Now It Can Be Told:
Literal Femi-Nazis in History!
A recently published book reveals that women were implicated in the atrocities of the Nazi era to a far greater extent than is commonly believed or officially acknowledged. It appears that some historiographical revision may be in order. The following snippets are taken from an online article in the UK Telegraph, which talks about the book and its pertaining issues:
Go here to read the full article: http://tinyurl.com/bd2xgq
Now, if I were a feminist, I might gain some comfort from knowing that the Nazi state was a high-testosterone male hierarchy. Really, it goes to show that men were the true driving force behind it all, and women just got sucked along by that riptide through no wish of their own. . . .
Right . . . ???
---------------------------
A random blog reports on this:
http://tinyurl.com/addxss
In Nazi art, films and magazines, women were always portrayed as the fairer sex, . . . . . . But a new book by the historian Kathrin Kompisch has revealed a very different reality. . . .
Many women were in fact used as assistants to the doctors who sterilised and murdered disabled people and as guards in the concentration camps . . .
"Women typed the statistics of the murdered victims of the SS Action Squads in the east, operated the radios which called up for more bullets, were invariably the secretaries - and sometimes much more - in all the Gestapo posts," she said. "And at the end of the war they tried to diminish their responsibility by saying they were just cogs in the all-male machine which gave the orders." . . . .
The high-testosterone, all-male hierarchy of the Nazi state blocked out women from leadership positions from the very start, but the regime actively encouraged female participation in enforcing the Nazi terror at grassroots levels.
Most "Blockwaerts" - apartment house snoops who reported on un-Nazi activities to the party - were women, who denounced their neighbours to the Gestapo if they suspected them of being ideologically unsound or Jewish.
The surviving files of the Gestapo in the city of Duesseldorf noted that women "try to change the power balance of the household by denouncing their husbands as spies or Communists or anti-Nazis." . . . . .
Some 3,200 women served in the concentration camps. Female guards were generally low-to-middle class and had little or no work experience, although SS records show that some were matrons, hairdressers, tram conductors or retired teachers.
Go here to read the full article: http://tinyurl.com/bd2xgq
Now, if I were a feminist, I might gain some comfort from knowing that the Nazi state was a high-testosterone male hierarchy. Really, it goes to show that men were the true driving force behind it all, and women just got sucked along by that riptide through no wish of their own. . . .
Right . . . ???
---------------------------
A random blog reports on this:
http://tinyurl.com/addxss
posted by Fidelbogen at 7:32 PM
14 Comments:
CF, can you leave out my comment. I have to be careful that I don't feed into things too much at the moment.
I guess the recession is making me paranoid.
Well Nazism was Patriarchal in the wider scheme of things.
Personally I've an objection with the term "Femi-Nazi" because they are two separate incompatible ideologies.
One is a moral/social libertarian one, striving towards a Matriarchal society designed for women. (This is feminism.) The other is morally authoritarian, striving towards racial separatism and purity. (This is Nazism.)
You could hardly get two more disparate ideologies.
Sometimes it's fun to use the term though, because it pisses feminists off so much! :p
Apparently the word "Femi-Nazi" was popularised by Rush Limbaugh, in reference to the amount of death a result of on-demand abortion. What Limbaugh doesn't tell you is that the Nazis banned abortion in 1933!
‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.’ George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
@MRN:
Feminism is MANY things; a beast with many heads and many tentacles.
However, the whole mess finally revolves around female supremacism,
and anti-male politics in whatever form.
As for the femi v. nazi comparison, I believe it is valid in general. Just listen to how the radical feminists talk about MEN in their
unguarded moments, and the similarity to Nazis trashing Jews is pretty hard to miss.
Remember that mere political ideology is only ONE axis of analogy. There are others. . .
------------------
As for Rush Limbaugh, he was comparing abortion to the holocaust.
I've written at pretty considerable length about this whole realm of conversation, HERE:
http://tinyurl.com/cyfad9
Even Ray Charles could see the many ideological similarities between Aryan Supremacists and Female Supremacists… And he’s blind AND dead.
--FWO
Fidel,
I recently read 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg. This book is extremely important for anyone who wants to rationalize the epithet of 'femifascist' for most modern day feminists. Feminazi as an epithet is harder to justify because Nazism was a particular brand of fascism. There is virtually no difference between the pejorative value of calling someone either a 'femifascist' or 'feminazi' because most people cannot distinguish between 'nazi' and 'fascist'.
MRN,
You are incorrect about the Nazis and abortion:
From the history of Abortion @ wikipedia:
1935 – Nazi Germany amended its eugenics law, to promote abortion for women who have hereditary disorders. The law allowed abortion if a woman gave her permission, and if the fetus was not yet viable, and for purposes of so-called racial hygiene.
1936 – Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the SS, creates the "Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion". Himmler, inspired by bureaucrats of the Race and Settlement Main Office, hoped to reverse a decline in the "Aryan" birthrate which he attributed to homosexuality among men and abortions among healthy Aryan women, which were not allowed under the 1935 law, but nevertheless practiced. Reich Secretary Martin Bormann however refused to implement law in this respect, which would revert the 1935 law.
Abortions were carried out by the Nazis legally for immigrants, preferentially for Jews and illegally for 'aryan' women. All appeared to have been without the consent of men involved.
--------------------------------
Feminism and libertarianism are mutually exclusive ideologies. If one defines feminism as the hypothesised 'political, economic and social equality of men and women' and couples it with the factual existence of ubiquitous female hypergamy and ubiquitous male dominance, it is impossible to rationalize how women can ever, under conditions of equal opportunity, be politically, economically or socially equal to men without forcing 'equal outcome' upon everyone. Equal outcome and equal opportunity are mutually exclusive too, given innate male-female differences.
Forcing things upon people is contrary to the fundamental libertarian non-aggression axiom and also contrary to the libertarian concept of property rights which is the other fundamental libertarian axiom.
Forced outcomes do not indicate that women are equal to (let alone 'better than') men, just as a robber who steals a million dollars from someone else cannot claim to be 'richer' than the victimized person.
Forced outcomes, based on class, are the hallmark of all fascist administrations. This is why all fascisms have the religion of socialism or 'progressivism' as Jonah Goldberg would have it, implicit within them. In so far as feminism forces outcomes based on sex, feminism is an offshoot of fascism.
'Progressive' is very much a euphemism for 'fascist' today.
@Davout:
Coincidentally, I read a ton of stuff on the web just last night ABOUT Jonah Goldberg's book (including an interview with Goldberg at Salon.com). . . although I haven't read the book itself.
Anyway. . . the term fascist is, in the USA at any rate, no better than a mindless smear that people of the political left inflict upon anyone who presumes to criticize them. . .
But fascism clearly has more affinity with the political left than with anything you might call "conservative". (Especially taking into account the completely muddied usage of left,liberal, right, conservative. Very few people seriously know what these words mean.)
Fidel,
You definitely should read it. I learnt a bunch of stuff there that I never knew.
The best part is that Goldberg doesn't bore the crap out of you. He is very much an engaging history salesman.
He has a blog at National Review where he brings up ancillary stuff.
@Davout:
The following is well worth a read:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
Fidel,
A most excellent article. The intriguing thing about Goldberg's book is that he traces the roots of fascism to the government of Woodrow Wilson, not Mussolini.
Goldberg also has plenty to say about Billary and her refusal distinguish between adults and children, IMO a philosophical bridge between 'maternal' fascism and feminism.
@Davout:
And the roots of WW's "proto-fascism" lay in the politics of the Progressive movement of circa 1890-1920. (These early "progressivists", from whom our current "progressive" tribe appears to trace its lineage, embraced some controversial stuff like racism, eugenics, militarism, imperialism, et al. Along with collectivist thinking and expansion of state power. Of course, it is "poor form" to mention all of this - invitations to parties will dwindle if you do! ;)
Those early progressivists drank from the same intellectual fountainhead as Marxists, Socialists, etc. (Can you say HEGEL, among other keywords?)
There was a sharp rise of German immigration to the USA in the wake of the European revolutions of 1848 - a group of immigrants known as the "48ers". These folk, of course, brought the latest ideas with them . . . Many of them became quite distinguished citizens in their new country, and rose to high positions in government and the like.
(The university system as it presently exists in the USA originated in the later 1800s, and is essentially a German import. . .)
It is fascinating to observe the back-and-forth transatlatic flow of ideas and cultural influences between Europe and North America. Generally, a trend will start in Europe and get shipped to America.
Having arrived on new soil, it will grow and proliferate wildly due to the lack of historical checks and balances that would have inhibited its growth in Europe. And it will undergo modification into a congenitally "American" phenomenon.
Then, at some point, this sea-changed commodity (which originated in Europe) gets shipped BACK to Europe as a mutated "viral strain", and on European soil it grows wildly for the same reason that the pristine European version grew wildly when it first arrived in America. . .
And on it goes. . .
fidel,
Of course, it is "poor form" to mention all of this - invitations to parties will dwindle if you do! ;)
lol, Mussolini getting the trains running on time is not exactly a crowd pleaser. Obama dominates the conversation at the few parties I go to and the whole damn obsession gives me a migraine. It's an Obamanation!
It is fascinating to observe the back-and-forth transatlatic flow of ideas and cultural influences between Europe and North America.
It's like two lovers exchanging spit, innit??
"lol, Mussolini getting the trains running on time is not exactly a crowd pleaser."
Hey, let's not forget about draining the Pontine marshes! ;)
The most revealing thing about "fascism" is that it is invariably the enemy of so-called "classical liberalism" - as is socialism.
And fascism is statist, and collectivist - as is socialism when it reaches the terminus ad quem of its unfolding organic logic.
Some people say that the recipe for fascism is "socialism plus nationalism" and yet, it is a completely arbitrary notion in the first place, that socialism somehow "excludes" nationalism.
Finally, Friederich Engels, (a "commie" as we know) was also a nationalist . . . (Marx was not, but he "went along".)
Fascism permits a limited amount of capitalism - i.e. private property. But the economy as a whole is organized along collectivist, statist (in other words, socialist) lines - and those "capitalists" had better do what the state tells them!
Naziism is commonly identified as a form of fascism, and Naziism was racist and antisemitic as we well know! Yet Italian fascism was neither racist nor antisemitic.
Marxism is NOT said to be a form of fascism, and yet Karl Marx was a snarling anti-semite (despite his own Jewish roots) and a racist to boot! (Engels was not, but he "went along". So any state with Marx & Engels at the helm would likely have been nationalist, socialist and anti-semitic. Woooo!)
Fascism is said to be "imperialistic", but what is Soviet-style international communism (taking its cue from Marx) if not imperialism under another name?
I could go on and on. But the thing to observe is that "leftism" and "fascism", despite superficial differences, are drawn from a shared political-ideological gene pool.
Not all "fascisms" are alike: sometimes they vary markedly within their range. And not all "leftisms" are alike: they too can vary markedly within their range.
And when you set ALL the various "leftisms" and "fascisms" on the table together for comparison, you see that the two groups overlap and shade into one another so that it's hard to know where one ends and the next begins. The family resemblance among the lot of them is what most impresses you. . .
Finally, let's not forget the frequent transfers of membership back and forth, which historically took place between "fascist" groups and "leftist" groups.
Mussolini, along with various cohorts of his, being a prime example.
The "beefsteak Nazis" being another. . .
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home