The Trojan Horses Of Feminism

Started by Sir Jessy of Anti, May 18, 2005, 05:02 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Sir Jessy of Anti

Great article by Harry.  Follow the link to have access to the hyperlinks imbeded in the article.


The Trojan Horses Of Feminism
By Angry Harry

We all know that there are many bad people in this world who set out to harm others in some way or another; perhaps to rob them, or to cheat them, or even to kill them.

And these people often present themselves in a positive light in order to fool those whom they are intent on harming.

And so, for example, Jews were often led peacefully and without protest toward the gas chambers because the Nazis had tricked them into believing that they were merely going to be given the opportunity to have a nice cleansing shower.

And confidence tricksters of all kinds will present themselves to their future victims as very pleasant personalities in order to generate warmth and trust - which they will eventually betray.

Often these malicious people work in teams.

For example, one person in the team might present himself as a warm and trustworthy individual while it is another person from the same team who is going to do the bad deed.

And they are in cahoots with each other.

But sometimes malicious individuals can use the cover of the good natures of unsuspecting others in order to entrap people into falling for their nasty scams.

For example, an unscrupulous businesswoman might use the name of a trusted individual - perhaps a celebrity - in order to advertise and sell a product that is not up to standard.

Well. This is the type of method that the feminists have successfully used over and over again throughout the past many decades in order to hoodwink the public into believing that their ideology and their motives are pure, wholesome and worthy of support.

They hide behind the cover of the pleasant personalities of others in order to get endorsement for their dark and sickening agendas.

In many cases, these pleasant personalities are just ordinary women who have been bamboozled into believing that feminism is just about 'equality' and fair play. These gullible women then often masquerade as feminists themselves, thus giving credence and a positive image to the malicious feminists behind the scenes and to their bankrupt ideology.

I have already written many articles demonstrating that feminism is an ideology that is both based and energised almost exclusively on the generation of hatred towards men, and I do not propose to go through all the evidence for this here.

But I will state quite categorically and without reservation that ...

Feminism is not about equality. It is a revolting ideology that is akin to Nazism; e.g. see Feminism and Nazism

It is led by some very nasty women; e.g. see Feminists Are Nasty Things.

It is not about equality; e.g. see Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable

Its proponents perpetrate lie after lie after lie; e.g. see Rape Baloney

And their persistent claim that women get paid less for the same work as men is rubbish; e.g. see Some BBC Propaganda Tricks

Feminism is also creating and inflaming a never-ending gender war; e.g. see A Permanent Gender War?

Feminists have been caught lying, cheating and deceiving over and over again in order to further their aims. They have corrupted the justice system, robbed men of their homes and their children, cheated men in the workplace, deprived boys of a decent education, stolen most of the health budget and, via the media, have engaged in an onslaught of male hatred for three decades that is almost impossible to imagine so massive has it been.

And one of their more disgusting aims - which they try to hide - is to destroy people's families and their close relationships.

As just one example of this hidden agenda, here follows an excerpt from an article by Sandra Paterson in this week's New Zealand Herald.

There is a little old lady in Auckland with whom Helen Clark would not be very pleased. If she knew who she was, that is.

Back in the 1970s, when the little old lady was much younger, she used to go to feminist meetings. Not because she was a feminist, but because she and her husband were concerned at the sorts of things being discussed.

"So I would go off to all these meetings around the country to monitor what was going on," she says. "I remember there was an outcry at one conference because a woman had brought along her baby son. He wasn't wanted in the room because he was a male."

She also remembers many of the women who attended or addressed these events, among them Helen Clark, Sylvia Cartwright, Marilyn Waring, Cath Tizard, Ros Noonan and Margaret Wilson.

For decades she has watched as the young feminists of the 70s became some of the most powerful leaders in New Zealand. And for decades she held on to a couple of documents which outlined, all those years ago, a long-term feminist agenda to change New Zealand society by attacking the traditional family unit.

Lately, however, concerned at just how much of the agenda was being accomplished, she passed the papers to a friend, who in turn sent them to me and to journalist Ian Wishart, as covered in this month's Investigate magazine, which you can be sure is not on the coffee table at the PM's house.

The documents in question were written by another regular at the 1970s women's meetings, Kay Goodger, who is now a senior adviser in the Ministry of Social Development.

Goodger called on the radical feminists of the day - Clark and co - to do everything they could in their spheres of influence to replace or sideline the traditional family.

"The family distorts all human relationships by imposing on them the framework of economic compulsion, social dependence and sexual repression," she wrote. "Our goal must be to create economic and social institutions that are superior to the present family."

She then outlined the steps which needed to be taken to overhaul society. They included making abortion free and on demand, integrating sex education into all levels of the school system and ensuring birth control was freely available.

Coercive family laws should be abolished, she wrote, adding that "the rearing, social welfare and education of children should become the responsibility of society rather than individual parents."

De facto relationships should have the same status legally and socially as marriage; all laws "victimising" prostitutes should be abolished; and 24-hour childcare should be introduced to free women from "domestic slavery".

It is there, in front of your nose.

These disgusting women could not give a damn about the damage that they have caused to millions of families - something that they purposely set out to do. They do not give two hoots for the communities that they have destroyed, nor for the millions of people whose lives have been damaged. And they care not a jot for the trillions of dollars that have been wasted and expended across the western world over the decades in vain attempts to counter the serious problems that they have purposely been creating; such as those caused by fatherlessness.

Destroying people's families and their relationships is one of their main aims.

And you need to wake up to this

Furthermore, and for example, the ubiquitous hateful feminist propaganda that has promoted the view that women were oppressed in the past because they were 'denied the vote' is utter nonsense. (There was virtually nothing to vote for a century ago, because national governments were tiny. And if you look closely at the small amount of social legislation that governments did pass in those days, it was invariably in favour of women, and often to the detriment of men).

And the persistent deceitful feminist claim that women were denied jobs and/or were paid less than men in the past in order to keep them oppressed in some way is nothing more than a filthy lie designed to keep fuelling the flames of male hatred.

The truth of the matter is that both men and women recognised that no communities could survive for very long if some families had two wage earners while others had none. They would have been torn apart by the relentless discord and violence that such a situation would have created. And it was women, themselves, who wanted to ensure that their men were gainfully employed; e.g. see Women - Weak and Pathetic?

And if any woman had dared to take one of "their men's jobs" it is the women who would have torn her to pieces; not the men.

And they would have been protecting their families and their communities by doing so.

Unemployment was almost a death sentence 100 years ago and beyond.

And, yes, it is true that when more women started to do jobs that were previously the preserve of men, they were often paid less.

But there were two main reasons for this.

1. They did not incur the same level of wrath from other men and women.

2. They usually had a husband to support them, whereas men usually had to support their wives and their children. And if women had been paid the same as men, then the same type of problems would have arisen as before. "My son hasn't got a job because that woman down the road etc etc etc."

And when women went out to work in those days it was mostly just to earn a little money to pay for the little 'extras' in life - in fact, much the same as many women still do today.

But the point is this.

It was women - just as much as men - who engineered the kind of society in which they lived.

It could not have been any other way!

And I can almost guarantee you that wherever you find any instances wherein women - as a gender - were, in fact, being treated shabbily - even for those times - there will be many more instances wherein men were being treated worse.

But feminism is a truly disgusting ideology that thrives on fuelling male-hatred and it survives only by perpetuating lies.

And when women today identify themselves as feminists they are supporting both this hateful ideology as well as the vile self-serving deceitful women who lead it, and they are encouraging others to see feminism as some kind of benign influence when it is nothing of the sort.

It is one of the most malicious and destructive ideologies that one could dream up; e.g. see The Benefits of Feminism.

And so when I see nice, pleasant women supporting feminism in any way at all, my blood begins to boil.

They remind me of the smiling benevolent faces that so often welcomed the Jews to the camps and showed them the way to the shower rooms.

And the nicer and the more pleasant that these ignorant women are, the more benign and alluring do they portray feminism to be.

As such, they are a significant malevolent force working on behalf of the whole foul feminist enterprise, and they also undermine the growing men's movement.

Unwittingly or otherwise, they are part and parcel of a huge ideological machine that thrives by fueling a hatred of men throughout the world.

And if any western women truly want to help their men and, indeed, themselves and their loved ones, then they must do their best to undermine feminism and to destroy it. But if they foolishly masquerade as feminists themselves, or make inane uneducated statements that mislead others into thinking that feminism is 'only about equality', then they are not helping their men or their societies at all.

They are doing the very opposite.

Most of the men operating in my area of the men's movement want to see feminism completely and utterly destroyed for the reasons given above. They do not want to see their governments funding Women Studies courses nor creating laws that disadvantage men, fathers and boys. They want to see feminism and feminists booted out of universities, colleges and schools. They want them out of the government, out of the civil service, out of the unions and out of the mainstream media.

And they also want to see quite a few people prosecuted for stirring up so much hatred and for disseminating so many lies.

They might not achieve these things, but they are going to have a damn good try.

And, as far as they and I are concerned, women who call themselves feminists, or who support feminists or feminism - no matter how nice and pleasant they might be - are nothing but Trojan Horses who are deceiving our potential troops and who are also helping the feminists to lure millions of other men to the shower rooms.

Finally, I have looked very closely indeed at the activities of feminists in the UK for the past ten years. And for the past five years I have watched very closely the feminists operating around the globe; particularly in America.

And I can promise you unreservedly that this ideology of feminism is not about 'equality'. It is about continually fuelling man-hatred - and making a handsome living out of it.

This is exactly what the Nazis did to the Jews. They demonised the Jews in order to rally the German people to their phony hateful cause. And the more that the German people perceived themselves to have a common enemy - the Jews - the more were they united.

Feminism operates in exactly the same way. But it is men rather than Jews who are their targets.

And if any woman reading this thinks that by endorsing feminism she is helping her partner, her son, her father, or her brother, she is very badly mistaken.

She is betraying and condemning each and every one of them.


Also see, ...

The time and place of my birth was 1936, Nazi-Germany, and on account of that, even though I had still only been a child at the end of the Second World War, I have had first-hand impressions of the extent to which a radical, extremist ideology can dominate and shape a society that at one time prided itself for its moderation and conservatism. Walter Schneider - 15 min

The hierarchy that the Nazis attempted to establish in their order of things is now being redefined. In the new world-order we find at the top the elitist women to whom all must subordinate themselves. Next in the order of the ranks are male feminists striving to become part of the new ruling nobility, to become active participants and collaborators just like the SS-women were. In descending order of rank, the parts of society that are of lesser value are the women who have been redefined as being "traitors to the race [of women]" that is, women who dare to have children, or worse yet, women who dare to marry and wish to stay married to raise children within the confines of traditional nuclear families; and then there are the remaining masses of men, with fathers ranking almost at the bottom of the scale ... Walter Schneider - 10 min


Angry Harry is a British social critic and contributing editor of MND. Visit his website at
"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand<br /><br />



Very good article! I will save and repost this one.


Quote from: "poiuyt"
Did women not fully participate along with men in the profits and excess consumption of Facism, Nazism, Apartheid, Negro slavery etc, etc ?

Ya know, that's a damn good point, and one which I honestly had not considered.  There were many, many women (like men) who fully supported Nazism, communism, slavery, etc...

Of course, the typical feminist response will be "But women were tricked by men into supporting those things!"


Let's just say that for a moment (only a moment!) the feminists are right in declaring that women were tricked into supporting those evil systems.  Let's assume for just a moment that women wouldn't have supported them had it not been for men misleading them.  That raises an important question:

If women are so easily tricked and misled, then do we really want them in positions of authority?  If women have such a weak grasp of right vs. wrong that they are easily manipulated, then is that a quality a nation should look for in a leader?

Of course, the answer is that women are not as easily misled as feminists would have us believe.  (Of course, feminists would never explicitly state that women are easily misled, but that's what they imply when they excuse a woman's actions and put the blame on men.)  The fact is that women are just as capable of doing wrong as they are of doing right, of their own accord, and have done so throughout all of human history.  (Or "herstory", as feminist extremists love to say.)  Women are just as capable of being good leaders as being bad leaders.

In the end, it's a problem with human nature, which we all share, men and women alike.  Women are not prone to virtue any more than men are prone to vice.  Both groups are equally capable of evil.
i] We drank our toast to innocence,
We drank our toast to now.
We tried to reach beyond the emptiness,
But neither one knew how. [/i]


There were many, many women (like men) who fully supported Nazism, communism, slavery, etc...


The role of women in the Nazi success:
Radical feminists have tended to see Nazism as an entirely male phenomenon and, more basically, denied that women in patriarchal societies are fully liable for their actions. Yet historians have been astonished by the sudden success of the NSDAP among women in the three Reichstag elections of 1932 and 1933. The Nazi party was most reactionary on women's issues; whereas all other parties, even the conservative DNVP, had sponsored female representatives in parliaments since the passage of female suffrage in 1918/19, the Nazis had declared that politics would debase women and draw them away from their "precious" work as mothers and housewives. No woman ever sat in a Nazi parliamentary group or an important party committee. It was clear that Hitler's coming to power would mean the loss of achievements in women's rights made during the Weimar Republic.

Initially the Nazis, like the communists, had received far more votes from men than from women. This changed dramatically in 1932. With its promise to restore law and order and to turn the economy around the Nazis seem to have appealed to many women voters earlier deterred by Nazi brutality. The Nazis now got even slightly more votes from women than men. This does not mean that women "brought Hitler to power," and one cannot derive a blatant anti-feminism from this preference, but it indicates that women did not consider their own power in politics a priority. This had precedents: since the beginning of the Weimar Republic the most emancipatory parties, the KPD, USPD, and SPD had received fewer votes from women than men. Even the Democratic Party, with the elite of the BDF and the bourgeois women's movement in its ranks, fared not well among the female electorate. The religiously oriented Center Party and the DNVP usually had the largest share of women among their voters. Women thus tended to vote more to the right (though until 1932 not for the extreme right) than men throughout the Weimar Republic.

Some historians have argued that the Republic's promise to women, after the initial revolutionary achievement of female suffrage, faded away too soon to make the Republic attractive to women. But one may also have to conclude that the majority of German women set different priorities than the feminists in the liberal BDF. Self-assertive and uncompromising nationalism and the defense of the church appeared more important to them than complete legal equality and a more numerous presence of women in labor, administration, and politics. Even the BDF, dominated by women who joined the Democratic Party, became increasingly influenced by rightist members who argued that women should be emancipated only to work better in traditionally "female" roles. Women should be educated to pursue their traditional roles to greater service of the nation. This rhetoric sometimes abounded with racism, as when female politicians saw German women as responsible for preserving a "pure" race.

But to say that women brought Hitler to power is unjust and simplistic. Until well after its first electoral breakthrough in 1930 the NSDAP was a predominantly male party. It won massive numbers of women only at a time when it broke into all sectors of the electorate deserted by the middle-to-right parties. The appeal of Volksgemeinschaft (community of the people) -- so successful despite its contradictions -- did not pass by the women of Germany. The Nazis' call for women to go back to home and hearth was not only popular among many men during the depression, it may also have sounded good to many women disappointed with how little their greater legal opportunities since 1918 had benefited them in a generally depressed period. In any case, the Nazis' reactionary policy toward women soon floundered when the Third Reich needed every available work force for rapid rearmament.

...and here:

Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas. Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi, many of them probably with few or no previous political ties. Where they came from the working class, they were likely to be non-unionised textile operatives or domestic workers.

...and here:

In July 1932 a higher proportion of women than men voted Nazi, perhaps because they had fewer existing political allegiances.

...and there's plenty of other statistical evidence which shows that women weren't just some innocent bystanders. Not to mention the Stomping Mare and other of her kind... But, yes, of course they were all just poor tricked victims of blah blah blah.

P.S.: However, I'm not suggesting here that the rise of nazism was women's fault, don't get me wrong.
ou've read it... And now you can never un-read it!

Go Up