Aryan Skynet

Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch

Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Anglo-Saxon Supremacism

Moonman

Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902)

Anti-racism and immigration advocacy – or, at any rate, virulent anti-white attitudes – are de rigueur for today’s crop of Third Wave feminists. Many of these young women would probably be surprised to discover, however, that women’s suffrage activism and other liberatory initiatives hide a progressive heritage of elitism and eugenics. No less a figure within the movement than the honored Elizabeth Cady Stanton was, by today’s standards, a bigot and proto-Nazi who wanted to exterminate six million blacks and Irish.

Stanton, who advocated for women’s reproductive sovereignty, was sympathetic to aspects of the free love movement of the time, but would not have been caught dead at a SlutWalk. “When [her cousin] Elizabeth Smith Miller, confused by her relative’s stance on free love, asked Cady Stanton directly if she espoused the ideology, she replied that she was opposed to the sexual promiscuity of many of the free lovers and advocated monogamy because, referring to her hereditarian beliefs, ‘everything short of this makes mongrel, sensual progeny’,” Lois W. Banner reveals in Elizabeth Cady Stanton: A Radical for Woman’s Rights1. “In later years she demanded educational qualifications for voting and categorized Irish and black males according to ethnic stereotypes,” Banner also observes, adding, “In the last decade of her life she supported American imperialism on the grounds of Anglo-Saxon superiority.”2

Like many progressives of her era, she was strongly influenced by the ideas of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, who is remembered for advancing Social Darwinism. “Stanton extended her advocacy of voluntary motherhood into the idea of ‘enlightened motherhood’,” Tracy A. Thomas explains in Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law:

Enlightened motherhood added to the rhetoric of individual rights a second argument about the eugenic [i.e., dysgenic] consequences of unwanted pregnancies. It articulated a concern for the greater human race by controlling pregnancy to produce fewer children, but children of “superior quality.” Stanton emphasized the impact of unwanted and unhealthy pregnancies on the mental and physical health of the child, arguing that women should aim “to have one good kind of child” rather than many and should endeavor to produce “lions not jackasses.”3

This preference for an extreme K-selection program, if an accurate and literal representation of Stanton’s eugenic vision, is rather myopic, entailing as it does that Europeans would halve their population with each successive generation. Stanton herself had seven children; but the early deaths of five of her own siblings and the wounding impact that this had on her mother no doubt influenced Stanton’s perception of the minimal burden a woman ought to be made to bear. As is the case with deliberate policies of antinatalism, such intellectual viewpoints as Stanton’s K-militancy, if ever these became fashionable, would disproportionately impact more intelligent populations, failing to put a dent in the numbers of those too stupid to think of sex in terms of ethics or science – in addition to diminishing the general level of social adaptability by engendering a race comprised entirely of siblingless children. Thomas illuminates the political background to Stanton’s embarrassing eugenics sophistry:

As historians have explained, “This concern with eugenics was characteristic of nearly all feminists of the late nineteenth century.” Feminists used eugenic arguments to bolster their credibility as to reproductive control and “conquer conservative and religious scruples about reproduction.” Women had been told it was their duty to the human race and the greater social good to produce multiple children. By co-opting this rhetoric about the greater good of the human race, feminists identified a social benefit from women’s restriction of procreation. The newly articulated eugenics theory provided a scientific basis for that argument.4

Wrongheadedness on this and other topics aside, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was, in her heart, one of us – and Jews especially know and fear her dark, centuries-spanning influence. “She certainly claimed that she fought for the rights of all women. […] But when she said ‘women,’ I think … that she primarily had in mind women much like herself: white, middle-class, culturally if not religiously protestant, propertied, well-educated,” Elizabeth Cady Stanton: An American Life biographer and Torah’d Wave feminist Lori Ginzberg kvetched to NPR’s Morning Edition in 2011:

She also descended to some rather ugly racist rhetoric along the lines of, “We educated, virtuous white women are more worthy of the vote.” … She talked about how much worse black men would be as voters than the white women about whom she was concerned, and she was really quite dismissive of black women’s claims. … There were some comments about, “What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?” She has one, I think, inexplicable comment about black women [finding] an even worse slavery under black men than they did under their former white slave owners.

That’s why when people talk about Stanton and women’s rights and her devotion to women, my first question is always, “Which women? What are the issues here? Which women are we talking about? Whose concerns are going to take priority?” And then, along the way, and this is where my disagreement with Stanton is strongest: Whose rights are you going to put down in the process of demanding your own?5

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Endnotes

  1. Banner, Lois W. Elizabeth Cady Stanton: A Radical for Woman’s Rights. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1980, p. 114.
  2. Ibid., p. 74.
  3. Thomas, Tracy A. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Feminist Foundations of Family Law. New York, NY: New York University Press, 2016, p. 166.
  4. Ibid.
  5. “For Stanton, All Women Were Not Created Equal”. Morning Edition (July 13, 2011): http://www.npr.org/2011/07/13/137681070/for-stanton-all-women-were-not-created-equal
Advertisements

About icareviews

Propaganda Minister of #AryanSkynet

40 comments on “Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Anglo-Saxon Supremacism

  1. icareviews
    June 22, 2017

    Reblogged this on icareviews.

    Like

  2. bob saffron
    June 23, 2017

    The reporter is a tool. “Assault”, nonsense! That’s a µ-aggression – learn your neologisms, Info-Warriors!

    Liked by 1 person

    • bob saffron
      June 23, 2017

      Women used to know how to slap, too. And it was socially acceptable. Anybody who’s ever caught a well-thrown backhander on the cheek knows how stunning they are. The lost lore of womanhood.

      Liked by 1 person

      • icareviews
        June 23, 2017

        I’ll see your bitch slaps and raise you a riding crop. Now this is a Feminazi!

        Like

      • bob saffron
        June 24, 2017

        Great scene, great movie. Excoriating study of male weakness. Guess who’s not allowed to ride the stallion?☺

        Like

  3. Hipster Racist
    June 23, 2017

    After watching that video I ordered an entire box of Super Male Vitality Pills.

    Honestly I thought both sides came across rather poorly, but notice how the white women were essentially being flirty and trying to be funny while the black woman was being actually hostile.

    Even the girl that slapped him wasn’t really hostile about it, more just peevish.

    One of the “race realist” professors, I think the one that died not long ago, pointed out that blacks just present as angrier and more hostile than whites. Whites take black anger as having some serious root cause and assume that if a black is angrily yelling about racism he must really feel like he’s been injured in some way and that whites, who usually don’t present that kind of angry, take the complaints quite seriously on an emotional level.

    But really it’s just sort of like a yapping dog, it’s just how they communicate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hipster Racist
      June 23, 2017

      You may as well put White Women Feminism in an entirely different category than Black Women Feminism or even Jewish Feminism. The video shows it quite clearly – hence this is why they came up with “intersectionality.”

      White feminists were having a grand old time creating an abstract world of “equality” where everyone was white – it was even, in a certain sense, a reachable world, if everyone was white.

      In theory at least you could really have a White nation that is feminist, in a lot of ways we already have one. We like to bitch about modern feminism because really, white women already have “equal rights” – in fact they really have more “equality” than they ever really wanted. This is why white feminism tends toward prudishness – when sexuality is too overt it’s harder for the “sisterhood” to hold hands in a circle and pretend everyone is equal. Bring back some semblance of monogamy where every women has a husband and they aren’t constantly “shamed” by sexualized images of impossible body standards and they are generally fine.

      One of the reasons I hate the “movement” is because it’s so crass and reactionary about everything – I keep asking Rabbit to post something here about his “Alt Left.” The “Alt Right” is degenerating into the same cartoonish Nazitardism that always plagues anything pro-white.

      In an “Alt Left” world, like say Sweden, get rid of the immigration and you have essentially a paradise. People talk about the declining population – but Denmark doesn’t have immigration and they reversed their declining population with nothing more than a series of fun, sexy commercials telling Danish couples to have more babies.

      The silly commercials *WORKED* – the next year they had record births. People are influenced by the media, to be blunt especially women are especially susceptible to peer pressure. So all they had to do is represent young Danish women having sex with their husbands and getting pregnant in a funny, sexy, tongue in cheek way as “patriotic” – “Do It For Denmark” – and Danish women all hopped into bed with their boyfriends and got knocked up. Easy.

      But we can’t have nice things in America because the Nazitard movement goes out of its way to be as ugly, mean, and crass as possible, thus turning off “normal” people. “White Sharia” is their new thing – Weev admitted it’s just an excuse for them to posture as “ruthless.” But of course the tards have to follow the lead of whichever internet troll postures as more “hardcore” – because the people who screech loudest are literal sexual rejects like Weev, Anglin, and their fanbase.

      Like

      • Rod Horner
        June 23, 2017

        >In an “Alt Left” world, like say Sweden, get rid of the immigration and you have essentially a paradise.

        That would be paradise to me, but I have to agree with the observation of the “white sharia,” crowd when they point out that women are vastly over-represented in the ranks of the pro-migrant. I don’t buy the following lines they’ll peddle about how we need a biblical level of patriarchy to maintain civilization, but I think it’s a compelling baseline argument about the nature of single women in particular. The only way, it seems, you’ll get an immigrant free Sweden is by mandating marriage of Swedish girls to Swedish men at a young age.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 24, 2017

        @Rod Horner

        Women are famously influenced by peer pressure. In a society where the establishment says refugees are good, women will vote for refugees. In National Socialist Germany, all the women were fanatical supporters of the NSDAP and they all loved Hitler. If the right wing Scandinavians took over and became the establishment, all the Scandinavian women would become the most fierce defenders of their culture and the most hostile to outsiders. As I pointed out, in Denmark all it took was for the TV to tell women to “Do It For Denmark” and they all went out and got pregnant with Danish babies.

        I think it’s self-evident that no one should be taking advice about women from people like Andrew Anglin, Weev, and Matt Forney, men that have likely never actually had sex with a white woman and whose extreme hostility toward white women obviously comes from the fact that they are sexual rejects.

        I’m on the record going back to the earliest posts on my blogs promoting young marriage and family formation – white gals should be married the day after they graduate from high school, if not before. Once you get the young women – and men – into traditional monogamous marriages and having children in their late teens and very early 20s, you’ll immediately get rid of many of the vexing social problems we have seen since the sexual revolution.

        White sharia? I think of my girlfriend when I was 19. She hated driving, so I drove her car – we both felt safer that way. She cooked me dinner. Voting? She wasn’t even registered to vote and I can’t remember her showing the slightest interest in doing so, or politics in general. Beating her? Well she was a pretty easy going gal by nature but of course we got into fights occasionally, but all it usually took was spanking her ass a few times and after she pretended to be outraged for a few minutes she would start giggling and getting turned on.

        If that’s not “white sharia” – what is?

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        June 23, 2017

        Well, Denmark did veer right some time ago, which explains in part the more nationalistic posture there.
        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/liberal-harsh-denmark/

        Like

      • Sam J.
        June 24, 2017

        “…I don’t buy the following lines they’ll peddle about how we need a biblical level of patriarchy to maintain civilization…”

        You know the Spartans fell not because of any failing of the Men. They ran out of Spartans. The Women refused to have children. Might well have been the same thing happened to Rome. I read a article, somewhere, that the Roman Women had some sort of anti-pregnancy pill that was effective. Here’s one link I found talking about it.

        http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2676/did-the-ancient-romans-use-a-natural-herb-for-birth-control

        So Women get no fault divorce, stop having kids and historians say that,”Men lost their nerve”. Is that true? Are Men always responsible for all the failures of any society no matter what?

        The question is, is it necessary for Men to ruthlessly demand a Patriarchy in order not to have their civilization fall? This type behavior is, today, determined to stand for hatred of Women but a person can certainly want to have his civilization not to fall without hating Women even if he determines the only way to do so is to give Woman less choices.

        If Women continue to press their advantages with the same force that they are today then marriage will plummet and so will child bearing.

        Technology is waiting in the wings to make what Women want irrelevant. Lately scientist have found that skin cells can be turned into eggs and then be fertilized by sperm. So in the end it’s really sperm that provides the spark that makes eggs into zygotes. In the same vein a sheep was recently birthed in an artificial womb. How long before these things are common? With CRISPER genetic engineering you could add Women’s wombs or at least the anti-bodies necessary for humans into sheep. If these become possible then Women would only need to provide skin cells to Men which could be made into eggs. How many Women do you think would sell a few skin cells for $1,000. Not only that but while now attractive Women are much more desired if Men had to make rational decisions before having kids I bet they would pay a lot more attention to the genetics and less on looks as long as the girl was reasonably attractive.

        Of course the US will probably crash long before these techs will be ubiquitous.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 24, 2017

        @Sam J

        There’s some famous quote somewhere that says “in each society, in every time, men and women get the opposite sex they deserve.” One of the manosphere writers pointed out that women from all around the world want American men, but few non-American men want an American woman. But men from all around the world want Russian women; few non-Russian women want a Russian man.

        Women are people so they will take advantage of the advantages society gives them. But even in America, white women who are married with children tend to vote the way their husbands vote, and that tends to be “conservative” and Republican. Add in some religion and white women tend to be even more socially conservative.

        The whack-job feminists that paint with their period blood and the like – these women have gone crazy because of hormonal birth control – they are literally having ten times more periods than they would in a healthy environment where they were having six children. Not having children and crippling their reproductive systems makes them crazy and you could even say “spiritually sick.”

        One of the most common BDSM fantasies women have is … “1950s Household.” Literally where they fantasize about being middle class housewives who wear June Cleaver dresses and they stay home with the kids and cook dinner for their husbands while he wears a tie to the dinner table. That’s a common sexual fantasy that modern women have. Just consider the implications of that.

        Like

      • Of course that fucking bitch “weev” would fuck everything up. We already know he’s ugly as sin. I’m sure he’s short and has a girly voice too. Repatriate that pig to Palestine tout de suite!

        Like

    • icareviews
      June 23, 2017

      I mainly posted the video because of the part where the doofus is characterizing the feminists as “fascists”. “Feminazis” is another interesting term that gained quasi-mainstream acceptance. Imagine how much better off we’d all be if our SJWs were actually Feminazis – i.e., bona fide socialist nationalists. Assuming that esoteric kekist reality manipulation magick is real, Feminazism would be so much more worthwhile to meme into existence than “white sharia”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Hipster Racist
        June 23, 2017

        Dude – we should do that, we should create this meme – “Real Feminazis” – we can show all those wholesome pre-war images of European women and their modern counterparts.

        Liked by 2 people

      • icareviews
        June 23, 2017

        Let’s do it.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        June 23, 2017

        “…Denmark’s law against ‘threatening, insulting, or degrading’ speech, which was passed by the Danish parliament in 1939, largely to protect the country’s Jewish minority from anti-Semitism. Remarkably, it remained in force—and was even invoked—during the Nazi occupation of Denmark.”

        – From the article I posted above.

        Like

  4. Pingback: Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Anglo-Saxon Supremacism | Hipster Racist

  5. bob saffron
    June 23, 2017

    Sweden, workers’ paradise:

    Like

    • icareviews
      June 23, 2017

      Goddamn it, Bob. That link gave me anal warts. All anybody needs to know about Sweden before mass immigration is in this music video:

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hipster Racist
      June 24, 2017

      @bob saffron

      I’m not surprised that Jewish libertarians hate the tight knit collectivist communities that Scandinavians have, it makes it more difficult for Jews to exploit them. Jew libertarians only want collectivism and community for Israel, the “goyims” must be individualists and all social relations disintermediated via Jewish run financial systems and preferably a gold supply monopolized by Jewish usurers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        June 24, 2017

        I didn’t get that impression at all from the presentation. Quite the opposite. Scandinavians gave up their tight-knit communities for the welfare state. Even the Church got in bed with the State. Nope, they got exactly what they ordered and paid for, the Frankfurt School agenda.

        Jew libertarians have an agenda, sure. So what?

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 25, 2017

        Scandinavians gave up their tight-knit communities for the welfare state.

        No they didn’t.

        Even the Church got in bed with the State.

        This is an absurd lie, the Church in Scandinavia has always been “in bed” with the state – the Scandinavians have always had an established Church. This is literally false history to justify libertarian ideology.

        the Frankfurt School agenda.

        Via mass media owned by Jews, not the state. It was the “free market” that peddled cultural Marxism in the Scandinavian countries. The worst off, Sweden, has a mass media conglomerate that is owned by Jews and relentlessly pushes immigration. It’s not the state media, it’s privately owned “capitalist” media.

        Libertarians are entryists in the pro-white movement. Just like religious Christians, they always try to distract from the issue at hand: the white race, and change the subject to their ideology. It’s textbook entryism.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bob saffron
        June 26, 2017

        I mean political parties are able to heavily condition the policies of the Church of Sweden by dint of its voting system.

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/25/church-sweden-gay-weddings

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 26, 2017

        @bob saffron

        The Episcopal Church has the same problem in America and it’s completely separate from the state. So again, the libertarian “state” stuff is a complete red herring. “In bed with the state” is not the problem, it’s simply the libertarians trying to make it the problem.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        June 26, 2017

        “Scandinavians gave up their tight-knit communities for the welfare state.”

        Yes, they did. First, they were one of the first European countries to introduce divorce. Second, there was a big push to get women in the workforce and young children into day-care.
        http://www.perfar.eu/policy/family-children/sweden

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 26, 2017

        @bob saffron

        What does divorce have to do with it? Marriage was always recognized by the state, so divorce was recognized by the state. USA is about the closest thing to a “libertarian” system there is in the modern world, and women work too.

        Trying to blame the welfare state – as if it was a lack of libertarianism that drove these social problems – is just false, a red herring. They can’t justify libertarian policies on their own merits so they simply make shit up.

        Sweden has always been a collectivist society.

        Like

      • bob saffron
        June 26, 2017

        Commercial TV arrived at least three decades after the State media.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_Sweden

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 26, 2017

        @bob saffron

        Who said anything about TV, other than the fact that the Danish state successfully increased their birth rate via state broadcast TV commericials?

        As for Sweden:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnier_Group

        Bonnier AB (Swedish pronunciation: also the Bonnier Group)[3] is a privately held Swedish media group of 175 companies operating in 15 countries. It is controlled by the (((Bonnier family.)))

        Changing the goalposts and switching definitions in the middle of a conversation is a dishonest and fallacious way to “argue.”

        Liked by 2 people

      • bob saffron
        June 26, 2017

        http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/06/25/collateral-damage-or-targets-of-opportunity-children-of-divorce-in-the-war-of-the-sexes/

        Divorce has got something to do with the loss of social cohesion. And marriage, while recognized by the State, hasn’t been the preserve of the State until historically comparatively recent times. The French Revolution being the watershed event.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 26, 2017

        @bob saffron

        You’re just changing the definition of “state” again, not only is it a basic logical fallacy, but it’s also a dishonest way to communicate. Marriage and divorce have always been a province of “the state” – so you change the definition of “state.”

        http://infogalactic.com/info/Principle_of_charity

        Like

      • bob saffron
        June 26, 2017

        “Sweden has always been a collectivist society.”

        I don’t know who’s disputing this. I’m suggesting that this inherent collectivism was channeled away from the family, the community in pursuit of the State’s own agenda.
        Public schooling would have helped instill the new values Sweden now boasts.

        Like

      • Hipster Racist
        June 26, 2017

        @bob saffron

        this inherent collectivism was channeled away from the family, the community in pursuit of the State’s own agenda.

        So this collectivist society with a state and a state religion lasted for thousands of years as a nation until just a few decades ago and that was the fault of … the state and collectivism?

        That makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Sam J.
    June 26, 2017

    This is why we don’t want Asians running our country. They seem to have much less discrimination in the chance that events they don’t foresee happen. Heard about the Asian Air jet that lost a fan blade in one of the jets engines? These damn fools flew for 90 minutes with the plane being shaken by a out of balance engine. Look at the videos it’s frantic shaking. Now think for a minute. All these fan blades have a very small clearance so it’s likely that one falling off chewed off quite a few of them. If you lose a fan blade it’s not likely that that engine is giving you all that much thrust so if you shut it off you’re not losing that much. The alternative is these engines are only held on by a few really large bolts sitting in sockets in the wing. All this shaking back and forth could wear out this socket and rip the damn wing off if they get loose. Another problem would be the fuel lines being vibrated and breaking loose, catching on fire and burn the plane up yet these idiots didn’t have enough sense to turn the damn engine off. Don’t tell me you can’t. The fuel pumps have individual breakers they could just kill the fuel pumps to that engine, I can’t believe their stupidity, And these people are pilots!

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/a-boom-in-midair–then-90-scary-minutes-on-airasia-plane-that-shook-like-a-washing-machine-20170625-gwycan.html

    Like

    • icareviews
      June 26, 2017

      An aviation mishap has nothing to do with why East Asians, a generally worthy set of peoples, shouldn’t be ruling over us. Put simply, they’re not us. Even if not devoted to our degradation the way Jews are, they have no affection for us. I know the Chinese hold a lot of U.S. debt, but they barely register on the radar screen of my daily concerns. China is mostly a matter of indifference to me.

      Like

    • Asians? WTF? It’s the Jews dummy.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. james
    June 27, 2017

    Interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Pingback: Victoria Woodhull’s Feminist Eugenics | Aryan Skynet

Leave a Reply - Your Comment WILL be Moderated.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: