Feminism and anti-patriotism part 2: A few thoughts on internationalism

Some time ago, commenter Acartia and I were debating the totalitarian character of pro gay bill 13 in Ontario. I had pointed out how a gay straight alliance club in the US was promoting homosexual sex in a graphic manner to which he responded:

“I sure hope that you are not trying to claim that the bad behaviour of a small sector of an identifiable group is reflective of all within the group. If so, 911 is proof that all Muslims are terrorists and the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church is proof that all Christians are hate filled homophobes. Obviously, these are absurd conclusions.”

Acartia made this argument in good faith but I think his analogy is flawed. He’s right in his reasoning about Muslims and Christians and while I admit that dragging in a foreign group into this debate did weaken my argument somewhat, I feel that I am still somewhat justified in doing so.

Religions like Christianity and Islam are global in scope but not international. By global I simply mean that a community is not geographically concentrated in one region; nothing more nothing less. Global religions harmonize with local cultures. Malaysian culture is very different from Iranian culture despite both countries sharing a common Islamic faith. Similarly, the culture of Italy is very different from the culture of the Philippines which shares the Catholic faith of the former. Global religions do not transcend regional, national, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries. Their appeal might be global but these religions are absorbed by local cultures and remade in the culture’s image. Internationalist movements like Feminism and Marxism on the other hand transcend national and ethnic identities. As I’d stated some time ago, feminism is anti-nationalism and anti-patriotism. Feminism and Marxism subscribe to a narrative of class struggle which is then imposed on societies with scant regard for culture and historical realities and perspectives. While Islam and Christianity vary from community to community, Liberal pet causes do not. Unlike religion there is very little room for interpretation within the ideological framework of feminism and Marxism as their core beliefs are non negotiable. Feminists in India sound exactly like feminists in the west when they harp about “patriarchy” and “gender subordination.” Likewise, LGBT groups around the world employ the same tactics and rhetoric and share the same underlying agenda. There is no such thing as Mexican feminism or Arab feminism; feminism is feminism. The same goes for the LGBT groups in the west, or at least in the anglosphere.

As many have already pointed out, Feminism is essentially Marxism adjusted for gender. Women’s history is now being reconstructed along the solipsistic lines of class struggle without any heed given to nationality, ethnicity, religion, and culture. Feminists have also long decried any attempt at classifying their toxic ideology as a western creation while insisting that their movement speaks for women globally (one size fits all). Feminism essentially inherits the internationalism of Marxism. A few words on Marxism are in order. Marxism is at its core a very Jewish philosophy condensing within its framework various aspects of the Jewish worldview such as:

1)Rebellion: In this case, workers against “Bourgeois.” Other rebellions that Jewry are invested in are feminism (Women against men/family), Multiculturalism (minorities against the majority), Pornography (rebellion against society/marriage), and Homosexuality/gay rights (gays against society and culture).

2)Materialism: Marxism assumes that material gain is the sole motivator of human agency (defined through class struggle) throughout history. Material bounty has always been perceived as a sign of divine favour within the Jewish worldview.

3)Internationalism: Marxism is international and imposes it’s narrow narrative of class struggle on all human societies regardless of cultural and racial considerations (one size fits all). This is also obvious from Marxism’s rendering of class along economic lines while ignoring cultural and religious variables. This internationalism is a facet of the Jewish identity as Jews could never historically identify with the nationalism of their host nations. The interests of the Jewish collective supersede the interests of their host nations and much ink has already been spilled on North American Jewry’s commitment to Israeli interests at the expense of American and Canadian interests. Organized Jewry remains unconcerned with whether the US and Canada are dragged into a third world war, so long as Israel retains the right to wage perpetual war in the Middle East. Henry Ford was correct in titling his book “The international Jew.” A great American and a great Capitalist, Ford was one of the few men who saw the Jew clearly for what he is.

As Gender feminism was essentially a Jewish creation (Betty Friedan/Gloria Steinem), the movement retains much of the internationalism of Marxism; and hence feminism’s need to ‘transcend’ regional and national loyalties. Feminists seem to identify more with an oppressed woman in Afghanistan than with the hungry homeless man downtown. Feminist groups show no sense of patriotism or loyalty to their nations unless they are allowed to reconstruct culture on their own terms. Like its Jewish Frankenstein, the feminist monster would rather censor debate than participate in it. Most feminist blogs and websites are echo chambers that protect their cowardly members with “trigger warnings” and blanket bans.

The main reason why feminism has won so little ground in the orient is due to the oriental woman’s loyalty to her culture and country. South Asian and Arab women actively defend their cultures despite suffering inhumane abuse from their backward and tribal societies. Disturbingly, some of these South Asian women occasionally participate in honour killings. Western women by contrast have historically enjoyed a higher standing partially due to Christianity’s unwavering commitment to monogamy.

A few final thoughts on internationalism are in order. Internationalism serves Jewry well as their interests are tribal no matter how globally dispersed they may be. Yet when internationalism is adopted by heterogeneous gentile groups the result is cultural suicide on a massive scale. Ethnicity, language, gender, and religion are all facets of identity that are worth fighting for and have been fought for since time immemorial. Internationalist ideologies like Marxism and feminism strip us of our cultural identities and reduce us to faceless human resources to be allocated by a totalitarian nanny state.

Read more: Where Western women fail miserably

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Asia, Christianity, conservative values, Cultural Marxism, Feminism, Homosexuals, India, Islam, Israel, Jewry, Organized Jewry, Subversion, Tribalism, Western Values and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Feminism and anti-patriotism part 2: A few thoughts on internationalism

  1. Bay Area Guy says:

    Following the infamous bus gang rape in India, I recall reading an editorial by an Indian woman and professor.

    (I found the editorial from reading the Good Mangina Project, which I used to read a couple of years ago, until I got disgusted with the censorship and infestation of feminists)

    She basically claimed that the crime was the result of years of “male entitlement,” that Indian culture instilled toxic notions of male privilege and that men suffer from a sense of “displacement” due to the advances of women. And of course, like any good feminist, she asserted that Indian men have trouble viewing women as full “human beings.”

    I swear, you read one feminist and you’ve read them all. Had I not known that this woman was Indian, I would have presumed that she was just another Western feminist. It really is an internationalist movement.

  2. Acartia says:

    Very nice observation that religions are influenced by culture, but I would argue that democracy, feminism, Marxism and LGBT is as well. Marxism was practiced very differently in Russia and Cuba. Feminism in Saudi is very different than in North America. And so on.

    • Dota says:

      Feminism in Saudi is very different than in North America. And so on.

      Not really. Many Asian women simply seek equal access to education, healthcare, and employment. They aren’t interested in subverting their cultures in the way gender feminists have done so for the last 5 decades. They aren’t interested in dismantling the family or outsourcing parenting to daycares.

      • coward says:

        Why do you keep calling Middle Easterners and South Asians Asian? They are no more Asian than a Uyghur or Genghis Khan is. These are Caucasians, including Genghis Khan.

      • Dota says:

        Culturally speaking, they are Asians. Genetics alone do not make a nation.

  3. Dota says:

    Indeed. It’s a one size fits all narrative with internationalists like Marxists and feminists. Global religions adapt via diffusion whereas internationalist ideologies must be imposed.

  4. Acartia says:

    Actually I think that here are more similarities than differences between these two groups. There are many instances where religions have been imposed, usually by community pressure than by law. But don’t underestimate the power of community pressure. In the past, a person who didn’t attend church would often find themselves on the outside of social and employment opportunities.

    • Dota says:

      That’s not what I meant by impose. Sure Islam and Christianity were imposed on many cultures, sometimes by missionaries and sometimes by the sword. But the conquered people accepted these religions on their own terms. When one views the Taj Mahal, one isn’t thinking about Islamic architecture, one thinks about Indian architecture. The monument seamlessly blends Hindu and Islamic motifs together. Internationalist movements seek to impose their own narrative on a society by disregarding that society’s own historical narrative. Internationalists are cultural orphans without any loyalty. In the words of one of Robert Lindsay’s top commenters:

      One day the politically correct leftists will wake up and realize that by supporting mass immigration they are only playing the capitalists game. They’ll have to realize that the natural enemies of workers in high-wage countries are the workers in low-wage countries, so they’ll have to choose between their support for domestic labor or their Marxist internationalism.

  5. Adi says:

    I think you’re a very good writer but your mind and, therefore, your pen has been poisoned.

    You ascribe entirely too much power to “the Jews.” While repeatedly preaching against making assumptions of the existence of a monolithic Muslim community, you unthinkingly accept the existence of a rock-like block of Jews who are, it seems, obsessed with controlling the west.

    You’re a muzzie Spinoza of sorts. Bravely exposing Jewish plots against the west as far as your pals are concerned but in fact seizing this platform to defame the Jews to your muzzie hearts content.

    I am not going to defend the Tribe because they need no defense from the likes of you. All I’ll say is I’d rather be a shabbos goy than encourage a muzzie in any manner, shape or form.

    • Dota says:

      I am not going to defend the Tribe because they need no defense from the likes of you.

      And yet your next 3 posts do just that.

      You ascribe entirely too much power to “the Jews.”

      They seem over-represented in the media, academia, porn, the Federal Reserve, banking, and basically any area from where influence can be exerted.

      Also, that’s a neat yarmulke you’re wearing in your Linkedin profile pic. You’ll never truly be one of them, but atleast you’ve got the nose.

  6. Adi Barot says:

    I do like your analysis of south Asians and their conduct at home and abroad.

    However, you are as crude as a Russian white army corporal when it comes to “the Jews.” You know nothing about the community and it’s obvious that you’ve made no efforts to learn.

    You’re an obvious Jew hater who, paradoxically, ascribes magical power to the Tribe. You and your ilk think Jews are this magical monolithic community that can force the goyim to act against their interests. Your mentality is so diseased that you impute unto them virtually limitless malice and callousness and a lack of basic humanity.

    That you’re a Muslim is obvious. One would have to be in order to be this malicious and crude about a community that’s achieved more in just the last century than yours has since its inception.

    Please go on blaming the Jews for all your ills. Remain mired in ignorance and superstition. That’s where you belong. Success would disorient you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s