of the meaning of the terms they use as they are copying the language of leaders that DO know the terms and do not explain. ie. by using soviet terminology that cuts out all other political points on the spectrum, the whole of the political argument mentally becomes which level of communism do you have. left (trotsky, the poor, the downtrodden), centrist (the administrators, etc) or right (the communistst that wanted to add a bit of capitalism).

    The struggle for power in the Soviet Union after the death of Vladimir Lenin saw the development of three major tendencies within the Communist Party. These were described by Leon Trotsky as representing left, right and centre tendencies, each based on a specific class or caste. Trotsky argued that his tendency, the Left Opposition, represented the internationalist traditions of the working class. The tendency led by Joseph Stalin was described as being in the centre, based on the state and party bureaucracy, tending to shift alliances between the left and the right. The right tendency was identified with the supporters of Nikolai Bukharin and Rykov. It was asserted that they represented the influence of the peasantry and the danger of capitalist restoration

    This is why Hitler is on the right, and also Capitalism is on the right having nothing to do with fascism other than when combined with communism/socialism.. does the public know any of this? very few…

    Erin Pizzey: From The Personal To The Political

    I was born in China in 1939. My father was working in the British Consular Service. Both my parents were friends of Chaing Kai Check, who was eventually exiled to Taiwan by the communists. My parents and my brother, who returned to China in 1942, were captured by the communists and put under house arrest for several years. My twin sister and myself believed them to be dead. My father’s hatred and disgust for any totalitarian regime left its mark on me and I was offended by what I saw as a manipulative attempt for the local communist party to add my three pounds ten shillings to their account.

    Still, I passionately believed that women in Britain needed a place to meet and to organize in their local areas. I was aware of a huge group of isolated women, many of whom had invaluable natural gifts, and some work experiences that we could use to work in our own communities. I braved the hostility towards my high heels and my make up in the women’s liberation office and took over the typing.

    I didn’t last long.

    What I saw happening were groups of left-leaning, white, middle-class women gathering together to hate men. Their slogan was: “Make the personal political.” What I could see happening was that the most vociferous and violent of the women took their own personal damage, their anger against their fathers and lovers and expanded their rage to include all men.

    Many of these women were “trust fund bunnies” meaning that they lived off their rich father’s money.

    What made the movement so immediately violent, was the fact that it was founded in England by American women who were on the run from the FBI.

    This was not the first time America exported its revolutionaries. Trotsky was deported along with other revolutionaries years before.

    Some went to Germany to join the Badermeinhof revolutionaries. Others went to Holland to join the Red Stockings and some chose to come to England. England seemed destined to become the revolutionary hot bed for terrorists all over the world, Beirut by the Thames.

    I guess you have no rememberance of that modern feminism full of lies we now believe due to the process of the big lie, was also a terrorist group at one time! do you remember that period of the change over? the bombings? the deaths? the imprisonments? it was a feminist soviet game that people didnt know was going on as the soviets used entryism to take over the thing, as was stated in various marxist papers that would describe it. one of the earliets being Sergey Nechayev (1869) The Revolutionary Catechism.

    The Relations of the Revolutionary toward Society

    The sixth category is especially important: women. They can be divided into three main groups. First, those frivolous, thoughtless, and vapid women, whom we shall use as we use the third and fourth category of men. Second, women who are ardent, capable, and devoted, but whom do not belong to us because they have not yet achieved a passionless and austere revolutionary understanding; these must be used like the men of the fifth category. Finally, there are the women who are completely on our side – i.e., those who are wholly dedicated and who have accepted our program in its entirety. We should regard these women as the most valuable or our treasures; without their help, we would never succeed.

    this structure way over 100 years puts the leaders (communists) at the top orchestrating things, and the divides the ones below them by their usefulness and their willingness to participate with communism, and the last group being those that think they are against that, and not even a part of that, but whose numbers increase the whole power base… (the women who say they are not, and then given the clean nice party definition, then come to say they are… but thats all lies, and its well known it is in the right circles. after all, if you tell them your going to use them and turn them into your private army for social desctruction, only the top teir would sign on and you would have an open fight against people that otherwise would be under your aegis)

    there is so much in that document that describes what is going on as its a map for taking over a state. want to know why they make policies that lead to race events, or advice that helps more women get raped, etc?

    The second group comprises those who will be spared for the time being in order that, by a series of monstrous acts, they may drive the people into inevitable revolt.

    want to knwo why the democrat party has changed from its self serving racist past into the now in the pocket of communists?

    The third category consists of a great many brutes in high positions, distinguished neither by their cleverness nor their energy, while enjoying riches, influence, power, and high positions by virtue of their rank. These must be exploited in every possible way; they must be implicated and embroiled in our affairs, their dirty secrets must be ferreted out, and they must be transformed into slaves. Their power, influence, and connections, their wealth and their energy, will form an inexhaustible treasure and a precious help in all our undertakings.

    want to know what category the clintons are from? (with bill being a fullbright scholar attending college in the soviet union)

    The fourth category comprises ambitious office-holders and liberals of various shades of opinion. The revolutionary must pretend to collaborate with them, blindly following them, while at the same time, prying out their secrets until they are completely in his power. They must be so compromised that there is no way out for them, and then they can be used to create disorder in the State.

    and what about people like H Rap Brown, Valerie Solanas, or even Robin Morgan who said the whole of it was for communist revolution… (you obviously have not read their quotes that lay it out plainly to the point no one believes it is anything but rhetoric.

    The fifth category consists of those doctrinaires, conspirators, and revolutionists who cut a great figure on paper or in their cliques. They must be constantly driven on to make compromising declarations: as a result, the majority of them will be destroyed, while a minority will become genuine revolutionaries.

    we have all forgotten the bader meinhoff group, the red stockings, and in the case of feminism as a terrorist organization (explaining their solidarity with terrorists), Rote Zora… (of which the politicians remember and have been letting them out of prison and making them into stars again)

    Erin Pizzey: From The Personal To The Political

    By 1972 the women’s movement had run out of money. Ordinary English women were far too intelligent and educated to want to be included into a movement that so obviously desired to destroy the family and men. Only the very isolated pockets of women living in areas like grizzly Islington and Kew, refused to let their boy children have any male toys, and boasted that their husbands or lovers had now been changed over night into ‘new men.’

    The rest of us accepted that men would always be men and any help in the house was gratefully accepted.

    While the bra-burning movement became a figure of fun in jokes on television and in newspapers, the movement slid into obscurity except in certain newspapers and in the academic circles. Here the misandry of the women’s movement found its exponents amongst untenured women professors. What they could do was to create a whole new ideology called “Women’s Studies” and brain wash generations of young women coming into Universities.

    I found schools filled with “teachers” who were not teachers but political activists. I went to Universities to lecture and was roundly hated when I pointed out that 62 of the first hundred women who came into the refuge were as violent as the men they left.

    that could be because bella dodd was the head of the CPUSA and the leader of the Teachers union, which had become international later on (after she changed sides and confessed her actions to congress. we forgot that too)

    want to know why so many “boys” are out of luck disenfrancished, etc? well wont that make the crimes and things that can be used in crisis to change things as people are not thinking? (remember the feminist blog that was hidden that Anonymous exposed where teachers discussed the abuse and mental terror they were applying to boys to make them grow up dysfunctional?)

    Most of all I saw feminist women teachers discriminate against the boys in their classrooms. I saw the huge tide of women pouring into the work force hungry for jobs and careers. Many had no choice. Financial hardship made it imperative for both partners to work. In spite of promises there was no national child care plan. So illegal and often dangerous attempts were made by other women to take in children. Men, freed of any restraint by the birth pill, demanded sex whenever they wanted it, and then many ran away from the subsequent pregnancies. London became not only the abortion capital of the world but also had the highest level of teenage births in the West. Men turned their backs on marriage and commitment, many fearing, quite rightly, that whatever commitment they offered would end up with women fleecing them for the rest of their lives.

    the west is not used to such grand huge things. in fact we invented the term conspiracy theory in the 1960s/1970s to basically marginalize anyone who shows any knowlege of these thigns and knows and tries to present it to the public. this is not the same as the kennedy crapola… (despite the recent CIA revealings), but actuall things in the open you can look up, but wont, or will assume without looking.

    there is a lot more, but too much will make people choke. i just hope they actually learn the history…

    remember when obama was talking about how the eveil white men of the south put the dogs on blacks, and opened up the hoses? and how it inspired his parents to have a baby after they had already had the baby a few years earlier? (lied)… well did he also point out that those people were democrats, like bull connors? or did he leave that out? when they said they will remove the confederate flag, did they point out that this is an effort to erase their own history? the confederate flag was the flag of the democrat successionists… its the democrats flag!!! or did he mention the thousands of blacks murdered by democrats the year AFTER the naacp list of black deaths terminates for hayes tilden election, and the torture and murder of blacks so that they would never vote for republicans like lincoln?

    the game is a game of ignorance… they know that you wont do your detailed research. that you will fill in the gaps with stories and things rather than say, there is a gap, or even notice it. you dont see the blind spot in your vision do you? its there where your optic nerve enters… same is true of facts and knowlege…

    they know that your not going to dig, and if you do, you may decide to ignore it as conspiracy, or figure that if you publish that, you would be hated like pizzey and others (which is true), or that you will instead spend your time making the unreasonable reasonable (as you did do in your article). do note that i will be attacked for the length of my post on this. or some may say i am a conspiracist, but i am not. i am a historian who realized tha tmost people have a huge blind spot when it comes to russian soviet games (on purpose) and a cartoony view of germany and their truck with the austrian who was WITH stalin trying to answer the Jewish question.

    i will leave you with a bit of history about Rote Zora:

    Red Zora began in 1977 as the feminist arm of the Revolutionary Cells left-wing terrorist organisation which saw itself as a rival to the Red Army Faction. It began its attacks with a bomb planted outside the offices of the German Doctors Association to protest against the abortion laws.

    They bombed the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in Karlsruhe. Red Zora split from the Revolutionary Cells in 1986 having become disillusioned with the violent methods of other left-wing groups. It launched a campaign that was designed not to harm. Its last attack was on a Bremen shipyard in 1995.

    They bombed numerous sex shops, the cars of landlords, the Siemens company, Bayer, and the company Nixdorf Computer AG. Its activists were part-time guerillas, and were known as “after-work terrorists” because most had middle class jobs and carried out their attacks in their free time.

    In April 2007, former Rote Zora member Adrienne Gershäuser stood trial for the attempted bombings of the Berlin Genetic Technical Institute in 1986, and a clothing factory in Bavaria in 1987, receiving a suspended two-year sentence, the maximum she was eligible for.

    [and one should look up the similar terrotist group the weather underground whose prodigy is in office now… the weatherundergroun was a part of the SDS which was born of the LID and goes back to the early 1900s and the communist movement. the Brinks job was them combining their efforts with black national socialists to get funding to start a race war to bring a soviet revolution to america!!! (making charles manson a head of his time). Rap was born not of bebop, and all that, but h rap brown.

    Each of these groups represent factions of the same system. think of the system as a fish market, in which you need different nets to catch different fish as one net wont catch enough, but many nets together, under single titled ignore, like feminism, allows you to aggregate many more people, including people who would normally be in opposition, and so make a huge singular block you can use the power of, as they cant vote their own ideas. (maybe thats why articles are now appearing more and more that the state should, in the name of equality, pay for everything women want, including this morning saying the state should pay for tampons – cause guys dont need them, and thats not equal)

    ok guys… shoot me for being too long and knowing history you can look up but never did (or forgot it and never linked it up to the international movement)

  5. 5


    The whole thing has been corrupted. Feminine means being the opposite of masculine. It means the very best of being a female. It is not a word to mean someone that controls the situation. I like this definition: “having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women, especially delicacy and prettiness.”
    As the term is used by the bull dykes, it means exactly the opposite of that traditional meaning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *