March 8th hysteria: a bolshevik tsunami

© Andrew Khritin |

Since last tueday, March 8th, we have been flooded with a deluge of articles singing the anthem of the glory of feminism. Far from being critical of the movement itself in relation with real gains it has brought to women, these articles were generally pretty complacent with the subject, beating the drum for even more feminization of society. One issue that finds itself on the front burner all the time is « equality » of representation of the sexes in jobs. Feminists absolutely want their 50% representation quota. It appears non-negociable. Norway, which practise policies around those lines, is often cited as an example. Quebec, my Province, is another stronghold of this tendency.

Well, the 50% representation quota has yet to prove its efficiency. Can you imagine an american football club, for example, where the team should be composed of 50% of Afro-Americans and 50%  of European-Americans? And what about Latinos? Shouldn’t they be included too, with a 33% of representation? A professional sport club is managed in a way to have in the roster the best players possible, wherever they come from. Their ethnic or geographic origin doesn’t matter. And that’s exactly the opposite that feminists try to do with the 50% representation quota. According to their logic, businesses shouldn’t be composed of the best people possible, whatever they are women or men,  but with « equal » representation of these.

Frankly, the whole thing is depressing. On one side, you have the fascists who try to degrade, exploit and submit everyone in a way that makes them slaves, robots or animals. There is no place for human evolution, for nuances, for critical thinking or sensibility. And on the other side, you have the communists/socialists who try instead to found Republics with « new » ideas that were never part of human tradition, while these « new » ideas are yet to prove themselves as worthy and efficient. It is obvious that communism/socialism can’t produce  anything of value. Just take the soviet car Lada as an example. Was it good? No. Examples are numerous where we can see that a system based on bolshevik, marxist, socialist or communist ideas cannot stimulate and engineer anything that will work and stand in the long run. When workers are assured to keep their jobs, they don’t work as well and as hard, and it shows in the final quality of the product.

During this time, feminists continue to brainwash themselves with these idealistic ideas based on fantasy and delusion. It looks like that they don’t understand the game of human life. While in all animal species it is the female that feeds and takes care of the offsprings, certain feminists advocate for the male in human societies to stay home and do precisely that while women go to work! Listen, I could go on for pages but I will simply let you read these three articles from local newspapers. You can find articles with similar views in your local area. Have a good reading and try not to be contaminated by this propaganda.




Feminism is bolshevism: two examples

Here are two newspaper articles that express the naivety and immaturity of what is called « feminist » thinking, which is nothing else than disguised bolshevism. The 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day is coming next tuesday on March 8th. The precursor of the Day, the National Women’s Day, was organized by the Socialist Party of America in 1909. In 1911, the first International Women’s Day took place in Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany, at which occasion women took the opportunity to advocate for their rights. Starting in 1913, the Day was progressively transfered to March 8th. In 1917, the Day was held on the 23rd of February in Petrograd. A bread riot broke out led by women. They marched through the streets gathering men from the many factories. Up to 100,000 people occupied downtown districts for three or four days. Many people joined the protests, quite similar to what we are seeing now in the Middle East. More recently, to give a local example, in 2000, 50 feminist activists met at Philips Square in downtown Montreal on March 9th, the day after the Day. They proceeded to Mary Queen of the World catholic cathedral where, inside, they spray-painted slogans for abortion on the altar, sticked sanitary napkins on pictures and walls, spread condoms all over the place and committed various mayhems. You surely have your own examples in your area.

I propose to you two articles to feed your reflection on the links between feminism and bolshevism. First, a paper from Naomi Wolf, in which she tries to convince us that women played an important role in the uprisings in the Middle East. You see, we have to read reality as it is, not as we would like it to be. She idealizes these women from the street protests as if they were some kind of heroes, linking them implicitely to women in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution, while they probably were only, like their male counterpart, useful fools participating in a much bigger game. We have to let go with this infantile and desastrous tendency to intellectualize and conceptualize things. Reality is what it is, not what we would like it to be. Women as much as men are the prey of powerful forces that couldn’t care less about women’s rights or rights of any sorts, unless they play along with the agenda of the oligarchies that rule the world.


The second article is by Janet Bagnall from the Montreal Gazette. Incidently, she opens her article by mentioning the 100th anniversary of the International Women’s Day. She tries to make the case of Norway as a model for equality. Again, we have the « privilege » to be gunned down with numbers relative to gender representation in certain jobs. She gives for example the statistics that only 3% of women are chief executives of the world’s biggest 500 companies, and that only 15% of parliamentary positions are held by women, as if it was only a question of mathematics. There are plenty of factors that explain why women are under-represented in certain jobs, the most important being biological and physiological differences that make a woman different from a man. That, the feminists can’t understand. They absolutely have to get their 50% quota of representation because if not, they won’t sleep at night. In all animal species, the female give birth and take care of the offsprings while the male chase and bring food. It has been like that for a long time with humans and it will remain exactly like that probably until the end of times, because humans don’t choose what they are. They manage with it and make the best out of it.

Bagnall brings the example of Norway as being almost the closest realization of feminist Paradise on earth. In 2006, the State introduced a law that requires at least a 40% representation of women in boards of publicly traded companies… But what if there are not enough qualified women to fill all these positions? Does that mean that they have to hire incompetent women to complete the quota? It looks that way. Skei Grande, leader of the Liberal Party in Norway, said to Bagnall that they don’t even think about gender representation anymore. It is 50%-50% and that’s it…

You know, I am a strong partisan of competence in workplaces and I don’t like these forced quotas that enterprises have to conform to. In the end, I can’t help but to see in this the footprint of bolshevism, which I call red fascism. Equality doesn’t mean egalitarianism. Women and men being equals doesn’t imply that they have to do exactly the same things and the same way. Our women in the western world have been corrupted by a totalitarian ideology, feminism, which is only a front for bolshevism. That is why they have been complaining for a century and are still continuing to do so. Bolshevism can’t make women happy and it will never be able to. Women have to look elsewhere, inside of them first, and second in the wisdom of the tradition. Man is not the enemy of woman, he is her partner.