The Date Feminism Triumphed

05 Apr

I originally published this over at Ferd’s place back in March, 2011. It talks about the confluence of economics and hypergamy. I republish it here because Ferd took down InMalaFide, and I wanted to write more on the topic, shortly. I have not checked the links, which once worked.

The Date Feminism Triumphed

Submitted for your approval is a consideration of three exact dates upon which it is possible to see the triumph of feminism. This is both an ancient and a modern story, and perspective might help us to come to grips with where we wish to go as the feminist dystopia collapses around us.

First, however, a definition: feminism is that way of being that has led to, and venerates, the current degraded position of women in our society, and the control and harsh punishment meted out to non-ruling men who fall afoul of them. Women who venerate slutty behavior, who seek to supplant the male role and yet make themselves miserable thereby, women who pursue egalitarianism though it is a revolt against nature: feminist thinking afflicts all.

Monday, 10 November, 4004 BC

Thanks to the careful scholarship of Bishop Ussher, we know that this is the exact date that Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Whether a believer or an agnostic, we can see in this story the encoded wisdom of the ancients. Scientifically, we know that the human female has more difficulty in bearing offspring than any other mammal, this due to the enormous relative size of the human head at birth. The human species has increased its brain mass relative to body mass, and the only way to accommodate this has been to increase the skull size of infants, causing distress in childbirth.

Similarly, Genesis tells us that Eve said “the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat (of the fruit of the tree of knowledge).”  As a result of this disobedience, Eve was given a punishment: “Unto the woman (God) said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  The version of the story in Genesis is a more poetic statement of the scientific knowledge we now have, that the difficulty of childbirth is due to man’s increased intelligence. Concomitant with the notion that woman would now bring forth children in sorrow is the notion that she would require support for the tremendous investment of energy that her body must make to nurture an unborn child, and so she must be ruled by (and support by) her husband.

Adam is also blighted by God for his transgression: “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; … in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.”  For Adam’s sin, he is forced to labor for his wife and his food; his first transgression enumerated by God is his obedience to the female.

The author of Genesis, like the librettist of Rigoletto, is here recording truths recognizable to any advocate of Game. Women are more likely to disobey authority and screw up a hierarchy; they will lead men down paths that are counter to men’s interest and deflect the blame onto another; and men will (and deserve to) suffer punishment when they harken unto women’s voices. The author includes the tale as a caution to a small group struggling for survival, and as a caution that women will always rebel against the natural effects that they (science says this) brought about by their selections of partners and decisions. Feminism is born in this revolt against nature or God, and will continue as long as female voices are harkened unto.

22 February, 1848

On 22 February, 1848, authorities (weakened by the French Revolution some years prior) failed to arrest, try, convict, and hang the authors (and destroy all copies) of a pamphlet first published the day before. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto thus went on to become one of the “100 most influential books of all time.”

The Manifesto had a number of points that a communist state would evince. For our purposes, the most important are: Abolition of all right of inheritance; Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly; Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State; Free education for all children in public schools… (c)ombination of education with industrial production.

The first and last points listed directly contradict two functions of the family as it existed at that time (and as Medieval Europe had interpreted Genesis and the Bible to intend), and the middle two have come to pass and are elemental pieces of the feminist juggernaut that has rolled through Western society. There is, however, no point explicitly outlined about what the role of women in a communist society should be. Did Marx have no thought in that area?

In his essay Karl Marx as Religious Eschatologist, Murray Rothbard filled in the background on Marx. Marx, it seems, had spent a very religious youth; like Eve, his atheism and communism can be seen as a revolt against the God who had once awed him:

Even though Feuerbach was a philosophical communist, he basically believed that if man foreswore religion, then man’s alienation from his self would be over… To Marx, religion was only one of the problems. The entire world of man (the Menschenwelt) was alienating, and had to be radically overthrown, root and branch. Only apocalyptic destruction of this world of man would permit true human nature to be realized. Only then would the existing un-man(Unmensch) truly become man (Mensch). As Marx thundered in the fourth of his “theses on Feuerbach,” “One must proceed to destroy the ‘earthly family’ as it is both ‘in theory and in practice.'”(emphasis added)

Marx would delve further into the destruction of the family:

In particular, declared Marx, true man, as Feuerbach had argued, is a “communal being” (Gemeinwesen) or “species being” (Gattungswesen). Although the State as it exists must be negated or transcended, man’s participation in the State comes as such a communal being…

Marx, … accepted the horrendous picture … of the “raw” stage of communism. Stein forecast that communism would attempt to enforce egalitarianism by wildly and ferociously expropriating and destroying property, confiscating it, and coercively communizing women as well as material wealth. Indeed, Marx’s evaluation of raw communism, the stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat, was even more negative than Stein’s:

In the same way as woman is to abandon marriage for general [i.e., universal] prostitution, so the whole world of wealth, that is, the objective being of man, is to abandon the relation of exclusive marriage with the private property owner for the relation of general prostitution with the community. (bolding added)

The effects of this Hegelian/Feuerbachian brew were immediate. 1848 was a year of revolution across Europe, which continued into 1849 with Wagner’s participation with Bakunin in the Dresden Uprising that was to earn him a death sentence and banishment from Germany.

In the USA, the Seneca Falls Convention in July, 1848, took up its own counter-Genesis religious view with its Declaration of Sentiments: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them.”

One of the chief complaints was “In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master – the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.”  An area to be overturned was divorce: “He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women – the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.”

The list of sentiments could have been written as a description of the miserable woman of today, as all have been achieved, except for this little gem the feminists overlooked: “(h)e has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband,” although I suppose that that complaint still holds, as women are still irresponsible when committing crimes against their husbands.

In 1848, then, we can see all the germ cells of the misandry that was to grow into the full-blown epidemic of modern feminism. Still, dreams are not reality, and the franchise and women’s desire to take on the male role assigned in Genesis were not to become true… yet. In the US, that would require another major change.

23 December, 1913

On 23 December, 1913, Marx’s dream of a central bank for the USA was realized. The Federal Reserve Act was passed by Congress, and signed by President Woodrow Wilson, a weak man whose wife ruled the White House while he was incapacitated after World War I.

One consequence of this act has been the erosion of the value of a dollar. As Sardi notes, a “one-dollar bill in 1913 is worth 3-cents in purchasing power today, $100 is worth just $3.”  This is an average yearly compounded inflation rate of about 3.65%.

But surely inflation could not bring about the changes we see in modern society?  Even though John Maynard Keynes warned that “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency – The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million can diagnose,” there is surely no actual evidence of this?

Eric Englund steps in to offer an example from a classic example of inflation, Weimar Germany:

“Would it be farfetched to say that central banking can affect sexual behavior? One could argue that in light of the aforesaid decline of family bonds (as partially brought about by the Federal Reserve), parents have left it to public schools to ‘educate’ children about the intimate matter of sex. Without going into details, we know this has been a disaster. Nonetheless, can a more direct link be made between central banking and changes in sexual behavior?

To answer this question, all one must do is read Otto Friedrich’s engrossing book Before the Deluge: A Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s. An important aspect of this book deals with how hyperinflation, as perpetrated by Germany’s central bank, affected the German populace. To put it bluntly, yes, central banking had a direct impact on Germany’s sexual mores. The following excerpt, from Before the Deluge, will remove any doubt:

‘Yes, the inflation was by far the most important event of this period,’ says a seventy-five-year-old journalist, a woman who still lives in Berlin. She is white-haired and rather large, and she nibbles cookies as she talks, forgetting that it is already two in the morning. ‘The inflation wiped out the savings of the entire middle class, but those are just words. You have to realize what that meant. There was not a single girl in the entire middle class who could get married without her father paying a dowry. Even the maids – they never spent a penny of their wages. They saved and saved so that they could get married. When the money became worthless, it destroyed the whole system for getting married, and so it destroyed the whole idea of remaining chaste until marriage.’

‘The rich had never lived up to their own standards, of course, and the poor had different standards anyway, but the middle class, by and large, obeyed the rules. Not every girl was a virgin when she was married, but it was generally accepted that one should be. But what happened from the inflation was that girls learned that virginity didn’t matter any more. The women were liberated.’ (Italics in the original, [bold added])”

Others note the effect of inflation on the young. “They learn to live in the present and scorn those who try to teach them ‘old-fashioned morality and thrift.’ Inflation thereby encourages a mentality of immediate gratification that is plainly at variance with the discipline and eternal perspective required to exercise principles of biblical stewardship—such as long-term investment for the benefit of future generations.”

The USA was spared a hyperinflation of the sort that destroyed middle class society in Germany in the 20s. Still, the delayed effect of debasement of currency plays out in the debasement of morals. We can see in these two quotes the last restrictions on female promiscuity and hypergamy being removed, and can come to a better understanding of the eventual triumph of feminism set in motion on 23 December, 1913. The date that the work of 23 December, 1913, is undone is the date that the counterrevolution against feminism succeeds.


Posted by on April 5, 2013 in Uncategorized


7 responses to “The Date Feminism Triumphed

  1. Mark Plus

    April 6, 2013 at 10:42 am

    >One consequence of this act has been the erosion of the value of a dollar. As Sardi notes, a “one-dollar bill in 1913 is worth 3-cents in purchasing power today, $100 is worth just $3.” This is an average yearly compounded inflation rate of about 3.65%.

    What a nonsensical statement. The “value” of a dollar depends on the goods, services and experiences it can buy today, and most of the things we have on the market now didn’t even exist as ideas in 1913. The richest man in the world in 1913 had to live with hypertension and its attendant health risks, while in 2013 I can buy a three months’ supply of generic Lisinopril to lower my blood pressure for $10, literally about what a waitress could earn in tips from one table. Whose dollar has more real “value” when it comes to staying healthy? The man considered super-rich by the standards of 1913? Or myself in 2013?

  2. electricangel

    April 6, 2013 at 2:20 pm


    The same thing that you wrote about all the things a dollar can buy today that were not available in 1913 is also true of an 1853 dollar in 1913. Let’s see: there were no turbines, no automobiles, no airplanes, no telephones, no distributed AC or DC power system available to buy for the 1853 dollar, but a mere 60 years later (this is quite incredible when you think about it), you could buy all of these with your 1853 dollar. Did that make the 1853 dollar worth more in 1913 than it was in 1853? It is impossible to make that judgement. However, we can evaluate the same dollar for what it could buy in both years.

    Now, let’s compare what that 1853 dollar could buy in 1853 versus 1913 in terms of commodities available both years. According to USDA data available here, a bushel of wheat averaged 81 cents in 1913. I could not find 1853 easily, but according to this, farmers received $1.06 for wheat in 1870. Current wheat prices? About $7 a bushel.

    Here’s another thought. In 1913, a man could buy 20 rides on the NYC subway for $1. That same dollar in 2013 will buy 40% of a ride. However, in 1913 a man could get 200 rides for the price of one $10 gold piece. Today, that same gold piece will buy 305 rides. The 1853 dollar? No subway rides, but about 1853 you could ride a horsecar in NYC for 10 cents. So, again, in terms of transportation, the value of the dollar has declined; the value of the gold dollar has remained the same or gone up.

    Ultimately, the evidence from 1853 to 1913 will show that dollars not only could buy all the new, improved things that they could not 60 years prior, but they could buy more of the same items that they had in 1853. Your 1913 dollars spent today can certainly buy things not available in 1913, but they cannot buy today anywhere near the things they could buy that existed in 1913. Otherwise, why would crowds appear when 1913 prices were charged at the 100th anniversary of Grand Central Terminal?

  3. Social Tags

    April 26, 2013 at 10:22 am

    Don’t forget to leave some blame for Plato. In his Republic, he advocates a fascist state where women are equals with men. It seems that whenever the state seeks total control in an “ideal” utopia, women are elevated to man’s level. The basic problem is that Plato idealized the rational mind as the real basis of reality, which led him to discount and ignore the realities of biology. We in the west are slowly emerging from the enlightenment’s emphasis on the equality of mankind based on rational minds, and through the science of biology we are starting to balance that out with the biological reality that frames our existence.

  4. electricangel

    April 26, 2013 at 10:56 pm


    I need to re-read the Republic for a different project I’m working on. Read it many years ago, in college. I don’t recall the aspect you mention, though I am sure it is there. Aristotle, Plato, Seneca: wasted on the young.

    Can you recommend a particularly good translation of it? It’s been years since I have been able to translate Ancient Greek, having last done so, uh, over 30 years ago.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: