Feminism is the sociopolitical idea that women are "equal to" or "the same as" men in all respects except genital features and physical size. Further, many feminists claim that women do not need men in their lives, except to produce a child by either artificial insemination or by the "regular way."

Conservative author Robert H. Bork* accurately points out that feminism is NOT a "reformist" movement, it is a REVOLUTIONARY movement. An actual attack upon a culture, not simply a socially leveling movement. This fact must be understood by the reader.

We do not suggest that every feminist is Jewish -- no doubt many feminists are gentiles. But we do insist that the movement itself was, and still is, heavily Jewish by race.

Let's examine how feminism, as an ideology, has impacted the West:

families weakened because the wife feels compelled to work outside the home, to have a "career," leading to little Johnny being stuck in a day-care center, and not bonding with his birth-mother;

physically petite women joining police forces, fire departments and the military; CPTWC's director hopes that he is never trapped in a fire that would require a female firefighter to carry him down several flights of steps; his 200+ pounds would make that idea nearly impossible; our director asked a male firefighter about that scenario once; the male firefighter did not answer the querie except to respond with lots of "uhms..." and "wells..."

fights between husband/wife -- after long days at work for both of them -- about whose turn it is to wash the dishes, vacuum the carpet or change Junior's diapers; we have actually witnessed such fights; in the old days, those subjects were not argued about: the wife performed those duties.

less overall family time/fewer activities due to one of the parents being gone for work-related reasons.

The idea that men and women are "the same" is nonsense, and science agrees with our position. A good book about this subject -- titled Brain Sex , 1989, 1991, by Anne Moir and David Jessel, Carol Publishing Group/Lyle Stuart -- gives many scientific examples of how men and women differ, both physically and mentally. This book is a must-own for anyone who wants to counter Jewish/feminist propaganda stating that men and women only differ in their sex organs.

Here are some of the sexual differences mentioned in the book Brain Sex :

women hear better than men;

men have much greater spatial ability than women;

men have a narrower field of vision;

women have far greater skin sensitivity than men;

women's noses, i. e., sense of smell, are more sensitive than a man's;

women are less able to separate emotion from reason, because their brains are wired differently: men's brains are more specific, normally using either the left or right side only; women's brains use both sides for many different tasks;

it takes a woman longer to make a decision than a man because women use a more complex reasoning formula than men, who are the reverse: direct, get-to-the-point thinkers;

women are much more likely to see nuclear weapons, and all weapons, as threatening; men are more likely to see them as deterrents -- hence the overwhelming female support for gun control;

women are generally more anxious/nervous than men.

---------------

*Bork, in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah , 1996/1997, ReganBooks, page 193, softcover. This book gives a good overview of the various attacks upon Western culture in the 20th century, and we do recommend this book as a good source for ideological ideas about Western culture. Sadly, Bork is not a nationalist per se, and he does not blame Jews as a group for attacks upon the West.

Feminism: A Jewish Adversary Movement Against Gentile Culture

Here is a list of some of the Jewish founders and leaders of the modern feminist revolution. Keep in mind that this list is by no means complete--these women are simply the more well-known within the feminist movement; thousands of lesser-known Jewish women lead local and obscure feminist groups 1 :

---

-Gloria Steinem (1934- ); founder, Ms. Magazine.

-Bella Abzug (1920-1998); Civil rights and labor attorney elected to Congress (House of Rep.) from New York City ; served 1971-1977.

-Betty Friedan (1921- ); feminist leader and author of the book "The Feminine Mystique" (1963).

-Shulamith Firestone (1945- ); Canadian feminist. Wrote "The Dialectic of Sex" (1970).

-Andrea Dworkin (1946- ); radical; apparent lesbian. Author of the book "Intercourse" (1987).

-Susan Brownmiller (1935- ); U.S. feminist. Wrote the book "Against Our Will" (1975).

-Susan Faludi (1959- ); author of the book "Backlash" (1992).

-Naomi Wolf (1962- ); advisor to Al Gore in the 2000 U.S. presidential election.

-Emma Goldman (1869-1940); early U.S. feminist.

-Ernestine Rose (1810-1892); b. in Poland ; early feminist.

-Phyllis Chesler (1941- ); U.S. feminist; author of the book "Woman's Inhumanity to Woman" (2002).

-Judy Chicago (Cohen) (1939- ); U.S. feminist. Author of the book "The Dinner Party" (1996).

-Robin Morgan (1941- ); U.S. feminist. Former editor-in-chief, Ms. magazine.

-Letty Cottin Pogrebin (1939- ); U.S. feminist; co-founded Ms. magazine.

-Gerda Lerner (1920- ); b. in Austria .

-Annie Nathan Meyer (1867-1951); U.S. feminist.

-Maud Nathan (1862-1946); sister of Annie Nathan Meyer; U.S. feminist.

-Geri Palast (1950- ); chair, Committee on Women in the Global Economy; U.S. feminist.

-Rose Schneiderman (1882-1972); b. in Poland .

-Anita Pollitzer (1894-1975); U.S. feminist; pal of artist Georgia O'Keeffe.

-Gene Boyer (no birthyear available); a founder of N.O.W.; president of Jewish Feminists; U.S. feminist.

-Lucy Komisar (1942- ); author of the book "The New Feminism" (1971); U.S. feminist.

-Karen Nussbaum (1950- ); (apparently Jewish); leader of 9to5-National Association of Working Women.

-Eleanor Flexner (1908-1995); (apparently Jewish--relative is a Zionist); U.S. feminist.

-Riane Eisler (1931- ); b. Vienna ; author/feminist; (apparently Jewish--fled Nazis). Author of the book "The Chalice and the Blade" (1987).

Notes

1. sources: various, including Jewish author Dr. Joshua Halberstam's book "Schmoozing," 1997, Perigee; also web searches, and the author's personal files and notes.

The New Feminism

by J.R. Colson

A radical idea becomes mainstream...

March 2002

Feminism is considered by many people to be hairy-broad ideology: man-hating senselessness pushed by dumpy lesbians unacquainted with razors who often work at vegetarian restaurants in California , or at used bookstores in any large city.

You've probably seen some of the women who spout feminist claptrap -- they don't wear make-up, they have butch hairstyles, and they appear to be males under dim light.

That hairy-broad feminism is still around, but it has been largely replaced by a slicker, less-severe type of feminism, a type that I like to call "Corporate Feminism."

Corporate Feminism is still, at its core, another Jewish-invented adversary movement, pitting one segment of traditional society against another to destabilize that society, just like regular feminism. But C.F. appears benign and not unwholesome, therefore easy for idiots in suburbia to swallow. C.F. does not "seem like feminism." The stamp of the Jewish-by-race women who invented and led feminism -- Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Shulamith Firestone, Andrea Dworkin, et al. -- is not visible in C.F. Corporate Feminism is friendly, not antagonistic and overtly anti-male like the older version of feminism.[1]

Gentile -- non-Jewish -- Americans encounter Corporate Feminism daily. Simply look out a window in any big city, and see the female doctors, accountants, bank managers, brokers and realtors hustling off to work in large buildings, on their way to play rough with the boys, or, at least, to play rough with the boys until one of them says something "sexist"; then those same females burst into tears and file lawsuits. These professional women do not seem like feminists -- or fembots, as I often call them. They merely seem to be "regular working women." But they most certainly are feminists. They may not hate men, and they may not belong to N.O.W. (National Organization for Jewish Women), but they are feminists just the same. Slick, sophisticated ones. As proof, just suggest that women are not completely equal to men in the presence of one of these C.F.s, and see what happens. Wear a cup when you do it.

Indeed, are these C.F.s staying at home to take care of their kids like regular women? Ha! Will they bake something for their husbands for dinner? Fat chance, sweetheart. They will make reservations at a restaurant instead, and will probably pick up the tab. These women are "equal," see. They are just like men, but without penises or whiskers. Many C.F.s have the higher testosterone levels of the hairy type of fembots, but they wear lipstick and high heels instead.

How did these women become C.F.s, you might wonder? They were trained -- slowly -- to become C.F.s. And who trained them? Jewish-dominated Hollywood and the Jewish-dominated media, entities that constantly send White women the message that being a homemaker is too "old-fashioned" and retrograde. Women are not fulfilled unless they are out having a career, our Yiddish pop-culture firmly suggests.

Further, some of these women do not have children because they are delaying motherhood to pursue a career, often waiting until it becomes too late for them to safely bear a child. This putting-off of pregnancy is a big part of C.F., of course. The permanent delaying of motherhood is one of the reasons that White birthrates are so low. Pat Buchanan rightly observed that White women are not having enough children to keep the White population afloat vs. racial minorities. More Jewish poison for our culture.

When you see a woman in a suit and skirt going off to work at 8 a.m., you should feel sick and nauseous. The very idea of the "modern professional woman" is not natural, not good, and not traditionally gentile. It is instead Jewish. Feminism was invented by Jews to be an assault upon traditional gentile culture, to make it less cohesive and functional. Such a less-functional society provides Jews with safety from ongoing "anti-Semitism." Anti-Semitism historically thrives in stable, male-dominated, largely-White cultures, and Jews know this all too well. A few Jewish authors, such as Rothman and Lichter, admit that America 's adversary culture, or counterculture, was created and led by Jews, just as it was in Germany before Hitler's reign.[2]

Whether feminists are angry man-haters with hairy legs, or sophisticated lawyers wearing earrings and high heels, they are still feminists. They are a serious problem. These women are greatly harming America and the West by failing to acknowledge their traditional female roles as child-bearers and family nurturers. These Corporate Feminists are a result of what happens when a gentile culture becomes dominated by Jews.

J.R. COLSON

-----------------------------

Notes

1. Jewish author Dr. Joshua Halberstam notes that feminism was and is led largely by Jews, listing feminist leaders' names from different eras as being Jewish, in his book Schmoozing , 1997, Perigee Books.

2. See the book Roots of Radicalism , by Stanley Rothman/S. R. Lichter, 1982/1996, Transaction Publishers.

The Feminist Invasion

by ilovewhitefolks.com

FEMINISM HAS BEEN A CURSE PUT UPON OUR NATION through the power of the United States Government. It is government interference that is the ENTIRE problem with feminism. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s most women did not want to work outside the home. They would have just loved to have a nice homemaking position with some children, and a loving and faithful husband. If the government had of stayed out of it, there never would have been a feminist problem.

In the early days of the modern feminist movement, our entire society reacted to feminism with disgust. Women said, "There is no way that I would be a feminist." It was nearly universal! Women wanted no part of being a "women's libber." How did we move from that political position, to the one where today most women are living the "libber" lifestyle, and think that it is normal? Many of them still think that they are not feminists as they go to their jobs each morning after dropping their kids off at the day care center. That sort of revolution in perception is amazing. How did it happen?

First of all the media cranked up the propaganda machine. They started slanting their news stories in favor of feminism. When anyone suggested that a story had a "woman's point of view" aspect to it, they ran out to get a quote from the National Organization of Women, a small and numerically insignificant group of hard-core man-haters. Over time that process began to mold the soft brains of the television-watching public. Next, the Media Lords started dropping in television sitcoms like "That Girl," and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," to make the feminists appear to have a friendly face.

This was like a bombing mission to soften up the resistance for the full-scale ground invasion to come later. Perhaps the greatest of these softening-up weapons used by the future conquerors of this country was, "All in the Family." In that television show all the traditional American points of view were very skillfully cut to ribbons in such an entertaining way that more Americans came back to watch that show each week than any other program airing during that era. Pro-White sentiment was shown to be a product of ignorance and stupidity. In the area of feminism, Archie Bunker's wife, Edith, was shown as a dumb slave with virtually no mind or purpose, except to grab Archie anything his heart desired. After weeks, months, and years of watching the Archie propaganda machine at work, Americans were softened up enough to bring in the troops.

The Supreme Court, the elite Delta Force unit for the invaders, threw out all American tradition, as well as previous court decisions, as they restructured American society. They cut through the traditional American structure like a fire in an old wooden building. They destroyed our White neighborhoods and schools, and they destroyed our White family structure.

There was a ruling that female reporters would be allowed by law into male locker rooms after sporting events. The first reaction to this by the vast majority of Americans was, "They can't be serious!" Americans were completely astonished by the absurdity of such an idea. Americans were a more or less prudish people who traditionally would not conceive of a lady even wanting to be in a men's locker room, let alone having the courts forcing the morals of American society to be cast aside in this way. Nor was it the last time that Americans would be shocked by the intrusive Supreme Court. The locker room ruling of course produced the expected result. It did not take long before there was a big scandal where a Black football player exposed himself to a White female reporter in his own locker room, and made some vulgar comment, which caused a hypocritical major uproar in the media -- the same media which had authored the event in the first place.

There followed rulings that banned traditional men's clubs. Since these clubs excluded women, and business issues just might be discussed there, the courts claimed that the very existence of such clubs infringed upon women's "rights." You can read the constitution from top to bottom until your eyes fall out of your head, and you will not see any such "right" listed there! Think of the infringement on personal freedom that this ruling entailed! Once again the American people were astounded!

Where were these Supreme Court rulings coming from? Where indeed! Obviously they were not coming from the constitution, which had predated them by nearly 200 years, and no Court had seen that sort of silliness embodied in that document previously. It was just as obvious that the court was not following public opinion, which was against their rulings.

The unfortunate thing was that Americans were far too trusting of their controlled government. They assumed that the government was of the people, for the people, and by the people. But they were very wrong! The ones that found out at all, found out too late to do any good, that the government had been taken over by those who claimed to know what the people needed, better than the people themselves knew. Instead of finding out what the people wanted, and then doing it, "our" government set out to do what the Leftists demanded, and then forced the American people to like it, or at least to accept it. That is what oppression and tyranny is all about: forcing the government's will upon the submissive people. We lost our representative republic completely at that point in our history. Franklin D. Roosevelt had weakened its foundation nearly to the breaking point, but the 1960s completely removed it.

So, while the people who were raised to believe in our system of government and who respected their government, and trusted their leaders, were being vandalized and robbed of their freedoms, the revolt which should of occured, never happened. The media were the primary reason for that. The media put out a soothing patter of sweet-sounding phrases as to how evil traditional America had been, and how wonderful the new America was going to be. They used very clever phrasing as they put out their message, and it still continues today. Hardly a Sunday news talk show passes without having one or more of the Leftist clichés about sexism, racism, immigration, and the wonderful inclusion of today's diversity being repeated. No supporting facts, or even solid reasoning, is presented to support these absurd ideas. The ideas themselves are all that are presented, over and over and over again, until no other idea is even thinkable by the masses.

Once the Leftists were warmed up, they were ready to get down to some serious pitching. They had to soften up the workplace to make it palatable to the women they were forcing into it. The average woman of the 1960s would have been disgusted and shocked by the language, pictures, and other masculine trappings that the normal workplace was filled with. Rather than doing the right thing and telling the women to, "take it or leave it," the court decided to reach its iron fist out once again and demand that men no longer could act like men at work. They could no longer put pictures on the walls that women did not approve of. They could no longer use the same language or tell the same jokes at work. Their freedom to be themselves was gone, taken by the court.

Again, each of these court rulings was met with complete surprise and shock on the part of the American people. Each time it happened, the people looked at the ruling in disbelief, and assumed that finally the tyrannical flood's high water mark of foolishness had been reached. But alas there is no such thing as a terminating high water mark with these totalitarians. They want it all.

Then came the real plunge. The law suits against companies. Many companies at that time had a policy that a man who was supporting a family should be hired preferentially before a woman, for any job he was qualified for. That policy supported the concept of a strong traditional family. It supported having a stay-at-home mom for the kids. It supported a strong White society. That is exactly what the Leftists wanted to destroy! The courts decided that the companies were not smart (i.e. Marxist) enough to handle their own hiring policies. The negative impact of this power grab by the Left is hard to over estimate. By using the rationale that companies were not smart enough, or caring and feeling enough, to be fair, the courts "justified" the decision that the Leftist view of fairness was more important than freedom was.

Companies were no longer in charge of their own hiring policy. Instead, the government would decide for them. The courts ruled that companies, especially large companies, would have to hire a certain number of women, Blacks, and members from other chosen groups, or they would have to pay huge fines. This is the exact opposite of freedom and most Americans at the time knew it. They were shocked! But over time the ability to be shocked is diminished.

As a brief aside, we saw the same process in miniature with the Clinton impeachment. He was accused of doing something that was condemned by both parties. Nearly all agreed, including most members of his own Democratic Party, that if the accusations were true, it would be grounds for throwing him out of office. "However," we were told, "We must wait until the evidence is in before passing judgement." Then, over the year's time it took to produce the evidence, the entire story was leaked out a little at a time, and the shock value was completely gone by the time the Senate trial hit. The accusation turned out to be completely true, BUT all of the people whose judgement was sound a year before, had been anesthetized over a year of hearing about it. Comments were made, "There is nothing new in the Starr Report." It was as if only newness would be acceptable grounds for discipline, and of course newness was impossible, therefore discipline was impossible. Shock can only last a certain amount of time before numbness sets in, or a callous is developed, and concern is erased.

As the insane pro-feminist rulings were increasingly having less and less shock value, the process began speeding up. In the media there were no more television shows being made that represented real life. Men, even today, are doing the bulk of the military fighting, and the policing of our cities, but television shows do not represent that. Television shows lay on the feminist "ideal" with gusto. The American people do not even realize that they are having their attitudes adjusted with this propaganda.

Let's take a quick look at a barometer of how effective this propaganda has been. The 1984 movie The Terminator showed a normal, feminine girl being chased by a nearly indestructible robot from the future. At the end of the movie she was pregnant, and as a concerned mother-to-be, she was going to a safe place to have her son and to raise him. Then, after 7 years pass, the feminists were feeling more secure in their propaganda campaign, and in 1991 that once sweet, feminine, normal girl had become in the sequel, Terminator II - Judgement Day , some lesbian's dream of a butch lover. No reaction from the audiences! People just do not shock very easily anymore.

The courts now dictate the power structure inside a company. A company can no longer make up its own standards as to how it will hire or promote. It must follow the court's dictates. It must hire the right kind of people, which does not in any way mean the kind of people who would make the company more profitable! It must promote people, not based upon company determined criteria but by court ordered criteria. That is not the situation that you would find in a free society.

Probably the most shocking maneuver by the liberal invasion force was the legalization of abortion. Americans nearly universally were opposed to abortion before the Supreme Court passed the death sentence on at least 30 million children in this nation. (The number grows by more than a million a year if you can even imagine that kind of slaughter. At this rate, those who support the right to "choose" will soon pass up the communists as the worst mass murderers of all time.) Again it was not the people who wanted this outrage. It was not the constitution which supported this outrage. It was the will of the tyrants and no other.

The next phase could be called the Consolidation Phase. All government agencies were immediately forced to aggressively hire and promote women, (and non-Whites) and if you have the misfortune of having to deal with any government agency you will almost certainly be dealing with one or more of the tyrants' chosen ones. After loading up all the agencies, that are directly controlled by the government, with the specially chosen people, they started working on the volunteer military force. The original standards the military had in place, made it impossible for women to qualify for service. In order to be able to allow women into the military, all of the service branches were forced to drop their standards. Lowering the standards for the military, and thereby lowering the ability of our military to defend our nation is treason. But this should come as no surprise. The Left is guilty of treason in many areas. They hate traditional America and will stop at nothing to destroy her.

The most important, and to any real American the saddest, part of the Consolidation Phase has been the brainwashing of our children. From the television shows that they grow up on, to the classrooms we force them into -- that we pay for with out tax dollars -- our children are bombarded with feminist propaganda. They are told that women are the same as men and should have the same role in society. The average woman or man of the 1960s would have been outraged by that, but today the propaganda has worked. Today, our children are freely given over, by their parents, to the people who shape little brains into liberal feminists. There is hardly a whimper any longer. In fact women have been so brainwashed today that, while they live their feminist lives, they do not even realize that they are feminists. They often claim that they are not! It is clear that the Consolidation Phase has been a success.

The only fly in the ointment for the tyrants today is the Internet. They have successfully blocked all dissent by any traditionalist via the newspapers, the television, and the classroom. They have a great deal of control over the radio too, despite the so called "conservative" talk show hosts. (The term "conservative" is a joke anymore. What are they "conserving"? They are conserving the Left wing agenda of the 1960s! It is ridiculous that they even have the name Conservative.) Here on the Internet free speech still abounds. The tyrants hate it mind you, but it is here for now. You can see these overlords madly working, sponsoring companies to create filtering programs to be used, we are told, in order to save "the children" from XXX material. In reality, what they want is to filter out is traditional political thought. When a web page today lists, in a positive light, the beliefs in detail of the average American of the 1950s, it is filtered out. When the thoughts of our Founding Fathers are presented today on certain subjects, you can rest assured, a filtered computer is not able to reach that site. The day will come when the average American browsing the Internet, will be as controlled as the average television watcher is today. But that time has not yet come!

The willing tools of the Leftist masters often accuse me of forcing my views upon them, when all I am trying to do is to remove the foot of the tyrants from off of my neck, and from off the necks of all my people. The totalitarian government, which is enforcing its ideas upon the unwilling, is the villain in this story and it must go!

U.N. Is Forcing Feminism Upon the West

Without powerful entities -- e.g., governments, the media, etc. -- pushing feminism as an idea, that movement would not get very far. Pro-feminist forces know that feminism must be FORCED upon the West, and the rest of the world as well, which makes us wonder why so many White countries fall victim to feminism: after all, if it is such a good ideology, why must force always be used to install it?

At the U.N.'s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China, in September 1995 [1], there was a large meeting of pro-feminist leaders from around the world to discuss how best to force various countries to knuckle under to the Jew-invented idea of feminism. That few Western leaders condemned the meeting is telling of where we are as a collective Western culture.

Here are some highlights of the official Beijing conference statement on women's issues. Note that this official statement even attempts to dictate male/female relationships INSIDE THE HOME (our emphasis below):

Mission Statement:

1. The Platform for Action is an agenda for women's empowerment. It aims at accelerating the implementation of the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/platform/notes.htm#note1 and at removing all the obstacles to women's active participation in all spheres of public and private life through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making. This means that the principle of shared power and responsibility should be established between women and men at home , in the workplace and in the wider national and international communities. Equality between women and men is a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice and is also a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for equality, development and peace. A transformed partnership based on equality between women and men is a condition for people centred sustainable development. A sustained and long-term commitment is essential, so that women and men can work together for themselves, for their children and for society to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century."

And there was this as well:

"5. The success of the Platform for Action will require a strong commitment on the part of Governments, international organizations and institutions at all levels. It will also require adequate mobilization of resources at the national and international levels..."

In plain English, then, the UN plan is for governments to use whatever force is needed to install feminist ideas in Western countries; and further, this forced feminization will be global (" international "), and not offset by the sovereignty of a country or its borders. In other words, gender-based Marxism under the banners of "equality" and "democracy."

More on that U.N. Fourth Conference on Women can be seen here:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/index.html

--------------------

[1] How ironic that the meeting would occur in a totalitarian country.