FEMINISM'S MAGIC SHIELD
"It is not necessary to wear brown shirts to be a fascist...It is not necessary to wear a swastika to be a fascist...It is not necessary to call oneself a fascist to be a fascist. It is simply necessary to be one!"
--Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Fascism is a chameleonic beast. Most people use the word to mean “authoritarian,” which makes it harder to identify what fascism is, if it is anything different from authoritarianism. How can we tell a fascist?
First, we could consider that anyone who self-declares himself as a fascist, is a fascist. This is the least reliable means of identification, because modern fascists will see it is disadvantageous to be open about their allegiance. They may not even self-identify as a fascist.
Second, we could make an unprincipled inference based on a checklist, such as Dr. Lawrence Britt’s Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism. When combined with feminism, the states of the Western world fit ten points. If we modify #2 to read “Disdain for the Recognition of Male Rights” we have eleven. If we consider men who have lost their professional jobs due to Political Correctness, such as Henry Makow, we can add #11, making twelve. If we consider only America we should add #1 (Powerful and Continuing Nationalism) and #4 (Supremacy of the Military).
Now, these points are not fastened on as well as we would like if we wished to declare America or any other Western country to have a fascist state. But the fact that they can even be lightly massaged to fit is a helpful warning sign. Still, this is not powerful evidence.
Third, though, we could make a principled inference based on understanding the nature of fascism itself. Consider this brief by Lyndon LaRouche:
“In essentials, fascism signifies a special form of expression of the attempt to turn back the tide of the modern sovereign nation-state, to a dictatorship, like that of the Caesars, and to the traditions of ancient pagan Rome. Fascism means an historically specific form which has erupted in modern times, erupting from within that larger tradition of philosophical thought in art, religion, politics, and law, which is known to historians as Romanticism. By Romanticism, qualified scholars signify the cultural and legal tradition of ancient pagan Rome, as the adoption of the specifically anti-Christian Code Napoléon typifies the positivist legal philosophy underlying fascist states, from the dictatorships of Jacobins Maximilien Robespierre and Napoleon, to the present day.
“For Mussolini, the simple resurrection of the symbol of the Roman Standard, was a convenient choice. The Nazis adopted their stylized swastika as a deliberate choice of substitute for the fasces, as a Roman-legion-like standard, to perform exactly the same kind of mythic role played by the fasces symbol in Mussolini's hands. In the U.S.A., the Confederate flag continues to be a typical fascist symbol, sometimes used interchangeably with the swastika by today's relevant U.S. populist fanatics. The World Wildlife Fund, co-founded by former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard and British's royal consort Prince Philip, is a leading modern expression of what is known among specialist scholars as "universal fascism," a movement complete with its substitution of the Panda symbol as the standard to fulfill the function which the fasces or swastika served under Mussolini and Hitler.”
But the specific method of engagement of fascism goes beyond this, into the heart of the dupes. This method is the instillation of an addiction to a thrilling sensation when felt to be within the approving sphere of a “beast-man” personality. LaRouche again:
“There is nothing really mysterious about the quality of charisma as represented by the images of Arnold Schwarzenegger or the Hitler who is his original role-model. The street name for Hitler's and Arnie's charisma, is fear, the mystical impression that this is a man to be feared, awfully feared. According to the original doctrine of the beast-man developed by Martinists such as Joseph de Maistre, fear of such predatory tyrants is not the fear of the power they are believed to represent, but the kind of wild irrationality associated with Roman Caesars such as Caligula or Nero; or that image of the Spanish Inquisition which the Martinists admired.”
“Their power lies not in the development of their mental powers, but in their lack of morals or rationality. Their power lies in their disposition to act in ways no sane and moral person would do. Their appeal lies entirely in the fear they instill because of the part they are disposed to play, in whatever roles, on- or off-stage, they are cast.”
Feminism is essentiality irrational, to the degree it can get away with it hysterically unwilling to submit to logical analysis of either its doctrines or its statistics. Feminism is amoral, based on a presumption of what Adam Kostakis terms Manichean Essentialism, wherein women are eternal victims and men are eternal victimizers, which mandates the supremacy of the Manichean “Father of Light.”
According to Kostakis, feminism is the original “gynocentrism”—worship of women by men and women alike--manifested most notably and charmingly in Medieval Chivalry, transformed by the Enlightenment concept of progress into a self-aware, adaptable entity that sought to aggrandise the feminine at the permanent expense of the masculine. The other key Enlightenment concept, that of reason, has been adopted not as a fundamental part of feminism, but as a disposable accessory, like a holdout pistol.
That feminism thusly conceived is Romantic, is clear. That it is thus proto-fascist in character, and pro-fascist in intent, is also clear. But why is it or any fascism—for it all glues together in the end, like droplets of liquid mercury dripped into a spoon--able to advance undetected? The answer lies in the historical experience and aftermath of World War Two.
World War Two was the largest and most costly war in history, in terms of men and materiel. Absolutely catastrophic were its effects on Europe and significant parts of Asia. And among the worst of its effects, the practice of deploying death squads and of transferring civilians to death camps and medical experimental hells, overlapped and attempted to wholly include a people with a very long memory indeed: the Jews.
The Jews are unconquered and unconquerable. As Genesis reads, accurately:
12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee
12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
In terms of the Nazi Holocaust, then, we have the Jews’ experience which they in their cultural-religious memory have transformed into a binding a-religious identity. More Jews identify with the Holocaust then they do with Judaism as a religion, or even a culture. So, the experience is burned deep.
Now, Jews taken as a people are possessed of great resources, and certain elements of them, Nazi hunters, historians, and others, have taken it upon themselves to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten and never repeated. Through the decades after WWII, the image of Nazism became ever more encircled and rendered taboo, except in ritually acceptable uses, such as Hollywood films or history books.
Also, we have the rise of Frankfurt School-linked Political Correctness in which the largely (though hardly exclusively) Jewish pool of activists worked towards the equalisation of rights for women, blacks and other nonwhites, and certain sexual variations. And the most Correct of all things Politically Correct is the magnification of public awareness of the Nazi Holocaust.
Thus, we have two things inextricably linked: Nazism and Holocaust. And these things together form the shield and handle of the Magic Shield of Feminism. I explain.
The West doesn’t need Nazis. The West doesn’t need another Holocaust. But the particular emphasis on Nazi Germany and the Nazi Holocaust, has imprinted the bulk of the mass-mediated population with indelible associations between the two, to the degree that anything that doesn’t look like Nazi Germany passes unrecognised as having any potential for a Nazi-style Holocaust.
And that is what feminism is doing. It is the wild, insane heart pumping at the centre of the political influences working towards a modern super-totalitarianism, because it appeals to the largest “victim” group, and works sedulously to suppress the largest, “victimizer” group. Any fascist policy it proposes, cannot possibly be fascist, because, why,
Where are the swastikas?
Where are their flags?
Where is the Zyklon B in our bags?
Our jackboots are pink!
Their heels are high!
We are merely butterflies!
The only thing feminism lacks at this point, is a crisis followed by a strong “beast-man” leader. Never mind the genitalia, follow the intent: there very well could be a male leader who ushers in a gynocratic fascism.
The question of the hour is, how can the massive psychic capital invested in imprinting the populace with indelible associations between Nazism and the Nazi Holocaust, be wrenched free of its rusted association with the “victim industry” of Political Correctness, and reattached to a generalised movement for reason, rights, and principle, of which the Men’s Rights Movement will deserve to be in the front and centre of, if only it can shed its psychological menstrual elements.
Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
*Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
What is Fascism, Really?
What Is Fascism, Really? by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (Mar. 27, 2001)
Hitler and Schwarzenegger as Beast-Men
Hitler and Schwarzenegger as Beast-Man, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Last edited by CplFerro; 19th-August-2011 at 04:08 PM.