The context of men's activism
Although the writing of this commentary was motivated by an impromptu e-mail debate that most or all members of this blog participated in in one way or another, I believe that it is sufficiently generic to fit the various concerns that have been expressed so far on this forum.
Various messages posted to this forum outline the lack of coordinated and concerted efforts of men and men's rights activists to oppose the vilification of men and fathers. Those sentiments have been repeatedly expressed by many over the years. However, although the dispersal and lack of such coordinated efforts are the cause of other serious problems and problem symptoms, by themselves they are not a fundamental problem cause but nothing other than a problem symptom that cannot be alleviated unless the fundamental problem cause is eradicated. We must never forget that radical feminism reconstructed not only the female half but all of society.
There were some misunderstandings on both sides in the impromptu e-mail discussion, but before we all get our knickers into knots and resort to repeated ad-hominem attacks (attacks on the character of an opponent rather than being intelligent responses to a contention), we should take a step back and take a look at the context of the debate and what the contention was. All current members of this forum have done their best to do that without resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
The original concern was that it is a waste of time and effort to try to motivate politicians to apply themselves to establish constructive, equitable, pro-family legislation. To some extent it appears to have been proposed that more radical actions may force politicians and other powers to take note and more constructive actions. Examples were provided of how radical suffragettes applied violence to gain success.
Certainly, even the civil rights movement launched by Martin Luther King would not have gained much without radicals like Malcom X. Still, consider that both, the suffragettes and modern radical feminism were and are outgrowths of communism, more exactly Marxism of the sort promoted by Marx and Engels. During the 20th century communist regimes directly killed at least 100 million people and possibly as many as 180 million to consolidate and maintain their power and control. Communism is the very essence of radicalism, radicalism in the form of totalitarianism. Why should anyone be surprised that suffragettes and radical feminists resort to violence and totalitarian means to consolidate and maintain their power? We are enmeshed in social circumstances that gradually evolve into more and more rigid totalitarianism. Totalitarianism cannot exist without violence, the violation of human and civil rights. If left unchecked, the end product of our current social evolution will be a global socialist totalitarian state, a gynarchia. Unfortunately, the process of that evolution is self-limiting, as it causes western civilization to vanish.
The other side in the debate argued that politicians are at times useful for the creation of such legislation but that the instances of politicians acting in favour of families and fathers are far too few in the long history of the war against the family.
It seems to me that all sides in the debate agree on the need to oppose the strategy used in the war against the family. The objective of the strategy has its roots in Marxist ideology, namely that to be able to construct a socialist state (in our case and time the state is a global one) it is necessary to deconstruct the family, so that out of the resulting rubble of society a greater and better socialist state can be constructed.
Many historians and social researchers (e.g.: Daniel Amneus and Mao tse Tung) agree that the easiest and most effective means by which to deconstruct the traditional nuclear family -- the basic building block of the patriarchy (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pioneered the use of the term patriarchy in that context [1]) -- is to break and remove the weakest link in the family, the father. Radical feminism (also called Marxist- or socialist-feminism), currently the most prominent and therefore ruling faction of many dozens of different brands of feminism, is the faction of feminism that almost verbatim transformed the family-hostile doctrine of Marx and Engels (the original authors of the Communist Manifesto; 1848-49) into an effective, world-wide action plan and agenda for the planned destruction of the family.
It has lately, time and again, been declared that radical feminism is dead. That sentiment is true in some respects. However, in reality the original radical feminists (male and female) have become ensconced in the political systems of the world as politicians and, more importantly, as administrators in the bureaucracies. Politicians come and go, political regimes and parties come and go, but the bureaucrats and their bureaucracies persist. The real political power in all notable governments is being held and wielded by the bureaucracy. Nothing short of a complete purge will change the political will, direction and aim of the bureaucracy anywhere, be the bureaucracy municipal, state or provincial, national or global.
For example, the bureaucracy that existed for 400 years in what is now Germany first worked to amalgamate more than 200 distinct states, baronies and duchies into a customs union and ultimately into the empire of the recent Kaisers (bt.w., the word Kaiser is a germanization of the latin word caesar -- the latter is correctly pronounced almost identically, with the "c" being pronounced as a "k"). The bureaucracy then converted the German empire of the Kaisers into a republic (the Weimar Republic) that existed for about 16 years until, with the active help of the bureaucracy, Hitler and his National-Socialist Worker Party usurped power and established the totalitarian Nazi regime.
The German bureaucracy thrived under Hitler. It created numerous employment opportunities by setting up vast numbers of new departments and branches. The best-known of those was the infamous branch of the judiciary that constituted the equivalent of today's family court system and (in Canada) the human rights tribunals, then called the People's Courts, a court system not established by Hitler and his party but by a proliferation of judicial activists that wanted nothing less than to expedite the abrogation of the cumbersome protection of human and civil rights offered more or less effectively by the traditional judiciary. Hitler's regime made such things possible in many sectors of and throughout the German bureaucracy by removing budget constraints and permitting the bureaucracy to grow cancerously.
The German bureaucracy survived intact after the victory of the Allied Forces in the second world war. Except for some of its extremist totalitarian branches, it survived intact until the student revolutions of the '60s (initiated, funded and steered by Moscow and Potsdam -- the latter then being the seat of the government of the former East-German regime). However, things then changed in Germany.
Traditionally, families of bureaucrats had sent their offspring to study civil service at the universities of Heidelberg and Goettingen. Until some years after WWII the German bureaucracies consisted of virtual dynasties of bureaucratic families. Some years after the end of WWII many other universities began to offer civil service studies programs and produced large numbers of candidates for civil service positions. The most important outcome of the student revolution of the '60s was the breaking of the monopoly of Heidelberg and Goettingen for the production of bureaucrats. The new crop of graduates that entered the bureaucracy was liberal, radical and socialistic. While they studied, they were taught and read Marx, Engels and Simone de Beauvoir (see Karin Jaeckel: Friedrich Engels and Simone de Beauvoir, the shining apostles of contemporary family politics).
In the wake of WWII similar and comparable developments took place in all developed nations. We now live and try to cope with with the results and consequences of those developments.
How do the politicians fit into all of this? The bureaucracy makes or breaks politicians. Today's politicians pretend to be populists -- individuals who claim to present the interests of the common people. However, with very few exceptions, politicians represent first and foremost themselves and their own interests. Aside from the fact that the political interests and aims of politicians come from similar sources as those of the bureaucrats, politicians need to be elected to gain fame and (ostensibly) power. They therefore lead a dual existence. They have to pretend to further the public's interests while they must make sure that they will live and operate within the constraints that the bureaucracy imposes upon them.
That validates the contention that it appears to be largely a waste of time and effort to get politicians to do anything constructive with respect to furthering the interests of families and fathers. The politicians don't control the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy controls or at the very least constrains the politicians. Still, politicians and bureaucrats are controlled by other far more powerful forces behind the scenes.
When the controlling ideologies and doctrines of social evolution change, the politicians are no more the initiators and leaders of those changes than the debris at the leading edge of a flash flood causes the flash flood to happen. Politicians are opportunists, either through intent or by default. They are no more the leaders of people than a goat is the leader for a flock of sheep that is being brought to slaughter. The true leaders are the people behind the scenes that own the goat or own and control the politicians and the bureaucracy.
All of that may sound bleak and pessimistic to some, but that is not all. While we spend our time being involved for many hours in formulating, digesting, misunderstanding and clarifying the various claims made in lengthy debates such as those in many impromptu e-mail discussions that often evolve into flame wars, the bureaucratic agenda moves to completion. The ultimate aim of the powers that steer and control the war against the family is to destroy all of the remnants of the traditional nuclear family. That will happen and is happening.
Aside from the fact that the world population is no longer increasing in numbers, the population of the developed nations no longer experiences natural increases. In all developed nations and in many of the developing ones there are no longer any natural increases in population levels; there are now substantial and sustained reductions in the developed nations.
In the US, for example, it is nothing more than an illusion that population levels are being maintained through births. In reality the indigenous population is being replaced by the influx of large numbers of mostly illegal immigrants aided by the government of their country of origin. The Canadian situation is similar but proportionally far more severe. It is Canadian government policy to augment the falling birth rates (far below the levels required to maintain the Canadian population) through a rate of immigration of one percent per year of Canada's residential population. In all major centres in Canada the population is comprised to 50 percent or more of immigrants who arrived here from underdeveloped nations during the past 30 years. Moreover, the annual immigration falls short by about 65,000 each year of the government's target of 330,000 immigrants. In Europe the problem is far worse in many nations, as most are hostile to varying extents to augmenting their deadly-low birth rates with immigrants from underdeveloped nations.
In many developed nations the death rates exceed the birth rates. In many of the developed nations the birth rate is half or less than that necessary to maintain population levels, simply because increasing numbers of fertile adults no longer wish to assume the risk and hardship of having and raising children. Many developed nations experience decreases in population levels at the rate of 30 percent with each successive generation. Within about three generations, at most four, the population of the West will for all intents and purposes have vanished. That is the optimistic view and will hold true only if we are permitted to fade away in peace, without anyone rushing in to fill the developing demographic vacuum in the West.
That is the consequence of the implementation of the agenda of radical feminism: the planned destruction of the family.
If men's rights activists don't agree on that being the fundamental cause of our social problems, then it is not likely and perhaps not even possible that we will make any headway in opposing the planned destruction of the family and in the reconstruction of what once was a thriving productive society.
Regards,
Walter Schneider
1.)
Various messages posted to this forum outline the lack of coordinated and concerted efforts of men and men's rights activists to oppose the vilification of men and fathers. Those sentiments have been repeatedly expressed by many over the years. However, although the dispersal and lack of such coordinated efforts are the cause of other serious problems and problem symptoms, by themselves they are not a fundamental problem cause but nothing other than a problem symptom that cannot be alleviated unless the fundamental problem cause is eradicated. We must never forget that radical feminism reconstructed not only the female half but all of society.
There were some misunderstandings on both sides in the impromptu e-mail discussion, but before we all get our knickers into knots and resort to repeated ad-hominem attacks (attacks on the character of an opponent rather than being intelligent responses to a contention), we should take a step back and take a look at the context of the debate and what the contention was. All current members of this forum have done their best to do that without resorting to ad-hominem attacks.
The original concern was that it is a waste of time and effort to try to motivate politicians to apply themselves to establish constructive, equitable, pro-family legislation. To some extent it appears to have been proposed that more radical actions may force politicians and other powers to take note and more constructive actions. Examples were provided of how radical suffragettes applied violence to gain success.
Certainly, even the civil rights movement launched by Martin Luther King would not have gained much without radicals like Malcom X. Still, consider that both, the suffragettes and modern radical feminism were and are outgrowths of communism, more exactly Marxism of the sort promoted by Marx and Engels. During the 20th century communist regimes directly killed at least 100 million people and possibly as many as 180 million to consolidate and maintain their power and control. Communism is the very essence of radicalism, radicalism in the form of totalitarianism. Why should anyone be surprised that suffragettes and radical feminists resort to violence and totalitarian means to consolidate and maintain their power? We are enmeshed in social circumstances that gradually evolve into more and more rigid totalitarianism. Totalitarianism cannot exist without violence, the violation of human and civil rights. If left unchecked, the end product of our current social evolution will be a global socialist totalitarian state, a gynarchia. Unfortunately, the process of that evolution is self-limiting, as it causes western civilization to vanish.
The other side in the debate argued that politicians are at times useful for the creation of such legislation but that the instances of politicians acting in favour of families and fathers are far too few in the long history of the war against the family.
It seems to me that all sides in the debate agree on the need to oppose the strategy used in the war against the family. The objective of the strategy has its roots in Marxist ideology, namely that to be able to construct a socialist state (in our case and time the state is a global one) it is necessary to deconstruct the family, so that out of the resulting rubble of society a greater and better socialist state can be constructed.
Many historians and social researchers (e.g.: Daniel Amneus and Mao tse Tung) agree that the easiest and most effective means by which to deconstruct the traditional nuclear family -- the basic building block of the patriarchy (Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pioneered the use of the term patriarchy in that context [1]) -- is to break and remove the weakest link in the family, the father. Radical feminism (also called Marxist- or socialist-feminism), currently the most prominent and therefore ruling faction of many dozens of different brands of feminism, is the faction of feminism that almost verbatim transformed the family-hostile doctrine of Marx and Engels (the original authors of the Communist Manifesto; 1848-49) into an effective, world-wide action plan and agenda for the planned destruction of the family.
It has lately, time and again, been declared that radical feminism is dead. That sentiment is true in some respects. However, in reality the original radical feminists (male and female) have become ensconced in the political systems of the world as politicians and, more importantly, as administrators in the bureaucracies. Politicians come and go, political regimes and parties come and go, but the bureaucrats and their bureaucracies persist. The real political power in all notable governments is being held and wielded by the bureaucracy. Nothing short of a complete purge will change the political will, direction and aim of the bureaucracy anywhere, be the bureaucracy municipal, state or provincial, national or global.
For example, the bureaucracy that existed for 400 years in what is now Germany first worked to amalgamate more than 200 distinct states, baronies and duchies into a customs union and ultimately into the empire of the recent Kaisers (bt.w., the word Kaiser is a germanization of the latin word caesar -- the latter is correctly pronounced almost identically, with the "c" being pronounced as a "k"). The bureaucracy then converted the German empire of the Kaisers into a republic (the Weimar Republic) that existed for about 16 years until, with the active help of the bureaucracy, Hitler and his National-Socialist Worker Party usurped power and established the totalitarian Nazi regime.
The German bureaucracy thrived under Hitler. It created numerous employment opportunities by setting up vast numbers of new departments and branches. The best-known of those was the infamous branch of the judiciary that constituted the equivalent of today's family court system and (in Canada) the human rights tribunals, then called the People's Courts, a court system not established by Hitler and his party but by a proliferation of judicial activists that wanted nothing less than to expedite the abrogation of the cumbersome protection of human and civil rights offered more or less effectively by the traditional judiciary. Hitler's regime made such things possible in many sectors of and throughout the German bureaucracy by removing budget constraints and permitting the bureaucracy to grow cancerously.
The German bureaucracy survived intact after the victory of the Allied Forces in the second world war. Except for some of its extremist totalitarian branches, it survived intact until the student revolutions of the '60s (initiated, funded and steered by Moscow and Potsdam -- the latter then being the seat of the government of the former East-German regime). However, things then changed in Germany.
Traditionally, families of bureaucrats had sent their offspring to study civil service at the universities of Heidelberg and Goettingen. Until some years after WWII the German bureaucracies consisted of virtual dynasties of bureaucratic families. Some years after the end of WWII many other universities began to offer civil service studies programs and produced large numbers of candidates for civil service positions. The most important outcome of the student revolution of the '60s was the breaking of the monopoly of Heidelberg and Goettingen for the production of bureaucrats. The new crop of graduates that entered the bureaucracy was liberal, radical and socialistic. While they studied, they were taught and read Marx, Engels and Simone de Beauvoir (see Karin Jaeckel: Friedrich Engels and Simone de Beauvoir, the shining apostles of contemporary family politics).
In the wake of WWII similar and comparable developments took place in all developed nations. We now live and try to cope with with the results and consequences of those developments.
How do the politicians fit into all of this? The bureaucracy makes or breaks politicians. Today's politicians pretend to be populists -- individuals who claim to present the interests of the common people. However, with very few exceptions, politicians represent first and foremost themselves and their own interests. Aside from the fact that the political interests and aims of politicians come from similar sources as those of the bureaucrats, politicians need to be elected to gain fame and (ostensibly) power. They therefore lead a dual existence. They have to pretend to further the public's interests while they must make sure that they will live and operate within the constraints that the bureaucracy imposes upon them.
That validates the contention that it appears to be largely a waste of time and effort to get politicians to do anything constructive with respect to furthering the interests of families and fathers. The politicians don't control the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy controls or at the very least constrains the politicians. Still, politicians and bureaucrats are controlled by other far more powerful forces behind the scenes.
When the controlling ideologies and doctrines of social evolution change, the politicians are no more the initiators and leaders of those changes than the debris at the leading edge of a flash flood causes the flash flood to happen. Politicians are opportunists, either through intent or by default. They are no more the leaders of people than a goat is the leader for a flock of sheep that is being brought to slaughter. The true leaders are the people behind the scenes that own the goat or own and control the politicians and the bureaucracy.
All of that may sound bleak and pessimistic to some, but that is not all. While we spend our time being involved for many hours in formulating, digesting, misunderstanding and clarifying the various claims made in lengthy debates such as those in many impromptu e-mail discussions that often evolve into flame wars, the bureaucratic agenda moves to completion. The ultimate aim of the powers that steer and control the war against the family is to destroy all of the remnants of the traditional nuclear family. That will happen and is happening.
Aside from the fact that the world population is no longer increasing in numbers, the population of the developed nations no longer experiences natural increases. In all developed nations and in many of the developing ones there are no longer any natural increases in population levels; there are now substantial and sustained reductions in the developed nations.
In the US, for example, it is nothing more than an illusion that population levels are being maintained through births. In reality the indigenous population is being replaced by the influx of large numbers of mostly illegal immigrants aided by the government of their country of origin. The Canadian situation is similar but proportionally far more severe. It is Canadian government policy to augment the falling birth rates (far below the levels required to maintain the Canadian population) through a rate of immigration of one percent per year of Canada's residential population. In all major centres in Canada the population is comprised to 50 percent or more of immigrants who arrived here from underdeveloped nations during the past 30 years. Moreover, the annual immigration falls short by about 65,000 each year of the government's target of 330,000 immigrants. In Europe the problem is far worse in many nations, as most are hostile to varying extents to augmenting their deadly-low birth rates with immigrants from underdeveloped nations.
In many developed nations the death rates exceed the birth rates. In many of the developed nations the birth rate is half or less than that necessary to maintain population levels, simply because increasing numbers of fertile adults no longer wish to assume the risk and hardship of having and raising children. Many developed nations experience decreases in population levels at the rate of 30 percent with each successive generation. Within about three generations, at most four, the population of the West will for all intents and purposes have vanished. That is the optimistic view and will hold true only if we are permitted to fade away in peace, without anyone rushing in to fill the developing demographic vacuum in the West.
That is the consequence of the implementation of the agenda of radical feminism: the planned destruction of the family.
If men's rights activists don't agree on that being the fundamental cause of our social problems, then it is not likely and perhaps not even possible that we will make any headway in opposing the planned destruction of the family and in the reconstruction of what once was a thriving productive society.
Regards,
Walter Schneider
1.)
- In The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State Engels refers to Patriarchy as a form of the family whose essential features were the incorporation of the bondsmen and the power vested in the Paternal head of the family. [F. Engels (1884). The origins of the family, private property and the state, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, London, Lawrence and Wishart, 1968, p. 488.] Similarly, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels refer to ‘The little workshop of the Patriarchal master.” Here Patriarchy is understood as a social relation of domestic production. [K. Marx and F. Engels “The Communist Manifesto” in D. McLennan (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, 1977 p. 227.]
- However, we can see that the definition of Patriarchal advanced by Marx and Engels is a limited one. Patriarchy refers to the system under pre-capitalist modes of production in which the means of production and organization of labour was owned and controlled by the head of the household, rather than a more generalized system of female subordination and male domination.”
—The Law of the Father, Patriarchy in the Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism, by Marry Murray, Routledge, 11 New Fetter Lane, London, EC4p 4EE, pp. 6-7
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home