‘Feminism’ is—as Zionism—fundamentally reactionary (and misogynistic)

No, I didn’t pledge this New Year to lose my marbles.

Jan 03, 2025

Remember when the (Na)tional (zi)onists hilariously tried1—and failed2—to co-opt the broader “feminist” movement? Then it turns out that all their Judeo-Goebbels accusations were nothing more than psychological projection serving as embarrassing confessions of their own guilt. Oops!3456

Now, despite face-value impressions of irreconcilably mutual animosity, it’s important to clarify that both Zionism and modern-day “feminism” share a common cultic veneer of collective representation and lynch-mob mentality. The Fourth Reich and its shameless hexagramic apologists embody the exact same mentality as the old Jim Crow/KKK lynch mobs of the old American “Solid South”: false accusations of r*pe by white supremacist women are seized upon as a justification by frenzied hordes of racist gangs to carry out extrajudicial savagery as “collective punishment,” all without due process. It was the same ordeal of late 2018 when the “feminists” presumptuously assumed Brett Kavanaugh’s guilt on the Ford case without substantial evidence because “believe women” trumped due process. Still nothing new under the sun? Sad!

Remember: that gargantuan extent to which the Jewish Nazi cult claims to represent all Jews and Jewish dissidents are branded as “self-haters” amounts to the same level of braindead fanaticism as that of “feminists” who claim to represent the interests of all women and female dissidents are “traitors to their gender” or whatever. Anyhow, the Zionism comparison here is for introductory purposes, because it’s time to address this obnoxious “feminism” issue directly for once.

Feminism: liberation or enslavement?

“While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption…”
—II Peter 2:19

I: Book of Esther—virtue (not selfishness) exemplified

It is interesting that out of only two books of the entire Bible named after women (Ruth and Esther)—both of which honoring and exalting womanhood in courage and moral virtue—the main character of one of which has been historically disdained by the “feminist” movement. Consider their views on the Book of Esther:7

…feminists have frequently placed Vashti, not Esther, on a pedestal, lauding her as an ancient symbol of female empowerment. First-wave feminists hailed her as an icon for her refusal to abide by her husband’s misogynistic demands — Harriet Beecher Stowe praised Vashti’s resistance as a ‘first stand for women’s rights,’ and Elizabeth Cady Stanton described her as ‘a sublime representative of self-centered womanhood.’ Both feminists lauded her as a paragon of dignity and self-respect, with Stowe writing that ‘we shall stand amazed that there was a woman found at the head of the Persian empire that dared to disobey the command even of a drunken monarch.’
Modern feminism also celebrates Vashti. For example, theologian Laverne McCain Gill describes Vashti as a model of rebellion against the patriarchy, and Old Testament scholar Alice Laufey argues that Vashti appeals to modern feminists over the main heroine of the story because of her lack of complicity in the patriarchy in comparison to Esther.

For context: in the Book of Esther, Vashti was the initial standing queen to Medo-Persian king Ahasuerus who refused to obey a royal decree8 and was dethroned from being queen,9 no longer relevant after ch. II. In polar contrast to Vashti’s selfish vanity and fit of spite producing nothing but dishonor, Esther demonstrates the utmost selfless courage to save the exiled Medo-Persian Jewish population from destruction,10 exhibits gracious humility in reverent respect towards Ahasuerus,11 and is ultimately honored for her longsuffering and humility, swaying the king’s heart towards her cause to the doom of her conspiring enemies.12

When Esther was of greater temporal power and influence, she neglected not the wisdom of her uncle Mordecai but heeded his admonitions despite initial qualms.13

II: Mosaic Judaism/Christianity and women

[contrary to modern liberal feminist assumptions, the “conservative” theological roots of Christianity are not the cause of misogyny]

Anyone who’s read the New Testament knows that Abraham is as important in apostolic Christianity as in Old Testament Mosaic Judaism. Jesus told the faithful Gentile centurion in Matthew 8:14

And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And:15

Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

Scroll back to Genesis, and it’s very apparent that Abraham was highly considerate and gentle in his treatment of Sarah—first he “hearkened” to her initial lack of faith,16 then apparently without protest (when she later blamed him for her own decision17) told her to do “as it pleases” her.18 Later when Sarah in fit of rage demanded the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, Abraham was “grieved” to acquiesce but did so at Jehovah’s assuring admonition.19

It’s important to remember at the same time that Sarah is described in I Peter as a reverent woman who “obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”20 Apostolic Christianity as the fulfillment and completion of Mosaic Judaism therefore affirms what the Torah established: Jesus granted true liberation to suffering women from their earthly chains according to their (first and foremost) pious humility and faith.21

III: Pauline Epistles—regressive?

One of the common claims of “Christian misogyny” revolves around the much-misunderstood quotemine of the First Epistle to Timothy:22

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

That is of course the KJV. Let’s look at how modern translations messed up:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” (NIV)
“I do not let women teach men or have authority over them. Let them listen quietly.” (NLT)
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” (ESV)
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.” (BSV)
“And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.” (NKJV)
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (NASB)
“I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent.” (NRSV)

The Catholic/Jesuit version—translated from the Vulgate—isn’t any better:

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.” (DRV)

See the difference? In the Textus Receptus/KJV, the emphasis is that a woman is not allowed to usurp authority that doesn’t belong to her over a man, while in the Alexandrian-derived and Vulgate translations the meaning is ambiguated to falsely imply that women broadly cannot hold meaningful authority and are not allowed to teach. First off, Aquila and his wife Priscilla instructed Apollo in Acts 18;23 secondly, Paul instructs women to “guide the house.”24 I will come back to I Tim. 2:12 later…

There is no contradiction—Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians asserts:25

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Also in Ephesians:26

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

The “untold” reason women in Judaism/Christianity are urged to be humble is because Adam committed the sin of “simping” after Eve and eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil with her instead of watching out after his wife and restraining her from being beguiled by the serpent. Biblical standards constrain and disciple men to become empathetic, watchful, and protective figures, not for some “intrinsic” purpose of subjecting women to humiliating degradation.

Feminism and misogyny: two sides to a coin

Simply put, both feminists and right-wing feudalist reactionism share a common disdain for elevation of feminine motherhood—feminists treat motherhood as a burden and implication of servitude, promoting the view instead that “female liberation” necessitates freedom “from” traditional concepts of marriage. Right-wing feudal misogynists reinforce this twisted social concept into reality whenever they obtain power, reducing motherhood into the bottom rung of the societal hierarchy by neglecting fundamental feminine needs and shamefully treating them as nothing more than “producers” and second-class citizens. Both directions lead to a common imposition of this ludicrous narrative upon impressionable young women that “feminine motherhood is a degrading burden and sacrifice of freedom,” thereby in either extreme undermining family rigidity and destroying love.

It is the analogical equivalent of how Zionists and neo-Nazis from “opposite” sides reinforce a common notion that “anti-Zionism is antisemitic” and the canard that “Zionism represents all Jewish people”—neo-Nazis blame Jewish people for Zionist war crimes, and Zionists claim Judeonazi crimes are in the interest and representation of all Jewish people. Although Zionists “validate” this propaganda notion while pretending to support Jewish people and neo-Nazis do so while openly vilifying Jewish people, at their fundamental core it is the exact same agitprop. Cf.:

Neo-Nazis are Zionist-controlled puppets

Emmanuel Goldstein

June 23, 2024

Read full story

Clerical misogynist fascism’s ‘feminist’ origins

It is 100% true that right-wing ultramontane Catholicism historically and otherwise is misogynist and sexist to its core—Leo H. Lehmann’s The Converted Catholic Magazine documented this well.27 At the same time, to designate this misogyny as blanket “anti-woman” misses a slight bit of nuance, as you’ll see…

Pastorals, Gnosticism, and Romanism

Com. I Tim. 2:12:

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

…to Rev. 2’s condemnation of the “Jezebel” power apex in Thyatira:28

Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

This post is going to be long enough already, so I’ll abridge this mini-section down a bit: the “Jezebel” power here is the Roman Papacy, a.k.a. the Whore of Babylon. Remember now that during the 3rd-4th centuries, the insurgent Roman pagan-papal syncretist power was aware of the Pastoral Epistles and Book of Revelation clearly referring to Gnostic and papal syncretistic teachings in their harsh prophetic rebukes; naturally the Alexandrian Codex Vaticanus (as the name implies, it is connected to the Vatican) just completely omits all three Pastoral Epistles and Revelation from its manuscript entirely! Also, as I posted about a while ago (to my admission, some of my conclusions were hastily arrived and I hope to publish a more solidly revised analysis soon), the Vulgate/Douay (a.k.a. traditional Catholic Bible) distorts the Pastoral Epistles to disproportionate frequency (compared to to the ten “main” Pauline letters) due to its highly blatant anti-Gnostic injunctions.

So take note right here: the very same clerical misogynists—whose gender policy is the subjugation of women—fundamentally despise the teachings and doctrine of the Pastoral Epistles. Let’s keep looking at what it says:29

And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Let’s now look at what modern translations read:

“But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” (NIV)
“Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.” (NRSV)

The Vulgate/DRV appears to be even worse:

“Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.” (DRV)

So take note that while the TR/KJV leaves a bit of “ambiguity” naturally implying that a) motherhood is not a per se prerequisite for salvation and b) sobriety is something both genders need to stick to,30 both the modern translations and DRV appear to paternalistically insinuate otherwise on the first point. And the Vulgate/DRV is even worse: whereas the KJV and even modern translations read “they” to imply that both genders ostensibly are held to the same basic moral standards, the DRV changes this into a singular tone implying here that the expectations apply to the female side without referencing the other sex.

Fascist right-wing misogynists and ‘leftist’ feminists wholeheartedly agree: celibacy is good!

Remember this?31

Let’s now check out the right-wing fascist side—here’s from the horse’s mouth, the Jesuitism (cf.) propagator and neo-Nazi alt-degenerate Nick Fuentes:32

It gets even “better”:33

“give me money” Remind you of I Tim. 6:10? Anyways, as you can probably see, there’s a common convergence here between the “far left” and “far right” in promoting an ostensibly ascetic abstinence from traditional marriage and its core values. (both are Jesuit-controlled, but details are for another day…) As to its roots, remember now that Catholicism promotes the view of Mary remaining a virgin for all her life and never “knew” Joseph.34 This contradicts what the Gospel of Matthew states:35

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.

If Joseph did not “know” Mary UNTIL after she gave birth to the Messiah, that obviously implies that the two did ultimately engage in a sexually intimate relation and therefore Mary did NOT remain a virgin all her life.

Anyways, Catholicism’s veneration is undoubtedly tied to its (false) viewpoint positing that Mary remained a virgin. Before the fully syncretized RCC, there was the full-on Marcionite Gnostic movement which brazenly admitted its anti-natalist “sex is bad” viewpoint, and both—as you ought to recall—are rooted in a common disdain for Paul’s pro-marriage and anti-Gnostic teachings in the Pastoral Epistles. Within the RCC hierarchy, the elevated women are the celibate nuns, unsurprisingly.

‘but abortion bans are anti-women!’

This notion blindly swallowed unfortunately by the younger generations of women has probably contributed more than any other factor towards the destruction of family values that has left countless children reared in homes by fathers who as amoral “brute beasts” (cf.) whoremongered to the satisfaction of their lusts and mothers who view their children’s lives as disposable nuisances. If a mother believes that her unborn child holds no human value and can be ruthlessly dismembered for the “inconvenience” of existing at the wrong time due to her own personal(ly irresponsible) “intimate” decisions, what moral compass does she have to prevent her from justifying cruel neglect and abuse after her child is born? To put it in analogical terms: have you you ever heard of a person who is so concerned with home security that they triple-lock the upstairs windows but keep the front door wide open at night?

I would also like to briefly point out that the reactionary RCC’s “opposition to abortion” has nothing to do with an intrinsic concern for human life, and rather has everything to do with their agenda of flooding the globe with a heavily Catholic population—according to Andrew Sinclair in The Great Silence Conspiracy (1980):36

…the priests want couples to have babies because every baby born adds one more to their ‘army’ and is a potential contributor to their funds. That is the true reason for their opposition to artificial contraception and abortion.

‘but toxic masculinity!’

It is true that male aggression is a problem these days amongst the youth. However, blaming this on “masculinity” is just another example of a PRS Hegelian diversion scapegoating anyone other than the actual culprit, much as gun control movements blaming mass shootings on right-wing law-abiding gun owners instead of the FBI constitutes equally flagrant ignorance.

This section I will speak from years of personal experience and carefully diligent observation: feminist culture has never accomplished any net benefit for women’s safety whatsoever. Efforts to emasculate male youth only inevitably backfire because this subconsciously innate human nature cannot be artificially reversed via indoctrination. Instead of focusing on redirecting male vigor in a constructive direction, feminism has wrongfully and maliciously blamed all expressions of “excessive masculinity” as an inherent evil, which only has served to drive semi-degenerate male youth into ever-increasing depraved and libertine recklessness.

If feminists truly cared about women’s safety, they ought to have years/decades ago protested for the overturn of Engel v. Vitale (1962), Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Coker v. Georgia (1977), and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008). (oh, by the way: those SCOTUS decisions were handed down by primarily Knights of Malta-controlled or SR Freemasonically controlled “justices”) The best way to restore decent behavior among male youth is to a) instill traditional moral values of responsibility (instead of evolutionism-inspired Social Darwinism that has contributed to continuous mass-murderous bloodshed), and b) restore harsh “law and order” punishments. You cannot have it both ways—either you endorse conservative moral standards to disciple the youth and deter crime, or you hold no abject standing whatsoever to bemoan the consequences.

The conspiracy—right back to Rome

It’s very simple: the Jesuit Order via their neo-Marxist/Communist agitators have intentionally stirred up the collapse of “Western” society’s moral fabric to pave the way for the theocratic far right’s ascension into power in full accordance with the problem-reaction-solution (PRS) model concurrent with ordo ab chao. Sadly—thanks to generational American stupidity due to their reprobate refusal to listen to the full truth—it’s now too late and the masses will reap the incoming hell they deserve. What a wild year this is going to be…

Noa Tishby (Mar. 8, 2024), “This International Women’s Day, it’s time to finally believe Israeli women,” Forward.

Sharon Zhang (Oct. 30, 2023), “Over 140 Prominent Feminist Scholars Demand Ceasefire, End to Occupation in Gaza,”

Judah Ari Gross (Oct. 21, 2021), “IDF officer who raped Palestinian was not dismissed for earlier sexual offenses,” The Times of Israel.

Feb. 6, 2024, “Sexual assault, violence, truancy: Hotels hosting evacuees are a ticking time bomb of crime,” The Jerusalem Post.

Rachel Fink (Feb. 8, 2024), “Several Cases of Sexual and Domestic Violence Reported at Hotels Housing Israeli Evacuees,” Ha’aretz.

Dania Akkad (Dec. 3, 2024), “Israeli soldiers have been sexually assaulting Palestinian women for decades. Now they're speaking out,” Middle East Eye.

Arielle C. Frommer (Mar. 23, 2023), “Vashti, Esther, And The Feminist History of Purim,” The Harvard Crimson.

Est. 1:12, 17.

Est. 1:19-22.

Est. 4:15-16.

Est. 5:1-8, 7:1-4.

Est. 7:8-10, 8:3-8.