Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old October 15th, 2009 #1
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Default Who is responsible for the Age of Enlightenment?

Our descent into judeo-egalitarian hell began with the Age of Enlightenment, which was ushered in by England's Glorious Revolution in 1688. That revolution gave birth to the first consitutional monarchy, the first central bank and the first bill of rights. It is the root of every branch of judeo-Marxist degeneracy that is gripping our civilization today.

Now I've already proven in this blog entry that the Glorious Revolution was financed by jews--that is, by the Suassos, an enormously wealthy (and today completely unknown) Sephardic banking dynasty stationed in Holland at the time--and that one of the first governors of the Bank of England was Moses Mendes da Costa, a Sephardic jew related to the Suassos.

In the same entry I also prove how jewish financiers were the backers of practically every major conflict in the 18th century, culminating in the French Revolution and the Revolutionary Wars. At the beginning of the 19th century, by the end of the Napoleonic Wars, all of Europe, aside from Russia, was officially owned by jewish bankers.

All of the above is indisputable. I'll debate anyone who disagrees with me, and I'll be sure to back my arguments with credible citations.

My question, however, is not concerned with who financed the collapse of Western Civilization, but rather who introduced the destructive, egalitarian, "enlightened" zeitgeist. First the idea must be born, and only then can it proceed to be financed into existence.

Were the Founding Fathers, for example, servants of the Jew or simply Holy-Babble-thumping white-skinned egalitarians? Ben Franklin was the president of the first abolitionist organization in the US, the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. The rest of the Fathers were also all abolitionists. They knew that negroes would eventually be freed, if not in a decade, then in two, or three, or four. They knew that it was literally just a matter of time and that any "conservatives", just like any "royalists" over in Europe, were swimming against a current that was increasing in strength with every passing day. They knew that liberty was on the horizon for the negro, and yet they chose to draft and enact some very powerful and very paleo-Marxist documents.

We can speak in a similar vein about the Charles I regicides who ended up being hanged, drawn and quartered, or about the French Revolution, the Terror and the Jacobins, most of whom ended up being guillotined.

Many of these men were willing to sacrifice their lives in the name of fighting monarchical and religious absolutism and promoting egalitarianism.

Indeed, if I were alive back then, I too would staunchly oppose both Church and Monarchy and perhaps even give my life in the name of something so beautiful and idealistic as "liberty, fraternity and equality". I am White, after all, and inherently egalitarian.

But who or what was it that lit the candle which enlightened (or "illuminated") Europe?

I always used to blame feminism on the Jew, but White men are the original founders of feminism, or what Schopenhauer calls "our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity."

Likewise I used to blame Marxism on the Jew, but this "ism" was merely the child of egalitarianism and the Age of Enlightenment, both of which, to all appearances, were also founded by White men.

The same can be said about almost every other destructive judeo-policy of our day.

So how and why did it happen? Why did European Man undergo such a diametric change in thought and philosophy at that particular point in history? Ancient Greece and Rome had their dictators, their slaves, their colonies, their poor, their bloodshed, yet such perverted egalitarian nonsense didn't rear its ugly head.

Does the change, then, have something to do with Christianity, or with Northern European blood, or with the subversive Talmudic Jew, or with something else altogether?
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.

Last edited by Bassanio; October 15th, 2009 at 08:18 AM.
 
Old October 15th, 2009 #2
Julian Lüchow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 888
Post

-Decline of native aristocracy: The previous defender caste of Europe is either bought off, killed or bred out.

-Transition of economies from local/feudal to global/capitalist spurred on by scarcity of resources and desire for conquest. Concurrent rise in the power of money.

-Inherent liberalism of a subsect of White people. The tendency of these types to put unattainable and quixotic ideals above realism. As you mentioned, the French Revolutionaries, the Bolsheviks, the Founding Fathers, etc.

-Jews.

-The liberal side of Christianity. Christianity had, at certain points in history, very white nationalist-imperialist aspects, i.e. the Crusades (which I think were pretty cool, btw). I typically blame Protestants for the rise of Liberal Christianity, i.e. the Calvinists.

If I think of other factors I'll add them.
 
Old October 15th, 2009 #3
LUX
Genetically Wealthy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 623
Default

Just as a many died from the Bubonic Plague or Black Death due to lack of resistance, so shall many more die than already have from lack of jew-immunity.

Get your jew-shot here at VNN.
__________________
". . . the Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards." "...generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on us."- Richard Nixon
black African Americans Asian Hispanic Black Katrina Blacks African-American Jew Negro Bush Negroes
 
Old October 16th, 2009 #4
Hugo Böse
Jeunesse Dorée
 
Hugo Böse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Four Seasons Jalalabad
Posts: 9,747
Default

For whites alone many of the enlightenment ideas were not that bad a thing, I don’t think anybody back then could have envisioned how these ideas could evolve, very few probably envisioned a scenario where muds and jews are made our equals or even being put above the indigenous peoples, for the most part the philosophers of the past could not have foreseen the horrors we see today.
__________________
_______
Political correctness is an intellectual gulag.
 
Old October 16th, 2009 #5
Mike Parker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,311
Default

The Enlightenment in France was spread in the "salons" of wealthy "assimilated" Jewesses.
 
Old October 16th, 2009 #6
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
For whites alone many of the enlightenment ideas were not that bad a thing, I don’t think anybody back then could have envisioned how these ideas could evolve, very few probably envisioned a scenario where muds and jews are made our equals or even being put above the indigenous peoples
Another VNNer sent me a lengthy private message also voicing support for the Enlightenment. I'll try to address parts of his message in public when I have more time.

The problem with Enlightenment ideas was that they weren't supposed to apply to Whites only and this was to be understood from the very beginning. Cromwell, William of Orange, and the Glorious Revolution granted jews equal rights in England. The same equal rights were extended to jews in France after the French Revolution. A decade later wherever Napoleon would go he would liberate and empower the jews, as per the Enlightenment doctrines of liberty and equality.

A couple of weeks ago Sandor started a thread about Whites who were imprisoned for hate speech against niggers in revolutionary France. A few months ago I started a thread about a nigger who was given a 100 White slaves by Peter the Great, the "illuminator" of Russia who looked on enlightened, progressive Western Europe as an example to follow.

Voltaire, one of the most prolific figures of the Enlightenment, writes in Candide (referring to an auto-de-fe in Lisbon) that "two men were burned at the stake for refusing to eat pork." That line perfectly sums up the egalitarian nonsense of the Enlightenment. Those two "men" were burned for being alien, parasitic, manipulative, malignant kikes, and not because they simply "refused to eat pork". But embracing and defending kikes in the Age of Enlightenment was as popular amongst the whiteskins as embracing and defending niggers is today.

My contention is that liberalism is never good, in any form and for any society, whether homogeneous or heterogeneous.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.

Last edited by Bassanio; October 16th, 2009 at 02:20 PM.
 
Old October 16th, 2009 #7
aherne
Senior Member
 
aherne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: semitically occupied territory
Posts: 2,096
Default

What an intelligent analysis...

However, a few observations have to be made:
Egalitarianism was a quintessential product of European civilization and EVOLVED into its present existence with no break and no clear point of start. Tracing it back to a single source is completely futile. Egalitarianism is the ideological consequence of humanism, which was a religion of Man, seen as an inherently good, perfectible demigod, born equal and free. Needless to say, the crass disregard of reality didn't have any effect at all on its believers: the more they advanced into time, the more they tried to mould reality to fit their false world. Who were the believers? Not the commonfolk, who were preocupied only with survival, but by the well-groomed intellectual clique who now had the opportunity to see itself as "morally superior" in opposition to those "born superior" (a crime already, since it had been decreed we are all born equal). This intellectual elite convinced themselves and others they were the vanguards of a new "progressive" age, where Man will once and for all free itself from the shackles of servility and resume a more deserving position.
__________________
"Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist." - Adolf Hitler
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #8
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

I agree absolutely Bossanio that "our descent into judeo-egalitarian hell began with the Age of Enlightenment". It's not a particularly common perspective but I do believe the statement makes a great deal of sense. Maybe the reason the idea is unpopular among WNs is because that means that they have to write off their nations and their founders - they have to write off the Age of Englightenment which is so throroughly White and European - and this may be too much for them.

Quote:
But who or what was it that lit the candle which enlightened (or "illuminated") Europe?

I always used to blame feminism on the Jew, but White men are the original founders of feminism, or what Schopenhauer calls "our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity."

Likewise I used to blame Marxism on the Jew, but this "ism" was merely the child of egalitarianism and the Age of Enlightenment, both of which, to all appearances, were also founded by White men.

The same can be said about almost every other destructive judeo-policy of our day.

So how and why did it happen? Why did European Man undergo such a diametric change in thought and philosophy at that particular point in history? Ancient Greece and Rome had their dictators, their slaves, their colonies, their poor, their bloodshed, yet such perverted egalitarian nonsense didn't rear its ugly head.

Does the change, then, have something to do with Christianity, or with Northern European blood, or with the subversive Talmudic Jew, or with something else altogether?
I agree with the other posters on who and what is responsible for the rise of Englightenment thinking. Krystian hit on the main factors I think.

I don't think it can be rooted back to a single source, as aherne says: rather it evolved out of a variety of circumstances - economic, cultural, genetic, political, philosophical.

I wouldn't discount an innate tendency towards Liberalism in the soul of the European Man himself.

As you say, blaming the Jews entirely, and blaming Christianity as others do, may be a bit of a cop-out.

It's ironic that even as the Enlightenment developed strong refutations to Equality and Liberalism - Darwinism, for example - Liberals still maintained the basic soundness of their ideas.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #9
aherne
Senior Member
 
aherne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: semitically occupied territory
Posts: 2,096
Default

Given that egalitarianism was completely absent in pagan antiquity, but a central part of early Christianity and given that early Christianity has been a role model for very many generations to come, which absolutely includes the thinkers of the Renaissance, our conclusion can only be that christian ideals have so much contaminated the self-ascribed "progressives" that, in absence of an act of devotion, one would have great difficulty discriminating the two.
__________________
"Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist." - Adolf Hitler
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #10
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aherne View Post
Given that egalitarianism was completely absent in pagan antiquity, but a central part of early Christianity and given that early Christianity has been a role model for very many generations to come, which absolutely includes the thinkers of the Renaissance, our conclusion can only be that christian ideals have so much contaminated the self-ascribed "progressives" that, in absence of an act of devotion, one would have great difficulty discriminating the two.
So you're saying Christianity is the real prime mover here. Could we see Christianity as a caterpillar, and the Enlightenment as its butterfly.

As a counter-argument to this though, exactly why did Egalitarianism take root in European Man so strongly, culminating in the Enlightenment? Doesn't it seem like there was something in the soul of the European Man that allowed him to embrace the concept with such vigour and determination.

Other races of people exposed to Christianity did not follow the same path of rigid belief in Egalitarianism. They did not formulate and establish an all-encompassing worldview based on Human Equality.

Isn't there quite a bit of Egalitarianism (and Universalism) found in the likes of Plato? Isn't the Democratic form of Government that originated in Greece essentially Egalitarian and Liberal, as it evolves to its natural ends?
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #11
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
Were the Founding Fathers, for example, servants of the Jew or simply Holy-Babble-thumping white-skinned egalitarians?
Weren't a good many of them freemasons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
The rest of the Fathers were also all abolitionists.
Didn't some of them own slaves?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
They knew that liberty was on the horizon for the negro, and yet they chose to draft and enact some very powerful and very paleo-Marxist documents.
I'm pretty sure most if not all of the FF were what we would call, in modern jewspeak, "racists." The rights outlined in those documents were never intended for non-whites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
I always used to blame feminism on the Jew, but White men are the original founders of feminism, or what Schopenhauer calls "our old French ideas of gallantry and absurd veneration, that highest product of Christian-Teutonic stupidity."
I don't know about "first wave" feminism, many of whose proponents were "racist" upper middle class white ladies, but feminism from the 1950s onward definitely had many hidden and not so hidden jewish influences. Two out of the three individuals responsible for inventing "the pill" were jews and there's no way they couldn't have understood the socio-political ramifications of their creation. Kikes more than anyone were responsible for leading the campaign to fully legalize abortion (e.g. Henry Morgentaler in Canada). Modern feminism simply couldn't exist without "the pill" and easy abortions.

Before the 1950s you had kikes like Emma Goldman pushing ideas that were very much in line with those embraced by modern feminists, but I don't know to what extent she was representative of most feminists at the time. I think most white feminists prior to the 50s would've found the idea of McAbortions icky and the idea of taking a pill so they could sleep around without getting pregnant immoral and would've opposed it. They also would've found the idea of lesbianism, integral to modern feminism, repulsive.

Here's an historic leader of the women's movement the jewish media prefers to ignore, much like they either ignore or demonize the anti-war movement she was a part of:

Quote:
Elizabeth Dilling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Elizabeth Dilling Stokes (April 19, 1894 – May 26, 1966) was an American anti-communist and anti-war activist and writer in the 1930s and 1940s, who stood trial for Sedition in what is now called the Great Sedition Trial of 1944.[1] She was also arrested twice for disorderly conduct.[2]

The author of four political books, Dilling claimed that Marxism and "Jewry" were synonymous and admired both Adolf Hitler[citation needed] and Francisco Franco.[2] She claimed many prominent figures were Communist sympathizers, including Eleanor Roosevelt, Mahatma Gandhi, Franz Boas and Sigmund Freud.[3] Dilling concluded that a growing elite sought to remake the United States as a communist state.[3] Dilling proclaimed herself "abler than the men who were running the country".[2]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
Likewise I used to blame Marxism on the Jew, but this "ism" was merely the child of egalitarianism and the Age of Enlightenment, both of which, to all appearances, were also founded by White men.
Marxism was jewish. I mean, Marx came from a family of rabbis, fer crying out loud! Not all socialism was jewish, but Marxism certainly was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassanio View Post
Does the change, then, have something to do with Christianity...
Maybe it would be better to ask why the West took to Christianity so readily, rather than if Christianity caused any changes.

A lot of VNNers blame jews for inventing this or that but the more I research these topics, the clearer it becomes to me that jews have never created anything; they just steal the ideas of gentiles and pass them off as their own, making sure to twist them just enough so that they serve the tribe's agenda. I don't believe that even the Old Testament is jewish; there was a thread on here a few weeks ago about how the Ten Commandments were taken from either the Egyptians or the Babylonians.

Jews are the biggest frauds, con men, and parasites in history, through and through. Their only real talent lies in wrecking our nations (well, I suppose they're also pretty good at making money, especially when they can make it wrecking our nations).
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 18th, 2010 at 04:37 AM.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #12
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Before the 1950s you had kikes like Emma Goldman pushing ideas that were very much in line with those embraced by modern feminists, but I don't know to what extent she was representative of most feminists at the time. I think most white feminists prior to the 50s would've found the idea of McAbortions icky and the idea of taking a pill so they could sleep around without getting pregnant immoral and would've opposed it. They also would've found the idea of lesbianism, integral to modern feminism, repulsive.
But isn't it possible that the promotion of these things by feminism - abortion, the contraceptive pill, disintegration of heteronormativism, disintegration of the family - were latent desires of the feminist movement to begin with, but which only found expression as the movement gained power?

Off-loading feminism onto "the Jew" doesn't work for me. There's far too much support over a long period of time from European men and women for that theory to stand up. Feminism was, of course, a fundamental tenet of the Enlightenment. It's a natural, inevitable child of the Enlightenment philosophy, and it was articulated in the movement from the outset.

Quote:
Before the 1950s you had kikes like Emma Goldman pushing ideas that were very much in line with those embraced by
modern feminists, but I don't know to what extent she was representative of most feminists at the time.
I'd say quite representative.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #13
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
But isn't it possible that the promotion of these things by feminism - abortion, the contraceptive pill, disintegration of heteronormativism, disintegration of the family - were latent desires of the feminist movement to begin with, but which only found expression as the movement gained power?
Feminism didn't promote these things; modern "second-" and "third-wave" feminism was the result of them (along with a good bit of help from the jewish media).

I you really believe that the majority of white women aren't psychologically devastated after they've had an abortion, you don't understand them. Abortion is something that runs absolutely contrary to their natures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
Off-loading feminism onto "the Jew" doesn't work for me.
I didn't say jews created feminism. (BTW, why the quotation marks around "the Jew"?)

Here's a question: why did the jewish media promote Betty Friedan-style feminism while totally ignoring the brand of feminism represented by Elizabeth Dilling?

For the same reason, I would posit, that the jews chose to prop up blacks like MLK rather than Malcolm X.

Feminism could've been a force for positive change, but instead it got coopted and subverted by jews.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 18th, 2010 at 05:04 AM.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #14
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
I'd say quite representative.
In that case you should do a bit more homework about what the early American women's movement was about.

There's a reason modern feminists are embarrassed to talk about it.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #15
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aherne View Post
Given that egalitarianism was completely absent in pagan antiquity...
But that is not a given. I just wrote a post here the other day showing how Democritus, the pre-Christian father of modern atheism, was an egalitarian. The idea of democracy comes to us from the pagan Greeks, not from Christianity. Traditional Christianity was hierarchical as fuck.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 18th, 2010 at 05:22 AM.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #16
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Igor Alexander View Post
Feminism didn't promote these things; modern "second-" and "third-wave" feminism was the result of them (along with a good bit of help from the jewish media).
I think your conception of how these things inter-relate is disordered and confused.

Quote:
Here's a question: why did the jewish media promote Betty Friedan-style feminism while totally ignoring the brand of feminism represented by Elizabeth Dilling?
The Brittanica Encyclopedia mentions what you might call a "Gentile equivalent" of Emma Goldman, Charlotte Gilman.

Quote:
Radical feminists challenged the single-minded focus on suffrage as the sine qua non of women’s liberation. Emma Goldman, the nation’s leading anarchist, mocked the notion that the ballot could secure equality for women, since it hardly accomplished that for the majority of American men. Women would gain their freedom, she said, only “by refusing the right to anyone over her body…by refusing to be a servant to God, the state, society, the husband, the family, etc., by making her life simpler but deeper and richer.” Likewise, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in Women and Economics (1898), insisted that women would not be liberated until they were freed from the “domestic mythology” of home and family that kept them dependent on men.
Wikipedia continues:

Quote:
Her main argument was that sex and domestic economics went hand in hand; in order for a woman to survive she was reliant on her sexual assets to please her husband so that he would bring home the bread. From childhood young girls are forced into a social constraint that prepares them for motherhood by the toys that are marketed to them and the clothes designed for them. She argued that there should be no difference in the clothes that little girls and boys wear, the toys they play with, or the activities they do, and described tom-boys as perfect humans who ran around and used their bodies freely and healthily.

Charlotte argued that women's contributions to civilization, throughout history, have been halted because of an androcentric culture. She believed that the female race was the half of humanity that was underdeveloped, and improvement was necessary to prevent the deterioration of the human race. Gilman believed economic independence is the only thing that could really bring freedom for women, and make them equal to men. In 1898 she published Women and Economics, a theoretical treatise which argued, among other things, that women are subjugated by men, that motherhood should not preclude a woman from working outside the home, and that housekeeping, cooking, and child care, would be professionalized. “The ideal woman," Gilman wrote, "was not only assigned a social role that locked her into her home, but she was also expected to like it, to be cheerful and gay, smiling and good-humored.” When the sexual-economic relationship ceases to exist, life on the domestic front would certainly improve, as frustration in relationships often stems from the lack of social contact that the domestic wife has with the outside world.

Gilman became a spokesperson on topics such as women’s perspectives on work, dress reform, and family. Housework, she argued, should be equally shared by men and women, and that at an early age women should be encouraged to be independent. In many of her major works, including "The Home" (1903), Human Work (1904), and The Man-Made World (1911), Gilman also advocated women working outside of the home.
In the Senaca Falls Sentiments (1848) we find similar "radical feminist" statements.

The key point here is that these radical statements are coming:

(i) From Non-Jewish White Europeans
(ii) Long before the alleged "second-" and "third-waves" of feminism

Which disproves both of your assertions - "Radical feminism was Jewish" and "Early feminism was non-radical".

I don't believe in the "wave" theory of feminism (which implies that feminism only became radical in the mid-20th Century).

Radical feminism is much older than you think and is far less kosher than you think. It is a natural and inevitable outgrowth from the Enlightenment's early "polite feminism".
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #17
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Feminism could've been a force for positive change
All evidence is to the contrary.

Quote:
but instead it got coopted and subverted by jews.
Incorrect.

Quote:
I you really believe that the majority of white women aren't psychologically devastated after they've had an abortion, you don't understand them.
Whether women are traumatised by abortion is beside the point. My point was that sooner or later feminism was going to start agitating for it (along with dissolution of the family, heteronormativism, etc.)

Quote:
In that case you should do a bit more homework about what the early American women's movement was about.

There's a reason modern feminists are embarrassed to talk about it.
See the above quotes I provided. The notion of an early "non-radical" feminism, separate from "modern feminism", is false.

(Much the way as the division between "classical liberalism" and "modern liberalism" is false.)

One enables and leads into the other inevitably. If you dislike "modern liberalism" and "modern feminism" then you have to hit at the root concept, not propose going back to an "earlier, pure" version of the movement (which left run its natural course will end up where it is today anyway).
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #18
Igor Alexander
Senior Member
 
Igor Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
I think your conception of how these things inter-relate is disordered and confused.

The Brittanica Encyclopedia mentions what you might call a "Gentile equivalent" of Emma Goldman, Charlotte Gilman.
I'm familiar with Charlotte Gilman. She's held up as a hero by modern feminists. How was she received in her time? That's the crucial question here.

I don't care about the exceptions. I'm interested in the rule.

As for whether Gilman was really the equivalent of Emma Goldman, I'd have to research that in more depth before I agreed to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
The key point here is that these radical statements are coming:

(i) From Non-Jewish White Europeans
(ii) Long before the alleged "second-" and "third-waves" of feminism

Which disproves both of your assertions - "Radical feminism was Jewish" and "Early feminism was non-radical".
I never made such statements. You're putting words into my mouth, simplifying what I said to the point of absurdity in order to knock it down. That's called a straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
I don't believe in the "wave" theory of feminism (which implies that feminism only became radical in the mid-20th Century).
I said nothing whatsoever about "radical feminism" in my post, and generally avoid using that term. So why are you using it, implying that I used it first?

Please define "radical feminism."

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
Radical feminism is much older than you think and is far less kosher than you think.
Wow, you must have serious reading comprehension problems. Either show me precisely where I said the things you claim I said or drop it. I said what I had to say clearly and precisely and I'm not going to repeat it 20 times over for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by W.R. View Post
It is a natural and inevitable outgrowth from the Enlightenment's early "polite feminism".
Natural? No. There's nothing natural about "the pill" or abortion on demand. A woman's entire being is tied up with her reproductive system and these technologies redefine what a woman is.

Provide evidence that Emma Goldman and Charlotte Gilman were typical of the early women's movement. I don't see any. In fact, the material you've provided rather proves the opposite, since Emma Goldman attacked women who wanted the vote and who weren't interested in so-called "reproductive rights." Sounds to me like an early effort by a jew to subvert the women's movement in a majority-white country.
__________________
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
http://igoralexander.wordpress.com/
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #19
W.R.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Quote:
It is a natural and inevitable outgrowth from the Enlightenment's early "polite feminism".
Natural? No. There's nothing natural about "the pill" or abortion on demand. A woman's entire being is tied up with her reproductive system and these technologies redefine what a woman is.
I think you miss my point. Abortion on demand and the contraceptive pill are not "natural" at all.

It's natural that radical feminism, which advocates abortion and the pill, will evolve from "benevolent, polite" feminism.

Quote:
Quote:
Radical feminism is much older than you think and is far less kosher than you think.
Wow, you must have serious reading comprehension problems. Either show me precisely where I said the things you claim I said or drop it. I said what I had to say clearly and precisely and I'm not going to repeat it 20 times over for you.
I was getting the impression from your posts that "radical feminism" was a conspiracy of Media Jews and Jewesses.
 
Old March 18th, 2010 #20
aherne
Senior Member
 
aherne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: semitically occupied territory
Posts: 2,096
Default

Isn't there quite a bit of Egalitarianism (and Universalism) found in the likes of Plato? Isn't the Democratic form of Government that originated in Greece essentially Egalitarian and Liberal, as it evolves to its natural ends?
We must remember that both Greek democracy and Roman democracy have been blown out of proportion by those ready to adulterate the past in order to justify the present. Greek democracy only occurred in Athens, was restricted to Athenian male citizen, and lasted for no more than a century. Roman democracy was by all means a plutocracy where the rich acted as a de-facto ruling aristocracy for many centuries before Cesar (see Mommsen for an excellent account of this age). Anyway, the word democratic had a whole different meaning back then: it only meant individuals were equal before the law and equal in their obligations towards the state. By NO MEANS AT ALL it tried to "improve" human nature by condemning hierarchy. Both societies relied upon slaves for menial labor and regarded slaves (30-50% of the population) as simple objects to be disposed at leisure, so they were very UN-EGALITARIAN to their core.

The thinkers of Renaissance have taken an ASPECT of ancient democracies to which they have applied a CHRISTIAN pattern of leveling, according to the dogmatic unity of all mankind as acts of Creation (an idea central in early "simple" Christianity, which they lavishly admired on the expense of corrupt organized Church). Their hatred of hierarchy must also be seen in historical context as a manifestation of bourgeois desire to gain parity with nobility.
__________________
"Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist." - Adolf Hitler
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:44 AM.
Page generated in 0.39711 seconds.