Evidence of feminist censorship

Publié: septembre 12, 2010 dans Uncategorized

Evidence of feminist censorship

Jan Deichmohle


Feminists demand that the German language be revised to include female forms for words denoting women (or men and women). This corresponds with the « inclusive language » discussion in English-speaking countries. Although this is neither the subject of this page nor of our research, to demonstrate how “beautiful” the German language has become, I complied in the subsequent text at times with the demands by the feminists. That posed a few difficulties in translating original text citing slang, and in translating word plays, euphemisms and metaphors.  To bring across and to parody the intentions of the feminist re-designers of the German language, I used in a few instances the ending (ess) as in actress, to imitate what is done in German by means of the female ending “-in.”  Misinterpretations are entirely possible in such cases and are not the fault of the original text.

The quotations given below are examples that give an indication of the massive degree of censorship and manipulation of thinking that has by now become all-pervasive.

«With her newest book she certainly entered the zone of death, the eternal ice of quiet rejection, the complete absence of responses even amongst her acquaintances in the province. She tangled with a mighty enemy: The women’s movement.» (Matthias Matussek, The disenfranchised father (literally: “The junked father”, “The refused father” or “father put onto the refuse”), in: Der Spiegel 47/1997, p. 104, English translation of the full article)

Der Spiegel has been the most popular weekly news magazine in Germany for many years; now Focus seems to be slightly ahead in number of copies. The article relates to the feminists’ reaction to an author who had written a book deviating a little too much from feminist doctrine.

«“Not suitable for publishing”, commented the publisher’s adviser(ess)… Nevertheless Karin J. considers this attempt at censorship to be the nadir of totalitarianism.» (loc.cit., p. 107)

This wording understates the situation. Serious critique of feminism has been absent for more than a decade. Serious critique and questioning of basic feminist principles became unthinkable. My own books are lost in “zone of death, the eternal ice of quiet rejection”. This is more than a mere attempt at censorship. What was once a wide majority, moderate and much more reasonable, has fallen completely silent.

«Because in 85% of the cases the orders of the booksellers are made by female traders, we unfortunately see no possibility of considering to publish your work…» (publishing house Ullstein, letter rejecting and returning the book)

The media hardly ever mentions any critique of feminism. If it does so at all, then it is obligatory that the critique be made in a half-hearted way. It is notable that it typically fails to touch on central topics and feminist principles. Apart from these rare instances a deadly silence exists around the unimpeded voice of feminist ideology.

The following quotes from a variety of book publishing houses are a sample of rejection letters to my book. It is up to the reader to decide whom they believe. See also my collection of letters by thrilled and grateful readers.

«Subject: The corrosive Macho-reading, which I may send back.» (letterhead, publishing house Pahl-Rugenstein)

«Therefore your paper mountain is hereby returned.»

«I read your book, at least partly, and I have to tell you that …  your idea … stimulates pity, but we don’t consider it suitable for publication.» (Europa publishers 1993)
(That was an inherent insult and could be interpreted as: We pity you for your writings. What a pitiable fellow are you to write such stuff.)

« I am handing it back to you on the spot, without a letter. That way I avoid the danger of being quoted by you. » (Ullstein, book fair Frankfurt, 1997)

A reader sent me a letter stating:

«I’m well aware that books criticizing feminism are rarely printed. Your experience is no worse than that of many other authors who wrote on this topic. (E. g.: side bar 1).» (Arthur Krajc, writer of reader’s letter “feminist censorship” in the daily newspaper Badische Zeitung, 29.1.1998)

To say “rarely” is an understatement. “Not at all” is more apt to describe the chances of a serious critique of feminism. Nevertheless, people who were fortunate to obtain the text are delighted and thanked me.

«Some months back I was in a large bookstore and asked naively for literature…against feminism. Infuriated, the female shop assistant and a female customer hissed at me, called me names and turned away with a cold disdain. (book of Zeiler, p. 35)

This is how they dispose of critical ideas. They conceal and censor or nag maliciously, as is demonstrated in the following quote from a dispatch by the publisher Pahl-Rugenstein:

«Good day. am currently responsible for dispatches and by accident read a little of your text. It makes you puke! I consider any sheet of paper too valuable to be spoiled by your notions of post-pubescent jabberings… more likely attempting to address men.  Antipatriarchal Greetings, Mommy [from dispatch]» (publisher Pahl-Rugenstein, letter in flawed and degrading style)

But there was a rare exception in this trend:

«Dear Sir, we regret that we have to prove your text and especially the last part to be well-founded… “creating unwanted books, writer without reader, admonishment without audience” … many talents newly appearing on the horizon experience that. And you very certainly have talent. In other times and circumstances one would be absolutely obliged to give you a chance.  Again, we regret. Yours, sincerely» (Hinstorff publishers)

The series of rejection and disdain continued. Usually they’ll send copies of the same polite standard letter to every author. If they add a line, it won’t tell anything. In most cases nothing will be written or said which might be revealing. It took a long time to collect the few personal letters showing the hidden truth.

« We have feminist books (‘women’-books). I don’t think it will fit into our list… Our adviser-ess is feminist. » (another publisher)

Diskettes that I had sent to publishers were sometimes returned in damaged condition, and then always found to be damaged precisely at the weakest spot, the lower edge of the moving part: Döcker publisher, vgs publishers and GQ (journal for men). (8.1.1998 und 13.1.1998) Döcker publishersenclosed my letter torn up twice.

The daily newspaper Bildzeitung returned the script torn. (21.1.1998) It is possible to see the exact pages on which the reader(ess) had used their fingers. We can open the book in a way, that the pages on the left side are torn, whereas the pages on the right side are undamaged. A line visible now reads: They MUST support an ideology… That an ideology is prescribed is an absurd situation in a system that wants to be lawful.

Absurd enough, to tear the pages angrily with one hand, while the pages on the other side were preserved undamaged.

«Please don’t expect me to dig in such a voluminous paper emission during my valuable working time.» (Another major reputable publishing house.)

The critique of feminism is given no chance at all to be published. It is being snubbed and turned down by the media and publishers with the silliest excuses.

« What kind of text? I lost it. Don’t know, where it is. What was it about? No, don’t send it, I will ask for it if I need it. » (reviewer of non fiction for the daily newspaper SZ)

« ´Of making advances and rejection?` That I will have to reject! » (same journalist of SZ, responsible for reviews of non fiction)

Fear of thinking and expressing thoughts against ideological taboos and norms, and the obligation to comply with politically correct propaganda prevent free thought, research and refutation of feminism from emerging. (This is a general observation. It also holds for the individual who avoids such unpleasant thoughts that would cause trouble.)

«Even on the Internet you will hardly find [the book mentioned]… Does someone want that the book gets neither known nor read?» (weekly magazine Focus 19/1997)

Only partially critical information reaches the public, and, if so at all, it is mostly written by female authors with a feminist past.

«If this had been written by a man it would probably not have been published at all.» (reader’s letter Focus 21/1997, on the same book, replying to the article cited above)

[Editing-translator’s note: One of the most recent examples of that is the book « Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, » by Susan Faludi.  Kathleen Parker, an outspoken critic of feminism, wrote in the « The Orlando Sentinel » (Daily paper, Orlando, Florida, USA) on September 29, 1999:

I hate to be the one to break it to you, sports fans, but feminist-fatale Faludi is not your friend.

Every remark about her findings — whether resulting from an interview with a male porn star or a confused war veteran — was uttered with barely concealed contempt. Her smile, beguiling perhaps to men desperate for female understanding, is a coached effect designed to disguise the sneer hovering just beneath the surface. . . .

In a culture where half of marriages end in divorce, resulting in fathers becoming mostly visitors to their children’s lives, men have a right to be miserable. To leave them out of a book about men’s unhappiness is the definition of stiffed.

Full story

—WHS]

Even feminist authors get into serious trouble if they don’t toe the party-line. This holds even more for female authors criticizing feminism to some extent. A man would face even worse things and probably not get his message published at all.

«Freedom of opinion – vile reality

… When she entered the hall, the authoress K. Rutschky from Berlin, one of the invited speakeresses, was shoved by demonstrators into a corner. There she was abused, kicked and put in a stranglehold. “Your theories are the thoughts of a culprit!”, cried an irate woman [threatening to hit K. Rutschky]. “You deserve to be socked in the mug for what you say!”  Rutschky got frightened and began to cry for help. Finally she could pull out of the grip and escape.» (weekly magazine Spiegel 5/1994, p. 114)

«On account of her book written two years ago Rutschky … was attacked in furious letters, up to the threat of murder.» (F. Stern, Penthesileas’ Daughters, p. 36)

«Afraid of public abuse (and attacks) by extreme feminists, the authoress K. Rutschky from Berlin cancelled an lecture planned for the theatre festival in Freiburg… “Women projects from Freiburg” had announced, they would not tolerate that R. talks there. In an interview the authoress said, that the proceedings of the feminists would “not be censorship but terror.”» (daily newspaper Nordwest-Zeitung, 22.7.1995, p. R3)

«“Revolutionary lesbian groups” claimed to have been responsible for the arson in printer works» (Penthesileas’ daughter, p. 36)

The printer works publishes a weekly newspaper they disliked. Violence is totalitarian. That is evident without considering the orientation of the newspaper.

«Because she’s a girl – Lucie van Org: upwards with song
… « A year ago, old-feminists really came down on me because of the song”, she tells in conversation. All she had wanted to do was to express a yearning for life.» (daily newspaper Rheinzeitung 30.12.1994, p. 9)

Democracy can work only when the public is informed.  However, feminist ideology created a monopoly in the media to spread only their principles and ideology. Not freedom of speech, but totalitarian brainwashing is what’s been happening for many, many years now

«In Juli 1991 The editorial staff for “modern living” [of the newspaper Die Zeit] harshly refused the plan of Dr. Lorenz to review the book “After feminism”. (Archive F. Stern) … This is not an isolated case. Probably all editorial department editors responsible for women’s affairs eliminate unwanted contributions [and facts] critical of feminism.» (F. Stern, Penthesileas’ Daughters, p. 34-35)

«Unless there is sufficient (comprehensive) information, democracy has no viable foundation.  A public discussion can only evolve on the basis of sufficient (full, comprehensive) information.» (Roman Herzog, at that time Germany’s president)

The books « Critique of feminist ideology » and « Les deux Sexes » prove the existence of censorship and the extreme level of social manipulation. This degree of indoctrination is unprecedented in the West. In a totalitarian and undemocratic way they silenced a majority and concealed it to the point of non-existence. (it : topic AND majority)

Hidden by taboos not to think this way, the topic is overdue.

«… terror … The content is too commonplace, the war of of the sexes too violent… and his acting as scoundrel [villain] as predictable as daily sunrise… the spectator already knows, there will be a crack- ess … the actors courageously defy the simplicity dictated by the script, but all resembles a hollow nut.» (FR, 10.4.1997)

An attentive reader will daily find many examples of feminist male-bashing reports in the media.

What is missing? Critique of feminist ideology is missing, a book which exposes the extreme anti-male bias of the media and shows what should be shown, furthermore, Les deux Sexes – The two sexes, a book that profoundly refutes the feminist ideology.

The obstacles that prevented these and similar books from being published would fill a novel.  Publishers and media rejected and concealed similar works hundreds of times during the last twelve years.  In 1993 a publishing house broke my contract and declared it invalid, despite of receiving orders for the book. The publisher didn’t print a single copy but left the entry of the unpublished book in the catalogue of books in print until today!

Meanwhile, quotations proving censorship are included in my books and often even in my letters to publishers. Therefore censor/esses take even greater attention not to reveal their intentions, if they write a reply at all. Hence the degree of indoctrination of the editor-ess, who was apparently convinced of the correctness of her actions, quoted in the following is remarkable.

«In spite of the danger, that you consider a rejection as another try of censoring, I return your diskette along with this letter. The topic “critique of feminism” is already represented in our list – by the book of Camille Paglia: Sexual personae: art and decadence from Nefertiti to E.D.. Thereby the topic is treated so widely and exhaustively, that we don’t want to add another book.» (DTV, 19.12.1997)

Is feminism itself treated by a single book so “widely and exhaustively” that the censor-ess does not want to add a second book that promotes feminism? Why do feminists write so many books then? Sexuality and critique of ideology are very different topics.   Virtually no books are being published any longer that don’t promote feminist ideology or at least feminist stereotypes!  E. g.: school books — evidence is established in “Les deux Sexes”.

The press suppressed several hundred reviews and letters by readers (German page)

Silent censorship goes back many years.  A Christian book on feminism published as early as 1981 had no effect because of a secret boycott by libraries and booksellers, which did not sell, order or place it visibly in their establishments. A bookseller refused to order it for me and was so indignant that I didn’t dare to return to his shop for a while. “Such stuff we certainly don’t have! I know about this author! That sort of thing we don’t have.” All over the north of our country the book was not found in any library combine. In the centre not either. A librarian, who helped with the research, said on his own. “There’s something fishy about this! I have never seen such a case before!” It was a Christian critique ([GH] in bibliography), a moral and not extremist view. Whereas feminist ideology monopolizing the media is immoral and extremist.

A book not known to anyone is like one not published at all.

Though it may sound unbelievable, even a 50 years old scientific book from the USA is missing in a suspicious way. [Lundberg/Farnham] (German page)

Today silent feminist censorship causes complete lines of information to disappear. (German page)

Today feminist power acts silently. Critique and refutation of feminist ideology disappear without getting public attention. So the very existence of opposing information becomes invisible, or critical arguments might not be found because nobody wanted or dared to find and express them.

Even worse are self-imposed taboos of thought and self-censorship.  We ourselves are responsible for that. These forms of censorship cannot be quantified. They exist in our inner consciousness and are undetectable.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s