…by Jonas E. Alexis and Henry Makow
Henry Makow has a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982 and is the author of the best-selling book Cruel Hoax: Feminism & the New World Order. Makow is an assimilated ethnic Jew.
Jonas E. Alexis: Feminism has been a subversive movement from its inception. If you want recent proofs of this, then look at the work of people like Eve Ensler and Jenji Kohan. This movement has ruined lives even in far-distant lands like India.
But every subversive movement has its own intellectual revolutionaries and radicals. Feminism, sad to say, was largely a Jewish movement. In fact, the Jewish Daily Forward even argued that “feminism and Judaism go together like Courtney Love and hitting people with microphones while screaming in a drug-addled spittle-flecked nipple-revealing manner.” The magazine cited Naomi Wolf saying,
“We have a political history going back to the socialist and labor movements, where women were organizers and rabble-rousers.”
Feminism promises to empower women and free them from “male domination,” but ends up denigrating and alienating them from true reality by largely promoting pornography as an alternative to traditional family values.
This became very clear when Betty Friedan (born Bettye Naomi Goldstein), the leading figure who energized the Feminist movement in the twentieth century, declared, “Suppressing pornography is extremely dangerous to women.”
It couldn’t get any more obvious. Women who thought that Friedan was going to liberate them from “male domination” inevitably and indirectly ended up embracing Friedan’s pornographic ideology, which got morphed into sexual politics in the 1960s and beyond with the publication of Friedan’s The Feminist Mystique.
But by 1979, radical Jewish feminist Andrea Dworkin stirred the feminist establishment by showing a striking link between Marquis de Sade and pornography and by implicitly arguing that pornography, Marquis the Sade, and sexual violence are concentric circles.
Instead of empowering women, argues Dworkin, pornography humiliates them and treats them like, well, whores and cunts and sluts and bitches. Dworkin even goes to the Greek etymological definition of pornography, which means “whores,” or “sexual slaves,” and “specifically and exclusively the lowest class of whore, which in ancient Greece was the brothel slut available to all male citizens.”
“In pornography,” Dworkin previously writes, “the object is slut,” and “As one goes through the pictures of the tortured and maimed, reads the stories of gang rape and bondage, what emerges most clearly is a portrait of men who need to believe in their own absolute, unchangeable, omnipresent, eternal, limitless power over others.”
But because she was duped by the feminist ideology which would not allow her to think clearly and establish a consistent and coherent argument throughout her book, Dworkin irresponsibly argued that rape and marriage are also two sides of the same coin. As a corollary, Dworkin added, “The metaphysics of male sexual domination is that women are whores.”
Though Dworkin was not consistent, she implicitly did make one point which the feminist movement could not logically answer: by defending pornography, feminist apologists were inexorably defending Marquis de Sade’s blatant pornography, which he articulated in oeuvres such as Philosophy in the Bedroom.
If Dworkin is right, then it is safe to say that feminism logically leads to Marquis de Sade. It should also be mentioned in passing that both Sade and the entire feminist ideology are operating outside the moral order. As Sade put it,
“The philosopher sates his appetite without inquiring to know what his enjoyment may cost others, and without remorse.”
Translation: the moral order or practical reason must be abandoned at any cost if one is to be free. And if you listen to feminist apologists long enough, they’d end up admitting the same thing. What’s your take on these issues, Henry Makow? Is there a link between feminism and Communism?
Henry Makow: In a 2002 book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation, feminist historian Kate Weigand states: “Ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women’s movement of the 1960s and later.”
In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960’s-1980’s that wasn’t prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940’s and 1950’s. Many second-wave feminist leaders were “red diaper babies,” the children of Communist Jews.
Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman’s oppression. They originated “women’s studies,” and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children’s rights. They forged key feminist concepts such as “the personal is the political” and techniques such as “consciousness raising.”
In the late 1940’s, CPUSA leaders realized that the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to focus on women and African Americans. They hoped “male supremacy” would “bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War.”
Communist women who made up 40% of the party wanted more freedom to attend party meetings. After the publication of “Women Against Myth” in 1948, the CPUSA initiated a process of “re-educating” men that we recognize only too well today.
For example, in the party newspaper “The Daily Worker” a photo caption of a man with a young child read, “Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters.”
The Party ordered men who didn’t take the woman question seriously to complete “control tasks involving study on the woman question.” In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for “hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women.”
A film Salt of the Earth, which critic Pauline Kael called “Communist propaganda”, portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands’ labor strike. “Against her husband’s wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household… [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life.” Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the “woman question.” The books In Women’s Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women’s oppression and decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman argued that “manufactured femininity” and “overemphasis on beauty” keep women in subjection.
THE COMMUNIST CHARACTER OF FEMINISM
Feminism’s roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
- Why the “woman’s movement” hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like “equality” on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.
- Why the “women’s movement” also embraces “equality” of race and class.
- Why they want revolution (“transformation”) and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
- Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
- Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
- Why truth for them is a “social construct” defined by whoever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
- Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favor of their political agenda.
- Why they refuse to debate, don’t believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.
- Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It’s hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Communism is designed to give power to the puppets of central bankers by fostering division and conflict. Divide and Conquer. Having failed to peddle class and race war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. In each case they fostered a sense of grievance in the target group. Now the traditional feminine role “oppressed” women.
The “diversity” and “multicultural” movements represent Communism’s attempt to empower and use other minorities, gays and “people of color,” to further undermine the majority (European, Christian) culture. Thus, the original CPUSA trio of “race, gender and class” is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.
The term “politically correct” originated in the Russian Communist Party in the 1920’s. Its usage in America today illustrates the extent society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization and establish a veiled dictatorship called “world government” run by the toadies of the central bankers.
We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite, in fact, sponsors Communism.
In Communism, the government is the ultimate monopoly. It controls everything, not just wealth but also power and thought. It is the instrument of monopoly capital (i.e. Rothschild, Rockefeller.) Everybody from the President on down works for them.
A LOCAL EXAMPLE
“Political correctness” has dulled and regimented our cultural life. In 2002, here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee referred to “the Asian invasion” causing house price increases in Vancouver. Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn.
At a meeting, the School Board Chairman acknowledged that Granger is not a racist and Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, Granger was censured because, I quote, “appearances are more important than reality.” This slippage from the mooring of objective truth is the hallmark of Communism.
The atmosphere at the meeting was charged. Mild-mannered Canadians, all champions of “tolerance,” behaved like wild dogs eager to rip apart a trapped rabbit. Betty Granger repented and voted in favor of her own censure.
These rituals of denunciation and contrition, typical of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, are becoming more common in America. They are like show trials designed to frighten people into conforming. We have “diversity officers” and “human rights commissions” and “sensitivity training” to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about “discrimination” but they freely discriminate against Christians, white heterosexual men and traditional women. They use the specter of “sexual harassment” to fetter male-female relations and purge their opponents.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced ten typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanac. The KGB shut down the magazine and deported the women to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism has largely been for export. According to Professor Weigand, her “book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism.”
In conclusion, the feminist pursuit of “equal rights” is a mask for an invidious Communist agenda. The Communist MO has always been deception, infiltration, and subversion using social justice issues as a pretext.
Communism can take any form that empowers the puppets of the central bankers. The goal is the destruction of Western civilization and creation of a new world order run by monopoly capital. This has largely been accomplished.
Kate Weigand’s Red Feminism demonstrates that we live in a de facto Communist society, a development which took place by subterfuge with the complicity of the Masonic central banker-controlled Establishment.
-  See Jonas E. Alexis and E. Michael Jones, “Roots of the Rape Crisis in India and the Jewish Influence on Bollywood,” Veterans Today, December 30, 2016.
-  See for example Laura Levitt, Jews and Feminism: The Ambivalent Search for Home (New York and London: Routledge, 1997). One can argue that there was a feminist ideology in the work of people like Mary Wollstonecraft [(see E. Michael Jones, Monsters from the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2000)]. But the feminist movement in the twentieth century was essentially a Jewish enterprise.
-  Marjorie Ingall, “Why Are There So Many Jewish Feminists?,” Forward, November 18, 2005.
-  Ibid.
-  Quoted in Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 577.
-  For further studies on similar issues, see for example Kate Millet, Sexual Politics (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2000).
-  Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women (New York: Penguin Group, 1979), 199.
-  Ariel Levy, “The Prisoner of Sex,” NY Magazine, June 6, 2005.
-  Ariel Levy, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (New York: Free Press, 2005), 63-64.
-  Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 26.
-  Kate Weigand, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 154.
-  Ibid., 80.
-  Ibid., 127.
-  Ibid., 94.
-  Ibid., 132.
-  Ibid., 33.
-  Ibi., 6.