Marxism

The Feminist Movement’s Roots in Marxist Philosophy

The Feminist Movement’s Roots in Marxist Philosophy

By David Risselada

Despite the fact that Donald Trump is days away from assuming the presidency, the choo choo train of fundamental transformation continues to chug along. The left remains in firm control of America’s educational system; which means that no matter what conservative changes Trump may make, students will still be indoctrinated into the tenets of progressivism. The latest example of this is coming from the same place that white privilege education originated, Wisconsin. It is overwhelmingly obvious that there is an agenda to not only weaken and discredit American institutions, but the American male as well. The University of Wisconsin is set to launch its “men’s project” which is designed to teach male students to be more self aware of how their masculinity and manly attitudes affect the people around them. One of the main objectives, according to the college, is to address the negative characteristics of masculinity and the violence it allegedly causes. Also, the program seeks to encourage men to engage in critical self reflection and promote gender equality. Like White Privilege education, the gender equality/feminist movement has its roots in Marxist philosophy and is designed to break down the most basic of American institutions, the nuclear family.

Karl Marx viewed the family as a vehicle of class oppression. A strong family structure is essential to any free nation where people rely on themselves as opposed to government. To Marx and Engels however, the family was an instrument of exploitation. The family structure was a byproduct of the oppressive capitalist system where the woman’s labor was exploited and undervalued. Marxist theory on the family argues that the modern structure developed out of a need to pass on property through familial lines. As the development of agriculture and the use of livestock became more prevalent, the need to maintain and pass down private property became a dominating factor in family life; thus, relinquishing women into subservient roles. Therefore, in order to create true gender equality, private property must be eliminated.  These ideas were later developed into the modern feminist movement by left wing activist, Betty Friedan.

Friedan, who was a communist sympathizer, authored the book The Feminine Mystique where she attempted to convince American women that the lives they were living were no more than comfortable prison camps. Marxists thrive on the creation of discontent, and in the very first chapter of this book Freidan holds no punches. Attacking the very nature of what it meant to be a 20th century American woman, Friedan suggests they should all be wondering if there is more to life than simply serving their families.

“The problem lay buried, unspoken for many years in the minds of American women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women suffered in the twentieth century in the United States. Each suburban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for the groceries, matched slip cover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children, chauffeured cub scouts and brownies, lay beside her husband at night-she was afraid to ask herself the silent question. Is this all?”

In that very first paragraph Friedan exposes her Marxist leanings by citing the typical work of a house wife as a source of discontent. She attacks the very nature of motherhood by implanting the idea that caring for children is somehow unfulfilling, and that family life itself is a form of oppression by describing it as a buried, unspoken of problem. The feminist movement, with the help of Freidan’s book, has aided in the destruction of the American family by convincing women that they are oppressed victims in patriarchal oligarchy. This draws back to Antonio Gramsci and the idea of counter hegemony. The feminist movement represents a class of people whose values are antithetical to the dominate social group. This will create the necessary conflict which will, in the minds of Marxists, inevitably push society towards full communism.

The feminist movement, in it’s epic struggle for total equality between the sexes, has completely destroyed what it means to be equal by forcing the idea that men and women are the same onto society. Marx and Engels viewed marriage and the family from the same dogmatic precept that they viewed everything else. That there was no god and mankind held no more special significance than any other animal. This is completely antithetical to the way most Americans view marriage.

Despite the changes we have endured, America still holds a Christian majority that wants the institution of marriage protected. The institute of marriage, according to our founding fathers, was unique in the sense that it best prepared individuals for responsible citizenship which is essential for self governance. While Marxists view marriage as a vehicle of oppression which subjugates women while protecting the interests of the patriarchy, the truth is that marriage protects both men and women equally while ensuring mutual interests are protected. The marriage represented equality in the sense that it was an agreement that both parties agreed to in the interest of raising children and forming a stronger community.

The feminist movement insists that men and women be treated as complete equals; however, this destroys the true character of women and suggests that they have no special characteristics which define womanhood. When it comes to the issue of raising children it would be difficult to argue that women do not possess a nurturing characteristic that is unique to motherhood while men bring different parenting skills necessary to child rearing. The point is that marriage represents true equality between the sexes because a true marriage brings men and women together into the forming of one union working together to achieve a common goal; a stronger, more responsible society. The feminist movement, deriving it’s origins from the radical left, has sought to destroy this union because they understood that the family was the bedrock of any self governing society and in order to get people to accept state control it must be destroyed. The attempts to redefine masculinity while psychologically neutering the American male are part of this agenda and unless some drastic reforms are made to higher education, they will continue to fill our students heads with mush.

Originally published in Western Free Press.

David Risselada is a former U.S. Serviceman, commentator, and author of the book “Not on My Watch: Exposing the Marxist Agenda in Education.” David currently writes for Western Free Press.

Posted by Erik Rush in GUEST COMMENTARY
The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

The ‘Great Black Hope’ Who Threw the Fight

Once again, some folks got a little upset at glitzy billionaire businessman, TV star and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump. Capitalizing on The Donald’s “controversial” November 2014 tweet declaring that since Barack Obama has done such a lousy job as chief executive, we were not likely to see another black president “for generations,” Jonathan Karl took up that line of questioning when he had Trump on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday.

Despite his initial enthusiasm at Obama’s election, Trump said that the president “has done nothing for African-Americans,” and cited blacks’ declining income and errant youth as examples. In answer to why Trump believes we won’t see another black president for generations, he told Karl that this is because Obama has set “a very poor standard,” and a “very low bar.”

To elucidate: I believe Trump was saying that since the average voter perceives candidates very superficially, some will come to believe – even if subconsciously – that they’re liable to get the same performance from the next black presidential candidate as they got from Obama. Thus, they’ll be inclined to pass.

As indicated earlier, I have my doubts as to whether Trump intends to stick out the campaign any longer than it will take to polish up his brand. However, he’s being well-received by Americans across many demographics at present because he is articulating what people are thinking and feeling, rather than saying what he thinks they want to hear.

When Obama was elected in 2008, a lot of people wanted to know what I thought he was going to “do” for black Americans. My response was a suggestion that those asking the question might look to what Obama “did” for blacks in Illinois, or more specifically Chicago, in order to make that determination for themselves.

Not only have economic conditions for blacks tanked under this president, Obama is responsible for the deterioration of blacks’ outlook and collective self-image as well. Employing divisive and subtly racist rhetoric as well as radical surrogates (such as Al Sharpton, The New Black Panther Party and Black Lawyers for Justice), Obama has cultivated an attitude amongst blacks that is more belligerent and cynical than any we saw during the Civil Rights Movement.

After a three-month orgy of murder and other violent crime following the death of Freddie Gray (a black man who was mortally injured while in police custody this spring), the city of Baltimore has agreed to partner with federal law enforcement in an attempt to curb the outbreak in violence. Simply allowing the police to do their jobs is racist, you see, because when that’s the status quo, black criminals occasionally die.

My confidence that this plot was hatched in the White House and is an overture toward the implementation of Obama’s federal police force aside, the policies enacted by Baltimore officials (many black and all ultra-liberal) prior to Gray’s death, as well as during and after riots that occurred in its wake, were typical of those policies that invariably leave blacks alienated and angry.

Last week, it was determined that four members of a Dallas family who beat a pregnant 14-year-old relative over a period of six hours in order to induce her to have a miscarriage, then roasted the stillborn baby on a charcoal grill two years ago will not be charged with murder. This despite the state’s Prenatal Protection Act, a 2003 law designed to guarantee the rights of the unborn. Instead, the four will face the almost laughable lesser charge of “Engaging in Organized Crime.”

Now, why do you suppose the authorities decided to go that route with these defendants?

I’ll tell you why: Because they’re black. Dallas officials envisioned the kind of race-baiting circus civil rights activists (and pro-choicers for whom the unborn aren’t alive) might have turned that city into if they proceeded to prosecute four black people for the murder of an unborn baby. They decided they didn’t want any part of it.

Black Lives Matter? Only when it’s politically expedient. I could provide literally thousands of anecdotes illustrating the hypocrisy of politicians, government and activists who have a stake in perpetuating alienation and anger in black communities. As detailed in my book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” the following tragic comedy has been playing out, over and over, for decades:

  1. Policies in liberal-controlled urban black communities foster poverty and crime;
  2. activists bemoan cops not caring enough to protect poor black people;
  3. law enforcement steps up its efforts to do so;
  4. the same activists bemoan cops inordinately “targeting blacks” for arrest and prosecution.

As if it were Donald Trump dealing drugs and shooting black people in Baltimore, Chicago and Milwaukee …

Whether he is sincere or not, Trump’s message is resonating with people because it is clear to them that he at least pays attention to what is occurring in the lives of average Americans. If you’re paying attention, it’s harder not to care – unless you’re a narcissistic sociopath who is fundamentally disconnected with respect to other people. Barack Obama couldn’t be bothered with what is occurring in the lives of average Americans, and race is nothing more than a means by which he can foment division.

If Obama’s narcissism did not transcend notions of race, his Marxist worldview certainly would. Ethnic solidarity did not prevent Stalin from exterminating millions of Russians, nor Mao from exterminating millions of Chinese, nor any other Marxist despot from persecuting countless individuals of the same ethnic background as themselves.

So, when people talk about what Obama could have done for blacks, I almost have to laugh.

Almost.

Originally Published at WorldNetDaily

 

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns