Janice is wonderful. Her greatest strength in my estimation, is not in her eloquence (though that by itself is estimable and is still a great strength of hers), but in her simple ability to break something like a spell that is cast by feminism, perhaps through feminist "spell words", certainly by intimidation. Janice simply won't have any of it, and proceeds by exposing the most subtle of these intimidation tactics with the purifying light of truth.
Well said, Stephen. I couldn't agree more. I promoted the same view in my 2020 article, http://empathygap.uk/?p=3372. It ends with a suggested mantra for the strikers: No Marriage, No Cohab, No Babies.
Both your books are great! Thanks for the hard work collecting all that data. I sent a copy of E.G. to my oldest sister. She has disinvited me from family holidays (always at her house) which all started when I apparently offended her new step daughter 2 thanksgivings ago when I wished my 2 nephews happy international men's Day.
Thank you. Actually, I have published 3 books that are relevant to this topic (plus one on another subject). They are here: https://www.stephenbaskerville.com/. The most recent one might be appropriate for your nephews, though your step daughter may not approve.
I'm sorry to have been the cause of a family rift - but unfortunately the truth is the truth. It's hard for those who have been immersed in the blue pill world all their lives to tolerate the whole truth all at once. (PS: 3rd book in production).
Not at all. In fact it happened just a bit before I heard of your book from Men Are Good (Janice and Tom interview) and I sincerely believe the writings of you, Janice, and Tom kept me out of a deressive stupor of wondering if it was just me. My sister would have come up with some other excuse eventually I'm sure.
Rick, your article shows that English courts and Paliament have zero respect for the Common Law. Divorce is not a legal proceeding, and it has nothing to do with justice. It is, as you say, a "legal trap" with a predetermined outcome. Does the House of Lords have nothing to say about this? As I understand it, they have some limited power of judicial review, at least when the Commons pass laws that are legally untenable. Besides, they used to adjudicate divorces. Did they do it like this?
Several Lords spoke against the Divorce Bill, more than one observing that the Government's own Consultation showed that a massive majority of the responses from the public were opposed to it. It made no difference. Both Houses passed the Bill. I'm afraid this is now typical. Democracy in the UK is effectively dead as the Parliaments proceed on the basis that they are the People Who Know Best and ignore any democratic mandate. In a two Party system when both Parties are as bad, what does one do?
The legislative powers of the House of Lords were reduced considerably by various Parliament Acts a century ago. They still do have the power to influence Bills, but usually this is handled by negotiations over Amendments between the two Houses. If the Lords dug their heels in an wanted to reject a Government Bill outright, ultimately the House of Commons could assert its dominance over them. Both sides seek to avoid this happening in practice.
The judicial role of the House of Lords has also diminished radically over the last few decades, most notably by Labour's Tony Blair creating the Supreme Court which has usurped the former role of the Lords as the court of last appeal. As for judicial review, this is now carried out by functions separate from the Lords. (There may be cases that the Lords could still hear, but these would be quite exotic).
We did attempt a Judicial Review in the context of some Ministry of Defence sponsored "research" in 2020 which hired the usual feminist culprits to tell us (again) what vile scum fathers are and how they are a danger to their children. This "research" has been very effective in continuing the destruction of family and fatherhood via the courts. We claimed (well, Terry White did, he was the leading light), in a very well argued and laid out case, that the "research" was fraudulent throughout. Our request for Judicial Review was rejected, we appealed and it now flounders in appeal and will do forever.
Yes, I remember now. I think I submitted a comment when it was being considered. The creation of the "Supreme Court" was just one more judicial power grab.
Stephen, thanks for this excellent piece. I look forward to your speech at next year's International Conference on Men's Issues in Budapest, Hungary (August 10,11). The speakers list here:
Thanks, Mike. I am looking forward to that conference and, as always, to hearing Paul Elam. Paul is perhaps the most eloquent current exponent of this campaign, and I could have quoted him at great length. I wanted to emphasize the spontaneous quality of this revolt, the fact that it is happening, whether anyone advocates it or not, as Helen Smith pointed out years ago. The conservatives I quote try to ignore people like Paul, of course; now they seem to be reacting to Pearl Davis, though without giving her any respectability either. But advocates like Paul can do a lot to steer this in the right direction. What the rest of us can do is constantly reference the multiplicity of such advocates (not forgetting less recent ones like Helen and Daniel Amneus), so that it cannot be dismissed as isolated individuals.
Thank you, Dr. Baskerville. While you are correct that the conservative movement only values men on condition that they marry and have children, the Left dismisses men and male issues entirely, without any conditional acceptance. This Youtube video, from a liberal man, illustrates that point.
Thanks, Frank. Very true. I guess I do not even try to convince the Left -- though the odd figure does come out with the truth: the classic work by Belfort Bax, for example. But I expect more of conservatives professing "family values".
Your work providing these classic texts is invaluable to me. I couldn't be more grateful. Findelbogen's Counter Feminist Essays still ring in my mind, two years on.
Sean, I think one of the greatest failings of the men's movement -- and of organized conservatism more largely as well -- is failing to create a canon of the best writings that can be referenced readily. This would establish the reality of a movement with respectable intellectual voices that the media could not ignore, rather than isolated voices that are soon forgotten: Helen Smith, Amneus, books by Jed Abraham, Comanor, a few others. Perhaps I should compile a (very select) bibliography. I would like to see Janice and Paul Elam consolidate their best work into a single monograph each or collection of essays, where people could go quickly and which would attain the status of a standard work. Warren Farrell was good at that, but I think we have moved beyond his approach. Hoff Sommers too, but they were accepted by the mainstream Right.
I think "organized conservatism" actually isn't really interested in men as such. In a sense feminism has simply ridden the tide of gynocentrism that long pre dates even Marxist notions, certainly in the "Christian" world. There is nothing more conservative than the notion that men are essentially "civilised" by by partnering the fairer sex and creating a family unit. In effect the feminists take the very same view with the addition that this really just means providing material support and the suspicion males are inherently uncivilizable and need tight control. For both the notion that men are actually good and have a value independent of what they can do for women and children, is completely foreign. The failure to create "a canon" reflects the sheer revolutionary nature of the idea that boys and men specially have an intrinsic worth and deserve attention. I think you will have to collate or create the bibliography/canon. As Farrell put it women are human beings and men are human doings in our society.
"While you are correct that the conservative movement only values men on condition that they marry and have children, the Left dismisses men and male issues entirely, without any conditional acceptance"
Another way of framing it is that conservatives (or some of them) understand the real issue is centralised tyranny under the banner of government, corporations and technocracy, and that the only hope to reduce that threat is for men and women to make peace and form a mutually beneficial alliance once again (ie marriage/ family/ community).
Men walking away from marriage only drives more women to join the government harem, which in turn strips men of even more resources, rights and social power as it expands its scope - all in the name of 'protecting the wimmins' who have been callously abandoned by men.
Men walking away from marriage would only make sense as a strategy if society consisted only of men and women, with no government (or a severely reduced one). But this is not the world we currently live in.
Conservatives are more likely to recognise that women have all the social power.... whereas leftists will swear women have no social power and only men have power - yet everything leftists do (strategically) is based on the unspoken knowledge that women have all the social power. That is why leftists have no interest in men's issues as a 'social justice cause', despite being all about social justice causes.
They understand men's actions are only valid if they seen as benefiting women. That's why so many low status (or aspirational) leftist men declare themselves to be feminist allies. and white knights.
I think the bottom line is that men need to 'man up' and accept they are in direct competition with the state (soon to be the technocracy) in terms of attracting the allegiance and loyalty of women (and children). Walking away and settling for computer games and sex dolls is only going to ensure even more women choose the harem, and the spiral will continue.
Although it seems daunting to outcompete the technocratic harem, it's worth pointing out that this harem has just poisoned billions of women, causing off-the-scale injuries, disabilities, still births, pregnancy complications and a lowering of fertility. Some scientists suggest the generation born to vaxxed mothers today (those that live) may turn out to be infertile in 20 years time. They might even fail to reach full sexual maturity (ie fail to go through a proper puberty) due to the effect of the vax on their reproductive organs and endocrine system.
This would explain the suspiciously urgent push for genderless language, genderless pronouns, non binary and gender queer identities, genderless passports and birth certificates (already a thing in some countries) and WPATH's recent declaration that 'Eunuch' is a bona fide gender identity.
Apparently artificial wombs will also be a reality in about 20 years time. If you wanted this technology to be accepted (or even embraced) then creating a largely infertile population would be a good strategy. Probably just a coincidence....
So anyway, if it seems like competing with the technocracy to win the hearts and minds of women is an impossible task... remember it might soon be the case that men only need to promise not to kick women down a flight of stairs and render them infertile and they will come out as the better option....... swoon....
Sorry for the flippancy and sarcasm. It's only because I do take this topic seriously. I have every sympathy with men going their own way in the current system. I just think the solution is the exact opposite - to sweep women off their feet with some traditional patriarchal leadership and a bunch of red pills.
MGTOW only makes sense if they take women along too (WGTOW) to create a joint exodus from the plantation. Men and women are basically one organism, after all. The notion that they are two separate tribes is itself a feminist grenade.
The family isn't just a means of social organisation, its also a way of transmitting ideas and ways of life from one generation to the next. With the destruction of the two- parent family comes a new anarchy. What might loosely be called "social values" are more and more acquired from strangers online. Left and Right both need central control, political hegemony, indoctrination. This new anarchy won't be contained in those old tribal categories. Politics, as practiced for money, is dying.
It's neither weak nor cowardly to wear a raincoat in bad weather. It's not selfish nihilistic or defeatist to care for yourself.
First, live a virtuous life as you clearly conceive it.
Then engage in honest communication; only possible with those one trusts.
These are the rigid train tracks of effective political action, seems to me.
"The family isn't just a means of social organisation, its also a way of transmitting ideas and ways of life from one generation to the next. With the destruction of the two- parent family comes a new anarchy."
Which is of course why Marxists have always been determined to destroy it. Otherwise they cannot break through the "false ideological consciousness" which prevents revolution.
Nov 14, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023Liked by Stephen Baskerville
I know that Marx was hostile to the family. But that's very far from an adequate explanation why the destruction of the family has been accomplished so effectively with so little resistance.
The fewer people per household, the better, for the accumulation of profit. More of everything must be sold. Three persons sharing a TV set or a fridge, less profit. Three persons each with their own, more profit.
You raise a critical point. You are right, it is not really Marxism at all. Conservatives are pushing this line about everything being "Marxism" (ad nauseam) in order to avoid dealing with precisely the issues I and others raise. After all, if all this family destruction and degradation of men is just Marxism, we can just preach about the wonders of free markets and private ownership, and it will all go away without having anger the feminists and other sexual radicals. That is how we won the Cold War, so we can win this one the same way: no risk, no danger, no sacrifice. Here is what I write in my book about that:
'In fact, one major reason for their defeat is professional conservatives’ self-deception with their single-minded crusade against “Communism” (or “cultural Marxism”). Conservatives who fixate on Communism misunderstand the dynamic driving today’s Left and how it came to power, and this leads them to commit serious errors. Like the proverbial generals, conservative politicos insist on fighting the previous war rather than the one that confronts them now. Having won that war evidently makes them feel in control of this one. Verbally flogging the defeated enemies of yesteryear also gives them an excuse to avoid confronting the real enemies who are overrunning the city now – enemies that will lash back with fury and hurt them if their power is challenged where it matters.'
And then, in a footnote:
'I have already stated that “Woke” ideology resembles Marxism and grows out of it. The problem comes when such labeling provides c onservatives with the excuse to dwell on the past and avoid confronting immediate and dangerous threats in the present. Excoriating “Marxism” carries no risk, which is why we find video-after-video tracing our woes back to the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, Lukacs, and Foucault, as if this genealogy explains anything or provides some solution. By contrast, highlighting specific hardships now being inflicted on innocent people by government policies instigated by sexual radicals brings swift retribution. For other reasons to doubt this insistence on conflating things that are different, see Paul Gottfried, “Marx Was Not Woke,” and Alexander Riley, “Why Wokeism Is Not Marxist,” both in Chronicles, April 2023.'
By all means, get married if you want a family and/or have a religious foundation regarding love/sex/marriage. Have a ceremony, exchange rings, make vows.
In the UK one "solution" rattling around the elites and Parliament is to make "common law marriage" a legal thing; to "catch" those nasty men who live with women for over a year but "refuse" to marry. And the chief reason for this? Well it seems women are "losing out" if they split, of course assuming the men are higher earners and asset rich. I suppose it has the virtue of honesty, the purpose is to advantage women at the expense of men. It has not hopped onto the statute book yet as periodically someone notices that it renders redundant both marriage and civil partnerships.
Very thought provoking article. My hope is that eventually enough men will acknowledge & adapt to the fact that we're drifting towards matriarchy. I'm an advocate for equal rights. However, its our duty to future generations of young men to speak out.
Immediately after posting this, I discovered Janice FIamengo's latest post, which discusses connected topics with her usual intelligence: https://fiamengofile.substack.com/p/are-women-the-biggest-losers-of-the
Janice is wonderful. Her greatest strength in my estimation, is not in her eloquence (though that by itself is estimable and is still a great strength of hers), but in her simple ability to break something like a spell that is cast by feminism, perhaps through feminist "spell words", certainly by intimidation. Janice simply won't have any of it, and proceeds by exposing the most subtle of these intimidation tactics with the purifying light of truth.
Well said, Stephen. I couldn't agree more. I promoted the same view in my 2020 article, http://empathygap.uk/?p=3372. It ends with a suggested mantra for the strikers: No Marriage, No Cohab, No Babies.
Both your books are great! Thanks for the hard work collecting all that data. I sent a copy of E.G. to my oldest sister. She has disinvited me from family holidays (always at her house) which all started when I apparently offended her new step daughter 2 thanksgivings ago when I wished my 2 nephews happy international men's Day.
Thank you. Actually, I have published 3 books that are relevant to this topic (plus one on another subject). They are here: https://www.stephenbaskerville.com/. The most recent one might be appropriate for your nephews, though your step daughter may not approve.
I'll look those up!
I'm sorry to have been the cause of a family rift - but unfortunately the truth is the truth. It's hard for those who have been immersed in the blue pill world all their lives to tolerate the whole truth all at once. (PS: 3rd book in production).
Not at all. In fact it happened just a bit before I heard of your book from Men Are Good (Janice and Tom interview) and I sincerely believe the writings of you, Janice, and Tom kept me out of a deressive stupor of wondering if it was just me. My sister would have come up with some other excuse eventually I'm sure.
You're not crazy, the rest of 'em are crazy. This is the one thing I know for sure.
Thanks, Rick. I did not know about this, but will take a look for my book.
Rick, your article shows that English courts and Paliament have zero respect for the Common Law. Divorce is not a legal proceeding, and it has nothing to do with justice. It is, as you say, a "legal trap" with a predetermined outcome. Does the House of Lords have nothing to say about this? As I understand it, they have some limited power of judicial review, at least when the Commons pass laws that are legally untenable. Besides, they used to adjudicate divorces. Did they do it like this?
Several Lords spoke against the Divorce Bill, more than one observing that the Government's own Consultation showed that a massive majority of the responses from the public were opposed to it. It made no difference. Both Houses passed the Bill. I'm afraid this is now typical. Democracy in the UK is effectively dead as the Parliaments proceed on the basis that they are the People Who Know Best and ignore any democratic mandate. In a two Party system when both Parties are as bad, what does one do?
The legislative powers of the House of Lords were reduced considerably by various Parliament Acts a century ago. They still do have the power to influence Bills, but usually this is handled by negotiations over Amendments between the two Houses. If the Lords dug their heels in an wanted to reject a Government Bill outright, ultimately the House of Commons could assert its dominance over them. Both sides seek to avoid this happening in practice.
The judicial role of the House of Lords has also diminished radically over the last few decades, most notably by Labour's Tony Blair creating the Supreme Court which has usurped the former role of the Lords as the court of last appeal. As for judicial review, this is now carried out by functions separate from the Lords. (There may be cases that the Lords could still hear, but these would be quite exotic).
We did attempt a Judicial Review in the context of some Ministry of Defence sponsored "research" in 2020 which hired the usual feminist culprits to tell us (again) what vile scum fathers are and how they are a danger to their children. This "research" has been very effective in continuing the destruction of family and fatherhood via the courts. We claimed (well, Terry White did, he was the leading light), in a very well argued and laid out case, that the "research" was fraudulent throughout. Our request for Judicial Review was rejected, we appealed and it now flounders in appeal and will do forever.
Yes, I remember now. I think I submitted a comment when it was being considered. The creation of the "Supreme Court" was just one more judicial power grab.
Stephen, thanks for this excellent piece. I look forward to your speech at next year's International Conference on Men's Issues in Budapest, Hungary (August 10,11). The speakers list here:
https://icmi2024.icmi.info/?page_id=21
Paul Elam's speech title is, "Why Men Shouldn't Marry".
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
Thanks, Mike. I am looking forward to that conference and, as always, to hearing Paul Elam. Paul is perhaps the most eloquent current exponent of this campaign, and I could have quoted him at great length. I wanted to emphasize the spontaneous quality of this revolt, the fact that it is happening, whether anyone advocates it or not, as Helen Smith pointed out years ago. The conservatives I quote try to ignore people like Paul, of course; now they seem to be reacting to Pearl Davis, though without giving her any respectability either. But advocates like Paul can do a lot to steer this in the right direction. What the rest of us can do is constantly reference the multiplicity of such advocates (not forgetting less recent ones like Helen and Daniel Amneus), so that it cannot be dismissed as isolated individuals.
Thank you, Dr. Baskerville. While you are correct that the conservative movement only values men on condition that they marry and have children, the Left dismisses men and male issues entirely, without any conditional acceptance. This Youtube video, from a liberal man, illustrates that point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzK0l1LE1BE
Thanks, Frank. Very true. I guess I do not even try to convince the Left -- though the odd figure does come out with the truth: the classic work by Belfort Bax, for example. But I expect more of conservatives professing "family values".
Ah yes, Bax's "The Fraud of Feminism", published in 1913 - 110 years ago! Downloadable for free here:
https://j4mb.org.uk/2013/07/10/the-fraud-of-feminism-1913/
Your work providing these classic texts is invaluable to me. I couldn't be more grateful. Findelbogen's Counter Feminist Essays still ring in my mind, two years on.
Sean, I think one of the greatest failings of the men's movement -- and of organized conservatism more largely as well -- is failing to create a canon of the best writings that can be referenced readily. This would establish the reality of a movement with respectable intellectual voices that the media could not ignore, rather than isolated voices that are soon forgotten: Helen Smith, Amneus, books by Jed Abraham, Comanor, a few others. Perhaps I should compile a (very select) bibliography. I would like to see Janice and Paul Elam consolidate their best work into a single monograph each or collection of essays, where people could go quickly and which would attain the status of a standard work. Warren Farrell was good at that, but I think we have moved beyond his approach. Hoff Sommers too, but they were accepted by the mainstream Right.
I think "organized conservatism" actually isn't really interested in men as such. In a sense feminism has simply ridden the tide of gynocentrism that long pre dates even Marxist notions, certainly in the "Christian" world. There is nothing more conservative than the notion that men are essentially "civilised" by by partnering the fairer sex and creating a family unit. In effect the feminists take the very same view with the addition that this really just means providing material support and the suspicion males are inherently uncivilizable and need tight control. For both the notion that men are actually good and have a value independent of what they can do for women and children, is completely foreign. The failure to create "a canon" reflects the sheer revolutionary nature of the idea that boys and men specially have an intrinsic worth and deserve attention. I think you will have to collate or create the bibliography/canon. As Farrell put it women are human beings and men are human doings in our society.
"While you are correct that the conservative movement only values men on condition that they marry and have children, the Left dismisses men and male issues entirely, without any conditional acceptance"
Another way of framing it is that conservatives (or some of them) understand the real issue is centralised tyranny under the banner of government, corporations and technocracy, and that the only hope to reduce that threat is for men and women to make peace and form a mutually beneficial alliance once again (ie marriage/ family/ community).
Men walking away from marriage only drives more women to join the government harem, which in turn strips men of even more resources, rights and social power as it expands its scope - all in the name of 'protecting the wimmins' who have been callously abandoned by men.
Men walking away from marriage would only make sense as a strategy if society consisted only of men and women, with no government (or a severely reduced one). But this is not the world we currently live in.
Conservatives are more likely to recognise that women have all the social power.... whereas leftists will swear women have no social power and only men have power - yet everything leftists do (strategically) is based on the unspoken knowledge that women have all the social power. That is why leftists have no interest in men's issues as a 'social justice cause', despite being all about social justice causes.
They understand men's actions are only valid if they seen as benefiting women. That's why so many low status (or aspirational) leftist men declare themselves to be feminist allies. and white knights.
I think the bottom line is that men need to 'man up' and accept they are in direct competition with the state (soon to be the technocracy) in terms of attracting the allegiance and loyalty of women (and children). Walking away and settling for computer games and sex dolls is only going to ensure even more women choose the harem, and the spiral will continue.
Although it seems daunting to outcompete the technocratic harem, it's worth pointing out that this harem has just poisoned billions of women, causing off-the-scale injuries, disabilities, still births, pregnancy complications and a lowering of fertility. Some scientists suggest the generation born to vaxxed mothers today (those that live) may turn out to be infertile in 20 years time. They might even fail to reach full sexual maturity (ie fail to go through a proper puberty) due to the effect of the vax on their reproductive organs and endocrine system.
This would explain the suspiciously urgent push for genderless language, genderless pronouns, non binary and gender queer identities, genderless passports and birth certificates (already a thing in some countries) and WPATH's recent declaration that 'Eunuch' is a bona fide gender identity.
Apparently artificial wombs will also be a reality in about 20 years time. If you wanted this technology to be accepted (or even embraced) then creating a largely infertile population would be a good strategy. Probably just a coincidence....
So anyway, if it seems like competing with the technocracy to win the hearts and minds of women is an impossible task... remember it might soon be the case that men only need to promise not to kick women down a flight of stairs and render them infertile and they will come out as the better option....... swoon....
Sorry for the flippancy and sarcasm. It's only because I do take this topic seriously. I have every sympathy with men going their own way in the current system. I just think the solution is the exact opposite - to sweep women off their feet with some traditional patriarchal leadership and a bunch of red pills.
MGTOW only makes sense if they take women along too (WGTOW) to create a joint exodus from the plantation. Men and women are basically one organism, after all. The notion that they are two separate tribes is itself a feminist grenade.
No government has any business with God’s institution of marriage.
http://exiledparents.org/to_save_the_family.htm
If you do get married, don’t make the state a 3rd party to your marriage by a marriage license.
https://ugetube.com/watch/FpvQ5S1dPza9ONs
Know your rights:
http://exiledparents.org/
Music exposing family court tyranny
http://markyoungguitar.com/index.html
Thanks, Mark. I highly recommend Mark's work. He is a tireless and intelligent fighter on this and other causes.
Thanks. An engaging read!
The family isn't just a means of social organisation, its also a way of transmitting ideas and ways of life from one generation to the next. With the destruction of the two- parent family comes a new anarchy. What might loosely be called "social values" are more and more acquired from strangers online. Left and Right both need central control, political hegemony, indoctrination. This new anarchy won't be contained in those old tribal categories. Politics, as practiced for money, is dying.
It's neither weak nor cowardly to wear a raincoat in bad weather. It's not selfish nihilistic or defeatist to care for yourself.
First, live a virtuous life as you clearly conceive it.
Then engage in honest communication; only possible with those one trusts.
These are the rigid train tracks of effective political action, seems to me.
"The family isn't just a means of social organisation, its also a way of transmitting ideas and ways of life from one generation to the next. With the destruction of the two- parent family comes a new anarchy."
Which is of course why Marxists have always been determined to destroy it. Otherwise they cannot break through the "false ideological consciousness" which prevents revolution.
I know that Marx was hostile to the family. But that's very far from an adequate explanation why the destruction of the family has been accomplished so effectively with so little resistance.
The fewer people per household, the better, for the accumulation of profit. More of everything must be sold. Three persons sharing a TV set or a fridge, less profit. Three persons each with their own, more profit.
You raise a critical point. You are right, it is not really Marxism at all. Conservatives are pushing this line about everything being "Marxism" (ad nauseam) in order to avoid dealing with precisely the issues I and others raise. After all, if all this family destruction and degradation of men is just Marxism, we can just preach about the wonders of free markets and private ownership, and it will all go away without having anger the feminists and other sexual radicals. That is how we won the Cold War, so we can win this one the same way: no risk, no danger, no sacrifice. Here is what I write in my book about that:
'In fact, one major reason for their defeat is professional conservatives’ self-deception with their single-minded crusade against “Communism” (or “cultural Marxism”). Conservatives who fixate on Communism misunderstand the dynamic driving today’s Left and how it came to power, and this leads them to commit serious errors. Like the proverbial generals, conservative politicos insist on fighting the previous war rather than the one that confronts them now. Having won that war evidently makes them feel in control of this one. Verbally flogging the defeated enemies of yesteryear also gives them an excuse to avoid confronting the real enemies who are overrunning the city now – enemies that will lash back with fury and hurt them if their power is challenged where it matters.'
And then, in a footnote:
'I have already stated that “Woke” ideology resembles Marxism and grows out of it. The problem comes when such labeling provides c onservatives with the excuse to dwell on the past and avoid confronting immediate and dangerous threats in the present. Excoriating “Marxism” carries no risk, which is why we find video-after-video tracing our woes back to the Frankfurt School, Gramsci, Lukacs, and Foucault, as if this genealogy explains anything or provides some solution. By contrast, highlighting specific hardships now being inflicted on innocent people by government policies instigated by sexual radicals brings swift retribution. For other reasons to doubt this insistence on conflating things that are different, see Paul Gottfried, “Marx Was Not Woke,” and Alexander Riley, “Why Wokeism Is Not Marxist,” both in Chronicles, April 2023.'
Many professional politicians are scammers. The appearance of critical conflicts are of value to them.
By all means, get married if you want a family and/or have a religious foundation regarding love/sex/marriage. Have a ceremony, exchange rings, make vows.
Just keep the government out of it.
In the UK one "solution" rattling around the elites and Parliament is to make "common law marriage" a legal thing; to "catch" those nasty men who live with women for over a year but "refuse" to marry. And the chief reason for this? Well it seems women are "losing out" if they split, of course assuming the men are higher earners and asset rich. I suppose it has the virtue of honesty, the purpose is to advantage women at the expense of men. It has not hopped onto the statute book yet as periodically someone notices that it renders redundant both marriage and civil partnerships.
Very thought provoking article. My hope is that eventually enough men will acknowledge & adapt to the fact that we're drifting towards matriarchy. I'm an advocate for equal rights. However, its our duty to future generations of young men to speak out.
Excellent, so well put!
fuck you and your jewish god
Thanks Sean, appreciated.