POST-MODERN FEMININITY

TOXIC FEMININITY

Subtly vicious. A cat's paw for the Feminazi-Marxian agenda.

RAPEWORTHY FEMININITY?

Marxism and Marriage

AMERICAN THINKER

August 17, 2018

by David Solway

In its centuries-long efforts to dismantle the load-bearing structures of traditional and classical liberal society, Marxist dogma in its various forms – communism, socialism, neo-Marxism, Cultural Marxism – has embarked on a sustained campaign to weaken and ultimately to abolish the institution of marriage as it has been commonly understood since time immemorial.  The dissolution or misprision of marriage, as a contract between a man and a woman committed to raising a family and recognizing its attendant responsibilities, is a prerequisite for the revolutionary socialist state in which the pivotal loyalty of the individual belongs to the sovereign collective, not to the family.

Advocacy and legislation that sunder the intimate love between a man and a woman, that deprive children of male and female parental role models, that compromise the integrity of the family and that dissolve the purpose of marriage as a guarantor of cultural longevity are indispensable strategies essential to realizing the left's master plan.  Dismissing the nuclear family as an archaic and repressive arrangement whose time has passed, the state would then operate in loco parentis.

The problem for the left is that the family is a traditional dynamic that precedes and eclipses the tenure of the authoritarian state, not only because it encourages a prior allegiance, but because it allows for the retention of inheritance and property rights within the generational unit.  This is anathema to the Marxist vision of, in historian Jacob Talmon's phrase from The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, the "all-property-owning state," a function of "political Messianism."  The Marxist offensive against marriage may be seen, in part, as the ideological version of a corporate takeover.

Marx himself married his childhood sweetheart, Jenny von Westphalen, and remained married to her, although his political views did not comport with his lifelong domesticity.  In the Communist Manifesto and The German Ideology, he defined marriage as legalized prostitution and a form of female slavery.  The fact that he was desperately improvident and ignorant of economics, as Mary Gabriel shows in her fascinating study of the man, Love and Capital, did not prevent him from constructing vast hypotheses grounded on neither his conduct nor his personal experience.

Despite his internal contradictions, he was undoubtedly the most instrumental figure in the campaign to demolish the scaffolding of customary society, including marriage and the family.  The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, by Marx's collaborator and patron, Friedrich Engles, has made the left's ultraist agenda absolutely clear, referring to "the pairing family and inoculated monogamy" as a community of "leaden ennui" and a modus operandi for the class- and masculine-oriented "bequeathment of property."  It had to be smashed.

An effective way to destroy marriage and the family was advanced by communist theorist Georg Lukács, who introduced the concept of "cultural terrorism," which involved the liquidation of religion, monogamy, and the ostensibly male-dominated family.  Lukács advocated the introduction in the schools of – and as a minister in the 1919 Hungarian Bolshevik government of Béla Kun actually installed – courses on free love, sexual liberation, and Freud's notion of "polymorphous perversity," which he believed a revolutionary necessity.

We see his pernicious influence at work today in the cultural obsession with sex, the zeal for so-called sex re-assignment, and the insensate proliferation of pronominal "genders" into a Heinz 57 omnium-gatherum.  (Canada's Supreme Court whiffling on bestiality is another variant of this rubbish.)  It is also a cardinal value in the education establishment, for example in my home province of Ontario, where, under the direction of former premier Kathleen Wynne, an avowed lesbian, sex ed classes exposed young children to varieties of sexual practices far beyond their level of emotional development.

Leftism attempts to dismantle conventional society by unleashing a multi-pronged assault against it, including rewriting history, undermining religious observance and subverting traditional morality, a program sedulously advanced by the pseudo-discipline of "Critical Theory."  This pedantic and ostentatious schematism was promoted by clique of salon provocateurs known as the Frankfurt School in their effort to develop what they called "social emancipatory strategies."  They were the answer to the rhetorical question Lukács asked in his 1916 study "The Theory of the Novel": "Who will save us from Western civilization?”

Thus, Frankfurt maven Theodore Adorno's influential (co-authored) The Authoritarian Personality denounced standard sex roles and sexual mores as "social prejudice," psychological dysfunction, and a catalyst for fascism.  Popular Frankfurter Herbert Marcuse's Eros and Civilization privileged unrestrained sexuality and all forms of deviancy over traditional codes of sexual and family propriety.  Wilhelm Reich, who is said to have coined the phrase "the sexual revolution," invented the orgone box as an all-purpose therapy machine and radiant "accumulator" to revive and stimulate sexual energy.  Other eminent names associated with the school and peddling its ruinous ideology are Max Horkheimer, a director of the institute, psychoanalyst Erich Fromm, sociologist Jürgen Habermas, and philosopher Agnes Heller.  The combined intellectual power is formidable, but it is totally devoid of wisdom and practical good sense.

Admittedly, we know, as PJ Media columnist Sarah Hoyt points out, that "once in power, every leftist regime is sexually repressive" – but that is for later, after the revolution has succeeded or a national despotism has been established.  One may also note the apparent contradiction in leftist sexual politics, which hypes the nonsensical campus rape meme and launches a vendetta against men, especially straight white males, while at the same time teaching grade-schoolers about sexual variations and instructing co-eds in the use of dental dams, latex accessories, and sex toys.  The contradiction is apparent only since the mandate of the left is to disrupt the bond between men and women.  Men grow reluctant to marry, and women increasingly fail to make good wives and mothers.  Same-sex relationships become more and more common, and the state goes along with same-sex couples calling themselves married in 26 countries.

The putatively enlightened Eric Anderson, an academic who teaches Sport, Masculinities and Sexualities at the University of Winchester, U.K and is a former student of prominent Stony Brook feminist Michael Kimmel, considers this development a manifestation of "inclusive masculinity" and an evolution in cultural sensitivity.  He is particularly proud of the supposed "cuddling" phenomenon among male Millennials who like kissing men and has marshaled a salmagundi of dodgy statistics to prove his contestation.  Anderson and Kimmel are illustrations of how the erotic fraternity surreptitiously advances its cause under the sign of presumably open-minded sophistication.  In the last analysis, these soi-disant cultivated visionaries happily serve the left's agenda.

As noted, the left has many weapons in its incendiary arsenal, but perhaps its most piercing labret in its war against the traditional family is the penetration of the institution of marriage and its replacement by an indiscriminate caricature of its original purpose.  Its advocacy for pseudo-marriage is therefore not surprising.  It is true that communism may once have purged gays and, as Hoyt implies, will do so again, but in its assault on the family structure, its socialist epigones have long jumped on the redefining marriage bandwagon.  As Paul Kengor writes in Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Family and Marriage, "[a]s long as the traditional family is reversed, Marxism is advanced."  Marriage redefined, he continues, is "an ideal, handy device to destroy the family.”

Lest I be misunderstood, I do not endorse civil restrictions on or repression of homosexuality.  So long as common law remains in force (e.g., proscribing pedophilia or polygamy), couples should be free to follow their passions and desires.  They are free to enjoy recreational sex or to love whomever they wish.  As the late Canadian prime minister Pierre Trudeau famously said, "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."  But when same-sex couples usurp the fiscal, estate, and legal privileges of productive and nurturing procreant families – truly an unearned increment – and certainly when the right to marry can be claimed by any category of individuals and any cosplay group with no relation to the traditional armature of Western civilization, the disintegration of social norms and usages must inevitably follow.  As Engels and company knew, marriage and the family constitute the ground on which the battle is most auspiciously fought.

Armed with both the theoretical and empirical power of sexual license, the left now appears unassailable, cresting with self-assurance.  Its campaign against the institution of marriage seems close to fulfillment.  There can be little doubt that once the traditional institution of marriage, or even binding common law (sui iuris) arrangements within heterosexual couples, have been disabled, when forms of sexual deviance are encouraged, when men embrace MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) and women are regarded as victims of the so-called patriarchal family, and when marriage distorted beyond its definition has been ordained and consecrated as normal, the new dialectic of Marxist inversion may well have won the day.

SOCIALISM

WHAT IS IT and HOW DID WE 

GET SADDLED WITH IT?

Socialism" –– rooted, of course, in MARXISM –– purports to be the panacea needed to foster "EQUALITY" and "FAIRNESS" for all, which of course implies the elimination of all opportunities to acquire Personal Wealth and Private Property, which in turn implies a requirement for the pursuit of Individual Interests to die, and for all to become totally subservient to the furtherance and development of an almighty and ever-living STATE.

Maybe Karl Marx truly believed that, and maybe he didn't, but it doesn't matter, because in the real world –– like it or not –– RESULTS are ALL that COUNT.

As it INVARIABLY turns out "Socialism" once adopted becomes the means for accruing an ever greater, ever stronger store of CENTRALIZED POWER. 

ENTER the OLIGARCHS. 

The Captains of Industry realized very quickly once so-called "PROGRESSIVISM" [more realistically termed "Ever-Increasing Government Control of Industry and Personal Conduct"] began to take hold that since BUSINESS could not hope to BEAT Government, tbe best course for Business to take would be to JOIN Government and thus acquire CONTROL of Government.

A WEE CAPSULE HISTORY 
of POLITICAL POWER:

First, Power lay in the hands of Tribal Chieftains,–– then barbaric Kings and Emperors of the Ancient World, –– then for a time Power and Control were in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church and the class loosely known as The Nobility. Then came the Enlightenment. Unfortunately the blessings of that brilliant flowering of good sense and genuine humanitarian impulses were quickly blighted by two developments:

1. the emergence of The Industrial Revoluton

2. the unIntended consequence of the discoveries and theories of Charles Darwin.

Darwin. who was a faithful, godly man, himself, soon found his Theory of Evolution corrupted, because it proved useful to pernicious philosophers who were the atheistic enemies of Christianity.

The Industrial Revlution gave rise to a NEW form of FEUDALISM. The NOBILITY were replaced by CORPORATE MAGNATES and the EXECUTIVE CLASS. The FACTORY replaced the CASTLE. The factory WORKERS became the new breed of SERFS.

ENTER KARL MARX, CLASS WARFARE, WORLD WARS, the GREAT DEPRESSION, WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION and the BLOODY HELL 
we must live in today. 

From the Pennsylvania Dutch came a wonderful indictment of "Progress:"

"The farther ahead we go, 

the behinder we get."

Meditation 

on a 

Tragic Anniversary

A radiant cloudless morning

air fresh and clear

sky the brightest blue

mood mellow

A lovely young day bright with promise ––

And then a gleaming silver shell appeared

mirroring beautifully the morning sunshine 

A Thing of Beauty –– but horribly out of place

like a spacecraft from an alien planet

Dipping crazily far too low upon the skyline

before anyone could feel the menace ––

it smashed directly into a gigantic upright construct ––

one of a pair ––

Twin monuments to Greed and Vain Ambition 
some were quick to say

But sudden violent death eradicated 
an entire investment firm

in one horrific instant –– 

dozens of bright young lives 
incinerated –– gone!

Before dazed onlookers could begin to understand 
what was happening

another silver shell acting as a missile 

crashed into the second of the giant pair.

Ugly buildings!  A hideous blot 

on the once-graceful Manhattan skyline.

“Ada Louise Huxtable might secretly rejoice at this,”

part of me thought wickedly, for I had always resented

the overbearing, outsized twins ––

Bounders! Interlopers ! Invaders!

But before that ruined day was halfway through

three-thousand innocents had been

burned alive, brains and eyeballs boiled 

skulls pulverized, skeletons crushed

between twisting, white hot girders

pelted with falling rubble midst the flames

caught, crippled, crumpled, smashed to bits ––

Smothered in collapsing stairwells and buried alive

in a torrent of red hot cinders and debris

In so many ways the scene must have 
mimicked the final hours of the residents 
of Pompeii and Herculaneum

And then there were those hideous echoes 

of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire ––

Where so many jumped to their deaths

to escape being burned alive ––

In an instant smashed skulls, broken bones and bloody pulp 

were all that remained of their vibrant young lives.

And not so long ago in Benghazi –– to mark the anniversary 

of this Great Triumph of Barbarity over Civilization

our young, handsome, well-meaning, 

hopelessly naive, ambassador to Libya

was surrounded in his quarters, 

dragged out into the streets

beaten, sodomized and brutally murdered.

But what does any of this matter? 
What difference does it make?

Let’s just forget about it, and MOVE ON.

Might as well. 

We are privileged to live in interesting times.

Kyrie eleison!

Kyrie eleison!

Christe eleison!

~ FreeThinke

FOR the VICTIMS of 911, 

–– THEIR LOVED ONES, –– FAMILIES, 
–– FRIENDS,  __ for our NATION, 
__ and for the WORLD:

Schlummert ein, ihr matten Augen,

Fallet sanft und selig zu!

Welt, ich bleibe nicht mehr hier,

Hab ich doch kein Teil an dir,

Das der Seele könnte taugen.

Hier muss ich das Elend bauen,

Aber dort, dort werd ich schauen

Sueussen Friede, stille Ruh.

Slumber, my weary eyes,

Fall softly and close in contentment.

O World, I will linger here no more.

For indeed, I find nothing in you

Pleasing to my soul.

Here I am resigned to misery,

But there, there I shall feel

Sweet peace and quiet rest.

Brother-in-Arms

Our Own Mr. Anonymous Makes 
A Rare Appearance

by Mr. X 

September 6, 2018

AddThis Sharing Buttons

It appears I have in Washington a kindred spirit, who has discovered the tremendous power of anonymity.

In today’s New York Times, someone claiming to work at the highest levels in the White House wrote a scathing critique of his (or her) boss, President Trump, and his amorality. The writer boasts of working with others in the administration to thwart the President’s worst instincts, of which, according to the author, there are many.

“Anonymous” has become the main topic of conversation on every cable channel, talk radio show, and the Internet. I understand this, having had to hide my persona for fear of being castigated for my beliefs. Trust me, though, the anonymous writer in the White House doesn’t know what real concern for your reputation is.

Try being a conservative on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Try being someone who believes we actually need a strong military to defend ourselves against real enemies ... who believes that Bernie Sanders’ socialism would work as well — namely, as little — as socialism always has in the past ... who believes the quality of life in New York City has plunged since Bill de Blasio was elected mayor ... who respects the flag and has stopped watching NFL football because of the whole kneeling thing ... who believes that if the Palestinians really wanted peace, there would be peace tomorrow and if the Israelis gave up their arms, they would all be dead tomorrow ... who believes that America is not a racist nation, but is, in fact, one of the most open and brilliant experiments in self-government, one that has freed more people and fed more people than any other country in history.

Try believing all the above while residing between Lincoln Center and Columbia University (or in the San Francisco Bay area or in Dane County in Wisconsin ... or in Cambridge, Massachusetts). This guy or gal doesn’t know the first thing about taking risks for one’s beliefs.

Allow me to give you some history.

Back in 2004, in the midst of the presidential election between the incumbent, George W. Bush, and Senator John Kerry, I finally got fed up with everyone assuming I despised George W. Bush because of where I lived, what I looked like, and what I did to make a living. So I wrote an op-ed about the daily indignities I lived with as a conservative in my neighborhood — and how I had to keep my thoughts to myself.

So much for free speech. I talked about the hypocrisy I encountered with people who consider themselves open to all points of view, but who were, in truth, close-minded to anything that did not conform to their belief structure.

I sent it in to the New York Times. After reading it, an editor got back to me and said, sorry, the Times never accepts anonymous articles. Would I be willing to use my name? Since I thought the anonymity actually added more power to the piece, I thanked him, but said no and sent it in The New York Sun.

At the Sun, which then had a paper edition, the editors got the point immediately and ran the op-ed with a large cartoon. I got a kick out of riding the subway that morning and seeing people reading it. I tried to imagine how they’d react if they knew that the author was standing right next to them. Back in 2004, of course, people actually read newspapers on subways, instead of zoning out on iPhones.

For four days, I looked at the paper hoping to see some reaction in the letters section. There was none, and I remember saying to my wife, “Gosh, I thought there would at least be some reaction to the piece.”

The next day, I opened the paper to see something I have never seen before or since – the entire OpEd page was devoted to letters to the editor in reaction to the piece. I learned something important that day. I learned I was not alone. There are others, many others, who don’t conform to the lock-step political beliefs of the Upper West Side.

Today I woke up to Anonymous’s piece in the Times and learned something else, something I should have known all along. When the writer is a conservative and castigates the Times’ reader-base, they stick to their rules. When the writer goes after someone the Times openly detests, as it does President Trump, well, that’s another story. The rules quickly go out the window.

So, here we are, 18 years later and not much has changed in Mr. X’s neighborhood. Some things have changed with Mr. X, though. I really no longer care what others think. When I hear people lamenting the fact that Donald Trump or the evil, racist Republicans are in power, I don’t just let them drone on. I speak up.

Along the way, I have lost many friends. I have been excluded from various events. But I have also found many like-minded individuals who don’t live and die by what the Times, MSNBC, and their neighbors think.

They, and I, think for ourselves. I’d sign this piece, but Mr. X carries more weight.

________

Image: A Roman fresco from Pompeii, 1st century AD, depicting a man in a theatre mask and a woman wearing a garland while playing a lyre (a Greco-Roman stringed instrument); it is now housed in the National Archaeological Museum (Museo Archeologico Nazionale) of Naples, Italy. Via Wikipedia.

~ § ~

EXTRA! EXTRA!