Today’s sex scandals prove that all revolutions need their sex slaves

Successful revolutions need sex slaves and Progressive women willingly filled that role. Now that their slave masters failed, though, they want revenge.

Feminism Women's Liberation Women's Rights Sex SlavesOver at my real-me Facebook page, I’ve politely pointed out that feminism is a dead letter in America’s workplaces. The women who believed in the Women’s Liberation would not have allowed themselves to be victimized at the work place. They wouldn’t have tolerated crude jokes, dirty pictures, butt slaps, and even rape. For ordinary women, a major promise of the Women’s Liberation Movement was that they would be accorded respect at work.

These women were useful idiots.

The true “revolutionary” women, the ones who weren’t just having teach-ins in nice suburbs but who were, instead, manning actual barricades, always understood that their personal needs — their need for respect, equality, and even love — had to be subordinated entirely to the revolution. If you were a women, part of subordinating yourself to the revolution meant giving the men the sex they wanted.

The men, of course, fully understood that sex had nothing to do with love and human connection, and they freely capitalized on this knowledge. As all rapists in all armies in all times have always understood, in war imposing sex upon women is about power, not love.

David Horowitz first became aware of sex’s true role in the American Leftist revolutionary milieu when he was an ardent Communist revolutionary hanging out with the Black Panthers:

Seale had gone into hiding after Huey expelled him from the Party in August. As I learned long afterwards, Seale had been whipped — literally — and then personally sodomized by Huey with such violence that he had to have his anus surgically repaired by a Pacific Heights doctor who was a political supporter of the Panthers. A Party member told me later, “You have to understand, it had nothing to do with sex. It was about power.” But in the Panther world, as I also came to learn, nothing was about anything except power.

The same use of sex to demean people’s individuality (especially women’s individuality) and to subordinate them to the power structure showed up in the Weathermen’s Underground movement. (Warning: Contents NSFW.)

The army that f***s together, fights together. At least that was the unofficial motto of the Weathermen’s Smash Monogamy program of 1969. After an afternoon of bombing government buildings, members of the notorious radical leftist group would then go home, drop acid, party, and have sex.

But these orgies weren’t just to boost morale. They were designed to emphasize collectivism, while deprioritizing individual identities.


But as the organization’s membership grew, leaders subjected recruits to intense initiation rituals. In Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, Bryan Burrough writes of all-night interrogations in which people would be hazed, verbally assaulted until they broke. If they didn’t, they could stay on as “obedient, unquestioning soldiers.”

In Detroit, the Weather Underground commanded every member to break up with his or her romantic partner. Eventually known as Smash Monogamy, the program scheduled mass orgies with the intent of making the relationship with the group the only one that mattered.

Read the rest here. It’s obscene and eye-opening. Obama’s buddy Bill Ayers shows up in this context.

While the Black Panthers and the Weathermen were extreme revolutionary groups, “softer” revolutionary groups also required that women provide sex for men. That was certainly the case for the Students for a Democratic Society, which was considered too weak and safe for the Weathermen splinter group:

The general assumption among SDS members at its inception was that freedom of men — whether from racism, the capitalist system, etc. — meant freedom of women.


Sarah Evans, author of Personal Politics and a member of the nation’s first women’s group at University of Chicago, describes the discontent of female members of SDS as a process of gradual awareness, or a “rising consciousness.”  She quotes SDS member Casey Hayden as stating that, regarding the beginning of the New Left Movement, “If on some level the men thought of the women as secondary, the women were not aware of it then.”  This is understandable; given the fact that one would not expect the absence of a stated cause (women’s rights) to mean immediate neglect of it. Historians and feminists realized only much later that SDS’s founding document, the Port Huron Statement, mentioned nothing about women in stating its mission to free all men from racism and “the System.”


Public denial of women’s right to equality was evident in a letter from SDS members Jane and Terry (last names not identified) to organizers Ken Cloke and Bernadine Dohrn in which Jane recounted an incident where a university class actually voted that women were not equal to men. One underground New Left newspaper, The Rat, founded by former University of Texas, Austin, SDS Vice President Jeff Shero, regularly featured discussions of pornography, crude sexual puns, and photos of nude women. The Rat—which received its funding from sex advertising—is an example of one of many publications which received little SDS criticism or backlash, hiding under the guise of “liberation” literature.


One of the most famous protest-quotes in this camp—in an article by SDS activists Naomi Weisstein, Evelyn Goldfield and Sue Munaker—goes as follows:

“We were still the movement secretaries and the shit-workers; we served the food, prepared the mailings and made the best posters; we were the earth mothers and the sex-objects for the movement men. We were the free movement ‘chicks’–free to screw any man who demanded it, or if we chose not to–free to be called hung-up, middle class and uptight. We were free to keep quiet at the meetings–or, if we chose not to, we were free to speak in men’s terms. If a woman dared conceive an idea that was not in the current limited ideological system, she was ignored and ridiculed. We were free, finally, to marry and raise liberated babies and clean liberated diapers, and prepare liberated dinners for our ass-hunting husbands or ‘guys we were living with.’ What men just can’t dig is that we, females, are going to define our movement, that male advice is paternalistic—no less so than when given by a white to a black” (Gilbert, 2001).

When it comes to revolutions, some things never change — and one of those things is that a successful revolution needs its sex slaves. For that reason, the #MeToo movement should have been entirely predictable.

The last few decades have been a slow-moving revolution to carry the country to the hard Left through sub rosa changes in its major institutions. Women in the film industry, in the media, and in Democrat politics (whether in Eric Holder’s DOJ or the super-Democrat-majority Sacramento Assembly) did not have to be taught to keep quiet about the depredations against their minds and bodies. They knew their role in the revolution: to keep the powerful men happy.

But woe betide the revolutionary man who fails to deliver on the revolution’s promise. America’s Leftist revolutionary sex slaves were going to see a woman in the White House, which would have made it all worthwhile. Instead, not only did Hillary fail, but the man who took her place is smashing through every gain the revolution seemed to have made.

Their revolutionary gods having failed them, America’s Leftist sex slaves are out for blood. The fact that they are lending succor to the enemy (that would be conservatives) no longer matters. They’ve already lost. They’ve been used, abused, and dumped at the curb. The only thing left for the Progressive revolution’s sex slaves is revenge.


What Business Thinks

Photo credit: Demonstration for Women’s Rights: 1970 #2, by Washington Area Spark. Creative Commons license; some restrictions apply.