Monday, 23 November 2009

We, Child, Generation : the Weasel words of Anglo-American Feminists

One way in which feminists have secured a chokehold on western civilization in general (and the Anglosphere in particular) is through language. It is a 'given' among modern sociologists and socially-engaged philosophers that language is an integral aspect of social control. Both in the Continental and Anglo-Saxon academic spheres, language is seen as the key to hegemonic dominance: as George Orwell showed us in '1984', twisting or suppressing language necessarily restricts the individual's capacity to actively resist coercive authority.

Given that we are now living in a matriarchy where men in general have few (or no) rights, we would expect language to have been carefully subverted to achieve this ignoble end. A cursory examination will prove this to be just the case. The present author encourages his readers to find many more examples than are given here, for they abound in the hollow rhetoric expounded by Anglo feminists. Indeed, they have filtered beyond the confines of feminist discourse into the culture at large.

The Feminist 'We'
Nowadays, we are always told that World War One affected 'a generation', implying that women endured the same experiences as men in that war. The same is often said of the Second World War, Vietnam, the American Civil War and wars in general. However, a cursory examination of the historical evidence shows that 'a generation' was not punished, at all: it was men, exclusively. Female contributions and sacrifices in any of those wars amounted to a big, fat, zero. For example, the South in the Civil War lost over 20% of its males of military age (16-45). No women were lost in combat. In 1916, the British lost 60 000 men in a single day on the Somme. Not one of these casualties was a woman.

However, the mainstream culture continually assails us with phrases like the 'Vietnam Generation' or the 'Lost Generation', trying to subvert war into a communal arena where men and women suffered equally. It wasn't, though, and let us not forget it.

The 'Child' Soldier
By the same token, we are always told about 'child soldiers', as though female children were represented in equal numbers within that vile practice. They are not. What they really mean is 'boy soldier', so why don't they just say it? Simple: they will not say it because 'boy soldier' confounds the 'victim status' that Anglo feminists have sought to monopolize in order to wrest power from men without demur. So, by pretending that children coerced into fighting are not just boys, by using weasel words to mask this ugly truth, feminists can deny the male-specific nature of under-age military service across the world, retaining their grasp on victim-hood.

'Gendercide' is another good example of how the liberal-feminist establishment have subverted language in order to distort reality. In fact, Gendercide should be replaced by a new word, Androcide, since men are almost exclusively its victims. In Bosnia, for example, systematic gendercide always involved the liquidation of males - women were typically evacuated from the extermination zones (though of course a number were also raped). Moreover, the fact that matrilinear cultures like the Jews or Ba'Hais are weak minorities gives powerful testament to the fact that Gendercide is overwhelmingly directed against males. After all, while women might be raped and coerced they are still far more likely to survive pogroms and race-massacres than men, which is where the matrilinear custom developed.

From the above, we can see that feminists have cleverly twisted language to give the false impression that specifically anti-male oppressions are burdens equally shared between men and women. Of course, this is so women can monopolize 'victim status' and so pursue their misandrist program of social disruption without interference. However, feminist-leaning liberals are always quick to make certain forms of oppression female-specific. 'Rapist' or 'child abuser' have become synonymous with males, while victims of these crimes are invariably assumed to be female (two false assumptions, both sustained by ongoing linguistic manipulation). Moreover, the Anglo-American media invariably show females preferential treatment in every case ('Pretty White Girl Syndrome'), demonstrating their pliancy to feminist agendas. Of course, given the puritanical, misandrist nature of Anglo culture, we would expect nothing less.

No comments:

Post a comment