On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 20:59:17 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
Funny thing: All the feminists I have known had a primarily anarchist orientation. I guess it depends on who you run around with - and/or whether one's information comes from personal contacts or mass media propaganda sources.
I know very little people with an 'anarchist orientation' because, obviously, anarchism isn't exactly popular. And the set containing 'anarchist' and 'feminist' is virtually empty as far as my personal sampling goes. But, in general terms... ...Feminism is conceptual nonsense. If there are legal restrictions placed on women those have to be abolished based on the principle of equality before the law, but that's a *liberal* tenet not a 'feminist' one. In other words 'feminism' is not needed. And no wonder in practice feminism is just another tool of oppression.
If that seems "wrong" look up Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons and Simone De Beauvoir.
Here's the only valuable thing somehow related to some 'feminists' that I can think of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws And yes, Simone De Beauvoir shows up there. But, the abolition of such criminal nonsense as 'age of consent' legislation is a purely libertarian issue, not a 'feminist' one.
Feminazis seem to have originated in the New Left. Presenting a caricature of reactionary Marxism,
Why a caricature? I think that's what real marxism looks like. At any rate, marxism is its own involuntary self-parody.
the New Left rose to prominence in the 1960s,
Well, look at 1984, published in 1948. In 1984 there's 'equality', both men and women are equally enslaved under national english socialism. AND, there's an anti-sex league. And coincidentally the lunatic anti-sex mindset and putting women in the 'labor force' are defining characteristic of 'modern' feminism. Also, the lunatic anti-sex tradition in the 'west' isn't new. It's one of the pilars of jew-kristian theocracy. And it turns out that feminism is nothing but recycled and 'scientific' conservative theocracy.
displacing and discrediting Liberal and Pacifist voices in U.S. media during the Vietnam War.
Not meaning to defend the so called new left, but weren't they at least opposed to the vietnam war?
I suspect these folks had US State sponsors: The FBI's funding and direction of terrorist cells in the U.S. at that time (per evidence in Court cases acquitting "dupes")
Well, controlled opposition certainly makes sense.
indicates vigorous political warfare against home grown U.S. dissidents. Failure to field a media personality propaganda front demonizing dissidents would make no sense at all.
Following a make-over in the late 70s & early 80s, the New Left and its new recruits call themselves Progressives. Working as freelance profiteers under the sponsorship of folks like Our Mrs. Clinton and her network, our Progressives continue to use every means at their disposal - now a respectable arsenal of propaganda assets, astroturf fronts, friendly elected officials, etc. - to discredit and suppress grass roots Liberal and Pacifist political activism, not to mention anti-Fascist organizers and anything resembling anarchism.
:o/