Tea at Trianon: The Death Cult of Eco-Feminism

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Tuesday, January 31, 2023

The Death Cult of Eco-Feminism

From Crisis:

The rise of eco-feminism has coincided with the destruction of the family and the emasculation of men (which go together). Why is this the case? What is the spirit behind the death cult of eco-feminism? In Satanic Feminism, historian Per Faxneld examines an often-unstudied fact about leading first-wave feminists from the 19th century: their writings and diaries are filled with references and allusions to Satan and Lucifer as a heroic figure fighting for female liberation; Eve’s choice to eat from the Tree is also praised as the catalyst for female freedom.
Faxneld is no orthodox Christian. He draws on the genderist theories of Michel Foucault and Julia Kristeva extensively, along with the power theories of Marx, Gramsci, and Foucault. In doing so, however, he reveals how the first-wave feminists often offered blasphemous readings of Genesis 3.
Faxneld goes on to write, “Nineteenth-century feminists often felt they somehow had to deal with male chauvinists’ use of the story in Genesis 3.” To achieve this, the feminists presented “Eve [as] a heroine and the serpent benevolent.” The intent of the feminist movement was never equal rights, the right to vote, or economic opportunity but the outright destruction of the family with the husband, the father, as the primary target of destruction.
In the German Ideology, Marx explained the origins of inequality not from economic competition, as generally assumed, but from the sexual division of labor and male headship of the family. Marx famously declares, “there develops the division of labor, which was originally nothing but the division of labor in the sexual act, then that division of labor which develops spontaneously or ‘naturally’ by virtue of natural predisposition.” The family, according to Marx, is the root of inequality and oppression.
Marx continues by saying, “With the division of labor, in which all these contradictions are implicit, and which in its turn is based on the natural division of labor in the family and the separation of society into individual families opposed to one another, is given simultaneously the distribution, and indeed the unequal distribution…the first form, of which lies in the family, where wife and children are the slaves of the husband. This latent slavery in the family, though still very crude, is the first property, but even at this early stage it corresponds perfectly to the definition of modern economists who call it the power of disposing of the labor-power of others.” (Read more.)