It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:29 pm


Feminism: The Great Destroyer

  • Author
  • Message

John Flynn

Feminism: The Great Destroyer

PostThu Sep 12, 2013 8:33 am

Feminism: The Great Destroyer
An Interview with Dr. William Luther Pierce

By Kevin Alfred Strom



K.A.S.: There is a continuing public debate about the role of women in our society and the related subjects of sexism and feminism. One example was the hullabaloo that occurred during the confirmation of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. Feminists and their claque in the media charged that this confirmation was an affirmation of the "sexism" rampant in the U.S. political establishment. The cure for this alleged problem is to get more women into positions of political power, according to many people in the media.

Another example was the uproar about a drunken party several years ago in Las Vegas for Navy fliers at which several women who showed up were manhandled -- in particular, a female flier who later complained to the media about her treatment. The news coverage of the Las Vegas party brought demands from media spokesmen and politicians for rooting out the "sexism" in the armed forces and giving women equal roles in everything from infantry combat to flying fighter jets. Do you see any real or lasting significance in this debate?

W.L.P.: Oh, it's certainly a significant debate. The significance is perhaps not exactly what the media spokesmen would have us believe it is, but there is a significance there nevertheless. Getting at the real significance, pulling it out into the light where everyone can see it and examine it, requires a little care, though. There's a lot of misdirection, a lot of deliberate deception in the debate.

Look at the first example you just mentioned. The controlled media would have us believe that the approval of Clarence Thomas by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the face of Anita Hill's complaints about him demonstrates a callous insensitivity to women's welfare. But what were Anita Hill's complaints? They were that when Thomas had been her boss in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission he had asked her several times for a date and that on one occasion he had begun describing to her a pornographic film he had seen the evening before. She never alleged that he had demanded sexual favors from her, threatened her, or put his hands on her. Her complaint was that he had shown a normal, healthy interest in her as a woman. He had asked her for a date.

Talking to her about a pornographic film may have indicated a certain lack of refinement on his part -- at least that would be the case if the two of them were members of a traditional White society, in which gentlemen didn't talk about pornographic films in the presence of ladies, at least not in the office -- but what the hell, the folks who were raising such a fuss about Thomas's behavior are, like both Clarence and Anita themselves, all members of the brave, New World Order society, which is neither White nor traditional. It's a so-called "multicultural" society in which there are no gentlemen and there are no ladies; there are just male and female people, and the female people are no different from the male people: they are just as bawdy, just as vulgar, just as aggressive.

K.A.S.: So you believe that the whole thing was just a tempest in a teapot, that it really wasn't significant?

W.L.P.: A tempest in a teapot, yes, but still very significant. One aspect of the Clarence and Anita circus was that it was simply seized on and used by people with a certain political agenda, and so of course their tendency was to make as much ado as they could about it. But another aspect is that many of the feminists who were screeching against Thomas and against the Senate's approval of him really were indignant that the man had asked Anita Hill for a date. They really were outraged that he had an interest in her as a woman and did not simply treat her as another lawyer in his office. Men are not supposed to notice women as women, but only as people, and radical feminists really do become angry if one drops this unisex pretense even for a minute. Open a door for one of them and you'll get a nasty glare; call one of them "my dear" or refer to her as a "girl" and you'll be slapped with a civil rights lawsuit.

The fuss about this Tailhook Association party in Las Vegas reveals the same sort of nuttiness. I mean, what do you expect when a bunch of Navy fliers throw a wild, drunken orgy? They had held their party in Las Vegas several years in a row, and the party had gained a bit of a reputation. It was notorious. Everybody in Naval aviation knew all about it. The Navy women who went to the party knew what to expect. They joined the orgy. Any woman who didn't want to be pawed by drunken fliers and have her panties pulled off stayed away. Certainly, if these Navy fliers had shanghaied some unsuspecting woman off the street and forced her to submit to indignities, I would be the first to call for their being put up against a wall. I'll go further and say that I really don't approve of drunkenness under any circumstances -- although I believe it's only realistic to accept drinking as a fact of military life. But I cannot work up much sympathy for a woman who, knowing what the Tailhook parties are like, decides that she will pretend that she really isn't a woman but rather is a genderless Navy flier and so can go to the Tailhook party without worrying about her panties.

K.A.S.: That's really irrational isn't it? It doesn't make sense to ignore human nature like that.

W.L.P.: Irrationality seems to be the rule rather than the exception in public affairs these days. Feminism, of course, is just another exercise in reality denial, which has become such a common pastime. There are too many people out there who seem to believe that if we pretend that men and women are the same, they really will be; that if we pretend there are no differences between Blacks and Whites except skin color, the differences will disappear; that if we pretend that homosexuality is a normal, healthy condition, it will be.

Feminism is one of the most destructive aberrations being pushed by the media today, because it has an immediate effect on nearly all of us. There are many sectors of the economy, for example, in which racial-quota hiring and promotion - so-called "affirmative action" -- isn't a real problem, and so White people who work in those sectors remain relatively unaffected by the racial aspects of America's breakdown, but feminism is becoming pervasive; there are few relationships between men and women, especially between younger men and women, which will not suffer from the effects of feminism in the near future.

K.A.S.: You just referred to feminism as "a destructive aberration" and spoke of the breakdown of America. Are the two things connected?

W.L.P.: When homosexuals come out of the closet and women go into politics, empires crumble. Or, to say that a way which more accurately reflects the cause-effect relationship, when empires begin to crumble, then the queers come out of the closet and women go into politics. Which is to say, that in a strong, healthy society, feminism isn't a problem. But when a society begins to decay -- when the men lose their self-confidence -- then feminism raises its head and accelerates the process of decay.

K.A.S.: Before we go further, exactly what do you mean by feminism? Can you define the word for us?

W.L.P.: Feminism is a system of ideas with several distinguishing characteristics. First, it's a system in which gender is regarded as the primary identifying characteristic, more important even than race. Second, and paradoxically, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as innately identical in all intellectual and psychical traits, and in all physical traits except those most obviously dependent on the configuration of the genitalia. Third, it's a system in which filling a traditionally male role in society is valued above being a wife and mother, a system in which the traditional female roles are denigrated. Finally, it's a system in which men and women are regarded as mutually hostile classes, with men traditionally in the role of oppressors of women; and in which it is regarded as every woman's primary duty to support the interests of her fellow women of all races against the male oppressors.

I should add that not every woman who describes herself as a feminist would go along 100% with that definition. Real feminism is not just an intellectual thing; it's a sickness, with deep emotional roots. Some women just want to be trendy, but are otherwise normal. They just want to be fashionable, and feminism is held up by the media as fashionable these days. It's Politically Correct.

And while we're at it, we should note that there is an analogous malady, usually called male chauvinism, which expresses itself in a range of attitudes toward women ranging from patronizing contempt to outright hatred. Feminists often attribute the growth of feminism to a reaction against male chauvinism. Actually the latter, which never afflicted more than a minority of White men, has been more an excuse for the promoters of feminism than a cause of that disorder.

K.A.S.: OK. So that's what feminism is. Now, in what way is it destructive? How is it connected to America's decline?

W.L.P.: Feminism is destructive at several different levels. At the racial level it is destructive because it divides the race against itself, robbing us of racial solidarity and weakening us in the struggle for racial survival; and because it reduces the White birthrate, especially among educated women. It also undermines the family by taking women out of the home and leaving the raising of children to television and day-care centers.

At a personal or social level feminism does its damage by eroding the traditional relationship between men and women. That traditional relationship is not based on any assumption of equality or sameness. It's not a symmetrical relationship, but rather a complementary one. It's based on a sexual division of labor, with fundamentally different roles for men and women: men are the providers and the protectors, and women are the nurturers. Men bring home the bacon, and they guard the den; women nourish the children and tend the hearth.

Many people today sneer at this traditional relationship. They think that in the New World Order there is no need to protect the den or the condo or whatever, because these days we're all very civilized, and that all one needs to do to bring home the bacon is hop in the car and drive to the nearest shopping mall, and, of course, a woman can do that just as well as a man. Therefore, because the times have changed, roles should change. There's no longer any reason for a division of labor; now we can all be the same, claim the apologists for feminism.

Now, I have a couple of problems with that line of reasoning. First, I'm not as eager to toss million-year-old traditions in the ash-can as the New World Order enthusiasts are, because I'm not as confident in the ability of the government to provide protection for all of us as they are, nor am I as confident that there'll always be bacon at the neighborhood shopping mall and we won't have to revert to earlier ways of getting it. Actually, I'm an optimist by nature, but I'm not so optimistic as to believe that I'll never be called on to use my strength or my fighting instincts to protect my family. In fact, every time I watch the evening news on television, I become more convinced that there's a very good chance we're going to end up having to fight for our bacon within the next few years.

In the second place, Mother Nature made a very big investment in her way of doing things over the past few million years of primate evolution. It's not simply a matter of our deciding that we don't like Mother Nature's plan because it's not fashionable any longer, and so we'll change it. We are what we are. That is, we are what millions of years of evolution have made us. A man is a man in every cell of his body and his brain, not just in his genitalia, and a woman is a woman to the same degree. We were very thoroughly and precisely adapted to our different roles. We can't change reality by passing a civil rights law. When we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can, there's hell to pay. Which is to say that we end up with a lot of very confused, disappointed, and unhappy men and women. We also end up with a lot of very angry men and women, which accounts for the feminists and the male chauvinists.

It's true, of course, that some women might be perfectly happy as corporate raiders or professional knife fighters, just as some men have willingly adapted to the New World Order by becoming less aggressive and more "sensitive." But it doesn't work that way for normal men and women. What the normal man really wants and needs is not just a business partner and roommate of the opposite sex, but a real woman whom he can protect and provide for. And what a normal woman really wants and needs with every fiber of her being, regardless of how much feminist propaganda she's soaked up, is a real man, who can love and protect her and provide for her and their children. If she's watched too much television and has let herself be persuaded that what she wants instead of a strong, masculine man is a sensitive wimp who'll let her wear the trousers in the family half the time, she's headed for a severe collision with the reality of her own nature. She'll end up making herself very neurotic, driving a few men into male chauvinism, and becoming a social liability. Our society just can't afford any more of that sort of foolishness. If feminism were only making individuals unhappy, I wouldn't be very concerned about it. I've always believed that people were entitled to make themselves as unhappy as they wanted to. But unfortunately, it's wrecking our society and weakening our race, and we must put a stop to it soon.

K.A.S.: How do you propose to do that? The feminist movement really seems to be snowballing, and as you noted the mass media are all for it. It would seem pretty difficult to stop. Anyone who opposes the feminists is perceived as a male chauvinist who wants to take away women's rights and confine them to the kitchen and the bedroom.

W.L.P.: Well, of course, I'm not in favor of taking anything away from women. I'd like to give women the option of being women again in the traditional way, in Nature's way, the option of staying home and taking care of their children and making a home for their husbands. It wasn't the feminists, of course, who changed our economy so that it's no longer possible for many families to survive unless both the man and the woman are employed outside the home. A society which forces women out of the home and into offices and factories is not a healthy society. I'd like for our society to be changed so that it's possible once again for mothers to stay at home with their children, the way they did back before the Second World War, back before the New World Order boys got their hands on our economy and launched their plan to bring the living standard of the average American wage earner down to the average Mexican level. I think many will want to stay home when it's possible to do so. And I am sure that if we provide the right role models for women, most will want to. If we regain control of our television industry, of our news and entertainment and advertising industries, we can hold up quite a different model of the ideal woman from the one being held up today.

Most women, just like most men, want to be fashionable. They try to do and be what's expected of them. We just need to move that model back closer to what Mother Nature had in mind. Then there's no need to take away anybody's rights. A few female lawyers with butch haircuts can easily be tolerated in a healthy society -- a few flagpole sitters, a few glass eaters, a few of all sorts of people -- so long as their particular brand of oddness doesn't begin undermining the health of the whole society.

K.A.S.: But what about the people who control the media now -- what about the legislators -- who are on the feminist bandwagon? They are very powerful. What will you do about them?

W.L.P.: We'll do whatever is necessary. Now we're helping people understand feminism and the other ills which are afflicting our society. Understanding really must come first. After understanding comes organization. And then, as I said, whatever is necessary.

And I should add this: Whatever flies in the face of reality is inherently self-destructive. But we cannot wait for this disease to burn itself out. The toll will be too great. We have to stand up against it and oppose it now. We have to change people's attitudes about feminism being fashionable. We have to make the politicians who've jumped on the feminist bandwagon understand that there will be a heavy price to pay, some day, for their irresponsibility.

K.A.S.: Do you really think that you can change the behavior of the politicians?

W.L.P.: Perhaps not, but we must at least give them a chance to change. Unfortunately in the case of the politicians most of them have many crimes besides an advocacy of feminism to answer for, and they know that they can only be hanged once.
Offline
User avatar

Will Williams

  • Posts: 2255
  • Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 9:22 am

Re: Feminism: The Great Destroyer

PostSun Oct 06, 2013 1:01 pm

Galveston Daily News, Galveston, Texas, page 23. August 10, 1924.

Mr. Tesla Explains Why He Will Never Marry

Famous Scientist Felt Un-worthy of Woman as She Used To Be, and Now He Can't Endure Her Trying to Outdo the Men


WHEN a man who has made a name for himself deliberately chooses to remain a bachelor the world is naturally curious to know what the reasons were that impelled him to this choice.

Marriage has come to be considered the natural thing for every normal man, and when some pre-eminent man shows a firm determination to sidestep it everybody wonders whether his superior intelligence has revealed to him some fatal defects in the institution of matrimony which are not apparent to the average person.

But the public's curiosity in this respect is seldom gratified. Most of the distinguished bachelors try to pass off their bachelorhood as a joke, saying that it is not a matter of choice, but because they have never been able to find a woman who would marry them. As a rule, they are singularly averse to giving any serious reasons for their failure to become husbands.

Nikola Tesla, the great scientist and inventor, is a striking exception to this rule. In a recent interview with a representative of this newspaper he frankly explains why he has never married and why he probably never will marry.

And in connection with his explanation he presents some ideas about woman's freedom and what he thinks it is sure to lead to that will be read with interest by those who agree with him as well as by the many who will not.


Caption: "In place of the soft voiced, gentle woman of my reverent worship," says Mr. Tesla, "has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man--in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind"

In the past the reason why Mr. Tesla never married was because his estimation of woman placed her on such a lofty pedestal that he could never bring himself to feel worthy of her. Now that she has, as he feels, stepped down from her pedestal and bartered all her noblest qualities for what is called her "freedom," he is even more disinclined to matrimony than he was before.

Although of course Mr. Tesla is too gallant a gentleman to say it in so many words, his comments let it be inferred that he thinks the new woman almost as far beneath him as the one of other days was above him. According to his views, the sex has rushed from one extreme to another of quite a different kind, and in the plunge it has left for Mr. Tesla and other bachelors who think as he does no "happy medium" such as Josiah Allen's wife used to declare one of the essentials to happiness.


Caption: Ida Schnall, the all-around woman athlete, in a boxing bout with Willie Bradley--a sure indication, according to Mr. Tesla's rather gloomy views, that our civilization is deteriorating

"I had always thought of woman," says Mr. Tesla, "as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.

"But all this was in the past. Now the soft-voiced gentle woman of my reverent worship has all but vanished. In her place has come the woman who thinks that her chief success in life lies in making herself as much as possible like man--in dress, voice and actions, in sports and achievements of every kind."

In those words the great electrical genius sums up the reasons for his bachelorhood.

Some who read them will urge that his view of womankind is distorted by the years he has spent in the laboratory, dealing with inanimate things and developing perhaps an abnormal shyness which acts as an insuperable barrier to marriage. Others will say that the very fact of his detachment from the ordinary routine of life makes him all the better qualified to point out its defects and to criticize the change for the worse which he believes new conditions have brought to womankind.


Caption: Nikola Tesla, the electrical wizard whose discoveries paved the way for this radio age

"Women," says Mr. Tesla, "are becoming stronger than men, both physically and mentally.

"The world has experienced many tragedies, but to my mind the greatest tragedy of all is the present economic condition wherein women strive against men, and in many cases actually succeed in usurping their places in the professions and in industry. This growing tendency of women to overshadow the masculine is a sign of a deteriorating civilization.

"Woman's determined competition with man in the business world is breaking down some of the best traditions--things which have proved the moving factors in the world's slow but substantial progress.

"Practically all the great achievements of man until now have been inspired by his love and devotion to woman. Man has aspired to great things because some woman believed in him, because he wished to command her admiration and respect. For these reasons he has fought for her and risked his life and his all for her time and time again.

"Perhaps the male in human society is useless. I am frank to admit that I don't know. If women are beginning to feel this way about it--and there is striking evidence at hand that they do--then we are entering upon the cruelest period of the world's history.

"Our civilization will sink to a state like that which is found among the bees, ants and other insects--a state wherein the male is ruthlessly killed off. In this matriarchal empire which will be established the female rules. As the female predominates, the males are at her mercy. The male is considered important only as a factor in the general scheme of the continuity of life.

"The tendency of women to push aside man, supplanting the old spirit of cooperation with him in all the affairs of life, is very disappointing to me.

"Woman's independence and her cleverness in obtaining what she wants in the business world is breaking down man's spirit of independence. The old fire he once experienced at being able to achieve something that would compel and hold a woman's devotion is turning to ashes.

"Women don't seem to want that sort of thing to-day. They appear to want to control and govern. They want man to look up to them, instead of their looking up to him."

Mr. Tesla is not given to making statements that he cannot prove. His life's work has been based on logic, not on guesses.


Caption: Mrs. Davenport Engberg, the director of a symphony orchestra and a good example of the way women are entering fields that used to be exclusively men's

In voicing his gloomy views of modern life Mr. Tesla says his observations are not confined to the women of this country. Conditions abroad, he says, suggest that the same tendency is world-wide. Having always regarded woman as a super-being, he expresses great sadness over the change he thinks the last few years have brought in her.

"I am considering this question not merely from the standpoint of a man," he points out. "I am thinking of the woman's side of it.

"As we contemplate any change, we naturally take into consideration the results that may follow such an innovation. One of the results to my mind is quite a pathetic one. Woman, herself, is really the victim instead of, as she thinks, the victor. Contentment is absent from her life. She is ambitious, often far beyond her natural equipment, to attain the thing she wants. She too frequently forgets that all women cannot be prima donnas and motion picture stars.

"Woman's discontent makes the life of the present day still more overstressed. The high pitch given to existence by people who are restless and dissatisfied because they fail to achieve things wholly out of proportion to the health and talent with which Nature has endowed them is a bad thing for the world.

"It seems to me that women are not particularly happy in this newly found freedom, in this new competition which they are waging so persistently against men in business and the professions and even in sport. The question that naturally arises is, whether the women themselves are the gainers or the losers.

"Discontent makes for cranks and unnatural people. There seems to be an uncommon number of them about to-day. This is one of the reasons I remain apart from the crowds. The public, or semi-public, character is the target for all sorts of attacks and unpleasant communications.


Caption: A woman worker in a Michigan railroad machine shop

"For example, I used to receive all sorts of strange notes, many of them letters from cranks threatening my life, because they had read about my experiments in manufacturing lightning bolts. They wrote that they believed I was using these lightning flashes to kill them!
"It seems to me that anything which adds to the great discontent which we observe on every side to-day must be a bad influence on our life. Women who keep themselves agitated by their tremendous ambition to beat man at his game are losing at the same time something that counts for more in the end, it seems to me, than the empty honors that success in business or one of the professions can ever give.

"The power of the true woman is so great that I believe if a beautiful woman--that is to say, one beautiful in spirit, in manner and in thought, in fact, beautiful in every respect, a sort of goddess--were to appear suddenly on earth, she could command the whole world. Her leadership, I believe, would be universally recognized.

"History has given us many examples of the wonderful influence exerted by unusual women. Among these have been the mothers of great men. But their influence lay not in their determination to outdo man, or even to compete with him.

"Perhaps because woman is a finer and more highly sensitized instrument she knows by instinct her power and understands that the extent of it lies in the high position she takes for herself. But the superior never descends to the level of the commonplace."

These views of Nikola Tesla will be received with great interest, whether one agrees or not with his idea that woman in her new role is a sinister force that is going to pull down to ruin our whole social structure. He is generally recognized as one of the greatest mentalities of the present day.


Caption: Renee Prahar, one of many women who are trying to outstrip the men in sculpture

Twenty years ago Tesla astonished the world by flashing a wireless message clear around the globe. His experimental work paved the way for the radio age in which we are now living. Many scientists think it quite possible that one of his highly sensitized machines actually caught signals from Mars.

For several years past he has been living in comparative seclusion in the Colorado Rockies, devoting himself to the perfection of two or three inventions which he expects will revolutionize methods of transportation and communication. He is almost ready to explain to the world a way of transmitting electrical energy without the use of wires.

This will enable the energy from some great source of power like Niagara Falls to be quickly and economically transmitted to any desired part of the earth--and, perhaps, some day to Mars and other planets.

Some philosopher has said that it is as perilous for a man to say he will never marry as for a physician to try to predict the exact hour of a person's death. Mr. Tesla is not an old man. Perhaps he will live long enough to find some woman who will be able to convince him that she has attained her new freedom without sacrificing any of the womanly qualities which he so greatly admires.
---

See here for illustrations, proper formatting and comments about Mr. Tesla's observations: http://anengineersaspect.blogspot.com/2 ... hy-he.html

Return to Dr. William Pierce

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest