Or are they, just to stymie her from sheer bloodymindedness?
It’s not her, let’s make that clear. It’s not the person who was born and grew up and was then consumed by all the wrong ideas you could imagine.
It’s those ideas themselves which should be the focus or rather how certain “people” far removed from her but accessible through literature and the media turned an otherwise nice and productive person into something like this.
The Marcuses, Hobshawmns, Foners, Milibands Snr, the Geoff Mulgans, the so-called thinkers, flawed simplicitists and the legion of lackeys such as Steinem, Hite, Greer and so on, Faust at Harvard – why?
How did they become so bitter, so single-minded, so unreasoning, so unrealistic about how things are and could be?
The short answer is that the simplistic message chimed in with resentments and petty grievances which it was natural for people to feel.
If someone came along with a campaign, a movement which spoke for our current resentments about govt and freedom, austerity and so on, if this movement promised a way out and constantly massaged our resentment, adding porkies about how we were mistreated throughout history rewritten for us, of course we’d listen.
Especially if we were not students of history and politics but ordinary people trying to get on and survive in this world and seeing the barriers, real and imagined.
It’s the swirl of truth mixed with fiction which is the most corrosive of all.
OWS were right to take on the Dymons, Soros money or no Soros money. But how do you get from anti-trust legislation and punishing the banksters to the loss of all personal freedom in a socialist state with no currency and no free enterprise? How do you get from resentment at people ripping us off, from the supermarkets and banks to government and those behind government to a system whose central idea is federalism and pretend-regional autonomy, whose bottom line is to divest you of real power over yourself and your family?
To a system which the moment power is placed in Local Committees to run your affairs, the power is actually in the hands of the Politburo through the placemen and women in those regional Committees. This is the whole point of Common Purpose – brainwashing ordinary but ambitious people through NLP and other techniques – Delphi – in order to convince them that they count, that they are primed to “lead beyond authority”, that they know what’s best for you and me and are ready to step in, should some crisis grip society completely by “accident”.
And why do these people agree to this? Because they’ve been played upon, their egos assuaged. They’ve been assured that they, personally, have a large role to play in the new way, the new order. Christie referred to it in N or M :
“Incredible!” said Tommy.
Grant shook his head. “You do not know the force of German propaganda. It appeals to something in man, some desire or lust for power. These people were ready to betray their country, not for money; but in a kind of megalomaniacal pride in what they – they themselves – were going to achieve for that country.
In every land it has always been the same. It is the Cult of Lucifer — Lucifer, Son of the Morning. Pride and a desire for personal glory.”
That explains to an extent the people who are in the middle to upper ranks – the ones who arrange meetings, write for the papers, appear on live TV, the placemen and women. It does not explain who was behind them or why but there is a hint in that quote. It’s also in a comment I made at OoL.
If that holds water, then, as Frazer might say: “We’re doomed, we’re doomed I tell ye.”
But to return to our Naomi in the pic, there she was, a girl on her path to adulthood, voraciously reading and hearing how oppressed she and her forbears of the female persuasion have been and it chimed in with every petty resentment she felt, it rang true for her.
This is why she is so hardwired, why nothing whatever can be done to show her that it was not as the ideologues portrayed to her to anywhere near the extent she believes or at least, not quite in that way. Sure there are elements of truth in it and she can point to case after case but when these are seen through a jaundiced lens and appear in a twisted way, then the world view and mindset become skewed too – selective truth is an untruth in the end.
Men have foibles, sure, they can be arrogant p****s but women also have many faults. That’s not the issue. The issue is that we are both on the planet and need to live together, not in parallel as with two-year olds and that’s where we’re regressing to as a society – to infancy. We’ve all heard of infantilization and lunacy in the public arena.
In trying to maintain a hegemony, the issue is that each person, personally, wants to shore up his own position. Nowt to do with some broader altruism – that comes as a result of our own aspirations and fears, not the other way about. This is all about personal empowerment and position and supporting that which appears to give it to us.
And the cynical bstds, the diseased minds which dreamed up the Narrative and the feminist part of it, from Marx onwards, know all about human nature and how it can be manipulated, how ignorant it really is of anything outside its own range of personal interest – the hip pocket and the smokes and drink, the job.
Once more Elizabeth Fox-Genovese states it clearly:
It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable.
Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons.
Like countless others, I was seriously misled …
Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well.
There are those who feel I’m insane writing these things, that all of this is a longwinded way of defending misogyny. Just how oversimplified and skewed is that? Since when did attacking the message become attacking the messenger? Keep the mind on the message.
So, into this scenario of hardwired people, in this case feminists who are so far gone they can no longer see reason – Bezmenov again:
You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated.
They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their minds even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society.
Thus we get this declaration of intent to continue exactly the same divisive errors:
Vindicated? Have you ever, ever stopped, my dear, for one moment and thought out what you’re doing, what you’re saying? In which way vindicated? That you p*** men and proper women off so badly that you get abuse thrown at you and then, in your insta-extrapolation, assume all women get abused.
Have you thought why they abuse you as a feminazi? Do you really think it’s because you’re female? Or could it have a teensy-weensy bit to do with being a raving perma-malcontented, embittered, self-entitled greed-queen and expert at victimhood poker?
Have you ever thought of supporting people‘s rights, just for the variety? We’re all in the boat together, fighting off the EU, opposing the Lib-Lab Con tricks, we’re all hurting financially, it’s a time of instability – do you think about those things – you know, actually important things?
Minette Marrin again:
I was woken up to this by a women’s magazine investigation of rape about 20 years ago, following a big survey of readers. The writer pointed out with furious indignation that a great many unhappy women had written in, after reading the series, to say that they hadn’t realised until then that they had been raped. Call me conventional, but I think rape is the kind of thing you would notice, at least if you were awake.
And now to the crime Naomi Wolf inadvertently commits, a crime which those way back in time, in another place, knew full well would be the consequence of the Narrative, the pernicious cyclical nature of it:
When Naomi takes a girl or young woman and preys on her vulnerability, she is colouring that girl’s perceptions and if that message is negative from the outset, then she is going to develop this negativity and brooding as a matter of mindset herself.
She could have grown up well-adjusted and positive towards men and men, in turn, with their natural desire for women and sense of chivalry towards someone they perceive as ladies, would have treated her well.
But when a woman loses all dignity by becoming this moaning, whining embodiment of uselessness, not even disguising that she’s all out just for herself and pretending that it’s somehow altruistic, then nobody is really interested any more.
And it’s made worse by so many fatherless families. Women, by also becoming slatternly [that is, going from lover to lover] and calling it “empowerment”, give no incentive to the feckless male to do the right thing. There’s no premium any more on the very treasure women had as a bargaining chip.
And in the working world, no one’s going to make room for such a person. They’ll make room for the pretty girl who doesn’t go on about things but not for a moaning minny such as the one in the pic.
None of this is any surprise to the rational, to those perhaps of a certain vintage. The old-style women at least had a certain dignity to them which made one want to make things easier for them.
And of course, as we’ve said many times before, who is the empty tin can who gets the publicity? The proper women or is it this type? Just how did this Naomi someone even get to write an article for the Telegraph in the first place?
It comes back again to the Agenda, to the Narrative. It always comes back to this.