feminazi

Why Feminazi is a perfectly valid word

El Ratel
Follow me!

El Ratel

El Ratel ("The Badger") has helplessly seen the rise of politically correct nonsense, inclusive language and feminist ideology in his native country, Spain. After getting in contact with the MRM and antifeminist ideas, his attempts to talk about it were met with disdain and disgust. That is why he adopted a secret identity and started doing what he does best: spreading information by means of writing and translation.

El Ratel ha presenciado el auge de las estupideces políticamente correcta, el lenguaje inclusivo y la ideología feminista en su país natal, España. Tras entrar en contacto con las ideas del Movimiento por los Derechos del Hombre y el antifeminismo, sus intentos por hablar de ello fueron recibidos con desdén y desprecio. Por eso, tomó la decisión de adoptar una identidad secreta y hacer lo que mejor se le da: difundir información a través de la escritura y la traducción.
El Ratel
Follow me!

If your repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it and you will even come to believe it yourself.  Joseph Goebbels.

You know, feminists make a huge fuss whenever you mention the word “feminazi”. They will tell you that such a word doesn’t exist; that it is only used by bigots who want to discredit their movement; that anyone who uses it is automatically a misogynist and no further debate is necessary; that it is a symptom of fear-mongering and bad argumentation skills (after all, we know the golden rule of debate: if nothing else works, compare them to the Nazis. Are we really that bad at reasoning?).

But today, I’m here to present a case for the use of “feminazi” as an accurate representation of modern government-sponsored third-wave feminism: we are going to review some of the Propaganda Principles of doctor Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister, who controlled all of the German media and was able to embed their hateful ideology into the minds of the common people. We will see how feminism uses these same tactics in order to gain the favor and the shekels of the population and the state.

1: Principle of simplification and the single enemy. Propaganda needs to stay simple and focus on one single enemy, who is deemed guilty of all of society’s problems and misfortunes, and whose control or eventual destruction will lead to prosperity and happiness. In other words, let’s reduce the complexity of life, human nature and social evolution, the myriad of known and unknown factors, contributors and causes, to one single boogeyman. Let’s excuse ourselves from any responsibility for the current situation and problems (with the exception of the responsibility of fighting and destroying this enemy). We can call it the Jews, or Capitalism, or Patriarchy.

The principle of simplification also applies to the notion of “us”: we are superior, we are good and pure, we are destined to great deeds, if only “they” would let us. A single symbol to represent us will also contribute to our unity and our common cause. The primordial matriarchy, the peaceful and happy sorority, the “violence is committed solely by men”… it all stems from here.

2: Principle of contagion. Contagion is what the single enemy can inject into our purity; it can ruin our superior nature and hurl us into disgrace. It can enslave us and live at our expenses. It takes advantage of its malign characteristics and intentions and the good faith of its victims (in the case of the Jew, he is cunning and intelligent in business; in the case of men, they use brute force and terror to subdue and intimidate women).

Women are oppressed and have been working for free as sex slaves and cleaning ladies. The Patriarachy leeches off women and holds them down. The Patriarchy is so powerful, ingrained and omnipresent that women have internalized misogyny by default.

3: Principle of transposition. The blame is always on someone else, never on us. Every social misfortune is placed, transposed onto the enemy. Sexism is everywhere. If there are not enough women in STEM, if women will insist on having children and not focusing on their careers, if women will stubbornly take an interest in their looks, that’s just Patriarchy. No need of further research.

4: Principle of exaggeration and distortion. This is the principle of insecurity. We need to exaggerate an existing crime or problem in order to instill fear in the population. Thus, we are able to scare the receptor to such an extent that he accepts the single enemy that we will kindly hand out to him. If we want to attack person X, I need to scare and terrorize the population, and then I have to proclaim that person X is to blame. Messages of alarm must be constantly issued: be afraid, we are in danger, we can be killed, we can be assaulted, we are not safe, we live in insecurity, we can’t succeed.

Domestic violence is only committed by men against women, and it’s an epidemic. It’s the default dynamic in heterosexual relationships. Women are catcalled, harassed, assaulted and raped at every turn. 1 in 5. And toxic masculinity, deformed (or not) by Patriarchal standards is the culprit. Men are to blame, they need to be controlled. Male population needs to be reduced and controlled. It’s time to consider a curfew for men.

5: Principle of vulgarization. This has a lot to do with the principle of simplification. Everything needs to be easily understandable by everyone. There is no need to think, to make an effort. We need to stupefy the population. The ways of the Patriarchy have to be blatant, obvious and vulgar. When we see on TV a lazy or uncommitted husband and father, a group of bros making misogynistic remarks, naïve girls wondering why the boys won’t let them play with them, scary statistics and advertisements that depict a black-and-white reality… that is all part of the vulgarization campaign.

6: Principle of orchestration. The news reports need to be controlled and selected; we need to transmit only the news that are favorable to us, or give them a much greater dimension than the one we give to unfavorable news. These shouldn’t be needlessly complex: a woman has been murdered by her husband. She’s a new victim of gendered domestic violence. That’s all. No need to look further. The media have to cherry-pick which kinds of crimes are reported in the news; they will select which statistics are rubbed in our faces and which ones are not. They will tell us which problems we should be concerned about. The media can even show us what would happen if the enemy was allowed to stay on the loose, with imaginative depictions of toxic masculinity and what the Patriarchy “was like” in the past.

7: Principle of renovation. We need to bombard the public with news and images. We can’t give them time to process them, to reason, to stop and think. These messages will all contribute to the general narrative that we are transmitting. The aim is for the receptor to become overwhelmed, drowning in information. He has to see the world as chaos. He has to grow a need for a simple solution for the manipulated environment we are presenting to him.

8: Principle of authenticity. There are no facts, only interpretations (F. Nietzsche). We need to erode the authenticity of undesirable facts by means of different interpretations and explanations. In that way, the authenticity of a fact will become hidden under a pile of interpretations. The suffragettes were violent, but… Women were not conscripted, but…

9: Principle of silencing. We need to stop undesirable facts, realities or people from “making too much noise”. We need to keep them from reaching the population; we need to cut their means and their resources. We need to deride them and make them persona non grata. Erin Pizzey. Christina Hoff Sommers. Camille Paglia. Murray Straus. Any men’s groups on campuses. Or the MRM in general, for that matter.

10: Principle of transfusion. All of the principles of our propaganda system must be seen as deeply rooted in our community, in the history of our nation. In that way, it will be much stronger and seen as justified. We can justify draconian laws against men, separate train carriages for men and women and affirmative action… if we present it as a fight for “equality of rights”, something that we all strive for. To that aim, we can show images of past injustices against women (even if they are not accurate or not exclusive to women), and somehow we will justify as reparations any measures being taken today.

11: Principle of unanimity. I think this doesn’t need much explanation. Certain ideas and values are a sign of virtue and goodness, while others mark you as an immoral person. As Jack Donovan said:

“When a woman says she’s for equal rights, or that she thinks people should help refugees or that she’s against racism, I chalk it up to natural empathy and moral signalling. She’s telling people that she is of high moral virtue based on the criteria of the society she lives in. Instead of making a big deal about being a lady or a Christian or a virgin, she’s hard-signalling the only kind of moral purity anyone cares about here in this international empire of nothing.”

Jack Donovan, “All they have is fear”

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

Published by

El Ratel

El Ratel ("The Badger") has helplessly seen the rise of politically correct nonsense, inclusive language and feminist ideology in his native country, Spain. After getting in contact with the MRM and antifeminist ideas, his attempts to talk about it were met with disdain and disgust. That is why he adopted a secret identity and started doing what he does best: spreading information by means of writing and translation. El Ratel ha presenciado el auge de las estupideces políticamente correcta, el lenguaje inclusivo y la ideología feminista en su país natal, España. Tras entrar en contacto con las ideas del Movimiento por los Derechos del Hombre y el antifeminismo, sus intentos por hablar de ello fueron recibidos con desdén y desprecio. Por eso, tomó la decisión de adoptar una identidad secreta y hacer lo que mejor se le da: difundir información a través de la escritura y la traducción.

  • Doug Lefelhocz

    They are not usually national socialists. They are often communists. Femicommie or femired would qualify as more accurate.

    • Lichlord_Godfrey

      National Socialists were just another brand of socialism. A racist socialism. It was not different, practically, to Stalinism (a subset of Communism which is a subset of Socialism), though.

      Instead of fighting to preserve a single race (and only they have power) – they fight to preserve one gender (and want only that gender to have any power).

    • Chris Dagostino

      How about Femipinko? Or Pink Pinko? The possibilities are endless.

  • m0r1arty

    Thanks for mansplaining that one to me!

    (Apparently mansplaining is a word?!)

  • Chris

    It’s in the courts, the schools, the police, media. Soon these institutions will become totally isolated from greater society for their insistence on upholding feminist ideas. That’s when the real fun will begin. Imagine when all male convicts past and present win a class action sex discrimination case against the government.

    Heads will roll.

    • notinline

      How will that happen when the “courts” are in on it too?

      • Jesse James

        Only when those in the courts realize that they can and will be hung too if they don’t hop off the current bandwagon, and onto the “next.”

  • Churchill4President

    Excellent article! It’s finally good to hear the truth about the cancer of modern feminism.

  • Kayton

    Wow that article on the curfew is bloody terrifying. I keep thinking this will petter out, but I feel like it might just be getting started…

    • http://mensrightsaustralia.com/ Robert Brockway

      It’s not going to end unless men and women make it end.

      To continue the parallel between feminists and Nazis, a lot of people in the 1920s and 1930s thought Nazism would petter out too. A lot of others thought it would one day be satisfied with its gains – “peace in our time”. Neither turned out to be true.

  • Jacquelope

    I believe that “Feminazis” are actually more like Stalinists. Stalinists had a bigger genocide record than Nazis (including more Jews killed) and everything about Stalinism is in line with radical feminists.

  • Jesse James

    Great Job!!!!!

  • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

    Principle of exaggeration and distortion. Allow me to expand on this one.

    When I was a child, about 8 or so, I heard an argument about feminism and equality. The man said, “All you do is exaggerate, blow out of proportion, make too much out of, look into things too much. If you feminists didn’t exaggerate, you’d have no audience.” I forgot the names of this man and woman he was sparring with, and do not really care to remember either, but that phrase has stuck with me all of my life: 44 years now. It matched what I had already seen and heard about them.

    If feminists didn’t exaggerate, they’d have no audience. Since living this long, I have put together additional pieces of this puzzle and have crafted the following words to even more so describe what I believe happens in the minds of the gullible, feelings-dominated people who push the latest feminist hype.

    They become so overwhelmed by how they feel, how they wish, how they can tell is true that their perspectives on reality have been skewed, rendering them unfit for rational, objective, logical discussion.

    I think that about explains it. Sure, some of them are devious, doing this exaggeration and distortion purposefully, but I think also that so many of them really do believe their own feelings—not as feelings go, but as replacements for actual reality. This child-like behavior is also what is fueling their tantrums every time we notice this truth and dare say a single word about it. Stuck in this mentality, they say inflammatory things like “hatred, sexist,” and so forth because that is what children do…which touches on another principle in this article: transposition.

    This is why it is pointless to try and get through to them. Some of them truly are incapable of handling reality and of understanding how and why they have gotten so much of this stuff gravely wrong.