Editor’s note: The following book excerpt is a translation from the German by the author. The following website provides an overview of his books: https://www.quellwerk.com
History of Mass Hysteria
An early occurrence of a new form of irrationality was surfacing in the age of ‚enlightenment’, when a mob was yelling (rather unenlightened) “Hang to the lanterns, who has a handkerchief!”, and “Hang to the lanterns, who hasn’t got horny skin!”.[i] The people who had soft skin, faced the danger to get lynched.[ii] On the picture above, women lead an armed march of revolutionaries.
Symbol of the French Revolution was an allegorical Marianne, portrayed swinging the tricolour during street fighting. When women and children, the whole family are involved in ideologies, this results in radicalisation. What had been rather a peripheral matter and aberration before, was transformed into a principle, the foundation of a systematically spread hysteria, and was spread along with ideological world views, closed in itself.
The first wave transformed hysteria into a principle of life, and to assume as a privileged group to be disadvantaged, to flock together as an angry sisterhood, whose attitude towards life was militant full of hatred and fighting, hysterical screaming because of completely imaginary disadvantages, and to fight against human nature and culture. Such screeching hysteria staged itself by a new political aesthetics they invented, which was later on taken over by fascism and is today regarded as typically fascist. That has been proven in my book “Critique of Feminist Ideology”. This ideology is not only linked to stubborn ideological militance, but also to victimhood. In self-referred navel view, they lamented about invented troubles and imaginary disadvantages. They believed, the world would be unjust to them. Today, when they get criticised, they redraw insulted to ‘safe rooms’.
In this cartoon of the first wave 1900-1913 we can already recognize snow flakes of today.
Political hysteria of feminists was mentioned ~ 1910 in a debate of the British parliament as a characteristic attribute and danger, should society give in to feminist demands. The speech was quoted and analysed in my book on the first wave.
All of the predictions in that speech have been fulfilled. Additionally, later waves caused destructions much worse than the worst expectations of the speaker. Quotes and pictures of the book about the first wave show by historical sources, that this hysteria was not only linked to imaginary disadvantages and victimhood, but also to misandry.
After the First World War, feminism and its methods were accredited and integrated into society, after their demands were fulfilled. As a result, we had a disrooted generation of youth in the 1920s, disrooted and having trouble in matters of sexuality and sex roles; boyish women (flappers and vamps) and effeminate men were part of the phenomenon as well as massive difficulties of both sexes: confused women and men, whose money had been squeezed out by wives or ex-wives, boys, which girls didn’t accept as good enough any more. This has been proven using historical sources of the time in my book Critique of feminist ideology”.
Angry screaming became a method of the political fringes: On the streets, supporters of the red front an Stalin were parading, later on supporters of the brown front and Hitler. Young women were screaming excited, or even fainted: After each outburst of feminist irrationality follows a phase of confusion or disarray: Women try to regain lost triggers of female instincts, on which the love towards men and society are based. As human nature is damaged, and time-tested culture lost, this is done in a distorted – and dangerous – way. That may result in hysterical admiration of a Stalin or Hitler, or screeching and fainting at the concert of a boy group, or throwing teddies to welcome demographical intruders, applauding and welcoming demographical conquerors replacing native men, who get degraded to incels or losers. Those native men had before been fought by screaming hate-filled feminists.
Like feminists, both communists and fascists perceived themselves to be persecuted, while in reality it was the other way round: They were persecuting those of different believes. Thus their perception was contrary to reality. Fascists believed in a ‘Zionist world conspiracy’, communists in a ‘capitalist’ and ‘imperialist’ ‘enemy of their class’, blaming them for every screw, which wouldn’t fit. Feminists blamed subjective feelings and dissatisfaction with an invented ‘patriarchal structure’, as absurd a conspiration theory as the fascist version. They were never able to give any proof for the existence of such a structure. To the contrary, it can be proven that the course of their discontent were bad decisions of the feminists themselves, and the results of previous feminist waves.
Many members of the BDM treated Hitler like a modern group of girls might a pop star; his visits to BDM groups were generally accompanied with screaming, swooning and fainting.»[iii] (babiafi.co.uk)
One only has to see old newsreels of women fainting, crying, screaming with adulation at the feet of Hitler»[iv] (dailymail.co.uk)
Irrationality generally broke out in world war and mass murder; after the ideology creating such actions was gutted, the causes remained: The breakdown of natural structures, of a cultural complement of both sexes and their relationships, through which feelings can develop and mature naturally. Feminism, in the delusion of knowing everything better and improving the world with an ideology, which is at war with human nature, and interpreting nature the wrong way round, made sure that the damage done by previous waves could never heal, but instead additionally new damage was done.
Therefore the problems persisted. Not only women were dissatisfied. Young people, especially boys, struggled to find a place in society. Women lacked something that could no longer develop naturally and culturally, after feminism damaged natural culture, eventually destroying it. There was therefore a lack of young men who seemed worthy of female admiration. Men were lacking, what could give them such feminine feelings. In particular, there was a lack of maturation which could give rise to mature, civilized love. Instead, dangerous animal instincts ran wild. Today, alpha males get preferred to betas and incels.
In 1964 they screeched longing for rock musicians. In 1968, when the second wave broke out, they screamed aggressively, hateful protesting against ‘white heterosexual manliness’ and an imaginary ‘patriarchy’, a perversion of the longing for impressive males a few years back. Today they choose illegally admitted immigrants from Islamist or other problematic countries, because they unconsciously want victorious conquerors (like Hitler, Stalin, Duce, Mao, Che …). That’s a political perversion, too, resulting from the collapse of cultural bonds and structures.
Such animal instincts are very volatile and tip over quickly. A few years after girls screamed to adore young men, and some fainted because young men of high standing had already disappeared from normal society, the screeching discontent of daughters of the feminist era was already turning back into the hatred of men, with which trouble once had started.
«I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me. … Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family.»[v] (Erin Pizzey)
When it comes to feminism, media has been biased since the first feminist wave. Voices critical of feminism where either ignored, or reports were defamatory. As documented in my books, as early as 1913 Ernest Bax described the bias of media and the feminist pressure on media, not to publish voices opposing feminism. One reason for this biased negative attitude is the sentiment of women influenced by feminism. They didn’t want to tolerate free speech, which was a habit in previously male groups, as they existed in traditional cultures. Men talked among themselves without ‚political correctness’. However, when ladies were present, men tactfully avoided topics ladies could dislike. When women mingled into once male groups, they expected the same refraining from disliked topics or opinions. As a result, men had no place left where to talk unrestricted.
Our media didn’t report about such matters. They were biased since the first feminist wave, even more so since 1968. When it came to emotic issues like the critique of feminism or emancipation, press wasn’t free and either didn’t report on it at all, or with a strong feminist bias. Even though there are enough historical sources and contemporary witnesses, it’s not easy to find pictures of screaming feminists. Most reports are favouring them. When Erin Pizzey, who started women’s shelters and soon realized, that men would need such shelters as much as women, was touring England to promote her book “Prone to Violence”, she was threatened by hateful screeching feminists and needed police protection. Many had similar experiences.
They got naked in front of passers-by and then screamed angrily en masse [vi] (dailymail.co.uk)
This continues until today’s third wave. A pathological trait has been added: To smear themselves red like blood; in at least one demonstration, participants also scratched themselves with razor blades to stain with their own blood.
A group of women plays the attackers, wrestles down her colleagues for minutes, who are shouting slogans. Wheeze, screech, roar. “Always in sync,” Inna tells the activists. [vii] (Bild)
The hysterical perversion also continues to admit and adore more aggressive intruders instead of their own men who are ravaged. Because of the cultural destruction caused by earlier feminist waves, strong men from a cultivated cultural elite are missing. That is why, as a substitute, the most inadequate and harmful ones are hailed and screamed at in admiration. The same happened for Hitler, Duce, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevara. A comparatively harmless variant was the Beatlemania, when girls overran police barriers or rushed into a hotel to get closer to the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. Today, suicidal for all of us, they welcome a millionfold surplus of men immigrating from zones of war, crises and the world’s most problematic areas. Famous murderers on death row also receive baskets of female fan mail or even get married behind bars, or waiting for execution. Similar anti-social blenders get their attention. Such negative selection spoils our gene pool with harmful traits chosen for procreation.
In 2015 I was stunned to see a particularly large number of women screaming at the ‘refugees’ like at an Elvis concert. For my part, I see my assumption confirmed – they sniffed pheromones and are on a testosterone trip. There are also more and more mixed couples… hooray… until one cries….
They are trained to bite off competition, to step on rape victims again – because the stupid pig has only indicated it because of xenophobia. They don’t come up with the idea of who is really the most primitive – like when you’re on a panting hormone trip yourself. Everything is reduced to your own pleasure, there is no space for anything else.
And you can immediately recognize them by the fact that they are incapable of a rational conversation and instead yell everyone down with hysterical stone age noise – here there is pure emotion … and nothing else.»[viii] (Alexandra Bader)
The inadequate and fanatic welcome corresponds to the same hysterical feminist perversion as hating their own ‘white heterosexual’ men. The same holds for their anger at an imaginary ‘disadvantage’ of actually privileged women. Only by prescribing their utopic ideology as a result to be achieved, they construct female ‘disadvantage’ where there is privilege and always has been. Again, same perversion in their self-pity towards imaginary sufferings, while excluding local men from empathy and ignoring their real problems.
At the same time they fight their own local men with revolutionary attitude, screaming hate. These men share their culture, are mostly adequate and educated to local standards, yet they get broken and oppressed by feminist agenda. Such perversion has been a driving force of all feminist waves. This perversion resulted in feminist distortion of science, utopical ideology contradicting human nature. Instincts ran wild. There’s no grain of truth in the nonsense they produced.
Since the first wave, hysteria is a driving force of political ideologies and consecutive feminist waves. Following generations have a vague feeling, that something is missing, without any clear indication, what is missing. So they are susceptible for political or religious ideologies and new feminist waves. They hate, what they need. They destroy, what could help them: the culture they and previous waves have destroyed. Their fanaticism made them attack human universals.
Political hysteria, misandry and the described perversion of sexuality are driving forces of a new form of irrationality. The first feminist wave brought it up and made it acceptable in society. Such political hysteria and irrationality have been adapted by many extremist groups since, along with the methods. As feminist emancipation disrooted many, they became susceptible.
The first feminist wave had invented a self-presentation, which was later on adopted by fascists and is today known as “aesthetics of fascism”. Already the first wave was intolerant to opposing opinions. The second wave was screaming hatefully, burning bras and spreading hatred against opponents and different views. The first wave was known for militancy and terrorist attacks on men and artworks. They sliced pictures; the Taliban blew up Buddhas. During the second wave, female terrorism resurfaced as phenomenon; this time, however, in left wing groups such as the RAF in Germany. Most however were quickly established in media, politics, at universities and in society.
Already 1968, professor Goldberg from the University of New York could hardly publish his study about a human universal – differences of both sexes and their roles found all over the world in different societies. Since the 1970s, it was next to impossible to publish a deep-rooted non-feminist argument. Erin Pizzey told in an interview, that she knew many smart men, who could never publish their non-feminist book. In the very rare cases it was published, they would get threatened, as she herself. Even Esther Vilar, whose book was published 1971, had difficulties finding a publisher. All German publishers except one had already rejected her book, she told, when the last publisher finally accepted. Yet she was attacked and threatened by feminists and was forced to exile.
Today, hysterical screaming in fear of CO2 works the same way it did during feminist waves. An inversion to enthusiastic reverence for leaders is displayed by extremist movements, may they be right wing, left wing or religious. Screeching tips over from anger, hate and protest to sexual desire or to leader cult, and the other way round.
Beatles fans cheered and screamed. Women long for admirable famous men, whether at a pop concert or in a dictatorship.
Third wave demonstrators may dress in pussy hats.
Even though the last picture was not examined, whether it’s photoshopped, the components are real and stem from the same movement. As such, it describes reality. Today, even the difference between good satire and reality has become fluid.
Madness and Feminism
Biographies of many leading feminists contain (often hidden) evidence of mental illnesses, that not only shaped the lives of activists introducing new ideas, but also first appeared during a feminist wave.
Medical researchers have long puzzled over schizophrenia’s late emergence (it was first diagnosed in 1911, in Switzerland) and its prevalence in the industrial world, where the illness is degenerative and permanent. (In “primitive” societies, when it exists at all, it is typically a passing malady.) In 2005, when Jean-Paul Selten and Elizabeth Cantor-Graae, experts on the epidemiology of schizophrenia, reviewed various risk factors—foremost among them migration, racism, and urban upbringing—they found that the factors all involved chronic isolation and loneliness, a condition that they called “social defeat.” (New Yorker Magazine)
At that time, at the height of the first feminist wave, the last remnants of Western culture complementing of the sexes began to crumble, and with it the bond between the sexes on the one hand, and the sexual-social identity. It’s not surprising, when new mental illnesses emerge at the same time, which also play a role in the lives of leading feminists. This combination of psychosis with the feminist movement spreads these problems. This is paradoxic and tragical: Feminists are unconsciously missing something, feel an unexplainable suffering, then irrationally blame and accuse a ‘patriarchy’, used as a conspiracy theory. In reality, the culture they attack would have been key to overcome their suffering, giving them, what was already missing. Their suffering was created by themselves, their feminist agenda and previous feminist movements. In spite of it they use this suffering as a driving force to pursue their work of further destruction, and to instigate an angry cultural revolution against the last cultural remains. Thus they create the suffering from which they claim to save. Their psychosis is the result of the breakdown of natural and cultural relationships, which, if intact, would prevent isolation, loneliness and loss of identity.
«The second-wave feminists had hoped to alleviate this isolation through the refuge of sisterhood.«[ix] (New Yorker)
Several leading feminist founders were in psychiatric treatment, in a mental hospital.
«It’s unclear when the first symptoms of schizophrenia surfaced … Neighbours were complaining that Firestone was screaming in the night and that she had left the taps running until the floorboards gave way. Laya flew to New York and found Shulamith emaciated and panhandling, carrying a bag holding a hammer and an unopened can of food. In the roman à clef, Firestone wrote that she had not eaten for a month—fearing that her food had been poisoned—and “looked like something out of Dostoevsky (which actually helped her beggar’s earnings).” The next day, Laya took the action for which, she said, “Shulie never forgave me,” and brought her to the Payne Whitney Clinic for evaluation. Her condition was diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia, and she was involuntarily transferred to a residential facility in White Plains.»[x] (a.a.O.)
Beside Firestone also Kate Millet was affected. A lot of psychotic traits were described by her family, who suffered from her characteristics such as: “brutal sadist” and “violent bully”.
«In the 1970’s I was alarmed to hear that my big sister, Kate Millett, who had serious mental health issues which had agonized my family and her friends for many years, was organizing a group called The Mental Patients’ Project in order to claim that the psychiatric community and society were “oppressing” people and “stigmatizing them with labels such as psychotic, bi-polar, schizophrenic, borderline personalities,” etc and unconstitutionally imprisoning them in hospitals thereby violating their civil rights. We, as a family, had struggled for years with Kate’s issues, many times attempting to hospitalize her so she could obtain the serious help she so obviously needed. She was a brutal sadist, a violent bully at whose hands everyone about her suffered.»[xi] (Frontpage Mag)
As if in derision, all facts were turned upside down in psychiatric treatment, too: It was not the “brutally sadist” and “violent bully” that was the perpetrator, no, she considered herself to be the ‘innocent victim’ of a ‘repressive psychiatry’ that wrongly assumed all kinds of illnesses, just as she felt victim of a ‘patriarchy’, which she probably ascribed to be the ‘sadist’ and ‘bully’ she in fact was herself. By the way, the psychiatric agenda was harmful, too. Articles tell that many who needed treatment ended broken on the streets instead; some of them committed crimes as murder. Her rebellion against psychiatry cost lives, too. Just as many male suicides where the result of feminism.
The same trick she used in psychiatry and as a feminist, whether she blamed the psychiatric system, or men, society and the alleged ‘patriarchy’. It’s astonishing, that scientists, psychiatrists and the elite of her time either didn’t see or didn’t explain these absurdities, to stop a mass psychosis from spreading, which is at the core of feminism.
Jill Johnston, whose book “Lesbian Nation” is considered a breakthrough in lesbian feminism, also suffered from schizophrenia.
«Hospitalized twice for schizophrenia, Johnston»[xii] (encyclopedia)
A list of important feminists having psychic disorders, stemming from feminists themselves, begins during the first wave at the end of the 19th century. It would be interesting to know, if non-feminist voices did observe more such cases.
«The Politics of Women’s Madness Narratives is a study of autobiographical writing by women who were diagnosed with psychiatric conditions. The book explores the psychiatric pathologizing of women and the ways in which women have used autobiographical writing to rebel against forced treatment and incarceration. It also outlines the history of psychiatric treatment in the United States and examines the connection between larger social movements and reforms in the care of women mental patients. Among the American women whose narratives are discussed in the book are Elizabeth Packard, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Mary Jane Ward, Joanne Greenberg, Jill Johnston, Kate Millett, and Susanna Kaysen.»[xiii]
A Who’s who of early feminism would resemble the list above. Already Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), a precursor of feminism, had some sexual disorientation, according to modern feminist sources, who claim to continue her cause in modern unscientific gender subjects.
This should be a concern and field of research for scientists. As they fell silent in these matters, I’m compiling information so that it won’t get lost.
Contemporaries used to observe a lot of absurdities, contradictions and harmful consequences of the feminist wave they experienced. Usually they assume, previous waves would have been justified, whereas the then current wave would have lost reason and entered the realm of absurdity. The reason is, that people tend to consider as normal what they experienced during their childhood and adolescence. Thus, they accepted previous waves, without reflecting, that they had rightly appeared just as absurd and harmful to their ancestors. No progress can be made, before they realize, that they are not the first generation exposed to it, and that previous generation were justified to be as sceptical as they get today.
«Last fall, as I interviewed New York’s founding radical feminists, the stories of “social defeat” mounted: painful solitude, poverty, infirmity, mental illness, and even homelessness. In a 1998 essay, “The Feminist Time Forgot,” Kate Millett lamented the lengthening list of her sisters who had “disappeared to struggle alone in makeshift oblivion or vanished into asylums and have yet to return to tell the tale,” or who fell into “despairs that could only end in death.” She noted the suicides of Ellen Frankfort, the author of “Vaginal Politics,” and Elizabeth Fisher, the founder of Aphra, the first feminist literary journal.»[xiv] (New Yorker)
Except those two central founding leaders of feminism, many other activists of their avantgarde group were affected, as Kate Millet herself claimed, and other activists confirmed.
«She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and pleaded guilty to “reckless assault with intent to harm” …
While Warhol was on the phone, Solanas fired at him three times. Her first two shots missed, but the third went through both lungs, his spleen, stomach, liver, and oesophagus. She then shot art critic Mario Amaya in the hip. She tried to shoot Fred Hughes, Warhol’s manager, in the head, but her gun jammed.»[xv] (Wikipedia)
Valerie Solanas was suffering of paranoid schizophrenia.[xvi] Ti-Grace Atkinson described self-destructive forces, too.
«In a 1970 address, titled “Divisiveness and Self-Destruction in the Women’s Movement: A Letter of Resignation,” which was delivered to the Congress to Unite Women, in New York City, she warned that women’s “rage, masquerading as a pseudo-egalitarian radicalism under the ‘pro-woman’ banner,” was turning into “frighteningly vicious anti-intellectual fascism of the left.” After hearing about the speech, several women, including Freeman, met and vowed to fight the problem. “Instead, each of us slipped back into our own isolation,” Freeman said. “The result was that most of the women at that meeting dropped out, as I had done. Two ended up in the hospital with nervous breakdowns.” After Ti-Grace Atkinson resigned from the Feminists, a group she had founded in New York, she declared, “Sisterhood is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.”»[xvii]
We should not overlook the fact, that Freeman also identified isolation as a major problem, experienced something similar to Ti-Grace Atkinson, and experienced the destructive power of the sectarian feminist replacement community. Incidentially, Erin Pizzey, who was the first to fight domestic violence, recognized the same high percentage of female perpetrators and violent tendencies of problem-laden women, which is why feminists were hostile towards her. They stole her idea and turned it into a one-sided war against men. Erin Pizzey, who became a deserving voice against feminism, had grown up in Asia with large families and more cultural structures; in an interview she described the unusual loneliness in the small family of the West and the twisted reaction of the feminists to this problem.
Such isolation is understandably a problem when time-tested human relationships and communities we’re used to break down. Additionally, the relationships of the sexes were once linked by exchange, both providing different contributions. That also faded away.
The loss of these natural bonds and efforts for each other makes us lonely. We are mostly concerned with the family, which was once an extended family or clan full of life, connections, roles and lifestyles. That was increasingly reduced to the core family, which was eventually also destroyed by feminism. Socially, that process was an impoverishment. Obviously, this creates loneliness and isolation, plus confusion of identity – exactly what triggered feminism, caused the suffering, which caused feminists to rise up, unfortunately in the most harmful way possible: to break families and culture. Causes, damage and suffering were increased and imposed on the rest of society and the world.
So far this was based on common sense, understandable for reasonable people. This isn’t sufficient, though. We have to dig a little deeper to see the whole truth, step back from our habits, from what seems normal in our epoch, what we learned in childhood and life. We have to heed what ethnologist learn, enabling to understand foreign cultures as well as past eras of our own: We have to be prepared to give up everything we are used to, to shed contemporary values and ideas. Only then we can recognize the extent of damage done by feminism.
Only by digital differences of sound, like labial / non-labial, dental / non dental and so on, phonemes can evolve, enabling words, meaning and language. Grammar rules are also required for language to exist. Now the same happens for cultural structure and division of labour, whose origin was the division of labour between both sexes. If both do something different, they complement each other, and exchange evolves. That has been explained in detail in my first book Culture and sex”. Doing something for each other creates bonds. These are important for our development. Feminists chose to fight and destroy them as ‘gender stereotypes’. Since then, the misunderstanding of both sexes grows. Not astonishingly, except for those who fell for feminist propaganda.
Both, the ability to learn language and to pick up the local culture are inborn. It’s like a pre-coded learning program used by small children, who are not smart enough yet to learn language by rules as adults. Yet they outdo adults, learning much faster. They have an inborn ability and need to learn language at a very young age. The same holds for learning cultural sex roles and structure. This is obvious from the fact, that children pick up sex difference as early as language, or even earlier. The earlier it is, the deeper rooted it is in our biology.
Culture is a human universal, existing in all cultures of all times worldwide. The cultural structure is just as elementary as linguistic structure. Both are pronounced from early infancy onwards, is a specifically human ability. Conservatives only see the family, maybe a few more considerations of the tribe or nation, but nothing more. For this reason, it’s not enough to defend only the family, eventually nation or tribe. Many believe, all would be fine, if only the family will be restored. That is a mistake. Culture is much more than just a few family ties and habits. Western culture has been impoverished for centuries. While the family initially remained stable, the structures complementing both sexes and creating bonds between both, fell apart. At the same time, massive misandry and one-sided glorification of women have grown over centuries (see Kucklick, “The immoral sex”). A misperception of women as ‘oppressed’ and ‘suffering’, and increasing privileges of women resulted.
As both culture and family were reduced to a minimal core, dissatisfaction and loneliness grew. That was the real reason for evolving irrationality, including feminist waves. Feminism worsens the problem which creates feminism in the first place. Thus it’s part of a doom loop making things worse constantly.
«genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally … children would be born to both sexes equally, or independently of. … either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general … The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.»[xviii] (Shulamith Firestone, clinically insane, The Dialectic of Sex, 1970)
According to biologists, anthropologists or Émile Durkheim, one of the founders of sociology, which at the time was not yet fallen prey to ideology, all division of labour goes back to a division of labour between both sexes, that has become increasingly refined and expanded to include social subgroups. That is central to culture and enabled it. Culture was originally describing, how members cooperate and do things for each other, harmoniously combining the different characteristics and needs of both sexes, an exchange that connects and obliges.
Those who grew up before the second feminist wave and paid enough attention to such things might still have experienced the social respect and love that was expressed by sex differences. We lack such warmth; we have become a bit more lonely, superfluous, uprooted, are more easily lost than before in anonymous masses. That intimacy resulting from exchange and togetherness is no longer. It was the charm of ancient cultures. We are missing something that we have to constantly seek, without in most cases ever finding, because these structures no longer exist.
It was a weird, ideological misinterpretation, that women should have everything that men work on. Feminism bereaved men of their contribution to society, making them less needed. Feminists spitefully enjoyed making them tendentially superfluous. On top of it, they felt envy and greed and made girls and women do and obtain themselves, what men do to win the sexual selection exerted by women and men. The result was increasing pressure on men and a growing number of incels and losers. Additionally, forcing men to reward women with alimony when kicking them out, and refused custody became another business model.
It is logically a serious mistake to demand the gift of the other side for yourself in an exchange system, because there is nothing left to exchange afterwards. There can only be an exchange if both sides contribute something of their own that the other side does not have. That’s the only way a cultural structure, complementing them in an exchange of contributions for each other can exist. I am doing this for you because you are doing that for me. Mature feelings and sympathy for each other arise from such an exchange of care and contributions. Such tender and compassionate feelings were logically lost when the exchange faded away. We became an isolated crowd of egocentrics.
«Growing up in seriously dysfunctional families seems to be a common denominator with radical feminists. It seems that if they don’t have “daddy issues,” they’ve got “mommy issues,” and the predictable attempt to blame all their “issues” on male oppression is often at odds with the available evidence. … Uwe and Sheila Kitzinger sound like a perfect parody of the type of progressives who are so open-minded they believe in everything simultaneously. That three of their daughters turned out to be radical lesbian feminists doesn’t seem particularly surprising. … This was circa 1974. Celia was plagued by “feelings of extreme isolation [that] led to a suicide attempt and subsequent hospitalization”: Three months in a mental hospital, … So, naturally, she became a professor of psychology. Celia Kitzinger considers therapy harmful for women because women’s problems are not personal, in her view, but rather political.
Everything must ultimately be blamed on the patriarchy, of course. It is impossible for any feminist to to say otherwise. They have spent so many decades blaming every misfortune on the all-purpose scapegoat of male supremacy that one imagines the radical feminist who stubs her toe screaming in pain: “Damn the patriarchy!”
Feminism is not a political philosophy; it’s an idée fixe, the obsession of deranged minds. Male supremacy is to feminists what windmills were to Don Quixote or what Jews were to Hitler. This has been true since the Women’s Liberation movement began, even before anyone realized that Shulamith Firestone was clinically insane.»[xix]
The clinically insane firestone predicted the end of cultural bisexuality: A core problem that conservative forces overlook, because they confine themselves to defending family and morality. They don’t realize other crucial losses like subconscious cultural structures. An ethnologist I quoted in my books wrote, that the central features of a culture are not noticed by consciousness.
Envy has been established by feminism as basic moral principle of society and as a ‘natural right’. Whatever men worked hard to gain, often to be accepted by society and women, women demanded for themselves, leaving those men without means to earn the admiration, women would waste on the unworthy. This closed our consciousness, so that we could not realize the losses involved.
Today’s sentiments are shaped by competition. The interests and needs of both sexes conflict, whereas in a culture they match and both gain by the contributions of the opposite sex. Now that they compete, they tend to watch jealously, afraid to get ‘disadvantaged’. Some angrily demand an exactly equal devision (while gladly taking much more than half or everything for women). They force the outcome they like, even though most women don’t even want it. The more feminist influenced a society, the stronger both sexes differ in their attitudes and job preferences. This contemporary strive is a logical continuation of the struggle against human nature that feminism has been since its earliest waves. There is another source beside feminism to that mistake, though. As Kucklick has shown in his book, misandrist stereotypes were already fundamental to western philosophy of the enlightenment era. In that respect, it was rather unenlightened.
Justifications of feminism that we learn in childhood, school, education, the media and at universities, are institutionalized propaganda, turning facts upside down. This holds for past waves as much as for current ones. Women were never disadvantaged. Instead, they were always preferred. Under natural conditions, it did not make any sense for them to support feminist goals. Culture was offering them more. Men were carrying much heavier burdens. Only when modern technology lessened male burdens, and cultural structures were fading away, feminist envy could spread.
Man was always more burdened with duties and demands. Among animals and humans, the female sex dominates biologically. Females are fertile, limit procreation and exert sexual selection. Because of this, female life was protected more than male. Females were easily allowed to procreate, whereas many men in history never rose high enough in earnings or rank to be considered worthy enough. This is another male burden. Classic male strengths were a necessary counterweight. It’s always harder to be a man that a woman. A woman just needs to be woman and fertile to get accepted and desired. That is a female dominance force. Men have to work much harder to get accepted by society and women, and many don’t even succeed, even if they work hard. Feminism was gross nonsense right from the start.
Their feeling of being ‘oppressed’ or ‘disadvantaged’ was irrational hysteria contradicting the facts of biology and life. Society should never have listened to such irrational hysteria. Even the first wave of feminism was militant, radical, destructive and characterized by contempt for men. To make ‘role models’ out of these yesterday’s militants, indeed to be ‘holy figures’, is falsification of history. Feminist victors have rewritten history to mislead generations to come. Previous feminism was as hysterical, destructive and insane as today. As long as this is not understood, things won’t get better and we remain vulnerable to radical ideologies.
«Yesterday’s mental illness is today’s social policy.» (Kathy Shaidle, “Feminism’s Rotting Corpse”, 2012)
Others also describe feminist madness as the cause and drive to invent a conspiracy theory of ‘patriarchal power’, to attribute to it their pathological conditions and suffering, whose origin is within themselves. Feminist arguments follow the same line: All guilt was attributed to others; they were unable to recognize their own fault. This is a pivotal mechanism, not just a minor human weakness.
«That is to say, while feminists believe that the patriarchy makes women crazy, the rest of us suspect that crazy women made the patriarchy — inventing this imaginary conspiracy of “male supremacy” as the phantom menace of their paranoid minds, a fantasy bogeyman, a rationalization of their own unhappiness and misfortunes.
Here is where the meaning of the famous feminist dictum “the personal is political” exposes the real truth of their ideology. Rather than looking at feminism as a political movement to redress legitimate grievances shared generally by all women, we must understand feminism as a personal movement, concerned with the specific grievances … And most feminists are profoundly miserable.»[xx]
Other feminists also described their own suffering from mental disorders, such as Ms. Johnson, who like many of her quarrelsome sisters, was able to establish herself as a professor at universities.
«In 2010, Professor Johnson published a book about her struggles with borderline personality disorder — “a serious mental illness,” according to the National Institutes for Mental Health. In her book, Girl in Need of a Tourniquet: Memoir of a Borderline Personality, Professor Johnson describes herself as a “psycho girlfriend” with a history of dysfunctional relationships with both men and women. Her book describes “what amounts to a nervous breakdown as the result of an affair with a married lesbian colleague.” Professor Johnson in 2010 described herself as a “newlywed lesbian” whose partner was apparently her former student»[xxi]
Kate Millet burdened others with her suffering, but vehemently refused to accept the necessary medical help. Instead, she preferred to work spreading her suffering around the world.
«We, as a family, had struggled for years with Kate’s issues, many times attempting to hospitalize her so she could obtain the serious help she so obviously needed. …
She was babbling and shouting incoherently whilst I nodded and pretended every word made perfect sense. …
She stayed awake for five days babbling, ranting and wouldn’t allow me to sleep. She was seeing “little green men” and her eyes were literally rolling around in their sockets. Never have I been more alone and terrified.»[xxii]
The mental illness seems to have broken out in childhood or adolescence, as her family describes it so impressively. Later, in her feminist days, employees suffered.
«At one point, in 1973, I found myself alone with her in an apartment in Berkeley, California where she did not allow me to sleep for five days as she raged at the world and menaced me physically. … This movie (Three Lives) was the very first ever produced with not one iota of male presence. Even the people who delivered food to the set had to be female and Kate was touting it as the first all-woman film production in history.
Having had my youth overshadowed by Kate’s irrationality I warily traveled West and the moment I spotted her in the airport knew I “was in for it”. As she barreled across the airport’s expanse it was clear that she was in the throes of her illness and my heart throbbed with the desire to turn and run.
During the speech after the screening she fell apart onstage before a packed assembly of fawning admirers.»[xxiii]
Threats, torture caused by deprivation of sleep – the founding feminist did worse to women than even feminist black propaganda has accused men of. It should not be overlooked that her lesbian lover committed suicide because of her ‘homage book’. Insanity had wreaked havoc beyond all the damage feminism caused, many cruelties to men and children, destroyed lives and families. Even society was broken and culture destroyed. We lost tradition and experience gathered in centuries. Children grew up with damaged souls and uprooted as stray individuals. Under the pressure of Kate Millet’s propaganda, helpless mentally ill people in the United States were released from care, ended up on the streets, where they either became easy prey and victims themselves, or committed crimes and murders. The peace of society was also damaged by making cities a less livable place. The mass migration welcomed by feminist states and Mrs. Merkel later had a similar effect.
«Kate, herself, has written several books on this part of her life (Flying, The Loony-Bin Trip) chronicling the “oppressive” actions of our family, vilifying us for our deeply worried attempts to aid in her obvious sufferings. So I am telling no “tales out of school” as she herself has documented her own struggles with sanity although she consistently claimed, “mental illness is a myth”. “Many healthy people”, she said, “are driven to mental illness by society’s disapproval of unconventional behavior and by the authoritarian institution of psychiatry.” Really? Tell that to the families of the nineteen who suffered and died that Friday in Santa Barbara. … And, speaking of the affected innocent victims: later, she wrote a book about her lesbian lover at that time. Sita was the title. This woman committed suicide in response to Kate’s “homage.” …
So when it came to my attention that as a result of these adventures she and a few cohorts had concocted a new “civil rights movement“ for mental patients and in her characteristic ruthlessness was determined to ‘liberate’ NY’s mental patients I was beyond appalled. God help anyone who gets in the way of Kate and her “righteous indignation“ which had already spearheaded the militant Women’s Liberation Movement. This was to be called, “The Psychiatric Survivors Movement.”»[xxiv]
Kate’s family describes their mental illness and the behavior they suffered from, but they justify themselves not to reveal any secrets, because Kate described everything herself, but had disparaged her. It can therefore be assumed that families of some other founding feminists – especially if they have not been slandered in an autobiographical book – refrained from going public with their knowledge. The number of unidentified psychological problems among leading feminists will therefore be higher.
Feminists themselves described their suffering, which they spread all over the world with the missionary zeal of the sufferer. They elevated the causes of their suffering to basic principles, laying them down in laws and constitutions and enforcing them with state constraints in all areas of life and society. Now we all suffer to some extent of the troubles they spread:
«She could not read. She could not write. . . . She sometimes recognized on the faces of others joy and ambition and other emotions she could recall having had once, long ago. But her life was ruined, and she had no salvage plan.» (Self-description of Firestone in the third person, “Airless Spaces” (1998), “Emotional Paralysis”)
A systematic search would find clear signs of psychosis in even more of the leading feminist voices. Camille Paglia, who herself came from the feminist spectrum, wrote:
«The anti-porn crusader Andrea Dworkin (who died a decade ago) was a rabid fanatic, a self-destructive woman so consumed by her hatred of men that she tottered on the edge of psychosis.»[xxv] (Camille Paglia)
Media ignored this, courting destructive ideologists of feminist waves. Instead of describing the actual delusion of many feminist leaders, critics were wrongly blamed of an imaginary delusion, according to the motto: Anyone who is seriously against feminism cannot be healthy. Everything was turned the wrong way round.
The connection between feminism and disorders, which were then mostly called “hysteria”, was common knowledge already at the end of the 19th century.
«By the 1880s in England, it had become customary for the term “hysterical” to be linked with feminist protest in the newspapers and in the rhetoric of antisuffragists. As Lisa Tickner notes in her study of the British suffrage movement, “for half a century and more, feminism and hysteria were readily mapped on to each other as forms of irregularity, disorder, and excess, and the claim that the women’s movement was made up of hysterical females was one of the principal means by which it was popularly discredited.”»[xxvi] (Elaine Showalter, Hysterie, Feminismus und Gender)
After the triumph of feminism, this was forgotten and became invisible, as the loss of identity had become the new role model. Contemporaries can only notice what contradicts their habits and the remaining rest of unconsciously descending culture.
«In England the New Woman as neurotic feminist intellectual had become a recognizable type by the 1890s» (ibid)
Today’s feminists consider this absurd and get upset, when such a view is mentioned. Yet the ‘snowflakes’ and ‘SJW’ of today proof it right, as they are as known for psychotic and hysterical reactions ressembling those of the suffragettes at the end of the 19th century. They cannot stand if someone disagrees, someone like Trump or Orbán is elected president, or in Germany, when despite wild daily defamation of the opposition party, it is elected to parliament. In kinder‘garten style they uphold political correctness, silencing different views.
Feminists of today are not ‘crazier’ or ‘more intolerant’ than previous ones – we have changed. We grew up in a society that has absorbed earlier feminist waves and therefore considers those past waves as normal, even though they were just as psychotic, irrational, self-centered, ideological and destructive as today’s. But almost all people judge by what they are used to. They condemn what is different from their habits. That is why the truth often asserts itself very slowly; in the long run, however, the truth cannot be denied.
«In France, the femme nouvelle was blamed for the declining birthrate; new divisions of labor seemed to threaten the stability of the family and the state.» (ibid)
History has proven this claim to be correct. The birthrate sank to a record low; we don’t know, whether the north European type of people will still exist in a few generations.
For all feminist waves, a connection with loss of identity and exchange structures between men and women can be demonstrated. This loss was always painful. Healthy people suffered from increasing loneliness, loss of meaning, dissolving relationships, families and disappearing cultural forms. Sick people also suffered from it, but reacted in a pathological manner; they then attacked precisely those humanly universal forms that exist in all cultures, including matriarchies, across all epochs, which already had become too weak for us to be functional. They rebelled blindly and psychotically, shifted their inner suffering and inner conflicts into an activist struggle outside against an imaginary ‘patriarchy’ and against exactly those cultural bonds, fathers and role models, from whose absence they suffered. So they worsened the problem for the whole society. That way, they attempted to reduce their pressure of suffering by political action and acceptance by their supporters. It is not surprising that they could never be satisfied with what they had achieved, however great it was, because their driving forces were irrational, psychotic.
«Hysterie, Feminismus und Gender – Elaine Showalter
Hysteria has taken many strange turnings in its long career, but one of the most surprising is the modern marriage of hysteria and feminism, the fascination among feminist intellectuals, literary critics, and artists with what Mary Kelly calls “the continuing romance of hysteria. Feminist understanding of hysteria has been influenced by work in semiotics and discourse theory, seeing hysteria as a specifically feminine protolanguage, communicating through the body messages that cannot be verbalized. For some writers, hysteria has been claimed as the first step on the road to feminism …
As the French novelist and theorist Hé1ène Cixous melodramatically inquires, “What woman is not Dora?”» (ibid)
That rhetorical question also reveals the mass impact of feminist ways of thinking that shapes the lives of entire generations to come. Contrary to what is believed in feminist self-reflection, the marriage of psychoses and feminism is ancient, already proven for the first wave.
«But as Mark Micale notes, “No line of evolution within the historiography of hysteria is more complicated than the feminist one.” The feminist romance with hysteria began in the wake of the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s and the French événements of May 1968, when a young generation of feminist intellectuals, writers, and critics in Europe and the United States began to look to Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalysis for a theory of femininity, sexuality, and sexual difference.» (ibid)
The latter claim is false, as we have already seen. A strong connection with hysteria has already been demonstrated for feminism in the 1880s and 1890s. There was also a relationship with schizophrenia, which first appeared at the time. In literary terms, mental illness was already expressed in feminist works such as Gilman’s “Yellow Wallpaper”.
«Thus Jane Gallop writes, “Freud links hysteria to bisexuality; the hysteric identifies with members of both sexes, cannot choose one sexual identity. … If feminism is the calling into question of constraining sexual identities, then the hysteric may be a protofeminist.” Similarly, Claire Kahane defines “hysterical questions” as questions about bisexuality and sexual identity: “Am I a man? Am I a woman? How is sexual identity assumed? How represented?”» (ibid)
A remark made by feminists is, that feminism is to question sexual identities. That was true even before the first wave, for example with Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797).
Feminist consensus confirms my claim in this case; only the interpretation differs fundamentally: feminism denies the existence of two natural sexes. In particular, it denies any completement of the sexes, any exchange and any cultural language that results from forms of exchange or division of labour between men and women. This attitude is demonstrably wrong because it is in blatant contradiction to human nature. It is not just about the fact that there are clear differences of both sexes, especially in the psyche, reproduction and life strategies. Such statements are true, but trivial, commonplace, truism. Irrespective of physical or mental differences, social exchange, reciprocity, relationships and structures are just as vital as human language, which is also a kind of social structure based on innate ability and a basic need.
If this natural relationship between both sexes ceases to exist, their exchange and connection breaks down, so does the sexual and social identity, the human frame of reference of life, which triggers uncertainty, confusion and suffering. Feminism has also misinterpreted this, made a principle out of the cause of her suffering, and forced both on the rest of the world. It is not only children who need boundaries so that they do not lose themselves. The whole self-discovery rhetoric of feminist emancies since the 1970s was based on precisely this loss of their natural identity and the resulting uncertainty. Today entire peoples are abolished because of this feminist misunderstanding of boundaries, differences, identity and the connections between different identities.
There’s evidence that not only hysteria is a strong and widespread driving force for all feminist waves. The same also applies to schizophrenia, which first appeared at the same time as the spread of the first wave. In earlier epochs, and in other cultures, schizophrenia seems to be unknown as a permanent disease. Its appearance at the same time as the first feminist wave, even among several leading representatives, does not look like a coincidence.
Eating disorders and self-harm have also increased significantly; in the former case it is argued that the increased female choice overwhelms girls and young women. Because all women are instinctively interested in the same 20 percent men, they create a secondary social choice of the 20 percent coveted men, who make up only a fraction of the women. As a result, not every woman can get one of the few coveted men. So women create massive pressure for themselves through sexual discrimination against men. Since women attract men through beauty and body, they no longer feel good and slim enough, they want to be ‘starving’. This is not due to a ‘patriarchy’, as feminists assume, but on the contrary to feminism, which destroyed helpful cultural forms that not only alleviated the selection pressure on men, but also strengthened the complacency of young girls. Eating disorders are still rare in Asia’s extended families.
«But when he talks about what he terms “successful hysterics,” people who in their adult lives seemed to outgrow their adolescent hysteria, or transformed what had been hysterical symptoms into social causes, Israel mentions only women, such as Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, and Bertha Pappenheim, or Anna O., who became a German feminist leader. He sees their dedication as an evolutionary form of feminine hysteria itself, an obsessive desire to become the maître rather than submit to him, an acting out of fantasies of devotion. Thus female activism becomes merely a constructive pathology, and feminism only a healthier form of hysteria. …
The same metaphor is used by Olive Schreiner, herself an example of the New Woman who overcame hysterical disorders to lead an important career as a feminist and writer. Schreiner imagined that if sex and reproduction could be separated … For Schreiner, the hysteric is thus a member of the sexual avant-garde. …
Women were just as irritated by isolation and enforced idleness as men. Mitchell’s patients indeed included many of the leading feminist intellectuals, activists, and writers of the period, including Jane Addams, Winifred Howells, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Edith Wharton. »[xxvii] (ibid)
In a similar manner, Greta Thunberg has been preaching hysterical anxiety regarding CO2 to overcome her psychotic symptoms. Even her father admitted that her activism was part of a self-therapy. That way irrational agenda has been spread to the world, so that the activist could keep their mental illness in check. Thus, the world got more sick.
Schizophrenics and hysterics thus shaped the ideology of feminism, which is based on misinterpreting facts, considering preferred women as disadvantaged, whereas men, discriminated against by women over sexual selection, as ‘dominant’ and ‘oppressors’. Quite regularly it is the other way around. No, men and women are not equally affected. Feminists don’t get off that cheap. It has been proven that men are sexually discriminated against, many are excluded from reproduction, and are therefore suppressed in key questions of life. The opposite of feminism is true! The destroyed culture has to be rebuilt, more precisely: a stronger, more balanced culture with no preference for women, no discrimination against men, which cannot be easily eradicated by feminist hysterics.
«She sees female hysteria as stemming from sex-role conflicts that emerged in the nineteenth century.» (ibid)
There could be a connection, but unfortunately, it was interpreted the wrong way round, as is their habit. Erin Pizzey has confirmed it for loneliness: The breakdown of extended families and cultural structures made people lonely; this loneliness was a powerful driving force behind second wave feminism. Just like isolation, the disintegration of the complementing of man and woman, took away identity, dissolved relationships and connections, and thus also feelings. Feminists claim they were ‘oppressed’, but as always, it’s an exact reversal of the facts. Women were the dominant and privileged sex, discriminated against men as “filters for genes” with sexual selection, and taught game rules useful for women. Feminists complained of overwork, demanded less work, and then found out that ‘society does not demand enough of them’. (Betty Friedan) While feminists complained loudly about female work demanding its reduction, they actually suffered from boredom and lack of purpose. Her ambition was discontent with easy life, which was in fact a privilege and had been demanded by their predecessors, or even themselves. “Whom God wants to punish, he fulfills his wishes.”
“Women were just as irritated by isolation and enforced idleness as men.” (ibid)
While they were upset about the presence of men or families, it was actually isolation at home that they suffered from. On the contrary, with unsightly regularity everything was turned into the opposite and made worse. Incidentally it shows, that although men were just as irritated, feminist women became hysterical and reacted with irrational ideology. With more justification, masculist men could have protested, especially since they are actually discriminated as “filters for genes” in evolution and life. But they didn’t.
The roles were not oppressive or too narrow, but much weaker and softer than in other advanced cultures. They were not constrained, but confused, shaken in identity and self-confidence, because they already had to little female roles and tasks. In prehistoric times, almost all work was divided between men and women; thus there was an abundance of tasks. The roles had never been so little as in contemporary West, when technical aids and devices began to make housewives superfluous. It was their increasing redundancy that made them dissatisfied. A healthy reaction would have been a new, sensible and balanced redistribution; they rioted hysterically, destroyed humanly universal foundations.
«In The Newly-Born Woman (1975), Cixous took the position that hysteria was the “nuclear example of women’s power to protest,” and that Dora belonged to the pantheon of feminist history» (a.a.O.)
In the quote from a feminist’s hand, hysteria is seen as the core of female power; whether ‘nuclear’ contains an additional allusion is undecided.
«This romanticization and appropriation of the hysteric nostalgically assumes that she is a heroine of the past. “Où sont-elles passées les hystériques de jadis,” asked Jacques Lacan in 1977, “ces femmes merveilleuses, les Anna O., les Emmy von N.? . . . Qu’est-ce qui remplace aujourd’hui les symptômes hystériques d’autrefois?” We might answer that the despised hysterics of yesteryear have been replaced by the feminist radicals of today, by contemporary women artists and poets, and by gay activists.» (ibid)
Let us note the instinctless aberration of praising serious problems as ‘wonderful’, and the replacement of hysteria by radical activism observed in feminist writings itself – even in subsequent generations. The contemporary “artists and poets” mentioned will be presented later.
The book quoted is biased; neither hysteria nor feminism are seen in a negative way; even critical voices are often part of a feminist society and its world view. They are caught inside a cage of feminist ideas. It needs a philosophical approach as provided by my books to get out of this cage.
«In the popular mind, the pejorative association of feminism with hysteria and morbidity has not died yet.In 1983, for example, a controversy erupted in the Times Literary Supplement over the use of “hysterical” as a critical term for the poetry of Sylvia Plath and other “man-hating” feminist poets. Defending her position, Anne Stevenson wrote, “Hysteria is the very stuff of revolutions” … Moreover, those revolutions connected to gender and race continue to seem more “hysterical” than others… What had been hysterical hooliganism in the suffrage campaigns was now attributed to other groups.» (ibid)
These sources also see the connection and similarity of hysterical waves with feminism from then and now, as well as with hatred of men. Hysteria is even called the raw material of revolutions. The cases of famous feminists with psychological problems presented here, whether hysteria, schizophrenia or others, are therefore not ‘weird inventions’ on my part, but a connection that is manifested both by today’s feminists and their literature, and by historical evidence from the time of the first wave. Even if people had not yet reached our level of science at the time and therefore their reasoning often no longer convinces, we should take them seriously. They weren’t stupider than we are; their society was less disturbed than ours. They often sensed intuitively when a fate appeared. But because gender culture is unconscious and protected by taboos, they were unable to rationally justify it by today’s standards. While their attempts to justify something that has grown naturally may be outdated today, the culture they defend is timeless and as valid today as it was then.
«May Ayim (… actually Sylvia Brigitte Gertrud Opitz) …
In 1985 she was a founding member of the Black Germans and Blacks Initiative in Germany. She made contacts with representatives of the international black women’s movement such as Audre Lorde. … May Ayim suffered from psychotic episodes since the early 90s, which is why she voluntarily went to closed psychiatric clinics several times. … she plunged from a high-rise to death on August 9, 1996.»[xxviii] (Wikipedia)
Rose S. Garston was under psychological care for ‘PTSD’, when she ignored medical advice to organize a collective hunt for all anti-feminist sites with the aim of getting them deleted. They celebrated every deletion in public. (Evidence in my book: Fulminantes Finale, Volume 1, page 170 ff.)
«“The yellow wallpaper” is an autobiographical short story by the American writer and women’s rights activist Charlotte Perkins Gilman, which was first published in New England Magazine in January 1892. The short story is considered an important work of early American feminism; it is about a young woman who is not cured by the treatment of her depression, but goes mad. In the course of the story, the increasingly confused and delusional observations that the protagonist makes about the pattern of yellow wallpaper in her hospital room become an image of her deteriorating mental state. …
The short story shows strong parallels to the life of the author. … After the birth of her daughter Katherine, Gilman suffered from depression, although in retrospect it is not clear whether it was postpartum depression or another type of mental illness. Gilman’s mental health did not improve, and after three years of illness, Gilman decided to seek medical treatment.»[xxix] (Wikipedia de, 2016)
It is typical of Gilman and later feminists, that they seek healing in activism; they try to heal themselves by imposing ideas and methods to the world, that are rooted in their illness. Later the world experiences similar problems and therefore appreciates, that the ‘pioneer’ expresses their feelings and problems, they wouldn’t have without her. That’s another paradoxon of feminism.
Silvia Plath is celebrated in a similar way:
«This study examines mental illness in literature, with a focus on Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” and Sylvia Plath’s The Bell Jar, the primary texts of the research, and develops similarities and personal connections between the authors and their mentally unstable main characters. The study investigates the biographical aspects and mental health of the deceased women … Both women committed suicide … Plath began to develop mental illness at a younger age.»[xxx] (unt.edu)
A strongly feminist article clearly states:
«Voices of Feminism and Schizophrenia in Plath’s Poetry
Clarissa LEE Ai Ling
… Whilst struggling with the ardent feminist within her … Many of Plath’s later poems are related to her battle with mental illness, despair, sense of betrayal and suicidal thoughts.»[xxxi] (utoronto.ca)
As in the pre-feminist and the first wave, so in the second and third.
«Enter Polly Dunning. She is a third generation feminist (her mother is the feminist commentator Jane Caro). In a column for the Sydney Morning Herald she writes of how conflicted she felt when she learned that she was carrying a boy child rather than a girl: …
“There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.”»[xxxii] (ozconservative)
What neither psychopaths nor feminists understand: It is not the male being who grows in her as her son who is sick, but she herself is mentally ill, if she sees her own child as a disease in an attitude hostile to men. Feminism is the disturbance that projects itself into the world. Feminism destroys everything, from which healthy sympathy and love for men can grow and mature. Feminism replaces a culture, in which men and women act and feel for each other, by a hostile chaos of conflict.
«Mark Richardson, 31 December 2016
They have created a social movement, a political ideology and a mental illness all in one place!
Funny you should note this. I was in a bookshop yesterday and saw a copy of Clementine Ford’s book. I read about five pages of it and had to put it down – I couldn’t take any more of it. It was like reading the innermost thoughts of someone trying to convince themselves that they were not mentally unwell. Every paragraph read much the same: “Men hate us, want to kill us and rape us, the whole system leaves us unable to function, on the verge of breakdown, but when we complain about this we are told that we are being dramatic/paranoid, but we’re not crazy, it’s the world that makes us like this.”
Later that day I looked through some reviews and discovered that Clementine Ford has, in fact, battled with mental ill health.
And yet these are the types of women published in leading newspapers as representatives of their sex.»[xxxiii] (ozconservative)
She has a background typical of leading feminists of the first and second wave.
«Clementine Ford (born 1981) is an Australian feminist writer, broadcaster and public speaker. She has a regular column for Daily Life …
Ford spent the remainder of her teenage years growing up in Adelaide, South Australia. As a teenager, Ford struggled with body image, body dysmorphia and an eating disorder. … She studied at the University of Adelaide, where she took a gender studies course; she describes this as a personal catalyst for her decision to become a women’s rights activist.»[xxxiv] (Wikipedia, 2016, 2020)
Here we see what havoc gender studies do: They indoctrinate entire generations with the opposite of the truth, persuade the privileged group (women) to be disadvantaged, call for the complete destruction of human culture and nature, whereupon future generations grow up disrooted and harmed. The victims of their deception believe, that all their suffering is not due to feminism, the destruction of natural identity and culture, but to a ‘patriarchy’, which is such a mysterious conspiracy theory, that even leading feminists cannot explain what it should consist of.
Feminist psychopaths do not look for the cause in themselves, but project everything outwards, spread their suffering through feminist means in society as a whole, so that future generations, who lack natural identity and culture, are fraught with problems like those feminists, who had invented such ideology. They are proclaimers, prophets and missionaries of their own suffering, misfortune, their own disturbance. They make the whole world sick, because they don’t want to face their own illness. This is how feminism of all waves and epochs worked.
«Clementine Ford: How I quell the panic when anxiety threatens to take over
By Clementine Ford, May 19, 2016
About six weeks ago, after a period of relative peace and harmony, the anxiety that’s plagued me on and off for more than 20 years returned to me in full force. With its reappearance, I experienced some dark moments; moments where I was frightened not only by the despair I was feeling but also by the ferocity with which I was feeling it. I found myself plagued by obsessive thoughts and terrified by my inability to get myself out of the cycle of them. Anxiety is oppressive, both physically and mentally and even the threat of it can be exhausting.
But I have practice in dealing with this particular demon»[xxxv] (smh.com.au)
Incidentally, she involuntarily reveals why feminist founders really felt oppressed: the cause was in them themselves, neither in men nor in a ‘patriarchy’ based on conspiracy theory. In a typically feminist way, ideologically bored people see the cause of their disturbance everywhere, except not within themselves and their ideology.
«Clementine Ford: ‘There’s something really toxic with the way men bond in Australia’»[xxxvi] (Guardian)
Feminism is a distortion of all facts to the contrary, just as sexually discriminated men become supposed oppressors, so their own suffering is projected into the outside world. Any culture that could help them, which is there to prevent such suffering, is destroyed. In other words, they destroy exactly what should and can prevent such suffering, which plunges entire generations and epochs into suffering similar to that which characterized them. All because they didn’t want to be helped; instead, they broke the world. Such psychopaths and feminist ideology wiped out mutual love, a culture of two sexes complementing and helping each other. They destroyed female empathy for male losers, when those needed it most.
«Why women’s mental illness deserves more attention
Clementine Ford, April 22, 2016
I was 12 years old the first time I experienced significant struggles with anxiety.»[xxxvii] (dailylife)
The more appropriate headline would be: Why psychosis, projections and false assumptions by feminists deserve more attention.
Their suffering is rooted within them, more precisely in their confusion of identity, which prevents them from developing a trusting symbiosis with the male sex and sympathetic love for men in general. They project their psychotic disorder onto men and a supposed ‘patriarchy’, which is an irrational conspiracy theory. Their perception is wrong because they make the wrong assumption, that biologically and culturally privileged women would be ‘oppressed’ and that biologically and evolutionarily discriminated men would be dominant. Originally an evolutionary protection mechanism for children and mothers, innate biased perception is radicalized with a feminist perspective. Similarly, male losers get excluded from sympathy, because according to the evolutionary principle, that males serve as filter for good or bad genes, they shouldn’t procreate, thus get no empathy. As a result, we instinctively mock male losers complaining. Widespread incel and MRA bashing is part of it. To be able to complain and get help is another privilege of children and women. This was exacerbated by feminism, too. So an innate preference for women in perception is militantly exaggerated, in the delusion of persecution, that they consider themselves disadvantaged or even haunted by an imaginary ‘oppressive structural patriarchy’. Because of this ideology, the entire cultural complementary structure is destroyed, whereupon subsequent generations can no longer mature healthily, but grow into problems created and spread by feminism.
Many writers celebrated by the women’s movement were marked and driven by such problems.
«Virginia Wolf – much more than an insane feminist
The writer Virginia Wolf often is placed into categories like ‘insane’ or ‘feminist’. She was much more than that. Above all, she revolutionized writing …
You can often see them pigeonholed, one is that of feminism, which led to an increased Virginia Woolf reading wave in the 1970s and 1980s. It is also not wrong to see her as a great feminist who she was, but it narrows her eyes. The famous essay “A Room of One’s Own” is of course one of the milestones in feminist literature.
… your commitment to sex-independent equal opportunities goes hand in hand with your artistic emancipation. In the pseudobiographical novel “Orlando”, a humorous declaration of love to the friend, Vita Sackville-West, who was sometimes beloved – Virginia Woolf was attracted to women, the marriage to Leonard was more platonic in nature – the androgynous hero not only travels through several centuries, he / she also changes from one sex to another.»[xxxviii] (msn)
Such “revolutionizing of writing” spreads contentual, methodical and in life the suffering and problems from which it arose. Describing books as “rejected children” says a lot in an era when motherhood gets neglected, love for children and mother devalued, the peoples affected can’t even reproduce themselves sufficiently.
«Marlene Haushofer (1920-1970)
“My books are all rejected children”
“I never write about something else than own experiences. All of my protagonists are a part of me, a kind of split off personality.” …
The culmination of this rebellion was her novel ‘The Wall’ [title and content based on: ‘The Yellow Wallpaper’ by Gilman], which appeared in 1963 and most radically describes a woman’s departure from the world. … It wasn’t until twenty years later, after the 1983 edition of the book, that the author became an icon of the women’s movement.» (Jutta Rosary, line by line my paradise)
The reference to an “insanely” strong depression, which makes her hopeless, is also clear.
«For decades, Marlen Haushofer periodically keeps a diary, but only keeps these records for a certain time and burns them doubtfully: “Actually, I can only live if I write and write. since I am not writing at the moment I feel swamped u. disgusting. Will make children’s book, better than nothing. See that the stories are insanely depressed and hopeless, written in a reasonably good time.”» (Jutta Rosenkranz, line by line my paradise)
Her writing is self-therapy, just as feminist activism was invented as self-therapy. One can feel sorry for the children who get to read the children’s books created in this way, because they are lured early onto a wrong track that damages them. She shared such suffering subjectivity with the later upheaval of the women’s movement in the 1970s.
«Such statements and the limited world that appears in Haushofer’s texts have seduced readers to dismiss her prose as typically subjectivist women’s literature … A way of reading Haushofer’s texts identifying them with the new women’s literature of the 1970s and their demands for radical subjectivity … falls short of her.» (Franziska Frei Gerlach, Scripture and Gender: Feminist Designs and Readings…)
Such radical subjectivity has torn apart the last remnants of cultural connections between the two sexes, and thus the basis of healthy relationships. Because only what women and men do specifically for each other and exchange, creates a reliable relationship, gives them identity, and lets feelings mature. Without such a connection, compassion breaks down into self-centered or women-related sentiments and demands, as the women’s movement has done. That is the psychological and emotional core of the matter.
Feminism emerged as the denial and destruction of all connecting forces and forms between the two sexes. The feeling of paralysis of those affected was due to the crumbling of cultural complementing of both sexes, which increasingly narrowed the cultural field of life and thus deprived the sexes of meaning. The lack of importance and attention as a woman, which they state to have experienced, was due to the already too low importance that femininity and masculinity now had in modern times, shaped by technology. As technology is sex-neutral, its effect on human behaviour enables to more easily conflict human universals of all times and cultures. As always, feminism interpreted everything in the wrong way, found the worst possible turn, not only aggravated the problems, but made them a principle.
«In her diary, she describes this book, which was created for the first time without being interrupted by an illness, as “a study of madness and suicide”.» (Jutta Rosary, line by line my paradise, about Virginia Woolf)
Psychiatrists of that time before feminism overran and turned our consciousness, were astonishingly silent in the face of visibly psychotic features of the movement. Scientific studies can only be easily found in individual cases:
«Images in Psychiatry, Virginia Woolf (1882–1941) …
From the age of 13, Woolf had symptoms that today would be diagnosed as bipolar disorder; she experienced mood swings from severe depression to manic excitement and episodes of psychosis… she comitted suicide …
At times Woolf railed against her illness, felt frustrated and impeded by it, and at other times, she felt that it was essential to her.»[xxxix] (Katherine Dalsimer, Ph.D., AmJ Psychiatry 161:5, Mai 2004)
Thrusts of a mental illness shaped her feminist revolution of writing; sometimes she felt handicapped by her suffering, but otherwise she felt that it was “essential to her”. To put it plainly: Her ideas and methods would not have arisen without illness; psychotic relapses are the driving force.
Incidentally, this should not only be typical of the feminist scene, but also its environment. In the early 1970s, young dropouts in London told me that their lifestyle was not intentional; they were not able to live differently, so they could not cope with it. Feminist writing and struggling was apparently the only way of life to get their suffering under control. The rest of the world pays for it, because this is how the cause of their suffering spreads all over the world: fanatically they force others on the confusion of identity and roles, which is the reason for their unsatisfactory existence. Because there was already far too little that both sexes do for each other. That is why the housewife existence was devoid of meaning, and also the male existence, by the way – only that men mostly reacted less psychotically.
Feminists broke exactly what would be necessary to enable happiness and recovery. Instead, they let their illness break out openly, become political. They wanted to make the symptoms controllable through living out in ‘self-treatment’. So they were rooted in society. Most youth of later generations was turned to some degree into a suffering feminist, who fights the last remnants of natural gender relationships, in order to get his own suffering under control, while creating greater suffering for everyone. The same model applies to CO2-anxiety and other hysterias of today.
«Sarah Kane died in London last weekend. Whereof? By suicide.
… Sarah Kane gave information about herself in conversations. Then she talks about the depression she had when writing “Phaedra”, about her unconditional search for truth… “I do not necessarily consider depression to be unhealthy. For me, this expresses a completely realistic perception of the environment. (laughs) You probably have to dull your sensibility to a certain extent. Otherwise you are chronically healthy in a sick society. Antonin Artaud is one such example: either you go crazy and die, or you work and you are sick. Which is the real madness.”
Her role model and mentor Edward Bond says there is something emblematic about her death.»[xl] (Tagesspiegel)
What such performers think is ‘truth’ is a distortion that arises from their suffering; in their artistic or political activism they describe preoccupation with herself, which is lived out bringing harm to society as a whole. Thereby they try to keep their own pressure under control and consider this as self-therapy.
The psychotic core of feminism arises from the destruction of something, that is just as much innate, a need and ability for people, as language: The complementing of the sexes, that creates a connection by culturally pronounced mutual gifts. Exchange creates a social language that provides identity, empathizes and matures responsibility. Technical modernity had reduced this to a barely functional minimum in the 1950s, which resulted in a feeling of suffering. However, the suffering from a lack of mutual contributions for each other, the lack of cultural forms, took a morbid outbreak: Instead of standing up for developing a fulfilling, satisfying human culture again, limiting destructive influences of the technical environment on life, instead of creating forms and models worth living in, they accomplished destruction. They spread the causes of their suffering and their misery in the world as an artist or activist, while at the same time getting themselves under control by acting out. So they completely shred the remains of natural culture, leaving a pile of rubble.
It doesn’t matter whether Kane was a feminist or not, because she did the same destructive work as feminists of all waves.
«Whether Kane wanted to be called a feminist or not, the subversion of gender roles is obvious in her plays.»[xli] (csuohio.edu)
After such deep damage, a return to the lost experience of compensation mechanisms that have matured over thousands of years has become almost impossible. What can save us is a reconstruction of the primeval sex division of labor to complement and exchange, so that a new culture is created, in which we do things for each other, not merely for ourselves only. Such a division of labor would be broader and stronger than European tradition. Feminism is like a boomerang. Actually, people try to head this way on their own: The stronger feminist influence has been, the more job preferences of men and women differ.
The chapter Madness and Feminism would not be complete without naming psychotic disorders that were invented and spread epidemically by feminism using methods similar to medieval heretic hunting.
«The New Yorker, April 6, 1998, The Politics of Hysteria …
Prior to 1973’s best-selling book, “Sybil,” about a woman who had 16 different personalities, M.P.D. had been one of the rarest of mental disorders, but afterwards, M.P.D. exploded. Between 1985 and 1995 there were almost 40,000 new cases – mostly women – and the disease acquired a valid standing in the field of psychoanalysis. M.P.D. patients are susceptable to therapists’ suggestions because they are given strong medications and are highly hypnotizable. Both M.P.D. and recovered memory are in large part feminist movements: female “victims” confronting their abusers. In fact, the M.P.D. craze was probably a side effect of feminism; it provided working-class women with a strong support network. M.P.D. is part of a history of hysteria, which has always been regarded as a women’s syndrome – a manifestation of women’s inherent moral weakness. It can be traced back 4,000 years, but in the late 19th century it acquired a new importance, in part as a reaction to the new women’s rights movement.. During the hysteria fad, M.P.D. began to receive attention, as a subtype of hysteria. Soon, however, hysteria and M.P.D. died out . The return of M.P.D. began with the child-protection movement in the ’70s, hich was then joined by the feminists. Out of this collaboration came the recovered-memory (R.M.) movement, which persuaded hundreds of thousands of women that they were part of a worldwide collection of sex-abuse victims, and many of these women began suing their alleged abusers. The single most important cause of the epidemic was the culture wars of the ’80s and ’90s, which caused both liberals and conservatives to embrace M.P.D. and R.M. Those who questioned the validity of the movement were accused of protecting sex criminals. This zealous fervor made the movement vulnerable to the thing that would finally undo it: the satanic-ritual-abuse, or S.R.A., craze.»[xlii] (New Yorker)
It is noteworthy that the feminist hysteria of false ‘rediscovered’ memories, the invention of non-existent diseases based on suggestion, auto-suggestion and hysterical campaigns, which had an almost hypnotic mass effect, was supported by all forces of society, by leftists and conservatives. Nobody wanted to stand back or catch a bad reputation. All parties embraced a movement that persuaded people to suffer from an invented problem that they created in large numbers. The real victims of real hysteria have been neglected, feminism critics have been insulted or ignored for criticizing false allegations. The movement fueled by feminism was victorious, did not end by itself. It was only when it went one step too far, expanded its methodology to include an alleged ‘satanic ritual abuse’, other groups such as Christian fundamentalists took part, that there was resistance, were falseness and absurdity of the allegations and methodology detected. Inborn preference for women and feminist ideology prevailed and allowed no contradiction. Hysterical delusion is only seen through when other groups are involved that are not preferred by innate, evolutionary forces.
A similar effect we experienced, after feminists had promoted mass immigration in their fight against the ‘white heterosexual man’. Their allegations were just as baseless, irrational in the mud fights against local men, and were also based on suggestive persuasion of almost hypnotic effect. Here too, feminism critics have been ignored for decades and given malice. Only when women themselves were affected and women were no longer privileged, rather victimized by a different privileged group during mass immigration, did the absurdity of the method begin to attract attention. Again, we see the boomerang effect of feminism: They claimed to fight an imaginary ‘victimization’ of women, only to create a real one. They had shared their female privilege with masses of immigrants from incompatible backgrounds, effectively destroying their own privilege.
«The S.R.A. epidemic was kicked off in 1980 by “Michelle Remembers,” a book which described the alleged childhood satanic-ritual-abuse of Michelle Smith, who “recovered” these memories with the help of her therapist, Lawrence Pazder. Soon after the book’s publication, the day-care scandals erupted, with children claiming that they had suffered atrocities of the same sort. Before long, adult women were also reporting such memories. In 1983, the F.B.I. investigated more than 300 such claims and could not find corroboration for a single one. …
Predictably, the moderates walked out, extremism swamped the field, and the movement started to fizzle. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation was founded to help families confront their accusers, and soon the media reversed its supportive stance and began to criticize the movements; and criticism within the profession was also mounting at a furious pace. But the most dramatic change took place in the courts, as the wave of R.M. suits (patients suing abusers) gave way to malpractice suits (patients suing therapists). M.P.D. supporters started backpedalling, changing the name of the disorder, and even backing away from the central treatments – hypnosis, abreactions, alter-probing. The number of reported M.P.D. cases has significantly declined since the mid-’90s. Ultimately, the cause M.P.D. most damaged was feminism» (New Yorker, ibid)
Inventing and spreading psychotic disorders is itself pathological and deserves the name hysteria. For decades, feminists with hysterical energies assumed diseases, that were invented and later recognized as non-existent and discredited. Since large parts of society, the media and the public were infected, we are not only dealing with an almost exclusively invented illness MPD, false RM memories and non-existent satanic ritual abuse that were constructed by an RM movement to the detriment of those affected, but also with a real psychosis, namely the invention and imagination of nonexistent diseases, combined with an aggressive, suggestive assumption of such diseases, a virulent accusation and suspicion of large parts of society that is infected.
The procedure for mud fights against men in the feminist waves was the same. Feminist campaigns that assumed men to abuse, oppress, disadvantage, exploit, or the like, were a pandemic that worked with the same methods and psychological drives, spreading emotionally and ideologically contagious, like suggestively awakened false memories in the RM movement that ‘Recovered Memories’, i.e. supposedly ‘found’ false memories with their (auto) suggestions. Feminism of all waves is such a suggestion and auto-suggestion with an almost hypnotic mass effect, which is achieved through massive indoctrination and gendering from kindergarten.
It was therefore entirely justified to perceive feminism at the end of the 19th century as associated with a mental illness which at that time was given the name hysteria that has been used since ancient times. But regardless of name and diagnosis, they were right about their feelings and rejection. It would be wrong to dismiss the invention of non-existent diseases like the R.M. movement by saying that those “rediscovered memories” are now discredited. No, it’s not just about not recognizing a non-existent disease. That’s only the first step. It’s much more important to recognize the real disease that breaks out with those irrational forces, that suggestively and fanatically persuade many people of false perceptions, false memories or false claims, which manifests itself in the form of the R.M. movement or feminist waves. Anyone who speaks of ‘mass psychosis’ in fascism must also do so in feminism, which as irrationally and systematically accuses innocents. By the way, feminism is older than fascism, invented the self-staging that was later taken over by fascists and is today considered characteristic for them.
Feminist waves always generate new false, irrational, but highly effective, suggestive and contagious suspicions with which they damage society as a whole – not just once, but again in every wave. We are already so pre-damaged by feminism that we no longer notice the consequences of earlier waves, because they have become part of Western identity. This damage is the cause of our weakness, which is why we are overrun by less damaged civilizations from Africa and Orient.
The first feminist wave invented political hysteria based on psychosis, depression and irrational imaginations and made it socially acceptable. Since then, this method has been used by all feminist waves, as well as by right, left and religious extremists and dictatorships, as well as by Greens and gender confusers. (‘Gender madness’) Climate hysteria, CO2- and diesel fear are of the same psychotic type today.
«”I want you to feel the fear I feel everyday!”» (Greta Thunberg,in spite of Asperger’s syndrome built up by ideological currents from feminist roots and compliant media as ‘climate saint’)
Already the first feminist wave has politically exploited a congenital distortion of perception of women as needy and suffering, of a majority of male losers as not worthy of compassion. This was further exacerbated by some mentally ill politicizing their suffering, creating a new principle of political hysteria. During the first wave, schizophrenia emerged as a new disease that was probably caused by “social failure”, triggered by the breakdown of traditional structures, extended families and cultural exchange systems between men and women. A disproportionately large number of founding feminists were affected by such diseases. They rationalized their illness, in a way tried to treat themselves by reshaping the whole world according to their ideology. Tragically, however, their ideology was based on error and exacerbated the very breakdown of sex complementing, extended families and cultural structures, which was the cause of the new emergence of suffering and previously unknown mental illnesses such as schizophrenia. To put it plainly: Feminists massively spread the causes of their suffering, made the whole world suffer from what had driven them into rebellion. Very similar mechanisms now also work for climate hysterics. Let us remember that we are in a geologically short warm interglacial period of a long ice age, so that in the long term the global warming hysteria is not only nonsensical, but is probably the opposite of reality, namely that a great cold period endangers human life. The sun still decides our climate much more than humans.
«At the same time, however, Greta Thunberg is a 16-year-old in need of protection who suffers from Asperger’s syndrome and a number of other mental illnesses. …
Artist mother, who was once plagued by eating disorders and depressive episodes, is not entirely satisfied with the course of her music career. She subconsciously compensates for this by concentrating on the long-term therapy of her behavior-sensitive children. In the end, the mother believes that the cold-hearted materialism that is destroying the global climate has also damaged her soul and the souls of her children.»[xliii] (Handelsblatt)
Similarly, founding feminists of all waves have suggested an irrational and false conspiracy theory that a ‘patriarchy’ would be to blame for their suffering. In fact, the opposite has been proven several times from autobiographies and other testimonies; a missing or too weak father, not the maliciously insinuated tyrannical. Feminists have often tried to ‘treat’ their social isolation, a real cause of their dissatisfaction and suffering, in feminist fighting groups of quarrelsome sisters. Thus, feminism of all waves was already a crazy self-therapy that fantasized together male power and patriarchy as absurdly as fascist anti-Semites a “Jewish world conspiracy” that would be to blame for everything that is not going well in the world. Incidentally, Hitler also came from a family with several severely mentally ill members.
Instrumentalization of mental disease has haunted us since the feminist waves, from the first to the present. Greta clairvoyantly said of herself, without Asperger (and other psychological problems) “this would not have been possible here”. Feminist waves that invented political hysteria and made it socially acceptable were similarly radical and intertwined with psychological problems.
«April 30, 2019, 1:02 p.m.
“She is the child, we are the emperor” [her family exploits her!]
… “Our daughter disappeared into a kind of darkness and practically stopped working,” the mother writes. Greta fell silent, stopped playing the piano, or laughing. The doctors diagnosed Asperger and related mutism, which means that Greta only spoke to the closest family members. After she refused to eat, the parents decided on a radical break: An end to her solo career, and the daughter’s recovery is the focus from now on. …
The basic problem with the content of this book is, that Malena Ernman causally mixes one with the other, interpreting (family) illness as a sensitive symptom of the state of the world. Greta Thunberg may be right when she keeps saying in interviews: “If I hadn’t had an Asperger, it wouldn’t have been possible here.” …
Me too, feminism, symbolism of illness and dogma of performance, in places everything is mixed with the climate crisis into a somewhat confusing overall scenario.»[xliv] (Süddeutsche Zeitung)
Feminists have harmed their souls, as have those of the men they mistreated, and especially those of their children, who were too small and dependent to defend themselves against maternal indoctrination and inappropriate upbringing.
The Greta Thunberg case is a contemporary lesson in how feminist forces of all waves ignored inconvenient truth, instead constructing convenient lies out of nothing. The opponent of feminism Ernest Belfort Bax described this as early as 1913. Feminists tried to censor opponents already in 1913, put pressure on editors, not to publish inconvenient views. During the second wave, schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill founding feminists were revered as initiators and leading voices. Their condition was simply ignored. At the same time, as early as 1968, it was almost impossible for professor Goldberg of the New York University, to publish his book, which demonstrated the human universality of sex roles: scientific truth was already ignored 1968. The same thing happened to my books and arguments for decades, whereas any dirty feminist campaign based on error or subjective misinterpretation, partly disturbed feminists, was immediately built up to a media sensation. Such fundamental media imbalance has been driving the process for generations. It would be fatal to think that only today’s campaigns have got lost or that the media have only now become blatantly one-sided. Rather, it has been a systematic error for well over 100 years.
«Greta’s younger sister Beata, who campaigns for feminism, also had major problems. The doctors diagnosed the 14-year-old with ADHD as well as with Greta Asperger, as well as an obsessive-compulsive disorder.»[xlv] (Augsburger Allgemeine)
Press reports documented that not only Greta, but also her sister and mother suffer from psychological conditions such as ADHD, which the whole family reinterprets in response to fear of (presumably imaginary) man-made global warming. However, her sister lives out her problems as a feminist. This is analogous to the belief of founding feminists that an imaginary ‘patriarchy’ is to blame for their suffering, even though a missing or too weak father shaped their childhood, the isolation of women because of disintegration of extended families and cultural relationships between men and women are the cause of the increase of mental suffering and schizophrenia. Feminists then tragically fought families and the complementary structures of the sexes, exacerbating the actual causes of their suffering. They themselves pointed the wrong way round, believing their struggle against ‘patriarchy’ and ‘female disadvantage’ – although women were always privileged, while men were sexually discriminated and faced with specific burdens – would be a fight against the causes of their suffering. It could be similar with the global warming hysteria, because in fact the sun is the strongest force influencing climate. More likely we live near the end of a warm interglacial period, before the ice age returns and will actually be a danger to mankind – through cooling, the opposite of warming. Only in many millions of years, when the sun runs out of hydrogen, will it heat up and thus make the earth uninhabitable – but that is not human fault, but the natural end of a star the size of a sun.
Greta’s family stages psychological suffering as political hysteria – just like feminists of all waves. As long as we do not completely overcome feminism and rebuild a functioning culture with completement of both sexes and male prestige, the sequence of such irrational political hysteria, which also includes green and other extremisms, might be infinite. Even the screeching at Duce, Hitler, Mao, the enthusiasm for Stalin, Pol Pot had, at least in part, similar causes.
A few days before the publication of Greta’s mother’s book, a Swedish activist who worked in the same radical environmental organizations as her father, began to build up Greta skillfully and vigorously. This continued on the day of the appearance. This is too much for a coincidence, especially since her father’s organization with Greta has collected millions of Swedish kronor. Greta read aloud in front of an almost empty room. Compliant media cut out the empty rows of chairs, turned everything into hype and sensation. A Deichmohle with substantial arguments has been icy ignored or met with hostility for decades; her hysteria of man-made global warming, while the return of an ice age is more likely and more dangerous, is being worshiped; the disturbed girl has even been compared to Jesus.
«Research by critical media has shown, however, that its success is largely due to the Swedish PR expert Ingmar Rentzhog, who has good contacts with several propaganda organizations. Four days after Greta started her climate strike, her mother Malena Ernman’s book was presented. The same day, Rentzhog posted a photo of Greta on Instagram and wrote a long article on Facebook … Greta’s mother Malena Ernman, a well-known soprano, then confirmed on Facebook that environmentalist Bo Thorén had recruited her daughter. Thorén is a member of the board of the environmental association Fossilfritt Dalsland and is a well-known representative of the international environmental movement Extinction Rebellion, which has also been active in Sweden since last autumn.
This radical leftist group, “Extinction Rebellion” also operates very openly with WeDontHaveTime … Gretas Papa Svante is the managing director of both Ernman Produktion AB and Northern Grace AB … The shares of both companies have seen an immense increase since Greta’s first appearance … Gretas Father cooperates with the foundation “WeDontHaveTime”.»[xlvi] (Weltwoche.ch)
The idea, that a chain of happy coincidences granted the founders and managing directors millions unintentionally, is made unplausible by a report, that shows an acquaintance of the PR professional with Greta’s mother.
«The PR connection
It is also understandable in media reports, that her mother apparently knows the PR consultant Ingmar Rentzhog. Among other things both have already written an article on climate protection for the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. Rentzhog is no stranger to Sweden, he sold his financial communications company and founded the platform “We don’t have time”»[xlvii] (Meedia)
Mr. Mere Coincidence was very busy, as it seems. 😛
Opinion media create a sensation from an empty hall, whereas genuine critique of feminism has been stifled by ignoring it for generations.
«Greta apparently turned to the crème de la crème of climate policy gathered in the room. But a short video clip shown on television the following day revealed that Greta was actually speaking in an almost empty room.»[xlviii] (connectiv)
Those who speak the truth are hushed up or insulted. On the other hand, those who are mentally disturbed are raised to ‘saints’ of feminist hysteria and compared to a Messiah.
«Berlin’s Catholic Bishop Heiner Koch compared the exemplary effect of the Swedish climate protection activist Greta Thunberg with that of Jesus Christ.»[xlix] (evangelisch)
This series of books presents many independent evidence. Doubts about a document, argument or topic do not affect the validity of others.
[i] e.g. Georg Büchner, „Dantons Death”
[ii] This holds for men – no need of horny skin for women
[xiii] Susan J. Hubert, The Politics of Women’s Madness Narratives, https://books.google.de/books/about/Questions_of_Power.html?id=v8qbMxKRNuQC
[xv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas, Stand: 28.2.2017
[xvii] «» (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary)
[xviii] Shulamith Firestone, clinically insane, The Dialectic of Sex, 1970
[xxviii] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Ayim, Stand: 27.2.2018